MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412063492 · doi:10.1103/wyc2-fytd

Superheavy dark matter from the string theory axiverse

2025· article· en· W4412063492 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew J. Long, Evan McDonough

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftResearch ManitobaMunich Institute for Astro- and Particle PhysicsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDark matterPhysicsString theoryString (physics)Particle physicsTheoretical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose heavy axions as a natural superheavy dark matter candidate in string theory, with the relic density of dark matter originating in quantum fluctuations during cosmic inflation. String theory is well known for the possibility of having tens to hundreds of axionlike particles—the axiverse. Moduli stabilization generates high-scale masses for many of these, placing them naturally in the “superheavy” regime of particle physics. We consider moduli stabilization in the Kachru-Kallosh-Linde-Trivedi framework, featuring a single volume modulus and C 4 axion, and a fiducial inflation model minimally coupled to the volume modulus. We demonstrate that both the volume modulus and the axion can be abundantly produced through gravitational particle production. The former is unstable and readily decays to Standard Model particles while the latter (the axion) can be stable and survives to constitute the present day dark matter.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207