Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 130 references

For LISA-reconstructed supercooled phase transitions, the daisy resummation scheme's ~10% theoretical error overwhelms the sub-percent measurement uncertainty.

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

2026-08-01 15:37 UTC pith:4GVIJENR

load-bearing objection Daisy-resummed nucleation rates disfavored for LISA parameter reconstruction in supercooled conformal models, but the absolute error bar rests on NLOdet's unquantified convergence. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18233 v1 pith:4GVIJENR submitted 2026-07-20 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

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

Maciej Kierkla , Marek Lewicki , Philipp Schicho , Daniel Schmitt , Bogumila Swiezewska This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords gravitational wavesfirst-order phase transitionssupercoolingdaisy resummationdimensional reductionnucleation rateLISA parameter reconstructionclassically conformal U(1)X model
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 establish that, when a gravitational-wave signal from a strongly supercooled first-order phase transition in a classically conformal U(1)X extension of the Standard Model is used to reconstruct the underlying model parameters at LISA, the dominant uncertainty is not the detector but the theoretical method used to compute the bubble nucleation rate. It compares two approaches: the commonly used daisy-resummed 4D effective potential with a dimensionally estimated prefactor, and a next-to-leading-order 3D effective field theory with full one-loop fluctuation determinants in the nucleation prefactor. Across a scan of the dark gauge coupling and dark photon mass, the reconstructed g_X differs by about 10% between methods, while the Fisher-matrix reconstruction uncertainty is below 1%, and no change of renormalization scale reconciles them. The paper therefore argues that the daisy scheme is strongly disfavoured for precision gravitational-wave inverse problems in this class of models, and that theoretical error, not detector sensitivity, sets the accuracy floor.

Core claim

The central claim is an uncertainty hierarchy. In eq. (5.5) the paper states δexp_g ∼ δNLOdet_g ≪ δdaisy_g ≪ δmeth_g ∼ O(10%), where δmeth_g is the relative difference in the LISA-reconstructed dark gauge coupling between the daisy-resummed potential and the NLO 3D-EFT computation with full fluctuation determinants. The methodological difference is an order of magnitude larger than both the Fisher-matrix experimental uncertainty and the residual renormalization-scale dependence of each method. The reconstructed dark photon mass MX, however, is essentially unaffected by the choice of method, because it mainly sets the Hubble scale during vacuum domination. The paper argues this makes the dais

What carries the argument

The machinery is the comparison of two nucleation-rate computations feeding a single Fisher-matrix reconstruction pipeline. The daisy approach (3.4)-(3.5) uses a 4D daisy-resummed effective potential with a prefactor T^4 estimated on dimensional grounds. The NLOdet approach (3.8) uses a two-loop-matched 3D effective field theory, NLO soft-expansion corrections to the action including the kinetic-term correction Z_φ3, and full one-loop scalar and vector functional determinants in the prefactor. The identity that carries the argument is the hierarchy eq. (5.5), which separates experimental error, renormalization-scale error, and methodological error.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on assuming the NLOdet computation is converged to well within the ~10% gap at every scan point; if its missing higher-order, higher-dimensional, or out-of-equilibrium corrections are comparable to the daisy gap, then the quoted method error measures the difference between two imperfect approximations rather than the error of daisy alone.

What would settle it

Compute the next-to-next-to-leading-order correction in the soft expansion to the nucleation action (or a 3D lattice simulation of the bubble nucleation rate) for a few representative {g_X, MX} points in the scan. If the NLOdet-reconstructed g_X shifts by roughly 10% relative to NNLO or the lattice, then the claimed hierarchy δmeth_g ≫ δexp_g is not established in absolute terms; if NLOdet remains stable well below 10%, the hierarchy is confirmed.

