Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Electroweak phase transition with composite Higgs models: calculability, gravitational waves and collider searches

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Minimal composite Higgs potentials cannot drive a strong electroweak phase transition.

desk verdict Systematic form-factor computation worth taking seriously, but the no-go for 6+6 and 15+15 rests on an unproved inequality and the headline 'MHP fails' is stronger than the proof. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02014 v2 pith:5V34XQSK submitted 2019-09-04 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Ligong Bian , Yongcheng Wu , Ke-Pan Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords compositeHiggsnext-to-minimalmodelstrongfirst-orderelectroweakphasetransitionminimalpotentialhypothesisgravitationalwavesWeinbergsumrulestoppartnerssingletscalar
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 studies whether the next-to-minimal composite Higgs model, based on SO(6)/SO(5), can produce a strong first-order electroweak phase transition (SFOEWPT). It systematically builds six benchmark models by embedding the top quark in different representations of SO(6), and finds that the commonly used minimal Higgs potential hypothesis, where the scalar potential comes only from the lightest composite resonances, fails for every viable model. The paper then shows that including incalculable ultraviolet local operators can restore SFOEWPT, and works out the gravitational-wave and collider consequences for one concrete model. A sympathetic reader should care because SFOEWPT is a necessary ingredient of electroweak baryogenesis and produces observable gravitational waves.

What carries the argument

The scalar potential for the Higgs doublet h and singlet η is generated by SO(6)-breaking gauge and fermion interactions, split into infrared form-factor contributions from lightest vector and fermion resonances and ultraviolet contributions from local operators. The infrared coefficients are expressed through five basic integrals αq,t, βq,t, and ε, and are made convergent by Weinberg sum rules imposed on the resonance spectrum. The argument identifies a two-step phase transition path, (0,0)→(0,w)→(v,0), as the correct way to realize SFOEWPT in this model, and derives inequalities among the potential coefficients that must hold for degenerate minima at the critical temperature.

What would settle it

Computing the scalar-potential coefficients with additional resonance states (e.g. Nρ = Na = 2 for vectors or N5 = 2, N1 = 3 for fermions) and checking whether the singlet VEV stays below f or whether λhη² > λh λη becomes possible; if either holds in the IR-only potential, the no-go conclusion would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the SO(6)/SO(5) next-to-minimal composite Higgs model, the strongly first-order electroweak phase transition cannot be triggered if only the calculable infrared contributions to the scalar potential are included. This conclusion holds for all three viable fermion embeddings considered: 6+6, 15+6, and 15+15. In the 6+6 and 15+15 cases the singlet field would need a vacuum expectation value larger than the Goldstone decay constant, breaking perturbativity, while in the 15+6 case the necessary condition λhη² > λh λη cannot be satisfied. Therefore the minimal Higgs potential hypothesis, which assumes that ultraviolet contributions are negligible, is incompatible with SFOEWPT in these models. Adding ultraviolet local operators, estimated by naive dimensional analysis, can restore SFOEWPT; the paper demonstrates this explicitly for the 6+6 model.

