Nelson-Barr Inflation

Fuminobu Takahashi

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Nelson-Barr Inflation

T0 review · 2 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 The paper argues that the Nelson-Barr scalar that solves the strong CP problem can itself drive hilltop inflation, and that the CP-invariant ridge separating the two CP-conjugate valleys is so high compared with the post-inflationary…

desk verdict A genuinely new Nelson-Barr-inflation unification whose domain-wall shield is solid for the benchmark potential, but whose claimed robustness to generic mixed couplings remains conditional pending a two-field analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00498 v1 pith:3VCIBDRX submitted 2026-08-01 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

Fuminobu Takahashi This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-th

keywords Nelson-BarrmechanismstrongCPproblemspontaneousviolationhilltopinflationdomainwallsspectralindexreheatingleptogenesis

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that the very scalar field whose spontaneous CP violation solves the strong CP problem (through the Nelson-Barr mechanism) is also the field that drove cosmic inflation. The imaginary part of the field sits in a double-well potential, so there are two CP-conjugate valleys; inflation happens along one valley and homogenizes the CP phase, while the energy stored after inflation is too small to climb over the CP-invariant ridge that separates the valleys, so domain walls cannot form. A small CP-preserving linear deformation of the hilltop potential lifts the spectral index into the range measured by the ACT DR6 data. Because the Nelson-Barr scalar is already coupled to the Standard Model through heavy vector-like quarks, it naturally reheats the visible universe, and with right-handed neutrinos it can transmit the spontaneous CP phase to the lepton sector and, at a higher CP-breaking scale, support nonthermal leptogenesis. If correct, this gives one unified origin for the strong CP solution, inflation, reheating, and baryogenesis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the complex singlet $S=(s+ia)/\sqrt{2}$ with the benchmark potential $V(s,a)=V_{\rm inf}(s)+\frac{\lambda_a}{4}(a^2-f^2)^2$, where the $a$ double-well creates the two CP-conjugate valleys and the sextic-stabilized hilltop $V_{\rm inf}(s)=V_0-Cs-\frac{m^2}{2}s^2-\frac{\lambda_s}{4}s^4+\frac{\lambda_6}{6\Lambda^2}s^6$ drives inflation. The decisive identity is the ridge-to-plateau ratio: $V_{\rm CP}\equiv \min_s V(s,0)=\lambda_a f^4/4$ must exceed the post-inflation scalar energy $\rho_S\simeq V_0$; with $f=v$ and $\lambda_a=O(1)$ the CMB-normalized coupling $\lambda_s=O(10^{-12})$ makes this hierarchy enormous, so the CP-conjugate branch is energetically inaccessible. The linear spurion $C$ (with $C/\Lambda^3\lesssim 10^{-10}$ to protect $\bar\theta$) tilts the hilltop, moving the CMB pivot closer to the origin and raising $n_s$. Reheating uses the field-dependent heavy vector-like quark threshold, which induces the effective gluon couplings $\frac{\alpha_s}{12\pi}\kappa_S\phi GG+\frac{\alpha_s}{8\pi}\kappa_P\phi G\tilde G$, and the right-handed-neutrino coupling transmits the spontaneous phase into the neutrino Yukawa sector.

