Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

Phase Transitions in Dimensional Reduction up to Three Loops

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-loop dimensional-reduction calculation shows that for strong first-order phase transitions, 1-loop dimension-6 operator corrections dominate 3-loop thermal-mass corrections.

desk verdict First complete O(lambda^3) dimensional-reduction matching in a SMEFT-like model; strong cross-checks, but the fixed-T* comparison is least reliable exactly in the strong-PT region the paper highlights. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14335 v1 pith:FGMZSHCK submitted 2025-05-20 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Mikael Chala , Luis Gil , Zhe Ren This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords dimensionalreductionphasetransitionsdimension-sixoperatorsthermalfieldtheorySMEFTgravitationalwavesfirst-ordereffective
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 performs the first computation of cosmological phase-transition parameters at cubic order in $\lambda\sim m^2/T^2$, the ratio of scalar mass squared to temperature squared, in a toy model built to resemble the Higgs sector of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory. Working in the dimensional-reduction framework, the authors match the 4D theory onto a 3D effective theory, including 1-loop corrections to dimension-6 operators, 2-loop corrections to the quartic coupling, and 3-loop corrections to the squared mass. They then quantify, for two benchmark points, how much each class of correction moves the transition strength $\alpha$ and inverse duration $\beta/H_*$. The central result is that for strong first-order phase transitions, the 1-loop dimension-6 corrections compete with the 2-loop quartic corrections and clearly dominate the 3-loop thermal-mass corrections; since the strong transitions are also the ones observable in gravitational-wave experiments, the ordering matters for predictions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionally reduced 3D effective theory for the static scalar zero mode. The argument is carried by matching the Wilson coefficients $m_3^2$, $\lambda_3$, and $c_{\varphi^6}$ from the 4D theory using known 1-, 2-, and 3-loop sum-integrals from hot QCD, with the power counting $\lambda\sim m^2/T^2\sim y$ and $c_{\varphi^6}\sim\lambda^2$. Three-loop sum-integrals supply the 3-loop thermal mass, two-loop bosonic reductions supply the quartic, and one-loop matching supplies the dimension-6 operators; Coleman-Weinberg light-field corrections and renormalisation-group running make the final potential almost scale-independent. The bounce action $S_3$ is then evaluated in strict perturbation theory, expanding around the leading-order solution at the nucleation temperature $T_*$.

What would settle it

Recompute $\alpha$ and $\beta/H_*$ for the BP1 and BP2 benchmarks by re-solving the nucleation condition $S_3[T_*]=140$ with the full order-$\lambda^3$ effective action, rather than expanding $S_3$ about the leading-order bounce, and check whether the dimension-6 correction still dominates the 3-loop mass correction; the paper's Fig. 4 would be called into question if the relative ordering changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a model of a complex scalar with a global U(1) symmetry coupled to N=3 fermions, in which a $\varphi^6$ operator creates the tree-level barrier, the paper evaluates the 3D effective Lagrangian to order $\lambda^3$ and feeds it into a strict-perturbation-theory calculation of the bounce action and of the phase-transition parameters $\alpha$, $\beta/H_*$, and the bubble wall velocity. The finding is that for sufficiently strong transitions, $\alpha\gtrsim0.1$, the 1-loop matching correction from the dimension-6 operator $c_{\varphi^6}(\varphi^\dagger\varphi)^3$ is comparable to the 2-loop correction to the quartic coupling and much larger than the 3-loop correction to the effective mass. The paper concludes that this comparison provides the most direct evidence to date for the importance of dimension-6 operators relative to higher-loop corrections on lower-dimensional interactions in the 3D EFT description of strong phase transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the assumption that the temperature at which bubbles first form, and the shape of the nucleating bubble, are not moved much by the order-$\lambda^3$ corrections; the paper notes this breaks down when the corrected $\beta/H_*$ becomes so negative that no first-order transition occurs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For strong transitions ($\alpha\gtrsim0.1$), gravitational-wave spectra computed from the 3D EFT should include the 1-loop dimension-6 operator contribution; neglecting it would miss an effect comparable to or larger than the 2-loop quartic correction.
  • The 3-loop thermal-mass correction is subdominant in this model and could be dropped at this order, while the 2-loop quartic and 1-loop dimension-6 terms must be kept.
  • The dimension-6 correction to $\beta/H_*$ is negative, which for large enough $\lambda$ removes the phase transition entirely; the paper shows this happens for $\lambda\gtrsim0.5$ in BP1.
  • In the real-singlet model of the appendix, the same pattern appears: 1-loop dimension-6 corrections dominate the higher-loop corrections on lower-dimensional operators.
  • Renormalisation-scale independence at $O(\lambda^3)$ requires including both 4D and 3D running plus Coleman-Weinberg terms; the paper demonstrates this cancellation explicitly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ordering found here holds generally, then SMEFT-based studies of strong first-order phase transitions that truncate the 3D EFT at renormalisable operators are missing the numerically largest missing-sector correction.
  • The quantitative ordering could shift for the strongest transitions because the paper fixes $T_*$ and the bounce at leading order; a self-consistent resummation of order-$\lambda^3$ terms into the nucleation condition remains to be tested.
  • A lattice simulation of the 3D EFT with the $c_{\varphi^6}$ term included could provide a nonperturbative check of whether the dimension-6 operator really dominates the phase-transition parameters at strong coupling.
  • A direct extension would be to compute the next order, dimension-8 operators and 4-loop mass terms, to confirm that the 1-loop dimension-6 effect is not cancelled by even higher-order terms.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the 3D effective theory for a complex scalar with a Yukawa coupling and a dimension-6 phi^6 operator to order lambda^3, where lambda ~ m^2/T^2. The matching is performed at 3 loops for the 3D squared mass, 2 loops for the quartic coupling, and 1 loop for the phi^6 Wilson coefficient, with RG running and the 3D Coleman-Weinberg potential included. The resulting effective action is used to evaluate the phase-transition strength alpha, the inverse duration beta/H*, and gravitational-wave spectra, and the authors compare the sizes of the different O(lambda^3) corrections. The central claim is that for strong phase transitions (alpha >~ 0.1), 1-loop corrections from dimension-6 operators compete with 2-loop quartic corrections and largely dominate 3-loop thermal-mass corrections.

