Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 1 minor 36 references

Neutrino Portal to Extra Dimensions: Unified Origin of Dark Radiation, Dark Matter, and Neutrino Decay

T0 review · 4 major / 1 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 One Majoron portal yields dark matter, dark radiation, and neutrino decay.

desk verdict Assembles familiar ingredients into a unified LED-Majoron story, but the central mechanism is internally inconsistent and the quantitative formulas have load-bearing errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15485 v1 pith:Z7QVEKMA submitted 2025-06-18 hep-ph

Arnab Chaudhuri This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords SterileneutrinoMajoronLargeextradimensionsWarmdarkmatterradiationΔN_effFreeze-indecay
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that a single portal—sterile neutrinos living in large extra dimensions and coupled to a pseudo-Goldstone Majoron—can simultaneously explain the dark matter, an excess of dark radiation, and invisible neutrino decay. In the model the lightest Kaluza–Klein sterile neutrino is produced out of equilibrium through Higgs decays and survives as warm dark matter, while heavier KK modes decay into active neutrinos plus relativistic Majorons, shifting the effective number of neutrino species ΔN_eff. The same Majoron coupling makes active neutrinos decay invisibly with lifetimes near current bounds. A sympathetic reader would care because the three phenomena are not independent: they are controlled by the same volume-suppressed coupling g ≲ $10^{-6}$ and a compactification scale of 1/R ~ $10^{3}$ TeV, so one positive detection would predict the others. The paper maps the allowed parameter region to a narrow sub-MeV window for the dark-matter candidate and identifies targets in CMB-S4, Lyman-$\alpha$ surveys, and neutrino telescopes.

What carries the argument

The central objects are a Kaluza–Klein tower of bulk right-handed neutrinos and a pseudo-Nambu–Goldstone Majoron from spontaneous lepton-number violation. The tower's volume-suppressed coupling, Eq. (3), gives every KK mode the same portal to the Standard Model: the lightest mode is long-lived and builds up its abundance through freeze-in H → ν_L $ν^{{(1)}}$_R decays, while heavier modes decay $ν^{{(n)}}$_R → ν + J with the width of Eq. (10), Γ ∝ $g^{2}$ m_n. The mechanism is completed by the Boltzmann system of Eqs. (11)–(12), which tracks the injection of Majorons into the radiation bath and converts it into ΔN_eff through Eq. (13).

What would settle it

Compute the KK lifetime from Eq. (10) for a representative heavy mode with m_n ~ $10^{3}$ TeV and g = $10^{-6}$. If the result is far below 0.1 s—as a direct scaling suggests—the dark-radiation mechanism of Section 4 fails, and the model cannot produce the claimed ΔN_eff. Observationally, a CMB-S4 measurement of ΔN_eff consistent with zero to a precision of ~0.01 would exclude the predicted nonthermal radiation injection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is that the allowed parameter space given in Eq. (16), $R^{-1}$ ~ $10^{3}$ TeV, g ≲ $10^{-6}$, and m_{ν(1)} ~ 2 keV to O(MeV), produces all three phenomena from one mechanism. The lightest KK sterile neutrino is produced by freeze-in from Higgs decays and constitutes a warm dark matter candidate with mass 2 keV–1 MeV that evades Lyman-$\alpha$ constraints. Heavier KK modes decay into ν + J, and the paper solves a coupled Boltzmann system showing that decays in the time window τ_n ~ 0.1–1 s generate a nonthermal Majoron population that raises ΔN_eff without destroying BBN concordance. Active neutrinos decay invisibly with lifetime/mass ratios near $10^{9}$ s/eV, saturating the current bounds from solar, atmospheric, and astrophysical data. In short, the paper claims that a single, predictive, testable region of parameter space addresses dark radiation, dark matter, and neutrino anomalies simultaneously.

