Kinetically Coupled Dark Matter Condensates

Michael W. Toomey; Savvas M. Koushiappas; Stephon Alexander

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Kinetically Coupled Dark Matter Condensates

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 Kinetically coupling an ultralight axion to a moduli field makes the axion's Jeans scale evolve with that field, and existing structure-formation bounds then force the moduli field below about 100 TeV for most of cosmic history.

desk verdict Eq. 16 appears to contain a spurious constant-potential term, so the paper's headline bound on χ is not established; the qualitative idea is sound but the core derivation needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08076 v1 pith:OM3BLW4G submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Michael W. Toomey , Savvas M. Koushiappas , Stephon Alexander This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COhep-ph

keywords fuzzydarkmatteraxionmodulifieldkineticcouplingJeansscaleBose-Einsteincondensatestructureformationstringtheory

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 studies a two-field dark matter model in which an ultralight axion acquires a kinetic term rescaled by an exponential factor $f(\chi) = e^{\lambda\chi}$ of a moduli field, a structure generic in string compactifications. It shows that within a gravitationally bound Bose-Einstein condensate this coupling enlarges the axion's Jeans scale, so the scale at which small-scale structure is suppressed depends on the moduli field's present value and evolution. By requiring that the model's Jeans scale at $z=0$ not exceed the canonical Jeans scale of each published fuzzy-dark-matter constraint, the paper converts lower bounds on axion mass into upper bounds on the moduli field, finding $\chi \lesssim 10^2$ TeV (equivalently $\chi/M_{\rm pl} \lesssim 10^{-14}$) across the fuzzy dark matter mass range. If correct, kinetically coupled string axions remain viable dark matter only if the associated moduli are stabilized near the origin or undergo their field excursion before recombination. The result matters because it ties the microphysics of dark matter to the behavior of moduli and quintessence, and it gives a concrete target for future 21 cm and Lyman-$\alpha$ measurements.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified Jeans scale for a kinetically coupled condensate, Eq. (16): $(\tilde{k}_J/a)^2 = \sqrt{F^2 + \frac{6H^2 m^2 \Omega_\phi}{f}} - F$ with $F = m^2(f-1)/(2f)$, which reduces to the canonical scale as $f \to 1$. It carries the argument because every observational bound is imposed through Eq. (22), $\tilde{\lambda}_J(m,\chi) \le \lambda_J(m_X)$, which requires the model's Jeans length not to exceed the canonical Jeans length of the mass limit from each probe. The exponential $f(\chi) = e^{\lambda\chi}$ is the quantity whose present value and history control the size of the effect, and the new friction term $d\ln f/d\eta$ in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation is what makes the Jeans scale dynamical rather than fixed.