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

If this is right

  • If the hierarchy (5.5) holds, then for strongly supercooled conformal transitions in the LISA band, a measured gravitational-wave spectrum pins down the dark gauge coupling to sub-percent precision only if theoretical predictions reach at least the NLO 3D-EFT level; using daisy resummation masks the true parameter values by roughly 10%.
  • A standard practice of varying the renormalization scale to estimate theoretical uncertainty underestimates the real error in these models: the daisy-to-NLOdet spread is an order of magnitude larger than the daisy scale dependence.
  • The reconstructed dark-photon mass MX is robust against the choice of nucleation-rate method, so mass determinations from LISA data in this model class can rely on the simpler treatment; the coupling cannot.
  • In the PTA band, where signals are weaker and reconstruction errors larger, the methodological and experimental uncertainties become comparable, so the daisy method's deficiency is not necessarily fatal for current pulsar-timing data.
  • The same qualitative pattern is expected in the non-Abelian SU(2)X extension, suggesting the conclusion applies to radiatively induced transitions more broadly than the single benchmark model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: the paper's ~10% 'method error' is calibrated against NLOdet as the reference; if NLOdet's own omitted corrections (NNLO soft terms, higher-dimensional operators, out-of-equilibrium dynamics) shift predictions by O(10%), then δmeth_g measures the spread between two imperfect methods, and the absolute error of daisy is not yet established.
  • Our inference: the result suggests a practical convergence test — computing the nucleation action at NNLO in the soft expansion at a few scan points, or comparing with a 3D lattice determination of the nucleation rate — would place the error budget on absolute footing.
  • Our inference: for the broader gravitational-wave inverse problem, the implication is that theoretical precision at the few-permille level is required for strongly supercooled signals, otherwise inferred couplings are biased; similar bias may affect derived quantities such as primordial black hole abundances from supercooled transitions.
  • Our inference: extensions to models with kinetic mixing or fermionic dark sectors could be checked; the size of δmeth_g likely tracks the strength of supercooling and the relevance of the gauge-field fluctuation determinants, so we would predict smaller method errors for weakly supercooled transitions.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the impact of the choice of thermal resummation scheme on parameter reconstruction from LISA gravitational-wave signals, focusing on the classically conformal U(1)_X extension of the SM. It compares the commonly used 4D daisy-resummed effective potential with an NLO 3D effective-field-theory computation that includes two-loop matching, next-to-leading-order corrections to the bounce action, and full one-loop scalar and vector fluctuation determinants (NLOdet). The authors scan ~10^4 points in (g_X, M_X), compute percolation temperatures, beta/H, and GW spectra, and then use Fisher-matrix methods to reconstruct (g_X, M_X) from injected LISA signals for both schemes. They find that the reconstructed gauge coupling differs by O(10%) between the schemes, while the Fisher (experimental) uncertainty is sub-percent and the residual RG-scale uncertainty is O(1%) for daisy and negligible for NLOdet. On this basis they claim the hierarchy delta_exp ~ delta_mu,NLOdet << delta_mu,daisy << delta_meth ~ O(10%) and conclude that the daisy scheme is strongly disfavored and that theoretical uncertainties dominate the GW inverse problem for strongly supercooled conformal transitions.

