Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Axion-driven spontaneous leptogenesis, precisely

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that in minimal axion-driven spontaneous leptogenesis, the classic Majoron setup fails because late decays dilute the asymmetry, while axions coupled to strong or weak sphalerons can produce the observed baryon asymmetry…

desk verdict Careful, genuinely useful update of spontaneous leptogenesis; the new flavor-resolved rates are real, but the single-basis classical flavor treatment leaves an unquantified O(1) uncertainty in the sphaleron window. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05279 v1 pith:DLZMQRVW submitted 2026-08-05 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Konstantin Kuckenberg , Martin A. Mojahed , Kai Schmitz , Hidenaga Watanabe This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords spontaneousleptogenesisaxionmisalignmentWeinbergoperatorMajoronbaryonasymmetryleptonflavorsphaleronearlyuniversecosmology
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 revisits the simplest spontaneous-leptogenesis scenario: a heavy axion-like field set in motion by standard misalignment, with lepton-number violation coming only from the dimension-five Weinberg operator. It computes the generated $B{-}L$ asymmetry from a set of Boltzmann equations that for the first time use fully flavor-dependent Weinberg-operator rates expressed directly in low-energy neutrino parameters. Its central conclusions are that the "vanilla" Majoron version of the mechanism is under severe tension because the late decay of the Majoron dilutes the asymmetry, while axions coupled to strong or weak sphalerons can reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry for decay constants near the grand-unification scale and oscillation temperatures above roughly $10^{11}$--$10^{12}$ GeV. The paper also derives a single algebraic master formula for the asymmetry that works for arbitrary axion velocities and generic shift-symmetric couplings. A sympathetic reading treats these as claims about the minimal framework, not about all possible extensions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the temperature-normalized axion velocity $\eta(T) = \dot{\theta}/T$, obtained from the full Bessel-function solution of the misalignment equation rather than a sine approximation. The argument is carried by three coupled pieces: (i) the flavor-resolved equilibrium reaction densities for the Weinberg operator, written in terms of the PMNS matrix and neutrino masses and presented in the $(e,\mu,\tau)$, $(1,2,\tau)$, and $(1,2,3)$ bases; (ii) a network of Boltzmann equations for twelve SM chemical potentials that track the axion bias through the Weinberg operator and through strong- or weak-sphaleron couplings; and (iii) an algebraic master formula, built from the spectator coupling matrix $C$ and source matrices $S$ and $S'$, that collapses the network into a single matrix integral equation for the $B{-}L$ asymmetry and reproduces the numerics in the instantaneous-equilibration regime.