What would settle it

Compute the full time-dependent linear matter power spectrum in the two-field system, evolving both fields, and compare the suppression scale with Lyman-$\alpha$ forest measurements at $z \approx 4$--$5$; if the suppression implied by $\chi > 10^2$ TeV is absent at those redshifts, or if the full-evolution Jeans scale disagrees with the $z=0$ mapping in Eq. (22), the central bound fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a theory with action $S = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\partial\chi)^2 - \frac{1}{2}(\partial\phi)^2 f - V(\chi,\phi)\right]$ and $f = e^{\lambda\chi}$, the canonical fuzzy-dark-matter picture is modified: the non-relativistic limit yields a Gross-Pitaevskii equation with an extra friction term and potentials suppressed by $f$, and the resulting Jeans scale is $(\tilde{k}_J/a)^2 = \sqrt{F^2 + \frac{6H^2 m^2 \Omega_\phi}{f}} - F$ with $F = m^2(f-1)/(2f)$. The key mapping is Eq. (22): for each observational probe $X$, the model is excluded when the modified Jeans length exceeds the canonical Jeans length of the mass limit $m_X$ from that probe. Applying published bounds from the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest, dwarf galaxy kinematics, and subhalo counts, the paper finds that consistency requires $\chi \lesssim 10^2$ TeV at $z=0$, i.e. $\chi/M_{\rm pl} \lesssim 10^{-14}$, and argues this must hold throughout most of cosmic history under the assumption that axions make up all of the dark matter.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of published fuzzy-dark-matter constraints into a bound on the moduli field assumes that the model's observable signature is fully captured by the instantaneous Jeans scale at $z=0$, with the moduli velocity $\chi'$ neglected, and that the $z=0$ bound applies throughout cosmic history even though the published constraints are integrated over structure formation and include time-dependent growth and nonlinear effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, kinetically coupled axion models with $\lambda = O(1/M_{\rm pl})$ cannot have moduli fields wandering near the Planck scale after recombination; the fields must be stabilized near the origin.
The same bound rules out large-field quintessence models in which a moduli field kinetically coupled to axion dark matter drives dark energy, leaving only small-field dark energy dynamics compatible.
Axions with $m > 10^{-21}$ eV are more strongly affected, so future probes of small-scale structure (21 cm, improved Lyman-$\alpha$) will either tighten the $\chi$ bound or detect the enlarged Jeans suppression.
The coupling can make the effective dark energy equation of state appear phantom ($w_{\chi,\rm eff} < -1$) when $f < 1$, linking dark matter microphysics to current BAO data.
If axions are only a fraction of dark matter, the bounds weaken proportionally, so the constraint is sharpest for axions constituting all of the dark matter.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's $z=0$ mapping likely understates the bound: if $\chi'$ is non-negligible, the friction term in Eq. (8) and the time-dependent $f$ can move the Jeans scale at earlier epochs, so a full transfer-function treatment could exclude even smaller values of $\chi$ than the $\sim 10^2$ TeV cap.
A direct testable extension is to compute the modified soliton core radius--mass relation and compare it with dwarf galaxy observations; enhanced quantum pressure predicts larger cores at fixed halo mass than canonical fuzzy dark matter.
The same machinery could be applied to self-interacting axions (retaining $g_\phi$), where the $f$-suppression of self-interactions would shift the balance between pressure and gravity in a different way.
If $\chi$ is identified with a quintessence field, the bound $\chi \lesssim 10^2$ TeV implies that a kinetically coupled axion--dark-energy sector can only realize small-field dynamics, a prediction that future BAO and growth data could test.

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

Here is my read. The paper's motivation is good: a kinetic coupling between an axion and a moduli field is a generic feature in string compactifications, and the consequences for fuzzy dark matter are under-explored. The fluid equations (12)-(13) are clearly written, and the observation that the coupling suppresses the gravitational potential in the Euler equation is physically correct and does imply an enhanced Jeans length and stronger small-scale suppression for f>1. The paper also honestly lists several caveats, which I appreciate.

The problem is the quantitative centerpiece, Eq. (16). It is asserted without derivation, and it does not follow from the equations in the paper. The F term, F=m^2(f-1)/(2f), appears to come from the homogeneous mass piece (ma/2)(1-1/f)ψ in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. Since χ is a background field, that piece has no spatial gradient and no perturbed part; in a linear Jeans analysis it is absorbed into the chemical potential and cancels. It cannot act as pressure. The Madelung equations the authors derive contain no such term. The only Jeans-relevant modification in their own fluid equations is the 1/f suppression of Φ, which would give a Jeans scale changing roughly as f^{-1/4} relative to canonical axions (equivalently, the mass renormalization m→m/√f that they themselves describe). Eq. (16) instead produces, for f=2 and m≫H, a Jeans length of order the Hubble scale independent of m—an unphysical limit. So the paper's intuition and its formula are in tension.

Because Eq. (22) maps existing constraints using Eq. (16), the headline constraint χ≲100 TeV is not established. The mapping is also done only at z=0 with instantaneous Jeans lengths; the paper does not compute the time-dependent transfer function, so the extrapolation to 'throughout most of cosmic history' is not justified. These are load-bearing issues, not cosmetic ones.

Who is this for? People working on fuzzy dark matter and string-motivated dark sectors. The question is important and the framework is potentially useful, so I would send it to a serious referee rather than desk reject. But the referee should demand a proper derivation of the Jeans scale and a check of the constraint mapping before any quantitative bounds on χ are accepted. My own position: the qualitative mechanism is plausible, the quantitative result as written is not.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper considers a two-field dark matter model in which an ultralight axion ϕ has a field-dependent kinetic term f(χ)=e^{λχ} coupled to a moduli field χ, as motivated by string compactifications. The authors derive a modified Gross-Pitaevskii equation, a corresponding Madelung fluid system, and a claimed modified Jeans scale (Eq. 16). They then reinterpret existing lower bounds on canonical fuzzy dark matter masses from Lyman-α forest, dwarf galaxy kinematics, and subhalo counts as upper bounds on χ, concluding that χ≲10^2 TeV (χ/M_pl≲10^-14) throughout most of cosmic history. The central quantitative claim rests on Eq. 16 and the z=0 Jeans-length mapping of Eq. 22; the paper does not compute a time-dependent matter power spectrum or track the evolution of χ.

