Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Machine Learning Left-Right Breaking from Gravitational Waves

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Left-right symmetry breaking can generate gravitational waves detectable by planned observatories.

desk verdict A careful 3dEFT-based scan that finds a plausible but perturbatively fragile SNR 1-10 region for the first-step LRSM phase transition; the numbers are believable only if the big-coupling benchmark points survive higher-order checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09319 v2 pith:WW354YVR submitted 2025-06-11 hep-ph

William Searle , Csaba Balázs , Yang Xiao , Yang Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords left-rightsymmetricmodelgravitationalwavesfirst-orderphasetransitionthree-dimensionaleffectivefieldtheorymachinelearningscanBBODECIGOparitybreaking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the first stage of symmetry breaking in the minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model, the step that breaks parity and gives mass to right-handed gauge bosons, could have been a first-order phase transition loud enough for planned gravitational-wave observatories. Using a three-dimensional effective field theory for the thermal potential and a machine-learning-guided scan of the ten-dimensional quartic-coupling space, the authors find that most of the parameter space produces transitions too weak to see, with transition strength $\alpha \lesssim 0.1$ and inverse duration $\beta/H \gtrsim 10^3$, but a small region yields signal-to-noise ratios between 1 and 10 at BBO and DECIGO. The catch, flagged in the paper itself, is that the detectable points sit at large $\alpha_1$, $\rho_1$, and $\rho_3$, exactly where the couplings approach perturbative limits and a Landau pole, so the amplitude estimate may be optimistic.

What carries the argument

The central computational object is the three-dimensional effective field theory (3dEFT) effective potential for the $v_R$ direction, built by dimensional reduction with the DRalgo package and evaluated within the PhaseTracer code, which supplies the transition strength $\alpha$, inverse duration $\beta/H$, nucleation and percolation temperatures, and the gravitational-wave spectrum through fitting formulas for sound waves, turbulence, and bubble collisions. On top of this sits the Machine Learning Scan (MLS): a deep neural network trained on the logarithm of the peak gravitational-wave amplitude that recommends promising quartic couplings, which are then combined with fresh random samples and re-evaluated by the full machinery over five iterations, concentrating computational effort on the rare regions that pass all physicality constraints and produce large amplitudes.

