Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 70 references

A single B-L flaton decaying after the electroweak transition can produce both the large electron neutrino asymmetry hinted by EMPRESS and the observed baryon asymmetry.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:28 UTC pith:JL2ZJHID

load-bearing objection The scenario is worth thinking about, but the benchmark point as written does not reproduce from the paper's own equations; send it to a careful referee anyway. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.13098 v2 pith:JL2ZJHID submitted 2025-09-16 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Cogenesis of baryon and lepton number asymmetries matching the EMPRESS Data

Kyu Jung Bae , Arghyajit Datta , Rinku Maji , Wan-Il Park This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.Cq12.60.Jv14.60.Pq
keywords baryogenesisleptogenesisneutrino asymmetryEMPRESSflatonU(1)_B-Lcosmic stringsgravitational waves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes that one scalar field—the flaton responsible for breaking U(1)_B-L—can, through its delayed decays, generate both a large positive electron neutrino asymmetry matching the EMPRESS helium-abundance hints and the small observed baryon asymmetry. The mechanism works because right-handed neutrinos produced from the flaton decay around or after the electroweak phase transition generate resonantly enhanced, flavor-asymmetric CP violation. Flavor cancellation keeps the total lepton asymmetry small enough that sphaleron reprocessing yields the right baryon number, while flavor oscillations later reduce the electron neutrino asymmetry by only about a third. For a benchmark with symmetry-breaking scale v_phi = 2.28×10^10 GeV and flaton mass 500 GeV, the paper obtains the observed Y_B and a BBN electron neutrino asymmetry at the EMPRESS-favored level. The authors also find that only the normal light-neutrino mass hierarchy allows both asymmetries to be positive, and the associated cosmic strings may be observable in future gravitational-wave detectors.

Core claim

The central claim is that the same U(1)_B-L flaton that dominates the universe before its decay is the sole source of the large electron neutrino asymmetry favored by EMPRESS and of the observed baryon asymmetry. The flaton decays to two nearly degenerate right-handed neutrinos whose resonantly enhanced CP asymmetries are flavor-dependent: the electron-direction asymmetry is positive and large, while muon and tau asymmetries are negative and nearly cancel, keeping the total lepton asymmetry small. A small fraction of the flaton decays before sphaleron freeze-out, converting the tiny net lepton asymmetry into a positive baryon asymmetry; the rest decays after the electroweak transition, leavi

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the B-L flaton: a very flat scalar field whose condensation breaks U(1)_B-L, sets the right-handed neutrino masses, and dominates the universe before decaying. The mechanism combines resonant leptogenesis (self-energy CP asymmetries of two quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos), flavor-structured CP asymmetries from the neutrino Yukawa matrix, the timing set by sphaleron freeze-out at T_sp ~ 140 GeV, and neutrino flavor oscillations that partially convert asymmetries between flavors. The flaton domination supplies both the dilution of pre-existing asymmetries and the separation of epochs: early decays produce the baryon asymmetry, late decays produce the large el

Load-bearing premise

The match to the EMPRESS-favored neutrino asymmetry rests on the borrowed result that neutrino flavor oscillations cut a reheating-era electron asymmetry by only about one third by big-bang nucleosynthesis, a reduction not re-derived for the benchmark parameters.

