Hubble-induced phase transitions in the Standard Model and beyond

Giorgio Laverda; Javier Rubio

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Hubble-induced phase transitions in the Standard Model and beyond

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 A curvature-induced phase transition after inflation can reheat the Universe and leave a MHz–GHz gravitational-wave background.

desk verdict A clear proceedings-level review of Hubble-induced phase transitions, useful as an entry point but not a new result, with the reheating-to-SM step more conditional than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00900 v1 pith:YVFQGH4M submitted 2025-05-01 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Javier Rubio , Giorgio Laverda This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords Hubble-inducedphasetransitionskinationnon-minimalcouplingtogravityRiccireheatingspectatorscalarfieldsdomainwallsstochasticgravitational-wavebackgroundHiggsvacuumstability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a changing cosmic expansion rate can by itself trigger a phase transition in any spectator scalar field that is non-minimally coupled to gravity. During a kination epoch, the Ricci scalar turns negative and the field's effective mass squared becomes tachyonic, spontaneously breaking the field's symmetry and amplifying long-wavelength fluctuations. The resulting inhomogeneous evolution forms transient domain walls, transfers energy into relativistic degrees of freedom, and drives the Universe to a radiation-dominated phase, a process the authors call Ricci reheating. The same mechanism applied to the Standard Model Higgs yields a narrow parameter window in which the Higgs reheats the Universe without destabilizing the electroweak vacuum, and leaves a stochastic gravitational-wave background peaked at MHz–GHz frequencies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the non-minimal curvature coupling $-\frac12\xi R\chi^2$, which turns the expansion history into a time-dependent mass for the spectator. In a flat FLRW background $R=3(1-3w)H^2$, so the effective mass squared is positive during inflation ($w\approx -1$) and negative during kination ($w\approx 1$). The transition is described by the rescaled Fourier equation $Y''_\kappa+\omega^2_\kappa(z)Y_\kappa=0$ with $\omega^2_\kappa=\kappa^2-M(z)^2$, which has a tachyonic band $H(z)\lesssim \kappa\lesssim (4\nu^2-1)^{1/2}H(z)$ when $\nu=\sqrt{3\xi/2}>1/2$; growth in this band amplifies field fluctuations and seeds the domain structure. Lattice simulations then carry the argument through the non-linear regime, showing wall formation, wall dissolution, virialization to $w_\chi\approx 1/3$, and gravitational-wave emission.