What would settle it

A lattice simulation of the three-dimensional $SU(2)_R$ gauge theory with a triplet scalar at the machine-learning-recommended signal parameters: if the transition strength $\alpha$ and inverse duration $\beta/H$ shift so that the peak amplitude drops by more than an order of magnitude below the BBO peak-integrated sensitivity curve, the signal-to-noise ratio claim of 1 to 10 fails. A cheaper check is a next-to-next-to-leading-order 3dEFT calculation at the best-fit points, or rerunning the spectrum with the bubble wall velocity computed dynamically instead of fixed at 0.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the $SU(2)_R$-breaking phase transition in the minimal LRSM can generate a stochastic gravitational-wave background within reach of proposed detectors, provided the quartic couplings lie in a narrow, machine-learning-identified region. Concretely, after imposing vacuum stability, boundedness, perturbativity, unitarity, and a Landau-pole veto, the authors find most of the viable parameter space yields $\alpha \le 0.1$ and $\beta/H \gtrsim O(10^3)$, which suppresses gravitational-wave emission below BBO and DECIGO sensitivity. But a small region with large $\alpha_1$, $\rho_2$, $\rho_3$ and small $\rho_1$ produces signal-to-noise ratios of order 1 to 10 at BBO and DECIGO. The paper also reports that the $\lambda$-type couplings are essentially degenerate, so gravitational-wave measurements alone cannot pin them down, and that the strongest signals are bounded from above by the Landau-pole constraint, without which the maximum amplitudes would be overestimated by orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the perturbative three-dimensional effective field theory calculation stays trustworthy at the large couplings that produce the detectable signals, since those couplings sit right at the edge of the Landau-pole and perturbativity limits and the paper does not supply a lattice or higher-order cross-check for those points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, a positive detection at BBO or DECIGO of a stochastic gravitational-wave background peaking around 0.1 to 10 hertz could be the first direct evidence for parity restoration at high energies.
  • A non-detection at BBO or DECIGO would not rule out the minimal LRSM; it would only exclude the small large-$\rho_3$, large-$\alpha_1$ corner that the scan identifies as detectable.
  • The strong degeneracy of the $\lambda$-type couplings means gravitational-wave observations alone will constrain $\alpha_1$ and $\rho_{1,2,3}$ far better than $\lambda_{2,3,4}$, pointing to where follow-up collider and flavour work is needed.
  • The machine-learning-scan results provide a concrete prior for future Bayesian parameter reconstruction or Fisher-matrix forecasts from a gravitational-wave detection.
  • The order-of-magnitude gap between naive random scans and the MLS results shows that random scanning underestimates detection prospects in high-dimensional physics landscapes by missing rare high-amplitude regions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper fixes the bubble wall velocity $v_w = 0.3$ and takes $v_R = 10\,\text{TeV}$, $r = 10^{-3}$; varying $v_R$ upward pushes peak frequencies above the few-hertz BBO and DECIGO band, so the detectable corner is likely tied to $v_R$ near its lower TeV-scale bound, a concrete and testable claim the paper does not fully develop.
  • Because the strongest signals require couplings approaching the Landau pole, a natural next step is a nonperturbative check, such as a three-dimensional lattice simulation of the $SU(2)_R$ gauge theory with a triplet scalar at the signal points, to test whether the first-order transition and its $\alpha$ value survive at strong coupling.
  • The reported numerical outliers, whose amplitudes collapse to $10^{-15}$--$10^{-16}$ under small perturbations, suggest the true maximum signal may be set by numerical robustness rather than physics; a more conservative upper envelope would sit just below the BBO peak-integrated sensitivity curve.
  • The same machine-learning scan pipeline could be applied to the second-stage electroweak transition in the same model, or to other multi-step symmetry-breaking chains, to map which sectors are actually observable via gravitational waves before investing in detector sensitivity forecasts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the first step of symmetry breaking in the minimal left-right symmetric model (LRSM), SU(2)_R x SU(2)_L x U(1)_{B-L} -> SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y, and asks whether the associated first-order phase transition can produce a detectable stochastic gravitational wave background at BBO and DECIGO. The authors use the three-dimensional effective field theory (3dEFT) via PhaseTracer and DRalgo to compute the effective potential and transition thermodynamics, and they employ a machine-learning-guided scan (MLS) to explore the ten-dimensional quartic-coupling parameter space more efficiently than random sampling. Their main result is that, after several MLS iterations, a small region of parameter space yields signals with SNR ~ 1-10 at BBO/DECIGO, in contrast to the much lower amplitudes found in the initial random sample. The paper also presents sensitivity (SHAP) analysis showing that rho3 and alpha1 are the most influential couplings, while the lambda-type couplings are largely degenerate.

