Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

What happens when supercooling is terminated by curvature flipping of the effective potential?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read When supercooling is terminated by curvature flipping of the effective potential, the phase transition proceeds by bubble nucleation rather than by smooth phase mixing.

desk verdict First lattice test of curvature-flip termination: bubbles win over phase mixing for any barrier, but 'generically' outruns the three benchmarks. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15864 v2 pith:FEPKGDIB submitted 2024-12-20 hep-ph

Tomasz P. Dutka , Tae Hyun Jung , Chang Sub Shin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords supercooledphasetransitionbubblenucleationmixingcurvatureflippingLangevindynamicslatticesimulationgravitationalwavesflaton
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Supercooled first-order phase transitions can be forced to end because the curvature of the finite-temperature effective potential at the origin flips sign at a temperature $T_2$, quickly erasing the potential barrier. This paper asks whether such a transition proceeds by nucleating and expanding true-vacuum bubbles or by a smooth, phase-mixing-like roll of the field. The answer, from lattice simulations of a representative flat potential with barrier width $\phi_b

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the classical Langevin equation for the zero Matsubara mode, $\partial_t^2\phi+\eta\partial_t\phi-\nabla^2\phi+\partial_\phi V_T(\phi)=\xi$, with white noise $\langle\xi\xi\rangle=2T\eta\,\delta\delta$, and the representative finite-temperature potential $V_T(\phi)=\frac{1}{2}m_T^2\phi^2-\frac{\lambda_T}{4!}\phi^4+\frac{\epsilon}{6!}\phi^6$, with $m_T^2=\lambda_T\phi_b^2/12$ so that the barrier width $\phi_b$ is an input. The escape rate is controlled by the O(3) bounce action $S_3/T$, the exponential cost of forming a critical thermal bubble, whose small-barrier form $S_3/T\simeq 19\sqrt{3}\,\phi_b/\sqrt{\lambda_T}$ sets the benchmark parameters. The machinery works by showing that the metastable origin suppresses the tachyonic instability even when thermal fluctuations ($\langle\phi^2\rangle\sim T^2$) exceed the barrier size, so the field waits for rare local fluctuations rather than rolling globally.

What would settle it

Simulate the actual finite-temperature effective potential of the toy SUSY model, including the full one-loop and daisy-resummed terms, on the same lattice and watch a spatial slice: if the field variance grows to the true vacuum without forming distinct round true-vacuum regions, or if a benchmark with $\lambda<0.05$ completes by homogeneous roll-down before bubbles percolate, the bubble-nucleation conclusion would fail. A cheaper check is to compute the tachyonic growth time from Eq. (2.32) using the real $V''$ just below $T_2$ and compare it with the inverse bubble nucleation rate per Hubble volume.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that when supercooling is terminated by curvature flipping of the effective potential, the phase transition generically proceeds via the nucleation and expansion of critical bubbles rather than via a phase-mixing-like transition. The lattice simulations compare three barrier benchmarks and one barrier-less Mexican hat; the barrier-less case rolls down homogeneously, while all barrier cases show localized true-vacuum regions that expand and collide, even though $\phi_b$ is below the thermal scale. For the toy SUSY-inspired model, percolation completes before the temperature reaches $T_2$ whenever the quartic coupling $\lambda$ is above about $0.05$. Consequently the usual first-order phase transition description, including the O(3) bounce action and the resulting gravitational-wave spectrum, continues to apply in this regime, and the bubble wall does not run away because the vacuum-energy difference is too small.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on one assumption: the simplified barrier potential and white-noise thermal fluctuations used in the simulations behave like the real scalar-field theory near the moment the barrier vanishes, including how the field evolves at larger field values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $m^2$-type flat potentials, the standard first-order transition description, with rapid bubble nucleation, expansion, and collision, remains valid even when the barrier width $\phi_b$ is below the thermal scale.
  • In the toy SUSY model, bubble percolation happens before curvature flipping at $T=T_2$ for $\lambda\gtrsim0.05$; for smaller $\lambda$ the fate is unsettled but gravitational-wave signals are suppressed.
  • Bubble walls do not run away; the small vacuum-energy difference makes the transition sound-wave dominated, producing a gravitational-wave spectrum peaked above the Hz range.
  • The transition rapidity $\beta/H$ ranges from about $10^2$ to $10^6$ depending on $\lambda$ and the mass hierarchy, placing observable signals within reach of future detectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper simulates a representative $Z_2$ polynomial rather than the actual SUSY flaton potential, so a natural extension is to rerun the same benchmarks with the full daisy-resummed potential and field-dependent damping; the bubble conclusion is likely robust but should be verified quantitatively.
  • Curvature flipping is one instance of a more general criterion: any phase transition whose barrier shrinks to sub-$T$ width while staying flat enough may still be first-order, because the metastable minimum itself, not the barrier height, is what gates nucleation.
  • If phase mixing had instead occurred, the gravitational-wave signal from colliding bubbles would be absent or strongly suppressed; therefore future stochastic gravitational-wave observations around Hz to kHz can discriminate between the two transition channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the end of strongly supercooled phase transitions in models where the curvature of the finite-temperature effective potential at the origin flips sign at a temperature T2, as in m^2-type flaton potentials. The authors argue that the two competing exit channels are thermal bubble nucleation and a phase-mixing-like tachyonic roll-down, and they simulate a 3D Langevin dynamics on the lattice for a representative polynomial potential (3.1) with a sub-thermal barrier width (phi_b<T). From visual inspection of the field snapshots for benchmarks A, B, C (Table 1), they conclude that localized true-vacuum regions nucleate and expand, in contrast to the barrier-less benchmark M where a homogeneous roll-down occurs. They then analyze a SUSY toy model (Secs 4.1-4.2), compute the bounce action S3/T near T2 (Sec 4.3), find percolation before T2 for lambda>0.05, and estimate the gravitational wave spectrum (Sec 4.4). The paper concludes that such transitions generically proceed via critical-bubble nucleation and that the standard first-order transition description remains applicable.