What would settle it

Evolve the homogeneous two-field system for a deformed potential with a generic mixed term, for example $V_{\rm mix}=\beta s^2 a^2$, from the hilltop, and record whether $\min_s V(s,0)$ falls below the initial scalar energy or whether the transverse $a$ mode is excited over the ridge; if either happens for an allowed $\beta$, the CP-conjugate branch is repopulated and domain walls reappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own account, the central claim is that the Nelson-Barr scalar $S=(s+ia)/\sqrt{2}$ can be the inflaton. Its imaginary component $a$ has a CP-symmetric double-well potential, so the scalar has two CP-conjugate vacua at $\langle a\rangle=\pm f$; these are the two inflationary valleys, and inflation is quartic hilltop inflation along one of them. The same structure removes the domain-wall problem: the CP-invariant ridge at $a=0$ has minimum height $V_{\rm CP}=\lambda_a f^4/4$, while CMB normalization fixes the inflationary plateau energy $V_0\simeq \lambda_s v^4/12$ to be many orders of magnitude smaller for $f\sim v$ and $\lambda_a=O(1)$, so post-inflationary scalar energy cannot cross the ridge and the CP-branch is never repopulated. A small CP-preserving linear deformation $-Cs$ from a real spurion raises the spectral index out of the quartic-hilltop value $n_s\simeq 0.928$--$0.942$ up to the observed $n_s=0.974\pm0.003$ in a finite parameter region. The same vector-like-quark interactions that transmit spontaneous CP violation to the CKM phase provide loop-level reheating through gluons, and a coupling to right-handed neutrinos transmits the phase to the lepton sector, with nonthermal leptogenesis possible if the CP-breaking scale is raised to about $10^{16}$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The central protection claim assumes that for any allowed mixed $s$-$a$ interaction, the lowest point of the CP-invariant ridge stays above the energy stored in the scalar fields after inflation; the paper proves this only for the separable benchmark potential and leaves the generic two-field case as an assertion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Inflation and reheating require no separate inflaton sector: the Nelson-Barr scalar's existing couplings to vector-like quarks provide the reheating portal, with tree-level decays to heavy-plus-light quarks when kinematically open and loop-level decay to gluons otherwise.
The Nelson-Barr domain-wall problem is solved without thermal CP restoration or any new symmetry: the CP-invariant ridge sits far above the post-inflation scalar energy, so the conjugate branch is never populated.
The linear spurion deformation is CP-preserving and shifts the spectral index from the quartic-hilltop value into the ACT DR6 $1\sigma$ range $n_s=0.974\pm0.003$.
With right-handed neutrinos, the spontaneous CP phase reaches the lepton sector, and at a CP-breaking scale around $10^{16}$ GeV nonthermal leptogenesis from inflaton decays can account for the baryon asymmetry.
The low-scale benchmark reheats to only $T_R\simeq 10^3$ GeV via gluons and $T_R\simeq 10^5$ GeV via right-handed neutrinos, implying a low reheating temperature that shapes the subsequent thermal history.

Reading between the lines

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

If this mechanism is generic, it suggests a broader design principle: any spontaneously CP-breaking sector whose inflationary plateau is much shallower than the height of its CP-invariant ridge will automatically avoid domain-wall regeneration, potentially applying to other spontaneous-CP solutions beyond the Nelson-Barr setup.
The model predicts a very low tensor-to-scalar ratio because the potential is quartic-dominated near the top; future CMB observations of primordial gravitational waves would constrain the hilltop shape, while a precise measurement of the running of the spectral index could test the linear-deformed hilltop potential.
The ridge-protection argument could be extended into a quantitative two-field bound: for a class of mixed potentials, the condition $\min_s V(s,0)>\rho_{S,\rm ini}$ is a sufficient energetic criterion that may hold even when the trajectory curves; proving or disproving this generically would settle whether the protection holds beyond the separable benchmark.
Because the reheating temperature is low in the representative region (around $10^3$--$10^5$ GeV depending on the channel), dark matter candidates that require high reheating temperatures, such as thermal WIMPs, would face tension in this scenario, while feebly interacting candidates become more natural.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here is my read. The new thing is not any single ingredient--Nelson-Barr, quartic hilltop inflation, the linear spurion--but the combination: the Nelson-Barr scalar itself drives inflation, the CP-odd double-well supplies both CP-breaking valleys, and the same CP-breaking scale keeps the conjugate branch energetically out of reach after inflation. That is a real step forward for NB cosmology. The paper is also honest: it checks the domain-wall protection rigorously only for the separable benchmark V = V_inf(s) + (lambda_a/4)(a^2 - f^2)^2 and explicitly says that a genuine two-field analysis is needed for mixed s-a interactions. The stress-test worry about lowering the ridge does not kill the benchmark: for v = 10^13 GeV, a mixed modulation like (kappa/Lambda^2)s^2(a^2 - f^2)^2 shifts min_s V(s,0) by only ~(v/Lambda)^2 of the barrier, and the protection condition needs only lambda_a > lambda_s/3 ~ 10^-12, so any ordinary positive quartic works. What remains open is unproven generality, not a discovered counterexample. I think the reader's conditional verdict is right. Where the paper is soft: the CMB fit is achieved by scanning the linear spurion coefficient and the mass, so n_s = 0.974 is a region, not a prediction. That is acceptable for a model paper, but it is fitting, not predicting. The high-scale leptogenesis section is order-of-magnitude and relies on a less-developed spurion extension; the low-scale benchmark explicitly falls short of the observed baryon asymmetry. The claim that the same sector generates CKM and PMNS phases is plausible but not worked out in detail. None of these contradicts the central inflation/domain-wall result for the benchmark potential. The calculations I checked are internally consistent: CMB normalization fixes lambda_s, the hilltop energy is driven well below the CP ridge, and the numerical n_s contours are standard. The citation pattern is fine; Ref. [22] is the author's own earlier derivation of the linear-deformation effect, and that is an independent result. The paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it for review, with the request that the referee ask for either a two-field analysis of the mixed-coupling case or a clear statement of the conditions under which the energetic branch-protection argument fails.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the complex scalar responsible for the Nelson–Barr solution to the strong CP problem also serves as the inflaton. Its imaginary component has a CP-symmetric double-well potential whose two minima define two CP-conjugate valleys; inflation proceeds along one valley in a quartic hilltop form. A small CP-preserving linear deformation raises the spectral index, bringing it into agreement with the ACT DR6 measurement. Because the post-inflationary scalar energy is far below the lowest point of the CP-invariant ridge at a=0, the CP-conjugate branch cannot be repopulated, eliminating the domain-wall problem. The same sector provides reheating through the vector-like-quark threshold and, in an extension with a higher CP-breaking scale, supports nonthermal leptogenesis.