Significance. The matching computation is technically demanding and contains strong internal cross-checks: all 1/epsilon^2 poles cancel, the leftover divergences in the matching equations agree with the 3D counterterms, the physical lambda_3 and c_phi6 are approximately renormalisation-scale independent, and the 4D running agrees with PyR@TE. If the phase-transition interpretation survives the concerns below, this is the first complete cubic-order dimensional-reduction computation of phase-transition parameters in a SMEFT-like model and provides a useful quantitative benchmark for the importance of dimension-6 operators. The main limitation is that the quantitative comparison in Fig. 4 is made at a fixed leading-order nucleation temperature; in the strong-transition region the omitted T*-shift terms are potentially as large as the plotted corrections, so the central claim needs either a consistency check or a reformulation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (36) and Fig. 4] The O(lambda^3) corrections to beta/H* are computed by evaluating T* dS_3^{(1)}[phi_c^{(0)}]/dT at the leading-order nucleation temperature T*0 and with the leading-order bounce. This is a fixed-T* estimate. Expanding T* = T*0 + delta T with delta T ~ -S_1'(T*0)/S_0'(T*0), the omitted terms in beta/H* include T*0 S_0''(T*0) delta T. In the strong-transition region highlighted in the abstract (alpha >~ 0.1), Fig. 3 shows beta0/H* = T*0 S_0' <~ 0.1, while Fig. 4 shows individual O(lambda^3) corrections T* S_1' that can exceed the leading-order value by orders of magnitude. The ratio of the omitted T*-shift term to the plotted correction is therefore not small. Footnote 2 states that the approximation fails only when the total correction drives beta/H* negative, but the same problem occurs for large positive corrections, which also shift T* and alter the evaluation point. Because the abstract and conclusions explicitly base the 'strong phase transitions' claim on this comparison, the central quantitative statement is not yet established in the regime it highlights. Please quantify the T*-shift terms, recompute beta/H* including the shift if possible, or restrict the conclusion to parameter points where the shift is demonstrated to be small. The same issue affects the real-scalar comparison in Fig. 6.
  2. [Section 4, first paragraph] The sentence 'as we have ensured in all our results' asserts that dimension-8 operator effects are sub-leading in every benchmark point used, but no quantitative estimate of dimension-8 contributions is shown in the paper. Since the abstract's strong-transition conclusion would be incomplete if dimension-8 operators were comparable, please either provide the size of the dimension-8 corrections (e.g., by the methods of Ref. [49]) for the points shown in Figs. 4 and 5, or rephrase the claim as conditional on that check.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4] The vertical axis is logarithmic and the text states that the c_phi6 and lambda_3 corrections to beta/H* are negative; please state explicitly in the caption that absolute values are plotted, otherwise the sign changes and spikes are confusing.
  2. [Eq. (38)] The displayed inequality 'T > e^{gamma_E - 1/2}/(4 pi) Lambda < 0.1 TeV' should be rewritten, e.g., as 'T > [e^{gamma_E - 1/2}/(4 pi)] Lambda approx 0.1 TeV', to avoid a double-inequality that is not mathematically meaningful.
  3. [References] Reference [84] is the same paper as Reference [25]; please merge the duplicate citation.
  4. [Section 2, around Eq. (10)] The sentence 'For relatively smaller values of y, there is no PT within this regime; for larger ones, SM-like power counting holds' is too vague; please provide quantitative thresholds or a figure, since the benchmarks are central to the numerical analysis.
