Dark Energy and Neutrino Flavor from the Weak Axion

Carlos E. M. Wagner; Pedro Bittar

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Dark Energy and Neutrino Flavor from the Weak Axion

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the dark energy scale is not free: for a weak axion with anomalous B+L shift symmetry, the radiative potential height is set by neutrino masses and PMNS parameters, and current data put it near (2.3 meV)^4.

desk verdict A concrete new mechanism predicting the dark-energy scale from neutrino flavor, undermined by an acknowledged axion-quality problem that the paper's own seesaw sketch likely makes worse. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13128 v1 pith:PTXGLQGC submitted 2026-07-14 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Pedro Bittar , Carlos E. M. Wagner This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.CO PACS 95.36.+x14.60.Pq14.80.Va

keywords weakaxiondarkenergyquintessenceneutrinomassesPMNSmatrixWeinbergoperatorflavorsymmetryColeman-Weinbergpotential

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

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 tries to show that the smallness of dark energy can be explained by the accidental, tiny breaking of baryon-plus-lepton number in the Standard Model. The agent is the 'weak axion,' the phase of a scalar carrying anomalous U(1)_{B+L}; its potential is not generated by electroweak instantons, which are about ten orders of magnitude too small, but by the interference of two Weinberg operators that make the neutrino Majorana masses axion-dependent. A flavor selection rule based on a spontaneously broken S3 permutation symmetry removes the quadratically divergent term and the dominant thermal force, so the leading potential appears only at quartic order in neutrino masses. Because that potential vanishes in the exact tribimaximal limit, the observed departures from tribimaximal mixing set its amplitude; for current oscillation data it lies in the 1–4 meV range, parametrically the dark energy density. If correct, the dark energy scale is a prediction of neutrino flavor measurements and can be tested with future measurements of δ_CP and θ_23.

What carries the argument

The central object is the weak axion, the phase of a scalar field carrying anomalous U(1)_{B+L}, whose shift symmetry is explicitly broken only by small sources of baryon and lepton number violation. The argument runs through two spurions of the neutrino Majorana mass matrix, MΦ e^{-ia/f} and M⋆; the selection rule Tr(M_Φ† M_⋆)=0, enforced by a spontaneously broken S3 permutation symmetry (lepton doublets decompose as 3=1⊕2), removes the quadratically divergent contribution and delays the first axion-dependent term to quartic order. The carrying identity is the invariant Re[e^{ia/f} Tr(M_Φ† M_Φ M_Φ† M_⋆)] in Eq. (37), whose amplitude is fixed by the overlaps ⟨d|ν_i⟩ between the flavor-democr

What would settle it

Evaluate Eq. (44) (or the full invariant Eq. (39)) at the best-fit values of δ_CP and θ_23 once they are measured definitively: if the resulting Λν is not within the range that gives ρ_DE ≈ (2.3 meV)^4, the neutrino-flavor origin of dark energy is falsified. Concretely, the model predicts |sin(θ23−π/4)+0.11 cosδ_CP| ≈ 0.055; a secure measurement of this combination far from 0.055—or of Λν well outside 1–4 meV—would settle the question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-temperature, one-loop radiative (Coleman-Weinberg) potential of the weak axion is dominated by the quartic invariant in Eq. (37), with an amplitude Λν fixed uniquely by the neutrino masses and the PMNS matrix. In the flavor-democratic limit the potential is V_CW(a) ≈ −Λν^4 cos((a−a0)/f + δν), and for normal ordering with m1 ≈ 0 the amplitude is approximately Λν ≈ 2.3 meV times the square root of |cosδ_CP/0.52 + sin(θ23−π/4)/0.055|; across present data sets this yields 1–4 meV. Both the height and the phase of the potential are determined by the same spurions, with the Majorana phases mainly shifting the minimum. The construction's key feature is that the ax

