Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Minimal effective theory for leptogenesis, dark matter, and neutrino masses

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Two particles can explain dark matter, neutrinos, and matter asymmetry

desk verdict A genuinely minimal two-particle EFT with a sharp hierarchy prediction, but the central CP asymmetry is inherited from prior work and the benchmarks are tuned; worth refereeing with a request for derivations. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15164 v2 pith:VS5KGZFV submitted 2025-04-21 hep-ph

Tomas Blazek , Peter Matak , Jan Ramaj , Martina Sabova This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords leptogenesisdarkmattereffectivefieldtheoryneutrinomassesfreeze-inCPasymmetryWeinbergoperatorminimalmodel
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 asks how few new particles beyond the Standard Model can account for three open puzzles at once: neutrino masses, the matter–antimatter asymmetry, and dark matter. It argues that two suffice: a heavy unstable Majorana fermion and a light stable real scalar, linked to the Standard Model by a single dimension-five portal operator alongside the Weinberg operator. In the minimal freeze-in picture, the observed ratio of baryonic to dark matter density pins down a huge hierarchy between the two new masses, $m/m' \gtrsim 10^{16}$, tracing that hierarchy back to the smallness of neutrino masses. The paper supports the claim with analytic estimates and numerical solutions of the full Boltzmann equations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single dimension-five portal operator $S \bar{f} P_L l H$, together with the Weinberg operator $H \bar{l}^c P_L l H$. The portal operator is the only bridge between the Standard Model and the dark sector; its interference with the Weinberg operator produces the CP asymmetry through forward-scattering and vacuum-diagram cuts, while the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ charges of $f$ and $S$ make the light scalar stable dark matter. The identity doing the work is Eq. (17), which converts the measured baryon-to-dark-matter density ratio into the mass ratio $m/m'$ through the tiny neutrino mass.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop correction to neutrino masses in the model of Eq. (6): if the portal operator contributes an amount comparable to $v^2|\lambda'|/\Lambda$, then Eq. (17) and the requirement $m/m'\gtrsim 10^{16}$ no longer follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the effective Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff} = \frac{\lambda}{\Lambda} S \bar{f} P_L l H + \frac{\lambda'}{\Lambda} H \bar{l}^c P_L l H + \mathrm{H.c.}$, containing only a heavy Majorana fermion $f$, a light real scalar $S$, and Standard Model fields, generates neutrino masses, a lepton asymmetry, and a dark matter relic abundance simultaneously. CP violation arises from interference of the two dimension-five operators, computed by cutting a single vacuum diagram; the asymmetry scales as $m T^6/\Lambda^3$, so the fermion mass is essential. In the freeze-in limit the analytic solution reduces to Eq. (17), $\Omega_b/\Omega_{\rm dm} = \frac{63}{632}\frac{\theta}{\pi}\frac{m_p m_\nu}{v^2}\frac{m}{m'} \approx 0.19$, with $|\theta|\le 1$ the rescaled CP-violating phase, reproducing the observed value and requiring $m/m' \gtrsim 10^{16}$. Numerical solutions of the Boltzmann equations show the same two operators work in freeze-out and mixed scenarios, where the dark matter mass either sits near $m'\simeq 40$ keV or decouples from the fermion mass.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes neutrino masses are set entirely by the Weinberg operator, with no comparable loop correction from the new portal interaction shifting the relation $m_\nu = v^2|\lambda'|/\Lambda$ that feeds Eq. (17).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the observed baryon-to-dark-matter ratio fixes a huge mass hierarchy, $m/m' \gtrsim 10^{16}$, so any ultraviolet completion must produce a heavy fermion alongside a much lighter scalar.
  • Only two dimension-five operators are needed; right-handed neutrinos need not appear as propagating states below the scale where they are integrated out.
  • In the freeze-in benchmark the dark matter mass is predicted around $m'\simeq 40$ keV for the chosen parameters, placing the scalar in a range that could be probed by X-ray or structure-formation observations.
  • The full numerical treatment shows the analytic freeze-in estimate is accurate to about 8%, so the simple formula captures the physics in that regime.
