Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Dark Sector Electroweak Baryogenesis In Light Of The Galactic Center Excess

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single dark-sector extension of the Standard Model can explain the baryon asymmetry, the dark matter relic density, and the galactic center gamma-ray excess, while producing gravitational waves detectable in the nea

desk verdict A serious, constraint-rich update of the authors' own dark-sector EWBG model, with a real GCE link at ~2 sigma, but the baryogenesis claim leans on an imported wall velocity that the authors themselves flag as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06373 v2 pith:TMUXMG55 submitted 2025-08-08 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Jean-Samuel Roux , James M. Cline This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords electroweakbaryogenesisdarkmattergalacticcentergamma-rayexcessgravitationalwavessingletscalarextensionHiggsportalCPviolationphasetransition
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 revisits a model of electroweak baryogenesis in which the new CP violation lives in a dark sector, adding a singlet scalar, an inert doublet, and a ~50 GeV Majorana fermion. It claims that this compact framework can simultaneously account for the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe, the dark matter relic density, and the long-standing gamma-ray excess from the galactic center, with the first-order electroweak phase transition also generating observable gravitational waves. If correct, it would connect several otherwise independent cosmological puzzles to a single TeV-scale extension with concrete experimental signatures. The authors update an earlier 2017 version of the model by fully including explicit Z2 breaking, solving the full thermal potential, using improved transport equations, and computing gravitational wave spectra for two benchmark parameter sets.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the spatially varying CP-violating phase of the dark fermion mass, \[\theta_\chi(z) = \arctan\left(\frac{\eta \sin\theta_\eta\, s(z)}{M_\chi + \eta \cos\theta_\eta\, s(z)}\right),\] induced by the singlet field profile s(z) across the bubble wall. This position-dependent phase creates a CP-violating force that produces a helicity asymmetry in the Majorana fermion chi; inverse decays and scattering transfer the asymmetry to tau leptons, and electroweak sphalerons convert the lepton number into baryons. The strength of the first-order phase transition is controlled by the explicit Z2-breaking parameters A_hs and A_3, which lower the nucleation temperature and raise v_n/T_n, an

What would settle it

Compute the bubble wall velocity from first principles for the benchmark parameters, especially Model 1 with alpha around 0.1: if v_w approaches 1 rather than ~0.6, the baryogenesis claim is falsified. A second test is the Higgs invisible width: Model 1 predicts Gamma_inv = 0.30 MeV, just below the current ATLAS bound, so a future limit below about 0.1 MeV would exclude this benchmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that explicit breaking of the Z2 symmetry in the singlet sector strengthens the electroweak phase transition while keeping CP violation sequestered in the dark sector, making it possible to reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry, the dark matter relic density, and—at about the 2-$\sigma$ level—the galactic center excess. Benchmark Model 1 (with m_chi = 49.3 GeV, m_s = 97.6 GeV, and |sin theta_eta| near 1) gives eta_B/eta_B,obs = 0.95 and Omega_chi $h^{2}$ = 0.121 via b-quark-dominated annihilation, an effective galactic-center cross section near the GCE best-fit band, an invisible Higgs width of 0.30 MeV, and gravitational wave peaks above the BBO sensitivity curve. Model 2 gi