What would settle it

Replace the fixed-basis classical transport equations with a full quantum kinetic density-matrix treatment of neutrino flavor during tau-Yukawa equilibration; if the coherence-damping rate between the $(1,2,3)$ and $(1,2,\tau)$ bases exceeds the Hubble rate near $T \sim 10^{12}$--$10^{13}$ GeV, the $(1,2,3)$-basis predictions for the $B{-}L$ asymmetry and the $f_a$--$T_{\text{osc}}$ parameter window would move measurably.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the minimal framework — a misalignment-driven axion plus the Weinberg operator — makes a sharp, basis-dependent prediction for the baryon asymmetry, and that this prediction closes the vanilla Majoron window. In the $(1,2,3)$ neutrino-mass basis, the flavor-resolved Weinberg rates depend only on the neutrino masses, making the final asymmetry independent of all PMNS mixing angles and CP phases; the asymmetry then scales linearly with the initial misalignment angle $\theta_i$ and with the anomaly coefficients. Adding cosmology, the small Majoron decay rate forces an early matter-dominated era whose entropy release dilutes the generated asymmetry below the observed value for any parameters satisfying $f_a \gg T_{\text{osc}}$. Axions with strong- or weak-sphaleron couplings decay faster, and the paper finds successful baryogenesis for $f_a$ in the $10^{15}$--$10^{17}$ GeV range, $T_{\text{osc}} \gtrsim$ a few $\times 10^{11}$ GeV, and $\theta_i \gtrsim 10^{-2}$, under high-scale inflation and efficient reheating.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation describes lepton flavor with classical Boltzmann equations in a fixed basis; if quantum coherence between the neutrino-mass basis and the tau-Yukawa basis is damped strongly, the computed asymmetries and allowed parameter regions could shift by more than the stated few-percent-to-factor-of-two accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The vanilla Majoron realization with only a derivative coupling to $B{-}L$ cannot explain the observed asymmetry under standard misalignment, because late-time entropy dilution from Majoron decay overwhelms the produced $B{-}L$; extra couplings or kinetic misalignment are needed to save it.
  • With strong- or weak-sphaleron anomaly coefficients of order one to ten, the baryon asymmetry is achievable for $f_a$ in the GUT-scale band $10^{15}$--$10^{17}$ GeV and $T_{\text{osc}} \gtrsim$ a few $\times 10^{11}$ GeV, with a standard misalignment angle $\theta_i \gtrsim 10^{-2}$.
  • In the neutrino-mass basis the final asymmetry is fixed by the active-neutrino masses and their ordering and is insensitive to Dirac and Majorana CP phases, so low-energy neutrino parameter measurements constrain the high-scale mechanism.
  • The algebraic master formula, valid for arbitrary axion velocities and generic shift-symmetric couplings, makes the $B{-}L$ yield computable without solving the full Boltzmann network in the regimes where the formula applies.
  • Viable parameter regions require high-scale inflation followed by efficient reheating and sit near the current bound on baryonic isocurvature; scenarios with lower reheating efficiency are excluded.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $(1,2,3)$-basis result survives a quantum-density-matrix computation, the GUT-scale window for $f_a$ becomes a concrete target: models embedding the Weinberg operator with heavy right-handed neutrinos near the GUT scale and a strong- or weak-sphaleron-coupled axion would predict the observed baryon asymmetry with no additional tuning beyond $\theta_i \gtrsim 10^{-2}$.
  • The same master formula should transfer to kinetic-misalignment variants of spontaneous leptogenesis and to wash-in leptogenesis, since the axion-velocity source enters only through the effective equilibrium chemical potential; checking the formula's accuracy in those regimes is a direct extension of the paper's method.
  • A corollary not stated explicitly by the authors is that any late-decaying pseudoscalar that carries lepton number and sources the Weinberg operator must either decay through extra portals or be coupled to sphalerons; otherwise its own energy density erases the asymmetry it creates.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper revisits spontaneous leptogenesis driven by a coherently oscillating axion, with lepton-number violation from the dimension-five Weinberg operator. The authors compute fully flavor-dependent Weinberg-operator rates, set up a network of Boltzmann equations for the SM chemical potentials, derive a simplified algebraic master formula for the generated B−L asymmetry, and solve the system numerically across axion and neutrino parameters. They then embed the scenario in a cosmological history, including entropy dilution from late-time axion decays and baryonic isocurvature constraints. Their main conclusions are that vanilla Majoron misalignment is under severe tension because of late-time dilution, whereas axions coupled to strong or weak sphalerons can reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry for decay constants near 10^15–10^17 GeV and oscillation temperatures T_osc ≳ 10^11–10^12 GeV, provided reheating is efficient and the inflationary scale is high.

