Dark matter mixing within the seesaw type II mechanism in the left-right symmetric model

D. Kazarkin; E. Fedotova; M. Dubinin

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Dark matter mixing within the seesaw type II mechanism in the left-right symmetric model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the left-right symmetric model, a nonzero left-triplet VEV can drive the dark-matter sterile neutrino's mixing to near zero.

desk verdict A real cancellation mechanism in the type II seesaw, but the phenomenological punchline rests on vL values that the paper never checks against the scalar potential. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04035 v1 pith:QTG3JSSH submitted 2025-06-04 hep-ph

M. Dubinin , E. Fedotova , D. Kazarkin This is my paper

classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d12.60.-i

keywords left-rightsymmetricmodelseesawtypeIIsterileneutrinodarkmatterkeVwarmactive-sterilemixingheavyneutralleptonsmasshierarchy

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

This paper tries to establish that in the left-right symmetric extension of the Standard Model, the type II seesaw mechanism makes the mixing of the lightest sterile neutrino—the keV-scale warm dark matter candidate—strongly dependent on the vacuum expectation value $v_L$ of the left Higgs triplet. The key relation is a redefinition of the effective active-neutrino mass matrix: $\tilde m = \hat m - (v_L/v_R) U^\dagger_{\rm PMNS} \hat M U^*_{\rm PMNS}$. When the two heavier sterile neutrinos are as heavy as the right-handed breaking scale, $M_2 = M_3 = v_R$, this correction is of order $v_L$, and at special nonzero values of $v_L$ the matrix square root $\sqrt{\tilde m}$ can vanish, driving the dark matter mixing parameter $U_1^2$ to near zero without changing the light active neutrino masses. If correct, this gives a new way to satisfy the cosmological overproduction and decay constraints on keV sterile neutrinos inside the left-right symmetric model, and it would differ sharply from the $\nu$MSM limit, recovered only when the heavier states are much lighter than $v_R$. The authors demonstrate the effect for normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies with the lightest active mass fixed at $10^{-5}$ eV.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified seesaw type II mixing formula for the active-sterile mixing matrix: $\Theta = i U_{\rm PMNS} \sqrt{\tilde m}\, \Omega \sqrt{\hat M^{-1}}$, with $\tilde m = \hat m - (v_L/v_R) U^\dagger_{\rm PMNS} \hat M U^*_{\rm PMNS}$. This identity replaces the $\nu$MSM effective mass $\hat m$ by a $v_L$-dependent matrix whose square root appears in the dark matter parameter $m_{\rm dm}^{\rm D}$; the dips in the mixing occur where $\sqrt{\tilde m}$ has eigenvalues crossing zero. The benchmark choice $\Omega_{k1}=\delta_{k1}$ together with $M_2=M_3=v_R$ makes the correction term active and determines the numerical curves shown in Fig. 1.