Load-bearing premise

The baryon asymmetry calculation assumes bubble walls move at about 0.6 times the speed of light, a value taken from an earlier study of a closely related model; if the walls actually move at near-light speed, the predicted matter-antimatter asymmetry drops to zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The benchmark Model 1 yields the observed baryon asymmetry and dark matter relic density while placing the galactic-center annihilation cross section within 2 sigma of the GCE best-fit band.
  • Both benchmark models predict a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition with v_n/T_n > 1.1, satisfying the sphaleron washout condition.
  • Gravitational wave spectra from the transition lie above the BBO sensitivity curve for Model 1 and above LISA, DECIGO, and BBO for Model 2.
  • The model predicts a dark matter direct-detection cross section just below the LUX-ZEPLIN limit and a Higgs invisible width Gamma_inv = 0.30 MeV for Model 1, close to current bounds.
  • The inert doublet phi (m_phi > 100 GeV) mimics stau production at the LHC, giving a concrete collider signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bubble wall velocity turns out to be closer to unity than the assumed ~0.6, the baryon asymmetry would drop sharply; a first-principles computation of v_w in the explicit-Z2-breaking potential would settle the model's viability.
  • The electron-coupled variants, though mostly excluded, may have a narrow allowed window near two-loop EDM cancellations; the authors note that a precise two-loop calculation is needed to decide.
  • The model can be extended to generate radiative neutrino masses (scotogenic), with a coupling around 10^-10 giving neutrino masses near 0.05 eV, linking the dark sector to the neutrino mass puzzle.
  • If the galactic center excess turns out to have a pulsar origin, the model's other cosmological predictions survive; the GCE is a bonus rather than a load-bearing part of the framework.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper revisits the dark-sector electroweak baryogenesis model of Ref. [9], extending it with explicit Z2 breaking of the singlet s, a full one-loop finite-temperature potential with counterterms, updated moment-expanded transport equations valid at high wall velocities, and an MCMC scan over the model parameters. The model contains a singlet scalar s, an inert SU(2) doublet phi, and a Majorana fermion chi; CP violation in the spatially varying chi mass during the phase transition generates a helicity asymmetry that is converted into a lepton and then baryon asymmetry. The central claims are that the model can simultaneously explain the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, the dark matter relic density, and (marginally, at the ~2 sigma level) the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess, while producing gravitational waves detectable by BBO for Model 1 and by LISA, DECIGO and BBO for Model 2. The paper also derives predictions for direct detection, Higgs invisible decays, and LHC stau-like signatures.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable demonstration that a single, moderately extended dark-sector model can connect several otherwise unrelated observables: the BAU, the DM relic density, the GCE, gravitational waves, direct detection, and Higgs physics. The paper's strengths are that the headline quantities (eta_B, Omega_chi h^2, sigma_chiN, Gamma_inv, GW amplitudes) are genuine outputs of the scanned Lagrangian parameters and are compared with external constraints rather than being fit by construction, and that the numerical pipeline uses standard tools (CosmoTransitions, moment-expanded transport, PISC sensitivity curves). The authors are also honest about the marginality of the GCE fit and about the wall-velocity assumption. The main unresolved issue is the dependence of the BAU and GW predictions on the adopted bubble wall velocity; this is currently imported from a non-Z2-symmetric study rather than computed in the present model.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV and Sec. VI; Eq. (26), Eqs. (43)-(44), Table II] The baryogenesis prediction rests on the assumed wall velocity v_w ~ v_J ~ 0.6, imported from the non-Z2-symmetric study of Ref. [12] (Sec. IV). This is load-bearing: v_w enters Eq. (44) through the prefactor 1/(v_w gamma_w) and through the sphaleron washout exponent, and it controls whether the CP-violating source is adiabatic or decoupled. The paper itself notes that v_w -> 1 'leads to vanishing BAU', and Ref. [23] finds runaway detonations for part of the same alpha range populated by the scan. Table II does not report alpha or beta_H for the two benchmarks, so the reader cannot tell whether they lie in the hybrid regime (where v_w ~ v_J is plausible) or the runaway regime. I request either a model-specific computation of v_w or a sensitivity study showing eta_B/eta_obs as a function of v_w (e.g. 0.4-0.9) for the benchmarks, together with the values of alpha and beta_H. Without this,
  2. [Sec. IV and Table II; Eq. (27)] The gravitational-wave detectability claims also depend on the same wall-velocity assumption and on alpha and beta_H. The benchmark entries in Table II report Tn, vn, vn/Tn, masses, mixing angles, relic density, BAU, branching ratio, and Gamma_inv, but not alpha, beta_H, or L_w. Since the GW spectrum in Eq. (27) is determined by alpha, beta_H, and v_w through H*R* ~ v_w/beta_H, the positions of Model 1 and Model 2 in Fig. 4 cannot be checked from the tables. Please report alpha, beta_H, and L_w for the two benchmarks and for the successful scan region, and state how the quoted SNR/detectability conclusions change if v_w is varied over the range suggested by the literature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. X] The abstract says the model 'can explain' the Galactic Center excess, while the body (Sec. VIII) states that Model 1 lies 'just outside the 2 sigma region' of one fit and 'could marginally explain' the excess, and the conclusion says 'within ~2 sigma'. The wording should be harmonized so the abstract reflects the marginality.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The two-loop EDM estimate used to argue against electron/muon couplings is schematic (order-of-magnitude, with a possible cancellation proportional to m_s^2 - m_h^2). It is fine as a motivation for focusing on tau couplings, but the text should more explicitly label it as an estimate rather than a rigorous exclusion, especially since Sec. X notes that a refined calculation could allow electron couplings.
  3. [Appendix A] The tree-level coupling between phi and the SM Higgs doublet is set to zero 'for simplicity'. Since this coupling could affect both the phase transition and DM annihilation if nonzero, a brief justification or a statement of the implied upper bound would be helpful.
  4. [Sec. V] The wall-thickness estimate L_w is extracted from Eq. (33) with numerical constants from Ref. [29], and the authors state that the uncertainty affects the BAU at the few-percent level. It would be useful to report the actual L_w values for the two benchmarks, since Fig. 5 shows only an example profile.
  5. [General] There are several typos and minor grammatical errors, e.g. 'vaccum' in Sec. III A and 'distingish' in the Introduction. A careful proofread would improve presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: computed observables are genuine outputs of scanned Lagrangian parameters and are checked against independent data.

