Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 108 references

False-vacuum collapse alone can turn primordial phase-transition remnants into dark-matter black holes, without needing trapped particles or tuned couplings.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:15 UTC pith:BG4SKLJA

load-bearing objection Useful multi-messenger map, but the PBH numbers rest on an unvalidated radiation-backreaction assumption and missing BBN checks—treat f_PBH as provisional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15479 v1 pith:BG4SKLJA submitted 2026-07-16 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

PBH formation and Gravitational Waves as Multi-messenger Signals of First-order Phase Transitions

Bhaskar Dutta , Cash Hauptmann , Peisi Huang , Adrian Thompson This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords first-order phase transitionsprimordial black holesgravitational wavesfalse-vacuum collapsejunction conditionsclassically conformal symmetry breakingdark mattermulti-messenger cosmology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

First-order phase transitions in the early Universe leave shrinking pockets of the old false vacuum. This paper argues that the vacuum energy trapped in those pockets can, by itself, collapse into primordial black holes—no trapped particles, no tuned couplings, no critical overdensity threshold required. Applying the collapse criterion to a classically conformal U(1) B−L model, the paper identifies a window at 1–10 MeV symmetry-breaking scales in which the same transition produces gravity waves observable by proposed space-based detectors and asteroid-mass black holes that could be all of the dark matter. If the mechanism holds, a single early-universe event would tie together three independent observables: gravity waves, black-hole evaporation and lensing signals, and the dark-matter density.

Core claim

The central claim is that false-vacuum collapse is an efficient and self-contained primordial-black-hole production channel across a broad region of phase-transition parameter space, and that in the classically conformal U(1) B−L benchmark the most promising multi-messenger window sits at 1 MeV ≲ ⟨Φ⟩ ≲ 10 MeV. There the phase transition yields observable gravity-wave signals and asteroid-mass black holes with f_PBH ~ 1, including benchmark points in which black holes account for all of the dark matter. The paper also charts the correlated GW–PBH parameter space for a generic polynomial potential, showing that the abundance and mass of the black holes track the phase-transition strength and t

What carries the argument

The thin-shell junction formalism of classical general relativity: a false-vacuum patch is treated as a spherical thin wall separating a false-vacuum interior from a true-vacuum exterior, and the junction condition gives an equation of motion for the wall radius plus a turning-point criterion. When the patch's radius passes the turning point and the collapse time is shorter than the nucleation and Hubble times, the enclosed vacuum energy meets the black-hole horizon condition and a black hole forms. The abundance computation uses false-vacuum percolation at a 29% remaining fraction and a geometric nucleation rate for shrinking patches, together with a vacuum-domination condition requiring th

Load-bearing premise

The collapse criterion derived for spherical vacuum-dominated bubbles is assumed to hold for shrinking false-vacuum patches immersed in a radiation-filled expanding universe; if radiation or plasma back-reaction prevents a patch from reaching the turning point and horizon, the predicted PBH masses and abundances—half of the multi-messenger claim—are unsupported.

