Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 66 references

Leptogenesis in Brane-modified cosmology: Signatures in primordial gravitational waves

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stiff pre-radiation epoch rescues high-scale leptogenesis and imprints a blue-tilted gravitational-wave background.

desk verdict A clean, honest parameter-space study linking kination-era leptogenesis to PGW spectra, but the thermal RHN abundance assumption makes the successful-leptogenesis regions shaky. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09814 v1 pith:WIXAIWQ6 submitted 2026-08-10 hep-ph

Amit Dutta Banik , Arnab Paul This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords leptogenesiskinationprimordialgravitationalwavesspectralenergydensitystiffequationofstatebranecosmologyright-handedneutrinobaryonasymmetry
open problems Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

In the standard cosmology, unflavored leptogenesis with a lightest right-handed neutrino mass between $10^9$ and $10^{11}$ GeV produces too little baryon asymmetry because the large decay parameter $K\simeq 600$ washes the lepton number out. The paper argues that inserting one or two stiff epochs ($w>1/3$, kination-like, driven by scalar fields motivated by brane cosmology) before radiation domination fixes this: the faster Hubble expansion suppresses the washout, so the observed baryon asymmetry $Y_B\simeq 8\times10^{-11}$ is reproduced. The same epochs tilt the otherwise flat spectral energy density of primordial gravitational waves to the blue, with a slope fixed by $w$. The identifiable payoff is a concrete target: for a single stiff epoch with $w=0.6$, the whole mass window satisfies the $N_{\rm eff}$ bound and is detectable by DECIGO, turning high-scale leptogenesis into a gravitational-wave astronomy question.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified Hubble rate, hence the factors $J_1$ (single field) and $J_2$ (multiple fields) that enter the Boltzmann equations for the right-handed neutrino and lepton abundances. For one field, $J_1=[1+(M_1/(T_R z))^{3w-1}]^{1/2}$ with $z=M_1/T$; for two fields, $J_2$ additionally carries the ratio $x=T_2/T_R$, so it encodes the length of the second stiff epoch. These factors reduce the effective washout parameter $\Gamma_1/(H_1J_i)$, allowing the produced lepton asymmetry to survive. The companion mechanism is the piecewise power-law spectral energy density of primordial gravitational waves, Eq. (2.27) and Eq. (2.32), whose slope $2(3w-1)/(1+3w)$ between $k_R$ and $k_e$ is the observable fingerprint of the same stiff epochs. The cutoff at $k_e$ uses a regularized ultraviolet tail, and the integrated gravitational-wave energy density feeds the $N_{\rm eff}$ constraint that closes the parameter space.

