Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Two-sector leptogenesis in a two-Higgs-doublet model with spontaneous CP violation

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 The paper argues that one CP-violating phase, emerging from the complex vacuum expectation value of an A4 flavon, can simultaneously account for the neutrino mass structure, the baryon asymmetry via leptogenesis, and the observed…

desk verdict Useful model-building benchmark, but the central DM claim depends on an uncalculated symmetric-component annihilation and the CP-asymmetry formulas don't match the paper's own Yukawa structures. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03227 v1 pith:ZORGCHQP submitted 2025-09-03 hep-ph

Debashree Priyadarsini Das , Joy Ganguly , Sasmita Mishra This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords InertHiggsdoubletTwo-sectorleptogenesisBaryonasymmetryDarkmatterrelicdensitySpontaneousCPviolationA4flavorsymmetryRadiativeseesawAsymmetric
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

The paper sets out to show that cosmic coincidence is not an accident: a single CP-violating phase, generated spontaneously by the complex vacuum expectation value of an A4 flavon, can serve as the common origin of neutrino mixing, the visible-sector lepton asymmetry that becomes the baryon asymmetry, and the dark-sector asymmetry that sets the dark matter relic density. The visible sector is a two-Higgs-doublet extension with an inert doublet and three right-handed neutrinos, giving radiative neutrino masses; a dark sector adds one Dirac fermion and one real scalar. The lightest right-handed neutrino decays into both sectors, and the paper solves the two-sector Boltzmann equations to follow the resulting asymmetries. It reports that for a lightest right-handed neutrino mass around $M_1\sim 10^{10}$ GeV, the observed baryon asymmetry is reproduced and the ratio $\Omega_{\rm DM}/\Omega_b\sim 5$ is obtained for a dark fermion mass in the few-GeV range. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that the same phase that explains neutrinos can also explain why dark matter outweighs ordinary matter by a factor of five.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase $\varphi$ in the flavon VEV $\langle\chi\rangle=v_\chi e^{i\varphi}(1,0,0)$, the single CP-violating parameter of the Lagrangian. It induces the phases $\psi_1,\psi_2$ in the diagonalized right-handed neutrino mass matrix and, through the neutrino Yukawa combination $\tilde{Y}_\nu^\dagger\tilde{Y}_\nu$, controls both CP asymmetries $\epsilon_L$ and $\epsilon_\Psi$ from $N_1$ decay. The machinery that carries the argument is the pair of coupled Boltzmann equations for the $N_1$ abundance and the two asymmetry abundances, solved in the narrow-width approximation with inverse decay as the dominant washout; the sphaleron conversion $Y_{\Delta B}=(8/23)Y_{\Delta L}$ then gives the baryon asymmetry, and the yield $Y_{\Delta\Psi}$ is converted to relic density.