What would settle it

A numerical-relativity run of a false-vacuum sphere in a radiation-dominated expanding background, initialized with the paper's all-dark-matter benchmark parameters: if the patch does not form an apparent horizon when the turning-point condition is satisfied, the central claim collapses. An observational alternative: finding f_PBH ≈ 1 asteroid-mass black holes with no gravity-wave background in the 10^-8 to 10^-6 Hz band from a classically conformal transition, or a strong GW signal with no PBHs, would refute the predicted correlation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single MeV-scale phase transition can simultaneously produce a detectable gravity-wave background and a primordial-black-hole population that could be all of the dark matter, giving two independent channels to the same microphysics.
  • Because the mechanism needs no dark sector, PBH searches become a generic probe of first-order phase transitions rather than a probe of exotic trapping scenarios.
  • Gravity-wave observations would reach small gauge couplings and high symmetry-breaking scales that colliders cannot, since smaller couplings delay the transition and increase the wave amplitude.
  • PBH searches are not redundant with gravity-wave searches: some model regions yield weaker waves yet observable black holes, so the combined coverage exceeds either probe alone.
  • The multi-messenger region is insensitive to order-one choices of percolation threshold, so the identified window is not a numerical artifact of that convention.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same vacuum-collapse argument should extend to any strongly supercooled or strongly first-order transition beyond U(1) B−L; the paper gestures at this but does not scan other models.
  • A dedicated numerical-relativity simulation of a false-vacuum patch immersed in radiation would settle the weakest link; if back-reaction prevents collapse, the all-dark-matter region would shift to stronger transitions or higher VEVs—a testable remapping of the GW–PBH correlation.
  • The preferred 1–10 MeV window sits close to Big Bang nucleosynthesis constraints on extra relativistic species; combining those bounds with the GW and PBH predictions could sharpen or exclude the window, which the paper does not quantify.
  • An observational cross-check: detection of asteroid-mass PBHs at f_PBH ≈ 1 without a corresponding low-frequency gravity-wave signal (or a GW signal without PBHs) would distinguish this collapse mechanism from competing PBH-production channels.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies PBH formation via the collapse of false-vacuum domains during cosmological first-order phase transitions, using the Israel junction-condition formalism of Blau-Guendelman-Guth and its recent application by Flores-Kusenko-Sasaki, instead of the critical-overdensity criterion. It applies this mechanism to two classes of models — a generic polynomial scalar potential and a classically conformal U(1)_{B-L} model — scans their parameter space, and computes the correlated gravitational-wave spectra and PBH masses/abundances. The headline claim is that classically conformal symmetry breaking at scales 1 MeV ≲ ⟨Φ⟩ ≲ 10 MeV can simultaneously produce observable GWs (THEIA/LISA) and asteroid-mass PBHs with f_PBH ~ 1, with benchmark points BM8 and BM9 giving PBHs as all of the dark matter.