Significance. If correct, the paper would forge a concrete link between string-inspired kinetic couplings and small-scale structure probes, providing a sharp, falsifiable constraint on moduli field values. It is also clearly written and makes a sensible choice to use three independent observational datasets. However, the central result is not supported: the modified Jeans scale in Eq. 16 appears to contain a spurious homogeneous-potential contribution, and the mapping of Eq. 22 is not a valid translation of the published constraints. Because the headline exclusion χ≲10^2 TeV follows directly from Eq. 16, the paper's main claim is not established. The paper also provides no machine-checked derivations or numerical evolution; its strength is the qualitative identification that kinetic couplings modify the Euler equation through a 1/f factor.

major comments (3)

[§II, Eq. (16)] The modified Jeans scale is stated without derivation and is not supported by the displayed fluid equations (12)-(13). In the absence of self-interactions, the only Jeans-relevant modification in those equations is the factor 1/f multiplying ∇Φ in the Euler equation, which yields (k_J/a)^2 = sqrt(6 H^2 m^2 Ω_ϕ / f). The additional F term in Eq. (16) appears to come from the homogeneous potential U = (ma/2)(1-1/f) in Eq. (8). Because χ is treated as a background field, U has no spatial gradient and no perturbed part; it only shifts the chemical potential and cannot contribute pressure. This is corroborated by the field rescaling φ → √f φ, which turns the action (1), for fixed χ, into a canonical axion of mass m/√f, whose Jeans scale is exactly the sqrt expression above, with no F term. The unphysical limit of Eq. (16) is f=2, m≫H, where it reduces to (k/a)^2 ≈ 6 H^2 Ω_ϕ, i.e., a Jeans length of order the Hubble scale independent of m. The claimed bound χ≲10^2 TeV therefore rests on an incorrect dispersion relation.
[§IV, Eq. (22) and Fig. 3] The constraint mapping equates instantaneous Jeans lengths at z=0, but the input bounds from Lyman-α, dwarf galaxies, and subhalo counts are derived from the full matter power spectrum, including time-dependent growth and nonlinear effects over a range of redshifts. The paper does not compute the modified transfer function, does not evolve f(χ), and does not show that a z=0 Jeans-length comparison reproduces the published exclusion regions. Consequently, Eq. (22) is not a valid translation of those bounds, and the abstract's statement that χ/M_pl≪1 is required 'throughout most of cosmic history' is not supported by the analysis presented.
[§II, Eqs. (8)-(13)] The paper's central qualitative claim is that the Jeans scale is 'dynamically dependent' on the moduli field's evolution, yet the derivation of Eq. (16) assumes χ' is negligible and treats χ as a fixed background. If χ evolves, the d ln f/dη term in the continuity equation (12) changes both the background density evolution and the perturbation growth, and the Klein-Gordon equation (10) couples χ to the axion dynamics. A complete treatment must include perturbations of χ and a time-dependent dispersion relation before any statement about 'most of cosmic history' can be made. The paper does not provide such a treatment.

minor comments (5)

