Type-III Seesaw in Non-Holomorphic Modular Symmetry and Leptogenesis

B. C. Chauhan; Labh Singh; Priya; Surender Verma

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Type-III Seesaw in Non-Holomorphic Modular Symmetry and Leptogenesis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single complex modulus, fitted to neutrino oscillations, is claimed to generate the matter–antimatter asymmetry through Type-III seesaw leptogenesis.

desk verdict Real modular Type-III seesaw paper with leptogenesis; the central tau-driven prediction is unproven until the heavy triplet phase structure is shown to be tau-only. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05047 v1 pith:ITOOYU2Y submitted 2025-08-07 hep-ph hep-th

Priya , Labh Singh , B. C. Chauhan , Surender Verma This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-th

keywords Type-IIIseesawnon-holomorphicmodularsymmetryleptogenesisneutrinomassesandmixingbaryonasymmetryCPviolationBoltzmannequationscomplexmodulustau

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a single framework that explains both the measured pattern of neutrino masses and mixings and the observed excess of matter over antimatter. In this model, three heavy fermion triplets generate light neutrino masses through the Type-III seesaw, while the same complex modulus field $\tau$ that fixes the low-energy neutrino parameters also supplies the CP-violating phases in the triplets' early-universe decays. A $\chi^2$ fit to the latest neutrino oscillation data selects normal mass ordering and, after solving the full Boltzmann equations, yields a baryon asymmetry $Y_{B-L}\sim 10^{-9}$ that matches the observed baryon-to-photon ratio. The paper therefore claims that one complex parameter, $\tau$, connects laboratory neutrino measurements with the origin of matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the complex modulus $\tau$ of the non-holomorphic modular symmetry, together with the three heavy fermion triplets $\Sigma_i$ of the Type-III seesaw. The modulus fixes the $\tau$-dependent Yukawa couplings that determine neutrino masses, mixing, and CP phases; the same modulus sets the CP asymmetry $\varepsilon_{CP}$ in the decay $\Sigma_1\to \ell H$. In other words, $\tau$ is the single dial that connects low-energy neutrino measurements to the out-of-equilibrium physics that generates the matter–antimatter asymmetry.

What would settle it

Recompute the full set of Boltzmann equations using the model's best-fit $\tau$ and the same couplings that fit NuFIT 6.0; if the resulting baryon-to-photon ratio leaves the observed range around $6.1\times10^{-10}$ after updated oscillation data, the single-source link is falsified. Equivalently, a DUNE or Hyper-K measurement of the Dirac CP phase $\delta$ that excludes the paper's best-fit values would remove the predicted CP asymmetry needed for leptogenesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the complex modulus $\tau$ of a non-holomorphic modular symmetry controls both sectors: low-energy lepton masses and mixing angles, and the CP asymmetry produced when the lightest heavy fermion triplet $\Sigma_1$ decays into lepton–Higgs final states. After a $\chi^2$ fit to NuFIT 6.0 that selects normal neutrino mass ordering and constrained CP phases, the same $\tau$ is input into the full set of Boltzmann equations for the triplet density and the $B-L$ asymmetry. The calculation yields $Y_{B-L}\sim10^{-9}$, which reproduces the observed baryon-to-photon ratio, and the strong gauge-mediated washout forces the triplet mass scale to $\mathcal{O}($10^{{12}}$\,\mathrm{GeV

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the complex modulus fitted to low-energy neutrino data is the only source of CP violation that matters for leptogenesis; if extra phases or high-energy dynamics intervene, the baryon-asymmetry prediction and the low-energy fit decouple.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is right, neutrino-oscillation data are directly tied to cosmology: the measured Dirac CP phase would have to match the value that produces the observed baryon asymmetry.
The $\chi^2$ fit selects normal mass ordering, so the model predicts that inverted ordering is disfavored by the neutrino data it uses.
The leptogenesis scale is pinned near $\mathcal{O}(10^{12}\,\mathrm{GeV})$ by gauge-mediated washout, placing the heavy triplets far beyond collider reach but high enough to satisfy the standard lower bound on unflavoured leptogenesis.
With the full Boltzmann equations included, the model makes a quantitative prediction $Y_{B-L}\sim10^{-9}$, a number that can be rechecked when neutrino oscillation data are updated.

