Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The paper argues that the same dimension-six SMEFT operators that make the electroweak phase transition first order are inside the reach of future LHC runs and of space-based gravitational wave observatories.

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

2026-08-03 18:37 UTC pith:TOJ3DNGA

load-bearing objection Competent SMEFT phase-transition study whose central reach plot rests on an undocumented thermal self-energy; worth refereeing, but the claims are conditional until that is shown. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.04168 v2 pith:TOJ3DNGA submitted 2025-12-03 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Electroweak phase transition in SMEFT: Gravitational wave and collider complementarity

Sahabub Jahedi , Indrajit Saha , Abhik Sarkar This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords electroweak phase transitionSMEFTdimension-six operatorsdi-Higgs productiongravitational wavesHiggs self-couplingHL-LHCHE-LHC
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 tries to show that a first-order electroweak phase transition can be induced by three dimension-six operators of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory that modify the Higgs potential at tree level, and that the same operators leave measurable traces in two independent places: di-Higgs production at upgraded LHC runs and gravitational waves from the early-universe transition. The authors compute the finite-temperature effective potential, locate parameter regions where the transition is strongly first order (v_c/T_c > 1), and then show those regions lie within the signal significance reach of the HL-LHC and HE-LHC after a neural-network-based event selection. They also compute the gravitational wave spectrum for benchmark points and find its peak within the sensitivity bands of LISA, DECIGO, and BBO. If correct, the same unknown new physics that shaped the Higgs potential in the early universe could be tested at colliders and in the gravitational wave sky.

Core claim

The central claim is that the dimension-six SMEFT operators O_H = (H†H)^3, O_H□ = (H†H)□(H†H), and O_HD = |H†D_µH|², which modify the Higgs potential already at tree level, simultaneously control the strength of the electroweak phase transition and the rate of di-Higgs production at hadron colliders. Computing the finite-temperature effective potential with daisy resummation, the authors identify benchmark points with v_c/T_c > 1, a strongly first-order transition, for negative C_H/Λ² around −3 TeV⁻² combined with small C_H□ or C_HD. Those same benchmarks produce gravitational wave spectra peaking in the millihertz-to-decihertz band, within reach of LISA, DECIGO, and BBO, and they lie inside

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three dimension-six SMEFT operators defined in Eq. (2): O_H = (H†H)³, the cubic Higgs-field operator that directly changes the scalar potential; O_H□ = (H†H)□(H†H), a kinetic-type operator; and O_HD = |H†D_µH|², which alters the Higgs-gauge coupling. After a field redefinition the tree-level potential becomes a φ²–φ⁴–φ⁶ form. The phase-transition part is driven by the finite-temperature effective potential with Coleman-Weinberg, thermal, and ring/daisy contributions; the transition strength v_c/T_c is extracted from the two conditions in Eq. (15). The collider part uses the same three operators to rescale di-Higgs production in the 2b2τ final state, with a binary artific

