Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

This paper argues that leptogenesis can succeed with reheating temperatures as low as ~1 GeV, provided the inflaton potential is steeper than quadratic, because heavy right-handed neutrino production then stops before sphaleron freeze-out a

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

2026-08-03 01:57 UTC pith:AT7BBABG

load-bearing objection A careful, internally consistent study of low-T_rh leptogenesis in monomial potentials that gets the scaling right but leans hard on perturbative reheating — worth refereeing, and worth reading with a grain of salt given the authors' own preheating caveat. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09282 v2 pith:AT7BBABG submitted 2026-07-10 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Leptogenesis with sub-electroweak-scale reheating temperature

Basabendu Barman , Arindam Basu , Debasish Borah , Nayan Das This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords leptogenesisreheatingright-handed neutrinossphaleron freeze-outmonomial inflaton potentialbaryon asymmetryprimordial gravitational wavesnon-thermal leptogenesis
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 asks how low the reheating temperature after inflation can be pushed while still generating the observed baryon asymmetry through leptogenesis. It finds that for a monomial inflaton potential V(ϕ)∝ϕ^n with n=4 or n=6, non-thermal production of right-handed neutrinos during reheating can reproduce the observed asymmetry even when the reheating temperature is as low as ~1 GeV, far below the ~130 GeV sphaleron freeze-out temperature. For n=2 the final asymmetry is always underproduced at such low temperatures because entropy produced after sphalerons freeze out dilutes it away. For n=4 the predicted asymmetry is nearly independent of the reheating temperature, and for n=6 it scales as T_rh^{-1/3}; an alternative scenario where the inflaton decays exclusively into neutrinos makes the final asymmetry largely independent of the inflaton–neutrino coupling. The paper also shows that the same parameter regions produce distinctive gravitational-wave spectra — blue-tilted for direct reheating, red-tilted for neutrino-dominated reheating — that future observatories could test.

Core claim

The central discovery is a mechanism for evading the entropy-dilution problem of low-temperature leptogenesis. For n>2, the effective inflaton mass m_ϕ(a) decreases with expansion; once it drops below twice the lightest right-handed neutrino mass at a=a⋆, direct inflaton decay into RHNs ceases. Because a⋆ lies before sphaleron freeze-out, the B−L asymmetry has already been generated and converted while sphalerons are active, and the remaining entropy production merely redshifts the comoving asymmetry without the extra (T_rh/T_fo)^5 dilution that kills the n=2 case. Equation (4.9) gives the resulting final baryon asymmetry: independent of T_rh for n=4 and proportional to T_rh^{-1/3} for n=6.

What carries the argument

The monomial inflaton potential V(ϕ)=λ ϕ^n/Λ^{n-4}, with equation-of-state parameter w=(n-2)/(n+2). For n≠2 the inflaton mass is time-dependent, m_ϕ(a)∝a^{-3(n-2)/(n+2)}, which makes the ϕ→NN decay channel kinematically shut off at a⋆. That cutoff — before sphaleron freeze-out — is the load-bearing clock of the scenario. The analysis also tracks the ratio Γ_sph/H throughout reheating using the lattice sphaleron rate of the minimal Standard Model, which determines when the lepton asymmetry is converted to baryons.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result assumes the inflaton condensate decays perturbatively and its products thermalize instantaneously for n>2, so that RHN production really stops at a⋆; the paper notes that for n≳3 fragmentation and parametric resonance push the equation of state toward radiation, and for couplings as large as 0.4 non-perturbative production is unavoidable.

What would settle it

A lattice simulation of post-inflationary dynamics for V∝ϕ^4 with y_ϕN≈10^-8: if the inflaton fragments and the effective equation of state becomes w≈1/3 before the scale factor a⋆ where m_ϕ=2M_1, then RHN production does not terminate at a⋆, the post-freeze-out entropy dilution returns, and the predicted baryon asymmetry drops below the observed value.

