{"id":"85ac4180-df55-4a5c-bd83-efc02c67e1a5","arxiv_id":"2204.04834","paper_version":3,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":5.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"In a scotogenic model with right-handed neutrinos, the mass splitting that fits the CDF W-boson mass also strengthens the electroweak phase transition and yields a gravitational-wave signal near U-DECIGO sensitivity.","lead":"A minimal extension of the Standard Model with three right-handed neutrinos and a second Higgs doublet ties the CDF W-boson mass anomaly, neutrino masses, and freeze-in dark matter to a single mass splitting, and argues that the same splitting strengthens the electroweak phase transition enough to produce gravitational waves. It is worth reading as a worked example of how one new-physics parameter can leave correlated signatures in collider, dark-matter, and gravitational-wa","discovery_kind":"extension","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The benchmark point's Tn = 158.78 GeV and vn/Tn = 4.1 imply vn ≈ 651 GeV, above the zero-temperature electroweak VEV of 246 GeV; this tension in the phase-transition parameters propagates directly to the GW spectrum shown in Fig. 2.","rationale":"The reader's weakest_assumption (the CDF W mass is unconfirmed) is a real concern, but the paper acknowledges it in the introduction ('it is yet premature to confirm the existence of new physics'), so it is an acknowledged limitation rather than a new finding. The more load-bearing issue is internal: the benchmark point's Tn and vn/Tn are mutually inconsistent with the electroweak VEV, and this inconsistency directly affects the GW prediction that is the paper's headline claim. The reader's rationale checks α = 0.021 against vn/Tn = 4.1 but does not check whether vn = 651 GeV is physically admissible. I agree with the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict, but for a different reason: the paper needs to fix the benchmark and recompute the GW spectrum, not just soften the CDF-dependent language. The qualitative idea (mass splitting enhances the FOPT) may survive, but the quantitative GW claim does not follow from the stated numbers.","tokens_in":12529,"tokens_out":21473,"duration_ms":329445,"concrete_test":"Recompute Tn and vn with cosmoTransition using the full one-loop thermal potential (not the approximated Eq. 18) at the benchmark couplings, and report the broken-phase VEV at the nucleation temperature. If vn/Tn comes out near 1 or below (consistent with vn ≤ 246 GeV at Tn ≈ 158 GeV), the GW amplitude drops by roughly (4.1/1)² in α and the U-DECIGO detectability claim in Fig. 2 weakens. If vn/Tn = 4.1 is reproduced with vn ≈ 651 GeV, the authors should explain how the broken-phase minimum exceeds the zero-temperature VEV at a temperature above Tc.","verdict_should_be":"CONDITIONAL","load_bearing_attack":"The paper's headline claim (abstract:s2) rests on the benchmark point mH = 423 GeV, mA = 426 GeV, mH± = 300 GeV, λ3 = 1.5, λ4 = 2.98, λ5 = -0.04, Tn = 158.78 GeV, vn/Tn = 4.1. The product vn = 4.1 × 158.78 ≈ 651 GeV exceeds the zero-temperature electroweak VEV v = 246 GeV by a factor of 2.6. In a single-step transition to the electroweak vacuum, the broken-phase VEV at Tn is bounded above by the zero-temperature VEV; the cubic term in Eq. 18 can push the minimum outward only when Tn is well below Tc. The quoted Tn = 158.78 GeV is at or above the standard critical temperature for these couplings: with c ≈ 0.33-0.9 from Eq. 18's coefficient, Tc = sqrt(µ²/c) ≈ 90-155 GeV, so Tn = 158.78 GeV lies above Tc, where the symmetric phase is the minimum and no broken phase exists. This is an internal inconsistency in the benchmark, not an external-input concern. It propagates to α = 0.021, β/H = 722.9, and the GW spectrum in Fig. 2, since all three depend on vn and Tn. The paper does not show the cosmoTransition output or the full one-loop potential, so the reader cannot verify whether the quoted numbers come from the approximated Eq. 18 or a full calculation.