What would settle it

Compute the actual $\Psi\Psi$ annihilation cross-section through $N_1$ exchange for $M_1\sim 10^{10}$ GeV and $\lambda_d\le 10^{-2}$ and compare it with the roughly $3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s needed to deplete a thermal symmetric population; if it falls short, include the neglected $2\leftrightarrow 2$ transfer terms (for example $L\Phi\leftrightarrow \Psi S$) in the Boltzmann equations and see whether the dark asymmetry survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the model, the flavon field $\chi$ develops the complex vacuum expectation value $\langle\chi\rangle = v_\chi e^{i\varphi}(1,0,0)$, breaking CP spontaneously. This phase $\varphi$ enters the right-handed Majorana mass matrix and produces the physical phases $\psi_1,\psi_2$ in the basis where that matrix is diagonal; those phases make the combination $\tilde{Y}_\nu^\dagger \tilde{Y}_\nu$ complex, which is the source of CP violation in the decays of the lightest right-handed neutrino $N_1$. $N_1$ decays both into a lepton doublet plus the inert doublet (visible sector) and into the dark fermion $\Psi$ plus the scalar $S$ (dark sector), generating the CP asymmetries $\epsilon_L$ and $\epsilon_\Psi$. The paper claims that with $M_1\sim 10^{10}$ GeV, the dark coupling $\lambda_d\in[10^{-4},10^{-2}]$, and parameters satisfying the light-neutrino mass constraint from oscillation data, the Boltzmann equations yield a final baryon asymmetry $Y_{\Delta B}\sim 10^{-11}$ and a dark relic density $\Omega_\Psi h^2=0.12$ for $m_\Psi$ in the bands 0.81\,--\,0.87 GeV, 2.90\,--\,3.17 GeV, or 9.42\,--\,10.4 GeV, so that $\Omega_{\rm DM}/\Omega_b\sim 5$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that after $N_1$ decays build up the dark asymmetry, the symmetric component of the dark fermion $\Psi$ is annihilated away, even though the only interactions of $\Psi$ run through the heavy $N_1$ portal with $\lambda_d\le 10^{-2}$ and $M_1\sim 10^{10}$ GeV, and the $2\leftrightarrow 2$ transfer processes that could remove the symmetric component are neglected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $M_1\sim 10^{10}$ GeV the model reproduces the observed baryon asymmetry; in one benchmark with $\epsilon_L\sim 1.25\times 10^{-8}$, the final yield is $Y_{\Delta B}\simeq 8.4\times 10^{-11}$, inside the observed range.
  • The dark-sector asymmetry survives with weaker washout than the visible sector, and the relic density $\Omega_\Psi h^2=0.12\pm0.001$ is reached for dark fermion masses of 0.81\,--\,0.87 GeV, 2.90\,--\,3.17 GeV, or 9.42\,--\,10.4 GeV.
  • Both asymmetries vanish when the CP phase $\varphi=n\pi$, so baryogenesis and dark-matter genesis share a single on-off switch in this model.
  • The dark fermion couples to the visible sector only through a one-loop effective Higgs vertex, so the model predicts a direct-detection cross-section far below current experimental limits.
  • The inert doublet remains a subdominant dark matter component, so the model fills, rather than replaces, the known 80\,--\,500 GeV relic-density deficit of the inert doublet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the same phase $\varphi$ fixes both the high-scale CP asymmetries and the low-energy neutrino mixing phases, the model implies a correlation between the leptogenesis scale, the neutrino CP phase, and the dark fermion mass; a global fit over $\varphi,\kappa,y_1,y_2$ could sharpen the predicted mass bands.
  • Beyond the paper: the narrow-width approximation drops the $2\leftrightarrow 2$ transfer processes that can exchange asymmetry between the visible and dark sectors; including them could erase the dark asymmetry or regenerate the symmetric component, so the mass bands should be checked against the full Boltzmann system.
  • Beyond the paper: if the few-GeV dark fermion exists, its self-annihilation cross-section is essentially negligible at late times, so the model predicts an asymmetric dark matter population with no observable annihilation signal even where the relic density is correct.
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 an extension of the Standard Model with an inert Higgs doublet, three right-handed neutrinos, an A4 flavor symmetry, and a dark sector containing a Dirac fermion Ψ and a real scalar S, with spontaneous CP violation from a complex flavon VEV. The framework is used for two-sector leptogenesis: the lightest right-handed neutrino N1 decay generates both the visible lepton asymmetry and a dark-sector asymmetry. Using neutrino oscillation data to constrain the Yukawa structure, the authors solve Boltzmann equations and claim that for M1 ~ 10^10 GeV and three chosen (εL, εΨ) combinations the model reproduces the observed baryon asymmetry and yields ΩDM/Ωb ~ 5 for mΨ in the bands 0.81–0.87 GeV, 2.90–3.17 GeV, and 9.42–10.4 GeV (Table 3).