Significance. If correct, the paper resolves an important open question: it supports the use of the standard O(3) bounce formalism and the associated gravitational-wave predictions for m^2-type flaton potentials, even when the barrier width in field space is below the thermal scale. The lattice simulations are a useful first step and include a suggestive control benchmark without a barrier. The paper also provides a concrete SUSY model, a quantitative estimate of the percolation threshold, and an explicit GW spectrum, making the scenario falsifiable. However, the central 'generically' claim rests on qualitative visual evidence from three toy-potential runs with no extracted nucleation rate, and the mapping to realistic flaton potentials is assumed rather than demonstrated. The strengths are the clear physical question, the balanced treatment of the competing channels, and the explicit admission of the limitations in Sec 3.2.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 3.2, 3.3, and 5] The central conclusion that the phase transition 'generically proceeds via the nucleation and expansion of critical bubbles' is based on visual identification of localized regions in benchmarks A-C (Figs 6-8) and the contrast with the barrier-less benchmark M (Fig 9). The paper explicitly states in Sec 3.2 that extracting the lattice nucleation rate Gamma_lattice is 'beyond the scope of the current work', and no comparison of the observed field profiles to the O(3) bounce solution of Eq. (2.3) is made. Consequently, the localized regions could in principle be rare large thermal fluctuations that cross the shallow barrier and then expand in a nearly flat potential; they are not demonstrated to be the critical-bubble saddle-point configurations. Because the paper's main claim is about the nature of the transition, this missing quantitative diagnostic is load-bearing. Please either provide such a diagnostic (e.g., comparing a nucleating profile to Eq. (2.3), or extracting Gamma_lattice and comparing with Eq. (2.1)) or restrict the conclusion to what the snapshots show and soften the words 'generically' and 'critical bubbles' accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and footnote 1] The simulated potential (Eq. (3.1)) is a representative toy potential, not the SUSY flaton potential of Sec 4.1. The checks in Table 1 (|V''(phi_c)|/(2pi T)<1 and phi_cutoff/phi_c>1) validate the 3D EFT for the toy potential at the critical bubble, but they do not test the effects of field-dependent damping eta(phi), multiplicative noise, or the non-white noise structure that would be present in the realistic model. Since the abstract and conclusion use the word 'generically', the transfer of the toy-potential result to the class of m^2-type flat potentials is an assumption. Please either simulate a closer-to-realistic potential (e.g., using the daisy-resummed potential of Sec 4.2 for a benchmark with moderate lambda) or explicitly restrict the claim to the toy class and discuss the possible sensitivity to the neglected effects.
  3. [Secs. 3.1 and 3.3] The toy potential (3.1) is Z2-symmetric with two degenerate minima, leading to simultaneous red and blue bubbles separated by domain walls in Figs 6-8. The realistic flaton potential of Sec 4.1 has a single true minimum. The presence of domain walls may affect the expansion and collision dynamics and complicates the interpretation of the snapshots as isolated true-vacuum bubbles. Please either simulate a potential with a single global minimum (e.g., by adding a small cubic term) or provide an argument that the Z2 symmetry and domain walls do not alter the qualitative conclusion about bubble nucleation vs. phase mixing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The text contains a typo: 'modeled through the the Langevin equation' should read 'modeled through the Langevin equation'.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 9] The color scheme for benchmark M is changed (white at the origin, black around |phi|~T, red/blue near the minima) without noting that the color map differs from Figs 6-8; this makes direct visual comparison across figures more difficult.
  3. [Table 1] The entry for benchmark M lists lambda = -0.011, while lambda is otherwise the quartic coupling in Eq. (3.1); the sign convention for this entry should be clarified in the text.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4.27)] The approximation Tn/T2 - 1 ~ lambda^6 drops the numerical coefficient from the logarithm in Eq. (4.26); a brief estimate of this coefficient for the benchmark parameters would improve reproducibility of the percolation claim.