Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Langer's nucleation rate reproduced on the lattice

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Langer's semiclassical bubble-nucleation rate is quantitatively correct, showing that a fully thermalized metastable phase in a 1+1-dimensional scalar field escapes at the predicted rate to within about ten percent…

desk verdict Careful lattice work that finally reproduces Langer's rate quantitatively by thermalizing the metastable phase before measuring; the central comparison is solid, with minor but curable soft spots in the no-return horizon scan and the phase-boundary choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22732 v1 pith:K3NTQTF4 submitted 2025-05-28 hep-ph astro-ph.COcond-mat.stat-mechhep-lathep-th

Joonas Hirvonen , Oliver Gould This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COcond-mat.stat-mechhep-lathep-th
keywords bubblenucleationLangerformulametastablephaselatticesimulationthermalizationgradientdescentfunctionaldeterminanttwo-loopcorrections
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 claims to settle a decades-long question: whether Langer's semiclassical formula for bubble nucleation is quantitatively correct, not merely qualitatively right. Its lattice simulation of a 1+1-dimensional scalar field with a metastable minimum measures the escape rate after fully thermalizing the metastable phase, finding $\Gamma_{\rm lattice}(0.1)=2.09(4)\times 10^{-4}$ against Langer's prediction $2.25(23)\times 10^{-4}$, and a five-temperature dataset that selects the expected two-loop form $\Gamma_{\rm Langer}(1+c_2\hat{T})$ with $c_2=-0.94(4)$. The key move is a nonperturbative definition of the metastable phase: configurations that flow to the metastable minimum under zero-temperature gradient descent. If this definition is the right lattice counterpart of the perturbative metastable well, the result means earlier lattice disagreements, often by factors $e^{O(10)}$ to $e^{O(100)}$, were artifacts of incomplete thermalization rather than failures of Langer's theory.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a nonperturbative phase-space boundary. The metastable phase is defined as the set of field configurations for which zero-temperature gradient descent, Eq. (7), flows to the metastable minimum; this turns Langer's perturbative "well" into a membership test that can be applied to every lattice configuration. The escape rate is defined at time zero as the flux out of this region, with a no-return projector, Eq. (5), excluding trajectories that re-enter on microscopic timescales, so that only the last escape of each trajectory is counted. A Hybrid Monte Carlo sampler modified with an accept/reject step conditioned on membership in this basin thermalizes the metastable phase, and a fourth-order symplectic integrator evolves configurations for the escape measurement.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop correction to Eq. (9) for the scalar model of Eq. (3) and check whether the fitted coefficient $c_2=-0.94(4)$ is reproduced; if the perturbative two-loop coefficient is far from that value, the residual 10% gap is not the claimed higher-loop effect and the agreement is not quantitative. Alternatively, re-run the five-temperature measurement with the metastable phase defined by requiring the Hessian about the configuration to have no negative eigenvalues and see whether the escape rate still matches $\Gamma_{\rm Langer}$ to within the quoted errors; if the rate shifts outside errors, the comparison is not independent of the phase definition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that, once the metastable phase is thermally populated as a whole, the escape rate from it is given by Langer's one-loop formula, Eq. (2), up to the small higher-loop corrections the formula already anticipates. In the 1+1-dimensional scalar model of Eq. (3), the lattice rate at $\hat{T}=0.1$ is $2.09(4)\times 10^{-4}$ while the full one-loop prediction is $2.25(23)\times 10^{-4}$, and across the five temperatures simulated the data are better described by $\Gamma_{\rm Langer}(1+c_2\hat{T})$ than by a pure rescaling, giving $c_2=-0.94(4)$ with $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=1.1$. This agreement is obtained by defining the nucleation rate as the initial flux out of the metastable phase with a no-return condition, and by defining that phase as the basin of attraction of gradient descent. The paper reads the earlier factor-of-approximately-eight overestimate as a symptom that the metastable phase was not fully thermalized, not as evidence against Langer's formula.