Significance. If correct, the model would be an interesting demonstration that a single spontaneous CP-violating phase can connect neutrino mixing, baryogenesis, and a few-GeV asymmetric dark matter candidate. The paper includes a complete scalar potential and vacuum-alignment analysis in the appendices, and the Boltzmann treatment is standard. Credit is also due for making the light-neutrino mass constraint a central part of the parameter scan. However, two load-bearing technical issues currently prevent the results from being accepted at face value: the symmetric component of Ψ is never actually removed, and the CP asymmetry formulas used to drive the whole numerical analysis are not derived and do not appear to follow from the stated Lagrangian expressions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, sentence 'once the symmetric component of DM particle Ψ is annihilated away' and discussion after Eq. (3.10)] The central dark-matter claim requires that only the asymmetry YΔΨ survives, but the paper never computes the annihilation cross-section for the symmetric component. In this model Ψ couples to the thermal bath only through the N1 portal with λd ≤ 10^-2 and M1 ~ 10^10 GeV (Section 4). The resulting N1-mediated annihilation cross-section for ΨΨ̄ → SS and ΨΨ̄ → ℓη is of order ⟨σv⟩ ~ λd^4 mΨ^2/(16π M1^4) ~ 10^-66 cm^3/s for mΨ ~ 1–10 GeV, roughly forty orders of magnitude below the canonical thermal-relic value. With Γ1 ~ 10^4 GeV (Fig. 5a) the ratio Γ1/H at T ~ M1 is ~ 10^2, so ψ and Ψ̄ are thermally populated with yield Y ~ g/g* ~ 10^-2; with negligible annihilation the symmetric component freezes out at that yield, giving Ω_sym h^2 ~ 2.755×10^8 (mΨ/GeV) × 10^-2 ~ 10^6–10^7, far above ΩDM h^2 = 0.12. The text explicitly restricts the Boltzmann equations to inverse-decay washout and drops the 2↔2 transfer terms, so no other depletion mechanism operates in the paper. Unless an efficient annihilation channel is provided, the final relic density is dominated by the symmetric component and the Table 3 mass bands are not viable.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (3.7)–(3.8) versus Eq. (2.24)] The CP asymmetry expressions (3.7) and (3.8) are stated without derivation, and substituting Eq. (2.24) into Eqs. (3.3) and (3.5) does not reproduce them. In particular, the M1/M2 term in Eq. (3.7) contains sin ψ1 (or sin(ψ1/2)), whereas the (1,2) element of Eq. (2.24) carries the phase ψ12 = ψ1 − ψ2, so the imaginary part of its square would involve sin 2ψ12. The sign of the λd^2 term in the M1/M3 contribution to Eq. (3.7) also appears opposite to what one obtains from the (1,3) element of Eq. (2.24). Since the magnitudes of εL and εΨ drive the entire numerical scan and the final abundance yields, the authors must provide the derivation of Eqs. (3.7)–(3.8) or correct them; otherwise the numerical results are not trustworthy.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph after Fig. 6 and Table 3] The headline agreement with ΩDM/Ωb ~ 5 is a fit rather than a prediction. The value εL ~ 10^-8 is chosen because the parallel mapping in Fig. 6 shows that larger values produce too large a baryon asymmetry, and the three (εL, εΨ) combinations I–III are selected to bring YΔB close to the observed range. The dark matter mass mΨ is then fixed through Eq. (3.12) by requiring ΩΨh^2 to equal the observed ΩDMh^2. Thus the stated mass bands in Table 3 are derived from observational input, not predicted. The paper should present the analysis as a parameter fit, should state which parameter-space fraction gives the observed values, and should identify any genuinely predicted correlation (for example, the relation between mΨ and the CP phases implied by the combined constraints).
  4. [Section 4, benchmark points] The three combinations I–III are listed in Table 3 only through their (εL, εΨ) values; the actual parameter choices (y1, y2, κ, ϕ, M, λd, and the loop-function inputs) that produce these combinations are not given. Without these benchmark points, the numerical results are not reproducible, and it is not possible to verify that the combinations respect all the constraints discussed in Section 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table 1] There are typos: 'falvon' in the abstract and 'T able' in the Table 1 caption; these should be corrected.
  2. [Eqs. (3.7)–(3.8)] The notation 'sinψ1/2' is ambiguous; it should be written as sin(ψ1/2) or (sin ψ1)/2 consistently throughout.
  3. [Fig. 6 and surrounding text] The text says ϵL ≳ 10^-8 is disfavored because it exceeds the observed YΔB, but then the analysis adopts ϵL ~ 10^-8, which lies at the boundary. Please clarify the exact selection criterion and whether values slightly below 10^-8 were considered.
  4. [Section 5, conclusion] The phrase 'non-zero DM relic density' should read 'the observed DM relic density' for clarity.
  5. [Introduction] The paper should explicitly state what is new relative to Ref. [45], which already combines A4 spontaneous CP violation with leptogenesis; the specific new ingredients (dark sector, two-sector leptogenesis, the predicted mass bands) should be itemized.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The advertised agreement with ΩDM/Ωb ~ 5 and the baryon asymmetry is imposed by construction: mΨ is solved from the observed relic density via Eq. (3.12), and εL is selected to reproduce the observed YΔB.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, paragraph after Fig. 8 and Table 3, using Eq. (3.12)]
    "We have found three specific mass range corresponding to the three combinations ((0.81 - 0.87) GeV, (2.90 - 3.17) GeV, (9.42 - 10.4) GeV for combination I, II, III respectively) for which our result of ΩΨh2 is matching the observed value ΩDMh2 = 0.12± 0.001 and satisfying ΩDM/Ωb∼ 5."

