Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

Electroweak Phase Transition and Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in local thermal equilibrium the electroweak bubble wall is always a deflagration and its speed obeys a single linear formula in Tc/v and Tn/Tc that is nearly identical across three different scalar extensions of…

desk verdict A practically useful LTE wall-velocity scan with compact universal fits, but the fits rest on the tanh ansatz and need validation and data release before the universal claim is taken as law. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21213 v2 pith:7AKKHKUT submitted 2025-04-29 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

Carlo Branchina , Angela Conaci , Stefania De Curtis , Luigi Delle Rose This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-th
keywords electroweakphasetransitionbubblewallvelocitylocalthermalequilibriumdeflagrationgravitationalwavesbaryogenesisscalarextensionsoftheStandardModeltwo-step
topics Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
open problems Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
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

This paper tries to establish that, during a first-order electroweak phase transition in the early universe, the terminal speed of the expanding bubble wall is nearly insensitive to which beyond-Standard-Model particle theory produced the transition. Working in local thermal equilibrium, the authors solve the coupled scalar field equations and plasma hydrodynamics for three different scalar extensions of the Standard Model and find that all steady-state solutions are deflagrations. They show that the wall velocity is captured by one simple linear formula in terms of the critical temperature, the nucleation temperature, and the Higgs vacuum expectation value, with coefficients that vary at the percent level across models and couplings. If this holds, a single fitting function can replace expensive full bubble simulations to estimate wall speed, gravitational wave spectra, and baryon asymmetry for a wide class of models, and the local-equilibrium result supplies an upper bound on wall velocity until out-of-equilibrium friction is included.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the set of four moment constraints obtained from the scalar equations of motion under a tanh ansatz, combined with the generalized bag equation of state and the hydrodynamic matching conditions. For a two-field transition with h(z) = h_-(1 + tanh(z/Lh))/2 and s(z) = s_+(1 - tanh(z/Ls - delta_s))/2, the equations of motion are replaced by four algebraic conditions: vanishing total pressure Ptot = Ph + Ps, vanishing pressure difference delta P = Ps - Ph, and vanishing pressure gradients Gh and Gs. These are solved together with the matching equations for the plasma. The key identities are that in LTE the total pressure can be written as Ptot = delta V - integral dz (partial V/partial T) T'(z), so the temperature gradient across the wall is the entire friction, and that entropy conservation enforces gamma(z) T(z) = constant. The approach reduces the wall dynamics to a root-finding problem for vw, delta_s, Lh, and Ls.