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the metastable phase is exactly the set of field configurations that flow downhill to the metastable minimum under zero-temperature gradient descent; if the true thermal metastable phase has a different boundary, the measured rate is not the quantity Langer's formula predicts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-loop perturbative computation of the nucleation rate in this model should reproduce the measured coefficient $c_2=-0.94(4)$, extending the agreement from the 10% level to the 1% level.
  • Previous lattice determinations that reported large deviations from Langer's formula must be re-examined: if the metastable phase was not fully thermalized, the measured rate is an initialisation-dependent quantity, not the thermal nucleation rate.
  • The thermalization criterion $t_{\rm th}\sqrt{|\lambda_-|}<\beta H[\phi_{\rm cb}]$ decides when a dynamically cooling system nucleates at Langer's rate; for first-order electroweak-scale transitions it implies couplings $\alpha\gtrsim 1/50$ thermalize and nucleate at Langer's rate, while more weakly coupled fields nucleate more slowly.
  • The excluded possibility of a failure of Langer's theory in homogeneous nucleation shifts attention to other explanations for the $^3$He discrepancy, such as microphysical modeling or the experimental initial state.
  • Extending the same phase definition to 3+1 dimensions would provide a sharper test, since existing 3+1-dimensional comparisons found much larger lattice-versus-perturbative discrepancies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gradient-descent basin is the correct nonperturbative phase boundary, the same boundary should also control the higher-loop expansion of the rate; a two-loop calculation that disagrees with $c_2=-0.94(4)$ would indicate that Eq. (7) is only approximately the right definition, and that a modified, noise-corrected descent should be used.
  • The strong sensitivity to the initial distribution implies that truncated-Wigner and other Gaussian-initialized simulations will generically under-predict nucleation rates in under-thermalized settings; a direct test would be to run the same lattice code with Gaussian initialization at all five temperatures and compare the time-dependent rates.
  • For cosmological phase transitions, the relevant question is not whether Langer's formula is true but whether the cooling plasma satisfies the thermalization condition; this suggests rewording the comparison with experiment in terms of the ratio of thermalization time to the inverse growth rate of critical bubbles.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines an operational, nonperturbative nucleation rate for a (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory with a metastable vacuum. The metastable phase is defined by gradient descent (Eq. 7), and the escape rate is measured at t=0 with a no-return projector of finite horizon T (Eq. 4). Using 2e7 configurations per temperature generated by constrained HMC, the authors simulate conservative Hamiltonian dynamics and extract initial nucleation rates at five temperatures T-hat in {0.1,...,0.12}. They find Gamma_lattice(0.1)=2.09(4)e-4 versus Langer's Gamma_Langer=2.25(23)e-4, and the temperature dependence is consistent with Gamma_Langer(1+c2 T-hat) with c2=-0.94(4) and chi^2/dof=1.1. They argue that previous lattice discrepancies were due to incomplete thermalization of the metastable phase.