What would settle it

A future DECIGO-class measurement that sees no blue-tilted gravitational-wave excess above the predicted spectral energy density for the $w=0.6$ benchmarks in the frequency band where the paper predicts the rise would falsify the single-field scenario; a tightened $N_{\rm eff}$ bound that excludes the $T_R$ values in Table 1 would do the same from the other side.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a modified pre-BBN expansion history with stiff equation-of-state epochs makes vanilla (unflavored) leptogenesis viable in a mass range where standard radiation-dominated leptogenesis fails, and simultaneously makes the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum carry a direct record of that history. Concretely, replacing $H_{\rm RD}$ with $H_{\rm NS}=H_{\rm RD}[1+(T/T_R)^{3w-1}]^{1/2}$ in the Boltzmann equations inserts a factor $J_1$ that lowers the effective washout from $\Gamma_1/H_1\simeq600$ to $\Gamma_1/(H_1J_1)$; for $w=0.6$ this yields the correct $Y_B$ for $M_1=10^9$--$10^{11}$ GeV with $T_R/M_1$ between $2.4\times10^{-9}$ and $1.8\times10^{-6}$. The gravitational-wave spectral energy density becomes $\Omega_{\rm GW}(k)=\Omega_{\rm flat}(k/k_R)^{2(3w-1)/(1+3w)}$ between the kination-to-radiation transition scale $k_R$ and the end-of-inflation scale $k_e$, so a stiff epoch is a blue tilt whose slope is set by $w$. Combining both, the paper identifies benchmark points for $w=0.6$ that are simultaneously safe under the $N_{\rm eff}$ bound and above the SNR=10 threshold for DECIGO, and a two-epoch case ($w_2=1$, $w_1=2/3$) in which only a small triangular region near $M_1\simeq10^{10}$ GeV survives both cuts. The claimed novelty is indirect: observing the shape of the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum could probe the same high-scale leptogenesis that cannot be tested in the laboratory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that right-handed neutrinos start in thermal equilibrium and that the usual sphaleron conversion of lepton asymmetry into baryon asymmetry is unchanged, even when radiation domination begins at temperatures as low as a few GeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single stiff epoch with $w=0.6$ makes the whole $M_1=10^9$--$10^{11}$ GeV range of unflavored leptogenesis consistent with the observed baryon asymmetry and safe under the $N_{\rm eff}$ bound, so no flavor model or additional CP source is needed.
  • If DECIGO or a comparable detector measures a blue-tilted stochastic gravitational-wave background with slope $2(3w-1)/(1+3w)$, the value of $w$ read off the slope would identify the equation of state of the pre-radiation universe.
  • For $w=1$ with a single field, no benchmark is simultaneously safe from the $N_{\rm eff}$ bound and observable, so the allowed region is driven toward smaller $w$.
  • In the two-field case, the spectrum has two distinct slopes; observing the break frequency $k_2$ would distinguish one stiff epoch from two, which the baryon abundance alone cannot do.
  • Future detectors with better sensitivity could push the probe to lightest right-handed neutrino masses above $10^{11}$ GeV, making even higher-scale leptogenesis accessible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper assumes equilibrium initial abundance for the right-handed neutrinos, but several successful benchmarks have $T_R$ as low as a few GeV, well below $M_1$; a non-thermal production channel would change the required $T_R/M_1$ and could shift the plotted windows.
  • Because the fast expansion delays charged-lepton Yukawa equilibration, the same mechanism should extend into flavored leptogenesis and relax the bound on $M_1$ even further; the paper explicitly restricts to unflavored leptogenesis.
  • The clean two-slope spectrum predicted for two stiff epochs could be used as a template search in future gravitational-wave data: fitting the frequency of the slope break would directly measure $T_2/T_R$, a parameter that is otherwise invisible in the baryon asymmetry alone.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies an early-universe cosmology in which one or two stiff epochs (equations of state w > 1/3, motivated by D-brane moduli) intervene between inflation and radiation domination. It solves the standard unflavored type-I seesaw leptogenesis Boltzmann equations with the modified Hubble rate, finding that the enhanced expansion suppresses washout and can produce the observed baryon asymmetry for lightest right-handed neutrino masses M1 in the range 10^9-10^11 GeV. It then computes the spectral energy density of primary gravitational waves for the same histories, showing that the stiff epochs imprint a blue tilt, and analyzes detectability by LISA, ET, DECIGO and other proposed detectors together with the Delta N_eff bound. The central combined result is a small region in the two-field case where successful leptogenesis, compatibility with Delta N_eff, and DECIGO detectability overlap.