  • The same two operators can accommodate freeze-out and mixed scenarios, with the dark matter mass no longer tied to the fermion mass once the scalar is initially thermalized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, a one-loop calculation of neutrino masses from the portal operator would test whether the Weinberg operator can carry the relation $m_\nu = v^2|\lambda'|/\Lambda$ alone; a comparable correction would shift the inferred $m/m'$ hierarchy.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, any ultraviolet completion that generates exactly these two operators must suppress every other higher-dimensional operator, a constraint that could identify which high-energy models can match this minimal effective description.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, the same ratio-symmetric structure could be applied to other $B-L$-violating portals, replacing $lH$ with another Standard-Model singlet combination and possibly changing the predicted dark matter mass range.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a minimal effective field theory that simultaneously generates neutrino masses, the baryon asymmetry via leptogenesis, and the dark matter relic density. The field content adds two new particles to the Standard Model: a heavy Majorana fermion f and a light real scalar S, charged under a dark Z2. The Lagrangian, Eq. (6), contains the Weinberg operator and a single d=5 portal operator S fbar P_L l H. Working in an ultraviolet freeze-in scenario, the authors derive an analytic relation, Eq. (17), for the ratio of baryon to dark matter densities, obtaining m/m' ≳ 10^16. They then solve the full Boltzmann equations (18)-(20) numerically for freeze-in and freeze-out benchmarks and reproduce the observed densities, with the numerical freeze-in result differing from the analytic estimate by about 8%.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is a conceptually attractive minimal setup that unifies three major cosmological puzzles with only two new particles and a single portal operator. The paper makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction for the baryon-to-dark-matter ratio in Eq. (17), and it provides explicit Boltzmann equations and analytic reaction-rate formulas. The numerical work appears to confirm the analytic approximation. However, the central asymmetry formulas in Appendix A are quoted from the authors' previous work rather than derived, and several washout rates entering the Boltzmann equations are not listed, so the numerical results are not independently reproducible. These gaps are significant but fixable with additional derivations and rate expressions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A4)-(A5)] The CP asymmetry formulas are quoted from Ref. [22] without derivation. These formulas are load-bearing: the analytic density ratio (17) is directly proportional to the ratio A/S obtained from Eqs. (11) and (A4), and an incorrect coefficient or Bessel-function structure would change the predicted hierarchy m/m' ≳ 10^16. The manuscript should reproduce the calculation leading to (A4) and (A5), or at least present the intermediate steps and unitarity checks, so that the central result does not rest on an unverifiable external reference.
  2. [Section IV and Appendix A] The Boltzmann equation (20) contains washout rates γ_{S f→lH}, γ_{bar l bar H→lH}, γ_{bar H bar H→ll}, γ_{f bar H→S l}, and γ_{S bar H→f l}, but Appendix A lists only γ^{eq}_{lH→S f}, γ^{eq}_{f l→S bar H}, and γ^{eq}_{f→lHS}. The statement that all reaction rates entering Eqs. (18)-(20) are listed in Appendix A is therefore incorrect. Without explicit expressions for these washout rates, or a clear description of how they are related to the listed rates through crossing and detailed balance, the numerical results in Fig. 3 cannot be independently reproduced.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III B, Eq. (14)] The notation mν for the quantity sqrt(∑ mνa²) is non-standard and could be confused with the lightest neutrino mass; consider defining it explicitly as the active-neutrino mass scale.
  2. [Section III B, after Eq. (15)] The statement that f→lHS decays double the scalar abundance and reduce the asymmetry to -3/4 A is made without derivation; a brief step-by-step explanation of the factors 2 and 3/4 would help the reader follow the analytic estimate.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption lists masses and couplings for each panel but does not give the value of λ' or the corresponding neutrino mass mν; providing these values would make it easier to verify consistency with Eq. (14).
  4. [Eq. (20)] The factors 4/3 and 1/3 in the washout and asymmetry terms are not explained; a short comment on the flavour approximation underlying these factors would improve clarity.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (6)] The paper does not mention possible loop corrections to the neutrino mass from the portal operator in Eq. (6); although these are numerically negligible in the benchmark shown (δmν/mν ~ 10^-6), an explicit statement would reassure the reader that the use of Eq. (14) in Eq. (17) is safe.