What would settle it

Run a lattice simulation that includes full backreaction of the spectator on the FLRW geometry from an initial amplitude close to zero: if the field does not reach $w_\chi=1/3$ before the curvature-induced mass disappears, the reheating claim fails. Observationally, any evidence that the post-inflationary equation of state was never stiff ($w\approx 1$) would remove the negative Ricci scalar on which the entire transition depends.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that during a kination phase with inflaton equation of state $w\approx 1$, the Ricci scalar $R=3(1-3w)H^2$ is negative, so a spectator field $\chi$ with action containing $-\frac12\xi R\chi^2-\frac14\lambda\chi^4$ develops a negative effective mass squared $M_{\rm eff}^2\approx \xi R$. The sign flip acts as a quench: the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-symmetric vacuum becomes unstable and $\chi$ fragments into domains separated by domain walls rather than rolling coherently to a minimum. As $H$ decays the curvature-induced mass fades, the walls dissolve, and the system virializes with equation of state $w_\chi=1/3$, converting vacuum and kinetic energy into relativistic quanta. Lattice-calibrated fits give parametric control over the virialization time, the spectator energy density at radiation onset, and the gravitational-wave spectrum. For the Standard Model Higgs, the authors find successful Higgs reheating requires $H_{\rm kin}\gtrsim 10^{5.5}\,\text{GeV}$, while electroweak vacuum stability, the top quark mass, and the non-minimal coupling jointly cap the allowed $H_{\rm kin}$.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism presupposes that inflation is followed by a kination phase, with inflaton equation of state $w\approx 1$, so that the Ricci scalar turns negative, and that the spectator field is subdominant enough not to backreact on the background expansion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the mechanism is correct, any kination phase with a non-minimally coupled spectator ends in radiation domination even if the inflaton never decays.
The domain walls and strings produced are transient, so the conventional cosmological relic problem for topological defects does not apply.
The gravitational-wave background has a steep $f^3$ infrared rise and a broken-power-law peak whose amplitude encodes $H_{\rm kin}$, $\Theta_{\rm ht}$, and the symmetry-breaking scale, separating it from inflationary and bubble-collision spectra.
In the Higgs case, the allowed parameter space links collider measurements of the top quark and Higgs masses to the post-inflationary expansion history.
The minimal number of e-folds required to solve the flatness and horizon problems shifts by $\frac14\ln(1+z_{\rm rad}/\nu)$ and $\frac14\ln(\Theta_{\rm ht}/10^{-8})$, so predictions for quintessential inflation depend on the Hubble-induced transition parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the same quench-like mechanism should operate for any scalar sector during any stiff epoch, so axion-like fields or GUT Higgses with $\xi>1/6$ would produce cosmic strings or monopoles instead of walls.
Beyond the paper: gravitational coupling becomes a universal reheating channel, so constraints on kination models ought to include curvature-induced particle production even for a fully decoupled inflaton.
Beyond the paper: top quark mass refinements act as a cosmological discriminator, since lower $m_t$ widens the stable Higgs-reheating window while central or higher values tighten it.
Beyond the paper: a null result in MHz–GHz gravitational-wave searches could exclude high-scale kination reheating, while a positive detection would require the accompanying high-frequency tensor tilt to separate Hubble-induced transitions from other sources.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Quick take: this is a review article for a proceedings, so judge it as one. It contains no new equations or simulations; the quantitative results are fitting formulas from the group's earlier lattice papers. Read that way, it is a clear, useful survey of Hubble-induced phase transitions. The linear analysis in Sec. 3 is standard, and the paper is honest about the non-thermal, far-from-equilibrium nature of the produced particle distribution.

The main soft spot is the leap from a non-thermal scalar fluid to a Standard Model radiation bath. The lattice fits describe a λχ^4 spectator with no SM interactions. The paper admits the spectrum is non-thermal and that thermalization may need additional scattering. Then Eq. (13) just assumes thermalization by that time and assigns a temperature using g_ht*=106.75. For a generic spectator with no SM couplings, that is not the visible bath; it is a hidden sector with its own effective temperature. Calling that 'reheating' overstates the mechanism unless the spectator eventually dumps energy into SM fields. For the Higgs realization the SM couplings are there, but 'rather fast thermalization' is asserted, not computed. A quantitative estimate of the thermalization/decay rate relative to H at z_rad is missing. That is a genuine gap, though it is a gap in the underlying research program rather than a mistake in this review.

Minor notes: the fitting formulas come with no error bars; the Higgs stability discussion depends on top mass and fine print like the 1% cutoff bound. These are inherited from the cited papers. The reference list is heavily self-referential, but that is appropriate for a summary of one group's line of work, and the earlier papers are real and checkable.

Who this is for: a reader who wants a map of the HIPT idea and its GW predictions plus the Higgs application without digging through six papers. That is a legitimate audience. As a proceedings review it deserves a serious referee, primarily to press the authors on the reheating/thermalization wording and to make the 'hidden sector vs SM bath' distinction explicit. I would accept it with revision, and I would not desk-reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reviews Hubble-induced phase transitions (HIPTs), in which a spectator scalar field non-minimally coupled to gravity undergoes a tachyonic instability after inflation when the Ricci scalar becomes negative during a kination epoch. It surveys the linear amplification of fluctuations, the nonlinear formation and subsequent disappearance of transient domain walls, the approach of the spectator energy density to a radiation-like equation of state, and the resulting claims of Ricci reheating and gravitational wave production. The quantitative content is largely a summary of the authors' previous lattice-simulation results, including fitting formulas for the virialization time, the spectator energy density at radiation domination, the reheating efficiency, and the gravitational wave spectrum. The paper then applies the mechanism to the Standard Model Higgs, discussing vacuum stability constraints, the window for successful Higgs reheating, and the resulting high-frequency gravitational wave predictions.