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The manuscript proposes a scotogenic extension of the Standard Model with three right-handed neutrinos and an inert scalar doublet H2. The mass splittings among the neutral and charged components of H2 are used to fit the CDF W-boson mass through the oblique parameters S and T; the same splittings enter the one-loop Majorana neutrino mass and the freeze-in production of N1 dark matter; and the quartic couplings λ4 and λ5 that control the splittings also strengthen the first-order electroweak phase transition. At a benchmark point (mH = 423 GeV, mA = 426 GeV, mH± = 300 GeV, λ3 = 1.5, λ4 = 2.98, λ5 = -0.04), the authors report Tn = 158.78 GeV, vn/Tn = 4.1, α = 0.021, β/H = 722.9, and a gravitational-wave spectrum that lies within the U-DECIGO sensitivity band. The paper's central claim is that the same mass splitting required by the CDF W mass also produces a detectable stochastic GW signal.","tokens_in":12871,"tokens_out":18799,"duration_ms":301109,"significance":"The idea of using the W-mass fit to select a region of parameter space that simultaneously gives the correct relic density, a viable neutrino mass, and a strong first-order electroweak phase transition is interesting and, in principle, falsifiable. The model is minimal, the benchmark is explicit, and the GW prediction is testable by U-DECIGO and other planned interferometers. The paper deserves credit for making a concrete, falsifiable prediction and for presenting the correlation in a single framework. If the benchmark survives the consistency checks below, the result would be a useful addition to the scotogenic and phase-transition literature.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The coefficient c in Eq. (18) contains a term 32mH²/(12v²); for mH = 423 GeV this gives c ≈ 8.7, and the degeneracy condition Tc² = µ²/(c - ε²/(72π²λ)) gives Tc ≈ 31 GeV, well below the quoted Tn = 158.78 GeV. At T > Tc the symmetric phase is the global minimum, so no transition can nucleate. Please clarify whether the 32mH² term is correct (it is not the standard inert-doublet thermal mass, which is of order (λ3 + λ4)/6 T²), and show Tc explicitly. Relatedly, vn/Tn = 4.1 with Tn = 158.78 GeV gives vn ≈ 651 GeV, about 2.6 times the zero-temperature VEV; while a large cubic term can push the broken minimum outward, the definition of vn and the potential used to obtain it should be stated.","section":"§3, Eq. (18) and the benchmark point","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The paper states that cosmoTransition was used to compute the bounce action and Tn 'for the effective potential Veff', but it is not stated whether Veff is the approximated Eq. (18) or the full one-loop thermal potential. Since the GW spectrum in Fig. 2 depends on Tn, vn, α, and β/H, the authors should show the full potential, the values of Tc and Tn, and the cosmoTransition output (or a table) so that the benchmark can be independently verified. The approximation in Eq. (18) is stated to be valid 'near the critical temperature', but the GW calculation needs the potential at Tn, which may be well below Tc.","section":"§3, reproducibility of the phase-transition calculation","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The GW prediction is conditional on the CDF W-mass anomaly being genuine new physics; the CDF result is in tension with D0, ATLAS, and LHCb, as the introduction acknowledges. The abstract and conclusion state that the model 'successfully explain[s]' the W mass without this caveat. The authors should state explicitly that the GW signal is conditional on the CDF result, and ideally show the GW spectrum for the PDG W mass (no splitting) to quantify how much of the signal is due to the CDF-driven splitting.","section":"§1 and §4, framing of the W-mass claim","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The benchmark point is described as 'the selected benchmark point to investigate GWs physics below', but the text does not state whether it lies inside the 1σ/2σ CDF region (green/yellow bands) and inside the purple relic-density band. Since the paper's claim is that the same splitting explains the W mass, the relic density, and the phase transition, the benchmark should be shown to satisfy all three. Please state the benchmark's status in each region explicitly.","section":"Fig. 1","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The term '32m²H' and the mass-squared labels in the coefficient c should be checked for typographical errors, since the standard inert-doublet thermal mass does not contain a term of this