Holographic composite Higgs model and gravitational waves produced during first order phase transition

Andrey A. Shavrin

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 113 references

Holographic composite Higgs model and gravitational waves produced during first order phase transition

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The chiral symmetry-breaking transition in the soft-wall holographic composite Higgs model is argued to be strongly first order, with a gravitational-wave spectrum peaking in the BBO/DECIGO band.

desk verdict The analytic follow-up is useful, but the paper's headline BBO/DECIGO claim rests on a factor-of-ten slip in the temperature–mass relation that needs fixing before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12773 v1 pith:NBMJMYMC submitted 2025-05-19 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Andrey A. Shavrin This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph

keywords compositeHiggsmodelholographicsoft-wallfirst-orderphasetransitiongravitationalwavesrunawaybubblewallchiralsymmetrybreakingAdS/CFTcorrespondenceBBO/DECIGO

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

This paper argues that the chiral symmetry-breaking transition $G = SO(5)\times U(1)_{B-L}\to H = SO(4)\times U(1)_{B-L}$ in the soft-wall holographic composite Higgs model is a strong first-order cosmological phase transition, and that the gravitational waves it emits could be seen by planned space-based observatories. Earlier numerical work estimated the transition's parameters; here the author derives them semi-analytically from a perturbative solution of the dual five-dimensional theory. The paper gives a transition strength $\alpha$ between roughly $3$ and $10^3$, an inverse duration $\beta/H$ between $10^5$ and $5\times 10^6$, and bubble walls that run away rather than reaching a terminal velocity. If the calculation holds, the model makes a concrete prediction: a gravitational-wave spectrum peaking in the BBO/DECIGO band, with the largest allowed $\alpha$ values reaching observable amplitude.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the perturbative bulk-scalar solution on a fixed soft-wall AdS black-hole geometry, where a quadratic dilaton acts as the infrared cutoff of the dual theory. The geometry is $ds^2 = (L^2/z^2)(-f(z)\,dt^2 + dz^2/f(z) + d\vec{x}^{\,2})$ with $f(z) = 1 - z^4/z_H^4$ and $\Phi = \varphi^2 z^2/z_H^2$, and the chiral sector has potential $V_X = -(v_4/4)\,\mathrm{tr}(X^\top X)^2 + (L^2 v_6/6)\,(X^\top X)^3$. Rescaling $X$ by $\sqrt{v_4}$ leaves a single coupling ratio $\gamma = 9v_6/v_4^2$, and the equation of motion is solved as a power series in $\lambda = \chi(1)^2$, giving the free energy, condensate, and dilaton parameter as series in $\lambda$. This series, combined with the thin-wall bounce action and the nucleation condition $\Gamma/H^4\approx 1$, produces the nucleation temperature, $\alpha$, $\beta/H$, and finally the gravitational-wave spectrum from bubble collisions.

What would settle it

Compute the phase transition with the scalar field's backreaction on the metric and dilaton included and compare the resulting $\alpha$ and $\beta/H$ with the fixed-background values; alternatively, a search at BBO/DECIGO sensitivity that sees no peak in the predicted band would falsify the fixed-background prediction for small coupling ratio $\gamma$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the soft-wall holographic composite Higgs model the spontaneous breaking of the internal symmetry $G = SO(5)\times U(1)_{B-L}$ to $H = SO(4)\times U(1)_{B-L}$ proceeds through a strongly first-order phase transition rather than a crossover. Working in a fixed AdS black-hole background with a quadratic dilaton, the author treats the chiral condensate as the order parameter and solves the bulk scalar equation of motion perturbatively in a small parameter $\lambda$ set by the horizon value of the scalar field. The resulting free-energy density $F = 2.18\lambda^2 + (-1.27 - 0.69\gamma)\lambda^3$ yields a transition strength $\alpha$ between roughly $3$ and $10^3$, an inverse duration $\beta/H$ between $10^5$ and $5\times 10^6$, and a runaway bubble wall because $\alpha$ lies far above the friction threshold $\alpha_{\mathrm{fric}}\approx 0.1$. The gravitational-wave signal from bubble collisions is then computed, and its peak frequency falls in the BBO/DECIGO band while the largest allowed $\alpha$ values give amplitudes those observatories could detect.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the composite-Higgs sector can be analyzed on a fixed AdS black-hole background with a quadratic dilaton, with its backreaction on gravity, gauge fields, and the confinement/deconfinement transition neglected; if that backreaction changes the free energy by order one, the predicted $\alpha$, $\beta/H$, and gravitational-wave spectrum shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Gravitational waves from the transition are produced by colliding bubbles in the runaway regime, and the predicted peak frequency and amplitude fall in the BBO/DECIGO sensitivity band.
The phase transition happens at temperatures above roughly 300 GeV when the heavy composite bosons sit near the lower collider bound, and the baryon asymmetry produced during it is not erased because sphaleron processes preserve $B-L$.
The transition strength is large enough that bubble walls run away, so sound-wave and turbulence contributions to the gravitational-wave spectrum are subdominant and bubble collisions set the signal.
Primordial black hole formation from this transition is strongly suppressed, because the inverse duration $\beta/H \gtrsim 10^5$ is orders of magnitude above the $\beta/H < 7$ window needed for efficient PBH production.

Reading between the lines

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

If the scalar sector's backreaction on the fixed AdS black-hole background is included, the free energy, $\alpha$, and $\beta/H$ could shift by order one; computing the full Einstein-dilaton-scalar system is the natural next check of the prediction.
A null result at BBO/DECIGO would not rule out the model for large coupling ratios $\gamma$, since the detectability window is tied to the smallest $\gamma$ values; the paper's extrapolations show the signal falls below sensitivity as $\gamma$ grows.
Adapting the same semi-analytic expansion to a thick-wall bounce could extend the calculation to $v_4<0.1$, a regime the paper notes produces even stronger transitions and therefore a distinct gravitational-wave test of the holographic mechanism.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: the paper gives a semi-analytic derivation of the thermodynamic parameters and GW spectrum for the soft-wall holographic composite Higgs model, replacing the numerical estimates in the authors' previous paper. That is real work: the computation from the quoted perturbation coefficients is mostly transparent, and the discussion of the thin-wall and quasiclassical validity windows is honest and useful. The qualitative picture — strong first-order chiral transition in the runaway regime, α ~ 3–10^3, β/H ~ 10^5–5×10^6 — is coherent and follows from the model.

