Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Flavour deconstruction models can make detectable gravitational waves, but their TeV-scale signals typically peak just above the millihertz band, so LISA may see them only in part of the parameter space while mid-band observatories become t

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:36 UTC pith:GVEXXVPC

load-bearing objection A clean mapping of GW signals from flavour deconstruction, with the right qualitative message; the quantitative SNR contours need a daisy-resummed check but the paper deserves a serious referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.12414 v2 pith:GVEXXVPC submitted 2025-09-15 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Probing Flavour Deconstruction via Primordial Gravitational Waves

Noemi Fabri , Gino Isidori , Davide Racco This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords flavour deconstructiongravitational wavesfirst-order phase transitionTeV scaleLISAgauge coupling matchinglink fieldseffective potential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks whether flavour deconstruction—a family of beyond-Standard-Model theories that explains fermion mass hierarchies by breaking gauge symmetries along flavour directions—leaves a gravitational-wave imprint. The authors find that the TeV-scale link-field sector common to these models can drive strong first-order phase transitions, and that two effective couplings control the resulting gravitational-wave spectrum: the quartic coupling of the light scalar and the gauge-coupling combination fixed by matching conditions. The signals, however, typically peak at frequencies slightly above the millihertz range: LISA may detect them in natural regions of the non-Abelian benchmark, but they are better targeted by mid-band proposals. This converts flavour physics into a concrete observational programme for the next generation of gravitational-wave observatories.

Core claim

The central claim is that flavour deconstruction models generically predict strong first-order phase transitions at the TeV scale, sourced by the link fields that deconstruct the flavour gauge group, and these transitions emit gravitational waves with an amplitude large enough to be detectable by planned observatories. The paper isolates the two parameters that govern the signal: λ, the effective quartic coupling of the light singlet field φ, and the gauge-coupling combination sqrt(g3^2+g4^2), whose minimum is fixed by the SM matching relation g4^{-2}+g3^{-2}=g_s^{-2}. Because that minimum occurs at g4≈1.5, the strongest gravitational-wave emission arises at O(1) gauge couplings, which are e

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the one-loop thermal effective potential of the light scalar field that acquires the TeV-scale vacuum expectation value, built from the tree-level potential, the Coleman-Weinberg potential, and the thermal contributions of the heavy gauge bosons. The heavy-vector multiplicities and masses—coloron, vector leptoquark, and Z′—dominate the thermal potential and set the transition strength. The gauge-coupling matching condition g4^{-2}+g3^{-2}=g_s^{-2} is the central identity: it sets the minimum possible value of sqrt(g3^2+g4^2), and therefore fixes the coupling region where the gravitational-wave signal is largest. Tunnelling is treated semiclassically, and the spectrum is

