Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dark-matter portal interactions can generate the observed baryon asymmetry with the lightest heavy neutrino at 2 TeV, without resonant enhancement.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:28 UTC pith:QYWZGY6X

load-bearing objection Interesting mechanism for dark-sector–enhanced low-scale leptogenesis, but the numerical evidence as written does not support the central claim: key rates and CP parameters are missing, and one benchmark contradicts its own relic-density table. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.24032 v1 pith:QYWZGY6X submitted 2025-12-30 hep-ph

Dark Matter-Driven Low-Scale Leptogenesis via Neutrino Portal

Suresh Chand , Avnish , Poulose Poulose This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords low-scale leptogenesisdark matterneutrino portalright-handed neutrinosCP violationbaryon asymmetryfreeze-outBoltzmann equations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to show that low-scale leptogenesis, which normally requires heavy right-handed neutrinos above 10^9 GeV, can work with the lightest right-handed neutrino at the TeV scale. The mechanism does not rely on quasi-degenerate neutrino masses or resonant enhancement. Instead, a dark sector made of a scalar and a fermion, both odd under a stabilizing Z2, couples to the right-handed neutrinos through a neutrino-portal Yukawa interaction. This portal supplies extra decay channels, loop corrections, and 2-to-2 scattering processes that generate sizeable CP violation, and transfers a dark-sector asymmetry into the lepton sector. The authors solve coupled Boltzmann equations and identify parameter points (m_N1 = 2 TeV, dark-matter mass about 250 GeV) where the observed dark-matter relic abundance and the baryon asymmetry are simultaneously reproduced.

Core claim

The central claim is that in a Standard Model extension with three right-handed neutrinos plus a Z2-odd scalar phi and fermion psi, the combination of N1 -> l H and N1 -> phi psi decays and several 2-to-2 scattering channels produces enough CP asymmetry for successful leptogenesis with the lightest heavy neutrino at 2 TeV, even though N2 and N3 are hierarchical. The CP asymmetries receive new one-loop contributions from phi and psi in self-energy and vertex diagrams, and from interference between N1- and N2-mediated scattering amplitudes. The same Yukawa couplings y_i that set the dark-matter co-annihilation abundance enter the asymmetry sources, so dark-matter cosmology and baryogenesis are

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the neutrino-portal interaction y_i psi_bar phi N_i, connecting the two-component (phi, psi) WIMP dark matter to the seesaw sector. It works by opening an extra decay channel for N1, providing dark-sector loop corrections to the standard CP asymmetries, and creating new s- and t-channel scattering processes (phi psi -> l H, phi psi_bar -> l H, l phi -> H psi, etc.) whose N1-N2 interference gives additional CP-violating parameters epsilon_2, epsilon'_2, epsilon^t_1, epsilon^t_2. The Boltzmann equations then couple the dark-sector asymmetry Y_Delta_psi to the lepton asymmetry Y_L, allowing an early dark-sector asymmetry to feed into the visible sector.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation of the final baryon asymmetry assumes that only the lightest heavy neutrino N1 departs from equilibrium and that N2 and N3 act purely as virtual propagators, even though their dark-sector Yukawa couplings are large enough to give them substantial decay and scattering rates.