Significance. If the central claim is quantitatively correct, the paper provides a concrete target for future gravitational wave observatories and demonstrates the usefulness of machine-learning scans for high-dimensional BSM parameter spaces. The numerical pipeline is transparent: final predictions are computed with PhaseTracer, the neural network is used only as a surrogate to focus sampling, and the comparison against random sampling is fair. The paper also explicitly acknowledges several approximations (fixed vw, simplified nucleation treatment, no domain-wall contribution) and checks numerical outliers by perturbing the parameters. However, the significance is conditional: the detectable region sits at large rho3 and alpha1, where the perturbative 3dEFT expansion is least controlled, and the paper does not quantify this uncertainty. The absence of explicit benchmark points also makes the headline claim harder to verify independently.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Sec. 6, Sec. 3 (Eqs. 3.25-3.28)] The SNR ~ 1-10 region identified in Sec. 6 and quoted in Sec. 7 sits at the edge of perturbative control of the 3dEFT. The authors state in Sec. 5 that the strongest gravitational wave amplitudes correspond to large values of alpha1 and rho1,3, which approach the Landau pole, and they discard points only when the couplings diverge by Q = 10 vR. For the surviving recommended points, rho3 ~ 2-3 implies a scalar loop-expansion parameter in the symmetric phase of order sqrt(rho3) ~ 1.7, so the one-loop 3d potential (Eqs. 3.25-3.28) is not parametrically suppressed. Because the quoted SNR range is marginal (1-10), unquantified two-loop or nonperturbative corrections could weaken the transition and push the signal below detection. I request a quantitative estimate of the theoretical uncertainty at representative signal points (e.g., two-loop 3dEFT matching, scale variation, or a lattice cross-check), or an explicit softening of the detectability claim.
  2. [Sec. 7 and Fig. 8] The central claim of a 'clearly identified region' with SNR 1-10 is not accompanied by a single explicit benchmark point. The paper reports distributions and kernel density estimates (Figs. 3-5) but no table listing the quartic couplings, vR, alpha, beta/H, T*, and SNR for even one point above threshold. Given that the authors themselves find numerical outliers that collapse under small perturbations (Sec. 6), the reader cannot verify that the surviving points are stable or reproduce the SNR claim. Please provide a benchmark table for the recommended signal region.
  3. [Sec. 4 (Eqs. 4.20-4.21) and Sec. 7] The quoted SNR range is computed for a fixed bubble wall velocity vw = 0.3. The paper acknowledges in Sec. 4 that vw may vary strongly across the parameter space and could substantially affect the results, but the Conclusions restate the SNR 1-10 claim without this caveat. Because the sound-wave contribution scales with vw and the detectability margin is thin, the headline claim should be explicitly conditional on vw, or the authors should quantify the vw dependence for their recommended points.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 5 vs Sec. 7] There is a contradiction in the description of the signal region: Sec. 5 says the strongest amplitudes correspond to large rho1 and rho3, while Sec. 7 says strong signals are associated with low rho1 and large rho2 and rho3. Please reconcile these statements.
  2. [Appendix B] Appendix B states 'we assume a kappa2 >> kappa1' and expands in small r = kappa2/kappa1, which is the opposite of the r << 1 assumption made in Sec. 3. This appears to be a typo; please correct it.
  3. [Throughout] There are several formatting typos, including 'T ransition', 'f or', 'W a i,mu', and 'full Higgs sector is given in the scalar potential'. A careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Eq. (4.4)] The notation dT V in Eq. (4.4) is ambiguous; please specify the derivative convention (e.g., derivative with respect to T at fixed field value).
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The sentence 'It should be noted that these are semi-analytical fitting functions and depend on the specific shape of the gravitational wave spectrum Si, which accounts for inconsistencies between the relative positions of our PISC and our quoted SNR' is unclear. Please explain how the PISC and the SNR are reconciled.
  6. [Sec. 6] The statement 'With as little as O(10^4) total samples' appears inconsistent with the 157,093 random points in Fig. 6; please clarify which sample count is being referred to.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ML scan only proposes parameter points; every quoted GW signal and the SNR 1-10 conclusion comes from PhaseTracer evaluations of the 3dEFT potential, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is: (i) choose the minimal LRSM scalar potential and a vacuum alignment; (ii) use the 3dEFT framework via DRalgo to construct the finite-temperature effective potential, with PhaseTracer computing thermal parameters (alpha, beta/H, T*) and the GW spectrum from fitting formulas; (iii) use the MLS neural network only to propose promising parameter points, which are then re-evaluated with PhaseTracer. No step reduces to its own output. The ML surrogate is never used as the source of the quoted signals: 'The set of random and NN recommended parameters were both provided to PhaseTracer to identify the true gravitational wave predictions' (Section 6). The physics parameters are scanned, not fitted to the GW signal: the ten quartic couplings are sampled subject to boundedness, unitarity, and Landau-pole cuts, and vR is fixed before the scan as a motivated scale choice; this is a modeling prior, not a circular derivation. Self-citations to PhaseTracer [53,54] and MLS [86] are tool and method citations: the GW fitting functions in Appendix C are matched to simulations and are reproduced explicitly, and the 3dEFT matching is delegated to the independent DRalgo package. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. The acknowledged limitations (fixed vw = 0.3, D(T) ~ T^4, the nucleation condition of Eq. (4.15), and the perturbative control of large rho3 near the Landau pole) are honest uncertainty caveats; they affect the reliability of the SNR 1-10 claim but do not make it equivalent to an input. I therefore find no circular step and assign score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several modeling choices (fixed vR, vw, r; vanishing beta couplings; radiation domination) and on the validity of the 3dEFT perturbative expansion near the strong-coupling boundary. These are stated but not all independently validated.