What would settle it

A direct calculation of the three-flavor oscillation evolution for the benchmark point—using the paper's Yukawa couplings, T_R = 10 GeV, and the quoted flavor CP asymmetries—would settle it: if the electron neutrino asymmetry at big-bang nucleosynthesis is not close to one third of the reheating value and positive, the claimed EMPRESS match collapses.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the mechanism is correct, the same symmetry-breaking scale v_phi ~ 10^10 GeV sets the reheating temperature to about 10 GeV, linking the two asymmetries through one parameter ratio T_R/m_phi.
  • The positive signs of both Y_B and Y_nu_e select the normal neutrino mass hierarchy in the benchmark setup; the inverted hierarchy does not yield working parameters with both signs positive.
  • The U(1)_B-L breaking generates topologically stable strong type-I cosmic strings whose stochastic gravitational-wave background can reach the sensitivity of future detectors such as ultimate DECIGO, BBO, and microAres for v_phi around 10^10 to 10^11 GeV.
  • The baryon asymmetry produced before sphaleron decoupling is suppressed both by the entropy dilution factor (T_R/T_sp)^4 and by a 10^-4-level cancellation among flavor CP asymmetries, so the model requires tuning but not tiny couplings.
  • The large electron neutrino asymmetry predicted at BBN, Y_BBN_nu_e ≈ 10^-4, is a testable target for future BBN and CMB measurements of the primordial helium abundance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A confirmed large electron neutrino asymmetry at the 10^-4 level would strengthen the case that both the baryon asymmetry and the helium anomaly share a single origin in B-L breaking, rather than independent production mechanisms.
  • The paper's 1/3 flavor-oscillation survival factor is carried over from an earlier analysis; an explicit scan of the benchmark's Yukawa structure could reveal whether the required cancellation among flavor CP asymmetries is generic or a finely tuned corner.
  • Because flaton domination dilutes any pre-existing asymmetry, this scenario effectively forces all asymmetry generation to occur after thermal inflation; a similar timing constraint likely applies to other non-thermal cogenesis setups.
  • The cosmic-string gravitational-wave signal offers an independent probe of v_phi; if future experiments see the predicted spectrum, it would connect the EMPRESS helium hint to a high-scale phase transition, bridging light-element abundances with nanohertz-frequency gravitational waves.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a supersymmetric U(1)_{B-L} model in which a single flaton field φ, dominating the universe before its decay, produces both the baryon asymmetry of the universe and the large electron-neutrino asymmetry suggested by EMPRESS. Baryogenesis arises from the small fraction of φ decays occurring above the sphaleron freeze-out temperature via resonant leptogenesis from quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos, while the bulk of the lepton asymmetry is produced below T_sp and survives to BBN. The authors claim a benchmark v_φ=2.28×10^10 GeV, m_φ=500 GeV gives Y_B=8.73×10^-11 and Y_νe^R=8.77×10^-4, and that only the normal neutrino mass hierarchy works. They also estimate the gravitational-wave background from B-L cosmic strings.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, the mechanism is interesting: it connects the EMPRESS large-Y_νe hint to the observed baryon asymmetry through a single scalar source at a symmetry-breaking scale near 10^10 GeV, with a falsifiable gravitational-wave signature. The analytic setup is standard and the benchmark is explicitly stated, which is a strength. However, the central numerical benchmark is not reproducible from the paper's own equations, and the key flavor-oscillation suppression factor is imported from previous work rather than verified. As submitted, the quantitative demonstration of cogenesis is not established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (3.4)] The quoted Y_νe^R is inconsistent with Eq. (3.4). For v_φ=2.28×10^10 GeV, m_φ=500 GeV, T_R=10 GeV, the text gives ∑_{i} ε_ie=0.0209 and uses B_i^φ≈1/2. Then Eq. (3.4) yields Y_νe^R = 6×(0.5×0.0209)×(10/500) ≈ 1.25×10^-3, not 8.77×10^-4. Reproducing 8.77×10^-4 would require ∑ ε_ie B_i^φ ≈ 7.3×10^-3 or T_R/m_φ≈0.014, neither stated. This is load-bearing because this benchmark is the paper's demonstration that the EMPRESS-compatible electron-neutrino asymmetry is generated. The authors must correct the numerical inputs or identify the source of the discrepancy (e.g., different branching ratios or a different Γ_φ t_R value).
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.5)] The suppression factor 1/3 in Y_νe^BBN ≈ (1/3)Y_νe^R is imported from Ref. [30] and is justified only by the inequalities (i)–(ii). No flavor-evolution calculation is performed for the benchmark, and the individual lepton-flavor yields are not given (only the sums ε_ie, ε_iμ, ε_iτ). Since Y_νe^BBN is the quantity compared with EMPRESS, this assumption is load-bearing. The authors should verify the 1/3 factor for their corrected benchmark or provide a quantitative robustness argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.8) and Sec. 4] The values of g_R* and g_sp* used in Eqs. (2.8) and (3.11) are not specified. For the benchmark, using g_R*=10.75 gives T_R≈16 GeV, while using the standard SM value near T~10 GeV (g_R*≈100) gives T_R≈10 GeV. The ambiguity must be resolved for reproducibility.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] In the derivation of Eq. (3.4), the factor e^{Γ_φ t_R} enters the relation for n_{N_i}; the text states Γ_φ t_R=5/3 but then effectively approximates the coefficient by 6. Please clarify the approximation and its numerical impact, since the benchmark value is sensitive to this factor.
  3. [Fig. 3] The red-star benchmark point is not visible in the reproduced figure; mark it explicitly. Also, the plotted contours show Y_νe^BBN=10^-4, while the text quotes Y_νe^R=8.77×10^-4 (giving Y_νe^BBN≈2.9×10^-4); clarify the relation between the plotted contours and the quoted benchmark.
  4. [Sec. 4 / Abstract] The statement that only the normal mass hierarchy works is based on a scan of the inverted-hierarchy case, not a proof. This should be phrased as a numerical finding, not a no-go theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: parameters are calibrated to data, and the overlapping-author citation [30] is a caveat but not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper does not present its matched benchmark as a free prediction. Section 4 states: "Our goal now is to understand in which parameter space we obtain the value of Y_nu_e favored by the EMPRESS result while keeping Y_B equal to or less than the observed value," and Fig. 3 is used to select v_phi and m_phi along contours that reproduce Y_B^obs and Y_BBN_nu_e. That is parameter calibration, not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The CP asymmetries are computed from the Casas-Ibarra relation, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.4), using external NuFIT inputs, with no target-asymmetry value inserted into the derivation of the Yukawa structure. Y_R_nu_e and Y_R_B are then evaluated from the same CP sums through independent standard formulas, Eqs. (3.4) and (3.11), with the latter also depending on sphaleron conversion and dilution. The flavor-oscillation suppression factor 1/3 in Eq. (3.5) is imported from Ref. [30], which shares author W.-I. Park with the present paper; this is an overlapping-author citation and is load-bearing for the precise BBN value. However, Ref. [30] is a published, externally checkable result and the order-of-magnitude EMPRESS match (Y_R_nu_e ~ 8.8x10^-4, yielding ~3x10^-4 after suppression) does not reduce by construction to the citation. I also flag a separate numerical-consistency issue, not a circularity: with v_phi=2.28x10^10 GeV, m_phi=500 GeV and Mbar=150 GeV, Eqs. (2.8) and (4.6) give Gamma_phi ~ 4.3x10^-16 GeV and T_R ~ 16 GeV for g_R*=10.75, not the quoted 10 GeV; and Eq. (3.4) with sum_i eps_ie=0.0209 and B_i~0.5 gives Y_R_nu_e ~ 1.25x10^-3 rather than 8.77x10^-4. This would shift the benchmark but does not make the derivation circular. The other self-citations ([37,38]) provide background model frameworks and are not the conclusion of the derivation. Overall, no step reduces to its own input by definition; the central claim has independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 8 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central calculation is a conventional model scan. It uses a series of standard formulas (resonant CP asymmetry, sphaleron conversion, seesaw parametrization) and a set of model-specific assumptions about the flaton's cosmological history. The free parameters listed are those actively chosen to satisfy the two observational targets; they are the price paid for the existence proof.

