Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

This paper claims that for axion masses above roughly 0.1 eV, cosmology—not colliders or stellar cooling—sets the strongest model-independent limits on axion couplings to muons, taus, and flavor-violating τ–e/τ–μ pairs.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 21:32 UTC pith:NG6BLO4W

load-bearing objection Solid, useful update for axion-lepton bounds in the 0.1-10 eV window; the high-mass reach rests on a warm-DM extrapolation the paper itself flags as approximate. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.14864 v2 pith:NG6BLO4W submitted 2025-11-18 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Improved cosmological constraints on axion-lepton interactions

Marcin Badziak , Adam Gomu{\l}ka , Maxim Laletin , Krzysztof Szafra\'nski This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO PACS 14.80.Va95.35.+d98.80.Es
keywords axionaxion-lepton couplingslepton flavor violationthermal axion productiondark radiationwarm dark mattercosmological constraintsLyman-alpha forest
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.

This paper tries to establish that for axion masses above about 0.1 eV, cosmology is the most powerful probe of axion couplings to leptons, beating collider searches and astrophysical bounds. The authors compute the thermal axion abundance by solving the full Boltzmann equation for the axion's momentum distribution rather than assuming instant decoupling or thermal equilibrium, then feed those non-thermal distributions into a cosmological likelihood with CMB and BAO data. The key effect is that once the axion mass exceeds the recombination temperature, the extra energy density and warm-dark-matter behavior tighten the constraints far beyond what the usual ΔNeff bound implies. The results push lower bounds on the axion decay constant f/|C| to about 10^7 GeV for muon and tau couplings near 1 eV, and past 10^8 GeV for flavor-violating tau couplings, surpassing recent collider limits. If correct, this closes parameter space for both QCD axion models and axion-like particles.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a dedicated cosmological analysis with finite axion mass converts the weak ΔNeff limit into strong coupling exclusions. For lepton-flavor-conserving couplings, the 95% C.L. bound on f/|Cτ| rises from effectively unconstrained below 0.12 eV to about 10^7 GeV at m_a ~ 1 eV, while f/|Cμ| exceeds a few times 10^7 GeV above 0.2 eV, surpassing the supernova bound; f/|Ce| remains weaker than the white-dwarf cooling bound. For lepton-flavor-violating couplings, the bounds on f/|Cτe| and f/|Cτμ| exceed 10^8 GeV for m_a > 1 eV and are stronger than collider constraints for m_a > 0.3 eV; for μ→e a couplings, cosmology wins only above roughly 100 eV. The s

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase-space distribution f_a(x,q) obtained from the momentum-dependent Boltzmann equation, rather than the axion number density alone. A comparison of the full phase-space computation with a number-density computation shows that the shape and normalization of the distribution differ in freeze-in regimes. The paper fits the numerical distributions with an analytic ansatz—q²f_a = p(1+q²)^d [exp(A√(1+q²)−M)+k]^{-1}—whose parameters are smooth polynomials in log(f/|C|), allowing MCMC scans over arbitrary couplings. The axion mass enters through the energy density integral containing sqrt(q² + (m/T)²), so the same distribution acts as dark radiation at low m_a and a

Load-bearing premise

The high-mass exclusions rest on assuming that the Lyman-α forest bound of 10% warm dark matter, measured for particle masses near 1 keV, can be extrapolated down to axion masses below 1 keV; if the true sub-keV bound differs, the m_a > 10 eV exclusion curves shift.

What would settle it

Measure the matter power spectrum on Lyman-α scales with sensitivity to warm-dark-matter fractions below 10% for particle masses from 10 eV to 1 keV: the paper's f_wdm ≤ 0.1 assumption would be confirmed or excluded, moving its high-mass bounds accordingly. Alternatively, a future CMB experiment with ΔNeff sensitivity of about 0.02 would test the predicted ΔNeff values at each f/|C| and could contradict the exclusion curves if no such dark radiation appears.

