Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Bubbles nucleated in inflation and colliding after it can produce LIGO- and LISA-band gravitational waves with enhanced amplitude.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 06:29 UTC pith:WY7V2CRL

load-bearing objection Solid qualitative point on super-Hubble bubbles shifting inflationary PT signals into LIGO/LISA bands, but the headline (H_c R_c)^8 amplitude boost is an extrapolation of the weakest part of their pairwise envelope setup. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24734 v1 pith:WY7V2CRL submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.CO hep-th

Gravitational waves from super-Hubble bubbles

Pulkit S. Ghoderao , Arttu Rajantie , Dani\`ele Steer This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-th
keywords gravitational wavesfirst-order phase transitionsuper-Hubble bubblesinflationbubble collisionsstochastic backgroundLISALIGO
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.

Standard first-order phase transitions at the end of inflation are expected to make megahertz gravitational waves that no current detector can see. This paper argues that a different timing changes the picture: true-vacuum bubbles can nucleate during inflation, keep growing, and only collide once the universe is radiation-dominated, when they are much larger than the Hubble length. Because the peak frequency is set by the comoving bubble radius, those super-Hubble collisions shift the signal down into the nanohertz-to-hundreds-of-hertz bands. At the same time, when collisions that start at the same moment are compared, the amplitude is strongly boosted relative to ordinary sub-Hubble bubbles. An explicit two-field model is used to show that the resulting spectrum can sit inside the sensitivity windows of LIGO, LISA and related experiments. The claim matters because it opens a route from inflationary-scale physics to detectors that already exist or are about to fly.

Core claim

When true-vacuum bubbles nucleate during inflation and collide soon after reheating with physical size much larger than the Hubble length at collision, the gravitational-wave peak frequency falls as one over that size while the peak amplitude, for collisions that begin at the same time, scales as the eighth power of the size, placing an observable signal in the LIGO, LISA and PTA bands.

What carries the argument

The dimensionless spectrum integral I(k R_c, H_c R_c) built from the thin-wall envelope stress tensor of equal-size pairwise collisions in radiation domination; its peak location and height supply the scalings f_peak ~ 1/(H_c R_c) and h²Ω_GW ~ (H_c R_c)^8.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation keeps only uncorrelated equal-size pairwise collisions and stops the time integral before many bubbles overlap, treating later multi-bubble contributions as a positive but uncomputed addition.

What would settle it

A full numerical lattice simulation of many unequal super-Hubble bubbles colliding in an expanding radiation background that either recovers or destroys the (H_c R_c)^8 amplitude enhancement and the lowered peak frequency.

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

If this is right

  • Inflationary- or GUT-scale first-order transitions need not produce only megahertz gravitational waves; they can appear in LIGO, LISA or PTA bands.
  • The usual temperature-to-frequency rule of thumb is broken once H_c R_c ≫ 1.
  • Existing non-detections (e.g. LIGO stochastic limits) already constrain parts of the illustrative two-field parameter space.
  • The same mechanism supplies an independent probe of the last tens of e-folds of inflation through the nucleation epoch N_n.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the amplitude boost survives multi-bubble simulations, high-frequency detector concepts become less essential for catching end-of-inflation phase transitions.
  • The same super-Hubble timing could alter the gravitational-wave contribution from sound waves and turbulence that follow the collisions, not only the collision envelope itself.
  • A non-radiation reheating stage would re-introduce the expansion scale into the wave equation and likely change the broken-power-law shape the paper finds for pure radiation.

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 studies a cosmological first-order phase transition in which bubbles nucleate during inflation but collide and percolate only after reheating, in the radiation era. Because the comoving bubble radius grows at the speed of light while the comoving Hubble length shrinks during inflation, the bubbles can be far super-Hubble (H_c R_c ≫ 1) at collision. Using the thin-wall/envelope approximation transcribed to an expanding radiation background, the authors compute the stochastic GW spectrum from an uncorrelated ensemble of equal-size pairwise collisions, truncated at u = R/R_c = 2. They find (i) the peak frequency is set by the comoving bubble radius and is suppressed by (H_c R_c)^{-1} relative to the standard rule of thumb, Eq. (3.32), and (ii) the peak amplitude is enhanced as (H_c R_c)^8 when comparing collisions beginning at the same time, Eq. (3.40), the enhancement arising from the growth of a^3(η)R^3(η) during the collision. An illustrative two-field (inflaton + transition field) model with Hawking–Moss nucleation places peaks in LIGO and LISA sensitivity windows for tuned parameter sets.