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from a data or code availability statement, as the quantitative claims depend on simulation snapshots that are only displayed qualitatively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bubble-nucleation conclusion is an output of the simulations, not an input, and the fitted k in Eq. (4.19) is an intermediate numerical fit rather than a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a sub-temperature-width barrier still leads to localized bubble nucleation rather than phase mixing—is not circular. The lattice setup does not assume bubble formation: the benchmark M run with no barrier produces homogeneous roll-down, showing that the framework can yield either outcome. The S3/T values in Table 1 are inputs derived from the analytic bounce formula and used to choose simulation parameters, not extracted from the simulations as the verification target. The visual identification of localized expanding true-vacuum regions in benchmarks A-C is the empirical output of the Langevin dynamics, so it does not reduce by construction to the existence of a barrier. The one fitted quantity, k ≈ 102 in Eq. (4.19), is obtained from CosmoTransitions for the toy model's bounce action and is then used to estimate the percolation condition λ > 0.05; this is a standard numerical determination of a model-dependent coefficient, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction of the transition mechanism, and the percolation estimate is not used to justify the simulation conclusion. The acknowledged limitations—no extraction of the lattice nucleation rate and the use of a representative potential rather than the full SUSY potential—are validation and extrapolation concerns, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness arguments imported from the authors' prior work appear in the chain. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to the circularity criteria considered here.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The SUSY toy model uses standard chiral superfields Phi, X and Xbar with soft SUSY-breaking mass terms, and the curvature-flipping phenomenon is a property of the one-loop effective potential. The main free choices are the representative simulation inputs, the unlisted lattice parameters, and the numerically fitted coefficient k in the toy-model S3/T approximation.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda (lattice quartic coupling) = A: 2, B: 2, C: 10
    Controls S3/T approximately as 1/sqrt(lambda). Benchmark A uses lambda = 2 chosen pragmatically for feasible simulation time; B and C are non-perturbative.
  • phi_b (barrier width in field space) = A: 0.3 T, B: 0.3 T, C: 0.5 T
    Sets the barrier width relative to the thermal temperature, which is the key variable of the study. All benchmarks take phi_b below T.
  • epsilon (lattice sextic coupling) = A: T^2/100, B: 10 T^2, C: T^2/100
    Controls the potential energy difference Delta V and the location of the global minimum. A and C model a large hierarchy; B tests a small Delta V.
  • lattice parameters Delta t, a, L = not stated in text
    The authors state that results are shown for one choice of lattice parameters but do not list the numerical values, which prevents exact reproduction.
  • k in S3/T fit near T2 = approximately 102
    Numerically fitted to CosmoTransitions output to parametrize S3/T approaching T2 in Eq. (4.19), then used in the percolation estimate.
  • toy model couplings and scales = lambda = 0.25, 0.75; g_X^{1/2} M_S/mu* = 10^-6 to 10^-2; g_X^{1/2} M_S = 10^4 GeV
    Scanned parameters for the S3/T, beta/H and gravitational wave projections. They are not fitted to data, but the chosen values control the phenomenology.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The real-time dynamics of the scalar field coupled to a thermal bath is described by the classical Langevin equation with white noise satisfying D = 2 T eta.
    Section 3.1. The simulation framework assumes the bath is in thermal equilibrium and that field modes with |k| much larger than pi T can be integrated out.
  • domain assumption The 3D dimensionally reduced theory with only the zero Matsubara mode is valid at the phase transition.
    Section 3.1. The authors check |V''(phi_c)| < (2 pi T)^2 and phi_cutoff/phi_c > 1 for their benchmarks, but this is a consistency check, not a derivation for arbitrary supercooled models.
  • ad hoc to paper The representative polynomial potential in Eq. (3.1) captures the qualitative dynamics of m^2-type flaton potentials.
    Footnote 1 and Section 3.1. The authors do not simulate the exact flaton potential and instead assume equivalence for similar phi_b, S3/T and Delta V.
  • standard math Lattice renormalisation counterterms from Refs. [77, 82, 83] are sufficient for the qualitative evolution of the simulated theory.
    Section 3.1. The counterterms are applied to O(lambda a) and convergence is argued to be at most O(a), but the exact counterterm values used are not shown in the text.
  • standard math The semiclassical bounce action S3/T and the Langer nucleation formula in Eq. (2.1) describe bubble nucleation in the toy model.
    Sections 2.1 and 4.3. This is the standard Coleman-Langer formalism and is used with CosmoTransitions for the toy model.
  • domain assumption The simulation box can be treated as static and Minkowski, with cosmological expansion added separately in the percolation analysis.
    Section 3.1 and Section 4.3. The Langevin runs do not include Hubble expansion; the FRW percolation integral is a separate step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What happens when supercooling is terminated by curvature flipping of the effective potential?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEPKGDIB