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

If this is right

  • Reheating temperatures as low as ~1 GeV can be compatible with successful leptogenesis for n=4 and n=6 potentials, provided RHNs are produced non-thermally and the inflaton–RHN coupling is tuned to the contours in Figs. 19–20.
  • For n=4 the final baryon asymmetry is essentially independent of T_rh, so the scenario predicts a flat plateau in the [y_ϕN, T_rh] plane; for n=6 the asymmetry decreases only mildly with T_rh.
  • The quadratic-potential case (n=2) is excluded for sub-electroweak reheating in Scenario A: entropy generated after sphaleron freeze-out dilutes the asymmetry by a factor ~(T_rh/T_fo)^5.
  • In Scenario B, the baryon asymmetry is largely insensitive to the inflaton–RHN coupling y_ϕN, removing a source of fine-tuning, but requires y_ϕN as large as ~0.4 for n=6.
  • Successful parameter points with n=4 and n=6 in Scenario A produce a blue-tilted inflationary gravitational-wave background (Ω_GW ∝ f^{(n-4)/(n-1)}) within reach of future detectors; Scenario B's intermediate matter domination produces a red tilt that is much harder to observe.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If inflaton fragmentation and preheating drive the equation of state toward w=1/3 before a⋆, the steep-potential advantage could shrink or vanish; a lattice study of ϕ^4 reheating with y_ϕN≈10^-8 would settle this.
  • The T_rh-independence of the n=4 result suggests a robust target: future gravitational-wave observations at frequencies between f_rh and f_max could test this scenario without knowing the exact reheating temperature.
  • The same entropy-dilution logic should apply to other non-thermal asymmetry mechanisms during reheating: any out-of-equilibrium CP-violating source produced before sphaleron freeze-out could inherit the n>2 benefit.
  • Since the paper leaves flavour effects for future work, including charged-lepton Yukawa equilibration during reheating could change the CP-asymmetry efficiency and shift the allowed contours; this is a natural extension for low-T_rh scenarios.

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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper studies non-thermal leptogenesis during post-inflationary reheating for reheating temperatures below the sphaleron freeze-out temperature, using a monomial inflaton potential V(φ) ∼ φ^n. In Scenario A the inflaton decays perturbatively into SM bosons/fermions (with a subdominant RHN channel), and in Scenario B the inflaton decays exclusively into RHNs, one of which is long-lived and eventually reheats the Universe. The authors derive analytic scaling laws for the final baryon asymmetry: for n=2 the asymmetry is always underproduced when T_rh ≲ O(100) GeV, for n=4 it is essentially T_rh-independent, and for n=6 it scales as T_rh^{-1/3} (Eq. (4.9)); in Scenario B the asymmetry is largely insensitive to the inflaton–RHN Yukawa coupling (Eq. (4.14)). They validate these estimates by numerically solving coupled Boltzmann equations and map viable parameter regions in the [T_rh, y_φN] plane. They also compute the inflationary gravitational-wave spectrum and identify future GW observatories that could probe the scenario. The closing section explicitly lists limitations: for n≳3 inflaton fragmentation drives the equation of state toward w=1/3, non-perturbative preheating becomes unavoidable, and Scenario B requires y_φN up to 0.4, beyond the perturbative regime.