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

If this is right

  • For axion masses above a few tenths of an eV, any model with LFC muon/tau or LFV τ–e/τ–μ couplings must satisfy cosmological bounds that are stricter than current and near-future collider limits.
  • Flavor-violating axion couplings to τe and τμ are excluded at f/|C| below about 10^8 GeV for m_a ≳ 1 eV, a factor of several beyond the projected collider reach.
  • Cosmology closes QCD axion windows with C~1: tau-coupled QCD axions with f ≲ 3×10^6 GeV (m_a ≳ 2 eV) and muon-coupled axions with f ≲ 1.5×10^7 GeV (m_a ≳ 0.4 eV) are excluded.
  • The full phase-space treatment matters quantitatively: freeze-in-produced axions can have a larger energy density than number-density Boltzmann or instantaneous-decoupling estimates, so earlier ΔNeff-based bounds are not just weaker but less reliable.
  • For m_a approaching 1 keV, the approximate Lyman-α warm-dark-matter bound pushes LFV tau lower bounds past 10^9 GeV, making cosmology the dominant probe there as well.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct hydrodynamical Lyman-α analysis at sub-keV masses would be the natural next step: the paper's approximate warm-DM bound assumes the 10% fraction holds below 1 keV, so the m_a > 10 eV exclusion region is the part most likely to move.
  • The same mass-aware likelihood machinery could be applied to axion couplings to photons, gluons, or quarks, where published model-independent limits still rely on instantaneous-decoupling ΔNeff estimates; the finite-mass effect should strengthen those too.
  • The analytic distribution-function fits are reusable for any freeze-in thermal relic; comparing full phase-space and number-density treatments for other feebly interacting particles could reveal where number-density calculations mis-estimate structure-suppression constraints.
  • Because BAO data relax ΔNeff relative to CMB-only bounds at low masses, the low-mass constraints are conservative; adding weak-lensing data could improve the m_a > 1 eV bounds by a factor of a few, as the paper itself notes.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives new cosmological constraints on axion-lepton interactions by combining Planck 2018 CMB and DESI DR2 BAO data with a full phase-space Boltzmann equation (fBE) treatment of thermal axion production. The axion momentum distributions are computed with fBE, fitted to an analytic form, and implemented in CLASS; MCMC scans are performed with MontePython. The authors consider both lepton-flavor-conserving (LFC) couplings to e, mu, tau and lepton-flavor-violating (LFV) couplings tau-e, tau-mu, mu-e. They find that for axion masses above ~0.1 eV the finite-mass effects substantially strengthen the constraints relative to the usual Delta N_eff bound, and they claim that for m_a above ~0.3 eV cosmology gives the strongest limits on the tau and LFV tau couplings, exceeding Belle-II and other collider bounds. They also derive approximate warm-dark-matter constraints from Lyman-alpha observations for m_a < 1 keV, which extend the bounds to f/|C| ~ 1e8-1e9 GeV near 1 keV.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper fills a gap in model-independent cosmological constraints on axion-lepton couplings by properly including the axion mass and non-thermal momentum distributions. The methodology is a clear improvement over earlier Delta N_eff-based analyses, and the comparison with massless limits is internally consistent. The conclusions are of direct relevance to QCD axion models and ALP searches. The high-mass claims, however, hinge on an extrapolated Lyman-alpha warm-dark-matter bound whose validity for non-thermal sub-keV axions is not established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.3] The high-mass constraints (m_a >~ 10 eV) and the resulting conclusions in Sec. 5 (e.g., f/|C| ~ 1e8-1e9 GeV at m_a ~ 1 keV, and 'stronger than all other constraints' for m_a > 10 eV) rely on the approximate warm-DM bound f_wdm <= 0.1 for all m_a < 1 keV introduced in Sec. 4.3. This is an extrapolation from Ref. [77], whose published mass range starts at 1 keV and gives f_wdm = 16% at that mass, and from Ref. [78], which is not mass-resolved. The axion distributions considered here are non-thermal freeze-in spectra, and the Lyman-alpha constraint depends on the momentum distribution, not just the mass and energy-density fraction. The paper itself labels this 'an indication' and 'conservatively estimate,' but the quantitative abstract/conclusion claims are built on it. If the true sub-keV Lyman-alpha bound is weaker (e.g., a plateau above 10% or a turn-off because the free-streaming length
  2. [Appendix A] The analytic fits to the fBE distributions are validated only for the LFC muon channel (Fig. 6) and only through the integrated Delta N_eff. The tau LFC and LFV channels, which exhibit the largest fBE/nBE differences (Sec. 4.3) and produce the headline constraints, are not shown. Since the mass-dependent analysis in CLASS uses the fitted distributions, a systematic error in the fits would propagate into the reported 95% C.L. bounds. Please provide a quantitative validation for all channels, e.g., by comparing the CMB temperature and matter power spectra computed with the fitted distributions against those from the direct numerical distributions for representative masses and couplings.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figs. 2-3] Several axis labels appear as '10□3' etc. in the text version; please ensure the final rendering shows the exponents correctly.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] Footnote 7: the statement that the f/|C_e| constraint at low masses is 'an artifact resulting from our choice of the prior' needs clarification. If the bound is prior-dominated, the reported 95% limit may not be a genuine data-driven constraint.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] The description of Ref. [78] ('any mass of a new particle is allowed ... as long as it constitutes less than 10%') is vague; please specify the mass range and the type of dark matter considered in that reference.
  4. [Table 2] The entries for log10(m_a/eV) and log10(f/|C|/GeV) are limits, but the direction (upper/lower) is not explicitly stated in the table header; please make this unambiguous.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] The translation of the constraints from Ref. [75] to axion couplings is only sketched. Please specify the effective-temperature mapping and the assumptions used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the bounds are derived from external Planck+DESI data and the self-cited fBE solver is an upstream tool, not the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central claims are cosmological 95% C.L. lower bounds on f/|C| for axion-lepton couplings, obtained by running MCMC scans with CLASS/MontePython against external Planck 2018 and DESI DR2 data. The axion abundance and distribution functions are taken from the fBE solver of Ref. [51], which is co-authored by two members of the present team; however, this is an upstream computational method with its own published validation and is not the target result of the paper. The Appendix A fitting functions (A.1)-(A.2) are interpolations of the numerically computed distributions, explicitly cross-checked against direct integration (Fig. 6), so they are not a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. The approximate warm-dark-matter constraint in Sec. 4.3 uses external Ly-alpha results (Refs. [77,78]) and is explicitly flagged by the authors as an extrapolation and 'an indication'; this is a possible physical limitation, not a circular step. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to an input, and no claim reduces to a self-citation chain. The central inference is a model-vs-data comparison, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particle or force; its central numbers rest on the theoretical axion-production computation from Ref. [51] (self-cited), the analytic fits of Appendix A, and the extrapolated wDM bound of Sec. 4.3. The f/|C| and m_a parameters are the intended inference targets, while the fit coefficients and f_wdm threshold are auxiliary choices that carry unquantified uncertainty.