full rationale

The central claim is that a particular dark-sector extension can reproduce the baryon asymmetry, the DM relic density, and marginally the GCE, while predicting GW, direct-detection, and collider signals. In the paper these quantities are not defined in terms of one another or fitted to the data being 'predicted.' The Monte Carlo scan varies the Lagrangian parameters and computes the phase-transition properties, BAU, relic density, direct-detection cross section, Higgs invisible width, and GW spectrum from the stated equations (e.g., Eqs. (27), (43)-(44), (50), (52), (56)-(57)). The cuts in Eq. (55) are selection criteria for displaying viable benchmarks, not fits: the benchmark values η_B/η_B,obs = 0.95 and Ω_χ h^2 = 0.121 are outputs of the numerical transport and freeze-out calculations for chosen parameters, not parameters adjusted to reproduce those exact numbers. The one externally imported quantity with acknowledged uncertainty is the bubble wall velocity v_w ≈ v_J ≈ 0.6, taken from Ref. [12]; the paper explicitly flags that 'a more accurate treatment could be necessary' and notes that v_w → 1 'leads to vanishing BAU.' This is a reliance on an external assumption and a possible correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction: the BAU is still computed from Eq. (44) given v_w, not set equal to a fitted constant. Self-citations to Refs. [9], [28], and [31] supply previously published transport equations and wall-profile methods; these are independent, externally peer-reviewed computational frameworks, and the paper even cites Ref. [23] for a competing runaway-wall result rather than suppressing it. No step reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model has roughly ten scanned Lagrangian parameters, with the MCMC biased toward strong first-order transitions (Eq. 54), and the quoted viable fractions are conditional on that selection. The other load-bearing inputs are methodological (transport equations and rates from Refs. [9] and [31], wall velocity from Ref. [12], GCE fits from Refs. [3,7,8], velocity dispersion from Ref. [35]). The three dark-sector particles are inherited from Ref. [9]; this paper adds no new entity but re-weights their observable consequences. The genuinely predicted outputs are correlations (GW amplitude versus T_n, sigma_chiN, Gamma_inv) that are then compared with external constraints, which is what gives the model its testable content.

