Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

Ultralight Dark Matter from the Edge of Field Space

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A scalar confined by hard walls in field space can be ultralight dark matter, with a mass exponentially suppressed by the wall separation and a relic abundance that stops depending on initial conditions beyond a critical misalignment.

desk verdict Wallions are a genuinely new ultralight-DM mechanism with one interesting trick—saturated relic density that suppresses isocurvature—but the paper's central radiative-stability claim is imported from Cheung–Rothstein rather than re-derived, and that is the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.09622 v3 pith:5T2GDDVG submitted 2025-11-12 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Mathias Becker , Francesco D'Eramo , Ville Vaskonen This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords wallionsultralightdarkmatterfield-spaceboundarymisalignmentmechanismisocurvatureperturbationsinstanton-generatedpotentialscalarfieldexponentiallysuppressedmass
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 proposes a new class of dark matter candidate — the wallion — a scalar field confined by a field-space wall: a potential that rises exponentially near |φ| = φ̄, behaving like a hard boundary. Because the wall sits far from the field's minimum, the mass at the bottom of the well is exponentially suppressed, and the paper argues this suppression is stable against quantum corrections. Under the misalignment mechanism, the wallion matches the observed dark matter density over a wide parameter range, and once the initial misalignment exceeds about four wall thicknesses, the relic abundance plateaus and no longer depends on how the field started. That saturation removes the usual isocurvature constraint on ultralight scalars. The paper also shows how instantons in a dark gauge sector can generate the required potential, and how a photon coupling would make wallions testable in upcoming precision experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the wallion potential V_B(φ) = Λ⁴ exp((φ²−φ̄²)/Λ²) + V_0, an effective 'infinite well' with exponentially steep walls at |φ| = φ̄. It does three jobs at once: it yields an exponentially suppressed mass when the well is wide; it is claimed to retain its form under quantum corrections, so the suppression is not tuned away; and its higher-order terms make the misalignment factor f saturate at ~0.14 once φ_i ≳ 4Λ, erasing the initial condition and suppressing isocurvature. The instanton origin replaces the abstract potential with a concrete dynamics: a dimension-6 coupling φ² G² shifts the dark gauge coupling g_eff, and the field-space boundary appears where g_eff² wou

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop effective potential for the dark SU(N) theory with the φ² G² operator; if the coefficient multiplying φ² in the exponent runs with scale in a way that cannot be absorbed into φ̄ and Λ, the exponential mass formula is not radiatively stable. Alternatively, a future detection of isocurvature in a region of parameter space where the wallion saturates (φ_i ≳ 4Λ) would rule out this production mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the potential V_B(φ) = Λ⁴ exp((φ²−φ̄²)/Λ²) + V_0, with V_0 chosen so the minimum sits at zero energy, produces a scalar whose mass m_φ² = 2Λ² exp(−φ̄²/Λ²) is exponentially small whenever the separation between walls φ̄ is much larger than the wall thickness Λ. Solving the homogeneous misalignment equation numerically, the authors find that the abundance coefficient f(φ_i/Λ) saturates at about 0.14 for initial misalignment φ_i ≳ 4Λ, whereas the axion analogue keeps growing with φ_i. The plateau means the late-time density is independent of the inflationary initial condition, and therefore the isocurvature constraint that typically kills ultralight scalar dark matter

