Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 7 cited by

This paper establishes the complete O(g^6) high-temperature effective theory for gauge–Higgs models, proving gauge independence of physical parameters and uncovering a previously missing contribution to the three-loop QCD Debye mass.

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

2026-08-03 03:42 UTC pith:NPYQ6HAJ

load-bearing objection Serious three-loop dimensional-reduction paper whose central O(g^6) scalar masses and QCD-Debye-mass correction rest on an inferred, not independently computed, correction to the master integral I31111−2. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.06962 v2 pith:NPYQ6HAJ submitted 2026-02-06 hep-ph hep-th

Hard thermal contributions to phase transition observables at NNLO

Fabio Bernardo , Mikael Chala , Luis Gil , Philipp Schicho This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords thermal field theorydimensional reductionDebye massscalar thermal massthree-loop matchingmaster integralsgauge independencephase transitions
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.

This paper aims to complete the high-temperature effective field theory of gauge–Higgs models at order g^6 in the gauge coupling by integrating out hard thermal modes at three-loop level. The central results are three-loop thermal masses for the scalar and Debye sectors of the U(1) and SU(N) gauge–Higgs models, plus two-loop quartic couplings for the Abelian case, with all gauge-parameter dependence cancelling once the three-loop matching is included. A byproduct — flagged as such by the authors — is a previously missing contribution to the three-loop QCD Debye mass, traced to a subtle error in a published master integral. The payoff is that gravitational-wave observables from strong first-order phase transitions can now be computed with systematic control over higher-order corrections: for the strongest transitions, one-loop dimension-six effects dominate over three-loop corrections.

Core claim

At O(g^6), the scalar and Debye masses of the dimensionally reduced theory are determined by summing the full three-loop static correlators. The paper shows that after renormalization the two masses are gauge-parameter independent — the residual gauge dependence found at two-loop order in earlier work is cancelled precisely by the three-loop contributions. It then derives the explicit matching relations for the U(1) and SU(N) models, expressing everything in terms of a small basis of thermal master integrals with no new integrals appearing. A leftover 1/ε pole in the scalar mass, which survives every counterterm subtraction, leads the authors to identify an error in the published ε-expansion

What carries the argument

The central machinery is three-loop dimensional reduction: integrating out hard Matsubara modes to build a 3d effective theory, reducing the thousands of diagrams via integration-by-parts (IBP) identities to a small basis of thermal master integrals, and cancelling divergences with 3d counterterms. The load-bearing object is the master integral I31111−2, whose published ε-expansion the authors amend by δI31111−2; the parameter X = −2/5 is fixed by requiring the leftover 1/ε pole to vanish in both U(1) and SU(2) scalar masses. The same basis, with no new master integrals, serves the SU(N) generalization, which is what makes the correction propagate to the QCD Debye mass.

Load-bearing premise

The whole correction, including the claimed new QCD Debye-mass term, rests on attributing the uncancelled 1/ε pole to an error in the published ε-expansion of the master integral I31111−2; if the real culprit is a mistake in the paper's own three-loop reduction or a different basis integral whose (d−3) prefactor hides it, the reported masses and the QCD-Debye shift change.

What would settle it

Compute I31111−2 directly by high-precision numerical integration of the finite-temperature spectral representation and compare its 1/ε coefficient with the originally published value and with the value implied by δI31111−2 at X = −2/5; if the original coefficient survives, the pole's source lies elsewhere and the claimed QCD Debye-mass correction is an artifact.