    Eq. (3.12), ΩΨh2 = 2.755×10^8 (mΨ/GeV) YΔΨ, is inverted: the paper varies mΨ until ΩΨh2 equals the observed 0.12 and then reports the matching mass bands. Thus the headline ΩDM/Ωb ~ 5 is the input target, not a computed prediction. The only derived numbers are the mΨ bands, which are just mΨ = 0.12/(2.755×10^8 YΔΨ). Since mΨ is a free parameter of the Lagrangian and the symmetric Ψ component is assumed away rather than computed, this step fits the DM density rather than predicting it.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, paragraph after Fig. 6]
    "These facts inform our choice to consider ϵL ∼ 10−8. For subsequent calculations, we will consider different ϵΨ value keeping ϵL ∼ 10−8, Γ1 ∼ 10^4 GeV and M1 ∼ 10^10 GeV. From our generated data set, we have chosen three combinations of CP asymmetry values (ϵL, ϵΨ): I−(2×10−8, 2×10−8), II−(1.25×10−8, 3.38×10−9), and III−(1.12×10−8, 1.03×10−9)."

    The observed baryon asymmetry is used to select εL. Just before this passage, Fig. 6 maps YΔB versus εL and identifies εL ≳ 10^-8 as disfavored because YΔB would exceed the observed value; the paper then chooses εL ~ 10^-8 and later reports that combinations II and III 'comply well' with the measured YΔB. The BAU agreement is therefore a selection on the model parameter space, not an independent prediction. Together with the ΩDM inversion, both cosmological observables are effectively used as inputs to choose the outputs advertised as agreement.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 3, paragraph before Eq. (3.12); see also the discussion after Eq. (3.10)]
    "In this context, once the symmetric component of DM particle Ψ is annihilated away, the asymmetries in its number densities determine the relic density of DM."

    This sentence is the only bridge from the computed asymmetry YΔΨ to the total DM density used in Eq. (3.12). No annihilation cross-section or symmetric-component Boltzmann equation is given; the text explicitly drops the 2↔2 transfer terms in the narrow-width approximation. With the model's own parameters (λd ≤ 10^-2, M1 ~ 10^10 GeV, mΨ ~ GeV), the N1-mediated annihilation rate is far too small to remove the symmetric population, so the symmetric yield would dominate. The extraction of mΨ from ΩDM in Sec. 4 therefore assumes away the dominant contribution rather than deriving it; the advertised agreement with ΩDM/Ωb ~ 5 is not an independent result.

