Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

A network of cosmic strings bounding domain walls from gauged flavor symmetry breaking produces a detectable gravitational wave background with a distinctive low-frequency slope.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 20:53 UTC pith:2QNOKHZ7

load-bearing objection The paper maps hybrid string-wall GWs onto a gauged U(1)_F plus Z2 setup and adds an MLP surrogate for fast SNR, but the scaling assumptions remain untested. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.31600 v1 pith:2QNOKHZ7 submitted 2026-05-29 astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th

Gravitational Waves from hybrid defects as probe of Flavor symmetry breaking: Machine-Learning Approach

Anish Ghoshal , Ilia Gogoladze , Amit Tiwari This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th
keywords gravitational waveshybrid defectscosmic stringsdomain wallsflavor symmetrymachine learningstochastic background
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that successive breaking of a gauged U(1) flavor symmetry and a discrete Z2 symmetry creates a hybrid network of domain walls bounded by cosmic strings. This network radiates a stochastic gravitational wave background whose spectrum future detectors can observe when the flavor scale is high. The infrared part of the spectrum has a different frequency dependence than the one produced by ordinary cosmic strings alone. The authors train a multilayer perceptron on full numerical spectra so that detector signal-to-noise ratios can be computed rapidly for many parameter choices. They also note that the same gravitational-wave data could be cross-checked against laboratory flavor measurements.

Core claim

A network of domain walls bounded by cosmic strings, formed after the spontaneous breaking of a gauged U(1)_F flavor symmetry and a subsequent Z2 symmetry, generates a stochastic gravitational wave background. For sufficiently high U(1)_F breaking scales this background lies within the sensitivity reach of LISA, ET and SKA. In the microhertz-to-hertz band the spectrum exhibits a steeper infrared slope than the standard cosmic-string case. A multilayer perceptron trained on exact numerical spectra serves as a fast surrogate for computing detector signal-to-noise ratios, enabling efficient parameter scans and discrimination from pure cosmic-string signals.

What carries the argument

The string-bounded-wall network whose evolution follows standard scaling after two successive symmetry-breaking transitions, together with a multilayer perceptron surrogate that maps numerical spectra to detector signal-to-noise ratios.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid defect network forms and then evolves according to the same scaling laws that are assumed for ordinary cosmic strings and domain walls.

What would settle it

A measurement of the stochastic gravitational-wave spectrum between 10^{-6} Hz and 1 Hz that either shows or fails to show an infrared slope steeper than the cosmic-string prediction.