Load-bearing premise

The one-loop effective potential without daisy resummation is assumed to describe the phase-transition barrier reliably for gauge couplings of order one and nucleation temperatures near 0.3v; if higher-order corrections substantially change the barrier, the predicted signal-to-noise regions and the natural-versus-tuned distinction would shift.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop, resummed (dimensionally reduced) effective potential for a representative flavour-deconstruction benchmark point such as g4=1.5, λ around 0.01, v=1 TeV, and re-evaluate the nucleation temperature and barrier height; if the barrier disappears or the transition becomes second-order, the predicted LISA signal-to-noise ratio and the 'possible but not guaranteed' conclusion would be overturned. Alternatively, a sensitive mid-band observatory seeing no signal in the frequency range predicted for T_n≈0.3v would disfavour strong first-order transitions in these models.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In the non-Abelian flavour-deconstruction benchmark, natural O(1) gauge couplings produce strong first-order phase transitions with potentially detectable signals at LISA.
  • The peak frequency of the gravitational-wave spectrum in these models typically lies just above the millihertz range, making mid-band observatories more promising than LISA alone.
  • In the Abelian (U(1)) variant, a detectable signal requires fine-tuned small quartic couplings, so a gravitational-wave detection would favour non-Abelian flavour-deconstruction structures.
  • If a signal is seen, gravitational-wave data alone will not cleanly identify the underlying model; combined collider searches for TeV-scale vector leptoquarks and Z′ bosons would be needed to break the degeneracy.
  • The gauge-coupling matching relation is a new controlling input: at fixed TeV scale, it fixes the minimum of the effective gauge-coupling combination, so detectability is tied to the SM QCD coupling, not a free parameter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The paper's logic implies that a null result at LISA would not disfavour flavour deconstruction; the signal may simply sit in the mid-band window. Mid-band detectors therefore become the decisive test, and their sensitivity curves deserve modelling as detailed as LISA's.
  • Inference: The same matching-condition mechanism should apply to any deconstruction chain whose last step lands on the SM gauge group: the minimal mass of the dominant vector boson is set by the SM gauge coupling at the transition scale, which may explain why TeV-scale cascades generically have their gravitational-wave peak pushed above the millihertz range.
  • Inference: A testable extension is to recompute the phase transition with a dimensionally-reduced, resummed effective potential; if the barrier shifts, the g4≈1.5 window and the 'LISA possible but not guaranteed' conclusion would move accordingly.
  • Inference: The qualitative contrast between the Abelian (fine-tuned) and non-Abelian (natural) benchmarks could be used as a model discriminator once gravitational-wave data are combined with collider bounds on the new gauge bosons.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies gravitational-wave signals from first-order phase transitions in flavour-deconstruction (FD) models. It reduces the relevant scalar sector to a single light field φ with tree-level potential (8), supplemented by one-loop Coleman-Weinberg and thermal vector-boson contributions (Eqs. 9–12). The tunnelling action is computed with AnyBubble, yielding the nucleation temperature, transition strength, and inverse duration (Eqs. 13–15), which are then converted into GW spectra and LISA SNR (Eqs. 16–17). Two benchmarks are analysed: a non-Abelian SU(4)×SU(3)×U(1) transition and an Abelian U(1) transition. The central claim is that FD models can produce detectable GWs in specific parameter regions—natural for the non-Abelian case with g4≈1.5 and small λ, finely tuned for the Abelian case—and that the spectral peaks tend to lie slightly above the millihertz LISA band.