Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

An Exploration of Vacuum-Decay Valleys

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that single-field false-vacuum decay can be organized as 2n+1 bounces—n bounce-antibounce pairs joined by pseudo-bounces—so standard overshoot/undershoot searches can miss half of the channels, sometimes the dominant one.

desk verdict The concrete examples and the antibounce concept are genuinely useful and should be taken seriously, but the advertised 2n+1 'general case' is an extrapolation from three potentials, not a proven theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06154 v1 pith:LYYK5E7R submitted 2025-06-06 hep-th hep-ph

classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords falsevacuumdecayEuclideanbouncepseudo-bounceantibouncetunnelingpotentialmethodovershootandundershootactionlandscapesingle-fieldscalar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the textbook picture of false-vacuum decay—a single Euclidean bounce found by overshoot/undershoot shooting—is not the whole story for single-field potentials. By combining the Euclidean bounce formalism with the tunneling-potential method, the authors exhibit concrete potentials whose decay structure is a family of $2n+1$ stationary configurations for $n=0,1,2,\dots$: ordinary bounces and antibounces (which respond oppositely to overshoot/undershoot perturbations) arranged in $n$ pairs joined by pseudo-bounce solutions, with a lone bounce attached to an infinite-radius configuration. In some potentials there is no proper bounce at all, and decay runs through pseudo-bounces; in one example the family continues indefinitely to infinity. The point matters because standard numerical codes hunt for one bounce and can therefore miss the channel with the lowest action.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tunneling potential $V_t(\phi)$, defined by $V_t=V-\dot\phi^2/2$; it replaces the full Euclidean profile by a one-dimensional function whose extremum gives the tunneling action. It satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation $(4V_t'-3V')V_t'+6(V-V_t)V_t''=0$ with boundary conditions at the false vacuum and at the endpoint $\phi_0$. Pseudo-bounces are the solutions with $V_t'(\phi_e)=0$, which correspond in the Euclidean picture to a configuration with a constant inner core of radius $r_i$ and field value $\phi_e$; true bounces are the special points where $r_i=0$. The families are labeled by a parameter $A$ appearing in the low-field expansion of $V_t$, an infrared label, while $\phi_e$ and $r_i$ are ultraviolet labels; the tunneling action is a continuous function of $A$ even where $\phi_e(A)$ jumps. The relation $dS/d\phi_e=(\pi^2/2)r_i^4V'(\phi_e)$ turns the geometry of pseudo-bounce lines in the $(\phi_e,r_i)$ plane into an ordering of the actions of the bounces that they connect.

