Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 121 references

Phenomenology of $keV$ sterile neutrino in minimal extended seesaw

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A keV sterile neutrino can satisfy dark-matter bounds only in normal ordering, and the same minimal seesaw links double beta decay, relic abundance, and baryogenesis.

desk verdict The flavor and 0νββ/leptogenesis work is respectable, but the keV dark matter claim does not survive the paper's own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08417 v2 pith:TBGX2CW6 submitted 2019-08-22 hep-ph

Pritam Das , Mrinal Kumar Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 14.60.Pq14.60.St95.35.+d98.80.Cq
keywords sterileneutrinodarkmatterminimalextendedseesawkeVneutrinolessdoublebetadecaythermalleptogenesisA4flavorsymmetryactive-sterilemixingbaryonasymmetry
topics Matter-Antimatter AsymmetryDark Matter
open problems Dark MatterMatter-Antimatter Asymmetry
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

The paper sets out to show that a single sterile neutrino of keV mass, added to the minimal extended seesaw with three heavy right-handed neutrinos, can be the common thread behind dark matter, neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay ($0\nu\beta\beta$), and baryogenesis. A model based on the tetrahedral group $A_4$ is built for both normal and inverted neutrino mass ordering, and its mass matrices fix the sterile mass and the active–sterile mixing in terms of a few flavon vacuum expectation values. The numerical scan finds that the future $0\nu\beta\beta$ sensitivity $m_{\rm eff}<0.01$ eV translates into the bound $m_S|\theta_S|^2<10^{-4}\ \mathrm{keV}$, that the sterile decay-width and relic-abundance conditions favour a narrow dark-matter window $m_S\approx1\text{--}3\ \mathrm{keV}$ in normal ordering, and that thermal leptogenesis from the lightest right-handed neutrino can reproduce the measured baryon asymmetry. The normal hierarchy is consistently more successful than the inverted one, and the Dirac CP phase is constrained to roughly $\delta\approx2\text{--}4$. If these correlations survive, the model offers a single framework in which three independent cosmological and laboratory observables point to the same parameter region; the paper's own conclusion acknowledges that keV sterile neutrino dark matter within minimal extended seesaw remains unsettled.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the minimal extended seesaw mass texture. The active neutrino mass is $m_\nu\simeq M_D M_R^{-1} M_S^{\rm T}(M_S M_R^{-1} M_S^{\rm T})^{-1} M_S(M_R^{-1})^{\rm T} M_D^{\rm T}-M_D M_R^{-1} M_D^{\rm T}$, the sterile mass is $m_s\simeq-M_S M_R^{-1} M_S^{\rm T}$, and the active–sterile mixing vector is $W=M_D M_R^{-1} M_S^{\rm T}(M_S M_R^{-1} M_S^{\rm T})^{-1}$; with a single singlet $S$ coupled only to $\nu_{R1}$ these reduce to one keV sterile state of mass $G^2/(\lambda_1 v)$ and mixing $W=(D_1/G,\,0,\,P/G)^{\rm T}$. Three numerical formulas then carry the phenomenology: the $0\nu\beta\beta$ effective mass $m_{3+1}^{\rm eff}=m_{3\nu}^{\rm eff}+m_4|\theta_S|^2$, the decay width $\Gamma_{S\to3\nu}=G_F^2 m_S^5 \sin^2\theta_S/(96\pi^3)$, and the relic abundance $\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2\simeq0.3(\sin^2 2\theta_{S\nu}/10^{-10})(m_S/100\ \mathrm{keV})^2$. The whole argument is the map from these formulas to closed contours in the $(m_S,\theta_S)$ plane.