Load-bearing premise

The model requires a precise lifetime hierarchy in the KK tower: the lightest mode (2 keV–1 MeV) must survive to today as dark matter, while the heavier modes (mass ~1/R ~ $10^{3}$ TeV) must decay in the narrow window 0.1–1 s, even though all modes share the same coupling g ~ $10^{-6}$; using Eq. (10) with these numbers the heavy-mode lifetimes come out many orders of magnitude shorter, so this hierarchy is the premise on which everything else rests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scenario is right, CMB-S4 and Simons Observatory should see a positive shift in ΔN_eff at the level of the model's allowed band, not an exact zero.
  • The dark matter is warm with mass in the 2 keV–1 MeV range, so high-resolution Lyman-alpha data either confirms the free-streaming scale or excludes the model.
  • The active-neutrino lifetime/mass ratio should sit near 10^9 s/eV, making invisible decay potentially observable at IceCube-Gen2 and DUNE.
  • Detection of any one of the three signatures forces the other two to appear in the same correlated region.
  • Supernova cooling bounds on Majoron emission constrain the same coupling, so the allowed g ~ 10^-6 window is testable by both cosmology and stellar astrophysics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same lifetime formula that produces the ΔN_eff window could be turned around: measuring the diffuse supernova neutrino spectrum would fix g and thereby predict the exact dark-matter freeze-in abundance, closing the loop.
  • If the internal lifetime hierarchy does not hold (heavy KK modes decaying far earlier than 0.1–1 s), the dark-radiation component might instead come from a different relativistic relic, but the paper's specific correlation between neutrino decay and warm dark matter would remain a distinctive test of the Majoron portal.
  • The volume suppression that leads to g ~ 10^-6 also predicts anomalously suppressed but nonzero couplings for all higher KK modes; existing searches for rare Higgs decays to invisible states could already place independent bounds on the model.
  • One could extend the framework to two extra-dimensional radii to separate the dark-matter KK mass from the compactification scale, which would loosen the overclosure and Lyman-alpha tension while preserving the ΔN_eff link.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a model in which a bulk right-handed neutrino propagating in large extra dimensions is coupled to a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone Majoron, aiming to simultaneously explain warm dark matter (the lightest Kaluza-Klein sterile neutrino produced by freeze-in), dark radiation (from decays of heavier KK modes into Majorons), and invisible decay of active neutrinos. The manuscript presents the model Lagrangian, freeze-in production estimates, a Boltzmann system for Majoron injection, neutrino decay widths, and a claimed viable parameter region around R^{-1} ~ 10^3 TeV, g ≲ 10^{-6}, and m_{ν(1)} ~ 2 keV - 1 MeV, with prospective sensitivity for CMB-S4, DUNE, and IceCube-Gen2.