full rationale

The model-building part of the paper is not circular: the A4 flavor structure, spontaneous CP phase, radiative neutrino mass, and two-sector Boltzmann machinery are standard and are drawn from external literature; there is no load-bearing self-citation. The circularity appears at the numerical level. First, after computing YΔΨ from the Boltzmann equations, the paper uses the observed value ΩDMh^2 = 0.12 in Eq. (3.12) to solve for mΨ, so the statement that the model 'satisfies ΩDM/Ωb ~ 5' is the input rewritten as an output. Second, the baryon asymmetry is used to choose εL ~ 10^-8 via the YΔB-εL map in Fig. 6, and then the chosen combinations are reported as agreeing with YΔB. The remaining independent content — that a single spontaneous CP phase can feed both visible and dark asymmetries and that the implied mΨ is in the few-GeV range — is real but highly contingent on unconstrained parameter choices and on the unproven assumption that the symmetric Ψ component is annihilated away. Because no annihilation cross-section is computed and the only portal is the heavy N1 with small λd, the symmetric yield would plausibly dominate, invalidating the DM mass bands. These issues make the central numerical claims partially circular by construction, while the flavor/CP framework itself retains independent content. Score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model's central numerical results rest on roughly a dozen couplings and VEVs that are scanned or chosen to satisfy neutrino oscillation data, the baryon asymmetry, and the dark matter relic density. The dark fermion mass mΨ is the most direct example: it is adjusted so that ΩΨh² matches the observed value. The phases ψ1, ψ2 are derived from κ and φ, which are in turn set by hand to fit the neutrino sector.

free parameters (6)
  • mΨ (dark fermion mass) = 0.81-0.87 GeV, 2.90-3.17 GeV, 9.42-10.4 GeV (three combinations)
    Adjusted so that ΩΨh² matches the observed relic density ΩDMh² = 0.12 ± 0.001 in Eq. (3.12).
  • εL and εΨ (CP asymmetry values) = εL ~ 1.1e-8 to 2e-8; εΨ ~ 1e-9 to 2e-8 (combinations I, II, III)
    Hand-picked from the parameter scan so that the Boltzmann evolution reproduces the observed baryon asymmetry.
  • yν3 (overall neutrino Yukawa scale) = 0.01
    Chosen in Section 4 to satisfy light neutrino mass constraints and leptogenesis scale.
  • λd (dark sector Yukawa coupling) = 10^-4 to 10^-2
    Chosen to satisfy narrow-width approximation and produce adequate dark-sector asymmetry.
  • κ and φ (spontaneous CPV parameters) = κ from λsχ ~ 10^-4, vχ ~ 10^14 GeV, M ~ 10^12 GeV; φ varied in [0,2π]
    These set the phases ψ1, ψ2 that control the CP asymmetries; varied to accommodate neutrino oscillation data.
  • m̄ηi (inert doublet neutral scalar mass) = 80-500 GeV (the 'IHD desert' range)
    Assumed to address the underabundant IHD relic density; affects loop functions z_i.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The vacuum alignment ⟨χ⟩ = vχ e^{iφ}(1,0,0) and ⟨χ'⟩ = vχ'(1,1,1) is a global minimum of the scalar potential.
    Assumed in Sec. 2.1 and argued in App. C for a specific sign choice of the potential parameters; other alignments exist.
  • ad hoc to paper The symmetric component of Ψ is removed after the asymmetry is generated.
    Stated in Sec. 3 without a computation of the annihilation or transfer cross-section.
  • domain assumption The Boltzmann equations (3.9)-(3.10) with only inverse-decay washout and the narrow-width approximation describe the asymmetry evolution.
    Borrowed from two-sector leptogenesis [43]; neglects 2↔2 transfer terms that could affect the symmetric component.
  • standard math Standard thermal history with g* = 106.75 and radiation domination at T ~ M1 holds.
    Usual cosmological assumptions in leptogenesis calculations.
invented entities (3)
  • Ψ (dark Dirac fermion)
    purpose: Asymmetric dark matter candidate carrying a lepton-number-like asymmetry from N1 decay.
    No external experimental handle is provided; the predicted mass bands are model outputs, and the coupling is tiny.
  • S (real singlet scalar)
    purpose: Decay partner for Ψ in the dark sector, allowing N1 to decay to ΨS and generate the dark asymmetry.
    No independent collider or cosmological signature is identified.
  • χ and χ' (A4 triplet flavons)
    purpose: Break A4 and Z3, generate the flavor structure and the spontaneous CP-violating phase φ.
    Standard A4 model-building devices; no direct experimental signature is proposed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-sector leptogenesis in a two-Higgs-doublet model with spontaneous CP violation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZORGCHQP

@misc{pith2026250903227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-sector leptogenesis in a two-Higgs-doublet model with spontaneous CP violation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZORGCHQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03227}
}
abstract

The extension of the Standard Model (SM) field content with one inert Higgs doublet (IHD) and three right-handed neutrinos (RHNs) is a well-motivated approach. The key advantages of the model include the appearance of a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) like dark matter (DM) candidate from the neutral component of the IHD, along with the plausible explanation of the sub-eV mass range of SM neutrinos via the radiative seesaw mechanism. Additionally, the decay of RHNs can contextualize the baryon asymmetry of the universe via leptogenesis and is intricately connected to CP violation. Also, given the ongoing searches for light scalars at various experimental facilities, the extended Higgs sector of the model continues to be at the forefront. However, this scotogenic framework encounters a deficiency in providing the observed amount of relic density for a particular mass range $\sim (80 - 500) $ GeV of its DM candidate, hence requiring further augmentation. Also, the WIMP scenarios have not yet resulted in conclusive hints at the direct detection experiments. In this context, our work is based on further extension of the above Scotogenic model by a dark sector. Additionally, considering the cosmic coincidence aspect, we operate within the framework of two-sector leptogenesis. To have a predictive flavor structure in the visible sector, we impose $A_4$ symmetry. Also, we adhere to spontaneous CP violation via complex vacuum expectation value of the falvon field, leading to a situation where there is only one CP-violating phase as a common connection between the visible and dark sectors. In our analysis, we find for the lightest RHN mass $\sim 10^{10}$ GeV, our results are in good agreement with the observational ratio of relic densities, i.e., $\Omega_{\rm DM}/\Omega_{\rm b} \sim 5$ for a few GeV range of mass of the dark sector DM candidate.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    Spontaneous CP Violation in $A_4$ Flavor Symmetry and Leptogenesis

    Y.H. Ahn, S.K. Kang and C.S. Kim, Spontaneous CP Violation inA4 Flavor Symmetry and Leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 113012 [ 1304.0921]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  2. [43]

    Falkowski, J.T

    A. Falkowski, J.T. Ruderman and T. Volansky, Asymmetric Dark Matter from Leptogenesis, JHEP 05 (2011) 106 [ 1101.4936]

    arXiv 2011

  3. [1]

    Super-Kamiokande collaboration, Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett.81 (1998) 1562 [ hep-ex/9807003]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [2]

    SNO collaboration, Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions in the sudbury neutrino observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.89 (2002) 011301 [nucl-ex/0204008]

    arXiv 2002

  5. [3]

    SNO collaboration, Measurement of day and night neutrino energy spectra at sno and constraints on neutrino mixing parameters, Phys. Rev. Lett.89 (2002) 011302 [nucl-ex/0204009]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  6. [4]

    Bahcall and C

    J.N. Bahcall and C. Pena-Garay, Solar models and solar neutrino oscillations, New J. Phys.6 (2004) 63 [ hep-ph/0404061]

    arXiv 2004

  7. [5]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification, Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45

    1986

Show all 55 references
  1. [7]

    Branco, P.M

    G.C. Branco, P.M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M.N. Rebelo, M. Sher and J.P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1 [ 1106.0034]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Deshpande and E

    N.G. Deshpande and E. Ma, Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets, Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 2574