What would settle it

Evaluate Eq. (21) at $\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2=0.119$ for $m_S=1,2,3$ keV to find the required $\sin^2\theta_S$, and compare it with the upper limit set by Eq. (18) under $\Gamma<10^{-28}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$; the normal-ordering dark-matter window survives only if the two ranges intersect. An independent check is to infer $\theta_S$ from the measured flux of the $E=3.55$ keV X-ray line, compute the relic abundance from Eq. (21), and compare it with the cosmologically measured dark-matter density.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central finding is a set of parameter windows in which one keV sterile neutrino simultaneously satisfies three constraints. Using the MES formula for the $0\nu\beta\beta$ effective mass, $m_{3+1}^{\rm eff}=m_{3\nu}^{\rm eff}+m_4|\theta_S|^2$, it shows that values of $m_4|\theta_S|^2$ above $10^{-4}$ keV would push the effective mass beyond the $0.01$ eV future reach; this yields the paper's upper bound on the active–sterile mixing element. For dark matter, it combines the three-neutrino decay width $\Gamma_{S\to 3\nu}$ with the non-resonant relic formula and imposes $\Gamma<10^{-28}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$ together with $\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2=0.119$, which in normal ordering leaves $m_S$ around $1\text{--}3$ keV as the allowed window; in inverted ordering the decay-width and relic windows do not overlap. For baryogenesis, the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino with masses $R_1=10^{12}$ GeV, $R_2=10^{13}$ GeV, $R_3=5\times10^{13}$ GeV produces a baryon asymmetry in agreement with observation, with normal ordering again more efficient and the Dirac CP phase constrained to $\delta\approx2\text{--}4$. The paper therefore claims a correlation between a future $0\nu\beta\beta$ measurement, a sterile-neutrino dark-matter signal, and the measured baryon asymmetry, all within one $A_4$-based MES construction; it also states explicitly that the keV sterile neutrino as dark matter within MES is still on the verge of uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a tiny, time-independent active–sterile mixing angle $\theta_S<10^{-6}$ with non-resonant production (Eq. 21) generates the observed dark-matter relic abundance; if the mixing required for $\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2=0.119$ at $m_S\sim1\text{--}10$ keV exceeds the value allowed by the decay-width bound, the claimed $1\text{--}3$ keV dark-matter window collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a future $0\nu\beta\beta$ experiment reaches $m_{\rm eff}\sim0.01$ eV and sees nothing, the model converts that null result into the bound $m_S|\theta_S|^2<10^{-4}\ \mathrm{keV}$ on the sterile sector.
  • If the normal-ordering dark-matter window $m_S\approx1\text{--}3$ keV is real, the sterile neutrino is warm dark matter; Lyman-$\alpha$ bounds of $m_S\gtrsim1.8\text{--}3.3$ keV sit directly on this window, making the viability testable by structure-formation data.
  • A confirmed baryon asymmetry from leptogenesis in this setup requires the Dirac CP phase $\delta\approx2\text{--}4$ in normal ordering, so long-baseline measurements of $\delta$ can confirm or exclude the model's parameter space.
  • In inverted ordering, the decay-width and relic-abundance windows do not overlap, so a confirmed keV sterile dark matter with $m_S\gtrsim3$ keV would disfavor the inverted-hierarchy version of this MES model.
  • The combination of $0\nu\beta\beta$ and sterile-mass constraints gives a target for future keV sterile searches: if $m_S|\theta_S|^2$ sits near $10^{-4}$ keV, the signal lies just below the next-generation $0\nu\beta\beta$ reach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The non-resonant production premise deserves the closest scrutiny: evaluating the paper's own Eq. (21) at $m_S=1\text{--}10$ keV requires $\theta_S\sim10^{-5}\text{--}10^{-4}$ to reach $\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2=0.119$, while the lifetime bound $\Gamma<10^{-28}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$ permits substantially smaller values; a full Boltzmann treatment including resonant production would determine whether a common
  • The 3.55 keV X-ray line interpretation ($m_S\approx7.1$ keV) lies above the NH window found here, so if that line is sterile-neutrino decay, this particular MES model would need a different production mechanism or a modified texture.
  • Promoting the static mixing angle to a temperature-dependent one and computing the sterile momentum distribution would turn the model's warm-dark-matter prediction into a quantitative prediction for structure-formation data.
  • The predicted texture $W=(D_1/G,\,0,\,P/G)^{\rm T}$ is distinctive, so future flavor-specific sterile-mixing searches could test this $A_4$ assignment against generic 3+1 models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs an A4 x Z4 x Z3 flavor-symmetric minimal extended seesaw (MES) model with three hierarchical right-handed neutrinos and one keV-scale sterile singlet S. The model parameters D1, D2, P are matched to the 3-sigma ranges of the neutrino oscillation parameters for both normal and inverted mass ordering, and the paper then studies three observables: the 0νββ effective mass including the sterile contribution, the sterile-neutrino dark matter relic abundance and decay width, and the baryon asymmetry produced by thermal leptogenesis from the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino. The paper reports an upper bound on active-sterile mixing from 0νββ, preferred sterile-neutrino mass ranges from dark matter considerations (NH: 1-3 keV; IH: a broader range), constrained Yukawa and CP-phase windows from baryogenesis, and correlations among meff, mS, delta, and YB.