What would settle it

Take a few benchmark points from the two-step regions of the three models and solve the original second-order boundary-value problem for the coupled scalar and plasma profiles without imposing the tanh ansatz, then compare the resulting vw, Lh, Ls, and delta_s to the moment-constraint solutions summarized in Table 1. If the unconstrained wall velocity differs by more than the fit's scatter, or if the model-independent collapse in vw versus (Tc/v, Tn/Tc) disappears, the near-universality is an artifact of the ansatz.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within local thermal equilibrium (LTE), steady-state electroweak bubble wall solutions in the singlet, real triplet, and inert doublet extensions of the Standard Model are all deflagrations or hybrids, never detonations, and their wall velocity obeys an approximately universal linear relation, vw = 1.60 + 0.15 (Tc/v) - 1.14 (Tn/Tc), with x = Tc/v and y = Tn/Tc, across the six model setups scanned. The same scan gives a model-insensitive line for the Jouguet velocity and an upper bound on supercooling, Tn/Tc >= 0.71 + 0.42 x for the singlet case. The near-universality is presented as a practical result: simple fitting functions replace the full numerical solution for LTE wall velocities, provide the first necessary step toward out-of-equilibrium calculations, and yield gravitational wave peak amplitudes and baryon asymmetries that are mostly below proposed sensitivities except in the strongest corner of parameter space.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the wall profiles have the specific smooth step shape given by tanh functions with two widths and one offset, and that solving only four integrated moment equations of the full field equations is equivalent to solving them exactly; if the real wall has asymmetric tails or a different shape, the computed velocities and the apparent universality could be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In local thermal equilibrium, every steady-state solution found across the three models is a deflagration or hybrid, so detonation boundary conditions should not be used for LTE wall velocities in these models.
  • The linear fits of Table 1 reproduce the numerical wall velocities well enough that phenomenological studies of these models, such as gravitational wave spectra, baryogenesis estimates, and parameter scans, can use them instead of running a full simulation.
  • Because out-of-equilibrium effects add friction, the LTE wall velocity is an upper bound on the true wall speed, and the regime where LTE predicts no solution is where ultra-relativistic detonations appear once friction at vw approaching 1 is included.
  • Wall widths Lh and Ls shrink as the transition strengthens, and their ratio tracks h-/s+, providing a simple estimate for the wall structure.
  • Gravitational wave peaks from LTE deflagrations are mostly below proposed detector sensitivities, while ultra-relativistic detonations are more accessible, and baryogenesis in the augmented singlet model reaches at most about 0.4 of the observed asymmetry at the benchmark scale used.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-universality suggests the wall speed is controlled by the plasma's hydrodynamic response, namely enthalpy, sound speed, and the temperature gradient across the front, rather than by the details of the scalar potential; a natural extension is to test the same Tc/v and Tn/Tc formula on other models or on transitions with larger jumps in the number of relativistic degrees of freedom.
  • A direct test of the tanh ansatz, solving the full two-field boundary-value problem without the four-moment projection for a few benchmarks, would show whether the universal fit survives or is an artifact of the assumed profile family; this is the most concrete way to check the paper's central claim.
  • The baryogenesis result implies that within LTE, even an optimized singlet benchmark struggles to reach the observed asymmetry, so the fate of electroweak baryogenesis in these models may hinge on the out-of-equilibrium correction that lowers vw; the paper's announced follow-up analysis is the natural test.
  • Because gamma(z) T(z) = constant makes the plasma profiles nearly rigid in LTE, the same fitting-function approach might be extended to predict not only vw but also the shape of the temperature profile, and hence the friction term, from thermodynamic input alone.
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 steady-state dynamics of bubble walls in local thermal equilibrium (LTE) during a first-order electroweak phase transition, for three beyond-SM models with two-step symmetry breaking: the Z2-symmetric real singlet extension (SSM), the real triplet extension (RTSM), and the inert two-Higgs-doublet model (IDM). The scalar equations of motion are imposed through four moment constraints—total pressure, pressure difference, and two pressure gradients (Eq. 2.22)—on tanh ansätze for the profiles of the two relevant scalars (Eqs. 2.19–2.20), solved jointly with the relativistic hydrodynamic conservation laws and the generalized bag equation of state, using an algorithm previously developed by the authors. For all models and scanned couplings, only deflagration-type solutions are found (hybrids included), with no detonations in LTE; the solution region is bounded above by the condition vw → vJ, and the grey zones above it are interpreted as ultra-relativistic detonations that require out-of-equilibrium friction. The headline result is a near-universal, approximately linear dependence of vw on Tc/v and Tn/Tc, encoded in the fitting functions of Table 1, plus a derived lower bound on the amount of supercooling. The fits are then applied to gravitational-wave spectra and to an estimate of the baryon asymmetry in the SSM with a CP-violating effective top-mass operator.