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction inherits, without re-deriving, the earlier claim that the exponential potential's form — and hence the hard boundary — is preserved under quantum corrections, and it assumes the instanton coefficient K(μ) is positive without computing it; if either fails, the exponential mass suppression, the abundance plateau, and the isocurvature suppression all break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The wallion gives a concrete ultralight scalar whose mass is exponentially suppressed by a geometric ratio (wall separation over wall width), so no small coupling constant has to be dialled by hand.
  • In the plateau regime φ_i ≳ 4Λ, the relic abundance is insensitive to the initial condition, which means the model does not require a tuned initial misalignment and automatically avoids the isocurvature bounds that constrain ordinary axion-like dark matter.
  • The same potential can emerge from instanton dynamics in a confining dark gauge sector, providing a microscopic origin for field-space boundaries rather than an ad hoc potential.
  • If wallions couple to photons via the dimension-6 operator, their cosmological history changes (thermal-mass-driven oscillations, hot component constraints) and they become targets for equivalence-principle tests, atomic-clock searches, and atom interferometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The plateau mechanism is not peculiar to the exponential potential: any 'wall' potential that grows faster than φ² for large field values (e.g., a power-law with n>5) would exhibit a similar saturation of f and thus a similar isocurvature suppression, so the core result generalizes to a broad class of boundary-like potentials.
  • Because the saturation value f≈0.14 is set by the anharmonic dynamics near the wall, a precise analytic or lattice determination of f for the exponential potential would sharpen the model's predictions and give CMB isocurvature searches a quantitative target.
  • The repulsive quartic self-interaction induced by the wallion potential suggests that in the fuzzy-mass window wallion halos would resist gravitational collapse more than non-interacting axion halos; small-scale structure measurements could distinguish the two at fixed mass.
  • If the field starts in the steep exponential region, it undergoes a fast-roll phase before oscillating; characterizing the gravitational-wave or non-Gaussianity signatures of that phase would extend the paper's phenomenology into observational regimes it does not quantify.
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 introduces 'wallions,' ultralight scalar dark matter candidates living in a potential V_B(ϕ)=Λ^4 exp((ϕ^2−φ̄^2)/Λ^2)+V_0 with an effective hard boundary at |ϕ|=φ̄. The scalar mass at the minimum is m_ϕ^2=2Λ^2 exp(−φ̄^2/Λ^2), exponentially suppressed for φ̄≫Λ. The paper studies misalignment production, computes the relic-density function f(ϕ_i/Λ), and finds that f saturates to ≈0.14 for large initial misalignment, which suppresses isocurvature perturbations. It then discusses a possible instanton origin via a dark SU(N) sector, addresses couplings to SM photons, and presents parameter-space plots with cosmological and experimental constraints.

