Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper argues that a fourth generation of quarks and leptons, with no extra free parameters, can supply both a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition and the CP-violating source needed to produce the observed baryon asymmetry

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 06:58 UTC pith:XUG5KF5C

load-bearing objection Central η_B claim rests on replacing m_t'≈200 TeV with Λ_s≈22 TeV in Eq. (9); until that contradiction is resolved, the BAU estimate is not supported. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21374 v2 pith:XUG5KF5C submitted 2026-01-29 hep-ph

Lepton sourced baryon asymmetry in the fourth generation model

Hsiang-nan Li This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords baryon asymmetryfourth generation Standard Modelelectroweak baryogenesisdimension-6 operatorsCKM matrixCP violationJarlskog invariantelectroweak phase transition
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 aims to show that the extended Standard Model with a sequential fourth generation (SM4) can account for the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe. Its central step is to build dimension-six operators of the form -i(Φ†Φ)¯F_L Φ f_R whose CP-violating coefficient comes from a three-loop diagram involving fourth-generation quarks and a Jarlskog invariant of the 4×4 CKM matrix. Using masses and mixings fixed by earlier dispersive analyses, the strength of the operators is determined without free parameters; fourth-generation leptons τ′ and ν′, with Yukawa couplings of order one, then replace the ordinary τ lepton as the baryogenesis source and yield η_B ≈ 10^{-10}. The paper also connects the same framework to the first-order electroweak phase transition via heavy-quark bound-state scalars, so the one extension does double duty. A sympathetic reader would care because the result suggests the origin of matter could be tied to the same flavor physics that sets quark and lepton masses.

Core claim

The core discovery is that the dimension-six effective operators induced by fourth-generation quarks carry a definite, computable CP-odd phase from the 4×4 CKM matrix, and when the associated operators for the fourth-generation leptons τ′ and ν′ are fed into the established electroweak baryogenesis transport formalism, the predicted baryon-over-entropy ratio comes out at η_B ≈ 10^{-10}, matching the measured value (8.8±0.6)×10^{-11}. The coefficient is fixed by the three-loop heavy-quark penguin amplitude, the dispersive determination of V_ub′, V_cb′, V_tb′, and a two-stage RG estimate of the electroweak symmetry restoration scale. The paper states that no new free parameters are introduced:

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective operator -i(Φ†Φ)¯F_L Φ f_R (a Higgs doublet times left- and right-handed fermion fields), whose imaginary coefficient after symmetry breaking becomes -i s_f g_f v^2/(√2 Λ^2) ϕ ¯f γ5 f. The machinery that carries the argument is the three-loop matching calculation: a t′ quark loop with two charged scalars and a virtual pseudoscalar generates the sequence t′→b′→t→b→t′ and an imaginary product of 4×4 CKM elements — exactly one Jarlskog invariant — while the net vertex-plus-self-energy amplitude is proportional to q² and yields a local four-fermion operator. The scale Λ ≈ 16 TeV is obtained by setting m_t′ equal to the restoration scale Λ_s ≈ 22 TeV from a two

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the top-prime quark mass, despite being ~200 TeV as derived from dispersion relations, can be set equal to the electroweak symmetry restoration scale Λ_s ≈ 22 TeV when evaluating the three-loop operator coefficient; the resulting prediction for η_B is enormously sensitive to that substitution because the coefficient scales as the fourth power of the mass.

