Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The mass-coupling effect in leptogenesis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a broad class of heavy-particle-decay leptogenesis models, the final lepton asymmetry is nearly insensitive to the thermalized Yukawa coupling and the decaying particle mass, because the out-of-equilibrium distribution scales as y^-2 m a

desk verdict Useful counterpoint to the usual leptogenesis enhancement lore, but the claimed insensitivity of the final asymmetry is inferred from large-z scaling rather than demonstrated by integrating Eq. (1). read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03905 v1 pith:GSNXNU3F submitted 2025-09-04 hep-ph

Shinya Kanemura , Shao-Ping Li This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords leptogenesisbaryonasymmetryCPviolationheavyparticledecaynonthermaldistributionweakwashoutYukawacouplingmass-couplingcancellation
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 tries to establish that a common assumption in leptogenesis model building is wrong: in the class of scenarios where a decaying heavy particle provides the out-of-equilibrium condition, the final lepton asymmetry does not respond to the size of the thermalized Yukawa couplings or the particle mass. The reason is a cancellation: a larger coupling (or a smaller mass) drags the decaying particle back toward thermal equilibrium, so the nonthermal distribution at the epoch that matters scales roughly as 1/|y|^2 times m, which neutralizes the explicit |y|^2 and 1/m factors in the standard asymmetry formula. If true, hitting one working benchmark point automatically opens a broad plateau of viable masses and couplings, but trying to boost the asymmetry by tuning these parameters will not help. The claim is deliberately general, built on a simplified but nontrivial Boltzmann evolution rather than a scan of one specific model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the damping (friction) force D in the Boltzmann equation for the decaying particle's departure from equilibrium, which scales as D ∝ |y|^2 (Mbar_Pl/m). This force controls how δf_phi approaches the large-z scaling δf ∝ (1/|y|^2)(m/Mbar_Pl). That scaling, combined with the explicit prefactor Im(y'^2 y^2) M_Pl/m in the asymmetry formula, produces the mass-coupling cancellation on which the whole paper rests.

What would settle it

Solve the full, nonlinear Boltzmann equation without the linearized ansatz of Eq. (11) over m_phi ∈ [10^2, 10^5] GeV and |y| ∈ [10^-5, 10^-2], and compute the final asymmetry Y_L. The cancellation predicts a flat plateau; observing a systematic slope, for example Y_L ∝ |y|^2/m at z ≈ 1 where δf reaches O(10) for m_phi = 10^5 GeV, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that in weak-washout leptogenesis from heavy scalar (or fermion) decay, combined with a coupling hierarchy where some decay products are thermalized and others stay out of equilibrium, the final lepton asymmetry is approximately invariant under rescaling of the thermalized Yukawa coupling y and the decaying particle mass m. The asymmetry formula contains an explicit factor Im(y'^2 y^2) M_Pl/m times an integral of the CP-violating source, which is proportional to the departure from thermal equilibrium δf_phi. The evolution of δf_phi is governed by a damping force proportional to |y|^2 Mbar_Pl/m, and numerically this drives δf_phi into the simple scaling δf ∝ (1/|y|^2)(m/Mbar_

