Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Impact of a complex scalar spectator field on baryon asymmetry within spontaneous baryogenesis

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a subdominant scalar spectator field, coupled to the inflaton and to curvature, modifies the inflaton's decay and can raise the baryon asymmetry by orders of magnitude relative to standard spontaneous baryogenesis.

desk verdict The claimed sigma-enhancement of baryon asymmetry rests on an unnormal-ordered vacuum current that vanishes under normal ordering; the paper is careful but the headline result is a cutoff artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01112 v1 pith:BVLXXWMB submitted 2025-07-01 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Mattia Dubbini , Orlando Luongo , Marco Muccino This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th
keywords spontaneousbaryogenesisbaryonasymmetryspectatorscalarfieldnon-minimalcouplingtocurvatureRiccireheatinginflation
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 asks whether a second, subdominant scalar field present in the early universe—one that interacts with the inflaton and with spacetime curvature but not with Standard Model fermions—could leave a measurable imprint on the baryon asymmetry produced during reheating. Working within spontaneous baryogenesis, where the inflaton's baryon-number-violating decays into fermion-antifermion pairs create the asymmetry, the authors add a complex spectator $\phi$ with couplings $\xi\theta^2|\phi|^2$ and $\sigma R|\phi|^2$ and solve the coupled inflaton-spectator equations to first order in both couplings. They find the spectator shifts the inflaton's effective mass and decay amplitude, producing a first-order correction to the baryon asymmetry (Eq. 81; with cosmic expansion and fermion mass-mixing, Eq. 85). For small inflaton-fermion coupling $g$, the curvature-Yukawa channel can make the asymmetry several orders of magnitude larger than the standard result. The model still falls short of reproducing the observed asymmetry, but the paper provides a concrete, perturbatively controlled way that hidden scalar degrees of freedom could amplify baryogenesis.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage perturbative calculation built on the spectator's back-reaction on the inflaton. In the inflaton equation of motion $\ddot{\theta}+\Gamma\dot{\theta}+(\Omega^2+2\xi\phi^2)\theta=0$, the spectator supplies a mass correction $2\xi\phi^2$; replacing the squared field by its effective value $\phi_I^2$ (or $\phi_I^2/2$ for a rapidly oscillating spectator), this amounts to an effective mass factor $\sqrt{1+2\xi\phi^2/\Omega^2}\approx 1+\Xi$, and the corrected inflaton profile $\theta(t)=\theta_0(t)+\xi\theta_1(t)$ is what enters the decay amplitudes. The second ingredient is the curvature coupling: the trace of the gravitational field equations is reduced at leading order to $R=\Upsilon\dot{\theta}$, with $\Upsilon = 8\pi P_{\rm max}^3/(3\pi^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2)$ fixed by the cutoff-regulated fermion vacuum expectation value, so the spectator equation of motion acquires a $\sigma\Upsilon\dot{\theta}\phi$ term whose first-order solution carries the parameter $\Sigma=\sigma\Upsilon\theta_I/m_\phi$ (with $\alpha=m_\phi/\Omega$ the spectator-to-inflaton mass ratio). The baryon asymmetry is then computed semiclassically from the squared amplitudes for the corrected inflaton decaying into $Q$-$L$ versus $\bar{Q}$-$\bar{L}$ pairs, with the difference between the two channels isolating the baryon-number violation; the correction factor $\{1+\Xi[1+8\pi\alpha\Sigma/(3g^2)]\}$, or its expanded-universe counterpart with $64\pi^2\alpha\Sigma/(3g^4)$, is the central object encoding both mechanisms.

