Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The confinement phase transition of pure SU(N) Yang-Mills theory produces a gravitational-wave background that is undetectable at planned and future observatories for every N, with the peak signal at N≈20 and a steep N^(-14/3) falloff at la

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 16:00 UTC pith:NF2HXME7

load-bearing objection The paper's large-N GW predictions rest on an admitted SU(6) rescaling; the central weak-signal result is plausible, but the N=20 peak and N^{-14/3} scaling should be read as lower bounds rather than robust numbers. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.14530 v2 pith:NF2HXME7 submitted 2025-12-16 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-lathep-th

Gravitational Waves from Confinement in SU(N) Yang-Mills Theory

Stephan Huber , Rory Phipps , Manuel Reichert This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-lathep-th
keywords gravitational wavesSU(N) Yang-Millsconfinement phase transitionPolyakov looplarge-N scalinglattice gauge theorybubble nucleationdark QCD
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 how loud the confinement phase transition of a pure SU(N) dark Yang-Mills sector would be in gravitational waves, and whether future detectors could hear it. The authors build an effective Polyakov loop model fitted to the best lattice data, including a recently determined large-N scaling of the interface tension, and use a new framework for the bubble wall velocity in strongly coupled transitions. They find that the gravitational-wave peak amplitude is maximized at N≈20 but remains tiny — around 10^(-18) in h²Ω at best, and 10^(-24) for N=3 — and decays as N^(-14/3) at large N. The conclusion for a sympathetic reader: the SU(N) confinement transition is simply too fast and too weak to produce an observable stochastic background, so realistic QCD-like dark sectors will need fermions or other structure to be detectable.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the gravitational-wave spectrum of the SU(N) confinement transition is controlled by a single quantity, the inverse duration β̃ of the phase transition, which the model predicts grows as N^2.12 at large N. Because the peak amplitude scales as β̃^(-2) g*^(-1/3) and g* — the number of relativistic degrees of freedom in the dark sector — grows as N², the peak amplitude falls as h²Ω_peak ∝ N^(-14/3). The maximum sits at N ≈ 20, where h²Ω_peak ≈ 10^(-18), roughly a million times stronger than the N=3 case (≈10^(-24)) but still below the reach of LISA, DECIGO, BBO, the Einstein Telescope, and Cosmic Explorer. The authors attribute the weakness to the strong coupli

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective Polyakov loop model (PLM): a Z_N-symmetric potential V_eff(ℓ,T) for the traced thermal Wilson line, fit to lattice data on pressure, trace anomaly, and latent heat. The load-bearing modification is a non-canonical kinetic term Zℓ = δN² in the Euclidean action S₃; since the interface tension computed from this action, σ = T_c³ ∫ dℓ √(2 Zℓ V_eff), is matched to the lattice value, the factor δN² forces the action to scale as N² exactly as the lattice interface tension does. The other novel ingredient is the bubble wall velocity, obtained from a large-enthalpy-jump hydrodynamic framework whose large-N limit fixes the plasma ahead of the wall at the critical te

Load-bearing premise

For N>6, the paper rescales the SU(6) effective potential and assumes the minimum temperature of the deconfined phase, τ_min, stays constant at its SU(6) value; the N=20 peak amplitude and the N^(-14/3) decay law both rest on this untested large-N extrapolation.

What would settle it

Run the same analysis with lattice data for N=10 or N=12 — or, more directly, compute τ_min(N>6) on the lattice. If the minimum temperature settles lower than the SU(6) value, the predicted supercooling, β̃, and the peak amplitude all change, and the signal could be louder than claimed.