form.","section":"Eq. (18)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The GW spectrum formulas for Ωsw and Ωturb are not given in the main text; the paper refers the reader to a supplementary file. These formulas, together with the values of g* and the efficiency factors, should be given in the main text or the supplementary file should be made available with the submission.","section":"Eq. (19) and the supplementary file","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The value α = 0.021 should be accompanied by its definition and the assumed value of g*, since different conventions for α differ by factors of order 30/(π²g*).","section":"§3, definition of α","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The phrase 'we successfully explain our Universe with the new measured W boson mass' is stronger than the analysis supports; the conclusion should be softened to reflect the conditional nature of the W-mass interpretation.","section":"§4, conclusion","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"Reference [7], from which the ΔS and ΔT best-fit values used in Fig. 1 are taken, is an arXiv preprint rather than a published fit; the authors should note this and, if possible, cross-check against a published electroweak fit.","section":"References","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The figure would be clearer if the benchmark curve were labelled directly and the sensitivity bands of the various detectors were identified in the caption rather than only in the legend.","section":"Fig. 2","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The ΔS and ΔT fit used to draw the 1σ and 2σ bands in Fig. 1 comes from Ref. [7], an arXiv preprint that shares an author with this manuscript. This is not a circularity in the technical sense, since the fit is derived from electroweak precision data, but the editor may wish to note the citation pattern and the fact that the fit is not yet published. The paper's central GW prediction is also conditional on the CDF W-mass anomaly, which is in tension with other measurements; the authors should be encouraged to state this explicitly."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"The thing to know first: the correlation this paper sells — one charged-neutral mass splitting in the scotogenic doublet driving the CDF W mass, the FIMP relic density, and the strength of the electroweak phase transition — is a genuinely useful organizing idea. But the benchmark point that carries the gravitational-wave claim does not survive its own arithmetic, and that is the part a referee has to press on. What is new and what holds up. The scotogenic model, FIMP dark matter in it, and the inert-doublet EWPT are all prior work and the paper says so. The new element is tying them to the CDF W-mass shift through ΔM1 and ΔM2, and that is worth reading. The W-mass and dark-matter sections check out: λ4 = 2.98 and λ5 = -0.04 reproduce mH = 423, mA = 426, mH± = 300 with v = 246; the T parameter from Eq. 16 lands near 0.14, in the range the CDF fit needs; the FIMP yield with y1 ~ 1.5e-12 is standard. The authors also flag in the introduction that the CDF result is unconfirmed. Where it breaks. The benchmark lists Tn = 158.78 GeV and vn/Tn = 4.1, so vn ≈ 651 GeV — 2.6 times the zero-temperature VEV. In a single-step transition to the EW vacuum that cannot happen; the broken minimum moves inward with temperature. Worse, plugging the paper's own c ≈ 8.7 (the 32 mH² term dominates at mH = 423) into Tc = sqrt(µ²/c) gives Tc ≈ 30 GeV, so Tn = 158.78 GeV is far above the critical temperature, where the symmetric phase is the minimum and there is no transition at all. Either Tn or the ratio is a typo, but as printed the α = 0.021, β/H = 722.9, and Fig. 2 spectrum are not reproducible. The paper shows no cosmoTransition output, so a reader cannot tell which. Eq. 18 also writes λ4 h⁴ where the Higgs quartic λ1 belongs — probably a typo, but it is the same section. Smaller things. The conclusion says the model 'successfully explains' the W mass, which outruns the intro's caveat. The ΔS, ΔT fit is imported from Ref. [7], a preprint with an overlapping author, and not independently reproduced — minor, since the fit is standard and checkable. No SNR is given for U-DECIGO, and the peak sits only about an order of magnitude above the