Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Prominent enhancement of axion thermalization rate from axion-kaon interactions

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 The paper claims that above $T\simeq100$ MeV the $aK\leftrightarrow\pi K$ channel, not $a\pi\leftrightarrow\pi\pi$, dominates axion thermalization, tightening the hot-dark-matter bound on $f_a$ by about 30%.

desk verdict The kaon channel plausibly dominates axion thermalization near 130 MeV and tightens the f_a bound by ~30%, but the central number rests on an unvalidated production-vertex ansatz and no error propagation from the hadronic fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21276 v2 pith:6PHAU2IC submitted 2025-05-27 hep-ph

Jin-Bao Wang , Zhi-Hui Guo , Hai-Qing Zhou This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords axionthermalizationratehotdarkmatterextrarelativisticdegreesoffreedomchiralunitarizationmeson-mesonscatteringK*(892)resonanceQCD
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 argues that the standard way of computing how axions stay in thermal contact with the early-universe bath—keeping only the $a\pi\leftrightarrow\pi\pi$ reaction—misses a much stronger process. By unitarizing chiral perturbation theory amplitudes, the authors find that $aK\leftrightarrow\pi K$ scattering, pumped up by the $K^*(892)$ and $K_0^*(700)$ resonances, has far larger cross sections, and above $T\simeq100$ MeV it substantially raises the total axion thermalization rate. Around $T\simeq130$ MeV the kaon channel overtakes the pion channel. If this calculation is right, the hot-dark-matter bound on the axion gets roughly 30% tighter: the axion decay constant must satisfy $f_a\geq 3.18\times 10^7$ GeV rather than $2.45\times 10^7$ GeV under the measured bound on extra relativistic degrees of freedom.

What carries the argument

The central object is the unitarized axion-meson partial-wave amplitude, Eq. (4): the leading-order chiral perturbation theory ($\chi$PT) axion amplitude $\vec M^{(2)}_{IJ}$ is dressed by the same inverse-amplitude combination $T^{(2)}_{IJ}\,[T^{(2)}_{IJ}-T^{(4)\,{\rm LECs}}_{IJ}-T^{(2)}_{IJ}\,G\,T^{(2)}_{IJ}]^{-1}$ used for the meson-meson $T$-matrix, with $G$ the two-point loop function and subtraction constants and $O(p^4)$ low-energy constants fit to phase-shift and inelasticity data. This construction enforces two-body unitarity, generates the $f_0(500)$, $f_0(980)$, $\rho(770)$, $K^*(892)$, and $K_0^*(700)$ resonances in the relevant partial waves, and couples $\pi K$ with $\eta K$ in the $I=1/2$ channels. The same dressed amplitudes feed the 12-dimensional phase-space integral, reduced to five numerical variables, that defines the axion thermalization rate.

