Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Multi-step Strong First-Order Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Inverted Type-I 2HDM: Parameter Space, Gravitational Waves, and Collider Phenomenology

T0 review · 3 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 in the inverted Type-I two-Higgs-doublet model, the parameter regions for one-step and two-step strong first-order electroweak phase transitions are significantly separated, so a few collider measurements could…

desk verdict First systematic map of one- vs two-step SFOEWPT parameter space in the inverted Type-I 2HDM, with a genuinely interesting LISA preference for two-step transitions; the quantitative separation ranges in Eq. (28) are scan-dependent and should be softened until coverage is shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03260 v2 pith:B4XAIU5S submitted 2025-06-03 hep-ph hep-ex

Soojin Lee , Dongjoo Kim , Jin-Hwan Cho , Jinheung Kim , Jeonghyeon Song This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords ElectroweakPhaseTransitionTwo-Higgs-DoubletModelInvertedHiggsscenarioFirst-orderGravitationalwavesLISACLICvacuumuplifting
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

The paper tries to establish that the history of the electroweak phase transition can be read off from two measurable quantities in the inverted Type-I two-Higgs-doublet model, where the observed 125 GeV boson is the heavier scalar $H$. Scanning 2.36 million parameter points, it finds that a one-step strong first-order transition ($\xi_c>1.3$) requires a charged Higgs mass $m_{H^\pm}$ between 295 and 441 GeV and $\tan\beta$ between 4.2 and 8.8, while a two-step transition allows $m_{H^\pm}$ between about 100 and 350 GeV and $\tan\beta$ between 2.5 and 45.4. The two sets overlap only in a narrow window, so measuring $m_{H^\pm}$ and $\tan\beta$ could tell whether the early Universe went through an intermediate vacuum before settling into the current one. The same separation predicts that LISA-detectable gravitational-wave signals come almost entirely from two-step histories, and that a strongly enhanced $h\to\gamma\gamma$ rate would point to the one-step path.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the one-loop finite-temperature effective potential $V_{\mathrm{eff}}(w_1,w_2,w_3,T)$ of the inverted Type-I 2HDM, with its temperature-dependent local minima traced to classify each transition step $PT_i^{(n\text{-}step)}$. For a general step, the critical temperature $T_c$ is where two neighbouring minima become degenerate, and the order parameter is the magnitude of the VEV jump between the two minima divided by $T_c$, with $\xi_c>1.3$ defining a strong transition. The separation of one-step and two-step regions emerges because a direct transition from the symmetric vacuum to the electroweak vacuum imposes different barriers and curvature conditions on the scalar potential than a path that first passes through an intermediate metastable minimum, and these conditions translate into different allowed ranges for $m_{H^\pm}$ and $\tan\beta$ after all theoretical and experimental constraints are imposed.

What would settle it

Run a substantially denser scan or an analytic boundary tracker over $m_{H^\pm}\in[280,360]$ GeV, $\tan\beta\in[4,9]$, $m_h\in[60,120]$ GeV and count SFOEWPT points by transition type; one-step points below $m_{H^\pm}=295$ GeV or two-step points above 351 GeV in appreciable numbers would refute the claimed separation. A direct collider measurement of $m_{H^\pm}<295$ GeV in a universe where a strong electroweak transition occurred would also falsify the one-step window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a partial but significant separation between the parameter regions supporting a strong first-order electroweak phase transition (SFOEWPT) in one step and those supporting it in two steps, within the inverted Type-I 2HDM with $m_H=125$ GeV. With the SFOEWPT criterion $\xi_c>1.3$, one-step transitions confine the charged Higgs to $m_{H^\pm}\in[295,441]$ GeV and $\tan\beta\in[4.2,8.8]$, whereas the second step of a two-step transition permits $m_{H^\pm}\in[100,350]$ GeV and $\tan\beta\in[2.5,45.4]$; the overlap is only near $m_{H^\pm}\in[295,351]$ GeV. Negative $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ arises almost exclusively in one-step scenarios, so its measured sign would favour the one-step reading. The paper also reports that LISA-detectable gravitational-wave signals ($\mathrm{SNR}>10$) come predominantly from two-step transitions (114 scan points versus 1) even though one-step SFOEWPT points are more numerous (5343 versus 4486), that the $\Delta F_0$--$\xi_c$ correlation known from one-step transitions breaks down in multi-step histories, and that $e^+e^-\to H^+H^-\to W^+W^-hh$ with the final states $W^+W^-b\bar b\tau^+\tau^-$ and $W^+W^-b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ offers the strongest collider test at the 1.5 TeV CLIC.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's exclusion intervals rest on a finite random scan over the ranges in Eq. (22), so 'no point found' is treated as 'region excluded' without a proof that the scan is dense, and the transition classification depends on the specific minimum-tracing algorithm chosen.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, a charged Higgs discovered with $m_{H^\pm}>351$ GeV would imply that any associated strong electroweak transition must have been one-step, whereas $m_{H^\pm}<295$ GeV would force a two-step or higher history.
  • A measured negative $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ would favour the one-step scenario, since multi-step SFOEWPT points are almost exclusively positive in this quantity.
  • A LISA detection with SNR above 10 would most naturally be the gravitational-wave echo of a two-step transition, and every such detectable point in the scan has $\xi_c>2$; a LISA null would therefore not exclude a strong one-step transition.
  • At the 1.5 TeV CLIC, charged-Higgs pair production followed by $H^\pm\to W^\pm h$ would yield tens of signal events in at least one of the two golden final states $W^+W^-b\bar b\tau^+\tau^-$ and $W^+W^-b\bar b\gamma\gamma$, with Standard Model backgrounds below roughly one event.
  • The breakdown of the $\Delta F_0$--$\xi_c$ correlation in multi-step histories means a full finite-temperature calculation is required to certify transition strength whenever intermediate vacua are present.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claimed boundary is real, denser scans should sharpen it into a sharp frontier; a dedicated scan of $m_{H^\pm}\in[280,360]$ GeV that populates the supposedly empty regions would force the dichotomy to be recast as a preference rather than an exclusion.
  • The near absence of negative $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ in two-step points suggests a direct test: a future Higgs-factory measurement of the sign of the light-Higgs coupling deviations would, within this model, select one cosmological history over another, a link the paper does not state explicitly.
  • Because the LISA-detectable points are almost all two-step while one-step points are numerically dominant, future LISA upper limits could be reinterpreted as weak evidence for a one-step history, directing searches toward the lighter-charged-Higgs region and the $h\to\gamma\gamma$ final state.
  • The near-background-free CLIC estimates imply that even a handful of events in the $W^+W^-b\bar b\gamma\gamma$ channel would be informative; a natural follow-up would be a full detector-level background study including tau fakes and photon conversions to test how much of the discovery power survives.
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 investigates the electroweak phase transition (EWPT) in the inverted Type-I 2HDM, where the observed 125 GeV Higgs boson is identified as the heavier CP-even scalar H. Using public codes (2HDMC, ScannerS, HiggsTools, BSMPT) a random scan over the parameter ranges in Eq. (22) yields 2.36e6 physical parameter points, of which 5343 support a one-step SFOEWPT and 4486 support a two-step SFOEWPT via the second step; three-step cases are rare. The central quantitative claims are that the one-step and two-step SFOEWPT parameter spaces are partially yet significantly separated (Eq. 28: one-step mH± in [295,441] GeV, tanβ in [4.2,8.8]; two-step mH± in [100,350] GeV, tanβ in [2.5,45.4]), that negative sin(β−α) occurs almost exclusively in one-step scenarios, that LISA-detectable GW signals (SNR>10) come predominantly from two-step transitions (114 points vs 1, Eq. 29), and that the ∆F0–ξc correlation persists for one-step but breaks down for multi-step transitions. A collider analysis at the 1.5 TeV CLIC identifies e+e− → H+H− → W+W−hh as a promising channel, with two complementary final states motivated by enhanced h→γγ for negative sin(β−α).