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

If this is right

  • For small N (up to 6), the effective Polyakov loop model and the thin-wall approximation agree, so the computed nucleation temperature, inverse duration, and spectrum are robust in that regime.
  • The thin-wall approximation breaks down at large N because the deconfined phase loses metastability below a minimum temperature T_min; for N≳170 the approximation fails to predict nucleation at all.
  • The gravitational-wave background from an SU(N) confinement transition is undetectable at LISA, BBO, DECIGO, the Einstein Telescope, and Cosmic Explorer for all N and reasonable critical temperatures, even assuming SNR>1 counts as detection.
  • At large N the peak amplitude decays as h²Ω_peak ∝ N^(-14/3), a scaling that follows from the inverse duration β̃ ∝ N^2.12 and the g* ∝ N² counting of degrees of freedom.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the deconfined-phase minimum temperature τ_min falls below its SU(6) value at N>8 (as the paper concedes is possible), the stronger supercooling would lower β̃ and push the peak amplitude and N^(-14/3) tail upward, meaning the quoted spectra are best read as lower bounds.
  • The same parameter-free pipeline — effective potential fitted to lattice thermodynamics, kinetic term fixed by the interface tension, wall velocity from the large-enthalpy jump — could be applied to sectors with fermions in higher representations, where the first-order transition can have a substantially larger enthalpy jump and hence a louder, potentially detectable signal; the paper identifies t
  • The assumed conformal sound speed in the confined phase (cs− = 1/√3) excludes hybrid deflagration solutions; a full hydrodynamical treatment with a lower confined sound speed would change ξw and the efficiency factor, and the paper notes its κsw estimate is conservative, so the true amplitude may be somewhat larger at large N.

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. This paper computes the stochastic gravitational-wave (GW) background produced by the confinement/deconfinement transition of SU(N) pure Yang-Mills theory. The authors use an effective Polyakov loop model (PLM) fitted to lattice data, with two main improvements over earlier work: the latent heat is added as a fitting constraint, and the kinetic term is generalized to Z_ℓ = δ N² so that Eq. (23) reproduces the N² scaling of the interface tension measured on the lattice. Bubble nucleation is studied with this PLM, and the bubble wall velocity is estimated using the large-enthalpy-jump framework of Ref. [52]. The paper reports four main results: (i) the thin-wall approximation agrees with the PLM for small N but breaks down at large N; (ii) the peak GW amplitude is maximized at N ≈ 20; (iii) the signal is undetectable at planned and future observatories for all N; and (iv) at large N the peak amplitude decays as h²Ω_peak ∝ N^{-14/3}. The authors explicitly state that the large-N results rely on rescaling the SU(6) potential and on the assumption τ_min(N ≥ 6) = τ_min(SU(6)).

