REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references
Impact of dimension-8 SMEFT operators on baryogenesis via sphaleron decoupling
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Five CP-violating dimension-8 SMEFT operators can each generate the observed baryon asymmetry through sphalerogenesis, at effective scales between 3 and 7 TeV.
desk verdict A genuine extension of sphalerogenesis to the dimension-8 operator basis, with a real loop-counting point, but the abstract's 'five individually' claim is contradicted by the paper's own positivity section. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central device is the CP-odd cubic coefficient $G(\mu,T)$ in the reduced one-dimensional sphaleron action, obtained by substituting the non-contractible-loop ansatz for the gauge and Higgs fields into the SMEFT action and integrating over space. Because the $(\mathrm{d}\mu/\mathrm{d}\eta)^3$ term is odd under reversal of motion along the loop, a nonzero $G$ makes transitions toward one neighboring vacuum more likely than the other, producing the CP asymmetry. The paper computes $G_i(\pi/2,T)$ for each operator, finds nonzero values for $O_1$ through $O_5$ and zero for $O_6$ and $O_7$, and feeds the result into the Boltzmann equation through sphaleron-like deformed configurations parameterized by $\alpha$ and $\beta$, with rates normalized to lattice sphaleron data.
What would settle it
A first-principles lattice computation of the CP-odd component of the electroweak sphaleron rate for the operators $O_1$ through $O_5$ near the electroweak crossover would decide: if the measured asymmetry is consistent with zero at effective scales of 3 to 7 TeV, the reduced-action source used here is not the right description.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
Within the SMEFT, the paper identifies seven CP-violating dimension-8 operators built from the Higgs doublet and SU(2)_L gauge fields and computes their effect on the standard non-contractible-loop sphaleron ansatz. Substituting the ansatz into the action and reducing to motion along the loop gives a one-dimensional action whose CP violation appears through a cubic term, $G(\mu,T)\,(\mathrm{d}\mu/\mathrm{d}\eta)^3$. The paper finds that $G_i(\pi/2,T)$ is nonzero for $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, $O_4$, and $O_5$, while $O_6$ and $O_7$ give $G=0$; explicit radial integrals for the five nonzero contributions are given in Eq. (3.12). Using a Boltzmann equation whose washout and source terms integrate over sphaleron-like configurations decoupling during the smooth electroweak crossover, the paper obtains the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio for each of the five operators in the effective-scale window of Eq. (4.5). It also notes that positivity bounds from causality and unitarity restrict $O_4$ and $O_5$ to the combination $O_4-O_5$ with $c_4=-c_5$, and that this combination still yields a nonvanishing source. Finally, comparing operator cutoffs from UV matching, the paper shows that one-loop-generated dimension-8 operators can contribute comparably to the two-loop-induced dimension-6 Weinberg operator.
Load-bearing premise
The calculation inherits the quantitative validity of the reduced one-dimensional sphaleron action and the prescription for mapping decoupled deformed configurations to CP-asymmetric source terms; if that reduced description is inaccurate, the derived 3 to 7 TeV scale range is not reliable.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The observed baryon asymmetry can be produced by each of $O_1$, $O_2$, $O_3$, $O_4$, and $O_5$ individually for effective scales of about 3 to 7 TeV, so sphalerogenesis is not tied to the dimension-6 Weinberg operator alone.
- $O_6$ and $O_7$ cannot serve as sphalerogenesis sources within this ansatz, so their presence would not affect the baryon asymmetry through this mechanism.
- When combined with the dimension-6 Weinberg operator, the dimension-8 contributions shift the required value of $\Lambda_{\mathrm{dim6}}$ in a sign-dependent way; for destructive interference and a small matching factor, $O_4$ and $O_5$ may make the asymmetry unreachable at the scales shown.
- Positivity constraints restrict $O_4$ and $O_5$ to the combination $c_4=-c_5$, but this combination still yields a viable source with $G = (2/3)G_4$.
- In UV completions where dimension-8 operators are generated at one loop and the Weinberg operator at two loops, the dimension-8 contribution can be comparable or larger, so canonical dimension counting alone understates their role.
Reading between the lines
- Beyond the paper's claims, the 3–7 TeV window and the positivity-compatible combination $O_4-O_5$ give model builders a sharp target: a UV completion that generates only $O_4$ or only $O_5$ without the other cannot explain the baryon asymmetry through sphalerogenesis.
- A complete one-loop matching of a specific UV model onto both the dimension-6 Weinberg operator and the five nonzero dimension-8 operators would determine whether the constructive or destructive interference scenario of Figs. 2 and 3 applies in practice, which the paper leaves to future work.