What would settle it

A lattice-QCD computation of the $aK\to\pi K$ amplitude at center-of-mass energies near the $K^*(892)$ resonance, or a next-to-leading-order chiral calculation of the axion-kaon vertex, would settle the claim: if the resonance-enhanced kaon cross section comes out close to the pion-only one, the reported 30% tightening of $f_a$ would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the claim is that the dominant axion thermalization channel below the QCD crossover is not the pion-only channel but $aK\leftrightarrow\pi K$, once two-meson rescattering is resummed. The axion amplitude is built from the leading-order chiral axion vertex dressed by the same unitarized partial-wave $T$-matrix that describes $\pi\pi$ and $\pi K$ scattering data; the resulting amplitudes carry the light resonances, especially $K^*(892)$ and $K_0^*(700)$ in the kaon channels. The integrated rates then show the kaon contribution exceeds 40% of the total for $T\gtrsim110$ MeV and surpasses the pion contribution around $T\gtrsim130$ MeV. Using the measured $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$, the lower bound on $f_a$ rises from $2.45\times 10^7$ GeV (pion only) to $3.18\times 10^7$ GeV (pion plus kaon), and the corresponding bound on the axion mass tightens by roughly the same factor.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on assuming that the axion's interaction with pions and kaons is the simplest low-energy form prescribed by chiral symmetry, amplified by the same mathematical resummation that fits ordinary meson scattering data; that resummation is not derived from quantum chromodynamics and has never been tested by any axion-scattering measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below the QCD crossover, axion decoupling is governed by a total rate that is substantially larger than the pion-only rate for $T\gtrsim100$ MeV, so pion-only calculations understate axion hot-dark-matter production in that window.
  • The lower bound $f_a\geq 3.18\times 10^7$ GeV (pion plus kaon channels) tightens the previously quoted $2.45\times 10^7$ GeV by about 30%, and the corresponding upper bound on the axion mass moves downward by a comparable amount.
  • The long-standing assumption that $a\pi\leftrightarrow\pi\pi$ is the only dominant thermalization channel below $T_c$ is invalidated in the temperature range where the kaon channel contributes more than 40% of the total rate.
  • For $T$ below 150 MeV, more than 96% of the computed rate comes from $\sqrt{s}\leq 1.2$ GeV, so the central result does not rely on the behavior of the amplitudes above the fitted energy region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Reading beyond the paper, the same resonance-dressing logic could be applied to other strange and heavier channels, such as axion-$\eta$ or axion-nucleon couplings; if those channels show comparable enhancements, the $f_a$ bound would tighten further than the 30% reported here.
  • A direct lattice-QCD calculation of the $aK\to\pi K$ amplitude across the $K^*(892)$ region would provide a model-independent check of the unitarized dressing prescription, since the predicted enhancement is large enough to be visible.
  • The temperature-dependent shape of the thermalization rate changes above 100 MeV, which could alter not only the central $\Delta N_{\rm eff}\to f_a$ mapping but also the decoupling history used in future cosmic microwave background forecasts.
  • One implicit consequence is that earlier axion and axion-like-particle constraints that assumed pion-only thermalization may need re-evaluation whenever the gluonic axion coupling is the operative interaction, not only for the QCD axion.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reassesses the thermalization rate of QCD axions in the hadronic phase below T_c. Using SU(3) chiral perturbation theory amplitudes for aP1→P2P3 processes, the authors unitarize both the two-meson scattering amplitudes and the axion production amplitudes via the same chiral-unitarization kernel, Eq. (4). They find that the aK→πK channel, which contains the K*(892) and K0*(700) resonances, has much larger cross sections than aπ→ππ for √s around 0.8–1 GeV (Fig. 2). Consequently, the axion thermalization rate Γ_a(T) is substantially enhanced for T≳100 MeV, and the aK→πK contribution exceeds the pion-only contribution around T≈130 MeV. Confronting the Planck 2018 ΔN_eff constraint, they obtain a tightened lower bound f_a ≥ 3.18×10^7 GeV (versus 2.45×10^7 GeV with pions only), a tightening of about 30%.