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

If this is right

  • The standard three-loop QCD Debye mass shifts by a finite, previously missing amount once the master-integral correction is included.
  • The 3d effective theory for U(1) and SU(N) gauge–Higgs models becomes gauge-parameter independent at O(g^6), eliminating a known source of systematic error in phase-transition computations.
  • No new master integrals are needed at this order, so the same reduction applies directly to generic SU(N) gauge-scalar theories.
  • For strong phase transitions, dimension-six operator effects exceed three-loop matching corrections by up to an order of magnitude near the nucleation temperature, so the observable gravitational-wave signal is dominated by the operator basis rather than loop order.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The 'fix-by-finiteness' method is itself a transferable diagnostic: coefficients in published sum-integral expansions that occur only inside (d−3)-suppressed terms can escape validation by renormalizability in their original computation and deserve independent checks.
  • If the QCD-Debye-mass correction is confirmed, other three-loop thermodynamic quantities built on the same master-integral basis (e.g., pressure or screening masses) may carry analogous finite corrections at O(g^6).
  • The numerical dominance of dimension-six operators over higher loops in the strong-transition regime suggests that improving the Wilson-coefficient accuracy of the operator basis is a more cost-effective next step than pushing super-renormalizable matching to four loops.
  • A direct, independent numerical evaluation of I31111−2 at finite temperature — bypassing the published analytic expansion — would decisively test the X = −2/5 claim.

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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper performs dimensional reduction of the Abelian Higgs model and of SU(N) gauge theory with a fundamental scalar at three-loop order, deriving O(g^6) scalar and Debye masses, two-loop quartic coupling matching, and dimension-six Wilson coefficients. It reports cancellation of gauge-parameter dependence once three-loop contributions are included, reduced matching-scale dependence, and states that no new master integrals are needed. To remove a leftover 1/ǫ pole in the scalar mass, the authors introduce a correction δI31111−2 parametrized by X and fix X = −2/5 by requiring finiteness in both U(1) and SU(2); the same correction is argued to imply a previously missing contribution to the three-loop QCD Debye mass. The phenomenological section compares dimension-six operator effects with higher-loop corrections for gravitational-wave phase-transition observables.