Significance. If the radiative-stability claim holds, the wallion provides a new, falsifiable template for ultralight DM with a naturally small mass. The saturation plateau f≈0.14 and the resulting isocurvature suppression are genuinely derived results rather than fitted outputs, and the paper connects them to concrete observables (Lyman-α, superradiance, BBN, atomic clocks). The numerical machinery is standard (adiabatic invariants, Starobinsky–Yokoyama distribution, instanton amplitudes), and the central formulas are arithmetically consistent. The instanton-origin section is an attractive but less developed part of the proposal.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The central claim that the exponential potential is radiatively stable is imported from Ref. [59] without derivation or a stated validity regime. Expanding Eq. (2) about ϕ=0 gives the quartic coupling λ=3m_ϕ^2/(2Λ^2). A one-loop correction with cutoff Λ_UV gives δm_ϕ^2~λΛ_UV^2/(16π^2), which exceeds the tree-level m_ϕ^2 for Λ_UV~φ̄ by a factor ~(φ̄/Λ)^2/(16π^2). Thus the exponential suppression in Eq. (3) is not automatic. Please provide the RG argument (or a detailed derivation from Ref. [59]) and specify the UV cutoff; this is load-bearing for the entire DM candidate.
  2. [A Plausible Origin: Instantons, Eq. (11)] The text states that 'the existence of the boundary and the stability of the potential both require K(μ)>0' and asserts this sign without computation. The instanton prefactor depends on the dark-sector spectrum and is not manifestly positive. Since this section proposes a concrete microscopic origin, the sign should be computed (or the required matter content specified). If K(μ)<0 in the minimal SU(N) model, the instanton origin does not work. This is a load-bearing point for the 'plausible origin' part of the paper.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 'On the Possibility of SM interactions'] Typo: 'Futhermore' should be 'Furthermore'. Also in Fig. 2 caption, 'identifed' should be 'identified'.
  2. [Section 'On the Initial Conditions'] The step-function approximation in Eq. (8) should be justified more explicitly; replacing the Starobinsky-Yokoyama distribution by a top-hat may affect the numerical coefficient in the stochastic relic density. A short validation against the full distribution would strengthen the plot in Fig. 2.
  3. [Section 'Isocurvature'] The sentence 'large misalignments ϕ_i ≳ Λ always evade the isocurvature bound' is stronger than the numerics: f saturates for ϕ_i ≳ 4Λ, not at Λ. Please correct to 'ϕ_i ≳ 4Λ' or qualify the statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central derived quantities follow from the stated potential and standard misalignment dynamics, not from a fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for its core claims. The exponentially suppressed mass in Eq. (3) is obtained by taking the second derivative of the explicit potential in Eq. (2) at the origin, so it is a direct Taylor-expansion result rather than a fitted or renamed input. The relic-density function f(phi_i/Lambda) in Eq. (5) is obtained by numerically solving the equation of motion in Eq. (4) with the specified potential; the saturation f ~ 0.14 for phi_i >~ 4 Lambda and the resulting isocurvature suppression are consequences of the potential shape, not of imposing Omega_DM. The isocontours in Figs. 2 and 3 are parameter choices that enforce Omega_phi = Omega_DM and are not presented as predictions, so they do not constitute fitted-input-called-prediction. The instanton-origin section maps the instanton formula in Eq. (11) onto the wallion potential in Eq. (2); the condition K(mu) > 0 is an uncomputed sign assumption, but this is an incompleteness rather than a circular reduction, since the wallion potential is not used to derive K. The radiative-stability statement is imported from Ref. [59], an external non-self citation; this is a load-bearing assumption and a robustness/correctness concern, but it is not a circular step because the paper does not claim to derive it from its own equations. The only self-citations (Refs. [108] and [110] by co-author D'Eramo) supply standard Delta N_eff and hot-DM formulas in the ancillary SM-coupling section and are not load-bearing for the central dark-matter candidate. No equation or prediction in the paper reduces by construction to its own input, so no circular step is recorded.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model lives on three layers: the borrowed EFT (exponential potential, radiative stability, boundary — axioms from Ref. [59]), the standard cosmological machinery (misalignment, adiabatic invariants, stochastic inflation), and the new instanton-origin claim, which requires the uncomputed sign K(μ) > 0. The eight free parameters are model choices and initial conditions constrained to reproduce Ω_DM = 0.12; none is fitted to a data point in a predictive claim. The wallion and its dark SU(N) sector are invented entities with no independent observational evidence in the gravitational-only version.