  5. [Appendix D, Eqs. (93)-(100)] After shifting phi_1 -> phi_1 + tilde{phi} and working with real components, the 2-loop effective potential is reported in complex-field notation; please add a sentence explaining that O(2) invariance was used to restore the phi^dagger phi form.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: matching is computed from the stated Lagrangian against external sum-integrals, with benchmark points as inputs; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central comparison is obtained by an explicit matching computation from the Lagrangian in Eq. (1) to the 3D EFT in Eqs. (24)-(26), using external hot-QCD sum-integrals (Refs. [87]-[89]) and standard tensor/IBP reductions. No parameter is fitted to produce the phase-transition results: BP1 and BP2 are model inputs in Eq. (10), and the phase-transition parameters in Figs. 3-6 are computed rather than tuned. The claimed ranking, that 1-loop phi^6 corrections compete with 2-loop quartic corrections and dominate 3-loop thermal masses, follows from numerical evaluation of the matching coefficients, not from any equation that defines the output in terms of its own input. The self-citations [49] and [61] are motivational or methodological: [49] supplies the 'strict perturbation theory' convention in Eq. (31) and the real-scalar EFT of Appendix E, but the present matching and sum-integral evaluation are self-contained and are cross-checked internally (pole cancellation in Eqs. (27)-(28), scale invariance in Eq. (29)). The explicit assumption that T* is not drastically modified by O(lambda^3) corrections (footnote 2 and the paragraph after Eq. (38)) is a stated limitation of the perturbative estimate of beta/H*, not a circular reduction: Eq. (36) gives the first-order term in the action, and any omitted T*-shift terms would affect convergence or accuracy, not logical circularity. No specific reduction of a prediction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain can be exhibited, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative comparison rests on two chosen benchmark points, an O(1) Yukawa coupling, and the assumed power-counting regime; no parameters are fitted to external data. The paper also relies on previously computed 3-loop bosonic sum-integrals from hot QCD and on leading-order T* in the strict-perturbation evaluation of the phase-transition parameters. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Benchmark point BP1 = vP = 0.5 TeV, mP^2 = 0.2 TeV^2
    Chosen by hand to realize a strong first-order transition inside the power-counting region; the quantitative split among O(lambda^3) corrections is evaluated at these inputs.
  • Benchmark point BP2 = vP = 0.4 TeV, mP^2 = 0.1 TeV^2
    Chosen as a second point in the same region; the relative-size conclusion is benchmark-dependent and the paper only scans two points.
  • Yukawa coupling y = 0.9
    Set to 0.9 in both benchmarks; the paper notes that for smaller y there is no phase transition in this regime and for larger y SM-like power counting holds.
  • UV cutoff Lambda = 1 TeV
    Set to 1 TeV 'without loss of generality'; all dimensionful results are in TeV units, and the benchmark mass scales are below this cutoff.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dimensional reduction to a 3D EFT retaining only the scalar zero mode is valid at high temperature.
    Used throughout Section 2; the non-zero Matsubara modes are integrated out and encoded in Wilson coefficients, which is the standard framework of the paper.
  • domain assumption The power counting y ~ m^2/T^2 ~ lambda and c_phi6 ~ lambda^2 holds in the benchmark region.
    Defines which diagrams contribute at order lambda^3; stated in Section 2 around Eq. (10) and checked only in the rough approximation described in footnote 1.
  • domain assumption The 3-loop sum-integrals quoted from Refs. [87-89] are correct and sufficient for all O(lambda^3) mass matching in this model.
    Appendix A.3 states all needed cases are known from hot QCD, but only bosonic formulas are reproduced; the computation assumes no unknown fermionic or mixed 3-loop integral contributes at this order.
  • domain assumption T* and the bounce profile are approximated by their leading-order values when computing O(lambda^3) corrections to phase-transition parameters.
    Section 3, Eq. (36) and footnote 2: the paper uses strict perturbation theory with S3 = S3^(0) + S3^(1), and explicitly assumes T* is not drastically modified.
  • domain assumption Dimension-8 operator effects are subleading and do not affect the conclusions.
    Section 4 states dimension-8 effects are sub-leading 'as we have ensured in all our results', but no explicit numerical estimate or derivation of this assertion is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase Transitions in Dimensional Reduction up to Three Loops." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGMZSHCK

@misc{pith2026250514335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase Transitions in Dimensional Reduction up to Three Loops},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGMZSHCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14335}
}
abstract

We perform the first computation of phase-transition parameters to cubic order in $\lambda\sim m^2/T^2$, where $m$ is the scalar mass and $T$ is the temperature, in a simple model resembling the Higgs sector of the SMEFT. We use dimensional reduction, including 1-loop matching corrections for terms of dimension 6 (in 4-dimensional units), 2-loop contributions for dimension-4 ones and 3-loops for the squared mass. We precisely quantify the size of the different corrections, including renormalisation-group running as well as quantum effects from light fields in the effective theory provided by the Coleman-Weinberg potential, and discuss briefly the implications for gravitational waves. Our results suggest that, for strong phase transitions, 1-loop corrections from dimension-6 operators can compete with 2-loop ones from quartic couplings, but largely surpass those from 3-loop thermal masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14335 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Leading scalar potential for different values of the 3D parameters. With a little abuse of notation, φ here stands for the the real component of the complex scalar. We take λ as our power counting parameter. The rest of the couplings obey different power counting rules in different regions of the parameter space where there are PTs 1 . For SM-like values of m2 P and vP , we have (m/T) 2 ∼ y 2 ∼ λ, cϕ6 ∼ λ 2 [18, 52,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. λ3 (left) and cφ6 (right) for T = Λ/π as a function of λ in BP1, including both the running of 4D parameters and Coleman-Weinberg corrections (solid black), only the former (dashed blue) and none (dotted orange). The bands represent variations of the renormalization scale µ in the range µ ∈ [T /2, 2T], with T = Λe −γE . λ3 = λT + cϕ6 Λ2  3 4 T 3 − 9 16π 2m2T Lb  − 5 8π 2 λ 2  T Lb − ζ(3) 4π 2T m2  − 3 8π 2 λy2T … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. α (left) and β/H∗ (right) for BP1 (dashed blue) and BP2 (solid orange). The minimum and maximum values of λ where there is a PT are marked. where ∆V3 = V3(φT ) is the difference in the potential between the phases. The bubble wall velocity is determined from non-equilibrium processes, namely the inter￾play between the pressure between the scalar phases and the friction and back-reaction from the plasma. The precise … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: O(λ 3 ) contributions from all 3D physical operators to the strength parameter (left) and inverse duration (right) in BP1 (top) and BP2 (bottom). The bands represent variations of the renormalisation scale µ ∈ [T /2, 2T], with T = Λe −γE . where β (0)/H∗ is the value o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GW stochastic background generated during a PT computed at order λ 2 (dashed red), including 2-loop and 3-loop corrections from the mass and the quartic (dashed blue) and with 1-loop effective-operator corrections (solid black) in BP1 (left) and BP2 (right). To conclud…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Strength parameter (left), inverse duration time (middle) and correspond￾ing GW spectrum (right) in the model of Appendix E, which extends Ref. [49] with 2-loop matching corrections and running, for a benchmark point with (m2 , κ, λ) = (0.02 TeV2 , −0.04 TeV, 0.1). Ren…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relevant 1-loop and 2-loop diagrams for the running of the 4-point functions in the 4D theory and the 3D EFT. The cross with one circle denotes the 1-loop CT. Γ (ℓ) ϕϕϕϕ,ct. For convenience, let us also define a pole-subtracting operator K with the property that K [PI…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 1-loop and 2-loop diagrams for the 2-point function. The crosses with one circle denote the 1-loop CTs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 3-loop diagrams for the 2-point function. The crosses with one circle denote the 1-loop CTs and the crosses with two circles denote the 2-loop CTs. where qi and ri are spatial 3-momenta. The same reductions in the case of one single independent loop momentum can be rea…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 2-loop vacuum diagrams. and we compute the 2-loop contribution following Jackiw’s background-field method [92]. We restrict to this loop order because it suffices to remove essentially all renormalisation scale dependence and the finite pieces barely contribute to our…

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. Hot news on the phase structure of the SMEFT

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A full O(g^4) dimensional reduction of the dimension-six SMEFT shows that the top-Higgs operator O_tphi can trigger a first-order electroweak phase transition with zero (phi-dagger phi)^3 coupling at zero temperature.