Significance. If the central input is correct, this is a substantial step forward: it would complete the O(g^6) hard-scale matching for gauge-Higgs models, extend the three-loop QCD Debye mass of ref. [64], and provide the first hard three-loop corrections to phase-transition parameters. The paper is commendably transparent about the master-integral caveat, includes nontrivial crosschecks such as gauge-parameter cancellation and the same X removing poles in two different theories, and makes effective-potential expressions available through DRalgo. However, the decisive master-integral correction is inferred from renormalizability rather than independently computed. Since the finite parts of the scalar mass, the constant C3, and the claimed QCD-Debye correction all depend on that inferred correction, the headline numerical results are conditional on an external input that has not been verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§C.3, eqs. (3.10), (B.8), (C.50)–(C.54)] The central new results — the O(g^6) scalar masses and the claimed QCD Debye correction — depend on δI31111−2 in eq. (3.10), but this correction is not derived. The paper itself identifies I31111−2 only as 'a potential source of error' and fixes X = −2/5 by requiring cancellation of the leftover 1/ǫ pole in eqs. (C.50) and (C.54). Renormalizability is thus a constraint, not a test: one parameter can absorb a systematic error in the IBP reduction or in the basis identities (C.31)–(C.33). If the true source lies elsewhere, then C3 in eq. (3.9), the scalar masses, and the finite part of the Debye correction all shift. The authors should provide an independent evaluation of I31111−2 through O(ǫ), or an explicit derivation of δI31111−2, before the byproduct claim is accepted.
  2. [§3.1, eq. (3.11)] The claimed matching-scale independence is not an independent crosscheck of X. Eq. (3.11) gives ∂_t µ3^2 = −(2+5X)g^6T^2/(384π^4), so setting X = −2/5 makes the derivative vanish. But X has already been fixed by the same finiteness requirement in eqs. (C.50)–(C.54); therefore (3.11) is automatically satisfied by construction. The paper should either compute the leftover pole and the residual scale dependence from a genuinely independent master-integral determination, or clearly label (3.11) as a consistency condition rather than a verification.
  3. [§C.3, eqs. (C.33), (C.35), (C.48)] The assignment of the error specifically to I31111−2 is not established. Eq. (C.35) gives a particular coefficient for I31111−2 in the scalar three-loop correlator, but that coefficient follows from the basis transformation (C.33), which contains factors 1/(d−3)^2 and many terms; an error in any of those identities would also produce a leftover pole. The SU(2) check (C.54) is nontrivial, but it tests only that the same X removes the pole in a second theory, not that the pole originates in I31111−2. The authors should show that all other integrals in eq. (C.35) are known to the required ǫ order and that the coefficient of I31111−2 is robust under an alternative IBP reduction.
  4. [Abstract and §C.3, final paragraph] The abstract states 'we report a previously missing contribution to the three-loop QCD Debye mass', but the manuscript never exhibits this contribution explicitly. The correction enters the SU(N) Debye mass through the (d−3) prefactor in eq. (C.48) multiplying δI31111−2, so its finite value is fixed by the same X derived from scalar-mass finiteness. If X is not independently verified, the QCD-Debye correction is conjectured rather than reported. The authors should give the explicit X-dependent term in m_D^2 for SU(N) and, ideally, a numerical value for X obtained from a direct evaluation of the master integral.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'we assume X = 0' and then mentions X = −2/5 as 'slightly different values'. This is confusing because X = −2/5 is the value that restores finiteness. Please clarify whether the plots are intended as a sensitivity study or use the pole-subtracted prescription.
  2. [§C.2, after eq. (C.49)] The quantity d_A is used in eq. (C.48) but defined only after eq. (C.49). Please move the definition of d_A = N^2 − 1 to before its first use.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'previously missing contributions in these master integrals' (plural), while only the single integral I31111−2 is modified in the paper. Please make the wording consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The claimed 'previously missing contribution' to the three-loop QCD Debye mass and the finite part of the three-loop scalar mass hinge on a parameter X that is fitted to cancel the paper's own leftover 1/ε pole; the finite QCD-Debye shift is then read off from that same fitted parameter.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§3.1 (eqs. 3.6, 3.10–3.11), §C.3 (eqs. C.50–C.54), Abstract]
    "we identify the ǫ-expansion of this sum-integral (eq. (B.8)) as a potential source of error. Indeed, if we modify this expression by δI31111−2 (see eq. (3.10)), this leftover pole is canceled for X = −2/5 ... Setting X = −2/5 restores finiteness of the scalar masses in both theories. ... As a byproduct, we report a previously missing contribution to the three-loop QCD Debye mass."

    δI31111−2 is introduced with a free parameter X (eq. 3.10), and X is fixed solely by demanding that the leftover 1/ε pole in the authors' own renormalized scalar mass vanish: eq. (3.6) contains −(2+5X)/(9ε) g^6 T^2, and eqs. (C.50)/(C.54) give the U(1) and SU(2) poles that X must cancel. The same combination also controls the residual scale dependence in eq. (3.11). The paper presents no independent evaluation of I31111−2 and no calculation of δI's finite part; the 1/ε coefficient is reverse-engineered from the finiteness requirement. The byproduct — the previously missing contribution to the three-loop QCD Debye mass — is then obtained by inserting this fitted X into the SU(N) Debye-mass expression, where the (d−3) prefactor converts the fitted 1/ε term into a finite shift. Thus the bypro