Significance. The paper is timely and useful: it is the first PLM-based analysis to incorporate the recent lattice result σ ∝ N², and Eq. (23) gives a simple bridge between a static lattice quantity and the kinetic prefactor of the effective action. The systematic comparison with the thin-wall approximation, the use of a non-perturbative wall-velocity estimate, and the propagation of lattice uncertainties into GW parameters are clear strengths. If the large-N extrapolation is correct, the paper provides a robust, falsifiable negative prediction for SU(N) dark sectors. The main caveat is that the headline quantitative claims — the N≈20 peak, the N^{-14/3} decay, and the undetectability of the signal at large N — are obtained without direct lattice input for N > 8 and rest on the assumed saturation of τ_min. The paper itself acknowledges this limitation, but it is not reflected in the abstract or the central conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [III B/C, Eq. (23), Table 2, Fig. 3] The 'exact agreement' between the PLM and lattice interface tension/latent heat is imposed by construction. δ(N) is tuned for each N so that Eq. (23) reproduces the lattice input, and the latent heat is used as a fitting constraint in the potential fit. Therefore Fig. 3 cannot be cited as evidence that the PLM predicts these quantities; the agreement is built in. Likewise, the small-N thin-wall agreement in Sec. IV A partly reflects the fact that both approaches use the same latent heat and interface tension inputs. The paper should explicitly distinguish tuned quantities from predictions and soften the validation language.
  2. [IV F, Eq. (24), V C] The large-N results — including the N≈20 maximum of h²Ω_peak and the N^{-14/3} decay — are obtained by rescaling the SU(6) effective potential and assuming τ_min(N ≥ 6) = τ_min^{SU(6)} ≈ 0.972. No lattice data exist for N > 8, and the authors themselves note in Sec. V C that a lower τ_min would increase supercooling and the GW signal, making the quoted large-N amplitudes a lower bound. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it is a load-bearing external-validity gap. A quantitative sensitivity study (for example, varying τ_min by a few percent and showing the shift in the N≈20 peak and in the large-N prefactor) would substantially strengthen the paper; at minimum, the headline claims should be presented as conditional on the saturation assumption.
  3. [IV C, V C] The bubble wall velocity is computed using the large-enthalpy-jump conditions T₊ = T_c and v₊ = 0, which strictly apply only in the large-N limit. For N = 3, 4, 5 the jump in degrees of freedom is modest, so the framework is an uncontrolled approximation in exactly the regime where the wall velocity enters the GW amplitude most sensitively through ξ_w and κ_sw. The authors acknowledge this in Sec. V C, but the quoted error bars do not include this systematic effect. I would like to see either an estimate of the resulting uncertainty in h²Ω_peak at small N or a clear disclaimer that the small-N amplitude has an additional unquantified error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III A, IV] The symbol τ is used both for Euclidean time in Sec. III A and for T/T_c in Sec. IV. This is confusing; consider renaming one of them.
  2. [III B] The statement that the N=8 potential rescaled from N=6 'accurately matches' lattice data would be more convincing with a quantitative comparison (e.g., the χ² of the rescaled potential against the N=8 data). Currently it is only asserted.
  3. [Table 3] The asymmetric error bars on τ_min and τ_n are not explained in detail. Please specify how the four upper/lower fits described in Sec. III B translate into these ranges.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'the latest lattice data' are used as input, but it does not mention the central large-N assumption. One sentence noting that N>6 results assume τ_min saturates at the SU(6) value would be appropriate, since this is disclosed only in Sec. V C.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

PLM is calibrated to reproduce lattice σ and L exactly, so the small-N thin-wall/PLM agreement and the quoted 'excellent agreement' with lattice quantities are partly consistency checks; the main GW predictions retain independent content.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III B, Eqs. (23)-(24), Table 2; Sec. III C]
    "To ensure the PLM reproduces the exact values of the latent heat from the large-N fit for all N > 6, one must scale the effective potential in the following way: V^{N>6}_eff = [(0.360 N^2 -1.88)/(0.360·6^2 -1.88)] · V^{N=6}_eff. (24) ... To recover the desired scaling, we set Z_ℓ = δN², where δ is some coefficient to be tuned such that the interface tension from (23) agrees exactly with the results from the lattice, and is taken to be temperature-independent."

    The PLM's latent heat is force-scaled by Eq. (24) and δ is tuned so that Eq. (23) reproduces the lattice interface tension exactly. Hence the statement in Sec. III C that the 'excellent agreement' of the PLM with the lattice 'demonstrates the model’s ability to compute the thermodynamics' is a check of fitting constraints, not an independent prediction. The same enforced σ and L feed the thin-wall comparison, so part of that agreement is also predetermined.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV B, Fig. 6; cf. Sec. III B]
    "For small values of N(≤6) , the two approaches are in good agreement, as is demonstrated in the right-hand panel; this can be attributed both to the matching procedure described in Sec.III B and to the relatively small degree of supercooling."

