Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Scalaron-driven Dark Matter during Warm Inflation via UV Freeze--in

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 UV freeze-in during warm Higgs-Starobinsky inflation can produce the observed dark matter relic abundance for 1 MeV and 100 GeV dark matter, with production concentrated at the inflation-to-radiation transition.

desk verdict A solid but conditional extension of warm-inflation UV freeze-in to the Higgs-Starobinsky potential; the fitted cutoff scales and neutrino 'coincidence' carry an unquantified O(1) coefficient, so treat them as order-of-magnitude, not precision, numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00874 v1 pith:S6TCXD3R submitted 2026-08-01 hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-th

F. Millo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords darkmatterwarminflationUVfreeze-inHiggs-Starobinskyscalaronrelicabundancenon-renormalizableoperatorsneutrinomasscoincidence
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

The paper asks whether dark matter can be made during warm Higgs–Starobinsky inflation, where the scalaron field continuously feeds a radiation bath while it rolls and never supercools. It claims the answer is yes: for dark-matter masses of 1 MeV and 100 GeV, high-dimensional operators suppressed by cutoff scales $\Lambda\simeq 4\times10^{15}$ GeV and $\Lambda\simeq 8\times10^{15}$ GeV reproduce the observed relic abundance $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.12$ through UV freeze-in, the mechanism where the dark-matter density grows from negligible by scattering of hot Standard Model particles. Production is not spread over cosmic history: essentially all of the yield is accumulated in a narrow e-folding window at the inflation-to-radiation transition. The result matters because it ties the dark-matter abundance to the reheating epoch itself rather than to a separate later stage, and because the same cutoff scale also produces neutrino masses of the observed order.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the warm Higgs–Starobinsky potential $V(\varphi)=\frac{3}{4}M^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2(1-e^{-\sqrt{2/3}\,\varphi/M_{\rm Pl}})^2$ combined with a temperature-linear dissipation coefficient $\Upsilon=C_T T$, so the dissipation strength $Q=\Upsilon/(3H)$ is $1$ or $10^{-2}$ initially. UV freeze-in enters through the Boltzmann source term $T^{2n+4}/\Lambda^{2n}$ for $2\to2$ scattering of Standard Model states, with operator dimension $D=n+4$; the yield follows from $I_\chi=e^{3N_e}T^{2n+4}(N_e)/(H(N_e)\Lambda^{2n})$ integrated over e-folds. Because the HS plateau keeps the thermal history nearly identical in both dissipation regimes until $N_e\approx 60$, the sharp drop of $\rho_\varphi/\rho_r$ then exposes a hot bath whose temperature dependence makes the source term peak in a narrow window, localizing DM production at the inflation–radiation transition.