Load-bearing premise

The infrared form factors are assumed to be saturated by the lightest vector and fermion resonances, with heavier resonances contributing nothing that changes the sign or size of the computed coefficients.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The minimal Higgs potential hypothesis cannot be assumed in future studies of strong first-order phase transitions in SO(6)/SO(5) composite Higgs models; ultraviolet contributions are needed.
  • SFOEWPT predictions in these models depend on incalculable ultraviolet operators, so statements about gravitational-wave signals carry an irreducible model-dependence from the strong-sector UV completion.
  • In the 6+6 model, combining IR and UV contributions produces SFOEWPT with f ≳ 1 TeV and singlet mass around 100 GeV, with gravitational-wave signals within the reach of future space-based detectors.
  • Composite resonances in the SFOEWPT-viable region, especially vector resonances heavier than twice the top-partner mass, may be searched for at the HL-LHC through same-sign dilepton final states.
  • The 15B embedding of the left-handed doublet is strongly disfavoured by ZbL bL measurements, leaving 15A as the viable 15-representation choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The no-go result plausibly extends beyond the representations studied here, because the obstruction in 6+6 and 15+15 comes from the sign and size of the β integrals, which are positive by definition; one testable extension is to check larger representations and count whether the obstruction persists.
  • If ultraviolet contributions are generically O(1) as naive dimensional analysis suggests, then SFOEWPT in composite Higgs models is essentially a probe of the unknown strong-sector UV completion, not of the low-energy coset structure alone.
  • The two-step transition required here implies that the singlet η acquires a VEV before the Higgs, which could leave a distinct imprint in gravitational-wave spectral shapes (e.g. a stronger peak from the first step) that dedicated simulations could separate from one-step transitions.
  • The same form-factor machinery could be applied to other cosets with extra singlets, such as SU(4)/Sp(4), to ask whether the MHP no-go is a generic feature of pNGB singlet extensions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the SO(6)/SO(5) next-to-minimal composite Higgs model with one Higgs doublet and one real singlet, and asks whether a strong first-order electroweak phase transition can be generated by the minimal Higgs potential hypothesis, i.e. by the calculable IR form-factor contributions of the lightest composite resonances alone. The authors classify six fermion embeddings for qL and tR, discard three models (6+1, 6+15, 15+1) for lack of a η potential or a top mass, and derive the IR and UV contributions to the scalar potential for the remaining 6+6, 15+6 and 15+15 models. They claim that under MHP none of the three can trigger SFOEWPT: for 6+6 and 15+15 the singlet vacuum w is predicted to exceed f, while for 15+6 the condition λhη^2 > λh λη fails. They then add NDA-estimated UV local operators, scan the parameter space of the 6+6 model with MultiNest and CosmoTransitions, and show that SFOEWPT can occur with Mη around 100 GeV and f ≳ 1 TeV, producing gravitational waves visible to LISA, Tianqin, Taiji, BBO or DECIGO, and with collider phenomenology that leaves room at Mρ ≳ 3 TeV.

Significance. If the no-go claim is established, the paper is significant: it would rule out the commonly adopted MHP for SFOEWPT in NMCHM with embeddings up to 15 and motivate UV-dominated singlet potentials. The paper's strengths include the explicit CCWZ construction, concrete form-factor integrals with Weinberg sum rules, an appendix checking the polynomial approximation, and a complete numerical pipeline for nucleation and gravitational waves. However, the central negative claim is only as strong as the inequality |α| >> β f^2 for the 6+6 and 15+15 models, and that inequality is not proved in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3.20); Section 3.5, Eq. (3.35)] The no-go for the 6+6 and 15+15 models rests on the claim |αt| >> βt f^2 (and analogously |αq| >> βq f^2), asserted because the coefficients come from expanding the same logarithm. This inequality is never proved. With the explicit N5=1, N1=2 form factors in Eq. (4.13), the ratio R(Q)=Π1/Π0 can exceed unity at low Q^2 for allowed mass hierarchies, so ∫R^2 can be larger than ∫R and α/(β f^2) can be O(1) or smaller, which would allow w < f. Please either prove the inequality for these form factors or perform the numerical scan of Section 4.2 with the UV Wilson coefficients set to zero and report the resulting w values.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (4.5) and (4.12)] The IR form factors are saturated by one vector multiplet and one 5-plet plus two singlet partners. The no-go conclusion is derived within this truncation; a discussion of how heavier resonances would modify the ratio α/(β f^2), or an estimate based on the next resonance, is needed before the conclusion can be presented as a general statement about NMCHM under MHP. This does not require a full calculation, but the sensitivity of the central negative claim to the truncation should be quantified or at least discussed.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The statement that 'if only the IR contributions to the scalar potential are considered, all those three models cannot trigger SFOEWPT' is stronger than the derivation supports. Because the 6+6 and 15+15 no-go depends on the unproved inequality discussed above, the conclusion should either be restricted to the parameter ranges and truncation where the inequality is checked, or the proof should be completed. The 15+6 obstruction in Eq. (3.29) is algebraic and solid, so the issue is specific to the other two models, but the abstract does not make this distinction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.33)] The derivation of the chain cη/ch < μη^2/μh^2 < sqrt(λη)/sqrt(λh) < λhη/λh is compressed; please show the intermediate algebra or add a footnote explaining how each inequality follows from Eqs. (2.27)–(2.32).
  2. [Section 3.3, after Eq. (3.20)] The phrase 'This inequality can never be achieved because η < f is given by its definition' is confusing: the issue is that the predicted minimum lies outside the allowed field range, not that the inequality is forbidden by fiat. Please rephrase.
  3. [Section 4.3, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'play a important role' should be 'play an important role'; similar small typos appear elsewhere, including 'the for μ2h,η and λh,hη' in Section 4.2.
  4. [Figure 3, right panel] It would help to state explicitly whether the plotted gravitational-wave envelope includes points that are excluded by the collider constraints shown in Fig. 4, or whether the envelope is shown before applying those constraints.
  5. [Throughout] The phrase 'two degenerate vacuums' should be 'two degenerate vacua' in Eqs. (2.29)–(2.31) and the surrounding text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central no-go is derived from explicit form-factor integrals, and the positive scan is an existence proof rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central negative claim, that IR-only (MHP) contributions cannot trigger SFOEWPT in the 6+6, 15+6 and 15+15 NMCHMs, is obtained from the derived potential coefficients in Eqs. (3.19), (3.28) and (3.35), with alpha, beta and epsilon defined as form-factor integrals in Eq. (3.18). These coefficients are not fitted to the desired conclusion; they are computed from the CCWZ Lagrangian and Weinberg sum rules. The positive 6+6 example scans UV Wilson coefficients subject to the SFOEWPT conditions, but the paper describes this as a demonstration that UV contributions can assist the transition and does not report the scan points as independent predictions. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [34,35,61,65,82,92]) concern two-step phase-transition methods, sphaleron/GW tools, and LHC resonance phenomenology; none is load-bearing for the no-go argument. A separate concern is that the 6+6 and 15+15 no-go statements rely on the unproven expectation |alpha| >> beta f^2 (Eqs. 3.20 and 3.35), which is a correctness/robustness issue rather than a circular reduction: the conclusion is not equivalent by construction to its inputs, and explicit form factors could in principle violate the inequality without making the derivation circular. Appendix C checks only the polynomial approximation, not this inequality. Thus no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central negative claim rests on the assumed resonance spectrum and on the sign and size of the basic integrals; neither is derived from a UV completion. The positive benchmark additionally relies on incalculable NDA-sized Wilson coefficients that are scanned over a wide range, effectively fitting the SFOEWPT condition.