Significance. If the collapse formalism is valid in the regimes considered, the paper would establish a concrete, predictive multi-messenger target for MeV-scale classically conformal symmetry breaking, and it usefully charts the correlated GW/PBH parameter space for two benchmark potentials. The numerical workflow is transparent in structure: the scans are clearly defined, the ELENA package is used for phase-transition quantities, and the benchmark table gives explicit observable predictions. The GW calculation follows standard fits and is largely self-contained. The PBH predictions, however, rest on an unverified applicability condition for the vacuum-only collapse formalism in a radiation-filled FLRW universe and on an unspecified wall tension. These are load-bearing assumptions for the central claim, so the paper is not yet at the level where f_PBH ~ 1 benchmarks can be accepted as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B; §4.3, Eq. (40)] The validity of applying the vacuum-dominated collapse formalism to false-vacuum patches in a radiation-filled FLRW universe is not quantitatively established. Eq. (B12) requires H_R^2 r^2 ≪ |dot r^2 + 1 − H_V^2 r^2|, and the text then takes the right-hand side to be 'of order 1' to obtain r ≪ 1/H_R. This is not guaranteed: at the turning point dot r = 0, the right-hand side becomes |1 − H_V^2 r^2|, which can be small if the patch radius approaches the vacuum de Sitter scale. No numerical evaluation of this combination is reported for any benchmark. The assertion in §4.3 that Eq. (40), R(T_f) ≪ (8πG ρ_R/3)^{-1/2}, is 'easily satisfied' is also unsupported by reported values. Since Eqs. (29)–(36) are the origin of all PBH masses and abundances, the manuscript should directly evaluate Eq. (B12) and Eq. (40) for the benchmark points and for the scanned regions producing f_PBH ~ 1.
  2. [§4.2, Eqs. (29)–(32)] The domain-wall tension σ enters the mass formula Eq. (29), the effective potential of Eq. (31), and the scaled radius Eq. (32), yet it is never specified, computed, or varied in the scans of §5. If the intended treatment is σ = 0, this should be stated explicitly and its validity justified; if not, σ must be derived from the scalar potential. The turning-point condition that decides whether a false-vacuum domain collapses depends on σ through U(z), so the PBH benchmarks in Table I are not reproducible as written.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (37); §5.4] The abundance calculation assumes a monochromatic PBH mass M obtained from the volume term of Eq. (29) with the mean patch radius ar R of Eq. (33). The manuscript acknowledges in §6 that the size distribution is non-uniform and that non-sphericity could modify the collapse efficiency, but no estimate is given for how these effects shift f_PBH. Given that the headline result is f_PBH ~ 1 for BM8/BM9, a quantitative or at least parametric estimate of the sensitivity of f_PBH to the patch-radius distribution width and to deviations from sphericity is needed before those benchmark values can be taken at face value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6; heading] Typos: 'false-vaccum' in the concluding section and 'Acknowledegments' before the references. Please correct.
  2. [Table I] The BM7 row appears as '10 3 0.0054 ...' in the arXiv text. If the intended VEV is 10³ MeV, it should be typeset as a superscript; if α_B−L(0) = 3 is intended, it conflicts with the perturbativity bound α_B−L(0) < 1 stated in §5.2.
  3. [§4.2–4.3] The proper time τ' in Eq. (36) and the relation between the nucleation-time variable t_i and the integration variables in Eqs. (33)–(35) are not defined with enough precision. A short notational clarification would improve reproducibility.
  4. [§4.3] The claim that 'O(1) variation in P_f results in shifts to observables at the percent level' would be more convincing if accompanied by a small numerical demonstration, since PBH abundances are often exponentially sensitive to thresholds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the PBH and GW predictions are computed outputs of an externally sourced collapse formalism, not fits to data or self-referential constructions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The PBH formation formalism is imported from external references: Eq. (29) comes from Blau, Guendelman, and Guth (ref. [16]), with recent variants from ref. [14]; neither is authored by the present authors. The paper's scanned predictions for M_PBH, f_PBH, and GW spectra are computed outputs of the phase-transition parameters, with no parameters fitted to PBH or GW observations. The only author-overlap citation is ref. [15] (Dent, Dutta, Rai), used in the Introduction as one of two references supporting the general possibility of vacuum-driven collapse; it is not load-bearing because the actual machinery relies on refs. [16] and [14]. Appendix B's step taking the right-hand side of Eq. (B12) 'of order 1' to obtain r << 1/H_R is an explicit regime assumption about the neglected radiation contribution, and Eq. (40) is asserted as 'easily satisfied' without tabulated values; these are potential validity gaps or correctness risks, not circular reductions of an output to an input. No equation is shown to equal its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and the correlation relation Eq. (42) is an explanatory scaling derived from shared R_sep, not a disguised input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an externally authored collapse formalism (BGG 1987; Flores–Kusenko–Sasaki 2024), an externally authored false-vacuum remnant formation rate (ref. [73]), and standard GW spectral fits. Within this paper, the main unstated inputs are the wall tension σ (never specified for the two potentials), the hand-fixed coefficient D = 0.1, and the percolation-fraction conventions P_f = 0.71/0.29. No new particles or forces are introduced (the U(1)_{B-L} Z′ and right-handed neutrinos are prior model content). BBN constraints are cited but never imposed on the benchmark models.