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, this is one of the first systematic scans of GW signatures from generic FD models and it highlights the role of gauge-coupling matching conditions, which previous studies did not emphasize. The paper is commendably explicit about its limitations: no daisy resummation, v_w=1, g*=200, and a one-loop effective potential. It also uses numerically evaluated thermal functions rather than a high-temperature expansion, and relies on the public code AnyBubble. The qualitative picture—FD provides a plausible target for LISA and mid-band observatories, with a natural non-Abelian region and a tuned Abelian region—is credible. However, the quantitative SNR contours, peak frequencies, and the natural-versus-tuned distinction are not fully controlled until the listed higher-order systematics are quantified or at least bracketed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Noemi Fabri, Gino Isidori, Davide Racco] The omission of daisy resummation is load-bearing. For the benchmark points with g4~O(1) and T_n≈0.3v, the vector-boson mass m_V≈g_V φ is comparable to T when φ~T_n, so the ring correction replacing m_V^2 by m_V^2+Π(T), with Π∼g_eff^2 T^2, is a same-order effect rather than a small correction. Daisy resummation modifies the cubic term that generates the barrier, which directly shifts T_n in Eq. (13), α in Eq. (14), β/H in Eq. (15), and hence the peak frequency f_sw∝T_n in Eq. (16e). The argument in Footnote 3 that the impact should be moderate because φ∼T_n lies near the barrier is not a substitute for a calculation; a shift of T_n from 0.3v to 0.5v alone changes f_sw by tens of percent and moves signals within the LISA band. I request either a daisy-resummed/dimensionally reduced calculation or a systematic estimate of the sensitivity of the central results (SNR contours and the natural
  2. [Noemi Fabri, Gino Isidori, Davide Racco] The conclusion that the U(1) benchmark is finely tuned and therefore less likely relies on the one-loop effective potential in a regime where T_n/v can be as low as 0.1 and where the numerical solver is unstable (grey points in Fig. 5). In this regime the effective quartic is dominated by loop corrections, and for g4~O(1) with φ∼T_n the one-loop expansion in the gauge coupling is not parametrically controlled. The rapid variation of T_n/v with parameters seen in the central panel could be in part a one-loop artifact. Without higher-order control or a scan of the RG-scale dependence, the 'natural versus tuned' distinction for the Abelian benchmark is not yet robust.
  3. [Noemi Fabri, Gino Isidori, Davide Racco] The LISA SNR in Fig. 1 is computed with v_w=1, which the authors acknowledge overestimates the GW amplitude. Since the SNR contours are used to quantify detectability, a realistic v_w<1 (or at least a rescaling by a range of v_w values) is needed to judge whether the non-Abelian benchmark genuinely reaches LISA sensitivities in natural regions. I am not asking for a full out-of-equilibrium calculation, but a simple parametric scan over v_w∈[0.4,1] would indicate how robust the 'detectable at LISA' claim is.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Noemi Fabri, Gino Isidori, Davide Racco] The multiplicity c_L is introduced for the vector leptoquark, but the vector is denoted U. Using c_U would avoid confusion.
  2. [Noemi Fabri, Gino Isidori, Davide Racco] The text says 'the most right panel in Fig. 5'; should be 'the rightmost panel'.
  3. [Noemi Fabri, Gino Isidori, Davide Racco] Typo: 'the peak of the GW emission tend to be a frequencies' should read 'tend to be at frequencies'.
  4. [Noemi Fabri, Gino Isidori, Davide Racco] The right panel's vertical axis is not labelled in the text; please state explicitly that it is Ω_GW h² and specify the units.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: GW predictions are computed from an explicit model scan using external PT and LISA formulas; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for the claimed GW predictions. The model is defined explicitly by the gauge structure in Eq. (1) with matching conditions (2), the scalar potential in Eqs. (3)-(4) and (8), and the field content specified in Sec. 2. The phase-transition quantities Tn, alpha, and beta/H are computed from the one-loop effective potential (Eqs. 9-12) with the public code AnyBubble, and the GW spectra/SNR are obtained by substituting these into the externally published LISA white-paper formulas (Eqs. 16-17). No parameter is fitted to a GW observation or to a target spectrum; the scan over (lambda, g4) is an open parameter study. The self-citations to earlier flavour-deconstruction work (e.g., Refs. [13,17,21]) set the model-building context and motivate the benchmark values v ~ 1-3 TeV and g4 >= 1, but they do not enter the computation of the predicted spectra; the benchmark is explicitly constructed in this paper. The paper's own limitation statement in Sec. 3 and Footnote 3 - that daisy resummation is omitted and likely has a non-negligible impact - is a systematic theoretical uncertainty, not a circular step, because it does not amount to re-using the target result as an input. Accordingly, no circular step reduces the predictions to the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 10 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard thermal field theory machinery plus model assumptions inherited from the FD literature. The free parameters are scanned rather than fitted; the main approximation risks are the one-loop truncation without daisy resummation and the single-field reduction, both flagged in the text. No new particles or forces are invented; the link fields and gauge groups are taken from existing FD literature.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (effective quartic of light scalar phi) = scanned; small values O(10^-3)-O(10^-2) give strong transitions