The problem is the quantitative headline. The paper uses T/m = π√(2/ϕ2) with ϕ2 ≈ 2.58, which gives T/m ≈ 2.8. But eq. (28) gives T_C/m = 0.28 and T_II/m = 0.28, and the text uses the smaller value when translating masses to temperatures. These differ by a factor of ten. Since the redshifted peak frequency f_0 is proportional to T_n in eq. (49), the claimed BBO/DECIGO overlap shifts by that factor. This is an internal consistency failure, not a matter of outside opinion. The authors need to re-derive the frequency band before the observability claim is taken seriously.

There are secondary issues. The surface-tension constant C is set to 0.3 with a stated range 0.1–1 and no propagation of that uncertainty into β/H or the amplitude. The runaway discussion contains a wrong inequality: the text says the sub-leading GW sources are suppressed for α ≪ α_fric, but the runaway regime is α ≫ α_fric. The fixed AdS-Schwarzschild background with a quadratic dilaton and the assumption that the CH sector decouples from gravity and gauge fields is a real limitation; if backreaction shifts the free energy by order one, the numbers change. None of these are fatal on their own, but together with the T/m slip they mean the quantitative predictions are not yet reliable.

Who is this for? Someone working on holographic composite Higgs models or on first-order phase transitions and gravitational wave phenomenology. The paper is a legitimate follow-up and the analytic derivation is a step beyond the previous numerical work. It deserves referee time, not a desk reject, but a careful referee should flag the temperature-mass inconsistency and the unpropagated constant as major points. I'd recommend sending it to peer review with an expectation of major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the soft-wall holographic composite Higgs model of Ref. [49] and derives the thermodynamics of the G→H chiral transition from a perturbative solution of the bulk scalar equation. Using the thin-wall bubble action, it computes the nucleation temperature, the inverse duration β/H, and the phase transition strength α, finding a strong first-order transition in the runaway regime with α∼3–10^3 and β/H∼10^5–5×10^6. It then uses standard gravitational-wave formulas to predict a bubble-collision spectrum peaked in the BBO/DECIGO frequency range. The paper also states limits of validity of the perturbative, quasiclassical, and thin-wall approximations.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a semi-analytic bridge between a bottom-up holographic composite Higgs model and observable gravitational-wave signatures, with transparent parameter dependence and falsifiable predictions in a band accessible to proposed experiments. Strengths include explicit discussion of the domain of validity of the perturbative solution, a clearly characterized runaway regime, and use of standard nucleation formulas rather than fits to data. However, the quantitative predictions inherit coefficients from Ref. [49] without derivation here, depend on a renormalization constant C with a broad quoted range, and are affected by the internal temperature–mass inconsistency discussed below. The central frequency claim therefore cannot be accepted as it stands.

major comments (4)

[§2, Eqs. (20), (28), (49)] There is an internal inconsistency in the temperature–mass relation used for the frequency prediction. The text states T/m = π√(2/φ2), and Eq. (20) gives φ2 ≈ 2.58 at leading order, so T/m ≈ 2.8. Equation (28), however, gives T_C/m ≈ 0.28 and T_II/m = 0.28, and the text uses the latter to infer T ≳ 300 GeV for m ≳ 1–3 TeV. These differ by an order of magnitude. Since Eq. (49) scales as f0 ∝ T_n, the predicted peak frequency and the claimed overlap with BBO/DECIGO in Figs. 4–5 shift by a factor of about 10 under the two alternatives. This is load-bearing: the paper must correct the relation or the numerical value, re-derive T_n, and recompute the spectra before the central observational claim can be assessed.
[§3, Eqs. (31)–(33)] The paper states after Eq. (33) that “Our model does not meet this condition generally,” meaning the thin-wall condition |F(σ_min)| ≪ F(σ_max) is not generally satisfied. The subsequent nucleation temperature, β/H, α, and gravitational-wave spectrum nevertheless rely on the thin-wall bubble action in Eq. (31). The text says the condition holds in a small range T_C > T > T_μ, but it does not show in Figs. 1–3 which of the plotted curves and parameter points lie inside that range. A quantitative check should be added for the v4 and γ values used in the quoted ranges β/H ≈ 10^5–5×10^6 and α ≈ 3–10^3.
[§3, Eq. (32)] The surface tension in Eq. (32) depends on a renormalization constant C whose value is taken as 0.3 with only a stated plausible range 0.1–1, estimated in Ref. [49] rather than derived here. Because C enters F_C/T, the nucleation condition Eq. (34), and β/H in Eq. (38), the quoted ranges for β/H and the gravitational-wave amplitude in Eqs. (46)–(50) carry an unquantified order-one uncertainty. A sensitivity scan over C ∈ [0.1, 1] should be provided, or the predictions should be quoted with the resulting spread.
[§2, Eq. (6)] The chiral transition is computed in a fixed AdS–Schwarzschild background with a quadratic dilaton, Eq. (6), and the CH sector is assumed to be weakly coupled to gravity. Given the claimed large energy release α ∼ 10^3, backreaction of the scalar sector on the metric and dilaton could shift the free energy and T_n by order one. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it is a correctness risk. The manuscript would be strengthened by an estimate of the ratio of the CH energy density to the background Einstein–dilaton energy density over the transition band.

minor comments (4)

[§2, after Eq. (28)] The sentence “the narrow temperature range of possible phase transition T_C − T_II = O(γ)” should read O(1/γ), since Eq. (28) gives T_C − T_II = 0.08/γ.
[Caption of Fig. 5] The panel list in the caption reads “(a) v4=0.1, (b) v4=0.3, (b) v4=1”; the last panel should be labeled (c).
[§4, text near Fig. 4] The phrase “the predicted predicted signal” contains a duplicated word and should be corrected.
[§3, Eq. (29)] The quasiclassical validity criterion in Eq. (29) is stated but not evaluated numerically; please provide the values of v4, T, and R used to check it for the parameter points in Figs. 1–3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the GW spectrum follows from the model free energy and standard nucleation formulas; self-cited inputs are model parameters, not the target observables.