free parameters (4)
  • vR (right-handed triplet VEV) = 10 TeV
    Fixed to 10 TeV, the lowest value consistent with the sub-eV neutrino mass bound, to maximize detectability; not scanned in the analysis.
  • vw (bubble wall velocity) = 0.3
    Fixed free parameter, acknowledged as a notable limitation; GW spectra depend strongly on vw.
  • r (ratio kappa2/kappa1) = 10^-3
    Fixed by hand assuming perturbatively small ratio; not scanned.
  • gstar (relativistic degrees of freedom) = 134
    Taken from Ref. [34]; not re-evaluated for the specific LRSM spectrum, affects alpha and H(T) normalizations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 3dEFT framework, as implemented in DRalgo and PhaseTracer, accurately describes the finite-temperature phase transition for the minimal LRSM.
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 4; the reliability of this perturbative approach is inherited from prior literature [45-52] but is not re-derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The beta couplings vanish and the scalar potential has no CP violation, guaranteeing vL=0 and no domain walls.
    A simplifying assumption demonstrated in Appendix A; it is not required by experimental constraints.
  • domain assumption The universe is radiation-dominated with negligible supercooling during the transition.
    Justifies the simplified Friedmann equation and the nucleation calculation in Section 4.1, Eq. (4.12).
  • domain assumption Only top and bottom quark Yukawa couplings contribute to the dimensional reduction.
    Section 3, Fermion Masses; all other Yukawa couplings are assumed parametrically smaller and are neglected.
  • domain assumption Perturbativity and unitarity bounds can be applied by requiring couplings not to diverge when run to 10 vR.
    Section 5; this is the most restrictive constraint and defines the boundary of the allowed parameter space.
  • domain assumption The false vacuum fraction remains close to unity up to the nucleation temperature.
    Used to replace the nucleation condition with Eq. (4.15), valid for fast weak transitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine Learning Left-Right Breaking from Gravitational Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WW354YVR

@misc{pith2026250609319,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine Learning Left-Right Breaking from Gravitational Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WW354YVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09319}
}
abstract

First-order phase transitions in the early universe can generate stochastic gravitational waves (GWs), offering a unique probe of high-scale particle physics. The Left-Right Symmetric Model (LRSM), which restores parity symmetry at high energies and naturally incorporates the seesaw mechanism, allows for such transitions -- particularly during the spontaneous breaking of $SU(2)_R \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_{B-L} \to SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$. This initial step, though less studied, is both theoretically motivated and potentially observable via GWs. In this work, we investigate the GW signatures associated with this first-step phase transition in the minimal LRSM. Due to the complexity and dimensionality of its parameter space, traditional scanning approaches are computationally intensive and inefficient. To overcome this challenge, we employ a Machine Learning Scan (MLS) strategy, integrated with the high-precision three-dimensional effective field theory framework -- using PhaseTracer as an interface to DRalgo -- to efficiently identify phenomenologically viable regions of the parameter space. Through successive MLS iterations, we identify a parameter region that yields GW signals detectable at forthcoming gravitational wave observatories, such as BBO and DECIGO. Additionally, we analyse the evolution of the MLS-recommended parameter space across iterations and perform a sensitivity analysis to identify the most influential parameters in the model. Our findings underscore both the observational prospects of gravitational waves from LRSM phase transitions and the efficacy of machine learning techniques in probing complex beyond the Standard-Model landscapes.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Loop-Level Lepton Flavor Violation and Diphoton Signals in the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Recasting axion limits onto the one-loop H3 couplings of the minimal left-right symmetric model excludes the right-handed scale up to 2×10^9 GeV and could eventually probe 6×10^11 GeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Witten, Cosmic separation of phases , Phys

    E. Witten, Cosmic separation of phases , Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 272

    1984

  2. [2]

    Kosowsky, M.S

    A. Kosowsky, M.S. Turner and R. Watkins, Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles, Physical Review D 45 (1992) 4514

    1992

  3. [3]

    Kosowsky and M.S

    A. Kosowsky and M.S. Turner, Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles: Envelope approximation to many-bubble collisions , Physical Review D 47 (1993) 4372