Significance. If the amplitude estimate holds up under the approximations, the result is of clear interest: it overturns the standard rule of thumb that inflation-scale phase transitions produce only MHz gravitational waves, and it makes the resulting background accessible to LIGO, LISA and PTAs. Specific strengths: the calculation is fully analytic and internally reproducible (the spectrum reduces to a single double integral, Eq. 3.27, whose infrared k^3 behaviour and peak near k R_c ~ 1.6 are verified against the expected limits); the scenario is consistent with CMB/BBN constraints because nucleation peaks after those scales exit the horizon; the illustrative model of §4 is shown to be observationally viable on the inflation side (P_zeta, r within bounds); and Eq. (3.45) provides a concrete, falsifiable amplitude–frequency power law (h²Ω ∝ f^-8) that experiments could test. The authors are commendably transparent about the limitations, listing the pairwise, equal-size and uncorrelated-pair approximations explicitly and flagging the survival of the (H_cR_c)^8 enhancement as an open question in §5.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4–3.5] Eq. (3.27), Fig. 5 and Eq. (3.40): the (H_c R_c)^6 scaling of I_peak that produces the headline (H_c R_c)^8 enhancement is dominated by the upper endpoint of the collision-time integral. For H_c R_c >> 1 the integrand behaves as u^3 (u-1)^3 (H_c R_c)^3, vanishing at u=1 and peaking near u = u_f = 2 (overlap angle alpha ~ 60 deg). With the adopted pair density nu ~ 0.1, the true-vacuum filling fraction is already O(1) at u ~ 1.2 and is ~7 at u=2, so most of the retained integral lies in the multi-bubble-overlap regime the pairwise model explicitly excludes (Sec. 3.4: 'when R >> R_c the assumption ... is no longer justified'). Two things would largely settle this: (a) plot I_peak and the fitted super-Hubble exponent for several u_f in [1.2, 2] — Fig. 6 currently shows the u_f-dependence only for Xi (the equal-completion-time comparison), not for Eq. (3.40) itself; (b) state explicitly the
  2. [§3.3–3.4] The repeated claim that truncating at u_f = 2 gives a 'conservative underestimate' / 'reliable conservative estimate' conflates truncation of the time integral with validity of the source model inside the retained window. Later multi-bubble contributions being positive additive establishes a lower bound only if the pairwise envelope source is trustworthy on [1, u_f]; per the filling-fraction estimate above, it is not trustworthy over most of that window for H_cR_c >> 1. The one available check cuts in the right direction — the same approximation underestimates the known sub-Hubble result by an order of magnitude (text below Eq. 3.38), so the true signal plausibly exceeds the estimate — but in the super-Hubble regime there is no benchmark, and the envelope prescription is known from flat-space lattice work to misestimate the source even for sub-Hubble bubbles (ref. [46]). The language sho
  3. [§3.1–3.2, Eq. (3.9)] The central technical step is the transcription of the flat-space thin-wall stress tensor of ref. [5] into the expanding background by replacing physical distances/momenta with comoving ones and supplying an overall a^2(eta) (leading to Eq. 3.9), justified by the vanishing of a''/a in the radiation-era wave equation (3.1). That a'' = 0 removes horizon suppression of the *propagation* is clear; but it does not by itself establish that the *source* — a wall system correlated over super-Hubble scales, whose energy bookkeeping in Minkowski relies on the wall kinetic energy growing with R — is correctly reproduced by the comoving substitution. Since the entire (H_cR_c)^6 enhancement enters through the a^3(eta)R^3(eta) factor that this substitution produces, a short derivation or explicit check of the stress-tensor rescaling (e.g., verification that T_ij of Eq. (3.9) is covariantly conserved w
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / §4, Fig. 8] The abstract and Sec. 5 state that signals can fall within NANOGrav/PTA ranges, but Sec. 4 presents no parameter set reaching PTA frequencies with a consistent amplitude (the text notes N_n ~ 30 gives nHz frequencies, but no corresponding amplitude or sensitivity-curve comparison is shown — Fig. 8 contains only the LIGO and LISA sets A and B). Either add a PTA-band curve/point to Fig. 8 or soften the abstract claim.
  2. [§3.1 vs §3.4] The relation between eta_f (introduced in Sec. 3.1) and u_f = R_f/R_c (introduced at Eq. 3.27) is never stated explicitly; a one-line definition connecting them via Eq. (3.41) would help.
  3. [§3.5] The extraction of k_peak as 'the first maxima' of I(kR_c) is ambiguous; presumably 'first local maximum scanning from k = 0'. Given the step-like shift in k_peak R_c visible in Fig. 4, please clarify the procedure and whether the step is a numerical artifact of switching branches of local maxima.
  4. [§2, Fig. 7] The width of the nucleation-time peak in gamma(N) (Fig. 7) appears to be O(1) e-folds; the equal-size/equal-eta_n approximation underlying Eq. (2.9) is only as good as this width is narrow. A sentence quantifying the width and its effect on the distribution of R_c would strengthen Sec. 2.
  5. [throughout] Typographical: 'FLR W' appears with a stray space throughout (also 'L VK'); 'well-within' should be 'well within'; in the caption of Fig. 8 the shading scale for H_cR_c is mentioned but not legibly described. Eq. (2.14): the statement that H_cR_c 'can be as large as e^{N_n} - 1' would benefit from making the N_n >> 1 limit explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: GW peak scalings are derived from the radiation-era wave equation and envelope source, not forced by fitted inputs or self-definition.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is kinematic plus standard source calculation. Super-Hubble size H_c R_c follows from FLRW expansion of light-like walls nucleated at η_n (Eqs. 2.4–2.14). The spectrum Ω_GW is obtained from the TT-projected thin-wall envelope stress tensor in radiation domination (Eqs. 3.1–3.30), with I(k R_c, H_c R_c) evaluated by direct integration; f_peak ~ 1/(a_0 R_c) and the (H_c R_c)^8 amplitude scaling when collisions begin at fixed η_c are read off that integral (Eqs. 3.31–3.40), not defined into it. The illustrative two-field model (§4) chooses g_I, g′, c to place peaks inside LIGO/LISA windows as a demonstration; those parameters are not fitted to GW data and then re-predicted. Citations (Kosowsky–Turner envelope, Caprini et al.) are external standard methods, not author-unique theorems that forbid alternatives. Open questions about multi-bubble validity and the u_f cutoff affect correctness risk, not circularity: nothing reduces Eq. X to Eq. Y by construction. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 9 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard GR/cosmology plus several modeling choices that define the super-Hubble scenario and keep the calculation analytic. Free parameters live almost entirely in the illustrative two-field potential used to hit detector windows; the scaling relations themselves depend on H_c R_c, Δρ/ρ, and the pairwise envelope truncation rather than on a global fit to GW data.