What would settle it

Solve the coupled Boltzmann equations for the full system including the number densities of N2 and N3 and their decays to phi psi and l H, using the benchmark couplings y2 = 0.2(1+i) and y3 = 0.3*sqrt(2*pi)(1-i); if the resulting baryon asymmetry eta falls more than an order of magnitude below the observed value, the hierarchical-washout premise fails. Alternatively, a dedicated LHC search for the predicted dark-sector states near 200 GeV with the quoted couplings could either find them or bound them out.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the Davidson-Ibarra lower bound on the lightest heavy neutrino mass can be bypassed without degenerate neutrinos, so TeV-scale seesaw models become testable at colliders and future experiments.
  • The baryon asymmetry and the dark-matter relic abundance would trace to the same set of Yukawa couplings, so measurements of dark-matter properties would constrain leptogenesis and vice versa.
  • The dark-sector asymmetry generated at early times and later erased means the present-day dark-matter density is unaffected by the asymmetry transfer, keeping the two-component WIMP scenario consistent with direct-detection bounds.
  • The new CP-violating sources imply enhanced CP violation in neutrino interactions, giving possible signatures in dark-sector and heavy-neutrino searches at the LHC.
  • The requirement that the dark-matter mass be around 200-250 GeV for m_N1 = 2 TeV gives a concrete mass target for the fermion-scalar dark matter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A decisive test would be to solve the full set of Boltzmann equations including the production and decay of N2 and N3 with their O(0.1) dark-sector couplings; the paper treats them only as virtual states, so the quoted baryon asymmetry could be reduced if N2/N3 washout is significant.
  • The same portal could be embedded in models with asymmetric dark matter, potentially connecting the dark-matter asymmetry to the lepton asymmetry more directly and predicting a specific dark-matter mass above the neutrino mass scale.
  • Because the 2-to-2 scattering asymmetries depend explicitly on the heavy-neutrino decay widths, a treatment beyond the narrow-width approximation, including finite-temperature widths and off-shell effects, is needed to validate the numerical magnitude of the final asymmetry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an SM extension with three right-handed neutrinos N_i, a Z2-odd real scalar phi, and a Z2-odd fermion psi, linked by the neutrino-portal Yukawa terms y_i psi-bar phi N_i. It claims that this setup can generate successful low-scale leptogenesis with m_N1 = 2 TeV, without resonant enhancement, through new CP-violating contributions from dark-sector loops and from 2-to-2 scatterings connecting the dark and visible sectors. The dark matter is assumed to be a two-component WIMP system whose relic density is set mainly by the coannihilation process phi psi -> l h. Boltzmann equations for Y_N1, Y_L, and Y_Delta-psi are solved numerically, and benchmarks are shown where the resulting baryon asymmetry eta reaches the observed value while the dark matter parameters are said to be consistent with relic-density constraints.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the framework would be an interesting minimal setting in which the same neutrino-portal couplings provide both a dark matter candidate and new sources of CP violation for TeV-scale leptogenesis, avoiding the usual Davidson-Ibarra bound. The paper usefully catalogs the relevant decay and scattering channels and writes down formal expressions for several CP asymmetries. However, the numerical results rely on a Boltzmann system whose collision terms are mostly undefined, and on a hierarchy assumption that is asserted rather than demonstrated. A credible version of the paper would need to supply the missing rates and either justify or remove the N2/N3 truncation. As it stands, the quantitative claims are not reproducible and the combined DM-plus-BAU statement is overstated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (26)-(28), Appendix C/E] The Boltzmann equations (26)-(28) are the quantitative basis for all figures, but most of the thermally averaged rates entering them are never defined. The text invokes gamma_t1, gamma_t2, gamma_s, gamma_V, gamma_V1..gamma_V6, gamma_LL, gamma_HL, gamma_t(phi-l), etc., and refers to Appendix E, but Appendix E only gives the general thermal-average formula (E1). The only explicit cross section is sigma(phi psi -> l H) in Eq. (C1). Likewise, the source terms Theta^ab_epsilon in Eq. (27) require the CP-violating parts of six different 2-to-2 cross sections, but those cross sections are not given. It is therefore impossible to reproduce Figs. 7-10 or to check the relative size and sign of the many source and washout terms.
