Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Non-conformal thermodynamics introduces new hydrodynamic obstructions—wall obstructions and flow obstructions—that can eliminate entire classes of expanding bubble solutions, excluding all detonations in QCD-like theories.

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

2026-07-31 23:51 UTC pith:LN7OAL2Y

load-bearing objection The hydrodynamic obstructions are real and worth engaging; the qualitative detonation exclusion for QCD-like EoS is robust, but the quantitative wall-velocity and GW numbers rest on a numerically motivated window assumption and on entropy constants. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27874 v1 pith:LN7OAL2Y submitted 2026-07-30 hep-th astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph

Non-conformal obstructions to bubble expansion

David Mateos , Mikel Sanchez-Garitaonandia , Pedro Taranc\'on-\'Alvarez This is my paper
classification hep-th astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph
keywords first-order phase transitionsbubble expansionnon-conformal equation of statehydrodynamic obstructionsshocked detonationskinetic energy fractiongravitational wavesspeed of sound
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.

First-order phase transitions in the early universe and in compact astrophysical objects release energy by expanding bubbles, and standard calculations assume a bag-model equation of state with constant sound speed. This paper argues that when the equation of state is genuinely non-conformal—the speed of sound varies strongly, as in QCD-like theories—the hydrodynamic problem changes qualitatively. New obstructions appear at the bubble wall and inside the rarefaction wave, eliminating solutions that would exist in the bag model, including all detonations for QCD-like equations of state. Because the remaining admissible wall velocities are slower and the most efficient hybrid and detonation configurations are gone, the kinetic energy budget and the resulting gravitational-wave signal are suppressed. The paper therefore establishes that non-conformality is not a small correction but a structural feature of phase-transition hydrodynamics.

Core claim

Central claim: departing from the bag-model equation of state creates two new hydrodynamic obstructions to bubble expansion. Wall obstructions follow from the matching conditions at the bubble wall and the finite supercooling/superheating range. Flow obstructions arise when the rarefaction-wave profile hits a degenerate critical point—µ(ξ)=c_s(e) plus a fixed derivative of c_s^2—and becomes multivalued. A shock inserted in the rarefaction wave yields new 'shocked detonations', but for QCD-like equations of state all detonations are excluded, hybrids too in the strongly QCD-like limit. Thus admissible wall velocities develop gaps and the kinetic energy fraction, hence gravitational-wave emiss

What carries the argument

The machinery is self-similar bubble hydrodynamics: at late times everything depends on ξ=r/t, with the fluid flow governed by the coupled conservation equations closed by the reduced equation of state p(e), and by junction conditions at the wall and shocks. The load-bearing object is the degenerate critical point (DCP) of the rarefaction wave, where the boosted velocity µ(ξ) equals c_s(e) and simultaneously dc_s^2/de = -2(1-c_s^2)c_s^2/(e+p); at this point ∂_ξ v diverges and the flow turns multivalued. Wall obstructions are the local matching failures, fixed by ξ_w ≤ c_s(e_-) for deflagrations and e_- ≤ e^L_* for detonations. The interpolating EoS ansatz (2.6) scans between bag-model and QC

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that expanding bubbles only ever sample the equation of state inside a narrow energy window around the phase transition, bounded by the points of maximum supercooling and superheating, and that this window shrinks as the wall speed grows; if a real theory probed deeper into the low-energy branch, the transfer of the exclusions to QCD-like theories would have to be revisited.

What would settle it

A direct check: numerically evolve a single supercooled bubble in pure SU(3) Yang–Mills with the lattice equation of state, starting with a supersonic wall and fluid at rest ahead of it; if a stable detonation with a continuous rarefaction wave connecting to the bubble interior is obtained, the claimed exclusion of all detonations in QCD-like theories is refuted. A weaker test: scan the analytic EoS family for any parameter choice outside the reported regions where the rarefaction reaches v=0 without becoming multivalued past the degenerate critical point.