@misc{pith2026241215864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What happens when supercooling is terminated by curvature flipping of the effective potential?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEPKGDIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15864}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the nature of a certain type of supercooled phase transition, where the supercooling is guaranteed to end due to the curvature of the finite-temperature effective potential at the origin experiencing a sign flip at some temperature. In such models the potential barrier trapping the scalar field at the meta-stable origin is quickly vanishing at the temperature scale of the phase transition. It is therefore not immediately clear if critical bubbles are able to form, or whether the field will simply transition over the barrier and smoothly roll down to the true minimum. To address this question, we perform lattice simulations of a scalar potential exhibiting supercooling, with a small barrier around the origin, and qualitatively determine the fate of the phase transition. Our simulations indicate that, owing to the required flatness of the potential, the scalar field remains trapped around the origin such that the phase transition generically proceeds via the nucleation and expansion of true-vacuum bubbles. We comment on the possible gravitational wave signals one might expect in a concrete toy model and discuss the parameter space in which bubble percolation is and isn't expected. Animated versions of Figures 6 through 9 can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhT9Np0-FMHBjkejei0bb9qbxbWKHAUXf

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Phase Transitions and Gravitational Wave Production at the End of Thermal Inflation

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The end of thermal inflation proceeds by nucleating true-vacuum bubbles rather than by global phase mixing, and the resulting gravitational-wave background can reach BBO and DECIGO sensitivities for low flaton mass sc...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [60]

    Hiramatsu, Y

    T. Hiramatsu, Y. Miyamoto, and J. Yokoyama JCAP 03 (2015) 024, [arXiv:1412.7814]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    Chway, T

    D. Chway, T. H. Jung, and C. S. Shin Phys. Rev. D101 (2020), no. 9 095019, [arXiv:1912.04238]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    M. J. Baker, J. Kopp, and A. J. Long Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020), no. 15 151102, [arXiv:1912.02830]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    Ahmadvand JHEP 10 (2021) 109, [ arXiv:2108.00958]

    M. Ahmadvand JHEP 10 (2021) 109, [ arXiv:2108.00958]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    J.-P. Hong, S. Jung, and K.-P. Xie Phys. Rev. D102 (2020), no. 7 075028, [arXiv:2008.04430]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Azatov, M

    A. Azatov, M. Vanvlasselaer, and W. Yin JHEP 03 (2021) 288, [arXiv:2101.05721]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Asadi, E

    P. Asadi, E. D. Kramer, E. Kuflik, G. W. Ridgway, T. R. Slatyer, and J. Smirnov Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 9 095013, [ arXiv:2103.09827]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    M. E. Shaposhnikov Nucl. Phys. B287 (1987) 757–775

