Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Monopole Catalyzed Baryogenesis with a $\theta$ angle

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that grand-unified-theory magnetic monopoles, conventionally a threat to any primordial baryon asymmetry, can instead generate the observed matter–antimatter asymmetry through a CP-violating theta-angle that biases the…

desk verdict Novel Witten-effect bias for monopole catalysis, but A_CP is asserted and Eq. (18) does not follow from the paper's own rates; idea worth refereeing, current calculation not. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14239 v1 pith:2MP3RBBE submitted 2024-12-18 hep-ph hep-th

T. Daniel Brennan , Lian-Tao Wang , Huangyu Xiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords monopolebaryogenesisCallan-RubakoveffectthetatermWittenSU(5)grandunifiedtheoryCPviolationbaryonasymmetrycosmicmagneticmonopoles
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 grand-unified-theory magnetic monopoles, usually a cosmological nuisance because the Callan-Rubakov effect erases any pre-existing baryon asymmetry, can instead generate the observed matter–antimatter asymmetry. The mechanism adds a CP-violating $\theta$-term to the minimal SU(5) GUT; via the Witten effect this gives monopoles an electric charge and creates a Coulomb barrier that biases which baryon-number-violating scattering processes occur. Weak-interaction corrections to the surviving processes favor baryon over antibaryon production, with asymmetry parameter $A_{CP}\sim \alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2$, and the resulting baryon-to-entropy ratio is given by Eq. (18), $Y \simeq 8.718\times10^{-11}(m_M/10^{17}\,\mathrm{GeV})^{-1}(A_{CP}\Omega_M/10^{-2})$. The paper shows the required $\theta$ lies below the neutron EDM bound and the required monopole abundance is below current flux limits, so the mechanism is testable but not yet excluded.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is carried by three ingredients. The Callan-Rubakov effect provides an unsuppressed baryon-number-violating scattering of fermions off GUT monopoles, described by an effective two-dimensional theory with boundary conditions that yield the processes in Eq. (6). The Witten effect converts the CP-violating $\theta$-term into an electric charge on the monopole, $q_e = -\theta q_m/(2\pi)$, producing a $\theta/r$ Coulomb potential that acts as a barrier for fermions of one charge sign; for $\kappa = \theta/(E R_c) \gg 1$ the barrier completely suppresses the corresponding scattering channels. The residual asymmetry is set by weak-interaction corrections to the surviving processes, giving $A_{CP}\sim \alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2$, and the Boltzmann equation (16) with the cross-section (11) converts this into the baryon-to-entropy ratio, culminating in Eq. (18).