floor. Who should read it: phenomenologists working on scotogenic or inert-doublet dark matter and EWPT gravitational waves. It is a good template for correlating a W-mass fit with phase-transition observables, provided the phase-transition numbers are redone. Recommendation: send it out. The organizing idea earns referee time, but the phase-transition section needs major revision and the GW claim as written does not stand.","headline":"The organizing idea — one scotogenic mass splitting tying the CDF W mass, the FIMP relic, and the EWPT strength — is worth reading, but the benchmark point that carries the gravitational-wave claim is internally inconsistent: Tn = 158.78 GeV sits above the critical temperature implied by the paper's own potential, and vn/Tn = 4.1 gives vn ≈ 651 GeV, well above 246 GeV.","tokens_in":13597,"tokens_out":5837,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":106052,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["12.60.Fr","14.60.Pq","95.35.+d","98.80.Cq","04.30.-w"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"A single mass splitting in a new Higgs doublet is asked to explain three puzzles at once: the CDF W-boson mass, sterile-neutrino dark matter, and a first-order electroweak phase transition whose gravitational waves could reach U-DECIGO.","keywords":["W boson mass anomaly","scotogenic model","inert doublet model","FIMP dark matter","Majorana neutrino mass","first-order electroweak phase transition","gravitational waves","oblique parameters"],"falsifier":"A future precise $W$-boson mass measurement at ATLAS, LHCb or a future $e^+e^-$ collider that lands on the Standard Model value and confirms the CDF result as a systematic would remove the mass splitting the whole argument requires; independently, a U-DECIGO run that excludes a stochastic background at the predicted amplitude and peak frequency for the benchmark point would kill the gravitational-wave half of the claim.","tokens_in":13802,"feed_emoji":"🌌","tokens_out":3120,"duration_ms":61581,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The paper asks whether one small number — the mass gap between the charged and neutral members of a second, inert Higgs doublet — can carry three separate problems at the same time. Adding three right-handed neutrinos and this doublet to the Standard Model gives Majorana neutrino masses at the electroweak scale through a loop, makes the lightest sterile neutrino a feebly interacting dark-matter candidate, and, the authors argue, shifts the W-boson mass through the oblique parameters $S$ and $T$ in the direction the CDF measurement demands. The same gap changes the quartic couplings that set the barrier in the finite-temperature effective potential, so the authors claim it strengthens the electroweak phase transition into a first-order one. The payoff is a concrete gravitational-wave spectrum computed at a benchmark point and placed against the sensitivity curves of LISA, BBO, Taiji, TianQin, DECIGO and U-DECIGO, with the signal falling inside U-DECIGO's reach. If the chain holds, a measurement of the W mass and a future gravitational-wave detection would be two windows on the same new scalar sector.","feed_headline":"One mass splitting ties W mass, dark matter and gravity waves","feed_subtitle":"A gap inside a new Higgs doublet would fix the CDF W mass, make sterile-neutrino dark matter, and seed waves U-DECIGO could hear.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the pair of mass splittings $M_1 = m_H - m_{H^+}$ and $M_2 = m_A - m_{H^+}$ inside the inert (scotogenic) doublet. Through the quartic couplings $v_n/T_n$ and $v_n/T_n$ — fixed by $v_n/T_n$ and $v_n/T_n$ — the splittings set both the oblique parameters $S$ and $T$ that shift $m_W$, and the cubic term $v_n/T_n$ in the ring-resummed finite-temperature potential that creates the barrier between the symmetric and broken vacua. The transition strength $v_n/T_n$ and the nucleation temperature come out of the bounce action computed with a standard cosmological phase-transition package, and the gravitational-wave spectrum is then built from the sound-wave and turbulence contributions with the usual efficiency and duration factors. The neutrino mass is a separate loop function of $m_H$, $m_A$ and the sterile masses, controlled by $v_n/T_n$, so the same splitting that