    1987

Show all 103 references
  1. [8]

    J. M. Cline PoS T ASI2018(2019) 001, [ arXiv:1807.08749]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    E. Hall, T. Konstandin, R. McGehee, H. Murayama, and G. Servant JHEP 04 (2020) 042, [ arXiv:1910.08068]. – 33 –

    2020 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Fujikura, K

    K. Fujikura, K. Harigaya, Y. Nakai, and I. R. Wang JHEP 07 (2021) 224, [arXiv:2103.05005]. [Erratum: JHEP 12, 192 (2021), Erratum: JHEP 1, 156 (2022), Erratum: JHEP 01, 156 (2022)]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Baldes, S

    I. Baldes, S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Sevrin, and K. Turbang Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 11 115029, [ arXiv:2106.15602]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Azatov, M

    A. Azatov, M. Vanvlasselaer, and W. Yin JHEP 10 (2021) 043, [arXiv:2106.14913]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Arakawa, A

    J. Arakawa, A. Rajaraman, and T. M. P. Tait JHEP 08 (2022) 078, [arXiv:2109.13941]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Huang and K.-P

    P. Huang and K.-P. Xie JHEP 09 (2022) 052, [ arXiv:2206.04691]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Dasgupta, P

    A. Dasgupta, P. S. B. Dev, A. Ghoshal, and A. Mazumdar Phys. Rev. D106 (2022), no. 7 075027, [ arXiv:2206.07032]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    E. J. Chun, T. P. Dutka, T. H. Jung, X. Nagels, and M. Vanvlasselaer JHEP 09 (2023) 164, [ arXiv:2305.10759]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, and J. M. Stewart Phys. Rev. D26 (1982) 2681

    1982

  11. [18]

    I. G. Moss Phys. Rev. D50 (6, 1994) 676–681, [ gr-qc/9405045]

    1994 arXiv

  12. [19]

    T. H. Jung and T. Okui arXiv:2110.04271

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    K. Sato, M. Sasaki, H. Kodama, and K.-i. Maeda Prog. Theor. Phys.65 (1981) 1443

    1981

  14. [21]

    Maeda, K

    K.-i. Maeda, K. Sato, M. Sasaki, and H. Kodama Phys. Lett. B108 (1982) 98–102

    1982

  15. [22]

    Kodama, M

    H. Kodama, M. Sasaki, and K. Sato Prog. Theor. Phys.68 (1982) 1979

    1982

  16. [23]

    L. J. Hall and S. Hsu Phys. Rev. Lett.64 (1990) 2848–2851

    1990

  17. [24]

    Kusenko, M

    A. Kusenko, M. Sasaki, S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, V. Takhistov, and E. Vitagliano Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 181304, [ arXiv:2001.09160]

    2020

  18. [25]

    M. Y. Khlopov, R. V. Konoplich, S. G. Rubin, and A. S. Sakharov Grav. Cosmol. 2 (1999) S1, [ hep-ph/9912422]

    1999 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Lewicki and V

    M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen Phys. Dark Univ.30 (2020) 100672, [arXiv:1912.00997]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Gross, G

    C. Gross, G. Landini, A. Strumia, and D. Teresi JHEP 09 (2021) 033, [arXiv:2105.02840]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    M. J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, and L. Mittnacht arXiv:2105.07481

    arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kawana and K.-P

    K. Kawana and K.-P. Xie Phys. Lett. B824 (2022) 136791, [ arXiv:2106.00111]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    M. J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, and L. Mittnacht arXiv:2110.00005

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    J. Liu, L. Bian, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang Phys. Rev. D105 (2022), no. 2 L021303, [ arXiv:2106.05637]. – 34 –

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Hashino, S

    K. Hashino, S. Kanemura, and T. Takahashi Phys. Lett. B833 (2022) 137261, [arXiv:2111.13099]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Huang and K.-P

    P. Huang and K.-P. Xie Phys. Rev. D105 (2022), no. 11 115033, [arXiv:2201.07243]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023), no. 17 171401, [arXiv:2210.14171]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Kawana, T

    K. Kawana, T. Kim, and P. Lu Phys. Rev. D108 (2023), no. 10 103531, [arXiv:2212.14037]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek, and V. Vaskonen JHEP 09 (2023) 092, [ arXiv:2305.04924]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Gouttenoire and T