free parameters (8)
  • m_ϕ (wallion mass) = varied; Ω=Ω_DM isocontours in Figs. 2–3 span ~10^-19–10^10 eV
    Free model mass; the paper draws curves where the predicted abundance matches the observed DM density rather than predicting m_ϕ.
  • Λ (wall thickness / EFT scale) = Λ^-1 ranges ~10^-18–10^6 GeV^-1 in Figs. 2–3
    Free parameter setting the mass suppression via m_ϕ² = 2Λ² exp(−φ̄²/Λ²); also controls SM-coupling strength.
  • φ̄ (boundary location) = 6 ≲ φ̄/Λ ≲ 15 in Fig. 2 (footnote 76)
    Related to m_ϕ and Λ by the potential but effectively an independent choice; the exponential suppression requires φ̄ ≫ Λ.
  • ϕ_i (initial misalignment) = ϕ_i/Λ from 10^-3 to ≳4 in Fig. 2; ϕ_i = Λ in Fig. 3
    Initial condition from inflation (locked or stochastic distribution); the ϕ_i ≳ 4Λ saturation region is a key qualitative result.
  • H_I (inflationary Hubble scale) = 10^-5 – 10^12 GeV in Fig. 2; tied to T_rh in Fig. 3
    Input controlling the stochastic distribution and isocurvature; varied to map viability regions.
  • c_F (wallion–photon coupling coefficient) = set to 1 in Fig. 3
    Normalization choice for the SM-coupling section; constraints scale with c_F.
  • T_rh (reheat temperature) = 5 MeV – 10^15 GeV lines in Fig. 3
    Chosen at each Fig. 3 point to reproduce Ω = Ω_DM in the thermal-mass regime.
  • K(μ) (instanton prefactor) = undetermined
    Sign and magnitude 'determined by the instanton dynamics of the dark SU(N)' but not computed; sign is required to be positive for the boundary to exist.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Radiative stability of the exponential potential V_B = Λ⁴ exp((ϕ²−φ̄²)/Λ²) + V_0 and the reality of the field-space boundary at |ϕ| = φ̄
    Adopted from Ref. [59] without re-derivation; it protects the exponentially small mass m_ϕ² = 2Λ² exp(−φ̄²/Λ²) and is therefore load-bearing for the entire wallion framework (Eqs. (2)–(3)).
  • ad hoc to paper K(μ) > 0 for the instanton-generated potential V_inst = K exp(−8π²/g²_eff) to produce a boundary and be stable
    Stated in the 'A Plausible Origin: Instantons' section: 'The existence of the boundary and the stability of the potential both require K(μ) > 0.' The sign is asserted to be fixed by dark SU(N) dynamics but no calculation is shown.
  • standard math Instanton amplitude formula V_inst = K(μ) exp(−8π²/g²_eff) with 1/g²_eff = 1/g²_d − ϕ²/M²
    BPST/'t Hooft instanton result, cited via Refs. [91–95]; standard nonperturbative gauge fact used in Eq. (11).
  • standard math Misalignment machinery: Hubble friction freezes ϕ; harmonic oscillations begin at H ≃ m; adiabatic invariants I_HO and I_2n are conserved
    Standard results (Refs. [64,66]) used in Eqs. (4)–(5) and in the large-amplitude analysis leading to saturation.
  • standard math Stochastic equilibrium distribution P_eq(ϕ_i) ∝ exp(−8π²V/(3H_I⁴)) and the Gaussian locked distribution
    Starobinsky–Yokoyama result (Refs. [67,68]); used in Eqs. (6)–(7).
  • domain assumption In the SM-coupled regime: instantaneous reheating, inflaton decays solely to SM states, dark sector cold at reheating, dark gluons never thermalize
    Assumed in 'On the Possibility of SM interactions'; underpins the T_rh-based relic analysis and the absence of dark radiation from gluons.
  • standard math g_* approximately constant during the relevant evolution
    Stated in footnote 63; standard shortcut in misalignment estimates.
invented entities (3)
  • Wallion field ϕ with hard field-space boundaries
    purpose: Ultralight DM candidate with an exponentially suppressed, radiatively stable mass
    Postulated scalar with the Ref. [59] potential. In the gravitational-only sector it is not required by any observation and produces no guaranteed discovery signal; testability is contingent on added SM couplings (Eq. (12)).
  • Hard boundaries at |ϕ| = φ̄
    purpose: Protect the mass against radiative corrections and saturate the relic abundance at large misalignment
    Structural feature of the model; isocurvature suppression is a derived consequence but there is no direct observational handle on the boundary itself.
  • Dark SU(N) gauge sector with dimension-6 operator ϕ²G^{μν}G_{μν}/M²
    purpose: Dynamically generate the boundary via instantons (Eqs. (9)–(11))
    Hypothetical confining sector assumed cold and never thermalized, so it has no SM-visible signature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultralight Dark Matter from the Edge of Field Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5T2GDDVG