free parameters (7)
  • Complex R-matrix angle theta = -1 + 10^-4 i (benchmark)
    Controls size and flavor structure of CP asymmetries in Eq. (4.2); chosen to satisfy flavor-cancellation conditions.
  • Effective RHN mass Mbar = 150 GeV (benchmark)
    Sets RHN mass scale and decay width; chosen in the quasi-degenerate resonant regime.
  • RHN mass splitting deltaM = 6 x 10^-13 GeV (benchmark)
    Tuned to achieve resonant enhancement of CP asymmetry in Eq. (3.3).
  • Flaton VEV v_phi = 2.28 x 10^10 GeV (benchmark)
    Sets flaton decay rate and reheating temperature; selected to match Y_B^obs.
  • Flaton mass m_phi = 500 GeV (benchmark)
    Together with v_phi fixes T_R/m_phi and hence Y_nu_e and Y_B.
  • Branching fractions B_i^phi = ~0.5 for N1,N2 (assumed)
    Assumed flaton decays dominantly to the two lighter RHNs; affects both yields.
  • SUGRA flaton potential constants c0,cT = c0 ~ 10^-2-1, cT ~ 0.1-1
    Set thermal inflation duration and flaton domination; not independently constrained.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption The universe undergoes thermal inflation followed by a flaton-dominated era, with the B-L Higgs held near origin by thermal or Hubble masses.
    Section 2, Eq. (2.1) and Fig. 1; needed to make late-time flaton decay the sole source of asymmetries.
  • domain assumption Heavy RHNs N1,N2 are quasi-degenerate and decay promptly, with no significant inverse-decay washout for M_i >> T_R.
    Section 3.2; used to write Eq. (3.6) and neglect washout.
  • ad hoc to paper Flavor oscillation evolution suppresses Y_nu_e by ~1/3 and preserves sign under the initial conditions listed in Sec. 3.1.
    Eq. (3.5), relying on Ref. [30]; this transfer function is load-bearing and not independently derived in this paper.
  • standard math Standard resonant leptogenesis CP asymmetry formula Eq. (3.3) including self-energy and vertex diagrams.
    Taken from Refs. [7,39]; basis for all CP asymmetry values.
  • standard math Sphaleron conversion coefficient 28/79 above T_sp.
    Eq. (3.6) from Ref. [41].
  • standard math Type-I seesaw and Casas-Ibarra parametrization with one massless light neutrino and R parametrized by theta.
    Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.4).
  • domain assumption Flaton decays dominantly to N1,N2 and not to other SM states.
    Eq. (3.2) and branching-ratio setup; not explicitly derived from the full B-L model.
  • domain assumption Normal hierarchy only; inverted hierarchy excluded by an unspecified numerical search.
    Final paragraph of Sec. 4; no explicit scan results or proof given.
invented entities (2)
  • B-L Higgs/flaton phi no independent evidence
    purpose: Thermal inflation, flaton-domination, and late-time decay to RHNs producing both asymmetries.
    Introduced as a complex U(1)_{B-L} Higgs with flat potential; not directly observed and no mass or VEV prediction tied to laboratory data.
  • Heavy right-handed neutrinos N1,N2 no independent evidence
    purpose: Resonant decays generate CP asymmetries; N3 decoupled.
    Standard seesaw additions, no direct detection; masses chosen quasi-degenerate at ~150 GeV with tiny splitting.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 243 in / 13826 out tokens · 197463 ms · 2026-08-04T16:28:55.941388+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cogenesis of baryon and lepton number asymmetries matching the EMPRESS Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JL2ZJHID