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper identifies a previously overlooked channel that materially changes the hot-dark-matter bound on axions. The approach is a standard chiral-unitarization framework, and the paper includes two valuable robustness checks: a crosscheck of the aπ→ππ amplitude against the inverse-amplitude-method result of Ref. [33] (green dotted curve in Fig. 2, left panel), and a cutoff analysis showing that for T<150 MeV more than 96% of the thermal rate comes from √s≤1.2 GeV, where the unitarized amplitudes are pinned to scattering data. These are real strengths. The main significance depends on Eq. (4), which is an ansatz for the unitarized production amplitude, and on the numerical reliability of the kaon-channel enhancement; both need further scrutiny before the 30% tightening can be taken as a firm quantitative prediction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (4) and the paragraph beginning 'Regarding the aP1→P2P3 reaction'] The unitarized axion production amplitude is constructed as M_uni = T^(2) [T^(2) − T^(4)LECs − T^(2) G T^(2)]^{-1} M^(2), i.e., the LO axion vertex dressed by the same T-matrix used for meson-meson scattering. This is an ansatz, not a derivation from QCD. The K*(892) and K0*(700) peaks in Fig. 2 are poles of the two-meson T-matrix, and the axion-production residues at these poles are not constrained by the phase-shift and inelasticity data that determine G and the LECs. The pion-channel crosscheck against the IAM result (green dotted, Fig. 2 left) validates the procedure for aπ→ππ, but there is no analogous crosscheck for aK→πK. Since the central claim of a 30% tightening rests on this unvalidated dressing of the kaon vertex, please quantify the sensitivity of Γ_a(T) and of f_a to (i) alternative off-shell prescriptions for the loop function G, and (ii) possible next-to-leading-order axion-meson couplings.
  2. [Table I and the paragraph 'Significant enhancement...' / Fig. 3] Table I reports fit uncertainties for the subtraction constants and LECs, but these uncertainties are not propagated to Γ_a(T), ΔN_eff, or the final bound f_a ≥ 3.18^{+0.04}_{−0.03}×10^7 GeV. The error bars shown in Fig. 3 reflect only the Planck ΔN_eff band, not the hadronic-model uncertainty. Because the 30% tightening relative to 2.45×10^7 GeV is the central quantitative result, the absence of any hadronic error estimate makes the significance of the shift unclear. Please propagate the parameter covariance matrix through the thermal-rate calculation, or at least provide a conservative estimate of how the 30% shift and the aK/aπ crossover temperature depend on the hadronic-model uncertainties.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Footnote [59]] The statement 'The mathematica code for the amplitudes can be downloaded from here' contains no URL, DOI, or ancillary-file identifier. Without a working link, the amplitudes cannot be independently re-evaluated; please provide a full link and, ideally, a version/checksum.
  2. [Supplement, Eq. (A.7)] The partial-wave projection uses a factor 1/2(√2)^{N_i+N_f} with the rule N_i(N_f)=1 for identical particles, but the values of N_i and N_f for each of the four independent production types (especially aπ0→π0π0 and the charged kaon modes) are not explicitly listed. Please state them or give a table.
  3. [Fig. 2, right panel] The y-axis label is 'Γ_ch(T)/Γ_a(T)' with axis values from 0 to 1, while the text and caption describe 'relative contributions in percentage.' Please make the units consistent (fraction vs. percent) to avoid confusion about the 40% and 'exceeds' statements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the axion-kaon enhancement is computed from independent meson-meson phase-shift data plus an explicit LO chiral axion vertex, not from fitted axion inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The hadronic parameters—subtraction constants and O(p^4) LECs in Eq. (3)—are fitted to independent meson-meson scattering phase shifts and inelasticities (Fig. 1 and Table I), not to any axion observable. The LO axion-production vertices M^(2) entering Eq. (4) are obtained from SU(3) chiral perturbation theory with FLAG quark-mass ratios r=0.485 and z=27.42, as detailed in the Supplement, again without using axion-scattering data. The resulting aK→πK cross sections and thermalization rate are therefore a genuine computation from two independent inputs. Equation (4) is a model ansatz—it dresses the LO vertex with the same T-matrix used for meson-meson scattering—but this is not an equivalence with the output by construction: the K*(892) and K0*(700) enhancements are inherited from the independently fitted πK T-matrix, and the aπ→ππ channel is cross-checked against the independent IAM calculation (green dotted curve in the left panel of Fig. 2). The only self-citation is Ref. [35] for the phase-space reduction after Eq. (7); this is a technical integration procedure and does not feed the physics back into the fit. Caveats flagged per instructions: Eq. (4) is not derived from QCD, Table I fit errors are not propagated to the final f_a bounds, and footnote [59] states 'The mathematica code for the amplitudes can be downloaded from here' without supplying a working link. These are robustness and reproducibility concerns, not a circular derivation loop.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard chiral perturbation theory and a unitarization ansatz. The 13 parameters in Table I are fitted to independent meson-meson scattering data, not to axion observables, so they are treated as externally calibrated inputs. No new particles or forces are introduced; resonances are known states. The weakest input is the unitarization formula itself, which is a domain assumption rather than a derived theorem.