Significance. If the assumptions are valid, the paper provides a useful joint analysis of two previously known effects: kination-assisted leptogenesis and stiff-era enhancement of the primary gravitational-wave spectrum. The analytic framework for the modified Hubble rates and the piecewise PGW spectra is transparent and reduces to standard limits, and the paper explicitly identifies benchmark points where the two observables overlap. The main novelty is the combination of the leptogenesis requirement with PGW detectability and N_eff constraints, which sharpens the parameter-space statements. However, the leptogenesis half of the analysis relies on an initial-condition assumption that is not established, and the PGW amplitude depends on an unstated inflationary Hubble scale; these issues must be resolved before the central claim can be regarded as robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (2.19)-(2.20), Tables 1-4] The paper assumes Y_N1^ini = Y_N1^eq throughout, but this is not justified in the weak-washout regime actually realized by the benchmark points. The effective decay parameter is K_eff = K/J1 = 600/J1, not K = 600. For BM1 in Table 1 (w = 0.6, M1 = 10^9 GeV, TR/M1 = 2.4e-9), J1(z=1) ~ (M1/TR)^0.4 ~ 2.8e3, so K_eff ~ 0.2, and the other benchmarks also have K_eff < 1. With K_eff < 1, the final lepton asymmetry retains memory of the initial RHN abundance; if the RHN population starts near zero, the yield is set by freeze-in and is strongly suppressed. Note that the source and washout terms in Eq. (2.19) are both suppressed by 1/J1, so the faster expansion does not protect an existing asymmetry; it also suppresses production. The paper should either demonstrate that RHNs are thermalized before or during the stiff epoch (for example by specifying the reheating temperature and comparing the relevant decay and scattering rates with H_NS), or repeat the analysis with Y_N1^ini = 0. This is a decisive check for the successful-leptogenesis regions in Figs. 2, 5 and 7.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.1, Eq. (2.28), Figs. 3-7] The absolute amplitude of the PGW spectrum is never fixed because the inflationary Hubble scale H_e (or equivalently the tensor-to-scalar ratio r) is not stated. Eq. (2.28) gives Omega_GW^flat proportional to H_e^2/M_P^2, and H_e also enters the cutoff scale k_e in Eqs. (2.29), (2.33)-(2.34). Since the SNR curves in Figs. 4 and 7 and the Delta N_eff exclusion lines in Figs. 3, 4, 6 and 7 scale with this amplitude, all the observability statements are conditional on an unstated input. The authors should specify the value of H_e (or r) used for every plot, and should ideally show how the claimed detection regions change when H_e is varied over the allowed range up to the current constraint H_e < 5e13 GeV.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eqs. (2.11)-(2.12)] The mass scale M appearing in the upper bounds on T_rh is never defined; presumably it is the Planck mass or an O(M_P) scale, but this should be stated explicitly for the bounds to be checkable.
  2. [Eqs. (2.4) and (2.8)] The notation for the radiation energy density is inconsistent: Eq. (2.4) writes rho_NS in terms of rho_RD(T_R) with exponent 3w+3, while Eq. (2.8) appears to use rho_RD(T) with exponent 3w1-1. Please define rho_RD(T) explicitly and consistently to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, numerical inputs] The numerical values of the effective degrees of freedom g_* and g_s used in Eqs. (2.28)-(2.29) are not listed; the authors should specify them, especially because T_R can be as low as a few GeV where g_* changes significantly from its high-temperature value.
  4. [Fig. 4 and Sec. 3.1] The text says for w = 0.6 that BM1 'touches' the N_eff-excluded region, while the summary in the same paragraph says all w = 0.6 benchmark points are safe from the N_eff bound; this apparent tension should be clarified.
  5. [Tables 1-4 and Sec. 4] The tables contain only four benchmark points per scenario, but Sec. 4 repeatedly uses global language such as 'the complete parameter space' or 'the entire range'; a denser scan over (M1, TR, w) would better support these statements.
  6. [Abstract and Sec. 4] The PGW spectral shape depends only on the kination equation-of-state history, not directly on the leptogenesis parameters, so phrases such as 'indirect probe of high scale leptogenesis' should be phrased more carefully as a compatibility/model-selection statement rather than a direct probe of leptogenesis.
  7. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'sigle-field' in the Fig. 4 caption and 'Shakharov' in the Introduction; these should be corrected during revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain from the modified Hubble rate to lepton yield and PGW spectral energy density is self-contained, and the benchmark points are parameter scans rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The modified expansion rate H_NS in Eqs. (2.5) and (2.9) follows from rho_NS proportional to a^{-3(1+w)} and comoving entropy conservation, and the leptogenesis Boltzmann equations (2.19)-(2.22) are obtained by substituting H_NS into the standard equations (2.16), producing the J_1 and J_2 factors. The PGW spectral energy density in Eqs. (2.27)-(2.34) is likewise computed from scale-invariant inflationary initial conditions and the same transition temperatures, with no fitted gravitational-wave inputs. The benchmark points of Tables 1-4 are obtained by scanning the free parameters (epsilon, T_R/M_1, T_2/T_R) so that the produced Y_L reproduces the observed Y_B through the standard sphaleron conversion (2.24); the paper uses these points to delineate an allowed region, not to claim a first-principles prediction of Y_B. The 'successful leptogenesis' label is therefore a target condition defining the viable parameter space, rather than a quantity derived from the model and then compared with data. The PGW SED evaluated at those points is an independent derived prediction, and its comparison with N_eff bounds and detector SNRs sets joint constraints instead of closing a logical circle. Self-citations [48] and [56] involve the first author and treat similar fast-expanding or brane cosmologies, but the present Boltzmann equations and J factors are re-derived in the text, so these citations are contextual and not load-bearing. Unsupported physical assumptions, such as the initial thermal RHN abundance in the stiff regime and the unstated inflationary Hubble scale H_e used for the PGW amplitude, create correctness risk and underdetermination, but they are not equation-level circularity because no derived result is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests on three layers: standard cosmology (Friedmann equations, entropy conservation), a standard leptogenesis mechanism (type-I seesaw, unflavored vanilla leptogenesis), and a model-specific early-universe sector (one or two non-interacting stiff scalar fields). The free parameters are the equation-of-state values, the transition temperatures T_R and T2, the decay parameter K, and the unstated inflationary Hubble scale H_e used for the gravitational-wave amplitude. The sphaleron conversion factor and initial thermal RHN abundance are load-bearing assumptions that are not re-derived for the modified expansion.