@misc{pith2026250913098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cogenesis of baryon and lepton number asymmetries matching the EMPRESS Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JL2ZJHID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.13098}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We show that a simple supersymmetric $U(1)_{B-L}$ extension of the standard model can explain simultaneously the large electron neutrino asymmetry hinted by the recent EMPRESS data as well as the observed tiny baryon asymmetry via the resonant leptogenesis mechanism. The condensation of $B-L$ Higgs dominating the universe at its decay is the sole source for these generation processes. Here, the infrequent decays of the $B-L$ Higgs to heavy right-handed neutrinos and successive prompt decays of these right-handed neutrinos around the electroweak phase transition produce the observed baryon asymmetry while the complete decay of the same $B-L$ Higgs at a later epoch leads to a large lepton number asymmetry. The right amounts of both asymmetries are found to be obtained for the symmetry breaking scale $v_\phi \sim 10^{10}~{\rm GeV}$. Moreover, in a close connection to the positivity of both asymmetries, seemingly only the normal mass hierarchy of light neutrino species works. Finally, the gravitational wave background from the topologically stable strong type-I cosmic strings, generated from the breaking of $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry, can be within the reach of future experiments such as ultimate DECIGO.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 47 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Mossa et al.,The baryon density of the Universe from an improved rate of deuterium burning,Nature587(2020) 210

    V. Mossa et al.,The baryon density of the Universe from an improved rate of deuterium burning,Nature587(2020) 210

    2020

  2. [2]

    Pisanti, G

    O. Pisanti, G. Mangano, G. Miele and P. Mazzella,Primordial Deuterium after LUNA: concordances and error budget,JCAP04(2021) 020 [2011.11537]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K.A. Olive and B.D. Fields,Probing physics beyond the standard model: limits from BBN and the CMB independently and combined,JCAP10(2022) 046 [2207.13133]. [4]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209] [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [5]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45

    1986

  5. [6]

    Luty,Baryogenesis via leptogenesis,Phys

    M.A. Luty,Baryogenesis via leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. D45(1992) 455