    1993

  4. [4]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Gravitational waves from bubble collisions: An analytic derivation , Physical Review D 95 (2017) 024009

    2017

  5. [5]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Gravitational waves from bubble dynamics: Beyond the envelope , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (2019) 060

    2019

  6. [6]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir, Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition , Physical Review Letters 112 (2014) 041301

    2014

  7. [7]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir, Numerical simulations of acoustically generated gravitational waves at a first order phase transition , Physical Review D 92 (2015) 123009

    2015

  8. [8]

    Hindmarsh, Sound shell model for acoustic gravitational wave production at a first-order phase transition in the early universe , Physical Review Letters 120 (2018) 071301

    M. Hindmarsh, Sound shell model for acoustic gravitational wave production at a first-order phase transition in the early universe , Physical Review Letters 120 (2018) 071301

    2018

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    M. Hindmarsh, S.J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D.J. Weir, Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition , Physical Review D 96 (2017) 103520

    2017

  2. [10]

    Hindmarsh and M

    M. Hindmarsh and M. Hijazi, Gravitational waves from first order cosmological phase transitions in the sound shell model , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (2019) 062

    2019

  3. [11]

    Caldwell et al., Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics, Gen

    R. Caldwell et al., Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics, Gen. Rel. Grav. 54 (2022) 156 [ 2203.07972]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Caprini et al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03 (2020) 024 [ 1910.13125]

    C. Caprini et al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03 (2020) 024 [ 1910.13125]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris and L. Wu, Cosmological phase transitions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135 (2024) 104094 [2305.02357]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    LISA collaboration, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, 1702.00786

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gong, Y.-K

    X. Gong, Y.-K. Lau, S. Xu, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Bai, X. Bian et al., Descope of the alia mission, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series , vol. 610, p. 012011, IOP Publishing, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Luo, L.-S

    J. Luo, L.-S. Chen, H.-Z. Duan, Y.-G. Gong, S. Hu, J. Ji et al., Tianqin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector , Classical and Quantum Gravity 33 (2016) 035010

    2016

  9. [17]

    Corbin and N.J

    V. Corbin and N.J. Cornish, Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23 (2006) 2435

    2006

  10. [18]

    SPIE Int

    DECIGO Working groupcollaboration, Space gravitational wave detector DECIGO/pre-DECIGO, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 10562 (2017) 105623T

    2017

  11. [19]

    Csikor, Z

    F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and J. Heitger, Endpoint of the hot electroweak phase transition , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 21 [ hep-ph/9809291]

    1999 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Is there a hot electroweak phase transition at mH ≳ mW ?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 2887 [ hep-ph/9605288]

    1996 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pati and A

    J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Lepton number as the fourth ”color” , Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275

    1974

  14. [22]

    Mohapatra and J.C

    R.N. Mohapatra and J.C. Pati, ”natural” left-right symmetry , Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2558. – 25 –

    1975

  15. [23]

    Senjanovic and R.N

    G. Senjanovic and R.N. Mohapatra, Exact left-right symmetry and spontaneous violation of parity, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502

    1975

  16. [24]

    Mohapatra et al., Theory of neutrinos: A White paper , Rept

    R.N. Mohapatra et al., Theory of neutrinos: A White paper , Rept. Prog. Phys. 70 (2007) 1757 [hep-ph/0510213]

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gu, Left-right symmetric model for neutrino masses, baryon asymmetry, and dark matter, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 81 (2010) 095002

    P.-H. Gu, Left-right symmetric model for neutrino masses, baryon asymmetry, and dark matter, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 81 (2010) 095002

    2010

  18. [26]

    Buchm¨ uller and M

    W. Buchm¨ uller and M. Pl¨ umacher,Neutrino masses and the baryon asymmetry , International Journal of Modern Physics A 15 (2000) 5047

    2000

  19. [27]

    Dev, R.N

    P.S.B. Dev, R.N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, Probing the Higgs Sector of the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model at Future Hadron Colliders , JHEP 05 (2016) 174 [ 1602.05947]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Patra, Neutrinoless double beta decay process in left-right symmetric models without scalar bidoublet, Phys