free parameters (5)
  • w, stiff equation-of-state parameter (single field) = 0.6, 0.8, 1 (scanned)
    Sets the expansion rate during the kination epoch and the blue tilt of the PGW spectrum; no independent derivation in the paper.
  • T_R, transition temperature to radiation domination = See Tables 1-4, e.g. TR/M1 from 1.9e-7 to 1.3e-3
    For each benchmark, T_R/M1 is adjusted so the computed lepton asymmetry times 28/79 matches the observed baryon abundance; this is a fit to data.
  • w1, w2, T2 (or x = T2/TR) for two-field scenario = w2 = 1, w1 = 2/3; x = 10, 100, 1e4, 1e6; T2 derived from x*TR
    Additional stiff epoch parameters scanned to find successful leptogenesis; not measured.
  • H_e (or tensor-to-scalar ratio r) for PGW amplitude = not stated
    Sets the overall flat amplitude Omega_GW,flat in Eq. (2.28) and therefore the SNR curves; the paper never reports the value used in Figs. 3-7.
  • K = Gamma1/H1 = 600 (via M2/M1 = 10) = 600
    Chosen by fixing the RHN mass ratio M2/M1 = 10 and saturating the CP-asymmetry bound; this strong-washout value is an input, not a prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard Friedmann equations and comoving entropy conservation hold during kination epochs.
    Used to derive Eqs. (2.4)-(2.9) and to relate temperatures to scale factors.
  • domain assumption Type-I seesaw with hierarchical right-handed neutrinos and unflavored vanilla leptogenesis is the mechanism for baryogenesis.
    Sets the Boltzmann equations (2.16)-(2.22); no flavor or spectator processes beyond Eq. (2.24) are included.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-interacting scalar fields with stiff equations of state exist after inflation and are motivated by D-brane moduli.
    These fields are the engine of the modified cosmology; their couplings and initial densities are assumed, with string-theory references cited for motivation.
  • domain assumption Sphaleron conversion factor Y_B = (28/79) Y_L remains valid in the modified expansion.
    Applied after Eq. (2.23) for all benchmarks, including those with T_R as low as a few GeV where the enhanced Hubble rate can shift sphaleron freeze-out.
  • domain assumption RHNs start in thermal equilibrium in the Boltzmann solutions.
    Stated in Sec. 3.1; with a strongly enhanced Hubble rate, thermalization is not automatic and could overproduce the asymmetry.
  • domain assumption The PGW SED is exactly flat for modes entering during radiation domination and exactly zero for k > k_e.
    Used in Eqs. (2.27) and (2.32); regularization of the UV tail is cited but not modeled.
invented entities (1)
  • Stiff scalar field(s) driving kination (single or multiple non-interacting moduli)
    purpose: Modifies the expansion history to suppress lepton washout and tilt the PGW spectrum.
    The fields are assumed to exist and to have no couplings except gravity; no direct observational or laboratory evidence is provided, and the string-theory motivation is cited but not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leptogenesis in Brane-modified cosmology: Signatures in primordial gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WIXAIWQ6