must be nonzero for the $W$ mass is also what keeps the one-loop neutrino mass from vanishing.","core_discovery":"The central claim is that the non-degeneracy of the inert doublet's components is a common origin for the CDF $W$-boson mass anomaly, the dark-matter abundance, and a strong first-order electroweak phase transition. Taking $m_{H^+}=300$ GeV and fitting the global electroweak $S$ and $T$ values preferred by the new $W$ mass, the authors map out allowed bands in the plane of $M_1 = m_H - m_{H^+}$ and $M_2 = m_A - m_{H^+}$, and note that only the ordering with the charged scalar lightest survives, because $S$ is logarithmically negative otherwise. Within that band they show contours of constant $v_n/T_n$ running to larger values as the splitting grows, and they pick a benchmark point — $m_H = 423$ GeV, $m_A = 426$ GeV, $m_{H^+} = 300$ GeV, $T_n = 158.78$ GeV, $v_n/T_n = 4.1$ — where the transition is strong and the resulting stochastic background, computed from sound waves and turbulence with $v_n/T_n = 4.1$, $v_n/T_n$ fixed, and with $v_n/T_n$ entering through $v_n/T_n$, gives $v_n/T_n = 4.1$ and $v_n/T_n$-driven amplitudes $v_n/T_n$; the reported spectral parameters are $v_n/T_n = 4.1$, $v_n/T_n$ and the plotted curve has $v_n/T_n = 4.1$ with $v_n/T_n$ set by $v_n/T_n$. In numbers, the paper quotes $v_n/T_n = 4.1$ and, for the spectrum, $v_n/T_n$.","pith_inferences":["The gravitational-wave prediction is not independent evidence for the model: it is conditional on the CDF $W$ mass being real. If that measurement turns out to be a systematic, the required splitting collapses to zero, the quartic couplings shrink, and the phase transition reverts to the ordinary Standard Model crossover — so a null U-DECIGO result and a revised $W$ mass would be consistent outcom","The scenario makes a sharp companion prediction the paper does not push: because $S$ is only logarithmically sensitive to the splitting while $T$ is quadratically sensitive, a future global electroweak fit that moves $T$ but not $S$ would shift the allowed band along a direction this model cannot follow.","The feebly interacting dark-matter coupling of order $10^{-12}$ is essentially untestable directly, which means the model's real exposure is in the scalar sector — Higgs invisible width, charged-scalar pair production, and the $H \\to \\gamma\\gamma$ rate — rather than in the dark-matter detection channels usually quoted for inert doublets.","If the transition is genuinely this strong, the same scalar potential may leave an imprint on the Higgs trilinear coupling measurable at a future collider, giving a third, non-gravitational handle on the splitting."],"forward_implications":["If the CDF $W$-boson mass is new physics, the inert doublet must sit in a specific ordering — charged scalar lightest, with neutral components split by tens of GeV — which is a searchable mass pattern at the LHC through disappearing-track and displaced-lepton signatures.","The same parameter region fixes the loop neutrino mass, so a measured absolute neutrino mass scale or improved lepton-flavour-violation limits would further squeeze the allowed splittings.","A first-order electroweak phase transition at $T_n \\approx 159$ GeV with $v_n/T_n \\approx 4$ produces a stochastic background whose amplitude and peak frequency are pinned by the benchmark point, giving a target for U-DECIGO and, if weaker, for BBO and DECIGO.","Because the barrier grows with the splitting, any scalar multiplet invoked to explain the $W$ mass inherits a strengthened phase transition, so the correlation generalizes beyond this specific model."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the CDF $W$-boson mass value that the entire mass-splitting requirement is built to accommodate.","marker":"[1]"},{"why":"Provides the global electroweak fit values of $S$ and $T$ used to define the allowed region in the mass-splitting plane.","marker":"[7]"},{"why":"Original scotogenic model that supplies the field content and the loop origin of neutrino mass.","marker":"[15]"},{"why":"Source of the freeze-in dark-matter calculation, the Boltzmann equation treatment, and the viable Yukawa range and benchmark coupling.","marker":"[25]"},{"why":"Gives the oblique-parameter relation between $S$, $T$, $U$ and the $W$-boson mass that converts the splittings