Load-bearing premise

All of it rests on 'axion quality': any additional ultraviolet contribution to the axion potential must be suppressed below roughly (2.3 meV)^4 in height and below H0^2 in curvature, so that generic Planck-suppressed operators cannot swamp the neutrino-induced term; the paper calls this condition extremely restrictive and leaves its ultraviolet realization open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is right, the dark energy scale is not a free parameter: once neutrino masses and mixing are measured, the potential height is fixed, and current data place it in the 1–4 meV range.
A precise measurement of δ_CP and θ_23 becomes a direct test: the T2K-only and NOνA-only best-fit points map to Λν ≈ 1.2 meV and 2.1 meV, and matching the observed dark energy density exactly selects a specific line in the (θ23, δ_CP) plane.
The background behaves as thawing quintessence with w(a) ≥ −1 evolving only at late times; the model can therefore be compared with baryon-acoustic-oscillation constraints on dark energy, as the paper does by recasting an algebraic thawing analysis into the (Λν, f) plane.
The model avoids the adiabatic mass-varying-neutrino regime: the finite-density force from relic neutrinos is suppressed by the small ratio (Tν,0/m3)^3 and never pulls the field into a neutrino-controlled minimum, so the known neutrino-nugget instability does not arise.
The weak axion never thermalizes and contributes negligibly to ΔN_eff, while its predicted neutrinoless double-beta decay amplitude (about 1.5–3.7 meV for the benchmarks studied) is below the reach of next-generation searches.

Reading between the lines

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

The logic can be inverted: if future oscillation experiments confirm Λν ≈ 2.3 meV, the remaining freedom in the lightest neutrino mass and the Majorana phases becomes constrained by the requirement that the potential reproduce the observed equation of state, giving an independent route to absolute neutrino mass.
The S3/democratic mechanism is portable: the same technique of assigning two spurions to different charge sectors to kill lower-order invariants could be applied to other accidental or nearly exact symmetries of the Standard Model, although the paper does not explore that.
A distinctive cross-check would be to combine BAO measurements of w(a) with measurements of the neutrino mass sum: the model predicts a small but calculable time variation of Σm_i tied to PMNS parameters, and future surveys might be sensitive enough to see the correlation.
Because the axion quality condition is so restrictive, a realistic ultraviolet completion would have to produce an almost exact shift symmetry for the B+L phase while still generating the flavor structure; if such completions turn out to be rare, the model's main implication may be that dark energy requires Planckian physics to explain why global-symmetry-breaking operators are absent.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

First thing you should know: this paper makes a real, testable claim that the dark-energy scale is not an input but follows from neutrino oscillation data. The construction—two inequivalent Weinberg spurions, an S3 selection rule killing the quadratic divergence, and a quartic Coleman-Weinberg term whose amplitude is fixed by PMNS overlaps—is new relative to the earlier weak-axion and MaVaNs literature. The honesty is refreshing: they compute Λν from external neutrino parameters and compare it with the observed ρ_DE^(1/4) = 2.3 meV; they don't fit it.

What's done well: the EFT calculation is coherent, the cancellation of the T^2 m^2 thermal force is neat, and the cosmological analysis shows the field behaves as thawing quintessence and avoids the MaVaNs adiabatic instability. They also state clearly in Sec. IV that the axion-quality problem is severe: Eq. (90) requires any UV contribution to be below ρ_DE and with curvature below H0^2, and they call these conditions 'extremely restrictive' and leave the completion to future work.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The democratic texture and the S3 structure are chosen, not derived. The amplitude's prediction is not sharp yet: with current δ_CP and θ_23 uncertainties, Λν ranges over 1–4 meV, so the match to 2.3 meV is a 'parametrically close' statement, not a precision test. More importantly, the stress-test concern lands: even in the type-I seesaw completion they sketch, the heavy right-handed neutrinos generate phase-dependent Coleman-Weinberg terms of order M_N^4/(16π^2). With M_N ~ λ f ~ 10^14 GeV, that's a potential swamping the neutrino-induced one by a hundred orders of magnitude unless an additional, unexplained symmetry enforces the vanishing of those invariants. So the paper's own UV sector does not solve the axion-quality problem; it illustrates it. The paper doesn't claim otherwise—it explicitly leaves this to future work—but that means the central prediction is conditional on an unresolved problem.

Who should read it: model-builders working on axion dark energy, neutrino flavor, or mass-varying neutrino models; it's also a good teaching case for how to present a conditional mechanism honestly. It deserves a serious referee: the mechanism is concrete, novel, and testable with DUNE, Hyper-K, and DESI. I'd send it to review, with referees asked to scrutinize the heavy-neutrino CW contributions and to demand an explicit symmetry argument if the authors claim the UV sector preserves axion quality.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the phase of a complex scalar carrying anomalous U(1)_{B+L} — the 'weak axion' — can serve as thawing quintessence. The axion potential is generated by two inequivalent Weinberg operators, one axion-dependent and one axion-independent, after electroweak symmetry breaking. With a flavor-democratic spurion for the axion-independent term and an S3 flavor symmetry enforcing Tr(M_Φ^† M_⋆)=0, the quadratic divergence is removed and the leading Coleman-Weinberg potential appears at quartic order in the neutrino mass matrix (Eq. 37). The amplitude Λ_ν is then determined by neutrino masses and PMNS parameters, giving ~1–4 meV for current normal-ordering data, numerically close to the observed dark-energy scale (2.3 meV)^4. The paper also shows that the finite-density neutrino background force cancels at leading order, so the field behaves as thawing quintessence for f near M_pl, never entering the adiabatic MaVaNs regime. A possible type-I seesaw UV completion is sketched, and the severe axion-quality problem is acknowledged explicitly.