Significance. The comparison is carefully controlled: identical input fixing, RG running, percolation condition, and Fisher pipeline are used for both schemes, and the public data and software (DRalgo, BubbleDet) support reproducibility. If the interpretive step is valid, the result would be an important caution for LISA-era GW cosmology: for strongly supercooled conformal transitions, the systematic error in the standard daisy calculation can exceed the statistical measurement error by more than an order of magnitude, making the choice of nucleation-rate framework a first-order issue for the inverse problem. The paper also usefully shows that RG-scale variation alone is not a reliable error indicator in these models. The main limitation is that the O(10%) 'method error' is assigned to daisy without a quantitative demonstration that the NLOdet result is converged; the paper itself lists missing NNLO, higher-dimensional-operator, and off-equilibrium effects. This does not invalidate the comparison, but it sets an upper bound on the strength of the conclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, eq. (3.8), §6] The claim that delta_meth is the theoretical error of daisy (Abstract; §5.3, eq. (5.5)) presumes NLOdet is converged to much better than 10% at every scan point. The paper lists what eq. (3.8) omits: NNLO soft terms, higher-dimensional operators in the nucleation EFT (§6), and out-of-equilibrium/damping effects (footnote 4). For g_X in [0.55,0.85], the soft parameter is g_X/pi ~ 0.18-0.27 and its square is 3-7%, comparable to the 10% gap. RG-scale insensitivity is not a convergence test. I request either a quantitative estimate of these corrections at representative points (or a 3D lattice benchmark) or a softening of the conclusion to 'the two schemes differ by O(10%),' which by itself does not assign the error to daisy.
  2. [§3.1-3.2, eqs. (3.4), (3.8)] delta_meth compares two full pipelines, so the O(10%) difference cannot be attributed specifically to the daisy resummation of the potential; it also includes the replacement of the T^4 dimensional prefactor by the one-loop determinants and the no-damping dynamical prefactor. A decomposition would be valuable: recompute daisy with the NLOdet prefactor (or vice versa) at the two representative points S1, S2. If the gap is unchanged, the conclusion about the resummed potential stands; if the gap shrinks, the conclusion should be refocused on prefactor/systematic choices. As written, 'theoretical error of the daisy method' conflates these distinct ingredients.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The section heading 'F rom' contains an extra space; please fix. Also 'beta/H or RH' should be typeset consistently (e.g., beta/H_star or R H_star).
  2. [Fig. 4] Legend labels such as 'mu_=piT/2' miss the overline on mu in the printed math; the labels are hard to read.
  3. [§3.2 / Appendix A] The abstract says 'matched at two-loop level' while Appendix A.1 labels some matching relations as one-loop; clarify the order of matching used in the final rate.
  4. [Fig. 6] The caption mentions scattered numerical instabilities; these points should be masked or discussed in the text, because as printed they interrupt the claimed uniform O(10%) behavior.
  5. [§5.2] The disagreement with ref. [69] is addressed in one sentence. Since that paper explicitly argues that RG-scale choice can reconcile the schemes, a more detailed comparison of which contributions are included or excluded would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: δmeth_g is an independent comparison of two computed maps; the NLOdet benchmark is an unquantified convergence premise, not an input fitted into the result.

full rationale

The central claim, eq. (5.5), is a comparison of quantities obtained from two separately defined pipelines: the daisy rate of eqs. (3.4)-(3.5) and the 3D-EFT NLOdet rate of eq. (3.8). The quantity δmeth_g defined in eq. (5.2) is the difference between reconstructed gauge couplings from these two pipelines; it is not a fitted parameter, not a renamed input, and not obtained by matching to the Fisher covariance. The Fisher reconstruction in eq. (4.10) is applied identically to both schemes, so the hierarchy δexp_g ∼ δμ,NLOdet_g ≪ δμ,daisy_g ≪ δmeth_g does not reduce by construction to any single fitted quantity. The NLOdet framework is largely the authors' own ([57,58,68]) and the use of NLOdet as the reference is load-bearing for the interpretation that the O(10%) offset represents the daisy method's error. This is a benchmark-validity assumption rather than a circular reduction: the matching relations are reproduced in App. A, public tools DRalgo and BubbleDet are used, and the paper explicitly flags the residual corrections (NNLO soft terms, higher-dimensional operators in Sec. 6, and out-of-equilibrium/damping effects in footnote 4). Those unquantified corrections are a legitimate correctness risk — they could mean δmeth_g measures the spread between two imperfect methods — but they are not evidence that the derivation is equivalent to its inputs. No equation in the paper is equal to another by definition, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three classes of assumptions: (i) the NLOdet benchmark is converged (soft-expansion truncation, no-damping prefactor, no higher-dimensional operators), (ii) the phenomenological map (template {a,b,c}={2,2,2}, K≈1, v_w=1, no matter domination, no foregrounds) captures LISA-relevant spectra, and (iii) the input-fixing scheme ([56], Appendix B) with g_mix=0 is the right definition of the model. No new entities are invented; g_X and M_X are scanned inputs with hand-chosen bounds, and the RG prefactor N is varied rather than fitted. The ledger is dominated by domain assumptions that are standard in this literature but unquantified — most importantly NLOdet's own error.