free parameters (4)
  • f/|C| (axion interaction strength) = 95% CL lower bounds from about 1e4 to 1e9 GeV depending on channel and m_a
    This is the parameter being constrained; it is scanned with a log-flat prior in the MCMC.
  • axion mass m_a = fixed grid values from 1e-3 to 1e3 eV in main scans; varied in Appendix B
    The x-axis of the central result; treated as an input in the fixed-mass scans and as a free parameter in the full scans.
  • analytic distribution-fit coefficients {A,M,k,d} and polynomial coefficients b_i = not tabulated in the preprint
    Fitted to numerical fBE distributions in Appendix A to allow CLASS interpolation; accuracy is cross-checked only via ΔNeff.
  • warm-DM fraction threshold f_wdm ≤ 0.1 = 0.1
    Chosen by hand as a conservative extrapolation of Lyman-alpha bounds to sub-keV masses; no direct sub-keV measurement is cited.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Axion-lepton interactions are described by the derivative effective Lagrangian (2.2), with one coupling channel active at a time.
    All constraints are computed for a single coupling; simultaneous couplings would typically increase production and tighten bounds, but the quoted single-coupling limits are what is claimed.
  • domain assumption The Boltzmann equation (2.3) with collision terms from Ref. [51] correctly computes the thermal axion phase-space distribution.
    The production rates and fBE solver are taken from the authors' own previous paper; no independent implementation, machine-checked proof, or released code is provided in this preprint.
  • ad hoc to paper The analytic fitting form (A.1) with polynomial parameterizations (A.2) accurately represents the numerical fBE distributions for all scanned f/|C| and masses.
    Validation is shown only against ΔNeff (Fig. 6), not against the CMB temperature, lensing, or matter power spectra used to derive the central bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lyman-alpha warm-dark-matter bound is conservatively captured by f_wdm ≤ 0.1 for m_a < 1 keV, extrapolated from simulations that start near 1 keV.
    Sec. 4.3 relies on Refs. [77,78] at higher masses; the sub-keV plateau is an estimate, not a measured bound, and it feeds the high-mass exclusions.
  • domain assumption Planck 2018 CMB and DESI DR2 BAO likelihoods, together with six-parameter ΛCDM plus massive neutrinos, are correct and complete.
    Any error in the baseline cosmology or likelihoods would shift the derived f/|C| limits; this is standard practice but still an unverified input here.
  • domain assumption Thermally produced axions are the only axion contribution considered; misalignment and topological-defect production are omitted.
    Sec. 3 explicitly excludes thermal axions from ωcdm, so the constraints isolate the thermal channel; extra production mechanisms would make the bounds model-dependent.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20137 in / 15182 out tokens · 161391 ms · 2026-08-03T21:32:00.813799+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present updated cosmological constraints on axion-lepton interactions based on state-of-the-art computations of the thermal axion abundance. By combining Planck Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data with baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements from DESI DR2, we derive improved limits on both lepton-flavor-conserving (LFC) and lepton-flavor-violating (LFV) axion couplings. Incorporating finite axion mass effects substantially strengthens the bounds for axion masses above 0.1 eV compared to those inferred from the $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ constraint alone. The bounds on the LFC axion-tau coupling and LFV axion couplings to tau and muon or electron are improved by several orders of magnitude and the lower bound on the axion decay constant may exceed $10^6$ and $10^8$ GeV, respectively, for axion masses above 1 eV. Our cosmological constraints on LFC axion couplings to muons and taus and LFV axion couplings to tau and muon or electron are stronger than all other constraints for masses above 0.3 eV. In particular, they are stronger than recent collider constraints from Belle-II on $\tau \rightarrow la$ decays, where $l=e$ or $\mu$. The collider constraints on $\mu \rightarrow ea$ decays are weaker than the cosmological constraints for axion masses above 100 eV. Our results are relevant for both the QCD axion and axion-like particles (ALPs).