Significance. The proposal is significant because it ties the strong CP problem, inflation, reheating, flavor CP violation, and the domain-wall problem to a single scalar sector. The paper is quantitatively concrete: it provides a representative CMB-normalized point (Table II), computes n_s from the full inflationary equations of motion, and gives analytic expressions for decay widths and the baryon asymmetry. The linear-deformation mechanism is imported from an independent earlier work (Ref. [22]), so the spectral-index enhancement is not a new ad hoc fit. The main weakness is the robustness of the domain-wall-protection claim beyond the separable benchmark potential, which is load-bearing because it underlies the paper's central novelty.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IV, Eqs. (52)–(55)] The domain-wall-protection argument is rigorously established only for the separable benchmark potential (29). The generalization to arbitrary mixed s–a interactions is asserted in the paragraph following Eq. (55), with the caveat that robustness holds 'provided that they do not substantially lower the CP-invariant ridge,' but no operator-level or two-field analysis is supplied that would verify this condition for the symmetry-allowed terms. This is load-bearing because the absence of domain-wall regeneration is the central claim of the paper. I request either an explicit check of the leading mixed operators (e.g., (κ/Λ^2) s^2 (a^2 − f^2)^2 and similar terms) for the v=10^13 GeV and v=10^16 GeV benchmarks, or a quantitative argument that the parameter space satisfying min_s V(s,0) > ρ_{S,ini} is robust and not tuned.
[Sec. IV, Eq. (53)] The sufficient condition (53) is a lower bound on the quartic coupling λ_a, namely λ_a > λ_s/3 + 4m^2/(3v^2) + 10C/(3v^3). The paper assumes λ_a = O(1) in the text, but λ_a is a free parameter; if λ_a were comparable to λ_s, which is fixed at roughly 10^-12 by the CMB amplitude, the inequality would fail and the domain-wall problem would return. Since the model does not enforce or motivate λ_a = O(1), the author should either present a symmetry or radiative-stability argument for this choice, or state the resulting lower bound on λ_a as a falsifiable prediction of the scenario.

minor comments (4)

[Section I] The sentence 'and for only that branch only to remain populated' contains a duplicated 'only'; please remove the second occurrence.
[Section I] The organizational preview mentions Sections V and VII but omits Section VI (the high-scale extension); please add a reference to Section VI so the structure is complete.
[Section III.C] The choice N*=40 is used without a derivation or a sensitivity study. Since the reheating temperature is model-dependent, please comment on the range of N* compatible with the computed TR and indicate whether the ACT-compatible region persists for, say, N* = 35–45.
[Table II] It would be clearer to list the linear spurion coefficient C (in GeV^3) in addition to C^{1/3}, since the potential term in Eq. (23) is written in terms of C.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: n_s is a genuine output of the inflaton EOM integration, and the sole self-citation (the linear-deformation effect) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative results are self-contained against external CMB benchmarks. The spectral index is obtained by numerically integrating the homogeneous inflaton equations of motion (Eqs. (42)-(44)), with lambda_s fixed by the observed scalar amplitude A_s = 2.10e-9 and n_s then evaluated from the Hubble-flow parameters in Eq. (45); n_s is therefore an output, not a fitted input. The domain-wall-protection condition V_CP > V_0 (Eqs. (50)-(53)) is a derived sufficient condition: for f = v it reduces to lambda_a > lambda_s/3 + 4m^2/(3v^2) + 10C/(3v^3), whose right-hand side is of order 1e-13 in the CMB-normalized region, so it is satisfied for generic perturbative lambda_a = O(1). No parameter is defined in terms of the conclusion being drawn. The linear-deformation effect is attributed to the author's earlier Ref. [22], but the paper independently reproduces the mechanism analytically through the slope expression in Eq. (41) and confirms it numerically in Fig. 1, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The generalization of the ridge-protection argument to arbitrary mixed s-a interactions is asserted in Sec. IV rather than demonstrated by a genuine two-field analysis, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this; that is a limitation and a possible correctness risk, but it is not a circular step. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular: the CMB data fix lambda_s, while n_s and the post-inflationary energy hierarchy are computed, not assumed.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed discrete symmetry structure (borrowed from Ref [19]), the separable benchmark potential, and the energy hierarchy between the inflationary plateau and the CP-invariant ridge. The CMB normalization fixes the quartic coupling and thereby makes the hierarchy work; this is a consistency check, not an independent prediction.