  6. [Eqs. (18)-(20)] The product 'sHz' in these equations should be typeset as 's H z' (with a multiplication dot or space) to avoid confusing the Hubble parameter H with the Higgs field.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (17) is a derived constraint on m/m' from independently chosen inputs; the sole self-citation [22] supplies standard unitarity/cutting formalism, not the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central relation, Eq. (17), follows from the analytic Boltzmann solutions in Eqs. (15)-(16) combined with the rates in Eqs. (11)-(12) and the neutrino-mass relation Eq. (14). The ratio Ω_b/Ω_dm is obtained as (21/79)(3/4)A divided by 2S, with A/S proportional to θ mν m/v²; matching the observed value 0.19 fixes the mass hierarchy m/m' ≳ 10^16 rather than fitting the relation itself. The inputs θ, mν, m, m' are free parameters of the EFT, so the relation is a constraint/prediction, not a tautology. The cited Ref. [22] is used for the unitarity expansion in Eq. (2) and the forward-scattering/cut technique; it is an external published derivation of a general formalism, not a prior statement of the specific asymmetry formulas A4-A5 or of Eq. (17), which are computed in this paper via Eq. (2). Thus the self-citation does not smuggle in the target result. The numerical benchmarks in Fig. 3 are explicitly 'tuned to reproduce the observed values', so they are consistency checks, not circular predictions. Some auxiliary formulas (A4-A5, washout rates) are asserted rather than derived in detail, but that is a reproducibility/correctness concern, not circularity. The 'minimality' of the two-particle content is a model-building choice justified by the suppression argument for the Z(3) alternative; it is not obtained by defining the conclusion into the premise. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model's predictive content rests on several hand-picked parameters and structural assumptions: the existence of an exact Z2 symmetry, the dominance of precisely two d=5 operators, the absence of substantial loop corrections to neutrino masses, and the standard cosmological/statistical approximations. The minimality principle is imposed, not derived. These assumptions are typical for effective model building, but they mean the paper demonstrates that a working point exists rather than deriving a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • m (heavy fermion mass) = 5e11 GeV (freeze-in benchmark); 1e10 GeV (freeze-out)
    Sets the scale of the asymmetry generation and the mass hierarchy; chosen by hand to match the observed densities.
  • m' (dark matter scalar mass) = about 40 keV in freeze-in scenario
    Related to m via Eq. (17) given the observed baryon-to-DM ratio; the absolute value follows from the chosen m and is not an independent prediction.
  • |λ|^2 (portal coupling squared) = 1.8e-3, 7e-3, 0.1, 1e-4 across benchmarks
    Chosen to reproduce the observed dark matter relic density in each scenario.
  • θ (CP phase invariant) = 0.8, 0.25, 0.12 in benchmarks
    Free combination of couplings with |θ| ≤ 1; set by hand to make the asymmetry large enough.
  • Λ (EFT cutoff) = 1e14 GeV (freeze-in); 1e12 GeV (freeze-out)
    Sets the overall rate scale for the effective operators; chosen to fit the required asymmetry.
  • T_R (reheating temperature) = 5e12 GeV in freeze-in scenario
    Initial condition for UV freeze-in; chosen to keep rates below the cutoff.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math The S-matrix is unitary and CPT invariant, so the CP asymmetry follows from cutting vacuum diagrams as in Eq. (2).
    Used in Section II to derive the existence and form of the CP asymmetries.
  • standard math Sakharov's three conditions are sufficient for baryogenesis.
    Invoked at the start of Section II to motivate the operator construction.
  • ad hoc to paper At low energies the only relevant operators are the two d=5 operators in Eq. (6); all other operators are negligible.
    This is the minimality assumption that makes the model 'minimal'. It is imposed, not derived.
  • domain assumption The dark-sector Z(2) parity is exact, keeping S stable, while f decays via the portal operator.
    Needed to make S the dark matter candidate and f the source of the asymmetry; a new global symmetry beyond the Standard Model.
  • domain assumption Neutrino masses come solely from the Weinberg operator (second term in Eq. (6)), with m_ν = v^2 |λ'|/Λ (Eq. (14)).
    The paper does not estimate loop contributions from the portal operator to neutrino masses; this identification is used to convert λ' into m_ν in Eq. (17).
  • domain assumption Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics and neglect of spectator processes do not change the final densities qualitatively.
    Stated in Section IV; the 8% analytic/numeric comparison gives some support, but no error budget is provided.
  • domain assumption The universe is radiation-dominated with standard SM degrees of freedom from T_R down to low temperatures, and f and S have negligible initial abundances in the freeze-in scenario.
    Initial conditions for the Boltzmann equations; standard in freeze-in calculations.
invented entities (2)
  • Heavy Majorana fermion f
    purpose: Carries the dark-sector portal interaction; its mass m enters the CP asymmetry, making it the source of the baryon asymmetry.
    No collider or astrophysical signal is predicted for a fermion at 1e10-1e11 GeV; the mass is a free parameter, so there is no unique falsifiable handle.
  • Light real scalar S
    purpose: The stable dark matter candidate, with mass around 40 keV in the benchmark.
    The mass is set by the chosen heavy-fermion mass through Eq. (17), not by an independent mechanism; no unique experimental signature (e.g., a line or direct detection event) is identified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Minimal effective theory for leptogenesis, dark matter, and neutrino masses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VS5KGZFV