free parameters (3)
  • dR_f = scanned in [-5,5]; effectively selected to achieve SFOEWPT
    The coefficient of the (Sigma-dagger T^6 T^6-dagger Sigma)^2 operator; it enhances lambda_eta, making w^2 << f^2 possible (Eq. 3.25). Its value is chosen by the scan, not derived.
  • cR_f = scanned in [-5,5]
    The coefficient of |y_R|^2 f^4 Sigma-dagger T^6 T^6-dagger Sigma; shifts mu_eta^2 and helps satisfy Eq. (2.33).
  • other NDA Wilson coefficients (cL_f, dL_f, c_g, c_g', d_g, d_g') = treated as O(1) and scanned within |coefficient| < 5 where relevant
    Same incalculable local-operator coefficients; the paper does not derive them, and the SFOEWPT condition selects their values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption IR form factors are dominated by the lightest resonances (Nrho=Na=1, N5=1, N1=2)
    Eqs. (4.5), (4.12) and the sentence 'Assuming the lightest resonances dominate' in Section 4.1. This truncation is necessary for closed-form IR potentials; a different spectrum changes the terms.
  • domain assumption The form factor integrals converge only if Pi_1 scales as Q^-4 and Pi_q,t as Q^-6, enforced by Weinberg sum rules
    Section 4.1, Eqs. (4.4), (4.10), (4.11). Without this asymptotic behavior the IR contributions are divergent and incalculable, so the no-go cannot be stated.
  • domain assumption The finite-temperature potential can be approximated by the leading T^2 terms of the high-temperature expansion
    Section 2.2, Eq. (2.25), with Refs. [53,54] for gauge independence. This is standard but omits cubic and daisy resummation terms.
  • ad hoc to paper The UV local operators are governed by O(1) NDA Wilson coefficients
    Section 3.1 and Table 1: the coefficients are not calculable and are scanned over |coefficient| < 5; the realization of SFOEWPT requires them to take favorable values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak phase transition with composite Higgs models: calculability, gravitational waves and collider searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5V34XQSK

@misc{pith2026190902014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak phase transition with composite Higgs models: calculability, gravitational waves and collider searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5V34XQSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02014}
}
abstract