Significance. If correct, the paper would close the simplest Majoron-driven spontaneous leptogenesis window and identify a concrete, falsifiable target for sphaleron-coupled axions. The paper contains several genuine technical contributions: the first explicit flavor-resolved Weinberg-operator rates, a numerically implemented transport system that goes beyond flavor-blind treatments, an algebraic reduction that is benchmarked against the full equations with an honest discussion of where it fails, and a systematic treatment of entropy dilution and isocurvature bounds. The authors also clearly flag the main limitation of their classical flavor-basis treatment and do not fit any parameter to the observed baryon asymmetry. These strengths justify serious consideration of the paper, but the load-bearing flavor-basis issue and a technical issue with the master formula require attention before the central claims can be fully endorsed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 and §3.3, Fig. 4] The final viable regions in Figs. 8 and 9 are computed entirely in the (1,2,3) basis, yet the authors themselves state in the 'Lepton-flavor basis' paragraph of Sec. 3 that a full treatment requires quantum kinetic density-matrix equations because the Weinberg operator and the τ-Yukawa interaction select non-commuting flavor bases. The comparison of the two classical bases in Fig. 4 does not determine the amount of coherence damping; it only brackets the result under two extreme assumptions. The differences between the bases reach an order of magnitude for T_osc around 10^13–10^14 GeV, and the successful window T_osc ≳ 10^11–10^12 GeV lies close to the τ-Yukawa equilibration temperature T_bτ = 1.4×10^12 GeV, exactly where the two bases compete. Since an O(1) shift in the produced B−L asymmetry directly moves the viability boundaries in Figs. 8 and 9, the quoted few-percent-to-factor-of-2 accuracy is not currently supported for the central claim. I request either a density-matrix calculation for the relevant parameter range or a demonstration that the final parameter regions are robust to this uncertainty, for example by recomputing the boundaries in the (1,2,τ) basis and showing that the allowed window remains.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.25) and (3.29)] The algebraic master formula defines the fundamental solution E(T0,T) as the ordinary matrix exponential of an integral of Γ^W P C/(H T). Unless the matrices P(T) C(T) commute with themselves at different temperatures, the solution of the linear system in Eq. (3.19) is a path-ordered exponential, not the ordinary exponential displayed in Eq. (3.29). Here P and C change across the temperature thresholds in Eqs. (3.30)–(3.36), and P is not proportional to the identity in the (1,2,3) basis, so the required commutativity is not established. If a path-ordering is implicitly intended, the notation should say so and the subsequent evaluations in App. B should be re-examined; if not, the dashed 'algebraic solution' curves in Figs. 2 and 3 do not follow from a correct reduction of the Boltzmann equations in the regimes where the LNV rate is neither negligible nor fully equilibrated. This issue directly affects the paper's advertised master-formula result and should be addressed before publication.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The affiliation line 'dGraduate University for Advanced Studies (Sokendai)...' appears typeset without a separating space after 'd', and the duplicate 'd' label should be removed.
  2. [References] Ref. [71] contains the placeholder '2608.xxxxx' and must be completed before submission.
  3. [Sec. 2.3, bullet list] The bullet defining the (1,2, τ) basis contains a stray double comma: 'T τ ≳T≳T µ , ,' should be cleaned up.
  4. [Captions of Figs. 2 and 3] The observed-asymmetry reference line is described as a 'horizontal dashed curve' in the Fig. 2 caption and as a 'dash-dotted' curve in the Fig. 3 caption; the descriptors and line styles should be made consistent and visible in all cited panels.
  5. [Sec. 3.2, text around Eq. (3.37)] The statement that ˙θ/T around the time of the first oscillation is proportional to T_osc is used to motivate the low-T_osc limitation, but a one-line derivation would help the reader verify the scaling, especially since the full Bessel-function expression in Eq. (2.7) is used elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the baryon asymmetry is computed from the transport equations and compared against observation, not fitted to it, and the algebraic master formula is a controlled reduction of the same equations rather than an input.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. The observed baryon asymmetry is used only as a comparison target: Section 3.3 computes |mu_{B-L}/(T theta_i)| and plots it against the horizontal line corresponding to the observed asymmetry with theta_i = 1 (Figs. 3–5), and Section 4.2 then delineates parameter regions where the asymmetry matches observation. No parameter is fitted to eta_B^obs; the axion mass, decay constant, misalignment angle, and neutrino masses are scanned, while PMNS parameters are taken from the external NuFit dataset. The claimed flavor-dependent Weinberg-operator rates (Eqs. 2.17–2.24) are derived from the Weinberg operator definition and low-energy neutrino data, not from the final asymmetry. The algebraic master formula in Eq. (3.25) is explicitly derived from the same Boltzmann equations via an instantaneous-equilibration approximation in Section 3.2, and its validity is checked against the full numerical solutions (Figs. 2 and 3), including a documented factor-of-~2 breakdown regime for sphaleron couplings. The choice of the (1,2,3) flavor basis is presented as a quantified systematic uncertainty (Fig. 4), with the competing (1,2,tau) basis also solved and compared, rather than as a prediction smuggled in by construction. Self-citations to Refs. [21, 26, 54] supply framework ingredients and numerical inputs, but the load-bearing quantitative conclusions—the viable T_osc and f_a windows in Figs. 8 and 9 and the ruling out of vanilla Majoron misalignment via late-time entropy dilution—follow from solving the transport equations, the axion decay rates, and the isocurvature bound, none of which reduces to the observed BAU by definition. The major remaining weakness is the acknowledged neglect of quantum kinetic density-matrix effects in the flavor-basis transition region, but that is a stated limitation affecting numerical accuracy, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on scanned model parameters (theta_i, T_osc, f_a, couplings, neutrino mass scale) rather than on fitted constants. The assumptions are all stated in the paper, but several are load-bearing: harmonic misalignment, single-source Weinberg LNV, classical flavor-basis Boltzmann equations, no backreaction, and instantaneous axion decay. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • theta_i (initial misalignment angle)
    Treated as an a priori random angle in (-pi, pi]; all asymmetries scale linearly with it, and successful baryogenesis requires theta_i of order 10^-2 or larger.
  • T_osc / m_a (axion oscillation temperature / mass)
    Scanned from 10^11 to 10^14 GeV; T_osc fixes the axion velocity scale via Eq. (2.7).
  • f_a (axion decay constant)
    Scanned near 10^15 to 10^17 GeV; controls entropy dilution, isocurvature constraints, and backreaction bounds.
  • C_s, C_w or delta_B-L (axion-SM couplings)
    Anomaly coefficients and Majoron coupling coefficient scanned in the O(1) to O(10) range; benchmarks use C_s = C_w = delta_B-L = 1.
  • m_1 (NO) / m_3 (IO) lightest neutrino mass
    Scanned from 0 to 0.1 eV; affects the total LNV rate and final asymmetry by up to an order of magnitude in some regions.
  • Majorana phases alpha_1, alpha_2
    Scanned in principle, but in the (1,2,3) basis the final asymmetry is independent of PMNS phases; listed for completeness.
  • T_rh (reheating temperature)
    Default 10^15 GeV; results are insensitive when T_rh is much larger than T_osc, otherwise the analysis requires explicit reheating dynamics.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The axion potential is harmonic and the background is radiation-dominated with fixed g_* from reheating down to T greater than 10^10 GeV.
    Leads to the analytic Bessel solution in Eqs. (2.5)-(2.7); anharmonic corrections and a temperature-dependent mass are neglected (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption The Weinberg operator is the only source of B-L violation, and the UV scale Lambda satisfies T much less than Lambda so thermal RHN leptogenesis is negligible.
    Sec. 2.3 and footnote 1; this defines the minimal scenario and excludes additional LNV sources.
  • domain assumption Classical Boltzmann equations in a fixed lepton-flavor basis are sufficient; quantum kinetic density-matrix effects are neglected.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. 3 ('Lepton-flavor basis'); the (1,2,3) basis is selected after numerical comparison in Sec. 3.3.
  • domain assumption The global symmetry giving the axion breaks before inflation and is never restored, with f_a greater than H_I and T_max, and standard misalignment initial conditions hold.
    Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.2); necessary for the homogeneous axion background and for the isocurvature calculation.
  • domain assumption Axion backreaction and dissipation in the axion equation of motion are negligible.
    Sec. 4.1 derives lower bounds such as f_a/C_s^2 of order 1.8 x 10^12 GeV for strong sphaleron friction; below that bound the approximation could fail.
  • domain assumption Entropy dilution from axion decay is described by an instantaneous decay approximation.
    Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.2)-(4.8); assumes a single decay channel and one-shot entropy injection.
  • standard math The chemical-equilibrium matrices C, S, and S-prime from the wash-in leptogenesis formalism apply to the spontaneous case.
    Sec. 3.2 and App. B build on Ref. [54]; the algebraic master formula is an exact reduction of the same transport equations in the instantaneous-equilibration limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axion-driven spontaneous leptogenesis, precisely." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLZMQRVW

@misc{pith2026260805279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axion-driven spontaneous leptogenesis, precisely},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLZMQRVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05279}
}
abstract

We revisit a minimal scenario for spontaneous leptogenesis where the asymmetry generation is driven by a heavy axion-like field evolving via standard misalignment. We focus on the simplest framework in which lepton number violation originates from the dimension-five Weinberg operator and contributions from standard thermal leptogenesis become negligible. The asymmetry is computed by solving a set of transport equations, which incorporate fully flavor-dependent interaction rates for the Weinberg operator that are presented here for the first time. We also derive a simple algebraic master formula for the generated $B\!-\!L$ asymmetry, valid for arbitrary axion velocities and classically shift-symmetric couplings to the Standard Model, that reproduces the $B\!-\!L$-production dynamics of the full set of transport equations in controlled parameter regions. Along the way, we quantify the importance of low-scale neutrino masses and the two mass orderings on the final prediction for the generated asymmetry. Finally, we assess the cosmological viability of different axion couplings by accounting for entropy dilution from late-time axion decays and imposing constraints from baryonic isocurvature perturbations. We demonstrate that explaining the baryon asymmetry via standard Majoron misalignment is under severe tension due to dilution from late-time decays. In contrast, axions coupled to strong or weak sphalerons can successfully produce the observed asymmetry for decay constants near the energy scale of grand unification and axion oscillation temperatures $T_{\text{osc}} \gtrsim 10^{11\cdots12}$ GeV, provided a cosmological history featuring high-scale inflation and efficient reheating.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Domcke, Y

