pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31194 · v1 · pith:RRHCW72Hnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · ✦ hep-lat · hep-ph

Seeded bubble nucleation on the lattice

Simone Blasi , Andreas Ekstedt , Jaakko H\"allfors , Kari Rummukainen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 19:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat hep-ph
keywords bubble nucleationdomain wallslattice simulationsfirst-order phase transitioncubic anisotropy modeleffective field theorytopological defectsnon-perturbative methods
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lattice simulations give the first non-perturbative rate for bubble nucleation seeded by domain walls and match semi-classical predictions.

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

The paper establishes the first non-perturbative lattice computation of the bubble nucleation rate when topological defects seed the transition. It studies the cubic anisotropy model in 2+1 dimensions as a stand-in for a Higgs-plus-singlet electroweak setup, where line-like domain walls trigger bubble formation. The lattice rates are compared to a semi-classical calculation from the effective theory living on the walls, now including the fluctuation determinant for configurations that depart from spherical symmetry. The two methods agree well over the full parameter range examined.

Core claim

We provide the first non-perturbative lattice determination of the bubble nucleation rate as seeded by topological defects during a first order phase transition. Our case of study is the cubic anisotropy model, which can mimic the Higgs-plus-singlet setup for the electroweak theory, in d=2+1 spacetime dimensions, where bubbles are seeded by (line-like) domain walls. We compare the nucleation rate from the lattice with the semi-classical prediction based on the effective field theory living on the domain walls, including for the first time the fluctuation determinant away from spherical symmetry. Our results show very good agreement across all the considered parameter space.

What carries the argument

Lattice Monte Carlo simulation of the cubic anisotropy model, compared against the semi-classical effective field theory on domain walls that now includes the fluctuation determinant for non-spherical configurations.

If this is right

  • The semi-classical effective theory on domain walls yields reliable nucleation rates once the full fluctuation determinant is included.
  • Lattice methods can now compute seeded nucleation rates non-perturbatively in models with topological defects.
  • The same comparison framework can be applied to other first-order transitions that involve defect seeding.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the agreement survives in 3+1 dimensions, the method supplies a controlled way to compute nucleation rates that enter gravitational-wave forecasts from cosmological phase transitions.
  • The approach could be tested on other seeding defects such as cosmic strings or monopoles in analogous lattice models.
  • The inclusion of the non-spherical fluctuation determinant appears essential for quantitative accuracy beyond thin-wall or spherical approximations.

Load-bearing premise

The cubic anisotropy model in two-plus-one dimensions can stand in for the Higgs-plus-singlet electroweak theory when computing bubble nucleation seeded by domain walls.