What would settle it

Compute the full squared matrix elements for the $D=8$ and $D=9$ operators summed over all Standard Model initial and final states, and compare the resulting Boltzmann collision term to $T^{2n+4}/\Lambda^{2n}$; a coefficient that differs from one by an order of magnitude would move the required $\Lambda$ by $10^{1/(2n)}$ and push the neutrino-mass coincidence outside the observed range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that scalaron-driven warm Higgs–Starobinsky inflation, with scalaron mass $M=2.13\times10^{-6}M_{\rm Pl}$ fixed by the observed scalar perturbation amplitude, produces the full dark-matter relic abundance through ultraviolet freeze-in. For $m_\chi=1$ MeV the abundance is matched by a dimension-$D=8$ operator with $\Lambda=4.01\times10^{15}$ GeV in the strong dissipation regime $Q_0=1$; for $m_\chi=100$ GeV it is matched by a $D=9$ operator with $\Lambda=8.23\times10^{15}$ GeV. In both cases essentially the entire yield is accumulated within $\Delta N_e\sim 2$ to $4$ e-folds around $N_e\simeq 60$, the moment inflation ends and radiation domination begins, so simplified radiation-only estimates both over- and underestimate the yield depending on the regime. The paper further notes that evaluating the $D=5$ Weinberg operator at either cutoff gives $m_\nu\simeq v^2/\Lambda$ on the order of $10^{-2}$ eV, the observed neutrino mass scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dark-matter production rate is exactly $T^{2n+4}/\Lambda^{2n}$ with the coefficient set to one; if the true coefficient is, say, ten, the inferred cutoff $\Lambda$ changes by about $10^{1/(2n)}$ and the claimed neutrino-mass coincidence shifts by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, no separate reheating phase is needed to set the dark-matter abundance; the end of warm inflation itself is the production epoch.
  • The strong dissipation regime ($Q_0=1$) with $D=8,9$ operators keeps the cutoff below the Planck scale, at $10^{15}$ GeV, so the mechanism does not require Planckian suppressed couplings.
  • Radiation-only benchmark formulas cannot be trusted across the transition: they underestimate the final yield in the strong regime and overestimate it in the weak regime.
  • The dark-matter spin does not change the yield scaling up to order-one factors, so the same calculation applies to scalar or fermionic dark matter with only the operator dimension selecting the required cutoff.
  • The cutoff scales that match the relic abundance also sit at the scale where the Weinberg operator gives neutrino masses of the observed order, tying dark matter to neutrino mass generation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exact value of the order-one coefficient in the collision term is the place to look: if a UV completion gives a coefficient of order 10 rather than 1, the required $\Lambda$ shifts by roughly $10^{1/(2n)}$, and the neutrino-mass coincidence slides out of the observed range.
  • The narrow production window suggests that plateau-like warm-inflation potentials generally concentrate UV freeze-in at the end of inflation; the shape of the potential near its minimum, not the plateau, may be the main control on the DM abundance.
  • A testable extension is to replace the linear dissipation coefficient with a different temperature dependence and see whether the production window broadens; the framework's observable predictions are the timing and width of the $I_\chi$ peak.
  • Because the DM mass enters only in converting yield to relic abundance, the model should map one-to-one onto any mass in the [1 keV, 1 TeV] range by adjusting $n$ or $\Lambda$, which is exactly the monotonic behavior the supplementary scans illustrate.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies dark matter (DM) production during warm Higgs–Starobinsky inflation via the ultraviolet (UV) freeze-in mechanism. It adopts the standard warm-inflation dynamics (Eqs. 1–3) with a dissipation coefficient proportional to temperature, fits the scalaron mass to the CMB normalization, and computes the DM yield from the Boltzmann equation (Eqs. 6–8) using a non-renormalizable collision term T^{2n+4}/Λ^{2n}. The authors find that for DM masses of 1 MeV and 100 GeV, the observed relic abundance Ω_CDM h^2 = 0.12 can be reproduced in the strong-dissipation regime (Q0 = 1) with operators of mass dimension D = 8 (n = 4) and D = 9 (n = 5), respectively, with production strongly localized near the inflation–radiation transition. Section 4 discusses scalar and fermionic DM candidates, assigns lepton numbers to suppress lower-dimensional operators, and notes a 'coincidence' that the fitted cutoff scales Λ ≈ 4×10^15 GeV and ≈ 8×10^15 GeV correspond to neutrino masses via the dimension-five Weinberg operator.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were robust, this would be a useful extension of the warm-inflation freeze-in scenario to the Higgs–Starobinsky potential, confirming and sharpening the expectation that UV freeze-in production in warm inflation is dominated by the transition from inflation to radiation. The background dynamics are standard, the equations are clearly laid out, and the qualitative conclusion that the yield accumulates in a narrow e-folding window is likely insensitive to the coefficient issue raised below. However, the paper's main quantitative outputs — the three-significant-figure Λ values and the neutrino-mass coincidence — depend on an unnormalized collision term and on fitting Λ to the relic abundance, so they are not predictive as presented. The paper does not provide machine-checked derivations or reproducible code, and the operator-dominance assumptions are not derived from a complete classification. The central mechanism is plausible and worth reporting, but the current presentation overstates the precision of the results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (6)] The production rate is written as R = T^{2n+4}/Λ^{2n} with an implicit unit coefficient. For the operators introduced in Sec. 4, which contain multiple SM fields and DM bilinears, the thermally averaged rate contains sums over initial-state channels, gauge multiplicities, flavor sums, and symmetry factors, so the coefficient is process-dependent and is not shown to equal one. Because Λ is fitted to reproduce Ω_CDM h^2 = 0.12 in Eqs. (7)–(8), the quoted values Λ = 4.01×10^15 GeV (n=4) and Λ = 8.23×10^15 GeV (n=5), and the neutrino-mass scale derived from them in Sec. 4, inherit an unquantified normalization uncertainty. Please provide the explicit thermal average for at least one representative operator for each spin, or quote Λ with the coefficient as an explicit factor and propagate its range; the current three-significant-figure values are not supported.