Significance. If the quantitative separation in Eq. (28) and the GW counts in Eq. (29) are robust, the paper establishes a striking cosmology–collider complementarity: measuring mH± and tanβ at a future collider could discriminate one-step from multi-step EWPT histories, and a LISA detection would favor two-step transitions. The analysis uses standard public codes and provides reproducible numerics, benchmark points, and explicit transition-step classifications, which are strengths. The observation that the vacuum-uplifting measure ∆F0 correlates with ξc in one-step transitions but fails in multi-step cases is a useful caution for the community, since it shows that a zero-temperature proxy cannot replace a full finite-temperature computation when intermediate vacua are present. The claimed overlap structure between one-step and two-step regions is the central new result; however, as detailed below, the finite-scan derivation of exclusion intervals and the fixed bubble-wall-velocity assumption currently leave the quantitative claims insufficiently supported. The paper is therefore of moderate-to-high significance contingent on the robustness checks requested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B (paragraph after Fig. 2)] The statement 'if an observation yielded mH± < 295 GeV, only a two-step transition could have facilitated the SFOEWPT' is not supported by the paper's own samples. The three-step SFOEWPT benchmark BP3-step in Eq. (23) has mH± = 184.3 GeV, and the targeted scan in Section IV.B produced PT(3-step)_3 SFOEWPT points with mH± in [160,240] GeV. Thus a charged Higgs below 295 GeV can be associated with a three-step SFOEWPT, not only a two-step one. The authors should either report the ranges for all transition classes (including PT(2-step)_1 and PT(3-step)_3) in Eq. (28), or explicitly restrict the claim to 'the two dominant transition types' and avoid the unconditional wording. This is load-bearing because the abstract and introduction advertise the one-step/two-step separation as the key discriminator.
  2. [Section IV.A and Eq. (28)] The exclusion intervals in Eq. (28) are the extrema of a finite random scan over the ranges in Eq. (22), with no convergence or coverage test to demonstrate that 'no points found' outside these intervals implies exclusion. The footnote attached to Eq. (27) explicitly states that the SFOEWPT counts depend on the BSMPT default minimum-tracing algorithm. Since the 'partial but significant separation' is an under-occupancy claim, the authors should (i) repeat the scan with at least two different sample sizes (e.g., 10^6 and 10^7 physical points) and show that the intervals stabilize; (ii) perform targeted scans in the boundary windows near mH± = 295 GeV and mH± = 351 GeV and at large tanβ, where sparse occupation is visible in Figures 3–5; and (iii) test the classification with an alternative minima-tracing setting (e.g., a different BSMPT mode or PhaseTracer). Without these, the precise boundaries in Eq. (28) cannot be interpreted as robust exclusion ranges, and the stronger reading of the separation as a reliable collider discriminator is not justified.
  3. [Section IV.D, Eq. (29) and Figs. 8–10] The GW SNR values and the central statement that detectable LISA signals (SNR > 10) arise predominantly from two-step transitions (114 points vs 1) assume a fixed bubble wall velocity vw = 0.95. The paper correctly notes in Section III.D that vw is an input parameter not predicted from first principles. Since the sound-wave peak amplitude in Eq. (20) scales with max(vw, cs) (squared in one regime), a change in vw can shift points across the SNR > 10 threshold by an order-one factor. The authors should repeat the SNR calculation for at least two other plausible values (e.g., vw = 0.5 and vw = 1.0) and show how the counts in Eq. (29) change. If the strong dominance of two-step transitions persists, the qualitative conclusion is robust; otherwise the claim should be softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V.B, Eq. (33)] The assertion that the SM backgrounds for W+W−bbτ+τ− and W+W−bbγγ are 'well below 1 ab' is based on an extrapolation from simplified parton-level processes, not on a full background computation; the authors should either provide a conservative quantitative upper bound from Monte Carlo tools or explicitly state that the background estimate is an expectation, not a simulated result.
  2. [Section IV.C, Fig. 7] The claims of a 'clear positive correlation' between ξc and ∆F0 for one-step transitions and its absence for multi-step transitions are made from visual inspection; reporting Spearman or Pearson correlation coefficients and p-values would make the comparison quantitative and more persuasive.
  3. [Section IV.A, footnote to Eq. (27)] The footnote stating that the SFOEWPT counts depend on the BSMPT default minimum-tracing algorithm is important and should be elevated to the main text, since it directly qualifies the central quantitative results.
  4. [Eq. (28) and abstract] The two-step charged-Higgs range is quoted as mH± ∈ [102.7, 351.4] GeV in Eq. (28) but as [100,350] GeV in the abstract and Section IV.B; the rounding should be made consistent.
  5. [Section V.B, Eq. (34)] When the expected background is zero, the Poisson significance in Eq. (34) is ill-defined; the decision to quote only signal event counts is reasonable, but the paper should make clear that discovery claims in the Nbg ≈ 0 regime rely on the background estimate and Poisson statistics, not on a quoted significance value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SFOEWPT, GW, and collider results are computed from the finite-temperature effective potential and standard formulas, with self-citations only contextual.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the one-step/two-step separation in Eq. (28), the DeltaF0-xi_c correlation breakdown, the LISA SNR distribution, and the CLIC signal yields—are all obtained by direct numerical evaluation of the one-loop finite-temperature effective potential (Eqs. (6)-(9)) and standard GW/collider formulas, not by fitting a parameter to the target quantity. The SFOEWPT criterion xi_c > 1.3 (Eq. (12)) is a threshold adopted from the literature and motivated by GW detectability; it is not chosen so as to force the reported separation of m_Hpm and tan-beta ranges, which emerge from the scan. The ranges in Eq. (28) are extrema of the scanned SFOEWPT points, so the absence of points outside them is a scan-coverage statement; the paper's own footnote that the counts depend on BSMPT's minimum-tracing algorithm is a robustness caveat, not evidence of circularity. The DeltaF0 correlation from Ref. [106] is tested rather than assumed, and its breakdown in multi-step cases is a genuine computed result. The few self-citations ([109]-[111], [180]) support background constraints, model motivation, or the existence of Higgs-phobic regions; none of them supplies the load-bearing derivation of the SFOEWPT parameter space, the GW SNRs, or the collider channels. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its inputs, and the circularity score is 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the validity of the one-loop effective potential and the completeness of the finite random scan. The model parameters themselves are scanned, not fitted; the only hand-set parameters are the scan window, the SFOEWPT threshold, and the bubble wall velocity. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Scan parameter window in Eq. (22) = mh 30-120 GeV; mA 30-700 GeV; mH+ 80-700 GeV; sin(beta-alpha) -0.5 to 0.5; tan beta 1-50; m12^2 0-2e4 GeV^2
    Chosen by hand as the exploration domain. All exclusion statements in Sec. IV.B are relative to this window; no coverage proof is provided.
  • Bubble wall velocity v_w = 0.95
    Assumed constant for all GW SNR calculations in Sec. IV.D. GW spectra and SNRs depend on this input and no model-specific computation is given.
  • SFOEWPT threshold xi_c = 1.3
    Adopted in Eq. (12) to classify SFOEWPT points. The counts N_SFOEWPT in Eq. (27) and the derived 'restrict' statements depend on this hand-set threshold.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The one-loop finite-temperature effective potential with daisy resummation (Eqs. 6-9) is an adequate approximation for determining the order, critical temperature, and strength of the phase transition.
    Used for all Tc and xi_c values; higher-order and nonperturbative uncertainties are not estimated.
  • domain assumption The BSMPT v3.0.7 minimum-tracer algorithm correctly traces all relevant vacuum branches and transition steps.
    Sec. IV.A relies on this to identify one-, two-, and three-step transitions; the authors footnote that alternative algorithms may give different results.
  • domain assumption The random scan over Eq. (22) is dense enough that empty regions represent excluded parameter space.
    The reported allowed ranges in Eq. (28) are read from finite samples; no convergence test is shown.
  • domain assumption Bubble wall velocity is constant at v_w=0.95.
    Assumed in Sec. III.D and Sec. IV.D; a first-principles wall velocity is not computed.
  • domain assumption SM backgrounds for W+W-bbbar tau+tau- and W+W-bbbar gamma gamma are negligible based on parton-level estimates.
    Sec. V.B estimates backgrounds by scaling lower-multiplicity SM cross sections; full background simulation is not performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-step Strong First-Order Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Inverted Type-I 2HDM: Parameter Space, Gravitational Waves, and Collider Phenomenology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4XAIU5S