    Because S3/T near Tc is controlled by σ and L (Eq. 5), and the PLM has been forced to reproduce those exact lattice values via Eqs. (23)-(24), the small-N coincidence of τn and β̃ between thin-wall and PLM is partly a tautology: both paths use the same inputs. The large-N disagreement is not circular, since it comes from the model's barrier disappearance at τmin, so this step is only a partial construction-forced agreement.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular: the effective potential is fitted to lattice pressure, trace anomaly, and latent heat, the kinetic prefactor is fixed by the lattice interface tension, and then τmin, S3/T, τn, β̃, ξw, α, κ, and the GW spectrum are computed rather than fitted. The N=20 peak and the h²Ω_peak ∝ N^{-14/3} decay follow from the calibrated model plus standard GW simulation fits; they are not equal to the lattice inputs. The large-N extrapolation rests on the unvalidated assumption τ_min(N≥6)=τ_min^{N=6}; the authors explicitly flag this and note that a lower τmin would increase the signal, so this is an external-validity/assumption risk rather than circularity. There is no load-bearing self-citation: [38] supplies the base effective-potential framework, but the current paper's new content is the σ-matched kinetic term, updated fits, wall-velocity treatment, and GW analysis, with lattice data as external input. The score of 4 reflects the construction-forced validation of σ and L and the partly predetermined small-N thin-wall agreement; it is not higher because the headline GW predictions retain independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fitted effective potential, a per-N tuned kinetic coefficient, an ad hoc SU(6)-based large-N rescaling, and a borrowed wall-velocity framework. No new particles or forces are invented; the model parameters are the ledger of what the reader pays for upstream.

free parameters (3)
  • b_i / a_i coefficients of the effective potential = Table 1, e.g. N=3: a0=6.24, a1=-5.78, a2=8.67, a3=-7.99, a4=-1.93, b3=-2.26, b4=3.26; values for N=4,5,6 also in Table 1
    Obtained from χ² fitting to lattice pressure, trace anomaly [13], and latent heat [71,14]; these coefficients define the potential controlling the whole bubble-nucleation calculation.
  • δ(N) kinetic prefactor = 0.14 (N=3), 0.17 (N=4), 0.20 (N=5), 0.14 (N=6), 0.19 (N=8), 0.24 (N→∞)
    Tuned so that Eq. (23) exactly reproduces the lattice interface tension for each N (Tab. 2); this directly sets the bubble-wall action and hence nucleation temperatures and GW amplitudes.
  • Large-N rescaling based on SU(6) potential = V_eff^{N>6} = [(0.360N²−1.88)/(0.360·36−1.88)] · V_eff^{N=6}
    Chosen ad hoc to match the large-N latent-heat fit; assumes SU(6) is already in the large-N regime and that τ_min is constant for N≥6. Used for all N>6 results including N=20 and the large-N power law.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Polyakov-loop effective potential of the form (17) with Z_N symmetry, truncated at imax=8, captures the confinement phase transition
    Used throughout Sec. III; truncation and dropped terms vary by N (Table 1) and are not derived from the YM action.
  • domain assumption Semiclassical bubble nucleation with Euclidean action Eq. (19)-(20) and nucleation rate Eq. (31) applies to this strongly coupled transition
    Standard formalism used to compute T_n and β; no non-perturbative derivation is provided for SU(N) at the relevant temperatures.
  • ad hoc to paper Kinetic term has the form Z_ℓ = δN², independent of field and temperature
    Introduced solely to reproduce the lattice interface tension σ∝N² (Sec. III B); the paper states it is 'justified' by matching but offers no first-principles derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Rescaling the SU(6) potential gives the correct large-N potential; τ_min(N≥6)=τ_min^{SU(6)}
    Needed for all N>6 predictions; authors acknowledge the lack of lattice data for N>8 and explicitly state a lower τ_min would increase the GW signal (Sec. IV F, V C).
  • domain assumption Bubble wall velocity is determined by the large-enthalpy-jump conditions T_+=T_c, v_+=0 from [52], plus the deflagration-only assumption c_s−=1/√3
    The framework of [52] strictly requires Δn_dof∝N²≫1, which is not well satisfied at small N; the confined-phase sound speed is assumed, not computed from the PLM (Sec. IV C).
  • domain assumption The transition occurs in a radiation-dominated universe with T_p≈T_n
    Hubble rate Eq. (32) and the identification T_p≈T_n are standard cosmological inputs (Sec. IV A).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30738 in / 12215 out tokens · 128276 ms · 2026-08-03T16:00:18.209388+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We provide a detailed analysis of the gravitational wave spectrum of $SU(N)$ pure Yang-Mills theory. The confinement phase transition is described with an effective Polyakov loop model, using the latest lattice data as an input. In particular, recent lattice studies clarified the large-$N$ scaling of the surface tension, which we incorporate through a modification of the kinetic term. We demonstrate that the thin-wall approximation agrees with the Polyakov loop model at small $N$ while it breaks down at large $N$. Furthermore, we include reliable estimates of the bubble wall velocity using a recently developed framework based on a large enthalpy jump at the phase transition. Altogether, this allows us to derive the gravitational wave signals for all $SU(N)$ confinement phase transitions and clarifies the behaviour at large $N$. The strongest signal arises for $N=20$, but overall the predicted signals remain rather weak. Our work paves the way for future studies of other gauge groups and systems with fermions.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Domain Walls From Confining Bubbles: $SU(N_{c})$ Yang Mills at Finite $\theta$