free parameters (7)
  • g_I (inflaton–transition coupling strength) = O(10^{-5}); g_I^max ≈ 1.45e-5 (set A), 2.38e-5 (set B)
    Controls nucleation peak location N_n and thus H_c R_c; scanned down from g_I^max to place peaks across LIGO/LISA bands in §4.
  • g' (cubic coupling in U(σ)) = 20 MeV (set A); 8e-10 eV (set B)
    Sets vacuum energy difference Δρ and thus overall GW amplitude; chosen small to satisfy Δρ ≪ ρ and technical naturalness.
  • c (shift in g(φ) = g_I² M_P² tanh²(φ/M_P - c)) = 5.45 (set A); 6 (set B)
    Chosen so the nucleation rate peaks toward the end of inflation within observable e-folds.
  • μ, λ' (transition potential mass and quartic) = λ'=1; μ=4×10^{12} GeV
    Fix effective mass and Hawking–Moss action; set by hand with λ'=1, μ=4e12 GeV for both example sets.
  • ν ≈ 0.1 (comoving pair density N/V = ν/R_c³) = ~0.1
    Order-of-magnitude factor in converting pair density into Ω_GW prefactor (§3.4).
  • u_f = R_f/R_c cutoff = 2 (default)
    Ends the time integral when pairwise approximation fails; default u_f=2, with sensitivity shown in Fig. 6.
  • λ (alpha-attractor inflaton coupling) = 1.05×10^{-10}
    Fixed to match P_ζ = 2.1×10^{-9} for the T-model background, not to GW data.
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW with linear TT tensor perturbations; radiation era has d²a/dη² = 0 so super/sub-Hubble mode boundary drops out of the wave equation.
    Metric (2.1) and EOM (3.1); used throughout §3.
  • domain assumption Bubble walls expand at light speed in comoving coordinates: R(η) = η - η_n (no friction).
    Eq. (2.4); standard thin-wall idealization.
  • domain assumption Nucleation rate is sharply peaked so all bubbles share one nucleation time η_n and equal collision radii.
    §2 after Eq. (2.7); enables single-scale R_c treatment.
  • domain assumption Thin-wall envelope stress tensor from Minkowski literature, rewritten with comoving distances and a² factors, is valid for super-Hubble collisions in radiation domination.
    §3.1–3.2 following Kosowsky & Turner; not re-derived from curved-space field equations for H_c R_c ≫ 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Only pairwise collisions contribute up to u_f; multi-bubble overlap can be dropped for a conservative lower bound.
    §3.3–3.4; authors flag this as open for the enhancement claim in §5.
  • domain assumption Δρ ≪ ρ throughout so linearized gravity and non-dominating false-vacuum energy hold.
    Eq. (3.11); caps reliable h²Ω_GW ≲ 10^{-8}.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous reheating to radiation after inflation; standard ΛCDM-like N_* ≈ 60 + ln(V_inf^{1/4}/10^{16} GeV).
    Eqs. (3.34)–(3.35); used to convert to today’s frequency.
  • domain assumption Hawking–Moss instanton rate Γ ∼ H^4 e^{-B_HM} with B_HM ≈ (4π²/λ')(μ_eff/H)^4 applies at nucleation.
    §4 Eqs. (4.12)–(4.13); checked μ_eff ≲ 2H and B_HM > 1 for the examples.
  • domain assumption Bubble pairs are statistically isotropic and uncorrelated in position/orientation so the power spectrum factors as density times orientation average.
    §3.3 Eqs. (3.15)–(3.18) following Caprini et al. treatment.
invented entities (1)
  • Super-Hubble bubble collision scenario (nucleation in inflation, percolation soon after in radiation with H_c R_c ≫ 1) no independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the cosmological regime in which frequency downshift and amplitude enhancement are claimed.
    Not a new particle or force; a timing/geometry regime built from standard bubble nucleation plus inflation. Independent evidence would be a detected SGWB with the predicted broken power law and amplitude–frequency relation (3.45), which is not yet observed.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 22857 in / 4857 out tokens · 99531 ms · 2026-07-31T06:29:06.495178+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider a cosmological first-order phase transition in which bubbles of true vacuum nucleate during inflation but do not collide and percolate until the Universe has entered the radiation-dominated era. If the collisions take place soon after the end of inflation, the size of these bubbles can be significantly greater than the Hubble length. This has two important consequences for the gravitational waves produced by the bubble collisions: First, as the peak frequency is determined by the comoving bubble radius, it can be well below the MHz frequencies typical for bubble collisions at the end of inflation. Second, when comparing collisions beginning at the same time, the amplitude of the gravitational waves is greatly enhanced relative to Hubble-sized and smaller bubbles. Together, these two effects mean that gravitational waves produced by super-Hubble bubbles soon after the end of inflation can be within the observable frequency and amplitude ranges of LIGO and NANOGrav, as well as LISA and other future gravitational wave experiments. We demonstrate this with a simple illustrative model.