Significance. If the mechanism works, this is a striking idea: the dark-energy scale would be fixed by neutrino oscillation data rather than by a free cosmological constant, and would be falsifiable through improved measurements of δ_CP and θ_23 at DUNE and Hyper-K. The paper is honest in that Λ_ν is computed from external neutrino data and compared with, not fitted to, ρ_DE. The calculation of the quartic Coleman-Weinberg invariant is explicit, and the cosmological background is checked numerically with CLASS. The S3 selection rule neatly removes the quadratic divergence and the leading temperature-dependent force. However, the central prediction is conditional on strong flavor-structure assumptions and on the absence of all other ultraviolet contributions to the axion potential. The paper itself labels Eq. (90) 'extremely restrictive' and leaves a UV completion to future work. The main question is whether the proposed seesaw completion already violates this condition.

major comments (2)

[Sec. II.B and Sec. IV, Eq. (84)] The seesaw completion sketched in Sec. IV does not satisfy the axion-quality condition Eq. (90). After Φ acquires its VEV, the heavy right-handed neutrino mass matrix from Eq. (87) has the form M_N(a) = M_0 + M_ΦN e^{ia/f} (or equivalent), with M_0 ~ diag(M_d, M_F, M_F) and M_ΦN from the λ_dF and λ_FF couplings. The S3 orthogonality Tr(M_0^† M_ΦN)=0 removes the quadratically divergent part, but the one-loop heavy-neutrino Coleman-Weinberg potential contains Tr[(M_N^† M_N)^2], whose phase-dependent traces are S3-invariant and generically nonzero, scaling as |M_d|^2|M_F|^2 and |M_F|^4. For M_N ~ 10^14–10^15 GeV, this gives |ΔV_UV| ~ (1/16π^2) M_N^4 ~ 10^90 eV^4, about 100 orders of magnitude above (2.3 meV)^4. Thus the explicit completion in Sec. IV swamps the low-energy potential of Eq. (37); the axion-quality problem is not confined to Planck-suppressed operators as discussed in Sec. II.
[Sec. II.B] The numerical prediction for Λ_ν assumes that M_⋆ is exactly flavor-democratic and that the additional S3-singlet spurion M_F is negligible. The S3 construction itself contains the operator c_F^(0)(L_F H)(L_F H), giving M_F in Eq. (84), and the paper states that M_F ≪ M_⋆ is 'not required' by S3 or by dark-energy phenomenology. This makes M_F a free parameter that can be of the same order as M_⋆. The amplitude Eq. (39) and the approximate relation Eq. (44) are computed in the M_F→0 limit. The claim that the dark-energy scale is 'not free' is therefore conditional on an unexplained hierarchy between two S3 singlet breaking terms. The authors should either derive this hierarchy from a symmetry or quantify how the leading potential changes for M_F/M_⋆ ~ O(1).