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Beyond thermal approximations: Precise cosmological bounds on Axion-Like Particles

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Solving the momentum-dependent Boltzmann equation and propagating the exact non-thermal ALP spectrum into CMB analyses yields 95% limits f_a>1.63e6 GeV (e), 9.41e6 GeV (mu), 8.06e4 GeV (tau), and g_a_gamma<1.98e-8 GeV^-1.

  2. Loop-Level Lepton Flavor Violation and Diphoton Signals in the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Recasting axion limits onto the one-loop H3 couplings of the minimal left-right symmetric model excludes the right-handed scale up to 2×10^9 GeV and could eventually probe 6×10^11 GeV.

  3. Flavor phenomenology of light dark particles

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Review surveying limits and prospects for flavor-violating decays of light axion-like particles, highlighting complementarity of lab, astro, and cosmo probes up to 10^12 GeV scales.

  4. Axions at the meV Crossroads: Theory, Cosmology, Astrophysics, and Experiments

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 2.0

    The meV axion window is presented as a coherent, cross-validated search program in which string theory, stellar cooling, dark matter, and new detector concepts converge on the same mass range.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 60 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn,CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 1440

    1977

  2. [2]

    Preskill, M.B

    J. Preskill, M.B. Wise and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 127

    1983

  3. [3]

    Abbott and P

    L.F. Abbott and P. Sikivie,A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 133

    1983

  4. [4]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B120(1983) 137

    1983

  5. [5]

    Co and K

    R.T. Co and K. Harigaya,Axiogenesis,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 111602 [1910.02080]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega and G. Villadoro,The QCD axion, precisely, JHEP01(2016) 034 [1511.02867]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Kim,Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance,Phys

    J.E. Kim,Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance,Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 103

    1979

  8. [8]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov,Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,Nucl. Phys. B166(1980) 493. – 22 – −100 0 100 ∆DT T ℓ [µK2] ma = 0.1 eV −0.1 0.0 0.1 ∆Dφφ ℓ ma = 0.1 eV −100 0 100 ∆DT T ℓ [µK2] ma = 1 eV −0.1 0.0 0.1 ∆Dφφ ℓ ma = 1 eV 1000 2000 ℓ −200 −100 0 100 ∆DT T ℓ [µK2] ma = 10 eV 101 102 103 ℓ −0.1...