  2. Cosmological phase transitions without high-temperature expansions

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A hard-soft split combined with a finite-temperature Loop-Tree Duality method computes the resummed 4d thermal effective potential without high-temperature expansions, demonstrated in a scalar-Yukawa model.

  3. An Effective Sphaleron Awakens

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A consistent 3D EFT computation of the Higgs phase sphaleron rate yields universal baryon preservation bounds x ≈ 0.025 (strong) and x ≈ 0.036 (weak), and shows two-loop corrections eliminate strong one-step transitio...

  4. Consistent Thermal Resummation and Phase Transitions with 2PI Methods

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 2PI-Hartree effective potential for two mixing scalars is renormalized and used to show that self-consistent thermal resummation can substantially alter predicted phase transition strengths and gravitational wave spectra.

  5. Polyakov Loops Tame Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Polyakov loop contributions to the thermal effective potential soften electroweak phase transitions, disfavoring first-order transitions and suppressing gravitational-wave signals.

  6. Hard thermal contributions to phase transition observables at NNLO

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Three-loop thermal masses and two-loop quartic couplings complete the O(g^6) high-temperature EFT of U(1) and SU(N) gauge-Higgs models, with a missing contribution identified in a known three-loop master integral.

  7. Beyond the Daisy Chain: Running and the 3D EFT View of Supercooled Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    With renormalisation-group running included, the one-loop high-temperature Daisy-resummed potential at µ=πT reproduces the phase-transition parameters of the two-loop dimensionally reduced EFT, while the no-running on...

  8. Revisiting Singlet Fermion Dark Matter with a Scalar Portal: Connecting Higgs Phenomenology and Strong Electroweak Phase Transition

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a no-VEV singlet scalar + singlet fermion dark matter extension of the SM, a strong first-order electroweak phase transition, the observed dark matter relic density, and collider/direct-detection constraints can co...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [49]

    Chala, J

    M. Chala, J. C. Criado, L. Gil and J. L. Miras,Higher-order-operator corrections to phase-transition parameters in dimensional reduction,JHEP10(2024) 025, [2406.02667]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    P. H. Ginsparg,First Order and Second Order Phase Transitions in Gauge Theories at Finite Temperature,Nucl. Phys. B170(1980) 388–408

    1980

  3. [2]

    Appelquist and R

    T. Appelquist and R. D. Pisarski,High-Temperature Yang-Mills Theories and Three-Dimensional Quantum Chromodynamics,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 2305

    1981

  4. [3]

    Matsubara,A New approach to quantum statistical mechanics,Prog

    T. Matsubara,A New approach to quantum statistical mechanics,Prog. Theor. Phys.14(1955) 351–378

    1955

  5. [4]

    Braaten and A

    E. Braaten and A. Nieto,Effective field theory approach to high temperature thermodynamics,Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 6990–7006, [hep-ph/9501375]

    arXiv 1995

  6. [5]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov,Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction and their application to the standard model,Nucl. Phys. B458(1996) 90–136, [hep-ph/9508379]

    arXiv 1996

  7. [6]

    3d physics and the electroweak phase transition: a framework for lattice Monte Carlo analysis

    K. Farakos, K. Kajantie, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov,3-d physics and the electroweak phase transition: A Framework for lattice Monte Carlo analysis,Nucl. Phys. B442(1995) 317–363, [hep-lat/9412091]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1995

  8. [7]

    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, [hep-lat/9510020]. 29

    arXiv 1996

Show all 92 references
  1. [8]

    Laine,Exact relation of lattice and continuum parameters in three-dimensional SU(2) + Higgs theories,Nucl

    M. Laine,Exact relation of lattice and continuum parameters in three-dimensional SU(2) + Higgs theories,Nucl. Phys. B451(1995) 484–504, [hep-lat/9504001]

    1995 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Laine and A

    M. Laine and A. Rajantie,Lattice continuum relations for 3-D SU(N) + Higgs theories,Nucl. Phys. B513(1998) 471–489, [hep-lat/9705003]

    1998 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Gurtler, E.-M

    M. Gurtler, E.-M. Ilgenfritz and A. Schiller,Where the electroweak phase transition ends,Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 3888–3895, [hep-lat/9704013]