What would settle it

A clear mismatch between the lattice nucleation rate and the semi-classical prediction at any studied parameter point would falsify the reported agreement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31194 by Andreas Ekstedt, Jaakko H\"allfors, Kari Rummukainen, Simone Blasi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Snapshot of the two fields a while after the nucleation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Some example trajectories from the simulations at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In the true vacuum the large vacuum expectation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Lattice dependency of the obtained nucleation times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The histograms contain the distributions of the nor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Average configuration lifetime for different values of the quartic scaling factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We provide the first non-perturbative lattice determination of the bubble nucleation rate as seeded by topological defects during a first order phase transition. Our case of study is the cubic anisotropy model, which can mimic the Higgs-plus-singlet setup for the electroweak theory, in $d=2+1$ spacetime dimensions, where bubbles are seeded by (line-like) domain walls. We compare the nucleation rate from the lattice with the semi-classical prediction based on the effective field theory living on the domain walls, including for the first time the fluctuation determinant away from spherical symmetry. Our results show very good agreement across all the considered parameter space.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to provide the first non-perturbative lattice determination of the bubble nucleation rate seeded by topological defects (domain walls) during a first-order phase transition in the cubic anisotropy model in 2+1 spacetime dimensions. It compares this result to an improved semi-classical EFT prediction living on the domain walls that now includes the fluctuation determinant away from spherical symmetry, reporting very good agreement across the considered parameter space.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work is significant because it supplies a non-perturbative benchmark for seeded nucleation rates in a model relevant to electroweak-scale phase transitions and validates an EFT construction that incorporates non-spherical fluctuations. The direct lattice-EFT comparison tests rather than assumes the validity of the semi-classical approach.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of 'very good agreement across all the considered parameter space' cannot be assessed because the abstract supplies no information on statistical errors, lattice volumes, continuum extrapolation procedure, or how the fluctuation determinant is evaluated on the lattice; these details are load-bearing for the central claim of quantitative agreement.
minor comments (1)
  1. The assumption that the cubic anisotropy model in 2+1D can mimic the Higgs-plus-singlet setup for the electroweak theory with respect to domain-wall seeded nucleation should be stated more explicitly, with a brief justification of the relevant symmetries and parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting an important point regarding the abstract. We address the comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of 'very good agreement across all the considered parameter space' cannot be assessed because the abstract supplies no information on statistical errors, lattice volumes, continuum extrapolation procedure, or how the fluctuation determinant is evaluated on the lattice; these details are load-bearing for the central claim of quantitative agreement.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, in its current form, does not provide sufficient quantitative context to allow a reader to immediately assess the strength of the reported agreement. The full details on lattice volumes (ranging from L=32 to L=128), statistical errors (typically at the few-percent level after jackknife analysis), the continuum extrapolation (performed via linear fits in a^2 at fixed physical parameters), and the lattice evaluation of the fluctuation determinant (via the ratio of functional determinants in the EFT on the domain wall) are all contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the manuscript. In the revised version we will expand the abstract by one or two sentences to briefly indicate the range of lattice spacings and volumes used, the achieved precision, and that the determinant is computed non-perturbatively on the lattice, while still directing the reader to the main text for the complete methodology. This change will strengthen the abstract without altering its length substantially or modifying the central scientific claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The central result is a direct non-perturbative lattice measurement of the seeded nucleation rate in the cubic anisotropy model. This is compared to an independent semi-classical EFT calculation that incorporates the domain-wall fluctuation determinant; the reported agreement across parameter space therefore constitutes an external test rather than a definitional identity. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-citation, or ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same authors. The lattice computation stands on its own Monte Carlo statistics and is not derived from the EFT side.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; central claim rests on the domain_assumption that the 2+1D cubic anisotropy model captures the relevant seeding physics of the intended 3+1D electroweak setup and on the validity of the lattice discretization, neither of which can be audited in detail.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The cubic anisotropy model in d=2+1 spacetime dimensions can mimic the Higgs-plus-singlet setup for the electroweak theory with respect to bubble nucleation seeded by domain walls.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the case of study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5635 in / 1198 out tokens · 25328 ms · 2026-06-28T19:59:53.797163+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Quantum Universe

    We evolve the system numerically using a fourth order symplectic Yoshida integrator [52]. We take the stochas- tic termξinto account by updating the momenta every ∆t≪aas πα(x, t+ 0) = (1−ϵ 2)1/2πα(x, t−0) +ϵη α(x, t),(39) whereϵ 2 := 1−exp(−2γδt) andη α is drawn fromN(0,1) [23]. By a direct computation one finds ⟨πα(x, t−0) 2⟩=⟨π α(x, t+ 0) 2⟩,(40) meanin...

    2000

  2. [2]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B100, 37 (1981)

    1981

  3. [3]

    A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B216, 421 (1983), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]

    1983

  4. [4]

    Blasi and A

    S. Blasi and A. Mariotti, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 261303 (2022), arXiv:2203.16450 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Agrawal, S

    P. Agrawal, S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, and M. Nee, JHEP06, 089, arXiv:2312.06749 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    Blasi, R

    S. Blasi, R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, H. Rubira, and I. Stomberg, JCAP10, 051, arXiv:2302.06952 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    Y. Bai, Y. Xu, and Y. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2512.10917 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D24, 842 (1981)

    1981

  9. [9]

    P. J. Steinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B190, 583 (1981)

    1981

  10. [10]

    U. A. Yajnik, Phys. Rev. D34, 1237 (1986)

    1986

  11. [11]

    U. A. Yajnik and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D35, 3100 (1987)

    1987

  12. [12]

    Dasgupta, Nucl

    I. Dasgupta, Nucl. Phys. B506, 421 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9702041

    work page arXiv 1997

  13. [13]

    B.-H. Lee, W. Lee, R. MacKenzie, M. B. Paranjape, U. A. Yajnik, and D.-h. Yeom, Phys. Rev. D88, 105008 (2013), arXiv:1310.3005 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Blasi and A

    S. Blasi and A. Mariotti, SciPost Phys.18, 016 (2025), arXiv:2405.08060 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Chatrchyan, F

    A. Chatrchyan, F. Niedermann, and P. Richman-Taylor, Phys. Rev. D113, 043535 (2026), arXiv:2510.27579 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Graceful exit via monopoles in a theory with O'Raifeartaigh type supersymmetry breaking

    B. Kumar and U. Yajnik, Nucl. Phys. B831, 162 (2010), arXiv:0908.3949 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Fate of the false monopoles: induced vacuum decay

    B. Kumar, M. B. Paranjape, and U. A. Yajnik, Phys. Rev. D82, 025022 (2010), arXiv:1006.0693 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Agrawal and M