Significance. If the mechanism works, it offers a purely gravitational and minimal route from inflation to the hot Big Bang in quintessential inflation scenarios, with transient topological defects that avoid the standard domain-wall problem and a distinctive high-frequency gravitational wave spectrum that is in principle falsifiable. The paper usefully consolidates the authors' recent quantitative results, and it deserves credit for explicitly flagging that the produced spectrum is non-thermal and that further scattering is needed for true thermalization. The limitations discussed in the referee report are matters of presentation and support rather than obvious errors in the underlying derivations, but the reheating claim as stated in the abstract is stronger than what the simulations alone demonstrate.

major comments (3)

[Section 5 and abstract] The central 'reheating' claim is not established for a generic spectator field. The lattice fits in Eqs. (8)-(12) describe only a lambda chi^4 sector, and the text after Fig. 7 explicitly states that the produced spectrum is 'far from equilibrium and therefore non-thermal' and that 'thermalization to a true radiation bath may require further scattering processes after w=1/3 is reached.' Nevertheless Eq. (13) assumes thermalization by that time and assigns a visible-sector temperature with g*^ht = 106.75. For a hidden spectator with no Standard Model couplings, the w=1/3 fluid is a hidden radiation-like sector rather than the visible radiation bath, so the abstract's statement that HIPTs '(re)heat the Universe' is not demonstrated by the simulations described. Please either provide a quantitative estimate of the thermalization or decay rate relative to H(z_rad), as is implicitly needed for the Higgs case, or consistently qualify the generic claim as the production of a hidden radiation-like component that can reheat only if it subsequently couples to the Standard Model.
[Section 5 Eqs. (8)-(12); Section 6 Eqs. (15)-(18) and (21)] The quantitative predictions rest on fitting formulas whose accuracy and systematic uncertainties are not reported in this manuscript. The text claims that these parametric expressions 'allow one to bypass expensive simulations... offering predictive control over the (re)heating dynamics across a wide range of lambda and xi,' but no error bars, goodness-of-fit statistics, or lattice convergence checks are given for the coefficients gamma_i, delta_i, alpha_i, beta_i, or the spectral shape parameters (a,b,c). Since Eqs. (12), (19), and (20) feed directly into the reheating temperature and the present-day gravitational wave amplitude, please include the fit uncertainties and a statement of validation, or explicitly state that this is a review and that the fitting accuracies are established in the cited works [1] and [13].
[Section 7, Higgs realization] The application to the Standard Model Higgs does not fully justify the use of the constant-lambda fits of the preceding sections. The general fits are obtained for a fixed self-coupling lambda, while the Higgs quartic coupling in Eq. (22) runs strongly with renormalization scale and may approach zero or become negative at the field values relevant during kination. Section 7 says that the dynamics 'are essentially the same as described in general,' but it does not quantify how the running of lambda modifies z_rad, Theta_ht, or the gravitational wave spectrum, and it does not discuss whether the neglected Higgs couplings to gauge bosons and fermions could dissipate energy before the virialization time. Please clarify which value(s) of lambda are used when applying the lattice fits to the Higgs and whether the quoted predictions have been validated for a running coupling, or restrict the claims to the constant-coupling approximation.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (20)] The quantity a_rad in the peak-frequency formula is not defined; please specify that it is the scale factor at radiation domination normalized by a_kin (or state the convention used elsewhere in the paper).
[Eq. (13)] The value g*^ht = 106.75 is the Standard Model number of relativistic degrees of freedom; for a hidden spectator sector the relation between rho_chi^ht and a temperature should use the hidden-sector g*, or the quantity should not be called the reheating temperature.
[Figures 1-7] Several figures are reproduced from earlier papers and are captioned only as 'Taken from...'; please state explicitly in each caption the original reference, the kind of permission obtained, and whether any modifications were made.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption phrase 'range of momenta outside the initial amplification band, defined by kappa > kappa(z=0)' is confusing and appears inconsistent with the instability condition H(z) less than or similar to kappa less than or similar to (4 nu^2 - 1)^1/2 H(z); please correct the wording.
[Eq. (15)] Please state explicitly why the normalized peak amplitude Omega_GW,p carries a factor (H_kin/10^10 GeV)^2 in the fit; if Omega_GW,p is defined as rho_GW/|rho_chi|, a dimensionless ratio from a single-scale problem should not retain an explicit H_kin normalization, and the definition should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's quantitative claims are openly labeled lattice fits, and the physics chain from action to observables is self-contained; the thermalization assumption is a flagged limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