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

41 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    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]. – 21 – [2]LISAcollaboration,LISA Definition Study Report,2402.07571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [3]

    Kosowsky, M.S

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

    1992

  3. [4]

    Kosowsky, M.S

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

    1992

  4. [5]

    Kosowsky and M.S

    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

  5. [6]

    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

  6. [7]

    Hogan,Gravitational radiation from cosmological phase transitions,Mon

    C.J. Hogan,Gravitational radiation from cosmological phase transitions,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.218(1986) 629

    1986

  7. [8]

    Hindmarsh, S.J

    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

  8. [9]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant,The stochastic gravitational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fields generated by a first-order phase transition,JCAP12(2009) 024 [0909.0622]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [10]

    Pen and N

    U.-L. Pen and N. Turok,Shocks in the Early Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 131301 [1510.02985]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [11]

    Hogan,NUCLEATION OF COSMOLOGICAL PHASE TRANSITIONS,Phys

    C.J. Hogan,NUCLEATION OF COSMOLOGICAL PHASE TRANSITIONS,Phys. Lett. B 133(1983) 172

    1983

  11. [12]

    Kobakhidze, C

    A. Kobakhidze, C. Lagger, A. Manning and J. Yue,Gravitational waves from a supercooled electroweak phase transition and their detection with pulsar timing arrays,Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 570 [1703.06552]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [13]

    Apreda, M

    R. Apreda, M. Maggiore, A. Nicolis and A. Riotto,Gravitational waves from electroweak phase transitions,Nucl. Phys. B631(2002) 342 [gr-qc/0107033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  13. [14]

    Huber and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  14. [15]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, T. Konstandin and G. Servant,General Properties of the Gravitational Wave Spectrum from Phase Transitions,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 083519 [0901.1661]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [16]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto,Gravitational waves from bubble collisions: An analytic derivation, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 024009 [1605.01403]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [17]

