Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

This paper claims that the two dominant semi-classical methods for computing cosmological bubble-wall velocities agree only for mild transitions (α≲0.01) and split by roughly 40–60% for the strong transitions gravitational-wave observatorie

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 15:40 UTC pith:6HNBWUFV

load-bearing objection Useful first benchmark of two wall-velocity methods, but the O(δ²) strong-transition claim rests on an unconverged 3-moment truncation and should be treated as preliminary. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18207 v1 pith:6HNBWUFV submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Benchmarking wall velocities in cosmological phase transitions: Fluid Ansatz and WallGo

Gl\'auber C. Dorsch , Marek Lewicki , Daniel A. Pinto This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords bubble wall velocitycosmological phase transitionsfluid AnsatzChebyshev spectral methodBoltzmann equationWKB approximationthermal frictiongravitational waves
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.

The paper compares two schemes for computing the terminal velocity of a cosmological bubble wall from the semi-classical Boltzmann equation: the fluid Ansatz, which represents departures from equilibrium as momentum-polynomial fluctuations tied to fluid variables, and the spectral Chebyshev method used in a public companion code. Its central claim is that the two agree within errors for weak transitions (α≲0.01), match well when only top-quark annihilation is included, but disagree by roughly 40–60% once scattering processes are added and the transition is strong (α≳0.1). The paper also claims that within the fluid Ansatz the standard linearization fails in the strong regime: quadratic O(δ²) terms shift the terminal velocity significantly even though their direct pressure contribution stays small (≤ about 4%). Why a reader should care: strong first-order phase transitions are the main targets for planned gravitational-wave observatories, so the velocity that seeds their predicted spectra is least certain exactly where the signal is most interesting.

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a quantitative map of where two popular Ansätze leave the safe zone. At α≲0.01, the fluid Ansatz at third order in a momentum expansion and the spectral Chebyshev method return the same terminal wall velocity, with close agreement when only top-quark annihilation is retained; including top-quark scatterings widens the gap. For α≳0.1 the two terminal velocities differ by O(40–60%), and the divergence starts exactly where a diagnostic parameter measuring fluctuation size approaches one. Extending the fluid Ansatz to second order in fluctuations shows that, for strong transitions, the quadratic terms increase friction and lower the terminal velocity substantially relati

What carries the argument

The central comparison objects are (1) the fluid Ansatz, which postulates that the distribution has equilibrium Bose/Fermi form with an argument shifted by a fluctuation δ expanded in powers of four-momentum; taking moments reduces the Boltzmann equation to a linear ordinary-differential system solved by a Green's function method, with a new O(δ²) boundary-value-problem extension; and (2) the spectral method, which expands δf in restricted Chebyshev polynomials on compactified momentum and spatial coordinates and solves the Boltzmann equation on a discrete Chebyshev grid, turning it into an algebraic matrix problem. Both use a leading-log collision operator with thermal-mass-regulated t/u-ch

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on the leading-log collision operator with thermally regulated exchange amplitudes, which the paper itself says can carry order-one theoretical uncertainties; if that collision model is wrong, both methods inherit the same bias and their agreement in the weak regime would not establish the real wall velocity.

What would settle it

Take one strong-transition benchmark (for example the dimension-six model with α≈0.1), solve the Boltzmann equation with a full phase-space method that imposes no shape Ansatz, and compare the resulting terminal velocity with the two methods' 40–60% spread; also compute the largest fluctuation amplitude in the spectral solution to see whether the divergence point coincides with max|R|≈1.