free parameters (3)
  • RG-scale prefactor N (µ_ref = NπT) = N ∈ {1/2, 1, 2} (varied; central value 1)
    Hand-chosen renormalization-scale variation used to define δμ; the daisy result at different N values shifts the reconstructed coupling by ~1%. Not fitted to data, but a choice the quoted δmeth (central N=1) depends on.
  • Scan bounds for (g_X, M_X) = g_X ∈ [0.55, 0.85], M_X ∈ [10^4, 10^7] GeV
    The parameter space is bounded by hand: T_p > T_QCD, existing collider limits [121–124], and LISA-band frequency reach (§5.1). The lower g_X boundary itself shifts by O(10%) between schemes, which is part of the headline effect.
  • Wall velocity v_w and kinetic fraction K = v_w = 1, K ≃ 1
    Chosen for strongly supercooled transitions (α≫1); the paper notes that for K≈1 the precise value of α becomes irrelevant, but the choice still shapes the spectral map (4.5)–(4.8) that both schemes share.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The 3D high-temperature EFT with two-loop matching is valid at the relevant nucleation temperatures and field values (g_X φ ≲ T)
    Argued in §2.2 ('the high-temperature regime is accurate') and invoked in all matching relations (A.1)–(A.8); the soft-scale separation is the foundation of the NLOdet scheme.
  • domain assumption Truncation of the soft expansion at NLO gives the nucleation rate to the claimed accuracy; NNLO terms and higher-dimensional operators are sub-O(10%)
    Eq. (3.8) and §3.2; the paper cites [65,86,87] for convergence but gives no residual estimate for this model — it is the benchmark premise discussed in weakest_assumption.
  • domain assumption The spectral-shape template of [115] with {a,b,c} = {2,2,2}, v_w=1, K≈1 describes the GW signal, and matter-domination phases from scalar oscillations do not affect peak-frequency/amplitude reconstruction
    §4.1; the matter-domination phase is explicitly neglected ('we also neglect the impact...', §4.1) with the argument that peak reconstruction is unaffected.
  • domain assumption Fisher-matrix errors with only instrumental noise represent LISA's reconstruction capability
    Eq. (4.10) and §4.2; astrophysical foregrounds are neglected 'for simplicity' and the analysis follows [17,36]; this biases δexp_g downward, which the paper uses conservatively.
  • domain assumption The input-fixing scheme of [56] (λ_φ from one-loop minimization, λ_p/λ_h matched to the SM vacuum/Higgs mass, g_mix=0 at M_X and at all scales) is the correct definition of the conformal U(1)_X parameter space
    Appendix B.2; in particular, zero kinetic mixing removes the strongest experimental dark-photon constraints and requires the absence of fermions charged under both U(1)s.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23021 in / 19496 out tokens · 161223 ms · 2026-08-01T15:37:07.246419+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Future interferometers may detect a gravitational-wave (GW) signal from a cosmological first-order phase transition. Reconstructing the underlying particle-physics model from such a signal requires theoretical control over the map from microphysics to the spectrum. For classically scale-invariant extensions of the Standard Model, which generically predict strongly supercooled transitions and strong GW signals, this map depends sensitively on the treatment of quantum and thermal corrections to the nucleation rate. Taking the classically conformal ${\rm U}(1)_X$ model as representative of this class, we scan its parameter space and compare two resummation schemes. The first is a high-temperature effective field theory, matched at two-loop level and including next-to-leading-order corrections to the bounce action, with the nucleation-rate prefactor given by the full one-loop functional determinants. The second is a commonly employed daisy-resummed effective potential, with the prefactor estimated on dimensional grounds. Reconstructing the fundamental model parameters through a Fisher-matrix analysis of injected GW signals at LISA, we find that the daisy-resummation scheme is strongly disfavored, as its theoretical error dominates over the reconstruction uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18233 by Bogumila Swiezewska, Daniel Schmitt, Maciej Kierkla, Marek Lewicki, Philipp Schicho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the thermal effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Transition inverse timescale β/H⋆ computed from the mean bubble separation RH⋆ using eq. (4.9) of the conformal U(1)X transition over the {gX, MX} parameter space, for the daisy (left, cf. sec. 3.1) and NLOdet (right, cf. sec. 3.2) methods. The lower limit on the parameter space is set by Tp < TQCD. 5.1. Transition observables across the parameter space First, we give an overview of the scanned parameter s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: LISA signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the conformal U(1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fisher reconstruction ellipses at 2σ confidence level in the {gX, MX} plane for the two injected signals S1 (left) and S2 (right) comparing the NLOdet and daisy methods for different choices of the RG scale ¯µref = N πT, N ∈ {1/2, 1, 2}. {T⋆, β/H⋆} 10 and, ultimately, in the reconstructed {gX, MX}, shown in fig. 4. The panels correspond to the two injected LISA signal examples S1 (left) and S2 (right). The… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative Fisher uncertainty δ exp g = σgX /gX on the reconstructed gauge coupling over the {gX, MX} parameter space, for the NLOdet (left) and daisy (right) methods. that, in conformal models, RG-scale variation does not adequately capture the effects of a full NLO analysis including fluctuation determinants. This is in contrast to a recent work [69] that argued that a shift of the RG scale brings the dais… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative methodological difference δ meth g ∼ O(10%) in the reconstructed gauge coupling gX between the daisy and NLOdet methods at the fixed central RG scale N = 1 of eq. (5.1), evaluated point by point across the parameter space. The scattered points at small gX and large MX reflect local numerical instabilities in computing the underlying thermodynamic parameters. uncertainty of fig. 5, the method diffe… view at source ↗