What would settle it

Recompute the $U_1^2(v_L)$ curves with $M_2$ and $M_3$ set below $v_R$, for example $M_2=M_3=1$ GeV or fixed by a TeV-scale VEV-seesaw-consistent spectrum, and check whether the dips disappear or move to $v_L$ values excluded by the Higgs potential minimization condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the minimal left-right symmetric model with three generations of heavy Majorana neutrinos, the active-sterile mixing of the lightest heavy neutral lepton is not fixed by the lightest active neutrino mass alone, as in the $\nu$MSM, but receives a type II seesaw correction proportional to $v_L/v_R$. Explicitly, with the Casas-Ibarra-style parameterization $\Theta = i U_{\rm PMNS} \sqrt{\tilde m}\, \Omega \sqrt{\hat M^{-1}}$, the effective mass matrix entering the dark matter parameter $m_{\rm dm}^{\rm D} = \sum_\alpha |U_{\alpha i}(\sqrt{\tilde m})_{ij}\Omega_{j1}|^2$ is $\tilde m = \hat m - (v_L/v_R) U^\dagger_{\rm PMNS} \hat M U^*_{\rm PMNS}$. Choosing $M_2 = M_3 = v_R$ makes this correction comparable to $\hat m$, and the authors show numerically that the zeroes of $\sqrt{\tilde m}$ produce deep dips in $U_1^2$ at nonzero $v_L$, with the dip positions controlled by the PMNS matrix and the CP phase $\delta_{\rm CP} = 238^\circ$. The result is presented as a mechanism to suppress dark matter mixing without suppressing the mass of the lightest active neutrino.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical result assumes the two heavier sterile neutrinos are as heavy as the right-handed breaking scale, $M_2 = M_3 = v_R$, which makes the seesaw correction in Eq. (1) comparable to the active neutrino masses; if the heavier states are much lighter than $v_R$, the correction is suppressed and the claimed suppression goes away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At special nonzero values of $v_L$, the lightest heavy neutral lepton can be almost decoupled from active neutrinos ($\delta_1 \to 0$), so it can easily satisfy the lifetime bound $\tau_{N_1} > H_0^{-1}$ and the relic-density bound $\Omega_{N_1} h^2 \le 0.12$.
The suppression mechanism works for both normal and inverted active-neutrino hierarchies, as shown in the right panel of Fig. 1, so it is not tied to a particular mass ordering.
When $M_{2,3} \ll v_R$, the correction term in Eq. (1) becomes negligible, for example $\sim 10^{-6} v_L$ for sub-GeV heavier states, and the mixing parameter coincides with the $\nu$MSM prediction; hence the $\nu$MSM is the $v_L$-decoupled limit of this scenario.
Because the dips come from zeroes of $\sqrt{\tilde m}$, changing the PMNS matrix elements or the CP phase shifts the special $v_L$ values, so improved neutrino oscillation data would move or sharpen the predicted suppression points.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: the paper does not demonstrate that the $v_L$ values at the dips are compatible with the VEV seesaw relation $v_L = v_R^{-1}(\beta_2 k_1^2 + \beta_1 k_1 k_2 + \beta_3 k_2^2)/(2\rho_1 - \rho_3)$ for a TeV-scale $v_R$; a natural next check is to see whether the required $v_L$ can be obtained from the quartic couplings without destabilizing the Higgs potential.
My inference: because the effect relies on taking $M_2$ and $M_3$ equal to $v_R$, a more realistic spectrum with lighter second and third heavy neutral leptons would dilute the correction; probing the heavy-neutrino masses through collider production of $W_R$ or $Z_R$ would indirectly test the mechanism.
My inference: if such a deep mixing dip exists, the radiative decay $N_1 \to \gamma\nu$ would be suppressed, so a positive detection of a keV X-ray line from sterile-neutrino decay would disfavor this parameter region, while null X-ray searches would be consistent with the dip.

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

The paper does something genuinely new: it extends the Casas-Ibarra parametrization to the type II seesaw in the minimal LRSM and shows that the HNL dark-matter mixing parameter can develop sharp dips as a function of the left-triplet VEV vL. Those dips are zeros of the matrix square root of the redefined light mass matrix, not fits, so the central mechanism is not circular. The derivation of Eq. (1) is clear, the figures are honest, and the authors explicitly state the VEV seesaw relation vL = (β2 k1^2 + β1 k1 k2 + β3 k2^2)/(2ρ1 − ρ3)/vR. For a short letter, it is readable and well grounded in the cited literature.

The soft spots are real but not fatal to the algebra. First, the paper scans vL as an independent parameter, but in the minimal LRSM vL is fixed once the quartic couplings are chosen. The values that produce the dips, vL ~ 10^-5 eV for vR ~ TeV, require a dimensionless combination of quartic couplings of order 10^-16. That is an extreme tuning, and the paper does not show that any point in the scalar parameter space is both bounded from below and tachyon-free while giving such a vL. This is the load-bearing gap: the effect is formally present, but its phenomenological relevance depends on whether the dip-scale vL is actually in the model. Second, the approximation hM ≃ \hat M/(√2 vR) is stated without derivation or conditions; it is standard, but a referee would want the order-of-magnitude justification spelled out. Third, the benchmark M2 = M3 = vR drives the effect; the authors note that lighter HNLs reduce it to the νMSM limit, so the headline result is tied to that benchmark.

The stress-test note is right: this is not a contradiction in the seesaw algebra, but a missing link between the scanned vL and the scalar sector. The reader's assessment of soundness 5 is proportionate.

Who is this for? Phenomenologists working on sterile-neutrino dark matter in left-right models. If the VEV-consistency check can be done, the result becomes a real handle on where keV DM can hide. Without it, the paper is still a legitimate formal observation, but it should not claim the phenomenology without that check.

I would send it to a serious referee. The central mechanism is worth scrutiny, and the missing consistency check is exactly what a good referee should demand. The paper deserves a major-revision decision, not a desk rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers the minimal left-right symmetric model (LRSM) with three heavy Majorana neutrinos and studies the mixing of the lightest sterile neutrino as a keV-scale dark matter candidate. Starting from the 6x6 neutrino mass matrix, the authors derive an approximate seesaw type II expression, Eq. (1), in which the effective light mixing matrix is \tilde m = \hat m - (v_L/v_R) U_{PMNS}^\dagger \hat M U_{PMNS}^*. They adopt a benchmark with M_2 = M_3 = v_R, fix the PMNS CP phase and the lightest active neutrino mass, and scan the left-triplet VEV v_L. They find that the dark matter mixing parameter U_1^2 develops sharp dips at special values of v_L, where the matrix square root of \tilde m nearly vanishes, and they discuss the resulting lifetime and relic density constraints. The paper concludes that type II seesaw corrections can strongly suppress the active-sterile mixing of a keV DM neutrino in the LRSM.