@misc{pith2026260809814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leptogenesis in Brane-modified cosmology: Signatures in primordial gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WIXAIWQ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09814}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the implications of brane-inspired modifications of the evolutionary history of the early universe on the process of baryogenesis via leptogenesis. A modified cosmic history alters the evolution of the Boltzmann equations governing lepton asymmetry, providing the possibility of successful leptogenesis in regions of the parameter space inaccessible in the standard cosmological scenario. Furthermore, a modified cosmic history also alters the shape of an otherwise scale-invariant spectral energy density (SED) of primary gravitational waves (PGWs) produced during inflation. This establishes a novel yet indirect probe of high scale leptogenesis scenarios through the observation of the SED of PGWs via future observations. We consider two scenarios in this work with single and multiple epochs of stiff equation of state(s) after inflation and before the epoch of radiation domination. We identify the parameter space where successful leptogenesis is possible, along with the possible observability of the PGWs, hence providing an indirect window into this leptogenesis scenario through PGWs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    S.-L. Chen, A. Dutta Banik, and Z.-K. Liu,Leptogenesis in fast expanding Universe,JCAP03 (2020) 009, [arXiv:1912.07185]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [56]

    Di Marco, A

    A. Di Marco, A. D. Banik, A. Ghoshal, and G. Pradisi,Minimal leptogenesis in brane-inspired cosmology,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 10 103509, [arXiv:2211.11361]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [4]

    Allahverdi et al.,The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe,Open J

    R. Allahverdi et al.,The First Three Seconds: a Review of Possible Expansion Histories of the Early Universe,Open J. Astrophys.4(2021) astro.2006.16182, [arXiv:2006.16182]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [5]

    Spokoiny,Deflationary universe scenario,Phys

    B. Spokoiny,Deflationary universe scenario,Phys. Lett. B315(1993) 40–45, [gr-qc/9306008]

    arXiv 1993

  5. [6]

    Joyce,Electroweak Baryogenesis and the Expansion Rate of the Universe,Phys

    M. Joyce,Electroweak Baryogenesis and the Expansion Rate of the Universe,Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 1875–1878, [hep-ph/9606223]

    arXiv 1997

  6. [7]

    P. G. Ferreira and M. Joyce,Cosmology with a primordial scaling field,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 023503, [astro-ph/9711102]

    arXiv 1998

  7. [8]

    Joyce,Habilitation thesis, 2001

    M. Joyce,Habilitation thesis, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [9]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa,Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves,Class. Quant. Grav.35(2018), no. 16 163001, [arXiv:1801.04268]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 66 references
  1. [10]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982

    1982

  2. [11]

    L. E. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Gravity. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 8, 2009

    2009

  3. [12]