@misc{pith2026250603260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-step Strong First-Order Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Inverted Type-I 2HDM: Parameter Space, Gravitational Waves, and Collider Phenomenology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4XAIU5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03260}
}
abstract

We investigate the electroweak phase transition (EWPT) within the inverted Type-I two-Higgs-doublet model, where the observed $125\,\text{GeV}$ Higgs boson is identified as the heavier \textit{CP}-even scalar $H$. Through a comprehensive parameter-space scan consistent with current theoretical and experimental constraints, we identify regions supporting strong first-order EWPTs (SFOEWPTs), including multi-step transitions. We find that two-step SFOEWPTs occur as frequently as one-step transitions, while three-step transitions can occur, albeit rarely. Crucially, the parameter spaces inducing one-step and two-step transitions are partially yet significantly separated: one-step transitions restrict the charged Higgs mass and $\tan\beta$ to $m_{H^\pm}\in[295,441]\,\text{GeV}$ and $\tan\beta\in[4.2,8.8]$, whereas two-step transitions allow $m_{H^\pm}\in[100,350]\,\text{GeV}$ and $\tan\beta\in[2.5,45.4]$. Notably, negative values of $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ arise almost exclusively in one-step scenarios. We present the calculation of gravitational wave (GW) signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) at LISA for multi-step EWPTs, finding that detectable GW signals ($\text{SNR}>10$) predominantly emerge from two-step transitions. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the correlation between the vacuum uplifting measure $\Delta F_0$ and $\xi_c$ persists in one-step transitions and breaks down in multi-step cases. Finally, we perform a dedicated collider analysis for representative SFOEWPT parameter points at the $1.5\,\text{TeV}$ CLIC, identifying $e^+ e^- \to H^+ H^- \to W^+ W^- hh$ as a promising discovery channel. Enhanced $h\to\gamma\gamma$ branching ratios for negative $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ motivate two complementary golden final states, $W^+ W^- b\bar{b} \tau^+ \tau^-$ and $W^+ W^- b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$, which demonstrate high discovery potential due to negligible Standard Model backgrounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The evolution of the minima of an effective potential with two relevant scalar field direc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the distribution of tβ versus mH± for SFOEWPT parameter points, with ξc indicated by the color scale, for the PT(1-step) 1 (left) and PT(2-step) 2 (right) transitions. For the full set of physical parameter points (shown in grey), the allowed range tβ ∈ [1.72, 50…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: displays the peak amplitude h 2Ω SW,peak GW versus the peak frequency f SW,peak GW for SFOEWPT parameter points, focusing on the dominant GW contributions from sound waves. The color scale represents the SNR computed for a four-year LISA mission. The left panel shows r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: GW SNR at LISA versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Production cross sections at the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Branching ratio of the decay mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: displays Br(h → γγ) as a function of sβ−α across the SFOEWPT parameter points, with mh indicated by the color scale (points with smaller mh are plotted beneath those with larger mh). These branching ratios are computed using 2HDMC [169]. For positive sβ−α, the h → γγ …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Branching ratios of various decay modes of the lighter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: For negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Strong First-Order Electroweak Phase Transitions and Gravitational Waves in the Normal Two-Higgs-Doublet Model: A Comparative Study of the Four Yukawa Types and Thermal Resummation Schemes

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the Normal 2HDM, SFOEWPTs are single-step and alignment-favoring across all four Yukawa types, yet Parwani versus Arnold–Espinosa resummation changes the viable heavy-mass range from ~1.6 TeV to ≲800 GeV and leaves...

  2. Electroweak Baryogenesis: Advances in Sphaleron Rate Calculations and Implications of Thermal Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Sphaleron rates can be computed gauge-invariantly in 3D thermal EFT, yielding a new baryon-washout criterion x = lambda3/g3^2 that replaces v_c/T_c > 1 for electroweak baryogenesis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

197 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Planck collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parame- ters, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A13, [ 1502.01589]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

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

    1967

  3. [3]

    Huet and E

    P. Huet and E. Sather, Electroweak baryogenesis and standard model CP violation , Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 379–394, [ hep-ph/9404302]

    arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Is there a hot electroweak phase transition at mH ≳ mW ?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 2887–2890, [ hep-ph/9605288]

    arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Csikor, Z

    F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and J. Heitger, Endpoint of the hot electroweak phase transition , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 21–24, [ hep-ph/9809291]

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis , Rev

    M. Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis , Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 (1999) 1463–1500, [hep-ph/9803479]

    arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Progress in electroweak baryogenesis , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43 (1993) 27–70, [ hep-ph/9302210]

    arXiv 1993

  8. [8]

    Carena, M

    M. Carena, M. Quiros and C. E. M. Wagner, Opening the window for electroweak baryogen- esis, Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 81–91, [ hep-ph/9603420]

    arXiv 1996

Show all 197 references
  1. [9]

    D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Electroweak baryogenesis, New J. Phys. 14 (2012) 125003, [1206.2942]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. J. Weir, Gravitational waves from a first order electroweak phase transition: a brief review, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 376 (2018) 20170126, [ 1705.01783]. [Erratum: Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc.Lond.A 381, 20230212 (2023)]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) no.16, 163001, [ 1801.04268]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Amaro-Seoane et al., Laser Interferometer Space Antenna , 1702.00786