Reading between the lines

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

If the one-$\tau$ link survives better data, then measuring the neutrino CP phase becomes equivalent to predicting the sign and magnitude of the baryon asymmetry; updated long-baseline experiments will either confirm or break the model.
Because the fit selects normal ordering, a future measurement that established inverted ordering would kill the framework independently of the asymmetry calculation.
The same non-holomorphic modular machinery could be applied to quarks or to charged-lepton flavour-violating observables; if $\tau$ also fixes their phases, the model would become a full flavour theory rather than a lepton-sector one.
The claim implicitly ties the absolute neutrino mass scale to the allowed leptogenesis scale, so a future measurement of absolute neutrino masses could overconstrain the $\tau$ window.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on arXiv:2508.05047. The newsworthy part is the combination: non-holomorphic modular symmetry, Type-III seesaw, and a real leptogenesis calculation with the full Boltzmann equations. That's more complete than many modular model papers, and reporting a neutrino data fit (NuFIT 6.0) plus a baryon-to-photon ratio is a concrete claim. It looks like a genuine extension of Qu and Ding's formalism, not a cosmetic rehash.

The paper does what a good flavor model should do: it fits the oscillation data, fixes the mass ordering as normal, constrains CP phases, and then makes a physical prediction about the baryon asymmetry. Those are all things a referee can check.

The soft spot is the connection between the low-energy fit and the leptogenesis asymmetry. The abstract says the complex modulus tau is responsible for the CP asymmetry, but that only works if tau is the only phase that enters the heavy-sector decays. In Type-III seesaw with multiple fermion triplets, the mass matrix M_Sigma can contain relative phases that cancel out of the seesaw formula for m_nu but survive in the leptogenesis CP asymmetry. If such phases are present, the tau fitted to neutrino mixing doesn't by itself predict Y_B-L. The abstract doesn't state any modular-symmetry constraint that would eliminate those phases. This isn't a definite flaw—I can't see the full paper—but it is the load-bearing step, and the authors need to make it explicit.

Other caveats: we only have the abstract, so the chi-square value, the Boltzmann code, and the numerical entries are unverified. I'd want to see the plots and the parameter scan. Also, the baryon asymmetry is quoted without error bars on the low-energy inputs, which matters if the prediction is close to a boundary.

Audience: anyone working on modular flavor symmetries or leptogenesis. This is a legit contribution to a niche field, not a breakthrough. It deserves serious refereeing, and I'd send it out with a referee who will press on the phase structure of the triplet mass matrix. If the full paper closes that gap, it's a solid model. If not, the leptogenesis result is still a model-building exercise, but the headline prediction is weaker.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Type-III seesaw model in a non-supersymmetric framework with non-holomorphic modular symmetry, where the complex modulus τ controls the Yukawa couplings. It claims a χ² fit to NuFIT 6.0 neutrino oscillation data that selects normal mass ordering and constrains CP phases. Using the same τ as the CP-violating source, the authors compute a lepton-flavor CP asymmetry from decays of the lightest fermion triplet Σ₁ and solve a full set of Boltzmann equations, obtaining Y_B-L ∼ 10⁻⁹, which they claim reproduces the observed baryon-to-photon ratio for a leptogenesis scale of O(10¹²) GeV. The review copy I received contains only the abstract, so the derivations, equations, and numerical scans cannot be audited.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the model would be a notable step: a single modular parameter τ connecting low-energy flavor observables to the cosmological baryon asymmetry is a strong and falsifiable statement. Modular symmetry also reduces the number of free Yukawa parameters compared with a generic Type-III seesaw model, and the combination of a χ² fit with a full Boltzmann solution is, in principle, a quantitative and checkable result. However, the claims as stated in the abstract cannot be verified without the detailed equations, parameter scan, and an explicit demonstration that no independent high-energy CP phase enters leptogenesis. The central link from low-energy neutrino data to baryogenesis is attractive but currently rests on unstated model assumptions.