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

If this is right

  • Detection of the predicted spectrum would directly constrain the scale of gauged flavor symmetry breaking.
  • The infrared slope difference supplies a concrete discriminant between hybrid defects and stable cosmic strings in the same detectors.
  • Rapid machine-learning evaluation of signal-to-noise ratios makes exhaustive scans over flavor-model parameters feasible.
  • Laboratory flavor observables can be combined with the gravitational-wave signal to test the same symmetry-breaking sequence.
  • Non-observation at the quoted sensitivities would exclude high-scale realizations of the U(1)_F plus Z2 scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same machine-learning surrogate technique could be retrained on spectra from other hybrid defect models to accelerate their observational forecasts.
  • Absence of the signal would tighten bounds on flavor models that rely on a high-scale U(1)_F breaking to generate dark-matter candidates via the Z2.
  • Future pulsar-timing arrays or space-based interferometers could be re-optimized to exploit the distinctive infrared slope rather than assuming a pure cosmic-string template.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a network of domain walls bounded by cosmic strings, formed after successive spontaneous breaking of a gauged U(1)_F flavor symmetry and a discrete Z_2 symmetry (accommodating dark matter), generates a stochastic gravitational wave background. This signal is asserted to be detectable in forthcoming detectors (LISA, ET, SKA) for sufficiently high U(1)_F breaking scales and to exhibit a distinctive infrared frequency slope relative to standard cosmic-string networks. Spectra are obtained via full numerical treatment of the hybrid defects and used to train a multilayer perceptron (MLP) surrogate model that enables rapid, detector-specific signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) inference; complementarity with laboratory flavor observables is also discussed.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would identify a new class of GW source tied to flavor symmetry breaking, potentially distinguishable by its infrared slope and offering a complementary probe to collider or precision flavor experiments. The MLP surrogate approach is a clear strength, providing computational efficiency for parameter scans and SNR calculations that would otherwise be prohibitive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / network evolution description (near Eq. for GW spectrum)] The detectability and distinctive infrared slope claims rest on the assumption that the hybrid string-bounded-wall network reaches and maintains standard scaling regimes (string energy density ~1/t², wall density ~1/t) after the two successive phase transitions. No independent derivation, lattice simulation, or analytic justification specific to the gauged U(1)_F → Z_2 sequence is supplied to confirm that loop chopping, wall collapse, or friction regimes remain unaltered; this assumption is load-bearing for the reported spectra and SNR results.
  2. [§ on MLP training and SNR computation] The U(1)_F and Z_2 breaking scales are treated as free parameters chosen to place the GW spectrum inside detector bands; because the MLP is trained exclusively on spectra generated from the same parameter choices, the rapid SNR inference largely reproduces the input assumptions rather than providing an independent test of detectability.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the spectrum is detectable and has a distinctive slope yet supplies neither the explicit network evolution equations nor the numerical method used to obtain the spectra; a concise summary of the evolution equations and integration scheme should be added in the main text or an appendix.
  2. [Notation / parameter definitions] Notation for the hybrid defect parameters (tension, wall tension, correlation lengths) is introduced without a dedicated table or equation block; a compact parameter table would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting these important points regarding the scaling assumptions and the role of the MLP surrogate. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / network evolution description (near Eq. for GW spectrum)] The detectability and distinctive infrared slope claims rest on the assumption that the hybrid string-bounded-wall network reaches and maintains standard scaling regimes (string energy density ~1/t², wall density ~1/t) after the two successive phase transitions. No independent derivation, lattice simulation, or analytic justification specific to the gauged U(1)_F → Z_2 sequence is supplied to confirm that loop chopping, wall collapse, or friction regimes remain unaltered; this assumption is load-bearing for the reported spectra and SNR results.

    Authors: We agree that the scaling behavior is a central assumption underlying the reported spectra. Our numerical treatment of the hybrid defects adopts the standard scaling regimes established in the cosmic-string and domain-wall literature, as the topological properties and energy-loss mechanisms (loop chopping for strings, collapse for walls) remain analogous in the gauged U(1)_F followed by Z_2 sequence. No new friction or collapse channels are introduced by the specific symmetry-breaking pattern. To strengthen the presentation we will add an explicit paragraph in the methods section, with supporting references to prior hybrid-defect studies, clarifying why the standard scaling is expected to hold. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§ on MLP training and SNR computation] The U(1)_F and Z_2 breaking scales are treated as free parameters chosen to place the GW spectrum inside detector bands; because the MLP is trained exclusively on spectra generated from the same parameter choices, the rapid SNR inference largely reproduces the input assumptions rather than providing an independent test of detectability.

    Authors: The MLP is constructed strictly as a computational surrogate to enable rapid, detector-specific SNR evaluation once the underlying spectra have already been obtained from the full numerical simulations. The parameter choices that place the signal inside detector bands are part of mapping the physically viable region; detectability itself is determined by comparing those numerically computed spectra to the detector noise curves. The MLP performs interpolation and does not generate or validate new spectra. We will revise the relevant section to make this distinction explicit and to state that the MLP serves only as an efficiency tool. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper assumes standard scaling regimes for cosmic-string and domain-wall networks after successive U(1)_F and Z_2 breakings, then generates spectra numerically and trains an MLP surrogate for rapid SNR evaluation. No quoted equation or step reduces the claimed GW spectrum, infrared slope, or detectability to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction; the scaling laws are imported as external inputs rather than defined in terms of the output. The MLP is a standard surrogate technique, not a self-referential fit. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its own results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of a gauged U(1)_F at a high scale, a subsequent Z2 breaking that produces stable domain walls bounded by strings, standard scaling evolution of the hybrid network, and the assumption that the resulting GW spectrum can be computed numerically and then emulated by an MLP without significant systematic error. No independent evidence is supplied for any of these steps.