    1992

  6. [7]

    Pilaftsis,CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos,Phys

    A. Pilaftsis,CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D 56(1997) 5431 [hep-ph/9707235]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  7. [8]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a rate of one out of 109 muon decays?,Physics Letters B67(1977) 421

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a rate of one out of 109 muon decays?,Physics Letters B67(1977) 421

    1977

  8. [9]

    Yanagida,Horizontal symmetry and mass of thetquark,Phys

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal symmetry and mass of thetquark,Phys. Rev. D20(1979) 2986

    1979

  9. [10]

    Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf. Proc. C7902131 (1979) 95. – 15 –

    1979

  10. [11]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,Conf. Proc. C790927(1979) 315 [1306.4669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  11. [12]

    Mohapatra and G

    R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c,Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  12. [13]

    Schechter and J.W.F

    J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle,Neutrino masses in su(2) N u(1) theories,Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  13. [14]

    ’t Hooft,Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,Phys

    G. ’t Hooft,Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,Phys. Rev. Lett.37(1976) 8

    1976

  14. [15]

    Manton,Topology in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,Phys

    N.S. Manton,Topology in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,Phys. Rev. D28(1983) 2019

    1983

  15. [16]

    Klinkhamer and N.S

    F.R. Klinkhamer and N.S. Manton,A Saddle Point Solution in the Weinberg-Salam Theory, Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 2212

    1984

  16. [17]

    Arnold and L.D

    P.B. Arnold and L.D. McLerran,Sphalerons, Small Fluctuations and Baryon Number Violation in Electroweak Theory,Phys. Rev. D36(1987) 581

    1987

  17. [18]

    Khlebnikov and M.E

    S.Y. Khlebnikov and M.E. Shaposhnikov,The Statistical Theory of Anomalous Fermion Number Nonconservation,Nucl. Phys. B308(1988) 885

    1988

  18. [19]

    Mottola and A

    E. Mottola and A. Wipf,UNSUPPRESSED FERMION NUMBER VIOLATION AT HIGH TEMPERATURE: AN O(3) MODEL,Phys. Rev. D39(1989) 588

    1989

  19. [20]

    Matsumoto et al.,EMPRESS

    A. Matsumoto et al.,EMPRESS. VIII. A New Determination of Primordial He Abundance with Extremely Metal-poor Galaxies: A Suggestion of the Lepton Asymmetry and Implications for the Hubble Tension,Astrophys. J.941(2022) 167 [2203.09617]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [21]

    Yanagisawa et al.,EMPRESS

    H. Yanagisawa et al.,EMPRESS. XV. A New Determination of the Primordial Helium Abundance Suggesting a Moderately LowY P Value,2506.24050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [22]

    Escudero, A

    M. Escudero, A. Ibarra and V. Maura,Primordial lepton asymmetries in the precision cosmology era: Current status and future sensitivities from BBN and the CMB,Phys. Rev. D 107(2023) 035024 [2208.03201]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [23]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Murai,Lepton asymmetric universe,JCAP08(2022) 041 [2203.09713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [24]

    Kasuya, M

    S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki and K. Murai,Enhancement of second-order gravitational waves at Q-ball decay,JCAP05(2023) 053 [2212.13370]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Casas, W.Y

    A. Casas, W.Y. Cheng and G. Gelmini,Generation of large lepton asymmetries,Nucl. Phys. B538(1999) 297 [hep-ph/9709289]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  25. [26]

    Borah and A

    D. Borah and A. Dasgupta,Large neutrino asymmetry from TeV scale leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 035015 [2206.14722]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    Bhandari, A

    D. Bhandari, A. Datta and A. Sil,Leptogenesis from a phase transition in a dynamical vacuum,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 115008 [2312.13157]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [28]

    ChoeJo, K

    Y. ChoeJo, K. Enomoto, Y. Kim and H.-S. Lee,Refined approaches in second leptogenesis for the baryon-lepton asymmetry discrepancy,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 055026 [2406.19694]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [29]

    Borah, N

    D. Borah, N. Das and I. Saha,Large neutrino asymmetry from forbidden decay of dark matter,2410.00096

    arXiv

  29. [30]