We study the strong first order electroweak phase transition (SFOEWPT) with the $SO(6)/SO(5)$ composite Higgs model, whose scalar sector contains one Higgs doublet and one real singlet. Six benchmark models are built with fermion embeddings in $\textbf{1}$, $\textbf{6}$, and $\textbf{15}$ of $SO(6)$. We show that SFOEWPT cannot be triggered under the minimal Higgs potential hypothesis, which assumes the scalar potential is dominated by the form factors from the lightest composite resonances. To get a SFOEWPT, the contributions from local operators induced by physics above the cutoff scale are needed. We take the $\textbf{6}+\textbf{6}$ model as an example to investigate the gravitational waves prediction and the related collider phenomenology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In the inverted Type-I 2HDM, one-step and two-step strong first-order electroweak phase transitions live in largely separate parameter regions, and LISA-detectable gravitational wave signals come predominantly from th...

  2. Holographic composite Higgs model and gravitational waves produced during first order phase transition

    hep-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the soft-wall holographic composite Higgs model, the symmetry breaking transition is strongly first order with alpha up to 10^3 and beta/H between 10^5 and 5x10^6, producing gravitational waves peaked near the BBO/...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses,

    D. B. Kaplan, “Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses,”Nucl. Phys. B365 (1991) 259–278

    1991

  2. [2]

    Higgs as a holographic pseudoGoldstone boson,

    R. Contino, Y. Nomura and A. Pomarol, “Higgs as a holographic pseudoGoldstone boson,”Nucl. Phys. B671 (2003) 148–174, [ hep-ph/0306259]

    arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    The Minimal composite Higgs model,

    K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, “The Minimal composite Higgs model,” Nucl. Phys. B719 (2005) 165–187, [ hep-ph/0412089]. – 31 –

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Light custodians in natural composite Higgs models,

    R. Contino, L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol, “Light custodians in natural composite Higgs models,”Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 055014, [ hep-ph/0612048]

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Beyond the Minimal Composite Higgs Model,

    B. Gripaios, A. Pomarol, F. Riva and J. Serra, “Beyond the Minimal Composite Higgs Model,”JHEP 04 (2009) 070, [ 0902.1483]

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Fundamental Composite (Goldstone) Higgs Dynamics,

    G. Cacciapaglia and F. Sannino, “Fundamental Composite (Goldstone) Higgs Dynamics,”JHEP 04 (2014) 111, [ 1402.0233]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    UV descriptions of composite Higgs models without elementary scalars,

    J. Barnard, T. Gherghetta and T. S. Ray, “UV descriptions of composite Higgs models without elementary scalars,”JHEP 02 (2014) 002, [ 1311.6562]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Fermionic UV completions of Composite Higgs models,

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev, “Fermionic UV completions of Composite Higgs models,” JHEP 03 (2014) 077, [ 1312.5330]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Fundamental Composite Higgs Dynamics on the Lattice: SU(2) with Two Flavors,

    A. Hietanen, R. Lewis, C. Pica and F. Sannino, “Fundamental Composite Higgs Dynamics on the Lattice: SU(2) with Two Flavors,” JHEP 07 (2014) 116, [ 1404.2794]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Composite Scalar Dark Matter,

    M. Frigerio, A. Pomarol, F. Riva and A. Urbano, “Composite Scalar Dark Matter,” JHEP 07 (2012) 015, [ 1204.2808]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Composite Dark Matter and LHC Interplay,

    D. Marzocca and A. Urbano, “Composite Dark Matter and LHC Interplay,” JHEP 07 (2014) 107, [1404.7419]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Composite Dark Matter and Higgs,

    Y. Wu, T. Ma, B. Zhang and G. Cacciapaglia, “Composite Dark Matter and Higgs,” JHEP 11 (2017) 058, [ 1703.06903]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Towards a fundamental safe theory of composite Higgs and Dark Matter,

    G. Cacciapaglia, S. Vatani, T. Ma and Y. Wu, “Towards a fundamental safe theory of composite Higgs and Dark Matter,” 1812.04005

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Vacuum alignment in a composite 2HDM,

    C. Cai, G. Cacciapaglia and H.-H. Zhang, “Vacuum alignment in a composite 2HDM,” JHEP 01 (2019) 130, [ 1805.07619]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Baryon Asymmetry from a Composite Higgs Boson,