    V. Domcke, Y. Ema, K. Mukaida and M. Yamada,Spontaneous Baryogenesis from Axions with Generic Couplings,JHEP08(2020) 096 [2006.03148]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [71]

    Mojahed and A

    M.A. Mojahed and A. Stanzione,Minimal spontaneous baryogenesis from flavor,2608.xxxxx

    work page

  3. [1]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn,CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 1440

    1977

  4. [2]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn,Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1791

    1977

  5. [3]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

    S. Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 223

    1978

  6. [4]

    Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys

    F. Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 279

    1978

  7. [5]

    Freese, J.A

    K. Freese, J.A. Frieman and A.V. Olinto,Natural Inflation with Pseudo - Nambu-Goldstone Bosons,Phys. Rev. Lett.65(1990) 3233

    work page 1990

  8. [6]

    Graham, D.E

    P.W. Graham, D.E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran,Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 221801 [1504.07551]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 79 references
  1. [7]

    Preskill, M.B

    J. Preskill, M.B. Wise and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 127

    1983

  2. [8]

    Abbott and P

    L.F. Abbott and P. Sikivie,A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 133

    1983

  3. [9]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B120(1983) 137

    1983

  4. [10]

    Ibanez and H.P

    L.E. Ibanez and H.P. Nilles,Low-Energy Remnants of Superstring Anomaly Cancellation Terms,Phys. Lett. B169(1986) 354

    1986

  5. [11]

    Banks, M

    T. Banks, M. Dine, P.J. Fox and E. Gorbatov,On the possibility of large axion decay constants,JCAP06(2003) 001 [hep-th/0303252]

    2003 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten,Axions In String Theory,JHEP06(2006) 051 [hep-th/0605206]. [13]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]. [14]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. ...

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Cohen and D.B

    A.G. Cohen and D.B. Kaplan,Thermodynamic Generation of the Baryon Asymmetry,Phys. Lett. B199(1987) 251

    1987

  8. [16]

    Cohen and D.B

    A.G. Cohen and D.B. Kaplan,SPONTANEOUS BARYOGENESIS,Nucl. Phys. B308 (1988) 913

    1988

  9. [17]

    Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys

    A.A. Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99

    1980

  10. [18]

    Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys

    A.H. Guth,The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 347

    1981

  11. [19]

    Chiba, F

    T. Chiba, F. Takahashi and M. Yamaguchi,Baryogenesis in a flat direction with neither baryon nor lepton charge,Phys. Rev. Lett.92(2004) 011301 [hep-ph/0304102]

    2004 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Takahashi and M

    F. Takahashi and M. Yamaguchi,Spontaneous baryogenesis in flat directions,Phys. Rev. D 69(2004) 083506 [hep-ph/0308173]

    2004 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kusenko, K

    A. Kusenko, K. Schmitz and T.T. Yanagida,Leptogenesis via Axion Oscillations after Inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 011302 [1412.2043]. – 53 –

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ibe and K

    M. Ibe and K. Kaneta,Spontaneous thermal Leptogenesis via Majoron oscillation,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 035019 [1504.04125]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Takahashi and M

    F. Takahashi and M. Yamada,Strongly broken Peccei-Quinn symmetry in the early Universe, JCAP10(2015) 010 [1507.06387]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    K.J. Bae, J. Kost and C.S. Shin,Deformation of Axion Potentials: Implications for Spontaneous Baryogenesis, Dark Matter, and Isocurvature Perturbations,Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 043502 [1811.10655]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Co and K

    R.T. Co and K. Harigaya,Axiogenesis,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 111602 [1910.02080]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [27]

    R.T. Co, L.J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Predictions for Axion Couplings from ALP Cogenesis, JHEP01(2021) 172 [2006.04809]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [28]

    R.T. Co, N. Fernandez, A. Ghalsasi, L.J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Lepto-Axiogenesis,JHEP03 (2021) 017 [2006.05687]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Foster, S