What would settle it

Compute the regulated vacuum expectation value $\langle J^0\rangle = P_{\rm max}^3/(3\pi^2)$ from the model's own fermion dynamics rather than treating $P_{\rm max}$ as a free parameter of order $f$, or bound the curvature coupling $\sigma$ through independent early-universe observables such as the reheating temperature or the primordial gravitational-wave background. Because the expansion-corrected asymmetry of Eq. (85) contains $64\pi^2\alpha\Sigma/(3g^4)\propto\sigma P_{\rm max}^3$, a first-principles value of $P_{\rm max}$ differing from $f$ by even a small factor, or a bound forcing $\sigma$ below roughly $10^{-6}$, would move the predicted $\eta$ far from the observed $(8.59\pm0.10)\times10^{-11}$, a sensitivity the paper's own Fig. 4 already displays through its reheating-temperature exclusion regions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a subdominant complex scalar spectator field, coupled to the inflaton as $\xi\theta^2|\phi|^2$ and to gravity as $\sigma R|\phi|^2$, corrects the spontaneous baryogenesis asymmetry at first order without changing its qualitative mechanism. Solving the inflaton and spectator equations of motion perturbatively, to first order in $\xi$ and $\sigma$ and first neglecting the expansion of the universe, the authors obtain $$n_B = $n_B^{{(0)}}$\left[1+\Xi\left(1+\frac{8\pi\$\alpha$\Sigma}{$3g^{2}$}\right)\right],$$ where $n_B^{(0)}$ is the standard result, $\Xi = \xi\phi_I^2/\Omega^2$ measures the spectator-induced mass shift, and the $\alpha\Sigma$ term encodes the Yukawa-like curvature coupling. Restoring cosmic expansion and fermion mass-mixing turns this into $$\eta \simeq $10^{{-3}}$\frac{$g^{3}$ M_{\rm Pl}^{3/2}}{\$\Omega$^{1/2}f}\left[1+\Xi\left(1+\frac{64\$pi^{2}$\$\alpha$\Sigma}{$3g^{4}$}\right)\right]\left(\frac{1-\$epsilon^{2}$}{1+\$epsilon^{2}$}\right)^2.$$ The authors argue that the spectator-induced mass correction alone is negligible, whereas the curvature-Yukawa contribution can become comparable to or larger than the background in parameter regions allowed by the perturbative constraints, boosting the asymmetry by orders of magnitude at small $g$. They also note that even with this boost, the corrected model does not by itself reproduce the observed asymmetry, indicating that further physical ingredients are needed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Ricci scalar is dominated by the cutoff-regulated fermion vacuum expectation value, so that $R=\Upsilon\dot{\theta}$ with the cutoff $P_{\rm max}$ assumed to be of order the symmetry-breaking scale $f$; because the curvature enhancement scales as $\sigma P_{\rm max}^3$, any deviation of the cutoff from $f$ changes the result by orders of magnitude, and the paper supplies no independent constraint on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the no-expansion limit the spectator yields only the small first-order correction $n_B = n_B^{(0)}[1+\Xi(1+8\pi\alpha\Sigma/(3g^2))]$, so the standard spontaneous baryogenesis result remains the baseline for weak couplings.
  • Once cosmic expansion and fermion mass-mixing are included, the correction becomes $[1+\Xi(1+64\pi^2\alpha\Sigma/(3g^4))]$ times the mixing factor $[(1-\epsilon^2)/(1+\epsilon^2)]^2$, and the curvature-Yukawa term can lift $\eta$ by up to several orders of magnitude for small $g$ while still satisfying the perturbative constraints of Eq. (82).
  • Without the curvature coupling the spectator correction is negligible on its own; the significant enhancement comes only through the $\sigma R|\phi|^2$ channel.
  • The sign of the couplings settles viability: $\xi>0$ is required to increase the inflaton mass, and parameter regions that violate the perturbative bounds either fail to produce a suitable asymmetry or invalidate the expansion in $\xi$ and $\sigma$.
  • Even with the enhancement, the model cannot by itself match the observed asymmetry in the surveyed parameter space, which the authors read as evidence that spontaneous baryogenesis needs additional symmetries or physics beyond the minimal picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the leading curvature correction grows as $g^{-4}$ once cosmic expansion is included, the model predicts the largest asymmetry boosts at the smallest allowed $g$, a trend visible in Fig. 5 that a systematic scan over $(g,\xi,\sigma,m_\phi)$ could turn into a sharp, testable prediction.
  • The cutoff sensitivity suggests a natural next check: recomputing $\langle J^0\rangle$ with a physical regulator tied to the decay scale would show whether the enhancement survives or is an artifact of the assumption $P_{\rm max}\sim f$.
  • The same $\theta^2|\phi|^2+\sigma R|\phi|^2$ structure could be transplanted to other asymmetry mechanisms, such as Affleck–Dine or gravitational baryogenesis, where a curvature-sourced mass for a second scalar would produce an analogous correction; the paper does not explore these directions.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends spontaneous baryogenesis by adding a complex scalar spectator field φ with a ξ θ²|φ|² coupling to the inflaton and a σ R |φ|² non-minimal coupling to curvature. Working semiclassically in a flat FRW spacetime, the authors solve the coupled inflaton–spectator equations perturbatively, compute inflaton decay amplitudes into fermion pairs, and derive the baryon asymmetry. Their central results are Eq. (81), n_B = n_B^(0)[1+Ξ(1+8παΣ/(3g²))], and Eq. (85), η ≃ 10^{-3} g³ M_Pl^{3/2}/(Ω^{1/2} f) [1+Ξ(1+64π²αΣ/(3g⁴))][(1-ε²)/(1+ε²)]², after including cosmic expansion and mass mixing. The paper concludes that the spectator-induced mass correction is small, while the curvature coupling can, for allowed parameter values, enhance the asymmetry by several orders of magnitude.