free parameters (12)
  • mu_s (singlet mass parameter) = 58.6 GeV (Model 1), 60.0 GeV (Model 2)
    Free scalar parameter scanned in the MCMC; sets the s VEV scale and the phase transition strength.
  • lambda_s (singlet quartic) = 0.12 (Model 1), 0.10 (Model 2)
    Scanned; controls the singlet potential shape and the two-step transition barrier.
  • lambda_hs (Higgs-singlet quartic coupling) = 0.42 (Model 1), 0.48 (Model 2)
    Scanned; controls the tree-level barrier and Higgs-singlet mixing.
  • A_hs (Z2-breaking trilinear h^2 s) = 2.4 GeV (Model 1), 0.7 GeV (Model 2)
    Scanned; sets the low-temperature singlet VEV s0 and the mixing angle (Eq. 8).
  • A_3 (Z2-breaking cubic s^3) = -5.4 GeV (Model 1), -2.6 GeV (Model 2)
    Scanned; with A_hs and A_T forms the combination A(T) that lowers T_c and strengthens the transition.
  • M_chi (bare Majorana mass) = 48.6 GeV (Model 1), 63.8 GeV (Model 2)
    Scanned; contributes to the physical m_chi = 49.3 GeV / 64.2 GeV after the singlet VEV.
  • eta (singlet-chi coupling strength) = 0.42 (Model 1), 0.21 (Model 2)
    Scanned; sets the CP-violating source strength and the invisible width and direct detection rates.
  • theta_eta (CP phase) = -1.4 rad (Model 1), 0.21 rad (Model 2)
    Scanned; the baryogenesis source vanishes for 0 or pi; values near +/- pi/2 maximize the GCE s-wave term.
  • y_chi (Yukawa coupling to tau doublet) = 0.61 (Model 1), 0.56 (Model 2)
    Scanned; sets the relic density through the p-wave tau channel and the asymmetry transfer rate.
  • m_phi (inert doublet mass) = 132.8 GeV (Model 1), 101.9 GeV (Model 2)
    Scanned subject to LEP bound m_phi > 100 GeV; suppresses or enables the chi -> tau channel.
  • sigma_v^2 (galactic center DM velocity dispersion) = 10^-2 (fixed, 'spike' scenario of Ref. [35])
    Modeling input adopted to assess the p-wave tau channel; the GCE-favored b-bbar channel is s-wave, so the central GCE claim does not depend on it.
  • v_w (bubble wall velocity) = approx v_J approx 0.6 (adopted from Ref. [12])
    Not scanned; assumed from a literature result. Directly enters the BAU washout integral (Eq. 44) and the GW spectrum (Eq. 27).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption One-loop effective potential with Parwani daisy resummation and the renormalization conditions of Ref. [10], with counterterm coefficients as modified in Appendix B
    Appendix A and B. Standard finite-T framework, but the counterterm formulas differ from published Ref. [10] with no demonstrated derivation, and the zero-temperature potential feeds all nucleation results.
  • domain assumption Transport machinery of Ref. [31]: moment expansion truncated at m = 0, 1 (Eq. 37) with collision rates from Ref. [9] Appendices B-D
    Section VI. The BAU prediction inherits the validity of these equations and rates; they are not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Sphaleron rate Gamma_sph = 1.0 x 10^-6 T and washout criterion v_n/T_n > 1.1 (Eqs. 44-45)
    Section VI. Standard literature values used to convert the lepton asymmetry into the BAU and to select strong transitions.
  • ad hoc to paper Bubble wall velocity v_w approx v_J (Chapman-Jouguet, Eq. 26), adopted from Ref. [12]
    Section IV. The authors note a more accurate treatment is needed; both the BAU and the GW spectrum depend on v_w.
  • ad hoc to paper tanh Higgs wall profile (Eq. 30) and potential-minimized, P5-polynomial-fitted singlet profile (Eq. 31)
    Section V. Stated simplification; full PDE solution is declared outside scope. Uncertainty claimed to shift the BAU by a few percent.
  • ad hoc to paper tau-only coupling of chi, enforced by an approximate tau-lepton-number symmetry; couplings to e and mu forbidden
    Section II and Appendix C. Required to evade EDM and g-2 constraints, but the exclusion rests on an O(1)-uncertainty two-loop EDM estimate (Eq. C4).
  • domain assumption Galactic center velocity dispersion sigma_v^2 = 10^-2 (cusp/spike scenario of Ref. [35])
    Section VII. Adopted to test whether the p-wave tau channel can compete with the s-wave b-bbar channel at the galactic center.
  • domain assumption GCE signal definition and best-fit regions taken from Refs. [3], [7], [8]; dark matter interpretation treated as the target
    Sections I and VIII. The excess could instead be millisecond pulsars; the paper cites the unresolved tension but uses the DM interpretation as the target.
  • ad hoc to paper Omitted |H|^2|phi|^2 Higgs-inert doublet coupling ('for simplicity')
    Appendix A footnote. Stated not to affect the phase transition; it could open extra DM annihilation and mass-mixing channels if nonzero.
invented entities (3)
  • Majorana fermion chi (dark matter) independent evidence
    purpose: DM candidate and source of the CP-violating helicity asymmetry via the complex mass phase theta_chi(z) (Eq. 4)
    Introduced in Ref. [9]. Falsifiable handles here: m_chi near 50 GeV, sigma_chiN near the LZ limit, Gamma_inv near 0.3 MeV, monochromatic gamma lines below Fermi-LAT bounds, and the GCE flux.
  • Inert SU(2) doublet phi (hypercharge -1) independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates chi-L_tau scattering, transfers the helicity asymmetry to leptons, and sets the relic density via p-wave annihilation
    From Ref. [9]. Testable as stau-like Drell-Yan pairs at LHC/LEP and via the Z to tau tau versus e e ratio shift of about 3 x 10^-4.
  • Gauge-singlet scalar s with explicit Z2 breaking (A_hs, A_3) independent evidence
    purpose: Strengthens the electroweak phase transition to first order, mediates the Higgs-portal annihilation to b quarks responsible for the GCE, and mixes with the Higgs
    Z2-symmetric version in Ref. [9]; the Z2-breaking version is the focus here. Handles: m_s near 100 GeV, mixing angle theta_hs in the range -0.04 to -0.01, GW background, and Higgs invisible decay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Sector Electroweak Baryogenesis In Light Of The Galactic Center Excess." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TMUXMG55

@misc{pith2026250806373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Sector Electroweak Baryogenesis In Light Of The Galactic Center Excess},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TMUXMG55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06373}
}
read the original abstract

