Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The paper derives the phenomenological friction term used in hydrodynamic simulations of cosmological phase transitions from the linearized Boltzmann equation, fixing its coefficient from Standard Model microphysics.

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 15:27 UTC pith:BYSBHT6I

load-bearing objection A solid, useful kinetic-theory derivation of the scalar damping coefficient with reproducible code, but the abstract's 'marginally justified' claim rests on an unresolved choice between two contradictory validity criteria. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.16663 v2 pith:BYSBHT6I submitted 2025-12-18 hep-ph

Scalar damping in cosmological phase transitions

Andreas Ekstedt , Thomas Konstandin , Jorinde van de Vis This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords cosmological phase transitionsbubble wall velocityscalar dampingkinetic theoryBoltzmann equationrunaway wallgravitational wavesfriction
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.

The paper argues that the friction term that slows bubble walls in first-order cosmological phase transitions is not an ad hoc input but follows from the linearized kinetic equations for plasma particles coupled to the scalar field. For Standard Model-like particle content, the authors extract the damping coefficient from top quark and W boson contributions and find that the local approximation is only marginally justified. They also show that the pressure from a runaway bubble wall acts as an upper bound on the local friction within the regime of validity. If correct, this removes a free parameter from gravitational wave predictions and provides a quick consistency test for bubble wall velocity computations.

Core claim

The central claim is that the dissipative force on a bubble wall, conventionally parameterized as δ^ν = θ u^μ ∂_μ φ ∂^ν φ, emerges exactly in the local (large-collision, slowly varying) limit of the linearized Boltzmann equation. The coefficient η_φ is identified with Ω_{δ,X}/(φ^2 Φ) for each plasma species, where Ω_{δ,X} is the out-of-equilibrium part of the scalar force and Φ = u^λ ∂_λ φ. Solving the kinetic equations numerically for top quarks and weak gauge bosons in a Standard Model-like theory yields η_φ T ≈ 0.39–1.5 for fermions and ≈0.4 for bosons, depending on the treatment of soft modes. The authors further argue that next-to-leading order corrections to the runaway-wall pressure a

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the linearization of the Boltzmann equation around local equilibrium, expanded in small Knudsen number. The out-of-equilibrium distribution δf is sourced separately by shear, bulk compression, and scalar-field time variation; the scalar source S3 ∝ ∂_t φ, after projection onto the linearized collision operator, yields Ω_{δ,X} and hence η_φ via η_φ^X = Ω_{δ,X}/(φ^2 Φ). The runaway bound is obtained by evaluating the scalar force in the collisionless, highly Lorentz-boosted wall frame, where next-to-leading order corrections in mass and 1/γ_w are shown to be negative.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation and the runaway bound assume temperature and fluid velocity are nearly constant across the wall, so hydrodynamic backreaction is negligible; when those gradients are large, both the local friction form and the upper bound fail.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the bubble wall velocity in a transition where the local approximation is expected to break down (e.g., T L/γ_w < 20) while including full hydrodynamic backreaction; if the wall velocity differs significantly from the prediction using η_φ extracted here, the local ansatz or the runaway bound is violated. Alternatively, evaluate Ω_{δ,X} from the full Boltzmann equation for a tanh profile with a strong temperature gradient across the wall and check whether it still factorizes as η_φ φ^2 Φ.