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

130 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [4]

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

    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 [2306.16216]. [5]NANOGravCollaboration, A. Afzalet al.,The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics,Astrophys. J. Lett.951(2023) L11 [2306.16219]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [6]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and P. Simakachorn,Cosmological Background Interpretation of Pulsar Timing Array Data,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 171002 [2307.02399]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [7]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Franciolini,et al.,What is the source of the PTA GW signal?,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 023522 [2308.08546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [8]

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

    C. Capriniet al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions,JCAP04(2016) 001 [1512.06239]. [9]LISACollaboration, P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, [1702.00786]. [10]LISA Cosmology W orking GroupCollaboration, P. Auclairet al.,Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [11]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [12]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang,Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) 2050075 [1807.09495]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [13]

    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

  9. [14]

    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

  10. [15]

    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

  11. [16]

    Caprini, D

    C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, R. Flauger,et al.,Reconstructing the spectral shape of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA,JCAP11(2019) 017 [1906.09244]. [17]LISA Cosmology W orking GroupCollaboration, C. Caprini, R. Jinno, M. Lewicki,et al., Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics i...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [18]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu,The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves, Class. Quant. Grav.36(2019) 105011 [1803.01944]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [19]

    Cornish and T

    N. Cornish and T. Robson,Galactic binary science with the new LISA design,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.840(2017) 012024 [1703.09858]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [20]

    Boileau, N

    G. Boileau, N. Christensen, R. Meyer, and N. J. Cornish,Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background for LISA: Observing both cosmological and astrophysical back- grounds,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 103529 [2011.05055]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [21]