    S. Bruggisser, B. Von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi and G. Servant, “Baryon Asymmetry from a Composite Higgs Boson,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 131801, [ 1803.08546]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis in Composite Higgs Models,

    S. Bruggisser, B. Von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi and G. Servant, “Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis in Composite Higgs Models,” JHEP 12 (2018) 099, [1804.07314]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Electroweak Baryogenesis in Non-minimal Composite Higgs Models,

    J. R. Espinosa, B. Gripaios, T. Konstandin and F. Riva, “Electroweak Baryogenesis in Non-minimal Composite Higgs Models,” JCAP 1201 (2012) 012, [ 1110.2876]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Unified explanation for dark matter and electroweak baryogenesis with direct detection and gravitational wave signatures,

    M. Chala, G. Nardini and I. Sobolev, “Unified explanation for dark matter and electroweak baryogenesis with direct detection and gravitational wave signatures,” Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 055006, [1605.08663]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gravitational wave and collider probes of a triplet Higgs sector with a low cutoff,

    M. Chala, M. Ramos and M. Spannowsky, “Gravitational wave and collider probes of a triplet Higgs sector with a low cutoff,” Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 156, [ 1812.01901]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,

    LISA collaboration, H. Audley et al., “Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,” 1702.00786

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector,

    TianQin collaboration, J. Luo et al., “TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector,”Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) 035010, [ 1512.02076]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity,

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, “The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity,”Natl. Sci. Rev. 4 (2017) 685–686

    2017

  15. [23]

    Beyond LISA: Exploring future gravitational wave missions,

    J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, “Beyond LISA: Exploring future gravitational wave missions,”Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 083005, [ gr-qc/0506015]. – 32 –

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna: DECIGO,

    S. Kawamura et al., “The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna: DECIGO,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 094011

    2011

  17. [25]

    The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,

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

    2006

  18. [26]

    Review of cosmic phase transitions: their significance and experimental signatures,

    A. Mazumdar and G. White, “Review of cosmic phase transitions: their significance and experimental signatures,”Rept. Prog. Phys. 82 (2019) 076901, [ 1811.01948]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter from a singlet Higgs,

    J. M. Cline and K. Kainulainen, “Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter from a singlet Higgs,”JCAP 1301 (2013) 012, [ 1210.4196]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Strong phase transition, dark matter and vacuum stability from simple hidden sectors,

    T. Alanne, K. Tuominen and V. Vaskonen, “Strong phase transition, dark matter and vacuum stability from simple hidden sectors,”Nucl. Phys. B889 (2014) 692–711, [1407.0688]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Electroweak baryogenesis in the framework of the effective field theory,

    F. P. Huang and C. S. Li, “Electroweak baryogenesis in the framework of the effective field theory,”Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 075014, [ 1507.08168]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet,

    V. Vaskonen, “Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet,”Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 123515, [ 1611.02073]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Probing the baryogenesis and dark matter relaxed in phase transition by gravitational waves and colliders,

    F. P. Huang and C. S. Li, “Probing the baryogenesis and dark matter relaxed in phase transition by gravitational waves and colliders,” Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 095028, [1709.09691]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Exploring dynamical CP violation induced baryogenesis by gravitational waves and colliders,

    F. P. Huang, Z. Qian and M. Zhang, “Exploring dynamical CP violation induced baryogenesis by gravitational waves and colliders,”Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 015014, [1804.06813]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Revisiting electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a real singlet scalar,

    C.-W. Chiang, Y.-T. Li and E. Senaha, “Revisiting electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a real singlet scalar,” Phys. Lett. B789 (2019) 154–159, [ 1808.01098]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Two-step strongly first-order electroweak phase transition modified FIMP dark matter, gravitational wave signals, and the neutrino mass,

    L. Bian and X. Liu, “Two-step strongly first-order electroweak phase transition modified FIMP dark matter, gravitational wave signals, and the neutrino mass,” Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 055003, [ 1811.03279]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Thermally modified sterile neutrino portal dark matter and gravitational waves from phase transition: The Freeze-in case,

    L. Bian and Y.-L. Tang, “Thermally modified sterile neutrino portal dark matter and gravitational waves from phase transition: The Freeze-in case,” JHEP 12 (2018) 006, [1810.03172]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Higgs inflation and cosmological electroweak phase transition with N scalars in the post-Higgs era,