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

If this is right

  • Hydrodynamic simulations can replace the ad hoc friction coefficient with a microphysically computed η_φ, removing a free parameter from gravitational-wave predictions.
  • The runaway-wall pressure serves as a quick upper bound: if a model's local friction exceeds it, the computation is inconsistent, and if the bound predicts runaway, subsonic walls require hydrodynamic backreaction to be invoked.
  • The local approximation is only marginally justified for Standard Model particle content, so precision wall-velocity computations should use the full kinetic solution for strong transitions.
  • Bosonic contributions converge poorly because of soft infrared modes; dressing modes with asymptotic masses improves convergence, indicating the need for a consistent treatment of soft bosons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same extraction procedure could be applied to models with extra scalars or gauge bosons coupled to the wall, potentially altering gravitational-wave spectra in ways not captured by current fitting formulas.
  • If the runaway bound is universal, it could serve as a cheap pre-filter in model scans, flagging transitions where the local ansatz must be abandoned before expensive simulations.
  • The paper's own criterion for local validity (T L/γ_w ≳ 20–50) can be converted into a practical dimensionless diagnostic for any phase transition model.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives the out-of-equilibrium scalar damping term δ^ν = θ u^μ ∂_μ φ ∂^ν φ, commonly used in hydrodynamic simulations of cosmological first-order phase transitions, from the linearized Boltzmann equation. Using the public WallGo code, the authors extract friction coefficients from top quarks and W bosons in a Standard Model-like theory, both with simplified leading-log collisions and with asymptotic masses and weak interactions included. They then examine the validity of the local approximation via a Q-scaling test and compare the integrated local friction with the Bodeker-Moore runaway pressure, including NLO corrections in mass and Lorentz factor. The paper concludes that for Standard Model-like content the local ansatz is '(marginally) justified' and that the local damping cannot exceed the runaway pressure within the regime of validity.