[§II, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2) drops the χ kinetic and potential terms with no explicit statement; please clarify that this is the axion-sector Lagrangian after separating the χ background.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption says the enhancement is evaluated 'at the redshift of recombination', but the surrounding text does not specify a redshift for Eq. (16); please define the evaluation epoch consistently with Eq. (22) and Fig. 3.
[§IV] The statement χ/M_pl ≲ 10^-14 follows from χ ≲ 10^2 TeV only for a particular convention for M_pl; please state whether the reduced Planck mass is used.
[Introduction] There is a typo: 'phenomology' should be 'phenomenology'.
[§III, Eq. (19)] The approximate transfer-function ratio should define k̃_J^eq and clarify whether the parameter q is the standard fuzzy-dark-matter value or is modified by the kinetic coupling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the modified Jeans scale and resulting chi bound are derived within the paper from the model's own equations and matched to external observational limits, not recycled from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: action (Eq. 1) -> non-relativistic Gross-Pitaevskii equation (Eq. 8) -> Madelung equations (Eqs. 12-13) -> modified Jeans scale (Eq. 16) -> constraint mapping (Eq. 22). Each step uses the model's own equations and external canonical-axion bounds; no parameter is fitted to the data and then renamed as a prediction. The f = e^{lambda chi} form and lambda = 1/M_pl are adopted inputs, stated as assumptions, not outputs of the analysis. The observational bounds [60]-[62] are external; only [61] involves an overlapping author (Koushiappas), but it is an independent observational analysis, not a self-citation carrying the theoretical load. The action form is attributed to [49,50,54,55]; [49] includes two of the present authors, but the same form is independently cited, and the phenomenological results do not depend on that citation. The skeptical concern about Eq. 16 (that the (1-1/f) term is a constant background potential and should cancel in linear perturbations) is a physics correctness issue; if correct, it would invalidate the central bound, but it is not a case of a prediction being identical to its input by construction. Therefore no circularity steps meet the evidentiary standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraint rests on the assumed exponential coupling f = e^{lambda chi} with lambda = 1/M_pl, on the mean-field treatment, on the neglect of chi' in the Jeans calculation, and on the reinterpretation of external bounds via Eq. 22. No new particles or new forces are introduced beyond the standard string-motivated axion and moduli fields. The moduli potential is introduced but unused, leaving the evolution of chi unspecified.

free parameters (3)

lambda (kinetic coupling constant) = 1/M_pl (assumed)
The coupling is f = e^{lambda chi}; lambda is set to O(1) inverse Planck mass following string theory expectations. The quoted bound chi < 100 TeV scales with 1/lambda, so the central number depends on this assumed value.
axion mass m = scanned over 10^-22 to 10^-15 eV in Fig. 3
The axion mass is a model parameter varied over the fuzzy dark matter range; constraints are mapped as a function of m. It is not fitted, but it is central to the parameter space being constrained.
moduli potential parameters A, alpha = not specified
The moduli potential V(chi) = A e^{-alpha chi} is introduced in Section II but is not used in the Jeans analysis or the constraint mapping. The evolution of chi is never computed, so these parameters are introduced but unquantified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The nonrelativistic mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii description applies, with chi treated as a spatially homogeneous background field.
Section II before Eq. 8; high occupancy justifies the mean-field approximation, but chi is not quantized and no spatial perturbations to chi are considered.
domain assumption chi' is negligible in the derivation of the modified Jeans scale, Eq. 16.
Section II after Eq. 18 states 'we have assumed that chi' is negligible'; the constraint mapping uses this static-f form and does not include the correction H to H + (3a)^{-1} d log f / d eta.
ad hoc to paper Existing canonical fuzzy dark matter constraints can be reinterpreted by equating Jeans lengths at z = 0, Eq. 22.
Section III; this is an approximation specific to this paper. It assumes that the observable consequences of each probe are fully captured by comparing the instantaneous Jeans scale, which is not proven for time-dependent f.
ad hoc to paper The moduli field value is approximately constant over the epochs relevant to the constraints.
Section IV generalizes z = 0 bounds to 'throughout most of cosmic history' without solving for chi's evolution. If chi changes with time, the universal bound is not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetically Coupled Dark Matter Condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OM3BLW4G

@misc{pith2026250608076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetically Coupled Dark Matter Condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OM3BLW4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08076}
}

abstract

Dark matter consisting of ultralight bosons can form a macroscopic Bose-Einstein condensate with distinctive observational signatures. While this possibility has been extensively studied for axions and axion-like particles $-$ pseudoscalars with masses protected by shift symmetry $-$ realistic models from string theory and other higher-dimensional theories predict more complex structures. Here we investigate a two-field generalization where an axion couples to a moduli field through its kinetic term, representing the phase and radial modes of a complex scalar field. We demonstrate that when this system forms a gravitationally bound Bose-Einstein condensate, the kinetic coupling produces dramatic modifications to cosmological evolution compared to the canonical single-field case. Most notably, the axion Jeans scale becomes dynamically dependent on the moduli field's evolution, fundamentally altering structure formation. By mapping existing observational constraints from canonical axion models to our two-field scenario, we identify regions of parameter space that are already excluded by current observations. In particular, consistency with observations requires that the moduli field must take on small field values, $\chi/M_{\rm pl} \ll 1$, throughout most of cosmic history for this class of axions to remain a viable description of all dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08076 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Sensitivity of Jeans scale enhancement as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Inferred constraints on the kinetically coupled axion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_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