- The effective scales of 3 to 7 TeV place the surviving operators within reach of next-generation electron-EDM and high-energy collider searches, making the mechanism testable rather than merely retroactive.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript studies baryogenesis via sphaleron decoupling in the SMEFT extended by seven CP-violating dimension-8 operators O1--O7 built from the Higgs doublet and the SU(2)_L field strength. It substitutes the non-contractible-loop ansatz into the action to obtain the reduced sphaleron action, computes the CP-odd cubic coefficient G_i at the saddle point for each operator, and finds that O1--O5 give nonzero G_i while O6 and O7 do not. Solving the Boltzmann equation for the baryon-to-entropy ratio, it reports that each of the five nonzero operators can reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry for effective scales 3 TeV ≲ Λ_dim8/|c_i|^{1/4} ≲ 7 TeV, subject to an uncertainty parameter κ_CP. The paper then compares these contributions with the two-loop EW-Weinberg dimension-6 operator and argues that one-loop-generated dimension-8 operators can be comparable to the dimension-6 contribution. Experimental constraints from LHC photon-fusion WW production and the JILA electron EDM bound are discussed, and positivity bounds are acknowledged in Sec. 6.2.
Significance. If the claims were fully supported, this would be a useful extension of sphalerogenesis to higher-dimensional SMEFT operators, with a transparent analytic reduction from operator coefficients to the Boltzmann source term. The explicit G_i integrals, the identification of O6 and O7 as vanishing, and the loop-order comparison in Sec. 5 are concrete and reproducible steps that go beyond the existing dimension-6 analyses. However, the main quantitative claim is weakened by the paper's own positivity section: the independent sources are at most O1, O2, O3 and the O4--O5 combination, not five separate operators. Since no Boltzmann result is shown for O4--O5, the headline scale range is not established for that allowed combination. The conclusion is therefore defensible in substance but requires a corrected statement of which operators are independent and an explicit treatment of the positivity-compatible combination.
major comments (3)
- [Sec. 6.2 vs. Abstract, Fig. 1, Eq. (4.5)] Section 6.2 states, following Ref. [24], that O4 and O5 cannot be introduced independently and that a nonvanishing CP-odd direction requires c4 = -c5, i.e., the combination O4-5. This contradicts the abstract's claim that "five of them can individually account" for the baryon asymmetry, and it contradicts the presentation in Fig. 1(d,e) and Eq. (4.5), where O4 and O5 are treated as separate sources with separate allowed scale ranges. The manuscript does not solve the Boltzmann equation for O4-5; Eq. (6.2) only gives G4-5 = (2/3)G4. Therefore the paper has not established the scale range for the positivity-allowed combination, and the "five individually" claim is internally inconsistent. The authors should either present the O4-5 Boltzmann results (including a Fig. 1 panel or a table for O4-5) or revise the abstract and Sec. 4 to state that the independent sources are O1, O2, O3 and O4-5.
- [Abstract, Sec. 6.1] The abstract claims that the five operators "satisfy experimental constraints from colliders or electron electric dipole moment measurements." For O2 no experimental constraint is shown anywhere: Fig. 1(b) has no gray exclusion region, and Sec. 6.1 explicitly says that eEDM constraints for operators other than O3 are not analyzed. For O4 and O5, LHC gray regions are shown, but the positivity constraints from Sec. 6.2 are not imposed in Fig. 1(d,e). Thus the statement overstates the actual constraint satisfaction. Please specify which constraint applies to which operator, or soften the abstract to say that the operators are compatible with the constraints considered in this paper.
- [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.4), Sec. 6.2] The central numerical result inherits the quantitative validity of the reduced sphaleron formalism from Refs. [14-16], particularly the mapping of decoupled deformed configurations to the source term P(T) in Eq. (4.4). This is acknowledged through the κ_CP uncertainty, but the 3-7 TeV range in Eq. (4.5) should be presented with the caveat that it relies on the reduced one-dimensional action and the deformation prescription in Eqs. (3.13)-(3.15). I do not treat this as a blocking error because it is inherited from prior work and the manuscript cites that work explicitly, but the abstract and conclusions should not imply that the range is independent of those assumptions.
minor comments (4)
- [Fig. 1 caption] The caption of Fig. 1 notes that positivity constraints are not imposed; given the contradiction with Sec. 6.2 for O4 and O5, this caveat should also appear prominently in the abstract and conclusions, not only in the figure caption.