Significance. If the simultaneous constraints were correctly derived, this would be a useful example of a flavor-symmetry-based MES model linking 0νββ, dark matter, and leptogenesis. The A4 construction is explicit, the numerical scans over CP phases are systematic, and the 0νββ and leptogenesis parts follow standard and mostly correct formalism. However, the dark matter analysis contains an internal numerical inconsistency that undermines the paper's headline claim of simultaneous viability; the reported sterile-neutrino mass ranges do not follow from the paper's own equations. Because that claim is the central result, the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (21)] The assumed static mixing angle theta_S < 10^-6 is incompatible with the relic-density target. Setting Omega_DM h^2 = 0.119 in Eq. (21) gives sin^2(2 theta_S) ≈ 3.97 x 10^-7 (100 keV/mS)^2, i.e., theta_S ≈ 3.2 x 10^-4 (1 keV/mS). For mS = 1-3 keV this is two to three orders of magnitude above the theta_S < 10^-6 assumption stated in Section 3.2, so the relic-abundance curves in Fig. 5 cannot be obtained with the mixing parameters the text says are being used.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (18) and §4] The mixing angle required by Eq. (21) also violates the decay-width criterion. Inserting theta_S ≈ 3.2 x 10^-4 (1 keV/mS) into Eq. (18) gives Gamma_{S->3nu} ≈ 6.7 x 10^-27 s^-1 at mS = 1 keV and ≈ 1.7 x 10^-25 s^-1 at mS = 3 keV, both above the paper's stated Gamma < 10^-28 s^-1 limit in Section 4. The intersection of the relic-abundance and decay-width constraints occurs near mS ≈ 0.2 keV, below the (1-18.5) keV window quoted throughout the paper.
  3. [§3.2 and Fig. 5] Because of the two inconsistencies above, the Fig. 5 caption claim that 'mS around 1-3 keV is consistent with NH mode ... while satisfying both the decay width and relic abundance' does not follow from the paper's own equations. This simultaneous-satisfaction statement is the paper's central advertised result, so the dark-matter mass ranges and the subsequent correlations in Figs. 8-10 that rely on those ranges are unsupported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are repeated proofreading issues: 'it's influence' in the abstract should be 'its influence', and 'explicitly violets the lepton number' in Section 1 should be 'explicitly violates the lepton number'.
  2. [Section 3, text before Table 4] The sentence 'R1 =×10^12 GeV' is missing a numerical coefficient; it should presumably read R1 = 10^12 GeV or R1 = n x 10^12 GeV.
  3. [Figs. 2 and 3] The sterile contribution to the effective mass is denoted m4|theta_S|^2 in Eq. (17) but mS|theta_S|^2 in the Fig. 2 caption; please use one notation consistently and clarify whether m4 and mS are the same quantity.
  4. [Section 3.2, text near Eq. (20)] The sentence 'the mixing parameter, sin 2 2theta_S from eq. (20) got heavily suppressed' refers to a decay-width formula; the mixing combination sin^2(2 theta_S) appears in Eq. (20), but the sentence should be reworded to avoid implying Eq. (20) defines the mixing parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: parameters are fitted to neutrino oscillation data and outputs are checked against external bounds.

full rationale

The model parameters D1, D2, P are solved from the observed neutrino mass-squared differences and mixing angles (Sec. 3), and the CP phases are scanned over their allowed ranges; the subsequent 0νββ, dark-matter, and leptogenesis quantities are evaluated from those inputs and compared with independent external limits (KamLAND-Zen/GERDA future sensitivity, ΩDMh2=0.119, YB=(8.7±0.06)e-11). No equation in the paper defines a prediction in terms of its target observable, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citation to the authors' prior work [66] supplies the MP matrix ansatz, but that matrix is explicitly written in Eq. (4) and used as a model-building input rather than as an external uniqueness theorem, so it is not load-bearing circularity. The hand-picked values R1,R2,R3 and the keV range for mS weaken the model's independence but do not make the outputs equivalent to inputs by construction. The Fig. 5 dark-matter mass-range claim appears internally inconsistent with the stated θS<10^-6 (Eq. (21) at 1-3 keV would require θS~10^-4), but that is a correctness/consistency concern, not a circular derivation; under the hard rules it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central phenomenological results depend on a handful of fitted or hand-picked inputs: the three heavy right-handed masses, the sterile mass scale, the Dirac mass entries solved from oscillation data, and the scanned CP phases. The A4 vacuum alignment and the MES seesaw formula are assumed from prior work.