Significance. If the framework were internally consistent, it would offer an economical unification of three beyond-Standard-Model phenomena with correlated, testable signatures. The conceptual appeal is genuine: a single Majoron portal connecting a sterile-neutrino KK tower to dark matter, dark radiation, and neutrino decay is a natural idea. However, the manuscript as written contains several load-bearing technical errors and internal contradictions that invalidate the central claims: the freeze-in equations are dimensionally inconsistent, the phase-space factors are incorrect, the 'stable' dark-matter candidate decays far too rapidly under the same coupling used for neutrino decay, the quoted compactification scale is incompatible with the claimed lightest KK mass, and the heavier KK modes have lifetimes many orders of magnitude too short to produce the claimed ΔNeff. Because these problems affect the core derivation and the stated parameter region, the paper cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, §5, Eqs. (3), (14), (16)] The same Majoron coupling g ~ 10^{-6} that is invoked to make ν(1) a stable warm dark-matter candidate also mediates its decay. Using the paper's own width formula in Eq. (14) with m_{ν(1)} = 2 keV and g = 10^{-6} gives Γ ≈ g^2 m/(16π) ≈ 4×10^{-20} GeV, corresponding to a lifetime τ ≈ 1.6×10^{-5} s. Thus the lightest KK mode would decay practically instantaneously after production, contradicting the assumption in §2 that ν(1)_R is 'cosmologically stable'. No symmetry, mass-threshold, or coupling-suppression mechanism is provided to protect ν(1). Conversely, if m_J > m_{ν(1)} is imposed to forbid this decay, the active-neutrino decay channel ν_i → ν_j + J of §5 is kinematically closed for eV-scale neutrinos, eliminating the claimed IceCube/DUNE sensitivity. The three central pillars of the abstract therefore cannot coexist.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The Boltzmann equation for the freeze-in yield is dimensionally inconsistent. The left-hand side dY_{ν(1)}/dT has mass dimension -1 (in units where ℏ=c=1), while the right-hand side contains M_Pl Γ_H T^6, which has mass dimension 8, multiplied by dimensionless factors. Consequently Eq. (7) is also dimensionally incorrect. As a result, the derived Yukawa value y ~ 10^{-10} and the claimed relic-abundance contour in Fig. 2 are not supported by a valid calculation.
  3. [§3, Eq. (5)] The partial width for H → ν_L ν(1) uses the phase-space factor (1 - 4m_{ν(1)}^2/m_H^2)^{3/2}, which is the factor for a two-body decay into two identical final-state masses. Here the final states are a massless active neutrino and a massive sterile neutrino, so the correct kinematic factor is different, e.g. involving [(1 - (m_1+m_2)^2/m_H^2)(1 - (m_1-m_2)^2/m_H^2)]^{1/2} times the appropriate spin factors. The numerical width entering the freeze-in calculation is therefore in error.
  4. [§4, §6, Eq. (16)] The claimed allowed parameter space in Eq. (16) is internally inconsistent with the KK mass formula in Eq. (2). If R^{-1} ~ 10^3 TeV, the first KK mode has mass m_1 ≈ 1/R ≈ 10^3 TeV, not 2 keV - 1 MeV as stated unless one reinterprets m_{ν(1)} as the zero mode, which is not a KK excitation. Furthermore, for the heavier KK modes with mass ~10^3 TeV and g ~ 10^{-6}, Eq. (10) gives lifetimes τ_n ≈ 16π/(g^2 m_n) ~ 3×10^{-17} s, many orders of magnitude below the τ_n ~ 0.1–1 s window that §4 identifies as necessary for a nonthermal ΔNeff signature consistent with BBN. The dark-radiation mechanism therefore cannot operate as described.
minor comments (1)
  1. [§4, Eq. (13)] The initial abundances of the heavier KK modes that decay into Majorons are not derived; the Boltzmann system in Eqs. (11)–(12) requires initial conditions that are not computed from any production mechanism.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The model's central parameter choices (y and g) are fixed by the very observables they are said to predict, so the 'allowed parameter space' restates fitted inputs rather than yielding independent predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eqs. (5)-(8); Section 6, Eq. (16)]
    "The relic abundance today is related to the freeze-in yield by Ωh2 = 2.75×10^8 (mν(1)/GeV) Yν(1), which imposes a strong constraint on the combination y^2/mν(1) in order to achieve the observed dark matter abundance ΩDMh2≈0.12. ... the freeze-in mechanism requires that ν(1)R never thermalizes, enforcing an upper limit on the Yukawa coupling: y≲10^-10, or equivalently g≲10^-6, once volume suppression is accounted for."

    The value y∼10^-10 is not an independent freeze-in upper limit; it is the coupling required by Eq. (8) to reproduce ΩDMh2≈0.12 for mν(1)∼2 keV. Section 6 then presents this same fitted y, together with a g declared 'equivalent' to it, as the model's predicted allowed region: R^-1∼10^3 TeV, g≲10^-6, mν(1)∼2 keV-O(MeV). The dark-matter abundance is therefore an input used to fix the coupling rather than a prediction of the framework, and the subsequent ΔNeff and neutrino-decay 'predictions' inherit this fitted value.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Eq. (15); Section 6, Fig. 4 and Eq. (16)]
    "For light neutrinos with mνi ∼ O(eV), strong bounds from solar, atmospheric, and astrophysical neutrino data impose τνi/mνi ≳10^9 s/eV, implying g≲10^-6. ... The green band highlights the viable region where freeze-in production of ν(1)R, successful ΔNeff generation, and allowed neutrino decay rates coexist."