full rationale

The only concrete circular element is localized in the treatment of the master integral I31111−2. The paper is transparent: it identifies the integral's ε-expansion as 'a potential source of error', introduces a one-parameter modification δI proportional to X, and fixes X by requiring finiteness of its own three-loop scalar mass in both U(1) and SU(2). The same X then feeds through the (d−3) prefactor in the SU(N) Debye-mass expression, producing the claimed 'previously missing contribution to the three-loop QCD Debye mass.' That byproduct is therefore not an independent evaluation of the integral but a consequence of the renormalizability constraint used to define δI. The cross-check that one value X cancels structurally different poles in two theories is nontrivial and lends credibility, but it does not convert a fitted parameter into a computed master-integral correction. The rest of the paper — the two/three-loop mass structures, logarithms, gauge-dependence cancellation, dimensions-six operators, and the phase-transition analysis — does not reduce to this fit, so the circularity is partial rather than total. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness-ansatz smuggling was found; self-citations such as [53,56] are used as background and cross-checks, not as the sole justification of the central derivation. Score 6 reflects that one central byproduct is fitted-input-called-prediction, while the broader derivation retains independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The amended master-integral contribution δI31111−2 (eq. 3.10) is an inferred correction to published integral data, not a new entity, and is tracked as the free parameter X. The dominant invisible input is the X-correction: it is chosen to cancel the paper's own leftover divergence, so the central numerical result is partly reverse-engineered. The remaining axioms are standard thermal-field-theory assumptions, most of which are shared with the authors' prior program [53,56,63].

free parameters (2)
  • X (master-integral mismatch parameter) = -2/5
    Introduced ad hoc in eq. (3.10) to parametrize the hypothesized missing contribution to the published master integral I31111−2 (eq. B.8). The value −2/5 is fixed by requiring the leftover 1/ǫ pole in the paper's own three-loop scalar mass to cancel in both U(1) (eq. C.50) and SU(2) (eq. C.54). The correction is inferred from renormalizability, not computed directly; the constant C3 in eq. (3.9) in
  • Benchmark parameters (BM1) = g=1, λ=0.1, μ²=−0.01 GeV² at Λ_in=1 GeV; Λ3d,opt=2.85T
    Hand-chosen benchmark used for figs. 3–5, not fitted to data. It sets the parameter region from which the phenomenological conclusions (dim-6 dominance, ratio δ[c6,O(g6)] up to 10) are drawn; conclusions are not demonstrated to be benchmark-independent.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Power counting μ²/T² ∼ λ ∼ g² with g as the expansion parameter, so that three-loop masses, two-loop couplings, and one-loop dim-6 coefficients are all O(g^6)
    Adopted from [53,63] (§§2–3); determines which loop orders are required for O(g^6) accuracy.
  • domain assumption In the broken-phase thermodynamics, λ ∼ g³, so terms with more powers of λ are further suppressed
    Footnote 3 and §4: needed to place dim-6 operators in the effective-potential expansion and to justify the small-x regime used in the comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper Renormalizability of the 3d EFT is used as a constraint to fix the unknown correction X to the master integral
    §C.3: the leftover pole (C.50) is canceled by choosing X = −2/5; the corrected integral is not computed, so the finiteness requirement does load-bearing work in fixing the central result.
  • domain assumption Completeness of the master-integral basis (C.36) and validity of the in-house IBP reduction — no new master integrals are required
    §B, §C.1: relies on an unreleased in-house Laporta/FORM implementation for finite-temperature sum-integrals; the paper demonstrates the basis is closed but this cannot be independently checked from the text alone.
  • domain assumption 3d counterterms δμ²3 and δm²D receive no contributions from higher-dimensional operators below O(g^8)
    After eq. (C.25), citing [61]; needed for the cancellation of divergences in eqs. (3.6)–(3.7).
  • domain assumption High-temperature expansion validity: background field v ∼ √(T/g^n) with n < 1, so dimension-8 terms are subleading to dimension-6
    Eqs. (4.2)–(4.3); needed to justify treating dim-6 operators as corrections to the LO potential rather than as dominant terms.
  • domain assumption External lattice and optimization inputs: 3d U(1)+Higgs critical endpoint x̄c ≈ 0.28 and optimized 3d scale Λ3d,opt = 2.85T
    Used in §4.1 to argue the dim-6 dominance crossover at x~1 lies beyond the critical endpoint; these come from refs. [88,89] and [79,64] and are not derived here.
  • standard math Standard thermal field theory machinery: Matsubara sums, dimensional reduction, Rξ gauge, background-field gauge, MS renormalization
    Framework of the whole paper; standard background in the field, invoked without proof.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35038 in / 23980 out tokens · 235316 ms · 2026-08-03T03:42:48.871302+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