Significance. If correct, this paper provides a first-principles, microphysical derivation of a phenomenological friction term that is widely used but usually treated as an ad hoc input, with explicit numerical coefficients computed with a public, versioned code (WallGo v.1.1.1, WallGoMatrix/Collision v.1.1.0). The transport-coefficient formalism in Section 2 and Appendix A is clear, the treatment of soft bosonic modes is a useful step, and no parameter is fitted to reproduce the central claim. However, the headline conclusion is currently conditional: the two validity criteria used in the paper give different answers for the SM case, and the extracted coefficients show Q-dependence at the physical point. These issues are specific, fixable, and should be addressed before the quantitative claims are taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 and Appendix B] The abstract's central claim that the local friction ansatz is '(marginally) justified' for a Standard Model-like particle content rests on the factor-2 Q-scaling test in Section 4 (right panel of Fig. 2). Appendix B, by contrast, derives a stricter and physically motivated condition, T L/γ_w ≳ 50 for bosons and ≳ 20 for fermions, and explicitly states that this 'is violated in the Standard Model with a light Higgs'. The paper notes the two criteria differ (last paragraph of Appendix B) but does not establish which criterion is correct for the parameters used in Section 4 (m_H=34 GeV, v_w=0.1; the wall width L is also not quoted). If the Appendix B criterion is correct, the extracted coefficients in Eq. (4.7) and the 'marginally justified' conclusion are unsupported. Please reconcile the two criteria or soften the claim and quantify the sensitivity of η_φ to the chosen criterion.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4.5) and Fig. 2] The reported SM coefficients in Eq. (4.7) are obtained by multiplying all collision terms by Q=100 and using η = Q η̂_Q. The text states that at the physical value Q=1 the extracted left-handed top coefficient is η_tL T=0.39, while at Q=100 it is 0.48. This ~20% shift shows that the local limit is not exact at the physical collision rates. Since the paper aims to provide a microphysically fixed coefficient for simulations, the Q-dependence should be treated as a systematic uncertainty, or the extrapolation procedure should be justified. As written, the values in Eq. (4.7) are tied to a specific Q and are not demonstrated to be Q-independent.
  3. [§5.2, Eqs. (5.7)–(5.8)] The upper-bound comparison uses 'saturation limit' pressures I_W, I_tL, I_tR extracted at the values of Q at which the integrated friction deviates by a factor 2 from the local-limit expectation (vertical lines in Fig. 2). No derivation of this saturation limit is given; the statement that saturation occurs when the diffusion length is of order D∼L/γ_w is an assertion. This bound therefore inherits the same unresolved factor-2 criterion as the main claim. Please either derive the saturation limit from the Boltzmann equation or present the comparison as a numerical observation for the chosen parameters, and show how sensitive the bound is to the extraction point.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4.1)] The summation notation '∑_{k−1}^{N−1}' is typographically wrong; presumably it should be ∑_{k=1}^{N-1}.
  2. [§4, after Eq. (4.6)] The sentence 'Now, let us go beyond ... for which we study the convergence Now, let us' contains a formatting/run-on error and should be corrected.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (5.10)] The notation BM_b and BM_f is used in Fig. 4 but should be defined in the text before the equation.
  4. [§1 and §4] The relation between the phenomenological θ in Eq. (1.2) and the extracted η_φ in Eq. (4.4) is not stated explicitly; please connect the notations (e.g., θ = η_φ φ^2 or similar).
  5. [References] Reference [49] is incomplete; it should include the authors or editors of the volume.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the friction coefficient is computed from Boltzmann data and cross-checked by two methods; the runaway bound is an independent comparison. The discrepancy between Sec. 4 and Appendix B validity criteria is an internal-consistency concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation begins from the linearized Boltzmann equation (Sec. 3, Appendix A) and solves it numerically with WallGo, extracting the scalar damping via Eq. (4.5). This coefficient is defined by the ratio Omega_delta,X/(phi^2 Phi), but the claim that this local parameterization works is separately tested: Fig. 1 checks the shape in phi at large collision strength, and Fig. 2 checks whether the integrated friction follows the expected 1/Q scaling. These are non-trivial consistency checks, not fits designed to reproduce a target conclusion. The flow-Ansatz derivation in Appendix B provides an independent route to the same local coefficient, and the comparison of values is a cross-check. Self-citations to WallGo, WallGoMatrix, and WallGoCollision refer to public, versioned software and associated papers; they are computational tools rather than unverified load-bearing assertions. The runaway-pressure section computes NLO corrections to the Bodeker-Moore integral directly and compares it to the independently integrated local-friction pressure; no parameter is tuned to force the inequality. The paper itself flags the main limitation: in Sec. 5 it assumes temperature and fluid velocity remain approximately constant, and Appendix B explicitly notes that its stricter criterion T L/gamma_w is violated in the Standard Model with a light Higgs and that 'the non-local evaluation of the system might be required to obtain the proper result.' The last paragraph of Appendix B also acknowledges that the Sec. 4 criterion is less stringent. This unresolved discrepancy between validity criteria is a genuine correctness/robustness concern and should be addressed, but it is not a circularity: neither criterion is defined in terms of the paper's central conclusion, and the numerical values are not constructed from the claim they support. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no step reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All load-bearing inputs are modeling assumptions and truncations, not new entities or fitted constants. The Q-factor, asymptotic masses, and grid size are chosen by hand and affect the numerical eta values; the m-proportional-to-phi identification and the constancy of T/u are physical assumptions that bound the regime of validity. No new particle, force, or conserved quantity is introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Q collision-enhancement factor = 100
    All collision terms are multiplied by Q=100 to enforce the local limit; final eta_phi is rescaled as eta=Q eta_hat. The validity of the linear scaling is the basis of the extraction (Sec. 4).
  • Higgs mass m_H = 34 GeV
    Unphysically small Higgs mass chosen so the electroweak transition is first order; the paper treats the plasma as SM-like but not the actual SM (Sec. 4).
  • wall velocity v_w = 0.1
    Fixed wall velocity used in the WallGo runs; the scalar equation of motion is not solved, only the friction for a given profile (Sec. 4 footnote 3).
  • wall profile shape = tanh with width L and broken-phase value phi_b
    Integrals in eq. (4.9) and the bound comparison in Sec. 5.2 assume a hyperbolic tangent profile; the conclusions about the bound depend on this shape.
  • asymptotic masses in Boltzmann equation = factor 2 smaller (bosons) / 2 larger (fermions) than thermal masses
    The IR behavior and eta_W depend strongly on whether vacuum or asymptotic masses are used in the Boltzmann equation (Fig. 1 right), so the mass prescription is a hand-chosen input affecting the central number.
  • discretization (N=11, M=50) = N=11 (momentum basis), M=50 (spatial grid)
    Truncation parameters for the WallGo spectral solution; convergence tests show 20-50% changes in eta_W when N is increased, so results are truncation-dependent.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Particles are close to equilibrium: f approx f_eq + delta f, with only linear delta f kept, and collisions enforce locality (Knudsen number small).
    Stated in Sec. 3 and Appendix A; this is the basis for deriving the local friction form; it fails for weak interactions (Sec. 5).
  • domain assumption The out-of-equilibrium energy-momentum tensor is a first-order derivative expansion in the Landau-Lifshitz frame: T^mu nu_delta = eta sigma^mu nu + zeta h phi^2 Theta + (1/3) eta_phi h phi^2 Phi.
    Eq. (2.10); assumes gradients of u, T, phi are small and that the derivative expansion truncates at first order.
  • domain assumption All particle masses are proportional to phi, so phi Omega approx T^mu_mu (eq. 2.19).
    The paper states 'we will assume here that this approximately holds'; it is needed to pass from Omega to the phi^2 Phi structure in eq. (2.20).
  • domain assumption Temperature and fluid velocity are approximately constant across the wall; hydrodynamic backreaction is neglected.
    Stated at the start of Sec. 5; the runaway bound and the comparison to local friction fail when hydrodynamic obstruction is important (Ref. [45]).
  • standard math The collision operator has the energy zero-mode and sources are orthogonal to it (eq. A.23), so the linearized collision operator can be inverted.
    Standard kinetic theory (Chapman-Enskog); invoked in Appendix A to justify including bulk-flow and temperature terms in the sources.
  • domain assumption Only top quarks and W/Z bosons contribute significantly to friction; U(1) interactions are ignored and W/Z are treated as one species.
    Stated in Sec. 4; this is a truncation of the SM particle content for the numerical results.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18486 in / 17856 out tokens · 167469 ms · 2026-08-03T15:27:38.549856+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We outline how to calculate the scalar damping term during a cosmological phase transition from kinetic theory. We determine the scalar damping rate from top quarks and weak gauge bosons in a Standard Model-like theory. We find that the convergence of the bosonic contributions hinges on how the soft modes are treated. We discuss the validity of the phenomenological friction term employed in hydrodynamical simulations. We find that for a Standard Model particle content, this approximation is (marginally) justified. We also test the hypothesis that the pressure from a runaway wall acts as an upper bound on the pressure from the local friction term. We find that next-to-leading order contributions in terms of velocity and mass are negative and that in the regime of validity, the local damping term indeed cannot surpass the pressure from runaway bubbles.