    The neutrino-decay 'prediction' is obtained by taking the external lifetime bound as the input that sets g≲10^-6, then using Eq. (15) to display a rest-frame lifetime at that boundary as the model's signal. The green band in Fig. 4 is defined as the region satisfying the same τν/mν and ΔNeff constraints that were used to choose the coupling, so the decay signature is a restatement of the imposed constraints rather than a derived consequence of the extra-dimensional setup. No independent derivation of g from the compactification volume or Majoron localization is provided.

full rationale

The central circularity is that the model's two key couplings are tuned to match the three target observables, and the same tuned values are then presented as the framework's 'predictive and testable' parameter space. Equation (8) fixes y to reproduce ΩDMh2≈0.12; Section 6 calls this an upper limit and equates it to g≲10^-6. Section 5 uses the neutrino-lifetime bound to set g≲10^-6, and Section 4 assumes the KK decay times lie in the τ_n∼0.1-1 s window instead of computing them from Eq. (10) and the quoted masses. Thus the 'predictions' for ΔNeff and neutrino decay are consistency conditions on the fitted parameters, not independent outputs. There is no self-citation load-bearing or imported uniqueness theorem; the references are standard external work, so patterns 3-5 do not apply. Two further, non-circular correctness problems compound the issue: at g∼10^-6 and mν(1)∼2 keV, Eq. (14) gives a ν(1) lifetime of order 10^-5 s, contradicting the assumption in Section 2 that ν(1) is 'cosmologically stable'; and for KK modes with m_n∼10^6 GeV and g∼10^-6, Eq. (10) gives τ_n∼10^-17 s, far outside the 0.1-1 s window used for the ΔNeff calculation. These internal inconsistencies are correctness risks rather than circularity, but they further undermine the claim that the quoted parameter space unifies the three phenomena. On balance, the central claim reduces to a fitting exercise, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on a set of free couplings and masses chosen to satisfy cosmological constraints, and on two ad hoc assumptions: the stability of the lightest KK mode and the late decay timing of the heavier modes. No genuinely new particle is introduced; the Majoron and bulk neutrino are adopted from prior literature.

free parameters (5)
  • y = ~10^-10
    The Higgs Yukawa coupling to the bulk neutrino is tuned so that freeze-in from H→ν_L ν_R(1) matches ΩDM h^2 ≈ 0.12 in Eq. (8).
  • g = ~10^-6
    The effective Majoron-neutrino coupling is selected to satisfy neutrino lifetime bounds (τ/m ≳ 10^9 s/eV) and to keep ΔNeff and supernova constraints weak, as stated after Eq. (15) and in Eq. (16).
  • m_ν(1) (zero-mode mass) = 2 keV to 1 MeV
    The lightest sterile neutrino mass is chosen to satisfy Lyman-alpha and overproduction bounds (Section 6, Eq. 16). It is an input mass, not derived.
  • R (compactification radius) = R^-1 ~ 10^3 TeV
    The extra-dimensional compactification scale is quoted in Eq. (16) as a representative value, but it is inconsistent with the desired light KK mass and decay timing.
  • m_J (Majoron mass) = not specified
    The Majoron is assumed light enough to be produced relativistically and to mediate decays, but no mass term or explicit breaking scale is introduced.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The bulk fermion can be decomposed into a Kaluza-Klein tower on a torus T^δ with the spectrum m_n^2 = m_0^2 + n^2/R^2.
    Used in Section 2, Eqs. (1)-(2), as the standard KK decomposition.
  • domain assumption A bulk right-handed neutrino propagates in δ extra dimensions while all Standard Model fields are confined to the 4D brane.
    This is the LED setup from Refs. [16,17], adopted in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Global lepton number is spontaneously broken at a scale f, producing a Majoron whose interaction with neutrinos is given by Eq. (3) with a dimensionless coupling g0.
    The Majoron interaction structure is assumed, following Refs. [11,12], but the UV completion is not specified.
  • ad hoc to paper The lightest KK sterile neutrino ν_R(1) is cosmologically stable.
    Section 2 states this assumption without providing a symmetry (no KK parity or additional global charge) that would forbid its decay via the same coupling in Eq. (3).
  • ad hoc to paper The heavier KK modes have initial abundances and decay times such that their Majoron injection occurs around τ_n ~ 0.1-1 s, producing the desired ΔNeff.
    Section 4 assumes a decay-timing window but does not compute the production or the lifetime of the heavy KK modes for the quoted R^-1 and g values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Portal to Extra Dimensions: Unified Origin of Dark Radiation, Dark Matter, and Neutrino Decay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7QVEKMA