To construct the high-temperature effective field theory of gauge-Higgs models up to $\mathcal{O}(g^6)$ in the gauge coupling, we integrate out hard modes to three-loop level and use the next-to-next-to-leading order effective potential. For the Abelian Higgs model, we quantify the impact of both higher-dimensional operators and higher-loop corrections on thermodynamic parameters relevant for gravitational-wave observables, finding that one-loop dimension-six effects typically dominate over two- and three-loop corrections to super-renormalizable parameters for the strongest transitions. We derive the three-loop scalar and Debye masses for the ${\rm U(1)}$ and ${\rm SU}(N)$ gauge-Higgs models, as well as the two-loop quartic couplings for the Abelian case, show gauge independence of physical parameters, and demonstrate that no new master integrals are required for the matching, while consistency of 4d and 3d renormalizability points to previously missing contributions in these master integrals. As a byproduct, we report a previously missing contribution to the three-loop QCD Debye mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06962 by Fabio Bernardo, Luis Gil, Mikael Chala, Philipp Schicho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three-loop contributions to the bare two-point fu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-loop contributions to the bare four-point fun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Debye (left panels) and scalar (right panels) mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative ratios of the thermodynamic quantities ˜y [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Transition strength αc at the critical temperature (4.28), computed using O(g 4 ) matching while neglecting dimension-6 operators. Right: Ratio of corrections from higher-dimensional operators (c6 6= 0) to those from O(g 6 ) higher-loop matching as defined in eq. (4.29). The four-dimensional couplings are fixed as in (BM1). 5. Outlook In this work, we have computed hard thermal corrections to the equ… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Matching higher-dimensional operators at finite temperature for general models

    hep-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 8.0

    The authors automate matching of generic 3D dimension-five and -six operators for arbitrary models, implemented in an extension of DRalgo with public code and examples for scalar-Yukawa, hot QCD, and the full Standard Model.

  2. Finite-temperature operator basis on $\mathbb{R}^3 \times S^1$ for SMEFT

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    The paper delivers the first complete non-redundant dimension-six operator basis for SMEFT at finite temperature using the Hilbert series on R^3 x S^1.

  3. SIRENA -- Sum-Integral REductioN Algorithm

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SIRENA automates IBP reduction of sum-integrals in finite-temperature QFT, reproduces known results to 3 loops, supplies new 3-loop fermionic reductions, and derives an analytic factorization formula for arbitrary 2-l...

  4. Polyakov Loops Tame Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

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

  5. Matchotter: An Automated Tool for Dimensional Reduction at Finite Temperature

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Matchotter automates one-loop finite-temperature dimensional reduction and supersoft matching for generic Lagrangians using functional techniques.

  6. A critical look at low-scale cosmological phase transitions in the PTA era

    hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Precision study of dark sector phase transitions finds PTA-favored parameters near EFT breakdown with disfavored GW signals after higher-order corrections.

  7. Higher-dimensional operators and Polyakov loop in hot Scalar QED from the heat kernel

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Computes dimension-six operators in finite-temperature massive scalar QED via heat kernel methods and evaluates their combined effect with the Polyakov loop on first-order phase transition thermodynamics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 93 linked inside Pith · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    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. 7Similarly, the temporal quartic couplings are linearly dep endent only for N ≤ 3 [ 80]. 34

    2006

  2. [2]

    Kawamura et al

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

    2006

  3. [3]

    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. A 35 (2020) 2050075 [ 1807.09495]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Aasi et al

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, J. Aasi et al. , Advanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) 074001 [ 1411.4547]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Caprini et al

    C. Caprini et al. , Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase tra nsitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03 (2020) 024 [ 1910.13125]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Arzoumanian et al