    Controls the tree-level potential slope; strong FOPT requires lambda small enough that one-loop gauge corrections dominate.
  • g4 (non-universal gauge coupling) = scanned around 1 to 2; optimal near 1.5 for v=1 TeV
    Determines gauge-boson masses and the one-loop thermal/CW potential; relation to g3 fixed by matching Eq. (2).
  • v (SSB scale) = 1 TeV, 3 TeV (10^3 TeV illustrative)
    Sets mass scale and peak frequency; chosen from naturalness and collider bounds.
  • v_w (bubble wall velocity) = 1 (assumed)
    Simplifies hydrodynamic GW estimate; realistic subsonic v_w would reduce the signal amplitude.
  • g_star(T_n) = 200
    Fixed representative number of relativistic degrees of freedom; affects normalization of Omega_gw and SNR.
axioms (10)
  • standard math One-loop thermal effective potential (Dolan-Jackiw/Anderson-Hall) describes the free energy at T ~ Tn.
    Used in Eq. (9) to compute barrier and Tn; no two-loop or resummed corrections.
  • standard math Coleman-Weinberg zero-temperature one-loop potential applies with Lambda = v.
    Eq. (11); drives loop-vs-tree competition central to strong FOPT.
  • standard math Semiclassical bounce formalism and AnyBubble compute the tunneling action S3/T.
    Section 3; standard tool for nucleation rate.
  • standard math LISA white paper fits for sound-wave and turbulence GW spectra are valid.
    Eq. (16); external benchmark for Omega_gw and SNR.
  • domain assumption The FD breaking step Eq. (1) is a generic benchmark for models with large broken-generator multiplicity.
    Based on [13,17]; if false for a given FD UV completion, the computed spectra do not apply.
  • domain assumption The scalar potential Eq. (3) with custodial symmetry and single-light-scalar dominance is representative.
    Reduces multi-field problem to one field phi; heavier scalars decouple at scale v.
  • domain assumption Fermionic contributions to the thermal potential are negligible because vector-like masses are large and Yukawas small.
    Section 2(iii); standard in these models.
  • domain assumption Matching condition Eq. (2) fixes g3 in terms of g4 and gs at the SSB scale.
    Gauge coupling matching from semi-simple FD embedding; essential to the g4 ~ 1.5 optimum.
  • domain assumption Wall velocity v_w = 1 and no runaway; plasma friction only slightly reduces amplitude.
    Section 3; explicitly simplified, not computed.
  • domain assumption g_star = 200 at Tn.
    Representative number of relativistic dof; chosen by hand.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13281 in / 13268 out tokens · 138390 ms · 2026-08-04T16:36:49.544689+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the production of primordial gravitational waves (GWs) from first-order phase transitions (FOPTs) in extensions of the Standard Model based on Flavour Deconstruction (FD). The link fields inherent to FD generically form a rich scalar sector, with sizeable couplings at the TeV scale, providing natural conditions for strong FOPTs and correspondingly large GW emission. We identify the key parameters controlling the GW spectrum and enabling its detection at future GW observatories. In particular, we find that while FD scenarios can yield detectable signals, the resulting spectra typically peak at higher frequencies than the millihertz range. As a consequence, a positive observation at LISA is possible but not guaranteed, while the signal falls in the range of mid-band proposals, making FD models an intriguing target for upcoming GW searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.12414 by Davide Racco, Gino Isidori, Noemi Fabri.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: SNR at LISA for the GW emission induced by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: GW spectrum induced by the SSB transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of results obtained assuming different SSB patterns. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Hierarchies from Higher Flavor Spin