Heterotic Warm Inflation
hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

In a heterotic-string-inspired two-field warm inflation model, the axion drives inflation while thermal corrections from gauge fields block sustained dilaton-driven inflation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Constraints on mediator-based dark matter and scalar dark energy models using√s= 13 TeV ppcollision data collected by the ATLAS detector.JHEP, 05:142, 2019

Morad Aaboud et al. Constraints on mediator-based dark matter and scalar dark energy models using√s= 13 TeV ppcollision data collected by the ATLAS detector.JHEP, 05:142, 2019

work page 2019
[2]

Search for new physics in the monophoton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV.JHEP, 10:073, 2017

Albert M Sirunyan et al. Search for new physics in the monophoton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV.JHEP, 10:073, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

A. K. Drukier, Katherine Freese, and D. N. Spergel. Detecting Cold Dark Matter Candidates.Phys. Rev., D33:3495–3508, 1986

work page 1986
[4]

Goodman and Edward Witten

Mark W. Goodman and Edward Witten. Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates.Phys. Rev., D31:3059, 1985

work page 1985
[5]

D. S. Akerib et al. Results from a search for dark mat- ter in the complete LUX exposure.Phys. Rev. Lett., 118(2):021303, 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Dark Matter Results From 54-Ton-Day Exposure of PandaX-II Experiment.Phys

Xiangyi Cui et al. Dark Matter Results From 54-Ton-Day Exposure of PandaX-II Experiment.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(18):181302, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T.Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(11):111302, 2018

2018
[8]

Annual Modulation in Direct Dark Matter Searches.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2003.04545, March 2020

Francis Froborg and Alan R Duffy. Annual Modulation in Direct Dark Matter Searches.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2003.04545, March 2020

arXiv 2003

Show all 74 references

[9]

Limits on dark matter an- nihilation signals from the Fermi LAT 4-year measure- ment of the isotropic gamma-ray background

Fermi LAT Collaboration. Limits on dark matter an- nihilation signals from the Fermi LAT 4-year measure- ment of the isotropic gamma-ray background. JCAP, 2015(9):008, September 2015

2015
[10]

Koushiappas, and Matthew G

Alex Geringer-Sameth, Savvas M. Koushiappas, and Matthew G. Walker. Comprehensive search for dark mat- ter annihilation in dwarf galaxies. PhRvD, 91(8):083535, April 2015

2015
[11]

Albert et al

A. Albert et al. Dark Matter Limits From Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies with The HA WC Gamma-Ray Ob- servatory.Astrophys. J., 853(2):154, 2018

2018
[12]

Archambault et al

S. Archambault et al. Dark Matter Constraints from a Joint Analysis of Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Observations with VERITAS.Phys. Rev. D, 95(8):082001, 2017

2017
[13]

Gamma-Ray Dark Matter Searches in Milky Way Satellites—A Comparative Review of Data Analysis Methods and Current Results.Galaxies, 8(1):25, March 2020

Javier Rico. Gamma-Ray Dark Matter Searches in Milky Way Satellites—A Comparative Review of Data Analysis Methods and Current Results.Galaxies, 8(1):25, March 2020

2020
[14]

M. L. Ahnen et al. Limits to Dark Matter Annihila- tion Cross-Section from a Combined Analysis of MAGIC and Fermi-LAT Observations of Dwarf Satellite Galaxies. JCAP, 02:039, 2016

2016
[15]

M. G. Aartsen et al. Search for Neutrinos from Dark Matter Self-Annihilations in the center of the Milky Way with 3 years of IceCube/DeepCore.Eur. Phys. J. C, 77(9):627, 2017

2017
[16]

Choi et al

K. Choi et al. Search for neutrinos from annihilation of captured low-mass dark matter particles in the Sun by Super-Kamiokande.Phys. Rev. Lett., 114(14):141301, 2015

2015
[17]

Du et al

N. Du et al. A Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(15):151301, 2018

2018
[18]

Graham, Igor G

Peter W. Graham, Igor G. Irastorza, Steven K. Lamore- aux, Axel Lindner, and Karl A. van Bibber. Experimen- tal Searches for the Axion and Axion-Like Particles.An- nual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 65:485–514, October 2015