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the Table 1 fitting functions provide a cheap, practical substitute for full LTE wall-velocity computations in phenomenological scans, and the systematic comparison across three electroweak representations is a useful consolidation of the LTE program. The paper is commendably explicit about its limitations: LTE velocities are presented as upper bounds, the planar-wall hydrodynamic description is flagged as invalid as vw → vJ (Sec. 2.2), the WKB basis of Eq. (2.16) is flagged for L_i Tn ≲ 1 (Sec. 5.1), and the absence of LTE detonations is supported both by the numerics (no stable zero of Ptot above vJ, Fig. 5) and by the entropy-conservation argument of Ref. [44]; the numerical finding γ(z)T(z) = const is a clean cross-check. The analytic disentangling of the four constraints in Sec. 4 (Ptot ↔ T−, ΔP ↔ δs, G_i ↔ L_i) is instructive and is confirmed by Fig. 5, and the fitting functions are honestly presented as empirical summaries of the numerical output rather than as inputs. However, the headline universality is conditional: it rests on the unvalidated tanh ansatz and on fit-quality statements with no uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (2.19)–(2.22)] The headline claim—the near-universal fits of Table 1—rests on restricting the wall solutions to a four-parameter tanh family and imposing the equations of motion only through the weighted moment integrals (2.22). The friction balance that fixes vw is Eq. (4.1), in which both the field profiles and the temperature profile T(z) (reconstructed from the ansatz via (2.6)–(2.7)) enter; a systematic deviation of the true two-field path from the tanh family—asymmetric tails, different relative widths, or a curved trajectory in field space—would therefore bias vw and propagate into every coefficient of Table 1. The paper provides no validation against an unconstrained solution and no test of convergence with the number of moments. I request a concrete check of the ansatz, for example by comparing vw, Lh, Ls and δs with full LTE solutions of the field equations (as in Refs. [44, 57]) at several benchmark points, or by adding additional moment constraints and demonstrating stability of the solution. Without such a check, the universality claim is not yet established.
  2. [§5.1, Fig. 6; Table 1] The fits in Table 1 are evaluated after excluding points with vw ≲ 0.54, with the only justification that the near-flat potential produces 'larger numerical errors', and no quantitative criterion for the cut is given. Because vw spans only roughly 0.5–0.7 over the entire two-step region, the cut removes a substantial part of the dynamic range used for the fit, and the later claim of sub-percent agreement between the λs = 1 and λs = 2 fits (Sec. 5.4) cannot be audited without uncertainties on the coefficients. The authors should (i) state the selection rule quantitatively and demonstrate that the fit coefficients are stable under reasonable variations of it, (ii) quote uncertainties for all coefficients in Table 1, and (iii) show the residuals of the fits, for instance the scatter of the numerical points around the straight lines in Figs. 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 and 19.
  3. [§5.4 and Table 1] The claim of near-universality is underdetermined as presented. The IDM fits differ from the SSM/RTSM ones mainly through the Tc/v coefficient (0.05–0.07 versus 0.13–0.15), i.e., by a factor of two or more in precisely the coefficient that is supposed to display model independence, whereas the Tn/Tc coefficient varies by only a few percent. Without error bars or an explicit comparison with a pooled fit (e.g., a single fit through all models and its scatter), 'near-universal' cannot be distinguished from 'noise around two different behaviors'. The derived boundary (Tn/Tc)_min in the fourth column of Table 1, obtained by equating the vw and vJ fits, compounds the uncertainties of both fits and, given the explicitly stated breakdown of the hydrodynamic treatment as vw → vJ (Sec. 2.2), should be presented with a caveat on its accuracy in the region where vJ − vw is of the same order as the numerical resolution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'Phase T ransition' should read 'Phase Transition'.
  2. [§5.3] The sentence 'The wall velocity in the Tc−Tn/Tc plane is shown in the left panel of Fig.17 for λ2 = 1 and in the left panel of Fig.19 for λ2 = 1' repeats λ2 = 1; the first reference should be λ2 = 1/2, matching the captions of Figs. 17 and 19.
  3. [§5.1] The package name 'Cosmotransitions' should be capitalized as 'CosmoTransitions' to match Ref. [81].
  4. [§6.2] The statement that the dimension-5 operator in Eq. (6.1) 'has a negligible impact on the PhT dynamics' is asserted without evidence; a brief quantitative check (e.g., the size of its contribution to the effective potential relative to the thermal potential) should be given, since the BAU results depend on this assumption.
  5. [§5.4] Given the title and scope of Refs. [57, 72], a direct quantitative comparison of the Table 1 fits and of the upper boundary vw = vJ with the model-independent LTE results of those works would help readers position the new claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: vw is computed from coupled scalar and hydrodynamic equations, and the Table 1 fits are empirical summaries of the numerical output.