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

If this is right

  • For QCD-like equations of state, all detonations—including the new shocked detonations—are hydrodynamically excluded, and hybrids are excluded in the strongly QCD-like limit; the only supercooled expanding bubbles are slow deflagrations.
  • Gaps open between the hybrid and detonation branches in the (ξ_w, α_N) plane, so the wall velocity cannot be treated as a free parameter: hydrodynamics alone bounds the admissible range.
  • Because the most efficient hybrid configurations are the ones removed, the maximum kinetic energy fraction at fixed transition strength is reduced, suppressing the predicted gravitational-wave amplitude.
  • For deflagrations and hybrids the second law of thermodynamics is more restrictive than the hydrodynamic obstructions, while for detonations the hydrodynamic obstruction can be the binding constraint—so the exclusions survive entropy filtering.
  • The energy window of the EoS that matters shrinks as the wall velocity grows, which is why the results obtained with a simplified low-energy branch transfer to pure SU(3) Yang–Mills theory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: because only the energy window between the turning points matters, the detonation exclusion should survive in any theory with a similar transition window even if its deep low-temperature equation of state differs from the ansatz; a tabulated lattice EoS with a different glueball spectrum could check this directly.
  • The shocked-detonation construction suggests that rarefaction waves in other self-similar settings—for instance inverse or superheated transitions, or transitions with a conserved charge—may also admit shock-terminated branches; the authors list these as future work.
  • The quantitative hybrid exclusion depends on the free entropy constants s^H_* and s^L_* through second-law filtering, so the gap between hybrids and detonations is not purely hydrodynamic; a microscopic calculation of these constants could tighten or loosen that part of the conclusion.
  • If the suppression of the kinetic energy fraction is as strong as the maps suggest, gravitational-wave searches for QCD-like dark sectors or neutron-star transitions should expect weaker signals than bag-model templates predict; re-running signal templates with the paper's restricted solution regions would quantify the shift.

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 self-similar single-bubble hydrodynamics for first-order phase transitions with non-conformal equations of state. It introduces a family of analytic EoS interpolating between bag-model-like and QCD-like behavior, analyzes the resulting bubble solutions, and identifies two new classes of hydrodynamic obstructions: wall obstructions from the junction conditions and flow obstructions from the impossibility of smoothly continuing rarefaction waves. It also constructs a new class of 'shocked detonations' in which a shock is inserted inside the rarefaction wave. The authors map the allowed regions in the (xi_w, alpha_N), (xi_w, e_N), and (xi_w, e_C) planes across the EoS family, apply the analysis to pure SU(3) Yang-Mills using a lattice EoS, and compute the impact on the kinetic energy fraction and gravitational-wave estimates. The central hydrodynamic derivations are presented in Secs. 4 and 5, with numerical implementation in the public code SNOBEX.

Significance. If the results hold, they constitute a substantial advance beyond the bag-model treatment of bubble dynamics: the allowed wall-velocity intervals and kinetic-energy fractions can be much smaller than standard maps suggest, directly affecting gravitational-wave predictions. The paper has notable strengths: the detonation-exclusion argument in Sec. 4 follows cleanly from the single-valuedness condition (4.6) and the matching conditions; the degenerate-critical-point condition (5.3) is derived explicitly from the flow equations; the analysis is backed by a publicly available code; and the authors are candid about the limitations of their EoS ansatz. The main risk is that the transfer of quantitative conclusions to pure SU(3) YM relies on a restricted-window premise that is asserted to 'emerge from numerical analysis' rather than proved, and that some qualitative claims, especially the exclusion of hybrids in the QCD-like limit, depend on the free entropy constants in Eq. (6.1).