    Y. Gouttenoire and T. Volansky arXiv:2305.04942

    arXiv

  31. [38]

    Jinno, J

    R. Jinno, J. Kume, and M. Yamada arXiv:2310.06901

    arXiv

  32. [39]

    W.-Y. Ai, L. Heurtier, and T. H. Jung arXiv:2409.02175

  33. [40]

    D. H. Lyth and E. D. Stewart Phys. Rev. Lett.75 (1995) 201–204, [hep-ph/9502417]

    1995 arXiv

  34. [41]

    D. H. Lyth and E. D. Stewart Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 1784–1798, [hep-ph/9510204]

    1996 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Barreiro, E

    T. Barreiro, E. J. Copeland, D. H. Lyth, and T. Prokopec Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1379–1392, [hep-ph/9602263]

    1996 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Jeong, K

    D.-h. Jeong, K. Kadota, W.-I. Park, and E. D. Stewart JHEP 11 (2004) 046, [hep-ph/0406136]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Easther, J

    R. Easther, J. T. Giblin, Jr., E. A. Lim, W.-I. Park, and E. D. Stewart JCAP 05 (2008) 013, [ arXiv:0801.4197]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Witten Phys

    E. Witten Phys. Rev. D30 (1984) 272–285

    1984

  39. [46]

    C. J. Hogan Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.218 (1986) 629–636

    1986

  40. [47]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins Phys. Rev. D45 (1992) 4514–4535

    1992

  41. [48]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 4372–4391, [astro-ph/9211004]

    1993 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 2837–2851, [astro-ph/9310044]

    1994 arXiv

  43. [50]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and G. Servant JCAP 06 (2010) 028, [arXiv:1004.4187]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Caprini et al

    C. Caprini et al. JCAP 03 (2020) 024, [ arXiv:1910.13125]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Schmitz JHEP 01 (2021) 097, [ arXiv:2002.04615]

    K. Schmitz JHEP 01 (2021) 097, [ arXiv:2002.04615]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [53]

    N. Levi, T. Opferkuch, and D. Redigolo arXiv:2212.08085

    arXiv

  47. [54]

    Marzo, L

    C. Marzo, L. Marzola, and V. Vaskonen Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019), no. 7 601, [arXiv:1811.11169]. – 35 –

    2019 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Lewicki, O

    M. Lewicki, O. Pujol` as, and V. VaskonenEur. Phys. J. C81 (2021), no. 9 857, [arXiv:2106.09706]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Coleman and E

    S. Coleman and E. Weinberg Phys. Rev. D7 (Mar, 1973) 1888–1910

    1973

  50. [57]

    von Harling and G

    B. von Harling and G. Servant JHEP 01 (2018) 159, [ arXiv:1711.11554]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Hambye, A

    T. Hambye, A. Strumia, and D. Teresi JHEP 08 (2018) 188, [ arXiv:1805.01473]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Schmitt and L

    D. Schmitt and L. Sagunski arXiv:2409.05851

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    J. S. Langer Annals Phys. 41 (1967) 108–157

    1967

  54. [62]

    J. S. Langer Annals Phys. 54 (1969) 258–275

    1969

  55. [63]

    J. S. Langer Physica 73 (1974), no. 1 61–72

    1974

  56. [64]

    H. A. Kramers Physica 7 (1940) 284–304

    1940

  57. [65]

    Linde Physics Letters B100 (1981), no

    A. Linde Physics Letters B100 (1981), no. 1 37–40

    1981

  58. [66]

    Nuclear Physics B223 (1983), no. 2 544

    1983

  59. [67]

    Affleck Phys

    I. Affleck Phys. Rev. Lett.46 (Feb, 1981) 388–391

    1981

  60. [68]

    Berera, J

    A. Berera, J. Mabillard, B. W. Mintz, and R. O. Ramos Phys. Rev. D100 (2019), no. 7 076005, [ arXiv:1906.08684]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Gould and J

    O. Gould and J. Hirvonen Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 9 096015, [arXiv:2108.04377]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    S. R. Coleman Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 2929–2936. [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D16,1248(1977)]

    1977

  63. [71]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and S. R. Coleman Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1762–1768

    1977

  64. [72]