    J.W. Foster, S. Kumar, B.R. Safdi and Y. Soreq,Dark Grand Unification in the axiverse: decaying axion dark matter and spontaneous baryogenesis,JHEP12(2022) 119 [2208.10504]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Chun and T.H

    E.J. Chun and T.H. Jung,Leptogenesis driven by a Majoron,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 095004 [2311.09005]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Barnes, R.T

    P. Barnes, R.T. Co, K. Harigaya and A. Pierce,Lepto-axiogenesis with light right-handed neutrinos,JHEP08(2025) 004 [2402.10263]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Berbig,Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis in a Majoron background,JHEP04(2026) 116 [2506.23290]

    M. Berbig,Type II Seesaw Leptogenesis in a Majoron background,JHEP04(2026) 116 [2506.23290]

    2026 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Asadi, D

    P. Asadi, D. Cyncynates and S. Gori,Axiverse Baryogenesis,2511.15794

  25. [34]

    Chun, H.M

    E.J. Chun, H.M. Lee and J.-H. Song,Spontaneous Leptogenesis in Type I Seesaw, 2512.06413

  26. [35]

    Takahashi and J

    H. Takahashi and J. Wada,Asymmetric Dark Matter from Low-Scale Spontaneous Leptogenesis,2601.01849

  27. [36]

    Chun,Spontaneous Cogensis by QCD axion in Type I Seesaw,2601.09224

    E.J. Chun,Spontaneous Cogensis by QCD axion in Type I Seesaw,2601.09224

  28. [37]

    Kuzmin, V.A

    V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov,On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,Phys. Lett. B155(1985) 36

    1985

  29. [38]

    Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 1566

    1979

  30. [39]

    Chikashige, R.N

    Y. Chikashige, R.N. Mohapatra and R.D. Peccei,Are There Real Goldstone Bosons Associated with Broken Lepton Number?,Phys. Lett. B98(1981) 265

    1981

  31. [40]

    Gelmini and M

    G.B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli,Left-Handed Neutrino Mass Scale and Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number,Phys. Lett. B99(1981) 411

    1981

  32. [41]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421

    1977

  33. [42]

    Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf. Proc. C7902131 (1979) 95. – 54 –

    1979

  34. [43]

    Yanagida,Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos,Prog

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos,Prog. Theor. Phys.64(1980) 1103

    1980

  35. [44]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,Conf. Proc. C790927(1979) 315 [1306.4669]

    1979 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Mohapatra and G

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

    1980

  37. [46]

    Pontecorvo,Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,Sov

    B. Pontecorvo,Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,Sov. Phys. JETP7(1958) 172

    1958

  38. [47]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata,Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles, Prog. Theor. Phys.28(1962) 870

    1962

  39. [48]

    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,JHEP12 (2024) 216 [2410.05380]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Pilaftsis and T.E.J

    A. Pilaftsis and T.E.J. Underwood,Resonant leptogenesis,Nucl. Phys. B692(2004) 303 [hep-ph/0309342]

    2004 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Frossard,First principles approach to leptogenesis, Ph.D

    T. Frossard,First principles approach to leptogenesis, Ph.D. thesis, U. Heidelberg (main),

  42. [51]

    Sigl and G

    G. Sigl and G. Raffelt,General kinetic description of relativistic mixed neutrinos,Nucl. Phys. B406(1993) 423

    1993

  43. [52]

    Abada, S

    A. Abada, S. Davidson, F.-X. Josse-Michaux, M. Losada and A. Riotto,Flavor issues in leptogenesis,JCAP04(2006) 004 [hep-ph/0601083]

    2006 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Nardi, Y

    E. Nardi, Y. Nir, E. Roulet and J. Racker,The Importance of flavor in leptogenesis,JHEP 01(2006) 164 [hep-ph/0601084]

    2006 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Domcke, K

    V. Domcke, K. Kamada, K. Mukaida, K. Schmitz and M. Yamada,Wash-In Leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 201802 [2011.09347]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Antaramian, L.J

    A. Antaramian, L.J. Hall and A. Rasin,Hypercharge and the cosmological baryon asymmetry, Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 3881 [hep-ph/9311279]

    1994 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Fong,Baryogenesis from Symmetry Principle,Phys

    C.S. Fong,Baryogenesis from Symmetry Principle,Phys. Lett. B752(2016) 247 [1508.03648]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Domcke, K

    V. Domcke, K. Kamada, K. Mukaida, K. Schmitz and M. Yamada,Wash-in leptogenesis after axion inflation,JHEP01(2023) 053 [2210.06412]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Mojahed, K