@misc{pith2026251109622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultralight Dark Matter from the Edge of Field Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5T2GDDVG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.09622}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel class of bosonic dark matter candidates that we dub wallions, featuring boundaries in field space. The wallion mass is exponentially suppressed when the separation between boundaries far exceeds their intrinsic width and remains radiatively stable under self-interactions. We study the early-universe evolution of wallions and the associated cosmological signatures. Finally, we show that instanton effects can dynamically generate field-space boundaries and discuss possible experimental probes once the wallion couples to Standard Model fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.09622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows numerical results for f for the axion case, Vaxion(ϕ) = m2 ϕΛ 2 [1 − cos(ϕ/Λ)], and for the potential in Eq. (2). In both cases, the solution ϕ˜(y) depends only on ϕi/Λ. For ϕi ≪ Λ, both are approximately harmonic, yielding f(ϕi/Λ) ≃ 0.32 (ϕi/Λ)2 . The ax￾ion displays its typical rise at ϕi = πΛ. The wallion yields a smaller, eventually constant result for ϕi ≳ Λ, with f(ϕi/Λ) ≃ 0.14 for ϕi ≳ 4Λ [65]. At large… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Wallion parameter space in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Phenomenology of wallion-photon interactions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Background-Induced Forces from Quadratically Coupled Ultralight Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Earth screening of quadratically coupled ultralight dark matter produces a multi-band frequency structure in the induced force whose sideband amplitudes vary annually, enabling improved constraints from MICROSCOPE and...

  2. Vortex-reconnection energy bounds in Bose-Einstein-condensed and superfluid dark matter halos

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Vortex reconnections in BEC/superfluid dark matter halos produce dark-sector heating at a rate that is secular but sub-virial for relaxed non-interacting soliton cores, with the dominant uncertainty being the true vor...

  3. Vortex-reconnection energy bounds in Bose-Einstein-condensed and superfluid dark matter halos

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Vortex reconnections in BEC/superfluid dark-matter cores can transfer at most 0.06–4.5% of the virial energy in 10 Gyr under fiducial assumptions, so they cannot appreciably restructure the core.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 84 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [59]

    Cheung and I

    C. Cheung and I. Z. Rothstein, (2024), arXiv:2411.07380 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [61]

    Borghetto, A

    G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Phys. Rev. D112, 023521 (2025), arXiv:2503.11628 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    arXiv 1996

  4. [2]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  5. [3]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 495 (2010), arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [4]

    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]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [5]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 119, 103865 (2021), arXiv:2104.11488 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [6]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 125 references
  1. [7]

    Bozorgnia, J

    N. Bozorgnia, J. Bramante, J. M. Cline, D. Curtin, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, A. Ritz, S. Viel, A. C. Vincent, and Y. Zhang, Can. J. Phys.103, 671 (2025), arXiv:2410.23454 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Gildener, Phys

    E. Gildener, Phys. Rev. D14, 1667 (1976)

    1976

  3. [9]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B82, 387 (1979)

    1979

  4. [10]

    G. F. Giudice, Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC, inPerspectives on LHC Physics, edited by G. Kane and A. Pierce (2008) pp. 155–178, arXiv:0801.2562 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [11]

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 165 (1977)

    1977

  6. [12]

    Goldberg, Phys

    H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1419 (1983), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 103, 099905 (2009)]

    1983

  7. [13]

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D33, 1585 (1986), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 34, 3263 (1986)]

    1986

  8. [14]

    Srednicki, R

    M. Srednicki, R. Watkins, and K. A. Olive, Nucl. Phys. B310, 693 (1988)

    1988

  9. [15]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145 (1991)

    1991

  10. [16]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mam- brini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 203 (2018), arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 066201 (2018), arXiv:1707.06277 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Arcadi, D

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Pro- fumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 152 (2025), arXiv:2403.15860 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Ehretet al., Phys

    K. Ehretet al., Phys. Lett. B689, 149 (2010), arXiv:1004.1313 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Ariket al.(CAST), JCAP02, 008, arXiv:0810.4482 [hep-ex]

    E. Ariket al.(CAST), JCAP02, 008, arXiv:0810.4482 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  15. [21]

    V. A. et al. (CAST), Nature Phys.13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [22]

    E. A. et al. (IAXO), JCAP06, 047, arXiv:1904.09155 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  17. [23]

    S. J. Asztaloset al.(ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 041301 (2010), arXiv:0910.5914 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [24]

    T. B. et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 101303 (2020), arXiv:1910.08638 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [25]

    K. M. B. et al., Nature590, 238 (2021), arXiv:2008.01853 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

    D. A. et al. (CAPP), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 181803 (2022), arXiv:2203.02105 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [27]