full rationale

The central quantities vw, Lh, Ls, and delta_s are obtained by solving the coupled scalar equations of motion projected onto moment constraints (Eqs. 2.19-2.22) together with the hydrodynamic conservation equations (Eqs. 2.6-2.8). The tanh ansatz is an explicit calculational approximation, not a hidden redefinition of the output. The fitting functions in Table 1 are empirical least-squares summaries of the numerically computed velocities, not parameters fitted to a dataset and then relabeled as predictions; the independent variables Tc/v and Tn/Tc are model inputs, while vw is the solved output. The authors' previous works [48,56,64] are cited as the origin of the numerical method, but the method is a standard moment-projection scheme originally due to Moore and Prokopec, and the present results are produced by solving the stated equations rather than imported from a self-cited theorem. No quoted step exhibits a reduction of the claimed result to its own inputs. The tanh ansatz and the exclusion of weak-transition points could affect accuracy, but those are correctness risks, not circularity. Therefore the analysis is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of modeling choices: LTE (no out-of-equilibrium friction), the tanh profile ansatz, the generalized bag equation of state, the planar-wall approximation, and the perturbative finite-T potential. None of these is directly verified against an external benchmark in this paper. The only free parameters in the final results are the coefficients of the empirical fits, which are fitted to the numerical scan data. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Linear fit coefficients for vw (a, b, c in vw = a + b Tc/v + c Tn/Tc) = SSM lambda_s=1: a=1.60, b=0.15, c=-1.14; see Table 1 for all models
    Least-squares fits to the numerically computed wall velocities; they are empirical summaries, not derived parameters.
  • Linear fit coefficients for vJ = Table 1, e.g., SSM lambda_s=1: 0.96, -0.23, -0.23
    Empirical fits to the computed Jouguet velocity.
  • Fit coefficients for (Tn/Tc)_min as function of Tc/v = Table 1, e.g., SSM lambda_s=1: 0.71 + 0.42 Tc/v
    Empirical linear boundary marking where vw reaches vJ.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The plasma is in local thermal equilibrium, so the stress-energy tensor is that of a perfect fluid with position-dependent T and v_p, and entropy conservation enforces gamma(z) T(z) = constant.
    Section 2.1 and 2.2; out-of-equilibrium contributions delta_f_i are dropped, which the authors state makes the computed vw an upper bound.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar field profiles have a tanh functional form, h(z) = h_- (1+tanh(z/L_h))/2 and s(z) = s_+ (1-tanh(z/L_s - delta_s))/2.
    Eqs. (2.19)-(2.20); the EoMs are imposed only through four moment constraints, so the solution space is restricted to this ansatz.
  • domain assumption The equation of state for the plasma is the generalized bag EoS, p_± = a_± T^4/3 - epsilon_±.
    Eq. (2.9); used to close the hydrodynamic matching conditions.
  • domain assumption The wall is planar and cosmic expansion is neglected.
    Section 2.1, Eq. (2.5); valid for large bubbles, breaks down when the shock front approaches the wall (vw → vJ).
  • domain assumption The mean free path of plasma particles is much smaller than the wall width, so the scalar EoMs are obtained in a WKB-like approximation.
    Section 2.3, Eqs. (2.16)-(2.17); the paper notes the approximation breaks down when L_h T_n → 1.
  • domain assumption The finite-temperature effective potential of Parwani resummation with one-loop CW terms is a reliable input for the transition thermodynamics.
    Section 3; tree-level barriers in two-step transitions reduce IR sensitivity, but perturbative uncertainty is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak Phase Transition and Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7AKKHKUT

@misc{pith2026250421213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak Phase Transition and Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7AKKHKUT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21213}
}
read the original abstract

The dynamics of the electroweak phase transition in the early universe has profound implications for cosmology and particle physics. We systematically study the steady-state dynamics of bubble walls in scenarios where the transition is first order within three representative beyond the Standard Model frameworks, characterised by the presence of an additional scalar in different electroweak representations. Focusing on the local thermal equilibrium regime, we numerically solve the coupled scalar and hydrodynamic equations to extract key properties of the phase transition front: the wall velocity, width, plasma and field profiles. Remarkably, we find a near-universal behaviour across models when expressed in terms of thermodynamic quantities, that can be captured by simple fitting functions, useful for phenomenological applications. These results also provide an upper bound on the bubble velocity and represent the first necessary step for the full inclusion of out-of-equilibrium effects.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Entropy production at electroweak bubble walls from scalar field fluctuations

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Scalar fluctuations produce a nonvanishing entropy discontinuity across an electroweak bubble wall even in the zero-friction limit, showing LTE-based wall velocity upper bounds cannot be saturated.

  2. 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...

  3. Theoretical uncertainties in reconstructing model parameters with gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the conformal U(1)_X model, the daisy-resummed nucleation scheme shifts LISA-reconstructed gauge couplings by O(10%) relative to the NLO effective-field-theory result, an order of magnitude above the Fisher-matrix ...

  4. Thermal Masses and Bubble-Wall Friction in Cosmological Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Including thermal masses in both the Boltzmann source and collision terms removes the infrared gauge-boson enhancement, making W-boson friction subleading in the singlet-extended Standard Model.

  5. Strong First-Order Electroweak Phase Transitions and Gravitational Waves in the Normal Two-Higgs-Doublet Model: A Comparative Study of the Four Yukawa Types and Thermal Resummation Schemes

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the Normal 2HDM, SFOEWPTs are single-step and alignment-favoring across all four Yukawa types, yet Parwani versus Arnold–Espinosa resummation changes the viable heavy-mass range from ~1.6 TeV to ≲800 GeV and leaves...