    W. Cheng and L. Bian, “Higgs inflation and cosmological electroweak phase transition with N scalars in the post-Higgs era,” Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 035038, [ 1805.00199]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dynamics of Electroweak Phase Transition In Singlet-Scalar Extension of the Standard Model,

    G. Kurup and M. Perelstein, “Dynamics of Electroweak Phase Transition In Singlet-Scalar Extension of the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 015036, [ 1704.03381]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson,

    R. Contino, “The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson,” in Physics of the large and the small, TASI 09, proceedings of the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 1-26 June 2009, pp. 235–306, 2011. 1005.4269. DOI

    2009 arXiv

  31. [39]

    QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations,

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, “QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations,”Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385–447

    1979

  32. [40]

    QCD and Resonance Physics: Applications,

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, “QCD and Resonance Physics: Applications,”Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 448–518

    1979

  33. [41]

    Patterns of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the large N(c) limit of QCD - like theories,

    M. Knecht and E. de Rafael, “Patterns of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in the large N(c) limit of QCD - like theories,” Phys. Lett. B424 (1998) 335–342, [ hep-ph/9712457]. – 33 –

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    General Composite Higgs Models,

    D. Marzocca, M. Serone and J. Shu, “General Composite Higgs Models,” JHEP 08 (2012) 013, [1205.0770]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The Composite Higgs and Light Resonance Connection,

    A. Pomarol and F. Riva, “The Composite Higgs and Light Resonance Connection,” JHEP 08 (2012) 135, [ 1205.6434]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Implications of a Light Higgs in Composite Models,

    M. Redi and A. Tesi, “Implications of a Light Higgs in Composite Models,” JHEP 10 (2012) 166, [1205.0232]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Improving Fine-tuning in Composite Higgs Models,

    A. Banerjee, G. Bhattacharyya and T. S. Ray, “Improving Fine-tuning in Composite Higgs Models,”Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 035040, [ 1703.08011]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The Discrete Composite Higgs Model,

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer, “The Discrete Composite Higgs Model,” JHEP 09 (2011) 135, [1106.2719]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,”Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2239–2247

    1969

  40. [48]

    Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,

    C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,”Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2247–2250

    1969

  41. [49]

    The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs,

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer, “The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs,” Lect. Notes Phys. 913 (2016) pp.1–316, [ 1506.01961]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    The Other Natural Two Higgs Doublet Model,

    J. Mrazek, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, M. Redi, J. Serra and A. Wulzer, “The Other Natural Two Higgs Doublet Model,” Nucl. Phys. B853 (2011) 1–48, [ 1105.5403]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Constraining Composite Higgs Models using LHC data,

    A. Banerjee, G. Bhattacharyya, N. Kumar and T. S. Ray, “Constraining Composite Higgs Models using LHC data,” JHEP 03 (2018) 062, [ 1712.07494]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Strong Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Standard Model with a Singlet,

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin and F. Riva, “Strong Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Standard Model with a Singlet,” Nucl. Phys. B854 (2012) 592–630, [ 1107.5441]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Symmetry Behavior at Finite Temperature,

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, “Symmetry Behavior at Finite Temperature,” Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 3320–3341

    1974

  46. [54]

    Resummation and Gauge Invariance of the Gluon Damping Rate in Hot QCD,

    E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, “Resummation and Gauge Invariance of the Gluon Damping Rate in Hot QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 1338

    1990

  47. [55]

    Baryon Washout, Electroweak Phase Transition, and Perturbation Theory,

    H. H. Patel and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, “Baryon Washout, Electroweak Phase Transition, and Perturbation Theory,”JHEP 07 (2011) 029, [ 1101.4665]

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Operators analysis for Higgs potential and cosmological bound on Higgs mass,

    X.-m. Zhang, “Operators analysis for Higgs potential and cosmological bound on Higgs mass,”Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 3065–3067, [ hep-ph/9301277]

    1993 arXiv

  49. [57]

    First-order electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a low cutoff,

    C. Grojean, G. Servant and J. D. Wells, “First-order electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a low cutoff,” Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 036001, [ hep-ph/0407019]

    2005 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Electroweak sphaleron with dimension-six operators,

    X. Gan, A. J. Long and L.-T. Wang, “Electroweak sphaleron with dimension-six operators,”Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 115018, [ 1708.03061]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Testing the electroweak phase transition and electroweak baryogenesis at the LHC and a circular electron-positron collider,