free parameters (13)
  • a_sc(pi pi, I=0 J=0) = -0.49 +0.24/-0.23
    Fitted to meson-meson scattering data in Fig. 1; enters the unitarized T-matrix and, through Eq. (4), the axion production amplitude used for the thermalization rate.
  • a_sc(K Kbar, I=0 J=0) = -1.51 +0.20/-0.19
    Fitted to pi-pi to K Kbar data; enters the coupled-channel unitarized amplitude for the I=0 J=0 sector.
  • a_sc(I=1 J=1 shared: pi pi, K Kbar; also pi pi I=2 J=0 and pi K I=3/2 J=0) = -1.38 +0.33/-0.26
    The paper imposes a common subtraction constant across several channels to reduce fit parameters; this value is fitted to pi-pi and pi-K phase shifts and affects the rho(770) and nonresonant channels.
  • a_sc(pi K, I=1/2 J=0 shared with eta K) = 0.15 +0.18/-0.21
    Fitted to I=1/2 J=0 pi-K phase shifts; relevant for the K0*(700) enhancement in a K -> pi K.
  • a_sc(pi K, I=1/2 J=1 shared with eta K) = 1.53 +0.76/-0.80
    Fitted to I=1/2 J=1 pi-K phase shifts; relevant for the K*(892) enhancement in a K -> pi K.
  • LEC Lhat_1 = 0.33 +/- 0.02 (x 10^3)
    O(p^4) low-energy constant fitted to scattering data; enters T^(4,LECs) in the unitarization denominator.
  • LEC Lhat_2 = 0.97 +/- 0.05 (x 10^3)
    O(p^4) low-energy constant fitted to scattering data; enters T^(4,LECs) in the unitarization denominator.
  • LEC Lhat_3 = -2.71 +0.10/-0.11 (x 10^3)
    O(p^4) low-energy constant fitted to scattering data; enters T^(4,LECs) in the unitarization denominator.
  • LEC Lhat_4 = -0.77 +0.09/-0.11 (x 10^3)
    O(p^4) low-energy constant fitted to scattering data; enters T^(4,LECs) in the unitarization denominator.
  • LEC Lhat_5 = 3.51 +1.39/-1.62 (x 10^3)
    O(p^4) low-energy constant fitted to scattering data; enters T^(4,LECs) in the unitarization denominator.
  • LEC Lhat_6 = -1.47 +0.20/-0.24 (x 10^3)
    O(p^4) low-energy constant fitted to scattering data; enters T^(4,LECs) in the unitarization denominator.
  • LEC Lhat_7 = -0.77 +0.24/-0.18 (x 10^3)
    O(p^4) low-energy constant fitted to scattering data; enters T^(4,LECs) in the unitarization denominator.
  • LEC Lhat_8 = 4.05 +0.37/-0.45 (x 10^3)
    O(p^4) low-energy constant fitted to scattering data; enters T^(4,LECs) in the unitarization denominator.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The QCD axion interaction is fully captured by the model-independent operator a G Gtilde/(8 pi f_a), with no additional model-dependent couplings relevant below T_c.
    Stated in the second paragraph of the main text and used to derive the LO chiral Lagrangian. This is standard for the QCD axion but not valid for general ALPs.
  • domain assumption SU(3) chiral perturbation theory with the axial transformation q -> exp(i a/(2 f_a) gamma5 Q_a) q and negligible singlet axial current describes LO axion-meson couplings.
    Used in Eq. (1) and the supplement; singlet contribution neglected because it is marginal in the pi-K sector.
  • domain assumption The unitarization formula Eq. (4), which dresses the LO axion vertex with the unitarized two-meson T-matrix, correctly resums final-state interactions for aP1 -> P2 P3.
    This is the load-bearing modeling input; it is not proven from QCD and is checked only indirectly via pi-pi IAM agreement.
  • domain assumption Meson-meson scattering parameters fit to phase-shift data below 1.2 GeV remain valid in the thermal rate integration; the high-energy tail contributes less than 4% for T < 150 MeV.
    The cutoff check in the thermalization section supports this, but the high-energy behavior is still modeled, not measured.
  • domain assumption At T < T_c the thermal bath is dominated by pions and kaons; baryons and other mesons are negligible for the axion rate.
    Used when identifying aK -> piK as the only additional important channel; nucleon abundance is Boltzmann suppressed, but the paper does not quantify it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prominent enhancement of axion thermalization rate from axion-kaon interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6PHAU2IC