This is a review article whose quantitative content is taken from the authors' own earlier lattice-simulation papers, so self-citation is pervasive. But the cited items are concrete numerical computations from the explicit action (1), not assumptions equivalent to the conclusions. The fitting formulas in Eqs. (8)-(12) and (15)-(21) are transparently presented as fits ('well described by the fitting formula', 'analytic fit', 'simple parametric fitting formulas'), and their use to 'bypass expensive simulations' is interpolation over the same simulation ensemble, not a separate prediction forced by construction. The central derivation chain — R = 3(1-3w)H^2 in kination, tachyonic instability, domain-wall formation, virialization to w = 1/3, and GW sourcing — follows from the stated theory and the lattice evolution of that theory. The one genuinely load-bearing extra input is Eq. (13)'s assumption that the w = 1/3 spectator fluid thermalizes into a Standard Model bath by z_rad. The paper itself flags this as an assumption: the produced spectrum is 'far from equilibrium and therefore non-thermal', and 'thermalization to a true radiation bath may require further scattering processes after w = 1/3 is reached'. For a generic spectator with no SM couplings this weakens the 'reheating' label, and for the Higgs realization the omitted perturbative couplings could alter the dynamics; however, this is an unverified physical assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The reheating temperature is defined from the simulated energy density, not assumed in the action, and the GW spectra are fitted outputs of the same simulations. The Higgs stability analysis is likewise based on prior work by the same authors, which raises verification/reliability concerns but does not make the argument tautological. Overall, no step reduces by definition to its input, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities. The quantitative content consists of fitting formulas calibrated on the authors' own lattice simulations, so the listed coefficients are the effective free parameters inherited from prior work. The axioms are the standard assumptions of the setup: a kination phase, a subdominant spectator, and neglect of a bare mass term.

free parameters (12)

gamma1(lambda) = 33.63 + 15.02n - 0.22n^2, n = -log10(lambda)
Coefficient in the virialization time fit, Eq. (8).
gamma2(lambda) = 7.91 - 0.01n + 0.02n^2
Coefficient in the virialization time fit, Eq. (8).
delta1(lambda) = -11.10 - 0.06n
Coefficient in the energy density fit, Eq. (10).
delta2(lambda) = -0.04 - 0.03n
Coefficient in the energy density fit, Eq. (10).
delta3(lambda) = 5.62 + 0.87n
Coefficient in the energy density fit, Eq. (10).
alpha1(lambda) = -15.36 - 1.95n
Coefficient in the GW peak momentum fit, Eq. (15).
alpha2(lambda) = 5.29 - 0.08n
Coefficient in the GW peak momentum fit, Eq. (15).
beta1(lambda) = -50.92 + 0.40n
Coefficient in the GW peak amplitude fit, Eq. (15).
beta2(lambda) = 7.80 + 0.55n
Coefficient in the GW peak amplitude fit, Eq. (15).
gamma1_GW(lambda) = -50.50 + 0.40n
Coefficient in the total GW energy density fit, Eq. (17).
gamma2_GW(lambda) = 7.70 + 0.55n
Coefficient in the total GW energy density fit, Eq. (17).
GW spectral shape parameters (a,b,c) = a=3.00, b=152.34-6.57nu, c=105.85-4.79nu
Parameters in the broken power-law fit to the GW spectrum, Eq. (21).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The post-inflationary universe enters a kination phase with inflaton equation of state w≈1, making the Ricci scalar negative.
Central to the sign flip of the effective mass; assumed throughout Section 2.
domain assumption The spectator field is energetically subdominant, so its backreaction on the background metric is neglected.
Stated at the start of Section 2: 'energetically subdominant spectator field'.
domain assumption A potential mass term for the spectator field is negligible.
Section 2: 'we have deliberately excluded a potential mass term, under the assumption that it will have a negligible influence on the following analysis'.
domain assumption The initial quantum fluctuations are described by a Gaussian state and the system becomes a classical stochastic field after the instability.
Used in Section 3 to justify lattice simulations; not proven here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hubble-induced phase transitions in the Standard Model and beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVFQGH4M