@misc{pith2026250615485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Portal to Extra Dimensions: Unified Origin of Dark Radiation, Dark Matter, and Neutrino Decay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7QVEKMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15485}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a unified framework based on sterile neutrinos propagating in large extra dimensions (LED) and coupled to a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson (Majoron) arising from spontaneous lepton number violation. In this setup, the lightest Kaluza-Klein (KK) sterile neutrino serves as warm dark matter, higher KK modes decay invisibly producing a relativistic Majoron contributing to the effective number of neutrino species (Delta Neff), and active neutrinos undergo invisible decay. This model addresses dark radiation, dark matter, and neutrino anomalies within a minimal, testable framework. We present the Boltzmann evolution of relevant species, identify the viable parameter space, and highlight implications for CMB-S4, Lyman-alpha, and neutrino observatories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the setup: a bulk right-handed neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Finally, accounting for volume suppression in the effective couplings due to extra-dimensional propagation, the preferred region corresponds to y ∼ 10−10 and g ∼ 10−6 . This degree of suppression is naturally achieved in large extra dimension mod￾els, and it enables a successful realization of WDM production and dark radiation injection within a unified framework. The freeze-in abundance, relic constraints, and radi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Contour showing the freeze-in relic density of the lightest sterile KK mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: , the timing of KK mode decays is crucial. If decays occur sufficiently early (τn ≪ 1 s), the injected energy is redistributed within the SM plasma, saturating ∆Neff at the thermalization limit. Conversely, if decays occur too late (τn ≫ 1 s), they dis￾turb Big Bang Nu…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints on the invisible neutrino decay coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386 [arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Alamet al.[BOSS], Mon

    S. Alamet al.[BOSS], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, no.3, 2617-2652 (2017) doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 [arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T. H. Yeh and C. Young, JCAP03, 010 (2020) [erratum: JCAP11, E02 (2020)] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/010 [arXiv:1912.01132 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T. H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015004 (2016) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004 [arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.55, 343-387 (2017) doi:10.1146/annurev- astro-091916-055313 [arXiv:1707.04256 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    D. H. Weinberg, J. S. Bullock, F. Governato, R. Kuzio de Naray and A. H. G. Peter, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 112, 12249-12255 (2015) doi:10.1073/pnas.1308716112 [arXiv:1306.0913 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Kasieczka, R

    G. Kasieczka, R. Mastandrea, V . Mikuni, B. Nach- man, M. Pettee and D. Shih, Phys. Rev. D107, no.1, 015009 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.015009 [arXiv:2209.06225 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Chacko, A

    Z. Chacko, A. Dev, P. Du, V . Poulin and Y . Tsai, JHEP04, 020 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)020 [arXiv:1909.05275 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abbasiet al.[IceCube], Eur