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] The restricted-window premise is load-bearing for the SU(3) YM benchmark. The text states: 'the relevant region of the EoS shrinks as the wall velocity increases. This is not obvious a priori, but it will emerge from our numerical analysis.' On the basis of this premise, the low-energy tail of the physical YM EoS is argued to be irrelevant, and the benchmark is computed using only the inset of Fig. 2. No proof or systematic scan is provided that no legitimate solution—especially a slow deflagration or hybrid with low central energy—probes energies below the constant-pressure projection of e_H* onto the low branch. Since the ansatz (2.6) has c_s^2 returning to 1/3 at low e while real SU(3) YM has a glueball-resonance tail with c_s^2 falling again, this is not a harmless modeling detail. Please either prove the premise from the structure of the flow equations or provide a systematic numeri
  2. [Sec. 6, Eq. (6.1)] The second-law filtering that excludes hybrids in the QCD-like limit depends on the free entropy constants s_H* and s_L*, parametrized by x in Eq. (6.1). The abstract's statement that 'all detonation solutions, including shocked detonations, are excluded' for QCD-like theories is robust because it follows from single-valuedness alone. The hybrid exclusion, however, is presented in Sec. 4 as partly a second-law statement, and Figs. 12–14 show that the zero-entropy-production curves vary with x. Please clarify which exclusion claims are independent of x and which require a specific choice of entropy normalization. If the QCD-like hybrid exclusion holds only for x values in a restricted range, the corresponding statements in the abstract and Sec. 8 should be qualified.
  3. [Sec. 5.2 / Appendix B] The selection of the physical shocked detonation by maximizing entropy production at the internal shock is an additional dynamical assumption that is not derived from the hydrodynamic junction conditions. The paper states that this is equivalent to imposing the Jouguet condition at the shock, but the one-parameter family of shocked detonations is otherwise hydrodynamically admissible. Since the existence and properties of shocked detonations are a central new result, please justify this selection rule more carefully, or at least quantify how the allowed (xi_w, alpha_N) regions and kinetic-energy fractions depend on alternative shock-position choices. Without this, the boundaries of the shocked-detonation regions in Fig. 12 should be regarded as convention-dependent rather than robust predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. 8] The phrase 'for QCD-like theories, all detonation solutions, including shocked detonations, are excluded' is stronger than what is demonstrated: the analysis covers a specific family of EoS, with pure SU(3) YM as one benchmark. Suggest qualifying to 'for the QCD-like EoS considered here' to avoid overgeneralization across all possible non-conformal theories.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Fig. 2] The figure caption says energy density is normalized to the critical temperature, but the inset labels use e/T_c^4 and the text refers to 'energy density normalized to the critical temperature' without making the power explicit. Please harmonize the notation.
  3. [Sec. 6, Figs. 12–14] The dashed black curves for zero entropy production are labeled by values of x, but for readers it is difficult to map which curve corresponds to which x without a legend entry. A short note in the caption or a single panel with all x values overlaid would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. 7, Eq. (7.6)] The definition of K uses xi_max = max(xi_w, xi_sh), which is physically motivated, but this differs from the common xi_w^3 normalization in the literature. The difference is acknowledged, but a brief comment on how this affects comparisons with previous results in Fig. 15 would be useful.
  5. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (2.6)] The parameters e_H*, e_L*, p_1, delta, and n are introduced as an ad hoc ansatz. The paper notes that the low-energy conformal limit is not essential, but the precise range of parameters that reproduces the pure SU(3) YM benchmark is not given. Please state the parameter values used for the SU(3) YM fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the obstructions are derived from the hydrodynamic equations plus external EoS inputs; self-citations are non-load-bearing and the Sec. 2.1 window assumption is a flagged limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: Eqs. (3.2) and (3.5) are the standard self-similar hydrodynamic system, and the obstructions are computed from it for specified EoS inputs. The detonation exclusion for QCD-like EoS follows from the input property (4.6), max(e_L)<min(e_H), which the paper states is implied by single-valuedness in energy; the derivation through (4.1)-(4.5) is a genuine consequence of the junction conditions, not a parameter fitted to produce the exclusion. The pure SU(3) benchmark uses external lattice data [27,58]; the holographic model [48] is explicitly labeled 'a convenient example' with 'holography plays no role in our results.' Self-citations [48,52,53] are either non-load-bearing examples or results re-derived in Sec. 4. The Sec. 2.1 claim that only a restricted window of the EoS matters is explicitly flagged by the authors as 'not obvious a priori, but it will emerge from our numerical analysis'; this is a limitation about extrapolation to the low-energy tail of real YM, not a circular step. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz result is imported solely from the authors' prior work. Therefore no circularity is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the hydrodynamic equations (3.2), (3.5) fed by EoS inputs: an analytic ansatz (2.6) with hand-chosen parameters, a prior holographic benchmark [48], and external lattice data for SU(3) YM [27,58]. The paper introduces no new physical entities — shocked detonations and the DCP are solution features, not new degrees of freedom. Its freedom resides in the ad hoc EoS family, the two entropy integration constants controlling second-law filtering, and the entropy-maximization rule selecting the shocked-detonation shock position. The obstruction criteria themselves (eqs. 4.2–4.6, 5.3) are derived, not fitted.