Load-bearing premise

The whole flatness result rests on the claim that the lepton asymmetry is generated at the epoch where the approximate scaling δf ∝ m/(|y|^2 Mbar_Pl) holds while the linearized chemical-potential perturbation of Eq. (11) is still accurate; for the largest masses considered, the plotted δf reaches order 10, which strains the small-perturbation assumption exactly where the cancellation is being invoked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Realizing leptogenesis at one benchmark point in this class automatically opens a much broader region of viable masses and Yukawa couplings, because the final asymmetry stays on a plateau.
  • Varying the decaying particle mass or the thermalized Yukawa couplings will not, by itself, enhance the asymmetry; boosting leptogenesis by tuning these parameters will be challenging.
  • The usual mass effect and large-Yukawa-coupling enhancement mechanisms fail to operate in this class, contrary to naive expectations.
  • The cancellation is not exact: scenarios where leptogenesis terminates early at z < 1, or scenarios with significant flavor effects in the Yukawa matrix, can evade the flat behavior.
  • The conclusion is derived under the weak-washout approximation; the strong-washout regime requires the full integro-differential Boltzmann equation, where the dependence on mass and couplings may be more complicated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this flatness holds beyond the studied class, the baryon asymmetry essentially constrains a combination of the CP phases and the quartic Yukawa product, but not the individual mass or the thermalized coupling; model builders should look for constraints from collider production, gauge interactions, or flavor structure rather than from the abundance itself.
  • The same scaling argument suggests a testable nonthermal-level prediction: a momentum-resolved measurement or simulation of the decaying particle's deviation from equilibrium should trace the m/|y|^2 trajectory across parameter space at z ≈ 1, which could confirm or break the plateau.
  • Because the structure of the damping force is stated to be common to fermion singlet decay, the cancellation should survive in right-handed-neutrino-like scenarios, making low-scale leptogenesis less tunable but more forgiving in parameter space.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the mass and Yukawa-coupling dependence of the final lepton asymmetry in a class of weak-washout leptogenesis scenarios from scalar decay. The setup has a coupling hierarchy: a small Yukawa coupling keeps one decay product out of equilibrium, while a larger Yukawa coupling |y| keeps other flavors thermalized. The authors write the final asymmetry as Y_l = c_md Im[y'^2 y^2](M_Pl/m)∫ dz z^4 Sbar_CP(z) (Eq. (1)). They derive a linearized Boltzmann equation for the chemical-potential perturbation δf_φ, Eq. (22), solve it numerically for two momentum modes r_φ=0.1,1 and for m_φ=10^2–10^5 GeV, |y|=10^−5–10^−2, and observe from ratios that δf_φ ∝ |y|^−2(m_φ/Mbar_Pl) at large z. Since this scaling cancels the explicit |y|^2 and 1/m factors in Eq. (1), they conclude that varying the decaying-particle mass and the thermalized Yukawa coupling does not noticeably change the final asymmetry. They further plot the explicit CP-violating source Sbar_CP from Ref. [21] and claim that this demonstrates the cancellation. Exceptions are noted for early termination of leptogenesis and for flavor effects.