Load-bearing premise

The entire case rests on the accuracy of the finite-temperature effective-potential calculation with its thermal (daisy) resummation; if a different treatment of thermal corrections from the new operators changes v_c/T_c, the claimed overlap between cosmology and colliders could shift or disappear.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the trilinear Higgs coupling from di-Higgs production at the HL-LHC. If κλ is measured close to the Standard Model value with an uncertainty smaller than the deviation implied by C_H/Λ² ≈ −3 TeV⁻² (roughly κλ ≈ 4–5), the benchmark FO-EWPT region is excluded and the paper's overlap claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • The parameter region with a strong first-order electroweak transition (v_c/T_c > 1) overlaps the 1σ significance reach at HL-LHC (14 TeV, 3 ab⁻¹) and the 2σ reach at HE-LHC (27 TeV, 15 ab⁻¹), so di-Higgs production becomes an indirect collider probe of the phase transition.
  • Gravitational wave spectra from the benchmark points peak where LISA, DECIGO, and BBO have sensitivity, with SNRs above the usual detection thresholds (5 for LISA, 25 for DECIGO/BBO); the sound-wave contribution dominates the spectrum.
  • The HE-LHC significance is roughly three times the HL-LHC significance, so higher energy and luminosity extend the reach in C_H□ and C_HD, the momentum-dependent operators.
  • The ANN-based selection improves the signal-to-background ratio in the 2b2τ channel by about two orders of magnitude for both collider scenarios.
  • Only negative C_H/Λ² produces a strong first-order transition, so a future collider measurement that pins down the sign of C_H would discriminate between possible phase-transition scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the sign requirement (only C_H < 0 yields a strong transition) implies a positive deviation in the trilinear Higgs coupling; verifying κλ above one would corroborate the scenario, while κλ near unity would disfavour it.
  • Beyond the paper: the ring-resummation treatment of the dimension-six operators is scheme-sensitive; a gauge-invariant computation of the thermal masses for O_H would test whether the FO-EWPT region survives.
  • Beyond the paper: a detection of the predicted gravitational wave background without a matching di-Higgs deviation (or vice versa) would break the complementarity and point to a different source for one of the signals.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies three dimension-6 SMEFT operators (O_H, O_H□, O_HD) that modify the tree-level Higgs potential, computes the finite-temperature effective potential to determine first-order electroweak phase transition (FO-EWPT) parameters, then uses these parameters to predict gravitational wave (GW) spectra and signal-to-noise ratios for LISA, DECIGO, and BBO. On the collider side, the authors perform a di-Higgs production analysis in the 2b2τ final state at HL-LHC and HE-LHC using an ANN-based classifier, and overlay the resulting significance contours with the FO-EWPT region. The central claim is that the SMEFT parameter space capable of generating a strong FO-EWPT lies within the significance reach of both upgraded LHC runs and within the sensitivity ranges of future GW observatories, establishing complementarity between the two probes.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a useful mapping between cosmological probes and collider probes of the same SMEFT operators, with explicit benchmark points and a reproducible-looking event-analysis pipeline. The use of public tools (FindBounce, MG5_aMC@NLO, Delphes) and the tabulated signal/background yields are strengths. However, the numerical results currently rest on an undocumented treatment of SMEFT thermal effects in the effective potential, and there are formula-level issues in the significance definition and in the GW SNR and Hubble-rate expressions. These issues directly affect the reported reach plots, so the complementarity claim as stated is not yet supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (8)–(14)] The SMEFT dependence of the effective potential is the main numerical input to the FO-EWPT region and to the GW predictions, but it is not documented. The thermal self-energies displayed in Eqs. (13) and (14) are the pure SM expressions, and the paper only states that 'thermal effects arising from the SMEFT operators have also been included' without giving the modified field-dependent masses or thermal self-energies. For the φ^6 potential, the field-dependent scalar mass contains an a6 φ^4 term that enters V_th and the ring-improved potential (12); how this term is treated affects T_c, v_c, α, and β/H, and hence Figs. 2, 3, and 9. The gauge and renormalization scheme also need to be stated. Please provide the explicit SMEFT expressions used in the numerical computation, or validate against a public code.
  2. [Section 6.3, Eq. (40) and Fig. 9] Eq. (40) defines Z(C_i/Λ^2) = S(C_i)/√(S(C_i)+B), but the text introduces S(0) as the SM signal. With this formula, Z does not vanish at C_i = 0, so the plotted significance is ambiguous: it is not clear whether the contours are for discovery of a BSM signal or for exclusion of the SM coupling. Moreover, Fig. 9 overlays the FO-EWPT region with Z = 1σ (HL-LHC) and Z = 2σ (HE-LHC), which are far below the usual 5σ discovery criterion. The sentence that the FO-EWPT parameter space 'lies well within the significance reach' is therefore not supported by the displayed contours. Please correct the statistical definition, state whether systematic uncertainties are included, and show contours at 2σ or 5σ.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (34)] Eq. (34) gives Ω_sen = 2π^2 f^{3/2}/H0. This has dimensions of √Hz, not dimensionless, so the SNR definition is not physically consistent and the numerical SNRs in Fig. 3 cannot be reproduced as written. The standard expression is Ω_sen(f) = (2π^2/(3H0^2)) f^3 S_n(f) or the corresponding power-law integrated sensitivity curve. Please correct the formula and specify the sensitivity curves used for LISA, DECIGO, and BBO.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (16)] Eq. (16) writes the Hubble rate as H = 8π^3 g_* T^4/(90 M_Pl). This has incorrect dimension; during radiation domination H^2 = (8π^3 g_*/90) T^4/M_Pl^2. Since Eq. (16) determines T_t through Γ/H^4 = 1, the listed T_t values and the GW peak frequencies in Fig. 2 depend directly on this expression. Please correct the formula and confirm that the numerics use the standard expression.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'three (one) dimension-6 SMEFT operators' is confusing; please rephrase to clarify the tree-level vs. 1-loop counting of operators.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (10)] The notation 'n_Bi (nBi)' and 'm_Bi (mBi)' has a subscript typo; should be n_{B_i} and m_{B_i} throughout.
  3. [Section 4, after Eq. (16)] Please define M_Pl explicitly (reduced Planck mass or not) and use consistent notation for H0 in Eq. (34).
  4. [Figure 3] The statement that 'the regions in figure 3 satisfy v_c/T_c > 1' is unclear: does the entire SNR contour region satisfy this, or only the plotted points? Please clarify in the caption or text.