free parameters (4)
  • EoS ansatz parameters (e^L_*, e^H_*, p_1, δ, n) = Six representative sets (Fig. 11); non-conformal example: e^H_*=2.0, e^L_*=1.2, p_1=0.2, δ=0.75, n=2
    Hand-chosen to interpolate between bag-model-like and QCD-like forms (Sec 2.3, eq. 2.6). The paper's qualitative conclusions are drawn from this family, so the parameters effectively define the scope of the claim.
  • Entropy integration constants s^H_*, s^L_* / x parameter = x ∈ [0,1] (eq. 6.1)
    Free constants entering the second-law filter (Sec 2.3, eq. 2.12; Sec 6, eq. 6.1). The exclusion of hybrid solutions in QCD-like models is a second-law statement dependent on this choice, though the paper argues robustness across the sampled range.
  • Entropy normalization of the SU(3) YM lattice EoS = Matched so c_s^2(T_c) on the high-energy branch equals [58]
    The additive constant in the entropy density of [27] is fixed by matching to [58] (Sec 2.1) — an input normalization for the concrete benchmark, not derived from the theory.
  • Shock position ξ_sh in shocked detonations = Selected by max entropy production = Jouguet condition v_- = c_s at the shock
    A one-parameter family of shocked detonations exists; the physical member is chosen by an entropy-maximization criterion (Sec 5.2, Appendix B). A stated but unproven physical selection rule.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Perfect-fluid ideal hydrodynamics with the wall and shocks treated as zero-width discontinuities
    Sec 3 (eqs. 3.1–3.5); standard in the FOPT literature. Gradient corrections are suppressed except at discontinuities, which are matched via junction conditions.
  • domain assumption The spinodal (locally unstable) branch is never probed by steady-state self-similar bubble flows
    Sec 2.1: 'no steady-state bubble flow described by ideal hydrodynamics can probe such states (see e.g. [49])'. Load-bearing for restricting the analysis to two stable branches of the EoS.
  • domain assumption Only the reduced EoS p(e) over a restricted energy window around the transition matters, and the probed window shrinks as wall velocity increases
    Sec 2.1: 'This is not obvious a priori, but it will emerge from our numerical analysis.' Load-bearing for transferring the conclusions to pure SU(3) YM, where the low-energy c_s behavior differs from the ansatz.
  • standard math Late-time bubble growth is self-similar in ξ = r/t on a flat background metric
    Sec 3; standard reduction for cosmological phase transitions; neglects Hubble expansion, curvature, and gradient corrections at the macroscopic scale.
  • domain assumption Second law at the discontinuities determines physical admissibility, with the entropy function fixed only up to two integration constants
    Sec 2.3 (eqs. 2.11–2.12) and Sec 6 (eq. 6.1): p(e) does not determine s(T); the entropy filter is therefore partly a modeling choice. The exclusion of hybrids in QCD-like models rests on this filter.
  • ad hoc to paper The entropy-maximizing shock position gives the physical shocked detonation
    Sec 5.2: 'we select the shock position that maximizes the entropy production', stated to be equivalent to the Jouguet condition at the shock; no microphysical derivation is given.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 34055 in / 26574 out tokens · 239093 ms · 2026-07-31T23:51:30.868007+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the hydrodynamics of expanding bubbles in first-order phase transitions with non-conformal thermodynamics. We analyze a broad class of equations of state interpolating between bag-model descriptions, commonly used for electroweak transitions, and QCD-like theories. As a concrete benchmark, we determine the bubble solutions for pure SU(3) Yang-Mills theory. We uncover a new set of hydrodynamic obstructions to bubble expansion. These obstructions arise both at the bubble wall and along the fluid flow, and can partially or completely eliminate otherwise allowed solutions. We also identify a new class of solutions, which we dub "shocked detonations", consisting of ordinary detonations with an additional shock inserted in the rarefaction wave. As a consequence of these obstructions, the space of admissible bubble wall velocities is significantly constrained, with gaps appearing between different expansion regimes. For example, for QCD-like theories, all detonation solutions, including shocked detonations, are excluded. We show that these effects can strongly impact the kinetic energy budget of the fluid and, therefore, the resulting gravitational-wave signal, potentially suppressing the most efficient configurations. Our results highlight the importance of non-conformal dynamics for accurately modeling phase transitions and the resulting gravitational-wave spectrum. The code used to construct the bubble solutions is publicly available. For completeness, we also show how the interpolation between the bag-model and QCD-like limits can be realized holographically by varying the backreaction of matter fields on the geometry.

