pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.02612 · v2 · pith:VVIUTDX4new · submitted 2025-11-04 · ✦ hep-ph

Model Parameter Reconstruction of Electroweak Phase Transition with TianQin and LISA: Insights from the Dimension-Six Model

Aidi Yang , Chikako Idegawa , Fa Peng Huang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 07:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords electroweak phase transitiongravitational wavesTianQinLISAdimension-six modelparameter reconstructionstochastic backgroundbubble wall velocity
0
0 comments X

The pith

TianQin and LISA recover the dimension-six operator cutoff scale to sub-percent precision from simulated electroweak phase transition gravitational wave signals.

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

The paper maps the cutoff parameter Λ in the dimension-six Higgs operator extension of the Standard Model to the spectral shape of the stochastic gravitational wave background produced by a strong first-order electroweak phase transition. Simulated data sets that include Time Delay Interferometry noise and astrophysical foregrounds are compressed and fed into Fisher matrix analysis, PolyChord Bayesian nested sampling, and machine-learning reconstruction. For benchmark points that yield strong signals the procedure returns 20-30 percent relative uncertainty on signal amplitude and sub-percent uncertainty on Λ. The quoted precision is obtained under a fixed bubble wall velocity and without theoretical uncertainties in the effective potential.

Core claim

The central claim is that the mapping from the dimension-six model parameter Λ to observable gravitational wave spectral features permits both TianQin and LISA to reconstruct Λ at sub-percent precision for strong-signal benchmarks, achieved by combining geometric inference on compressed data with subsequent machine-learning steps while treating bubble wall velocity as fixed.

What carries the argument

The direct mapping between the dimension-six operator cutoff Λ and the peak frequency and amplitude of the stochastic gravitational wave spectrum, which serves as the input for Fisher-matrix and PolyChord inference followed by machine-learning reconstruction.

If this is right

  • Sub-percent recovery of Λ translates into tight constraints on the new-physics scale that triggers the electroweak phase transition.
  • The same data-compression and inference pipeline applies to any new-physics model whose gravitational wave spectrum is governed by a single dominant parameter.
  • The 20-30 percent uncertainty on amplitude sets the statistical floor for amplitude measurements with these detectors under the stated noise model.
  • Machine-learning post-processing can be inserted after standard geometric inference to improve parameter recovery without altering the underlying likelihood.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the pipeline to marginalize over bubble wall velocity would quantify how much the quoted sub-percent precision degrades once that parameter is freed.
  • The same reconstruction strategy could be tested on signals from other cosmological phase transitions whose spectra share a similar single-parameter dependence.
  • Joint analysis of TianQin and LISA data streams could be examined to determine whether the combined network further tightens the uncertainty on Λ beyond the individual-detector results.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes a fixed bubble wall velocity and excludes theoretical uncertainties from the effective potential calculation.