@misc{pith2026250500900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hubble-induced phase transitions in the Standard Model and beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVFQGH4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00900}
}

read the original abstract

We review the dynamics of spectator scalar fields non-minimally coupled to gravity in the post-inflationary Universe, with particular emphasis on scenarios where the end of inflation is followed by a period of kination. In this context, the evolution of the Ricci scalar can lead to the spontaneous breaking of discrete or continuous symmetries through tachyonic instabilities. These Hubble-induced phase transitions may cause the amplification of field fluctuations, the formation of transient topological defects, and an efficient energy transfer into relativistic degrees of freedom. We analyze this general mechanism and its cosmological consequences, including (re)heating and gravitational wave production. As a concrete realization, we discuss the postinflationary evolution of the Standard Model Higgs, examining the interplay between curvature effects, vacuum stability, and non-perturbative dynamics. This framework provides a minimal and predictive connection between high-energy physics and the early Universe, with potential observational signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00900 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of the inflaton dynamics in quintessential inflation scenarios. The potential 𝑈(𝜙) features a steep decline at the end of inflation, followed by a kinetic-dominated phase (kination), and eventually transitions into radiation domination (hBB), matter domination, and late-time dark energy domination (DE). The inset highlights the energy densities of the inflaton (𝜌𝜙) and radiation (𝜌𝑟 ) as functions of th… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Amplitude evolution of the mode functions | 𝑓𝜅 | (left) and |𝐹𝜅 | (right) at several conformal times 𝑧. The shaded region marks the range of momenta outside the initial amplification band, defined by 𝜅 > 𝜅(𝑧 = 0). Dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the time-dependent amplification band for each corresponding time. Taken from [25]. This simplification renders the system analytically tractable, allowing … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Formation of Hubble-induced domain walls illustrated from three complementary viewpoints for the benchmark point 𝜈 = 10, 𝜆 = 10−4 . Left: 2D slice showing the field profile across a section of the simulation volume. Center: 3D visualization of domain wall structures identified by zero-field crossings. Right: Field probability distribution highlighting the emergence of a bimodal structure corresponding to the degener… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Time evolution of the spatially averaged energy components—kinetic (𝐾), gradient (𝐺), potential (𝑉), and interaction (𝐼)—contributing to the total scalar field energy density 𝜌 𝜒 , for a representative case with 𝜈 = 10 and 𝜆 = 10−4 . To emphasize the approach toward a …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Fraction of the total spectator field energy density carried by spatial gradients at the onset of radiation domination (𝑧rad), shown as a function of the parameters 𝜈 and 𝜆. The emergence of a radiation-like equation of state hinges on the significant contribution of g…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Dependence of key post-instability observables on the model parameters 𝜈 and 𝜆. The upper panel shows how the virialization timescale 𝑧rad varies across parameter space, while the lower panel displays the corresponding total energy density 𝜌 𝜒 rad once virialization is…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Momentum-space distribution of excitation modes for the benchmark configuration 𝜈 = 10, 𝜆 = 10−4 . The plot displays the evolution of occupation numbers, highlighting how energy populates various Fourier modes over time. Distinct colors represent successive stages of t…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Left: Running of the Higgs quartic coupling 𝜆 as a function of the renormalization scale 𝜇 for different values of the top quark mass. Taken from [36]. Right: Schematic Higgs potential showing the emergence of a metastable Hubble-induced vacuum and a deeper true vacuum…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Spectral shape of the SGWB produced by a HIPT for various symmetry-breaking scales, shown alongside the projected sensitivities of upcoming gravitational wave detectors: Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) [41, 42], Big Bang Observer (BBO) [43, 44], UltimateDECIG…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Present-day gravitational wave energy density and peak frequency as functions of the top-quark mass and the non-minimal coupling parameter, for a fixed phase transition scale Hkin = 1012 GeV. The red regions correspond to classically unstable configurations, while the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Tunnelling out of Starobinsky inflation: Raising the spectral tilt
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A first-order phase-transition exit from a displaced Starobinsky branch truncates ~12 e-folds, shifting the spectral tilt from n_s≈0.965 to ≈0.973 at r≈2×10⁻³.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Laverda and J