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Yukawa hierarchies are generated from powers of fully anarchic spurions in higher SU(2) and SU(3) flavor representations via progressive rank lifting through composite outer products, with explicit models and predicti...

  2. Gauged Flavour for Asymmetric Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A gauged SO(3) flavour symmetry broken at multiple scales generates SM fermion masses, redistributes a lepton asymmetry into baryon and dark matter asymmetries via sphalerons, and yields dark matter as bound states of...

  3. Gauged Flavour for Asymmetric Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A gauged SO(3) flavour symmetry spontaneously broken at multiple scales links SM flavour hierarchies to asymmetric dark matter via leptogenesis and sphaleron redistribution, with DM as bound states of a confining SU(3).

  4. Cosmological History of Flavour Deconstruction Models: Constraints from Monopole Production

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Flavour deconstruction models with semi-simple gauge groups generically produce light monopoles that require low-scale reheating after inflation to satisfy cosmological and astrophysical bounds.

  5. The Future of Lepton Flavor

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Upcoming neutrino experiments are projected to substantially reduce the number of viable leptonic flavor models in five popular classes by measuring mass ordering, theta_23 octant, delta_CP, and absolute mass scale.

  6. Anatomy and Phenomenology of Minimal Flavor Deconstruction in the Lepton Sector

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Next-to-leading order spurion effects in a minimal lepton flavor deconstruction model induce observable charged lepton flavor violation, lepton flavor universality violation, and electric dipole moments at multi-10 Te...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 60 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Introduction Primordial gravitational waves (GWs) provide a unique window into the early Universe and represent a promising novel probe of high-energy phenomena that are otherwise inaccessible to laboratory experiments. In particular, GWs produced during a cosmological first-order phase transition (FOPT) can carry indirect information about the particle c...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    The model setup As prototype PT around TeV scale, motivated by the FD hypothesis, we consider the one associated to the following spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB): SU(4) [3] ×SU(3) [12] ×U(1) ′ →SU(3) c ×U(1) Y .(1) The transition is assumed to be generated by an appropriate set of scalar fields (so-called link fields) acquiring a non-trivial vacuum ex...

  3. [3]

    Thermal PTs have been studied for a long time, dating back to the seminal papers on thermal symmetry restoration and the thermal effective potential [32–34]

    Analysis of the phase transition In this section, we review our treatment of the PT. Thermal PTs have been studied for a long time, dating back to the seminal papers on thermal symmetry restoration and the thermal effective potential [32–34]. One of the most relevant phenomenological motivations, has been the study of the metastability of our current Higg...

  4. [4]

    1 we show the expected SNR at LISA in the g4–λplane, forv= 1 TeV, in the benchmark scenario defined by Eq

    Discussion In Fig. 1 we show the expected SNR at LISA in the g4–λplane, forv= 1 TeV, in the benchmark scenario defined by Eq. (1). As can be seen, achieving a sizeable SNR requires values ofg 4 of order unity and relatively 5 small quartic couplingsλ. In most of the parameter space that leads to a strong FOPT,λis dominated by the one- loop contribution ra...

  5. [5]

    2 shows that smaller values of p g2 4 +g 2 3 lead to stronger GW signals

    The right panel of Fig. 2 shows that smaller values of p g2 4 +g 2 3 lead to stronger GW signals. However,g 3 andg 4 are not independent parameters, but are related through the matching condition in Eq. (2). As a result, the minimum achievable value of p g2 3 +g 2 4 occurs forg 4 ≈1.5, as illustrated in the left panel of Fig. 2. An additional point to hig...

  6. [6]

    Conclusions We have explored the GW phenomenology of flavour deconstruction models, focusing on the spontaneous symmetry-breaking steps that naturally occur, in such models, around the TeV scale. Using two general benchmarks for the underlying SSB transition, we have shown that the key parameters controlling the strength of the phase transition are essent...

    2023

  7. [7]

    Capriniet al., Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA

    C. Capriniet al., Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions, JCAP04, 001, arXiv:1512.06239 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Capriniet al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP03, 024, arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Capriniet al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP03, 024, arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  9. [9]

    Witten, Cosmic Separation of Phases, Phys

    E. Witten, Cosmic Separation of Phases, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  10. [10]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, Gravitational waves from first order cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2026 (1992)

    2026

  11. [11]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 163001 (2018), arXiv:1801.04268 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational- Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP01, 097, arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]

    K. Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational- Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP01, 097, arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  13. [13]

    M. B. Hindmarsh, M. L¨ uben, J. Lumma, and M. Pauly, Phase transitions in the early universe, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes24, 1 (2021), arXiv:2008.09136 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

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

    R. Caldwellet al., Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics, Gen. Rel. Grav.54, 156 (2022), arXiv:2203.07972 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Greljo, T