Significance. If the perturbative-reheating assumptions were justified, the paper would establish a physically interesting mechanism: for n>2, RHN production from inflaton decay terminates before sphaleron freeze-out, so the generated B−L asymmetry avoids the post-freeze-out entropy dilution that suppresses the n=2 case. This would open up successful leptogenesis at T_rh as low as ~1 GeV, well below the conventional sphaleron-freeze-out scale. The analytic estimates are internally consistent, the numerical solutions reproduce the claimed scalings, and the Casas–Ibarra parameters are fixed by neutrino oscillation data rather than fitted to the BAU, so there is no hidden circularity. The GW predictions are concrete and falsifiable. However, the central quantitative claims—especially the n=6 scaling and the Scenario B viable contours—rest on a homogeneous-condensate, perturbative-decay treatment that the authors themselves concede is unreliable for the couplings and potentials considered. The significance is therefore conditional: the paper identifies a promising mechanism, but its headline results are not yet established for the parameter regions it emphasizes.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6 (Conclusions, limitations) and §4.1.2, Eqs. (2.16), (2.17), (4.9)] The n>2 results depend on the homogeneous-condensate equation of state w=(n−2)/(n+2), through the scaling m_φ(a)∝a^{-3(n−2)/(n+2)} (Eq. (2.16)), the kinematic endpoint a_* (Eq. (2.17)), and the dilution factor in Eq. (4.9). The authors state in §6 that for n≳3 inflaton fragmentation and parametric resonance drive w→1/3. If w→1/3 before RHN production ends, then m_φ(a), a_*, and the dilution factor all change; the n=6 result Y_B∝T_rh^{-1/3} would be replaced by a different scaling, plausibly closer to the n=4 behavior. This is not a small correction: the central claim that steeper potentials evade the post-freeze-out entropy dilution is sensitive to exactly this epoch. The remark in §6 that the final stage of energy transfer still requires perturbative decays addresses only the completion of reheating, not the earlier epoch during which RHNs are produced and the asymmetry is generated. Si
  2. [§2.2.2, §4.2, Figs. 8, 16, 17, 20; §6] Scenario B requires y_φN up to 0.4 for n=6 (Figs. 8, 16, 17 and the contours in Fig. 20). The closing limitations explicitly state that for n>2 non-perturbative effects are unavoidable and that perturbative fermionic reheating is valid only for couplings ≲10^{-5} (for n=2). Thus the Boltzmann equations (4.1), Eq. (4.14), and the viable-region contours all use a decay width Γ_φ→NN that is invalid in the very parameter region where the paper predicts successful leptogenesis. Non-perturbative production may populate RHNs more efficiently or deplete the condensate differently, shifting the coupling required to obtain Y_B^obs and potentially altering the conclusion that the final asymmetry is largely y_φN-independent. This is a self-identified limitation, but it is load-bearing: the Scenario B mechanism is presented for y_φN values where the perturbative treatment is not self-consistent.
  3. [§2.2.1, Eqs. (2.19), (2.22), (2.20), (2.24); §3] The temperature evolution during reheating, and hence the sphaleron-equilibrium condition Γ_sph/H used throughout §3–§4, assumes instantaneous thermalization of the inflaton decay products. For very low T_rh (down to ~1 GeV, and even ~4 MeV at the BBN boundary), the thermalization of the decay products is not obviously instantaneous; a delay in thermalization would modify T(a), T_max, and the sphaleron-rate ratios (3.3)–(3.5). Since the paper’s main distinction from standard low-reheating leptogenesis is the non-standard T(a) during reheating, this assumption should be quantified or justified with the relevant relaxation/scattering rates, at least in the low-T_rh corners of Figs. 19–20. As written, the statement 'considering instantaneous thermalization' is an assumption that affects the numerical maps.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§1] Typo: 'sphaelron rate' should be 'sphaleron rate'.
  2. [§2.1] Typo: 'Ae assume a hierarchical RHN mass spectrum' should read 'We assume...'.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'fermionc reheating' should be 'fermionic reheating'.
  4. [Table 1 caption] Caption shows 'T able 1' — formatting issue.
  5. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption labels the sphaleron rate as 'Γ aph'; should be Γ_sph.
  6. [§2.2.2] The text refers to 'in box 2.2' but the notation list is not presented as a numbered box; the cross-reference is confusing.
  7. [§4.1.2] Eq. (4.9) is stated to be independent of the reheating mechanism. This is true for the final yield only if all quantities are evaluated at a_* and a_rh as derived; for clarity, the authors should state explicitly that the bosonic and fermionic cases differ in the evolution of Y_B (as shown in Fig. 12) but agree at a_rh.
  8. [§6 and Note added] The note added acknowledges that Ref. [127] includes inflaton fragmentation. Given that fragmentation is precisely the effect that could change the central scalings, it would be useful to state in the main text (not only in a note) how the present results relate to that treatment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the T_rh scalings and BAU contours follow from standard Boltzmann and kinematic equations, with the observed baryon asymmetry used only as a final constraint rather than being baked into the CP asymmetry or production history.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained. The CP asymmetry eps_DeltaL is obtained from the Casas-Ibarra parametrization (Eq. 2.2) and the standard one-loop formula (Eq. 2.5), fixed by light-neutrino data and RHN masses rather than fitted to Y_B^obs. The reheating dynamics (Eqs. 2.10-2.27) are standard monomial-inflaton results, and the key n>2 scaling (Eq. 4.9) is derived by integrating RHN production up to the kinematic threshold a_* (Eq. 2.17), followed by the dilution factor (a_*/a_rh)^3; the observed BAU is imposed only afterwards to select viable y_phiN-M1-T_rh combinations. The resulting y_phiN ∝ T_rh^{1/6} contour scaling for n=6 is a rearrangement of Y_B ∝ y_phiN^2 T_rh^{-1/3}, not a fitted relation renamed as a prediction. Scenario B (Eq. 4.14) is likewise an explicit integration with the same constraint logic. The paper cites the authors' earlier [32] for the Boltzmann-equation structure, but the equations are displayed and are standard, so the citation is not load-bearing in the sense of supplying an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The closing limitations (Sec. 6) do flag that inflaton fragmentation drives w -> 1/3 for n ≳ 3 and that y_phiN ~ 0.4 makes preheating unavoidable; this is a genuine physics caveat that could affect the quantitative predictions, but it is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity, because the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