What would settle it

Recompute the three-loop CPV operator coefficient without replacing m_t′ by Λ_s — i.e., use m_t′ ≈ 200 TeV — and propagate the result through Eq. (33) and the scaling relation η_B ∝ g_f/Λ². The predicted η_B would fall to about 10^{-14}, far below observation, settling whether the quoted η_B ≈ 10^{-10} is an artifact of the mass substitution.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the observed baryon asymmetry requires no new physics beyond a fourth fermion generation whose masses and mixings are fixed by dispersion relations — no additional CP phases, no tuning.
  • The predicted 4×4 CKM elements V_ub′ ~ 2.5×10^{-4}, V_cb′ ~ 3.2×10^{-3}, V_tb′ ~ 5.2×10^{-2} provide concrete targets for B-meson and kaon-unitarity searches; the maximal third-row unitarity violation could resolve the Cabibbo-angle anomaly.
  • The same heavy-quark condensates and bound states that make the phase transition first-order also set the effective scale Λ ≈ 16 TeV, tying the strength of the baryogenesis source to the phase-transition dynamics.
  • The τ-sourced baryogenesis is predicted to be two orders of magnitude too weak in the SM4, so a future measurement that truly isolates a τ-only source would discriminate this framework from the minimal-flavor-violation scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's most delicate step is substituting m_t′ = Λ_s ≈ 22 TeV for the input m_t′ ≈ 200 TeV when evaluating the three-loop coefficient; since the coefficient grows like m_t′^4, keeping 200 TeV would raise Λ by roughly (m_t′/Λ_s)^2 ≈ 80 and drop η_B to ~10^{-14}, so a direct full-theory recomputation without that replacement is the cleanest check.
  • If the framework survives that check, it suggests a broader principle: the baryogenesis scale and the electroweak restoration scale are set by the same Yukawa RG flow, meaning measurements of CKM unitarity and of the Higgs self-coupling could indirectly constrain the baryon asymmetry.
  • The transport-system scaling from τ to (τ′,ν′) assumes equal relaxation and Yukawa rates; a full SM4-specific solution of the transport equations, including the small mass splitting between τ′ and ν′, would be a natural next step and could either confirm or shift the quoted η_B.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the Standard Model with a sequential fourth generation (SM4) can accommodate the observed baryon asymmetry, η_B ≈ 10^-10, without adding free parameters. The central construction is a set of dimension-6 CPV operators of the form −i(Φ†Φ) \bar F_L Φ f_R, generated by three-loop diagrams with fourth-generation quarks. The CPV source is traced to a Jarlskog invariant of the 4×4 CKM matrix, whose elements are taken from the author's prior dispersive analyses. The effective operator coefficient is matched at a scale Λ_s ≈ 22 TeV, yielding a new-physics scale Λ ≈ 16 TeV. The η_B prediction is then obtained by scaling the τ-lepton EWBG result of Ref. [34] to fourth-generation leptons τ′, ν′, using the scaling η_B ∝ g_f/Λ².