    LISA collaboration, P. Amaro-Seoane et al., Laser Interferometer Space Antenna , 1702.00786

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cutting, M

    D. Cutting, M. Hindmarsh and D. J. Weir, Gravitational waves from vacuum first-order phase transitions: from the envelope to the lattice , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 123513, [ 1802.05712]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha, D. Vagie and G. White, Phase Transitions in an Expanding Universe: Stochastic Gravitational Waves in Standard and Non-Standard Histories , JCAP 01 (2021) 001, [2007.08537]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP 01 (2021) 097, [ 2002.04615]

    K. Schmitz, New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions, JHEP 01 (2021) 097, [ 2002.04615]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Carena, Z

    M. Carena, Z. Liu and M. Riembau, Probing the electroweak phase transition via enhanced di-Higgs boson production, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 095032, [ 1801.00794]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. M. Cline and K. Kainulainen, Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter from a singlet 46 Higgs, JCAP 01 (2013) 012, [ 1210.4196]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen and D. Tucker-Smith, Electroweak baryogenesis from a dark sector, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 115006, [ 1702.08909]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Carena, M

    M. Carena, M. Quir´ os and Y. Zhang,Electroweak Baryogenesis from Dark-Sector CP Viola- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 201802, [ 1811.09719]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. M. Cline, G. Laporte, H. Yamashita and S. Kraml, Electroweak Phase Transition and LHC Signatures in the Singlet Majoron Model , JHEP 07 (2009) 040, [ 0905.2559]

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Profumo, M

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, C. L. Wainwright and P. Winslow, Singlet-catalyzed elec- troweak phase transitions and precision Higgs boson studies , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 035018, [1407.5342]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Curtin, P

    D. Curtin, P. Meade and C.-T. Yu, Testing Electroweak Baryogenesis with Future Colliders , JHEP 11 (2014) 127, [ 1409.0005]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    F. P. Huang and C. S. Li, Electroweak baryogenesis in the framework of the effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 075014, [ 1507.08168]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. V. Kotwal, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, J. M. No and P. Winslow, Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions in the 100 TeV frontier , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 035022, [ 1605.06123]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vaskonen, Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet , Phys

    V. Vaskonen, Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 123515, [ 1611.02073]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Beniwal, M

    A. Beniwal, M. Lewicki, J. D. Wells, M. White and A. G. Williams, Gravitational wave, collider and dark matter signals from a scalar singlet electroweak baryogenesis , JHEP 08 (2017) 108, [ 1702.06124]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kurup and M

    G. Kurup and M. Perelstein, Dynamics of Electroweak Phase Transition In Singlet-Scalar Extension of the Standard Model , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 015036, [ 1704.03381]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chiang, M

    C.-W. Chiang, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and E. Senaha, Standard Model with a Complex Scalar Singlet: Cosmological Implications and Theoretical Considerations , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 015005, [1707.09960]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Alves, T

    A. Alves, T. Ghosh, H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha and D. Vagie, Collider and Gravitational Wave Complementarity in Exploring the Singlet Extension of the Standard Model , JHEP 04 (2019) 052, [1812.09333]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    H.-L. Li, M. Ramsey-Musolf and S. Willocq, Probing a scalar singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transition with resonant di-Higgs boson production in the 4b channel, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 075035, [ 1906.05289]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    N. F. Bell, M. J. Dolan, L. S. Friedrich, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and R. R. Volkas, Elec- troweak Baryogenesis with Vector-like Leptons and Scalar Singlets , JHEP 09 (2019) 012, [1903.11255]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Grzadkowski and D

    B. Grzadkowski and D. Huang, Spontaneous CP -Violating Electroweak Baryogenesis and Dark Matter from a Complex Singlet Scalar , JHEP 08 (2018) 135, [ 1807.06987]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    F. P. Huang, Z. Qian and M. Zhang, Exploring dynamical CP violation induced baryogenesis 47 by gravitational waves and colliders , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 015014, [ 1804.06813]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ghosh, T

    P. Ghosh, T. Ghosh and S. Roy, Interplay among gravitational waves, dark matter and collider signals in the singlet scalar extended type-II seesaw model , JHEP 10 (2023) 057, [2211.15640]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Roy, Dilution of dark matter relic abundance due to first order electroweak phase transi- tion in the singlet scalar extended type-II seesaw model , Phys

    S. Roy, Dilution of dark matter relic abundance due to first order electroweak phase transi- tion in the singlet scalar extended type-II seesaw model , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 015037, [2212.11230]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Azatov, G

    A. Azatov, G. Barni, S. Chakraborty, M. Vanvlasselaer and W. Yin, Ultra-relativistic bubbles from the simplest Higgs portal and their cosmological consequences , JHEP 10 (2022) 017, [2207.02230]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Inoue, G

    S. Inoue, G. Ovanesyan and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Two-Step Electroweak Baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 015013, [ 1508.05404]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Niemi, H

    L. Niemi, H. H. Patel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen and D. J. Weir, Electroweak phase transition in the real triplet extension of the SM: Dimensional reduction , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 035002, [ 1802.10500]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Chala, M

    M. Chala, M. Ramos and M. Spannowsky, Gravitational wave and collider probes of a triplet Higgs sector with a low cutoff , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 156, [ 1812.01901]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. Zhou, W. Cheng, X. Deng, L. Bian and Y. Wu, Electroweak phase transition and Higgs phenomenology in the Georgi-Machacek model , JHEP 01 (2019) 216, [ 1812.06217]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. J. Kazemi and S. S. Abdussalam, Electroweak Phase Transition in an Inert Complex Triplet Model, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 075012, [ 2103.00212]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Addazi, A

    A. Addazi, A. Marciano, A. P. Morais, R. Pasechnik and H. Yang, CDF II W-mass anomaly faces first-order electroweak phase transition , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 207, [ 2204.10315]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Crivellin, S

    A. Crivellin, S. Ashanujjaman, S. Banik, G. Coloretti, S. P. Maharathy and B. Mellado, Growing evidence for a Higgs triplet* , Chin. Phys. C 49 (2025) 053107, [ 2404.14492]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Borah, P

    P. Borah, P. Ghosh and A. K. Saha, Prospecting bipartite dark matter through gravitational waves, JCAP 05 (2025) 035, [ 2412.17141]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C.-T. Lu, Y. Wu and S. Xu, Dark Matter and Electroweak Phase Transition in the Z2 Symmetric Georgi-Machacek Model, 2504.10930

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Borah and P

    P. Borah and P. Ghosh, Unveiling the inert Triplet desert region with a pNGB Dark Matter and its Gravitational Wave signatures , 2505.16521

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. M. Cline, M. Jarvinen and F. Sannino, The Electroweak Phase Transition in Nearly Con- formal Technicolor, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 075027, [ 0808.1512]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L. Bian, Y. Wu and K.-P. Xie, Electroweak phase transition with composite Higgs models: calculability, gravitational waves and collider searches , JHEP 12 (2019) 028, [ 1909.02014]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    K.-P. Xie, L. Bian and Y. Wu, Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves in a com- posite Higgs model with high dimensional fermion representations , JHEP 12 (2020) 047, [2005.13552]. 48