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

73 extracted references · 63 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz and K.K. Szabo,The Order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics,Nature443 (2006) 675 [hep-lat/0611014]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    Laine and K

    M. Laine and K. Rummukainen,A Strong electroweak phase transition up to m(H) is about 105-GeV,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 5259 [hep-ph/9804255]. – 42 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Rummukainen, M

    K. Rummukainen, M. Tsypin, K. Kajantie, M. Laine and M.E. Shaposhnikov,The Universality class of the electroweak theory,Nucl. Phys. B532(1998) 283 [hep-lat/9805013]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    D. Blas, J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Mateos and M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia,Megahertz Gravitational Waves from Neutron Star Mergers,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 101401 [2210.03171]

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Bleau, J

    K. Bleau, J. Kopp, J. Lee and J. van de Vis,High-Frequency Gravitational Waves from Phase Transitions in Nascent Neutron Stars,2603.18153

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases,Phys

    E. Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 272

    1984

  8. [8]

    Kosowsky, M.S

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

    1992

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    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

  11. [11]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Weir,Gravitational waves from a first order electroweak phase transition: a brief review, Phil

    D.J. Weir,Gravitational waves from a first order electroweak phase transition: a brief review, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376(2018) 20170126 [1705.01783]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Hindmarsh, M

    M.B. Hindmarsh, M. L¨ uben, J. Lumma and M. Pauly,Phase transitions in the early universe,SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes24(2021) 1 [2008.09136]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris and L. Wu,Cosmological phase transitions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.135(2024) 104094 [2305.02357]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    Hindmarsh and M

    M. Hindmarsh and M. Hijazi,Gravitational waves from first order cosmological phase transitions in the Sound Shell Model,JCAP12(2019) 062 [1909.10040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Jinno, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Jinno, T

    R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, H. Rubira and I. Stomberg,Higgsless simulations of cosmological phase transitions and gravitational waves,JCAP02(2023) 011 [2209.04369]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Roper Pol, S

    A. Roper Pol, S. Procacci and C. Caprini,Characterization of the gravitational wave spectrum from sound waves within the sound shell model,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 063531 [2308.12943]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin, K. Schmitz and J. van de Vis,Model-independent energy budget for LISA,JCAP01(2021) 072 [2010.09744]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Tenkanen and J

    T.V.I. Tenkanen and J. van de Vis,Speed of sound in cosmological phase transitions and effect on gravitational waves,JHEP08(2022) 302 [2206.01130]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Springer and D

    F. Springer and D. Schaich,Density of states for gravitational waves,PoSLA TTICE2021 (2022) 043 [2112.11868]. – 43 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Mason, B

    D. Mason, B. Lucini, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,The density of states method in Yang-Mills theories and first order phase transitions,EPJ Web Conf.274(2022) 08007 [2211.10373]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Mason, B

    D. Mason, B. Lucini, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,The density of state method for first-order phase transitions in Yang-Mills theories,PoSLA TTICE2022(2023) 216 [2212.01074]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Springer and D

    F. Springer and D. Schaich,Progress applying density of states for gravitational waves,EPJ Web Conf.274(2022) 08008 [2212.09199]. [26]Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD)collaboration,Advances in using density of states for large-N Yang–Mills,PoSLA TTICE2022(2023) 223 [2303.01149]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [27]