    1980

  9. [9]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki,A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B104(1981) 199

    1981

  10. [10]

    Zhitnitsky,On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions

    A.R. Zhitnitsky,On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31(1980) 260

    1980

  11. [11]

    Buschmann, C

    M. Buschmann, C. Dessert, J.W. Foster, A.J. Long and B.R. Safdi,Upper Limit on the QCD Axion Mass from Isolated Neutron Star Cooling,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 091102 [2111.09892]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Carenza, B

    P. Carenza, B. Fore, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi and S. Reddy,Enhanced Supernova Axion – 24 – Emission and its Implications,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 071102 [2010.02943]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Di Luzio, F

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, E. Nardi, P. Panci and R. Ziegler,Astrophobic Axions,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 261803 [1712.04940]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Björkeroth, L

    F. Björkeroth, L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, E. Nardi, P. Panci and R. Ziegler,Axion-electron decoupling in nucleophobic axion models,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 035027 [1907.06575]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Badziak, G

    M. Badziak, G. Grilli di Cortona, M. Tabet and R. Ziegler,Flavor-violating Higgs decays and stellar cooling anomalies in axion models,JHEP10(2021) 181 [2107.09708]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Di Luzio, F

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, E. Nardi and S. Okawa,Renormalization group effects in astrophobic axion models,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 055016 [2205.15326]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Takahashi and W

    F. Takahashi and W. Yin,Hadrophobic axion from a GUT,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 035024 [2301.10757]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Badziak and K

    M. Badziak and K. Harigaya,Naturally astrophobic QCD axion,JHEP06(2023) 014 [2301.09647]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Badziak, K

    M. Badziak, K. Harigaya, M. Łukawski and R. Ziegler,Thermal production of astrophobic axions,JHEP09(2024) 136 [2403.05621]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    R.T. Co, L.J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Axion Kinetic Misalignment Mechanism,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 251802 [1910.14152]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Vilenkin and A.E

    A. Vilenkin and A.E. Everett,Cosmic Strings and Domain Walls in Models with Goldstone and PseudoGoldstone Bosons,Phys. Rev. Lett.48(1982) 1867

    1982

  22. [22]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa and T. Sekiguchi,Axion dark matter from topological defects,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 065014 [1412.0789]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Buschmann, J.W

    M. Buschmann, J.W. Foster and B.R. Safdi,Early-Universe Simulations of the Cosmological Axion,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 161103 [1906.00967]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Gorghetto, E

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy and G. Villadoro,More axions from strings,SciPost Phys.10 (2021) 050 [2007.04990]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Panci, D

    P. Panci, D. Redigolo, T. Schwetz and R. Ziegler,Axion dark matter from lepton flavor-violating decays,Phys. Lett. B841(2023) 137919 [2209.03371]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Aghaie, G

    M. Aghaie, G. Armando, A. Conaci, A. Dondarini, P. Matak, P. Panci et al.,Axion dark matter from heavy quarks,Phys. Lett. B856(2024) 138923 [2404.12199]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    D’Eramo, A

    F. D’Eramo, A. Lenoci and A. Dekker,Dark Matter Freeze-In and Small-Scale Observables: Novel Mass Bounds and Viable Particle Candidates,2506.13864

    arXiv

  28. [28]

    Boyarsky, J

    A. Boyarsky, J. Lesgourgues, O. Ruchayskiy and M. Viel,Lyman-alpha constraints on warm and on warm-plus-cold dark matter models,JCAP05(2009) 012 [0812.0010]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    Kamada and K

    A. Kamada and K. Yanagi,Constraining FIMP from the structure formation of the Universe: analytic mapping frommW DM,JCAP11(2019) 029 [1907.04558]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Ballesteros, M.A.G

    G. Ballesteros, M.A.G. Garcia and M. Pierre,How warm are non-thermal relics? Lyman-α bounds on out-of-equilibrium dark matter,JCAP03(2021) 101 [2011.13458]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    D’Eramo and A