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

If this is right

  • Weak phase transitions (α≲0.01) have cross-validated velocity predictions: either scheme can be used there with the disagreement inside the estimated errors.
  • Strong phase transitions (α≳0.1) are not converged across methods: a 40–60% spread in v_w means spectra predicted for future gravitational-wave observatories carry a significant unquantified velocity uncertainty on top of collision-operator uncertainties.
  • Within the fluid Ansatz, neglecting O(δ²) in the distribution function is not a safe shortcut for strong transitions: even though the quadratic pressure is small, its backreaction substantially lowers the terminal velocity, and the shift worsens agreement with the spectral approach.
  • The WKB/semi-classical Boltzmann setup is itself strained in the same region (LwT≲3), so the discrepancy should not be read as one Ansatz being correct; high-precision predictions likely require going beyond WKB.
  • Order-one uncertainties in the leading-log collision terms (acknowledged in the paper) mean the weak-regime agreement demonstrates internal consistency of the two implementations, not validated plasma physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the order-one collision-term uncertainties are real, the two methods share them; the 40–60% strong-transition gap should be treated as a lower bound on the total theoretical error in v_w, since both could be offset from the true value.
  • The R≈1 correspondence suggests a testable conjecture: any shape Ansatz that keeps the fluctuation amplitude small will reproduce near-equilibrium velocities, while strong transitions require either a fully non-linear Boltzmann solution or a non-Boltzmann treatment.
  • The velocity shift from small quadratic pressures implies gravitational-wave spectra, which are steep functions of v_w, could change by more than their nominal error bars even when pressure-based convergence tests look fine.
  • One can extend the comparison by implementing the same O(δ²) terms in the spectral Chebyshev framework; if it shows a similar velocity shift, the mismatch is physics, not a peculiarity of the fluid Ansatz.