@misc{pith2026250521276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prominent enhancement of axion thermalization rate from axion-kaon interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6PHAU2IC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21276}
}
abstract

The axion thermalization rate is a crucial input to determine the hot dark matter bound of axions, resulting from the scattering processes in the thermal bath of early Universe. We demonstrate that the commonly employed axion thermalization rate by including the $a\pi \leftrightarrow \pi\pi$ channel alone is significantly underestimated for the temperature $T$ above 100 MeV. This is obtained through the systematical calculation of the axion-light flavor meson scattering amplitudes within the framework of the chiral unitarization approach, paying special attention to the $a K \leftrightarrow \pi K$ reaction. Hadron resonances appearing in $a K \leftrightarrow \pi K$ amplitudes significantly enlarge the cross sections, which turn out to be much bigger than that of $a\pi \leftrightarrow\pi\pi$. The axion thermalization rate is then substantially enhanced by the $a K \leftrightarrow \pi K$ channel for $T\gtrsim 100$ MeV. Especially at $T\simeq 130$ MeV, the contribution from the $a K \leftrightarrow\pi K$ reaction to the axion thermalization rate exceeds the $a\pi\leftrightarrow\pi\pi$ one. Obviously more stringent constraints on the axion parameters are obtained, when confronting the number of extra relativistic degrees of freedom $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ from Planck$'$18.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21276 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Results of the fits to scattering data. In the first row: the first panel shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The constraint on the axion parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Unified study of two-meson and axion-meson production from semileptonic tau decays within resonance chiral framework

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Within a resonance chiral model, hadron resonances boost predicted tau decays into pion/K plus axion by factors of 7.5 and 19.2, with branching ratios and forward-backward asymmetries also predicted.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [59]

    The mathematica code for the amplitudes can be down- loaded from here

    work page

  2. [33]

    Di Luzio, J

    L. Di Luzio, J. Martin Camalich, G. Martinelli, J. A. Oller, and G. Piazza, Phys. Rev. D108, 035025 (2023), arXiv:2211.05073 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  4. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  5. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  6. [4]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  7. [5]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  8. [6]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 (1983)

    1983

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  2. [8]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 557 (2010), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)], arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [9]

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lind- ner, and K. A. van Bibber, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65, 485 (2015), arXiv:1602.00039 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [10]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Sikivie, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015004 (2021), arXiv:2003.02206 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [12]

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 225 (2021), arXiv:2012.05029 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept.870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Conget al., (2024), arXiv:2408.15691 [hep-ph]

    L. Conget al., (2024), arXiv:2408.15691 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Jiang, H

    M. Jiang, H. Su, Y. Chen, M. Jiao, Y. Huang, Y. Wang, X. Rong, X. Peng, and J. Du, Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 016401 (2025), arXiv:2412.03288 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [16]

    T. W. Donnelly, S. J. Freedman, R. S. Lytel, R. D. Peccei, and M. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D18, 1607 (1978)

    1978

  11. [17]

    L. J. Hall and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B187, 397 (1981)

    1981

  12. [18]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 1304 (1977)

    1977

  13. [19]

    W. A. Bardeen, R. D. Peccei, and T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B279, 401 (1987)

    1987

  14. [20]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rept.150, 1 (1987)

    1987

  15. [21]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rept.197, 67 (1990)

    1990

  16. [22]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Vil- ladoro, JHEP01, 034, arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  19. [25]

    Abazajianet al.(CMB-S4), (2022), arXiv:2203.08024 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Abazajianet al.(CMB-S4), (2022), arXiv:2203.08024 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Chang and K

    S. Chang and K. Choi, Phys. Lett. B316, 51 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9306216

    1993 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Hannestad, A

    S. Hannestad, A. Mirizzi, and G. Raffelt, JCAP07, 002, arXiv:hep-ph/0504059

    arXiv

  22. [28]

    Hannestad, A

    S. Hannestad, A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP08, 015, arXiv:0706.4198 [astro-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [29]

    Melchiorri, O

    A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and A. Slosar, Phys. Rev. D76, 041303 (2007), arXiv:0705.2695 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Giusarma, E

    E. Giusarma, E. Di Valentino, M. Lattanzi, A. Mel- chiorri, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D90, 043507 (2014), arXiv:1403.4852 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [31]

    D’Eramo, F

    F. D’Eramo, F. Hajkarim, and S. Yun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 152001 (2022), arXiv:2108.04259 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Di Luzio, G

    L. Di Luzio, G. Martinelli, and G. Piazza, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 241801 (2021), arXiv:2101.10330 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Notari, F

