Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Gravitational Waves from Dark Gauge Sectors

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A first-order phase transition in a non-Abelian dark gauge sector would ring at 1–10 mHz inside LISA's band, at the same parameters that explain vector dark matter and yield a six-top signature.

desk verdict Technically careful, genuinely novel dark-sector GW analysis; the LISA-reach claim is credible, but the abstract overstates DM compatibility and the sound-wave-only spectrum needs a quantitative check at the strong-supercooling benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04912 v2 pith:IDXZ2DUQ submitted 2025-08-06 hep-ph

Alexander Belyaev , M{aa}rten Bertenstam , João Gonçalves , António P. Morais , Roman Pasechnik , Nakorn Thongyoi This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords gravitationalwavesfirst-orderphasetransitionvectordarkmatternon-AbeliangaugesectordimensionalreductionLISAsix-topfinalstateHiggsportal
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 sets out to show that vector dark matter from a new non-Abelian gauge sector has a cosmological face: the same dark sector would have undergone a strong first-order phase transition in the early universe, and that transition would be directly observable. Using a dimensionally reduced 3D effective field theory to control the usual theoretical uncertainties, the authors scan three portal scenarios and find that in the full model — a dark $\mathrm{SU}(2)_D$ sector communicating with the Standard Model through both a Higgs portal and a fermionic portal — the stochastic gravitational-wave background peaks at 1–10 mHz with amplitudes inside LISA's reach, for dark vector masses near 1–10 TeV and a dark Higgs around 10 GeV. These same parameter points can make the dark vector boson most or all of the observed dark matter. The paper also identifies a six-top final state from pair-produced vector-like fermions as a collider signature of the same region, within HL-LHC reach, and shows that a fully secluded dark sector would be excluded by dark-radiation bounds precisely if LISA sees such a signal.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is dimensional reduction: the 4D thermal theory is matched in two steps (hard $\to$ soft $\to$ ultrasoft) onto a 3D effective field theory whose temperature-dependent masses, couplings and Debye masses absorb the thermal effects, with the 4D potential recovered as $V^{4\mathrm{D}}_{\mathrm{eff}} = T\,V^{3\mathrm{D}}_{\mathrm{eff}}$. The agent that makes the transition first order is the cubic term $e(\delta,T)$ in the ultrasoft potential, generated at one loop by the vector-boson thermal masses; it is negative and therefore raises the barrier between false and true vacua. From this potential the bounce action $S_3/T$ fixes the percolation temperature and the thermodynamic param

What would settle it

A lattice computation of the 3D ultrasoft theory at a LISA-viable point such as BM1 ($g_D \approx 1.074$, $M_{V_D} \approx 313$ GeV, $M_{H_D} \approx 5.7$ GeV) would settle the perturbative basis: if the non-perturbative transition strength and rate disagree with the quoted $\alpha \approx 82$ and $\beta/H \approx 539$ by more than the factor-two-scale spread quoted in Sec. 5.5, the predicted peak amplitude moves by the same factor. The direct test is LISA itself: a null search in the 1–10 mHz band at $h^2\Omega \gtrsim 10^{-11}$ would falsify the claim that dark-matter-saturating points with

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the thermal history of the FPVDM model — a dark $\mathrm{SU}(2)_D$ gauge theory with a complex dark doublet $\Phi_D$, vector dark matter $V_D$ stabilised by a conserved dark charge, and vector-like fermions mixing with the top quark — includes a strong first-order phase transition whose gravitational-wave relic sits in LISA's frequency band. In the complete model the predicted peak frequencies fall in the 1–10 mHz range for DM-viable parameters and extend to about 1 Hz for BBO/DECIGO, whereas the Higgs-portal-only version stays near 1 mHz; benchmark points with signal-to-noise ratio $\geq 10$ at LISA (Table 6) have a light dark Higgs (6–10 GeV), $g_D$ of order one,

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dimensionally reduced 3D effective theory — one-loop potential with two-loop (one-loop) matching of masses (couplings) — predicts the barrier, the nucleation rate, and hence $\alpha$ and $\beta/H$ accurately enough across the whole scanned parameter space, including strongly supercooled and small-coupling regions; the paper's own uncertainty analysis (Sec. 5.5) quotes roughly an order-of-magnitude spread in peak amplitude when the matching