free parameters (6)

v (vev position) = 10^13 GeV (benchmark)
Position of the CP-even minimum; chosen as benchmark, controls inflaton mass and energy scales.
f (CP-odd vev) = f = v = 10^13 GeV
Set equal to v to obtain unsuppressed CKM phase; free parameter.
C (linear spurion coefficient) = C^(1/3) = 2.22 x 10^2 GeV at representative point
Scanned to raise n_s to the ACT-preferred value; free parameter.
m (quadratic mass parameter) = m = 5.0 x 10^-1 GeV at representative point
Scanned together with C; free parameter.
lambda_s (quartic coupling) = 2.367 x 10^-12 at representative point
Determined by normalizing the scalar amplitude A_s = 2.1 x 10^-9; effectively fitted to CMB data.
N* (number of e-folds) = 40
Set by assumed post-inflationary expansion history; affects n_s contours.

assumptions (6)

standard math Standard slow-roll inflation and CMB perturbation theory.
Used for the spectral index and amplitude computations in Sec. III.
domain assumption The discrete charge assignments in Table I suppress dangerous operators.
Assumed model structure from Ref [19]; underpins the Nelson-Barr quality and the form of the potential.
ad hoc to paper The scalar potential is separable for the benchmark analysis (Eq. 29).
Introduced to exhibit the dynamics; the paper claims robustness beyond it but does not perform a two-field analysis.
domain assumption The spurion backgrounds X and C are real and CP-preserving.
Set so that the linear deformation is CP-even and no new CP phase is introduced.
domain assumption The initial post-inflationary energy is of order V0 and lies below the CP-invariant ridge.
Needed for the branch-protection argument; verified for the benchmark from CMB normalization.
domain assumption Right-handed neutrinos exist with given couplings.
Introduced in Sec. V to transmit CP phase and enable leptogenesis.

invented entities (2)

Spurion C (dimension-three background field)
purpose: Generates the CP-preserving linear deformation of the inflaton potential that raises n_s.
It is a Lagrangian coefficient with no direct observable; its only role is to adjust the inflaton potential.
Spurions beta_M, beta_i, beta_i' (high-scale extension)
purpose: Allow raising the CP-breaking scale to about 10^16 GeV while keeping strong-CP corrections small.
Model-building devices in Sec. VI; no direct experimental handle is identified in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nelson-Barr Inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VCIBDRX

@misc{pith2026260800498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nelson-Barr Inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VCIBDRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00498}
}

read the original abstract

The Nelson-Barr mechanism solves the strong CP problem through spontaneous CP violation, but the resulting CP-conjugate vacua generically lead to stable domain walls. We propose that the Nelson-Barr scalar itself drives hilltop inflation. A CP-symmetric double-well potential for its imaginary component forms two CP-breaking valleys, with inflation proceeding along one of them. Since the lowest CP-invariant ridge is generically much higher than the energy available after inflation, transitions between the two branches are energetically inaccessible, and the domain walls cannot be regenerated after inflation. A small CP-preserving linear deformation raises the scalar spectral index of quartic hilltop inflation and yields CMB-compatible parameter regions. The Nelson-Barr sector necessarily provides a portal to visible-sector reheating. When coupled to right-handed neutrinos, it can also transmit the spontaneous CP phase to the lepton sector and, in an extension that allows a higher CP-breaking scale, even realize nonthermal leptogenesis. This establishes a unified cosmological realization of the Nelson--Barr mechanism in which the same CP-breaking dynamics solves the strong CP problem, can generate quark and lepton CP violation, drives inflation and reheating, and enables baryogenesis, while simultaneously eliminating the associated domain-wall problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00498 by the authors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[22]