full rationale

Close inspection of the derivation chain does not exhibit a circular reduction. The model action (7)-(13), the previously derived perturbative coefficients (19)-(21), the T/m relation, and the constant C are inputs; the paper computes T_C, T_n, alpha, beta/H, and the GW spectrum from them using standard formulas (26), (34), (38), (42), (46)-(50). None of these outputs is used in the definition of an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: C is an adopted numerical constant with an explicit range (C~0.1-1, C=0.3) estimated in the authors' prior work, not fitted to GW data. The self-citations to Ref. [49] are load-bearing for the model's numerical inputs, but those inputs do not encode the BBO/DECIGO peak frequency or amplitude, so the central claim is not forced by construction. The paper does contain an internal consistency problem - T/m = pi*sqrt(2/phi2) ~ 2.8 in Section 2 versus T_C/m ~ 0.28 in Eq. (28), which directly affects the redshifted peak frequency in Eq. (49) - but that is a correctness/factor-of-ten issue, not a circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is reported.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions depend on a chain of model inputs: the AdS/CFT dictionary, large-N quasiclassical limit, fixed AdS black-hole geometry with quadratic dilaton, decoupling of the chiral transition from gauge and confinement dynamics, the perturbative solution from Ref. [49], the thin-wall bubble action, and the constant C. No new physical entities are introduced; the heavy radial bosons and condensate are standard composite Higgs ingredients. The free parameters v4, gamma, m, and C control the quoted numbers.

free parameters (5)

v4 = 0.1, 0.3, 1 (varied)
Bulk coupling constant; inversely sets PT strength alpha ~ 1/v4 and controls quasiclassical validity (v4 < 1); not independently determined in this model.
gamma = 10 to 100 (implicit scan)
Ratio 9 v6/v4^2; chosen large to satisfy perturbative expansion validity; enters free energy and all thermodynamic quantities; exact value not fixed by external constraints.
m = 1-10 TeV
Mass of heavy radial bosons; sets absolute temperature and frequency scale; only lower collider bound m > 1-3 TeV is imposed.
C = 0.3 (plausible range 0.1-1)
Renormalization constant for surface tension in eq. (32); estimated numerically in Ref. [49], not derived; affects beta/H and GW amplitude roughly as C^3.
g* = 100
Number of relativistic degrees of freedom; used in alpha and GW redshift formulas; standard approximate value for temperatures above 100 GeV.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence: the holographic dictionary equates the 5D gravitational partition function with the 4D strongly coupled generating functional.
The whole method relies on the conjectured duality, eq. (3); no proof is provided and bottom-up holography is a model-building assumption.
domain assumption Large-N quasiclassical saddle point: the on-shell action dominates the partition function with loop corrections small, eq. (5).
Used to identify free energy with the Euclidean action, eq. (11); validity criterion eq. (29) is only heuristic.
domain assumption Fixed AdS-Schwarzschild background with quadratic dilaton, eq. (6), with no backreaction of the CH sector on the metric.
The chiral transition is computed at fixed z_H and temperature T=1/(pi z_H); backreaction is neglected. This is the weakest structural premise of the thermodynamics.
domain assumption Decoupling: gauge-mediated interactions, pNG bosons, radial fluctuations, and confinement/deconfinement do not affect the chiral transition dynamics.
The paper states these contributions are suppressed or out of scope in Section 2; if they are not negligible, alpha and beta/H change.
domain assumption Perturbative solution of the bulk EoM in powers of lambda, with coefficients taken from Ref. [49] and validity gamma > 10 (better gamma > 30).
The quoted free energy, dilaton parameter, and VEV expansions, eqs. (19)-(21), are not re-derived here; the paper relies on the prior special-function solution.
ad hoc to paper Thin-wall bubble action, eq. (31), valid only when barrier height exceeds the vacuum gap; the paper admits this is not generally satisfied.
Section 3 uses the thin-wall formula for nucleation and beta/H while acknowledging in eq. (33) that the model does not meet the condition generally.
ad hoc to paper The surface-tension renormalization constant C is 0.3, with C in 0.1-1 estimated from Ref. [49].
C enters the nucleation action with cubic sensitivity; its value is chosen rather than derived in this paper.
domain assumption Runaway regime criterion alpha > alpha_fric with alpha_fric approx 0.1, and bubble collisions dominate GW production.
Used to set wall speed v_w=1 and select the bubble-collision spectral shape, eqs. (46)-(47).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic composite Higgs model and gravitational waves produced during first order phase transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NBMJMYMC

@misc{pith2026250512773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic composite Higgs model and gravitational waves produced during first order phase transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NBMJMYMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12773}
}

read the original abstract

The soft-wall holographic composite Higgs model assumes first-order phase transition from the dynamical inner symmetry breaking. This research focuses on the implications of the semi-analytical perturbative solution of the dual 5-dimensional theory as an effective description of the strongly coupled composite Higgs sector. We clarify the thermodynamical description and gravitational waves spectrum produced during the phase transition, which were previously numerically estimated. Besides, we investigate the limits of the applicability of our solution within the thin-wall approximation and quasiclassical approach in terms of the dual theory, that correspond to the strongly coupled regime of composite Higgs model. Our semi-analytic framework provides description of the strong first-order phase transition within the runaway scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12773 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** β/H ratio (dotted for v4 = 0.1, solid for v4 = 0.3 and dashed for v4 = 1). contribution of the background scalar field. The corresponding “fluid” and “scalar” components of the energy momentum tensor are provided with the equations T f µν = X i Z d 3k (2π) 32Ei 2kµkνfi(k, T), T ϕ µν = ∂µ⟨ϕ⟩∂ν⟨ϕ⟩ − gµν (∂⟨ϕ⟩) 2 + Veff(⟨ϕ⟩, T) , (39) here, fi(t, T) is the thermal distributions of species i particles. The traditional… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The dependence of the β/H ration on PT strengh α (dotted for v4 = 0.1, solid for v4 = 0.3 and dashed for v4 = 1). One can define the dependence of β/H(α) on α in figure 3, treating the coupling ratio γ as implicit. The larger values of γ correspond to lower transition strength α. Despite the wide range of α where the solution is valid α ∼ 3 – 103 , the most relevant values are large α ≫ 10, which yield lower β/H. Th… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: GW spectrum produced by bubble collisions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The peaks of the GW spectrum on the characteristic frequency for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[49]