  6. Electroweak Baryogenesis: Advances in Sphaleron Rate Calculations and Implications of Thermal Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Sphaleron rates can be computed gauge-invariantly in 3D thermal EFT, yielding a new baryon-washout criterion x = lambda3/g3^2 that replaces v_c/T_c > 1 for electroweak baryogenesis.

  7. Machine Learning Left-Right Breaking from Gravitational Waves

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An ML-guided scan combined with a high-precision effective field theory finds a small region of the minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model where the first parity-breaking phase transition yields gravitational waves detect...

  8. The Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium and Energy Budget with Full Effective Potential

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using the full one-loop effective potential with the LTE approximation, the authors find that for xSM deflagration, bag-model gravitational wave peak predictions can differ by up to 48% in frequency and 90% in amplitu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [44]

    W. Y. Ai, B. Garbrecht and C. Tamarit,Bubble wall velocities in local equilibrium, JCAP 03 (2022) no.03, 015, arXiv:2109.13710 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    D. A. Kirzhnits and A. D. Linde,Macroscopic Consequences of the Weinberg Model,” Phys. Lett. B 42 (1972), 471-474

    1972

  3. [2]

    Dolan and R

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

    1974

  4. [3]

    Weinberg,Gauge and Global Symmetries at High Temperature, Phys

    S. Weinberg,Gauge and Global Symmetries at High Temperature, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974), 3357-3378

    1974

  5. [4]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov,The Electroweak phase transition: A Nonperturbative analysis, Nucl. Phys. B466 (1996), 189-258, arXiv:hep-lat/9510020 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 1996

  6. [5]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov,Is there a hot electroweak phase transition atmH ≳mW?, Phys. Rev. Lett.77 (1996), 2887-2890, arXiv:hep-ph/9605288 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1996

  7. [6]

    Csikor, Z

    F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and J. Heitger,Endpoint of the hot electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999), 21-24, arXiv:hep-ph/9809291 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1999

  8. [7]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo],Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) no.6, 061102, arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 97 references
  1. [8]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo],GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) no.24, 241103, arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    M. B. Hindmarsh, M. Lüben, J. Lumma and M. Pauly,Phase transitions in the early universe, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes24 (2021), 1, arXiv:2008.09136 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Athron, C

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

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec,Bubble wall velocity in a first order electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.75 (1995), 777-780, arXiv:hep-ph/9503296 [hep-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  5. [12]

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec,How fast can the wall move? A Study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995), 7182-7204, arXiv:hep-ph/9506475 [hep-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  6. [13]

    John and M

    P. John and M. G. Schmidt,Do stops slow down electroweak bubble walls?, Nucl. Phys. B 598 (2001), 291-305 [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B648 (2003), 449-452], arXiv:hep-ph/0002050 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  7. [14]

    G. D. Moore,Electroweak bubble wall friction: Analytic results, JHEP 03 (2000), 006, arXiv:hep-ph/0001274 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. M. Cline, M. Joyce and K. Kainulainen,Supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis, JHEP 07 (2000), 018, arXiv:hep-ph/0006119 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore,Can electroweak bubble walls run away?, JCAP 05 (2009), 009, arXiv:0903.4099 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Megevand and A

    A. Megevand and A. D. Sanchez,Velocity of electroweak bubble walls, Nucl. Phys. B825 (2010), 151-176, arXiv:0908.3663 [hep-ph]. – 39 –

    2010 arXiv

  11. [18]

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

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Leitao and A

    L. Leitao and A. Megevand,Spherical and non-spherical bubbles in cosmological phase transitions, Nucl. Phys. B844 (2011), 450-470, arXiv:1010.2134 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [20]

    S. J. Huber and M. Sopena,An efficient approach to electroweak bubble velocities, arXiv:1302.1044 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Mégevand,Friction forces on phase transition fronts, JCAP 07 (2013), 045, arXiv:1303.4233 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Mégevand,Friction forces on phase transition fronts, JCAP 07 (2013), 045, arXiv:1303.4233 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Megevand and F

    A. Megevand and F. A. Membiela,Stability of cosmological deflagration fronts, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.10, 103507, arXiv:1311.2453 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Megevand and F

    A. Megevand and F. A. Membiela,Stability of cosmological detonation fronts, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.10, 103503, arXiv:1402.5791 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Konstandin, G