- [Eq. (4.5)] The range 3 TeV ≲ Λ_dim8/|c_i|^{1/4} ≲ 7 TeV is quoted as a single interval, but it depends on the operator and on κ_CP. A table listing the per-operator and per-κ_CP ranges would make the result more reproducible and would clarify how the quoted interval is obtained from Fig. 1.
- [Sec. 5, Eq. (5.4)] The values of k_i are stated to be O(1-100) but are not tabulated. Since Eq. (5.4) is used to quantify the loop-order competition between dimension-6 and dimension-8 operators, listing the computed k_i for each operator would improve transparency.
- [General] There are several typos and infelicities, e.g., "baryon-to-entropy ration" in the Introduction, and "the canonical mass-dimension counting alone may therefore underestimate" in Sec. 5. A careful proofread is needed.
Circularity Check
No circular derivation: the dimension-8 BAU result is a parameter constraint, not a fitted prediction.
full rationale
The paper's central numerical claim is not circular. The derivation chain is explicit: substitute the sphaleron ansatz (3.1) into the action to obtain the reduced action (3.8) and the G_i integrals (3.12); insert these into the effective CP asymmetry (3.9) and solve the Boltzmann equation (4.1) with the source/washout prescription (4.3)-(4.4) to obtain nB/s as a function of the free effective scale Lambda/|c_i|^{1/4}. The observed baryon asymmetry is then used as a target, not as an input that fixes the calculation beforehand: the paper scans the scale and identifies the interval (4.5) that simultaneously matches Eq. (1.1) and avoids the LHC/eEDM constraints. This is a standard viability constraint, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The reduced-action formalism, the sphaleron-like deformation, and the Boltzmann split are taken from Refs. [14-16]; Ref. [14] is external, and Refs. [15,16] are prior work by the same authors, but they are used as stated modeling inputs, with the kappa_CP uncertainty displayed rather than hidden. The one self-cited uniqueness statement, that Eq. (2.4) is the only dimension-6 operator contributing in the bosonic sector, is attributed to Ref. [15], but it is not the load-bearing target of this paper and no output equation reduces to that citation by construction. The positivity-bound issue concerning O4 and O5 in Section 6.2 versus the 'five individually' wording and Figs. 1(d,e) is an internal-consistency or correctness concern, not a circularity: it does not make any derived quantity equal to an input by definition. I therefore find no significant circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- Effective cutoff scale Lambda_dim8/|c_i|^(1/4) per operator =
3-7 TeV, operator and kappa_CP dependent
- kappa_CP =
1-4
- zeta matching factor =
4-8 (Fig. 2), 5-7 (Fig. 3)
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption The reduced sphaleron action with cubic term G(mu) controls the CP-asymmetric transition rate
- domain assumption Sphaleron-like decoupling and the Boltzmann source/washout prescription of Ref. [16] are quantitatively valid
- domain assumption Approximate profile functions in Eqs. (3.3)-(3.4) with saddle parameters in Eq. (3.5) represent the true sphaleron
- domain assumption Positivity bounds from Ref. [24] restrict O4 and O5
- domain assumption Finite-temperature electroweak crossover v(T) and the lattice sphaleron rate from Refs. [9,13,36] are correct inputs
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Impact of dimension-8 SMEFT operators on baryogenesis via sphaleron decoupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TKQOTGD3
@misc{pith2026260805950,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Impact of dimension-8 SMEFT operators on baryogenesis via sphaleron decoupling},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TKQOTGD3}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05950}
}
abstract
We investigate whether a baryogenesis mechanism known as sphalerogenesis can account for the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe within the Standard Model effective field theory. In this scenario, the baryon asymmetry is generated through the $CP$-asymmetric decoupling of electroweak (EW) sphaleron-like transitions. We introduce seven $CP$-violating dimension-8 operators constructed from the Higgs doublet and the $SU(2)_L$ gauge fields and show that five of them can individually account for the observed baryon asymmetry with satisfying experimental constraints from colliders or electron electric dipole moment measurements. We further study their impact in the presence of a $CP$-violating dimension-6 operator. We find that the dimension-8 contributions can be comparable to the dimension-6 contribution when the dimension-8 operators are generated at one loop, demonstrating that loop-order counting can be as important as canonical mass-dimension counting in sphalerogenesis.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[24]