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (29)–(40)] The notation ⟨d|ν_i^*⟩ and ⟨d|ν_i⟩ is confusing: in Eq. (29) the square is written outside a complex number, while Eq. (39) uses both starred and unstarred overlaps. Please clarify the complex-conjugation convention and consistently use |⟨d|ν_i⟩|^2 where a real overlap is intended.
[Fig. 2] The caption contains garbled axis labels involving 'μ_2' and 'μ̄'; the definition of the renormalization scale and the range of variation should be stated more cleanly.
[Sec. II.A and App. A] The instanton amplitude estimate Eq. (14) sets κ=1 and relies on SM running up to M_UV. A short comment on the order-one uncertainty from κ and from the UV-sensitive integral would be useful, since the paper's negative conclusion about instantons is based on this estimate.
[Sec. III, Eq. (69)] The estimate m_a,eff^2/H^2 ~ 3 Ω_DE (M_pl/f)^2 is written as '≪1' without commenting that at late times, where Ω_DE ~ 0.7 and f ~ M_pl, it is actually O(1). The qualitative conclusion is unaffected, but the inequality should be qualified as applying at high redshift.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the weak-axion potential amplitude is computed from neutrino masses and PMNS data; the dark-energy density is a comparison target, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The model fixes its flavor parameter via the orthogonality condition Tr(M_Phi^dag M_star)=0 (Eqs. 22 and 35), giving mu_star = <d|M_nu,0|d> = sum_i m_i <d|nu_i^*>^2 (Eq. 36), which is determined by measured neutrino masses and PMNS elements. The predicted Coleman-Weinberg amplitude Lambda_nu (Eqs. 39, 41-44) is then a function of these same inputs; the observed dark-energy density rho_DE appears only as a comparison (Eq. 6) and, in Eq. (45), as a consistency condition that can be inverted to constrain delta_CP versus theta_23. No parameter is adjusted to make Lambda_nu equal to 2.3 meV. The initial misalignment angle is a standard quintessence boundary condition, not a fit to the potential amplitude. Self-citations such as Ref. [71] enter only in the subdominant instanton estimate and standard normalization, not in the neutrino-induced potential, which is the basis of the main claim. The paper explicitly acknowledges the severe axion-quality problem in Eq. (90) and leaves a UV completion to future work; this is an important viability caveat, but it is an independent assumption rather than a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central low-energy calculation is almost fully determined by external neutrino data, but the model carries several assumptions that were not purchased upstream: zero CC, axion-quality suppression, the democratic/orthogonal spurion texture, and the S3 completion with M_F=0. These are the honest price of the paper's predictivity.

free parameters (6)

Axion decay constant f = 0.6 M_pl benchmark; ≳10^27 eV required
Not fixed by the neutrino potential height; chosen so m_a^2 = Λν^4/f^2 ≲ H0^2. Cosmological evolution therefore requires f near M_pl.
Lightest neutrino mass m1 = 0 (normal-ordering benchmark)
Enters μ⋆ and Λν through the sum over m_i; not measured. The paper sets it to zero for the numerical plots.
Initial misalignment phase (a_i-a0)/f = tuned per point in Fig. 4 to match Ω_DE today
Quintessence initial condition; the model predicts the potential height but not the initial phase.
Majorana phase α21 = -1.95 (Figs. 1/4); -1.37 (Fig. 2); scanned [0,2π)
Not fixed by oscillation data; changes the minimum location and Λν at the ~10% level.
Majorana phase α31 = 0 benchmark; scanned [0,2π)
Enters through the small democratic overlap with ν3; affects the amplitude mildly.
S3 second breaking spurion M_F = 0 (M_F ≪ M⋆)
In the S3 completion, an additional S3-singlet doublet operator is allowed; the paper sets it subdominant to recover the minimal model.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The bare cosmological constant plus SM vacuum energy is set to zero.
Explicitly assumed in Sec. I; no mechanism for the cosmological constant is provided.
ad hoc to paper All additional UV shift-symmetry-breaking operators satisfy |ΔV_UV| ≲ ρ_DE and |ΔV''_UV| ≲ H0².
Sec. II.C and Sec. IV (Eq. 90); the paper itself calls the requirement 'extremely restrictive' and does not derive it from a UV model.
ad hoc to paper The flavor structure is chosen so that M⋆ is exactly democratic and Tr(MΦ†M⋆)=0.
Eqs. (22)-(36); the S3 symmetry is proposed as a motivation, but a complete realization with a fully specified charged-lepton sector is not constructed.
domain assumption The weak gauge coupling runs as in the SM up to M_UV ∼ f for the instanton estimate.
Sec. II.A; if new UV states enhance α2(M_UV), the instanton potential could dominate over the neutrino contribution.
standard math The one-loop Coleman-Weinberg formula of Eq. (47) with μbar² = Σ m_i² is the correct leading radiative potential.
Standard effective-potential computation; the paper states its renormalization convention explicitly.

invented entities (2)

Weak axion (phase of complex scalar Φ with B+L charge -2) independent evidence
purpose: Dark energy scalar whose potential and mass come from axion-dependent neutrino masses.
No direct detection is possible, but the model provides quantitative falsifiable handles: Λν as a function of δCP and θ23 (Eq. 44), mββ range (Eq. 46), and w(z) evolution.
Right-handed neutrinos νc_d and νc,F in S3 representations
purpose: Type-I seesaw completion generating the two Weinberg spurions with the required S3 selection rules.
High-scale (10^14-10^15 GeV) seesaw states; no direct observable signal is identified in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Energy and Neutrino Flavor from the Weak Axion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTXGLQGC

@misc{pith2026260713128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Energy and Neutrino Flavor from the Weak Axion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTXGLQGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13128}
}

abstract

Dynamical dark energy offers an alternative to a cosmological constant with distinct observational signatures. However, the small energy density scale, Hubble-sized mass, and Planckian excursions make simple models fine-tuned and unnatural. In this work, we show that a weak version of the axion, identified with the phase field of the anomalous $U(1)_{B+L}$ of the Standard Model, can generate the scale hierarchies expected for dark energy. The axion potential is controlled by sources of explicit baryon and lepton number violation and is radiatively stable. We show that the leading contribution comes from two inequivalent Weinberg operators, one $B+L$-conserving and one $B+L$-violating, which generate the axion potential. We propose a flavor selection rule based on a spontaneously broken $S_3$ permutation symmetry in the lepton sector that simultaneously removes the quadratic divergence and dominant temperature-dependent contributions. The resulting potential first appears at quartic order in the axion-dependent neutrino masses and, for the observed departure from tribimaximal mixing, its amplitude is parametrically close to the dark-energy density. The dominant uncertainty comes from $\delta_{\rm CP}$ and $\theta_{23}$, so experiments like Hyper-K and DUNE can directly test the model in the future. Cosmologically, the field behaves as thawing quintessence for $f$ close to $M_{pl}$, stays frozen by Hubble friction until late times and never enters the adiabatic regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13128 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Confidence regions adapted from the two-parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Leading instanton and anti-instanton contribution to the weak axion effective potential. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

[3]

Moresco, L

M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde et al.,A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter atz∼0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,JCAP05(2016) 014 [1601.01701]. [4]eBOSScollaboration,Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectr...

arXiv 2016
[6]

Sherwin et al.,Evidence for dark energy from the cosmic microwave background alone using the Atacama Cosmology Telescope lensing measurements,Phys

B.D. Sherwin et al.,Evidence for dark energy from the cosmic microwave background alone using the Atacama Cosmology Telescope lensing measurements,Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 021302 [1105.0419]

arXiv 2011
[7]

Nadathur, W.J

S. Nadathur, W.J. Percival, F. Beutler and H. Winther, Testing Low-Redshift Cosmic Acceleration with Large-Scale Structure,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 221301 [2001.11044]

arXiv 2020
[8]

B.M. Rose, D. Rubin, A. Cikota, S.E. Deustua, S. Dixon, A. Fruchter et al.,Evidence for Cosmic Acceleration is Robust to Observed Correlations Between Type Ia Supernova Luminosity and Stellar Age, Astrophys. J. Lett.896(2020) L4 [2002.12382]

arXiv 2020
[9]

Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev

S. Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 1

1989
[10]

Peebles and B

P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra,The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,Rev. Mod. Phys.75(2003) 559 [astro-ph/0207347]

arXiv 2003
[11]

Copeland, M

E.J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15(2006) 1753 [hep-th/0603057]. [12]Supernov a Search Teamcollaboration,Type Ia supernova discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution,Astrophys. J.607 (2004) 665 [astro-ph/0402512]. [13]SDSScol...

arXiv 2006
[14]

Jimenez and A

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages,Astrophys. J. 573(2002) 37 [astro-ph/0106145]

arXiv 2002

Show all 66 references

[15]

Crittenden and N

R.G. Crittenden and N. Turok,Looking for Lambda with the Rees-Sciama effect,Phys. Rev. Lett.76(1996) 575 [astro-ph/9510072]

1996 arXiv
[16]

Guzzo et al.,A test of the nature of cosmic acceleration using galaxy redshift distortions,Nature 451(2008) 541 [0802.1944]

L. Guzzo et al.,A test of the nature of cosmic acceleration using galaxy redshift distortions,Nature 451(2008) 541 [0802.1944]. [17]DEScollaboration,Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 043526 ...