Holographic model for the first order phase transition in the composite Higgs boson scenario

O. O. Novikov and A. A. Shavrin, “Holographic model for the first order phase transition in the composite Higgs boson scenario,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 108, no. 11, p. 115011, 2023, 2209.02331

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[1]

Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,

A. D. Sakharov, “Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,”Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., vol. 5, pp. 32–35, 1967

1967
[2]

Violation of cp invariance, c asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,

A. D. Sakharov, “Violation of cp invariance, c asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,”Soviet Physics Uspekhi, vol. 34, pp. 392–393, may 1991

1991
[3]

A Pedagogical Introduction to Electroweak Baryogenesis,

G. A. White, “A Pedagogical Introduction to Electroweak Baryogenesis,” 11 2016. 18

2016
[4]

On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,

V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 155, p. 36, 1985

1985
[5]

Possible Appearance of the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe in an Electroweak Theory,

M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Possible Appearance of the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe in an Electroweak Theory,”JETP Lett., vol. 44, pp. 465–468, 1986

1986
[6]

Sphalerons, Small Fluctuations and Baryon Number Violation in Electroweak Theory,

P. B. Arnold and L. D. McLerran, “Sphalerons, Small Fluctuations and Baryon Number Violation in Electroweak Theory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 36, p. 581, 1987

1987
[7]

A Saddle Point Solution in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,

F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, “A Saddle Point Solution in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 30, p. 2212, 1984

1984

Show all 113 references

[8]

Origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry,

M. Dine and A. Kusenko, “Origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 76, pp. 1–30, Dec 2004

2004
[9]

I. B. Khriplovich and S. K. Lamoreaux,CP violation without strangeness: electric dipole moments of particles, atoms, and molecules. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[10]

Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron,

V. Andreev, D. Ang, D. DeMille, J. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, J. Haefner, N. Hutzler, Z. Lasner, C. Meisenhelder, B. O’Leary,et al., “Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron,”Nature, vol. 562, no. 7727, pp. 355–360, 2018

2018
[11]

Heavy flavour physics and cp violation at lhcb: a ten-year review,

S. Chen, Y. Li, W. Qian, Y. Xie, Z. Yang, L. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, “Heavy flavour physics and cp violation at lhcb: a ten-year review,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.14360, 2021

2021 arXiv
[12]

Rotating and vibrating symmetric-top molecule raoch 3 in fundamental p, t-violation searches,

A. Zakharova, “Rotating and vibrating symmetric-top molecule raoch 3 in fundamental p, t-violation searches,”Physical Review A, vol. 105, no. 3, p. 032811, 2022

2022
[13]

Cosmological consequences of spon- taneous violation of discrete symmetry,

Y. B. Zel’dovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, “Cosmological consequences of spon- taneous violation of discrete symmetry,”Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., vol. 67, pp. 3–11, 1974

1974
[14]

Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory,

S. Coleman, “Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 15, pp. 2929–2936, May 1977

1977
[15]

Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles,

A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, “Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 45, pp. 4514–4535, Jun 1992

1992
[16]

Gravitational waves from first-order cos- mological phase transitions,

A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, “Gravitational waves from first-order cos- mological phase transitions,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 69, pp. 2026–2029, Oct 1992

2026
[17]

Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles: Envelope approximation to many-bubble collisions,

A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, “Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles: Envelope approximation to many-bubble collisions,”Physical Review D, vol. 47, no. 10, p. 4372, 1993

1993
[18]

Gravitational radiation from first- order phase transitions,

M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner, “Gravitational radiation from first- order phase transitions,”Physical Review D, vol. 49, no. 6, p. 2837, 1994. 19

1994
[19]

Science with the space-based interferometer elisa. ii: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions,

C. Caprini, M. Hindmarsh, S. Huber, T. Konstandin, J. Kozaczuk, G. Nardini, J. M. No, A. Petiteau, P. Schwaller, G. Servant,et al., “Science with the space-based interferometer elisa. ii: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions,”Journal of cosmology and astropa...

2016
[20]

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

D. J. Weir, “Gravitational waves from a first order electroweak phase transition: a brief review,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 376, no. 2114, p. 20170126, 2018, 1705.01783

2018 arXiv
[21]

Primordial Anisotropies in the Gravita- tional Wave Background from Cosmological Phase Transitions,

M. Geller, A. Hook, R. Sundrum, and Y. Tsai, “Primordial Anisotropies in the Gravita- tional Wave Background from Cosmological Phase Transitions,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 121, no. 20, p. 201303, 2018, 1803.10780

2018 arXiv
[22]

Cosmological Constraints on First-Order Phase Transitions,

Y. Bai and M. Korwar, “Cosmological Constraints on First-Order Phase Transitions,” 9 2021, 2109.14765

2021 arXiv
[23]

Higgs as a holographic pseudoGoldstone bo- son,

R. Contino, Y. Nomura, and A. Pomarol, “Higgs as a holographic pseudoGoldstone bo- son,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 671, pp. 148–174, 2003, hep-ph/0306259

2003 arXiv
[24]

The Minimal composite Higgs model,

K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A. Pomarol, “The Minimal composite Higgs model,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 719, pp. 165–187, 2005, hep-ph/0412089

2005 arXiv
[25]

The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson,

R. Contino, “The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson,” inTheoretical Ad- vanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small, pp. 235–306, 2011, 1005.4269

2011 arXiv
[26]

Composite higgses,

B. Bellazzini, C. Cs´ aki, and J. Serra, “Composite higgses,” inSupersymmetry After the Higgs Discovery, pp. 151–175, Springer, 2014