    F. D’Eramo and A. Lenoci,Lower mass bounds on FIMP dark matter produced via freeze-in, JCAP10(2021) 045 [2012.01446]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Decant, J

    Q. Decant, J. Heisig, D.C. Hooper and L. Lopez-Honorez,Lyman-αconstraints on freeze-in and superWIMPs,JCAP03(2022) 041 [2111.09321]. – 25 – [33]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [34]

    Chang and K

    S. Chang and K. Choi,Hadronic axion window and the big bang nucleosynthesis,Phys. Lett. B316(1993) 51 [hep-ph/9306216]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  34. [35]

    Hannestad, A

    S. Hannestad, A. Mirizzi and G. Raffelt,New cosmological mass limit on thermal relic axions,JCAP07(2005) 002 [hep-ph/0504059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  35. [36]

    Salvio, A

    A. Salvio, A. Strumia and W. Xue,Thermal axion production,JCAP01(2014) 011 [1310.6982]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [37]

    Ferreira and A

    R.Z. Ferreira and A. Notari,Observable Windows for the QCD Axion Through the Number of Relativistic Species,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 191301 [1801.06090]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [38]

    D’Eramo, R.Z

    F. D’Eramo, R.Z. Ferreira, A. Notari and J.L. Bernal,Hot Axions and theH0 tension,JCAP 11(2018) 014 [1808.07430]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [39]

    Arias-Aragón, F

    F. Arias-Aragón, F. D’Eramo, R.Z. Ferreira, L. Merlo and A. Notari,Production of Thermal Axions across the ElectroWeak Phase Transition,JCAP03(2021) 090 [2012.04736]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [40]

    Ferreira, A

    R.Z. Ferreira, A. Notari and F. Rompineve,Dine-Fischler-Srednicki-Zhitnitsky axion in the CMB,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 063524 [2012.06566]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [41]

    Ghosh and D

    D. Ghosh and D. Sachdeva,Constraints on Axion-Lepton coupling from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,JCAP10(2020) 060 [2007.01873]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [42]

    Green, Y

    D. Green, Y. Guo and B. Wallisch,Cosmological implications of axion-matter couplings, JCAP02(2022) 019 [2109.12088]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [43]

    D’Eramo and S

    F. D’Eramo and S. Yun,Flavor violating axions in the early Universe,Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 075002 [2111.12108]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [44]

    D’Eramo, F

    F. D’Eramo, F. Hajkarim and S. Yun,Thermal Axion Production at Low Temperatures: A Smooth Treatment of the QCD Phase Transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 152001 [2108.04259]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [45]

    D’Eramo, F

    F. D’Eramo, F. Hajkarim and S. Yun,Thermal QCD Axions across Thresholds,JHEP10 (2021) 224 [2108.05371]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [46]

    Langhoff, N.J

    K. Langhoff, N.J. Outmezguine and N.L. Rodd,Irreducible Axion Background,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 241101 [2209.06216]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [47]

    Notari, F

    A. Notari, F. Rompineve and G. Villadoro,Improved Hot Dark Matter Bound on the QCD Axion,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 011004 [2211.03799]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [48]

    Bianchini, G.G

    F. Bianchini, G.G. di Cortona and M. Valli,QCD axion: Some like it hot,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 123527 [2310.08169]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [49]

    Dunsky, L.J

    D.I. Dunsky, L.J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Dark Radiation Constraints on Heavy QCD Axions, JHEP04(2024) 130 [2205.11540]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [50]

    Bouzoud and J

    K. Bouzoud and J. Ghiglieri,Thermal axion production at hard and soft momenta,JHEP01 (2025) 163 [2404.06113]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Badziak and M

    M. Badziak and M. Laletin,Precise predictions for the QCD axion contribution to dark radiation with full phase-space evolution,JHEP02(2025) 108 [2410.18186]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    D’Eramo and A

    F. D’Eramo and A. Lenoci,Back to the phase space: Thermal axion dark radiation via couplings to standard model fermions,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 116028 [2410.21253]. – 26 – [53]Simons Obser v atorycollaboration,The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts, JCAP02(2019) 056 [1808.07445]

    arXiv 2024

  52. [54]