    1978

  3. [9]

    Mohapatra and J.C

    R.N. Mohapatra and J.C. Pati, A Natural Left-Right Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D11 (1975) 2558

    1975

  4. [10]

    Minkowski, µ→eγ at a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?, Phys

    P. Minkowski, µ→eγ at a Rate of One Out of109 Muon Decays?, Phys. Lett. B67 (1977) 421

    1977

  5. [11]

    Senjanovic and R.N

    G. Senjanovic and R.N. Mohapatra, Exact Left-Right Symmetry and Spontaneous Violation of Parity, Phys. Rev. D12 (1975) 1502

    1975

  6. [12]

    Mohapatra and G

    R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett.44 (1980) 912

    1980

  7. [13]

    Schechter and J.W.F

    J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  8. [14]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Complex Spinors and Unified Theories, Conf. Proc. C 790927 (1979) 315 [ 1306.4669]

    1979 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Glashow, The future of elementary particle physics, in Proceedings of the 1979 Cargèse Summer Institute on Quarks and Leptons, M

    S.L. Glashow, The future of elementary particle physics, in Proceedings of the 1979 Cargèse Summer Institute on Quarks and Leptons, M. Lévy, J.-L. Basdevant, D. Speiser, J. Weyers, R. Gastmans and M. Jacob, eds., (New York), p. 687, Plenum Press, 1980

    1979

  10. [16]

    Yanagida, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos, in Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in the Universe, O

    T. Yanagida, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos, in Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in the Universe, O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, eds., (Tsukuba, Japan), p. 95, 1979

    1979

  11. [17]

    Lopez Honorez, E

    L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, J.F. Oliver and M.H.G. Tytgat, The Inert Doublet Model: An Archetype for Dark Matter, JCAP 02 (2007) 028 [ hep-ph/0612275]

    2007 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Gustafsson, E

    M. Gustafsson, E. Lundstrom, L. Bergstrom and J. Edsjo, Significant Gamma Lines from Inert Higgs Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.99 (2007) 041301 [ astro-ph/0703512]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Banerjee, F

    S. Banerjee, F. Boudjema, N. Chakrabarty, G. Chalons and H. Sun, Relic density of dark matter in the inert doublet model beyond leading order: The heavy mass case, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 095024 [ 1906.11269]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Astros, S

    M.D. Astros, S. Fabian and F. Goertz, Minimal Inert Doublet benchmark for dark matter and the baryon asymmetry, JCAP 02 (2024) 052 [ 2307.01270]. – 25 –

    2024 arXiv

  15. [21]

    XENON collaboration, Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) 251801 [ 1907.11485]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [22]

    LZ collaboration, First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 041002 [ 2207.03764]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [23]

    LZ Collaboration collaboration, Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, 2410.17036

    arXiv

  18. [24]

    DAR WINcollaboration, DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter detector, JCAP 11 (2016) 017 [ 1606.07001]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [25]

    DES, Fermi-LAT collaboration, Searching for Dark Matter Annihilation in Recently Discovered Milky Way Satellites with Fermi-LAT, Astrophys. J. 834 (2017) 110 [ 1611.03184]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [26]

    I: Results from the test flight on the space shuttle, Phys

    AMS collaboration, The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on the International Space Station. I: Results from the test flight on the space shuttle, Phys. Rept. 366 (2002) 331

    2002

  21. [27]

    collaboration, H.E.S.S

    H.E.S.S. collaboration, H.E.S.S. Limits on Linelike Dark Matter Signatures in the 100 GeV to 2 TeV Energy Range Close to the Galactic Center, Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) 151302 [1609.08091]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Langacker, Grand Unified Theories and Proton Decay, Phys

    P. Langacker, Grand Unified Theories and Proton Decay, Phys. Rept. 72 (1981) 185

    1981

  23. [29]

    Chanowitz and M

    M.S. Chanowitz and M. Golden, Higgs Boson Triplets With M (W) = M (Z) cosθω, Phys. Lett. B 165 (1985) 105