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A LISA detection of a 1–10 mHz stochastic background would distinguish the full fermionic-portal model from the Higgs-portal-only version, whose peak frequency stays near 1 mHz.
  • If the paper is right, the parameter region LISA sees is the one that explains dark matter: dark vector masses of 1–10 TeV, a ~10 GeV dark Higgs, $g_D \sim 1$–2, and a fermion-portal coupling $y' \gtrsim 0.01$.
  • The LISA-visible region of the fully secluded dark sector is already excluded by the $\Delta N_\mathrm{eff} < 0.55$ bound, so an observed mHz background would discriminate in favour of the portal scenarios.
  • The six-top final state gives a hadron-collider handle on the same region, with projected HL-LHC exclusion up to $m_F \approx 2.3$ TeV; observing it alongside the GW background would be a smoking gun for the fermionic portal.
  • Within LISA's reach the model's vector DM accounts for at least about 40% of the relic abundance in most points, and dedicated 2D scans find mHz-frequency points that saturate $h^2\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}} \approx 0.12$ exactly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If both signals appeared, the model sharpens into a specific low-mass target: a dark Higgs below ~10 GeV with scalar-mixing angles around $10^{-9}$–$10^{-5}$, which existing collider searches barely touch but which could be hunted in rare Higgs or B-meson decays in parallel with the other channels.
  • The radiative splitting between $V_D$ and $V'$ grows like $m_F^2$, so the same vector-like fermion masses that set the six-top reach also control the loop-induced direct-detection rate — the quoted LZ2024 exclusion factors for the benchmarks can be read as a target window that the next xenon generation will either confirm or close.
  • The paper's choice to keep only the sound-wave contribution leaves a specific, testable spectral shape; if LISA resolves a mHz background with a slope steeper or shallower than the double-broken power law, sources other than a thermal phase transition (cosmic defects, primordial black holes) would be implicated.
  • The logic that rules out the secluded sector can be recycled as a general diagnostic: any LISA-visible phase transition in a dark sector with no Standard Model coupling must first solve the dark-radiation problem, otherwise the signal and $\Delta N_\mathrm{eff}$ jointly pin down the portal.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies gravitational-wave (GW) production from strong first-order phase transitions in an SU(2)_D dark gauge sector, with the vector boson of the dark sector as a dark-matter candidate. It considers three scenarios: a secluded sector (Scenario I), a Higgs-portal coupled sector (Scenario II), and the full fermionic-portal model (Scenario III). The phase-transition thermodynamics is computed through a dimensionally reduced 3D EFT, using a one-loop effective potential with higher-order matching, and the resulting GW spectra are compared with LISA, BBO, and DECIGO sensitivities. The paper also presents a collider study of a six-top final state from vector-like fermion pair production. The central claims are: LISA-visible GW signals with peak frequencies around 1–10 mHz for Scenario III, dark vector masses around 1–10 TeV compatible with the observed DM relic density, and an HL-LHC reach up to m_F ~ 2.3 TeV for the six-top signature.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a useful and fairly comprehensive phenomenological study. The dimensional-reduction treatment is a clear strength: the paper provides detailed matching formulas, an uncertainty analysis in Sec. 5.5, and uses established public tools (DRalgo, CosmoTransitions, micrOMEGAs, CheckMATE). The benchmark tables and the discussion of phase-transition patterns give the reader a concrete map of the viable parameter space. However, two load-bearing points need attention: the GW spectrum for the strongest supercooled benchmark is computed with a sound-wave-only formula without a quantitative check of bubble-collision contributions, and the abstract/conclusions overstate the dark-matter compatibility by referring to benchmarks that account for only a fraction of the observed relic density. With those points clarified, the paper would be a solid contribution to the GW/dark-sector literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Table 6 (BM3)] The sound-wave-only treatment of the GW spectrum is not convincingly justified for the strongest-supercooled benchmark. BM3 in Table 6 has alpha = 1.38e4, beta/H ~ 683, Tp = 10.58 GeV, i.e., extreme supercooling. The text states that the authors checked using the formulas of Ref. [63] that bubble collisions are subdominant, but no numbers are reported. Since the headlined LISA-reach for this benchmark depends directly on the assumed GW source (sound waves vs. vacuum bubble collisions), the authors should either report the comparison quantitatively for BM3 (and similar points with alpha >> 1) or refrain from claiming LISA detectability until this is established. Without such a check, the peak frequency and amplitude could shift substantially, changing which points fall inside LISA's sensitivity band.