into a $m_W$ shift.","marker":"[30]"},{"why":"The phase-transition package used to compute the bounce action and nucleation temperature for the effective potential.","marker":"[34]"},{"why":"Supplies the LHC constraints on the charged and neutral inert scalars that fix the allowed mass spectra.","marker":"[26]"},{"why":"Provides the measured dark-matter relic density that the freeze-in yield is required to reproduce.","marker":"[28]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Doublet mass splitting ties CDF W mass to FIMP dark matter","Charged scalar lightest ordering links W mass and dark matter","Scotogenic scalars and sterile neutrinos share a W-mass origin","Strong phase transition from doublet splitting may seed U-DECIGO waves","Charged-light doublet ordering survives electroweak fits and W mass"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The chain rests on the CDF $W$-boson mass being a genuine new-physics signal rather than a systematic error, since without the required mass splitting the quartic couplings stay small and the strong first-order phase transition that generates the gravitational waves does not occur.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Doublet mass splitting ties CDF W mass to FIMP dark matter","Charged scalar lightest ordering links W mass and dark matter","Scotogenic scalars and sterile neutrinos share a W-mass origin","Strong phase transition from doublet splitting may seed U-DECIGO waves","Charged-light doublet ordering survives electroweak fits and W mass"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1956,"prompt_tokens":1078,"completion_tokens":878,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":796}},"tokens_in":1078,"tokens_out":878,"duration_ms":14844,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":796,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-10-30T22:47:18.220701+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"falsifier":"A future precise $W$-boson mass measurement at ATLAS, LHCb or a future $e^+e^-$ collider that lands on the Standard Model value and confirms the CDF result as a systematic would remove the mass splitting the whole argument requires; independently, a U-DECIGO run that excludes a stochastic background at the predicted amplitude and peak frequency for the benchmark point would kill the gravitational-wave half of the claim.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Aaltonen et al., High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector , Science 376 (2022), no","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the CDF $W$-boson mass value that the entire mass-splitting requirement is built to accommodate."},{"cited_title":"Electroweak Precision Fit and New Physics in light of $W$ Boson Mass","cited_arxiv_id":"2204.03796","evidence_quote":"Provides the global electroweak fit values of $S$ and $T$ used to define the allowed region in the mass-splitting plane."},{"cited_title":"Verifiable Radiative Seesaw Mechanism of Neutrino Mass and Dark Matter","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0601225","evidence_quote":"Original scotogenic model that supplies the field content and the loop origin of neutrino mass."},{"cited_title":"FIMP realization of the scotogenic model","cited_arxiv_id":"1405.1259","evidence_quote":"Source of the freeze-in dark-matter calculation, the Boltzmann equation treatment, and the viable Yukawa range and benchmark coupling."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Gives the oblique-parameter relation between $S$, $T$, $U$ and the $W$-boson mass that converts the splittings into a $m_W$ shift."},{"cited_title":"CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields","cited_arxiv_id":"1109.4189","evidence_quote":"The phase-transition package used to compute the bounce action and nucleation temperature for the effective potential."},{"cited_title":"Probing the scotogenic FIMP at the LHC","cited_arxiv_id":"1611.09540","evidence_quote":"Supplies the LHC constraints on the charged and neutral inert scalars that fix the allowed mass spectra."},{"cited_title":"Novel two component dark matter features in the Z2 × Z2 3HDM","cited_arxiv_id":"1807.06209","evidence_quote":"Provides the measured dark-matter relic density that the freeze-in yield is required to reproduce."}],"review_version":1}