Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Triplet Higgs assisted leptogenesis from axion oscillation after inflation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single scalar triplet can generate both neutrino masses and the observed baryon asymmetry via axion oscillation.

desk verdict Plausible mechanism, but the benchmark that produces the quoted baryon asymmetry violates the paper's own initial conditions, and the LFV section borrows SUSY formulas in a non-SUSY model. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13412 v1 pith:L2OY3MNW submitted 2025-06-16 hep-ph

Sasmita Mishra This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords axionoscillationtripletscalarleptogenesisbaryogenesistype-IIseesawleptonflavorviolationPeccei-Quinnsymmetry
topics Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
open problems Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a mechanism in which a spontaneously broken U(1)_PQ symmetry provides an axion-like particle whose oscillation after inflation biases lepton number through a time-dependent chemical potential, and a single scalar triplet supplies the ΔL=2 scattering that turns that bias into a baryon asymmetry. The same triplet generates light neutrino masses through the type-II seesaw mechanism, so one new scalar does both jobs. Unlike thermal leptogenesis, no additional triplet or right-handed neutrino is needed for CP violation, and the model reproduces the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio Y_B ≈ 8.7×$10^{-11}$ for a benchmark parameter set.

What carries the argument

The mechanism runs on the coherent axion field $\phi_a$, whose time derivative during post-inflationary oscillation acts as a chemical potential for fermion number, $\mu_{\rm eff}=\dot{\phi}_a/f_a$, and thereby biases lepton number in a way that satisfies Sakharov's conditions without CP-violating phases. The triplet scalar $\Delta$ carries the ΔL=2 interactions (LL↔HH) that must be in equilibrium while the axion is moving; the same Yukawa coupling $Y_\Delta$ sets the neutrino mass matrix through $m_\nu=Y_\Delta v_\Delta$, so the scattering rate is controlled by low-energy neutrino data. The requirement that these processes are in equilibrium while the decay HH↔Δ is out of equilibrium yields the mass window $M_\Delta > 10^{12}$ GeV.

What would settle it

A measurement of the lepton-flavor-violating decay μ→eγ at a rate incompatible with the model's prediction, or a collider bound pushing the triplet mass below M_Δ ≈ $10^{12}$ GeV while keeping v_Δ in the required range, would rule out the parameter region needed for this leptogenesis scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that one scalar triplet, combined with a complex singlet that spontaneously breaks U(1)_PQ, can simultaneously mediate leptogenesis from axion oscillation and generate the light neutrino mass matrix via type-II seesaw. The axion, as the phase of the singlet, evolves classically after inflation and its derivative coupling to fermions produces an effective chemical potential $\mu_{\rm eff}=\dot{\phi}_a/f_a$, creating an equilibrium lepton asymmetry; the triplet's Yukawa and trilinear couplings keep ΔL=2 processes in equilibrium at $T \sim 10^{13}$ GeV and fix $m_\nu = Y_\Delta v_\Delta$. The numerical solution of the coupled Boltzmann equations for the benchmark $f_a=3\times10^{14}$ GeV, $m_a=7\times10^{10}$ GeV, $\Gamma_\phi=5\times10^{9}$ GeV, and $H_{\rm inf}=8\times10^{10}$ GeV yields $Y_B \approx 8.7\times10^{-11}$, matching the Planck-measured value.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the PQ symmetry is broken before inflation ends and the axion starts from a uniform field value with zero initial velocity; if PQ breaking instead occurs after inflation or the inflaton populates the axion, the initial conditions change and the produced baryon asymmetry would differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism is correct, baryogenesis can be achieved with one triplet scalar, preserving a direct link between high-scale leptogenesis and the low-energy neutrino mass matrix.
  • The lepton flavor violation rates (e.g., BR(τ→μγ) and BR(μ→eγ)) are determined by neutrino oscillation parameters through $Y_\Delta$, so upcoming LFV experiments directly test the leptogenesis setup.
  • The inflaton decay width required for reheating to $T\approx10^{13}$ GeV also controls the final asymmetry, making the mechanism sensitive to the inflaton sector's couplings.
  • The same U(1)_PQ breaking scale $f_a\approx10^{14}$ GeV can host the axion and the seesaw scale, offering a common origin for two otherwise separate scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The extreme sensitivity to the axion's initial velocity suggests the mechanism could also operate with PQ symmetry broken during inflation, where quantum fluctuations generate an initial velocity; the resulting baryon asymmetry would then depend on the inflationary Hubble scale in a way that may be observable.
  • Because the ΔL=2 scattering rate is set by the sum of neutrino masses, the mechanism plausibly favors the normal mass ordering over the inverted one at fixed leptogenesis temperature; a dedicated scan over orderings would test this.
  • If the axion is the QCD axion, its mass and decay constant are bounded by astrophysics, which may constrain the benchmark parameters; extending the calculation to a full axion dark-matter model would show whether the leptogenesis window survives.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a model extending the SM gauge group with U(1)_PQ, adding one complex scalar singlet, one extra Higgs doublet, and one scalar triplet. The spontaneously broken PQ symmetry provides an axion-like particle whose coherent oscillation after inflation induces an effective chemical potential for lepton number, in the spirit of Kusenko-Schmitz-Yanagida. The scalar triplet mediates the required ΔL=2 processes, generates light neutrino masses via type-II seesaw, and, the authors claim, allows successful leptogenesis with only one triplet, unlike thermal leptogenesis. The paper derives parametric bounds (M_Δ > 10^12 GeV, v_Δ ≲ O(1) GeV), presents a numerical Boltzmann solution for a benchmark parameter set, and claims a final baryon asymmetry Y_B ≈ 8.7×10^-11. A lepton-flavor-violation analysis is then presented under an assumed supersymmetric extension.