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 4.5, Table 6] The abstract and several conclusions overstate the dark-matter compatibility. Sec. 4.5 explicitly retains points with h^2 Omega_DM < 0.12 under a multi-component DM assumption. Yet Table 6, which contains the four benchmarks selected for the LISA SNR>10 claim, lists h^2 Omega_DM = 0.000949, 0.0133, 0.00552, and 0.0933. None of these saturates the observed h^2 Omega_DM ~ 0.12. The claim that "both frameworks account for the observed dark matter abundance" is therefore misleading. The authors should either present benchmarks with h^2 Omega_DM close to 0.12 that are also LISA-visible, or clearly state in the abstract and conclusions that the GW-visible points provide only a subcomponent of the DM.
  3. [Sec. 5.5, Tables 7-8] The uncertainty analysis is performed only for Scenario II benchmarks. Scenario III, which is the main source of the claimed 1–10 mHz LISA signals, introduces additional fermionic degrees of freedom and a Yukawa portal that enter the matching conditions (Appendix C) and could modify the renormalisation-scale and matching uncertainties. The authors should provide a similar uncertainty estimate for at least the Scenario III benchmark points of Table 6, or explicitly argue why the Scenario II estimate carries over. Without this, the robustness of the headline Scenario III GW predictions is not demonstrated to the same standard as the rest of the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Tables 7 and 8] Typo: "fist row" should read "first row".
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B.7) and (B.9)] In the Scenario I derivation, the diagrams are labelled with "Phi_H" in several places, although Scenario I contains only the dark scalar Phi_D. This appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase "scan the full parameter space" is stronger than what is done; the paper samples large but finite ranges of parameters (Tabs. 2 and 3). Consider "scan the parameter space" or "scan large regions of parameter space."
  4. [Sec. 5.4, Fig. 23] The HL-LHC projection is obtained by a simple rescaling of signal and background yields by a factor of ten in integrated luminosity. This is acknowledged as a rough approximation, but the abstract and conclusions present the HL-LHC reach as a firm prediction. It would be helpful to state explicitly in the main text and abstract that this is an idealized projection without e.g. updated pileup or trigger-efficiency modelling.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] The statement "we do not anticipate [strong supercooling]" is inconsistent with the presence of BM3 in Table 6 (alpha = 1.38e4). This sentence should be revised to reflect that strong supercooling does occur in some scanned regions.
  6. [Sec. 2.2, footnote 4 and Sec. 5.3.1] The signal-to-noise ratio is defined as the vertical distance to the PISC curve. This differs from the standard SNR used in experimental analyses; please state explicitly that this is an approximate proxy and not a full SNR computation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: GW spectra, DM abundances, and collider signatures are computed from model parameters via 3D EFT, bounce action, standard GW templates, and external codes; self-citations are prior published work used as inputs, not as the output.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived rather than fitted. The phase-transition parameters (T_p, α, β/H) are computed from the dimensionally reduced 3D effective potential through the bounce action, Eqs. (2.1)-(2.10), and the GW spectrum is obtained from these parameters using standard template fits, Eqs. (2.15)-(2.20). No parameter of the GW prediction is fitted to LISA or to the DM abundance; instead, the scan selects model parameters and then imposes consistency constraints (h^2Ω_DM < 0.12, LZ2024 direct detection, ΔN_eff) as filters. The DM relic-density and direct-detection ingredients cite the authors' previous papers [21,22], but these are published, externally constrained calculations (e.g., checked with micrOMEGAs and LZ2024 data) and are not redefined by the present paper. The six-top signature is a tree-level consequence of the model, simulated with CalcHEP/Pythia/Delphes and recast with CheckMATE, with no circular reduction. The only potentially load-bearing approximation—using sound waves only and checking bubble collisions with [63] for α>1—is an unquantified systematic/correctness concern, not a circularity: it does not make the prediction equal to an input. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no equation or fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