Significance. If the quantitative agreement holds, this is the first lattice test of Langer's nucleation rate in a conservative Hamiltonian system that goes well beyond an O(1) factor, turning a decades-old qualitative story into a quantitative one. The paper is careful in several respects: the HMC algorithm is specified and a detailed-balance proof is provided in Appendix III; lattice-spacing and finite-size effects are estimated (0.5% discretization, negligible finite-size); the data are released on Zenodo; and the comparison is parameter-free for the leading exponential and prefactor, with the only fitted parameter being the subleading c2. The alternative eigenmode definition of the metastable phase gives consistent results, which is a meaningful robustness check. The main caveats are the formal issue with Eq. (5) and the lack of a convergence scan in the no-return horizon T.

major comments (2)
  1. [Nucleation, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) as written cannot define the no-return projector: delta_NR(T) is a product over t=0,...,T of theta({phi(t),pi(t)} not in R), and every initial condition entering Eq. (4) satisfies {phi(0),pi(0)} in R (by Eq. (6)). Hence the t=0 factor is zero for every trajectory and Gamma in Eq. (4) is identically zero. The intended condition is presumably that the trajectory does not return to R after its first exit, i.e. the outside-R factor should run over t>0 (or the t=0 factor should be omitted). Since Eq. (4) is the definition of the nucleation rate used throughout the paper, this must be corrected.
  2. [Results, no-return horizon] The numerical implementation fixes the no-return horizon at T=10, but no convergence scan in T is reported. The text after Eq. (4) argues that the rate 'should be exponentially insensitive' to T, and the Results section states 'The no-return criterion delta_NR(T) was implemented by evolving each configuration to a time T=10'. At T-hat=0.1, however, the extracted time-dependent rate Gamma_lattice(t) falls by roughly a factor of two between t=0 and t=10 (Fig. 2), so trajectories that have escaped but have not yet returned within the monitoring window are far from negligible. If even a few percent of the events counted with T=10 would return on longer timescales, Gamma_lattice(0.1) and the fitted c2 would shift; this is not covered by the quoted 0.5% discretization estimate or the 2% statistical errors. A scan in T (for example T=5, 10, 20, 50) is needed to demonstrate that Gamma_lattice is in the plateau of Eq. (4) before the comparison with Langer's formula can be regarded as quantitative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The word 'alcanes' should be 'alkanes'.
  2. [Conclusions] The word 'mangitude' should be 'magnitude'.
  3. [Abstract and Results] The phrase 'measure the coefficient of the two-loop contribution' is stronger than what is actually done: the analysis fits the coefficient of an assumed linear correction Gamma=Gamma_Langer(1+c2 T-hat), rather than computing the two-loop coefficient from first principles. The wording could be softened.
  4. [References] References [38] and [39] contain empty quotation marks in the titles, which looks like a formatting artifact.
  5. [Appendix V] The Bayesian priors are constructed to favour the perturbative model, so the reported Bayes factors of 4.0 and 9.5 should not be over-interpreted; this is a presentation point rather than a decisive piece of evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lattice nucleation rate is measured from first-order dynamics with an independent phase-space definition, and the perturbative comparison value is taken from an independent calculation without fitting the leading rate.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the claimed derivation. The lattice rate is obtained by evolving the Hamiltonian dynamics of Eq. (1) from a metastable ensemble defined by the gradient-descent condition (Eq. 7) and the no-return projector of Eqs. (4)-(5); none of these definitions takes Langer's rate as an input. The perturbative value in Eq. (9) is attributed to Ref. [38], an independent calculation by different authors, and is used without fitting. At T-hat = 0.1, the lattice result 2.09(4) x 10^-4 and the Langer value 2.25(23) x 10^-4 agree within uncertainties with no adjustable parameter; the leading exponential and prefactor are not fitted. The only fitted quantity, c2 = -0.94(4), is explicitly described as a lattice measurement of the unknown two-loop coefficient, not as a prediction of Langer's formula. The self-citations appearing in the paper (Refs. [11,12,37,40]) are background, tooling, or previous comparisons and are not load-bearing for the central agreement. The finite no-return horizon T=10 is asserted to give an exponentially insensitive rate but is not scanned; this is a possible systematic/convergence concern to be checked, not a circular reduction, since it does not encode the Langer result by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement depends on two hand-chosen elements beyond standard lattice methodology: the gradient-descent definition of the metastable phase and the finite no-return horizon T=10. The physical content is otherwise carried by the known Hamiltonian and Langer's formula. The fitted two-loop coefficient c2 is an additional parameter used only for the subleading comparison.

free parameters (2)
  • Two-loop coefficient c2 = -0.94(4)
    Coefficient in the model Gamma = Gamma_Langer (1 + c2 T-hat), fitted to the lattice rates at five temperatures. Used to argue the residual offset has the expected size and functional form of two-loop corrections, but not computed from a two-loop perturbative calculation.
  • No-return horizon T = 10 (in units where m=1)
    Finite observation time used in the no-return projector delta_NR(T). Chosen by hand to lie between microscopic and global timescales; the paper argues exponential insensitivity but reports no explicit T-scan.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Classical-statistical approximation: the lattice simulation treats the field as a classical Hamiltonian system and matches to the finite-temperature classical theory.
    Used throughout (Eqs. 1-3, Appendix I); quantum fluctuations are not included, only classical thermal ones, which is standard for this weakly coupled high-temperature regime.
  • domain assumption The theory is superrenormalizable and has no field-dependent ultraviolet divergences requiring counterterms beyond a constant.
    Appendix II justifies the continuum limit and use of bare parameters; needed to equate lattice and continuum rates at the 0.5% level.
  • ad hoc to paper The metastable phase is the set of configurations that flow to the metastable minimum under zero-temperature L2 gradient descent (Eq. 7).
    This is the paper's central nonperturbative definition. It is physically motivated and checked against an eigenmode-based definition, but it is not derived from Langer's perturbative formalism and is not unique; other gradient flows give different basins.
  • ad hoc to paper The no-return projector with finite horizon T=10 gives the same escape rate as the ideal definition with t_micro << T << t_global.
    The implementation counts trajectories outside the metastable phase at T=10 as escaped and assumes super-critical bubbles rarely return; no numerical test of T-independence is shown.
  • domain assumption Langer's saddlepoint and weak-coupling expansion is a valid benchmark, with two-loop corrections suppressed by O(T-hat).
    This is the theoretical prediction being tested, Eq. (9); its 10% error band is estimated from expected two-loop contributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Langer's nucleation rate reproduced on the lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K3NTQTF4