G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd,Consistency of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP12(2019) 032 [1908.09845]
arXiv 2019
-
[3]
T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K. A. Olive and B. D. Fields,Probing physics beyond the standard model: limits from BBN and the CMB independently and combined,JCAP10(2022) 046 [2207.13133]
arXiv 2022
-
[4]
A. D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5(1967) 32
work page 1967
-
[5]
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
-
[6]
K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov,Is there a hot electroweak phase transition atm H ≳m W ?,Phys. Rev. Lett.77(1996) 2887 [hep-ph/9605288]
arXiv 1996
- [7]
-
[8]
Y. Aoki, F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and A. Ukawa,The Endpoint of the first order phase transition of the SU(2) gauge Higgs model on a four-dimensional isotropic lattice,Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 013001 [hep-lat/9901021]
arXiv 1999
-
[9]
M. D’Onofrio, K. Rummukainen and A. Tranberg,Sphaleron Rate in the Minimal Standard Model,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 141602 [1404.3565]
arXiv 2014
Show all 50 references
-
[10]
D’Onofrio and K
M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen,Standard model cross-over on the lattice,Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) 025003 [1508.07161]
2016 arXiv
-
[11]
M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, O. Pene and C. Quimbay,Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry. Part 2: Finite temperature,Nucl. Phys. B430(1994) 382 [hep-ph/9406289]
1994 arXiv
-
[12]
Huet and E
P. Huet and E. Sather,Electroweak baryogenesis and standard model CP violation,Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 379 [hep-ph/9404302]
1995 arXiv
-
[13]
Kharzeev, E
D. Kharzeev, E. Shuryak and I. Zahed,Sphalerons, baryogenesis, and helical magnetogenesis in the electroweak transition of the minimal standard model,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 073003 [1906.04080]
2020 arXiv
-
[14]
M. Hong, K. Kamada and J. Yokoyama,Baryogenesis from sphaleron decoupling,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 063502 [2304.13999]
2023 arXiv
-
[15]
Tanaka,Sphalerogenesis,Phys
M. Tanaka,Sphalerogenesis,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 103039 [2505.09984]
2026 arXiv
-
[16]
Ogawa and M
K. Ogawa and M. Tanaka,Baryogenesis in SU(2) L multiplet models,JHEP06(2026) 161 [2604.00649]
2026 arXiv
-
[17]
de Vries, M
J. de Vries, M. Postma, J. van de Vis and G. White,Electroweak Baryogenesis and the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP01(2018) 089 [1710.04061]
2018 arXiv
-
[18]
Bodeker, L
D. Bodeker, L. Fromme, S. J. Huber and M. Seniuch,The Baryon asymmetry in the standard model with a low cut-off,JHEP02(2005) 026 [hep-ph/0412366]. – 16 –
2005 arXiv
-
[19]
S. J. Huber, M. Pospelov and A. Ritz,Electric dipole moment constraints on minimal electroweak baryogenesis,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 036006 [hep-ph/0610003]
2007 arXiv
-
[20]
F. P. Huang, P.-H. Gu, P.-F. Yin, Z.-H. Yu and X. Zhang,Testing the electroweak phase transition and electroweak baryogenesis at the LHC and a circular electron-positron collider, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 103515 [1511.03969]
2016 arXiv
-
[21]
H. Liu, R. Qin and L. Bian,Baryogenesis via the chiral magnetic effect in a first-order electroweak phase transition,Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) 162 [2409.16091]
2026
-
[22]
Nauta,Effect of CP violation on the sphaleron rate,Phys
B.-J. Nauta,Effect of CP violation on the sphaleron rate,Phys. Lett. B478(2000) 275 [hep-ph/0002164]
2000 arXiv
-
[23]
Nauta and A
B.-J. Nauta and A. Arrizabalaga,Asymmetric Chern-Simons number diffusion from CP violation,Nucl. Phys. B635(2002) 255 [hep-ph/0202115]
2002 arXiv
-
[25]
H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu and Y.-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 015026 [2005.00008]
2021 arXiv
-
[26]
Kondo, H
D. Kondo, H. Murayama and R. Okabe,23, 381, 6242, 103268, 1743183, . . . : Hilbert series for CP-violating operators in SMEFT,JHEP03(2023) 107 [2212.02413]
2023 arXiv
-
[27]
Naskar, S