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a concrete, calculable extension of the spontaneous baryogenesis paradigm, showing how a dark spectator field can modify the inflaton decay and hence the asymmetry. Its strengths are the explicit perturbative solutions for the inflaton and spectator, the complete evaluation of the decay-amplitude integrals in Appendix B, the clear catalog of perturbative-regime constraints in Eq. (82), and parameter-space plots that confront the predicted η with the observed value. The novelty hinges on the σ-dependent Yukawa-type correction, which is claimed to be the dominant departure from the background. That claim, however, rests on a regulator-dependent vacuum current, so the main new effect is not yet established in a scheme-independent way.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.B, Eqs. (38) and (42)] The derivation of Υ and the σΥθ̇ source term in the spectator equation starts from ⟨J⁰⟩ = P_max³/(3π²)a^{-3}. For the zero-order solution Q₀ in Eq. (25a), this is the unnormal-ordered expectation value of Q†Q. Normal ordering with respect to the adiabatic vacuum defined in Appendix A gives zero, and Pauli–Villars or dimensional regularization also remove this quartic divergence. The manuscript gives no argument for why a cutoff-proportional constant should be retained as a physical part of the baryon current. Because this term is the only source of the linear θ̇ contribution to R that produces the αΣ part of Eq. (85) and the integrals (B3c)–(B3d), the claimed σ-enhancement is not regulator-independent. Please either justify the cutoff prescription with a physical, covariant regulator or remove the σ-dependent enhancement from the central claims.
  2. [III.B, after Eq. (38); Eq. (85)] Even if the hard-cutoff prescription is retained, P_max is a free parameter and the text only states that it is expected to lie on the energy scale f. Since Υ ∝ P_max³, the correction term 64π²αΣ/(3g⁴) ∝ σP_max³ changes by nearly two orders of magnitude when P_max is varied between f/3 and 3f. No independent constraint on P_max is derived, so the statement in Section VII that the curvature coupling 'may become comparable to or larger than the background value' is an unconstrained possibility, not a prediction of the model. The paper should either derive P_max from a physical matching or scan over it explicitly and present the results as a function of this parameter.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The expression m² = Ω²[1 + (g²/4π) lim_{ω→∞} ln(2ω/Ω)] is ambiguous because the logarithm appears inside the square brackets as if it were a standalone divergent factor; it should be presented as the result of an integral over internal momentum, following the conventions of Ref. [29].
  2. [Eq. (60a)] The term '− 2 Ξα(t)/Ξ (Ωt) sin(Ωt)' is difficult to parse; writing it as a single fraction, e.g. '−2 (Ξα(t)/Ξ) Ωt sin(Ωt)', would remove the ambiguity.
  3. [Eq. (79d)] The numerator '3/2 + α' appears without clear grouping relative to the denominator terms; it should read '(3/2 + α)' or be rewritten with explicit parentheses to avoid confusion.
  4. [II.A, text before Eq. (4)] The notation θ_I is used both for the initial amplitude in Eq. (6) and for the value at H=Γ; the definitions are consistent, but the relation θ_I = √(3/(4π))ΓM_Pl/(fΩ) is stated without derivation. A one-sentence derivation or reference would help.
  5. [Abstract and VII] The abstract says the paper obtains 'small first order correction' to standard spontaneous baryogenesis, while Section VII concludes the non-minimal term 'may become comparable to or larger than the background value.' These statements should be harmonized, as the latter is the more informative claim.
  6. [III.B, after Eq. (41)] The sentence 'we arbitrary chose to take f/Λ ∼ 10³' introduces a parameter choice that affects Ω and hence the numerical prefactors in Eqs. (84)–(85); please state how the final conclusions depend on this choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the baryon-asymmetry result is computed from the Lagrangian, and the self-citation to Ref. [36] is motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central result is derived rather than assumed: the authors start from the Lagrangians in Eqs. (2) and (15), solve the coupled inflaton-spectator equations (43), and compute the baryon asymmetry from the decay amplitudes in Eqs. (68)-(72), leading to Eq. (81) and, after restoring expansion and mass mixing, Eq. (85). The correction factor 1 + Xi[1 + ...] is obtained by explicit integration in Appendix B, not by fitting or by renaming an input. The only self-referential element is Ref. [36], cited as motivation for the sigma R |phi|^2 coupling ("we based our analysis on the result found in Ref. [36]"), but no equation or uniqueness theorem is imported from that paper; the subsequent calculation is self-contained. The regulator-dependent vacuum value <J^0> = P_max^3/(3 pi^2) in Eq. (38) and the free cutoff P_max are genuine scientific weaknesses: the magnitude of the Yukawa enhancement depends on an unconstrained regulator and is sensitive to normal ordering. However, this is underdetermination and regularization dependence, not circularity, because the asymmetry is computed rather than assumed. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim leans on several unmeasured inputs: the cutoff P_max, the initial spectator amplitude phi_I, the couplings xi and sigma, and the ratio f/Lambda. The most fragile is P_max, since the Yukawa correction scales as P_max^3.