@misc{pith2026250522732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Langer's nucleation rate reproduced on the lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K3NTQTF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22732}
}
abstract

We show that Langer's rate of bubble nucleation is quantitatively correct up to small higher-loop corrections, in comparison to lattice simulations. These results are a significant advancement on decades of lattice studies showing only qualitative trends, and the first showing agreement for any conservative system. We confirm that the failure to fully thermalize the metastable phase explains discrepancies with recent lattice studies that found disagreement with Langer's rate. The key theoretical development is the translation of Langer's perturbative definition of a thermal metastable phase into a nonperturbative statement that can be implemented on the lattice. Our statistical and systematic errors are small enough to allow us to measure on the lattice the coefficient of the two-loop contribution, missing from the perturbative prediction. Our conclusions also exclude a possible systematic uncertainty in $^3$He experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Growth in phase space of an initially localized distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. As an equation, this is Γ ≡ − Z R DϕDπ δNR(T ) ∂ρ ∂t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the nucleation rate at Tˆ = 0.1. A linear fit to t ∈ [0, 3] and extrapolation to t → 0 yields Γlattice(Tˆ); a quadratic fit agrees within errors. The lattice result (orange band) is shown alongside Langer’s rate (dashed 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time, t 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Nucleation rate ×10−4 Tˆ = 0.1 Langer’s rate, ΓLanger Rate in ∆t bin Linear fit Initial rate, Γlattice FIG. 2. Nucleation rate at Tˆ = 0.1 for early… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Nucleation rates across different temperatures, show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows that Gaussian initialization leads to a strongly time-dependent rate. The rate starts from zero, because the Gaussian initialization gives exponentially smaller weight to configurations which are near the edge of the metastable phase, where 1 2m2 T ϕ 2 > V (ϕ). T…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The two-point correlator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The Feynman diagrams that contribute to the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum field nucleating and Wigner functions

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.5 of 10

    The one-loop over-the-barrier nucleation rate in a thermal QFT is Affleck’s formula generalized to fields, not Linde’s, and still carries quantum prefactor effects even when the bounce is classically symmetric.

  2. Dynamics of nucleation in thermal phase transitions

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The thermal nucleation rate is the transition-state estimate multiplied by one minus the re-crossing probability, and oscillons make that correction large.

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

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the conformal U(1)_X model, the daisy-resummed nucleation scheme shifts LISA-reconstructed gauge couplings by O(10%) relative to the NLO effective-field-theory result, an order of magnitude above the Fisher-matrix ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [38]

    P ˆ ırvu, A

    D. P ˆ ırvu, A. Shkerin, and S. Sibiryakov, Thermal false vacuum decay in (1+1)-dimensions: Evidence for non- equilibrium dynamics, ”” (2024), arXiv:2408.06411 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    J. W. Gibbs, On the equilibrium of heterogeneous sub- stances, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences3, 343 (1874)

    work page

  3. [2]

    Becker and W

    R. Becker and W. D¨ oring, Kinetische behandlung der ke- imbildung in ¨ ubers¨ attigten d¨ ampfen, Annalen der physik 416, 719 (1935)

    work page 1935

  4. [3]

    Wigner, The transition state method, Transactions of the Faraday Society34, 29 (1938)

    E. Wigner, The transition state method, Transactions of the Faraday Society34, 29 (1938)

    work page 1938

  5. [4]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, On the Theory of New Phase Formation. Cavitation, inSelected Works of Yakov Borisovich Zel- dovich, Volume I: Chemical Physics and Hydrodynamics, Vol. 1, edited by J. P. Ostriker, G. I. Barenblatt, R. A. 1 The Boltzmann analysis parametrically underestimates the ther- malization of the bubbles if they are coupled to bosonic fields lighter...

    work page 1992

  6. [5]

    H. A. Kramers, Brownian motion in a field of force and the diffusion model of chemical re actions, Physica7, 284 (1940)

    work page 1940

  7. [6]