Significance. If the central numerical claim held, the paper would present an attractive unified picture in which a single scalar triplet simultaneously explains neutrino masses, provides the ΔL=2 interactions needed for axion-oscillation leptogenesis, and links flavor structure to low-energy neutrino observables. The parametric constraints derived in Section III are plausible and are a useful contribution. The paper also explicitly positions itself against the usual requirement of two heavy states in thermal leptogenesis, which is a meaningful conceptual point. However, the internal inconsistencies identified in the benchmark calculation mean that the main phenomenological result is not currently established; the significance is therefore conditional on a successful redrawing of the parameter space.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eq. (31) vs. Fig. 1] The paper derives the consistency condition ma ∼ σ_eff T_L^3 ∼ 10^8 GeV from the equilibrium requirement, but the benchmark used for Fig. 1 is ma = 7×10^10 GeV. This is a discrepancy of roughly three orders of magnitude with the paper's own estimate, and no explanation is given for why the benchmark is chosen so far from this value.
  2. [Section III, initial conditions after Eq. (5) and Fig. 1 caption] With fa = 3×10^14 GeV, ma = 7×10^10 GeV, and H_inf = 8×10^10 GeV, the ratio ma/H_inf = 0.875 means the axion is not effectively frozen during inflation. The slow-roll solution of Eq. (16) gives ˙φ ≈ −m_a^2 φ/(3H_inf) ≈ −2×10^10 GeV at the end of inflation, contradicting the stated initial condition ˙φ = 0. Consequently μ_eff in Eq. (19) is already large when the radiation bath forms, and the plotted evolution does not solve the model with the stated initial conditions.
  3. [Section III.A, Eqs. (29)–(31)] The condition Γ_L ≫ H at the onset of axion oscillation is not satisfied for ma ∼ 10^8 GeV as required by Eq. (31); at T ∼ T_L ∼ 10^13 GeV one finds Γ_L/H ∼ O(1). If instead ma is raised to 7×10^10 GeV to make the L-violating process equilibrate, the initial-velocity problem of the previous comment arises. Thus no parameter point in the stated framework simultaneously satisfies the zero-velocity initial condition, the equilibrium condition, and Eq. (31); the quoted Y_B ≈ 8.7×10^-11 is therefore not a robust output of the model as defined.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (47)] The LFV analysis is performed in a supersymmetric extension (slepton masses, GUT-scale RGE running) that is not part of the model defined in Section II. If the LFV connection is a claimed prediction of the model, the SUSY sector and its soft parameters must be specified; alternatively the LFV section should be explicitly framed as a separate model assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The coupling λ9 appears twice in the scalar potential; one of the two terms is presumably a different coupling, and the notation should be corrected.
  2. [After Eq. (43)] The text states 'YB∼ 8.7× 10^11'; this should be 10^-11 to match the observed baryon asymmetry and the abstract.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption and Section III.A] The left-panel description in the caption uses '˙ϕa/ϕa' while the text refers to '˙a/a'; the notation should be unified.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'pseudo-Numbu-Goldstone' in Section II, 'the the energy density' after Eq. (33), and 'aLP' in the Introduction.
  5. [Section III.A after Eq. (29)] The cross-reference to 'Eq.(30)' appears to be an error; the conditions being discussed are those of Eq. (29).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model derivation is self-contained and the numerical YB is an illustrative benchmark, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) introduce a U(1)_PQ complex singlet whose phase is the ALP; (ii) the derivative coupling to fermion current induces an effective chemical potential; (iii) the scalar triplet mediates the ΔL=2 processes, with the cross-section σ_eff fixed by the measured atmospheric neutrino mass splitting via type-II seesaw; (iv) Boltzmann equations are solved with stated benchmark parameters to obtain Y_B ≈ 8.7×10^-11. No step defines a quantity in terms of the target Y_B. The external input Δm_atm^2 is legitimate and independently measured; Γ_L ≫ H condition yields the estimates in Eq. (31), and the numerical benchmark is a single consistency point, not a parameter scan fitted to the observed asymmetry. There are no self-citations by the author, and no uniqueness theorem from prior work by the same author is invoked. The internal inconsistency between the derived ma∼10^8 GeV and the benchmark ma=7×10^10 GeV, as well as the zero-velocity initial condition vs. slow-roll during inflation, are correctness/consistency concerns rather than circular reductions of the central claim. The mechanism itself — axion-oscillation leptogenesis assisted by a single triplet — stands independently of the particular benchmark numbers shown in Fig. 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical result rests on several benchmark parameters chosen to reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry, on the standard type-II seesaw relations, and on the axion oscillation mechanism of Ref. [13]. The LFV section additionally imports supersymmetric formulas that are not part of the model.