free parameters (8)
  • P_max = assumed ~ f
    Momentum cutoff regulating the fermion vacuum expectation value <J^0>; enters the Ricci scalar as Upsilon proportional to P_max^3 and controls the magnitude of the sigma-dependent correction.
  • f/Lambda = 10^3
    Ratio of symmetry-breaking scale to potential amplitude; sets the inflaton mass Omega = Lambda^2/f. The paper states the choice is arbitrary and claims it does not affect the final result.
  • phi_I = 10^-3 f
    Initial amplitude of the spectator field, motivated by the GUT scale; enters Xi = xi phi_I^2 / Omega^2 linearly in the correction.
  • m_phi = 10^-7 f in plots
    Spectator mass; sets alpha = m_phi/Omega and the hierarchy m_phi > Gamma.
  • g = varied, e.g. 10^-2 to 10^-4
    Inflaton-fermion Yukawa coupling; constrained by the perturbative regime and the reheating temperature.
  • xi = varied, constrained by Eq. (82)
    Inflaton-spectator coupling; enters the correction as Xi = xi phi_I^2 / Omega^2.
  • sigma = varied, constrained by Eq. (82)
    Non-minimal coupling of the spectator to the Ricci scalar; enters the correction as Sigma.
  • m_Q = free (m_L = 0)
    Fermion mass controlling the mixing factor epsilon.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Inflaton and spectator are classical fields; fermions are quantized (semiclassical approximation).
    Stated in the abstract and Section II; the asymmetry is computed from decay amplitudes of a classical theta into quantized fermions.
  • domain assumption Natural inflation potential can be expanded to second order, V ~ m^2 f^2 theta^2 / 2, during reheating.
    Section II.A, small-oscillation regime around theta = 0.
  • ad hoc to paper The fermion vacuum expectation value is regulated by a hard cutoff P_max and takes <J^0> = P_max^3/(3 pi^2) a^-3.
    Section III, after Eq. (38); this regularization choice determines the magnitude of R and hence the Yukawa correction.
  • domain assumption The spectator field's contribution to the Ricci scalar is negligible compared to the inflaton's when g >> m_phi/f.
    Section III, Eq. (41) and Fig. 1; used to reduce R to Upsilon theta_dot.
  • domain assumption Universe expansion is neglected at the first stage (H << Gamma, a ~ const) and later restored via simple scaling factors from Ref. [29].
    Sections III.A and VI; FRW effects on particle production are encoded in a^-3 factors and dilution factors rather than a full backreaction calculation.
  • standard math The mass-mixing factor [(1 - epsilon^2)/(1 + epsilon^2)]^2 from Ref. [29] applies unchanged.
    Section VI, taken from Dolgov et al. [29].
invented entities (3)
  • Complex scalar spectator field phi
    purpose: Dark scalar field coupled to the inflaton via xi theta^2 |phi|^2 and to curvature via sigma R |phi|^2; modifies the inflaton mass and decay rate.
    No direct observational handle is provided; it is introduced as a theoretical extension.
  • xi theta^2 |phi|^2 interaction
    purpose: Couples inflaton to spectator, producing an effective mass shift for the inflaton.
    Purely phenomenological, chosen to be renormalizable.
  • sigma R |phi|^2 Yukawa-like coupling
    purpose: Non-minimal gravitational coupling that sources the dominant correction to the baryon asymmetry.
    Motivated by the authors' prior work Ref. [36]; no independent constraint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of a complex scalar spectator field on baryon asymmetry within spontaneous baryogenesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVLXXWMB

@misc{pith2026250701112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of a complex scalar spectator field on baryon asymmetry within spontaneous baryogenesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVLXXWMB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01112}
}
abstract

We extend the framework of spontaneous baryogenesis by investigating the generation of baryon asymmetry when the inflaton, $\theta$, is minimally coupled with a complex spectator scalar field $\phi$, as $\theta^2|\phi|^2$. To do so, we also consider $\phi$ non-minimally coupled with the Ricci scalar curvature $R$ through a Yukawa-like interaction. We do not consider further interactions of the spectator field with the fermions of the Standard Model, considering it \emph{de facto} as a dark scalar field. In evaluating the violation of the baryon-number conservation during the reheating epoch, in a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe, we follow a semiclassical approach, where $\theta$, $\phi$ and gravity are considered as classical fields, whereas the fermions are quantized. We solve the equations of motion for the inflaton and spectator fields, respectively at first and zero-order in perturbation theory, neglecting at first stage the expansion of the universe. Afterwards, we quantify how the spectator field modifies the inflationary dynamics and thus find the baryon asymmetry produced via the inflaton decays into fermion-antifermion pairs by computing the corresponding decay amplitudes. We therefore obtain small first order correction to standard spontaneous baryogenesis and finally discuss the mass-mixing between fermions. Accordingly, the effects of considering the universe expansion are accounted, showing when the coupling between $\phi$ and $R$ becomes noticeable in altering the overall baryon asymmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Comparison between the contributions to the Ricci scalar of inflaton and spectator fields from Eq. (40). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Comparison between first-order correction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Comparison between the first order correction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Contour plot of the allowed region in the log ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Ratio between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    a first-order correction ∝ ΞΣ[θ3(t) − αθ4(t)], due to the Yukawa-like coupling between ϕ and R, and

    work page

  2. [2]

    Since ϕ2 1 + ϕ2 2 is positive, the corrective term sign completely depends on the sign of ξ

    to the 6 mass of the inflaton itself. Since ϕ2 1 + ϕ2 2 is positive, the corrective term sign completely depends on the sign of ξ. In particular, to enhance baryogenesis, we definitely need an increase of inflaton mass, thus increasing the probability of inflaton decay into fermion-antifermion pairs. This implies that, in order to have a positive cor- rec...

    work page

  3. [3]

    PNRR Bando a Cascata da INAF M4C2 - INV. 1.4

    a correction ∝ Ξ[θ1(t)−αθ2(t)], due to the coupling between inflaton and spectator. We start with 2) and work in the regime of small α. The first term in θ1(t) and αθ2(t) scale as α2 and can be considered negligible. Conversely, the second term in θ1(t) is of the order of the unity and, thus, represents the the leading correction in terms of baryon asymme...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Riotto, in ICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology (1998) pp

    A. Riotto, in ICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology (1998) pp. 326–436, arXiv:hep- ph/9807454

    work page arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    J. M. Cline, in Les Houches Summer School - Session 86: Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Fabric of Space- time (2006) arXiv:hep-ph/0609145

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Baryogenesis: A small review of the big picture

    C. Balazs, (2014), arXiv:1411.3398 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Dimopoulos and L

    S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 18, 4500 (1978)

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

    Dimopoulos and L

    S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett. B 81, 416 (1979)

    work page 1979

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 850 (1979)

    1979

  2. [10]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Nucl. Phys. B 349, 727 (1991)

    1991

  3. [11]

    G. R. Farrar and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D 50, 774 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9305275

    1994 arXiv

  4. [12]

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

    1967

  5. [13]

    J. M. Cline, M. Puel, and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043014 (2020), arXiv:1909.12300 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Lloyd-Stubbs and J

    A. Lloyd-Stubbs and J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123514 (2021), arXiv:2008.04339 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bettoni and J

    D. Bettoni and J. Rubio, Phys. Lett. B 784, 122 (2018), arXiv:1805.02669 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bettoni, G

    D. Bettoni, G. Dom` enech, and J. Rubio, JCAP 02, 034 (2019), arXiv:1810.11117 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bettoni and J

    D. Bettoni and J. Rubio, JCAP 01, 002 (2020), arXiv:1911.03484 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bettoni, A

    D. Bettoni, A. Lopez-Eiguren, and J. Rubio, JCAP 01, 002 (2022), arXiv:2107.09671 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Laverda and J