    S. Patra, Neutrinoless double beta decay process in left-right symmetric models without scalar bidoublet, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 015002 [ 1212.0612]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Deppisch, C

    F.F. Deppisch, C. Hati, S. Patra, P. Pritimita and U. Sarkar, Neutrinoless double beta decay in left-right symmetric models with a universal seesaw mechanism , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 035005 [1701.02107]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ramsey-Musolf and J.C

    M.J. Ramsey-Musolf and J.C. Vasquez, Left-right symmetry and electric dipole moments. A global analysis, Phys. Lett. B 815 (2021) 136136 [ 2012.02799]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bernard, S

    V. Bernard, S. Descotes-Genon and L. Vale Silva, Constraining the gauge and scalar sectors of the doublet left-right symmetric model , JHEP 09 (2020) 088 [ 2001.00886]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Karmakar, J

    S. Karmakar, J. More, A.K. Pradhan and S.U. Sankar, Constraints on the doublet left-right symmetric model from Higgs data , JHEP 03 (2023) 168 [ 2211.08445]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lindner, F.S

    M. Lindner, F.S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann and C.E. Yaguna, Left-Right Symmetry and Lepton Number Violation at the Large Hadron Electron Collider , JHEP 06 (2016) 140 [ 1604.08596]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Brdar, L

    V. Brdar, L. Graf, A.J. Helmboldt and X.-J. Xu, Gravitational Waves as a Probe of Left-Right Symmetry Breaking, JCAP 12 (2019) 027 [ 1909.02018]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Karmakar and D

    S. Karmakar and D. Ringe, Gravitational wave imprints of the doublet left-right symmetric model, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 075034 [ 2309.12023]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Li, Q.-S

    M. Li, Q.-S. Yan, Y. Zhang and Z. Zhao, Prospects of gravitational waves in the minimal left-right symmetric model , JHEP 03 (2021) 267 [ 2012.13686]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Gu, Baryon asymmetry from left-right phase transition , 1907.10577

    P.-H. Gu, Baryon asymmetry from left-right phase transition , 1907.10577

    1907 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balazs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, G. White and Y. Zhang, How arbitrary are perturbative calculations of the electroweak phase transition? , JHEP 01 (2023) 050 [2208.01319]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bittar, S

    P. Bittar, S. Roy and C.E.M. Wagner, Self Consistent Thermal Resummation: A Case Study of the Phase Transition in 2HDM , 2504.02024

  32. [40]

    Laine and A

    M. Laine and A. Vuorinen, Basics of Thermal Field Theory , vol. 925, Springer (2016), 10.1007/978-3-319-31933-9, [1701.01554]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Parwani, Resummation in a hot scalar field theory , Phys

    R.R. Parwani, Resummation in a hot scalar field theory , Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 4695 [hep-ph/9204216]

    1992 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dine, R.G

    M. Dine, R.G. Leigh, P. Huet, A.D. Linde and D.A. Linde, Comments on the electroweak phase transition, Phys. Lett. B 283 (1992) 319 [ hep-ph/9203201]

    1992 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Arnold and O

    P.B. Arnold and O. Espinosa, The Effective potential and first order phase transitions: Beyond leading-order, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3546 [ hep-ph/9212235]

    1993 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Niemi, M.J

    L. Niemi, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, T.V.I. Tenkanen and D.J. Weir, Thermodynamics of a Two-Step Electroweak Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 171802 [ 2005.11332]. – 26 –

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T.V.I. Tenkanen and G. White, Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions, JHEP 04 (2021) 055 [ 2009.10080]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Schicho, T.V.I

    P. Schicho, T.V.I. Tenkanen and G. White, Combining thermal resummation and gauge invariance for electroweak phase transition , JHEP 11 (2022) 047 [ 2203.04284]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould and J. L¨ ofgren, Radiative first-order phase transitions to next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 036012 [ 2205.07241]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ekstedt, P

    A. Ekstedt, P. Schicho and T.V.I. Tenkanen, Cosmological phase transitions at three loops: The final verdict on perturbation theory , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 096006 [ 2405.18349]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kainulainen, V