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A nonzero theta angle weakens supercooling in SU(Nc) Yang-Mills confinement and makes any resulting domain-wall gravitational-wave signal invisible except under severe fine-tuning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 93 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hietanen, R

    A. Hietanen, R. Lewis, C. Pica and F. Sannino, Composite Goldstone Dark Matter: Experimental Predictions from the Lattice,JHEP12(2014) 130 [1308.4130]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Bai and P

    Y. Bai and P. Schwaller,Scale of dark QCD,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 063522 [1306.4676]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker, Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 171301 [1402.5143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    G. D. Kribs and E. T. Neil,Review of strongly-coupled composite dark matter models and lattice simulations, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31(2016) 1643004 [1604.04627]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Carenza, R

    P. Carenza, R. Pasechnik, G. Salinas and Z.-W. Wang, Glueball Dark Matter Revisited,Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 261302 [2207.13716]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Carenza, T

    P. Carenza, T. Ferreira, R. Pasechnik and Z.-W. Wang, Glueball dark matter,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 123027 [2306.09510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Bennett, J

    E. Bennett, J. Holligan, D. K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C. J. D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Color dependence of tensor and scalar glueball masses in Yang-Mills theories,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 011501 [2004.11063]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Bruno, N

    M. Bruno, N. Forzano, M. Panero and A. Smecca, Thermal evolution of dark matter in the early universe from a symplectic glueball model,2410.17122

    arXiv

  9. [9]

    J. B. Kogut, H. Matsuoka, M. Stone, H. W. Wyld, S. H. Shenker, J. Shigemitsu et al.,Quark and Gluon Latent Heats at the Deconfinement Phase Transition in SU(3) Gauge Theory,Phys. Rev. Lett.51(1983) 869

    1983

  10. [10]

    Svetitsky and F

    B. Svetitsky and F. Fucito,Latent Heat of the SU(3) Gauge Theory,Phys. Lett. B131(1983) 165

    1983

  11. [11]

    de Forcrand, B

    P. de Forcrand, B. Lucini and M. Vettorazzo, Measuring interface tensions in 4d SU(N) lattice gauge theories,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.140(2005) 647 [hep-lat/0409148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Lucini, M

    B. Lucini, M. Teper and U. Wenger,Properties of the deconfining phase transition in SU(N) gauge theories, JHEP02(2005) 033 [hep-lat/0502003]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  13. [13]

    Panero,Thermodynamics of the QCD plasma and the large-N limit,Phys

    M. Panero,Thermodynamics of the QCD plasma and the large-N limit,Phys. Rev. Lett.103(2009) 232001 [0907.3719]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Rindlisbacher, K

    T. Rindlisbacher, K. Rummukainen and A. Salami, Confined-deconfined interface tension and latent heat in SU(N) gauge theory,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 114507 [2506.15509]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Bennett, B