G. Laverda and J. Rubio,Ricci reheating reloaded, JCAP 03 (2024) 033 [2307.03774]

arXiv 2024
[13]

Bettoni, G

D. Bettoni, G. Laverda, A.L. Eiguren and J. Rubio,Hubble-induced phase transitions: gravitational-wave imprint of Ricci reheating from lattice simulations,JCAP 03(2025) 027 [2409.15450]

arXiv 2025
[2]

Laverda and J

G. Laverda and J. Rubio,The rise and fall of the Standard-Model Higgs: electroweak vacuum stability during kination,JHEP 05 (2024) 339 [2402.06000]

arXiv 2024
[3]

Bettoni and J

D. Bettoni and J. Rubio,Hubble-induced phase transitions: Walls are not forever,JCAP 01 (2020) 002 [1911.03484]

arXiv 2020
[4]

Bettoni, A

D. Bettoni, A. Lopez-Eiguren and J. Rubio,Hubble-induced phase transitions on the lattice with applications to Ricci reheating, JCAP 01 (2022) 002 [2107.09671]

arXiv 2022
[5]

Bettoni and J

D. Bettoni and J. Rubio,Quintessential Affleck-Dine baryogenesis with non-minimal couplings,Phys. Lett.B784(2018) 122 [1805.02669]

arXiv 2018
[6]

Bettoni, G

D. Bettoni, G. Doménech and J. Rubio,Gravitational waves from global cosmic strings in quintessential inflation, JCAP 1902 (2019) 034 [1810.11117]

arXiv 2019
[7]

Gravitational waves from a curvature-induced phase transition of a Higgs-portal dark matter sector

A. Mantziris and O. Bertolami,Gravitational waves from a curvature-induced phase transition of a Higgs-portal dark matter sector,JCAP 10(2024) 104 [2407.18845]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 54 references

[8]

Kierkla, G

M. Kierkla, G. Laverda, M. Lewicki, A. Mantziris, M. Piani, J. Rubio et al.,From Hubble to Bubble,JHEP 11 (2023) 077 [2309.08530]

2023 arXiv
[9]

Wetterich,Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry,Nucl

C. Wetterich,Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry,Nucl. Phys.B302(1988) 668 [1711.03844]

1988 arXiv
[10]

Wetterich,The Cosmon model for an asymptotically vanishing time dependent cosmological ’constant’,Astron

C. Wetterich,The Cosmon model for an asymptotically vanishing time dependent cosmological ’constant’,Astron. Astrophys.301 (1995) 321 [hep-th/9408025]

1995 arXiv
[11]

Rubio and C

J. Rubio and C. Wetterich,Emergent scale symmetry: Connecting inflation and dark energy, Phys. Rev.D96 (2017) 063509 [1705.00552]

2017 arXiv
[12]

Barman, N

B. Barman, N. Bernal and J. Rubio,Two or three things particle physicists (mis)understand about (pre)heating, 3, 2025 [2503.19980]. 17 Hubble-induced phase transitions in the Standard Model and beyond Javier Rubio

2025 arXiv
[14]

Laverda and J

G. Laverda and J. Rubio,Higgs-Induced Gravitational Waves: the Interplay of Non-Minimal Couplings, Kination and Top Quark Mass, 2502.04445
[15]

Ford,Cosmological constant damping by unstable scalar fields,Phys

L.H. Ford,Cosmological constant damping by unstable scalar fields,Phys. Rev. D35(1987) 2339

1987
[16]

Ford and T.A

L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman,Classical scalar fields and violations of the second law, Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 024023 [gr-qc/0009076]

2001 arXiv
[17]

Bekenstein,Nonsingular General Relativistic Cosmologies, Phys

J.D. Bekenstein,Nonsingular General Relativistic Cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D11 (1975) 2072

1975
[18]

Flanagan and R.M

E.E. Flanagan and R.M. Wald,Does back reaction enforce the averaged null energy condition in semiclassical gravity?,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 6233 [gr-qc/9602052]