Significance. If the result is established, it is a genuinely useful conceptual correction: in this specific weak-washout class, parameter directions that are commonly expected to enhance leptogenesis are approximately flat, so a single benchmark opens a broad mass/coupling region while tuning to boost the asymmetry is ineffective. The paper is largely parameter-free up to the model-dependent constant c_md, and the ratios in Figs. 2–3 give direct numerical evidence for an asymptotic scaling of δf_φ. The main weakness is quantitative: the headline claim is about the integrated asymmetry in Eq. (1), but the paper never computes that integral and instead infers the cancellation from large-z scaling and from unweighted plots of |Sbar_CP|. The phase-space implementation of the explicit source is also not fully specified. These gaps are fixable and do not, by themselves, invalidate the idea, but the present version does not yet prove the claimed insensitivity.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V, Eq. (1)] The central conclusion requires that the weighted integral ∫ z^4 Sbar_CP dz scales as m_φ/(|y|^2 Mbar_Pl) times a constant, so that the prefactor in Eq. (1) is flat. Fig. 4 shows |Sbar_CP| as a function of z, not the z^4-weighted integral. Because z^4 peaks at z=O(1)–few, the large-z scaling in Figs. 2–3 is not sufficient. Please compute and report the actual Y_l ratios from Eq. (1), e.g. Y_l(m=10^5)/Y_l(m=10^2) at fixed |y| and Y_l(|y|=10^-2)/Y_l(|y|=10^-5) at fixed m, including the Im[y'^2 y^2] and 1/m prefactors.
  2. [§V, Eq. (29)] The explicit source in Eq. (29) is a three-dimensional momentum integral over r_1,r_2,r_3, and F in Eq. (30) contains δf_φ evaluated at some momentum, but §IV solves Eq. (22) only at the two representative momenta r_φ=0.1 and 1. The text does not state how δf_φ is extended to the full momentum range required by Eq. (29), or whether Fig. 4 uses a single representative mode. Without this information Fig. 4 is not reproducible and cannot quantitatively support the cancellation claim. Please specify the interpolation/procedure or provide the full momentum-dependent solution.
  3. [§III–IV, Eqs. (11), (22), Fig. 2] The ansatz (11) is a leading-order perturbation with a small chemical potential. Fig. 2 shows δf_φ values that reach O(10) or larger for m_φ=10^5 GeV and r_φ=0.1 near z~1. For such values the linearized expression for δf_φ and hence Eq. (22) are no longer controlled, precisely in a parameter region used to infer the scaling (26). Either solve the full momentum-dependent distribution without the linearization, or restrict the numerical evidence to the region where Eq. (11) is valid and show that the conclusion is unchanged.
  4. [§IV, final paragraph; §I] The paper concedes that the simple scaling may break down near z=1 for r_φ≪1. This is exactly the region that the z^4 weight in Eq. (1) can make relevant. The statement that r_φ≪1 modes contribute little because the dominant phase-space integration occurs at E(p)≃T is plausible but not quantified. Since Eq. (26) is demonstrated only at z≫1, the gap between the asymptotic scaling and the z=O(1) peak of the integrand must be closed before the integrated asymmetry claim is established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II–IV, Eqs. (19), (28)] The notation |y| is used both as the summed squared matrix elements in Eq. (19) and as a single dimensionless number |y|=10^{-i} in Fig. 3 and Eq. (28). Please clarify how the flavor-dependent Im[y'^2 y^2] in Eq. (1) is related to the |y| used in the Boltzmann equation, since the cancellation argument treats them as the same parameter.
  2. [§IV, Eqs. (27)–(28)] In the definitions of R_{i/j} and Rtilde_{i/j}, the reference point is not stated in the equation itself; e.g., R_{2/3} is δf(m=10^2)/δf(m=10^3). Adding this explicitly would improve readability.
  3. [§III, Eq. (23)] The statement that the first term in D is smaller than the second for 'the typical parameter space' is not quantified. Since the balance between these two terms controls where Eq. (26) holds, giving the boundary in (m_φ,|y|,r_φ) would be helpful.
  4. [Throughout] Minor typographical issues: 'y′2y2' is written without parentheses, and Eq. (1) uses Im[y'^2y^2] while the text speaks of quartic Yukawa couplings; standardizing the notation would reduce ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the mass-coupling cancellation is a dynamical consequence of the solved Boltzmann equation, not a fitted or self-citation-imported result.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and not circular. Equation (1) is a change of variables with z=m/T and S_CP=m^4 \bar S_CP; it contains no fitted constants and does not assume the cancellation. The key scaling δf ∝ (1/|y|^2)(m/\bar M_Pl) is obtained by explicitly solving the Boltzmann equation (Eq. (22)) with the damping term D given by Eq. (23); it is a genuine dynamical result, not an input. The paper fits no parameters to a subset of data and then calls a closely related quantity a prediction. The CP-violating source from Refs. [20,21] is used only as an illustrative example; the authors explicitly state the form of F is model-dependent and that the dominant mass/coupling dependence comes from δf, so these self-citations are not load-bearing for the central claim. The main weakness—that the scaling is demonstrated at z≫1 while the z^4-weighted integrand is claimed to peak at z=O(1), and that δf can become O(10) where the linearization Eq. (11) is uncontrolled—is a validity or rigor gap, not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the weak-washout integral equation, the linearised chemical-potential ansatz for the nonthermal scalar, and the assertion that the asymmetry is generated in the epoch where the numerical scaling δf ∝ y^-2 m holds. No free parameters are fitted to data; m and y are scanned inputs. The illustrative CP-violating source is imported from the authors' previous work.