We revisit a model of electroweak baryogenesis that includes a dark matter candidate, and sequesters the new CP violation required to produce the baryon asymmetry in a dark sector. The model can explain the baryon asymmetry, dark matter relic density, and the long-standing excess of gamma rays from the galactic center. The first order electroweak phase transition induced by the new physics can give rise to gravitational waves that may be observed in future experiments. The model predicts dark matter signals in direct detectors, and a significant contribution to the Higgs boson invisible decay width.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Main DM annihilation channels. The cross within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of the critical temperature Tc with the linear combination Ac defined in the text for our numeri￾cal scan, where Z2 breaking parameters A3, Ahs and cos θη where varied randomly. The upper axis shows the correspond￾ing values of estimated temperature shift δTc obtained from Eq. (18). Coloring of the dots indicates the strength of the phase transition vn/Tn. In Eq. (18), V˜ c is the potential energy of both … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlation of α (left) and βH (right) with the critical and nucleation temperatures in our second scan. Coloring of the dots indicates the temperature shift parameter δTc due to explicit Z2 breaking in each model. Model µs λs λhs Ahs A3 Mχ η θη yχ mϕ 1 58.6 0.12 0.42 2.4 -5.4 48.6 0.42 -1.4 0.61 132.8 2 60.0 0.10 0.48 0.7 -2.6 63.8 0.21 0.21 0.56 101.9 Mean 62.2 0.20 0.92 7.4 1.5 59.6 0.74 -0.14 0.66 127.3 Std. dev… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the peak amplitude and frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of wall profiles h(z) and s(z) at nucleation for Model 1 of Table I. assume the Higgs field follows the ansatz h(z) = vn 2  1 − tanh  z Lw  , (30) where Lw is the wall thickness. A similar ansatz is often used for the singlet profile. Here, we instead follo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: DM relic density and BAU for a sample of our Monte Carlo scan. Coloring of the dots indicates the values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effective DM annihilation cross section in the galac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Higgs decay rate into χ pairs and upper limit set by constraints on invisible decay branching ratio [37]. model from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), Large Electron–Positron Collider (LEP), and direct/indirect dark matter detection, that we now discuss. They remove an …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: allows couplings to lower generation leptons, they are strongly constrained by electric dipole moment and anomalous magnetic moment experiments, as we discuss in Appendix C. For this reason, we consider couplings only to the τ in our scans. At the one-loop level, the …
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: This generates a monochromatic signal at en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: DM annihilation cross section into photons in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Examples of Feynman loop diagrams contributing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Galactic Center gamma-ray excess from a generic triaxial halo

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fermi-LAT fits show the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess keeps its spectrum and cuspiness under triaxial/tilted dark matter halo templates, but its morphology prefers a flipped-tilt halo and disfavors a stellar-halo profile.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [23]

    Gravitational waves and electroweak baryogenesis in a global study of the extended scalar singlet model,

    A. Beniwal, M. Lewicki, M. White, and A. G. Williams, “Gravitational waves and electroweak baryogenesis in a global study of the extended scalar singlet model,” JHEP 02 (2019) 183, arXiv:1810.02380 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [9]

    Electroweak baryogenesis from a dark sector,

    J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, and D. Tucker-Smith, “Electroweak baryogenesis from a dark sector,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 11, (2017) 115006, arXiv:1702.08909 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [12]

    The scalar singlet extension of the Standard Model: gravitational waves versus baryogenesis,

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, J. M. No, and M. Zych, “The scalar singlet extension of the Standard Model: gravitational waves versus baryogenesis,” JHEP 01 (2023) 093, arXiv:2210.16305 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [1]

    Γ d is the ϕ → χL decay rate, Γ hf is the helicity-flipping rate due 6 The CP-odd equation is obtained by subtracting the h = +1 equation from the −1 equation

    K i 0 is a factor that was introduced in [31] as a result of the particular nor- malization of the moment average we used. Γ d is the ϕ → χL decay rate, Γ hf is the helicity-flipping rate due 6 The CP-odd equation is obtained by subtracting the h = +1 equation from the −1 equation. 9 to χϕ → χϕ scattering, Γ × is the ϕL → ϕ∗L scatter- ing rate, Γ i tot is...

    work page 2022

  5. [2]

    The status of the galactic center gamma-ray excess,

    D. Hooper, “The status of the galactic center gamma-ray excess,” SciPost Phys. Proc. 12 (2023) 006, arXiv:2209.14370 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [3]

    [8], both assuming a b quark annihilation channel

    while the cyan cross is from Ref. [8], both assuming a b quark annihilation channel. The two diamonds represent the benchmark models of Table I; their branching ratios are given in Table II. In our scan, 2,197 models satisfied the bounds 1 2 ≤ ηb ηb,obs ≤ 2 , (55) Ωχh2 ΩDMh2 ≤ 2 . We found that, with small adjustments, these models can generally achieve t...