2014
[27]

Panico and A

G. Panico and A. Wulzer,The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs, vol. 913. Springer, 2016, 1506.01961

2016 arXiv
[29]

A More Natural Composite Higgs Model,

H.-C. Cheng and Y. Chung, “A More Natural Composite Higgs Model,”JHEP, vol. 10, p. 175, 2020, 2007.11780

2020 arXiv
[30]

Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves in a composite Higgs model with high dimensional fermion representations,

K.-P. Xie, L. Bian, and Y. Wu, “Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves in a composite Higgs model with high dimensional fermion representations,”JHEP, vol. 12, p. 047, 2020, 2005.13552

2020 arXiv
[31]

Electroweak phase transition with composite Higgs models: calculability, gravitational waves and collider searches,

L. Bian, Y. Wu, and K.-P. Xie, “Electroweak phase transition with composite Higgs models: calculability, gravitational waves and collider searches,”JHEP, vol. 12, p. 028, 2019, 1909.02014

2019 arXiv
[32]

Gravi- tational waves from SU(N)/SP(N) composite Higgs models,

M. T. Frandsen, M. Heikinheimo, M. Rosenlyst, M. E. Thing, and K. Tuominen, “Gravi- tational waves from SU(N)/SP(N) composite Higgs models,”JHEP, vol. 09, p. 022, 2023, 2302.09104. 20

2023 arXiv
[33]

Cosmological phase transitions in com- posite Higgs models,

K. Fujikura, Y. Nakai, R. Sato, and Y. Wang, “Cosmological phase transitions in com- posite Higgs models,”JHEP, vol. 09, p. 053, 2023, 2306.01305

2023 arXiv
[34]

Free Energy of a Heavy Quark-Antiquark Pair in a Thermal Medium from AdS/CFT,

C. Ewerz, O. Kaczmarek, and A. Samberg, “Free Energy of a Heavy Quark-Antiquark Pair in a Thermal Medium from AdS/CFT,”JHEP, vol. 03, p. 088, 2018, 1605.07181

2018 arXiv
[35]

Holographic description ofso(5)→so(4) composite higgs model,

D. Espriu and A. Katanaeva, “Holographic description ofso(5)→so(4) composite higgs model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02651, 2017

2017 arXiv
[36]

Composite higgs models: a new holographic approach,

A. Katanaeva and D. Espriu, “Composite higgs models: a new holographic approach,” XIII Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum. 31 July-6 August 2018. Maynooth University (Confinement2018), p. 275, 2018

2018
[37]

Soft wall holographic model for the minimal composite Higgs boson,

D. Espriu and A. Katanaeva, “Soft wall holographic model for the minimal composite Higgs boson,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 103, no. 5, p. 055006, 2021, 2008.06207

2021 arXiv
[38]

Electroweak Breaking on a Soft Wall,

A. Falkowski and M. Perez-Victoria, “Electroweak Breaking on a Soft Wall,”JHEP, vol. 12, p. 107, 2008, 0806.1737

2008 arXiv
[39]

Composite Higgses,

B. Bellazzini, C. Cs´ aki, and J. Serra, “Composite Higgses,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 74, no. 5, p. 2766, 2014, 1401.2457

2014 arXiv
[40]

a-anomalous interactions of the holographic dilaton,

C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, A. Ismail, G. Rigo, and F. Sgarlata, “a-anomalous interactions of the holographic dilaton,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 106, no. 5, p. 055004, 2022, 2205.15324

2022 arXiv
[41]

A second Higgs near 0.5 TeV from bottom-up holographic modeling of beyond the Standard Model strong sector,

S. Afonin, “A second Higgs near 0.5 TeV from bottom-up holographic modeling of beyond the Standard Model strong sector,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 840, p. 137882, 2023, 2211.07500

2023 arXiv
[42]

Holographic models of compos- ite Higgs in the Veneziano limit. Part I. Bosonic sector,

D. Elander, M. Frigerio, M. Knecht, and J.-L. Kneur, “Holographic models of compos- ite Higgs in the Veneziano limit. Part I. Bosonic sector,”JHEP, vol. 03, p. 182, 2021, 2011.03003

2021 arXiv
[43]

Holographic models of composite Higgs in the Veneziano limit. Part II. Fermionic sector,

D. Elander, M. Frigerio, M. Knecht, and J.-L. Kneur, “Holographic models of composite Higgs in the Veneziano limit. Part II. Fermionic sector,”JHEP, vol. 05, p. 066, 2022, 2112.14740

2022 arXiv
[44]

Towards composite Higgs: minimal coset from a regular bottom-up holographic model,

D. Elander, A. Fatemiabhari, and M. Piai, “Towards composite Higgs: minimal coset from a regular bottom-up holographic model,” 3 2023, 2303.00541

2023 arXiv
[45]

Cosmological phase transition of spontaneous confinement,

K. Agashe, P. Du, M. Ekhterachian, S. Kumar, and R. Sundrum, “Cosmological phase transition of spontaneous confinement,”Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2020, no. 5, pp. 1–16, 2020

2020
[46]

Phase transitions from the fifth dimension,

K. Agashe, P. Du, M. Ekhterachian, S. Kumar, and R. Sundrum, “Phase transitions from the fifth dimension,”Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2021, no. 2, pp. 1–31, 2021

2021
[47]

Gauge/gravity dynamics for composite Higgs models and the top mass,

J. Erdmenger, N. Evans, W. Porod, and K. S. Rigatos, “Gauge/gravity dynamics for composite Higgs models and the top mass,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 126, no. 7, p. 071602, 2021, 2009.10737. 21

2021 arXiv
[48]

Gauge/gravity dual dynamics for the strongly coupled sector of composite Higgs models,

J. Erdmenger, N. Evans, W. Porod, and K. S. Rigatos, “Gauge/gravity dual dynamics for the strongly coupled sector of composite Higgs models,”JHEP, vol. 02, p. 058, 2021, 2010.10279

2021 arXiv
[50]

Flavorful composite Higgs model: Connecting the B anomalies with the hierarchy problem,