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 benchmarks two methods for computing the terminal bubble wall velocity in first-order cosmological phase transitions: the extended fluid Ansatz and the Chebyshev spectral method implemented in the public code WallGo. The comparison is performed in two models (SMEFT with a φ⁶ operator and a light-Higgs SM-like model) and at several truncation orders of the fluid momentum expansion. The linearized analysis finds good agreement between the two approaches for weak transitions, α≲0.01, especially when only top-quark annihilation is included, and finds discrepancies reaching O(40–60%) for α≳0.1. The paper then extends the fluid Ansatz to second order in the fluctuations and reports significant shifts in v_w for strong transitions even though the direct O(δ²) pressure contribution remains at the few-percent level. The authors interpret this as a breakdown of the linearized fluid Ansatz in the strong-transition regime and note that this regime also approaches the limits of the WKB approximation underlying the Boltzmann treatment.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper provides a useful benchmark of two widely used approaches and clarifies the regime in which their predictions can be trusted. The authors are careful in several respects: the same scattering amplitudes are used in both codes, the fluid Ansatz is tested at multiple truncation orders, an equilibrium-only sanity check is performed, and the leading-log collision model is presented explicitly. The conclusion that the two methods agree precisely where the WKB approximation is comfortable but disagree where they are most needed for gravitational-wave predictions is important and, if supported, would sharpen the case for going beyond current semi-classical methods. However, the nonlinear O(δ²) analysis is not carried out at the same truncation order as the linear benchmarks, which leaves the strong-regime conclusion unsupported as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1 and Fig. 6] The O(δ²) analysis is performed with the momentum expansion truncated at order κ=1 (D=3 moments), as stated after Eq. (37) and implemented in Eqs. (38)–(40). The linear benchmarks that establish the 40–60% discrepancy and the convergence behaviour use κ=3 (D=10) — see §4.3 and Fig. 4, where the linear result is shown to change appreciably with truncation order up to D=10. The paper does not report a κ-convergence study for the nonlinear system. The large v_w shift in Fig. 6 may therefore be an artifact of comparing a 3-moment linear baseline with a 3-moment quadratic system rather than a property of the converged fluid Ansatz. This is especially concerning because the direct O(δ²) pressure ratio in Fig. 6 is only ~4×10⁻², so the velocity shift is dominated by the backreaction of the truncated 3-moment system. The strong-transition conclusion requires the nonlinear computation to be repea
  2. [§3.1, Appendix A.3, Conclusions] Both codes use the same leading-log collision operator with thermal-mass-regulated t- and u-channel amplitudes, Eqs. (65)–(67), and the paper cites ref. [30] for O(1) theoretical uncertainties in these collision terms. Because the two approaches share the same collision model, their agreement for α≲0.01 validates the internal consistency of the two implementations but does not validate the underlying physics: if the true collision rates differ from the leading-log model, both methods share the same systematic error. The paper acknowledges this only in the final paragraph of the conclusions. This caveat should appear at the point where the agreement is claimed (e.g., in §4.3 or the abstract), and ideally be complemented by a sensitivity test with respect to the thermal-mass regularization or collision-model parameters.
  3. [§4.3, §4.4] The main comparison figures (Figs. 1–3) show single fluid-Ansatz curves without uncertainty bands. Section 4.4 demonstrates convergence for the fluid Ansatz and discusses WallGo's grid dependence, but the relative-error curves in Figs. 1–3 are computed pointwise with respect to a single WallGo configuration, and the text itself notes in §4.4 that WallGo's nominal error bars are not reliable predictors of convergence. As a result, the central quantitative claims — 'essentially the same wall velocity' at α≲0.01 and 'O(40%–60%) discrepancy' at α≳0.1 — are stated without propagated uncertainties. At minimum, the figures should display the truncation sensitivity of the order-3 fluid curves and the WallGo grid-convergence envelope.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.3] The sentence 'we obtain the nonlinear fluid fluctuation profiles q(z) shown in eq. (5)' appears to refer to Fig. 5, not Eq. (5), which is the macroscopic matching condition. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Eq. (20) and Fig. 1 captions] The symbol R is defined in Eq. (20) as a z-dependent condition, but later R is used to mean max|R|, including in figure captions and the text. Please distinguish the local profile from its maximum and state explicitly that the plotted quantity is max_z |R(z)|.
  3. [§4.3] In Figures 1–3, the right axis is labeled 'Relative err.' but the caption does not always state that the error is defined as |v_w^{fluid(κ=3)} − v_w^{WallGo}|/v_w^{WallGo}. Please define this in every caption or in a common note.
  4. [Appendix A.3] The statement that the numerical results agree with ref. [23] and ref. [43] 'in the Γ_ij entries where there is an expected overlap' would be more useful if it specified the comparison accuracy (e.g., number of matching digits) and whether the same thermal masses and amplitude normalizations were used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the benchmark compares two independently implemented solvers and the O(delta^2) extension is solved rather than assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between two distinct numerical treatments of the same physical problem. The fluid Ansatz (Sec. 3.1) expands delta in powers of momentum and solves a coupled ODE system with Green's method, while WallGo (Sec. 3.2) projects onto Chebyshev polynomials and solves an algebraic system on a collocation grid. Both use the same leading-log collision amplitudes and thermal masses (Eqs. 65-67), but this is a deliberate consistency requirement for benchmarking, not an input that forces the final wall velocity. The terminal velocity and thickness are obtained in both codes by solving the two macroscopic moments of the Higgs equation of motion (Eqs. 8-9), not by fitting one code's output to the other. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the R parameter (Eq. 20) is a diagnostic, not an output used to construct v_w. The O(delta^2) analysis in Sec. 5 is a genuine extension: the nonlinear system (Eqs. 38-45) is derived and then solved numerically as a BVP, with the linear Green solution used only as an initial guess. The claim that quadratic terms shift v_w comes from the BVP solution, not from the linear input. The paper's self-citations (refs. 27-29, 32, 33, 35, 40) provide the fluid-ansatz formalism and prior background, but the load-bearing benchmarking evidence is the independent WallGo implementation and the paper's own numerical solutions of both methods. A real caveat, though not circularity, is that the nonlinear calculation in Sec. 5.1 truncates the momentum expansion at first order (D=3), while the linear benchmarks in Figs. 1-3 use order 3 (D=10); the paper does not show convergence of the nonlinear system in kappa. This affects the robustness of the strong-regime interpretation but does not reduce the prediction to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work contains no new physical entities and no fitting of a target result; M and m_h are scanned model inputs. Its load-bearing assumptions are the WKB Boltzmann framework, the leading-log collision model, the fluid/Chebyshev ansatze themselves, the tanh wall profile with two-moment matching, and the restriction of non-equilibrium dynamics to the top quark.