free parameters (4)
  • D (quadratic thermal coefficient, polynomial potential) = 0.1
    Fixed by hand in every polynomial scan (Eq. 41); sets the T² term and therefore the transition temperature scale for each VEV.
  • Domain-wall tension σ entering the collapse EOM (Eqs. 31–32)
    Never specified for either benchmark potential in the text; the turning-point/collapse criterion depends on σ, so the PBH predictions rest on an unstated σ prescription (presumably from the bounce profile via ELENA).
  • Percolation / PBH-formation thresholds P_f = 0.71 (true-vacuum percolation), 0.29 (PBH formation)
    Conventions chosen in Eqs. (18) and (39); the paper argues O(1) variation shifts f_PBH at the percent level.
  • Order-one right-hand side in Eq. (B12) = 1
    The validity bound r ≪ 1/H_R (Eq. B13) is obtained by assuming |ṟ² + 1 − H_V²r²| ≃ 1; this is the step that legitimizes applying the vacuum-only collapse formula in a radiation-containing universe.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Israel junction-condition mass formula Eq. (29) (BGG) describes false-vacuum patches at the end of a FOPT
    Taken from ref. [16]; it was derived for de Sitter/Schwarzschild junctions, and its application to shrinking false-vacuum pockets in FLRW is justified only approximately in Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Collapse criterion of ref. [14]: collapse occurs if the domain passes the turning point beyond the potential barrier U(z) and if the collapse time is shorter than both the Hubble time and the nucleation timescale
    “We impose the same constraints as in ref. [14]” (Section 4.2); the efficiency of PBH production inherits this external criterion.
  • domain assumption PBH mass is the constant volume term M = (4/3)πρ_V R̅³ with a monochromatic mass spectrum
    Eqs. (29) and (37) and surrounding text; the paper acknowledges the monochromatic assumption is an approximation, and σ-terms in M are dropped.
  • domain assumption Vacuum-energy-only collapse: no particle or domain-wall interactions inside the false vacuum; radiation back-reaction neglected
    Abstract and Section 4.2; the paper cites ref. [107] for interactions that could prevent collapse, so this is a stated, load-bearing simplification.
  • domain assumption The false-vacuum nucleation rate Γ_f of Eq. (34) (geometric approach of ref. [73]) governs the number of collapsing patches
    Eq. (34) is adopted from ref. [73]; n_PBH and R̅ derive from it.
  • domain assumption GW spectral fits of refs. [63,69] (Appendix A) with v_w = 1 and standard redshift factors
    Appendix A; the GW predictions inherit the simulation-based fits.
  • standard math Standard FLRW cosmology with entropy conservation and P_f(T_p) = 0.71 percolation threshold
    Background cosmology of Section 3.2 and the percolation convention of Eq. (18).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26032 in / 32694 out tokens · 313187 ms · 2026-08-01T23:15:56.564030+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The collapse of false-vacuum domains during first-order phase transitions in the early Universe may lead to primordial black hole (PBH) formation whose signatures form a multimessenger complement to gravitational wave (GW) production. We focus on PBH formation through the gravitational collapse of false-vacuum domains, described using a junction condition formalism. This formalism develops the Schwarzschild collapse criterion dynamically, avoiding the usage of critical overdensity thresholds in a post-inflationary Universe, and is driven solely by the vacuum energy enclosed within shrinking false-vacuum domains without the assistance of particle or domain wall interactions in the false vacuum. We study the parameter space of phase transitions and identify regions producing observable GWs, observable PBHs, or both simultaneously. We investigate this phenomenology in polynomial and classically conformal scalar field potentials as model benchmarks. We find that the scalar fields with vacuum expectation values in the range of 1-100 MeV have the largest model parameter space available for these multi-messenger signals, which are testable with upcoming GW observatories, searches for Hawking radiation, and gravitational lensing surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15479 by Adrian Thompson, Bhaskar Dutta, Cash Hauptmann, Peisi Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Effective potential progressing through a FOPT; at temperatures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows a representative sample of classically conformal U(1)B−L models tested for FOPTs, with colored points indicating models found to produce FOPTs. When scanning over the ranges αB−L ∈ [5 × 10−3 , 0.25] and αY ∈ [10−5 , 0.3], it is found that FOPT properties are mostly agnostic to the Yukawa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Gravitational wave abundances taken at the peak strain ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Peaks in GW spectra of the classically conformal U(1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The same data as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Observational upper bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Observational upper bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The same data as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Parameter scans for the polynomial potential with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Multi-messenger parameter space of scanned U(1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗

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

108 extracted references · 75 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D. N. Page and S. W. Hawking,Gamma rays from primordial black holes,Astrophys. J.206(1976) 1

    1976

  2. [2]

    B. J. Carr and J. H. MacGibbon,Cosmic rays from primordial black holes and constraints on the early universe,Phys. Rept.307(1998) 141

    1998

  3. [3]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama,Constraints on primordial black holes,Rept. Prog. Phys. 84(2021) 116902 [2002.12778]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Kawana, T

    K. Kawana, T. Kim and P. Lu,PBH formation from overdensities in delayed vacuum transitions,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 103531 [2212.14037]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Gouttenoire and T

    Y. Gouttenoire and T. Volansky,Primordial black holes from supercooled phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 043514 [2305.04942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    T. H. Jung and T. Okui,Primordial black holes from bubble collisions during a first-order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 115014 [2110.04271]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Gross, G