2008 arXiv
[18]

Vikhlinin et al.,Chandra Cluster Cosmology Project III: Cosmological Parameter Constraints,Astrophys

A. Vikhlinin et al.,Chandra Cluster Cosmology Project III: Cosmological Parameter Constraints,Astrophys. J. 692(2009) 1060 [0812.2720]

2009 arXiv
[19]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space,Phys. Rev. Lett. 93(2004) 171104 [astro-ph/0309300]

2004 arXiv
[20]

Carroll,Quintessence and the rest of the world, Phys

S.M. Carroll,Quintessence and the rest of the world, Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 3067 [astro-ph/9806099]

1998 arXiv
[21]

Uzan,The Fundamental Constants and Their Variation: Observational Status and Theoretical Motivations,Rev

J.-P. Uzan,The Fundamental Constants and Their Variation: Observational Status and Theoretical Motivations,Rev. Mod. Phys.75(2003) 403 [hep-ph/0205340]. [22]DESIcollaboration,DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,JCAP02(20...

2003 arXiv
[27]

Kolda and D.H

C.F. Kolda and D.H. Lyth,Quintessential difficulties, Phys. Lett. B458(1999) 197 [hep-ph/9811375]

1999 arXiv
[28]

Abbott,A Mechanism for Reducing the Value of the Cosmological Constant,Phys

L.F. Abbott,A Mechanism for Reducing the Value of the Cosmological Constant,Phys. Lett. B150(1985) 427

1985
[29]

Brown and C

J.D. Brown and C. Teitelboim,Dynamical Neutralization of the Cosmological Constant,Phys. Lett. B195(1987) 177. 14

1987
[30]

Brown and C

J.D. Brown and C. Teitelboim,Neutralization of the Cosmological Constant by Membrane Creation,Nucl. Phys. B297(1988) 787

1988
[31]

Graham, D.E

P.W. Graham, D.E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, Relaxation of the Cosmological Constant,Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 015048 [1902.06793]

2019 arXiv
[32]

Bousso and J

R. Bousso and J. Polchinski,Quantization of four form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant,JHEP06(2000) 006 [hep-th/0004134]

2000 arXiv
[33]

Polchinski,The Cosmological Constant and the String Landscape, in23rd Solvay Conference in Physics: The Quantum Structure of Space and Time, pp

J. Polchinski,The Cosmological Constant and the String Landscape, in23rd Solvay Conference in Physics: The Quantum Structure of Space and Time, pp. 216–236, 3, 2006 [hep-th/0603249]

2006 arXiv
[34]

Obied, H

G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko and C. Vafa,De Sitter Space and the Swampland,1806.08362

arXiv
[35]

Ooguri, E

H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu and C. Vafa,Distance and de Sitter Conjectures on the Swampland,Phys. Lett. B 788(2019) 180 [1810.05506]

2019 arXiv
[36]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez,Quantum Exclusion of Positive Cosmological Constant?,Annalen Phys.528(2016) 68 [1412.8077]

2016 arXiv
[37]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez,Quantum Compositeness of Gravity: Black Holes, AdS and Inflation,JCAP01 (2014) 023 [1312.4795]

2014 arXiv
[38]

Dvali,S-Matrix and Anomaly of de Sitter,Symmetry 13(2020) 3 [2012.02133]

G. Dvali,S-Matrix and Anomaly of de Sitter,Symmetry 13(2020) 3 [2012.02133]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Kaloper and A

N. Kaloper and A. Padilla,Vacuum Energy Sequestering: The Framework and Its Cosmological Consequences,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 084023 [1406.0711]

2014 arXiv
[40]

Kaloper, A

N. Kaloper, A. Padilla, D. Stefanyszyn and G. Zahariade,Manifestly Local Theory of Vacuum Energy Sequestering,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 051302 [1505.01492]

2016 arXiv
[41]

Kaloper, A

N. Kaloper, A. Padilla and D. Stefanyszyn,Sequestering effects on and of vacuum decay,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 025022 [1604.04000]

2016 arXiv
[42]

Kaloper and A

N. Kaloper and A. Padilla,Vacuum Energy Sequestering and Graviton Loops,Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 061303 [1606.04958]

2017 arXiv
[43]

D’Amico, N

G. D’Amico, N. Kaloper, A. Padilla, D. Stefanyszyn, A. Westphal and G. Zahariade,An étude on global vacuum energy sequester,JHEP09(2017) 074 [1705.08950]

2017 arXiv
[44]

Coltman, Y

B. Coltman, Y. Li and A. Padilla,Cosmological consequences of Omnia Sequestra,JCAP06(2019) 017 [1903.02829]

2019 arXiv
[45]