    F. P. Huang, P.-H. Gu, P.-F. Yin, Z.-H. Yu and X. Zhang, “Testing the electroweak phase transition and electroweak baryogenesis at the LHC and a circular electron-positron collider,”Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 103515, [ 1511.03969]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Hearing the echoes of electroweak baryogenesis with gravitational wave detectors,

    F. P. Huang, Y. Wan, D.-G. Wang, Y.-F. Cai and X. Zhang, “Hearing the echoes of electroweak baryogenesis with gravitational wave detectors,”Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 041702, [1601.01640]. – 34 –

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Testing the electroweak phase transition in scalar extension models at lepton colliders,

    Q.-H. Cao, F. P. Huang, K.-P. Xie and X. Zhang, “Testing the electroweak phase transition in scalar extension models at lepton colliders,” Chin. Phys. C42 (2018) 023103, [1708.04737]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,

    A. D. Linde, “Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,” Nucl. Phys. B216 (1983) 421

    1983

  55. [63]

    Measuring the broken phase sphaleron rate nonperturbatively,

    G. D. Moore, “Measuring the broken phase sphaleron rate nonperturbatively,” Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 014503, [ hep-ph/9805264]

    1999 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions,

    M. Quiros, “Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions,” in Proceedings, Summer School in High-energy physics and cosmology: Trieste, Italy, June 29-July 17, 1998, pp. 187–259, 1999. hep-ph/9901312

    1998 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Probing the Electroweak Sphaleron with Gravitational Waves,

    R. Zhou, L. Bian and H.-K. Guo, “Probing the Electroweak Sphaleron with Gravitational Waves,” 1910.00234

    1910 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Standard Model Higgs-Boson Branching Ratios with Uncertainties,

    A. Denner, S. Heinemeyer, I. Puljak, D. Rebuzzi and M. Spira, “Standard Model Higgs-Boson Branching Ratios with Uncertainties,” Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1753, [1107.5909]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 80 fb −1 of proton–proton collision data at √s = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,

    ATLAS Collaboration collaboration, “Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 80 fb −1 of proton–proton collision data at √s = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2018-031, CERN, Geneva, Jul, 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in protonproton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in protonproton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,”Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 421, [1809.10733]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Manifesting the Invisible Axion at Low-energies,

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan and L. Randall, “Manifesting the Invisible Axion at Low-energies,”Phys. Lett. 169B (1986) 73–78

    1986

  62. [70]

    Functional evaluation of the effective potential,

    R. Jackiw, “Functional evaluation of the effective potential,” Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 1686

    1974

  63. [71]

    Precise relations between the spectra of vector and axial vector mesons,

    S. Weinberg, “Precise relations between the spectra of vector and axial vector mesons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 18 (1967) 507–509

    1967

  64. [72]

    MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics,

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson and M. Bridges, “MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 398 (2009) 1601–1614, [0809.3437]

    2009 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance,

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group collaboration, S. Schael et al., “Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance,”Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257–454, [hep-ex/0509008]

    2006 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    Particle Data Group collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of Particle Physics,”Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  67. [75]

    CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields,

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

    2012 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Gravitational Waves from Phase Transitions at the Electroweak Scale and Beyond,

    C. Grojean and G. Servant, “Gravitational Waves from Phase Transitions at the Electroweak Scale and Beyond,”Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 043507, [ hep-ph/0607107]

    2007 arXiv

  69. [77]

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

    C. Caprini et al., “Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions,” JCAP 1604 (2016) 001, [ 1512.06239]. – 35 –

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Relativistic Detonation Waves and Bubble Growth in False Vacuum Decay,

    P. J. Steinhardt, “Relativistic Detonation Waves and Bubble Growth in False Vacuum Decay,”Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 2074

    1982

  71. [79]

    On the Maximal Strength of a First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and its Gravitational Wave Signal,

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and J. M. No, “On the Maximal Strength of a First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and its Gravitational Wave Signal,” 1809.08242

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Vector and Axial-vector resonances in composite models of the Higgs boson,

    D. Buarque Franzosi, G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea and M. Frandsen, “Vector and Axial-vector resonances in composite models of the Higgs boson,” JHEP 11 (2016) 076, [1605.01363]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Electroweak symmetry breaking and collider signatures in the next-to-minimal composite Higgs model,