    J. W. Cahn and J. E. Hilliard, Free energy of a nonuni- form system. iii. nucleation in a two-component incom- pressible fluid, The Journal of chemical physics31, 688 (1959)

    work page 1959

  8. [7]

    J. S. Langer, Theory of the condensation point, Annals Phys.41, 108 (1967), [Annals Phys.281,941(2000)]

    work page 1967

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

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

    1969

  2. [9]

    Berera, J

    A. Berera, J. Mabillard, B. W. Mintz, and R. O. Ramos, Formulating the Kramers problem in field theory, Phys. Rev. D100, 076005 (2019), arXiv:1906.08684 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ekstedt, Bubble nucleation to all orders, JHEP08, 115, arXiv:2201.07331 [hep-ph]

    A. Ekstedt, Bubble nucleation to all orders, JHEP08, 115, arXiv:2201.07331 [hep-ph]. 7

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    Gould and J

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

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Hirvonen, Real-Time Nucleation and Off-Equilibrium Effects in High-Temperature Quantum Field Theories, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2403.07987 [hep-ph]

    J. Hirvonen, Real-Time Nucleation and Off-Equilibrium Effects in High-Temperature Quantum Field Theories, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2403.07987 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    D. W. Oxtoby, Homogeneous nucleation: theory and ex- periment, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter4, 7627 (1992)

    1992

  7. [14]

    J. S. Langer and A. J. Schwartz, Kinetics of nucleation in near-critical fluids, Phys. Rev. A21, 948 (1980)

    1980

  8. [15]

    R. B. Nellas, S. J. Keasler, J. I. Siepmann, and B. Chen, Exploring the discrepancies between experiment, theory, and simulation for the homogeneous gas-to-liquid nucle- ation of 1-pentanol, The Journal of chemical physics132 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    M. Hindmarshet al.(QUEST-DMC), A-B transition in superfluid 3He and cosmological phase transitions, in 2023 International Symposium on Quantum Fluids and Solids(2024) arXiv:2401.07878 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Fialko, B

    O. Fialko, B. Opanchuk, A. I. Sidorov, P. D. Drummond, and J. Brand, Fate of the false vacuum: towards real- ization with ultra-cold atoms, EPL110, 56001 (2015), arXiv:1408.1163 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Fialko, B

    O. Fialko, B. Opanchuk, A. I. Sidorov, P. D. Drum- mond, and J. Brand, The universe on a table top: engi- neering quantum decay of a relativistic scalar field from a metastable vacuum, J. Phys. B50, 024003 (2017), arXiv:1607.01460 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    T. P. Billam, K. Brown, and I. G. Moss, False-vacuum decay in an ultracold spin-1 Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A105, L041301 (2022), arXiv:2108.05740 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Tianet al., Supercooling of the A phase of 3He, Na- ture Commun.14, 148 (2023), arXiv:2208.14981 [cond- mat.other]

    Y. Tianet al., Supercooling of the A phase of 3He, Na- ture Commun.14, 148 (2023), arXiv:2208.14981 [cond- mat.other]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    A. C. Jenkins, J. Braden, H. V. Peiris, A. Pontzen, M. C. Johnson, and S. Weinfurtner, Analog vacuum decay from vacuum initial conditions, Phys. Rev. D109, 023506 (2024), arXiv:2307.02549 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    A. C. Jenkins, I. G. Moss, T. P. Billam, Z. Hadzibabic, H. V. Peiris, and A. Pontzen, Generalized cold-atom sim- ulators for vacuum decay, Phys. Rev. A110, L031301 (2024), arXiv:2311.02156 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024

  16. [23]

    Darbha, M

    S. Darbha, M. Kornjaˇ ca, F. Liu, J. Balewski, M. R. Hirs- brunner, P. L. S. Lopes, S.-T. Wang, R. Van Beeumen, D. Camps, and K. Klymko, False vacuum decay and nu- cleation dynamics in neutral atom systems, Phys. Rev. B110, 155103 (2024), arXiv:2404.12360 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    B. Song, S. Dutta, S. Bhave, J.-C. Yu, E. Carter, N. Cooper, and U. Schneider, Realizing discontinu- ous quantum phase transitions in a strongly correlated driven optical lattice, Nature Phys.18, 259 (2022), arXiv:2105.12146 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Zenesini, A