  2. [Sec. IV.B and Table IV] The paper restricts the evolution to N1, Y_L, and Y_Delta-psi, asserting that any asymmetry generated by N2/N3 at high temperature is efficiently washed out before EWSB. This assertion is not demonstrated. With the benchmark values y2=0.20(1+i) and y3=0.3 sqrt(2 pi)(1-i), the dark-sector decay widths are Gamma(N2 -> phi psi) ~ |y2|^2 m_N2/(16 pi) ~ 8e5 GeV and Gamma(N3 -> phi psi) ~ 1e7 GeV, which are orders of magnitude larger than H at T ~ m_N2 and T ~ m_N3. Since Eq. (28) contains terms that transfer Y_Delta-psi into Y_L, a sizable dark asymmetry generated before the z range shown in Fig. 7 could alter the initial conditions and the final eta. A quantitative check is needed: add evolution equations for Y_N2, Y_N3 and the associated dark asymmetries, or show explicitly that their combined effect on the late-time Y_L is negligible over the full scanned region.
  3. [Sec. II and Sec. V] The Casas-Ibarra construction that fixes the seesaw Yukawa matrix Y_N is not implemented in a transparent way. The paper states that Y_N is fixed with the Casas-Ibarra parameterization, but it does not report the light neutrino masses, mixing angles, CP phases, or the R-matrix parameters used. The CP asymmetries in Eqs. (9)-(25) depend on combinations such as Im[y_i^* y_j Y_N_{1 alpha} (Y_N_{2 alpha})^*] and K_ij, so the numerical scans cannot be reproduced or checked without specifying these inputs. The authors should either provide the explicit Y_N matrix and the neutrino-sector inputs or make the code publicly available.
  4. [Sec. III, Table III, and Sec. V, Fig. 7] The claimed simultaneous consistency with the observed DM abundance is not supported by the stated numbers for the leptogenesis benchmark points. Table III gives Omega_tot h^2 = 0.0033 for y1 = 0.1 and 0.0028 for y1 = 0.5 at m_phi=m_psi=250 GeV; the coupling y1 = 0.1 sqrt(2)(1-i) used in Fig. 7(b) has |y1| ~ 0.14 and would give Omega_tot h^2 of order 10^-3, well below 0.12. If the authors intend to allow a subdominant dark matter component, that should be stated throughout, and the abstract and conclusion should not claim a unified explanation of the observed DM abundance simply from this model. If the intent is to saturate the observed relic density, the relic-density calculation for the benchmark points needs to be revisited.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'singlet charged neutral fermion' is contradictory: the particle psi is a neutral singlet fermion. Please rephrase as 'singlet neutral fermion'.
  2. [Eq. (16) and Eq. (19)] The propagator denominator in Eq. (16) is written as (s - m_N2)^2 + m_N2^2 Gamma_2^2, which is dimensionally incorrect; it should be (s - m_N2^2)^2 + m_N2^2 Gamma_2^2. In Eq. (19), 'm_2 Gamma_2' should presumably be 'm_N2 Gamma_2'.
  3. [Tables III and IV] The convention for y1 is inconsistent: Table III lists real values (e.g., 0.0042, 0.1), while Table IV and the scan ranges use complex notation such as y1 = 0.1 sqrt(2)(1-i). Please state explicitly whether the Table III entries are magnitudes of the complex coupling or the real part, and use a single convention throughout.
  4. [Sec. IV.B] The notation gamma_s,V is ambiguous. The text later refers to gamma_s and gamma_V separately, but the initial introduction does not distinguish them clearly. Please define each symbol at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the lepton asymmetry is obtained by solving Boltzmann equations with CP asymmetries computed from free parameters, not from the target asymmetry; the main caveat is an unvalidated N1-only truncation, which is a robustness concern rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical result is obtained by solving Eqs. (26)-(28) for Y_N1, Y_L, and Y_Δψ, with CP asymmetry parameters defined in Eqs. (8)-(13), (15)-(19), and (22)-(25). These asymmetry parameters are explicit functions of the free couplings y_i and heavy-neutrino masses m_Ni; they do not presuppose the final value of η. The resulting η is then compared with the externally measured Planck value. The dark-matter section fixes y1 and the DM mass by matching Ω_tot h^2 in Eqs. (4)-(6), again against an external datum, and the y1 values used in the leptogenesis benchmarks are taken from that parameter region (Sec. III, Tables II-III; Sec. V, Table IV). Although Fig. 8 scans (y1,mN2) and identifies a band that reproduces η_obs, this is parameter fitting to an external observation, not an equation that holds by construction; Eq. (36) is an explicit integral solution of the Boltzmann equations, not a tautology. The only self-citation, Ref. [23], appears in the introduction's freeze-in reference list and is not load-bearing for the leptogenesis or DM derivations. The main weakness is the hierarchical assumption that asymmetries from N2 and N3 are efficiently washed out (Sec. IV.B) despite O(1) dark-sector couplings y2,y3; however, that is an approximation whose validity can be questioned, not a circular step in which an output reduces to an input. No equation in the derivation chain equates a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter by construction, and no load-bearing result rests on an unverified self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 4 invented entities