    E. Bennett, B. Lucini, D. Mason, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,Density of states method for symplectic gauge theories at finite temperature,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 114511 [2409.19426]. [16]TELOScollaboration,Finite-temperature Yang-Mills theories with the density of states method: towards the continuum limit,2509.19009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [17]

    Braun, H

    J. Braun, H. Gies and J. M. Pawlowski,Quark Confinement from Color Confinement,Phys. Lett. B 684(2010) 262 [0708.2413]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [18]

    Braun, A

    J. Braun, A. Eichhorn, H. Gies and J. M. Pawlowski, On the Nature of the Phase Transition in SU(N), Sp(2) and E(7) Yang-Mills theory,Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 689 [1007.2619]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [19]

    T. K. Herbst, J. M. Pawlowski and B.-J. Schaefer,The phase structure of the Polyakov–quark–meson model beyond mean field,Phys. Lett. B696(2011) 58 [1008.0081]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [20]

    Reinhardt and J

    H. Reinhardt and J. Heffner,The effective potential of the confinement order parameter in the Hamilton approach,Phys. Lett. B718(2012) 672 [1210.1742]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [21]

    L. M. Haas, R. Stiele, J. Braun, J. M. Pawlowski and J. Schaffner-Bielich,Improved Polyakov-loop potential for effective models from functional calculations,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 076004 [1302.1993]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [22]

    Fister and J

    L. Fister and J. M. Pawlowski,Confinement from Correlation Functions,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 045010 [1301.4163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [23]

    Creminelli, A

    P. Creminelli, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi,Holography and the electroweak phase transition,JHEP03(2002) 051 [hep-th/0107141]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  23. [24]

    Nardini, M

    G. Nardini, M. Quiros and A. Wulzer,A Confining Strong First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition,JHEP 09(2007) 077 [0706.3388]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [25]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, L. Mazzanti and F. Nitti, Holography and Thermodynamics of 5D Dilaton-gravity, JHEP05(2009) 033 [0812.0792]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  25. [26]

    to obtain the bubble wall speed as a function of the nucleation temperature. Importantly, this holographic model exhibits similar behaviour to the PLM regarding the limit on supercooling, and one would therefore expect similar predictions for the sound speed and bubble wall speed in this work. Both models make thermodynamic predictions only of the high-en...

  26. [27]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, L. Mazzanti and F. Nitti, Improved Holographic Yang-Mills at Finite Temperature: Comparison with Data,Nucl. Phys. B820(2009) 148 20 [0903.2859]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [28]

    von Harling and G

    B. von Harling and G. Servant,QCD-induced Electroweak Phase Transition,JHEP01(2018) 159 [1711.11554]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [29]

    Baratella, A

    P. Baratella, A. Pomarol and F. Rompineve,The Supercooled Universe,JHEP03(2019) 100 [1812.06996]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [30]

    B. M. Dillon, B. K. El-Menoufi, S. J. Huber and J. P. Manuel,Rapid holographic phase transition with brane-localized curvature,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 086005 [1708.02953]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [31]

    Bigazzi, A

    F. Bigazzi, A. Caddeo, A. L. Cotrone and A. Paredes, Fate of false vacua in holographic first-order phase transitions,JHEP12(2020) 200 [2008.02579]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [32]

    Agashe, P

    K. Agashe, P. Du, M. Ekhterachian, S. Kumar and R. Sundrum,Cosmological Phase Transition of Spontaneous Confinement,JHEP05(2020) 086 [1910.06238]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [33]

    F. R. Ares, O. Henriksson, M. Hindmarsh, C. Hoyos and N. Jokela,Effective actions and bubble nucleation from holography,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 066020 [2109.13784]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [34]

    Bigazzi, A

    F. Bigazzi, A. Caddeo, A. L. Cotrone and A. Paredes, Dark Holograms and Gravitational Waves,JHEP04 (2021) 094 [2011.08757]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [35]