    M.A. Mojahed, K. Schmitz and D. Wilken,A lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from wash-in leptogenesis,Phys. Lett. B871(2025) 139997 [2501.07634]

    2025

  50. [59]

    Mojahed and S

    M.A. Mojahed and S. Weber,Asymgenesis,Phys. Lett. B875(2026) 140294 [2507.10655]

    2026

  51. [60]

    Barbieri, P

    R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, A. Strumia and N. Tetradis,Baryogenesis through leptogenesis, Nucl. Phys. B575(2000) 61 [hep-ph/9911315]

    2000 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Abada, S

    A. Abada, S. Davidson, A. Ibarra, F.X. Josse-Michaux, M. Losada and A. Riotto,Flavour Matters in Leptogenesis,JHEP09(2006) 010 [hep-ph/0605281]

    2006 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Blanchet and P

    S. Blanchet and P. Di Bari,Flavor effects on leptogenesis predictions,JCAP03(2007) 018 [hep-ph/0607330]. – 55 –

    2007 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Antusch, S.F

    S. Antusch, S.F. King and A. Riotto,Flavour-Dependent Leptogenesis with Sequential Dominance,JCAP11(2006) 011 [hep-ph/0609038]

    2006 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Buchmuller and M

    W. Buchmuller and M. Plumacher,Spectator processes and baryogenesis,Phys. Lett. B511 (2001) 74 [hep-ph/0104189]

    2001 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Garbrecht and P

    B. Garbrecht and P. Schwaller,Spectator Effects during Leptogenesis in the Strong Washout Regime,JCAP10(2014) 012 [1404.2915]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Garbrecht, P

    B. Garbrecht, P. Klose and C. Tamarit,Relativistic and spectator effects in leptogenesis with heavy sterile neutrinos,JHEP02(2020) 117 [1904.09956]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Harvey and M.S

    J.A. Harvey and M.S. Turner,Cosmological baryon and lepton number in the presence of electroweak fermion number violation,Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 3344

    1990

  59. [68]

    Laine and M.E

    M. Laine and M.E. Shaposhnikov,A Remark on sphaleron erasure of baryon asymmetry, Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 117302 [hep-ph/9911473]

    2000 arXiv

  60. [69]

    R.T. Co, L.J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Axion Kinetic Misalignment Mechanism,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 251802 [1910.14152]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Wada,Majoron-driven leptogenesis in gauged U(1)Lµ-Lτmodel,Phys

    J. Wada,Majoron-driven leptogenesis in gauged U(1)Lµ-Lτmodel,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 103510 [2404.10283]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Kobayashi, R

    T. Kobayashi, R. Kurematsu and F. Takahashi,Isocurvature Constraints and Anharmonic Effects on QCD Axion Dark Matter,JCAP09(2013) 032 [1304.0922]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [73]

    McLerran, E

    L.D. McLerran, E. Mottola and M.E. Shaposhnikov,Sphalerons and Axion Dynamics in High Temperature QCD,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 2027

    1991

  64. [74]

    Moore and M

    G.D. Moore and M. Tassler,The Sphaleron Rate in SU(N) Gauge Theory,JHEP02(2011) 105 [1011.1167]

    2011 arXiv

  65. [75]

    Drewes and S

    M. Drewes and S. Zell,On sphaleron heating in the presence of fermions,JCAP06(2024) 038 [2312.13739]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Berghaus, M

    K.V. Berghaus, M. Drewes and S. Zell,Warm Inflation with the Standard Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 171002 [2503.18829]

    2025

  67. [77]

    Berera,Warm inflation,Phys

    A. Berera,Warm inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995) 3218 [astro-ph/9509049]

    1995 arXiv

  68. [78]

    Kamali, M

    V. Kamali, M. Motaharfar and R. O. Ramos,Recent Developments in Warm Inflation, Universe9(2023) 124 [2302.02827]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [79]

    D’Eramo and K

    F. D’Eramo and K. Schmitz,Imprint of a scalar era on the primordial spectrum of gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. Research.1(2019) 013010 [1904.07870]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [80]

    Allahverdi et al.,The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe,Open J

    R. Allahverdi et al.,The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe,Open J. Astrophys.4(2021) astro.2006.16182 [2006.16182]. – 56 –

    2021 arXiv

  71. [2013]

    10.11588/heidok.00015153

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.