    T. Konstandin, G. Nardini and I. Rues,From Boltzmann equations to steady wall velocities, JCAP 09 (2014), 028, arXiv:1407.3132 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Leitao and A

    L. Leitao and A. Megevand,Hydrodynamics of phase transition fronts and the speed of sound in the plasma,” Nucl. Phys. B891 (2015), 159-199, arXiv:1410.3875 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Megevand, F

    A. Megevand, F. A. Membiela and A. D. Sanchez,Lower bound on the electroweak wall velocity from hydrodynamic instability, JCAP 03 (2015), 051, arXiv:1412.8064 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Kozaczuk,Bubble Expansion and the Viability of Singlet-Driven Electroweak Baryogenesis, JHEP 10 (2015), 135, arXiv:1506.04741 [hep-ph]

    J. Kozaczuk,Bubble Expansion and the Viability of Singlet-Driven Electroweak Baryogenesis, JHEP 10 (2015), 135, arXiv:1506.04741 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore,Electroweak Bubble Wall Speed Limit, JCAP 05 (2017), 025, arXiv:1703.08215 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin,Bubble wall velocities in the Standard Model and beyond, JCAP 12 (2018), 034, arXiv:1809.04907 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose and G. Panico,Composite Dynamics in the Early Universe, JHEP 12 (2019), 149, arXiv:1909.07894 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    J. M. Cline and K. Kainulainen,Electroweak baryogenesis at high bubble wall velocities,” Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.6, 063525, arXiv:2001.00568 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Barroso Mancha, T

    M. Barroso Mancha, T. Prokopec and B. Swiezewska,Field-theoretic derivation of bubble-wall force, JHEP 01 (2021), 070, arXiv:2005.10875 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Höche, J

    S. Höche, J. Kozaczuk, A. J. Long, J. Turner and Y. Wang,Towards an all-orders calculation of the electroweak bubble wall velocity, JCAP 03 (2021), 009, arXiv:2007.10343 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline,Fluid equations for fast-moving electroweak bubble walls, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.6, 063516, arXiv:2007.10935 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Friedlander, I

    A. Friedlander, I. Banta, J. M. Cline and D. Tucker-Smith,Wall speed and shape in singlet-assisted strong electroweak phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.5, 055020, arXiv:2009.14295 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Azatov and M

    A. Azatov and M. Vanvlasselaer,Bubble wall velocity: heavy physics effects, JCAP 01 (2021), 058, arXiv:2010.02590 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Balaji, M

    S. Balaji, M. Spannowsky and C. Tamarit,Cosmological bubble friction in local equilibrium, JCAP 03 (2021), 051, arXiv:2010.08013 [hep-ph] – 40 –

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    R. G. Cai and S. J. Wang,Effective picture of bubble expansion, JCAP 03 (2021), 096, arXiv:2011.11451 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    X. Wang, F. P. Huang and X. Zhang,Bubble wall velocity beyond leading-log approximation in electroweak phase transition, arXiv:2011.12903 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [40]

    J. M. Cline, A. Friedlander, D. M. He, K. Kainulainen, B. Laurent and D. Tucker-Smith, Baryogenesis and gravity waves from a UV-completed electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.12, 123529, arXiv:2102.12490 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Bigazzi, A

    F. Bigazzi, A. Caddeo, T. Canneti and A. L. Cotrone,Bubble wall velocity at strong coupling, JHEP 08 (2021), 090, arXiv:2104.12817 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [42]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin,On the wall velocity dependence of electroweak baryogenesis, JCAP 08 (2021), 020, arXiv:2106.06547 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [43]

    J. M. Cline and B. Laurent,Electroweak baryogenesis from light fermion sources: A critical study, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.8, 083507, arXiv:2108.04249 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Lewicki, M

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand and M. Zych,Electroweak bubble wall expansion: gravitational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma, JHEP 02 (2022), 017, arXiv:2111.02393 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gouttenoire, R

    Y. Gouttenoire, R. Jinno and F. Sala,Friction pressure on relativistic bubble walls, JHEP 05 (2022), 004, arXiv:2112.07686 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin,A sonic boom in bubble wall friction, JCAP 04 (2022) no.04, 010 arXiv:2112.12548 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. D. Rose, A. Guiggiani, Á. G. Muyor and G. Panico,Bubble wall dynamics at the electroweak phase transition, JHEP 03 (2022), 163, arXiv:2201.08220 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline,First principles determination of bubble wall velocity, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.2, 023501, arXiv:2204.13120 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Lewicki, V