Significance. If the central effect is real, it is interesting: it identifies new regions of LRSM parameter space where the keV sterile neutrino can evade the usual overproduction and lifetime bounds via suppressed mixing. The derivation of Eq. (1) is compact, and the numerical treatment through the matrix square root is a concrete, falsifiable prediction: the dips in U_1^2 occur at v_L values set by the PMNS matrix and m_light. The claim is not circular, because the dips are not fitted to data but arise from the algebraic structure of \tilde m. However, the physical significance currently hinges on whether the required v_L values are actually attainable in the minimal LRSM scalar sector, and on the validity of the adopted approximations. The paper does not provide this validation, so the result is promising but not yet established within the model.

major comments (3)

[§1, Eq. (1); §2, Fig. 1] The numerical scan treats v_L as an independent free parameter, but in the minimal LRSM the VEV seesaw relation v_L = v_R^{-1}(\beta_2 k_1^2 + \beta_1 k_1 k_2 + \beta_3 k_2^2)/(2\rho_1 - \rho_3), stated in §1, fixes v_L in terms of the quartic couplings of the scalar potential. For v_R ~ 1 TeV and k_i ~ 246 GeV, a dip at v_L ~ 10^-5 eV requires the combination of dimensionless quartics to be of order (10^-5 eV)(10^3 GeV)/(246 GeV)^2 ~ 10^-16. The paper neither scans the quartic couplings needed to produce such v_L nor checks that the scalar potential remains bounded from below and tachyon-free. Without this step, the v_L values where the mixing suppression occurs are not established to lie in the LRSM parameter space. The authors should either show that such tuned quartics are viable or explicitly state that the scan is a model-independent exercise outside the minimal LRSM.
[§1, derivation of \tilde m] The approximation h_M \simeq \hat M/(\sqrt{2} v_R), which leads directly to Eq. (1), is adopted without a full derivation. From the definitions M_{L,R} = \sqrt{2} h_M v_{L,R}, the reduction of h_M to \hat M/(\sqrt{2} v_R) assumes \theta^2 \ll I and \hat m \ll \hat M, but for v_R ~ 1 TeV one has \theta ~ v/v_R ~ 0.2, so \theta^2 may not be negligible. The authors should spell out the conditions under which Eq. (1) is accurate and estimate the error in the mixing parameter for the benchmark values used in Fig. 1.
[§2, matrix square root of \tilde m] The dips are attributed to zeros of the matrix square root of \tilde m, but the paper does not show that \tilde m remains positive semidefinite over the scanned v_L range. If \tilde m develops negative eigenvalues, the real matrix square root is undefined; if it has zero eigenvalues, the parametrization \Theta = i U_{PMNS} \sqrt{\tilde m} \Omega \sqrt{\hat M^{-1}} needs additional justification near the singular points. The authors should specify the domain of v_L in which the square root is well defined and discuss the behavior of the physical mixing parameters at and around the dips.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The text contains numerous typographical errors, including 'Lomonos ov', 'Lomonos kie', 'depende nce', 'th e', and 'approxim ation' in the header and abstract; these should be corrected in a polished version.
[§2, Fig. 1] The figure captions should state explicitly that the left panel shows the ratio \delta_1 = U_1^2(v_L)/U_1^2(0), and should specify whether the axes are logarithmic. The notation U_1^2 vs. U_I^2 should be made consistent.
[§3] The illustrative choice M_{2(3)} = m_\pi + m_{\mu(e)} is not defined; please give the numerical values and explain why this choice is representative of the regime M_{N_i} \ll v_R.
[§2] The benchmark \Omega matrix is taken from the authors' earlier papers [11,15] and was derived for v_L = 0. Since \Omega is in general a complex orthogonal matrix that may depend on the seesaw parameters, the authors should justify its use at nonzero v_L.
[§2, Fig. 1] The statement that the CP phase is fixed at \delta_{CP} = 238^\circ should be supplemented by the full PMNS parametrization used, and ideally by an estimate of how uncertainties in \delta_{CP} and the active neutrino mass ordering affect the dip positions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the vL-induced mixing suppression is an algebraic consequence of the seesaw equations, and the self-citations are benchmark conventions, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is Eq. (1): $\tilde m \simeq \hat m - (v_L/v_R) U_\mathrm{PMNS}^\dagger \hat M U_\mathrm{PMNS}^*$, obtained from the 6x6 seesaw mass matrix using the Casas-Ibarra parametrization and the stated approximations $\theta^2 \ll I$, $\hat m \ll \hat M$, $U_N = I$. The DM mixing measure is defined by $m_\mathrm{dm}^D = M_1 \sum_\alpha |\Theta_{\alpha 1}|^2 = |\sqrt{\tilde m}|^2_{kn}\Omega_{n1}\Omega^*_{k1}$, so the dips in Fig. 1 are zeros of the numerical matrix square root of $\tilde m$. No parameter is fitted to data, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The benchmark choices $\Omega_{k1}=\delta_{k1}$, $M_2=M_3=v_R$, $m_\mathrm{light}=10^{-5}\,\mathrm{eV}$, and $\delta_\mathrm{CP}=238^\circ$ are all stated explicitly; the equations also show that the second term in Eq. (1) is negligible when $M_{2,3}\ll v_R$, reducing correctly to the nuMSM limit. The definitions of $m_\mathrm{dm}^D$ and the NH/IH forms of $\Omega$ cite the authors' earlier papers [11,15], but these are conventions and a benchmark scenario, not the load-bearing mechanism: the cancellation in Eq. (1) is independent of which component of $\sqrt{\tilde m}$ is projected by $\Omega$. The fact that the plotted $v_L$ values are not cross-checked against the scalar-potential VEV-seesaw relation $v_L = v_R^{-1}(\beta_2 k_1^2 + \beta_1 k_1 k_2 + \beta_3 k_2^2)/(2\rho_1 - \rho_3)$ is a model-viability or correctness concern, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is present; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The result rests on a specific HNL mass benchmark and on scanning vL freely. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free choices are the M2 = M3 = vR hierarchy and the vL scan range, without which the suppression effect disappears.