  5. [Section 6.1] The global inclusive K-factors from Ref. [69] are applied to the 2b2τ fiducial signal after cuts; this assumes the K-factor is the same after detector-level selection. Please comment on the validity of this approximation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Wilson coefficients are inputs, GW and collider observables are forward-computed, and the FO-EWPT/collider overlap is a consistency check.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward phenomenological calculation. The dimension-6 Wilson coefficients (C_H, C_H□, C_HD) are model inputs; the finite-temperature effective potential, phase-transition parameters (T_c, v_c, α, β/H), gravitational-wave spectra, and collider significances are computed from them. No quantity is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction. The collider analysis uses its own event simulation (MG5 aMC@NLO, Pythia8, Delphes3) with an ANN trained on SM-only samples; it is not calibrated to the FO-EWPT region. Overlaying the FO-EWPT-consistent region with signal-significance contours is a consistency check between independently computed quantities, not a circular reduction. The external constraints (ATLAS/CMS bounds, FindBounce, LISA/DECIGO/BBO sensitivity curves) are external and not self-citations. The paper does contain an asserted but undocumented ingredient: 'Thermal effects arising from the SMEFT operators have also been included in our numerical computations' (Section 3), while the displayed thermal self-energies are SM-only. This is a reproducibility/correctness concern about omitted details in the daisy resummation, not a circularity: the claim could be false without making the derivation circular. No load-bearing self-citation chain, uniqueness-imported result, or ansatz-smuggling-via-citation is present. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on the scanned Wilson coefficients (C_H, C_H□, C_HD), which are inputs chosen by hand, not outputs of a fit. The phase-transition and GW calculations additionally rely on the standard perturbative finite-temperature effective potential and literature GW templates. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • C_H/Λ² = -3.15 to -3.20 TeV^-2 (benchmark points)
    Chosen by hand to give a strong first-order phase transition; not determined by the paper.
  • C_H□/Λ² = 0 or 0.2 TeV^-2 (BPs)
    Scanned/benchmark inputs; the paper studies sensitivity as a function of these coefficients.
  • C_HD/Λ² = 0 or 0.2 TeV^-2 (BPs)
    Scanned/benchmark input.
  • ANN decision threshold = 0.95
    Chosen by hand to retain signal-like events; affects event counts and significance.
  • Renormalization scale M in V_CW = 246 GeV
    Scheme choice in Eq. (9); results may depend on it.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Dimension-6 SMEFT Lagrangian in Eq. (3) and the field redefinition in Eq. (4)-(5) are the standard basis for Higgs potential modification.
    Section 2 uses the standard Warsaw-basis operators O_H, O_H□, O_HD without derivation.
  • domain assumption The one-loop finite-temperature effective potential with CW, thermal integrals, and daisy resummation (Eqs. 8-14) is sufficient and gauge-independent enough for the weak-coupling regime considered.
    Section 3 invokes the standard perturbative potential but does not address gauge dependence or higher-order resummation issues specific to SMEFT.
  • domain assumption The GW spectral shapes (Eqs. 24-33) from the literature are applicable to this SMEFT scenario, including the v_w≈v_J approximation.
    Section 4 adopts the standard templates without assessing their validity for supercooled or strongly-coupled transitions.
  • domain assumption The signal and background event generation with K-factors and Delphes CMS card gives a faithful collider response.
    Section 6.1 relies on LO Monte Carlo with NLO K-factors and fast simulation, which is a standard but approximate treatment.
  • domain assumption The ANN trained on SM-only signal events generalizes to EFT-modified signals.
    Section 6.2 states the network is trained on SM-only datasets; it is assumed to classify EFT signal kinematics sufficiently well.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15394 in / 12515 out tokens · 105108 ms · 2026-08-03T18:37:13.331029+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the first-order electroweak phase transition (FO-EWPT) within the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) framework induced by dimension-6 operators. Such phenomena can be probed independently via \textit{di}-Higgs production at the collider experiments as well as via the detection of gravitational waves (GW). There are three (one) dimension-6 SMEFT operators that simultaneously modify the Higgs potential at tree (1-loop) level and contribute to the \textit{di}-Higgs production at the hadron colliders. With \textit{di}-Higgs production being suppressed at current LHC runs, we aim to probe this production at high luminosity (HL) and high energy (HE) runs of the LHC to achieve better sensitivity of dimension-6 SMEFT operators. The correlations among these operators are analyzed in the context of probing FO-EWPT, emphasizing the complementarity between future GW observations and upgraded LHC searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04168 by Abhik Sarkar, Indrajit Saha, Sahabub Jahedi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Variation of the potential at, above, and below the critical temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: Resultant GW spectra from FO-EWPT for different BPs listed in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Expected SNR in future GW experiments such as LISA ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Feynman graphs concerning Higgs pair production (SM and EFT contributions) via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The kinematic variable correlations for signal and background processes for HL-LHC (14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ROC curve (upper row), loss evolution (center row) and ANN score (lower row) for the ANN models for HL-LHC (14 TeV 3 ab−1 , left panel) and HE-LHC (27 TeV 15 ab−1 , right panel). 6.3 Signal Significance To quantify the impact of the EFT operators, we evaluate the signal significance based on the event yields obtained after applying the ANN classifiers. For both the HL-LHC and HE-LHC setups, the signal even… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Signal Significance, Z as a function of the effective couplings. Left panel: HL-LHC (14 TeV 3 ab−1 ), right panel: HE-LHC (27 TeV 15 ab−1 ). The black dotted and black dashed horizontal lines represent the 1σ − 4σ and 5σ limits, respectively. The dependence of the signal significance on the three EFT couplings is displayed in figure 7 for both the HL-LHC and HE-LHC. Among them, CH/Λ 2 shows the largest im￾… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two parameter signal significance (Z) plots (right), for HL-LHC (14 TeV 3 ab−1 ) and HE-LHC (27 TeV 15 ab−1 ). FO-EWPT. The higher centre-of-mass energy and luminosity of the HE-LHC further ex￾tend the reach in CH□/Λ 2 and CHD/Λ 2 , where the momentum-dependent operators induce increasingly pronounced effects. Overall, these results indicate that precision measurements of the Higgs self-interactions and ki… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Signal significance levels: Z = 1σ for HL-LHC (14 TeV 3 ab−1 ) and Z = 2σ for HE-LHC (27 TeV 15 ab−1 ), overlaid with the FO-EWPT allowed parameter space. The color hue represents the vc/Tc values across the parameter space. Considering an observation period of four year, we have explored the two-dimensional pa￾rameter space of the effective couplings to identify regions yielding a sufficient signal-to-noi… 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 3 Pith papers

