Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The ALP miracle revisited

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1710.11107 v2 pith:GBPJDPDX submitted 2017-10-30 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ex

The ALP miracle revisited

classification hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ex
keywords darkgammainflatonlesssimmattermiraclepreferreduncertainties
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit the ALP miracle scenario where the inflaton and dark matter are unified by a single axion-like particle (ALP). We first extend our previous analysis on the inflaton dynamics to identify the whole viable parameter space consistent with the CMB observation. Then, we evaluate the relic density of the ALP dark matter by incorporating uncertainties of the model-dependent couplings to the weak gauge bosons as well as the dissipation effect. The preferred ranges of the ALP mass and coupling to photons are found to be $0.01\lesssim m_\phi \lesssim 1$\,eV and $g_{\phi \gamma \gamma} = {\cal O}(10^{-11})$\,GeV$^{-1}$, which slightly depend on these uncertainties. Interestingly, the preferred regions are within reach of future solar axion helioscope experiments, IAXO and TASTE, and laser-based stim

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. A multi-axion model of inflation and dark matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 reject novelty 4.0

    A 300-mode Kaluza-Klein axion tower is proposed as a unified inflaton and dark-matter sector, but the lightest state's quoted lifetime contradicts the paper's own decay-rate formula.