Significance. If the result were correct, it would be significant: a single extension of the SM would provide both the strongly first-order electroweak phase transition (through bound-state scalars of fourth-generation quarks) and the CPV source needed for baryogenesis, with operator coefficients fixed unambiguously by prior dispersive analyses. The paper contains an explicit three-loop derivation of the effective operator and identifies a well-defined Jarlskog invariant, which are genuine strengths. However, the headline numerical result rests on an internally inconsistent replacement of the t′ mass by the restoration scale, and on a hand-picked RG matching scale. These issues affect the central claim by orders of magnitude and make the prediction unreliable in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (9)] The central result Eq. (9) sets m_{t′} = Λ_s, replacing the input m_{t′} ≈ 200 TeV quoted in Sec. I and Sec. III. Sec. III explicitly states that m_{t′} is “much higher than the symmetry restoration scale Λ_s definitely.” The operator coefficient in Eq. (8) is proportional to m_{t′}^4 [1 + Li_2(−Λ_s²/m_{t′}²)]. With m_{t′} = 200 TeV and Λ_s = 22 TeV, the dilogarithm bracket is ≈ 0.988, not c = 1 − π²/12 ≈ 0.178, and (m_{t′}/Λ_s)^4 ≈ 6.8×10³. Thus Eq. (9) underestimates the full-theory coefficient by roughly four orders of magnitude. Repeating the matching with the actual m_{t′} changes Λ in Eq. (33) and η_B in Eq. (35) by orders of magnitude and would violate the EDM bounds quoted in Sec. IV. This is not a parameter uncertainty; it is an internal inconsistency that controls the headline claim.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The restoration scale Λ_s = m_Z exp(x_s) ≈ 22 TeV is determined by visually adjusting x_s to obtain a smooth RG matching. The choice x_s = 5.5 is called “reasonable,” while x_s = 8.0 is rejected because the curves are “jagged,” but no quantitative criterion is given. Since Λ in Eq. (33) scales as 1/Λ_s², an uncertainty in x_s translates directly into a large uncertainty in Λ and therefore in η_B ∝ Λ^(−2). This effectively introduces a free parameter, contradicting the abstract's claim that no free parameters are added.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (35)-(36)] The prediction η_B ≈ 10^(−10) is obtained by scaling the τ-lepton result of Ref. [34] via η_B ∝ g_f/Λ², assuming equal relaxation rates, Yukawa rates, diffusion lengths, and interaction lengths for τ′_L and ν′_L. No transport equations for the fourth-generation leptons are actually solved. Given that the manuscript itself acknowledges that source-term methods (VIA vs. WKB) can change η_B by orders of magnitude, this scaling assumption is a further unquantified source of uncertainty in the central numerical claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (19)] The unitarity relation is written as λ_d + λ_s + λ_s = −λ_b′; the second term should be λ_b, i.e., λ_d + λ_s + λ_b = −λ_b′.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (8)] The symbol g_t is used for the top-quark Yukawa coupling, but in Eq. (8) the factor g_t² multiplies m_{t′}^4. It should be clarified whether this is the t′ Yukawa coupling g_{t′} or the top Yukawa g_t, and the notation should be made consistent with Sec. IV.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The smoothness criterion for choosing x_s = 5.5 is described qualitatively. A quantitative measure (e.g., a tolerance on the discontinuity of g²_L and g²_t) would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase “no free parameters are added” is too strong given the choice of x_s (or Λ_s) and the assumption of equal rates for τ′ and ν′ in Sec. IV. This should be softened or explicitly qualified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the numerical claim is conditional on an inconsistent matching-scale substitution, but that is a correctness defect, not a circular construction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no step where a 'prediction' is equivalent by construction to its input. The Jarlskog invariant in Eq. (32) is obtained from 4x4 CKM elements solved from dispersive constraints using external inputs (Wolfenstein parameters, m_b, m_s, m_W), and the results are checked against measured loose bounds; η_B plays no role in that derivation. The dimension-6 operator coefficient in Eqs. (4)-(9) is obtained by an explicit three-loop matching calculation; the BAU is then read off from the published tau-lepton computation of Ref. [34] via the scaling law in Eq. (35)/(36), not fitted to η_B. The heavy reliance on the author's prior dispersive analyses supplies m_t', m_b', m_tau', m_4 and the restoration scale; these are parameter-free prior results with stated assumptions that do not include the BAU and are externally falsifiable by collider searches, so under the review rules they count as independent support rather than circularity. The serious flaw is the ad hoc replacement 'Hence, we set m_t' = Lambda_s' (Sec. II, before Eq. (9)), which contradicts the paper's own input m_t' ≈ 200 TeV (Sec. I) and Sec. III's statement that m_t' is 'much higher than the symmetry restoration scale Lambda_s definitely.' Because Eq. (8) scales as m_t'^4 [1+Li_2(-Lambda_s^2/m_t'^2)], this substitution changes Lambda (Eq. (33)) and hence eta_B (Eq. (35)) by orders of magnitude. That is a serious internal-consistency and robustness problem, but it is not a circular reduction of the prediction to its input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central η_B estimate depends on: a hand-picked restoration scale Λ_s; masses and CKM elements inherited from the author's previous dispersive analyses (self-cited, not independently code-verified); an ad-hoc identification m_t' = Λ_s that contradicts the stated input m_t' ≈ 200 TeV; and the assumption that fourth-generation leptons obey the same transport equations and benchmark parameters as in [34]. These are the main inputs not purchased from external, independently verified benchmarks.