    R. H. P. et al. (ABRACADABRA), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 141802 (2020), arXiv:1910.08141 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [28]

    A. A. C. et al. (DMRadio), Phys. Rev. D105, 022007 (2022), arXiv:2108.00012 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [29]

    O. K. B. et al. (SHAFT), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 121802 (2023), arXiv:2209.00609 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [30]

    A. G. W. et al. (ORGAN), Phys. Rev. D108, 052004 (2023), arXiv:2308.12345 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [31]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

    2000 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [33]

    D. J. E. Marsh and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D82, 103528 (2010), arXiv:1009.3501 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [34]

    P. W. Graham and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D84, 055013 (2011), arXiv:1101.2691 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP06, 051, arXiv:hep- th/0605206

  30. [36]

    Wilczek, Phys

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

    1978

  31. [37]

    Weinberg, Phys

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

    1978

  32. [38]

    Preskill, M

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

    1983

  33. [39]

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

    1983

  34. [40]

    Dine and W

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

    1983

  35. [41]

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

    1977

  36. [42]

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

    1977

  37. [43]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP06, 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  38. [44]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [45]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 7 (2021), arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Nature Phys.10, 496 (2014), arXiv:1406.6586 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [47]

    P. Mocz, M. Vogelsberger, V. H. Robles, J. Zavala, M. Boylan-Kolchin, A. Fialkov, and L. Hernquist, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 4559 (2017), arXiv:1705.05845 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Van Tilburg, N

    K. Van Tilburg, N. Leefer, L. Bougas, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 011802 (2015), arXiv:1503.06886 [physics.atom-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [49]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and W. A. Terrano, Phys. Rev. D93, 075029 (2016), arXiv:1512.06165 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [50]

    A. Hees, J. Gu´ ena, M. Abgrall, S. Bize, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 061301 (2016), arXiv:1604.08514 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Derevianko, Phys

    A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. A97, 042506 (2018), arXiv:1605.09717 [physics.atom-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [52]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kim- ball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018), arXiv:1710.01833 [physics.atom-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [53]

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

    2018 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Arvanitaki and S

    A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D83, 044026 (2011), arXiv:1004.3558 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]. 7

    2015 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Baryakhtar, R

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017), arXiv:1704.05081 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D99, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [58]

    K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 151102 (2021), arXiv:2011.06010 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Nicolis and I

    A. Nicolis and I. Z. Rothstein, SciPost Phys.16, 045 (2024), arXiv:2212.08976 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    The potential in Eq

    This potential belongs to the broader EFT class with V(ϕ) = exp(− ¯ϕ2/Λ2) Λ4 P∞ n=0(cn/n!)(ϕ2/Λ2)n [59]. The potential in Eq. (2) corresponds toc n = 1, and the periodic axion cosine potential toc n = (−1)nn!/(2n)!

  55. [63]

    Throughout this analysis, we approximateg ∗ ≃const

  56. [64]

    K. J. Bae, J.-H. Huh, and J. E. Kim, JCAP09, 005, arXiv:0806.0497 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    The scale of new physics Λ limits the energy density, not the field ampli- tude, so the EFT remains valid as long asV B(ϕ)<Λ 4, or equivalentlyϕ≲ ¯ϕ

    Background field valuesϕ >Λ do not necessarily invali- date the EFT interpretation ofV B(ϕ). The scale of new physics Λ limits the energy density, not the field ampli- tude, so the EFT remains valid as long asV B(ϕ)<Λ 4, or equivalentlyϕ≲ ¯ϕ

  58. [66]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 1243 (1983)

    1983

  59. [67]

    A. A. Starobinsky and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D50, 6357 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9407016

    1994 arXiv

  60. [68]

    P. W. Graham and A. Scherlis, Phys. Rev. D98, 035017 (2018), arXiv:1805.07362 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Tenkanen, Phys

    T. Tenkanen, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 061302 (2019), arXiv:1905.01214 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Hamann, S

    J. Hamann, S. Hannestad, G. G. Raffelt, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP06, 022, arXiv:0904.0647 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    M. P. Hertzberg, M. Tegmark, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D78, 083507 (2008), arXiv:0807.1726 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Visinelli and P