  2. [Sec. 4, Weinberg-operator coincidence] The 'attractive coincidence' that v^2/Λ equals the neutrino mass scale is not an independent prediction. In Sec. 3, Λ is fixed by the requirement Ω_CDM h^2 = 0.12; evaluating the dimension-five Weinberg operator at this fitted scale merely restates the fit. With one constraint (relic density) and one free parameter (Λ), the agreement with neutrino masses carries no statistical weight. To make the claim predictive, the model should either fix Λ from a UV completion and then compute Ω_CDM h^2, or show that a single Λ satisfies both the relic density and the neutrino-mass constraint without being tuned to do so. As written, the coincidence should be presented as a posteriori consistency check rather than as evidence for the framework.
  3. [Sec. 4, operator dominance] The claim that n=5 (D=9) operators dominate for scalar DM and n=4 (D=8) for fermionic DM is not established. For the scalar case the paper itself notes that the D=7 operator φ^2(LH)^2 shares the quantum numbers of the D=9 operators, so the 'dominance' is assigned to the UV completion rather than derived from a symmetry. For the fermionic case no complete operator basis up to D=8 is given to show that lower-dimensional operators are forbidden by the lepton-number assignment. If a D=7 or D=8 operator is present, the effective n differs, and the required Λ and the neutrino-mass comparison change. Please supply a complete operator classification under the assumed symmetries, or restrict the conclusions to the specific operator chosen.
  4. [Sec. 4, spin-independence claim] The statement that UV freeze-in is 'independent of the DM spin' with only O(1) prefactors is asserted rather than demonstrated. The operators listed for scalar and fermionic DM have different dimensions (D=9 vs D=8), so the DM spin does affect which n enters the yield; the O(1) prefactor is precisely the unquantified coefficient of Eq. (6). If the spin-independence is meant only at the level of the scaling law, this should be stated with the caveat that the prefactor and the realized operator dimension are model-dependent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 5] There are typos: 'Langrangian' should be 'Lagrangian' in Sec. 4, and 'scalad' should be 'scalar' in Sec. 5.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (6)] The symbol n is used both for the DM number density (n_χ) and for the operator index n in D = n+4, which is confusing; consider relabeling the operator index (e.g., k) or using N_χ for the number density.
  3. [Sec. 2, Fig. 1] The abstract's claim that the transition behavior 'differentiates the HS model from other inflationary models' is not quantified; the comparison with Ref. [8] in Sec. 2 is qualitative and would benefit from a direct quantitative comparison of the production window ΔN_e between the potentials.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence 'the RD era given by {Q0=1, n=1} (D=5) overestimates the DM relic abundance' is unclear: the RD segment overshoots the observed value, but the wording could be read as referring to the RD era itself rather than the yield computed in that era.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the relic abundance is used as an explicit constraint to fix Lambda, while the timing and shape of DM production are determined by independently solved warm-inflation dynamics.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equations (1)-(5) fix the warm-inflation background: the scalaron mass M is adjusted to the curvature power spectrum, and the other CMB observables are then compared with data, which is a standard parameter fit with independent checks. The DM sector uses the externally standard UV freeze-in input in Eq. (6), and Eq. (7) is a direct Boltzmann-equation identity. The paper is transparent that Lambda is not independently predicted: it states that 'the Lambda needed to reproduce the present-day DM relic abundance Omega_CDM h^2 = 0.12 is Lambda = 4.01 x 10^15 GeV' and that 'fixing Omega h^2 = 0.12 translates into microphysical scales.' Thus the relic abundance is used as a constraint, not presented as a parameter-free prediction. The paper's central claim, that DM production is localized near the inflation-to-radiation transition, is controlled by H(N_e), T(N_e), and Q, which are solved independently of the DM normalization and would hold for any Lambda. The neutrino-mass coincidence in Sec. 4 is a conditional numerical consistency obtained by inserting the same fitted Lambda into v^2/Lambda; it is not an independent prediction, and the paper frames it as a 'coincidence' rather than as an external test. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the framework results cited are from external works, not from this author. The unit coefficient in Eq. (6) is an accuracy and precision concern rather than a circularity, because a different coefficient would rescale Lambda without changing the derivation structure.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantity Lambda is fitted to the observed DM abundance, not predicted. The scalaron mass M is fitted to the CMB amplitude. The dissipation coefficient is chosen from two benchmark values. The only novel output is the set of Lambda values for the HS potential and the observation that these Lambda values are near the seesaw scale. No new particles or forces are introduced beyond the standard scalaron, SM fields, and DM candidates.