    F. R. Ares, M. Hindmarsh, C. Hoyos and N. Jokela, Gravitational waves from a holographic phase transition, JHEP21(2020) 100 [2011.12878]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [36]

    F. R. Ares, O. Henriksson, M. Hindmarsh, C. Hoyos and N. Jokela,Gravitational Waves at Strong Coupling from an Effective Action,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 131101 [2110.14442]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [37]

    Morgante, N

    E. Morgante, N. Ramberg and P. Schwaller, Gravitational waves from dark SU(3) Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 036010 [2210.11821]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [38]

    A. J. Helmboldt, J. Kubo and S. van der Woude, Observational prospects for gravitational waves from hidden or dark chiral phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 055025 [1904.07891]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [39]

    Huang, M

    W.-C. Huang, M. Reichert, F. Sannino and Z.-W. Wang,Testing the dark SU(N) Yang-Mills theory confined landscape: From the lattice to gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 035005 [2012.11614]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [40]

    Halverson, C

    J. Halverson, C. Long, A. Maiti, B. Nelson and G. Salinas,Gravitational waves from dark Yang-Mills sectors,JHEP05(2021) 154 [2012.04071]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [41]

    Z. Kang, J. Zhu and S. Matsuzaki,Dark confinement-deconfinement phase transition: a roadmap from Polyakov loop models to gravitational waves, JHEP09(2021) 060 [2101.03795]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [42]

    Reichert, F

    M. Reichert, F. Sannino, Z.-W. Wang and C. Zhang, Dark confinement and chiral phase transitions: gravitational waves vs matter representations,JHEP01 (2022) 003 [2109.11552]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [43]

    Pasechnik, M

    R. Pasechnik, M. Reichert, F. Sannino and Z.-W. Wang, Gravitational waves from composite dark sectors,JHEP 02(2024) 159 [2309.16755]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [44]

    Houtz, M

    R. Houtz, M. Ulloa and M. West,Gravitational Waves from Confining Dark Sectors with Self-Consistent Effective Potentials,2511.23467

    arXiv

  44. [45]

    R. D. Pisarski,Quark gluon plasma as a condensate of SU(3) Wilson lines,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 111501 [hep-ph/0006205]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  45. [46]

    R. D. Pisarski,Effective Theory of Wilson Lines and Deconfinement,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 121703 [hep-ph/0608242]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  46. [47]

    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

  47. [48]

    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

  48. [49]

    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. D96(2017) 103520 [1704.05871]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [50]

    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

  50. [51]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [52]

    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

  52. [53]

    Sanchez-Garitaonandia and J

    M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia and J. van de Vis,Prediction of the bubble wall velocity for a large jump in degrees of freedom,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 023509 [ 2312.09964]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [54]

    S. R. Coleman,The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 2929

    1977

  54. [55]

    A. D. Linde,Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,Nucl. Phys. B216(1983) 421

    1983

  55. [56]

    G. M. Fuller, G. J. Mathews and C. R. Alcock,The Quark - Hadron Phase Transition in the Early Universe: Isothermal Baryon Number Fluctuations and Primordial Nucleosynthesis,Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 1380

    1988

  56. [57]

    Agrawal, G

    P. Agrawal, G. R. Kane, V. Loladze and M. Reig, Supercooled confinement,JHEP10(2025) 066 [2504.00199]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    Agrawal, G

    P. Agrawal, G. R. Kane, V. Loladze and J. March-Russell,A Prediction for Maximum Supercooling in SU(N) Confinement Transition, 2508.10091

    arXiv

  58. [59]

    ’t Hooft,On the Phase Transition Towards Permanent Quark Confinement,Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft,On the Phase Transition Towards Permanent Quark Confinement,Nucl. Phys. B138 (1978) 1

    1978

  59. [60]