    A. Greljo, T. Opferkuch, and B. A. Stefanek, Gravitational Imprints of Flavor Hierarchies, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 171802 (2020), arXiv:1910.02014 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Bordone, C

    M. Bordone, C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martin, and G. Isidori, A three-site gauge model for flavor hierarchies and flavor anomalies, Phys. Lett. B779, 317 (2018), arXiv:1712.01368 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Greljo and B

    A. Greljo and B. A. Stefanek, Third family quark–lepton unification at the TeV scale, Phys. Lett. B782, 131 (2018), arXiv:1802.04274 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Fuentes-Martin and P

    J. Fuentes-Martin and P. Stangl, Third-family quark- lepton unification with a fundamental composite Higgs, Phys. Lett. B811, 135953 (2020), arXiv:2004.11376 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Allwicher, G

    L. Allwicher, G. Isidori, and A. E. Thomsen, Stability of the Higgs Sector in a Flavor-Inspired Multi-Scale Model, JHEP01, 191, arXiv:2011.01946 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  20. [20]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, G

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, G. Isidori, M. K¨ onig, and N. Selimovi´ c, Vector Leptoquarks Beyond Tree Level III: Vector-like Fermions and Flavor-Changing Transitions, Phys. Rev. D102, 115015 (2020), arXiv:2009.11296 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Fuentes-Martin, G

    J. Fuentes-Martin, G. Isidori, J. M. Lizana, N. Selimovic, and B. A. Stefanek, Flavor hierarchies, flavor anomalies, and Higgs mass from a warped extra dimension, Phys. Lett. B834, 137382 (2022), arXiv:2203.01952 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Fern´ andez Navarro and S

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro and S. F. King, Tri-hypercharge: a separate gauged weak hypercharge for each fermion family as the origin of flavour, JHEP08, 020, arXiv:2305.07690 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [23]

    Davighi and G

    J. Davighi and G. Isidori, Non-universal gauge interactions addressing the inescapable link between Higgs and flavour, JHEP07, 147, arXiv:2303.01520 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Davighi and B

    J. Davighi and B. A. Stefanek, Deconstructed hypercharge: a natural model of flavour, JHEP11, 100, arXiv:2305.16280 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Isidori, Flavor physics beyond the Standard Model and the Kobayashi-Maskawa legacy (2023) arXiv:2308.11612 [hep-ph]

    G. Isidori, Flavor physics beyond the Standard Model and the Kobayashi-Maskawa legacy (2023) arXiv:2308.11612 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Davighi, A

    J. Davighi, A. Gosnay, D. J. Miller, and S. Renner, Phenomenology of a Deconstructed Electroweak Force, JHEP05, 085, arXiv:2312.13346 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Barbieri and G

    R. Barbieri and G. Isidori, Minimal flavour deconstruction, JHEP05, 033, arXiv:2312.14004 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Fuentes-Martin and J

    J. Fuentes-Martin and J. M. Lizana, Deconstructing flavor anomalously, JHEP07, 117, arXiv:2402.09507 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Fern´ andez Navarro, S

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro, S. F. King, and A. Vicente, Minimal complete tri-hypercharge theories of flavour, JHEP07, 147, arXiv:2404.12442 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  30. [30]

    Greljo and G

    A. Greljo and G. Isidori, Neutrino anarchy from flavor deconstruction, Phys. Lett. B856, 138900 (2024), arXiv:2406.01696 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Covone, J

    S. Covone, J. Davighi, G. Isidori, and M. Pesut, Flavour deconstructing the composite Higgs, JHEP01, 041, arXiv:2407.10950 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    J. M. Lizana, A common origin of the Higgs boson and the flavor hierarchies, JHEP05, 176, arXiv:2412.14243 9 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Fern´ andez Navarro, S

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro, S. F. King, and A. Vicente, Natural neutrino mass hierarchy in a theory of gauge flavour deconstruction, (2025), arXiv:2506.21687 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Haisch, L