free parameters (5)
  • R1, R2, R3 (heavy right-handed neutrino masses) = 10^12, 10^13, 5x10^13 GeV
    Assigned fixed non-degenerate values in Section 3 so that thermal leptogenesis works; not derived from the model.
  • mS (sterile neutrino mass) = scanned over 1-18.5 keV
    Set by choosing vχ around 10 TeV; treated as a free scan parameter in the DM and 0νββ analysis.
  • θS (active-sterile mixing) = not fixed; scanned in Fig. 3; model-dependent via D1/G and P/G
    Used to compute meff, decay width, and relic abundance; the paper does not state the value used in Fig. 5.
  • D1, D2, P (Dirac mass entries) = not reported numerically
    Solved from current global fit 3σ values of neutrino parameters (Section 3); the solution procedure is not shown.
  • CP phases α, β, δ = scanned over (0, 2π)
    Varied within allowed ranges; later constrained by BAU and meff bounds.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A4 multiplication rules and vacuum alignments from [66], including ⟨ζ⟩=(v,0,0), ⟨ϕ⟩=(v,v,v), ⟨ϕ′⟩=(0,vp,0)
    Mass matrix structures in Table 4 depend on these alignments being the potential minima.
  • standard math MES active mass formula Eq. (9) with the lightest active neutrino exactly massless
    Taken from [18]; used to build mν and ms in Table 4.
  • domain assumption Non-resonant (Dodelson-Widrow) relic abundance formula Eq. (21)
    Used for DM mass ranges; inconsistent with the θS < 10^-6 statement in Section 3.2.
  • standard math Single-flavor thermal leptogenesis with dilution factor parametrization from [57]
    Used for BAU computations; assumes hierarchical RH masses.
invented entities (2)
  • Sterile neutrino S
    purpose: Dark matter candidate and source of extra contribution to 0νββ
    Standard MES addition; no new falsifiable handle is derived in this paper; the 3.55 keV line is an external, contested hint.
  • A4 flavons ζ, ϕ, ζ′, ϕ′, ξ, ξ′, χ
    purpose: Generate the Dirac and sterile mass structures
    No predicted signals; their VEVs are assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenology of $keV$ sterile neutrino in minimal extended seesaw." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBGX2CW6

@misc{pith2026190808417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenology of $keV$ sterile neutrino in minimal extended seesaw},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBGX2CW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08417}
}
abstract

We explore the possibility of a single generation of $keV$ scale sterile neutrino ($m_S$) as a dark matter candidate within the minimal extended seesaw (MES) framework and it's influence in neutrinoless double beta decay ($0\nu\beta\beta$) study. Three hierarchical right-handed neutrinos were considered to explain neutrino mass. We also address baryogenesis via the mechanism of thermal leptogenesis considering the decay of the lightest RH neutrino to a lepton and Higgs doublet. A generic model based on $A_4\times Z_4\times Z_3$ flavor symmetry is constructed to explain both normal and inverted hierarchy mass pattern of neutrinos. Significant results on effective neutrino masses are observed in presence of sterile mass ($m_S$) and active-sterile mixing ($\theta_{S}$) in $0\nu\beta\beta$. Results from $0\nu\beta\beta$ give stringent upper bounds on the active-sterile mixing matrix element. To establish sterile neutrino as dark matter within this model, we checked decay width and relic abundance of the sterile neutrino, which restricted sterile mass ($m_S$) within some definite bounds. Constrained regions on the CP-phases and Yukawa couplings are obtained from $0\nu\beta\beta$ and baryogenesis results. Co-relations among these observable are also established and discussed within this framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. S → νανβνβ (left) and S → ν + γ (right) decay processed of the sterile neutrino.100 Left figure gives dominant decay channel to three active neutrinos/anti-neutrinos and right figure shows loop mediated radiative decay channel that allows to look for the signal of sterile neutrino DM in the spectra of DM dominated objects. scale because of the small mixing angle. The decay rate for the S → ν + γ process is given as1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of effective neutrino mass vs. the lightest neutrino mass. The upper plot rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of effective mass for different ranges of active-sterile mixing angle. The left plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of Yukawa coupling with BAU in both the mass ordering. Solid green band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of decay width (Γ) and the relic abundance (Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variation of the Dirac delta phase with YB in both the mass ordering. The solid green band represents the current BAU value, YB = (8.7±0.06)×10−11. Both the mass orderings satisfy baryogenesis in our model and correlate with δ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Projection of BAU value (YB) between Dirac CP-phase (δ) along X-axis and Majorana phases (α and β respectively) along Y-axis. Current BAU value range is around the red-orange colour band and this constrains the Dirac CP phase (δ) in between the numerical values (2.0-4.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation between effective neutrino mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Projection of BAU value (YB) in a frame representing effective mass (meff ) along Y-axis and the Dirac CP-phase (δ) along X-axis. A precise constrained range for the Dirac CP-phase value around 3.5-4.0 is obtained for NH mode. Whereas IH mode failed to reflect the exac…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Projection of YB in a frame representing effective mass (meff ) along Y-axis and sterile mass (mS in keV ) along X-axis. Here also YB is much higher than its current bound in the IH mode and fails to correlate with meff and mS. On the other hand NH was able to project…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: fig. 8. Projection of BAU on a plane in between effective mass and Dirac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abe et al