Takahashi, Phys

F. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B727, 21 (2013), arXiv:1308.4212 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2013
[1]

Abelet al., Phys

C. Abelet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2020
[2]

Cheng, Phys

H.-Y. Cheng, Phys. Rept.158, 1 (1988)

work page 1988
[3]

Pospelov and A

M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Annals Phys.318, 119 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504231. 12

arXiv 2005
[4]

J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 557 (2010), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)], arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2010
[5]

Hook, PoSTASI2018, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.02669 [hep-ph]

A. Hook, PoSTASI2018, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.02669 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2019
[6]

A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B136, 387 (1984)

1984
[7]

A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B143, 165 (1984)

1984

Show all 33 references

[8]

S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 329 (1984)

1984
[9]

S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D30, 1805 (1984)

1984
[10]

Bento, G

L. Bento, G. C. Branco, and P. A. Parada, Phys. Lett. B267, 95 (1991)

1991
[11]

Dine and P

M. Dine and P. Draper, JHEP08, 132 (2015), arXiv:1506.05433 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[12]

Vecchi, JHEP04, 149 (2017), arXiv:1412.3805 [hep-ph]

L. Vecchi, JHEP04, 149 (2017), arXiv:1412.3805 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[13]

Valenti and L

A. Valenti and L. Vecchi, JHEP07, 203 (2021), arXiv:2105.09122 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Perez and A

G. Perez and A. Shalit, JHEP02, 118 (2021), arXiv:2010.02891 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[15]

Valenti and L

A. Valenti and L. Vecchi, JHEP07, 152 (2021), arXiv:2106.09108 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[16]

Girmohanta, S

S. Girmohanta, S. J. Lee, Y. Nakai, and M. Suzuki, JHEP 12, 024 (2022), arXiv:2203.09002 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Asadi, S

P. Asadi, S. Homiller, Q. Lu, and M. Reece, Phys. Rev. D107, 115012 (2023), arXiv:2212.03882 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[18]

P. F. Perez, C. Murgui, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 108, 015010 (2023), arXiv:2302.06620 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Murai and K

K. Murai and K. Nakayama, JHEP11, 098 (2024), arXiv:2407.16202 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[20]

I. Y. Kobsarev, L. B. Okun, and Y. B. Zeldovich, Phys. Lett. B50, 340 (1974)

1974
[21]

McNamara and M

J. McNamara and M. Reece, (2022), arXiv:2212.00039 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[23]

Lazarides and Q

G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B258, 305 (1991)

1991
[24]

Asaka, K

T. Asaka, K. Hamaguchi, M. Kawasaki, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B464, 12 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9906366

1999 arXiv
[25]

Asaka, K

T. Asaka, K. Hamaguchi, M. Kawasaki, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D61, 083512 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907559

2000 arXiv
[26]

Suematsu, JCAP08, 029 (2023), arXiv:2212.05165 [hep-ph]

D. Suematsu, JCAP08, 029 (2023), arXiv:2212.05165 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Murai and K

K. Murai and K. Nakayama, JHEP09, 099 (2025), arXiv:2412.19456 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[28]

Nakayama and F

K. Nakayama and F. Takahashi, JCAP05, 035 (2012), arXiv:1203.0323 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[29]

Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[30]

Inami, T

T. Inami, T. Kubota, and Y. Okada, Z. Phys. C18, 69 (1983)

1983
[31]

Djouadi, Phys

A. Djouadi, Phys. Rept.457, 1 (2008), arXiv:hep- ph/0503172

2008
[32]

G. C. Branco, P. A. Parada, and M. N. Rebelo, (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307119

2003 arXiv
[33]

Davidson and A

S. Davidson and A. Ibarra, Phys. Lett. B535, 25 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0202239

2002 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [22]

Takahashi, Phys

F. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B727, 21 (2013), arXiv:1308.4212 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2013

[2] [1]

Abelet al., Phys

C. Abelet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2020

[3] [2]

Cheng, Phys

H.-Y. Cheng, Phys. Rept.158, 1 (1988)

work page 1988

[4] [3]

Pospelov and A

M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Annals Phys.318, 119 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504231. 12

arXiv 2005

[5] [4]

J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 557 (2010), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)], arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2010

[6] [5]

Hook, PoSTASI2018, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.02669 [hep-ph]

A. Hook, PoSTASI2018, 004 (2019), arXiv:1812.02669 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2019

[7] [6]

A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B136, 387 (1984)

1984

[8] [7]

A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B143, 165 (1984)

1984