free parameters (1)
  • x_s (RG matching point / restoration scale Λ_s = m_Z exp(x_s)) = x_s = 5.5 → Λ_s ≈ 22 TeV
    Chosen by hand so that Yukawa coupling RG evolutions match smoothly between the two regions (Sec. IV, Fig. 4). Determines Λ via Eq. (33) and therefore the normalization of η_B.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Electroweak symmetry is restored above a high scale Λ_s; mixing amplitudes vanish for m_Q > Λ_s.
    Basis of the dispersive constraints used to derive fourth-generation quark masses and CKM elements (Sec. III, refs [3,9]).
  • domain assumption The CPV source is dominated by the three-loop diagram with transition t'→b'→t→b→t' and the product V*_{t'b'} V_{tb'} V*_{tb} V_{t'b}; other quark-loop contributions are negligible.
    Sec. II, Fig. 2(b); suppression by lighter Yukawa couplings is asserted, not computed quantitatively.
  • domain assumption For heavy fermions f = t, τ', ν', the effective operator coefficient is proportional to g_f; for light fermions the parametrization fails but their BAU contribution is negligible.
    Sec. II, text after Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption The transport equations and scaling law η_B ∝ y_f/Λ^2 from [34] apply to fourth-generation leptons with the same benchmark parameters and equal relaxation/Yukawa rates for τ'_L and ν'_L.
    Sec. IV, scaling argument leading to Eq. (36).
  • ad hoc to paper Matching of the effective operator is performed at m_t' = Λ_s, replacing the actual t' mass (≈200 TeV) by the restoration scale (≈22 TeV).
    Sec. II, 'Hence, we set m_t' = Λ_s'; enables Li_2(-1) evaluation but contradicts the input m_t' value and changes the operator strength by ~7000.
invented entities (2)
  • Sequential fourth generation fermions t', b', τ', ν' no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide heavy quark condensate for EWSB, first-order EWPT, and CPV/baryogenesis source.
    Masses (200 TeV, 2.7 TeV, 270 GeV, 170 GeV) come from prior self-cited dispersive analyses; no direct experimental evidence presented in this paper. τ',ν' at electroweak scale are in principle searchable, but no new falsifiable handle is provided here.
  • Bound-state scalar η (and pseudoscalar) of t', b' quarks no independent evidence
    purpose: Couples to Higgs (λ' φ²η²) to produce φ⁶/(8M²) term and first-order EWPT; also part of the effective operator matching.
    Mass m_η ≈ 3.2 TeV from [9]; no direct detection or new prediction beyond prior work.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24208 in / 17283 out tokens · 157559 ms · 2026-08-03T06:58:05.072533+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that the observed baryon asymmetry in the Universe can be accommodated in the extended Standard Model with sequential fourth generation fermions (SM4). We first construct the dimension-6 effective operators of the type $-i(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)\bar F_L\Phi f_R$ induced by fourth generation quarks, which carry the $CP$ violation (CPV) source from the $4\times 4$ Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, $\Phi$ ($F_L$, $f_R$) being a Higgs double (left-handed fermion doublet, right-handed fermion singlet). The required inputs of the fourth generation fermion masses were derived in our previous dispersive analyses on heavy quark decays and neutral meson mixing. The similar framework allows the determination of the $4\times 4$ CKM matrix elements $V_{ib'}$, $i=u$, $c$ and $t$, such that the strength of the CPV source can be evaluated unambiguously. The dimension-6 operators associated with fourth generation leptons, as implemented into the formalism for the electroweak baryogenesis in the literature, lead to the baryon-over-entropy ratio $\eta_B\approx 10^{-10}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.21374 by Hsiang-nan Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Diagram for producing the dimension-6 effective operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) One-loop diagram and (b) three-loop diagram for the effective operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Vertex correction and (b) self-energy correction contained in the pseudoscalar penguin. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Matching of RG evolutions of the Yukawa couplings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.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. LHC di-dijet excesses as signals of fourth-generation tetraquarks

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    LHC di-dijet excesses are attributed to resonant and non-resonant production of b'b'b'b' tetraquarks from fourth-generation quarks of mass ~2 TeV, with dijet resonances from color-octet bound states in a Yukawa potential.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D107, no.9, 094007 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Progress of Theoretical Bootstrap

    + r3m3 m4(m2 W −m 2 3) .(B15) Our alternative strategy to solve the coupled Eqs. (B9)-(B11) and (B13) is detailed as follows. We first solve for u3 andv 3 in terms ofu 1 andv 1 from the real part of Eq. (B9) u1 m2 4 −m 2 1 m2 W −m 2 1 + m2 4 −m 2 2 m2 W −m 2 2 +u 3 m2 4 −m 2 3 m2 W −m 2 3 =v 1 m2 4 −m 2 1 m2 W −m 2 1 +v 3 m2 4 −m 2 3 m2 W −m 2 3 ,(B16) an...

  3. [3]

    H. n. Li, [arXiv:2306.03463 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, 054020 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    G. F. Chew, Rev. Mod. Phys.34, no.3, 394-401 (1962)

    1962

  6. [6]

    H. n. Li, Chin. J. Phys.92, 1043-1054 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    van Leeuwen, Stud

    R. van Leeuwen, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci.104(2024), 130-149

    2024

  8. [8]

    J. T. Cushing, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. A16, 31-48 (1985)

    1985

  9. [9]

    H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D109, no.11, 115024 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    G. F. Chew and J. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 795 (1983)

    1983

  11. [11]

    H. n. Li, JHEP09(2025), 037

    2025

  12. [12]