free parameters (6)
  • Axion decay constant f_a = 3 × 10^14 GeV (benchmark)
    PQ scale chosen in the benchmark; sets axion field value and oscillation dynamics.
  • Axion mass m_a = 7 × 10^10 GeV (benchmark), but Eq. (31) suggests m_a ~ 10^8 GeV
    Axion mass from hidden-sector instanton scale; benchmark value is not the value estimated in Eq. (31).
  • Inflaton decay width Γ_φ = 5 × 10^9 GeV (benchmark)
    Controls reheating temperature and the time of radiation domination; chosen to get successful leptogenesis.
  • Inflation scale H_inf = 8 × 10^10 GeV (benchmark)
    Inflationary Hubble scale; constrained only by Planck upper bound, chosen for benchmark.
  • Initial misalignment angle θ0 = 1 (φ_a = f_a)
    Initial axion field value taken at f_a; in general θ0 is random in [0, 2π).
  • Triplet mass M_Δ = not fixed; bound 10^12 GeV < M_Δ ≤ 10^13 GeV
    Mass of the scalar triplet enters the seesaw and the ΔL=2 rate; only an inequality is derived.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Type-II seesaw mass relation m_ν = Y_Δ v_Δ (Eq. 8) and the minimization condition of the scalar potential (Eq. 9).
    Standard seesaw formula, taken from the literature on type-II seesaw.
  • domain assumption The axion is a spectator during inflation; PQ symmetry is broken before inflation ends, and the initial axion velocity is zero.
    Stated in Sections II and III; if false, the initial conditions for the oscillation change and the produced asymmetry differs.
  • domain assumption The ΔL=2 scattering rate is approximated by Γ_L = n_l^eq ⟨σΔL=2 v⟩ ≈ Y_Δ^2 μ^2 / M_Δ (Eq. 23).
    This relation is used to derive the bound M_Δ > 10^12 GeV; the cross section is not explicitly computed from Feynman diagrams in the text.
  • domain assumption Standard radiation-dominated reheating with T_max and T_rh from Eqs. (34)-(35).
    Assumes a specific inflaton sector that is not part of the model.
  • ad hoc to paper The LFV analysis assumes a supersymmetric extension of the model with slepton mass matrix running from the GUT scale (Eq. 47).
    This assumption is not introduced in Section II; the model there is non-supersymmetric.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Triplet Higgs assisted leptogenesis from axion oscillation after inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L2OY3MNW