What would settle it

A reconstruction of Λ whose uncertainty exceeds the sub-percent level when the bubble wall velocity is allowed to vary or when theoretical uncertainties in the effective potential are folded into the likelihood would falsify the reported precision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02612 by Aidi Yang, Chikako Idegawa, Fa Peng Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic overview of the parameter reconstruction pipeline used to extract the model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Noise PSD of the AET channels in the TianQin detector. These orthogonal TDI channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Equal-arm Michelson channels of the regular triangle detector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Response Functions of AET channels in TianQin. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sensitivity curves of the AET channels for the TianQin detector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The GW spectrum for the BP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Triangle plot comparing the geometric parameter estimation from a Fisher forecast (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The posterior probability distribution for the reconstruction of the parameter Λ for BP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. LISA response function in the AET Basis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. LISA’s sensitivity in the AET Basis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The GW spectrum for the BP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Triangle plot comparing the geometric parameter estimation from a Fisher forecast (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The posterior probability distribution for the reconstruction of the parameter Λ for BP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the capability of TianQin and LISA to reconstruct the model parameters in the Lagrangian of new physics scenarios that can generate an electroweak SFOPT. Taking the dimension-six Higgs operator extension of the Standard Model as a representative scenario for a broad class of new physics models, we establish the mapping between the model parameter $\Lambda$ and the observable spectral features of the stochastic gravitational wave background. We begin by generating simulated data incorporating Time Delay Interferometry channel noise, astrophysical foregrounds, and signals from the dimension-six model. The data are then compressed and optimized, followed by geometric parameter inference using both Fisher matrix analysis and Bayesian nested sampling with PolyChord, which efficiently handles high-dimensional, multimodal posterior distributions. Finally, machine-learning techniques are employed to achieve precise reconstruction of the model parameter $\Lambda$. For benchmark points producing strong signals, parameter reconstruction with both TianQin and LISA yields relative uncertainties of approximately $20$-$30\%$ in the signal amplitude and sub-percent precision in the model parameter $\Lambda$. The sub-percent precision reflects the statistical reconstruction capability of the detectors in an idealized setting: it incorporates the machine-learning inference uncertainty and is established at a fixed bubble wall velocity, while theoretical uncertainties in the effective potential calculation are not included.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the reconstruction of the dimension-six model parameter Λ (which controls the strength of the electroweak first-order phase transition) from simulated stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds observable by TianQin and LISA. Simulated data include TDI channel noise and astrophysical foregrounds; inference combines Fisher-matrix analysis, Bayesian nested sampling via PolyChord, and machine-learning techniques. For benchmark points with strong signals the authors report 20–30 % relative uncertainty on signal amplitude and sub-percent statistical precision on Λ, explicitly qualified as holding at fixed bubble-wall velocity and without theoretical uncertainties in the effective potential.

Significance. If the reported sub-percent precision on Λ survives marginalization over bubble-wall velocity and inclusion of effective-potential uncertainties, the work would provide a concrete demonstration that space-based interferometers can extract new-physics parameters from phase-transition gravitational waves. The use of PolyChord for multimodal posteriors and the explicit mapping from Lagrangian parameter to spectral features are positive technical contributions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (final sentence) and the reconstruction pipeline description: the headline sub-percent uncertainty on Λ is obtained only after fixing the bubble-wall velocity v_w and omitting theoretical uncertainties in the effective potential. Both choices are known to rescale the predicted GW spectrum by O(1) factors in the dimension-six model; without a sensitivity scan or marginalization over v_w or potential parameters, the quoted precision cannot be interpreted as a realistic detector capability. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. The mapping between Λ and the peak frequency/amplitude of the GW spectrum should be shown explicitly (perhaps as an equation or figure) rather than stated qualitatively.
  2. Clarify whether the machine-learning reconstruction step is applied after or instead of the PolyChord sampling, and report any cross-validation metrics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the manuscript's significance and for the constructive major comment. We respond point-by-point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (final sentence) and the reconstruction pipeline description: the headline sub-percent uncertainty on Λ is obtained only after fixing the bubble-wall velocity v_w and omitting theoretical uncertainties in the effective potential. Both choices are known to rescale the predicted GW spectrum by O(1) factors in the dimension-six model; without a sensitivity scan or marginalization over v_w or potential parameters, the quoted precision cannot be interpreted as a realistic detector capability. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: The abstract's final sentence already states explicitly that 'the sub-percent precision reflects the statistical reconstruction capability of the detectors in an idealized setting: it incorporates the machine-learning inference uncertainty and is established at a fixed bubble wall velocity, while theoretical uncertainties in the effective potential calculation are not included.' Our central claim is therefore limited to demonstrating the statistical power of the inference pipeline (Fisher, PolyChord, and machine learning) under these controlled conditions, which provides a necessary benchmark before more comprehensive analyses that marginalize over v_w or include effective-potential uncertainties. We agree that the quoted numbers should not be read as realistic detector performance without those extensions, and the manuscript does not make that claim. No revision is required because the limitation is already clearly qualified in the abstract and text. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard simulation-based forecasting study