What would settle it

For the regularized example of Section 6, carry out a dense shooting scan in $A$ and in initial conditions beyond the low-field expansion, recording every endpoint where $V_t=V$ and $V_t'=0$; finding an endpoint absent from the reported branches, or any single-field potential whose number of true bounces is even, would settle that the $2n+1$ classification is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the cases examined, the stationary decay configurations organize as $2n+1$ bounces: $n$ pairs each consist of one bounce and one antibounce connected by a line of pseudo-bounces, plus one extra bounce connected to a configuration of infinite radius and infinite action. A bounce has the standard shooting behavior: raising its central value produces an overshoot and lowering it produces an undershoot. An antibounce has the opposite behavior, so it is invisible or misclassified by overshoot/undershoot searches. The pseudo-bounce solutions, which have a constant inner core, trace the bottoms of valleys of the action functional in slices of fixed central field value, and the true bounces sit at the points where the core radius shrinks to zero. The authors also prove, using the relation $dS/d\phi_e=(\pi^2/2)r_i^4V'(\phi_e)$, that within each bounce-antibounce pair the configuration with the larger central field value has the lower action. These features persist after the example potentials are regularized to have finite minima, and the counting extends to an infinite family in the example with an exponential tail, where bounces and antibounces alternate with spacing tending to $\pi/\sqrt{3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The count $2n+1$ rests on the assumption that numerically integrating the tunneling-potential equation from the false vacuum with the one-parameter family $A$ sweeps out every pseudo-bounce branch; an isolated branch not reached by that family would make the claimed pairing structure incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard single-bounce codes applied to such potentials can miss the decay channel that actually dominates.
  • The decay rate is not determined by the one bounce an overshoot/undershoot search finds; the relevant action can be smaller, and in the unbounded examples can even vanish.
  • Within each bounce-antibounce pair the configuration at higher $\phi_e$ has lower action, so the dynamically important member of the pair is often the antibounce.
  • In the exponential-tail example the infinite sequence of bounces accumulates at the singular bounce's action, so the singular bounce acts as the limit point of a spiral of ordinary decays.
  • Regularizing the unbounded potentials preserves the multi-bounce structure and makes the decay action finite, so the richness is not an artifact of a runaway potential.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extrapolation is that the $2n+1$ valley structure appears whenever the potential has a sufficiently steep region beyond the false vacuum; a large random scan of single-field potentials would give an encounter rate for multi-bounce channels, which the paper does not attempt.
  • Because $\phi_e$ and $r_i$ are ultraviolet labels, the ordering of decay channels could be sensitive to modifications of the potential at high field values even when low-energy physics is fixed; the dominant channel would then be a probe of short-distance structure.
  • Appendix B's energy-conservation obstruction for spliced $V_t$ solutions suggests a general rule: one cannot lower a tunneling action by piecing together two crossing valley-bottom branches unless the splice is at the same $V_t'$, which forces the two branches to be the same solution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies false-vacuum decay in single-field scalar potentials using both the Euclidean bounce formalism and the tunneling potential formalism. It introduces pseudo-bounce configurations as one-parameter families labelled by the parameter A, and exhibits three example potentials in which the decay structure is far richer than the standard single bounce: Section 4 analyzes a potential from [8] with five bounces, including two 'antibounces' with reversed overshoot/undershoot behavior; Section 5 analyzes a potential from [9] with a singular bounce and an infinite sequence of bounces accumulating on it; Section 6 regularizes the first potential and shows that a finite multi-bounce structure survives. Section 7.1 states a general 2n+1 pattern for bounces, and Section 7.2 gives a Stokes' theorem proof of a relative-action inequality for bounce-antibounce pairs. The paper emphasizes that standard overshoot/undershoot codes can miss antibounce channels.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a qualitatively new feature of single-field vacuum decay: the decay structure is not always described by a unique Coleman bounce, and standard searches can miss the dominant antibounce channel. The paper has several concrete strengths: the analytic bounce of Section 4 and its action are reproduced in the tunneling-potential formalism; the singular bounce of Section 5 is presented explicitly in Appendix A; the Stokes' theorem argument in Section 7.2 is a genuine analytic result that goes beyond numerical evidence; and the regularized example of Section 6 shows that the multi-bounce structure is not an artifact of unbounded-from-below potentials. However, the global 2n+1 count rests on a completeness assumption for the A-labelled pseudo-bounce family that is not proven, and the paper provides no code or numerical error estimates, so the central claim cannot currently be independently verified. These gaps temper the otherwise high potential impact of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (4.8); §7.1] The enumeration of bounces, and hence the abstract and §7.1 claim of exactly 2n+1 bounces, rests on the assertion in §4.3 that integrating Eq. (2.2) from the false vacuum using the low-field expansion (4.8) 'find[s] a full family of pseudo-bounces labelled by A'. This completeness is not proven. The expansion (4.8) is a one-parameter asymptotic family near ϕ=0; a second-order ODE can possess solutions whose behavior near the false vacuum is not captured by a power-log ansatz truncated at finite order. Every bounce in the paper is identified as an r_i=0 endpoint of one of these A-families, so an unproven completeness assumption is load-bearing for the central claim. The proof in §7.2 only establishes relative actions within a pair and does not address the global count. I would like to see a direct argument—for instance, a uniqueness theorem for solutions of (2.2) with the specified asymptotic behavior, or a Euclidean boundary-value count—or an explicit statement that the 2n+1 pattern is an observation from the examples rather than a proven general result.