Most of the predictive content is carried by hand-set input parameters, and the numerical demonstration is not self-contained because the Casas-Ibarra matrix is absent and the DM benchmark is internally inconsistent.

free parameters (9)
  • y_1 = 0.0059(1−i), 0.1√2(1−i), 0.12(1−i), etc.
    Complex Yukawa coupling of N1 to ψϕ; magnitude and phase are tuned/scanned to reproduce Ωh² and η.
  • y_2 = 0.20(1+i) in Table IV
    Dark-sector Yukawa of N2; enters CP asymmetries ε1, ε2, ε_t1, ε_t2; chosen by hand.
  • y_3 = 0.3√(2π)(1−i)
    Dark-sector Yukawa of N3; chosen by hand, contributes to loop CP asymmetries.
  • m_N1 = 2000 GeV
    Lightest right-handed neutrino mass; benchmark chosen for low-scale leptogenesis.
  • m_N2 = 10^9 GeV (1.5×10^7 in one BP)
    Heavier RH neutrino; controls ε1 via N1–N2 interference and is scanned in Fig. 8.
  • m_N3 = 2.6×10^13 GeV
    Heaviest RH neutrino; fixed by convention; contributions neglected in scattering asymmetries.
  • m_ϕ = m_ψ = 200–250 GeV
    Dark matter masses; exact degeneracy is imposed to forbid 3/4-body ϕ decays; benchmark 250 GeV.
  • λ' = 10^-10
    Higgs portal quartic; fixed tiny to evade direct detection and invisible Higgs constraints.
  • Casas-Ibarra R-matrix = unspecified
    Complex orthogonal matrix fixing Y_N from light neutrino data; never reported, yet it determines K_ij and hence every CP asymmetry in the paper.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Hierarchical washout: asymmetries from N2,N3 are efficiently washed out, so only N1 dynamics matter at T ~ TeV.
    Invoked in Sec. IV.B to write the Boltzmann system (Eqs. 26–28) for N1, Y_L, and Y_Δψ only; not verified for O(1) y2,y3 which give N2 large dark-sector decay widths.
  • domain assumption Only co-annihilation ϕψ→ℓh depletes dark matter; ϕϕ→SM, ψψ→SM, ϕϕ↔ψψ are negligible.
    Sec. III.B asserts this suppression without quantitative cross-section estimates; the relic-density calculation and the y1 values used for leptogenesis depend on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Exact mass degeneracy mϕ=mψ forbids ϕ 3/4-body decays.
    Imposed in Sec. IV to remove additional CP-violating sources; no symmetry enforces the degeneracy, so it is a fine-tuned choice.
  • domain assumption λ'=10^-10 satisfies direct detection, invisible Higgs, and collider constraints.
    Used throughout; no explicit calculation of the resulting bounds is shown.
  • standard math Casas-Ibarra parameterization fixes Y_N with a complex orthogonal R matrix.
    Sec. II invokes this standard procedure, but the actual Y_N entries that set K_ij are never provided.
  • standard math Type-I seesaw with diagonal right-handed neutrino mass matrix.
    Sec. II assumes m_Nij = m_Ni δij; standard but not derived.
  • domain assumption Classical Boltzmann equations are adequate for couplings O(0.01–1).
    No quantum-kinetic or spectator-process justification is given; the default approximation in leptogenesis.
invented entities (4)
  • ψ (scotino) no independent evidence
    purpose: Fermionic dark matter candidate; provides dark-sector CP phases via y_i ψ̄ϕN_i.
    No direct coupling to SM; benchmark mixings and tiny λ' make it invisible to existing or planned LHC searches.
  • ϕ (dark scalar) no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar dark matter; co-annihilates with ψ; modifies N1 decay width and CP asymmetries.
    Same collider invisibility as ψ; no independent falsifiable handle.
  • N1, N2, N3 no independent evidence
    purpose: Seesaw neutrinos generating neutrino masses and leptogenesis; N2/N3 provide virtual CP interference.
    Heavy neutral leptons with |U_ℓN|²<1.2×10⁻⁵, deliberately below LHC sensitivity.
  • Global U(1)_L' symmetry no independent evidence
    purpose: Distinguishes ψ from ψ̄ and defines generalized lepton number for asymmetry accounting.
    Unbroken global symmetry with no observable gauge boson; only constrains the Lagrangian.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22662 in / 19138 out tokens · 173261 ms · 2026-08-03T13:28:11.046284+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a novel framework for low-scale leptogenesis within an extension of the Standard Model (SM) that includes three SU(2) singlet right-handed neutrinos, a singlet charged neutral fermion, and a real scalar field. In this setup, the CP asymmetry arises through a rich interplay of mechanisms, including two-body decays of the lightest right-handed neutrino into leptons and Higgs or into dark-sector particles, as well as multiple 2 -> 2 scattering processes involving visible and dark states. Crucially, the CP-violating phases originate not only from conventional vertex and self-energy corrections but also from novel interference effects mediated by the dark sector, which significantly enrich the sources of asymmetry. A distinctive feature of our model is the direct connection between the dark sector and leptogenesis, providing a unified explanation for both the matter-antimatter asymmetry and DM abundance. This connection leads to enhanced CP violation in neutrino interactions and predicts new dark-sector particles accessible at the LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24032 by Avnish, Poulose Poulose, Suresh Chand.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ϕ ψ ℓ h Ni FIG. 1: Feynman diagram showing the tree-level co-annihilation process ϕ ψ → ℓ h. The temperature evolution of the yields Yϕ and Yψ corresponding to the fields ϕ and ψ, respectively; is governed by the coupled Boltzmann equations, HSxdYϕ dx = γ sc 1 − Yϕ Y eq ϕ Yψ Y eq ψ ! , and 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Linking Leptogenesis and Asymmetric Dark Matter: A Testable Framework for Neutrino Mass and the Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A leptogenesis framework generates both baryon asymmetry and asymmetric dark matter via heavy Majorana neutrino decays, enabling a TeV-scale seesaw with hierarchical couplings and testable spin-independent DM cross se...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Consequently, the abundances ofψand ¯ψremain equal (Y ψ(z) =Y ¯ψ(z))