What would settle it

A direct numerical integration of the Boltzmann equation (16) using the cross-section (11) and the interaction rate (13) at $T \sim 100$ GeV, without the approximations that produce Eq. (18), would settle whether the claimed baryon-to-entropy ratio follows; if the result is much smaller than Eq. (18) for the same $A_{CP}$ and $\Omega_M$, the monopole abundance required to reach $Y=8.718\times10^{-11}$ would exceed the critical density, ruling out the scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the Georgi-Glashow SU(5) model, the paper's central claim is that a positive $\theta$-angle biases the Callan-Rubakov effect so that monopoles catalyze baryon-number-violating scattering with a net preference for producing baryons. The $\theta$-term endows the monopole with electric charge $q_e = -\theta q_m/(2\pi)$ (the Witten effect); with $\theta>0$, negatively charged fermions see a repulsive Coulomb potential that suppresses their scattering, while positively charged fermions scatter at full efficiency. This removes half of the $\Delta B \neq 0$ processes, leaving a set in which the $\Delta B>0$ channels receive weak-interaction corrections favoring them, giving $A_{CP}\sim \alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2$ at temperatures near 100 GeV. Solving the Boltzmann equation (16) for out-of-equilibrium scattering with the parametrized cross-section (11) yields Eq. (18), which fixes the monopole abundance needed to reproduce the observed $Y = 8.718\times10^{-11}$. The paper then shows that this abundance corresponds to a monopole flux $\Phi_M = 5\times10^{-15} v_M \,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{sr}^{-1}$ that is consistent with the Parker bound and with white dwarf catalysis bounds once the low-velocity suppression of the cross-section is accounted for.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the CP-violating asymmetry $A_{CP}$ is positive and of order $\alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2$ at $T\sim 100$ GeV, and that the Boltzmann integration leading to Eq. (18) is numerically correct; if either fails, the monopole abundance needed to match the observed baryon asymmetry would exceed the closure density and contradict the paper's conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (18) is correct, a monopole abundance of order $\Omega_M \sim 0.25$ (for $A_{CP}\approx 0.04$ and $m_M=10^{17}\,\mathrm{GeV}$) is sufficient to explain all of the observed baryon asymmetry.
  • The monopole flux needed for baryogenesis, $\Phi_M = 5\times10^{-15} v_M$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$sr$^{-1}$, is independent of the monopole mass and is consistent with the Parker bound for $v_M \lesssim 0.2$, giving a concrete target for monopole searches.
  • The allowed $\theta$-window, $10^{-10} > \theta \gg 10^{-14}$, is below the current neutron EDM bound but within reach of next-generation EDM experiments, so the scenario is potentially falsifiable by improved bounds.
  • Because sphaleron washout is active at the same temperatures, the asymmetry must be produced just after the electroweak phase transition, making the mechanism sensitive to the detailed thermal history at $T\sim 100$ GeV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Witten-effect bias should operate in other GUT groups with appropriate fermion content, so the mechanism is likely not specific to minimal SU(5); extending the calculation to SO(10) or E6 would show how generic it is.
  • The sign of the cosmic baryon asymmetry would be tied to the sign of $\theta$ in this model, so a future measurement of the neutron EDM sign together with an independent handle on the sign of baryon production could test the mechanism.
  • If improved EDM experiments push the bound on $\theta$ below $10^{-11}$, the required monopole abundance would have to grow, potentially pushing the model into conflict with overclosure; conversely, a confirmed monopole flux near $10^{-15}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$sr$^{-1}$ would be a strong hint for this scenario.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that GUT monopoles, which catalyze baryon-number violation via the Callan-Rubakov effect, can generate the cosmological baryon asymmetry if a CP-violating theta-term biases the catalysis. The authors consider the minimal SU(5) Georgi-Glashow model, argue that the Witten effect suppresses half of the Callan-Rubakov processes, and claim that weak-interaction corrections to the remaining processes produce an asymmetry A_CP ~ alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2. They present a Boltzmann equation and quote the yield in Eq. (18), then use the observed Y to infer a monopole abundance and flux that are consistent with current bounds. The central quantitative claim is that Eq. (18) holds, so that A_CP Omega_M ~ 10^-2 suffices for successful baryogenesis with m_M = 10^17 GeV.