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (K. Abe et al. ), Phys. Rev. D94, 052010 (2016), arXiv:1606.07538 [hep-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.052010

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Boger, R

    J. Boger, R. Hahn, J. Rowley, A. Carter, B. Hollebone, D. Kessler, I. Blevis, F. Dalnoki-Veress, A. DeKok, J. Farine et al. , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 449, 172 (2000)

    2000

  3. [3]

    Evans, Advances in High Energy Physics 2013 (2013)

    J. Evans, Advances in High Energy Physics 2013 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Abe et al

    T2K Collaboration (K. Abe et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041801 (2011), arXiv:1106.2822 [hep-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    RENO Collaboration (J. K. Ahn et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 191802 (2012), arXiv:1204.0626 [hep-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.191802

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Abe et al

    Double Chooz Collaboration (Y. Abe et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 131801 (2012), arXiv:1112.6353 [hep-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.131801

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Daya Bay Collaboration (F. P. An et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 171803 (2012), arXiv:1203.1669 [hep-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.171803. 22 Pritam Das, Mrinal Kumar Das

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Athanassopoulos et al

    LSND Collaboration (C. Athanassopoulos et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1774 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9709006 [nucl-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1774

    arXiv 1998

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    Athanassopoulos et al

    LSND Collaboration (C. Athanassopoulos et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3082 (1996), arXiv:nucl-ex/9605003 [nucl-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3082

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    LSND Collaboration (A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. ), Phys. Rev. D64, 112007 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0104049 [hep-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.112007

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. N. Abdurashitov et al. , Phys. Rev. C73, 045805 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0512041 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.73.045805

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Giunti and M

    C. Giunti and M. Laveder, Physical Review C 83, 065504 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Giunti, M

    C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Y. Li, Q. Liu and H. Long, Physical Review D 86, 113014 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Dodelson and L

    S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 17 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9303287 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.17

    1994 arXiv

  7. [15]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. (2012), arXiv:1204.5379 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

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

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Benes, A

    P. Benes, A. Faessler, F. Simkovic and S. Kovalenko, Phys. Rev. D71, 077901 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0501295 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.077901

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Barry, W

    J. Barry, W. Rodejohann and H. Zhang, JHEP 07, 091 (2011), arXiv:1105.3911 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2011)091

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Petraki and A

    K. Petraki and A. Kusenko, Phys. Rev. D77, 065014 (2008), arXiv:0711.4646 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.065014

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abada, V

    A. Abada, V. De Romeri, M. Lucente, A. M. Teixeira and T. Toma, JHEP 02, 169 (2018), arXiv:1712.03984 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)169

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli and B. Zhang, JHEP 05, 030 (2009), arXiv:0901.3589 [hep-ph], doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/030

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    F. F. Deppisch, P. S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis, New J. Phys. 17, 075019 (2015), arXiv:1502.06541 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/7/075019

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Borgohain, M

    H. Borgohain, M. K. Das and D. Borah, JHEP 06, 064 (2019), arXiv:1904.02484 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2019)064

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Barry, J

    J. Barry, J. Heeck and W. Rodejohann, JHEP 07, 081 (2014), arXiv:1404.5955 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)081

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Rodejohann and H

    W. Rodejohann and H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B737, 81 (2014), arXiv:1407.2739 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.08.035

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D87, 053007 (2013), arXiv:1212.3808 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.053007

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. O. Ludl and W. Rodejohann, JHEP 06, 040 (2016), arXiv:1603.08690 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)040

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. J. de Vega, O. Moreno, E. M. de Guerra, M. R. Medrano and N. G. Sanchez, Nucl. Phys. B866, 177 (2013), arXiv:1109.3452 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012. 08.019

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    W. H. Furry, Physical Review 56, 1184 (December 1939), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.56. 1184

    1939 doi

  22. [30]

    Dell’Oro, S

    S. Dell’Oro, S. Marcocci, M. Viel and F. Vissani, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2016, 2162659 (2016), arXiv:1601.07512 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1155/2016/2162659

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. M. Cline, Baryogenesis, in Les Houches Summer School - Session 86: Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Fabric of Spacetime Les Houches, France, July 31- August 25, 2006 , (2006). arXiv:hep-ph/0609145 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  24. [32]

    S. M. Bilenky, A. Faessler and F. Simkovic, Phys. Rev. D70, 033003 (2004), Phenomenology of keV sterile neutrino in minimal extended seesaw 23 arXiv:hep-ph/0402250 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.033003

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. M. Bilenky and C. Giunti, Mod. Phys. Lett. A27, 1230015 (2012), arXiv:1203.5250 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1142/S0217732312300157

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Agostini et al

    GERDA Collaboration (M. Agostini et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 132503 (2018), arXiv:1803.11100 [nucl-ex] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.132503