free parameters (5)

vL (left triplet VEV) = scanned down to ~10^-5 eV in Fig. 1
Treated as a free parameter in the numerical scan although the Higgs potential relates vL to vR and scalar couplings.
M2 = M3 = vR = set equal to vR
Benchmark chosen in Fig. 1 so that the second term in Eq. (1) is O(vL); the main suppression effect depends on this choice.
mlight = 10^-5 eV
Lightest active neutrino mass fixed for the plots; the actual value is unknown.
Omega matrix benchmark = Omega_j1 = delta_j1 (NH), delta_j3 (IH)
Adopted from the authors' earlier work [15]; other allowed values would change m_dm^D.
CP phase delta_CP = 238 degrees
Fixed in both figures; PMNS matrix components determine the dip positions.

assumptions (4)

standard math Takagi factorization and block-diagonal seesaw parametrization of the 6x6 neutrino mass matrix
Standard linear algebra used in Section 1.
domain assumption Approximations theta^2 << I, \hat m << \hat M, U_N = I, g_L = g_R = g
Stated in Section 1 before Eq. (1); needed for hM \simeq \hat M/(sqrt(2) vR).
domain assumption Cosmological constraints on lifetime and relic density from prior literature (Eqs. 2 and 3)
Taken from [5,11,15]; not derived in this paper.
ad hoc to paper Heavy neutrino mass spectrum M1 ~ keV, M2 = M3 = vR
This benchmark scenario is chosen to produce the cancellation and dips; it is not derived from the model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark matter mixing within the seesaw type II mechanism in the left-right symmetric model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTG3JSSH

@misc{pith2026250604035,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark matter mixing within the seesaw type II mechanism in the left-right symmetric model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTG3JSSH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04035}
}

abstract

The seesaw type II mechanism is considered within the framework of a left-right chiral model with a gauge group $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)$, the lepton sector of which includes three generations of heavy Majorana neutrinos. The dependence of the mixing parameters of the lightest sterile neutrino as a dark matter particle on the scales of left-right symmetry breaking in the case of direct and inverse hierarchies of active neutrino masses is analyzed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04035 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left: Illustration of U 2 1 dark matter mixing parameter decreasing with a fixed mlight scale due to the contribution of nonzero VEV of the left Higgs triplet vL. δ1 is the ratio of mixing parameter U 2 I with nonzero vL to the same parameter but with vL = 0. Here, we consider normal hierarchy of neutrino masses and the set of parameters is selected as follows: Ωk1 = δk1 (νMSMbenchmark), M2 = M3 = vR. Right: depend… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Lepton Number as the Fourth Color . Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275 [Erratum: Phys.Rev. D 11 (1975) 703]

work page 1974
[2]