    K. Kainulainen, V. Keus, L. Niemi, K. Rummukainen, T.V.I. Tenkanen and V. Vaskonen, On the validity of perturbative studies of the electroweak phase transition in the Two Higgs Doublet model, JHEP 06 (2019) 075 [ 1904.01329]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Niemi, M.J

    L. Niemi, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Xia, Nonperturbative study of the electroweak phase transition in the real scalar singlet extended standard model , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 115016 [2405.01191]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Niemi and T.V.I

    L. Niemi and T.V.I. Tenkanen, Investigating two-loop effects for first-order electroweak phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 075034 [ 2408.15912]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gould and T.V.I

    O. Gould and T.V.I. Tenkanen, Perturbative effective field theory expansions for cosmological phase transitions, JHEP 01 (2024) 048 [ 2309.01672]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, A. Fowlie and Y. Zhang,PhaseTracer: tracing cosmological phases and calculating transition properties, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 567 [ 2003.02859]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balazs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, W. Searle, Y. Xiao et al., PhaseTracer2: from the effective potential to gravitational waves , 2412.04881

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ekstedt, P

    A. Ekstedt, P. Schicho and T.V.I. Tenkanen, DRalgo: A package for effective field theory approach for thermal phase transitions , Comput. Phys. Commun. 288 (2023) 108725 [2205.08815]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Borboruah and U.A

    Z.A. Borboruah and U.A. Yajnik, Left-right symmetry breaking and gravitational waves: A tale of two phase transitions , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 043016 [ 2212.05829]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Maiezza, G

    A. Maiezza, G. Senjanovi´ c and J.C. Vasquez,Higgs sector of the minimal left-right symmetric theory, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 095004 [ 1612.09146]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bhupal Dev, R.N

    P.S. Bhupal Dev, R.N. Mohapatra, W. Rodejohann and X.-J. Xu, Vacuum structure of the left-right symmetric model , JHEP 02 (2019) 154 [ 1811.06869]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ginsparg, First Order and Second Order Phase Transitions in Gauge Theories at Finite Temperature, Nucl

    P.H. Ginsparg, First Order and Second Order Phase Transitions in Gauge Theories at Finite Temperature, Nucl. Phys. B 170 (1980) 388

    1980

  52. [60]

    Appelquist and R.D

    T. Appelquist and R.D. Pisarski, High-Temperature Yang-Mills Theories and Three-Dimensional Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 2305

    1981

  53. [61]

    Nadkarni, Dimensional Reduction in Hot QCD , Phys

    S. Nadkarni, Dimensional Reduction in Hot QCD , Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 917

    1983

  54. [62]

    Farakos, K

    K. Farakos, K. Kajantie, K. Rummukainen and M.E. Shaposhnikov, 3-D physics and the electroweak phase transition: Perturbation theory , Nucl. Phys. B 425 (1994) 67 [hep-ph/9404201]

    1994 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Braaten and A

    E. Braaten and A. Nieto, Effective field theory approach to high temperature thermodynamics , Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 6990 [ hep-ph/9501375]

    1995 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction and their application to the standard model , Nucl. Phys. B 458 (1996) 90 [ hep-ph/9508379]. – 27 –

    1996 arXiv

  57. [65]

    De Curtis, L.D

    S. De Curtis, L.D. Rose, A. Guiggiani, ´A.G. Muyor and G. Panico, Bubble wall dynamics at the electroweak phase transition, JHEP 03 (2022) 163 [ 2201.08220]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, ´A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico, Collision integrals for cosmological phase transitions, JHEP 05 (2023) 194 [ 2303.05846]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, ´A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico, Non-linearities in cosmological bubble wall dynamics , JHEP 05 (2024) 009 [ 2401.13522]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Branchina, A

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, S. De Curtis and L. Delle Rose, Electroweak Phase Transition and Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium , 2504.21213

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, J. Hirvonen, B. Laurent, L. Niemi, P. Schicho et al., How fast does the WallGo? A package for computing wall velocities in first-order phase transitions , JHEP 04 (2025) 101 [ 2411.04970]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M.S. Turner, Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2837 [ astro-ph/9310044]

    1994 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Coleman, The Fate of the False Vacuum

    S.R. Coleman, The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory , Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2929

    1977

  64. [72]