    Boileau, A

    G. Boileau, A. Lamberts, N. Christensen, N. J. Cornish, and R. Meyer,Spectral separation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background for LISA in the context of a modulated Galactic foreground,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508(2021) 803 [2105.04283]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [22]

    Babak, C

    S. Babak, C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa,et al.,Stochastic gravitational wave background from stellar origin binary black holes in LISA,JCAP08(2023) 034 [2304.06368]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [23]

    Pieroni and E

    M. Pieroni and E. Barausse,Foreground cleaning and template-free stochastic background ex- traction for LISA,JCAP07(2020) 021 [2004.01135]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [24]

    Lewicki and V

    M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen,Impact of LIGO-Virgo black hole binaries on gravitational wave background searches,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 168 [2111.05847]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [25]

    Racco and D

    D. Racco and D. Poletti,Precision cosmology with primordial GW backgrounds in presence of astrophysical foregrounds,JCAP04(2023) 054 [2212.06602]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [26]

    Hindmarsh, D

    M. Hindmarsh, D. C. Hooper, T. Minkkinen, and D. J. Weir,Recovering a phase transition signal in simulated LISA data with a modulated galactic foreground,JCAP04(2025) 052 [2406.04894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [27]

    Gowling and M

    C. Gowling and M. Hindmarsh,Observational prospects for phase transitions at LISA: Fisher matrix analysis,JCAP10(2021) 039 [2106.05984]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [28]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin, and J. van de Vis,Finding sound shells in LISA mock data using likelihood sampling,JCAP11(2021) 002 [2107.06275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [29]

    Boileau, N

    G. Boileau, N. Christensen, C. Gowling, M. Hindmarsh, and R. Meyer,Prospects for LISA to detect a gravitational-wave background from first order phase transitions,JCAP02(2023) 056 [2209.13277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [30]

    Gowling, M

    C. Gowling, M. Hindmarsh, D. C. Hooper, and J. Torrado,Reconstructing physical parameters from template gravitational wave spectra at LISA: first order phase transitions,JCAP04(2023) 061 [2209.13551]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [31]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White,Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions,JHEP04(2021) 055 [2009.10080]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [32]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Perturbative effective field theory expansions for cosmological phase transitions,JHEP01(2024) 048 [2309.01672]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [33]

    P. M. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. ¨Osterman,Robust approach to thermal resummation: Standard Model meets a singlet,JHEP06(2021) 130 [2102.11145]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [34]

    Niemi, P

    L. Niemi, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Singlet-assisted electroweak phase transition at two loops,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 115035 [2103.07467]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [35]

    Schicho, T

    P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White,Combining thermal resummation and gauge invariance for electroweak phase transition,JHEP11(2022) 047 [2203.04284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [36]

    Lewicki, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [37]

    S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa,Classically conformalB − L extended Standard Model,Phys. Lett. B676(2009) 81 [0902.4050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  32. [38]

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

    1973

  33. [39]

    Randall and G

    L. Randall and G. Servant,Gravitational waves from warped spacetime,JHEP05(2007) 054 [hep-ph/0607158]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  34. [40]

    Konstandin, G

    T. Konstandin, G. Nardini, and M. Quiros,Gravitational Backreaction Effects on the Holo- graphic Phase Transition,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 083513 [1007.1468]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [41]

    Konstandin and G

    T. Konstandin and G. Servant,Cosmological Consequences of Nearly Conformal Dynamics at the TeV scale,JCAP12(2011) 009 [1104.4791]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [42]

    von Harling and G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [43]

    Bruggisser, B

    S. Bruggisser, B. Von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Servant,Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis in Composite Higgs Models,JHEP12(2018) 099 [1804.07314]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [44]

    Kubo and M

    J. Kubo and M. Yamada,Scale genesis and gravitational wave in a classically scale invariant extension of the standard model,JCAP1612(2016) 001 [1610.02241]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [45]