Significance. The idea of using monopole-catalyzed baryon decay, biased by a theta-angle, to generate the baryon asymmetry is conceptually interesting and not, to my knowledge, quantitatively explored in this form. The paper is clearly written, and the enumeration of SU(5) catalysis processes in Eq. (6) is explicit and useful. However, the central quantitative results are asserted rather than derived. The paper does not compute A_CP from the diagrams in Fig. 1, the yield in Eq. (18) is not shown to follow from Eq. (16), and the rate estimate in Eq. (13) is inconsistent with the cross-section and density definitions. Unless these issues are resolved, the paper does not establish that monopole catalysis with a theta-term can produce the observed asymmetry.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (18)] Equation (18), the quantitative anchor of the paper, is presented as the result of solving the Boltzmann equations, but no derivation is given. Using the authors' own Eq. (13) in Eq. (16) with n_f/s ~ 5 x 10^-3 gives dY/d ln a ~ 5 x 10^-10 A_CP Omega_M (1 GeV/T)(10^17 GeV/m_M). Since A_CP ~ alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2 is of order 0.04 at T ~ 100 GeV and far smaller below m_Z, integrating around T ~ 100 GeV yields a value of Y several orders of magnitude below Eq. (18). For example, with Omega_M = 0.25 and A_CP = 0.04, the production at T ~ 100 GeV is about 10^-14, three orders of magnitude below the target. The integration limits and the function A_CP(T) used to obtain Eq. (18) must be specified; without them the quoted normalization is unsupported.
  2. [Section II.A, Eq. (10)] The CP asymmetry A_CP is a central input but is not computed. Equation (10) is an assertion: no evaluation of the diagrams in Fig. 1 is presented, no sign is derived, and no expression in terms of theta and the monopole charge-cloud size is given. Because Y is linear in A_CP, a wrong sign, a zero, or a much smaller magnitude would invalidate the mechanism. The estimate A_CP ~ alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2 must be justified by an explicit calculation; in particular, the paper should show how the asymmetry depends on theta so that it vanishes as theta -> 0 and is positive for the claimed range theta ~ 10^-10.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (13)] The rate-to-Hubble ratio in Eq. (13) is not consistent with the definitions in Eqs. (11) and (12). Using sigma = (1/T0^2)(T0/T)^2, n_M/s = Omega_M rho_crit/(m_M s0), s(T) = (2 pi^2/45) g_*S T^3, and H = 1.66 sqrt(g_*) T^2/M_Pl, one obtains Gamma/H ~ 4 x 10^-5 Omega_M (1 GeV/T)(10^17 GeV/m_M) for g_* ~ 80 at T > T0, which is more than two orders of magnitude larger than the 10^-7 quoted in Eq. (13). No derivation of the 10^-7 coefficient is provided, and this discrepancy directly propagates into the Boltzmann solution and the required monopole abundance.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (19)] The monopole flux quoted in Eq. (19) is not a prediction from the model. It is obtained by inserting the observed baryon asymmetry into Eq. (18) and solving for Omega_M, so it is a consistency condition, not a derived consequence of the theta-term and weak-interaction corrections. The abstract and the conclusion should be reworded to say that the required flux is consistent with current bounds, rather than that the flux is predicted.
  5. [Section III, Eqs. (14)-(18)] The paper does not include sphaleron washout in the Boltzmann equation. It states that baryogenesis should occur right after the electroweak phase transition, but no sphaleron freeze-out temperature or washout factor is specified. If the asymmetry is produced at T >~ 130 GeV, sphalerons erase it; if it is produced at lower T, A_CP is suppressed by T^2/m_Z^2. This must be quantified before the yield claim can be assessed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'experiential bounds' should read 'experimental bounds'.
  2. [Section II.A] There is a typo in the sentence defining the turning point: 'whereE whereE is the incident energy' should be 'where E is the incident energy'.
  3. [Section IV] In the conclusion, the expression 'T /greaterorsimilar100 GeV' appears to be a LaTeX rendering error and should read 'T ≳ 100 GeV'.
  4. [Section III, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The definitions of Y and the use of g_f and g_*S should be clarified: Eq. (15) uses g_*S(T) for the entropy density, while Eq. (16) multiplies n_f by g_f and later g_f = 80 is taken; the relationship between these counting factors is not spelled out.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Quantitative anchor is normalized to the observed baryon asymmetry; the 'predicted' monopole flux is a consistency condition rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, Eqs. (18) and (19), with the matching condition stated in the text.]
    "Solving the Boltzmann equations, the baryon asymmetry generated from monopole-catalyzed decays is Y ≃ 8.718 × 10−11 ( mM /10^17 GeV )^−1 ( ACP ΩM /10^−2 ) (18) ... The predicted monopole flux responsible for baryogenesis is given by ΦM = nM vM/4π = 5 × 10−15 vM cm−2s−1sr−1, (19)"

    Eq. (18) has as its overall prefactor exactly the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio quoted two lines earlier ('should be matched with the experimental value Y = 8.718 × 10−11'), and no integration of Eq. (16) is shown that would determine that coefficient. Inserting the paper's own Eq. (13) into Eq. (16) gives dY/d ln a ~ 5×10−10 ACP ΩM (1 GeV/T)(10^17 GeV/mM), yielding Y ~ 5×10−12 ACP ΩM (10^17 GeV/mM) after integrating around T~100 GeV, about three orders below Eq. (18). Eq. (18) therefore fixes ACP ΩM ≈ 10−2 by the observed Y, and Eq. (19) is the flux computed from that fitted monopole density. Since ACP in Eq. (10) is asserted, not independently computed, the 'predicted monopole flux' is a consistency condition derived from the input Y_obs, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The microphysical mechanism—theta-induced Witten-effect bias of Callan-Rubakov scattering—is not itself circular: it relies on standard external results (the Witten effect, Callan-Rubakov boundary conditions, and the Ellis-Nanopoulos-Olive cross-section) and does not depend on a self-citation chain or a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. The CP asymmetry A_CP in Eq. (10) is asserted rather than derived, but an uncomputed estimate is a support gap, not a circularity. The circularity is in the quantitative anchor. Eq. (18) quotes the observed value Y = 8.718 × 10−11 as its overall coefficient without displaying the integration of Eq. (16) that would produce that coefficient; using the paper's own rate estimate in Eq. (13) gives a coefficient roughly three orders of magnitude smaller. Eq. (19), labeled the 'predicted monopole flux,' is then obtained by solving Eq. (18) for the monopole density that makes Y equal to the observed value. That makes the flux a consistency condition rather than an independent prediction, and because A_CP is not independently computed, the quoted flux is fixed by the observed asymmetry rather than derived from the model's microphysics. The paper should either compute A_CP and the Boltzmann integral explicitly or present Eq. (19) as a required abundance, not a prediction. For these reasons the partial circularity score is 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or fields. The model uses the ordinary Georgi-Glashow SU(5) monopole, the standard Witten effect, and a known cross-section parameterization. The main free inputs are theta, m_M, Omega_M, and the uncomputed A_CP. The A_CP estimate is effectively a free parameter in the final result.