    Lucini, D

    B. Lucini, D. Mason, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,First-order phase transitions in Yang-Mills theories and the density of state method,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 074517 [2305.07463]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [28]

    Mason, B

    D. Mason, B. Lucini, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,The deconfinement phase transition inSp(2N)gauge theories and the density of states method,PoSLA TTICE2023 (2024) 085 [2310.02145]. [29]Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD)collaboration,First-order bulk transitions in large-N lattice Yang–Mills theories using the density of states,2311.10243

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [30]

    Bennett, B

    E. Bennett, B. Lucini, D. Mason, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi and D. Vadacchino,Density of states method for symplectic gauge theories at finite temperature,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 114511 [2409.19426]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [31]

    Mason, E

    D. Mason, E. Bennett, B. Lucini, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi, D. Vadacchino et al.,Updates on the density of states method in finite temperature symplectic gauge theories,PoS LA TTICE2024(2025) 147 [2411.13101]. [32]TELOScollaboration,Finite-temperature Yang-Mills theories with the density of states method: Toward the continuum limit,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 074519 ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [33]

    Zierler, E

    F. Zierler, E. Bennett, B. Lucini, D. Mason, M. Piai, E. Rinaldi et al.,Finite-temperature Sp(4) Yang-Mills theory: towards the continuum, in42th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, 2, 2026 [2602.23735]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [34]

    Stephanov,QCD Phase Diagram and the Critical Point,Prog

    M.A. Stephanov,QCD Phase Diagram and the Critical Point,Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.153 (2004) 139 [hep-ph/0402115]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [35]

    Alford, A

    M.G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal and T. Sch¨ afer,Color superconductivity in dense quark matter,Rev. Mod. Phys.80(2008) 1455 [0709.4635]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [36]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda,The phase diagram of dense QCD,Rept. Prog. Phys.74 (2011) 014001 [1005.4814]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [37]

    Guenther,An overview of the QCD phase diagram at finiteTandµ,PoS LA TTICE2021(2022) 013 [2201.02072]

    J.N. Guenther,An overview of the QCD phase diagram at finiteTandµ,PoS LA TTICE2021(2022) 013 [2201.02072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [38]

    Halverson, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [39]

    Reichert and Z.-W

    M. Reichert and Z.-W. Wang,Gravitational Waves from dark composite dynamics,EPJ Web Conf.274(2022) 08003 [2211.08877]. – 44 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [40]

    Morgante, N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [41]

    L. Zu, C. Zhang, Y.-Y. Li, Y. Gu, Y.-L.S. Tsai and Y.-Z. Fan,Mirror QCD phase transition as the origin of the nanohertz Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background,Sci. Bull.69 (2024) 741 [2306.16769]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [42]

    Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA

    C. Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions,JCAP04(2016) 001 [1512.06239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [43]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin and J. van de Vis,Model-independent energy budget of cosmological first-order phase transitions—A sound argument to go beyond the bag model,JCAP07 (2020) 057 [2004.06995]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [44]

    Leitao and A

    L. Leitao and A. Megevand,Hydrodynamics of phase transition fronts and the speed of sound in the plasma,Nucl. Phys. B891(2015) 159 [1410.3875]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [45]

    Gursoy, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [46]

    Gursoy, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  44. [47]

    Janik, J

    R.A. Janik, J. Jankowski and H. Soltanpanahi,Real-Time dynamics and phase separation in a holographic first order phase transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 261601 [1704.05387]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [48]

    Bea and D

    Y. Bea and D. Mateos,Heating up Exotic RG Flows with Holography,JHEP08(2018) 034 [1805.01806]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [49]

    Y. Bea, J. Casalderrey-Solana, T. Giannakopoulos, A. Jansen, S. Krippendorf, D. Mateos et al.,Spinodal Gravitational Waves,JHEP11(2025) 093 [2112.15478]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [50]

    Y. Bea, J. Casalderrey-Solana, T. Giannakopoulos, A. Jansen, D. Mateos, M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia et al.,Holographic bubbles with Jecco: expanding, collapsing and critical,JHEP09(2022) 008 [2202.10503]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [51]

    Janik, M

    R.A. Janik, M. Jarvinen, H. Soltanpanahi and J. Sonnenschein,Perfect Fluid Hydrodynamic Picture of Domain Wall Velocities at Strong Coupling,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 081601 [2205.06274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [52]