2015
[19]

Dark Matter and the XENON1T electron recoil excess.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2006.10735, June 2020

Kristjan Kannike, Martti Raidal, Hardi Veerm¨ ae, Alessandro Strumia, and Daniele Teresi. Dark Matter and the XENON1T electron recoil excess.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2006.10735, June 2020

2006 arXiv
[20]

Buen-Abad, JiJi Fan, and John Shing Chau Leung

Jatan Buch, Manuel A. Buen-Abad, JiJi Fan, and John Shing Chau Leung. Galactic Origin of Relativis- tic Bosons and XENON1T Excess.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2006.12488, June 2020

2006 arXiv
[21]

Gary Steigman and Michael S. Turner. Cosmological Constraints on the Properties of Weakly Interacting Mas- sive Particles.Nucl. Phys. B, 253:375–386, 1985

1985
[22]

Wise, and Frank Wilczek

John Preskill, Mark B. Wise, and Frank Wilczek. Cos- mology of the Invisible Axion.Phys. Lett., B120:127–132,
[23]

L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie. A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion.Phys. Lett., B120:133–136, 1983. [,URL(1982)]

1982
[24]

The Not So Harmless Axion.Phys

Michael Dine and Willy Fischler. The Not So Harmless Axion.Phys. Lett., B120:137–141, 1983. [,URL(1982)]

1982
[25]

R. D. Peccei and Helen R. Quinn. CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 38:1440–1443, 1977

1977
[26]

Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons.Phys

Frank Wilczek. Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:279–282, 1978

1978
[27]

A New Light Boson?Phys

Steven Weinberg. A New Light Boson?Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:223–226, 1978

1978
[28]

The landscape of QCD axion models

Luca Di Luzio, Maurizio Giannotti, Enrico Nardi, and Luca Visinelli. The landscape of QCD axion models. Phys. Rept., 870:1–117, 2020

2020
[29]

Michael S. Turner. Coherent Scalar Field Oscillations in an Expanding Universe.Phys. Rev. D, 28:1243, 1983

1983
[30]

Press, Barbara S

William H. Press, Barbara S. Ryden, and David N. Spergel. Single Mechanism for Generating Large Scale Structure and Providing Dark Missing Matter.Phys. Rev. Lett., 64:1084, 1990

1990
[31]

Late time cosmological phase transition and galactic halo as Bose liquid.Phys

Sang-Jin Sin. Late time cosmological phase transition and galactic halo as Bose liquid.Phys. Rev., D50:3650– 3654, 1994

1994
[32]

Cold and fuzzy dark matter.Phys

Wayne Hu, Rennan Barkana, and Andrei Gruzinov. Cold and fuzzy dark matter.Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:1158–1161, 2000

2000
[33]

Repulsive dark matter.New Astron., 5:103, 2000

Jeremy Goodman. Repulsive dark matter.New Astron., 5:103, 2000

2000
[34]

P. J. E. Peebles. Fluid dark matter.Astrophys. J. Lett., 534:L127, 2000

2000
[35]

Dark matter from an ultra-light pseudo-Goldsone-boson.Phys

Luca Amendola and Riccardo Barbieri. Dark matter from an ultra-light pseudo-Goldsone-boson.Phys. Lett. B, 642:192–196, 2006

2006
[36]

Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Co- herent Dark Wave.Nature Phys., 10:496–499, 2014

Hsi-Yu Schive, Tzihong Chiueh, and Tom Broadhurst. Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Co- herent Dark Wave.Nature Phys., 10:496–499, 2014

2014
[37]

Mass-radius relation of New- tonian self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with short-range interactions: I

Pierre-Henri Chavanis. Mass-radius relation of New- tonian self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with short-range interactions: I. Analytical results.Phys. Rev. D, 84:043531, 2011

2011
[38]

P. H. Chavanis and L. Delfini. Mass-radius relation of Newtonian self-gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates with short-range interactions: II. Numerical results. 8 Phys. Rev. D, 84:043532, 2011

2011
[39]

Gravitationally bound BCS state as dark matter.JCAP, 1704(04):005, 2017

Stephon Alexander and Sam Cormack. Gravitationally bound BCS state as dark matter.JCAP, 1704(04):005, 2017

2017
[40]

