Electroweak baryogenesis from light fermion sources: A critical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroweak baryogenesis (EWBG) is sourced by nonstandard $CP$-violating interactions of the Higgs boson with fermions, usually taken to be the top quark, enhanced by its large Yukawa coupling. Numerous papers have studied EWBG sourced by lighter fermions, including the tau lepton and off-diagonal quark mass terms. We critically reassess the viability of EWBG in these scenarios, comparing the predictions based on the semiclassical (WKB) formalism for the source term to those from the vacuum expectation value insertion approximation (VIA), using updated values for the collision terms, and clarifying discrepancies in the definition of the weak sphaleron rate. The VIA systematically predicts a baryon asymmetry that is orders of magnitude larger than the WKB formalism. We trace this to the differing shapes of the $CP$-violating source terms in the two formalisms, showing that the additional spatial derivative in the WKB source term causes large cancellations when it is integrated over the bubble wall profile. An important exception is a source term from $c\penalty1000-\hskip0ptt$ quark mixing, where the WKB prediction also allows for a realistically large baryon asymmetry. In contrast, the analogous $b\penalty1000-\hskip0pts$ mixing source is found to be orders of magnitude too small.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".