@misc{pith2026250613412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Triplet Higgs assisted leptogenesis from axion oscillation after inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L2OY3MNW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13412}
}
abstract

Leptogenesis via axion oscillation after inflation is an alternate mechanism of thermal leptogenesis. In this mechanism, the requirement of the existence of a lepton number ($L$) violating process in equilibrium to drive the lepton number requires the temperature of leptogenesis at $\sim 10^{13}$ GeV. Triplet scalars, due to their interaction with gauge bosons, make a suitable candidate to prevail in the thermal bath via gauge scattering at such high energy. Also, owing to its interaction with Standard Model (SM) leptons and the Higgs scalar, it can mediate $\Delta L =2$ process. Moreover, just one triplet is enough to serve the purpose as opposed to thermal leptogenesis, where at least one more triplet scalar/right-handed neutrino is required to generate a sizable $CP$ violation. In this work, we study a model where the SM gauge group is extended with $U(1)_{\rm PQ}$, with the addition of one Higgs doublet, one scalar triplet, and one complex scalar singlet. The presence of a complex scalar singlet decouples the PQ symmetry breaking from the electroweak scale. It also provides a common source of an axion-like particle and seesaw scale. The scalar triplet offers a common link between leptogenesis via axion oscillation and neutrino mass. Further, with the presence of one triplet scalar, the lepton flavor violation process is directly determined from low-energy neutrino oscillation data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The plots represent the evolution of various quantities of interest as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

  1. Spontaneous Scoto-leptogenesis

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A rolling Majoron from broken global B-L symmetry generates the baryon asymmetry at TeV-scale right-handed neutrino masses in the scotogenic model, consistent with neutrino and dark matter constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. , 641:A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida. Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification. Phys. Lett. B , 174:45–47, 1986

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    The latter condition can be represented as ΓID(HH←→∆)|T =M∆ <H|T =M∆, (25) where ΓID(HH←→∆)|T =M∆≈ ΓD(∆→HH )≃ µ2 32πM∆

    To maintain the lepton asymmetry in the plasma, the processLL←→∆ must be efficient while the process HH←→∆ is out of equilibrium. The latter condition can be represented as ΓID(HH←→∆)|T =M∆ <H|T =M∆, (25) where ΓID(HH←→∆)|T =M∆≈ ΓD(∆→HH )≃ µ2 32πM∆ . (26) Using v∆∼ µv2 ew 2M2 ∆ , the condition in Eq.(25) on v∆ translates to v∆ ≲O(1)GeV. (27) 10 In a study...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Shafi, and C

    George Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich. Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model. Nucl. Phys. B , 181:287–300, 1981

    work page 1981

  5. [5]

    Magg and C

    M. Magg and C. Wetterich. Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy. Phys. Lett. B , 94:61–64, 1980

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    Mohapatra and Goran Senjanovic

    Rabindra N. Mohapatra and Goran Senjanovic. Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation. Phys. Rev. D , 23:165, 1981

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle. Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories. Phys. Rev. D , 22:2227, 1980

    work page 1980

  8. [8]

    A. D. Sakharov. Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe. Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. , 5:32–35, 1967