full rationale

The paper generates simulated GW data from the dimension-six model, adds detector noise and foregrounds, then applies Fisher, PolyChord Bayesian sampling, and ML to recover Λ. This is a conventional Monte Carlo forecasting exercise for detector performance, not a derivation that reduces to its own fitted inputs by construction. The abstract explicitly flags the idealized setting (fixed v_w, omitted theoretical uncertainties), so the reported sub-percent precision is presented as a statistical capability under those restrictions rather than an unconditional result. No self-definitional mappings, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the described chain. The reconstruction pipeline is self-contained against external benchmarks once the simulation assumptions are granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on simulated signals from a standard dimension-six operator model, standard statistical inference tools, and the explicit modeling choices of fixed bubble wall velocity and omitted theoretical uncertainties; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • bubble wall velocity = fixed
    Held fixed throughout the reconstruction to achieve the quoted sub-percent precision on Λ.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The effective potential and resulting gravitational wave spectrum in the dimension-six model can be computed without additional theoretical uncertainties that affect the reconstruction
    Explicitly excluded from the quoted precision as stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5764 in / 1394 out tokens · 30844 ms · 2026-05-25T07:30:05.786563+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · 32 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Grid sampling: Uniformly sample the Λ parameter space (548 GeV≲ Λ ≲ 570 GeV)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Forward computation: For each sampled Λ value, run CosmoTransitions to compute the phase transition parameters, then calculate (Ω 2, f1, f2) using the DBPL template

    work page

  3. [3]

    Data augmentation: To improve model robustness, we expand the dataset to 30 points via spline interpolation, which provides sufficient density for accurate interpo- lation while maintaining computational efficiency

    work page

  4. [4]

    Since f1 and f2 are linearly related, they provide only one indepen- 11 dent constraint rather than two

    Feature reduction: With the wall velocity fixed, the ratio f2/f1 becomes approxi- mately constant. Since f1 and f2 are linearly related, they provide only one indepen- 11 dent constraint rather than two. We therefore reduce the feature space to (Ω 2, f2), retaining f2 as it is more sensitive to the frequency band of detectors. Rather than relying on simpl...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (29) The AET transformation achieves complete orthogonalization of the channel responses

    (28) From this relation, one can derive that the transfer functions of the AET channels satisfy RA(f) = 1 8π X P =+,× Z S2 d2 ˆΩˆkF P A (f, ˆk, t)F P ∗ A (f, ˆk, t) = 1 2 [RX(f) + RZ(f) − 2ΓXZ(f)] = RX(f) − ΓXY(f), RE(f) = 1 8π X P =+,× Z S2 d2 ˆΩˆkF P E (f, ˆk, t)F P ∗ E (f, ˆk, t) = 1 6 [RX(f) + 4RY(f) + RZ(f) − 4ΓXY(f) + 2ΓXZ(f) − 4ΓYZ(f)] = RX(f) − ΓX...

    work page

  6. [6]

    log10 (fknee/Hz) = −0.37 log10 (Tobs/year) − 2.49

    Knee frequency (fknee): This parameter marks the frequency turnover point from the confusion-dominated regime to the resolved-source-dominated regime. log10 (fknee/Hz) = −0.37 log10 (Tobs/year) − 2.49. (35)

    work page

  7. [7]

    log10 (fc/Hz) = −0.15 log10 (Tobs/year) − 2.72

    Cutoff frequency (fc): This parameter controls the location of the high-frequency astrophysical cutoff. log10 (fc/Hz) = −0.15 log10 (Tobs/year) − 2.72. (36) 19 The value for the amplitude is set at log 10 (h2ΩGal) = −7.84. A Gaussian prior N (−7.84, 0.212) is adopted in the parameter estimation [73]. In the Bayesian analysis, the amplitudes of the two for...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Reconstruction of the geometric parameters with TianQin FIG. 6. The GW spectrum for the BP1 of the dimension-six model, assuming a bubble wall velocity of vw = 0.57. The SW signal (solid red line) is shown against the sensitivity curve of the TianQin (gray dash-dotted line), along with foregrounds from galactic (dotted green) and extra-galactic (dashed bl...

    work page

  9. [9]

    The posterior distribution yields a mean value of Λ = 548 .07 GeV with a standard deviation of 0 .30 GeV

    Reconstruction of model Parameter with TianQin Finally, we reconstruct the model parameter Λ from the simulated SGWB signal for BP1. The posterior distribution yields a mean value of Λ = 548 .07 GeV with a standard deviation of 0 .30 GeV. The 68% CI spans [547 .77, 548.33] GeV, while the 95% CI extends 29 to [547.31, 548.53] GeV. The injected true value Λ...