    Sanchez-Garitaonandia and J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [53]

    Y. Bea, J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Mateos and M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia,Hydrodynamics of relativistic superheated bubbles,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 114041 [2406.14450]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [54]

    Barni, S

    G. Barni, S. Blasi and M. Vanvlasselaer,The hydrodynamics of inverse phase transitions, JCAP10(2024) 042 [2406.01596]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [55]

    Castorina, J

    P. Castorina, J. Cleymans, D.E. Miller and H. Satz,The Speed of Sound in Hadronic Matter, Eur. Phys. J. C66(2010) 207 [0906.2289]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [56]

    Vovchenko, D.V

    V. Vovchenko, D.V. Anchishkin and M.I. Gorenstein,Hadron Resonance Gas Equation of State from Lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. C91(2015) 024905 [1412.5478]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [57]

    Khaidukov, M.S

    Z.V. Khaidukov, M.S. Lukashov and Y.A. Simonov,Speed of sound in the QGP and an SU(3) Yang-Mills theory,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 074031 [1806.09407]. – 45 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [58]

    Giusti, M

    L. Giusti, M. Hirasawa, M. Pepe and L. Virz ` ı,A precise study of the thermodynamic properties of the SU(3) Yang-Mills theory across the deconfinement transition,Phys. Lett. B 868(2025) 139775 [2501.10284]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [59]

    Bennett, B

    E. Bennett, B. Lucini, M. Piai and D. Vadacchino. Private communication

  57. [60]

    Agasian, M.S

    N.O. Agasian, M.S. Lukashov and Y.A. Simonov,Nonperturbative SU(3) thermodynamics and the phase transition,Eur. Phys. J. A53(2017) 138 [1701.07959]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [61]

    Athenodorou and M

    A. Athenodorou and M. Teper,The glueball spectrum of SU(3) gauge theory in 3 + 1 dimensions,JHEP11(2020) 172 [2007.06422]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [62]

    Espinosa, T

    J.R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J.M. No and G. Servant,Energy budget of cosmological first-order phase transitions,JCAP06(2010) 028 [1004.4187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [63]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [64]

    Cutting, M

    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 [1906.00480]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [65]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent and J. van de Vis,Model-independent bubble wall velocities in local thermal equilibrium,JCAP07(2023) 002 [2303.10171]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [66]

    Y. Bea, J. Casalderrey-Solana, T. Giannakopoulos, D. Mateos, M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia and M. Zilh˜ ao,Bubble wall velocity from holography,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) L121903 [2104.05708]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [67]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent and J. van de Vis,Bounds on the bubble wall velocity,JHEP02(2025) 119 [2411.13641]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [68]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [69]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki and M. Zych,Hydrodynamical constraints on the bubble wall velocity,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 103523 [2303.18216]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [70]

    Li, S.-J

    L. Li, S.-J. Wang and Z.-Y. Yuwen,Bubble expansion at strong coupling,Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 096033 [2302.10042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [71]

    Y. Bea, M. Giliberti, D. Mateos, M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia, A. Serantes and M. Zilh˜ ao, Bubble dynamics in a QCD-like phase diagram,JHEP04(2026) 013 [2412.09588]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [72]

    Kang and J

    Z. Kang and J. Zhu,Confinement bubble wall velocity via quasiparticle determination,JHEP 05(2025) 056 [2401.03849]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [73]

    Cline and B

    J.M. Cline and B. Laurent,Bubble wall velocity for first-order QCD phase transition,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 083522 [2502.12321]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [74]

    Karch and E

    A. Karch and E. Katz,Adding flavor to AdS / CFT,JHEP06(2002) 043 [hep-th/0205236]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  72. [75]

    Mateos, R.C

    D. Mateos, R.C. Myers and R.M. Thomson,Holographic viscosity of fundamental matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007) 101601 [hep-th/0610184]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  73. [76]

    DeWolfe, S.S

    O. DeWolfe, S.S. Gubser and C. Rosen,A holographic critical point,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 086005 [1012.1864]. – 46 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011