    work page 2022

  7. [4]

    On the morphology of the gamma-ray galactic centre excess,

    S. D. McDermott, Y.-M. Zhong, and I. Cholis, “On the morphology of the gamma-ray galactic centre excess,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 522 no. 1, (2023) L21–L25, arXiv:2209.00006 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [5]

    Robustness of the Galactic Center excess morphology against masking,

    Y.-M. Zhong and I. Cholis, “Robustness of the Galactic Center excess morphology against masking,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 12, (2024) 123017, arXiv:2401.02481 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [6]

    Possible Evidence For Dark Matter Annihilation In The Inner Milky Way From The Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope,

    L. Goodenough and D. Hooper, “Possible Evidence For Dark Matter Annihilation In The Inner Milky Way From The Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope,” arXiv:0910.2998 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [7]

    Search for dark matter lines at the Galactic Center with 14 years of Fermi data,

    J. W. Foster, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, Y. Soreq, and W. L. Xu, “Search for dark matter lines at the Galactic Center with 14 years of Fermi data,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 10, (2023) 103047, arXiv:2212.07435 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Return of the templates: Revisiting the Galactic Center excess with multimessenger observations,

    I. Cholis, Y.-M. Zhong, S. D. McDermott, and J. P. Surdutovich, “Return of the templates: Revisiting the Galactic Center excess with multimessenger observations,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 10, (2022) 103023, arXiv:2112.09706 [astro-ph.HE]. 9 We ignored a partial cancellation ∝ (m2 ...

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Strong Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Standard Model with a Singlet,

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, and F. Riva, “Strong Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Standard Model with a Singlet,” Nucl. Phys. B 854 (2012) 592–630, arXiv:1107.5441 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Cherenkov Telescope Array will test whether pulsars generate the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess,

    C. Keith, D. Hooper, and T. Linden, “Cherenkov Telescope Array will test whether pulsars generate the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 10, (2023) 103001, arXiv:2212.08080 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Multimessenger constraints on the dark matter interpretation of the Fermi-LAT Galactic center excess,

    M. Di Mauro and M. W. Winkler, “Multimessenger constraints on the dark matter interpretation of the Fermi-LAT Galactic center excess,” Phys. Rev. D 103 18 no. 12, (2021) 123005, arXiv:2101.11027 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Singlet Higgs phenomenology and the electroweak phase transition,

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, “Singlet Higgs phenomenology and the electroweak phase transition,” JHEP 08 (2007) 010, arXiv:0705.2425 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions and precision Higgs boson studies,

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, C. L. Wainwright, and P. Winslow, “Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions and precision Higgs boson studies,” Phys. Rev. D 91 no. 3, (2015) 035018, arXiv:1407.5342 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Electroweak bubble wall expansion: gravitational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma,

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, and M. Zych, “Electroweak bubble wall expansion: gravitational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma,” JHEP 02 (2022) 017, arXiv:2111.02393 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Gravitational waves at aLIGO and vacuum stability with a scalar singlet extension of the Standard Model,

    C. Balazs, A. Fowlie, A. Mazumdar, and G. White, “Gravitational waves at aLIGO and vacuum stability with a scalar singlet extension of the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 4, (2017) 043505, arXiv:1611.01617 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bubbles in the supersymmetric standard model,

    J. M. Moreno, M. Quiros, and M. Seco, “Bubbles in the supersymmetric standard model,” Nucl. Phys. B 526 (1998) 489–500, arXiv:hep-ph/9801272

    1998 arXiv

  12. [19]

    First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis from a Naturally Light Singlet Scalar,

    K. Harigaya and I. R. Wang, “First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis from a Naturally Light Singlet Scalar,” arXiv:2207.02867 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet,

    V. Vaskonen, “Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet,” Phys. Rev. D 95 no. 12, (2017) 123515, arXiv:1611.02073 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Gravitational waves and Higgs boson couplings for exploring first order phase transition in the model with a singlet scalar field,

    K. Hashino, M. Kakizaki, S. Kanemura, P. Ko, and T. Matsui, “Gravitational waves and Higgs boson couplings for exploring first order phase transition in the model with a singlet scalar field,” Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 49–54, arXiv:1609.00297 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Baryogenesis and gravity waves from a UV-completed electroweak phase transition,

    J. M. Cline, A. Friedlander, D.-M. He, K. Kainulainen, B. Laurent, and D. Tucker-Smith, “Baryogenesis and gravity waves from a UV-completed electroweak phase transition,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 12, (2021) 123529, arXiv:2102.12490 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Phase transitions in the early universe,