    NANOGrav Collaboration, Z. Arzoumanian et al. , The NANOGrav 12.5 yr Data Set: Search for an Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational-wave Backgroun d, Astrophys. J. Lett. 905 (2020) L34 [2009.04496]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Kajantie, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Gurtler, E.-M

    M. Gurtler, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, and A. Schiller, Where the electroweak phase transition ends, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 3888 [ hep-lat/9704013]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  9. [9]

    Csikor, Z

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  10. [10]

    Braaten and A

    E. Braaten and A. Nieto, Effective field theory approach to high temperature thermody namics, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 6990 [ hep-ph/9501375]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  11. [11]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  12. [12]

    Braaten and A

    E. Braaten and A. Nieto, Free energy of QCD at high temperature, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 3421 [hep-ph/9510408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  13. [13]

    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. B 503 (1997) 357 [ hep-ph/9704416]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  14. [14]

    Laine, P

    M. Laine, P. Schicho, and Y. Schr¨ oder, A QCD Debye mass in a broad temperature range, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 023532 [ 1911.09123]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Laine, P

    M. Laine, P. Schicho, and Y. Schr¨ oder, Soft thermal contributions to 3-loop gauge coupling, JHEP 05 (2018) 037 [ 1803.08689]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Ghiglieri, G

    J. Ghiglieri, G. D. Moore, P. Schicho, and N. Schlusser, The force-force-correlator in hot QCD perturbatively and from the lattice, JHEP 02 (2022) 058 [ 2112.01407]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Navarrete and Y

    P. Navarrete and Y. Schr¨ oder, The g 6 pressure of hot Yang-Mills theory: canonical form of the integrand, JHEP 11 (2024) 037 [ 2408.15830]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Gorda, P

    T. Gorda, P. Navarrete, R. Paatelainen, L. Sandbote, and K. Sepp¨ anen,A new approach to determine the thermodynamics of deconfined matter to high ac curacy, [2511.09627]. 35

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    Matsubara, A New approach to quantum statistical mechanics, Prog

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

    1955

  20. [20]

    P. H. Ginsparg, First Order and Second Order Phase Transitions in Gauge Theo ries at Finite Temperature, Nucl. Phys. B 170 (1980) 388

    1980

  21. [21]

    Appelquist and R

    T. Appelquist and R. D. Pisarski, High-Temperature Yang-Mills Theories and Three- Dimensional Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 2305

    1981

  22. [22]

    Brauner, T

    T. Brauner, T. V. I. Tenkanen, A. Tranberg, A. Vuorinen, an d D. J. Weir, Dimensional reduction of the Standard Model coupled to a new singlet scalar field, JHEP 03 (2017) 007 [ 1609.06230]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Niemi, H

    L. Niemi, H. H. Patel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen, a nd D. J. Weir, Electroweak phase transition in the real triplet extension of the SM: Dim ensional reduction, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 035002 [ 1802.10500]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    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 , JHEP 02 (2019) 081 [ 1802.05056]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Kainulainen, V

    K. Kainulainen, V. Keus, L. Niemi, K. Rummukainen, T. V. I. Tenka nen, and V. Vaskonen, On the validity of perturbative studies of the electroweak pha se transition in the Two Higgs Doublet model, JHEP 06 (2019) 075 [ 1904.01329]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White , Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions, JHEP 04 (2021) 055 [ 2009.10080]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Gould, J

    O. Gould, J. Kozaczuk, L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. T enkanen, and D. J. Weir, Non- perturbative analysis of the gravitational waves from a firs t-order electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 115024 [ 1903.11604]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Gould and J

    O. Gould and J. Hirvonen, Effective field theory approach to thermal bubble nucleation , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 096015 [ 2108.04377]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Gould, Real scalar phase transitions: a nonperturbative analysis , JHEP 04 (2021) 057 [2101.05528]