    C. Gross, G. Landini, A. Strumia and D. Teresi,Dark Matter as dark dwarfs and other macroscopic objects: multiverse relics?,JHEP09(2021) 033 [2105.02840]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    M. J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp and L. Mittnacht,Primordial Black Holes from First-Order Cosmological Phase Transitions,2105.07481

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    M. J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp and L. Mittnacht,Detailed Calculation of Primordial Black Hole Formation During First-Order Cosmological Phase Transitions,2110.00005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Kawana and K.-P

    K. Kawana and K.-P. Xie,Primordial black holes from a cosmic phase transition: The collapse of Fermi-balls, Phys. Lett. B824(2022) 136791 [2106.00111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    J.-P. Hong, S. Jung and K.-P. Xie,Fermi-ball dark matter from a first-order phase transition,Phys. Rev. D 102(2020) 075028 [2008.04430]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Huang and K.-P

    P. Huang and K.-P. Xie,Primordial black holes from an electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 115033 [2201.07243]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. Kumar and D. Marfatia,Primordial black holes from Q-balls produced in a first-order phase transition,2505.21830

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    M. M. Flores, A. Kusenko and M. Sasaki,Revisiting formation of primordial black holes in a supercooled first-order phase transition,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 015005 [2402.13341]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta and M. Rai,Primordial black holes at the junction,JHEP05(2026) 279 [2510.05236]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    S. K. Blau, E. I. Guendelman and A. H. Guth,The Dynamics of False Vacuum Bubbles,Phys. Rev. D35 (1987) 1747

    1987

  17. [17]

    B. J. Carr,The Primordial black hole mass spectrum,Astrophys. J.201(1975) 1

    1975

  18. [18]

    Harada, C.-M

    T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo and K. Kohri,Threshold of primordial black hole formation,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 084051 [1309.4201]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 029903 (2014)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Escriv` a,PBH Formation from Spherically Symmetric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,Universe 8(2022) 66 [2111.12693]

    A. Escriv` a,PBH Formation from Spherically Symmetric Hydrodynamical Perturbations: A Review,Universe 8(2022) 66 [2111.12693]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Marfatia and P.-Y

    D. Marfatia and P.-Y. Tseng,Correlated signals of first-order phase transitions and primordial black hole evaporation,JHEP08(2022) 001 [2112.14588]. [Erratum: JHEP 08, 249 (2022)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Xie,Pinning down the primordial black hole formation mechanism with gamma-rays and gravitational waves,JCAP06(2023) 008 [2301.02352]

    K.-P. Xie,Pinning down the primordial black hole formation mechanism with gamma-rays and gravitational waves,JCAP06(2023) 008 [2301.02352]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    T. C. Gehrman, B. Shams Es Haghi, K. Sinha and T. Xu,The primordial black holes that disappeared: connections to dark matter and MHz-GHz gravitational Waves,JCAP10(2023) 001 [2304.09194]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    F. P. Huang, C. Idegawa and A. Yang,Primordial black hole formation and multimessenger signals in a complex singlet extension of the standard model,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 055013 [2510.24007]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek and V. Vaskonen,Black Holes and Gravitational Waves from Slow First-Order Phase Transitions,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 221003 [2402.04158]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Arteaga, A

    M. Arteaga, A. Ghoshal and A. Strumia,Gravitational waves and black holes from the phase transition in models of dynamical symmetry breaking,JCAP05(2025) 029 [2409.04545]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Buchmuller, C

    W. Buchmuller, C. Greub and P. Minkowski,Neutrino masses, neutral vector bosons and the scale of B-L breaking,Phys. Lett. B267(1991) 395

    1991

  27. [27]

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra,Quantization of Electric Charge From Anomaly Constraints and a Majorana Neutrino,Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 271

    1990

  28. [28]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,Conf. Proc. C790927 (1979) 315 [1306.4669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  29. [29]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  30. [30]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421

    1977

  31. [31]

    Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf. Proc. C7902131(1979) 95

    1979

  32. [32]