    U. Haisch, L. Schnell, and S. Schulte, Drell-Yan production in third-generation gauge vector leptoquark models at NLO+PS in QCD, JHEP02, 070, arXiv:2209.12780 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Aebischer, G

    J. Aebischer, G. Isidori, M. Pesut, B. A. Stefanek, and F. Wilsch, Confronting the vector leptoquark hypothesis with new low- and high-energy data, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 153 (2023), arXiv:2210.13422 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Di Luzio, J

    L. Di Luzio, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Greljo, M. Nardecchia, and S. Renner, Maximal Flavour Violation: a Cabibbo mechanism for leptoquarks, JHEP11, 081, arXiv:1808.00942 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Houtz, J

    R. Houtz, J. Pag` es, and S. Trifinopoulos, Radiative effects in the scalar sector of vector leptoquark models, JHEP08, 208, arXiv:2204.06440 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Symmetry Behavior at Finite Temperature, Phys. Rev. D9, 3320 (1974)

    1974

  39. [39]

    A. D. Linde, Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature, Nucl. Phys. B216, 421 (1983), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]

    1983

  40. [40]

    G. W. Anderson and L. J. Hall, The Electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. D45, 2685 (1992)

    1992

  41. [41]

    Cabibbo, L

    N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, G. Parisi, and R. Petronzio, Bounds on the Fermions and Higgs Boson Masses in Grand Unified Theories, Nucl. Phys. B158, 295 (1979)

    1979

  42. [42]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Isidori, Lower limit on the Higgs mass in the standard model: An Update, Phys. Lett. B337, 141 (1994)

    1994

  43. [43]

    J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, and A. Riotto, Cosmological implications of the Higgs mass measurement, JCAP05, 002, arXiv:0710.2484 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Ellis, J

    J. Ellis, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, A. Hoecker, and A. Riotto, The Probable Fate of the Standard Model, Phys. Lett. B679, 369 (2009), arXiv:0906.0954 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    Elias-Miro, J

    J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia, Higgs mass implications on the stability of the electroweak vacuum, Phys. Lett. B 709, 222 (2012), arXiv:1112.3022 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, JHEP08, 098, arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Buttazzo, G

    D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio, and A. Strumia, Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson, JHEP12, 089, arXiv:1307.3536 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, E. Morgante, A. Riotto, L. Senatore, A. Strumia, and N. Tetradis, The cosmological Higgstory of the vacuum instability, JHEP 09, 174, arXiv:1505.04825 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888 (1973)

    1973

  50. [50]

    S. R. Coleman, The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929 (1977), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

    1977

  51. [51]

    J. R. Espinosa, A Fresh Look at the Calculation of Tunneling Actions, JCAP07, 036, arXiv:1805.03680 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    J. R. Espinosa, Fresh look at the calculation of tunneling actions including gravitational effects, Phys. Rev. D100, 104007 (2019), arXiv:1808.00420 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  54. [54]

    Masoumi, K

    A. Masoumi, K. D. Olum, and B. Shlaer, Efficient numerical solution to vacuum decay with many fields, JCAP01, 051, arXiv:1610.06594 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Guada, M

    V. Guada, M. Nemevˇ sek, and M. Pintar, FindBounce: Package for multi-field bounce actions, Comput. Phys. Commun.256, 107480 (2020), arXiv:2002.00881 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balazs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, W. Searle, Y. Xiao, and Y. Zhang, PhaseTracer2: from the effective potential to gravitational waves, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 559 (2025), arXiv:2412.04881 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Brdar, M

    V. Brdar, M. Finetti, M. Matteini, A. P. Morais, and M. Nemevˇ sek, PT2GWFinder: A Package for Cosmological First-Order Phase Transitions and Gravitational Waves (2025), arXiv:2505.04744 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    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, 108725 (2023), arXiv:2205.08815 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Lewicki, M