    L. Visinelli and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D80, 035024 (2009), arXiv:0903.4377 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  65. [73]

    P. W. Graham and D. Racco, (2025), arXiv:2506.03348 [hep-ph]

    2025

  66. [74]

    Markkanen, A

    T. Markkanen, A. Rajantie, S. Stopyra, and T. Tenka- nen, JCAP08, 001, arXiv:1904.11917 [gr-qc]

    1904 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Unlike the quadratic case, higher-order terms contribute, and we observe numeri- cal convergence after∼25 modes

    The spectrum is obtained as a sum over modes with increasing spectral index. Unlike the quadratic case, higher-order terms contribute, and we observe numeri- cal convergence after∼25 modes

  68. [76]

    2, we have 6≲ ¯ϕ/Λ≲15 (see Eq

    In Fig. 2, we have 6≲ ¯ϕ/Λ≲15 (see Eq. (3))

  69. [77]

    To ease the visualization, we interrupt the isocurvature exclusion lines before they approach the red one forϕi ≳ 4Λ which is not subject to isocurvature bounds

  70. [78]

    Kobayashi, R

    T. Kobayashi, R. Murgia, A. De Simone, V. Irˇ siˇ c, and M. Viel, Phys. Rev. D96, 123514 (2017), arXiv:1708.00015 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  71. [79]

    K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 071302 (2021), arXiv:2007.12705 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    M. J. Stott and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D98, 083006 (2018), arXiv:1805.02016 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Davoudiasl and P

    H. Davoudiasl and P. B. Denton, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 021102 (2019), arXiv:1904.09242 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    S. Hoof, D. J. E. Marsh, J. Sisk-Reyn´ es, J. H. Matthews, and C. Reynolds 10.1093/mnras/staf1564 (2024), arXiv:2406.10337 [hep-ph]

    2024

  75. [83]

    S. J. Witte and A. Mummery, Phys. Rev. D111, 083044 (2025), arXiv:2412.03655 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Franciolini, and S. J. Witte, (2025), arXiv:2507.21788 [hep-ph]

    2025

  77. [85]

    ¨Unal, F

    C. ¨Unal, F. Pacucci, and A. Loeb, JCAP05, 007, arXiv:2012.12790 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Kim and A

    H. Kim and A. Lenoci, Phys. Rev. D112, 104014 (2025), arXiv:2508.08367 [gr-qc]

    2025

  79. [87]

    The quartic wallion self-interaction is repulsive, un- like for axions, which may be relevant for repul- sive/superfluid DM [45, 122, 123]

  80. [88]

    Dalal and A

    N. Dalal and A. Kravtsov, Phys. Rev. D106, 063517 (2022), arXiv:2203.05750 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  81. [89]

    S. May, N. Dalal, and A. Kravtsov, (2025), arXiv:2509.02781 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Davoudiasl and M

    H. Davoudiasl and M. Schnubel, Phys. Rev. D112, 075052 (2025), arXiv:2412.09675 [hep-ph]

    2025

  83. [91]

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Schwartz, and Y. S. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. B59, 85 (1975)

    1975

  84. [92]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8 (1976)

    1976

  85. [93]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 172 (1976)

    1976

  86. [94]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., R. F. Dashen, and D. J. Gross, Phys. Lett. B63, 334 (1976)

    1976

  87. [95]

    Mari˜ no,Instantons and Large N: An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Methods in Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    M. Mari˜ no,Instantons and Large N: An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Methods in Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  88. [96]

    (12) with a loop suppression, uses the identification betweenMand Λ, and fixes the UV cutoff dependence by dimensional analysis

    This estimate takes the coefficient of the operator in Eq. (12) with a loop suppression, uses the identification betweenMand Λ, and fixes the UV cutoff dependence by dimensional analysis

  89. [97]

    Banerjee, G

    A. Banerjee, G. Perez, M. Safronova, I. Savoray, and A. Shalit, JHEP10, 042, arXiv:2211.05174 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    Delaunay, M