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Borgohain and M

    H. Borgohain and M. K. Das, Phys. Rev. D96, 075021 (2017), arXiv:1709.09542 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.075021

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. Abada, . Hernndez-Cabezudo and X. Marcano, JHEP 01, 041 (2019), arXiv:1807.01331 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)041

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P´ econtal, T

    E. P´ econtal, T. Buchert, P. Di Stefano, Y. Copin and K. Freese, European Astro- nomical Society Publications Series 36, 113 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradaˇ c, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones and D. Zaritsky, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 648, L109 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Bennett, D

    C. Bennett, D. Larson, J. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. Smith, R. Hill, B. Gold, M. Halpern et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208, 20 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Planck Collaboration (P. A. R. Ade et al. ), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A16 (2014), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO] , doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. Yoo, J. Chaname and A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 601, 311 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307437 [astro-ph] , doi:10.1086/380562

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Pani and A

    P. Pani and A. Loeb, JCAP 1406, 026 (2014), arXiv:1401.3025 [astro-ph.CO] , doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/06/026

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Milgrom, Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J. 270, 365 (1983), doi:10.1086/161130

    1983 doi

  36. [44]

    Kraus et al

    C. Kraus et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C40, 447 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0412056 [hep-ex] , doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02139-7

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    V. M. Lobashev et al. , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 91, 280 (2001), doi:10.1016/ S0920-5632(00)00952-X, [,280(2001)]

    2001

  38. [46]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys. 69, 1 (1990)

    1990

  39. [47]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5

    1996 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G. B. Gelmini and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D74, 023510 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602230 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023510

    2006 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Servant and T

    G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait, Nucl. Phys. B650, 391 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0206071 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)01012-X

    2003 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bonnevier, H

    J. Bonnevier, H. Melbeus, A. Merle and T. Ohlsson, Phys. Rev. D85, 043524 (2012), arXiv:1104.1430 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.109902,10.1103/PhysRevD. 85.043524, [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D85,109902(2012)]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Lopez Honorez, E

    L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, J. F. Oliver and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP 0702, 028 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612275 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/02/028

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Khan, Exploring Extensions of the Scalar Sector of the Standard Model, PhD thesis, Indian Inst

    N. Khan, Exploring Extensions of the Scalar Sector of the Standard Model, PhD thesis, Indian Inst. Tech., Indore (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    P. Das, M. K. Das and N. Khan (2019), arXiv:1911.07243 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Aghanim et al

    Planck Collaboration (N. Aghanim et al. ) (7 2018), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B174, 45 (1986), doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(86)91126-3

    1986

  48. [56]

    Strumia, Baryogenesis via leptogenesis, in Particle physics beyond the stan- dard model

    A. Strumia, Baryogenesis via leptogenesis, in Particle physics beyond the stan- dard model. Proceedings, Summer School on Theoretical Physics, 84th Session, Les Houches, France, August 1-26, 2005 , (2006), pp. 655–680. arXiv:hep-ph/0608347 24 Pritam Das, Mrinal Kumar Das [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi and Y. Nir, Phys. Rept. 466, 105 (2008), arXiv:0802.2962 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2008.06.002

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Di Bari, Contemp

    P. Di Bari, Contemp. Phys. 53, 315 (2012), arXiv:1206.3168 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1080/ 00107514.2012.701096

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Nardi, Y

    E. Nardi, Y. Nir, E. Roulet and J. Racker, JHEP 01, 164 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0601084 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/01/164

    2006 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Buchmuller, P

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari and M. Plumacher, New J. Phys. 6, 105 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406014 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/105

    2004 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Frossard, M

    T. Frossard, M. Garny, A. Hohenegger, A. Kartavtsev and D. Mitrouskas, Phys. Rev. D87, 085009 (2013), arXiv:1211.2140 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.085009

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Borah, D

    M. Borah, D. Borah and M. K. Das, Phys. Rev. D91, 113008 (2015), arXiv:1503.03431 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.113008

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kalita, D

    R. Kalita, D. Borah and M. K. Das, Nucl. Phys. B894, 307 (2015), arXiv:1412.8333 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.03.007

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Borah and M

    D. Borah and M. K. Das, Phys. Rev. D90, 015006 (2014), arXiv:1303.1758 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.015006

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Zhang, Phys

    H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B714, 262 (2012), arXiv:1110.6838 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2012.06.074

    2012 arXiv

  58. [66]

    P. Das, A. Mukherjee and M. K. Das, Nucl. Phys. B941, 755 (2019), arXiv:1805.09231 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.02.024

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Osipowicz et al

    KATRIN Collaboration (A. Osipowicz et al. ) (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0109033 [hep-ex]