1996 arXiv
[19]

Herranen, T

M. Herranen, T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi and A. Rajantie,Spacetime curvature and the Higgs stability during inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 211102 [1407.3141]

2014 arXiv
[20]

Herranen, T

M. Herranen, T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi and A. Rajantie,Spacetime curvature and Higgs stability after inflation, Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 241301 [1506.04065]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Kohri and H

K. Kohri and H. Matsui,Higgs vacuum metastability in primordial inflation, preheating, and reheating, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 103509 [1602.02100]

2016 arXiv
[22]

Opferkuch, P

T. Opferkuch, P. Schwaller and B.A. Stefanek,Ricci Reheating,JCAP 1907(2019) 016 [1905.06823]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Lett.B767(2017) 272 [1604.03905]

D.G.FigueroaandC.T.Byrnes, TheStandardModelHiggsastheoriginofthehotBigBang , Phys. Lett.B767(2017) 272 [1604.03905]

2017 arXiv
[24]

Fairbairn, K

M. Fairbairn, K. Kainulainen, T. Markkanen and S. Nurmi,Despicable Dark Relics: generated by gravity with unconstrained masses,JCAP 1904(2019) 005 [1808.08236]

2019 arXiv
[25]

Bettoni and J

D. Bettoni and J. Rubio,Quintessential Inflation: A Tale of Emergent and Broken Symmetries, Galaxies 10(2022) 22 [2112.11948]

2022 arXiv
[26]

Figueroa, T

D.G. Figueroa, T. Opferkuch and B.A. Stefanek,Ricci Reheating on the Lattice, 2404.17654

arXiv
[27]

Podolsky, G.N

D.I. Podolsky, G.N. Felder, L. Kofman and M. Peloso,Equation of state and beginning of thermalization after preheating, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 023501 [hep-ph/0507096]

2006 arXiv
[28]

Lozanov and M.A

K.D. Lozanov and M.A. Amin,Equation of State and Duration to Radiation Domination after Inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 061301 [1608.01213]. 18 Hubble-induced phase transitions in the Standard Model and beyond Javier Rubio

2017 arXiv
[29]

Lewicki and V

M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational waves from colliding vacuum bubbles in gauge theories, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 437 [2012.07826]

2021 arXiv
[30]

Lewicki and V

M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational waves from bubble collisions and fluid motion in strongly supercooled phase transitions, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 109 [2208.11697]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Gatti, L

C. Gatti, L. Visinelli and M. Zantedeschi,Cavity detection of gravitational waves: Where do we stand?,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 023018 [2403.18610]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Aggarwal et al.,Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches at MHz to GHz frequencies, Living Rev

N. Aggarwal et al.,Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches at MHz to GHz frequencies, Living Rev. Rel.24 (2021) 4 [2011.12414]

2021 arXiv
[33]

Caprini, R

C. Caprini, R. Durrer, T. Konstandin and G. Servant,General Properties of the Gravitational Wave Spectrum from Phase Transitions,Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 083519 [0901.1661]

2009 arXiv
[34]

R.-G. Cai, S. Pi and M. Sasaki,Universal infrared scaling of gravitational wave background spectra,Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 083528 [1909.13728]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Rubio,Higgs inflation,Front

J. Rubio,Higgs inflation,Front. Astron. Space Sci.5 (2019) 50 [1807.02376]

2019 arXiv
[36]

Bezrukov, J

F. Bezrukov, J. Rubio and M. Shaposhnikov,Living beyond the edge: Higgs inflation and vacuum metastability, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 083512 [1412.3811]

2015 arXiv
[37]

Rubio,Higgs inflation and vacuum stability, J

J. Rubio,Higgs inflation and vacuum stability, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.631 (2015) 012032 [1502.07952]

2015 arXiv
[38]

Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001

2024
[39]

Standard Model¯𝑀𝑆 Parameters

F.L. Bezrukov, “Standard Model¯𝑀𝑆 Parameters.” http://www.inr.ac.ru/~fedor/SM/
[40]

CMS collaboration,Measurement oft¯t normalised multi-differential cross sections in pp collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, and simultaneous determination of the strong coupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton distribution functions,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 658 [1904.05237]