R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, A Natural Left-Right Symmetry . Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2558

work page 1975
[3]

Senjanovic and R

G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Exact Left-Right Symmetry and Spontaneous Violation of Parity . Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502

work page 1975
[4]

Minkowski, µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays? Phys

P. Minkowski, µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays? Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421

work page 1977
[5]

K. A. Olive and M. S. Turner, Cosmological Bounds on the Masses of Stable, Right-handed Neutrinos. Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 213

work page 1982
[6]

Opening a new window for warm dark matter

T. Asaka, M. Shaposhnikov, and A. Kusenko, Opening a new window for warm dark matter . Phys. Lett. B 638 (2006) 401; arXiv:hep-ph/0602150

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[7]

Bezrukov, H

F. Bezrukov, H. Hettmansperger, and M. Lindner, keV sterile neutrino Dark Matter in gauge extensions of the Standard Model . Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 085032; arXiv:0912.4415 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2010
[8]

Asaka, S

T. Asaka, S. Blanchet, and M. Shaposhnikov, The νMSM, dark matter and neutrino masses . Phys. Lett. B 631 (2005) 151; arXiv:hep-ph/0503065. 5

arXiv 2005

Show all 17 references

[9]

Drewes, et al, A White Paper on keV Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter

M. Drewes, et al, A White Paper on keV Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter . JCAP 01 (2017) 025; arXiv:1602.04816 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[10]

J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, Oscillating neutrinos and µ → e, γ. Nucl. Phys. B 618 (2001) 171; arXiv:hep-ph/0103065

2001 arXiv
[11]

M. N. Dubinin and D. M. Kazarkin, Lepton universality in a model with three generations of sterile Majorana neutrinos . Phys. Rev. D 109, no.5 (2024) 055004; arXiv:2212.11310 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[12]

Dubinin and E

M. Dubinin and E. Fedotova, Non-Minimal Approximation for the Type-I Seesaw Mecha- nism. Symmetry 15, no.3 (2023) 679; arXiv:2303.06680 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Nemevsek, G

M. Nemevsek, G. Senjanovic, and Y. Zhang, Warm Dark Matter in Low Scale Left-Right Theory. JCAP 07 (2012) 006; arXiv:1205.0844 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[14]

P. Duka, J. Gluza, and M. Zralek, Quantization and renormalization of the manifest left- right symmetric model of electroweak interactions . Annals Phys. 280 (2000) 336; arXiv:hep- ph/9910279

2000
[15]

M. N. Dubinin and D. M. Kazarkin, Improved Cosmological Bounds for Mixing Scenarios of Three Sterile Neutrino Generations . J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 137, no.6 (2023) 814

2023
[16]

T. M. Aliev and M. I. Vysotsky, Prospects for Detecting Photons Produced by the Decay of Primordial Neutrinos in the Universe . Sov. Phys. Usp. 24 (1981) 1008

1981
[17]

Boyarsky and O

A. Boyarsky and O. Ruchayskiy, Bounds on Light Dark Matter . 4th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs (2008) 31; arXiv:0811.2385 [astro-ph]. 6

2008 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Lepton Number as the Fourth Color . Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275 [Erratum: Phys.Rev. D 11 (1975) 703]

work page 1974

[2] [2]

R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, A Natural Left-Right Symmetry . Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2558

work page 1975

[3] [3]

Senjanovic and R

G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Exact Left-Right Symmetry and Spontaneous Violation of Parity . Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502

work page 1975

[4] [4]

Minkowski, µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays? Phys

P. Minkowski, µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays? Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421

work page 1977

[5] [5]

K. A. Olive and M. S. Turner, Cosmological Bounds on the Masses of Stable, Right-handed Neutrinos. Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 213

work page 1982

[6] [6]

Opening a new window for warm dark matter

T. Asaka, M. Shaposhnikov, and A. Kusenko, Opening a new window for warm dark matter . Phys. Lett. B 638 (2006) 401; arXiv:hep-ph/0602150

work page Pith review arXiv 2006

[7] [7]

Bezrukov, H

F. Bezrukov, H. Hettmansperger, and M. Lindner, keV sterile neutrino Dark Matter in gauge extensions of the Standard Model . Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 085032; arXiv:0912.4415 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2010

[8] [8]

Asaka, S

T. Asaka, S. Blanchet, and M. Shaposhnikov, The νMSM, dark matter and neutrino masses . Phys. Lett. B 631 (2005) 151; arXiv:hep-ph/0503065. 5

arXiv 2005