    H. n. Li, J. Phys. G52(2025) 025001

    2025

  13. [13]

    P. Q. Hung and C. Xiong, Nucl. Phys. B847, 160-178 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    W. A. Bardeen, C. T. Hill and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 1647

    1990

  15. [15]

    Chen and H

    N. Chen and H. J. He, JHEP04, 062 (2012); O. Eberhardt, G. Herbert, H. Lacker, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. Nierste and M. Wiebusch, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 241802 (2012); A. Djouadi and A. Lenz, Phys. Lett. B715, 310-314 (2012); E. Kuflik, Y. Nir and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, no.9, 091801 (2013)

    2012

  16. [16]

    Enkhbat, W

    T. Enkhbat, W. S. Hou and H. Yokoya, Phys. Rev. D84, 094013 (2011)

    2011

  17. [17]

    Marcano, [arXiv:2405.10840 [hep-ph]]

    X. Marcano, [arXiv:2405.10840 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    H. J. He, N. Polonsky and S. f. Su, Phys. Rev. D64, 053004 (2001)

    2001

  19. [19]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5, 32-35 (1967)

    1967

  20. [20]

    Joshi and R

    R. Joshi and R. Roy, [arXiv:2510.25190 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  21. [21]

    G. R. Farrar and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D50, 774 (1994)

    1994

  22. [22]

    G. R. Farrar and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2833-2836 (1993) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 210 (1993)]

    1993

  23. [23]

    M. B. Gavela, M. Lozano, J. Orloff and O. Pene, Nucl. Phys. B430, 345-381 (1994)

    1994

  24. [24]

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff and O. Pene, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 795-810 (1994)

    1994

  25. [25]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2887-2890 (1996)

    1996

  26. [26]

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, O. Pene and C. Quimbay, Nucl. Phys. B430, 382-426 (1994)

    1994

  27. [27]

    Csikor, Z

    F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and J. Heitger, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 21-24 (1999)

    1999

  28. [28]

    Rummukainen, M

    K. Rummukainen, M. Tsypin, K. Kajantie, M. Laine and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B532, 283-314 (1998)

    1998

  29. [29]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 1888-1910

    1973

  30. [30]

    Y. Aoki, F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and A. Ukawa, Phys. Rev. D60, 013001 (1999)

    1999

  31. [31]

    van de Vis, J

    J. van de Vis, J. de Vries and M. Postma, [arXiv:2508.09989 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9(1974) 3320-3341

    1974

  33. [33]

    Balazs, G

    C. Balazs, G. White and J. Yue, JHEP03(2017), 030

    2017

  34. [34]

    For light fermions, the parametrization does not hold in the SM4, because contributions from other types of diagrams may be comparable to that from Fig

    applies to heavy fermionsf=t, τ ′, ν′, and theCP-odd phase identified above is maximal. For light fermions, the parametrization does not hold in the SM4, because contributions from other types of diagrams may be comparable to that from Fig. 2(b). For instance, changing the virtual pseudoscalar to a virtualZboson causes a suppression factorg/g b′ from the ...

  35. [35]

    Barni, [arXiv:2510.21915 [hep-ph]]

    G. Barni, [arXiv:2510.21915 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  36. [36]

    De Vries, M

    J. De Vries, M. Postma and J. van de Vis, JHEP04(2019), 024

    2019

  37. [37]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. K. Lee, K. Whisnant and B. L. Young, Phys. Rev. D50(1994), 7042-7047

    1994

  38. [38]

    Joyce, T

    M. Joyce, T. Prokopec and N. Turok, Phys. Lett. B338, 269-275 (1994)

    1994

  39. [39]

    D. J. H. Chung, B. Garbrecht, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and S. Tulin, Phys. Rev. D81(2010), 063506

    2010

  40. [40]

    D. J. H. Chung, B. Garbrecht, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and S. Tulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 061301 (2009)

    2009

  41. [41]

    Fuchs, M

    E. Fuchs, M. Losada, Y. Nir and Y. Viernik, JHEP05, 056 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Alonso-Gonz´ alez, L

    J. Alonso-Gonz´ alez, L. Merlo and S. Pokorski, JHEP06, 166 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Y. Z. Li, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and J. H. Yu, [arXiv:2404.19197 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Liu and L

    H. Liu and L. Bian, [arXiv:2512.16537 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  45. [45]

    Bodeker, L

    D. Bodeker, L. Fromme, S. J. Huber and M. Seniuch, JHEP02(2005), 026

    2005

  46. [46]