    C. Niehoff, P. Stangl and D. M. Straub, “Electroweak symmetry breaking and collider signatures in the next-to-minimal composite Higgs model,” JHEP 04 (2017) 117, [1611.09356]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Prospects of searching for composite resonances at the LHC and beyond,

    D. Liu, L.-T. Wang and K.-P. Xie, “Prospects of searching for composite resonances at the LHC and beyond,”JHEP 01 (2019) 157, [ 1810.08954]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Search for diboson resonances in hadronic final states in 139 fb −1 of pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for diboson resonances in hadronic final states in 139 fb −1 of pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” 1906.08589

    1906 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Search for top quark partners with charge 5/3 in the same-sign dilepton and single-lepton final states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for top quark partners with charge 5/3 in the same-sign dilepton and single-lepton final states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,”JHEP 03 (2019) 082, [ 1810.03188]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    The motivation and status of two-body resonance decays after the LHC Run 2 and beyond,

    J. H. Kim, K. Kong, B. Nachman and D. Whiteson, “The motivation and status of two-body resonance decays after the LHC Run 2 and beyond,” 1907.06659

    1907 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Bounding wide composite vector resonances at the LHC,

    D. Barducci and C. Delaunay, “Bounding wide composite vector resonances at the LHC,”JHEP 02 (2016) 055, [ 1511.01101]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [87]

    New W’ signals at the LHC,

    N. Vignaroli, “New W’ signals at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 095027, [ 1404.5558]

    2014 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Composite scalars at the LHC: the Higgs, the Sextet and the Octet,

    G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea, T. Flacke, S. J. Lee and A. Parolini, “Composite scalars at the LHC: the Higgs, the Sextet and the Octet,” JHEP 11 (2015) 201, [1507.02283]

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Di-boson signatures as Standard Candles for Partial Compositeness,

    A. Belyaev, G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, G. Ferretti, T. Flacke, A. Parolini et al., “Di-boson signatures as Standard Candles for Partial Compositeness,” JHEP 01 (2017) 094, [1610.06591]

    2017 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Beyond the Minimal Top Partner Decay,

    J. Serra, “Beyond the Minimal Top Partner Decay,” JHEP 09 (2015) 176, [ 1506.05110]

    2015 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Common exotic decays of top partners,

    N. Bizot, G. Cacciapaglia and T. Flacke, “Common exotic decays of top partners,” JHEP 06 (2018) 065, [ 1803.00021]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Exotic decays of top partners with charge 5/3: bounds and opportunities,

    K.-P. Xie, G. Cacciapaglia and T. Flacke, “Exotic decays of top partners with charge 5/3: bounds and opportunities,” 1907.05894

    1907 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Exotic decays of top partners: mind the search gap,

    G. Cacciapaglia, T. Flacke, M. Park and M. Zhang, “Exotic decays of top partners: mind the search gap,” 1908.07524

    1908 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Large Gravitational Wave Background Signals in Electroweak Baryogenesis Scenarios,

    J. M. No, “Large Gravitational Wave Background Signals in Electroweak Baryogenesis Scenarios,”Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 124025, [ 1103.2159]

    2011 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Resonant Di-Higgs Production at Gravitational Wave Benchmarks: A Collider Study using Machine Learning,

    A. Alves, T. Ghosh, H.-K. Guo and K. Sinha, “Resonant Di-Higgs Production at Gravitational Wave Benchmarks: A Collider Study using Machine Learning,” JHEP 12 (2018) 070, [ 1808.08974]

    2018 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Collider and Gravitational Wave Complementarity in Exploring the Singlet Extension of the Standard Model,

    A. Alves, T. Ghosh, H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha and D. Vagie, “Collider and Gravitational Wave Complementarity in Exploring the Singlet Extension of the Standard Model,” JHEP 04 (2019) 052, [ 1812.09333]. – 36 –

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    A Custodial symmetry for Zb¯b,

    K. Agashe, R. Contino, L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol, “A Custodial symmetry for Zb¯b,”Phys. Lett. B641 (2006) 62–66, [ hep-ph/0605341]

    2006 arXiv

  90. [98]

    The Zbb couplings at future e + e− colliders,

    S. Gori, J. Gu and L.-T. Wang, “The Zbb couplings at future e + e− colliders,”JHEP 04 (2016) 062, [ 1508.07010]. – 37 –

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.