free parameters (2)
  • SMEFT cutoff scale M = 600–1000 GeV
    Scanned to vary the transition strength α; not fitted to data. Central benchmark curves are functions of M.
  • Light Higgs mass m_h = <80 GeV (approximately 20–80 GeV)
    Scanned to vary the transition strength in the light-Higgs benchmark; not fitted to data.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Semi-classical Boltzmann equation (WKB) applies, requiring L_w T ≫ 1.
    Section 3, eq. (11). The authors themselves note L_wT→1 in the strong-transition regime, undermining both methods there.
  • domain assumption Leading-log approximation for collision terms, with IR regulated by thermal masses, is sufficient to capture the friction.
    Appendix A.3, eqs. (65)–(67). Ref. [30] is cited for O(1) theoretical uncertainties in these collision terms.
  • domain assumption The fluid Ansatz form f = (e^{β p·u − δ} ± 1)^{-1} is an adequate representation of the non-equilibrium distribution.
    Section 3.1, eq. (14). This restricts δf to a specific momentum dependence; the paper tests but cannot prove it outside the linear regime.
  • domain assumption Steady-state planar wall with tanh profile and the two-moment matching equations determine v_w and L_w.
    Section 2.1–2.2, eqs. (6)–(9). Standard hydrodynamical treatment for wall velocity.
  • domain assumption Only the top quark is driven out of equilibrium; all other species remain in equilibrium.
    Section 4.3. Limits the applicability of the results to models where top transport dominates.
  • domain assumption SMEFT with dimension-six operator and light-Higgs high-T expansion are representative benchmarks for first-order electroweak transitions.
    Sections 4.1–4.2. Results may not generalize to other beyond-Standard-Model potentials.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24163 in / 12778 out tokens · 113803 ms · 2026-08-01T15:40:16.030263+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A reliable computation of the bubble wall velocity during a cosmological phase transition requires an adequate modeling of the non-equilibrium dynamics in the vicinity of this expanding bubble. This task can be made computationally faster by imposing an \emph{Ansatz} on the shape of the non-equilibrium particle distribution function, thus simplifying the collision terms and making the Boltzmann equation solvable in terms of some out-of-equilibrium fluctuations. Two different \emph{Ans\"atze} have prevailed in the recent literature: the so-called fluid \emph{Ansatz} and an expansion in a basis of Chebyshev polynomials, consolidated in the public code \texttt{WallGo}. In this work we show that the two approaches yield essentially the same wall velocity in the regime of reasonably mild phase transitions, $\alpha \lesssim 0.01$. Interestingly, the agreement is excellent when only top-quark annihilation is considered, but a noticeable discrepancy appears once scattering processes are included. We also investigate the limitations of linearizing the Boltzmann equation when the fluid \emph{Ansatz} is applied to stronger phase transitions, showing that non-linear contributions induce significant shifts in the predicted terminal velocity as $\alpha\to 1$, even though the non-linear contribution to the wall pressure remain quantitatively small compared to the equilibrium and linearized non-equilibrium parts. We discuss possible consequences of this result for both \emph{Ans\"atze}, while also highlighting the possible limitations of the WKB approach itself when applied to the regime of strong transitions. Since strong phase transitions are precisely the primary targets for future gravitational waves observatories, our study emphasizes that not only higher precision computations of $v_w$ in the semi-classical approach are required, but a treatment beyond the WKB approximation may be needed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18207 by Daniel A. Pinto, Gl\'auber C. Dorsch, Marek Lewicki.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Terminal wall velocity vw computed considering exclusively the tt¯ → gg processes. The left panel (a) shows the SMEFT benchmark as a function of the cutoff scale M, while the right panel (b) displays the Light Higgs scenario as a function of the Higgs mass mh. The solution from the extended fluid Ansatz at different truncation orders in momentum expansion is compared against the spectral method of WallGo .… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as figure 1, but computing the terminal wall velocity vw by considering the tg → tq and tt¯→ gg processes. Our comparative analysis reveals a strong correspondence for isolated processes, with precision decreasing upon the simultaneous inclusion of multiple channels, or par￾ticularly for strong phase transitions (lower M in SMEFT). In these strong regimes, the terminal velocity predicted by the fluid … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Total terminal velocity vw and the bubble wall thickness Lw computed considering the combined effect of all leading-log top quark scattering processes (tt¯→ gg, tq → tq and tg →tg). The left panel (a) corresponds to the SMEFT solutions as a function of the cutoff scale M, while the right panel (b) shows the Light Higgs scenario as a function of the Higgs mass mh. Solutions from the extended fluid Ansatz ev… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence of the predicted wall velocity in the extended fluid Ansatz and in the WallGo approach as a function of the number of parameters involved in each expansion. 5.1 Second-order Kinetic Terms The non-equilibrium distribution function in the fluid Ansatz is postulated to have the form f = (e β(p µuµ−δ) ± 1)−1 . Defining f ′ eq ≡ ∂feq/∂(p µuµ), a Taylor expansion yields f ≃ feq +  −f ′ eqδ + 1 2 f ′… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatial profiles of the macroscopic fluid fluctuations (µ, δT, δv). The left panel corre￾sponds to a relatively weak phase transition M = 850 GeV, vw = 0.2, where the departures from the equilibrium remain small, and the linear approximation works well. The right panel (b) illustrates a strong phase transition M = 600 GeV, vw = 0.3, where larger macroscopic fluctuations have a sig￾nificant impact when acco… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of O(δ 2 ) corrections to the bubble wall velocity vw for the SMEFT model, consider￾ing all top quark scattering processes. The left panel compares the standard linear approximation O(δ) with the non-linear fluid Ansatz solution O(δ 2 ). The dual error bars on the linear solution represent the theoretical uncertainty derived from the Jacobian sensitivity analysis: the thick black inner bars represen… 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