    2001 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mertens, T

    S. Mertens, T. Lasserre, S. Groh, G. Drexlin, F. Glueck, A. Huber, A. W. P. Poon, M. Steidl, N. Steinbrink and C. Weinheimer, JCAP 1502, 020 (2015), arXiv:1409.0920 [physics.ins-det] , doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/02/020

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    R. E. Shrock, Phys. Lett. 96B, 159 (1980), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90235-X

    1980 doi

  62. [70]

    Boyarsky, O

    A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy and M. Shaposhnikov, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 59, 191 (2009), arXiv:0901.0011 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.010909.083654

    2009 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Benso, V

    C. Benso, V. Brdar, M. Lindner and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Rev. D100, 115035 (2019), arXiv:1911.00328 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.115035

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bulbul, M

    E. Bulbul, M. Markevitch, A. Foster, R. K. Smith, M. Loewenstein and S. W. Randall, The Astrophysical Journal 789, 13 (Jun 2014), doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/13

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    Boyarsky, O

    A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, D. Iakubovskyi and J. Franse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 251301 (Dec 2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.251301

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    Boyarsky, J

    A. Boyarsky, J. Franse, D. Iakubovskyi and O. Ruchayskiy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 161301 (2015), arXiv:1408.2503 [astro-ph.CO] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 115.161301

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Riemer-Srensen, Astron

    S. Riemer-Srensen, Astron. Astrophys. 590, A71 (2016), arXiv:1405.7943 [astro-ph.CO], doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527278

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Capozzi, E

    F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo, Nucl. Phys. B908, 218 (2016), arXiv:1601.07777 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.02.016

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Altarelli and F

    G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Nucl. Phys. B720, 64 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504165 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.05.005

    2005 arXiv

  70. [78]

    E. J. Chun, A. S. Joshipura and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D54, 4654 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9507371 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.4654

    1996 arXiv

  71. [79]

    K. S. Babu, TASI Lectures on Flavor Physics, in Proceedings of Theoretical Ad- vanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics on The dawn of the LHC era (TASI 2008): Boulder, USA, June 2-27, 2008 , (2010), pp. 49–123. arXiv:0910.2948 [hep-ph]. Phenomenology of keV steri...

    2010 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Gonzalez Felipe, H

    R. Gonzalez Felipe, H. Serodio and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rev. D88, 015015 (2013), arXiv:1304.3468 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.015015

    2013 arXiv

  73. [81]

    N. Nath, M. Ghosh, S. Goswami and S. Gupta, JHEP 03, 075 (2017), arXiv:1610.09090 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)075

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (Nov 1979), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43. 1566

    1979 doi

  75. [83]

    E. J. Chun, A. S. Joshipura and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B357, 608 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505275 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00967-P

    1995 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Heeck and H

    J. Heeck and H. Zhang, JHEP 05, 164 (2013), arXiv:1211.0538 [hep-ph] , doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2013)164

    2013 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Giganti, S

    C. Giganti, S. Lavignac and M. Zito, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 98, 1 (2018), arXiv:1710.00715 [hep-ex] , doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.10.001

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Antusch, C

    S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP 10, 084 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607020 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2006/10/084

    2006 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Akhmedov, A

    E. Akhmedov, A. Kartavtsev, M. Lindner, L. Michaels and J. Smirnov, JHEP 05, 081 (2013), arXiv:1302.1872 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)081

    2013 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Xing (2019), arXiv:1909.09610 [hep-ph]

    Z.-z. Xing (2019), arXiv:1909.09610 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Gautam and M

    N. Gautam and M. K. Das (2019), arXiv:1904.10662 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Obara), Nucl

    KamLAND-Zen Collaboration (S. Obara), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A845, 410 (2017), doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.059

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    CUORE Collaboration (D. R. Artusa et al. ), Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 879871 (2015), arXiv:1402.6072 [physics.ins-det] , doi:10.1155/2015/879871

    2015 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Hartnell), J

    SNO+ Collaboration (J. Hartnell), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 375, 042015 (2012), arXiv:1201.6169 [physics.ins-det] , doi:10.1088/1742-6596/375/1/042015

    2012 arXiv

  85. [93]

    NEXT Collaboration (J. J. Gomez-Cadenas et al. ), Adv. High Energy Phys. 2014, 907067 (2014), arXiv:1307.3914 [physics.ins-det] , doi:10.1155/2014/907067

    2014 arXiv

  86. [94]

    A. S. Barabash, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 375, 042012 (2012), arXiv:1112.1784 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1088/1742-6596/375/1/042012

    2012 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Gando et al

    KamLAND-Zen Collaboration (A. Gando et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 082503 (2016), arXiv:1605.02889 [hep-ex] , doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.117.109903,10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.082503, [Addendum: Phys. Rev. Lett.117,no.10,109903(2016)]

    2016 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Bhang et al

    H. Bhang et al. , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 375, 042023 (2012), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/ 375/1/042023

    2012 doi

  89. [97]

    EXO-200 Collaboration, D. Tosi, The search for neutrino-less double-beta decay: summary of current experiments, in Proceedings, 14th ICATPP Conference on As- troparticle, Particle, Space Physics and Detectors for Physics Applications (ICATPP 2013): Como, Italy, September 23-27...