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J. M. Cline, M. Joyce and K. Kainulainen, Supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis in the WKB approximation , Phys. Lett. B 417 (1998) 79–86, [ hep-ph/9708393]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 448, 321–321 (1999)]

    1998 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Menon, D

    A. Menon, D. E. Morrissey and C. E. M. Wagner, Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter in the nMSSM , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 035005, [ hep-ph/0404184]

    2004 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Carena, N

    M. Carena, N. R. Shah and C. E. M. Wagner, Light Dark Matter and the Electroweak Phase Transition in the NMSSM , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 036003, [ 1110.4378]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    X.-J. Bi, L. Bian, W. Huang, J. Shu and P.-F. Yin, Interpretation of the Galactic Center excess and electroweak phase transition in the NMSSM , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 023507, [1503.03749]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. V. Demidov, D. S. Gorbunov and D. V. Kirpichnikov, Split NMSSM with electroweak baryogenesis, JHEP 11 (2016) 148, [ 1608.01985]. [Erratum: JHEP 08, 080 (2017)]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Huang, Z

    W. Huang, Z. Kang, J. Shu, P. Wu and J. M. Yang, New insights in the electroweak phase transition in the NMSSM , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 025006, [ 1405.1152]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cheung, T.-J

    K. Cheung, T.-J. Hou, J. S. Lee and E. Senaha, Singlino-driven Electroweak Baryogenesis in the Next-to-MSSM , Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 188–191, [ 1201.3781]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bal´ azs, A

    C. Bal´ azs, A. Mazumdar, E. Pukartas and G. White,Baryogenesis, dark matter and inflation in the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model , JHEP 01 (2014) 073, [1309.5091]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. J. Huber, T. Konstandin, T. Prokopec and M. G. Schmidt, Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis in the nMSSM , Nucl. Phys. B 757 (2006) 172–196, [ hep-ph/0606298]

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bian, H.-K

    L. Bian, H.-K. Guo and J. Shu, Gravitational Waves, baryon asymmetry of the universe and electric dipole moment in the CP-violating NMSSM , Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 093106, [1704.02488]. [Erratum: Chin.Phys.C 43, 129101 (2019)]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Kozaczuk, S

    J. Kozaczuk, S. Profumo, L. S. Haskins and C. L. Wainwright, Cosmological Phase Transi- tions and their Properties in the NMSSM , JHEP 01 (2015) 144, [ 1407.4134]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A. Katz, M. Perelstein, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and P. Winslow, Stop-Catalyzed Baryogenesis Beyond the MSSM , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 095019, [ 1509.02934]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Akula, C

    S. Akula, C. Bal´ azs, L. Dunn and G. White, Electroweak baryogenesis in the Z3 -invariant NMSSM, JHEP 11 (2017) 051, [ 1706.09898]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. Lee, V. Cirigliano and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Resonant relaxation in electroweak baryoge- nesis, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 075010, [ hep-ph/0412354]

    2005 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Balazs, M

    C. Balazs, M. Carena, A. Menon, D. E. Morrissey and C. E. M. Wagner, The Supersymmetric origin of matter , Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 075002, [ hep-ph/0412264]

    2005 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Liebler, S

    S. Liebler, S. Profumo and T. Stefaniak, Light Stop Mass Limits from Higgs Rate Measure- ments in the MSSM: Is MSSM Electroweak Baryogenesis Still Alive After All? , JHEP 04 (2016) 143, [ 1512.09172]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Chatterjee, A

    A. Chatterjee, A. Datta and S. Roy, Electroweak phase transition in the Z 3-invariant NMSSM: Implications of LHC and Dark matter searches and prospects of detecting the grav- 49 itational waves , JHEP 06 (2022) 108, [ 2202.12476]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Borah, P

    P. Borah, P. Ghosh, S. Roy and A. K. Saha, Electroweak phase transition in a right-handed neutrino superfield extended NMSSM , JHEP 08 (2023) 029, [ 2301.05061]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Kobakhidze, L

    A. Kobakhidze, L. Wu and J. Yue, Electroweak Baryogenesis with Anomalous Higgs Cou- plings, JHEP 04 (2016) 011, [ 1512.08922]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Winslow and G. White, Color Breaking Baryogenesis , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 123509, [ 1708.07511]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Yaser Ayazi and A

    S. Yaser Ayazi and A. Mohamadnejad, Conformal vector dark matter and strongly first-order electroweak phase transition, JHEP 03 (2019) 181, [ 1901.04168]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Mohamadnejad, Gravitational waves from scale-invariant vector dark matter model: Prob- ing below the neutrino-floor , Eur

    A. Mohamadnejad, Gravitational waves from scale-invariant vector dark matter model: Prob- ing below the neutrino-floor , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 197, [ 1907.08899]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    A. I. Bochkarev, S. V. Kuzmin and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Electroweak baryogenesis and the Higgs boson mass problem , Phys. Lett. B 244 (1990) 275–278

    1990

  65. [73]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and J. M. No, A strong electroweak phase transition in the 2HDM after LHC8 , JHEP 10 (2013) 029, [ 1305.6610]

    2013 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Basler, M

    P. Basler, M. Krause, M. Muhlleitner, J. Wittbrodt and A. Wlotzka, Strong First Order Electroweak Phase Transition in the CP-Conserving 2HDM Revisited , JHEP 02 (2017) 121, [1612.04086]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Fuyuto, W.-S

    K. Fuyuto, W.-S. Hou and E. Senaha, Electroweak baryogenesis driven by extra top Yukawa couplings, Phys. Lett. B 776 (2018) 402–406, [ 1705.05034]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bernon, L

    J. Bernon, L. Bian and Y. Jiang, A new insight into the phase transition in the early Universe with two Higgs doublets , JHEP 05 (2018) 151, [ 1712.08430]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Kainulainen, V

    K. Kainulainen, V. Keus, L. Niemi, K. Rummukainen, T. V. I. Tenkanen and V. Vaskonen, On the validity of perturbative studies of the electroweak phase transition in the Two Higgs Doublet model, JHEP 06 (2019) 075, [ 1904.01329]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bittar, S

    P. Bittar, S. Roy and C. E. M. Wagner, Self Consistent Thermal Resummation: A Case Study of the Phase Transition in 2HDM , 2504.02024

  71. [79]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J. P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models , Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1–102, [ 1106.0034]

    2012 arXiv

  72. [80]

    S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Natural Conservation Laws for Neutral Currents, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1958

    1977

  73. [81]

    E. A. Paschos, Diagonal Neutral Currents , Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1966

    1977

  74. [82]

    H. E. Haber and Y. Nir, Multiscalar Models With a High-energy Scale , Nucl. Phys. B 335 (1990) 363–394

    1990

  75. [83]

    H. E. Haber and D. O’Neil, Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model. II. The Significance of tan β, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 015018, [ hep-ph/0602242]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 74, 059905 (2006)]

    2006 arXiv

  76. [84]

    D. M. Asner et al., ILC Higgs White Paper, in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi , 50 10, 2013, 1310.0763

    2013 arXiv

  77. [85]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit , Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 075019, [ hep-ph/0207010]

    2003 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Quiros, Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions , in ICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology , pp