free parameters (1)
  • c_md
    Model-dependent dimensionless normalisation in Eq. (1) absorbing phase-space factors and squared-amplitude constants. It is not fitted to data and the paper does not determine its value, but the central comparison assumes it does not change within the model class.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Weak washout: washout processes are neglected, so Eq. (1) is a simple integral over the CP-violating source.
    Section II explicitly excludes canonical strong-washout leptogenesis; the central claim is restricted to this weak-washout class.
  • domain assumption Linear-response ansatz for the nonthermal scalar distribution f_phi = (e^{(E-mu)/T}-1)^{-1} with small chemical potential mu, Eq. (11).
    This ansatz is used to derive Eq. (22). Fig. 2 shows δf_phi can reach O(10) or larger for m_phi = 10^5 GeV, where the small-perturbation approximation is not valid.
  • domain assumption Leptogenesis culminates at z = m_phi/T = O(1) or larger, where the observed δf_phi scaling holds.
    Section II states leptogenesis generally culminates at z = O(1), and Section IV relies on the large-z scaling. If the asymmetry is generated at z much smaller than one, the cancellation fails, as the paper concedes.
  • domain assumption The CP-violating source factorizes as S_CP = m^4 Sbar_CP with Sbar_CP proportional to δf, from unitarity and CPT.
    Eqs. (2)-(3); this is standard for out-of-equilibrium CP violation, though the detailed form of F is model dependent.
  • domain assumption The explicit F from Ref. [21] used in Section V is representative for the claimed class of scenarios.
    The paper says the dominant mass and coupling dependence comes from δf, but this is not proven for all model constructions; the numerical illustration uses the authors' prior work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The mass-coupling effect in leptogenesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GSNXNU3F

@misc{pith2026250903905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The mass-coupling effect in leptogenesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GSNXNU3F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03905}
}
read the original abstract

Particle decay in leptogenesis provides a simple avenue to explain the baryon asymmetric universe, where the decaying particle can provide the out-of-equilibrium condition to create a net lepton asymmetry. It is widely anticipated that the lepton asymmetry would be changed significantly by varying couplings and the decaying particle mass, especially in the weak washout regime. Contrary to this naive expectation, we demonstrate a general phenomenon in a class of leptogenesis scenarios from heavy particle decay, where varying the mass and couplings would not modify the lepton asymmetry in a noticeable way, as these mass and coupling effects are largely canceled out from the evolution of the decaying particle. It points out that a much broader parameter space in the mass and couplings will open automatically once leptogenesis is realized in a benchmark point; however, tuning the mass and couplings to boost leptogenesis will be challenging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03905 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The typical topology showing Yukawa coupling enhance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Top: the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Top: the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An example of the phase-space integration over the CP-violating source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Low-Scale Leptogenesis from Resonant Thermal Lepton Flavour Coherences

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Resonant thermal lepton-flavour coherences at two loops enable dominant low-scale leptogenesis for both Dirac and Majorana singlet neutrinos down to GeV masses without mass degeneracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [21]

    Kanemura and S.-P

    S. Kanemura and S.-P. Li, Forbidden neutrinogenesis, JHEP 08 (2025) 001, [arXiv:2412.18278]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, [arXiv:1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Fukugita and T

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

    work page 1986

  4. [3]

    M. A. Luty, Baryogenesis via leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 455–465

    work page 1992

  5. [4]

    L. Covi, E. Roulet, and F. Vissani, CP violating decays in leptogenesis scenarios, Phys. Lett. B 384 (1996) 169–174, [hep-ph/9605319]

    arXiv 1996

  6. [5]

    V . A. Kuzmin, V . A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov,On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe, Phys. Lett. B 155 (1985) 36

    work page 1985

  7. [6]

    D’Onofrio, K

    M. D’Onofrio, K. Rummukainen, and A. Tranberg, Sphaleron Rate in the Minimal Standard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014), no. 14 141602, [arXiv:1404.3565]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Buchmuller, P

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari, and M. Plumacher, Leptogenesis for pedestrians, Annals Phys. 315 (2005) 305–351, [hep-ph/0401240]

    arXiv 2005

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi, and Y . Nir,Leptogenesis, Phys. Rept. 466 (2008) 105–177, [arXiv:0802.2962]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Buchmuller, R

    W. Buchmuller, R. D. Peccei, and T. Yanagida, Leptogenesis as the origin of matter, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55 (2005) 311–355, [hep-ph/0502169]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [10]

    E. K. Akhmedov, V . A. Rubakov, and A. Y . Smirnov, Baryogenesis via neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1359–1362, [hep-ph/9803255]

    1998 arXiv

  4. [11]

    K. Dick, M. Lindner, M. Ratz, and D. Wright, Leptogenesis with Dirac neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 4039–4042, [hep-ph/9907562]

    2000 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Asaka and M

    T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov, The νMSM, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Phys. Lett. B 620 (2005) 17–26, [hep-ph/0505013]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Li, X.-Q