    S. Iso, N. Okada and Y. Orikasa,Classically conformalB − L extended Standard Model,Phys. Lett. B676 (2009) 81 [0902.4050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  33. [33]

    S. Iso, N. Okada and Y. Orikasa,The minimal B-L model naturally realized at TeV scale,Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 115007 [0909.0128]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  34. [34]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto,Probing a classically conformal B-L model with gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D 95(2017) 015020 [1604.05035]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Marzo, L

    C. Marzo, L. Marzola and V. Vaskonen,Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B–L model,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 601 [1811.11169]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen,Updated predictions for gravitational waves produced in a strongly supercooled phase transition,JCAP11(2020) 020 [2007.15586]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg,Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 1888

    1973

  38. [38]

    Sher,Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability,Phys

    M. Sher,Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability,Phys. Rept.179(1989) 273

    1989

  39. [39]

    K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,Renormalization Group and Effective Potential in Classically Conformal Theories,Acta Phys. Polon. B40(2009) 2737 [0809.1338]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [40]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  41. [41]

    M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones,A NEW RENORMALIZATION GROUP APPROACH TO MULTISCALE PROBLEMS,Nucl. Phys. B230(1984) 261

    1984

  42. [42]

    C. Ford, D. R. T. Jones, P. W. Stephenson and M. B. Einhorn,The Effective potential and the renormalization group,Nucl. Phys. B395(1993) 17 [hep-lat/9210033]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  43. [43]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, N. Maekawa and H. Nakano,Improving the effective potential: Multimass scale case, Prog. Theor. Phys.90(1993) 405 [hep-ph/9210229]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  44. [44]

    Ford,Multiscale renormalization group improvement of the effective potential,Phys

    C. Ford,Multiscale renormalization group improvement of the effective potential,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 7531 [hep-th/9404085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  45. [45]

    Ford and C

    C. Ford and C. Wiesendanger,A Multiscale subtraction scheme and partial renormalization group equations in the O(N) symmetric phi**4 theory,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 2202 [hep-ph/9604392]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  46. [46]

    J. A. Casas, V. Di Clemente and M. Quiros,The Effective potential in the presence of several mass scales, Nucl. Phys. B553(1999) 511 [hep-ph/9809275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  47. [47]

    T. G. Steele, Z.-W. Wang and D. G. C. McKeon,Multiscale renormalization group methods for effective potentials with multiple scalar fields,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 105012 [1409.3489]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    Chataignier, T

    L. Chataignier, T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt and B. Swiezewska,Single-scale Renormalisation Group Improvement of Multi-scale Effective Potentials,JHEP03(2018) 014 [1801.05258]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Athron, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    S. R. Coleman,The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 2929. 30 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

    1977

  51. [51]

    Linde,Fate of the false vacuum at finite temperature: Theory and applications,Physics Letters B100 (1981) 37

    A. Linde,Fate of the false vacuum at finite temperature: Theory and applications,Physics Letters B100 (1981) 37

    1981

  52. [52]

    A. D. Linde,Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,Nucl. Phys. B216(1983) 421. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]

    1983

  53. [53]

    Enqvist, J

    K. Enqvist, J. Ignatius, K. Kajantie and K. Rummukainen,Nucleation and bubble growth in a first order cosmological electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev. D45(1992) 3415

    1992

  54. [54]

    Kierkla, A

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam and B. Swiezewska,Conformal model for gravitational waves and dark matter: a status update,JHEP03(2023) 007 [2210.07075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    A. D. Linde,On the Vacuum Instability and the Higgs Meson Mass,Phys. Lett. B70(1977) 306

    1977

  56. [56]

    Costa, J

    F. Costa, J. Hoefken Zink, M. Lucente, S. Pascoli and S. Rosauro-Alcaraz,ELENA: a software for fast and precise computation of first order phase transitions and gravitational waves production in particle physics models,2510.00289

    arXiv

  57. [57]

    J. R. Espinosa,A Fresh Look at the Calculation of Tunneling Actions,JCAP07(2018) 036 [1805.03680]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    swiss cheese