free parameters (3)
  • U(1)_F breaking scale
    Sets the string tension and the overall amplitude and frequency location of the GW spectrum; chosen high enough for detectability.
  • Z2 breaking scale
    Determines domain-wall tension and the infrared slope modification.
  • Network scaling parameters
    Assumed values for string and wall densities that enter the GW power calculation.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Hybrid string-wall networks obey the same scaling laws derived for ordinary cosmic strings and domain walls.
    Invoked to translate symmetry-breaking scales into a GW spectrum without additional simulation of the specific flavor model.
  • domain assumption The infrared slope difference is a robust, model-independent signature of the hybrid topology.
    Used to claim distinguishability from stable strings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5749 in / 1730 out tokens · 21917 ms · 2026-06-28T20:53:40.644042+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a novel possibility that a network of domain walls bounded by cosmic strings generates a stochastic gravitational wave background (SWGB) signal originating from the spontaneous breaking of a gauged $U(1)_F$ flavor symmetry and the subsequent breaking of discrete $Z_2$ symmetry that accommodates dark matter. The gravitational wave (GW) spectrum produced by the string-bounded-wall network can be detected for high $U(1)_F$ breaking scales in forthcoming GW detectors including LISA, ET and SKA. The GW signal exhibits a distinctive frequency slope, in the infrared, compared to the standard cosmic-string case, in the frequency range between micro-hertz and hertz. We develop a possible strategy to distinguish and characterize GW spectrum of the hybrid defect from from other defects, such as stable cosmic strings, via employing the exact calculation with a machine-learning surrogate, based on a multilayer perceptron (MLP), trained on spectra obtained from the full numerical treatment. This is then used for rapid inference in the detector-specific signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) computation which also makes the process fast and efficient. We also discuss some possible complementarity between GW searches and Flavor observables in the laboratory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31600 by Amit Tiwari, Anish Ghoshal, Ilia Gogoladze.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Monopoles, Strings, Walls and Gravitational waves

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    Breaking SU(2) flavor gauge symmetry stepwise to nothing leaves monopoles, strings, and walls; collapsing walls can form composite strings whose gravitational-wave spectra fit PTA data and lie within reach of LVK and ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 121 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 54 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    and atmospheric (∆m2

  2. [2]

    This allows us to determine the coefficients in front of theϵparameter in the charged-lepton and neutrino mass matrices presented in Eq

    mass splittings at 1012 GeV, which were generated via two-loop RGE running using PDG data ye = 2.80×10 −6, y µ = 5.89×10 −4, y τ = 1.00×10 −2, θ21 = 33.4o,∆m 2 21 = 7.48×10 −5eV 2, θ23 = 49.1o,∆m 2 31 = 2.53×10 −3eV 2 (12) θ13 ≈8.6 o. This allows us to determine the coefficients in front of theϵparameter in the charged-lepton and neutrino mass matrices pr...

  3. [3]

    sufficiently high

    and integrating out the heavy Φ at an energy scale below vF we obtain: V(H, S) =−µ 2H †H+λ(H †H)2 −m 2S∗S+ +λ 2(S∗S)2 +λ 3(H †H)(S ∗S) + m12vF 2 (S2 + (S∗)2) (15) We assume that all dimensionless quartic couplingsλ,λ 2 andλ 3 are real.m 12 denotes a complex mass parameter. We adopt the following notation: µ2 =M 2 1 − 1 2 λ3v2 F m2 =M 2 3 − 1 2 λ5v2 F (16)...

    2048

  4. [4]

    domain walls bounded by cosmic strings

    SNR≥10 computed over the full detector band, and 2.f turn ∈[f min, fmax] (i.e. the deviation occurs within the detector band). In Figs. 8 and 9, the white dashed curve denotes SNR = 10. The green contours show the subset of points where the turning-point criterion is satisfied in the same detector band, for 32 δth = 20% (solid) andδ th = 40% (dashed). The...