    Baldes, Y

    I. Baldes, Y. Gouttenoire, F. Sala, and G. Servant,Supercool composite Dark Matter beyond 100 TeV,JHEP07(2022) 084 [2110.13926]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [46]

    Hambye and A

    T. Hambye and A. Strumia,Dynamical generation of the weak and Dark Matter scale,Phys. Rev.D88(2013) 055022 [1306.2329]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [47]

    Jaeckel, V

    J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze, and M. Spannowsky,Hearing the signal of dark sectors with gravitational wave detectors,Phys. Rev.D94(2016) 103519 [1602.03901]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [48]

    Hashino, M

    K. Hashino, M. Kakizaki, S. Kanemura, and T. Matsui,Synergy between measurements of gravitational waves and the triple-Higgs coupling in probing the first-order electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev.D94(2016) 015005 [1604.02069]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [49]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto,Probing a classically conformal B-L model with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev.D95(2017) 015020 [1604.05035]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [50]

    Marzola, A

    L. Marzola, A. Racioppi, and V. Vaskonen,Phase transition and gravitational wave phenomenol- ogy of scalar conformal extensions of the Standard Model,Eur. Phys. J.C77(2017) 484 [1704.01034]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [51]

    Gonstal, M

    A. Gonstal, M. Lewicki, and B. ´Swie˙ zewska,Reconstructing early universe evolution with grav- itational waves from supercooled phase transitions,JHEP08(2025) 039 [2502.18436]. 26

    arXiv 2025

  46. [52]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and J. M. No,On the Maximal Strength of a First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and its Gravitational Wave Signal,JCAP04(2019) 003 [1809.08242]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [53]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, J. M. No, and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational wave energy budget in strongly supercooled phase transitions,JCAP06(2019) 024 [1903.09642]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [54]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and V. Vaskonen,Updated predictions for gravitational waves produced in a strongly supercooled phase transition,JCAP11(2020) 020 [2007.15586]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [55]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, and L. Morris,Supercool subtleties of cosmological phase transitions,JCAP 03(2023) 006 [2212.07559]

    arXiv 2023

  50. [56]

    Kierkla, A

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam, and B. ´Swie˙ zewska,Conformal model for gravitational waves and dark matter: A status update,JHEP03(2023) 007 [2210.07075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [57]

    Kierkla, B

    M. Kierkla, B. ´Swie˙ zewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis,Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions: dimensional transmutation meets dimensional reduction,JHEP 02(2024) 234 [2312.12413]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [58]

    Kierkla, P

    M. Kierkla, P. Schicho, B. ´Swie˙ zewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis,Finite-temperature bubble nucleation with shifting scale hierarchies,JHEP07(2025) 153 [2503.13597]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [59]

    R. R. Parwani,Resummation in a hot scalar field theory,Phys. Rev.D45(1992) 4695 [hep-ph/9204216]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  54. [60]

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa,The Effective potential and first order phase transitions: Beyond leading-order,Phys. Rev.D47(1993) 3546 [hep-ph/9212235]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  55. [61]

    P. H. Ginsparg,First Order and Second Order Phase Transitions in Gauge Theories at Finite Temperature,Nucl. Phys. B170(1980) 388

    1980

  56. [62]

    Appelquist and R

    T. Appelquist and R. D. Pisarski,High-Temperature Yang-Mills Theories and Three- Dimensional Quantum Chromodynamics,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 2305

    1981

  57. [63]

    Kajantie, M

    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. B 458(1996) 90 [hep-ph/9508379]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  58. [64]

    Braaten and A

    E. Braaten and A. Nieto,Effective field theory approach to high temperature thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 6990 [hep-ph/9501375]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  59. [65]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen,On the perturbative expansion at high temperature and impli- cations for cosmological phase transitions,JHEP06(2021) 069 [2104.04399]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [66]