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

The model introduces a new dark gauge sector with vector DM, a dark scalar, and vector-like fermions. These entities are not pulled from a hat in the sense that they are all connected to observable processes: GWs, DM relic density, direct detection, and collider signatures. The main assumptions are about the validity of the perturbative 3D EFT and the cosmological setup, rather than about unexplained parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • gD = scanned [1e-3, 4]
    Dark SU(2)D gauge coupling; scan parameter controlling phase transition strength and DM annihilation.
  • MVD = scanned [10, 5e4] GeV
    Dark vector mass; scan parameter setting the GW peak frequency and DM mass scale.
  • MHD = scanned [1e-8, 1e4] GeV
    Dark Higgs mass; scan parameter controlling the phase transition temperature and barrier.
  • mfD, mF = scanned [500, 6.5e4] GeV
    Vector-like fermion masses in Scenario III; enter through portal Yukawa coupling and loop corrections.
  • sin thetaS = scanned [-0.2, 0.2]
    Scalar mixing angle between SM Higgs and dark Higgs; determines portal coupling lambda_HD.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dimensional reduction to a 3D EFT at one loop in the potential and two loop (one loop) in mass (coupling) matching is valid for the studied temperature regime.
    Invoked throughout Sec. 3.5 and Appendix B; the entire thermal potential and bounce calculation depends on this perturbative EFT being accurate.
  • domain assumption The dark sector reaches thermal equilibrium with the SM in Scenarios II and III, and is fully decoupled in Scenario I.
    Sets the initial conditions for Delta_Neff in Eq. (4.4) and determines whether the dark sector temperature is equal to the SM temperature.
  • domain assumption Sound waves dominate the gravitational wave spectrum; turbulence and bubble wall collisions are subdominant.
    Section 2.2; the paper excludes turbulence and checks wall collisions for benchmarks with alpha>1, but the double broken power law in Eq. (2.15) relies on this choice.
  • domain assumption The effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom g* is approximately constant at 100 across the transitions.
    Used in Eqs. (2.6), (2.20), and the Delta_Neff calculation; approximation is standard but introduces O(10%) uncertainty in frequency scaling.
  • domain assumption Dark matter stability is guaranteed by the global U(1)D symmetry and the resulting Z2 parity.
    Defines the model in Sec. 3; if this symmetry were anomalous or broken, the vector DM candidate would decay.
invented entities (3)
  • Dark SU(2)D gauge bosons V_D, V' independent evidence
    purpose: Vector dark matter candidates; their phase transition produces the gravitational wave signal.
    They are directly testable via DM direct detection, LHC searches for resonances, and the predicted GW spectrum.
  • Dark scalar doublet Phi_D and physical dark Higgs H_D independent evidence
    purpose: Spontaneously break SU(2)D and generate the vector DM mass; the dark Higgs is the light scalar in the observable benchmarks.
    Searches for new scalars at the LHC and the effect of H_D on the Higgs decay rates constrain it.
  • Vector-like fermion doublet (f_D, F) independent evidence
    purpose: Generate the fermionic portal interaction, produce the six-top signature, and mediate DM annihilations.
    The pair production of F leads to the six-top final state, which is explicitly analyzed with CheckMATE and projected to HL-LHC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Waves from Dark Gauge Sectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDXZ2DUQ

@misc{pith2026250804912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Waves from Dark Gauge Sectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDXZ2DUQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04912}
}
abstract

We explore gravitational-wave (GW) signatures from a strong first-order phase transition in a non-Abelian dark sector, which naturally gives rise to vector dark matter (DM). We consider a general class of models featuring a new dark gauge sector communicating with the Standard Model (SM) through a Higgs portal and a vector-like fermionic portal. We also study the scenario where the dark sector interacts with the SM only via gravity. In all cases, we scan the full parameter space and analyse GW production and highlight the regions with visible GW signatures. Notably, the fermionic portal yields distinctive GW signals at LISA with peak frequencies of 1--10 mHz, reaching up to 1 Hz for future interferometers like BBO and DECIGO, while the Higgs portal scenario remains limited to around 1 mHz. Both frameworks account for the observed DM abundance and predict detectable LISA signals for dark vector bosons near 1--4 TeV, with a $\sim$10 GeV dark Higgs. Finally, we identify a unique six-top final state from pair-produced vector-like fermions, offering a striking collider signature within HL-LHC reach. Its detection would provide a smoking-gun signal for the fermionic portal, establishing complementarity between collider, GW, and DM signals.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Light Vector Dark Matter via a Magnetic Dipole Portal: Bridging Direct Detection and Fixed-Target Searches

    hep-ph 2025-11 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A sub-GeV vector DM model with a magnetic dipole portal is studied at LDMX/NA64, but the claimed viable region relies on an unjustified thermal equilibrium assumption.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [113]

    Benincasa, L

    N. Benincasa, L. Delle Rose, L. Panizzi, M. Razzaq, and S. Urzetta,Phase transitions and gravitational waves in a non-abelian vector dark matter scenario, arXiv:2506.22248

    arXiv

  2. [63]

    Lewicki and V

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

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    Canetti, M

    L. Canetti, M. Drewes, and M. Shaposhnikov,Matter and antimatter in the universe, New Journal of Physics 14 (sep, 2012) 095012

    2012

  4. [2]

    Elor et al.,New Ideas in Baryogenesis: A Snowmass White Paper, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022

    G. Elor et al.,New Ideas in Baryogenesis: A Snowmass White Paper, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022. arXiv:2203.05010

    arXiv 2021

  5. [3]

    G. R. Farrar and M. E. Shaposhnikov,Baryon asymmetry of the universe in the standard electroweak theory, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 774, [hep-ph/9305275]

    arXiv 1994

  6. [4]