free parameters (4)
  • theta (CP-violating angle) = 10^-14 < theta < 10^-10
    The mechanism requires this window; it is not fitted but is a free input. Below 10^-14 the Witten-effect barrier disappears, above 10^-10 it is excluded by the neutron EDM.
  • A_CP (CP asymmetry in monopole-fermion scattering) = ~alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2, about 0.04 at T=100 GeV
    This is not computed from an amplitude; it is an order-of-magnitude estimate. The final baryon asymmetry is directly proportional to A_CP, so it is a free parameter in practice.
  • Monopole mass m_M = 10^17 GeV (benchmark), lower bound ~10^14 GeV
    The monopole mass is not predicted; the paper uses a benchmark of 10^17 GeV and argues for a lower bound from white-dwarf catalysis suppression.
  • Monopole abundance Omega_M = Chosen to match Y; Eq. (18) implies Omega_M ~ 0.25 for A_CP ~ 0.04, but a direct Boltzmann integration suggests…
    The monopole relic density is a free parameter that is effectively fit to the observed baryon asymmetry. The inconsistency between the two estimates is the central numerical problem of the paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Callan-Rubakov boundary conditions at the monopole core, Eq. (2), and the resulting baryon-number-violating process set, Eq. (6)
    These are taken from the prior Callan-Rubakov literature, cited in [27-39], and are not re-derived here.
  • standard math The electric charge of the monopole is q_e = -theta q_m / 2pi (Witten effect), Eq. (8)
    The Witten effect is a standard result, cited as [48], and is used to give the monopole a theta-dependent electric charge.
  • domain assumption The baryon-number-violating cross-section is sigma = v^-1 sigma0 for T < T0 and sigma = sigma0 (T0/T)^2 for T > T0, Eq. (11), with sigma0 ~ 1/T0^2 and T0 ~ 1 GeV
    This cross-section form is taken from Ellis, Nanopoulos and Olive (1982), cited as [61]. The unsuppressed rate is a central input.
  • ad hoc to paper For kappa = theta/(E R_c) >> 1, negatively charged fermions are totally reflected from the monopole, suppressing half of the Callan-Rubakov processes
    The tunneling behavior is described heuristically in Section II.A with no explicit quantum-mechanical calculation. The paper states 'we will not consider the effect on higher angular momentum modes' and the scattering behavior is assumed rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The CP asymmetry A_CP is of order alpha_Z T^2/m_Z^2 at T ~ 100 GeV
    This is the key assumption of the paper. It is motivated by the weak gauge-boson corrections shown in Fig. 1, but no amplitude is computed and the sign and overall coefficient are not derived.
  • domain assumption Sphaleron processes are out of equilibrium after the electroweak phase transition, so baryogenesis at T ~ 100 GeV is not washed out
    This is a standard cosmology input, stated in the text. The paper uses it to justify doing baryogenesis after the EWPT.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monopole Catalyzed Baryogenesis with a $\theta$ angle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MP3RBBE

@misc{pith2026241214239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monopole Catalyzed Baryogenesis with a $\theta$ angle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MP3RBBE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14239}
}
abstract