    A. Zenesini, A. Berti, R. Cominotti, C. Rogora, I. G. Moss, T. P. Billam, I. Carusotto, G. Lamporesi, A. Re- cati, and G. Ferrari, Observation of false vacuum decay via bubble formation in ferromagnetic superfluids, Na- ture Physics , 1 (2023), arXiv:2305.05225 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    D. Y. Grigoriev and V. A. Rubakov, Soliton Pair Cre- ation at Finite Temperatures. Numerical Study in (1+1)- dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B299, 67 (1988)

    1988

  20. [27]

    A. I. Bochkarev and P. de Forcrand, The Study of Kink - Antikink Pair Production at Finite Temperature by Means of the Langevin Equation, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 2337 (1989)

    1989

  21. [28]

    M. G. Alford, H. Feldman, and M. Gleiser, Thermal nu- cleation of kink - anti-kink pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 1645 (1992)

    1992

  22. [29]

    O. T. Valls and G. F. Mazenko, Nucleation in a time- dependent Ginzburg-Landau model: A numerical study, Physical Review B42, 6614 (1990)

    1990

  23. [30]

    Borsanyi, A

    S. Borsanyi, A. Patkos, J. Polonyi, and Z. Szep, Fate of the classical false vacuum, Phys. Rev. D62, 085013 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0004059

    2000 arXiv

  24. [31]

    M. G. Alford, H. Feldman, and M. Gleiser, Thermal ac- tivation of metastable decay: Testing nucleation theory, Phys. Rev. D47, R2168 (1993)

    1993

  25. [32]

    M. G. Alford and M. Gleiser, Metastability in two- dimensions and the effective potential, Phys. Rev. D48, 2838 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9304245

    1993 arXiv

  26. [33]

    G. D. Moore and K. Rummukainen, Electroweak bubble nucleation, nonperturbatively, Phys. Rev. D63, 045002 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0009132

    2001 arXiv

  27. [34]

    G. D. Moore, K. Rummukainen, and A. Tranberg, Non- perturbative computation of the bubble nucleation rate in the cubic anisotropy model, JHEP04, 017, arXiv:hep- lat/0103036

  28. [35]

    Gould, S

    O. Gould, S. G¨ uyer, and K. Rummukainen, First-order electroweak phase transitions: A nonperturbative up- date, Phys. Rev. D106, 114507 (2022), arXiv:2205.07238 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

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

    A. Ekstedt, Higher-order corrections to the bubble- nucleation rate at finite temperature, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 173 (2022), arXiv:2104.11804 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, and J. Hirvonen, BubbleDet: a Python package to compute functional determinants for bubble nucleation, JHEP12, 056, arXiv:2308.15652 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    P ˆ ırvu, A

    D. P ˆ ırvu, A. Shkerin, and S. Sibiryakov, Thermal False Vacuum Decay Is Not What It Seems, ”” (2024), arXiv:2407.06263 [hep-th]

    2024

  32. [40]

    Gould, A

    O. Gould, A. Kormu, and D. J. Weir, Nonperturbative test of nucleation calculations for strong phase transi- tions, Phys. Rev. D (2025, in press), arXiv:2404.01876 [hep-th]

    2025

  33. [41]

    Shkerin and S

    A. Shkerin and S. Sibiryakov, Simple third order operator-splitting schemes for stochastic mechanics and field theory, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2504.03844 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Batini, A

    L. Batini, A. Chatrchyan, and J. Berges, Real-time dy- namics of false vacuum decay, Phys. Rev. D109, 023502 (2024), arXiv:2310.04206 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    S. Y. Khlebnikov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, The Statis- tical Theory of Anomalous Fermion Number Nonconser- vation, Nucl. Phys. B308, 885 (1988)

    1988

  36. [44]

    G. D. Moore, Measuring the broken phase sphaleron rate nonperturbatively, Phys. Rev. D59, 014503 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9805264

    1999 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Duane, A

    S. Duane, A. D. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, Hybrid Monte Carlo, Phys. Lett. B195, 216 (1987)

    1987

  38. [46]

    D. W. Scott, On optimal and data-based histograms, Biometrika66, 605 (1979), https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article- pdf/66/3/605/632347/66-3-605.pdf. 8

    1979

  39. [47]

    Carosi and B

    M. Carosi and B. Garbrecht, False vacuum decay be- yond the quadratic approximation: Summation of non- local self-energies, Phys. Rev. D111, 085002 (2025), arXiv:2411.18421 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Braden, M