    M. E. Shaposhnikov,Possible Appearance of the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe in an Electroweak Theory, JETP Lett. 44 (1986) 465–468

    1986

  7. [5]

    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

  8. [6]

    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

Show all 118 references
  1. [7]

    Karsch, T

    F. Karsch, T. Neuhaus, A. Patkos, and J. Rank,Critical Higgs mass and temperature dependence of gauge boson masses in the SU(2) gauge Higgs model, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 53 (1997) 623–625, [hep-lat/9608087]

    1997 arXiv

  2. [8]

    D’Onofrio and K

    M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen,Standard model cross-over on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), no. 2 025003, [arXiv:1508.07161]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Fodor and S

    Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz,Critical point of QCD at finite T and mu, lattice results for physical quark masses, JHEP 04 (2004) 050, [hep-lat/0402006]

    2004 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Agazie et al.,The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys

    NANOGrav Collaboration, G. Agazie et al.,The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023), no. 1 L8, [arXiv:2306.16213]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Afzal et al.,The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics, Astrophys

    NANOGrav Collaboration, A. Afzal et al.,The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023), no. 1 L11, [arXiv:2306.16219]. – 64 –

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Antoniadis et al.,The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III

    EPT A, InPT A:Collaboration, J. Antoniadis et al.,The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals, Astron. Astrophys. 678 (2023) A50, [arXiv:2306.16214]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [13]

    D. J. Reardon et al.,Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023), no. 1 L6, [arXiv:2306.16215]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Xu et al.,Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res

    H. Xu et al.,Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23 (2023), no. 7 075024, [arXiv:2306.16216]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Fujikura, S

    K. Fujikura, S. Girmohanta, Y. Nakai, and M. Suzuki,NANOGrav signal from a dark conformal phase transition, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138203, [arXiv:2306.17086]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Bringmann, P

    T. Bringmann, P. F. Depta, T. Konstandin, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and C. Tasillo,Does NANOGrav observe a dark sector phase transition?, JCAP 11 (2023) 053, [arXiv:2306.09411]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Borah, A

    D. Borah, A. Dasgupta, and S. K. Kang,A first order dark SU(2)D phase transition with vector dark matter in the light of NANOGrav 12.5 yr data, JCAP 12 (2021), no. 12 039, [arXiv:2109.11558]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [18]

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

    LISA Collaboration, P. Amaro-Seoane et al.,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv

  13. [19]

    Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO, Class

    S. Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO, Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006) S125–S132

    2006

  14. [20]

    G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner, and E. S. Phinney,Laser interferometry for the big bang observer, Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006) 4887–4894. [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 23, 7361 (2006)]

    2006

  15. [21]

    Belyaev, A

    A. Belyaev, A. Deandrea, S. Moretti, L. Panizzi, D. A. Ross, and N. Thongyoi,Fermionic portal to vector dark matter from a new gauge sector, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 9 095001, [arXiv:2204.03510]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Belyaev, A

    A. Belyaev, A. Deandrea, S. Moretti, L. Panizzi, D. A. Ross, and N. Thongyoi,A fermionic portal to a non-abelian dark sector, Front.in Phys. 12 (2024) 1339886, [arXiv:2203.04681]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen,On the perturbative expansion at high temperature and implications for cosmological phase transitions, JHEP 06 (2021) 069, [arXiv:2104.04399]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White,Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions, JHEP 04 (2021) 055, [arXiv:2009.10080]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Carena, Z

    M. Carena, Z. Liu, and Y. Wang,Electroweak phase transition with spontaneous Z2-breaking, JHEP 08 (2020) 107, [arXiv:1911.10206]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [26]

    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, [arXiv:1904.01329]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [27]

    H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha, D. Vagie, and G. White,The benefits of diligence: how precise are predicted gravitational wave spectra in models with phase transitions?, JHEP 06 (2021) 164, [arXiv:2103.06933]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Perturbative effective field theory expansions for cosmological phase transitions, arXiv:2309.01672

    arXiv

  23. [29]

    Ekstedt, P

    A. Ekstedt, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Cosmological phase transitions at three loops: the final verdict on perturbation theory, arXiv:2405.18349

    arXiv

  24. [30]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins,Gravitational waves from first order cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 2026–2029

    1992

  25. [31]

    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

  26. [32]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson,WEAK SCALE BARYOGENESIS, Phys. Lett. B 245 (1990) 561–564

    1990

  27. [33]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson,Baryogenesis at the weak phase transition, Nucl. Phys. B 349 (1991) 727–742

    1991

  28. [34]

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

    1983

  29. [35]

    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)]. – 65 –

    1977

  30. [36]