  2. [Abstract; §7.1] The abstract and §7.1 claim that 'In the general case with bounce, there are 2n+1 bounces' without qualification, but the evidence consists of three concrete potentials, two of which are unbounded below and one of which has a singular bounce. Section 6 demonstrates that the 5-bounce structure of Section 4 survives a particular regularization, which is reassuring, but it is still an existence statement for a specially constructed potential. No argument is given for why a generic single-field potential with a false vacuum and a bounce must have an odd number of bounces, nor what determines n. If the intended scope is the class of potentials explored here, the wording should be revised; if the claim is meant to be universal, a proof or a precise characterization of the class of potentials is needed. As written, the paper overstates the scope of its evidence.
  3. [§5; Figs. 8–9] The paper reports no code, no convergence tests, and no error estimates for the numerical integrations that determine the bounce locations and actions, in particular the curves in Figures 8 and 9 for the infinite-bounce example of Section 5. The existence of an infinite sequence of bounces is supported by the analytic spiral argument, which is a strength, but the specific claim that the sequence accumulates at A≈14.7 with actions tending to S_0=130.44 is a numerical result. Similarly, the finite counts in Sections 4 and 6 depend on numerical identification of r_i=0 endpoints. For a paper whose central message is that existing numerical codes 'would miss' some decay channels, it is important that the reader can reproduce the enumeration. Please provide numerical tolerances, step sizes, and ideally the code or a clear pseudocode description.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 1; §7.1] The pairing structure claimed in §7.1—that the 2n+1 bounces organize into n pairs connected by pseudo-bounce lines—is not transparent in Figure 1. The pseudo-bounce branches shown there appear to be disconnected in the (φ_e, r_i) plane (with a gap for φ_e ∈ (0.53, 0.81)), and it is unclear which bounces form the pairs. The schematic Figure 15 would be more helpful if the actual example were annotated to show the corresponding pairs.
  2. [§7.2, Eq. (7.3)] The proof of the relative-action inequality uses the assumption V'(φ_e)<0 to conclude the integral in (7.3) is negative. This assumption is stated only in the final step; it should be made explicit as a condition on the enclosed region A. Otherwise the statement 'Irrespective of the shape of the pseudo-bounce line' is too strong, since a potential with a local minimum inside A would have regions with V'>0 and the sign of the integral would not be fixed.
  3. [§5, Eq. (5.6)] The notation v_t is introduced in (5.6) as V_t(φ)=v_t(φ)e^{2φ}, but the relation between the boundary conditions (5.8) and the original tunneling-potential boundary conditions (2.3) could be stated more explicitly for readers less familiar with the formalism.
  4. [§4.3, last paragraph] The phrase 'cut off at φ_e=1' is vague; clarify that the cubic V_t≈−cφ^3 solution, which would otherwise run away, is terminated by the singular endpoint of the potential at φ=1, leading to a finite action that vanishes as the endpoint is approached.
  5. [Typographical] In §4.3, 'an spike' should be 'a spike'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pseudo-bounce enumeration is ODE-generated and cross-checked against Euclidean and external analytic results; the unproven completeness of the A-labeled family is a correctness caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivations are not circular. The central enumeration of bounces, antibounces, and pseudo-bounce lines is obtained by integrating the tunneling-potential ODE (2.2) from the false vacuum with one-parameter low-field expansions (4.8)/(5.4), and then locating the endpoints satisfying V_t' = 0 or V_t' = 3V'/4; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The parameter A is explicitly called a mere label, and the action S(A) is continuous but not constructed to force the claimed 2n+1 pairing. The relative-action inequality in Sec. 7.2 follows from the identity dS/dphi_e = (pi^2/2) r_i^4 V'(phi_e), which is independently numerically checked, and from Stokes' theorem on the overshoot/undershoot boundary; it does not presuppose the conclusion. Self-citations to the tunneling-potential formalism and pseudo-bounce papers provide tools, but the examples also come from external literature ([8], [9]) and are cross-checked against Euclidean overshoot/undershoot diagrams and an external singular-bounce solution, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in the sense of an unverified premise. The strongest limitation is the unproven completeness of the A-labelled pseudo-bounce family used for the general 2n+1 statement; however, this is a numerical-completeness or extrapolation concern about correctness, not an equivalence of output to input by construction. No circular step satisfying the evidence rule is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on established bounce and tunneling-potential formalism. The only new conceptual objects are terminological (antibounce, multi-pass pseudo-bounce), not physical entities. The concrete demonstrations depend on hand-chosen potential parameters (phi_0, phi_M, phi_x, phi_-), and the universal 2n+1 claim assumes the examples are generic.