  5. [5]

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B147, 277 (1979)

    1979

  6. [6]

    Z. G. Berezhiani, Phys. Lett. B129, 99 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B129, 417 (1983). 39

    1983

  8. [8]

    Complex Singlet Extension of the Standard Model

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D79, 015018 (2009), arXiv:0811.0393 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    Complex Scalar Singlet Dark Matter: Vacuum Stability and Phenomenology

    M. Gonderinger, H. Lim, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D86, 043511 (2012), arXiv:1202.1316 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    A cancellation mechanism for dark matter-nucleon interaction

    C. Gross, O. Lebedev, and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 191801 (2017), arXiv:1708.02253 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  12. [12]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rept.67, 183 (1980)

    1980

  13. [13]

    T. W. B. Kibble, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D26, 435 (1982)

    1982

  14. [14]

    A. E. Everett and A. Vilenkin, Nucl. Phys. B207, 43 (1982)

    1982

  15. [15]

    Lazarides, Q

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and A. Tiwari, JHEP05, 119 (2023), arXiv:2303.15159 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    D. I. Dunsky, A. Ghoshal, H. Murayama, Y. Sakakihara, and G. White, Phys. Rev. D106, 075030 (2022), arXiv:2111.08750 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Maji, W.-I

    R. Maji, W.-I. Park, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B845, 138127 (2023), arXiv:2305.11775 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Lazarides, R

    G. Lazarides, R. Maji, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D108, 095041 (2023), arXiv:2306.17788 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    B. Fu, A. Ghoshal, S. F. King, and M. H. Rahat, JHEP08, 237 (2024), arXiv:2404.16931 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Gravitational wave astronomy with the SKA

    G. Janssen et al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Unveiling the Gravitational Universe at \mu-Hz Frequencies

    A. Sesana et al., Exper. Astron.51, 1333 (2021), arXiv:1908.11391 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Detecting a gravitational-wave background with next-generation space interferometers

    H. Kudoh, A. Taruya, T. Hiramatsu, and Y. Himemoto, Phys. Rev. D73, 064006 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511145

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO

    S. Kawamura et al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner, and E. S. Phinney, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 4887 (2006), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 23, 7361 (2006)]

    2006

  26. [26]

    Y. A. El-Neaj et al. (AEDGE), EPJ Quant. Technol.7, 6 (2020), arXiv:1908.00802 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    AION: An Atom Interferometer Observatory and Network,

    L. Badurina et al., JCAP05, 011 (2020), arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]. 40

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, and A. Freise, (2008), arXiv:0810.0604 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  30. [30]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J.966, 137 (2024), arXiv:2210.10931 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021), arXiv:2101.12130 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Jiang and Q.-G

    Y. Jiang and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP02, 026 (2023), arXiv:2210.09952 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics

    A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L11 (2023), [Erratum: Astro- phys.J.Lett. 971, L27 (2024), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 971, L27 (2024)], arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Ti ming Array. I. The dataset and timing analysis,

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA), Astron. Astrophys.678, A48 (2023), arXiv:2306.16224 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array III. Search for gravitational wave signals

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astrophys.678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Blasi, L

    S. Blasi, L. Calibbi, A. Mariotti, and K. Turbang, JHEP05, 019 (2025), arXiv:2410.08668 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Antusch, K

    S. Antusch, K. Hinze, and S. Saad, Phys. Rev. D112, 035043 (2025), arXiv:2503.05868 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Flavor Cosmology: Dynamical Yukawas in the Froggatt-Nielsen Mechanism

    I. Baldes, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, JHEP12, 073 (2016), arXiv:1608.03254 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Greljo, T

    A. Greljo, T. Opferkuch, and B. A. Stefanek, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 171802 (2020), arXiv:1910.02014 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Probing intermediate scale Froggatt-Nielsen models at future gravitational wave observatories,

    D. Ringe, Phys. Rev. D107, 015030 (2023), arXiv:2208.07778 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Yukawa Textures and Anomalies

    P. Binetruy and P. Ramond, Phys. Lett. B350, 49 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9412385

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  44. [44]

    Binetruy, S

    P. Binetruy, S. Lavignac, and P. Ramond, Nucl. Phys. B477, 353 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9601243

    work page arXiv 1996

  45. [45]