free parameters (6)
  • Scalaron mass M = 2.13e-6 M_Pl
    Fixed in Sec. 2 so that the warm inflation power spectrum amplitude matches ln(10^10 A_s) = 3.048. The value is fitted to the CMB normalization, not derived from the model.
  • Cutoff scale Lambda for D=8 (m_chi=1 MeV, Q0=1) = 4.01e15 GeV
    Chosen in Sec. 3.1 so that the final DM yield reproduces Omega_CDM h^2 = 0.12. This is the central fitted parameter of the paper.
  • Cutoff scale Lambda for D=9 (m_chi=100 GeV, Q0=1) = 8.23e15 GeV
    Chosen in Sec. 4 so that the D=9 operators reproduce the relic abundance, as stated below Eq. (11). Fitted to Omega_CDM h^2 = 0.12.
  • Dissipation strength Q0 (or C_T) = Q0 = {0.01, 1}
    Two benchmark values are chosen in Sec. 2; C_T = 3H Q0/T is bounded to <= 0.03. Not derived from a specific microphysical model.
  • Growth function G(Q) coefficients = 1 + 0.335 Q^1.364 + 0.0185 Q^2.315
    Phenomenological fit to previous numerical warm inflation results, cited from Refs [12, 17-19]; used to compute A_s and hence to fix M.
  • DM mass m_chi = 1 MeV and 100 GeV
    Input masses chosen for comparison with Ref. [8]; the paper notes a ~0.5 MeV mass would reproduce the abundance exactly for the n=1 case, so the mass choice is a scan parameter, not a fixed prediction.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math FLRW flat isotropic background metric
    Assumed throughout Sec. 2; standard cosmological background.
  • domain assumption Warm inflation dynamics with dissipation Upsilon(T) = C_T T
    Eqs. (1)-(3), motivated by warm little inflaton [12]; the linear temperature dependence is an input, not derived from the HS potential.
  • domain assumption Higgs-Starobinsky potential V(phi) = (3/4) M^2 M_Pl^2 (1 - exp(-sqrt(2/3) phi/M_Pl))^2
    Eq. (5), standard Starobinsky form with scalaron mass M as an input parameter.
  • domain assumption UV freeze-in Boltzmann equation with collision term T^(2n+4)/Lambda^(2n)
    Eq. (6), from Refs [5, 11]; assumes 2-to-2 scattering of SM particles in the bath with an unspecified O(1) coefficient.
  • domain assumption DM initially negligible and feebly coupled to the bath
    Required for the UV freeze-in mechanism, stated in Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption Z2 symmetry stabilizes the DM particle
    Sec. 4, minimal model-building choice to ensure DM stability.
  • standard math Weinberg operator relation m_nu = v^2/Lambda
    Used in Sec. 4 to evaluate the neutrino mass coincidence at the fitted Lambda; standard seesaw formula, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Growth function G(Q) fit is used for A_s, n_s, r
    Sec. 2, fitted to numerical simulations in prior literature; affects the determination of M and hence the dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalaron-driven Dark Matter during Warm Inflation via UV Freeze--in." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6TCXD3R