major comments (4)

[Abstract (CP asymmetry source)] The central claim that 'The complex modules τ is responsible for the CP asymmetry produced during leptogenesis' requires that the heavy triplet mass matrix M_Σ have no CP-violating phase independent of τ. In a Type-III seesaw with multiple triplets, M_Σ can contain a relative phase that cancels in m_ν = v² Yᵀ M_Σ⁻¹ Y under rephasing but not in the leptogenesis CP asymmetry, which involves combinations such as Im[(Y†Y)ᵢⱼ (M_Σ)ᵢⱼ]. The abstract does not state that M_Σ is determined by τ or constrained to be real. Without this, a τ fit to low-energy data does not predict Y_B-L, and the successful asymmetry could come from a hidden high-energy phase. Please state the modular-symmetry-constrained form of M_Σ and give the rephasing-invariant CP-violating combinations.
[Abstract (χ² fit and uncertainty)] The abstract reports a χ² fit to NuFIT 6.0 and then quotes Y_B-L ∼ 10⁻⁹, but no definition of χ², number of observables, number of free parameters, or goodness-of-fit is provided. It is also unclear how uncertainties in the low-energy fit propagate to the predicted baryon-to-photon ratio. A single successful point is not enough to establish that the model predicts η_B; please report the allowed range of η_B over the full 1σ (or 3σ) region of the fitted parameters, not just the best-fit value.
[Abstract (Boltzmann equations and washout)] The abstract refers to 'the full set of Boltzmann equations' without displaying the equations or specifying the included processes, decay and scattering rates, initial conditions, or treatment of gauge-mediated washout and inverse decays. The claimed necessity of a leptogenesis scale of O(10¹²) GeV and the consistency with the Davidson-Ibarra bound cannot be assessed without these details. Please provide the explicit Boltzmann equations and the definitions of all rate terms, or point to equations in the main text.
[Abstract (predictivity vs. self-consistency)] Even if all technical details are supplied, the computation is a self-consistency check rather than an independent prediction: τ is fitted to the same low-energy neutrino data and then used to compute the baryon asymmetry. This is not by itself a flaw, but the paper should clearly state what is actually predicted—for example, a correlation between low-energy CP phases and the sign/magnitude of Y_B-L, or a restricted region of parameter space—rather than presenting a single best-fit point as evidence of a link.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] Typo: 'complex modules τ' should be 'complex modulus τ'.
[Abstract] The reference to 'NuFIT~6.0' needs a full citation with the collaboration and version; the exact data set and ordering used should be specified.
[Abstract] The 'Davidson-Ibarra bound' is mentioned without definition or reference; a one-sentence explanation would help readers not familiar with leptogenesis.
[Abstract] 'Normal hierarchical pattern' is potentially misleading; it is likely 'normal mass ordering' (m₁ < m₂ < m₃) and should be stated precisely.
[Abstract] The term 'non-holomorphic modular symmetry' is used without defining what 'non-holomorphic' means here; a brief explanatory phrase would clarify the formalism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: τ is fitted to low-energy neutrino data, and the leptogenesis asymmetry is a separate cross-observable prediction.