    Case when asymmetry in dark sector is absent We shall explore the specific case when dark sector asymmetry is negligible. Consequently, the abundances ofψand ¯ψremain equal (Y ψ(z) =Y ¯ψ(z)). Under this condition, Eq. 26 and Eq. 27 simplify to dYN1 dz +P N (z)YN1 =Q N (z),(29) dYL dz +P L(z)YL =Q L(z),(30) whereP N (z),Q N (z),P L(z) andQ L(z) are defined...

    2000

  2. [2]

    Decay and inverse decay: N1 ↔ℓ H,N 1 ↔ ¯ℓ H†,N 1 ↔ϕ ψ,N 1 ↔ ¯ϕ ¯ψ

  3. [3]

    ∆ℓ= 1 scattering processes: standards-channel processes : ℓ N1 ↔d¯u, ¯ℓ N1 ↔ ¯d u, standardt-channel processes : N1 u↔d ¯ℓ,N 1 ¯u↔ ¯d ℓ, N1 d↔u ℓ,N 1 ¯d↔¯u ¯ℓ standard processes involving gauge boson (V µ =W i µ andB µ ) N1 H s ← →Vµ ℓ,N 1H † s ← →¯Vµ ¯ℓ, N1 ℓ s ← →Vµ H,N 1 ¯ℓ s ← →¯Vµ H †, N1 Vµ t ← →H ℓ,N1 ¯Vµ t ← →¯H ¯ℓ N1 Vµ u ← →H ℓ,N1 ¯Vµ u ← →¯H ¯ℓ...

  4. [4]

    As we can identify that some of the decay and scattering processes mention above are new, while others are studied in standard thermal leptogenesis, [56],[52],[57]

    ∆ℓ= 2 scattering processes:ℓ ℓ t+u ← →H† H †,H ℓ s+t ← →H† ¯ℓ, and all the reverse reactions. As we can identify that some of the decay and scattering processes mention above are new, while others are studied in standard thermal leptogenesis, [56],[52],[57]. Appendix B: Decay Widths ofN1 The lightest right-handed neutrinoN 1 can decay into two modes:N 1 →...

  5. [5]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5, 32 (1967)

    1967

  6. [6]

    M. Dine, P. Huet, and R. L. Singleton, Jr., Nucl. Phys. B375, 625 (1992)

    1992

  7. [7]

    M. Dine, R. G. Leigh, P. Huet, A. Linde, and D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D46, 550 (1992)

    1992

  8. [8]

    Jain and A

    V. Jain and A. Papadopoulos, Physics Letters B303, 315 (1993)

    1993

  9. [9]

    Espinosa, M

    J. Espinosa, M. Quir´ os, and F. Zwirner, Physics Letters B314, 206 (1993)

    1993

  10. [10]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B155, 36 (1985)

    1985

  11. [11]

    V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Usp. Fiz. Nauk166, 493 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9603208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  12. [12]

    A. D. Dolgov, Phys. Rept.222, 309 (1992)

    1992

  13. [13]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B174, 45 (1986)

    1986

  14. [14]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi, and Y. Nir, Phys. Rept.466, 105 (2008), arXiv:0802.2962 [hep-ph]. 34

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  16. [16]

    M. S. Turner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.90, 4827–4834 (1993)

    1993

  17. [17]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018), 1605.04909

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Falkowski, E

    A. Falkowski, E. Kuflik, N. Levi, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D99, 015022 (2019), 1712.07652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Tanabashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    M. Tanabashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D79, 015014 (2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    F. H. Peters, A. Schneider, J. Bucko, S. K. Giri, and G. Parimbelli, Astron. Astrophys.687, A161 (2024), arXiv:2309.03865 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Arcadi, J