    ’t Hooft,A Property of Electric and Magnetic Flux in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft,A Property of Electric and Magnetic Flux in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,Nucl. Phys. B153 (1979) 141

    1979

  60. [61]

    Svetitsky and L

    B. Svetitsky and L. G. Yaffe,Critical Behavior at Finite Temperature Confinement Transitions,Nucl. Phys. B210(1982) 423

    1982

  61. [62]

    Ratti, M

    C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler and W. Weise,Phases of QCD: Lattice thermodynamics and a field theoretical model, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 014019 [hep-ph/0506234]. [62]WHOT-QCDcollaboration,Phase structure of finite temperature QCD in the heavy quark region,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 054502 [1106.0974]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  62. [63]

    Aarts et al.,Phase Transitions in Particle Physics: Results and Perspectives from Lattice Quantum Chromo-Dynamics,Prog

    G. Aarts et al.,Phase Transitions in Particle Physics: Results and Perspectives from Lattice Quantum Chromo-Dynamics,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.133(2023) 104070 [2301.04382]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [64]

    Sannino,Higher representations: Confinement and large N,Phys

    F. Sannino,Higher representations: Confinement and large N,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 125006 [hep-th/0507251]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [65]

    Polonyi and K

    J. Polonyi and K. Szlachanyi,Phase Transition from Strong Coupling Expansion,Phys. Lett. B110(1982) 395

    1982

  65. [66]

    Gross and J

    M. Gross and J. F. Wheater,On The Order of the SU(N) Deconfinement Phase Transition,Nucl. Phys. B 240(1984) 253

    1984

  66. [67]

    Ogilvie,An Effective Spin Model for Finite Temperature QCD,Phys

    M. Ogilvie,An Effective Spin Model for Finite Temperature QCD,Phys. Rev. Lett.52(1984) 1369

    1984

  67. [68]

    Matsuoka,Deconfinement Transition and the Z(N) Clock Model,Phys

    H. Matsuoka,Deconfinement Transition and the Z(N) Clock Model,Phys. Lett. B140(1984) 233

    1984

  68. [69]

    Green and F

    F. Green and F. Karsch,The SU(4) Deconfining Transition at Strong Coupling: A Monte Carlo Study, Phys. Rev. D29(1984) 2986

    1984

  69. [70]

    Fukushima and V

    K. Fukushima and V. Skokov,Polyakov loop modeling for hot QCD,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.96(2017) 154 [1705.00718]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [71]

    Giusti, M

    L. Giusti, M. Hirasawa, M. Pepe and L. Virz ` ı,A precise study of the thermodynamic properties of the SU(3) Yang-Mills theory across the deconfinement transition, Phys. Lett. B868(2025) 139775 [2501.10284]

    arXiv 2025

  71. [72]

    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

  72. [73]

    Kosowsky, M

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

    1992

  73. [74]

    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

  74. [75]

    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

  75. [76]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant,Gravitational wave generation from bubble collisions in first-order phase transitions: An analytic approach,Phys. Rev. D 77(2008) 124015 [0711.2593]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  76. [77]

    S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin,Gravitational Wave Production by Collisions: More Bubbles,JCAP09 (2008) 022 [0806.1828]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  77. [78]

    D. J. Weir,Revisiting the envelope approximation: gravitational waves from bubble collisions,Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) 124037 [1604.08429]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  78. [79]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto,Gravitational waves from bubble collisions: An analytic derivation,Phys. Rev. D 95(2017) 024009 [1605.01403]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  79. [80]

    Hindmarsh,Sound shell model for acoustic gravitational wave production at a first-order phase transition in the early Universe,Phys

    M. Hindmarsh,Sound shell model for acoustic gravitational wave production at a first-order phase transition in the early Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (2018) 071301 [1608.04735]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [81]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and J. M. No,Gravitational waves from first-order cosmological phase transitions: lifetime of the sound wave source,JCAP07(2020) 050 [2003.07360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.