    L¨ ofgren,Stop comparing resummation methods,J

    J. L¨ ofgren,Stop comparing resummation methods,J. Phys. G50(2023) 125008 [2301.05197]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [67]

    Gould and J

    O. Gould and J. Hirvonen,Effective field theory approach to thermal bubble nucleation,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 096015 [2108.04377]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [68]

    Kierkla, N

    M. Kierkla, N. Ramberg, P. Schicho, and D. Schmitt,Thermodynamical uncertainties for primordial black holes from cosmological phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 095024 [2506.15496]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [69]

    Christiansen, E

    M. Christiansen, E. Madge, C. Puchades-Ib´ a˜ nez, M. E. Ramirez-Quezada, and P. Schwaller, Beyond the daisy chain: running and the 3D EFT view of supercooled phase transitions,JHEP 05(2026) 014 [2511.02910]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [70]

    K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,Effective action, conformal anomaly and the issue of quadratic divergences,Phys. Lett.B660(2008) 260 [0710.2840]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [71]

    V. V. Khoze, C. McCabe, and G. Ro,Higgs vacuum stability from the dark matter portal,JHEP 08(2014) 026 [1403.4953]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [72]

    Prokopec, J

    T. Prokopec, J. Rezacek, and B. ´Swie˙ zewska,Gravitational waves from conformal symmetry breaking,JCAP02(2019) 009 [1809.11129]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [73]

    Laine and A

    M. Laine and A. Vuorinen,Basics of Thermal Field Theory, vol. 925. Springer, 2016, [1701.01554]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [74]

    J. S. Langer,Statistical theory of the decay of metastable states,Annals Phys.54(1969) 258

    1969

  69. [75]

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

    1977

  70. [76]

    Ekstedt,Higher-order corrections to the bubble-nucleation rate at finite temperature,Eur

    A. Ekstedt,Higher-order corrections to the bubble-nucleation rate at finite temperature,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 173 [2104.11804]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [77]

    Ekstedt,Bubble nucleation to all orders,JHEP08(2022) 115 [2201.07331]

    A. Ekstedt,Bubble nucleation to all orders,JHEP08(2022) 115 [2201.07331]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [78]

    I. M. Gelfand and A. M. Yaglom,Integration in functional spaces and it applications in quantum physics,J. Math. Phys.1(1960) 48

    1960

  73. [79]

    Forman,Functional determinants and geometry,Invent

    R. Forman,Functional determinants and geometry,Invent. Math.88(1987) 447

    1987

  74. [80]

    Kirsten and A

    K. Kirsten and A. J. McKane,Functional determinants for general Sturm-Liouville problems, J. Phys. A37(2004) 4649 [math-ph/0403050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  75. [81]

    Kirsten,Functional determinants in higher dimensions using contour integrals,[1005.2595]

    K. Kirsten,Functional determinants in higher dimensions using contour integrals,[1005.2595]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [82]

    Farakos, K

    K. Farakos, K. Kajantie, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov,3-D physics and the elec- troweak phase transition: Perturbation theory,Nucl. Phys. B425(1994) 67 [hep-ph/9404201]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  77. [83]

    Ekstedt, P

    A. Ekstedt, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,DRalgo: A package for effective field theory ap- proach for thermal phase transitions,Comput. Phys. Commun.288(2023) 108725 [2205.08815]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [84]

    Hirvonen, J

    J. Hirvonen, J. L¨ ofgren, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Computing the gauge-invariant bubble nucleation rate in finite temperature effective field theory,JHEP07 (2022) 135 [2112.08912]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [85]

    L¨ ofgren, M

    J. L¨ ofgren, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Nucleation at Finite Temperature: A Gauge-Invariant Perturbative Framework,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 251801 [2112.05472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [86]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, and J. L¨ ofgren,Radiative first-order phase transitions to next-to-next-to- leading order,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 036012 [2205.07241]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.