free parameters (3)
  • phi_0 = 0.9
    Parameter of the potential (4.1), chosen for numerical analysis in section 4. The rich 2n+1 structure appears only for phi_0 >~ 0.565; below this value the potential has a single standard bounce. Thus the central demonstration depends on this hand-chosen value.
  • phi_M = -2.358 (tuned)
    In section 5, phi_M must be tuned so the analytic singular bounce satisfies the correct boundary conditions (Appendix A). It is a parameter of the potential (5.1) adjusted to make the construction work. Other parameters in (5.1) are set to 1 for simplicity.
  • phi_x, phi_- = phi_x=0.975, phi_-=1.5
    Matching point and true minimum of the regularized potential (6.1) in section 6, chosen for numerical illustration. The qualitative structure of extra bounces persists for reasonable variations of these values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Euclidean bounce formalism and the tunneling potential formalism are equivalent for single-field false vacuum decay (Section 2).
    The paper relies on the dictionary between Coleman's Euclidean formalism and the tunneling potential method from [7], as reviewed in Section 2, to translate between bounce profiles and tunneling potentials.
  • domain assumption Gravity is decoupled and the field theory is four-dimensional single-field (Introduction, Sections 2 and 7.1).
    All examples are 4d single-field potentials without gravitational corrections; the scope of the 2n+1 claim is explicitly limited to this setting.
  • domain assumption The potentials considered have a false vacuum at phi_+ with V(phi_+)=0 and are smooth except at the stated singularities (Sections 4, 5, 6).
    The analysis assumes standard boundary conditions for bounces and pseudo-bounces, including the expansion formulas near the false vacuum.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed 2n+1 bounce pattern in the three examples is representative of the general single-field case (Section 7.1).
    The paper states the 2n+1 structure as a general lesson without proof, extrapolating from the studied examples. This is an unproved assumption about genericity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Exploration of Vacuum-Decay Valleys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYYK5E7R