    D.-G. Wang, Y. Zhang, and J.-W. Chen,Vacuum and gravitons of relic gravitational waves and the regularization of the spectrum and energy-momentum tensor,Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 4 044033, [arXiv:1512.03134]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [13]

    S. Pi, M. Sasaki, A. Wang, and J. Wang,Revisiting the ultraviolet tail of the primordial gravitational wave,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 10 103529, [arXiv:2407.06066]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Hoory, J

    A. Hoory, J. Martin, A. Paul, and L. Sriramkumar,Primary gravitational waves at high frequencies. Part I. Origin of suppression in the power spectrum,JCAP05(2026) 080, [arXiv:2512.03959]

    2026 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Hoory, J

    A. Hoory, J. Martin, A. Paul, and L. Sriramkumar,Primary gravitational waves at high frequencies II: Emergence of the exponential cut-off in the power spectrum,arXiv:2605.18286

    arXiv

  7. [16]

    Giovannini,Gravitational waves constraints on postinflationary phases stiffer than radiation,Phys

    M. Giovannini,Gravitational waves constraints on postinflationary phases stiffer than radiation,Phys. Rev.D58(1998) 083504, [hep-ph/9806329]

    1998 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Giovannini,Stochastic backgrounds of relic gravitons: a theoretical appraisal,PMC Phys

    M. Giovannini,Stochastic backgrounds of relic gravitons: a theoretical appraisal,PMC Phys. A 4(2010) 1, [arXiv:0901.3026]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Riazuelo and J.-P

    A. Riazuelo and J.-P. Uzan,Quintessence and gravitational waves,Phys. Rev.D62(2000) 083506, [astro-ph/0004156]

    2000 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Sahni, M

    V. Sahni, M. Sami, and T. Souradeep,Relic gravity waves from brane world inflation,Phys. Rev.D65(2002) 023518, [gr-qc/0105121]

    2002 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Seto and J

    N. Seto and J. Yokoyama,Probing the equation of state of the early universe with a space laser interferometer,J. Phys. Soc. Jap.72(2003) 3082–3086, [gr-qc/0305096]

    2003 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Tashiro, T

    H. Tashiro, T. Chiba, and M. Sasaki,Reheating after quintessential inflation and gravitational waves,Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004) 1761–1772, [gr-qc/0307068]

    2004 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Nakayama, S

    K. Nakayama, S. Saito, Y. Suwa, and J. Yokoyama,Space laser interferometers can determine the thermal history of the early Universe,Phys. Rev.D77(2008) 124001, [arXiv:0802.2452]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Nakayama, S

    K. Nakayama, S. Saito, Y. Suwa, and J. Yokoyama,Probing reheating temperature of the universe with gravitational wave background,JCAP06(2008) 020, [arXiv:0804.1827]

    2008 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Durrer and J

    R. Durrer and J. Hasenkamp,Testing Superstring Theories with Gravitational Waves,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 064027, [arXiv:1105.5283]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Kuroyanagi, K

    S. Kuroyanagi, K. Nakayama, and S. Saito,Prospects for determination of thermal history after – 20 – inflation with future gravitational wave detectors,Phys. Rev.D84(2011) 123513, [arXiv:1110.4169]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Kuroyanagi, T

    S. Kuroyanagi, T. Chiba, and T. Takahashi,Probing the Universe through the Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background,JCAP1811(2018), no. 11 038, [arXiv:1807.00786]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Jinno, T

    R. Jinno, T. Moroi, and K. Nakayama,Probing dark radiation with inflationary gravitational waves,Phys. Rev.D86(2012) 123502, [arXiv:1208.0184]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [28]

    P. D. Lasky et al.,Gravitational-wave cosmology across 29 decades in frequency,Phys. Rev.X6 (2016), no. 1 011035, [arXiv:1511.05994]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [29]