Khoury, B

J. Khoury, B. Muntz and A. Padilla,A Lapse in the Cosmological Constant Problem,2604.08659

arXiv
[46]

Binetruy,Models of dynamical supersymmetry breaking and quintessence,Phys

P. Binetruy,Models of dynamical supersymmetry breaking and quintessence,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 063502 [hep-ph/9810553]

1999 arXiv
[47]

Brax and J

P. Brax and J. Martin,Quintessence and supergravity, Phys. Lett. B468(1999) 40 [astro-ph/9905040]

1999 arXiv
[48]

Brax and J

P. Brax and J. Martin,The Robustness of quintessence, Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 103502 [astro-ph/9912046]

2000 arXiv
[49]

Copeland, N.J

E.J. Copeland, N.J. Nunes and F. Rosati,Quintessence models in supergravity,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 123503 [hep-ph/0005222]

2000 arXiv
[50]

Frieman, C.T

J.A. Frieman, C.T. Hill, A. Stebbins and I. Waga, Cosmology with ultralight pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons,Phys. Rev. Lett.75(1995) 2077 [astro-ph/9505060]

1995 arXiv
[51]

Choi,String or M theory axion as a quintessence, Phys

K. Choi,String or M theory axion as a quintessence, Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 043509 [hep-ph/9902292]

2000 arXiv
[52]

Kim and H.P

J.E. Kim and H.P. Nilles,A Quintessential axion,Phys. Lett. B553(2003) 1 [hep-ph/0210402]

2003 arXiv
[53]

Gasperini, F

M. Gasperini, F. Piazza and G. Veneziano, Quintessence as a runaway dilaton,Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 023508 [gr-qc/0108016]

2002 arXiv
[54]

Damour, F

T. Damour, F. Piazza and G. Veneziano,Runaway dilaton and equivalence principle violations,Phys. Rev. Lett.89(2002) 081601 [gr-qc/0204094]

2002 arXiv
[55]

Burgess, D

C.P. Burgess, D. Dineen and F. Quevedo,Yoga Dark Energy: natural relaxation and other dark implications of a supersymmetric gravity sector,JCAP03(2022) 064 [2111.07286]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon cosmology, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 044026 [astro-ph/0309411]

2004 arXiv
[57]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.C. Davis, J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon dark energy,AIP Conf. Proc. 736(2004) 105 [astro-ph/0410103]

2004 arXiv
[58]

Hinterbichler and J

K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury,Symmetron Fields: Screening Long-Range Forces Through Local Symmetry Restoration,Phys. Rev. Lett.104(2010) 231301 [1001.4525]

2010 arXiv
[59]

McLerran, R

L. McLerran, R. Pisarski and V. Skokov,Electroweak Instantons, Axions, and the Cosmological Constant, Phys. Lett. B713(2012) 301 [1204.2533]

2012 arXiv
[60]

Nomura, T

Y. Nomura, T. Watari and T. Yanagida,Quintessence axion potential induced by electroweak instanton effects, Phys. Lett. B484(2000) 103 [hep-ph/0004182]

2000 arXiv
[61]

Shifman and A

M. Shifman and A. Vainshtein,(In)dependence ofΘin the Higgs regime without axions,Mod. Phys. Lett. A32 (2017) 1750084 [1701.00467]

2017 arXiv
[62]

Dvali, A

G. Dvali, A. Kobakhidze and O. Sakhelashvili, Electroweakηw meson,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 113002 [2408.07535]

2025 arXiv
[63]

Dvali, A

G. Dvali, A. Kobakhidze and O. Sakhelashvili, ηW-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum,2509.16043
[64]

Cacciapaglia, F

G. Cacciapaglia, F. Sannino and J. Turner,Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweakηW,2509.15912
[65]

Cacciapaglia, F

G. Cacciapaglia, F. Sannino and J. Turner,The Good Qualities of the Weak Axion,2510.14104
[66]

Davoudiasl,Astrophysical Consequences of an ElectroweakηW Pseudo-Scalar,2510.02310

H. Davoudiasl,Astrophysical Consequences of an ElectroweakηW Pseudo-Scalar,2510.02310
[67]

Fardon, A.E

R. Fardon, A.E. Nelson and N. Weiner,Dark energy from mass varying neutrinos,JCAP10(2004) 005 [astro-ph/0309800]

2004 arXiv
[68]

Peccei,Neutrino models of dark energy,Phys

R.D. Peccei,Neutrino models of dark energy,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 023527 [hep-ph/0411137]

2005 arXiv
[69]