@misc{pith2026250606154,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Exploration of Vacuum-Decay Valleys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYYK5E7R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06154}
}
abstract

In the standard lore the decay of the false vacuum of a single-field potential is described by a semi-classical Euclidean bounce configuration that can be found using overshoot/undershoot algorithms, and whose action suppresses exponentially the decay rate. While this is generically correct, we show in a few concrete examples of potentials, previously studied in the literature for other purposes, that the vacuum decay structure can be far richer. In some cases there is no bounce and decay proceeds via the so-called pseudo-bounce configurations. In the general case with bounce, there are $2n+1$ bounces, with $n$ ranging from 0 (the standard case) to $\infty$. Some of these decay configurations we call antibounces as they have the wrong behavior for overshoot/undershoot algorithms, which can miss them. Bounce and antibounce configurations form $n$ pairs connected by pseudo-bounces. Our analysis benefits from a combined use of Euclidean and tunneling potential methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06154 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. For the example of section 4, with ϕ0 = 0.9, different pseudo-bounce branches (with core field value ϕe and inner core radius ri) separating overshot and undershot regions. Black-dashed lines are multi-pass pseudo-bounces. True bounces live on the ri = 0 axis and are indicated by black dots. 4.1 (Euclidean) Pseudo-bounce Solutions For the numerical analysis, consider the case with ϕ0 = 0.9. To get a pseudo-bounce so… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Tunneling action for the pseudo-bounce branches of Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. End-point ϕe of the family of tunneling potentials Vt(A; ϕ) for the potential of section 4, using the same color coding of previous figures. The black dots mark the bounce solutions. pseudo-bounce solutions correspond to Vt solutions that leave from the false vacuum and reach V at ϕe with V ′ t (ϕe) = 0. Instead of solving the EoM for Vt taking initial conditions at ϕe and integrating towards ϕ+ = 0, we follow the s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tunneling action for Vt(A; ϕ) solutions for the potential of section 4, using the same color coding of previous figures. Dots mark the location of bounces and correspond to local extremals of S(A), and the left plot is just a zoom-in of the right one. analytic bounce s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Behavior of pseudo-bounce Vt(A; ϕ) solutions (orange and green lines) right above and below a true bounce solution (red line) for the potential of section 4. The right plot is a zoomed out version showing the end-point ϕe, where Vt = V , for the lower pseudo-bounce. (w…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For the example of section 5, different pseudo-bounce branches (with core field value ϕe and inner core radius ri) separating overshot and undershot regions. Bounces live along the ri = 0 axis and are indicated by black dots. The right plot zooms to higher values of ϕe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Different vt(ϕ) solutions of (5.7) with boundary conditions (5.8) and different values of ϕe = {5, 10, 15, 20} are simply shifted copies of each other. Right: Example of the oscillatory behavior (5.9), for ϕe = 10.33. several such solutions for ϕe = {5, 10, 15, 2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Blue spiral line: values of ˆvt , vˆ ′ t , defined in (5.10), for solutions from ϕe down to ϕ = 0+ (with ϕe increasing as indicated by the arrow). Red line: same for solutions from ϕM to ϕ = 0−. Intersections, marked by black dots, indicate the bounce solutions that sa…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Tunneling actions for Vt(A; ϕ) solutions for the example considered in this section, using the same color coding of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Regularized potential (6.1), VR(ϕ), (solid blue) and unbounded-from-below po￾tential V (ϕ) of section 4 (red dashed). The matching ϕx is marked by a black dot. of bounces follows from the fact that the red line crosses the spiral center, which is guaranteed by constru…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: As for Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Tunneling action for Vt(A; ϕ) solutions for the regularized potential considered in this section, using the same color coding of previous figures. Lower plots are zoom-ins of the top plot. Dots mark the location of bounces and correspond to local extremals of S(A). Re…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Schematic representation of a bounce-antibounce pair ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Action landscape with pseudo-bounce valleys (colored lines) for the model of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Zoomed-in region of Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Field profile of the singular bounce of Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Exact tunneling solutions in multi-field potentials,

    J. R. Espinosa and T. Konstandin, “Exact tunneling solutions in multi-field potentials,” JCAP03(2024), 007[hep-th/2312.12360]

  2. [9]

    Beyond Coleman’s Instantons,

    M. Sasaki, V. Yingcharoenrat and Y. l. Zhang, “Beyond Coleman’s Instantons,” [hep-th/2411.11322]; “Singular instantons with finite action,”[hep-th/2503.19616]

  3. [1]

    The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,

    S.R. Coleman, “The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 15(1977) 2929 Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1248]

  4. [2]

    Oscillating bounce solutions and vacuum tunneling in de Sitter spacetime,

    J. C. Hackworth and E. J. Weinberg, “Oscillating bounce solutions and vacuum tunneling in de Sitter spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 044014[0410142/hep-th]

  5. [4]

    Standard Model vacuum decay in a de Sitter Background

    A. Rajantie and S. Stopyra, “Standard Model vacuum decay in a de Sitter Background,” Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 025012[hep-th/1707.09175]

  6. [5]

    Tunneling potentials to nothing,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, J. R. Espinosa, J. Huertas and K. Sousa, “Tunneling potentials to nothing,” Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 084057[hep-th/2311.18821]; “Bubbles of nothing: the tunneling potential approach,” JCAP03(2024) 029[hep-th/2312.00133]

  7. [6]

    Tunneling without Bounce,

    J. R. Espinosa, “Tunneling without Bounce,” Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 105002 [hep-th/1908.01730]; J. R. Espinosa and J. Huertas, “Pseudo-bounces vs. new in- stantons,” JCAP12(2021) 029[hep-th/2106.04541]

  8. [7]

    A Fresh Look at the Calculation of Tunneling Actions,

    J. R. Espinosa, “A Fresh Look at the Calculation of Tunneling Actions,” JCAP1807 (2018) 036[hep-th/1805.03680]

Show all 23 references
  1. [10]