36 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [6]

    Heffernan et al.,LISA and the LISA Science Team, 1, 2026,2601.15365

    A. Heffernan et al.,LISA and the LISA Science Team, 1, 2026,2601.15365. [7]LISAcollaboration,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,1702.00786

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [8]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa,Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018) 163001 [1801.04268]. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [9]

    D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf,Electroweak baryogenesis,New J. Phys.14(2012) 125003 [1206.2942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [10]

    Konstandin,Quantum Transport and Electroweak Baryogenesis,Phys

    T. Konstandin,Quantum Transport and Electroweak Baryogenesis,Phys. Usp.56 (2013) 747 [1302.6713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [11]

    E. J. Chun, T. P. Dutka, T. H. Jung, X. Nagels and M. Vanvlasselaer, Bubble-assisted leptogenesis,JHEP09(2023) 164 [2305.10759]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [12]

    Azatov, M

    A. Azatov, M. Vanvlasselaer and W. Yin,Dark Matter production from relativistic bubble walls,JHEP03(2021) 288 [2101.05721]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [13]

    Baldes, Y

    I. Baldes, Y. Gouttenoire and F. Sala,Hot and heavy dark matter from a weak scale phase transition,SciPost Phys.14(2023) 033 [2207.05096]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [14]

    Jiang, F

    S. Jiang, F. P. Huang and C. S. Li,Hydrodynamic effects on the filtered dark matter produced by a first-order phase transition,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 063508 [2305.02218]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [15]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. D. Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. G. Muyor and G. Panico,Bubble wall dynamics at the electroweak phase transition,JHEP03(2022) 163 [2201.08220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [16]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico,Collision integrals for cosmological phase transitions,JHEP05(2023) 194 [2303.05846]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [17]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, Á. Gil Muyor and G. Panico, Non-linearities in cosmological bubble wall dynamics,JHEP05(2024) 009 [2401.13522]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [18]