    Bertenstamet al., Dratopi, To appear

    M. Bertenstamet al., Dratopi, To appear

  31. [37]

    Ekstedt, P

    A. Ekstedt, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,DRalgo: A package for effective field theory approach for thermal phase transitions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 288 (2023) 108725, [arXiv:2205.08815]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [38]

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

    2012 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, and J. Hirvonen,BubbleDet: a Python package to compute functional determinants for bubble nucleation, JHEP 12 (2023) 056, [arXiv:2308.15652]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [40]

    S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin,Production of gravitational waves in the nMSSM, JCAP 05 (2008) 017, [arXiv:0709.2091]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [41]

    J. M. N. Redondo,Aspects of Phenomenology and Cosmology in Hidden Sector Extensions of the Standard Model. PhD thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2009

    2009

  36. [42]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balázs, and L. Morris,Supercool subtleties of cosmological phase transitions, JCAP 03 (2023) 006, [arXiv:2212.07559]

    2023

  37. [43]

    Athron, L

    P. Athron, L. Morris, and Z. Xu,How robust are gravitational wave predictions from cosmological phase transitions?, JCAP 05 (2024) 075, [arXiv:2309.05474]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Stauffer and A

    D. Stauffer and A. Aharony,Introduction to percolation theory revised second edition. Taylor and Francis, 2014

    2014

  39. [45]

    A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg,Cosmological Consequences of a First Order Phase Transition in the SU(5) Grand Unified Model, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 876

    1981

  40. [46]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balazs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, G. White, and Y. Zhang,How arbitrary are perturbative calculations of the electroweak phase transition?, JHEP 01 (2023) 050, [arXiv:2208.01319]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [47]

    S. P. Martin,Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 116003, [hep-ph/0111209]

    2002 arXiv

  42. [48]

    D. G. C. McKeon,Renormalization Scheme Dependence with Renormalization Group Summation, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 4 045031, [arXiv:1503.03823]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [49]

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

    2023 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Addazi, A

    A. Addazi, A. Marcianò, A. P. Morais, R. Pasechnik, J. a. Viana, and H. Yang,Gravitational echoes of lepton number symmetry breaking with light and ultralight Majorons, JCAP 09 (2023) 026, [arXiv:2304.02399]. [Erratum: JCAP 03, E01 (2024)]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [51]

    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, [arXiv:2402.15408]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir,Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 10 103520, [arXiv:1704.05871]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 089902 (2020)]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [53]

    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), no. 12 123009, [arXiv:1504.03291]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Maggiore,Gravitational wave experiments and early universe cosmology, Phys

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational wave experiments and early universe cosmology, Phys. Rept. 331 (2000) 283–367, [gr-qc/9909001]

    2000 arXiv

  49. [55]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Hindmarsh, and J. Urrestilla,Exact Scale-Invariant Background of Gravitational Waves from Cosmic Defects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013), no. 10 101302, [arXiv:1212.5458]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant,Gravitational wave generation from bubble collisions in first-order phase transitions: An analytic approach, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 124015, [arXiv:0711.2593]

    2008 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balázs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, and L. Wu,Cosmological phase transitions: from perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves, arXiv:2305.02357

    arXiv

  52. [58]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir,Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 041301, [arXiv:1304.2433]. – 66 –

    2014 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins,Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 4514–4535

    1992

  54. [60]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles: envelope approximation to many bubble collisions, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4372–4391, [astro-ph/9211004]

    1993 arXiv

  55. [61]

    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), no. 12 123513, [arXiv:1802.05712]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [62]

    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

  57. [64]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant,The stochastic gravitational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fields generated by a first-order phase transition, JCAP 12 (2009) 024, [arXiv:0909.0622]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Roper Pol, S

    A. Roper Pol, S. Mandal, A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili, and A. Kosowsky,Numerical simulations of gravitational waves from early-universe turbulence, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 8 083512, [arXiv:1903.08585]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Kahniashvili, A

    T. Kahniashvili, A. Brandenburg, G. Gogoberidze, S. Mandal, and A. Roper Pol,Circular polarization of gravitational waves from early-Universe helical turbulence, Phys. Rev. Res. 3 (2021), no. 1 013193, [arXiv:2011.05556]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Roper Pol, S

    A. Roper Pol, S. Mandal, A. Brandenburg, and T. Kahniashvili,Polarization of gravitational waves from helical MHD turbulent sources, JCAP 04 (2022), no. 04 019, [arXiv:2107.05356]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Auclair, C