Y. Chung, “Flavorful composite Higgs model: Connecting the B anomalies with the hierarchy problem,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 104, no. 11, p. 115027, 2021, 2108.08511

2021 arXiv
[51]

The Techni-Pati-Salam Composite Higgs,

G. Cacciapaglia, S. Vatani, and C. Zhang, “The Techni-Pati-Salam Composite Higgs,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 103, p. 055001, 2021, 2005.12302

2021 arXiv
[52]

Left-right symmetric composite Higgs model,

C.-S. Guan, T. Ma, and J. Shu, “Left-right symmetric composite Higgs model,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 101, no. 3, p. 035032, 2020, 1911.11765

2020 arXiv
[53]

Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis in Composite Higgs Models,

S. Bruggisser, B. Von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Servant, “Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis in Composite Higgs Models,”JHEP, vol. 12, p. 099, 2018, 1804.07314

2018 arXiv
[54]

Ultraviolet regularization of energy of two static sources in the bottom- up holographic approach to strong interactions,

S. S. Afonin, “Ultraviolet regularization of energy of two static sources in the bottom- up holographic approach to strong interactions,”Theor. Math. Phys., vol. 216, no. 3, pp. 1278–1286, 2023, 2303.03759

2023 arXiv
[55]

NANOGrav hints for first-order confinement- deconfinement phase transition in different QCD-matter scenarios,

Z.-C. Chen, S.-L. Li, P. Wu, and H. Yu, “NANOGrav hints for first-order confinement- deconfinement phase transition in different QCD-matter scenarios,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 109, no. 4, p. 043022, 2024, 2312.01824

2024 arXiv
[56]

Holographic QCD phase diagram for a rotating plasma in the Hawking-Page approach,

N. R. F. Braga and O. C. Junqueira, “Holographic QCD phase diagram for a rotating plasma in the Hawking-Page approach,” 1 2025, 2501.16446

2025 arXiv
[57]

QCD-induced Electroweak Phase Transition,

B. von Harling and G. Servant, “QCD-induced Electroweak Phase Transition,”JHEP, vol. 01, p. 159, 2018, 1711.11554

2018 arXiv
[58]

Avoided deconfinement in Randall-Sundrum models,

P. Agrawal and M. Nee, “Avoided deconfinement in Randall-Sundrum models,”JHEP, vol. 10, p. 105, 2021, 2103.05646

2021 arXiv
[59]

High-Temperature Electroweak Baryogenesis with Composite Higgs,

B. von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Servant, “High-Temperature Electroweak Baryogenesis with Composite Higgs,” 7 2023, 2307.14426

2023 arXiv
[60]

Chiral condensate in holographic models of qcd,

A. Cherman, T. D. Cohen, and E. S. Werbos, “Chiral condensate in holographic models of qcd,”Physical Review C, vol. 79, no. 4, p. 045203, 2009

2009
[61]

Chiral symmetry breaking in the soft- wall ads/qcd model,

T. Gherghetta, J. I. Kapusta, and T. M. Kelley, “Chiral symmetry breaking in the soft- wall ads/qcd model,”Physical Review D, vol. 79, no. 7, p. 076003, 2009

2009
[62]

Dynamics of the chiral phase transition from ads/cft duality,

G. Guralnik, Z. Guralnik, and C. Pehlevan, “Dynamics of the chiral phase transition from ads/cft duality,”Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2011, no. 12, pp. 1–25, 2011. 22

2011
[63]

Temperature and quark density effects on the chiral condensate: An ads/qcd study,

P. Colangelo, F. Giannuzzi, S. Nicotri, and V. Tangorra, “Temperature and quark density effects on the chiral condensate: An ads/qcd study,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 1–7, 2012

2012
[64]

A dynamical soft-wall holographic qcd model for chiral symmetry breaking and linear confinement,

D. Li, M. Huang, and Q.-S. Yan, “A dynamical soft-wall holographic qcd model for chiral symmetry breaking and linear confinement,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 1–7, 2013

2013
[65]

Phase structure in a dynamical soft-wall holographic qcd model,

S. He, S.-Y. Wu, Y. Yang, and P.-H. Yuan, “Phase structure in a dynamical soft-wall holographic qcd model,”Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2013, no. 4, pp. 1–23, 2013

2013
[66]

Dynamical three-field ads/qcd model,

S. P. Bartz and J. I. Kapusta, “Dynamical three-field ads/qcd model,”Physical Review D, vol. 90, no. 7, p. 074034, 2014

2014
[67]

Chiral phase transition in the soft-wall model of ads/qcd,

K. Chelabi, Z. Fang, M. Huang, D. Li, and Y.-L. Wu, “Chiral phase transition in the soft-wall model of ads/qcd,”Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2016, no. 4, pp. 1–30, 2016

2016
[68]

Chiral phase transition and meson spectrum in im- proved soft-wall ads/qcd,

Z. Fang, Y.-L. Wu, and L. Zhang, “Chiral phase transition and meson spectrum in im- proved soft-wall ads/qcd,”Physics Letters B, vol. 762, pp. 86–95, 2016

2016
[69]

Chiral and deconfining phase transitions from holographic qcd study,

Z. Fang, S. He, and D. Li, “Chiral and deconfining phase transitions from holographic qcd study,”Nuclear Physics B, vol. 907, pp. 187–207, 2016

2016
[70]

Chiral phase transition and meson melting in a soft-wall ads/qcd model,

S. P. Bartz and T. Jacobson, “Chiral phase transition and meson melting in a soft-wall ads/qcd model,”Physical Review D, vol. 94, no. 7, p. 075022, 2016

2016
[71]

Chiral phase transition and qcd phase diagram from ads/qcd,

Z. Fang, Y.-L. Wu, and L. Zhang, “Chiral phase transition and qcd phase diagram from ads/qcd,”Physical Review D, vol. 99, no. 3, p. 034028, 2019

2019
[72]

The holographic quantum effective potential at finite tem- perature and density,

E. Kiritsis and V. Niarchos, “The holographic quantum effective potential at finite tem- perature and density,”JHEP, vol. 08, p. 164, 2012, 1205.6205