All parameters are either fitted to Y_B^obs/nuisance inputs or inherited from α-attractor inflation; the ledger shows the paper's contribution is parameter-space identification, not a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (7)
  • y_ϕN (inflaton–RHN Yukawa) = 10^-15 to 0.4 (per contour)
    Chosen for each (M_1, T_rh) so Y_B = Y_B^obs (Eqs. 4.9, 4.14; Figs. 19–20). This is the main fitted coupling.
  • M_1 (lightest RHN mass) = 10^8–10^12 GeV
    Scanned; enters kinematics (a_*), CP asymmetry, and washout. Not predicted.
  • T_rh (reheating temperature) = 10^-3–10^2 GeV
    Scanned; the sub-EW regime is the input assumption, not an output.
  • Casas–Ibarra parameters (R matrix, PMNS, light neutrino masses) = not fully specified
    Used to fix y_ν and ϵ_ΔL consistent with oscillation data; exact choices affect the contours and are not given.
  • y_ν3 (Scenario B long-lived RHN Yukawa) = 10^-11 to 2×10^-10
    Chosen via Eq. (2.28) to set T_rh; a model input.
  • n (monomial potential power) = 2, 4, 6
    Model parameter; fixed per scenario. CMB constraints fix related H_I and λ.
  • H_I (inflationary Hubble scale) = ≤ 4.4×10^13 GeV
    Bounded by tensor-to-scalar ratio r<0.036; enters production rates and normalizations.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Type-I seesaw with three RHNs; N_1-dominated leptogenesis with N_2,3 washout
    Sec. 2.1; standard framework, but the washout hierarchy is assumed.
  • domain assumption Monomial inflaton potential V=λϕ^n/Λ^{n-4} with oscillation-averaged perturbative decay
    Sec. 2.2; standard in reheating literature; validity for n>2 is the weakest point.
  • standard math Sphaleron rate from 3D lattice SM, with T_fo ≈ 130 GeV
    Sec. 3, Eq. (3.1), from D'Onofrio et al. [36].
  • domain assumption Instantaneous thermalization of inflaton/RHN decay products
    Sec. 2.2.1, used for ρ_R and T(a) evolution.
  • domain assumption N_1 decays before sphaleron freeze-out in the n>2 scenarios
    Implicit in Sec. 4.1.2; not explicitly validated for all M_1 choices.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-perturbative preheating is subdominant for n>2
    Sec. 6; the paper explicitly flags that fragmentation makes this questionable.
  • ad hoc to paper Scalar sector: inflaton couples only via the specified operators (µϕ|H|^2, y_ψ ϕψ̄ψ, or y_ϕN ϕN^c N)
    Sec. 2; minimality assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29929 in / 21904 out tokens · 208364 ms · 2026-08-03T01:57:48.397340+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the generation of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe via leptogenesis during the post-inflationary reheating epoch, considering reheating temperatures below the temperature of sphaleron freeze-out. Within the framework of a monomial inflaton potential during reheating, we analyze three perturbative reheating scenarios in which the inflaton decays into (i) a pair of Standard Model (SM)-like bosons, (ii) a pair of SM-like fermions, or (iii) exclusively into a pair of heavy right-handed neutrinos, which eventually decays into the SM final states after briefly dominating the energy density of the Universe. For each case, we identify the regions of parameter space that successfully reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry consistently tracking the sphaleron interaction rate during reheating, while satisfying existing cosmological constraints. We also highlight the potential of future primordial gravitational wave observations to probe this class of scenarios.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Non-Holomorphic Modular $A_4$ Framework for Resonant Leptogenesis with Gravitational Wave Signatures