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. Theoretical uncertainties in reconstructing model parameters with gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    In the conformal U(1)_X model, the daisy-resummed nucleation scheme shifts LISA-reconstructed gauge couplings by O(10%) relative to the NLO effective-field-theory result, an order of magnitude above the Fisher-matrix ...

  2. Thermal Masses and Bubble-Wall Friction in Cosmological Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Including thermal masses in both the Boltzmann source and collision terms removes the infrared gauge-boson enhancement, making W-boson friction subleading in the singlet-extended Standard Model.

  3. The art of simulating the early Universe. Part III: Scalar-Gauge-Fluid Dynamics

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0

    Detailed continuum-to-lattice schemes are given for perfect/imperfect fluids alone or coupled to scalars/gauges in FLRW, enabling self-consistent CosmoLattice simulations of early-Universe plasma dynamics and GWs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [6]

    Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,

    D. J. Reardonet al., “Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,”Astrophys. J. Lett.951(2023) L6, arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [7]

    Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,

    H. Xuet al., “Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,”Res. Astron. Astrophys.23(2023) 075024, arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [8]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., “Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,”arXiv e-prints(Feb., 2017) arXiv:1702.00786, arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [9]

    Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions,

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White, “Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions,” arXiv:2009.10080 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [10]

    Effective field theory approach to thermal bubble nucleation,

    O. Gould and J. Hirvonen, “Effective field theory approach to thermal bubble nucleation,” Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 096015, arXiv:2108.04377 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [11]

    Perturbative effective field theory expansions for cosmological phase transitions,