    1997 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Rummukainen, M

    K. Rummukainen, M. Tsypin, K. Kajantie, M. Laine and M. E. Shaposhnikov,The Universality class of the electroweak theory,Nucl. Phys. B532(1998) 283–314, [hep-lat/9805013]

    1998 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Laine and K

    M. Laine and K. Rummukainen,What’s new with the electroweak phase transition?, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.73(1999) 180–185, [hep-lat/9809045]

    1999 arXiv

  6. [13]

    G. D. Moore and K. Rummukainen,Electroweak bubble nucleation, nonperturbatively,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 045002, [hep-ph/0009132]

    2001 arXiv

  7. [14]

    P. B. Arnold and G. D. Moore,Monte Carlo simulation of O(2)φ 4 field theory in three-dimensions,Phys. Rev. E64(2001) 066113, [cond-mat/0103227]

    2001 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Sun,Monte Carlo studies of three-dimensional O(1) and O(4)φ 4 theory related to BEC phase transition temperatures,Phys

    X.-p. Sun,Monte Carlo studies of three-dimensional O(1) and O(4)φ 4 theory related to BEC phase transition temperatures,Phys. Rev. E67(2003) 066702, [hep-lat/0209144]

    2003 arXiv

  9. [16]

    D’Onofrio and K

    M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen,Standard model cross-over on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 025003, [1508.07161]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Gould, S

    O. Gould, S. G¨ uyer and K. Rummukainen,First-order electroweak phase transitions: A nonperturbative update,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 114507, [2205.07238]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen and G. White,Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions,JHEP04(2021) 055, [2009.10080]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen,On the perturbative expansion at high temperature and implications for cosmological phase transitions,JHEP06(2021) 069, [2104.04399]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Perturbative effective field theory expansions for cosmological phase transitions,JHEP01(2024) 048, [2309.01672]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Braaten,Solution to the perturbative infrared catastrophe of hot gauge theories, Phys

    E. Braaten,Solution to the perturbative infrared catastrophe of hot gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.74(1995) 2164–2167, [hep-ph/9409434]. 30

    1995 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Braaten and A

    E. Braaten and A. Nieto,Free energy of QCD at high temperature,Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 3421–3437, [hep-ph/9510408]

    1996 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov,3-D SU(N) + adjoint Higgs theory and finite temperature QCD,Nucl. Phys. B503(1997) 357–384, [hep-ph/9704416]

    1997 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Laine, P

    M. Laine, P. Schicho and Y. Schr¨ oder,Soft thermal contributions to 3-loop gauge coupling,JHEP05(2018) 037, [1803.08689]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Laine, P

    M. Laine, P. Schicho and Y. Schr¨ oder,A QCD Debye mass in a broad temperature range,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 023532, [1911.09123]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Ghiglieri, G

    J. Ghiglieri, G. D. Moore, P. Schicho and N. Schlusser,The force-force-correlator in hot QCD perturbatively and from the lattice,JHEP02(2022) 058, [2112.01407]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Brauner, T

    T. Brauner, T. V. I. Tenkanen, A. Tranberg, A. Vuorinen and D. J. Weir, Dimensional reduction of the Standard Model coupled to a new singlet scalar field, JHEP03(2017) 007, [1609.06230]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    J. O. Andersen, T. Gorda, A. Helset, L. Niemi, T. V. I. Tenkanen, A. Tranberg et al.,Nonperturbative Analysis of the Electroweak Phase Transition in the Two Higgs Doublet Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 191802, [1711.09849]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Niemi, H

    L. Niemi, H. H. Patel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen and D. J. Weir, Electroweak phase transition in the real triplet extension of the SM: Dimensional reduction,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 035002, [1802.10500]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Gorda, A

    T. Gorda, A. Helset, L. Niemi, T. V. I. Tenkanen and D. J. Weir, Three-dimensional effective theories for the two Higgs doublet model at high temperature,JHEP02(2019) 081, [1802.05056]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Kainulainen, V

    K. Kainulainen, V. Keus, L. Niemi, K. Rummukainen, T. V. I. Tenkanen and V. Vaskonen,On the validity of perturbative studies of the electroweak phase transition in the Two Higgs Doublet model,JHEP06(2019) 075, [1904.01329]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Gould, J

    O. Gould, J. Kozaczuk, L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen and D. J. Weir,Nonperturbative analysis of the gravitational waves from a first-order electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 115024, [1903.11604]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Niemi, M

    L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen and D. J. Weir, Thermodynamics of a Two-Step Electroweak Phase Transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 171802, [2005.11332]. 31