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

  1. SIRENA -- Sum-Integral REductioN Algorithm

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SIRENA automates IBP reduction of sum-integrals in finite-temperature QFT, reproduces known results to 3 loops, supplies new 3-loop fermionic reductions, and derives an analytic factorization formula for arbitrary 2-l...

  2. Matchotter: An Automated Tool for Dimensional Reduction at Finite Temperature

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Matchotter automates one-loop finite-temperature dimensional reduction and supersoft matching for generic Lagrangians using functional techniques.

  3. Electroweak phase transitions in a $U(1)_D$ extension of the standard model with dimension-six operators: Gravitational waves and LHC signatures

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A dimension-six operator |H|^2|phi|^4 in a U(1)_D singlet extension relaxes the usual Higgs-portal and mixing-angle correlation, enabling strong first-order electroweak phase transitions driven primarily by the singlet VEV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov,On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,Phys. Lett. B 155(1985) 36

    1985

  2. [4]

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff and O. Pene,Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry,Mod. Phys. Lett. A9(1994) 795 [hep-ph/9312215]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  3. [5]

    Gurtler, E.-M

    M. Gurtler, E.-M. Ilgenfritz and A. Schiller,Where the electroweak phase transition ends,Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 3888 [hep-lat/9704013]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  4. [6]