2020 arXiv
[41]

Amaro-Seoane, H

P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, P. Bender et al.,Laser interferometer space antenna, 2017

2017
[42]

Robson, N.J

T. Robson, N.J. Cornish and C. Liu,The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves, Class. Quant. Grav.36 (2019) 105011 [1803.01944]

2019 arXiv
[43]

Crowder and N.J

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

2005 arXiv
[44]

Corbin and N.J

V. Corbin and N.J. Cornish,Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer, Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2435 [gr-qc/0512039]. 19 Hubble-induced phase transitions in the Standard Model and beyond Javier Rubio

2006 arXiv
[45]

N. Seto, S. Kawamura and T. Nakamura,Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space, Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 221103 [astro-ph/0108011]

2001 arXiv
[46]

Yagi and N

K. Yagi and N. Seto,Detector configuration of DECIGO/BBO and identification of cosmological neutron-star binaries, Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 044011 [1101.3940]

2011 arXiv
[47]

Kawamura et al.,Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,PTEP 2021(2021) 05A105 [2006.13545]

S. Kawamura et al.,Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,PTEP 2021(2021) 05A105 [2006.13545]

2021 arXiv
[48]

Punturo et al.,The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

M. Punturo et al.,The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 194002

2010
[49]

Branchesi et al.,Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP 07(2023) 068 [2303.15923]

M. Branchesi et al.,Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP 07(2023) 068 [2303.15923]

2023 arXiv
[50]

LIGO Scientific collaboration,Exploring the Sensitivity of Next Generation Gravitational Wave Detectors,Class. Quant. Grav.34(2017) 044001 [1607.08697]

2017 arXiv
[51]

Reitze et al.,Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

D. Reitze et al.,Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51 (2019) 035 [1907.04833]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Bezrukov, A

F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov and S. Sibiryakov,Higgs inflation: consistency and generalisations,JHEP 01 (2011) 016 [1008.5157]

2011 arXiv
[53]

DESIcollaboration, DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP 02(2025) 021 [2404.03002]

2025 arXiv
[54]

Goertz, M

F. Goertz, M. Hager, G. Laverda and J. Rubio,Phasing out of darkness: from sterile neutrino dark matter to neutrino masses via time-dependent mixing,JHEP 02 (2025) 213 [2407.04778]. 20

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Laverda and J

G. Laverda and J. Rubio,Ricci reheating reloaded, JCAP 03 (2024) 033 [2307.03774]

arXiv 2024

[2] [13]

Bettoni, G

D. Bettoni, G. Laverda, A.L. Eiguren and J. Rubio,Hubble-induced phase transitions: gravitational-wave imprint of Ricci reheating from lattice simulations,JCAP 03(2025) 027 [2409.15450]

arXiv 2025

[3] [2]

Laverda and J

G. Laverda and J. Rubio,The rise and fall of the Standard-Model Higgs: electroweak vacuum stability during kination,JHEP 05 (2024) 339 [2402.06000]

arXiv 2024

[4] [3]

Bettoni and J

D. Bettoni and J. Rubio,Hubble-induced phase transitions: Walls are not forever,JCAP 01 (2020) 002 [1911.03484]

arXiv 2020

[5] [4]

Bettoni, A

D. Bettoni, A. Lopez-Eiguren and J. Rubio,Hubble-induced phase transitions on the lattice with applications to Ricci reheating, JCAP 01 (2022) 002 [2107.09671]

arXiv 2022

[6] [5]

Bettoni and J

D. Bettoni and J. Rubio,Quintessential Affleck-Dine baryogenesis with non-minimal couplings,Phys. Lett.B784(2018) 122 [1805.02669]

arXiv 2018

[7] [6]

Bettoni, G

D. Bettoni, G. Doménech and J. Rubio,Gravitational waves from global cosmic strings in quintessential inflation, JCAP 1902 (2019) 034 [1810.11117]

arXiv 2019

[8] [7]

Gravitational waves from a curvature-induced phase transition of a Higgs-portal dark matter sector

A. Mantziris and O. Bertolami,Gravitational waves from a curvature-induced phase transition of a Higgs-portal dark matter sector,JCAP 10(2024) 104 [2407.18845]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024