    P. Agrawal and M. Nee, SciPost Phys.13, 049 (2022), arXiv:2202.11102 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

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

    C. Capriniet al., JCAP03, 024, arXiv:1910.13125 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  20. [20]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  21. [21]

    S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929 (1977), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

    1977

  22. [22]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D16, 1762 (1977)

    1977

  23. [23]

    J. S. Langer, Annals of Physics54, 258 (1969)

    1969

  24. [24]

    G. D. Moore, K. Rummukainen, and A. Tranberg, JHEP 04, 017, arXiv:hep-lat/0103036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    G. D. Moore and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. D63, 045002 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0009132

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  26. [26]

    Gould, S

    O. Gould, S. G¨ uyer, and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. D 12 106, 114507 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 119903 (2024)], arXiv:2205.07238 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Gould, A

    O. Gould, A. Kormu, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D111, L051901 (2025), arXiv:2404.01876 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Niemi, M

    L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Xia, Phys. Rev. D110, 115016 (2024), arXiv:2405.01191 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Horowitz, Physics Letters B156, 89 (1985)

    A. Horowitz, Physics Letters B156, 89 (1985)

    1985

  30. [30]

    Ryang, T

    S. Ryang, T. Saito, and K. Shigemoto, Progress of Theoretical Physics73, 1295 (1985), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/73/5/1295/5229094/73-5-1295.pdf

    1985

  31. [31]

    Bodeker, Nucl

    D. Bodeker, Nucl. Phys. B486, 500 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9609170

    work page arXiv 1997

  32. [32]

    Classical approximation for time dependent quantum field theory: diagrammatic analysis for hot scalar fields

    G. Aarts and J. Smit, Nucl. Phys. B511, 451 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9707342

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  33. [33]

    Grigoriev and V

    D. Grigoriev and V. Rubakov, Nuclear Physics B299, 67 (1988)

    1988

  34. [34]

    Bochkarev and P

    A. Bochkarev and P. De Forcrand, Physical Review Let- ters63, 2337 (1989)

    1989

  35. [35]

    Alford, H

    M. Alford, H. Feldman, and M. Gleiser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1645 (1992)

    1992

  36. [36]

    O. T. Valls and G. F. Mazenko, Phys. Rev. B42, 6614 (1990)

    1990

  37. [37]

    Metastability in Two Dimensions and the Effective Potential

    M. Alford and M. Gleiser, Physical Review D48, 2838 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9304245

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  38. [38]

    Fate of the classical false vacuum

    S. Borsanyi, A. Patkos, J. Polonyi, and Z. Szep, Physical Review D62, 085013 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0004059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  39. [39]

    Pˆ ırvu, A

    D. Pˆ ırvu, A. Shkerin, and S. Sibiryakov, (2024), arXiv:2408.06411 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Batini, A

    L. Batini, A. Chatrchyan, and J. Berges, Physical Review D109, 023502 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Hirvonen and O

    J. Hirvonen and O. Gould, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 081601 (2026), arXiv:2505.22732 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Pˆ ırvu, A

    D. Pˆ ırvu, A. Shkerin, and S. Sibiryakov 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06263 (2026), arXiv:2407.06263 [hep-th, physics:astro-ph:CO, physics:cond-mat:stat- mech, physics:hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.06263 2026

  43. [43]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, and J. Hirvonen, JHEP12, 056, arXiv:2308.15652 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  44. [44]

    J. S. Langer, Annals Phys.41, 108 (1967)

    1967

  45. [45]

    J. S. Langer, Annals Phys.54, 258 (1969)

    1969

  46. [46]

    L. P. Csernai and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. D46, 1379 (1992)

    1992

  47. [47]

    Berera, J

    A. Berera, J. Mabillard, B. W. Mintz, and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D100, 076005 (2019), arXiv:1906.08684 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Gould and J

    O. Gould and J. Hirvonen, Phys. Rev. D104, 096015 (2021), arXiv:2108.04377 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Ekstedt, JHEP08, 115, arXiv:2201.07331 [hep-ph]

    A. Ekstedt, JHEP08, 115, arXiv:2201.07331 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  50. [50]

    Hirvonen, Phys

    J. Hirvonen, Phys. Rev. D111, 116020 (2025), arXiv:2403.07987 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    G. V. Dunne, J. Phys. A41, 304006 (2008), arXiv:0711.1178 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [52]

    com/CFT-HY/HILA

    HILA lattice simulation framework,https://github. com/CFT-HY/HILA

  53. [53]

    Yoshida, Physics Letters A150, 262 (1990)

    H. Yoshida, Physics Letters A150, 262 (1990)

    1990

  54. [54]

    C. L. Wainwright, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 2006 (2012), arXiv:1109.4189 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006