@misc{pith2026260800874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalaron-driven Dark Matter during Warm Inflation via UV Freeze--in},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6TCXD3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00874}
}
abstract

We investigate the production of Dark Matter (DM) within the warm Higgs--Starobinsky (HS) inflation. By adopting the ultraviolet (UV) freeze--in mechanism -- where the DM number density is initially negligible but is populated over time through non-renormalizable interactions of defined mass dimensions -- we find that the DM production within the HS potential has a characteristic timing. For both DM masses, $m_\chi=1$ MeV and $m_\chi=100$ GeV, the yield of DM occurs close to the termination of inflation and its transition to the radiation dominated (RD) era. The present--day DM relic abundance is generated for both DM masses with non-renormalizable operators of mass dimension $D=\{8,9\}$ within strong dissipation regimes. The obtained results suggest that the form of the HS potential and the associated scalaron dynamics favor UV freeze--in DM production as the scalaron approaches the minimum of the potential, where energy transfer to the thermal bath becomes particularly efficient. This distinctive transition behavior differentiates the HS model from other inflationary models and advances our understanding of DM production.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Freese, K., Montefalcone, G., Haghi, B.S.E.: Dark Matter Production during Warm Infla- tion via Freeze-In. Phys. Rev. Lett.133(21), 211001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A.J., Barreiro, R.B., Bartolo, N., Basak, S., Battye, R., Benabed, K., Bernard, J.-P., Bersanelli, M., Bielewicz, P., Bock, J.J., Bond, J.R., Bor- rill, J., Bouchet, F.R., Boulanger, F., Bucher, M., Burigana, C., Butler, R.C., Calabrese, E., Ca...

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    ApJS192(2), 14 (2011)

    Jarosik, N., Bennett, C.L., Dunkley, J., Gold, B., Greason, M.R., Halpern, M., Hill, R.S., Hinshaw, G., Kogut, A., Komatsu, E., Lar- son, D., Limon, M., Meyer, S.S., Nolta, M.R., Odegard, N., Page, L., Smith, K.M., Spergel, D.N., Tucker, G.S., Weiland, J.L., Wollack, E., Wright, E.L.: Seven-year Wilkin- son microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP) observations: ...

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    Cheung, C., Elor, G., Hall, L.J., Kumar, P.: Origins of hidden sector dark matter I: cos- mology. J. High Energ. Phys.2011(3), 42 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [4]

    Bernal, N., Heikinheimo, M., Tenkanen, T., Tuominen, K., Vaskonen, V.: The Dawn of FIMP Dark Matter: A Review of Models and Constraints. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32(27), 1730023 (2017). arXiv:1706.07442 [hep-ph] 9

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Elahi, F., Kolda, C., Unwin, J.: UltraViolet freeze-in. J. High Energ. Phys.2015(3), 48 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    Hall, L.J., Jedamzik, K., March-Russell, J., West, S.M.: Freeze-in production of FIMP dark matter. J. High Energ. Phys.2010(3), 80 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Berera, A.: Warm Inflation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75(18), 3218–3221 (1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Wang, Q.-Y., Jia, T., Chen, P.-R., Tang, Y.: Purely gravitational dark matter produc- tion in warm inflation. Phys. Rev. D112(4), 043508 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Samart, D., Ma-adlerd, P., Channuie, P.: Warm Higgs–Starobinsky inflation. Eur. Phys. J. C82(2), 122 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Bernal, N., Rubio, J., Veerm¨ ae, H.: UV freeze-in in Starobinsky inflation. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020(10), 021–021 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Bastero-Gil, M., Berera, A., Ramos, R.O., Rosa, J.G.: Warm Little Inflaton. Phys. Rev. Lett.117(15), 151301 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Uni- verse9(3), 124 (2023)