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen, “Perturbative effective field theory expansions for cosmological phase transitions,”JHEP01(2024) 048, arXiv:2309.01672 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [12]

    How fast can the wall move? A Study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics,

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec, “How fast can the wall move? A Study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics,”Phys. Rev. D52(1995) 7182–7204, arXiv:hep-ph/9506475

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  8. [13]

    A sonic boom in bubble wall friction,

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber, and T. Konstandin, “A sonic boom in bubble wall friction,”JCAP 04(2022) 010, arXiv:2112.12548 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [14]

    First principles determination of bubble wall velocity,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [15]

    Bubble wall velocities with an extended fluid Ansatz,

    G. C. Dorsch and D. A. Pinto, “Bubble wall velocities with an extended fluid Ansatz,”JCAP 04(2024) 027, arXiv:2312.02354 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [16]

    How fast does the WallGo? A package for computing wall velocities in first-order phase transitions,

    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(2025) 101, arXiv:2411.04970 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [17]

    Non-singular solutions to the Boltzmann equation with a fluid Ansatz,

    G. C. Dorsch, T. Konstandin, E. Perboni, and D. A. Pinto, “Non-singular solutions to the Boltzmann equation with a fluid Ansatz,”JCAP04(2025) 033, arXiv:2412.09266 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [18]

    Bubble wall velocity with out-of-equilibrium corrections,

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, S. De Curtis, and L. Delle Rose, “Bubble wall velocity with out-of-equilibrium corrections,” arXiv:2510.21942 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [19]

    Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition,

    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, arXiv:1304.2433 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [20]

    Numerical simulations of acoustically generated gravitational waves at a first order phase transition,

    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, arXiv:1504.03291 [astro-ph.CO]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [21]

    Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition,

    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, arXiv:1704.05871 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [22]

    Vorticity, kinetic energy, and suppressed gravitational wave production in strong first order phase transitions,

    D. Cutting, M. Hindmarsh, and D. J. Weir, “Vorticity, kinetic energy, and suppressed gravitational wave production in strong first order phase transitions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 021302, arXiv:1906.00480 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [23]

    A hybrid simulation of gravitational wave production in first-order phase transitions,

    R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, and H. Rubira, “A hybrid simulation of gravitational wave production in first-order phase transitions,”JCAP04(2021) 014, arXiv:2010.00971 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [24]

    Higgsless simulations of cosmological phase transitions and gravitational waves,

    R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, H. Rubira, and I. Stomberg, “Higgsless simulations of cosmological phase transitions and gravitational waves,”JCAP02(2023) 011, arXiv:2209.04369 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [25]

    Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions: from weak to strong,

    C. Caprini, R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, A. Roper Pol, H. Rubira, and I. Stomberg, “Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions: from weak to strong,”JHEP07(2025) 217, arXiv:2409.03651 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [26]

    Gravitational waves from strong first order phase transitions,

    J. Correia, M. Hindmarsh, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir, “Gravitational waves from strong first order phase transitions,” arXiv:2505.17824 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  22. [27]

    Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update,

    C. Capriniet al., “Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update,”JCAP03(2020) 024, arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [28]

    The growth of bubbles in cosmological phase transitions,

    J. Ignatius, K. Kajantie, H. Kurki-Suonio, and M. Laine, “The growth of bubbles in cosmological phase transitions,”Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 3854–3868, arXiv:astro-ph/9309059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  24. [29]

    Hydrodynamic obstruction to bubble expansion,

    T. Konstandin and J. M. No, “Hydrodynamic obstruction to bubble expansion,”JCAP02 (2011) 008, arXiv:1011.3735 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [30]

    Field-theoretic derivation of bubble-wall force,

    M. Barroso Mancha, T. Prokopec, and B. Swiezewska, “Field-theoretic derivation of bubble-wall force,”JHEP01(2021) 070, arXiv:2005.10875 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [31]

    Cosmological bubble friction in local equilibrium,

    S. Balaji, M. Spannowsky, and C. Tamarit, “Cosmological bubble friction in local equilibrium,” JCAP03(2021) 051, arXiv:2010.08013 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [32]