    M. Lewicki, V. Vaskonen and H. Veermäe,Bubble dynamics in fluids with N-body simulations, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) no.10, 103501, arXiv:2205.05667 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R. A. Janik, M. Jarvinen, H. Soltanpanahi and J. Sonnenschein,Perfect Fluid Hydrodynamic Picture of Domain Wall Velocities at Strong Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) no.8, 081601, arXiv:2205.06274 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, Á. Gil Muyor and G. Panico,Dynamics of bubble walls at the electroweak phase transition, EPJ Web Conf.270 (2022), 00035, arXiv:2209.06509 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, Á. Gil Muyor and G. Panico,Bubble wall dynamics at the electroweak scale, PoS ICHEP2022, 080

  46. [54]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, J. M. No and M. Zych,The scalar singlet extension of the Standard Model: gravitational waves versus baryogenesis, JHEP 01 (2023), 093, arXiv:2210.16305 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Jiang, F

    S. Jiang, F. P. Huang and X. Wang,Bubble wall velocity during electroweak phase transition in the inert doublet model, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.9, 095005, arXiv:2211.13142 [hep-ph]. – 41 –

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, Á. Gil Muyor and G. Panico,Collision integrals for cosmological phase transitions, JHEP 05 (2023), 194, arXiv:2303.05846 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

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

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki and M. Zych,Hydrodynamical constraints on the bubble wall velocity, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) no.10, 103523, arXiv:2303.18216 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Baldes, M

    I. Baldes, M. Dichtl, Y. Gouttenoire and F. Sala,Ultrahigh-Energy Particle Collisions and Heavy Dark Matter at Phase Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (2025) no.6, 6, arXiv:2306.15555 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Azatov, G

    A. Azatov, G. Barni, R. Petrossian-Byrne and M. Vanvlasselaer,Quantisation across bubble walls and friction, JHEP 05 (2024), 294, arXiv:2310.06972 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G. C. Dorsch and D. A. Pinto,Bubble wall velocities with an extended fluid Ansatz, JCAP 04 (2024), 027, arXiv:2312.02354 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sanchez-Garitaonandia and J

    M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia and J. van de Vis,Prediction of the bubble wall velocity for a large jump in degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.2, 023509, arXiv:2312.09964 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    W. Y. Ai, X. Nagels and M. Vanvlasselaer,Criterion for ultra-fast bubble walls: the impact of hydrodynamic obstruction, JCAP 03 (2024), 037, arXiv:2401.05911 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, Á. Gil Muyor and G. Panico,Non-linearities in cosmological bubble wall dynamics, JHEP 05 (2024), 009, arXiv:2401.13522 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki and M. Zych,Bubble-wall velocity in local thermal equilibrium: hydrodynamical simulations vs analytical treatment, JHEP 05 (2024), 011, arXiv:2402.15408 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    D. W. Wang, Q. S. Yan and M. Huang,Bubble wall velocity and gravitational wave in the minimal left-right symmetric model, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.7, 076011, arXiv:2405.01949 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Azatov, G

    A. Azatov, G. Barni and R. Petrossian-Byrne,NLO friction in symmetry restoring phase transitions, JHEP 12 (2024), 056, arXiv:2405.19447 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Barni, S

    G. Barni, S. Blasi and M. Vanvlasselaer,The hydrodynamics of inverse phase transitions, JCAP 10, 042 (2024), arXiv:2406.01596 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Z. Y. Yuwen, J. C. Wang and S. J. Wang,Bubble wall velocity from number density current in (non)equilibrium, arXiv:2409.20045 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Branchina, A

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico,New calculation of collision integrals for cosmological phase transitions, EPJ Web Conf. 314 (2024), 00031, arXiv:2410.00766 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, J. Hirvonen, B. Laurent, L. Niemi, P. Schicho and J. van de Vis,How fast does the WallGo? A package for computing wall velocities in first-order phase transitions, JHEP 04 (2025), 101, arXiv:2411.04970 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    W. Y. Ai, B. Laurent and J. van de Vis,Bounds on the bubble wall velocity, JHEP 02 (2025), 119, arXiv:2411.13641 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki, M. Vasar, V. Vaskonen, H. Veermäe and M. Zych,Thermalization – 42 – effects on the dynamics of growing vacuum bubbles, JHEP 03 (2025), 178, arXiv:2411.15094 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki, I. Nałęcz and M. Zych,Steady-state bubbles beyond local thermal equilibrium, arXiv:2411.16580 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    G. C. Dorsch, T. Konstandin, E. Perboni and D. A. Pinto,Non-singular solutions to the Boltzmann equation with a fluid Ansatz, JCAP 04 (2025), 033, arXiv:2412.09266 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and J. Zhu,Bubble wall velocity from Kadanoff-Baym equations: fluid dynamics and microscopic interactions, arXiv:2504.13724 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    W. Y. Ai, M. Carosi, B. Garbrecht, C. Tamarit and M. Vanvlasselaer,Bubble wall dynamics from nonequilibrium quantum field theory, arXiv:2504.13725 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Carena, A