    C. D. Lorenz and R. M. Ziff,Precise determination of the critical percolation threshold for the three-dimensional “swiss cheese” model using a growth algorithm,The Journal of Chemical Physics114 (2001) 3659

    2001

  59. [59]

    Lin and H

    J. Lin and H. Chen,Continuum percolation of porous media via random packing of overlapping cube-like particles,Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters8(2018) 299

    2018

  60. [60]

    M. Li, H. Chen and J. Lin,Numerical study for the percolation threshold and transport properties of porous composites comprising non-centrosymmetrical superovoidal pores,Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering361(2020) 112815

    2020

  61. [61]

    A. H. Guth and S. H. H. Tye,Phase Transitions and Magnetic Monopole Production in the Very Early Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 631. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 44, 963 (1980)]

    1980

  62. [62]

    A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg,Cosmological Consequences of a First Order Phase Transition in the SU(5) Grand Unified Model,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 876

    1981

  63. [63]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, J. M. No and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational wave energy budget in strongly supercooled phase transitions,JCAP06(2019) 024 [1903.09642]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Borsanyi et al.,Calculation of the axion mass based on high-temperature lattice quantum chromodynamics, Nature539(2016) 69 [1606.07494]

    S. Borsanyi et al.,Calculation of the axion mass based on high-temperature lattice quantum chromodynamics, Nature539(2016) 69 [1606.07494]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin and J. van de Vis,Model-independent energy budget of cosmological first-order phase transitions—A sound argument to go beyond the bag model,JCAP07(2020) 057 [2004.06995]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    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,JCAP04(2016) 001 [1512.06239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Maggiore,Gravitational wave experiments and early universe cosmology,Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  68. [68]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano,Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal processing strategies and sensitivities,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 102001

    1999

  69. [69]

    Caprini et al.,Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP03(2020) 024 [1910.13125]

    C. Caprini et al.,Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP03(2020) 024 [1910.13125]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek and V. Vaskonen,Primordial black holes from strong first-order phase transitions, JHEP09(2023) 092 [2305.04924]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Murai, K

    K. Murai, K. Sakurai and F. Takahashi,Primordial black hole formation via inverted bubble collapse,JHEP 07(2025) 065 [2502.02291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Hashino, S

    K. Hashino, S. Kanemura, T. Takahashi, M. Tanaka and C.-M. Yoo,Super-critical primordial black hole formation via delayed first-order electroweak phase transition,JCAP09(2025) 006 [2501.11040]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    P. Lu, K. Kawana and K.-P. Xie,Old phase remnants in first-order phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 123503 [2202.03439]. [74]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]. [75]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas e...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [76]

    Leitao and A

    L. Leitao and A. Megevand,Gravitational waves from a very strong electroweak phase transition,JCAP05 (2016) 037 [1512.08962]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  75. [77]

    S. W. Hawking,Particle Creation by Black Holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199. [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  76. [78]

    Graham, C

    M. Graham, C. Hearty and M. Williams,Searches for Dark Photons at Accelerators,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71(2021) 37 [2104.10280]. [79]NANOGravCollaboration, Z. Arzoumanian et al.,The NANOGrav 12.5 yr Data Set: Search for an Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background,Astrophys. J. Lett.905(2020) L34 [2009.04496]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [80]

    T. J. W. Lazio, S. Bhaskaran, C. Cutler, W. M. Folkner, R. S. Park, J. A. Ellis, T. Ely, S. R. Taylor and M. Vallisneri,Solar System Ephemerides, Pulsar Timing, Gravitational Waves,\& Navigation,IAU Symp. 337(2017) 150 [1801.02898]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [81]

    Brown, A

    A. Brown, A. Vallenari, T. Prusti, J. De Bruijne, C. Babusiaux, C. Bailer-Jones, M. Biermann, D. W. Evans, L. Eyer, F. Jansen et al.,Gaia data release 2-summary of the contents and survey properties,Astronomy & astrophysics616(2018) A1

    2018

  79. [82]

    Vallenari,The Future of Astrometry in Space,Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences5(2018) 11

    A. Vallenari,The Future of Astrometry in Space,Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences5(2018) 11

    2018

  80. [83]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi et al.,Laser interferometer space antenna,arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.00786(2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.