    G. Arcadi, J. P. Neto, F. S. Queiroz, and C. Siqueira, Phys. Rev. D105, 035016 (2022), arXiv:2108.11398 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Billardet al., Rept

    J. Billardet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 056201 (2022), arXiv:2104.07634 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    McDonald, Phys

    J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 091304 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0106249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP3, 80, arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Chand, M

    S. Chand, M. Frank, and P. Poulose, Phys. Rev. D106, 043030 (2022), arXiv:2201.08537 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    B´ elangeret al., JHEP2, 186, arXiv:1811.05478 [hep-ph]

    G. B´ elangeret al., JHEP2, 186, arXiv:1811.05478 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Klasen and C

    M. Klasen and C. E. Yaguna, JCAP11, 39, arXiv:1309.2777 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Elahi, C

    F. Elahi, C. Kolda, and J. Unwin, JHEP3, 48, arXiv:1410.6157 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    R. T. Co, F. D’Eramo, L. J. Hall, and D. Pappadopulo, JCAP12, 24, arXiv:1506.07532 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Goudelis, P

    A. Goudelis, P. Papachristou, and V. C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D105, 043521 (2022), arXiv:2111.05740 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Davidson and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    Hambye, F.-S

    T. Hambye, F.-S. Ling, L. L. Honorez, and J. Rocher, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 090 (2009)

    2009

  35. [35]

    Racker, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(03), 025

    J. Racker, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(03), 025. 35

  36. [36]

    J. D. Clarke, R. Foot, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D92, 033006 (2015)

    2015

  37. [37]

    Hugle, M

    T. Hugle, M. Platscher, and K. Schmitz, Phys. Rev. D98, 023020 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Borah, P

    D. Borah, P. S. B. Dev, and A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D99, 055012 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Mahanta and D

    D. Mahanta and D. Borah, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(11), 021

  40. [40]

    Mahanta and D

    D. Mahanta and D. Borah, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(04), 032

  41. [41]

    Sarma, P

    L. Sarma, P. Das, and M. K. Das, Nuclear Physics B963, 115300 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Pilaftsis and T

    A. Pilaftsis and T. E. Underwood, Nucl. Phys. B692, 303 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309342

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  43. [43]

    Pilaftsis and T

    A. Pilaftsis and T. E. J. Underwood, Phys. Rev. D72, 113001 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  44. [44]

    Pilaftsis, J

    A. Pilaftsis, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.171, 012017 (2009), arXiv:0904.1182 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    Kashiwase and D

    S. Kashiwase and D. Suematsu, Phys. Rev. D86, 053001 (2012)

    2012

  46. [46]

    Shoichi and S

    K. Shoichi and S. Daijiro, The European Physical Journal C73, 053001 (2013)

    2013

  47. [47]

    Brdar, A

    V. Brdar, A. J. Helmboldt, S. Iwamoto, and K. Schmitz, Phys. Rev. D100, 075029 (2019), arXiv:1905.12634 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, Nucl. Phys. B618, 171 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103065

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP7, 81, arXiv:2201.05578 [hep-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), JHEP7, 81, arXiv:2201.05578 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B798, 134942 (2019), arXiv:1905.09787 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B856, 138865 (2024), arXiv:2403.15016 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Eur

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 248 (2021), arXiv:2011.05263 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Summary plots for long-lived particle searches at the HL-LHC, Tech. Rep. (CERN, 2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    L. Covi, E. Roulet, and F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B384, 169 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  55. [55]

    Yoshimura, Phys

    M. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 281 (1978), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 42, 746 (1979)]

    1978

  56. [56]

    Buchmuller, P

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari, and M. Plumacher, Annals Phys.315, 305 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0401240

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  57. [57]

    Falkowski, J

    A. Falkowski, J. T. Ruderman, and T. Volansky, JHEP5, 106, arXiv:1101.4936 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Gorchtein, Phys

    M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C77, 065501 (2008)

    2008

  59. [59]

    Aoyama, H

    H. Aoyama, H. Goldberg, and Z. Ryzak, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1902 (1988)

    1902

  60. [60]

    Xing and S

    Z.-z. Xing and S. Zhou,Neutrinos in particle physics, astronomy and cosmology, Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011)

    2011

  61. [61]

    G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys.B685, 89 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310123 [hep-ph]. 36

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004