    G. Laverda and J. Rubio, JCAP 03, 033 (2024), [Er- ratum: JCAP 06, E01 (2024)], arXiv:2307.03774 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bettoni, G

    D. Bettoni, G. Laverda, A. L. Eiguren, and J. Rubio, JCAP 03, 027 (2025), arXiv:2409.15450 [gr-qc]

    2025

  13. [21]

    C. S. Fong, E. Nardi, and A. Riotto, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012, 158303 (2012), arXiv:1301.3062 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Davidson, E

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

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bodeker and W

    D. Bodeker and W. Buchmuller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035004 (2021), arXiv:2009.07294 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    U. K. Dey, T. Jha, A. Mukherjee, and N. Sahoo, J. Phys. G 50, 015004 (2023), arXiv:2102.04494 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Qi and H

    X. Qi and H. Sun, (2024), arXiv:2407.21292 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Okada, Y

    N. Okada, Y. Orikasa, and T. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 86, 076003 (2012), arXiv:1207.1510 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Garny, J

    M. Garny, J. Phys. A 40, 7005 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0612145

    2007

  20. [28]

    D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, New J. Phys. 14, 125003 (2012), arXiv:1206.2942 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Buchmuller, P

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari, and M. Plumacher, Nucl. Phys. B 665, 445 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302092

    2003 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. V. Arbuzova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1844023 (2018), arXiv:1808.08577 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dolgov and K

    A. Dolgov and K. Freese, Phys. Rev. D 51, 2693 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9410346

    1995 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dolgov, K

    A. Dolgov, K. Freese, R. Rangarajan, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6155 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9610405

    1997 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Luongo, N

    O. Luongo, N. Marcantognini, and M. Muccino, Gen. Rel. Grav. 55, 33 (2023), arXiv:2112.05730 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, G. D. Kribs, H. Murayama, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 201301 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403019

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Arbuzova, A

    E. Arbuzova, A. Dolgov, K. Dutta, and R. Rangarajan, Symmetry 15, 404 (2023), arXiv:2301.08322 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    H. M. Sadjadi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 123507 (2007), arXiv:0709.0697 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Racker, Nucl

    J. Racker, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275, 334 (2016), arXiv:1410.5482 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    De Simone and T

    A. De Simone and T. Kobayashi, JCAP 08, 052 (2016), arXiv:1605.00670 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dubbini, O

    M. Dubbini, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, (2025), arXiv:2505.03644 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Goodarzi, Eur

    P. Goodarzi, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 990 (2023), arXiv:2307.10709 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. A. Mojahed, K. Schmitz, and X.-J. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 111, 055005 (2025), arXiv:2409.10605 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    E. V. Arbuzova and A. D. Dolgov, in 18th Lomonosov Conference on Elementary Particle Physics (2019) pp. 309–313, arXiv:1712.04627 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Belfiglio, R

    A. Belfiglio, R. Giamb` o, and O. Luongo, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 105004 (2023), arXiv:2206.14158 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Belfiglio, Y

    A. Belfiglio, Y. Carloni, and O. Luongo, Phys. Dark Univ. 44, 101458 (2024), arXiv:2307.04739 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Belfiglio, O

    A. Belfiglio, O. Luongo, and T. Mengoni, (2024), arXiv:2411.11130 [gr-qc]

    2024

  38. [46]

    Belfiglio and O

    A. Belfiglio and O. Luongo, (2025), arXiv:2504.04219 17 [gr-qc]

    2025

  39. [47]

    Belfiglio, O

    A. Belfiglio, O. Luongo, and S. Mancini, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123520 (2024), arXiv:2312.11419 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Belfiglio and O

    A. Belfiglio and O. Luongo, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023541 (2024), arXiv:2401.16910 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    F. C. Adams, J. R. Bond, K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. D 47, 426 (1993), arXiv:hep- ph/9207245

    1993

  42. [50]

    N. K. Stein and W. H. Kinney, JCAP 01, 022 (2022), arXiv:2106.02089 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Di Marco, G

    A. Di Marco, G. De Gasperis, G. Pradisi, and P. Cabella, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1548, 012010 (2020), arXiv:2006.01822 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]. Appendix A: Dirac theory in FR W spacetime The free Dirac equation in curved spacetime is iγµ∇µψ − mψ = ieµ a γa(∂µ + Ωµ)ψ − mψ = 0, (A1) that in a FR W universe is simplified to iγ0...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.