    M. B. Hindmarsh, M. L¨ uben, J. Lumma, and M. Pauly, “Phase transitions in the early universe,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 24 (2021) 1, arXiv:2008.09136 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions,

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and G. Servant, “Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions,” JCAP 06 (2010) 028, arXiv:1004.4187 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The Electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis,

    G. W. Anderson and L. J. Hall, “The Electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis,” Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2685–2698

    1992

  19. [27]

    New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,

    K. Schmitz, “New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,” JHEP 01 (2021) 097, arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    For simplicity, we therefore 7 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 z/Lw 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 h/Tn |s/Tn| Figure 5

    proposed a self-consistent algorithm to obtain the wall shape in strong EWPTs with a scalar singlet and found that the fields could be described by a tanh pro- file, to a good approximation. For simplicity, we therefore 7 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 z/Lw 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 h/Tn |s/Tn| F...

  21. [29]

    First principles determination of bubble wall velocity,

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline, “First principles determination of bubble wall velocity,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 2, (2022) 023501, arXiv:2204.13120 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    An efficient approach to electroweak bubble velocities,

    S. J. Huber and M. Sopena, “An efficient approach to electroweak bubble velocities,” arXiv:1302.1044 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    A fresh look at the gravitational-wave signal from cosmological phase transitions,

    T. Alanne, T. Hugle, M. Platscher, and K. Schmitz, “A fresh look at the gravitational-wave signal from cosmological phase transitions,” JHEP 03 (2020) 004, arXiv:1909.11356 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A new mesh selection algorithm, based on conditioning, for two-point boundary value codes,

    J. Cash and F. Mazzia, “A new mesh selection algorithm, based on conditioning, for two-point boundary value codes,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 184 no. 2, (2005) 362–381. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0377042705000373

    2005

  25. [33]

    Wall speed and shape in singlet-assisted strong electroweak phase transitions,

    A. Friedlander, I. Banta, J. M. Cline, and D. Tucker-Smith, “Wall speed and shape in singlet-assisted strong electroweak phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 5, (2021) 055020, arXiv:2009.14295 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Electroweak Baryogenesis in Non-minimal Composite Higgs Models,

    J. R. Espinosa, B. Gripaios, T. Konstandin, and F. Riva, “Electroweak Baryogenesis in Non-minimal Composite Higgs Models,” JCAP 01 (2012) 012, arXiv:1110.2876 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Search for gamma-ray emission from p-wave dark matter annihilation in the Galactic Center,

    C. Johnson, R. Caputo, C. Karwin, S. Murgia, S. Ritz, and J. Shelton, “Search for gamma-ray emission from p-wave dark matter annihilation in the Galactic Center,” Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 10, (2019) 103007, arXiv:1904.06261 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Electroweak baryogenesis at high bubble wall velocities,

    J. M. Cline and K. Kainulainen, “Electroweak baryogenesis at high bubble wall velocities,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 6, (2020) 063525, arXiv:2001.00568 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at s=13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al. , “Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at s=13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,” Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023) 137963, arXiv:2301.10731 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,

    LHC Higgs Cross Section W orking Group Collaboration, D. de Florian et al. , “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector,” CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 2 (2017) 1–869, arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    E. W. Kolb, The Early Universe , vol. 69. Taylor and Francis, 5, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with two τ -leptons in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al. , “Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with two τ -leptons in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector,” JHEP 05 (2024) 150, arXiv:2402.00603 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields,

    C. L. Wainwright, “CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2006–2013, arXiv:1109.4189 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Searches for supersymmetric particles in e+ e- collisions up to 208-GeV and interpretation of the results within the MSSM,

    DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al. , “Searches for supersymmetric particles in e+ e- collisions up to 208-GeV and interpretation of the results within the MSSM,” Eur. Phys. J. C 31 (2003) 421–479, arXiv:hep-ex/0311019

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al. , “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Search for 19 electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with two or three leptons at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboud et al. , “Search for 19 electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with two or three leptons at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 no. 12, (2018) 995, arXiv:1803.02762 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Review of particle physics,

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al. , “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 3, (2024) 030001

    2024

  38. [46]

    Absolute mass lower limit for the lightest neutralino of the MSSM from e+ e- data at s**(1/2) up to 209-GeV,

    ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al. , “Absolute mass lower limit for the lightest neutralino of the MSSM from e+ e- data at s**(1/2) up to 209-GeV,” Phys. Lett. B 583 (2004) 247–263

    2004

  39. [47]