    Kamali, V., Motaharfar, M., Ramos, R.O.: Recent developments in warm inflation. Uni- verse9(3), 124 (2023). arXiv:2302.02827 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hall, L.M.H., Moss, I.G., Berera, A.: Scalar perturbation spectra from warm inflation. Phys. Rev. D69(8), 083525 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Montefalcone, G., Aragam, V., Visinelli, L., Freese, K.: Observational Constraints on Warm Natural Inflation. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023(03), 002 (2023). arXiv:2212.04482 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Montefalcone, G., Aragam, V., Visinelli, L., Freese, K.: WarmSPy: a numerical study of cosmological perturbations in warm inflation. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024(01), 032 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Berera, A., Mabillard, J., Pieroni, M., Ramos, R.O.: Identifying Universality in Warm Infla- tion. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2018(07), 021–021 (2018). arXiv:1803.04982 [astro-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bastero-Gil, M., Berera, A., Ramos, R.O.: Shear viscous effects on the primordial power spectrum from warm inflation. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2011(07), 030–030 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    arXiv:2503.10716 (2025)

    Ghorui, T., Rudra, P., Rahaman, F., Pourhassan, B.: Warm Inflation inf(Q) grav- ity. arXiv:2503.10716 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020(11), 021–021 (2020)

    Barman, B., Borah, D., Roshan, R.: Effec- tive theory of freeze-in dark matter. Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020(11), 021–021 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Barman, B., Borah, D., Roshan, R.: Non- thermal leptogenesis and UV freeze-in of dark matter: impact of inflationary reheating (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    arXiv:2306.05999 (2023)

    Song, H., Sun, H., Yu, J.-H.: Complete EFT Operator Bases for Dark Matter and Weakly- Interacting Light Particle. arXiv:2306.05999 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Physics Letters B758, 455–457 (2016)

    Kobach, A.: Baryon number, lepton num- ber, and operator dimension in the stan- dard model. Physics Letters B758, 455–457 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Physics Letters B800, 135132 (2020)

    Helset, A., Kobach, A.: Baryon number, lep- ton number, and operator dimension in the smeft with flavor symmetries. Physics Letters B800, 135132 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Gardner, S., Yan, X.: Light scalars with lep- ton number to solve the (g−2) e anomaly. Phys. Rev. D102, 075016 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Journal of High Energy Physics2021(11) (2021)

    Li, H.-L., Ren, Z., Xiao, M.-L., Yu, J.-H., Zheng, Y.-H.: Operator bases in effective field theories with sterile neutrinos: d≤9. Journal of High Energy Physics2021(11) (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Nuclear Physics B619(1-3), 667–689 (2001)

    Babu, K.S., Leung, C.N.: Classification of 10 effective neutrino mass operators. Nuclear Physics B619(1-3), 667–689 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(10), 103 (2024)

    Berghaus, K.V., Forslund, M., Gue- varra, M.V.: Warm inflation with a heavy QCD axion. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(10), 103 (2024). arXiv:2402.13535 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Covi, L., Kim, H.B., Kim, J.E., Roszkowski, L.: Axinos as dark matter. J. High Energy Phys.2001(05), 033–033 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    Bae, K.J., Choi, K., Im, S.H.: Effective inter- actions of axion supermultiplet and thermal production of axino dark matter. J. High Energ. Phys.2011(8), 65 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Volkas, R.R., Davies, A.J., Joshi, G.C.: Nat- uralness of the invisible axion model. Physics Letters B215(1), 133–138 (1988) 11 Supplementary Note to Scalaron-driven Dark Matter during Warm Inflation via UV Freeze–in In this supplementary, we plot systematically the Dark Matte...

    1988

Pith tools

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