    J. Braden, M. C. Johnson, H. V. Peiris, A. Pontzen, and S. Weinfurtner, New Semiclassical Picture of Vacuum Decay, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 031601 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 129, 059901 (2022)], arXiv:1806.06069 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    T. P. Billam, R. Gregory, F. Michel, and I. G. Moss, Simulating seeded vacuum decay in a cold atom system, Phys. Rev. D100, 065016 (2019), arXiv:1811.09169 [hep- th]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. P. Hertzberg, F. Rompineve, and N. Shah, Quan- titative Analysis of the Stochastic Approach to Quan- tum Tunneling, Phys. Rev. D102, 076003 (2020), arXiv:2009.00017 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hanggi, P

    P. Hanggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Reaction-Rate Theory: Fifty Years After Kramers, Rev. Mod. Phys.62, 251 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    Enqvist, J

    K. Enqvist, J. Ignatius, K. Kajantie, and K. Rum- mukainen, Nucleation and bubble growth in a first order cosmological electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 45, 3415 (1992)

    1992

  45. [53]

    Kurkela and G

    A. Kurkela and G. D. Moore, Thermalization in Weakly Coupled Nonabelian Plasmas, JHEP12, 044, arXiv:1107.5050 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, and J. L¨ ofgren, Radiative first- order phase transitions to next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. D106, 036012 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 019901 (2024)], arXiv:2205.07241 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hirvonen and O

    J. Hirvonen and O. Gould, Langer’s nucleation rate reproduced on the lattice, dataset, 10.5281/zen- odo.15424939 (2025)

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    Forest and R

    E. Forest and R. D. Ruth, Fourth order symplectic inte- gration, Physica D43, 105 (1990)

    1990

  49. [57]

    Yoshida, Construction of higher order symplectic in- tegrators, Phys

    H. Yoshida, Construction of higher order symplectic in- tegrators, Phys. Lett. A150, 262 (1990)

    1990

  50. [58]

    Laine, Exact relation of lattice and continuum param- eters in three-dimensional SU(2) + Higgs theories, Nucl

    M. Laine, Exact relation of lattice and continuum param- eters in three-dimensional SU(2) + Higgs theories, Nucl. Phys. B451, 484 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9504001

    1995 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Tuckerman,Statistical Mechanics: Theory And Molecular Simulation(Oxford University Press, 2001) p

    M. Tuckerman,Statistical Mechanics: Theory And Molecular Simulation(Oxford University Press, 2001) p. 121–124

    2001

  52. [60]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calcula- tions by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys.21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  53. [61]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications, Biometrika57, 97 (1970), https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article- pdf/57/1/97/23940249/57-1-97.pdf. 9 Supplemental material I. LA TTICE DET AILS Here, we will detail our lattice implementa...

    1970

  54. [62]

    Conjugate momenta are thermalized, π∼ e−βΠ[π] Zπ ,(26)

  55. [63]

    The system is evolved for time ∆twith the integra- tor of Sec. I. Here, the weight is given by the conjugate-momentum- dependent part of the Hamiltonian Π[π] =H[ϕ= 0, π],(27) and the partition function,Z π, normalizes the distribu- tion to unity. In order to sample correctly t...

  56. [64]

    (31) step 1 − − − − →(ϕN , πN ) step 2 − − − − →(ϕ′ N , π′ N ),(32) whereϕ ′ i =ϕ i+1, andϕ ′ N is the field configuration result- ing from theNsubsteps

    (30) step 1 − − − − →(ϕ2, π2) step 2 − − − − →. . .(31) step 1 − − − − →(ϕN , πN ) step 2 − − − − →(ϕ′ N , π′ N ),(32) whereϕ ′ i =ϕ i+1, andϕ ′ N is the field configuration result- ing from theNsubsteps. Notice that for every processγthat takes the config- uration fromϕ 1 toϕ...

  57. [65]

    This is due to the time reversibility of the system and the integrator

    fromϕ ′ N toϕ 1. This is due to the time reversibility of the system and the integrator. It will be sufficient for detailed balance, Eq. (28), to enforce every process and its counterprocess to obey de- tailed balance: ρmeta[ϕ1]W(ϕ 1 γ − →ϕ′ N ) =ρ meta[ϕ′ N ]W(ϕ ′ N −γ′ − − →...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.