    1967

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Starobinsky

    Alexei A. Starobinsky. A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity. Phys. Lett. B , 91:99–102, 1980

    1980

  2. [10]

    Fry, Keith A

    James N. Fry, Keith A. Olive, and Michael S. Turner. Higgs Bosons and the Evolution of Baryon Asymmetries. Phys. Rev. D , 22:2977, 1980

    1980

  3. [11]

    Barrie, Chengcheng Han, and Hitoshi Murayama

    Neil D. Barrie, Chengcheng Han, and Hitoshi Murayama. Affleck-Dine Leptogenesis from Higgs Inflation. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 128(14):141801, 2022. 18

    2022

  4. [12]

    Barrie, Chengcheng Han, and Hitoshi Murayama

    Neil D. Barrie, Chengcheng Han, and Hitoshi Murayama. Type II Seesaw leptogenesis. JHEP, 05:160, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Supersymmetric seesaw without singlet neutrinos: Neutrino masses and lepton flavor violation

    Anna Rossi. Supersymmetric seesaw without singlet neutrinos: Neutrino masses and lepton flavor violation. Phys. Rev. D , 66:075003, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    A New Light Boson? Phys

    Steven Weinberg. A New Light Boson? Phys. Rev. Lett. , 40:223–226, 1978

    1978

  7. [15]

    Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons

    Frank Wilczek. Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:279–282, 1978

    1978

  8. [16]

    The landscape of QCD axion models

    Luca Di Luzio, Maurizio Giannotti, Enrico Nardi, and Luca Visinelli. The landscape of QCD axion models. Phys. Rept., 870:1–117, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Y. H. Ahn and Eung Jin Chun. Minimal Models for Axion and Neutrino. Phys. Lett. B , 752:333–337, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Yanagida

    Alexander Kusenko, Kai Schmitz, and Tsutomu T. Yanagida. Leptogenesis via Axion Oscil- lations after Inflation. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 115(1):011302, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Unifying inflation with the axion, dark matter, baryogenesis and the seesaw mechanism

    Guillermo Ballesteros, Javier Redondo, Andreas Ringwald, and Carlos Tamarit. Unifying inflation with the axion, dark matter, baryogenesis and the seesaw mechanism. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118(7):071802, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Massive neutrinos and invisible axion minimally connected

    Stefano Bertolini, Luca Di Luzio, Helena Koleˇ sov´ a, and Michal Malinsk´ y. Massive neutrinos and invisible axion minimally connected. Phys. Rev. D , 91(5):055014, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Pal, and Goran Senjanovic

    Darwin Chang, Palash B. Pal, and Goran Senjanovic. Axions From Chiral Family Symmetry. Phys. Lett. B , 153:407–411, 1985

    1985

  14. [22]

    Type II Seesaw Higgs Triplet as the inflaton for Chaotic Inflation and Leptogenesis

    Chian-Shu Chen and Chia-Min Lin. Type II Seesaw Higgs Triplet as the inflaton for Chaotic Inflation and Leptogenesis. Phys. Lett. B , 695:9–12, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    The asymmetry of the PQ charge arising from rotation can be converted to baryon asymmetry via QCD and electroweak sphaleron transitions

    that the PQ symmetry may be explicitly broken in the early universe, inducing the rotation of PQ charged scalar field. The asymmetry of the PQ charge arising from rotation can be converted to baryon asymmetry via QCD and electroweak sphaleron transitions. In Ref. [29], it was ...

  16. [24]

    Ait-Ouazghour and M

    B. Ait-Ouazghour and M. Chabab. The Higgs potential in 2HDM extended with a real triplet scalar: A roadmap. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 36(19):2150131, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Monodromy Inflation in the Strong Coupling Regime of the Effective Field Theory

    Guido D’Amico, Nemanja Kaloper, and Albion Lawrence. Monodromy Inflation in the Strong Coupling Regime of the Effective Field Theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 121(9):091301, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    via axion oscillation. In this work we propose the presence of a single triplet scalar is suitable enough to assist the ∆ L = 2 process and generate light neutrino mass via type-II seesaw mechanism, making it a unified picture. While the involvement of gauge coupling in case o...