    M. Quiros, Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions , in ICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology , pp. 187–259, 1, 1999, hep-ph/9901312

    1999 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Niemi, P

    L. Niemi, P. Schicho and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Singlet-assisted electroweak phase transition at two loops , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 115035, [ 2103.07467]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 039902 (2024)]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [88]

    H. Bahl, M. Carena, A. Ireland and C. E. M. Wagner, Improved thermal resummation for multi-field potentials, JHEP 09 (2024) 153, [ 2404.12439]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Masina and M

    I. Masina and M. Quiros, An introduction to effective potential methods in field theory , 2501.12713

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    W. Su, A. G. Williams and M. Zhang, Strong first order electroweak phase transition in 2HDM confronting future Z & Higgs factories , JHEP 04 (2021) 219, [ 2011.04540]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Haller, A

    J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. M¨ onig, T. Peiffer and J. Stelzer, Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.8, 675, [1803.01853

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Misiak, A

    M. Misiak, A. Rehman and M. Steinhauser, Towards B → Xsγ at the NNLO in QCD without interpolation in m c, JHEP 06 (2020) 175, [ 2002.01548]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Biek¨ otter, D

    T. Biek¨ otter, D. Fontes, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. C. Rom˜ ao, R. Santos and J. a. P. Silva,Impact of new experimental data on the C2HDM: the strong interdependence between LHC Higgs data and the electron EDM , JHEP 05 (2024) 127, [ 2403.02425]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Biek¨ otter and M

    T. Biek¨ otter and M. O. Olea-Romacho, Benchmarking a fading window: electroweak baryo- genesis in the C2HDM, LHC constraints after Run 2 and prospects for LISA , 2505.09670

  87. [95]

    M. Aoki, T. Komatsu and H. Shibuya, Possibility of a multi-step electroweak phase transition in the two-Higgs doublet models , PTEP 2022 (2022) 063B05, [ 2106.03439]

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Gon¸ calves, A

    D. Gon¸ calves, A. Kaladharan and Y. Wu,Electroweak phase transition in the 2HDM: Collider and gravitational wave complementarity , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 095041, [ 2108.05356]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Si, H.-x

    Z.-g. Si, H.-x. Wang, L. Wang and Y. Zhang, Exploring multi-step electroweak phase transi- tions in the 2HDM +a, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 273, [ 2410.15975]

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Land and E

    D. Land and E. D. Carlson, Two stage phase transition in two Higgs models , Phys. Lett. B 292 (1992) 107–112, [ hep-ph/9208227]

    1992 arXiv

  91. [99]

    H. H. Patel and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Stepping Into Electroweak Symmetry Breaking: Phase Transitions and Higgs Phenomenology , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 035013, [ 1212.5652]

    2013 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Blinov, J

    N. Blinov, J. Kozaczuk, D. E. Morrissey and C. Tamarit, Electroweak Baryogenesis from Exotic Electroweak Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 035012, [ 1504.05195]

    2015 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Chao, H.-K

    W. Chao, H.-K. Guo and J. Shu, Gravitational Wave Signals of Electroweak Phase Transition Triggered by Dark Matter , JCAP 09 (2017) 009, [ 1702.02698]. 51

    2017 arXiv

  94. [102]

    A. P. Morais and R. Pasechnik, Probing multi-step electroweak phase transition with multi- peaked primordial gravitational waves spectra, JCAP 04 (2020) 036, [ 1910.00717]

    2020 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Fabian, F

    S. Fabian, F. Goertz and Y. Jiang, Dark matter and nature of electroweak phase transition with an inert doublet , JCAP 09 (2021) 011, [ 2012.12847]

    2021 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Angelescu and P

    A. Angelescu and P. Huang, Multistep Strongly First Order Phase Transitions from New Fermions at the TeV Scale , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 055023, [ 1812.08293]

    2019 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Niemi, M

    L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen and D. J. Weir, Thermodynamics of a Two-Step Electroweak Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 171802, [ 2005.11332]

    2021 arXiv

  98. [106]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber, K. Mimasu and J. M. No, The Higgs Vacuum Uplifted: Revis- iting the Electroweak Phase Transition with a Second Higgs Doublet , JHEP 12 (2017) 086, [1705.09186]

    2017 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Song and Y

    J. Song and Y. W. Yoon, W γdecay of the elusive charged Higgs boson in the two-Higgs- doublet model with vectorlike fermions , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 055006, [ 1904.06521]

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Chang, S

    S. Chang, S. K. Kang, J.-P. Lee and J. Song, Higgs potential and hidden light Higgs scenario in two Higgs doublet models , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 075023, [ 1507.03618]

    2015 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Jueid, J

    A. Jueid, J. Kim, S. Lee and J. Song, Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the muon g-2: Confronting Higgs boson and collider data , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 095008, [ 2104.10175]

    2021 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Cheung, A

    K. Cheung, A. Jueid, J. Kim, S. Lee, C.-T. Lu and J. Song, Comprehensive study of the light charged Higgs boson in the type-I two-Higgs-doublet model , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 095044, [2201.06890]

    2022 arXiv

  103. [111]

    S. Lee, K. Cheung, J. Kim, C.-T. Lu and J. Song, Status of the two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the CDF mW measurement , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 075013, [ 2204.10338]

    2022 arXiv

  104. [112]

    J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros and F. Zwirner, On the nature of the electroweak phase transition , Phys. Lett. B 314 (1993) 206–216, [ hep-ph/9212248]

    1993 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Herring, S

    N. Herring, S. Cao and D. Boyanovsky, Is the finite temperature effective potential effective for dynamics? , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 016028, [ 2410.21633]

    2025 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Chakrabortty and S

    J. Chakrabortty and S. Mohanty, One Loop Thermal Effective Action , 2411.14146

    arXiv

  107. [115]

    P. M. Ferreira and B. Swiezewska, One-loop contributions to neutral minima in the inert doublet model, JHEP 04 (2016) 099, [ 1511.02879]

    2016 arXiv

  108. [116]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888–1910

    1973

  109. [117]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Symmetry Behavior at Finite Temperature , Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 3320–3341

    1974

  110. [118]

    M. E. Carrington, The Effective potential at finite temperature in the Standard Model , Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2933–2944

    1992

  111. [119]

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa, The Effective potential and first order phase transitions: Be- yond leading-order, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3546, [hep-ph/9212235]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 50, 6662 (1994)]. 52

    1993 arXiv

  112. [120]

    S. R. Coleman, The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory , Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2929–2936. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

    1977

  113. [121]

    A. D. Linde, Fate of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature: Theory and Applications , Phys. Lett. B 100 (1981) 37–40

    1981

  114. [122]

    C. P. D. Harman and S. J. Huber, Does zero temperature decide on the nature of the elec- troweak phase transition?, JHEP 06 (2016) 005, [ 1512.05611]

    2016 arXiv

  115. [123]

    T. V. I. Tenkanen and J. van de Vis, Speed of sound in cosmological phase transitions and effect on gravitational waves , JHEP 08 (2022) 302, [ 2206.01130]

    2022 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Caprini et al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update , JCAP 03 (2020) 024, [ 1910.13125]

    C. Caprini et al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update , JCAP 03 (2020) 024, [ 1910.13125]

    2020 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Caldwell et al., Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics, Gen