@misc{pith2026250415164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Minimal effective theory for leptogenesis, dark matter, and neutrino masses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VS5KGZFV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15164}
}
read the original abstract

We study the phenomenology of choosing a minimal set of effective operators simultaneously generating the dark matter relic density and matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe. Neutrino masses are obtained in a specific case of baryogenesis via leptogenesis. We find that only two new particles -- a heavy unstable fermion and a light dark matter scalar -- need to be included in addition to the Standard Model particle content.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Vacuum diagram made of the vertices corresponding to the operators in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Forward-scattering diagrams obtained from Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Constraints on the mass of the dark antibaryon using $B_d\rightarrow \Lambda \psi_{DS}$ channel in light cone QCD

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The mass ranges for the dark antibaryon ψ_DS are determined by deriving the B_d → Λ ψ_DS branching fraction via light-cone QCD sum rules and comparing it to BaBar and Belle experimental bounds.

  2. FIMPs in a two-component dark matter model with $Z_2 \times Z_4$ symmetry

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In this two-component dark matter model, freeze-in works with masses up to 3 TeV only if the scalar portal coupling is as small as 10^-25, far below usual FIMP values.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [22]

    Bla ˇzek and P

    T. Bla ˇzek and P. Mat´ak, Phys. Rev. D 103, L091302 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Bento and Z

    L. Bento and Z. Berezhiani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 231304 (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [2]

    Bhattacharya, A

    S. Bhattacharya, A. Sil, R. Roshan, and D. Vatsyayan, Phys. Rev. D 106, 075005 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Goudelis, P

    A. Goudelis, P. Papachristou, and V . C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043521 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Datta, R

    A. Datta, R. Roshan, and A. Sil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 231801 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    L. J. Hall, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, (2010), 10.48550/arXiv.1010.0245, arXiv:1010.0245 [hep-ph]

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1010.0245 2010

  7. [6]

    Biswas, S

    A. Biswas, S. Choubey, L. Covi, and S. Khan, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, 193 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Goudelis, D

    A. Goudelis, D. Karamitros, P. Papachristou, and V . C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023515 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Barman, D

    B. Barman, D. Borah, and R. Roshan, Phys. Rev. D 104, 035022 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Davoudiasl, D

    H. Davoudiasl, D. E. Morrissey, K. Sigurdson, and S. Tulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 211304 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Baldes, N

    I. Baldes, N. F. Bell, K. Petraki, and R. R. V olkas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 181601 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    Baldes, N

    I. Baldes, N. F. Bell, A. Millar, K. Petraki, and R. R. V olkas, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014, 041 (2014)

    2014

  5. [12]