    R. Abbasiet al.[IceCube], Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.11, 1031 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10795- y [arXiv:2011.03561 [hep-ex]]

    2022

  3. [11]

    Chikashige, R

    Y . Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra and R. D. Peccei, Phys. Lett. B98, 265-268 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(81)90011-3

    1981 doi

  4. [12]

    G. B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli, Phys. Lett. B99, 411- 415 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90559-1

    1981 doi

  5. [13]

    Boyarsky, M

    A. Boyarsky, M. Drewes, T. Lasserre, S. Mertens and O. Ruchayskiy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.104, 1-45 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.07.004 [arXiv:1807.07938 [hep- ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    K. N. Abazajian, Phys. Rept.711-712, 1-28 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.003 [arXiv:1705.01837 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Irši ˇc, M

    V . Irši ˇc, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, S. Cristiani, G. Cupani, T. S. Kim, V . D’Odorico, S. López and S. Ellison,et al.Phys. Rev. D96, no.2, 023522 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023522 [arXiv:1702.01764 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. R. Dvali and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D65, 024032 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.024032 [arXiv:hep- ph/9811448 [hep-ph]]

    2001

  9. [17]

    K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas and T. Gherghetta, Nucl. Phys. B557, 25 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00377-6 [arXiv:hep-ph/9811428 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. N. Mohapatra and A. Perez-Lorenzana, Nucl. Phys. B 576, 466-478 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00081- X [arXiv:hep-ph/9910474 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [19]

    G. R. Dvali and A. Y . Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B563, 63-81 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00574-X [arXiv:hep- ph/9904211 [hep-ph]]

    1999

  12. [20]

    Barbieri, P

    R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B585, 28-44 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00348- 5 [arXiv:hep-ph/0002199 [hep-ph]]. 6

    2000 arXiv

  13. [21]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West, JHEP03, 080 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2010)080 [arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    McDonald, Phys

    J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 091304 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.091304 [arXiv:hep- ph/0106249 [hep-ph]]

    2002

  15. [23]

    Frigerio, T

    M. Frigerio, T. Hambye and E. Masso, Phys. Rev. X1, 021026 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.1.021026 [arXiv:1107.4564 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D’Eramo and A

    F. D’Eramo and A. Lenoci, JCAP10, 045 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/045 [arXiv:2012.01446 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. F. Beacom, N. F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pak- vasa and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 181301 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.181301 [arXiv:hep- ph/0211305 [hep-ph]]

    2003

  18. [26]

    Bustamante, C

    M. Bustamante, C. Rosenstrøm, S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D101, no.12, 123024 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123024 [arXiv:2001.04994 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Abiet al.[DUNE], [arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]]

    B. Abiet al.[DUNE], [arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]]

    2002

  20. [29]

    G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rept.198, 1-113 (1990) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(90)90054-6

    1990 doi

  21. [30]

    Kachelriess, R

    M. Kachelriess, R. Tomas and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D62, 023004 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.023004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0001039 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Adeet al.[Simons Observatory], JCAP02, 056 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 [arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]]

    P. Adeet al.[Simons Observatory], JCAP02, 056 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 [arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Abeet al.[Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

    K. Abeet al.[Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  24. [33]

    K. N. Abazajianet al.[CMB-S4], [arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  25. [34]

    Kusenko, F

    A. Kusenko, F. Takahashi and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B693, 144-148 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.08.031 [arXiv:1006.1731 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Merle, V

    A. Merle, V . Niro and D. Schmidt, JCAP03, 028 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/03/028 [arXiv:1306.3996 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Escudero and S

    M. Escudero and S. J. Witte, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.4, 294 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7854-5 [arXiv:1909.04044 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Barenboim, J

    G. Barenboim, J. Z. Chen, S. Hannestad, I. M. Olden- gott, T. Tram and Y . Y . Y . Wong, JCAP03, 087 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/087 [arXiv:2011.01502 [astro-ph.CO]]. 7

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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