    Barenboim, W.H

    G. Barenboim, W.H. Kinney and W.-I. Park,Resurrection of large lepton number asymmetries from neutrino flavor oscillations,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 043506 [1609.01584]. – 16 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [31]

    Barenboim, W.H

    G. Barenboim, W.H. Kinney and W.-I. Park,Flavor versus mass eigenstates in neutrino asymmetries: implications for cosmology,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 590 [1609.03200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [32]

    Lazarides, C

    G. Lazarides, C. Panagiotakopoulos and Q. Shafi,Baryogenesis and the Gravitino Problem in Superstring Models,Phys. Rev. Lett.56(1986) 557

    1986

  32. [33]

    Lazarides, C

    G. Lazarides, C. Panagiotakopoulos and Q. Shafi,Magnetic Monopoles From Superstring Models,Phys. Rev. Lett.58(1987) 1707

    1987

  33. [34]

    Lyth and E.D

    D.H. Lyth and E.D. Stewart,Thermal inflation and the moduli problem,Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 1784 [hep-ph/9510204]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  34. [35]

    Jeong, K

    D.-h. Jeong, K. Kadota, W.-I. Park and E.D. Stewart,Modular cosmology, thermal inflation, baryogenesis and predictions for particle accelerators,JHEP11(2004) 046 [hep-ph/0406136]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  35. [36]

    Kim, W.-I

    S. Kim, W.-I. Park and E.D. Stewart,Thermal inflation, baryogenesis and axions,JHEP01 (2009) 015 [0807.3607]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [37]

    Jeong and W.-I

    K.S. Jeong and W.-I. Park,Cosmology with a supersymmetric localB−Lmodel, 2305.11143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [38]

    Maji and W.-I

    R. Maji and W.-I. Park,Supersymmetric U(1)B-L flat direction and NANOGrav 15 year data,JCAP01(2024) 015 [2308.11439]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [39]

    Pilaftsis and T.E.J

    A. Pilaftsis and T.E.J. Underwood,Resonant leptogenesis,Nucl. Phys. B692(2004) 303 [hep-ph/0309342]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  39. [40]

    D’Onofrio, K

    M. D’Onofrio, K. Rummukainen and A. Tranberg,Sphaleron Rate in the Minimal Standard Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 141602 [1404.3565]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [41]

    Harvey and M.S

    J.A. Harvey and M.S. Turner,Cosmological baryon and lepton number in the presence of electroweak fermion number violation,Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 3344

    1990

  41. [42]

    Casas and A

    J. Casas and A. Ibarra,Oscillating neutrinos andµ→e, γ,Nuclear Physics B618(2001) 171

    2001

  42. [43]

    Martin,A Supersymmetry primer,Adv

    S.P. Martin,A Supersymmetry primer,Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18(1998) 1 [hep-ph/9709356]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  43. [44]

    Esteban, M.C

    I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J.P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz,NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP12 (2024) 216 [2410.05380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [45]

    Kibble,Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,J

    T.W.B. Kibble,Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,J. Phys. A9(1976) 1387

    1976

  45. [46]

    Cui, S.P

    Y. Cui, S.P. Martin, D.E. Morrissey and J.D. Wells,Cosmic Strings from Supersymmetric Flat Directions,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 043528 [0709.0950]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [47]

    Vachaspati and A

    T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin,Gravitational Radiation from Cosmic Strings,Phys. Rev. D 31(1985) 3052

    1985

  47. [48]

    Vilenkin and E.P.S

    A. Vilenkin and E.P.S. Shellard,Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects, Cambridge University Press (7, 2000)

    2000

  48. [49]

    Vanchurin, K.D

    V. Vanchurin, K.D. Olum and A. Vilenkin,Scaling of cosmic string loops,Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 063527 [gr-qc/0511159]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  49. [50]

    Ringeval, M

    C. Ringeval, M. Sakellariadou and F. Bouchet,Cosmological evolution of cosmic string loops, JCAP02(2007) 023 [astro-ph/0511646]. – 17 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  50. [51]

    Olum and V

    K.D. Olum and V. Vanchurin,Cosmic string loops in the expanding Universe,Phys. Rev. D 75(2007) 063521 [astro-ph/0610419]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [52]

    Blanco-Pillado, K.D

    J.J. Blanco-Pillado, K.D. Olum and B. Shlaer,The number of cosmic string loops,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 023512 [1309.6637]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [53]