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, L. Sagunski, P. Schicho, and D. Schmitt, Impact of theoretical uncertainties on model parameter reconstruction from GW signals sourced by cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D110, 023538 (2024), arXiv:2403.03769 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    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. D110, 096006 (2024), arXiv:2405.18349 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Bernardo, P

    F. Bernardo, P. Klose, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Higher-dimensional operators at finite temperature affect gravitational-wave predictions, JHEP08, 109, arXiv:2503.18904 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

    Ignatius, K

    J. Ignatius, K. Kajantie, H. Kurki-Suonio, and M. Laine, The growth of bubbles in cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D49, 3854 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9309059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  63. [63]

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec, How fast can the wall move? A Study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics, Phys. Rev. D52, 7182 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9506475

    arXiv 1995

  64. [64]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and G. Servant, Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions, JCAP06, 028, arXiv:1004.4187 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [65]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and S. R. Coleman, The Fate of the False Vacuum. 2. First Quantum Corrections, Phys. Rev. D16, 1762 (1977)

    1977

  66. [66]

    S. R. Coleman, Quantum Tunneling and Negative Eigenvalues, Nucl. Phys. B298, 178 (1988)

    1988

  67. [67]

    Strumia and N

    A. Strumia and N. Tetradis, A Consistent calculation of bubble nucleation rates, Nucl. Phys. B542, 719 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9806453

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  68. [68]

    Isidori, G

    G. Isidori, G. Ridolfi, and A. Strumia, On the metastability of the standard model vacuum, Nucl. Phys. B609, 387 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  69. [69]

    G. V. Dunne and H. Min, Beyond the thin-wall approximation: Precise numerical computation of 10 prefactors in false vacuum decay, Phys. Rev. D72, 125004 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0511156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  70. [70]

    W.-Y. Ai, J. Alexandre, and S. Sarkar, False vacuum decay rates, more precisely, Phys. Rev. D109, 045010 (2024), arXiv:2312.04482 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Baratella, M

    P. Baratella, M. Nemevˇ sek, Y. Shoji, K. Trailovi´ c, and L. Ubaldi, Revising the Full One-Loop Gauge Prefactor in Electroweak Vacuum Stability, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011601 (2025), arXiv:2406.05180 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Carosi and B

    M. Carosi and B. Garbrecht, False vacuum decay beyond the quadratic approximation: Summation of nonlocal self-energies, Phys. Rev. D111, 085002 (2025), arXiv:2411.18421 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Baratella, M

    P. Baratella, M. Nemevˇ sek, Y. Shoji, K. Trailovi´ c, and L. Ubaldi, Functional determinants for false vacuum decay, JHEP05, 100, arXiv:2502.15878 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. D. Rose, A. Guiggiani, ´A. G. Muyor, and G. Panico, Bubble wall dynamics at the electroweak phase transition, JHEP03, 163, arXiv:2201.08220 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [75]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline, First principles determination of bubble wall velocity, Phys. Rev. D106, 023501 (2022), arXiv:2204.13120 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent, and J. van de Vis, Model- independent bubble wall velocities in local thermal equilibrium, JCAP07, 002, arXiv:2303.10171 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  77. [77]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, ´A. Gil Muyor, and G. Panico, Non-linearities in cosmological bubble wall dynamics, JHEP05, 009, arXiv:2401.13522 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  78. [78]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki, and M. Zych, Bubble-wall velocity in local thermal equilibrium: hydrodynamical simulations vs analytical treatment, JHEP05, 011, arXiv:2402.15408 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [79]

    Carena, A

    M. Carena, A. Ireland, T. Ou, and I. R. Wang, The Discriminant Power of Bubble Wall Velocities: Gravitational Waves and Electroweak Baryogenesis (2025), arXiv:2504.17841 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, J. Hirvonen, B. Laurent, L. Niemi, P. Schicho, and J. van de Vis, How fast does the WallGo? A package for computing wall velocities in first-order phase transitions, JHEP04, 101, arXiv:2411.04970 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.