    1985

  24. [30]

    ATLAS collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1 [ 1207.7214]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [31]

    CMS collaboration, Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30 [ 1207.7235]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [32]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for a light charged Higgs boson int→H ±b decays, with H ±→cb, in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 09 (2023) 004 [ 2302.11739]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [33]

    CMS collaboration, Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 8 and 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B793 (2019) 320 [ 1811.08459]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Belle collaboration, Search for a light Higgs boson in single-photon decays ofΥ(1S) using Υ(2S)→π+π−Υ(1S) tagging method, Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) 081804 [ 2112.11852]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [35]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for a new heavy scalar particle decaying into a Higgs boson and a new scalar singlet in final states with one or two light leptons and a pair ofτ-leptons with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 10 (2023) 009 [ 2307.11120]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Abada, C

    A. Abada, C. Biggio, F. Bonnet, M.B. Gavela and T. Hambye, Low energy effects of neutrino masses, JHEP 12 (2007) 061 [ 0707.4058]

    2007 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Kaplan, M.A

    D.E. Kaplan, M.A. Luty and K.M. Zurek, Asymmetric Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 115016 [ 0901.4117]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Cohen and K.M

    T. Cohen and K.M. Zurek, Leptophilic Dark Matter from the Lepton Asymmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 101301 [ 0909.2035]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Feldstein and A.L

    B. Feldstein and A.L. Fitzpatrick, Discovering Asymmetric Dark Matter with Anti-Neutrinos, JCAP 09 (2010) 005 [ 1003.5662]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Haba and S

    N. Haba and S. Matsumoto, Baryogenesis from Dark Sector, Prog. Theor. Phys.125 (2011) 1311 [ 1008.2487]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Boucenna and S

    S.M. Boucenna and S. Morisi, Theories relating baryon asymmetry and dark matter: A mini review, Front. in Phys.1 (2014) 33 [ 1310.1904]. – 26 –

    2014 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Frandsen, C

    M.T. Frandsen, C. Hagedorn, W.-C. Huang, E. Molinaro and H. Päs, Asymmetric dark matter, baryon asymmetry and lepton number violation, Phys. Lett. B782 (2018) 387 [ 1801.09314]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Lee, CP Nonconservation and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys

    T.D. Lee, CP Nonconservation and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rept. 9 (1974) 143

    1974

  38. [46]

    Biswas, S

    A. Biswas, S. Choubey, L. Covi and S. Khan, Common origin of baryon asymmetry, dark matter and neutrino mass, JHEP 05 (2019) 193 [ 1812.06122]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    L. Covi, E. Roulet and F. Vissani, CP violating decays in leptogenesis scenarios, Phys. Lett. B 384 (1996) 169 [ hep-ph/9605319]

    1996 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Siyeon, Leptogenesis and bi-unitary parametrization of neutrino Yukawa matrix, Eur

    K. Siyeon, Leptogenesis and bi-unitary parametrization of neutrino Yukawa matrix, Eur. Phys. J. C 30 (2003) 55 [ hep-ph/0303077]

    2003 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi and Y. Nir, Leptogenesis, Phys. Rept. 466 (2008) 105 [ 0802.2962]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  43. [51]

    Edsjo and P

    J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Neutralino relic density including coannihilations, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 1879 [ hep-ph/9704361]

    1997 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Esteban, M.C

    I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J.P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations, JHEP 12 (2024) 216 [ 2410.05380]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Luty, Baryogenesis via leptogenesis, Phys

    M.A. Luty, Baryogenesis via leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D45 (1992) 455

    1992

  46. [54]

    Ma and G

    E. Ma and G. Rajasekaran, Softly broken A(4) symmetry for nearly degenerate neutrino masses, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 113012 [ hep-ph/0106291]

    2001 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ma, A(4) symmetry and neutrinos with very different masses, Phys

    E. Ma, A(4) symmetry and neutrinos with very different masses, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 031901 [ hep-ph/0404199]. – 27 –

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

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