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Gould and J

    O. Gould and J. Hirvonen,Effective field theory approach to thermal bubble nucleation,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 096015, [2108.04377]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Gould,Real scalar phase transitions: a nonperturbative analysis,JHEP04 (2021) 057, [2101.05528]

    O. Gould,Real scalar phase transitions: a nonperturbative analysis,JHEP04 (2021) 057, [2101.05528]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    P. M. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen and J. ¨Osterman,Robust approach to thermal resummation: Standard Model meets a singlet,JHEP06(2021) 130, [2102.11145]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Niemi, P

    L. Niemi, P. Schicho and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Singlet-assisted electroweak phase transition at two loops,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 115035, [2103.07467]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    J. E. Camargo-Molina, R. Enberg and J. L¨ ofgren,A new perspective on the electroweak phase transition in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP 10(2021) 127, [2103.14022]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Niemi, K

    L. Niemi, K. Rummukainen, R. Sepp¨ a and D. J. Weir,Infrared physics of the 3D SU(2) adjoint Higgs model at the crossover transition,JHEP02(2023) 212, [2206.14487]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Ekstedt,Convergence of the nucleation rate for first-order phase transitions, Phys

    A. Ekstedt,Convergence of the nucleation rate for first-order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 095026, [2205.05145]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould and J. L¨ ofgren,Radiative first-order phase transitions to next-to-next-to-leading order,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 036012, [2205.07241]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Biondini, P

    S. Biondini, P. Schicho and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Strong electroweak phase transition in t-channel simplified dark matter models,JCAP10(2022) 044, [2207.12207]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Schicho, T

    P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen and G. White,Combining thermal resummation and gauge invariance for electroweak phase transition,JHEP11(2022) 047, [2203.04284]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [44]

    L¨ ofgren, M

    J. L¨ ofgren, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Schicho and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Nucleation at Finite Temperature: A Gauge-Invariant Perturbative Framework,Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(2023) 251801, [2112.05472]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Gould and C

    O. Gould and C. Xie,Higher orders for cosmological phase transitions: a global study in a Yukawa model,JHEP12(2023) 049, [2310.02308]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Kierkla, B

    M. Kierkla, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen and J. van de Vis,Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions: dimensional transmutation meets dimensional reduction,JHEP02(2024) 234, [2312.12413]. 32

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Aarts et al.,Phase Transitions in Particle Physics: Results and Perspectives from Lattice Quantum Chromo-Dynamics,Prog

    G. Aarts et al.,Phase Transitions in Particle Physics: Results and Perspectives from Lattice Quantum Chromo-Dynamics,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.133(2023) 104070, [2301.04382]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Niemi, M

    L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Xia,Nonperturbative study of the electroweak phase transition in the real scalar singlet extended standard model, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 115016, [2405.01191]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Qin and L

    R. Qin and L. Bian,First-order electroweak phase transition at finite density,JHEP 08(2024) 157, [2407.01981]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gould and P

    O. Gould and P. Saffin,Perturbative gravitational wave predictions for the real-scalar extended Standard Model,2411.08951

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Camargo-Molina, R

    E. Camargo-Molina, R. Enberg and J. L¨ ofgren,A Catalog of First-Order Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, 2410.23210

  45. [53]

    Niemi and T

    L. Niemi and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Investigating two-loop effects for first-order electroweak phase transitions,2408.15912

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kierkla, P

    M. Kierkla, P. Schicho, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen and J. van de Vis, Finite-temperature bubble nucleation with shifting scale hierarchies,2503.13597

  47. [55]

    G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner and E. S. Phinney,Laser interferometry for the big bang observer,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 4887–4894

    2006

  48. [56]

    Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO, Class

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

    2006

  49. [57]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai and Y.-Z. Zhang,Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) 2050075, [1807.09495]. [58]LIGO Scientificcollaboration, J. Aasi et al.,Advanced LIGO,Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 074001, [1411.4547]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [59]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Bernardo, P

    F. Bernardo, P. Klose, P. Schicho and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Higher-dimensional operators at finite-temperature affect gravitational-wave predictions,2503.18904. 33

    arXiv

  52. [61]

    Chala and G

    M. Chala and G. Guedes,The High-Temperature Limit of the SM(EFT), 2503.20016

    arXiv

  53. [62]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621–653

    1986

  54. [63]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [1008.4884]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [64]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu and Y.-H. Zheng,Operators for generic effective field theory at any dimension: on-shell amplitude basis construction,JHEP 04(2022) 140, [2201.04639]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Sartore and I