    D’Eramo, E

    F. D’Eramo, E. Di Valentino, W. Giarè, F. Hajkarim, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena et al., Cosmological bound on the QCD axion mass, redux,JCAP09(2022) 022 [2205.07849]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [55]

    Caloni, M

    L. Caloni, M. Gerbino, M. Lattanzi and L. Visinelli,Novel cosmological bounds on thermally-produced axion-like particles,JCAP09(2022) 021 [2205.01637]. [56]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A5 [1907.12875]. [57]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing,Astro...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [59]

    L.J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S.M. West,Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter,JHEP03(2010) 080 [0911.1120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  55. [60]

    De Salas, S

    P.F. De Salas, S. Gariazzo, O. Mena, C.A. Ternes and M. Tórtola,Neutrino Mass Ordering from Oscillations and Beyond: 2018 Status and Future Prospects,Front. Astron. Space Sci.5 (2018) 36 [1806.11051]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [61]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,JCAP07(2011) 034 [1104.2933]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [62]

    Lesgourgues and T

    J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) IV: efficient implementation of non-cold relics,JCAP09(2011) 032 [1104.2935]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  58. [63]

    Takahashi, M

    R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya and M. Oguri,Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum,Astrophys. J.761(2012) 152 [1208.2701]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  59. [64]

    Ali-Haimoud and S

    Y. Ali-Haimoud and S. Bird,An efficient implementation of massive neutrinos in non-linear structure formation simulations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.428(2012) 3375 [1209.0461]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [65]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed and S. Prunet,Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code, JCAP1302(2013) 001 [1210.7183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  61. [66]

    Brinckmann and J

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues,MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features,1804.07261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [67]

    Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,1910.13970

    A. Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,1910.13970

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  63. [68]

    Allali, A

    I.J. Allali, A. Notari and F. Rompineve,Reduced Hubble tension in dark radiation models after DESI 2024,JCAP03(2025) 023 [2404.15220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [69]

    Miller Bertolami, B.E

    M.M. Miller Bertolami, B.E. Melendez, L.G. Althaus and J. Isern,Revisiting the axion bounds from the Galactic white dwarf luminosity function,JCAP10(2014) 069 [1406.7712]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  65. [70]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano,Muonic boson limits: Supernova redux,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 035022 [2109.03244]. [71]Belle-IIcollaboration,Search for Lepton-Flavor-ViolatingτDecays to a Lepton and an Invisible Boson at Belle II,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 181803 [2212.03634]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [72]

    Jodidio, B

    A. Jodidio, B. Balke, J. Carr, G. Gidal, K.A. Shinsky, H.M. Steiner et al.,Search for right-handed currents in muon decay,Phys. Rev. D34(1986) 1967. – 27 – [73]TWISTcollaboration,Search for two body muon decay signals,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 052020 [1409.0638]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1986

  67. [74]

    Calibbi, D

    L. Calibbi, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler and J. Zupan,Looking forward to lepton-flavor-violating ALPs,JHEP09(2021) 173 [2006.04795]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  68. [75]

    W.L. Xu, J.B. Muñoz and C. Dvorkin,Cosmological constraints on light but massive relics, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 095029 [2107.09664]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  69. [76]

    Heymans et al.,CFHTLenS tomographic weak lensing cosmological parameter constraints: Mitigating the impact of intrinsic galaxy alignments,Mon

    C. Heymans et al.,CFHTLenS tomographic weak lensing cosmological parameter constraints: Mitigating the impact of intrinsic galaxy alignments,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.432 (2013) 2433 [1303.1808]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  70. [77]

    Garcia-Gallego, V

    O. Garcia-Gallego, V. Iršič, M.G. Haehnelt, M. Viel and J.S. Bolton,Constraining mixed dark matter models with high-redshift Lyman-alpha forest data,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 043502 [2504.06367]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [78]

    J. Baur, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Yeche, A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, É. Armengaud et al.,Constraints from Ly-αforests on non-thermal dark matter including resonantly-produced sterile neutrinos,JCAP12(2017) 013 [1706.03118]. [79]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001. [80]SDSScollaboration,The Seventh D...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [81]

    Chabanier, M

    S. Chabanier, M. Millea and N. Palanque-Delabrouille,Matter power spectrum: from ly-α forest to cmb scales,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society489(2019) 2247. – 28 –

    2019