    O. Gould, Real scalar phase transitions: a nonperturbative analysis , JHEP 04 (2021) 057 [2101.05528]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    P. M. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. ¨Osterman, Robust approach to thermal resummation: Standard Model meets a singlet, JHEP 06 (2021) 130 [ 2102.11145]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Niemi, P

    L. Niemi, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Singlet-assisted electroweak phase transition at two loops, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 115035 [ 2103.07467]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    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, JHEP 02 (2023) 212 [ 2206.14487]. 36

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

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

    A. Ekstedt, Convergence of the nucleation rate for first-order phase tra nsitions, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 095026 [ 2205.05145]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Gould, S

    O. Gould, S. G¨ uyer, and K. Rummukainen, First-order electroweak phase transitions: A non- perturbative update, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 114507 [ 2205.07238]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, and J. L¨ ofgren, Radiative first-order phase transitions to next-to-next-t o- leading order, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 036012 [ 2205.07241]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Biondini, P

    S. Biondini, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Strong electroweak phase transition in t-channel simplified dark matter models, JCAP 10 (2022) 044 [ 2207.12207]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Schicho, T

    P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White, Combining thermal resummation and gauge invariance for electroweak phase transition, JHEP 11 (2022) 047 [ 2203.04284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    L¨ ofgren, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Gould and C

    O. Gould and C. Xie, Higher orders for cosmological phase transitions: a global study in a Yukawa model, JHEP 12 (2023) 049 [ 2310.02308]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Kierkla, B

    M. Kierkla, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis, Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions: dimensional transmutatio n meets dimensional reduction, JHEP 02 (2024) 234 [ 2312.12413]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Aarts et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    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 mod el, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 115016 [2405.01191]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Chala, J

    M. Chala, J. C. Criado, L. Gil, and J. L. Miras, Higher-order-operator corrections to phase- transition parameters in dimensional reduction, JHEP 10 (2024) 025 [ 2406.02667]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Qin and L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Gould and P

    O. Gould and P. M. Saffin, Perturbative gravitational wave predictions for the real-scalar extended Standard Model, JHEP 03 (2025) 105 [ 2411.08951]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Chakrabortty and S

    J. Chakrabortty and S. Mohanty, One Loop Thermal Effective Action, Nucl. Phys. B 1020 (2025) 117165 [ 2411.14146]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Niemi and T

    L. Niemi and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Investigating two-loop effects for first-order electroweak phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 075034 [ 2408.15912]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    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, JHEP 07 (2025) 153 [ 2503.13597]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Bhatnagar, D

    A. Bhatnagar, D. Croon, and P. Schicho, Interpreting the 95 GeV resonance in the Two Higgs Doublet Model: Implications for the Electroweak Phase Tran sition, [2506.20716]. 37

    arXiv

  53. [53]

    Bernardo, P

    F. Bernardo, P. Klose, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Higher-dimensional operators at finite temperature affect gravitational-wave predictions, JHEP 08 (2025) 109 [ 2503.18904]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Chala and G

    M. Chala and G. Guedes, The high-temperature limit of the SM(EFT), JHEP 07 (2025) 085 [2503.20016]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Y. Zhu, J. Liu, R. Qin, and L. Bian, Theoretical uncertainties in first-order electroweak phas e transitions, Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) 015018 [ 2503.19566]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Chala, L

    M. Chala, L. Gil, and Z. Ren, Phase transitions in dimensional reduction up to three loop s, Chin. Phys. 49 (2025) 123105 [ 2505.14335]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    X.-X. Li, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and Y. Wu, An Effective Sphaleron Awakens, [2506.01585]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Annala, K

    J. Annala, K. Rummukainen, and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Nonperturbative determination of the sphaleron rate for first-order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026) 016014 [ 2506.04939]

    arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Navarrete, R

    P. Navarrete, R. Paatelainen, K. Sepp¨ anen, and T. V. I. Ten kanen, Cosmological phase transi- tions without high-temperature expansions, JHEP 01 (2026) 113 [ 2507.07014]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Chala, M