Stephon Alexander, Evan McDonough, and David N. Spergel. Chiral Gravitational Waves and Baryon Super- fluid Dark Matter.JCAP, 1805(05):003, 2018

2018
[41]

Field theory axiverse.Phys

Stephon Alexander, Tucker Manton, and Evan Mc- Donough. Field theory axiverse.Phys. Rev. D, 109(11):116019, 2024

2024
[42]

Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, and Ed- ward Witten

Lam Hui, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, and Ed- ward Witten. Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter.Phys. Rev., D95(4):043541, 2017

2017
[43]

Elisa G. M. Ferreira. Ultra-light dark matter.Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 29(1):7, 2021

2021
[44]

Wave Interference in Self-Interacting Fuzzy Dark Matter

Christian Capanelli, Wayne Hu, and Evan McDonough. Wave Interference in Self-Interacting Fuzzy Dark Matter. 3 2025

2025
[45]

Tanja Rindler-Daller and Paul R. Shapiro. Angu- lar Momentum and Vortex Formation in Bose-Einstein- Condensed Cold Dark Matter Haloes.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 422:135–161, 2012

2012
[46]

Toomey, and Emanuele Usai

Stephon Alexander, Sergei Gleyzer, Evan McDonough, Michael W. Toomey, and Emanuele Usai. Deep Learning the Morphology of Dark Matter Substructure.Astrophys. J., 893:15, 2020

2020
[47]

Stephon Alexander, Christian Capanelli, Elisa G. M. Fer- reira, and Evan McDonough. Cosmic filament spin from dark matter vortices.Phys. Lett. B, 833:137298, 2022

2022
[48]

Bramburger, and Evan Mc- Donough

Stephon Alexander, Jason J. Bramburger, and Evan Mc- Donough. Dark Disk Substructure and Superfluid Dark Matter.Phys. Lett. B, 797:134871, 2019

2019
[49]

Stephon Alexander, Heliudson Bernardo, and Michael W. Toomey. Addressing the Hubble andS 8 Tensions with a Kinetically Mixed Dark Sector. 7 2022

2022
[50]

Towards a dark sector model from string theory

Heliudson Bernardo, Robert Brandenberger, and J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich. Towards a dark sector model from string theory. JCAP, 09:040, 2022

2022
[51]

Philippe Brax, C. P. Burgess, and F. Quevedo. Axio- Chameleons: a novel string-friendly multi-field screening mechanism.JCAP, 03:015, 2024

2024
[52]

Abdul Karim et al

M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Measure- ments of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. 3 2025

2025
[53]

A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VI: cosmological con- straints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscil- lations.JCAP, 02:021, 2025

2024
[54]

Adam Smith, Maria Mylova, Philippe Brax, Carsten van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess, and Anne-Christine Davis. A Minimal Axio-dilaton Dark Sector. 10 2024

2024
[55]

C. P. Burgess, Danielle Dineen, and F. Quevedo. Yoga Dark Energy: natural relaxation and other dark im- plications of a supersymmetric gravity sector.JCAP, 03(03):064, 2022

2022
[56]

Guth, Mark P

Alan H. Guth, Mark P. Hertzberg, and C. Prescod- Weinstein. Do Dark Matter Axions Form a Conden- sate with Long-Range Correlation?Phys. Rev. D, 92(10):103513, 2015

2015
[57]

R. R. Caldwell, Rahul Dave, and Paul J. Steinhardt. Cos- mological imprint of an energy component with general equation of state.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:1582–1585, 1998

1998
[58]

David J. E. Marsh and Pedro G. Ferreira. Ultra-Light Scalar Fields and the Growth of Structure in the Uni- verse.Phys. Rev. D, 82:103528, 2010

2010
[59]

Allali, Mark P

Itamar J. Allali, Mark P. Hertzberg, and Fabrizio Rompineve. Dark sector to restore cosmological concor- dance.Phys. Rev. D, 104(8):L081303, 2021

2021
[60]

Rogers and Hiranya V

Keir K. Rogers and Hiranya V. Peiris. Strong Bound on Canonical Ultralight Axion Dark Matter from the Lyman-Alpha Forest.Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(7):071302, 2021

2021
[61]

The constrained regions of parameter space are established by enforcing that the modified Jeans scale, Eq

(blue), and subhalo counts [62] (green). The constrained regions of parameter space are established by enforcing that the modified Jeans scale, Eq. 16, does not exceed that of a standard axion, Eq. 18, for the respective constraints. Notice that such a coupling strongly constr...
[62]