    M. Carena, A. Ireland, T. Ou and I. R. Wang,The Discriminant Power of Bubble Wall Velocities: Gravitational Waves and Electroweak Baryogenesis, arXiv:2504.17841 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    Gyulassy, K

    M. Gyulassy, K. Kajantie, H. Kurki-Suonio and L. D. McLerran,Deflagrations and Detonations as a Mechanism of Hadron Bubble Growth in Supercooled Quark Gluon Plasma, Nucl. Phys. B237 (1984), 477-501

    1984

  72. [80]

    R. R. Parwani,Resummation in a hot scalar field theory,” Phys. Rev. D45 (1992), 4695 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D48 (1993), 5965], arXiv:hep-ph/9204216 [hep-ph]

    1992 arXiv

  73. [81]

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

    2012 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Basler and M

    P. Basler and M. Mühlleitner,BSMPT (Beyond the Standard Model Phase Transitions): A tool for the electroweak phase transition in extended Higgs sectors, Comput. Phys. Commun. 237 (2019), 62-85, arXiv:1803.02846 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Basler, M

    P. Basler, M. Mühlleitner and J. Müller,BSMPT v2 a tool for the electroweak phase transition and the baryon asymmetry of the universe in extended Higgs Sectors, Comput. Phys. Commun. 269 (2021), 108124, arXiv:2007.01725 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Basler, L

    P. Basler, L. Biermann, M. Mühlleitner, J. Müller, R. Santos and J. Viana,BSMPT v3 A Tool for Phase Transitions and Primordial Gravitational Waves in Extended Higgs Sectors, arXiv:2404.19037 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    Hindmarsh, S

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

    2014 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir,Numerical simulations of acoustically generated gravitational waves at a first order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.12, 123009, arXiv:1504.03291 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Caprini, M

    C. Caprini, M. Hindmarsh, S. Huber, T. Konstandin, J. Kozaczuk, G. Nardini, J. M. No, A. Petiteau, P. Schwaller and G. Servant,et al., Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions, JCAP 04 (2016), 001, arXiv:151...

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

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

    M. Hindmarsh,Sound shell model for acoustic gravitational wave production at a first-order phase transition in the early Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (2018) no.7, 071301, arXiv:1608.04735 [astro-ph.CO]. – 43 –

    2018 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir,Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) no.10, 103520 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.8, 089902], arXiv:1704.05871 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  82. [90]

    D. J. Weir,Gravitational waves from a first order electroweak phase transition: a brief review, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376 (2018) no.2114, 20170126 [erratum: Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A381 (2023), 20230212], arXiv:1705.01783 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    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, JCAP 04 (2019), 003, arXiv:1809.08242 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Caprini, M

    C. Caprini, M. Chala, G. C. Dorsch, M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, T. Konstandin, J. Kozaczuk, G. Nardini, J. M. No and K. Rummukainen,et al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03 (2020), 024, arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and J. M. No,Gravitational waves from first-order cosmological phase transitions: lifetime of the sound wave source, JCAP 07 (2020), 050, arXiv:2003.07360 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  86. [94]

    C. Capriniet al.[LISA Cosmology Working Group],Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation, JCAP 10 (2024), 020, arXiv:2403.03723 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    J. R. Espinosa, B. Gripaios, T. Konstandin and F. Riva,Electroweak Baryogenesis in Non-minimal Composite Higgs Models, JCAP 01 (2012), 012, arXiv:1110.2876 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Kainulainen and N

    K. Kainulainen and N. Venkatesan,Systematic moment expansion for electroweak baryogenesis, JCAP 08 (2024), 058, arXiv:2407.13639 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Branchina, A

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, S. De Curtis and L. Delle Rose,in preparation – 44 –

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.