    K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze, and K. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B660, 322 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0212245

    work page arXiv 2003

  46. [46]

    K. S. Babu, T. Enkhbat, and I. Gogoladze, Nucl. Phys. B678, 233 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0308093. 41

    work page arXiv 2004

  47. [47]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  48. [48]

    Yanagida, Conf

    T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C7902131, 95 (1979)

    1979

  49. [49]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C790927, 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  50. [50]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  51. [51]

    First direct neutrino-mass measurement with sub-eV sensitivity

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), Nature Phys.18, 160 (2022), arXiv:2105.08533 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data,

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. P. Poon, and W. Rodejohann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 219 (2019), arXiv:1902.04097 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Antusch, V

    S. Antusch, K. Hinze, and S. Saad, (2025), arXiv:2510.01312 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    LHC Phenomenology of an Extended Standard Model with a Real Scalar Singlet

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D77, 035005 (2008), arXiv:0706.4311 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Singlet-Catalyzed Electroweak Phase Transitions and Precision Higgs Studies

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, C. L. Wainwright, and P. Winslow, Phys. Rev. D91, 035018 (2015), arXiv:1407.5342 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    S. I. Godunov, A. N. Rozanov, M. I. Vysotsky, and E. V. Zhemchugov, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 1 (2016), arXiv:1503.01618 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev.177, 2426 (1969)

    1969

  59. [59]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A60, 47 (1969)

    1969

  60. [60]

    Yukawa matrices from a spontaneously broken abelian symmetry

    E. Dudas, S. Pokorski, and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B356, 45 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9504292

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  61. [61]

    M.-C. Chen, D. R. T. Jones, A. Rajaraman, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D78, 015019 (2008), arXiv:0801.0248 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  62. [62]

    B. C. Allanach, J. Davighi, and S. Melville, JHEP02, 082 (2019), [Erratum: JHEP 08, 064 (2019)], arXiv:1812.04602 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Bonnefoy, E

    Q. Bonnefoy, E. Dudas, and S. Pokorski, JHEP01, 191 (2020), arXiv:1909.05336 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    Minimal Modular Flavor Symmetry and Lepton Textures Near Fixed Points

    Z. Tavartkiladze, (2025), arXiv:2512.24804 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Tavartkiladze, Phys

    Z. Tavartkiladze, Phys. Rev. D106, 115002 (2022), arXiv:2209.14404 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    K. S. Babu, S. C. Chandrasekar, and Z. Tavartkiladze, (2026), arXiv:2602.24253 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 615 (1990)

    1990

  68. [68]

    Dark Matter Search Re- sults from the PandaX-4T Commissioning Run,

    Y. Meng et al. (PandaX-4T), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 261802 (2021), arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]. 42

    work page arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Y. Abe, T. Toma, and K. Tsumura, JHEP05, 057 (2020), arXiv:2001.03954 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Okada, D

    N. Okada, D. Raut, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D103, 055024 (2021), arXiv:2001.05910 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    Okada, D

    N. Okada, D. Raut, Q. Shafi, and A. Thapa, Phys. Rev. D104, 095002 (2021), arXiv:2105.03419 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    Evading Direct Dark Matter Detection in Higgs Portal Models

    G. Arcadi, C. Gross, O. Lebedev, S. Pokorski, and T. Toma, Phys. Lett. B769, 129 (2017), arXiv:1611.09675 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D97, 055034 (2018), arXiv:1710.09387 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    FASER's Physics Reach for Long-Lived Particles

    A. Ariga et al. (FASER), Phys. Rev. D99, 095011 (2019), arXiv:1811.12522 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Technical Proposal for FASER: ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC

    A. Ariga et al. (FASER), (2018), arXiv:1812.09139 [physics.ins-det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  78. [78]

    FASER: ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC

    A. Ariga et al. (FASER), (2019), arXiv:1901.04468 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF,

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE), (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2015

  80. [80]

    J. M. Berryman, A. de Gouvea, P. J. Fox, B. J. Kayser, K. J. Kelly, and J. L. Raaf, JHEP 02, 174 (2020), arXiv:1912.07622 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.