    2014 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Licciardi), J

    nEXO Collaboration (C. Licciardi), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 888, 012237 (2017), doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/888/1/012237

    2017 doi

  91. [99]

    Berlin and D

    A. Berlin and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D95, 075017 (2017), arXiv:1610.03849 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.075017

    2017 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Drewes et al

    M. Drewes et al. , JCAP 1701, 025 (2017), arXiv:1602.04816 [hep-ph] , doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2017/01/025

    2017 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Asaka, M

    T. Asaka, M. Laine and M. Sha- poshnikov, JHEP 01, 091 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612182 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/2007/01/091,10.1007/JHEP02(2015)028, [Erratum: JHEP02,028(2015)]

    2007 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Shi and G

    X.-D. Shi and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2832 (1999), 26 Pritam Das, Mrinal Kumar Das arXiv:astro-ph/9810076 [astro-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2832

    1999 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Laine and M

    M. Laine and M. Shaposhnikov, JCAP 0806, 031 (2008), arXiv:0804.4543 [hep-ph], doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/06/031

    2008 arXiv

  96. [104]

    G. B. Gelmini, P. Lu and V. Takhistov (2019), arXiv:1911.03398 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  97. [105]

    C. Yche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, J. Baur and H. du Mas des Bourboux, JCAP 1706, 047 (2017), arXiv:1702.03314 [astro-ph.CO] , doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/ 06/047

    2017 arXiv

  98. [106]

    J. Baur, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Yeche, A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, . Armengaud and J. Lesgourgues, JCAP 1712, 013 (2017), arXiv:1706.03118 [astro-ph.CO], doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/12/013

    2017 arXiv

  99. [107]

    B. W. Lee and R. E. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1444 (Sep 1977), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.16.1444

    1977

  100. [108]

    P. B. Pal and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 25, 766 (Feb 1982), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.25.766

    1982

  101. [109]

    Abada, G

    A. Abada, G. Arcadi and M. Lucente, JCAP 1410, 001 (2014), arXiv:1406.6556 [hep-ph], doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/001

    2014 arXiv

  102. [110]

    K. C. Y. Ng, B. M. Roach, K. Perez, J. F. Beacom, S. Horiuchi, R. Krivonos and D. R. Wik, Phys. Rev. D99, 083005 (2019), arXiv:1901.01262 [astro-ph.HE] , doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083005

    2019 arXiv

  103. [111]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. 70B, 306 (1977), doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90664-5

    1977 doi

  104. [112]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., R. F. Dashen and D. J. Gross, Phys. Lett. B63, 334 (1976), doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(76)90277-X, [,357(1976)]

    1976 doi

  105. [113]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D30, 2212 (1984), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.30.2212

    1984

  106. [114]

    A. S. Joshipura, E. A. Paschos and W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. B 611, 227 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104228, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00346-7

    2001 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Abada, C

    A. Abada, C. Biggio, F. Bonnet, M. B. Gavela and T. Hambye, JHEP 12, 061 (2007), arXiv:0707.4058 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/12/061

    2007 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Ibarra, E

    A. Ibarra, E. Molinaro and S. T. Petcov, JHEP 09, 108 (2010), arXiv:1007.2378 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)108

    2010 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Das and N

    A. Das and N. Okada, Phys. Lett. B774, 32 (2017), arXiv:1702.04668 [hep-ph] , doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.042

    2017 arXiv

  110. [118]

    M. Viel, J. Lesgourgues, M. G. Haehnelt, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 071301 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605706 [astro-ph] , doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.97.071301

    2006 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Seljak, A

    U. Seljak, A. Makarov, P. McDonald and H. Trac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 191303 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602430 [astro-ph] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.191303

    2006 arXiv

  112. [120]

    M. Viel, G. D. Becker, J. S. Bolton and M. G. Haehnelt, Phys. Rev. D88, 043502 (2013), arXiv:1306.2314 [astro-ph.CO] , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043502

    2013 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Schultz, J

    C. Schultz, J. Oorbe, K. N. Abazajian and J. S. Bullock, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 1597 (2014), arXiv:1401.3769 [astro-ph.CO] , doi:10.1093/mnras/stu976

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.