    C ´ıscar-Monsalvatje, A

    M. C ´ıscar-Monsalvatje, A. Ibarra, and J. Vandecasteele, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024, 028 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Falkowski, J

    A. Falkowski, J. T. Ruderman, and T. V olansky, Journal of High Energy Physics 2011, 106 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    E. J. Chun, Journal of High Energy Physics 2011, 98 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    Y . Cui, L. Randall, and B. Shuve, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012, 75 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    Cui and R

    Y . Cui and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. D87, 116013 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    Baldes, N

    I. Baldes, N. F. Bell, A. J. Millar, and R. R. V olkas, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015, 048 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    X. Chu, Y . Cui, J. Pradler, and M. Shamma, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 31 (2022). 12

    2022

  12. [19]

    Heisig, Phys

    J. Heisig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 191803 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    Maleknejad, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 113 (2021)

    A. Maleknejad, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 113 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    A. D. Sakharov, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 34, 392 (1991)

    1991

  15. [23]

    Coster and H

    J. Coster and H. P. Stapp, J. Math. Phys. 11, 2743 (1970)

    1970

  16. [24]

    J. L. Bourjaily, H. Hannesdottir, A. J. McLeod, M. D. Schwartz, and C. Vergu, J. High Energy Phys. 2021, 205 (2021), arXiv:2007.13747

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H. S. Hannesdottir and S. Mizera, What is the iε for the S-matrix?, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer,

  18. [26]

    Roulet, L

    E. Roulet, L. Covi, and F. Vissani, Physics Letters B 424, 101 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    F. J. Botella, M. Nebot, and O. Vives, Journal of High Energy Physics 2006, 106 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0407349

    2006

  20. [28]

    H. P. Nilles, M. Ratz, A. Trautner, and P. K. Vaudrevange, Physics Letters B 786, 283 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    M. P. Bento, J. P. Silva, and A. Trautner, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 24 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Physics Letters B 174, 45 (1986)

    1986

  23. [31]

    E. W. Kolb and S. Wolfram, Nuclear Physics B 172, 224 (1980)

    1980

  24. [32]

    A. D. Dolgov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 29, 254 (1979)

    1979

  25. [33]

    2e from Fig

    in Fig. 2e from Fig. 2f, and ∆γeq lHS→¯l ¯HS + ∆γeq lHS→ f = 0. (10) Note that omitting the lHS→ ¯l ¯HS peculiar reaction results in the violation of Sakharov’s condi- tions [21], as the lepton number will be produced in the inverse decays even in thermal equilibrium. B. Appro...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Elahi, C

    F. Elahi, C. Kolda, and J. Unwin, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, 48 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Hochberg, SciPost Phys

    Y . Hochberg, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 59 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    ˇSimkovic, Phys

    F. ˇSimkovic, Phys. Usp. 64, 1238 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kuzmin, V

    V . Kuzmin, V . Rubakov, and M. Shaposhnikov, Physics Letters B155, 36 (1985)

    1985

  31. [39]

    ˇSimkovic, private communication (2025)

    F. ˇSimkovic, private communication (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Buchm ¨uller and M

    W. Buchm ¨uller and M. Pl¨umacher, Physics Letters B 511, 74 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    J. A. Harvey and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3344 (1990)

    1990

  34. [42]

    Burgess, M

    C. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, Nuclear Physics B 619, 709 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Silveira and A

    V . Silveira and A. Zee, Physics Letters B 161, 136 (1985)

    1985

  36. [44]

    Falkowski, E

    A. Falkowski, E. Kuflik, N. Levi, and T. V olansky, Phys. Rev. D99, 015022 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Bernal and X

    N. Bernal and X. Chu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016, 006 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Herrero-Garcia, G

    J. Herrero-Garcia, G. Landini, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 111, 075033 (2025). 13

    2025

  39. [47]

    Barman, P

    B. Barman, P. S. B. Dev, and A. Ghoshal, Phys. Rev. D 108, 035037 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    (7a) in Ref

    See the discussion above Eq. (7a) in Ref. [1]. 14

  41. [49]

    [22, 27] for more details

    See Refs. [22, 27] for more details

  42. [2023]

    arXiv:2204.02988 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Pith tools

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