    S.-P. Li, X.-Q. Li, X.-S. Yan, and Y .-D. Yang,Freeze-in Dirac neutrinogenesis: thermal leptonic CP asymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020), no. 12 1122, [arXiv:2005.02927]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Goudelis, P

    A. Goudelis, P. Papachristou, and V . C. Spanos,Mechanism for baryogenesis via feebly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 4 043521, [arXiv:2111.05740]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Hambye, Leptogenesis at the TeV scale, Nucl

    T. Hambye, Leptogenesis at the TeV scale, Nucl. Phys. B 633 (2002) 171–192, [hep-ph/0111089]

    2002 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Li, X.-Q

    S.-P. Li, X.-Q. Li, X.-S. Yan, and Y .-D. Yang,Baryogenesis from hierarchical Dirac neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 11 115014, [arXiv:2105.01317]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Pilaftsis and T

    A. Pilaftsis and T. E. J. Underwood, Resonant leptogenesis, Nucl. Phys. B 692 (2004) 303–345, [hep-ph/0309342]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Pilaftsis and T

    A. Pilaftsis and T. E. J. Underwood, Electroweak-scale resonant leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 113001, [hep-ph/0506107]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Garbrecht, Baryogenesis from Mixing of Lepton Doublets, Nucl

    B. Garbrecht, Baryogenesis from Mixing of Lepton Doublets, Nucl. Phys. B 868 (2013) 557–576, [arXiv:1210.0553]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Kanemura and S.-P

    S. Kanemura and S.-P. Li, Resonant Forbidden CP Asymmetry from Soft Leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025), no. 21 211802, [arXiv:2408.06555]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pilaftsis, CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos, Phys

    A. Pilaftsis, CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 5431–5451, [hep-ph/9707235]

    1997 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Garny, A

    M. Garny, A. Kartavtsev, and A. Hohenegger, Leptogenesis from first principles in the resonant regime, Annals Phys. 328 (2013) 26–63, [arXiv:1112.6428]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hohenegger and A

    A. Hohenegger and A. Kartavtsev, Leptogenesis in crossing and runaway regimes, JHEP 07 (2014) 130, [arXiv:1404.5309]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia, Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM, Nucl. Phys. B 685 (2004) 89–149, [hep-ph/0310123]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ma and U

    E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Neutrino masses and leptogenesis with heavy Higgs triplets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 5716–5719, [hep-ph/9802445]

    1998 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hambye, E

    T. Hambye, E. Ma, and U. Sarkar, Supersymmetric triplet Higgs model of neutrino masses and leptogenesis, Nucl. Phys. B 602 (2001) 23–38, [hep-ph/0011192]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hambye and G

    T. Hambye and G. Senjanovic, Consequences of triplet seesaw for leptogenesis, Phys. Lett. B 582 (2004) 73–81, [hep-ph/0307237]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Garbrecht, Leptogenesis from Additional Higgs Doublets, Phys

    B. Garbrecht, Leptogenesis from Additional Higgs Doublets, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 123509, [arXiv:1201.5126]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hambye and D

    T. Hambye and D. Teresi, Higgs doublet decay as the origin of the baryon asymmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016), no. 9 091801, [arXiv:1606.00017]. 9

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hambye and D

    T. Hambye and D. Teresi, Baryogenesis from L-violating Higgs-doublet decay in the density-matrix formalism, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 1 015031, [arXiv:1705.00016]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Garbrecht, Leptogenesis: The Other Cuts, Nucl

    B. Garbrecht, Leptogenesis: The Other Cuts, Nucl. Phys. B 847 (2011) 350–366, [arXiv:1011.3122]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Shaposhnikov, A Possible symmetry of the nuMSM, Nucl

    M. Shaposhnikov, A Possible symmetry of the nuMSM, Nucl. Phys. B 763 (2007) 49–59, [hep-ph/0605047]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. B. Gavela, T. Hambye, D. Hernandez, and P. Hernandez, Minimal Flavour Seesaw Models, JHEP 09 (2009) 038, [arXiv:0906.1461]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Abada, G

    A. Abada, G. Arcadi, V . Domcke, M. Drewes, J. Klaric, and M. Lucente, Low-scale leptogenesis with three heavy neutrinos, JHEP 01 (2019) 164, [arXiv:1810.12463]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.