    Laine and K

    M. Laine and K. Rummukainen,What’s new with the electroweak phase transition?, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.73(1999) 180 [hep-lat/9809045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  5. [7]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  6. [8]

    Y. Aoki, F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and A. Ukawa,The Endpoint of the first order phase transition of the SU(2) gauge Higgs model on a four-dimensional isotropic lattice, Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 013001 [hep-lat/9901021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [9]

    Kajantie, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  8. [10]

    Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA

    C. Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions,JCAP04(2016) 001 [1512.06239]. [11]LISAcollaboration,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,1702.00786

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [12]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura and T. Nakamura,Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 221103 [astro-ph/0108011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  10. [13]

    Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,Class

    S. Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) S125

    2006

  11. [14]

    Crowder and N

    J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish,Beyond LISA: Exploring future gravitational wave missions,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 083005 [gr-qc/0506015]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [15]

    Corbin and N

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish,Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2435 [gr-qc/0512039]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [16]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621

    1986

  14. [17]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085 [1008.4884]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [18]

    Zhang,Operators analysis for Higgs potential and cosmological bound on Higgs mass,Phys

    X.-m. Zhang,Operators analysis for Higgs potential and cosmological bound on Higgs mass,Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 3065 [hep-ph/9301277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  16. [19]

    Grojean, G

    C. Grojean, G. Servant and J. D. Wells,First-order electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a low cutoff,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 036001 [hep-ph/0407019]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  17. [20]

    Bodeker, L

    D. Bodeker, L. Fromme, S. J. Huber and M. Seniuch,The Baryon asymmetry in the standard model with a low cut-off,JHEP02(2005) 026 [hep-ph/0412366]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  18. [21]

    Delaunay, C

    C. Delaunay, C. Grojean and J. D. Wells,Dynamics of Non-renormalizable Electroweak Symmetry Breaking,JHEP04(2008) 029 [0711.2511]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [22]

    P. H. Damgaard, A. Haarr, D. O’Connell and A. Tranberg,Effective Field Theory and Electroweak Baryogenesis in the Singlet-Extended Standard Model,JHEP02(2016) 107 [1512.01963]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [23]

    C. P. D. Harman and S. J. Huber,Does zero temperature decide on the nature of the electroweak phase transition?,JHEP06(2016) 005 [1512.05611]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [24]

    de Vries, M

    J. de Vries, M. Postma, J. van de Vis and G. White,Electroweak Baryogenesis and the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP01(2018) 089 [1710.04061]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [25]

    R.-G. Cai, M. Sasaki and S.-J. Wang,The gravitational waves from the first-order phase transition with a dimension-six operator,JCAP08(2017) 004 [1707.03001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [26]

    Chala, C

    M. Chala, C. Krause and G. Nardini,Signals of the electroweak phase transition at colliders and gravitational wave observatories,JHEP07(2018) 062 [1802.02168]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [27]

    De Vries, M

    J. De Vries, M. Postma and J. van de Vis,The role of leptons in electroweak baryogenesis,JHEP04(2019) 024 [1811.11104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [28]

    S. A. R. Ellis, S. Ipek and G. White,Electroweak Baryogenesis from Temperature-Varying Couplings,JHEP08(2019) 002 [1905.11994]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [29]

    R. Zhou, L. Bian and H.-K. Guo,Connecting the electroweak sphaleron with gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 091903 [1910.00234]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [30]

    Kanemura and M

    S. Kanemura and M. Tanaka,Higgs boson coupling as a probe of the sphaleron property,Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135711 [2005.05250]. [31]ATLAScollaboration,Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at √s= 13TeV, Phys. Lett. B843(2023) 137745 [2211.01216]. [32]CMScollaborati...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [33]

    Feickert and B

    M. Feickert and B. Nachman,A Living Review of Machine Learning for Particle Physics,2102.02770

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [34]

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

    1973

  30. [35]

    Dolan and R

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

    1974

  31. [36]

    M. E. Carrington,The Effective potential at finite temperature in the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D45(1992) 2933

    1992

  32. [37]

    M. S. Turner and F. Wilczek,Relic gravitational waves and extended inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 3080

    1990

  33. [38]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner and R. Watkins,Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles,Phys. Rev. D45(1992) 4514. 20

    1992

  34. [39]