    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

  17. [18]

    Konstandin,Gravitational radiation from a bulk flow model,JCAP03(2018) 047 [1712.06869]

    T. Konstandin,Gravitational radiation from a bulk flow model,JCAP03(2018) 047 [1712.06869]. [19]LISA Cosmology Working Groupcollaboration,Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,Living Rev. Rel.26(2023) 5 [2204.05434]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [20]

    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

  19. [21]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs and L. Morris,Supercool subtleties of cosmological phase transitions, JCAP03(2023) 006 [2212.07559]

    arXiv 2023

  20. [22]

    Guth and E.J

    A.H. Guth and E.J. Weinberg,Could the Universe Have Recovered from a Slow First Order Phase Transition?,Nucl. Phys. B212(1983) 321

    1983

  21. [23]

    Barir, M

    J. Barir, M. Geller, C. Sun and T. Volansky,Gravitational waves from incomplete inflationary phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 115016 [2203.00693]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [24]

    La,True vacuum bubbles and the origin of voids,Phys

    D. La,True vacuum bubbles and the origin of voids,Phys. Lett. B265(1991) 232

    1991

  23. [25]

    Liddle and D

    A.R. Liddle and D. Wands,Microwave background constraints on extended inflation voids, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.253(1991) 637

    1991

  24. [26]

    Turner, E.J

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

    1992

  25. [27]

    Zhong, B

    H. Zhong, B. Gong and T. Qiu,Gravitational waves from bubble collisions in FLR W spacetime, JHEP02(2022) 077 [2107.01845]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [28]

    Yamada,Analytic derivation of the GW spectrum from bubble collisions in an FLR W universe,Phys

    M. Yamada,Analytic derivation of the GW spectrum from bubble collisions in an FLR W universe,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 023517 [2509.16073]

    arXiv 2026

  27. [29]

    Aggarwal et al.,Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches above 10 kHz, Living Rev

    N. Aggarwal et al.,Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches above 10 kHz, Living Rev. Rel.28(2025) 10 [2501.11723]. [30]LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRAcollaboration,Upper Limits on the Isotropic Gravitational-Wave Background from the first part of LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth Observing Run,2508.20721. [31]NANOGravcollaboration,The NANO...

    arXiv 2025

  28. [32]

    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

  29. [33]

    Caprini and D.G

    C. Caprini and D.G. Figueroa,Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018) 163001 [1801.04268]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [34]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology, Academic Press (2020), 10.1016/C2017-0-01943-2

    doi:10.1016/c2017-0-01943-2 2020

  31. [35]

    Markkanen, A

    T. Markkanen, A. Rajantie and S. Stopyra,Cosmological Aspects of Higgs Vacuum Metastability,Front. Astron. Space Sci.5(2018) 40 [1809.06923]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [36]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde,Universality Class in Conformal Inflation,JCAP07(2013) 002 [1306.5220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [37]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest,Superconformal Inflationaryα-Attractors,JHEP11(2013) 198 [1311.0472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [38]

    Tristram et al.,Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron

    M. Tristram et al.,Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4), Astron. Astrophys.682(2024) A37 [2309.10034]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [39]

    Tristram et al.,Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using BICEP and Planck data, Phys

    M. Tristram et al.,Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using BICEP and Planck data, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 083524 [2112.07961]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [40]

    ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,NATO Sci. Ser. B59(1980) 135

    1980

  37. [41]

    Hawking and I.G

    S.W. Hawking and I.G. Moss,Supercooled Phase Transitions in the Very Early Universe,Phys. Lett. B110(1982) 35

    1982

  38. [42]

    Balek and M

    V. Balek and M. Demetrian,A Criterion for bubble formation in de Sitter universe,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 063518 [gr-qc/0311040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  39. [43]

    Schmitz,New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,JHEP01(2021) 097 [2002.04615]

    K. Schmitz,New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,JHEP01(2021) 097 [2002.04615]. [44]KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientificcollaboration,Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 022004 [2101.12130]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [45]

    Child and J.T

    H.L. Child and J.T. Giblin, Jr.,Gravitational Radiation from First-Order Phase Transitions, JCAP10(2012) 001 [1207.6408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [46]

    Cutting, M

    D. Cutting, M. Hindmarsh and D.J. Weir,Gravitational waves from vacuum first-order phase transitions: from the envelope to the lattice,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 123513 [1802.05712]. [47]ETcollaboration,The Science of the Einstein Telescope,JCAP03(2026) 081 [2503.12263]. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018