Afshordi, M

N. Afshordi, M. Zaldarriaga and K. Kohri,On the stability of dark energy with mass-varying neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 065024 [astro-ph/0506663]

2005 arXiv
[70]

Nomura, T

Y. Nomura, T. Watari and T. Yanagida,Mass generation for an ultralight axion,Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 105007 [hep-ph/9911324]

2000 arXiv
[71]

Morrissey, T.M.P

D.E. Morrissey, T.M.P. Tait and C.E.M. Wagner, Proton lifetime and baryon number violating signatures at the CERN LHC in gauge extended models,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 095003 [hep-ph/0508123]

2005 arXiv
[72]

Csáki, R.T

C. Csáki, R.T. D’Agnolo, E. Kuflik and M. Ruhdorfer, Instanton NDA and applications to axion models,JHEP 04(2024) 074 [2311.09285]

2024 arXiv
[73]

Harrison, D.H

P.F. Harrison, D.H. Perkins and W.G. Scott, Tri-bimaximal mixing and the neutrino oscillation data, Phys. Lett. B530(2002) 167 [hep-ph/0202074]. 15

2002 arXiv
[74]

Esteban, M.C

I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J.P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP12(2024) 216 [2410.05380]. [75]T2K, NOvAcollaboration,Joint neutrino oscillation analysis from the T2K an...

2024 arXiv
[75]

The absence of a cubic correction makes this expression a good guide to the interference pattern in Fig

+ϵ δθ12, θ23 =π/4 +ϵ δθ23, ands 13 =ϵ δθ13, withs 13 ands 23 −c 23 treated as small quantities, one finds |q3|2 = ϵ2 3 √ 2δθ 23 +δθ 13 cosδ CP 2 +O(ϵ 4).(B12) ≃ 1 3 (s23 −c 23 +s 13 cosδ CP)2 (B13) Hereϵdenotes a generic departure from tribimaximal mixing. The absence of a cub...
[76]

Adams et al.,Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay, 2212.11099

C. Adams et al.,Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay, 2212.11099. [77]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

2024 arXiv
[78]

Kobakhidze,On the theta-vacua and CP violation, 2604.02698

A. Kobakhidze,On the theta-vacua and CP violation, 2604.02698

arXiv
[79]

Fileviez Perez and H.H

P. Fileviez Perez and H.H. Patel,The electroweak vacuum angle,Phys. Lett. B732(2014) 241 [1402.6340]. Appendix A: Instanton induced potential As defined in the main text, theSU(2)L topological charge is Q= g2 32π2 Z d4x Wa µν fW aµν ∈Z.(A1) With the anomaly normalization used ...

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Moresco, L

M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, L. Verde et al.,A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter atz∼0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,JCAP05(2016) 014 [1601.01701]. [4]eBOSScollaboration,Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectr...

arXiv 2016

[2] [6]

Sherwin et al.,Evidence for dark energy from the cosmic microwave background alone using the Atacama Cosmology Telescope lensing measurements,Phys

B.D. Sherwin et al.,Evidence for dark energy from the cosmic microwave background alone using the Atacama Cosmology Telescope lensing measurements,Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 021302 [1105.0419]

arXiv 2011

[3] [7]

Nadathur, W.J

S. Nadathur, W.J. Percival, F. Beutler and H. Winther, Testing Low-Redshift Cosmic Acceleration with Large-Scale Structure,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 221301 [2001.11044]

arXiv 2020

[4] [8]

B.M. Rose, D. Rubin, A. Cikota, S.E. Deustua, S. Dixon, A. Fruchter et al.,Evidence for Cosmic Acceleration is Robust to Observed Correlations Between Type Ia Supernova Luminosity and Stellar Age, Astrophys. J. Lett.896(2020) L4 [2002.12382]

arXiv 2020

[5] [9]

Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev

S. Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 1

1989

[6] [10]

Peebles and B

P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra,The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,Rev. Mod. Phys.75(2003) 559 [astro-ph/0207347]

arXiv 2003

[7] [11]

Copeland, M

E.J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15(2006) 1753 [hep-th/0603057]. [12]Supernov a Search Teamcollaboration,Type Ia supernova discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution,Astrophys. J.607 (2004) 665 [astro-ph/0402512]. [13]SDSScol...

arXiv 2006

[8] [14]

Jimenez and A

R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages,Astrophys. J. 573(2002) 37 [astro-ph/0106145]

arXiv 2002