    Kosowsky, M

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

    1992

  35. [40]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles: envelope approximation to many bubble collisions,Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 4372 [astro-ph/9211004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  36. [41]

    M. S. Turner, E. J. Weinberg and L. M. Widrow,Bubble nucleation in first order inflation and other cosmological phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 2384

    1992

  37. [42]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir,Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 041301 [1304.2433]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [43]

    J. T. Giblin and J. B. Mertens,Gravitional radiation from first-order phase transitions in the presence of a fluid,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 023532 [1405.4005]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [44]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir,Numerical simulations of acoustically generated gravitational waves at a first order phase transition,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 123009 [1504.03291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [45]

    Hindmarsh, S

    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,Phys. Rev. D 96(2017) 103520 [1704.05871]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [46]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 2837 [astro-ph/9310044]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  42. [47]

    Kosowsky, A

    A. Kosowsky, A. Mack and T. Kahniashvili,Gravitational radiation from cosmological turbulence,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 024030 [astro-ph/0111483]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  43. [48]

    Caprini and R

    C. Caprini and R. Durrer,Gravitational waves from stochastic relativistic sources: Primordial turbulence and magnetic fields,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 063521 [astro-ph/0603476]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  44. [49]

    Gogoberidze, T

    G. Gogoberidze, T. Kahniashvili and A. Kosowsky,The Spectrum of Gravitational Radiation from Primordial Turbulence,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 083002 [0705.1733]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  45. [50]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant,The stochastic gravitational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fields generated by a first-order phase transition,JCAP 12(2009) 024 [0909.0622]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  46. [51]

    Niksa, M

    P. Niksa, M. Schlederer and G. Sigl,Gravitational Waves produced by Compressible MHD Turbulence from Cosmological Phase Transitions,Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018) 144001 [1803.02271]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [52]

    A. D. Linde,Fate of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature: Theory and Applications,Phys. Lett. B100(1981) 37

    1981

  48. [53]

    Guada, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [54]

    P. J. Steinhardt,Relativistic Detonation Waves and Bubble Growth in False Vacuum Decay,Phys. Rev. D25(1982) 2074

    1982

  50. [55]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No and G. Servant,Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions,JCAP06(2010) 028 [1004.4187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [56]

    Lewicki, M

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand and M. Zych,Electroweak bubble wall expansion: gravitational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma,JHEP02 (2022) 017 [2111.02393]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [57]

    Caprini et al.,Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update,JCAP03(2020) 024 [1910.13125]

    C. Caprini et al.,Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update,JCAP03(2020) 024 [1910.13125]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [58]

    H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha, D. Vagie and G. White,Phase Transitions in an Expanding Universe: Stochastic Gravitational Waves in Standard and Non-Standard Histories, JCAP01(2021) 001 [2007.08537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [59]

    Seto,Correlation analysis of stochastic gravitational wave background around 0.1-1 Hz,Phys

    N. Seto,Correlation analysis of stochastic gravitational wave background around 0.1-1 Hz,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 063001 [gr-qc/0510067]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [60]

    Hashino, R

    K. Hashino, R. Jinno, M. Kakizaki, S. Kanemura, T. Takahashi and M. Takimoto, Selecting models of first-order phase transitions using the synergy between collider and gravitational-wave experiments,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 075011 [1809.04994]. [61]ATLAScollaboration,Combined effective field theory interpretation of Higgs boson and weak boson production and de...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [64]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250 [1310.1921]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [65]

    Degrande,Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle,Comput

    C. Degrande,Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle,Comput. Phys. Commun.197(2015) 239 [1406.3030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [66]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer,MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,JHEP06(2011) 128 [1106.0522]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  59. [67]

    Hirschi, R

    V. Hirschi, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, M. V. Garzelli, F. Maltoni and R. Pittau, Automation of one-loop QCD corrections,JHEP05(2011) 044 [1103.0621]. [68]ATLAScollaboration,Search for the nonresonant production of Higgs boson pairs via gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion in theb ¯bτ +τ − final state in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13TeV with the ATLAS ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [69]

    A H and H.-S

    A. A H and H.-S. Shao,N 3LO+N3LL QCD improved Higgs pair cross sections,JHEP 02(2023) 067 [2209.03914]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [70]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8 [2203.11601]. [71]DELPHES 3collaboration,DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,JHEP02(2014) 057 [1307.6346]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [72]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual,Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896 [1111.6097]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012