  19. [27]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev, Francesc Ferrer, Yiyang Zhang, and Yongchao Zhang. Gravitational Waves from First-Order Phase Transition in a Simple Axion-Like Particle Model. JCAP, 11:006, 19 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Co and Keisuke Harigaya

    Raymond T. Co and Keisuke Harigaya. Axiogenesis. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 124(11):111602, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Cohen and David B

    Andrew G. Cohen and David B. Kaplan. SPONTANEOUS BARYOGENESIS. Nucl. Phys. B, 308:913–928, 1988

    1988

  22. [30]

    Frieman, and Angela V

    Katherine Freese, Joshua A. Frieman, and Angela V. Olinto. Natural inflation with pseudo - Nambu-Goldstone bosons. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 65:3233–3236, 1990

    1990

  23. [31]

    Spontaneous leptogenesis with sub-GeV axionlike particles

    Arghyajit Datta, Soumen Kumar Manna, and Arunansu Sil. Spontaneous leptogenesis with sub-GeV axionlike particles. Phys. Rev. D , 110(9):095035, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics

    Joerg Jaeckel and Andreas Ringwald. The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. , 60:405–437, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Accidental SO(10) axion from gauged flavour

    Luca Di Luzio. Accidental SO(10) axion from gauged flavour. JHEP, 11:074, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Baryogenesis from cosmological CP breaking

    Mateusz Duch, Alessandro Strumia, and Arsenii Titov. Baryogenesis from cosmological CP breaking. 4 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Introduction to leptogenesis

    Yosef Nir. Introduction to leptogenesis. In 6th Rencontres du Vietnam: Challenges in Particle Astrophysics, 2 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    Georgi, Lawrence J

    Howard M. Georgi, Lawrence J. Hall, and Mark B. Wise. Grand Unified Models With an Automatic Peccei-Quinn Symmetry. Nucl. Phys. B , 192:409–416, 1981

    1981

  29. [37]

    Palash B. Pal. The Strong CP question in SU(3)(C) x SU(3)(L) x U(1)(N) models. Phys. Rev. D, 52:1659–1662, 1995

    1995

  30. [38]

    Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in the Higgs triplet model and implication with the recent Higgs boson searches

    Shinya Kanemura and Kei Yagyu. Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in the Higgs triplet model and implication with the recent Higgs boson searches. Phys. Rev. D , 85:115009, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Kim, Hans Peter Nilles, and Marco Peloso

    Jihn E. Kim, Hans Peter Nilles, and Marco Peloso. Completing natural inflation. JCAP, 01:005, 2005

    2005

  32. [41]

    for the benchmark values: fa = 3×1014 GeV,ma = 7×1010 GeV, Γϕ = 5×109 GeV and Hinf = 8× 1010 GeV. In the left panel of the figure the evolution of the Hubble parameter, H, the rate of ∆ L = 2 process Γ L and the oscillation of the ALP as ˙ϕa/ϕa are shown in 13 orange, blue, an...

  33. [42]

    A review of Axion Inflation in the era of Planck

    Enrico Pajer and Marco Peloso. A review of Axion Inflation in the era of Planck. Class. Quant. Grav., 30:214002, 2013

    2013

  34. [43]

    Stein and William H

    Nina K. Stein and William H. Kinney. Natural inflation after Planck 2018. JCAP, 01(01):022, 2022

    2018

  35. [44]

    Baryogenesis via leptogenesis

    Alessandro Strumia. Baryogenesis via leptogenesis. In Les Houches Summer School on The- oretical Physics: Session 84: Particle Physics Beyond the Standard Model , pages 655–680, 8 2006. 20

    2006

  36. [79]

    The numerical evolution of the quantities has been done by solving Boltzmann equations (36 -

    The plots in Fig.(1) represent the evolution of various quantities of interest as a function of time in units of 1 /ma. The numerical evolution of the quantities has been done by solving Boltzmann equations (36 -

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.