    B. Li, P. R. Shapiro, and T. Rindler-Daller,Bose-Einstein-condensed scalar field dark matter and the gravitational wave background from inflation: new cosmological constraints and its detectability by LIGO,Phys. Rev.D96(2017), no. 6 063505, [arXiv:1611.07961]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Saikawa and S

    K. Saikawa and S. Shirai,Primordial gravitational waves, precisely: The role of thermodynamics in the Standard Model,JCAP05(2018) 035, [arXiv:1803.01038]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [31]

    R. R. Caldwell, T. L. Smith, and D. G. E. Walker,Using a Primordial Gravitational Wave Background to Illuminate New Physics,Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 4 043513, [arXiv:1812.07577]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Bernal and F

    N. Bernal and F. Hajkarim,Primordial Gravitational Waves in Nonstandard Cosmologies, Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 6 063502, [arXiv:1905.10410]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [33]

    D. G. Figueroa and E. H. Tanin,Ability of LIGO and LISA to probe the equation of state of the early Universe,JCAP08(2019) 011, [arXiv:1905.11960]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [34]

    D’Eramo and K

    F. D’Eramo and K. Schmitz,Imprint of a scalar era on the primordial spectrum of gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. Research.1(2019) 013010, [arXiv:1904.07870]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [35]

    M. R. Haque, D. Maity, T. Paul, and L. Sriramkumar,Decoding the phases of early and late time reheating through imprints on primordial gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 6 063513, [arXiv:2105.09242]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [36]

    B. Li, T. Rindler-Daller, and P. R. Shapiro,Cosmological Constraints on Bose-Einstein-Condensed Scalar Field Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D89(2014), no. 8 083536, [arXiv:1310.6061]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Li and P

    B. Li and P. R. Shapiro,Precision cosmology and the stiff-amplified gravitational-wave background from inflation: NANOGrav, Advanced LIGO-Virgo and the Hubble tension,JCAP 10(2021) 024, [arXiv:2107.12229]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45–47

    1986

  30. [39]

    Buchmuller, P

    W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari, and M. Plumacher,Leptogenesis for pedestrians,Annals Phys.315 (2005) 305–351, [hep-ph/0401240]

    2005 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Anisimov, S

    A. Anisimov, S. Blanchet, and P. Di Bari,Viability of Dirac phase leptogenesis,JCAP04 (2008) 033, [arXiv:0707.3024]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi, and Y. Nir,Leptogenesis,Phys. Rept.466(2008) 105–177, [arXiv:0802.2962]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Buchmuller, R

    W. Buchmuller, R. D. Peccei, and T. Yanagida,Leptogenesis as the origin of matter,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55(2005) 311–355, [hep-ph/0502169]

    2005 arXiv

  34. [43]

    S. Baek, P. Ko, and W.-I. Park,Singlet Portal Extensions of the Standard Seesaw Models to a Dark Sector with Local Dark Symmetry,JHEP07(2013) 013, [arXiv:1303.4280]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Davoudiasl and Y

    H. Davoudiasl and Y. Zhang,Baryon Number Violation via Majorana Neutrinos in the Early Universe, at the LHC, and Deep Underground,Phys. Rev. D92(2015), no. 1 016005, – 21 – [arXiv:1504.07244]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Hern´ andez, M

    P. Hern´ andez, M. Kekic, J. L´ opez-Pav´ on, J. Racker, and J. Salvado,Testable Baryogenesis in Seesaw Models,JHEP08(2016) 157, [arXiv:1606.06719]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Guo, Y.-Y

    H.-K. Guo, Y.-Y. Li, T. Liu, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. Shu,Lepton-Flavored Electroweak Baryogenesis,Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 11 115034, [arXiv:1609.09849]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Dutta, C

    B. Dutta, C. S. Fong, E. Jimenez, and E. Nardi,A cosmological pathway to testable leptogenesis,JCAP10(2018) 025, [arXiv:1804.07676]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [49]