2012 arXiv
[73]

The Minimal Simple Composite Higgs Model,

L. Da Rold and A. N. Rossia, “The Minimal Simple Composite Higgs Model,”JHEP, vol. 12, p. 023, 2019, 1904.02560

2019 arXiv
[74]

Minimal Composite Higgs Models at the LHC,

M. Carena, L. Da Rold, and E. Pont´ on, “Minimal Composite Higgs Models at the LHC,” JHEP, vol. 06, p. 159, 2014, 1402.2987

2014 arXiv
[75]

Unbroken B – L symmetry,

J. Heeck, “Unbroken B – L symmetry,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 739, pp. 256–262, 2014, 1408.6845

2014 arXiv
[76]

Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,

A. D. Linde, “Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 216, p. 421, 1983. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]

1983
[77]

Phase Transitions in an Expanding Uni- verse: Stochastic Gravitational Waves in Standard and Non-Standard Histories,

H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha, D. Vagie, and G. White, “Phase Transitions in an Expanding Uni- verse: Stochastic Gravitational Waves in Standard and Non-Standard Histories,”JCAP, vol. 01, p. 001, 2021, 2007.08537. 23

2021 arXiv
[78]

Gravitational wave energy budget in strongly supercooled phase transitions,

J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, J. M. No, and V. Vaskonen, “Gravitational wave energy budget in strongly supercooled phase transitions,”JCAP, vol. 06, p. 024, 2019, 1903.09642

2019 arXiv
[79]

TASI lectures on Phase Transitions, Baryogenesis, and Gravitational Waves,

D. Croon, “TASI lectures on Phase Transitions, Baryogenesis, and Gravitational Waves,” PoS, vol. TASI2022, p. 003, 2024, 2307.00068

2024 arXiv
[80]

Analytic thin wall false vacuum decay rate,

A. Ivanov, M. Matteini, M. Nemevˇ sek, and L. Ubaldi, “Analytic thin wall false vacuum decay rate,”JHEP, vol. 03, p. 209, 2022, 2202.04498. [Erratum: JHEP 07, 085 (2022), Erratum: JHEP 11, 157 (2022)]

2022 arXiv
[81]

How fast can the wall move? A Study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics,

G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec, “How fast can the wall move? A Study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 52, pp. 7182–7204, 1995, hep-ph/9506475

1995 arXiv
[82]

The Supercooled Universe,

P. Baratella, A. Pomarol, and F. Rompineve, “The Supercooled Universe,”JHEP, vol. 03, p. 100, 2019, 1812.06996

2019 arXiv
[83]

Gravitational waves from dark SU(3) Yang- Mills theory,

E. Morgante, N. Ramberg, and P. Schwaller, “Gravitational waves from dark SU(3) Yang- Mills theory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 107, no. 3, p. 036010, 2023, 2210.11821

2023 arXiv
[84]

Bubble nucleation and growth in very strong cosmological phase transitions,

A. Megevand and S. Ramirez, “Bubble nucleation and growth in very strong cosmological phase transitions,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 919, pp. 74–109, 2017, 1611.05853

2017 arXiv
[85]

Supercool subtleties of cosmological phase transi- tions,

P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, and L. Morris, “Supercool subtleties of cosmological phase transi- tions,”JCAP, vol. 03, p. 006, 2023, 2212.07559

2023
[86]

Implication of nano-Hertz stochastic grav- itational wave on dynamical dark matter through a dark first-order phase transition,

S. Jiang, A. Yang, J. Ma, and F. P. Huang, “Implication of nano-Hertz stochastic grav- itational wave on dynamical dark matter through a dark first-order phase transition,” Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 41, no. 6, p. 065009, 2024, 2306.17827

2024 arXiv
[87]

Gravitational waves from vacuum first order phase transitions II: from thin to thick walls,

D. Cutting, E. G. Escartin, M. Hindmarsh, and D. J. Weir, “Gravitational waves from vacuum first order phase transitions II: from thin to thick walls,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 103, no. 2, p. 023531, 2021, 2005.13537

2021 arXiv
[88]

False vacuum decay rate from thin to thick walls,

M. Matteini, M. Nemevˇ sek, Y. Shoji, and L. Ubaldi, “False vacuum decay rate from thin to thick walls,”JHEP, vol. 04, p. 120, 2025, 2404.17632

2025 arXiv
[89]

Modification of Higgs Couplings in Minimal Composite Models,

D. Liu, I. Low, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Modification of Higgs Couplings in Minimal Composite Models,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 96, no. 3, p. 035013, 2017, 1703.07791

2017 arXiv
[90]

Energy budget of cosmological first-order phase transi- tion in FLRW background,

R.-G. Cai and S.-J. Wang, “Energy budget of cosmological first-order phase transi- tion in FLRW background,”Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., vol. 61, p. 080411, 2018, 1803.03002

2018 arXiv
[91]

New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,

K. Schmitz, “New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,”JHEP, vol. 01, p. 097, 2021, 2002.04615

2021 arXiv
[92]

Friction pressure on relativistic bubble walls,

Y. Gouttenoire, R. Jinno, and F. Sala, “Friction pressure on relativistic bubble walls,” JHEP, vol. 05, p. 004, 2022, 2112.07686. 24

2022 arXiv
[93]

Can electroweak bubble walls run away?,

D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore, “Can electroweak bubble walls run away?,”JCAP, vol. 05, p. 009, 2009, 0903.4099

2009 arXiv
[94]

Gravitational waves from the early universe,

R. R. L. d. Santos and L. M. van Manen, “Gravitational waves from the early universe,” 12 2022, 2212.05594

2022 arXiv
[95]

Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions: Towards model separation by bubble nucleation rate,

R. Jinno, S. Lee, H. Seong, and M. Takimoto, “Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions: Towards model separation by bubble nucleation rate,”JCAP, vol. 11, p. 050, 2017, 1708.01253

2017 arXiv
[96]

Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,

M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner, “Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 49, pp. 2837–2851, 1994, astro-ph/9310044

1994 arXiv
[97]