    work page

  10. [10]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), 1602.03837

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Auclair et al

    P. Auclair et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev. Rel. 26, 5 (2023), 2204.05434

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

    J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016), 1512.02076

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Luo et al

    J. Luo et al. (2025), 2502.20138

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 685 (2017). 39

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Jinno, M. Lewicki, E. Madge, M. Merchand, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Roper Pol, and V. Vaskonen (LISA Cosmology Working Group), JCAP 10, 020 (2024), 2403.03723

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, Y. Cui, S. Kuroyanagi, M. Lewicki, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, I. Y. Rybak, L. Sousa, and J. M. Wachter (LISA Cosmology Working Group), JCAP 05, 006 (2025), 2405.03740

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Braglia et al

    M. Braglia et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), JCAP 11, 032 (2024), 2407.04356

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Boileau, N

    G. Boileau, N. Christensen, C. Gowling, M. Hindmarsh, and R. Meyer, JCAP 02, 056 (2023), 2209.13277

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin, and J. van de Vis, JCAP 11, 002 (2021), 2107.06275

    work page arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Gowling, M

    C. Gowling, M. Hindmarsh, D. C. Hooper, and J. Torrado, JCAP 04, 061 (2023), 2209.13551

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Liang, Z.-Y

    Z.-C. Liang, Z.-Y. Li, E.-K. Li, J.-d. Zhang, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043032 (2025), 2409.00778

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Huang, Z.-C

    F. Huang, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Chin. Phys. C 49, 10 (2025), 2504.16712

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129901 (2018)], 1706.01812

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Is There a Hot Electroweak Phase Transition at $m_H\gsim m_W$?

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2887 (1996), hep-ph/9605288

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  25. [25]

    The universality class of the electroweak theory

    K. Rummukainen, M. Tsypin, K. Kajantie, M. Laine, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 532, 283 (1998), hep-lat/9805013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  26. [26]

    Endpoint of the hot electroweak phase transition

    F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, and J. Heitger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 21 (1999), hep-ph/9809291

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  27. [27]

    Operator Analysis for the Higgs Potential and Cosmological Bound on the Higgs-Boson Mass

    X.-m. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 47, 3065 (1993), hep-ph/9301277

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  28. [28]

    First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition in the Standard Model with a Low Cutoff

    C. Grojean, G. Servant, and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 71, 036001 (2005), hep-ph/0407019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [29]

    F. P. Huang, P.-H. Gu, P.-F. Yin, Z.-H. Yu, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103515 (2016), 1511.03969

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    F. P. Huang, Y. Wan, D.-G. Wang, Y.-F. Cai, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 94, 041702 (2016), 1601.01640

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Electroweak Baryogenesis and the Standard Model Effective Field Theory

    J. de Vries, M. Postma, J. van de Vis, and G. White, JHEP 01, 089 (2018), 1710.04061

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Dynamics of Non-renormalizable Electroweak Symmetry Breaking

    C. Delaunay, C. Grojean, and J. D. Wells, JHEP 04, 029 (2008), 0711.2511

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [33]

    Q.-H. Cao, F. P. Huang, K.-P. Xie, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 42, 023103 (2018), 1708.04737. 40

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    F. P. Huang (2025), 2501.15543

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions

    C. Caprini et al., JCAP 04, 001 (2016), 1512.06239

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, JCAP 09, 022 (2008), 0806.1828

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  37. [37]

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

    M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 071301 (2018), 1608.04735

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Gravitational radiation from a bulk flow model

    T. Konstandin, JCAP 03, 047 (2018), 1712.06869

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Hindmarsh and M

    M. Hindmarsh and M. Hijazi, JCAP 12, 062 (2019), 1909.10040

    work page arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Jinno, T

    R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, and H. Rubira, JCAP 04, 014 (2021), 2010.00971

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Jinno, T

    R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, H. Rubira, and I. Stomberg, JCAP 02, 011 (2023), 2209.04369

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    The stochastic gravitational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fields generated by a first-order phase transition

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant, JCAP 12, 024 (2009), 0909.0622

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    Roper Pol, S

    A. Roper Pol, S. Mandal, A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili, and A. Kosowsky, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083512 (2020), 1903.08585

    work page arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    D. Qiu, S. Jiang, and F. P. Huang (2025), 2508.04314

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Ai (2025), 2508.02794

    W.-Y. Ai (2025), 2508.02794

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Can electroweak bubble walls run away?