    Fresh look at the calculation of tunneling actions including gravitational effects,

    J. R. Espinosa, “Fresh look at the calculation of tunneling actions including gravitational effects,” Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 104007[hep-th/1808.00420]. 27

  2. [11]

    A Fresh Look at the Calculation of Tunneling Actions in Multi-Field Potentials,

    J. R. Espinosa and T. Konstandin, “A Fresh Look at the Calculation of Tunneling Actions in Multi-Field Potentials,” JCAP01(2019) 051[hep-th/1811.09185]

  3. [12]

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of the Tunneling Potential,

    J. R. Espinosa, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of the Tunneling Potential,” PoS CORFU2023(2024) 164[hep-th/2404.19657]

  4. [13]

    Instability of the Kaluza-Klein Vacuum,

    E. Witten, “Instability of the Kaluza-Klein Vacuum,” Nucl. Phys. B195(1982) 481

  5. [14]

    Catastrophic decays of compactified space-times,

    M. Dine, P. J. Fox and E. Gorbatov, “Catastrophic decays of compactified space-times,” JHEP09(2004) 037[hep-th/0405190]

  6. [15]

    Bubble of nothing decays of unstable theories,

    P. Draper, I. G. Garcia and B. Lillard, “Bubble of nothing decays of unstable theories,” Phys. Rev. D104(2021) L121701[hep-th/2105.08068]; “De Sitter decays to infinity,” JHEP12(2021) 154[hep-th/2105.10507]

  7. [16]

    CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Tem- peratures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields,

    C. L. Wainwright, “CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Tem- peratures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields,” Comput. Phys. Commun.183 (2012) 2006[hep-ph/1109.4189]

  8. [17]

    Efficient numerical solution to vacuum decay with many fields,

    A. Masoumi, K. D. Olum and B. Shlaer, “Efficient numerical solution to vacuum decay with many fields,” JCAP01(2017) 051[gr-qc/1610.06594]

  9. [18]

    Impact of Vacuum Stability Con- straints on the Phenomenology of Supersymmetric Models,

    W. G. Hollik, G. Weiglein and J. Wittbrodt, “Impact of Vacuum Stability Con- straints on the Phenomenology of Supersymmetric Models,” JHEP03(2019), 109 [hep-ph/1812.04644]

  10. [19]

    BubbleProfiler: finding the field profile and action for cosmological phase transitions,

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, M. Bardsley, A. Fowlie, D. Harries and G. White, “BubbleProfiler: finding the field profile and action for cosmological phase transitions,” Comput. Phys. Commun.244(2019) 448[hep-ph/1901.03714]

  11. [20]

    SimpleBounce : a simple package for the false vacuum decay,

    R. Sato, “SimpleBounce : a simple package for the false vacuum decay,” Comput. Phys. Commun.258(2021), 107566[hep-ph/1908.10868]

  12. [21]

    FindBounce: Package for multi-field bounce actions,

    V. Guada, M. Nemevˇ sek and M. Pintar, “FindBounce: Package for multi-field bounce actions,” Comput. Phys. Commun.256(2020), 107480[hep-ph/2002.00881]

  13. [22]

    An optimisation based algorithm for finding the nucleation tempera- ture of cosmological phase transitions,

    M. Bardsley, “An optimisation based algorithm for finding the nucleation tempera- ture of cosmological phase transitions,” Comput. Phys. Commun.273(2022), 108252 [astro-ph.CO/2103.01985]

  14. [23]

    BSMPT v3 A Tool for Phase Transitions and Primordial Gravitational Waves in Extended Higgs Sectors,

    P. Basler, L. Biermann, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. M¨ uller, R. Santos and J. Viana, “BSMPT v3 A Tool for Phase Transitions and Primordial Gravitational Waves in Extended Higgs Sectors,”[hep-ph/2404.19037]

  15. [24]

    VacuumTunneling: A package to solve bounce equation with renor- malization factor,

    B. Hua and J. Zhu, “VacuumTunneling: A package to solve bounce equation with renor- malization factor,”[hep-ph/2501.15236]. 28

Pith tools

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