    Bubble wall velocities in local equilibrium,

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Garbrecht, and C. Tamarit, “Bubble wall velocities in local equilibrium,”JCAP 03(2022) 015, arXiv:2109.13710 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [33]

    An efficient approach to electroweak bubble velocities,

    S. J. Huber and M. Sopena, “An efficient approach to electroweak bubble velocities,” arXiv:1302.1044 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [34]

    Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction and their application to the standard model,

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction and their application to the standard model,”Nucl. Phys. B458(1996) 90–136, arXiv:hep-ph/9508379

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  30. [35]

    First-order relativistic hydrodynamics is stable,

    P. Kovtun, “First-order relativistic hydrodynamics is stable,”JHEP10(2019) 034, arXiv:1907.08191 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [36]

    Rezzolla and O

    L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti,Relativistic Hydrodynamics. Oxford University Press, 9, 2013

    2013

  32. [37]

    Bubble wall velocity in a first order electroweak phase transition,

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec, “Bubble wall velocity in a first order electroweak phase transition,”Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995) 777–780, arXiv:hep-ph/9503296

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  33. [38]

    From Boltzmann equations to steady wall velocities,

    T. Konstandin, G. Nardini, and I. Rues, “From Boltzmann equations to steady wall velocities,” JCAP09(2014) 028, arXiv:1407.3132 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [39]

    Bubble wall velocities in the Standard Model and beyond,

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber, and T. Konstandin, “Bubble wall velocities in the Standard Model and beyond,”JCAP12(2018) 034, arXiv:1809.04907 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [40]

    Transport coefficients in high temperature gauge theories. 1. Leading log results,

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, “Transport coefficients in high temperature gauge theories. 1. Leading log results,”JHEP11(2000) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/0010177

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  36. [41]

    Transport coefficients in high temperature gauge theories. 2. Beyond leading log,

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, “Transport coefficients in high temperature gauge theories. 2. Beyond leading log,”JHEP05(2003) 051, arXiv:hep-ph/0302165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [42]

    The Bulk Viscosity of High-Temperature QCD,

    P. B. Arnold, C. Dogan, and G. D. Moore, “The Bulk Viscosity of High-Temperature QCD,” Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 085021, arXiv:hep-ph/0608012. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  38. [43]

    WallGo investigates: Theoretical uncertainties in the bubble wall velocity,

    J. van de Vis, P. Schicho, L. Niemi, B. Laurent, J. Hirvonen, and O. Gould, “WallGo investigates: Theoretical uncertainties in the bubble wall velocity,” arXiv:2510.27691 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [44]

    Can electroweak bubble walls run away?,

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore, “Can electroweak bubble walls run away?,”JCAP05(2009) 009, arXiv:0903.4099 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [45]

    Criterion for ultra-fast bubble walls: the impact of hydrodynamic obstruction,

    W.-Y. Ai, X. Nagels, and M. Vanvlasselaer, “Criterion for ultra-fast bubble walls: the impact of hydrodynamic obstruction,”JCAP03(2024) 037, arXiv:2401.05911 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [46]

    Electroweak Bubble Wall Speed Limit,

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore, “Electroweak Bubble Wall Speed Limit,”JCAP05(2017) 025, arXiv:1703.08215 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [47]

    On the effective dynamics of soft nonAbelian gauge fields at finite temperature,

    D. Bodeker, “On the effective dynamics of soft nonAbelian gauge fields at finite temperature,” Phys. Lett. B426(1998) 351–360, arXiv:hep-ph/9801430

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  43. [48]

    Electroweak bubble wall friction: Analytic results,

    G. D. Moore, “Electroweak bubble wall friction: Analytic results,”JHEP03(2000) 006, arXiv:hep-ph/0001274

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  44. [49]

    Notation,

    “Notation,” inPhysical Kinetics, E. LIFSHITZ and L. PITAEVSKI, eds., p. xi. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1981. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080570495500059. – 24 –

    1981