    Has the Origin of the Third-Family Fermion Masses been Determined?,

    M. J. Baker, P. Cox, and R. R. Volkas, “Has the Origin of the Third-Family Fermion Masses been Determined?,” JHEP 04 (2021) 151, arXiv:2012.10458 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Search for scalar leptons and scalar quarks at LEP,

    L3 Collaboration, P. Achard et al. , “Search for scalar leptons and scalar quarks at LEP,” Phys. Lett. B 580 (2004) 37–49, arXiv:hep-ex/0310007

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    if one includes the lepton number-violating interac- tion ∼ λ′(ϕ†H)2 + h.c. (63) Extending our model to include multiple Majorana fermions χm and/or inert doublet ϕn, this interaction 14 would lead to one-loop neutrino mass terms of order mij ≃ X m,n yimnyjmn 16π2 λ′v2 0mχm m2...

  42. [50]

    Search for anomalous production of dilepton events with missing transverse momentum in e+ e- collisions at s**(1/2) = 183-Gev to 209-GeV,

    OP ALCollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al. , “Search for anomalous production of dilepton events with missing transverse momentum in e+ e- collisions at s**(1/2) = 183-Gev to 209-GeV,” Eur. Phys. J. C 32 (2004) 453–473, arXiv:hep-ex/0309014

    2004 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A large muon EDM from dark matter,

    K. S. Khaw, Y. Nakai, R. Sato, Y. Shigekami, and Z. Zhang, “A large muon EDM from dark matter,” JHEP 02 (2023) 234, arXiv:2212.02891 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    The Lightest Higgs boson mass in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,

    J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros, and A. Riotto, “The Lightest Higgs boson mass in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,” Nucl. Phys. B 436 (1995) 3–29, arXiv:hep-ph/9407389. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 439, 466–468 (1995)]

    1995 arXiv

  45. [53]

    General calculation of the cross section for dark matter annihilations into two photons,

    C. Garcia-Cely and A. Rivera, “General calculation of the cross section for dark matter annihilations into two photons,” JCAP 03 (2017) 054, arXiv:1611.08029 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,

    E. Ma, “Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 077301, arXiv:hep-ph/0601225

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Electric dipole moments in the minimal scotogenic model,

    A. Abada and T. Toma, “Electric dipole moments in the minimal scotogenic model,” JHEP 04 (2018) 030, arXiv:1802.00007 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 04, 060 (2021)]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    However, those pre- dictions are in tension at the level of 1 ppt (10 −12) with each other, which dominates over the experimental pre- cision

    and Cs [57] atoms respectively. However, those pre- dictions are in tension at the level of 1 ppt (10 −12) with each other, which dominates over the experimental pre- cision. Our dark sector could therefore contribute to the electron magnetic moment up to |δae| ∼10−12 without ...

  49. [57]

    Electric dipole moments in the extended scotogenic models,

    M. Fujiwara, J. Hisano, C. Kanai, and T. Toma, “Electric dipole moments in the extended scotogenic models,” JHEP 04 (2021) 114, arXiv:2012.14585 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Electroweak phase transition in two Higgs doublet models,

    J. M. Cline and P.-A. Lemieux, “Electroweak phase transition in two Higgs doublet models,” Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 3873–3881, arXiv:hep-ph/9609240

    1997 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Taming Infrared Divergences in the Effective Potential,

    J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, and T. Konstandin, “Taming Infrared Divergences in the Effective Potential,” JHEP 08 (2014) 034, arXiv:1406.2652 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment,

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, “Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 no. 7, (2023) 071801, arXiv:2209.13084 [physics.atom-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion,

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, “Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion,” Nature 588 no. 7836, (2020) 61–65

    2020

  54. [62]

    Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model,

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, “Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model,” Science 360 (2018) 191, arXiv:1812.04130 [physics.atom-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm,

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, B. Abi et al. , “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 no. 14, (2021) 141801, arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex]

    2021

  56. [64]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,

    R. Aliberti et al. , “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,” arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb,

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al. , “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb,” arXiv:2506.03069 [hep-ex]

  58. [66]

    Models for the Electric Dipole Moment and Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Tau Lepton,

    Y. Nakai, Y. Shigekami, P. Sun, and Z. Zhang, “Models for the Electric Dipole Moment and Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Tau Lepton,” arXiv:2508.05935 [hep-ph]

  59. [67]

    Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron,

    ACME Collaboration, V. Andreev et al. , “Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron,” Nature 562 no. 7727, (2018) 355–360

    2018

  60. [68]

    Left-Handed Physics is not right for EDMs,

    M. Ardu, S. Davidson, and N. Valori, “Left-Handed Physics is not right for EDMs,” arXiv:2507.19421 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.