    A. Notari, F. Rompineve, and G. Villadoro, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 011004 (2023), arXiv:2211.03799 [hep-ph]. 6

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Wang, Z.-H

    J.-B. Wang, Z.-H. Guo, and H.-Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 109, 075030 (2024), arXiv:2312.15240 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985)

    1985

  30. [37]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and L. Randall, Phys. Lett. B 169, 73 (1986)

    1986

  31. [38]

    J. A. Oller, E. Oset, and J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3452 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803242

    1998 arXiv

  32. [39]

    J. A. Oller, E. Oset, and J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D59, 074001 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 60, 099906 (1999), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 099903 (2007)], arXiv:hep- ph/9804209

    1999

  33. [40]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D60, 074023 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809337

    1999 arXiv

  34. [41]

    J. R. Batleyet al.(NA48/2), Eur. Phys. J. C54, 411 (2008)

    2008

  35. [42]

    C. D. Froggatt and J. L. Petersen, Nucl. Phys. B129, 89 (1977)

    1977

  36. [43]

    Guo and J

    Z.-H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D84, 034005 (2011), arXiv:1104.2849 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Hooglandet al., Nucl

    W. Hooglandet al., Nucl. Phys. B126, 109 (1977)

    1977

  38. [45]

    M. J. Losty, V. Chaloupka, A. Ferrando, L. Montanet, E. Paul, D. Yaffe, A. Zieminski, J. Alitti, B. Gandois, and J. Louie, Nucl. Phys. B69, 185 (1974)

    1974

  39. [46]

    D. H. Cohen, D. S. Ayres, R. Diebold, S. L. Kramer, A. J. Pawlicki, and A. B. Wicklund, Phys. Rev. D22, 2595 (1980)

    1980

  40. [47]

    Etkinet al., Phys

    A. Etkinet al., Phys. Rev. D25, 1786 (1982)

    1982

  41. [48]

    A. D. Martin and E. N. Ozmutlu, Nucl. Phys. B158, 520 (1979)

    1979

  42. [49]

    Garcia-Martin, R

    R. Garcia-Martin, R. Kaminski, J. R. Pelaez, J. Ruiz de Elvira, and F. J. Yndurain, Phys. Rev. D83, 074004 (2011), arXiv:1102.2183 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Estabrooks and A

    P. Estabrooks and A. D. Martin, Nucl. Phys. B79, 301 (1974)

    1974

  44. [51]

    S. D. Protopopescu, M. Alston-Garnjost, A. Barbaro- Galtieri, S. M. Flatte, J. H. Friedman, T. A. Lasinski, G. R. Lynch, M. S. Rabin, and F. T. Solmitz, Phys. Rev. D7, 1279 (1973)

    1973

  45. [52]

    Merceret al., Nucl

    R. Merceret al., Nucl. Phys. B32, 381 (1971)

    1971

  46. [53]

    Estabrooks, R

    P. Estabrooks, R. K. Carnegie, A. D. Martin, W. M. Dunwoodie, T. A. Lasinski, and D. W. G. S. Leith, Nucl. Phys. B133, 490 (1978)

    1978

  47. [54]

    Astonet al., Nucl

    D. Astonet al., Nucl. Phys. B296, 493 (1988)

    1988

  48. [55]

    A. M. Bakkeret al., Nucl. Phys. B24, 211 (1970)

    1970

  49. [56]

    Choet al., Phys

    Y. Choet al., Phys. Lett. B32, 409 (1970)

    1970

  50. [57]

    Saikawa and S

    K. Saikawa and S. Shirai, JCAP05, 035, arXiv:1803.01038 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  51. [58]

    Lu, M.-L

    Z.-Y. Lu, M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, U.-G. Meißner, and T. Vonk, JHEP05, 001, arXiv:2003.01625 [hep-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  52. [60]

    PROMINENT ENHANCEMENT OF AXION THERMALIZA TION RA TE FROM AXION-KAON INTERACTIONS

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), (2024), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]. 7 SUPPLEMENT AR Y DET AILS ABOUT “PROMINENT ENHANCEMENT OF AXION THERMALIZA TION RA TE FROM AXION-KAON INTERACTIONS” The axial-vector coupling terms in Eq. (1) givea-π 3 anda-η 8 kinetic...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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