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore, JCAP 05, 009 (2009), 0903.4099

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Gowling and M

    C. Gowling and M. Hindmarsh, JCAP 10, 039 (2021), 2106.05984

    work page arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Handley, M

    W. Handley, M. Hobson, and A. Lasenby, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 453, 4384 (2015)

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    W. J. Handley, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, L61 (2015), 1502.01856

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Breiman, Machine Learning 45, 5 (2001)

    L. Breiman, Machine Learning 45, 5 (2001)

    work page 2001

  51. [51]

    Hastie, The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction (2009)

    T. Hastie, The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction (2009)

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    Sivia and J

    D. Sivia and J. Skilling, Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial (OUP Oxford, 2006)

    work page 2006

  53. [53]

    Roper Pol, S

    A. Roper Pol, S. Procacci, and C. Caprini, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063531 (2024), 2308.12943

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Sharma, J

    R. Sharma, J. Dahl, A. Brandenburg, and M. Hindmarsh, JCAP 12, 042 (2023), 2308.12916

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and J. M. No, JCAP 04, 003 (2019), 1809.08242

    work page arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    X. Wang, F. P. Huang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 05, 045 (2020), 2003.08892

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    X. Wang, F. P. Huang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103520 (2021), 2010.13770

    work page arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    X. Wang, F. P. Huang, and X. Zhang (2020), 2011.12903

    work page arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    X. Wang, F. P. Huang, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103513 (2022), 2112.14650

    work page arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions

    M. Quiros, in ICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology (1999), pp. 187– 259, hep-ph/9901312. 41

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  61. [61]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3320 (1974)

    work page 1974

  62. [62]

    Testing Electroweak Baryogenesis with Future Colliders

    D. Curtin, P. Meade, and C.-T. Yu, JHEP 11, 127 (2014), 1409.0005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    R. R. Parwani, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4695 (1992), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 48, 5965 (1993)], hep- ph/9204216

    work page arXiv 1992

  64. [64]

    M. E. Carrington, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2933 (1992)

    work page 1992

  65. [65]

    The Baryon asymmetry in the Standard Model with a low cut-off

    D. Bodeker, L. Fromme, S. J. Huber, and M. Seniuch, JHEP 02, 026 (2005), hep-ph/0412366

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  66. [66]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, A. Roper Pol, H. Rubira, and I. Stomberg, JHEP 07, 217 (2025), 2409.03651

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update

    C. Caprini et al., JCAP 03, 024 (2020), 1910.13125

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Li et al., Class

    E.-K. Li et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 165005 (2025), 2309.15020

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Tinto, J

    M. Tinto, J. W. Armstrong, and F. B. Estabrook, Phys. Rev. D 63, 021101 (2000)

    work page 2000

  71. [71]

    C. J. Hogan and P. L. Bender, Phys. Rev. D 64, 062002 (2001), astro-ph/0104266

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  72. [72]

    Tinto, F

    M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D 65, 082003 (2002)

    work page 2002

  73. [73]

    Non-sky-averaged sensitivity curves for space-based gravitational-wave observatories

    M. Vallisneri and C. R. Galley, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 124015 (2012), 1201.3684

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  74. [74]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Reviews in Relativity 24, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    Cheng, E.-K

    J. Cheng, E.-K. Li, Y.-M. Hu, Z.-C. Liang, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124027 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Liang, Z.-Y

    Z.-C. Liang, Z.-Y. Li, J. Cheng, E.-K. Li, J.-d. Zhang, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083033 (2023), 2212.02852

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    E. S. Phinney (2001), astro-ph/0108028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  78. [78]

    The astrophysical gravitational wave stochastic background

    T. Regimbau, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11, 369 (2011), 1101.2762

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  79. [79]

    P´ erigois, C

    C. P´ erigois, C. Belczynski, T. Bulik, and T. Regimbau, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043002 (2021), 2008.04890

    work page arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    Babak, C

    S. Babak, C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, N. Karnesis, P. Marcoccia, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, A. Sesana, and J. Torrado, JCAP 08, 034 (2023), 2304.06368

    work page arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.