    R. Caldwell et al., Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics, Gen. Rel. Grav. 54 (2022) 156, [ 2203.07972]

    2022 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Auclair et al., Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Living Rev

    LISA Cosmology Working Groupcollaboration, P. Auclair et al., Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Living Rev. Rel. 26 (2023) 5, [ 2204.05434]

    2023 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Basler, L

    P. Basler, L. Biermann, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. M¨ uller, R. Santos and J. a. Viana,BSMPT v3 A Tool for Phase Transitions and Primordial Gravitational Waves in Extended Higgs Sectors , 2404.19037

    arXiv

  120. [128]

    Chen and Y

    H. Chen and Y. Jiang, A Comprehensive Framework for Electroweak Phase Transitions: Thermal History and Dynamics from Bubble Nucleation to Percolation , 2503.00421

    arXiv

  121. [129]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir, Numerical simulations of acoustically generated gravitational waves at a first order phase transition , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 123009, [ 1504.03291]

    2015 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir, Shape of the acoustic grav- itational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 103520, [1704.05871]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 089902 (2020)]

    2017 arXiv

  123. [131]

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

    C. Caprini et al., Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions, JCAP 04 (2016) 001, [ 1512.06239]

    2016 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Grojean and G

    C. Grojean and G. Servant, Gravitational Waves from Phase Transitions at the Electroweak Scale and Beyond , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 043507, [ hep-ph/0607107]

    2007 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Leitao and A

    L. Leitao and A. Megevand, Gravitational waves from a very strong electroweak phase tran- sition, JCAP 05 (2016) 037, [ 1512.08962]

    2016 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and J. M. No, On the Maximal Strength of a First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and its Gravitational Wave Signal , JCAP 04 (2019) 003, [ 1809.08242]

    2019 arXiv

  127. [135]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Garbrecht and C. Tamarit, Bubble wall velocities in local equilibrium , JCAP 03 (2022) 015, [ 2109.13710]

    2022 arXiv

  128. [136]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, A sonic boom in bubble wall friction , JCAP 04 (2022) 010, [ 2112.12548]

    2022 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Jiang, F

    S. Jiang, F. P. Huang and X. Wang, Bubble wall velocity during electroweak phase transition 53 in the inert doublet model , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 095005, [ 2211.13142]

    2023 arXiv

  130. [138]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. D. Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. G. Muyor and G. Panico, Bubble wall dynamics at the electroweak phase transition , JHEP 03 (2022) 163, [ 2201.08220]

    2022 arXiv

  131. [139]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent and J. van de Vis, Model-independent bubble wall velocities in local thermal equilibrium, JCAP 07 (2023) 002, [ 2303.10171]

    2023 arXiv

  132. [140]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico, Collision integrals for cosmological phase transitions , JHEP 05 (2023) 194, [ 2303.05846]

    2023 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki and M. Zych, Bubble-wall velocity in local thermal equilibrium: hydrodynamical simulations vs analytical treatment , JHEP 05 (2024) 011, [ 2402.15408]

    2024 arXiv

  134. [142]

    Wang, Q.-S

    D.-W. Wang, Q.-S. Yan and M. Huang, Bubble wall velocity and gravitational wave in the minimal left-right symmetric model , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 076011, [ 2405.01949]

    2024 arXiv

  135. [143]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico, Non-linearities in cosmological bubble wall dynamics , JHEP 05 (2024) 009, [ 2401.13522]

    2024 arXiv

  136. [144]

    Branchina, A

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, S. De Curtis and L. Delle Rose, Electroweak Phase Transition and Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium , 2504.21213

    arXiv

  137. [145]

    Lewicki, M

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand and M. Zych, Electroweak bubble wall expansion: gravitational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma , JHEP 02 (2022) 017, [2111.02393]

    2022 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline, First principles determination of bubble wall velocity , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 023501, [ 2204.13120]

    2022 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Biek¨ otter, S

    T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, J. M. No, M. O. Olea-Romacho and G. Weiglein, The trap in the early Universe: impact on the interplay between gravitational waves and LHC physics in the 2HDM , JCAP 03 (2023) 031, [ 2208.14466]

    2023 arXiv

  140. [148]

    M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, V. Q. Tran and T.-C. Yuan, Gravitational waves and dark matter in the gauged two-Higgs doublet model , JHEP 01 (2025) 129, [ 2408.05167]

    2025 arXiv

  141. [149]

    Caprini and R

    C. Caprini and R. Durrer, Gravitational wave production: A Strong constraint on primordial magnetic fields , Phys. Rev. D 65 (2001) 023517, [ astro-ph/0106244]

    2001 arXiv

  142. [150]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Hindmarsh and J. Urrestilla, Exact Scale-Invariant Background of Grav- itational Waves from Cosmic Defects , Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 101302, [ 1212.5458]

    2013 arXiv

  143. [151]

    Hindmarsh, Sound shell model for acoustic gravitational wave production at a first-order phase transition in the early Universe , Phys

    M. Hindmarsh, Sound shell model for acoustic gravitational wave production at a first-order phase transition in the early Universe , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 071301, [ 1608.04735]

    2018 arXiv

  144. [152]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  145. [153]

    Athron, C

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

    2024 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, A. Fowlie and Y. Zhang,PhaseTracer: tracing cosmological phases and calculating transition properties, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 567, [ 2003.02859]. 54

    2020 arXiv

  147. [155]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No and G. Servant, Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions, JCAP 06 (2010) 028, [ 1004.4187]

    2010 arXiv

  148. [156]

    P. J. Steinhardt, Relativistic Detonation Waves and Bubble Growth in False Vacuum Decay , Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 2074

    1982

  149. [157]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2837–2851, [ astro-ph/9310044]

    1994 arXiv

  150. [158]

    Caprini, D

    C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, R. Flauger, G. Nardini, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni et al., Recon- structing the spectral shape of a stochastic gravitational wave background with LISA , JCAP 11 (2019) 017, [ 1906.09244]

    2019 arXiv

  151. [159]

    Babak, A

    S. Babak, A. Petiteau and M. Hewitson, LISA Sensitivity and SNR Calculations , 2108.01167

    arXiv

  152. [160]

    Barroso, P

    A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov and R. Santos, Metastability bounds on the two Higgs doublet model, JHEP 06 (2013) 045, [ 1303.5098]

    2013 arXiv

  153. [161]

    I. P. Ivanov and J. P. Silva, Tree-level metastability bounds for the most general two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 055017, [ 1507.05100]

    2015 arXiv

  154. [162]

    I. P. Ivanov, General two-order-parameter Ginzburg-Landau model with quadratic and quartic interactions, Phys. Rev. E 79 (2009) 021116, [ 0802.2107]

    2009 arXiv

  155. [163]

    Barroso, P

    A. Barroso, P. M. Ferreira, I. P. Ivanov, R. Santos and J. P. Silva, Evading death by vacuum , Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2537, [ 1211.6119]

    2013 arXiv

  156. [164]

    I. P. Ivanov, Minkowski space structure of the Higgs potential in 2HDM , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 035001, [ hep-ph/0609018]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 039902 (2007)]