    Fromme and S

    L. Fromme and S. J. Huber, JHEP03(2007), 049

    2007

  47. [47]

    A. B. Beneito, I, A. Palavri´ c and A. Sainaghi, [arXiv:2512.14813 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  48. [48]

    Koˇ snik, A

    N. Koˇ snik, A. Palavri´ c and A. Smolkoviˇ c, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.9, 095046

    2025

  49. [49]

    C. Lee, V. Cirigliano and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 075010

    2005

  50. [50]

    F. P. Huang, P. H. Gu, P. F. Yin, Z. H. Yu and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.10, 103515

    2016

  51. [51]

    de Vries, M

    J. de Vries, M. Postma, J. van de Vis and G. White, JHEP01(2018), 089. 18

    2018

  52. [52]

    Jarlskog, Phys

    C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett.55(1985) 1039

    1985

  53. [53]

    Jarlskog, Z

    C. Jarlskog, Z. Phys. C29(1985) 491-497

    1985

  54. [54]

    M. E. Shaposhnikov, JETP Lett.44(1986) 465-468

    1986

  55. [55]

    Silvestrini, [arXiv:1905.00798 [hep-ph]]

    L. Silvestrini, [arXiv:1905.00798 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  56. [56]

    H. n. Li, H. Umeeda, F. Xu and F. S. Yu, Phys. Lett. B810, 135802 (2020)

    2020

  57. [57]

    H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D107, no.5, 054023 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Y. T. Chien and H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, no.5, 053006 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    A. K. Alok, A. Dighe and D. London, Phys. Rev. D83, 073008 (2011)

    2011

  60. [60]

    Y. H. Ahn, H. Y. Cheng and S. Oh, Phys. Lett. B703, 571-575 (2011)

    2011

  61. [61]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    G. Kaur, G. Ahuja, D. Shukla and M. Gupta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39(2024) no.25, 2450102

    2024

  63. [63]

    Kitahara, Int

    T. Kitahara, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39(2024) no.26n27, 2442011

    2024

  64. [64]

    Gorchtein, V

    M. Gorchtein, V. Katyal, B. Ohayon, B. K. Sahoo and C. Y. Seng, Phys. Rev. Res.7(2025) no.4, 4

    2025

  65. [65]

    C. Y. Seng, Mod. Phys. Lett. A37, no.02, 2230002 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    S. J. Huber, M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D75, 036006 (2007)

    2007

  67. [67]

    J. M. Cline and B. Laurent, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.8, 083507

    2021

  68. [68]

    Joyce, T

    M. Joyce, T. Prokopec and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995), 1695-1698 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995), 3375]

    1995

  69. [69]

    J. M. Cline, M. Joyce and K. Kainulainen, JHEP07(2000), 018

    2000

  70. [70]

    J. M. Cline, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376, 20170116 (2018), [arXiv:1704.08911 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    R. N. Mohapatra and X. m. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D45(1992), 2699-2705

    1992

  72. [72]

    G. F. Giudice and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B326(1994), 118-124

    1994

  73. [73]

    Fuchs, M

    E. Fuchs, M. Losada, Y. Nir and Y. Viernik, JHEP07(2021), 060

    2021

  74. [74]

    Joyce, T

    M. Joyce, T. Prokopec and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D53(1996), 2930-2957

    1996

  75. [75]

    van de Vis, P

    J. van de Vis, P. Schicho, L. Niemi, B. Laurent, J. Hirvonen and O. Gould, [arXiv:2510.27691 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  76. [76]

    C. L. Bennettet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J.583(2003), 1-23

    2003

  77. [77]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641(2020), A6 [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652(2021), C4]

    2020

  78. [78]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T. H. Yeh and C. Young, JCAP03(2020), 010 [erratum: JCAP11(2020), E02]

    2020

  79. [79]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 2496 (1986), [Erratum-ibid. 58, 177 (1987)]; W. A. Bardeen, C. T. Hill and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. D41, 1647 (1990); C. T. Hill, M. A. Luty and E. A. Paschos, Phys. Rev. D43, 3011 (1991); T. Elliott and S. F. King, Phys. Lett. B283, 371 (1992)

    1986

  80. [80]

    P. Q. Hung and C. Xiong, Nucl. Phys. B848(2011) 288-302

    2011

Showing first 80 references.