    L. Sartore and I. Schienbein,PyR@TE 3,Comput. Phys. Commun.261(2021) 107819, [2007.12700]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [66]

    S. R. Coleman,The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,Phys. Rev. D15(1977) 2929–2936

    1977

  58. [67]

    Ekstedt,Bubble nucleation to all orders,JHEP08(2022) 115, [2201.07331]

    A. Ekstedt,Bubble nucleation to all orders,JHEP08(2022) 115, [2201.07331]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Guada, M

    V. Guada, M. Nemevˇ sek and M. Pintar,FindBounce: Package for multi-field bounce actions,Comput. Phys. Commun.256(2020) 107480, [2002.00881]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [69]

    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

  61. [70]

    Masoumi, K

    A. Masoumi, K. D. Olum and B. Shlaer,Efficient numerical solution to vacuum decay with many fields,JCAP01(2017) 051, [1610.06594]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, M. Bardsley, A. Fowlie, D. Harries and G. White, BubbleProfiler: finding the field profile and action for cosmological phase transitions,Comput. Phys. Commun.244(2019) 448–468, [1901.03714]

    2019

  63. [72]

    Sato,SimpleBounce : a simple package for the false vacuum decay,Comput

    R. Sato,SimpleBounce : a simple package for the false vacuum decay,Comput. Phys. Commun.258(2021) 107566, [1908.10868]

    2021

  64. [73]

    Hua and J

    B. Hua and J. Zhu,VacuumTunneling: A package to solve bounce equation with renormalization factor,2501.15236

    arXiv

  65. [74]

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

    M. Quiros,Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions, inICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology, pp. 187–259, 1, 1999. hep-ph/9901312. 34

    1999 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Athron, C

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

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    D. J. Weir,Gravitational waves from a first order electroweak phase transition: a brief review,Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376(2018) 20170126, [1705.01783]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [77]

    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, [2111.02393]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Laurent and J

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

    2022 arXiv

  70. [79]

    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,2411.04970

    arXiv

  71. [80]

    C. Tian, X. Wang and C. Bal´ azs,Gravitational waves from cosmological first-order phase transitions with precise hydrodynamics,2409.14505

    arXiv

  72. [81]

    Chen and Y

    H. Chen and Y. Jiang,A Comprehensive Framework for Electroweak Phase Transitions: Thermal History and Dynamics from Bubble Nucleation to Percolation,2503.00421

    arXiv

  73. [82]

    Carena, A

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

    arXiv

  74. [83]

    D. J. Weir,PTPlot: a tool for exploring the gravitational wave power spectrum from first-order phase transitions,Zenodo(2022)

    2022

  75. [84]

    Laine, P

    M. Laine, P. Schicho and Y. Schr¨ oder,A QCD Debye mass in a broad temperature range,Physical Review D101(Jan., 2020)

    2020

  76. [85]

    A. I. Davydychev, P. Navarrete and Y. Schr¨ oder,Factorizing two-loop vacuum sum-integrals,JHEP02(2024) 104, [2312.17367]

    2024

  77. [86]

    Nishimura and Y

    M. Nishimura and Y. Schroder,IBP methods at finite temperature,JHEP09 (2012) 051, [1207.4042]

    2012 arXiv

  78. [87]

    M¨ oller and Y

    J. M¨ oller and Y. Schr¨ oder,Open problems in hot QCD,Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements205–206(Aug., 2010) 218–223

    2010

  79. [88]

    Arnold and C

    P. Arnold and C. Zhai,Three-loop free energy for pure gauge QCD,Physical Review D50(Dec., 1994) 7603–7623. 35

    1994

  80. [89]

    Schr¨ oder,A fresh look on three-loop sum-integrals,Journal of High Energy Physics2012(Aug., 2012)

    Y. Schr¨ oder,A fresh look on three-loop sum-integrals,Journal of High Energy Physics2012(Aug., 2012)

    2012

  81. [90]

    M. D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press, 3, 2014

    2014

  82. [91]

    A. I. Davydychev and J. B. Tausk,Two loop selfenergy diagrams with different masses and the momentum expansion,Nucl. Phys. B397(1993) 123–142

    1993

  83. [92]

    Jackiw,Functional evaluation of the effective potential,Phys

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

    1974

  84. [93]

    A. K. Rajantie,Feynman diagrams to three loops in three-dimensional field theory, Nucl. Phys. B480(1996) 729–752, [hep-ph/9606216]

    1996 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.