full rationale

The available manuscript text (abstract) shows a two-step derivation chain. First, neutrino masses and mixing are fitted to NuFIT 6.0 data using a non-holomorphic modular-symmetry Type-III seesaw model; the complex modulus τ and model parameters are determined in this low-energy fit. Second, the same τ is used to compute the leptogenesis CP asymmetry ε_CP, and the resulting Y_B-L is compared with the observed baryon-to-photon ratio. This is not circular: Y_B-L is a distinct observable that was not used as an input to the fit. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no equation in the abstract defines τ or the model parameters in terms of Y_B-L. The cited Qu–Ding formalism is attributed to other authors, not to the present authors, so no load-bearing self-citation is evident. The concern that a heavy fermion-triplet mass matrix might contain a CP phase independent of τ is a model-construction issue, not a demonstrated circularity; the abstract explicitly states that τ is responsible for the CP asymmetry, indicating that the model is built so that τ controls the leptogenesis phase. Without full text showing an actual reduction of the prediction to an input of the fit, there is no basis for a circularity finding. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

All entries are abstract-level. The central claim rests on the Qu-Ding non-holomorphic modular formalism, the Type-III seesaw mechanism, and standard thermal leptogenesis; none are established within this preprint as abstracted.

free parameters (3)

Complex modulus tau = fitted via chi-square to NuFIT 6.0
Modular symmetry parameter; controls Yukawa textures and CP phases; fitted to neutrino oscillation data.
Yukawa couplings and modular weights = not specified in abstract
Set by fit to lepton masses and mixing; details not available from abstract.
Fermion triplet mass scale = O(10^12 GeV) inferred
Mass scale of the lightest triplet chosen to satisfy Davidson-Ibarra bound and washout constraints.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Applicability of Qu-Ding non-holomorphic modular symmetry to Type-III seesaw
Borrowed from prior work; not derived in this paper (abstract only).
domain assumption Type-III seesaw mechanism with fermion triplets
Standard extension assumed to generate neutrino masses.
domain assumption Thermal leptogenesis out-of-equilibrium decays
Assumes standard Boltzmann treatment and Davidson-Ibarra bound.

invented entities (1)

Fermion triplet Sigma_1
purpose: Lightest seesaw mediator whose decays generate CP asymmetry
Borrowed from Type-III seesaw framework; not detected experimentally, no new handle in this paper beyond mass scale.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Type-III Seesaw in Non-Holomorphic Modular Symmetry and Leptogenesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITOOYU2Y

@misc{pith2026250805047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Type-III Seesaw in Non-Holomorphic Modular Symmetry and Leptogenesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITOOYU2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05047}
}

abstract

Recently, Qu and Ding, have proposed a formalism where modular invariance is extended to non-supersymmetric scenario considering Yukawa couplings as non-holomorphic functions of modules field $\tau$. Adopting this formalism in this work, we propose a Type-III seesaw model as a unified framework to explain lepton masses and mixing and baryogenesis via leptogenesis. $\chi^2$ analysis is performed to fit the neutrino oscillation data from NuFIT~6.0 leading to a normal hierarchical pattern of neutrino masses and constrained $CP$ phases. Furthermore, we analyze the generation of the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe via thermal leptogenesis where the decays of the lightest fermion triplet $\Sigma_1$ into lepton-Higgs final states produce a $CP$ asymmetry $\varepsilon_{CP}$. The complex modules $\tau$ is responsible for the $CP$ asymmetry produced during leptogenesis. The washout processes dominated by gauge scatterings and inverse decays are studied through the full set of Boltzmann equations. The resulting $B-L$ asymmetry, $Y_{B-L}\sim 10^{-9}$ successfully reproduces the baryon-to-photon ratio demonstrating the model's capability to link low-energy neutrino data with the baryogenesis. The strong gauge-mediated washout of fermion triplets necessitates a leptogenesis scale of $\mathcal{O}(10^{12}\,\mathrm{GeV})$ ensuring compatibility with both the Davidson-Ibarra bound and the thermal history of the Universe. Future pursuits remain open to the exploration of novel avenues aimed at lowering the energy scale associated with leptogenesis.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Neutrino mass and leptogenesis in the non-SUSY modular $A^\prime_5$ inverse seesaw model
hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Three non-SUSY A5-prime modular inverse-seesaw models fit neutrino oscillation data and can generate the observed baryon asymmetry via TeV-scale resonant leptogenesis.
A Predictive Non-Holomorphic Modular $A_4$ Linear Seesaw Framework Testable at DUNE
hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A non-holomorphic modular A4 linear seesaw model with six singlet fermions and one flavon reproduces observed neutrino mixing and predicts absolute mass and 0νββ ranges that DUNE and other experiments can test.
A Non-Holomorphic Modular $A_4$ Framework for Resonant Leptogenesis with Gravitational Wave Signatures
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