W. Naskar, S. Prakash and S. U. Rahaman,EFT Diagrammatica. Part II. Tracing the UV origin of bosonic D6 CPV and D8 SMEFT operators,JHEP08(2022) 190 [2205.00910]
2022 arXiv
-
[28]
Corbett, J
T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P. Eboli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia,Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 033003 [2404.03720]
2024 arXiv
-
[29]
C. W. Murphy,Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP 10(2020) 174 [2005.00059]
2020 arXiv
-
[30]
F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton,A Saddle Point Solution in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 2212
1984
-
[31]
F. R. Klinkhamer and R. Laterveer,The Sphaleron at finite mixing angle,Z. Phys. C53 (1992) 247
1992
-
[32]
Banno, J
T. Banno, J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, K. Ogawa and N. Osamura,Impact of the electroweak Weinberg operator on the electric dipole moment of electron,JHEP02(2025) 082 [2408.02375]
2025 arXiv
-
[33]
N. S. Manton,Topology in the Weinberg-Salam Theory,Phys. Rev. D28(1983) 2019
1983
-
[34]
X. Gan, A. J. Long and L.-T. Wang,Electroweak sphaleron with dimension-six operators, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 115018 [1708.03061]
2017 arXiv
-
[35]
Kanemura and M
S. Kanemura and M. Tanaka,Higgs boson coupling as a probe of the sphaleron property, Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135711 [2005.05250]
2020 arXiv
-
[36]
Annala and K
J. Annala and K. Rummukainen,Electroweak sphaleron in a magnetic field,Phys. Rev. D 107(2023) 073006 [2301.08626]
2023 arXiv
-
[37]
Aoyama, H
H. Aoyama, H. Goldberg and Z. Ryzak,Sphalerons and Instantons at Finite Temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.60(1988) 1902. – 17 –
1988
-
[38]
Funakubo, S
K. Funakubo, S. Otsuki, K. Takenaga and F. Toyoda,Formulation of baryon number violating collisions: The Case of O(3) nonlinear sigma model,Prog. Theor. Phys.87(1992) 663
1992
-
[39]
Funakubo, S
K. Funakubo, S. Otsuki, K. Takenaga and F. Toyoda,Scattering with baryon number violation: The Case of Higgs particle production,Prog. Theor. Phys.89(1993) 881 [hep-ph/9211212]
1993 arXiv
-
[40]
S. H. H. Tye and S. S. C. Wong,Bloch Wave Function for the Periodic Sphaleron Potential and Unsuppressed Baryon and Lepton Number Violating Processes,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 045005 [1505.03690]
2015 arXiv
-
[41]
S. H. H. Tye and S. S. C. Wong,The Chern–Simons number as a dynamical variable,Ann. Math. Sci. Appl.01(2016) 123 [1601.00418]
2016 arXiv
-
[42]
S. H. H. Tye and S. S. C. Wong,Baryon Number Violating Scatterings in Laboratories,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 093004 [1710.07223]
2017 arXiv
-
[43]
Qiu and S
Y.-C. Qiu and S. H. H. Tye,Role of Bloch Waves in baryon-number violating processes, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 033006 [1812.07181]
2019 arXiv
-
[44]
Akiba, H
T. Akiba, H. Kikuchi and T. Yanagida,Static Minimum Energy Path From a Vacuum to a Sphaleron in the Weinberg-Salam Model,Phys. Rev. D38(1988) 1937. [45]CMScollaboration,Measurement and effective field theory interpretation of the photon-fusion production cross section of a pai...
1988 arXiv
-
[46]
T. S. Roussy et al.,An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment,Science381 (2023) adg4084 [2212.11841]
2023 arXiv
-
[47]
Boudjema, K
F. Boudjema, K. Hagiwara, C. Hamzaoui and K. Numata,Anomalous moments of quarks and leptons from nonstandard W W gamma couplings,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 2223
1991
-
[48]
C. Arzt, M. B. Einhorn and J. Wudka,Patterns of deviation from the standard model,Nucl. Phys. B433(1995) 41 [hep-ph/9405214]
1995 arXiv
-
[49]
Buchalla, G
G. Buchalla, G. Heinrich, C. M¨ uller-Salditt and F. Pandler,Loop counting matters in SMEFT,SciPost Phys.15(2023) 088 [2204.11808]
2023 arXiv
-
[50]
Banno, J
T. Banno, J. Hisano, T. Kitahara, K. Ogawa and N. Osamura,Full three-loop electroweak multiplet contributions to the electron electric dipole moment,JHEP05(2026) 277 [2602.11888]
2026 arXiv
-
[51]
Adams, N
A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi,Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,JHEP10(2006) 014 [hep-th/0602178]
2006 arXiv
-
[52]
Yamashita, C
K. Yamashita, C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou,Elastic positivity vs extremal positivity bounds in SMEFT: a case study in transversal electroweak gauge-boson scatterings,JHEP01(2021) 095 [2009.04490]
2021 arXiv
-
[53]
Cao and D
Q.-H. Cao and D. Ueda,Entropy constraints on effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 025011 [2201.00931]. – 18 –
2023 arXiv
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.