    Farakos, K

    K. Farakos, K. Kajantie, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov Nucl. Phys. B 442 (1995) 317–363, [ hep-lat/9412091]

    1995 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Borrill and M

    J. Borrill and M. Gleiser Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 4111–4121, [ hep-ph/9410235]

    1995 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Yamaguchi and J

    M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 4544–4561, [hep-ph/9707502]

    1997 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Borrill and M

    J. Borrill and M. Gleiser Nucl. Phys. B483 (1997) 416–430, [ hep-lat/9607026]

    1997 arXiv

  68. [76]

    N. C. Cassol-Seewald, R. L. S. Farias, E. S. Fraga, G. Krein, and R. O. Ramos Physica A391 (2012) 4088–4099, [ arXiv:0711.1866]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Gould, A

    O. Gould, A. Kormu, and D. J. Weir arXiv:2404.01876

  70. [78]

    P ˆ ırvu, A

    D. P ˆ ırvu, A. Shkerin, and S. SibiryakovarXiv:2407.06263

  71. [79]

    P ˆ ırvu, A

    D. P ˆ ırvu, A. Shkerin, and S. SibiryakovarXiv:2408.06411

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Telatovich and X

    A. Telatovich and X. Li, The strong convergence of operator-splitting methods for the langevin dynamics model, 2020. – 36 –

    2020

  73. [81]

    G. D. Moore, K. Rummukainen, and A. Tranberg JHEP 04 (2001) 017, [hep-lat/0103036]

    2001 arXiv

  74. [82]

    P. B. Arnold and G. D. Moore Phys. Rev. E64 (2001) 066113, [cond-mat/0103227]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.E 68, 049902 (2003)]

    2001 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Sun Phys

    X.-p. Sun Phys. Rev. E67 (2003) 066702, [ hep-lat/0209144]

    2003 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Forest and R

    E. Forest and R. D. Ruth Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena43 (1990), no. 1 105–117

    1990

  77. [85]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov Nucl. Phys. B 458 (1996) 90–136, [ hep-ph/9508379]

    1996 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Kierkla, B

    M. Kierkla, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis JHEP 02 (2024) 234, [arXiv:2312.12413]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Kierkla, P

    M. Kierkla, P. Schicho, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis arXiv:2503.13597

  80. [88]

    A. D. Linde Nucl. Phys. B216 (1983) 421. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B223,544(1983)]

    1983

  81. [89]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, and J. Hirvonen JHEP 12 (2023) 056, [ arXiv:2308.15652]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Grigoriev and V

    D. Grigoriev and V. Rubakov Nuclear Physics B299 (1988), no. 1 67–78

    1988

  83. [91]

    O. T. Valls and G. F. Mazenko Phys. Rev. B42 (Oct, 1990) 6614–6622

    1990

  84. [92]

    Alford, H

    M. Alford, H. Feldman, and M. Gleiser Phys. Rev. Lett.68 (Mar, 1992) 1645–1648

    1992

  85. [93]

    Alford, H

    M. Alford, H. Feldman, and M. Gleiser Phys. Rev. D47 (Mar, 1993) R2168–R2171

    1993

  86. [94]

    M. G. Alford and M. Gleiser Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 2838–2844, [ hep-ph/9304245]

    1993 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Borsanyi, A

    S. Borsanyi, A. Patkos, J. Polonyi, and Z. Szep Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 085013, [hep-th/0004059]

    2000 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Batini, A

    L. Batini, A. Chatrchyan, and J. Berges Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 2 023502, [arXiv:2310.04206]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Gould JHEP 04 (2021) 057, [ arXiv:2101.05528]

    O. Gould JHEP 04 (2021) 057, [ arXiv:2101.05528]

    2021 arXiv

  90. [98]

    C. L. Wainwright Comput. Phys. Commun.183 (2012) 2006–2013, [arXiv:1109.4189]

    2012 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore JCAP 0905 (2009) 009, [ arXiv:0903.4099]

    2009 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 10 103520, [ arXiv:1704.05871]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 089902 (2020)]

    2017 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Aghanim et al

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al. Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A6, [arXiv:1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Cutting, M

    D. Cutting, M. Hindmarsh, and D. J. Weir Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020), no. 2 021302, [arXiv:1906.00480]

    2020 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and J. M. No JCAP 04 (2019) 003, [ arXiv:1809.08242]. – 37 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.