    P. Auclair, C. Caprini, D. Cutting, M. Hindmarsh, K. Rummukainen, D. A. Steer, and D. J. Weir,Generation of gravitational waves from freely decaying turbulence, JCAP 09 (2022) 029, [arXiv:2205.02588]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [69]

    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, [arXiv:1512.06239]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Azatov, D

    A. Azatov, D. Barducci, and F. Sgarlata,Gravitational traces of broken gauge symmetries, JCAP 07 (2020) 027, [arXiv:1910.01124]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [71]

    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, [arXiv:1812.09333]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Kierkla, A

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam, and B. Swiezewska,Conformal model for gravitational waves and dark matter: a status update, JHEP 03 (2023) 007, [arXiv:2210.07075]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Caprini, R

    LISA Cosmology W orking Group Collaboration, C. Caprini, R. Jinno, M. Lewicki, E. Madge, M. Merchand, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Roper Pol, and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation, arXiv...

    arXiv

  67. [74]

    Jinno, T

    R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, H. Rubira, and I. Stomberg,Higgsless simulations of cosmological phase transitions and gravitational waves, JCAP 02 (2023) 011, [arXiv:2209.04369]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [75]

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

    2010 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Hambye,Hidden vector dark matter, JHEP 01 (2009) 028, [arXiv:0811.0172]

    T. Hambye,Hidden vector dark matter, JHEP 01 (2009) 028, [arXiv:0811.0172]

    2009 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Borah, A

    D. Borah, A. Dasgupta, and S. K. Kang,Gravitational waves from a dark U(1)D phase transition in light of NANOGrav 12.5 yr data, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 6 063501, [arXiv:2105.01007]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Lewicki, O

    M. Lewicki, O. Pujolàs, and V. Vaskonen,Escape from supercooling with or without bubbles: gravitational wave signatures, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 9 857, [arXiv:2106.09706]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Marzo, L

    C. Marzo, L. Marzola, and V. Vaskonen,Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B–L model, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no. 7 601, [arXiv:1811.11169]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [80]

    A TLASCollaboration, Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to139 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,

  74. [81]

    Papaefstathiou, T

    A. Papaefstathiou, T. Robens, and G. White,Signal strength and W-boson mass measurements as a probe of the electro-weak phase transition at colliders - Snowmass White Paper, inSnowmass 2021, 5, 2022. arXiv:2205.14379. – 67 –

    2021 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Navas et al.,Review of particle physics, Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    2024

  76. [83]

    F. F. Freitas, G. Lourenço, A. P. Morais, A. Nunes, J. Olívia, R. Pasechnik, R. Santos, and J. Viana,Impact of SM parameters and of the vacua of the Higgs potential in gravitational waves detection, JCAP 03 (2022), no. 03 046, [arXiv:2108.12810]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, [arXiv:1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [85]

    Di Bari, D

    P. Di Bari, D. Marfatia, and Y.-L. Zhou,Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in Majoron models of neutrino mass, JHEP 10 (2021) 193, [arXiv:2106.00025]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Marfatia and P.-Y

    D. Marfatia and P.-Y. Tseng,Correlated gravitational wave and microlensing signals of macroscopic dark matter, JHEP 11 (2021) 068, [arXiv:2107.00859]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Bélanger, F

    G. Bélanger, F. Boudjema, A. Goudelis, A. Pukhov, and B. Zaldivar,micrOMEGAs5.0 : Freeze-in, Comput. Phys. Commun. 231 (2018) 173–186, [arXiv:1801.03509]

    2018 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Aalbers et al.,Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys

    LZ Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al.,Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025), no. 1 011802, [arXiv:2410.17036]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and V. Vaskonen,Updated predictions for gravitational waves produced in a strongly supercooled phase transition, JCAP 11 (2020) 020, [arXiv:2007.15586]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [90]

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

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

    2021 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Aad et al.,Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into two tau leptons with the ATLAS detector usingpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into two tau leptons with the ATLAS detector usingpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020), no. 5 051801, [arXiv:2002.12223]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [92]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for theHH → b¯bb¯b process via vector-boson fusion production using proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 07 (2020) 108, [arXiv:2001.05178]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 145 (2021), Erratum: JHEP 05, 207 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  86. [93]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for heavy resonances decaying into a pair of Z bosons in the ℓ+ℓ−ℓ′+ℓ′− and ℓ+ℓ−ν ¯ν final states using 139fb−1 of proton–proton collisions at√s = 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 4 332, [arXiv:2009.14791]

    2021 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Aad et al.,Search for resonances decaying into photon pairs in 139 fb−1 of pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for resonances decaying into photon pairs in 139 fb−1 of pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 822 (2021) 136651, [arXiv:2102.13405]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [95]