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

62 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216 (2024)

2024
[2]

S. T. Petcov, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.9, 709 (2018)

work page 2018
[3]

G. J. Ding and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rept. 1109, 1-105 (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

Ishimori, T

H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki et al. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 183, 1-163 (2010)

work page 2010
[5]

Chauhan, P

G. Chauhan, P. S. B. Dev et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 138, 104126 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Feruglio, [arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]]

F. Feruglio, [arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[7]

Feruglio and A

F. Feruglio and A. Romanino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, no.1, 015007 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

H. Ohki, S. Uemura and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.8, 085008 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 62 references

[9]

de Adelhart Toorop, F

R. de Adelhart Toorop, F. Feruglio and C. Hagedorn, Nucl. Phys. B 858, 437-467 (2012)

2012
[10]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

2024
[11]

Cremades, L

D. Cremades, L. E. Ibanez and F. Marchesano, JHEP 05, 079 (2004)

2004
[12]

Almumin, M

Y. Almumin, M. C. Chen et al. JHEP 05, 078 (2021)

2021
[13]

B. Y. Qu and G. J. Ding, JHEP 08, 136 (2024)

2024
[14]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139763 (2025)

2025
[15]

Nomura, H

T. Nomura, H. Okada and O. Popov, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139171 (2025)

2025
[16]

Kobayashi, H

T. Kobayashi, H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, [arXiv:2502.12662 [hep-ph]]
[17]

G. J. Ding, J. N. Lu, S. T. Petcov and B. Y. Qu, JHEP 01, 191 (2025)

2025
[18]

C. C. Li, J. N. Lu and G. J. Ding, JHEP 12, 189 (2024)

2024
[19]

M. A. Loualidi, M. Miskaoui and S. Nasri, Phys. Rev. D 112, no.1, 015008 (2025)

2025
[20]

Zhang and Y

X. Zhang and Y. Reyimuaji, [arXiv:2507.06945 [hep-ph]]
[21]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, [arXiv:2506.02639 [hep-ph]]
[22]

Nomura, H

T. Nomura, H. Okada and X. Y. Wang, [arXiv:2504.21404 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[23]

Okada and Y

H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, [arXiv:2501.15748 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[24]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 867, 139618 (2025)

2025
[25]

Kumar and M

B. Kumar and M. K. Das, [arXiv:2504.21701 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[26]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, [arXiv:2503.19251 [hep-ph]]
[27]

Nomura and H

T. Nomura and H. Okada, [arXiv:2409.10912 [hep-ph]]
[28]

R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He and G. C. Joshi, Z. Phys. C 44, 441 (1989)

1989
[29]

Davidson and A

S. Davidson and A. Ibarra, Phys. Lett. B 535, 25-32 (2002)

2002
[30]

Ishimori, T

H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, et. al., Lect. Notes Phys. 858, 1-227 (2012)

2012
[31]

Mishra, M

P. Mishra, M. K. Behera, P. Panda and R. Mohanta, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.12, 1115 (2022)

2022
[32]

Kashav and S

M. Kashav and S. Verma, JHEP 09, 100 (2021)

2021
[33]

Kashav and S

M. Kashav and S. Verma, JCAP 03, 010 (2023)

2023
[34]