    D’Eramo, N

    F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez, and S. Profumo,When the Universe Expands Too Fast: Relentless Dark Matter,JCAP05(2017) 012, [arXiv:1703.04793]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Di Marco, G

    A. Di Marco, G. Pradisi, and P. Cabella,Inflationary scale, reheating scale, and pre-BBN cosmology with scalar fields,Phys. Rev. D98(2018), no. 12 123511, [arXiv:1807.05916]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Maharana and I

    A. Maharana and I. Zavala,Postinflationary scalar tensor cosmology and inflationary parameters,Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 12 123518, [arXiv:1712.07071]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Koivisto, D

    T. Koivisto, D. Wills, and I. Zavala,Dark D-brane Cosmology,JCAP06(2014) 036, [arXiv:1312.2597]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [53]

    J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra,Oscillating neutrinos andµ→e, γ,Nucl. Phys. B618(2001) 171–204, [hep-ph/0103065]. [54]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, M. Tanabashi et al.,Review of Particle Physics,Phys. Rev. D98(2018), no. 3 030001. [55]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, C. Patrign...

    2001 arXiv

  44. [57]

    Opferkuch, P

    T. Opferkuch, P. Schwaller, and B. A. Stefanek,Ricci Reheating,JCAP07(2019) 016, [arXiv:1905.06823]. [58]LISACollaboration, P. Amaro-Seoane et al.,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv:1702.00786

    2019 arXiv

  45. [59]

    Baker et al.,The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna: Unveiling the Millihertz Gravitational Wave Sky,arXiv:1907.06482

    J. Baker et al.,The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna: Unveiling the Millihertz Gravitational Wave Sky,arXiv:1907.06482

    1907 arXiv

  46. [60]

    Crowder and N

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

    2005 arXiv

  47. [61]

    Corbin and N

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish,Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2435–2446, [gr-qc/0512039]

    2006 arXiv

  48. [62]

    G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner, and E. S. Phinney,Laser interferometry for the big bang observer,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 4887–4894. [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 23, 7361 (2006)]

    2006

  49. [63]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura,Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space, Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 221103, [astro-ph/0108011]

    2001 arXiv

  50. [64]

    Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,Class

    S. Kawamura et al.,The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) S125–S132

    2006

  51. [65]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Seto,Detector configuration of DECIGO/BBO and identification of – 22 – cosmological neutron-star binaries,Phys. Rev.D83(2011) 044011, [arXiv:1101.3940]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D95,no.10,109901(2017)]. [66]LIGO ScientificCollaboration, B. P. Abbott et al.,Exploring ...

    2011 arXiv

  52. [67]

    Reitze et al.,Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitze et al.,Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO,Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51(2019), no. 7 035, [arXiv:1907.04833]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [68]

    Punturo et al.,The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

    M. Punturo et al.,The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 194002

    2010

  54. [69]

    Hild et al.,Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class

    S. Hild et al.,Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011) 094013, [arXiv:1012.0908]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [70]

    Sathyaprakash et al.,Scientific Objectives of Einstein Telescope,Class

    B. Sathyaprakash et al.,Scientific Objectives of Einstein Telescope,Class. Quant. Grav.29 (2012) 124013, [arXiv:1206.0331]. [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 30, 079501 (2013)]. [71]ETCollaboration, M. Maggiore et al.,Science Case for the Einstein Telescope,JCAP03 (2020) 050, [arXiv...

    2012 arXiv

  56. [72]

    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), no. 3 1333–1383, [arXiv:1908.11391]. [73]LIGO ScientificCollaboration, G. M. Harry,Advanced LIGO: The next generation of gravitational wave detectors,Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 0...

    2021 arXiv

  57. [77]

    Thrane and J

    E. Thrane and J. D. Romano,Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds,Phys. Rev. D88(2013), no. 12 124032, [arXiv:1310.5300]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [78]

    Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA

    C. Caprini et al.,Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions,JCAP04(2016) 001, [arXiv:1512.06239]. – 23 –

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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