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A non-holomorphic modular A4 seesaw model yields quasi-degenerate right-handed neutrinos, enabling resonant leptogenesis at ~10^6 GeV and a double-peaked gravitational-wave signature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 103 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh

    A.D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5(1967) 32

    1967

  2. [4]

    Fukugita and T

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

    1986

  3. [5]

    Kuzmin, V.A

    V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov,On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,Phys. Lett. B155(1985) 36

    1985

  4. [6]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421

    1977

  5. [7]

    Yanagida,HORIZONTAL SYMMETRY AND MASSES OF NEUTRINOS,Conf

    T. Yanagida,HORIZONTAL SYMMETRY AND MASSES OF NEUTRINOS,Conf. Proc. C7902131(1979) 95

    1979

  6. [8]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,The Family Group in Grand Unified Theories, in International Symposium on Fundamentals of Quantum Theory and Quantum Field Theory, 2, 1979 [hep-ph/9809459]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  7. [9]

    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

  8. [10]

    Mohapatra and G

    R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  9. [11]

    Schechter and J.W.F

    J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle,Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,Phys. Rev.D22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  10. [12]

    Schechter and J.W.F

    J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle,Neutrino Decay and Spontaneous Violation of Lepton Number, Phys. Rev. D25(1982) 774

    1982

  11. [13]

    Davidson and A

    S. Davidson and A. Ibarra,A Lower bound on the right-handed neutrino mass from leptogenesis,Phys. Lett.B535(2002) 25 [hep-ph/0202239]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  12. [14]

    Lazarides and Q

    G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,Origin of matter in the inflationary cosmology,Phys. Lett. B258 (1991) 305

    1991

  13. [15]

    Murayama, H

    H. Murayama, H. Suzuki, T. Yanagida and J. Yokoyama,Chaotic inflation and baryogenesis by right-handed sneutrinos,Phys. Rev. Lett.70(1993) 1912

    1993

  14. [16]

    Kolb, A.D

    E.W. Kolb, A.D. Linde and A. Riotto,GUT baryogenesis after preheating,Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(1996) 4290 [hep-ph/9606260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [17]

    Giudice, M

    G. Giudice, M. Peloso, A. Riotto and I. Tkachev,Production of massive fermions at preheating and leptogenesis,JHEP08(1999) 014 [hep-ph/9905242]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  16. [18]

    Asaka, K

    T. Asaka, K. Hamaguchi, M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida,Leptogenesis in inflaton decay, Phys. Lett. B464(1999) 12 [hep-ph/9906366]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  17. [19]