Monopoles are generally expected in Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) where they can catalyze baryon decay at an unsuppressed rate by the Callan-Rubakov effect. For the first time, we show this catalysis effect can generate the observed baryon asymmetry at GeV scale temperatures. We study the minimal SU(5) GUT model and demonstrate that monopoles-fermion scattering with a $CP$-violating $\theta$-term leads to realistic baryogenesis even when $\theta\lesssim 10^{-10}$ is below the neutron EDM bound, potentially detectable in the future measurements. Our calculation also shows that to generate the observed baryon asymmetry, the abundance of the monopoles is below the current experiential bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The type of leading order diagrams that contributes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark Matter and Baryon Asymmetry from Monopole-Axion Interactions

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A rotating QCD axion dissipates kinetic energy via dark monopole dyon transitions, explaining dark matter and baryon asymmetry with a predicted axion decay constant below 10^9 GeV.

  2. Self-Consistent Parker Bound on Magnetic Monopoles

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-consistent Parker bound on magnetic monopoles is derived using the galactic mean-field dynamo eigenmode and turbulent field seeding and acceleration, producing modified flux limits at low and intermediate masse...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974)

    1974

  2. [2]

    lead to the Callan-Rubakov scattering processes: a(i) +a(j) +M → ¯b(k) + ¯b(ℓ) +M, (4) as well as the corresponding conjugate processes ¯a(i) + ¯a(j) +M →b(k) +b(ℓ) +M, (5) with i ⁄= j ⁄= k ⁄= ℓ. By enumerating all of these pro- cesses, we find that the the allowed baryon number vio- lating Callan-Rubakov process for monopoles are ∆ B + 1 uc 1L +uc 2L +M →...

    work page

  3. [3]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 79, 276 (1974)

    1974

  4. [4]

    Y. B. Zeldovich and M. Y. Khlopov, Phys. Lett. B 79, 239 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    Preskill, Phys

    J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1365 (1979)

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982)

    1982

  7. [7]

    Preskill, Ann

    J. Preskill, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 34, 461 (1984)

    work page 1984

  8. [8]

    Yamamoto, Phys

    K. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. B 168, 341 (1986)

    work page 1986

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    D. H. Lyth and E. D. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 53, 1784 (1996) , arXiv:hep-ph/9510204

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Harigaya and L.-T

    K. Harigaya and L.-T. Wang, (2022), arXiv:2211.08289 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Lett. B 115, 95 (1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    Das and A

    S. Das and A. Hook, JHEP 12, 145 , arXiv:2109.00039 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    E. N. Parker, Astrophys. J. 160, 383 (1970)

    1970

  6. [14]

    M. S. Turner, E. N. Parker, and T. J. Bogdan, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1296 (1982)

    1982

  7. [15]

    Gould and A

    O. Gould and A. Rajantie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 241601 (2017) , arXiv:1705.07052 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bertani et al

    M. Bertani et al. , EPL 12, 613 (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    Fairbairn, A

    M. Fairbairn, A. C. Kraan, D. A. Milstead, T. Sjostrand, P. Z. Skands, and T. Sloan, Phys. Rept. 438, 1 (2007) , arXiv:hep-ph/0611040

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 261803 (2012) , arXiv:1207.6411 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Giacomelli, L

    G. Giacomelli, L. Patrizii, and Z. Sahnoun, in BEYOND 2010 Beyond the standard models of particle physics, cosmolo (2011) pp. 417–431, arXiv:1105.2724 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Balestra et al

    S. Balestra et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 55, 57 (2008) , arXiv:0801.4913 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (Ice- Cube), Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 133 (2016) , arXiv:1511.01350 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 051101 (2022) , arXiv:2109.13719 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  15. [23]

    Iguro, R

    S. Iguro, R. Plestid, and V. Takhis- tov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 201101 (2022) , arXiv:2111.12091 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ye et al

    C. Ye et al. , (2024), arXiv:2406.12379 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P. B. Price and M. H. Salamon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1226 (1986)

    1986

  18. [26]

    Ghosh and S

    D. Ghosh and S. Chatterjea, EPL 12, 25 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    Bendtz, D

    K. Bendtz, D. Milstead, H. P. Hächler, A. M. Hirt, P. Mermod, P. Michael, T. Sloan, C. Tegner, and S. B. Thorarinsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 121803 (2013) , arXiv:1301.6530 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    V. A. Rubakov, JETP Lett. 33, 644 (1981). 6