Gravitational wave spectra from strongly supercooled phase transitions,

M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen, “Gravitational wave spectra from strongly supercooled phase transitions,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 80, no. 11, p. 1003, 2020, 2007.04967

2020 arXiv
[98]

Gravitational waves from colliding vacuum bubbles in gauge theories,

M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen, “Gravitational waves from colliding vacuum bubbles in gauge theories,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 81, no. 5, p. 437, 2021, 2012.07826. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 81, 1077 (2021)]

2021 arXiv
[99]

Gravitational waves from bubble collisions in FLRW spacetime,

H. Zhong, B. Gong, and T. Qiu, “Gravitational waves from bubble collisions in FLRW spacetime,”JHEP, vol. 02, p. 077, 2022, 2107.01845

2022 arXiv
[100]

Gravitational Wave Production by Collisions: More Bubbles,

S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, “Gravitational Wave Production by Collisions: More Bubbles,”JCAP, vol. 09, p. 022, 2008, 0806.1828

2008 arXiv
[101]

Probing the Scale of New Physics by Advanced LIGO/VIRGO,

P. S. B. Dev and A. Mazumdar, “Probing the Scale of New Physics by Advanced LIGO/VIRGO,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 93, no. 10, p. 104001, 2016, 1602.04203

2016 arXiv
[102]

Primordial gravitational waves, precisely: The role of thermo- dynamics in the Standard Model,

K. Saikawa and S. Shirai, “Primordial gravitational waves, precisely: The role of thermo- dynamics in the Standard Model,”JCAP, vol. 05, p. 035, 2018, 1803.01038

2018 arXiv
[103]

Lectures on Gravitational Wave Signatures of Primordial Black Holes,

G. Dom` enech, “Lectures on Gravitational Wave Signatures of Primordial Black Holes,” 7 2023, 2307.06964

2023 arXiv
[104]

Electroweak phase transition and gravitational waves in a two- component dark matter model,

A. Mohamadnejad, “Electroweak phase transition and gravitational waves in a two- component dark matter model,”JHEP, vol. 03, p. 188, 2022, 2111.04342

2022 arXiv
[105]

General Properties of the Gravi- tational Wave Spectrum from Phase Transitions,

C. Caprini, R. Durrer, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, “General Properties of the Gravi- tational Wave Spectrum from Phase Transitions,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 79, p. 083519, 2009, 0901.1661

2009 arXiv
[106]

Baryogenesis via relativistic bubble expansion,

I. Baldes, S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Sevrin, and K. Turbang, “Baryogenesis via relativistic bubble expansion,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 104, no. 11, p. 115029, 2021, 2106.15602

2021 arXiv
[107]

Baryogenesis and leptogenesis from super- cooled confinement,

M. Dichtl, J. Nava, S. Pascoli, and F. Sala, “Baryogenesis and leptogenesis from super- cooled confinement,”JHEP, vol. 02, p. 059, 2024, 2312.09282

2024 arXiv
[108]

The supercooling window at weak and strong coupling,

N. Levi, T. Opferkuch, and D. Redigolo, “The supercooling window at weak and strong coupling,”JHEP, vol. 02, p. 125, 2023, 2212.08085. 25

2023 arXiv
[109]

Primordial black holes from supercooled phase transi- tions,

Y. Gouttenoire and T. Volansky, “Primordial black holes from supercooled phase transi- tions,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 4, p. 043514, 2024, 2305.04942

2024 arXiv
[110]

Detailed calculation of primordial black hole formation during first-order cosmological phase transitions,

M. J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, and L. Mittnacht, “Detailed calculation of primordial black hole formation during first-order cosmological phase transitions,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 111, no. 6, p. 063544, 2025, 2110.00005

2025 arXiv
[111]

Criterion for ultra-fast bubble walls: the impact of hydrodynamic obstruction,

W.-Y. Ai, X. Nagels, and M. Vanvlasselaer, “Criterion for ultra-fast bubble walls: the impact of hydrodynamic obstruction,”JCAP, vol. 03, p. 037, 2024, 2401.05911

2024 arXiv
[112]

Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions,

J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and G. Servant, “Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions,”JCAP, vol. 06, p. 028, 2010, 1004.4187

2010 arXiv
[113]

Bubble wall velocity: heavy physics effects,

A. Azatov and M. Vanvlasselaer, “Bubble wall velocity: heavy physics effects,”JCAP, vol. 01, p. 058, 2021, 2010.02590

2021 arXiv
[114]

Logarithmically divergent friction on ultrarelativistic bubble walls,

W.-Y. Ai, “Logarithmically divergent friction on ultrarelativistic bubble walls,”JCAP, vol. 10, p. 052, 2023, 2308.10679. 26

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [49]

Holographic model for the first order phase transition in the composite Higgs boson scenario

O. O. Novikov and A. A. Shavrin, “Holographic model for the first order phase transition in the composite Higgs boson scenario,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 108, no. 11, p. 115011, 2023, 2209.02331

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[2] [1]

Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,

A. D. Sakharov, “Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,”Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., vol. 5, pp. 32–35, 1967

1967

[3] [2]

Violation of cp invariance, c asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,

A. D. Sakharov, “Violation of cp invariance, c asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,”Soviet Physics Uspekhi, vol. 34, pp. 392–393, may 1991

1991

[4] [3]

A Pedagogical Introduction to Electroweak Baryogenesis,

G. A. White, “A Pedagogical Introduction to Electroweak Baryogenesis,” 11 2016. 18

2016

[5] [4]

On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,

V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 155, p. 36, 1985

1985

[6] [5]

Possible Appearance of the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe in an Electroweak Theory,

M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Possible Appearance of the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe in an Electroweak Theory,”JETP Lett., vol. 44, pp. 465–468, 1986

1986

[7] [6]

Sphalerons, Small Fluctuations and Baryon Number Violation in Electroweak Theory,

P. B. Arnold and L. D. McLerran, “Sphalerons, Small Fluctuations and Baryon Number Violation in Electroweak Theory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 36, p. 581, 1987

1987

[8] [7]

A Saddle Point Solution in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,

F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, “A Saddle Point Solution in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 30, p. 2212, 1984

1984