    C. Delaunay, M. Geller, Z. Heller-Algazi, G. Perez, and K. Springmann, (2025), arXiv:2507.12514 [hep-ph]

    2025

  91. [99]

    Brzeminski, Z

    D. Brzeminski, Z. Chacko, A. Dev, and A. Hook, Phys. Rev. D104, 075019 (2021), arXiv:2012.02787 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 231802 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506256

    2006 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Bouley, P

    T. Bouley, P. Sørensen, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP03, 104, arXiv:2211.09826 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    Hannestad, Phys

    S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. D70, 043506 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403291

    2004 arXiv

  95. [103]

    P. F. de Salas, M. Lattanzi, G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, and O. Pisanti, Phys. Rev. D92, 123534 (2015), arXiv:1511.00672 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Barbieri, T

    N. Barbieri, T. Brinckmann, S. Gariazzo, M. Lattanzi, S. Pastor, and O. Pisanti, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181003 (2025), arXiv:2501.01369 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  97. [105]

    T.-H. Yeh, K. A. Olive, and B. D. Fields, JCAP03, 046, arXiv:2011.13874 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Pisanti, G

    O. Pisanti, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and P. Mazzella, JCAP04, 020, arXiv:2011.11537 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  99. [107]

    T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K. A. Olive, and B. D. Fields, JCAP10, 046, arXiv:2207.13133 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  100. [108]

    D’Eramo, F

    F. D’Eramo, F. Hajkarim, and A. Lenoci, JCAP03, 009, arXiv:2311.04974 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  101. [109]

    [124, 125])

    This procedure suffices for current constraints, while fu- ture CMB surveys will require a dedicated phase-space analysis (see, e.g., Refs. [124, 125])

  102. [110]

    D’Eramo and A

    F. D’Eramo and A. Lenoci, JCAP10, 045, arXiv:2012.01446 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Antypaset al., (2022), arXiv:2203.14915 [hep-ex]

    D. Antypaset al., (2022), arXiv:2203.14915 [hep-ex]

    2022

  104. [112]

    Beadle, S

    C. Beadle, S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, and P. N. 8 Hoa Vuong, Phys. Rev. D110, 035019 (2024), arXiv:2307.10362 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  105. [113]

    H. Kim, A. Lenoci, G. Perez, and W. Ratzinger, Phys. Rev. D109, 015030 (2024), arXiv:2307.14962 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Schlamminger, K

    S. Schlamminger, K. Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 041101 (2008), arXiv:0712.0607 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Touboulet al.(MICROSCOPE), Class

    P. Touboulet al.(MICROSCOPE), Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 225006 (2019), arXiv:1909.10598 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D91, 015015 (2015), arXiv:1405.2925 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Sibiryakov, P

    S. Sibiryakov, P. Sørensen, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP12, 075, arXiv:2006.04820 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Ghosh, K

    S. Ghosh, K. K. Boddy, and T.-T. Yu, (2025), arXiv:2511.14532 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  111. [119]

    Y. A. El-Neajet al.(AEDGE), EPJ Quant. Technol.7, 6 (2020), arXiv:1908.00802 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Badurinaet al., JCAP05, 011, arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    L. Badurinaet al., JCAP05, 011, arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    1911 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Bartnick, K

    K. Bartnick, K. Springmann, S. Stelzl, and A. Weiler, (2025), arXiv:2509.25305 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  114. [122]

    A. H. Guth, M. P. Hertzberg, and C. Prescod-Weinstein, Phys. Rev. D92, 103513 (2015), arXiv:1412.5930 [astro- ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Berezhiani, G

    L. Berezhiani, G. Cintia, V. De Luca, and J. Khoury, (2025), arXiv:2505.23900 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  116. [124]

    D’Eramo and A

    F. D’Eramo and A. Lenoci, Phys. Rev. D110, 116028 (2024), arXiv:2410.21253 [hep-ph]

    2024

  117. [125]

    Badziak and M

    M. Badziak and M. Laletin, JHEP02, 108, arXiv:2410.18186 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.