    2007 arXiv

  157. [165]

    A. Arhrib, Unitarity constraints on scalar parameters of the standard and two Higgs doublets model, in Workshop on Noncommutative Geometry, Superstrings and Particle Physics , 12, 2000, hep-ph/0012353

    2000 arXiv

  158. [166]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections , Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 381–409

    1992

  159. [167]

    H.-J. He, N. Polonsky and S.-f. Su, Extra families, Higgs spectrum and oblique corrections , Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 053004, [ hep-ph/0102144]

    2001 arXiv

  160. [168]

    Grimus, L

    W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, O. M. Ogreid and P. Osland, The Oblique parameters in multi- Higgs-doublet models, Nucl. Phys. B 801 (2008) 81–96, [ 0802.4353]

    2008 arXiv

  161. [169]

    Eriksson, J

    D. Eriksson, J. Rathsman and O. Stal, 2HDMC: Two-Higgs-Doublet Model Calculator Physics and Manual , Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 189–205, [ 0902.0851]

    2010 arXiv

  162. [170]

    Arbey, F

    A. Arbey, F. Mahmoudi, O. Stal and T. Stefaniak, Status of the Charged Higgs Boson in Two Higgs Doublet Models , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 182, [ 1706.07414]

    2018 arXiv

  163. [171]

    Sanyal, Limits on the Charged Higgs Parameters in the Two Higgs Doublet Model using CMS √s = 13 TeV Results, Eur

    P. Sanyal, Limits on the Charged Higgs Parameters in the Two Higgs Doublet Model using CMS √s = 13 TeV Results, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 913, [ 1906.02520]

    2019 arXiv

  164. [172]

    Misiak and M

    M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser, Weak radiative decays of the B meson and bounds on MH ± in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 201, [ 1702.04571]. 55

    2017 arXiv

  165. [173]

    Horiguchi et al., Evidence for Isospin Violation and Measurement of CP Asymmetries in B → K∗(892)γ, Phys

    Belle collaboration, T. Horiguchi et al., Evidence for Isospin Violation and Measurement of CP Asymmetries in B → K∗(892)γ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 191802, [ 1707.00394]

    2017 arXiv

  166. [174]

    Dutta et al., Search for B0 s → γγ and a measurement of the branch- ing fraction for B0 s → ϕγ, Phys

    Belle collaboration, D. Dutta et al., Search for B0 s → γγ and a measurement of the branch- ing fraction for B0 s → ϕγ, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 011101, [ 1411.7771]

    2015 arXiv

  167. [175]

    M¨ uhlleitner, M

    M. M¨ uhlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos and J. Wittbrodt, ScannerS: parameter scans in extended scalar sectors , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 198, [ 2007.02985]

    2022 arXiv

  168. [176]

    H. Bahl, T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein et al., HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals , Comput. Phys. Commun. 291 (2023) 108803, [ 2210.09332]

    2023 arXiv

  169. [177]

    C. L. Wainwright, CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Tempera- tures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2006– 2013, [1109.4189]

    2012 arXiv

  170. [178]

    Basler and M

    P. Basler and M. M¨ uhlleitner,BSMPT (Beyond the Standard Model Phase Transitions): A tool for the electroweak phase transition in extended Higgs sectors , Comput. Phys. Commun. 237 (2019) 62–85, [ 1803.02846]

    2019 arXiv

  171. [179]

    Basler, M

    P. Basler, M. M¨ uhlleitner and J. M¨ uller,BSMPT v2 a tool for the electroweak phase tran- sition and the baryon asymmetry of the universe in extended Higgs Sectors , Comput. Phys. Commun. 269 (2021) 108124, [ 2007.01725]

    2021 arXiv

  172. [180]

    J. Kim, S. Lee, P. Sanyal and J. Song, CDF W-boson mass and muon g-2 in a type-X two- Higgs-doublet model with a Higgs-phobic light pseudoscalar , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 035002, [2205.01701]

    2022 arXiv

  173. [181]

    Adli et al., The Compact Linear e +e− Collider (CLIC) , 2503.24168

    E. Adli et al., The Compact Linear e +e− Collider (CLIC) , 2503.24168

    arXiv

  174. [182]

    Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

    A. Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model , Phys. Rept. 459 (2008) 1–241, [ hep-ph/0503173]

    2008 arXiv

  175. [183]

    Bernon, J

    J. Bernon, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, Y. Jiang and S. Kraml, Scrutinizing the alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models: m h=125 GeV , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 075004, [ 1507.00933]

    2015 arXiv

  176. [184]

    J. Gu, H. Li, Z. Liu, S. Su and W. Su, Learning from Higgs Physics at Future Higgs Factories, JHEP 12 (2017) 153, [ 1709.06103]

    2017 arXiv

  177. [185]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond , JHEP 06 (2011) 128, [ 1106.0522]

    2011 arXiv

  178. [186]

    Belyaev, N

    A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen and A. Pukhov, CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the Standard Model , Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 1729–1769, [ 1207.6082]

    2013 arXiv

  179. [187]

    ATLAS collaboration, Formulae for Estimating Significance , [ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-025]

    2020

  180. [188]

    Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 , SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8, [ 2203.11601]

    2022 arXiv

  181. [189]

    de Favereau, C

    DELPHES 3 collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens et al., DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment , JHEP 02 (2014) 057, [ 1307.6346]. 56

    2014 arXiv

  182. [190]

    Boronat, J

    M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, E. Ros and M. Vos, A robust jet reconstruction algorithm for high-energy lepton colliders , Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 95–99, [ 1404.4294]

    2015 arXiv

  183. [191]

    Boronat, J

    M. Boronat, J. Fuster, I. Garcia, P. Roloff, R. Simoniello and M. Vos, Jet reconstruction at high-energy electron–positron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 144, [ 1607.05039]

    2018 arXiv

  184. [192]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet User Manual , Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, [1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  185. [193]

    CMS collaboration, G. L. Bayatian et al., CMS technical design report, volume II: Physics performance, J. Phys. G 34 (2007) 995–1579

    2007

  186. [194]

    Bagliesi, Tau tagging at Atlas and CMS , in 17th Symposium on Hadron Collider Physics 2006 (HCP 2006) , 7, 2007, 0707.0928

    G. Bagliesi, Tau tagging at Atlas and CMS , in 17th Symposium on Hadron Collider Physics 2006 (HCP 2006) , 7, 2007, 0707.0928

    2006 arXiv

  187. [195]

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Performance of reconstruction and identification of τ leptons decaying to hadrons and ντ in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JINST 13 (2018) P10005, [1809.02816]

    2018 arXiv

  188. [196]

    Proissl, Dijet Invariant Mass Studies in the Higgs boson H → b¯b resonance search in association with a W/Z boson using the ATLAS detector , Ph.D

    M. Proissl, Dijet Invariant Mass Studies in the Higgs boson H → b¯b resonance search in association with a W/Z boson using the ATLAS detector , Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh U., 2014, CERN-THESIS-2014-275]

    2014

  189. [197]

    Abramowicz et al., Higgs physics at the CLIC electron–positron linear collider , Eur

    H. Abramowicz et al., Higgs physics at the CLIC electron–positron linear collider , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 475, [ 1608.07538]. 57

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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