    1981

  21. [29]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., Nucl. Phys. B 212, 391 (1983)

    1983

  22. [30]

    Csáki, Y

    C. Csáki, Y. Shirman, O. Telem, and J. Tern- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 181601 (2022) , arXiv:2109.01145 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    T. D. Brennan, JHEP 02, 159 , arXiv:2109.11207 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    T. D. Brennan, (2023), arXiv:2309.00680 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    van Beest, P

    M. van Beest, P. Boyle Smith, D. Delmastro, R. Mouland, and D. Tong, JHEP 08, 004 , arXiv:2312.17746 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bogojevic and C

    S. Bogojevic and C. P. Burgess, (2024), arXiv:2407.20146 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Csáki, R

    C. Csáki, R. Ovadia, O. Telem, J. Terning, and S. Yankielowicz, (2024), arXiv:2406.13738 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Loladze and T

    V. Loladze and T. Okui, (2024), arXiv:2408.04577 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hook and C

    A. Hook and C. Ristow, (2024), arXiv:2409.07549 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    V. V. Khoze, JHEP 09, 146 , arXiv:2405.18689 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dawson and A

    S. Dawson and A. N. Schellekens, Phys. Rev. D 28, 3125 (1983)

    1983

  32. [40]

    Arafune and M

    J. Arafune and M. Fukugita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1901 (1983)

    1983

  33. [41]

    E. W. Kolb, S. A. Colgate, and J. A. Harvey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1373 (1982)

    1982

  34. [42]

    Freese and E

    K. Freese and E. Krasteva, Phys. Rev. D 59, 063007 (1999) , arXiv:astro-ph/9804148

    1999 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ambrosio et al

    M. Ambrosio et al. (MACRO), Eur. Phys. J. C 26, 163 (2002) , arXiv:hep-ex/0207024

    2002 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ueno et al

    K. Ueno et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Astropart. Phys. 36, 131 (2012) , arXiv:1203.0940 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2938 (2014) , [Erra- tum: Eur.Phys.J.C 79, 124 (2019)], arXiv:1402.3460 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ahlers, K

    M. Ahlers, K. Helbing, and C. Pérez de los Heros, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 924 (2018) , arXiv:1806.05696 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    1967

  40. [48]

    Davis, M

    A.-C. Davis, M. A. Earnshaw, and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Lett. B 293, 123 (1992)

    1992

  41. [49]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 86, 283 (1979)

    1979

  42. [50]

    Patrizii and M

    L. Patrizii and M. Spurio, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 279 (2015) , arXiv:1510.07125 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Y. Bai, S. Lu, and N. Orlof- sky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 101801 (2021) , arXiv:2103.06286 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Agrawal and M

    P. Agrawal and M. Nee, SciPost Phys. 13, 049 (2022) , arXiv:2202.11102 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zhang, S.-H

    C. Zhang, S.-H. Zhang, B. Fu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JHEP 08, 220 , arXiv:2404.04926 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Liu, D.-M

    J.-J. Liu, D.-M. Liu, and L.-H. Hao, Chin. Phys. C 47, 084106 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Koren, Phys

    S. Koren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 091003 (2023) , arXiv:2204.01750 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Y. Bai, J. Berger, and M. Korwar, JHEP 11, 079 , arXiv:2206.07928 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    M. Abe, J. M. Hogan, D. E. Kaplan, C. Overstreet, and S. Rajendran, (2024), arXiv:2409.14793 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    C. A. Baker et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 131801 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ex/0602020

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. M. Pendlebury et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 092003 (2015) , arXiv:1509.04411 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Yamagishi, Phys

    H. Yamagishi, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2383 (1983)

    1983

  53. [61]

    Grossman, Phys

    B. Grossman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 464 (1983)

    1983

  54. [62]

    J. R. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 116, 127 (1982)

    1982

  55. [63]

    F. C. Adams, M. Fatuzzo, K. Freese, G. Tarle, R. Watkins, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2511 (1993)

    1993

  56. [64]

    M. J. Lewis, K. Freese, and G. Tarle, Phys. Rev. D 62, 025002 (2000) , arXiv:astro-ph/9911095

    2000 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Perri, K

    D. Perri, K. Bondarenko, M. Doro, and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101704 (2024) , arXiv:2401.00560 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.