    M. Chala, M. C. Fiore, and L. Gil, Hot news on the phase-structure of the SMEFT, [2507.16905]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Chala, A

    M. Chala, A. Dashko, and G. Guedes, Running Couplings in High-Temperature Effective Field Theory, [2510.26878]

    arXiv

  62. [62]

    Biek¨ otter, A

    T. Biek¨ otter, A. Dashko, M. L¨ oschner, and G. Weiglein, Perturbative aspects of the electroweak phase transition with a complex singlet and implications fo r gravitational wave predictions, [2511.14831]

    arXiv

  63. [63]

    Ekstedt, P

    A. Ekstedt, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Cosmological phase transitions at three loops: The final verdict on perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 096006 [ 2405.18349]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Ghisoiu, J

    I. Ghisoiu, J. Moller, and Y. Schr¨ oder, Debye screening mass of hot Yang-Mills theory to three- loop order, JHEP 11 (2015) 121 [ 1509.08727]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    Jaeckel, V

    J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze, and M. Spannowsky, Hearing the signal of dark sectors with gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 103519 [ 1602.03901]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Addazi and A

    A. Addazi and A. Marciano, Gravitational waves from dark first order phase transitions and dark photons, Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 023107 [ 1703.03248]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    Croon, V

    D. Croon, V. Sanz, and G. White, Model Discrimination in Gravitational Wave spectra from Dark Phase Transitions, JHEP 08 (2018) 203 [ 1806.02332]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Breitbach, J

    M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, E. Madge, T. Opferkuch, and P. Schwa ller, Dark, Cold, and Noisy: Con- straining Secluded Hidden Sectors with Gravitational Wave s, JCAP 07 (2019) 007 [1811.11175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Christiansen, E

    M. Christiansen, E. Madge, C. Puchades-Ib´ a˜ nez, M. E. Ram irez-Quezada, and P. Schwaller, Beyond the Daisy Chain: Running and the 3D EFT View of Superco oled Phase Transitions, [2511.02910]. 38

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [70]

    B. i. Halperin, T. C. Lubensky, and S.-k. Ma, First order phase transitions in superconductors and smectic A liquid crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 292

    1974

  71. [71]

    Dasgupta and B

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, Phase Transition in a Lattice Model of Superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 1556

    1981

  72. [72]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, T. Neuhaus, J. Peisa, A. Rajantie, and K . Rummukainen, Vortex tension as an order parameter in three-dimensional U(1) + Higgs theo ry, Nucl. Phys. B 546 (1999) 351 [hep-ph/9809334]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  73. [73]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek, and V. Vaskonen, Black holes and gravitational waves from phase tran- sitions in realistic models, Phys. Dark Univ. 50 (2025) 102075 [ 2412.10366]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Franciolini, Y

    G. Franciolini, Y. Gouttenoire, and R. Jinno, Curvature Perturbations from First-Order Phase Transitions: Implications to Black Holes and Gravitationa l Waves, [2503.01962]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [75]

    Kierkla, N

    M. Kierkla, N. Ramberg, P. Schicho, and D. Schmitt, Theoretical uncertainties for primordial black holes from cosmological phase transitions, [2506.15496]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [76]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Perturbative effective field theory expansions for cosmolog ical phase transitions, JHEP 01 (2024) 048 [ 2309.01672]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    A. D. Linde, Infrared Problem in Thermodynamics of the Yang-Mills Gas, Phys. Lett. B 96 (1980) 289

    1980

  78. [78]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov , Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction and their application t o the standard model, Nucl. Phys. B 458 (1996) 90 [ hep-ph/9508379]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  79. [79]

    P. M. Stevenson, Optimized Perturbation Theory, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 2916

    1981

  80. [80]

    Laine and Y

    M. Laine and Y. Schr¨ oder, Two-loop QCD gauge coupling at high temperatures, JHEP 03 (2005) 067 [ hep-ph/0503061]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

Showing first 80 references.