    Baudis and D

    L. Baudis and D. Collaboration,Darwin/xlzd: a future xenon observatory for dark matter and other rare interactions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19524 (2024) [arXiv:2404.19524]. DARWIN/XLZD will probe spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross sections down to the neutrino floor

    2024 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Abada et al.,Fcc-hh: The hadron collider, Eur

    A. Abada et al.,Fcc-hh: The hadron collider, Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019), no. 4 755–1107, [arXiv:1902.09960]

    2019 arXiv

  90. [97]

    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, [arXiv:1207.6082]

    2013 arXiv

  91. [98]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr, and G. Watt, LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 132, [arXiv:1412.7420]

    2015 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Fuks and H.-S

    B. Fuks and H.-S. Shao,Qcd next-to-leading-order predictions matched to parton showers for vector-like quark models, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), no. 2 135, [arXiv:1610.04622]

    2017 arXiv

  93. [100]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, [arXiv:1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  94. [101]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi,DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057, [arXiv:1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

  95. [102]

    Dercks, H

    D. Dercks, H. K. Dreiner, S. Kulkarni, P. Marquard, and J. Tattersall,CheckMATE 2: From the model to the limit, Comput. Phys. Commun. 221 (2017) 383–418, [arXiv:1611.09856]. – 68 –

    2017 arXiv

  96. [103]

    C. Collaboration, Searches for physics beyond the standard model with themT 2 variable in hadronic final states with and without disappearing tracks in pp collisions at√s = 13 tev, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 3, [arXiv:1909.03460]

    2020 arXiv

  97. [104]

    A. Collaboration, Search for squarks and gluinos in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum using 139 fb−1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 tev with the atlas detector, JHEP 02 (2021) 143, [arXiv:2010.14293]

    2021 arXiv

  98. [105]

    A. Collaboration, Search for direct top squark pair production in final states with missing transverse momentum and twob-jets in pp collisions at √s = 13 tev with the atlas detector, JHEP 06 (2020) 046, [arXiv:1908.03122]

    2020 arXiv

  99. [106]

    A. Collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in events with four or more leptons or two same-sign leptons and jets using 139 fb−1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 tev with the atlas detector, JHEP 12 (2021) 142, [arXiv:2101.01629]

    2021 arXiv

  100. [107]

    Collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in final states with multiple top and bottom quarks and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 tev, Phys

    C. Collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in final states with multiple top and bottom quarks and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 tev, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 1 012001, [arXiv:1908.04722]

    2019 arXiv

  101. [108]

    A. Collaboration, Search for direct top squark pair production in the all-hadronict¯t plus missing transverse momentum final state inpp collisions at √s = 13 tev with the atlas detector, JHEP 09 (2017) 088, [arXiv:1709.04183]

    2017 arXiv

  102. [109]

    A. Collaboration, Search for four-top-quark production using the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in proton–proton collisions at√s = 13 tev with the atlas detector, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 11 112009, [arXiv:2106.09609]

    2021 arXiv

  103. [110]

    A. Collaboration, Search for new phenomena in final states with large jet multiplicities and missing transverse momentum using √s = 13 tev proton–proton collisions recorded by atlas in run 2 of the lhc, JHEP 10 (2020) 062, [arXiv:2004.14060]

    2020 arXiv

  104. [111]

    A. Collaboration, Search for pair production of vector-like top partners in final states with one lepton, jets and missing transverse momentum using the full run 2 dataset collected with the atlas detector, arXiv:2401.17165. Submitted to JHEP

    arXiv

  105. [112]

    Lewicki, M

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, L. Sagunski, P. Schicho, and D. Schmitt,Impact of theoretical uncertainties on model parameter reconstruction from GW signals sourced by cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 2 023538, [arXiv:2403.03769]

    2024 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Brauner, T

    T. Brauner, T. V. I. Tenkanen, A. Tranberg, A. Vuorinen, and D. J. Weir,Dimensional reduction of the Standard Model coupled to a new singlet scalar field, JHEP 03 (2017) 007, [arXiv:1609.06230]

    2017 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Laine and A

    M. Laine and A. Vuorinen,Basics of Thermal Field Theory, vol. 925. Springer, 2016

    2016

  108. [116]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov,Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction and their application to the standard model, Nucl. Phys. B 458 (1996) 90–136, [hep-ph/9508379]

    1996 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells,Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, [arXiv:1007.1727]

    2011 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Heinrich, K

    L. Heinrich, K. Cranmer, M. Feickert, G. Stark, et al.,pyhf: pure-Python implementation of HistFactory-style statistical models, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1169739 . – 69 –

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.