    Branchina, A

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor et al.,New calculation of collision integrals for cosmological phase transitions,EPJ Web Conf.314(2024) 00031 [2410.00766]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [19]

    Branchina, A

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, L. Delle Rose and S. De Curtis,Bubble wall velocity with out-of-equilibrium corrections,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 035024 [2510.21942]

    arXiv 2026

  14. [20]

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec,How fast can the wall move? a study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics,Physical Review D52(1995) 7182–7204

    1995

  15. [21]

    J. M. Cline and K. Kainulainen,Electroweak baryogenesis at high bubble wall velocities,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 063525 [2001.00568]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [22]

    Kainulainen and N

    K. Kainulainen and N. Venkatesan,Systematic moment expansion for electroweak baryogenesis,JCAP08(2024) 058 [2407.13639]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [23]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline,Fluid equations for fast-moving electroweak bubble walls,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 063516 [2007.10935]. 33

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [24]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline,First principles determination of bubble wall velocity, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 023501 [2204.13120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [25]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, J. Hirvonen, B. Laurent, L. Niemi, P. Schicho et al.,How fast does the WallGo? A package for computing wall velocities in first-order phase transitions,JHEP04(2025) 101 [2411.04970]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [26]

    Fromme and S

    L. Fromme and S. J. Huber,Top transport in electroweak baryogenesis,JHEP03 (2007) 049 [hep-ph/0604159]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  21. [28]

    G. C. Dorsch, T. Konstandin, E. Perboni and D. A. Pinto,Non-singular solutions to the Boltzmann equation with a fluid Ansatz,JCAP04(2025) 033 [2412.09266]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [29]

    G. C. Dorsch and D. A. Pinto,Bubble wall velocities with an extended fluid Ansatz,JCAP04(2024) 027 [2312.02354]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [30]

    van de Vis, P

    J. van de Vis, P. Schicho, L. Niemi, B. Laurent, J. Hirvonen and O. Gould, WallGo investigates: Theoretical uncertainties in the bubble wall velocity,JHEP 04(2026) 041 [2510.27691]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [31]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe,Transport coefficients in high temperature gauge theories. 1. Leading log results,JHEP11(2000) 001 [hep-ph/0010177]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  25. [32]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin,On the wall velocity dependence of electroweak baryogenesis,JCAP08(2021) 020 [2106.06547]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [33]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin,A sonic boom in bubble wall friction,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 010

    2022

  27. [34]

    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

  28. [35]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and J. M. No,On the Maximal Strength of a First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and its Gravitational Wave Signal,JCAP04 (2019) 003 [1809.08242]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [36]

    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

  30. [37]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin, K. Schmitz and J. van de Vis,Model-independent energy budget for LISA,JCAP01(2021) 072 [2010.09744]. 34

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [38]

    Konstandin, G

    T. Konstandin, G. Nardini and I. Rues,From boltzmann equations to steady wall velocities,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(2014) 028–028

    2014

  32. [39]

    S. R. De Groot,Relativistic Kinetic Theory. Principles and Applications. 1980

    1980

  33. [40]

    Lewicki, M

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand and M. Zych,Electroweak bubble wall expansion: gravitational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma, JHEP02(2022) 017 [2111.02393]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [41]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana,Feyncalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?,Computer Physics Communications306(2025) 109357

    2025

  35. [42]

    Hahn,Cuba—a library for multidimensional numerical integration,Computer Physics Communications168(2005) 78–95

    T. Hahn,Cuba—a library for multidimensional numerical integration,Computer Physics Communications168(2005) 78–95

    2005

  36. [43]

    Guiggiani,Bubble dynamics at the electroweak scale,2401.18043

    A. Guiggiani,Bubble dynamics at the electroweak scale,2401.18043. 35

    Pith/arXiv arXiv