Goldstein, Savvas M

Isabelle S. Goldstein, Savvas M. Koushiappas, and Matthew G. Walker. Viability of ultralight bosonic dark matter in dwarf galaxies.Phys. Rev. D, 106(6):063010, 2022

2022
[63]

E. O. Nadler et al. Milky Way Satellite Census. III. Constraints on Dark Matter Properties from Observa- tions of Milky Way Satellite Galaxies.Phys. Rev. Lett., 126:091101, 2021

2021
[64]

Mikhail M. Ivanov. Lyman alpha forest power spectrum in effective field theory.Phys. Rev. D, 109(2):023507, 2024

2024
[65]

Ivanov, Michael W

Mikhail M. Ivanov, Michael W. Toomey, and Naim G¨ oksel Kara¸ caylı. Fundamental Physics with the Lyman-Alpha Forest: Constraints on the Growth of Structure and Neutrino Masses from SDSS with Effective Field Theory.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134(9):091001, 2025

2025
[66]

Slatyer, and Mark Vo- gelsberger

Wenzer Qin, Katelin Schutz, Aaron Smith, Enrico Garaldi, Rahul Kannan, Tracy R. Slatyer, and Mark Vo- gelsberger. Effective bias expansion for 21-cm cosmology in redshift space.Phys. Rev. D, 106(12):123506, 2022

2022
[67]

Is the Superstring Weakly Coupled?Phys

Michael Dine and Nathan Seiberg. Is the Superstring Weakly Coupled?Phys. Lett. B, 162:299–302, 1985

1985
[68]

Axion- Dilaton Destabilization and the Hubble Tension.Phys

Stephon Alexander and Evan McDonough. Axion- Dilaton Destabilization and the Hubble Tension.Phys. Lett. B, 797:134830, 2019

2019
[69]

Model-Independent Dark Energy Measurements from DESI DR2 and Planck 2015 Data

Yun Wang and Katherine Freese. Model-Independent Dark Energy Measurements from DESI DR2 and Planck 2015 Data. 5 2025

2015
[70]

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle

George Efstathiou. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle. 5 2025

2025
[71]

Goldstein and Louis E

Isabelle S. Goldstein and Louis E. Strigari. Kinematics of the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal core: A 5D Analysis for a 6D Methodology with Gaia DR3. 1 2025

2025
[72]

Weltman et al

A. Weltman et al. Fundamental physics with the Square Kilometre Array.Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral., 37:e002, 2020

2020
[73]

Abdul Karim et al

M. Abdul Karim et al. DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest. 3 2025

2025
[74]

Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes.Living Rev

Michele Moresco et al. Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes.Living Rev. Rel., 25(1):6, 2022

2022

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Constraints on mediator-based dark matter and scalar dark energy models using√s= 13 TeV ppcollision data collected by the ATLAS detector.JHEP, 05:142, 2019

Morad Aaboud et al. Constraints on mediator-based dark matter and scalar dark energy models using√s= 13 TeV ppcollision data collected by the ATLAS detector.JHEP, 05:142, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Search for new physics in the monophoton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV.JHEP, 10:073, 2017

Albert M Sirunyan et al. Search for new physics in the monophoton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV.JHEP, 10:073, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [3]

A. K. Drukier, Katherine Freese, and D. N. Spergel. Detecting Cold Dark Matter Candidates.Phys. Rev., D33:3495–3508, 1986

work page 1986

[4] [4]

Goodman and Edward Witten

Mark W. Goodman and Edward Witten. Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates.Phys. Rev., D31:3059, 1985

work page 1985

[5] [5]

D. S. Akerib et al. Results from a search for dark mat- ter in the complete LUX exposure.Phys. Rev. Lett., 118(2):021303, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Dark Matter Results From 54-Ton-Day Exposure of PandaX-II Experiment.Phys

Xiangyi Cui et al. Dark Matter Results From 54-Ton-Day Exposure of PandaX-II Experiment.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(18):181302, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T.Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(11):111302, 2018

2018

[8] [8]

Annual Modulation in Direct Dark Matter Searches.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2003.04545, March 2020

Francis Froborg and Alan R Duffy. Annual Modulation in Direct Dark Matter Searches.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2003.04545, March 2020

arXiv 2003