    Blanco-Pillado and K.D

    J.J. Blanco-Pillado and K.D. Olum,Stochastic gravitational wave background from smoothed cosmic string loops,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 104046 [1709.02693]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [54]

    Y. Cui, M. Lewicki, D.E. Morrissey and J.D. Wells,Probing the pre-BBN universe with gravitational waves from cosmic strings,JHEP01(2019) 081 [1808.08968]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [55]

    Olmez, V

    S. Olmez, V. Mandic and X. Siemens,Gravitational-Wave Stochastic Background from Kinks and Cusps on Cosmic Strings,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 104028 [1004.0890]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  55. [56]

    Auclair et al.,Probing the gravitational wave background from cosmic strings with LISA, JCAP04(2020) 034 [1909.00819]

    P. Auclair et al.,Probing the gravitational wave background from cosmic strings with LISA, JCAP04(2020) 034 [1909.00819]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [57]

    Y. Cui, M. Lewicki and D.E. Morrissey,Gravitational Wave Bursts as Harbingers of Cosmic Strings Diluted by Inflation,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 211302 [1912.08832]. [58]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRAcollaboration,Constraints on Cosmic Strings Using Data from the Third Advanced LIGO–Virgo Observing Run,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 241102 [2101.12248]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [59]

    Blanco-Pillado and K.D

    J.J. Blanco-Pillado and K.D. Olum,Form of cosmic string cusps,Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 063508 [gr-qc/9810005] [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 103, 029902 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  58. [60]

    Matsunami, L

    D. Matsunami, L. Pogosian, A. Saurabh and T. Vachaspati,Decay of Cosmic String Loops Due to Particle Radiation,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 201301 [1903.05102]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [61]

    Auclair, D.A

    P. Auclair, D.A. Steer and T. Vachaspati,Particle emission and gravitational radiation from cosmic strings: observational constraints,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 083511 [1911.12066]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [62]

    Bartolo et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer LISA

    N. Bartolo et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. IV: Probing inflation with gravitational waves,JCAP12(2016) 026 [1610.06481]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [63]

    Crowder and N.J

    J. Crowder and N.J. Cornish,Beyond LISA: Exploring future gravitational wave missions, Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 083005 [gr-qc/0506015]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  62. [64]

    Kudoh, A

    H. Kudoh, A. Taruya, T. Hiramatsu and Y. Himemoto,Detecting a gravitational-wave background with next-generation space interferometers,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 064006 [gr-qc/0511145]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  63. [65]

    Kuroyanagi, K

    S. Kuroyanagi, K. Nakayama and S. Saito,Prospects for determination of thermal history after inflation with future gravitational wave detectors,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 123513 [1110.4169]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [66]

    Corbin and N.J

    V. Corbin and N.J. Cornish,Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2435 [gr-qc/0512039]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  65. [67]

    Sesana et al.,Unveiling the gravitational universe atµ-Hz frequencies,Exper

    A. Sesana et al.,Unveiling the gravitational universe atµ-Hz frequencies,Exper. Astron.51 (2021) 1333 [1908.11391]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [68]

    Janssen et al.,Gravitational wave astronomy with the SKA,PoSAASKA14(2015) 037 [1501.00127]

    G. Janssen et al.,Gravitational wave astronomy with the SKA,PoSAASKA14(2015) 037 [1501.00127]. [69]DECIGOcollaboration,Current status of DECIGO and B-DECIGO, . – 18 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  67. [70]

    Yamamoto,Phase Transition Associated With Intermediate Gauge Symmetry Breaking in Superstring Models,Phys

    K. Yamamoto,Phase Transition Associated With Intermediate Gauge Symmetry Breaking in Superstring Models,Phys. Lett. B168(1986) 341

    1986

  68. [71]

    Easther, J.T

    R. Easther, J.T. Giblin, Jr., E.A. Lim, W.-I. Park and E.D. Stewart,Thermal Inflation and the Gravitational Wave Background,JCAP05(2008) 013 [0801.4197]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  69. [72]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M.S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 2837 [astro-ph/9310044]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  70. [73]

    Huber and T

    S.J. Huber and T. Konstandin,Gravitational Wave Production by Collisions: More Bubbles, JCAP0809(2008) 022 [0806.1828]. – 19 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008