    Asaka, K

    T. Asaka, K. Hamaguchi, M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida,Leptogenesis in inflationary universe,Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 083512 [hep-ph/9907559]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [20]

    Hamaguchi, H

    K. Hamaguchi, H. Murayama and T. Yanagida,Leptogenesis from N dominated early universe,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 043512 [hep-ph/0109030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  19. [21]

    Hahn-Woernle and M

    F. Hahn-Woernle and M. Plumacher,Effects of reheating on leptogenesis,Nucl. Phys. B806 (2009) 68 [0801.3972]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [22]

    Hamada, R

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano and W. Yin,Leptogenesis via Neutrino Oscillation Magic,JHEP10 (2018) 178 [1807.06582]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [23]

    Eijima, R

    S. Eijima, R. Kitano and W. Yin,Throwing away antimatter via neutrino oscillations during the reheating era,JCAP03(2020) 048 [1908.11864]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [24]

    Maleknejad,Chiral anomaly in SU(2) R-axion inflation and the new prediction for particle cosmology,JHEP21(2020) 113 [2103.14611]

    A. Maleknejad,Chiral anomaly in SU(2) R-axion inflation and the new prediction for particle cosmology,JHEP21(2020) 113 [2103.14611]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [25]

    Barman, D

    B. Barman, D. Borah and R. Roshan,Nonthermal leptogenesis and UV freeze-in of dark matter: Impact of inflationary reheating,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 035022 [2103.01675]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [26]

    Barman, D

    B. Barman, D. Borah, S.J. Das and R. Roshan,Non-thermal origin of asymmetric dark matter from inflaton and primordial black holes,JCAP03(2022) 031 [2111.08034]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [27]

    Barman, D

    B. Barman, D. Borah, S. Das Jyoti and R. Roshan,Cogenesis of Baryon Asymmetry and Gravitational Dark Matter from PBH,2204.10339

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [28]

    Lazarides, R

    G. Lazarides, R. Maji, R. Roshan and Q. Shafi,A predictive SO(10) model,JCAP12(2022) 009 [2210.03710]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [29]

    Datta, R

    A. Datta, R. Roshan and A. Sil,Effects of Reheating on Charged Lepton Yukawa Equilibration and Leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 061802 [2206.10650]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [30]

    Datta, R

    A. Datta, R. Roshan and A. Sil,Flavor leptogenesis during the reheating era,Phys. Rev. D 108(2023) 035029 [2301.10791]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [31]

    Barman, A

    B. Barman, A. Datta and M.R. Haque,Is leptogenesis during gravitational reheating flavourful?,2410.16381

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [32]

    Barman, A

    B. Barman, A. Basu, D. Borah, A. Chakraborty and R. Roshan,Testing leptogenesis and dark matter production during reheating with primordial gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 055016 [2410.19048]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [33]

    Chowdhury, L

    T. Chowdhury, L. Jenks, E.W. Kolb, A.J. Long and E. McDonough,Nonthermal leptogenesis via cosmological gravitational particle production is tested by inflationary gravitational waves, 2605.05304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [34]

    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

  33. [35]

    Domcke, K

    V. Domcke, K. Kamada, K. Mukaida, K. Schmitz and M. Yamada,Wash-In Leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 201802 [2011.09347]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [36]

    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

  35. [37]

    Bhandari and A

    D. Bhandari and A. Sil,Exploring leptogenesis in the era of first order electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) L091702 [2504.03837]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [38]

    Casas and A

    J.A. Casas and A. Ibarra,Oscillating neutrinos andµ→e, γ,Nucl. Phys. B618(2001) 171 [hep-ph/0103065]. [39]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of Particle Physics,PTEP2020(2020) 083C01

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  37. [40]

    Davidson, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [41]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde,Universality Class in Conformal Inflation,JCAP07(2013) 002 [1306.5220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [42]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde and D. Roest,Superconformal Inflationaryα-Attractors,JHEP11 (2013) 198 [1311.0472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [43]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde,Non-minimal Inflationary Attractors,JCAP10(2013) 033 [1307.7938]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [44]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde,Planck, LHC, andα-attractors,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 083528 [1502.07733]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [45]

    Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys

    A.A. Starobinsky,A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,Phys. Lett. B91(1980) 99

    1980

  43. [46]

    Starobinsky,Nonsingular Model of the Universe with the Quantum Gravitational de Sitter Stage and its Observational Consequences, inSecond Seminar on Quantum Gravity, 1981

    A.A. Starobinsky,Nonsingular Model of the Universe with the Quantum Gravitational de Sitter Stage and its Observational Consequences, inSecond Seminar on Quantum Gravity, 1981

    1981

  44. [47]

    Starobinsky,The Perturbation Spectrum Evolving from a Nonsingular Initially De-Sitter Cosmology and the Microwave Background Anisotropy,Sov

    A.A. Starobinsky,The Perturbation Spectrum Evolving from a Nonsingular Initially De-Sitter Cosmology and the Microwave Background Anisotropy,Sov. Astron. Lett.9(1983) 302

    1983

  45. [48]

    Kofman, A.D

    L.A. Kofman, A.D. Linde and A.A. Starobinsky,Inflationary Universe Generated by the Combined Action of a Scalar Field and Gravitational Vacuum Polarization,Phys. Lett. B157 (1985) 361

    1985

  46. [49]

    Turner,Coherent Scalar Field Oscillations in an Expanding Universe,Phys

    M.S. Turner,Coherent Scalar Field Oscillations in an Expanding Universe,Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 1243

    1983

  47. [50]

    Sarkar,Big bang nucleosynthesis and physics beyond the standard model,Rept

    S. Sarkar,Big bang nucleosynthesis and physics beyond the standard model,Rept. Prog. Phys. 59(1996) 1493 [hep-ph/9602260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  48. [51]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and N. Sugiyama,MeV scale reheating temperature and thermalization of neutrino background,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 023506 [astro-ph/0002127]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  49. [52]

    Hannestad,What is the lowest possible reheating temperature?,Phys

    S. Hannestad,What is the lowest possible reheating temperature?,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 043506 [astro-ph/0403291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  50. [53]

    De Bernardis, L

    F. De Bernardis, L. Pagano and A. Melchiorri,New constraints on the reheating temperature of the universe after WMAP-5,Astropart. Phys.30(2008) 192

    2008

  51. [54]

    de Salas, M

    P. de Salas, M. Lattanzi, G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor and O. Pisanti,Bounds on very low reheating scenarios after Planck,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 123534 [1511.00672]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [55]

    Hasegawa, N

    T. Hasegawa, N. Hiroshima, K. Kohri, R.S.L. Hansen, T. Tram and S. Hannestad,MeV-scale reheating temperature and thermalization of oscillating neutrinos by radiative and hadronic decays of massive particles,JCAP12(2019) 012 [1908.10189]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [56]

    Garcia, K

    M.A.G. Garcia, K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini and K.A. Olive,Inflaton Oscillations and Post-Inflationary Reheating,JCAP04(2021) 012 [2012.10756]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [57]

    Shtanov, J.H

    Y. Shtanov, J.H. Traschen and R.H. Brandenberger,Universe reheating after inflation,Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 5438 [hep-ph/9407247]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  55. [58]

    Ichikawa, T

    K. Ichikawa, T. Suyama, T. Takahashi and M. Yamaguchi,Primordial Curvature Fluctuation and Its Non-Gaussianity in Models with Modulated Reheating,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 063545 [0807.3988]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [59]

    Bernal and Y

    N. Bernal and Y. Xu,WIMPs during reheating,JCAP12(2022) 017 [2209.07546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [60]

    Haque, D

    M.R. Haque, D. Maity and R. Mondal,Gravitational neutrino reheating,Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 063543 [2311.07684]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [61]

    Haque, D

    M.R. Haque, D. Maity and R. Mondal,Thermal and nonthermal dark matters with gravitational neutrino reheating,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 063546 [2408.12450]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [62]