    Callan, Jr

    C.G. Callan, Jr. and S.R. Coleman, The Fate of the False Vacuum. 2. First Quantum Corrections, Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1762

    1977

  65. [73]

    Linde, Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature , Nucl

    A.D. Linde, Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature , Nucl. Phys. B 216 (1983) 421

    1983

  66. [74]

    Wainwright, CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields , Comput

    C.L. Wainwright, CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2006 [1109.4189]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould and J. Hirvonen, BubbleDet: a Python package to compute functional determinants for bubble nucleation , JHEP 12 (2023) 056 [ 2308.15652]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs and L. Morris,Supercool subtleties of cosmological phase transitions , JCAP 03 (2023) 006 [ 2212.07559]

    2023

  69. [77]

    Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP 01 (2021) 097 [ 2002.04615]

    K. Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP 01 (2021) 097 [ 2002.04615]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Crowder and N.J

    J. Crowder and N.J. Cornish, Beyond LISA: Exploring future gravitational wave missions , Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 083005 [ gr-qc/0506015]

    2005 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Thrane and J.D

    E. Thrane and J.D. Romano, Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 124032 [ 1310.5300]

    2013 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Peskin and D.V

    M.E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory , Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA (1995), 10.1201/9780429503559

    1995 doi

  73. [81]

    Chakrabortty, P

    J. Chakrabortty, P. Konar and T. Mondal, Copositive Criteria and Boundedness of the Scalar Potential, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 095008 [ 1311.5666]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Chakrabortty, P

    J. Chakrabortty, P. Konar and T. Mondal, Constraining a class of B −L extended models from vacuum stability and perturbativity , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 056014 [ 1308.1291]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Chakrabortty, J

    J. Chakrabortty, J. Gluza, T. Jelinski and T. Srivastava, Theoretical constraints on masses of heavy particles in Left-Right Symmetric Models , Phys. Lett. B 759 (2016) 361 [ 1604.06987]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Chauhan, P.S.B

    G. Chauhan, P.S.B. Dev, R.N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, Perturbativity constraints on U (1)B−L and left-right models and implications for heavy gauge boson searches , JHEP 01 (2019) 208 [ 1811.08789]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Rothstein, Renormalization group analysis of the minimal left-right symmetric model , Nucl

    I.Z. Rothstein, Renormalization group analysis of the minimal left-right symmetric model , Nucl. Phys. B 358 (1991) 181. – 28 –

    1991

  78. [86]

    J. Ren, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and J. Zhao, Exploring supersymmetry with machine learning , Nucl. Phys. B 943 (2019) 114613 [ 1708.06615]. Appendix A Vacuum Alignment Below is a short derivation of the desirable vacuum alignment for the three scalar fields. Due to the unbroken U (1)...

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    cos(θL) (A.7) 0 = 2((v2 L + v2 R)α2 + (κ2 1 + κ2 2)λ4 + 2µ2

  80. [88]

    sin(θ2) + 2κ1κ2(2λ2 + λ3) sin(2θ2) + vLvRβ1 sin(θ2 − θL) (A.8) 0 = β1κ1κ2 sin(θ2 − θL) − (β2κ2 1 + β3κ2

  81. [89]

    Under these conditions, Eq.(A.8) implies sin(θ2) = sin(2θ2) = 0, from which we conclude θ2 = 0

    sin(θL) (A.9) From this, we immediately notice Eq.(A.9) is trivial if βi = 0. Under these conditions, Eq.(A.8) implies sin(θ2) = sin(2θ2) = 0, from which we conclude θ2 = 0. Finally, substituting both βi = 0 and θ2 = 0 into Eq.(A.7) allows us to immediately conclude vL = 0. Th...

  82. [90]

    = 1 2 (ρ3 − 2ρ1)v2 R, m 2 A0 2 = 1 2 α3v2 R. (B.3) Singly Charged The singly charged mass matrix, corresponding to {ϕ+ 1 , ϕ− 2 , δ+ R , δ+ L }, is given by: M 2 =   1 2 α3v2 r 0 1 2 √ 2 α3κ1vR 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 √ 2 α3κ1vR 0 1 4 α3κ2 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 α3κ2 1 + 1 2 (ρ3 − 2ρ1)v2 R ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.