Singh, M

L. Singh, M. Kashav and S. Verma, Nucl. Phys. B 1007, 116666 (2024)

2024
[35]

Kashav and K

M. Kashav and K. M. Patel, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.1, 015010 (2025)

2025
[36]

Kumar, P

R. Kumar, P. Mishra, M. K. Behera, R. Mohanta and R. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B 853, 138635 (2024)

2024
[37]

M. K. Behera, S. Singirala, S. Mishra and R. Mohanta, J. Phys. G 49, no.3, 035002 (2022)

2022
[38]

M. K. Behera, S. Mishra, S. Singirala and R. Mohanta, Phys. Dark Univ. 36, 101027 (2022)

2022
[39]

Z. z. Xing, H. Zhang and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 77, 113016 (2008)

2008
[40]

Singh et al

I. Singh et al. [NOvA], FERMILAB-CONF-24-0792-PPD
[41]

Carabadjac [T2K], PoS ICHEP2024, 150 (2025)

D. Carabadjac [T2K], PoS ICHEP2024, 150 (2025)

2025
[42]

Abi et al

B. Abi et al. [DUNE], Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.4, 322 (2021)

2021
[43]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. [Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv
[44]

Adhikari et al

G. Adhikari et al. [nEXO], J. Phys. G 49, no.1, 015104 (2022)

2022
[45]

Aker et al

M. Aker et al. [KATRIN], J. Phys. G 49, no.10, 100501 (2022)

2022
[46]

A. A. Esfahani et al. [Project 8], [arXiv:2203.07349 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv
[47]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020)

2020
[48]

Vatsyayan and S

D. Vatsyayan and S. Goswami, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.3, 035014 (2023)

2023
[49]

C. S. Fong, E. Nardi and A. Riotto, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012, 158303 (2012)

2012
[50]

L. Covi, N. Rius, E. Roulet and F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. D 57, 93-99 (1998)

1998
[51]

G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 685, 89-149 (2004)

2004
[52]

Mishra, [arXiv:2008.02095 [hep-ph]]

S. Mishra, [arXiv:2008.02095 [hep-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[53]

Hambye, New J

T. Hambye, New J. Phys. 14, 125014 (2012)

2012
[54]

C. H. Albright and S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 69, 073010 (2004)

2004
[55]

Marciano, D

S. Marciano, D. Meloni and M. Parriciatu, JHEP 05, 020 (2024)

2024
[56]

Davidson, E

S. Davidson, E. Nardi and Y. Nir, Phys. Rept. 466, 105-177 (2008)

2008
[57]

Cui and Z

Y. Cui and Z. Z. Xianyu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, no.11, 111301 (2022)

2022
[58]

S. Lu, Y. Wang and Z. Z. Xianyu, JHEP 02, 011 (2020)

2020
[59]

Dvali, A

G. Dvali, A. Gruzinov and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 69, 023505 (2004)

2004
[60]

Kofman, [arXiv:astro-ph/0303614 [astro-ph]]

L. Kofman, [arXiv:astro-ph/0303614 [astro-ph]]

arXiv
[61]

Suyama and M

T. Suyama and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023505 (2008)

2008
[62]

Ichikawa, T

K. Ichikawa, T. Suyama, T. Takahashi and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 78, 063545 (2008)

2008

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216 (2024)

2024

[2] [2]

S. T. Petcov, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.9, 709 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [3]

G. J. Ding and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rept. 1109, 1-105 (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Ishimori, T

H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki et al. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 183, 1-163 (2010)

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Chauhan, P

G. Chauhan, P. S. B. Dev et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 138, 104126 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Feruglio, [arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]]

F. Feruglio, [arXiv:1706.08749 [hep-ph]]

arXiv

[7] [7]

Feruglio and A

F. Feruglio and A. Romanino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, no.1, 015007 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

H. Ohki, S. Uemura and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.8, 085008 (2020)

work page 2020