    Buchmuller, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [63]

    Berbig and A

    M. Berbig and A. Ghoshal,Impact of high-scale Seesaw and Leptogenesis on inflationary tensor perturbations as detectable gravitational waves,JHEP05(2023) 172 [2301.05672]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [64]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Jyoti Das, M.R. Haque and Y. Mambrini,Leptogenesis, primordial gravitational waves, and PBH-induced reheating,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 043528 [2403.05626]. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [65]

    Borboruah, A

    Z.A. Borboruah, A. Ghoshal, L. Malhotra and U. Yajnik,Inflationary gravitational wave spectral shapes as a test for low-scale leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 095017 [2405.06603]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [66]

    Borboruah, F.F

    Z.A. Borboruah, F.F. Deppisch, A. Ghoshal and L. Malhotra,Inflationary gravitational waves and laboratory searches as complementary probes of right-handed neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D112 (2025) 056003 [2504.15374]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [67]

    Ghoshal, R

    A. Ghoshal, R. Samanta and G. White,Bremsstrahlung High-frequency Gravitational Wave Signatures of High-scale Non-thermal Leptogenesis,2211.10433

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [68]

    Datta and A

    A. Datta and A. Sil,Probing Leptogenesis through Gravitational Waves,2410.01900

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [69]

    J.A. Dror, T. Hiramatsu, K. Kohri, H. Murayama and G. White,Testing the Seesaw Mechanism and Leptogenesis with Gravitational Waves,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 041804 [1908.03227]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [70]

    Blasi, V

    S. Blasi, V. Brdar and K. Schmitz,Fingerprint of low-scale leptogenesis in the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum,Phys. Rev. Res.2(2020) 043321 [2004.02889]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [71]

    Samanta and S

    R. Samanta and S. Datta,Gravitational wave complementarity and impact of NANOGrav data on gravitational leptogenesis: cosmic strings,2009.13452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [72]

    Chianese, S

    M. Chianese, S. Datta, G. Miele, R. Samanta and N. Saviano,Probing flavored regimes of leptogenesis with gravitational waves from cosmic strings,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) L041305 [2406.01231]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [73]

    Datta, A

    S. Datta, A. Ghoshal, A. Spalding and G. White,Gravitational wave spectral shapes as a probe of long lived right-handed neutrinos, leptogenesis and dark matter. Global versus local B −L cosmic strings,JHEP03(2026) 245 [2511.01779]

    arXiv 2026

  71. [74]

    Barman, D

    B. Barman, D. Borah, A. Dasgupta and A. Ghoshal,Probing high scale Dirac leptogenesis via gravitational waves from domain walls,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 015007 [2205.03422]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [75]

    Borah and I

    D. Borah and I. Saha,Gravitational waves from seesaw assisted collapsing domain walls, 2512.22339

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [76]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  74. [77]

    Giovannini,Production and detection of relic gravitons in quintessential inflationary models,Phys

    M. Giovannini,Production and detection of relic gravitons in quintessential inflationary models,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 123511 [astro-ph/9903004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  75. [78]

    Riazuelo and J.-P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  76. [79]

    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 [gr-qc/0305096]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  77. [80]

    Boyle and A

    L.A. Boyle and A. Buonanno,Relating gravitational wave constraints from primordial nucleosynthesis, pulsar timing, laser interferometers, and the CMB: Implications for the early Universe,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 043531 [0708.2279]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  78. [81]

    Stewart and R

    A. Stewart and R. Brandenberger,Observational Constraints on Theories with a Blue Spectrum of Tensor Modes,JCAP08(2008) 012 [0711.4602]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  79. [82]

    Li and P.R

    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 [2107.12229]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [83]

    Artymowski, O

    M. Artymowski, O. Czerwinska, Z. Lalak and M. Lewicki,Gravitational wave signals and cosmological consequences of gravitational reheating,JCAP04(2018) 046 [1711.08473]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.