Arxiv:2108.11386V1 [Hep-Ph] 25 Aug 2021

FERMILAB-PUB-21-344-T

Towards a Realistic Model of Dark Atoms to Resolve the Hubble Tension

Nikita Blinova,b,∗ Gordan Krnjaica,b,c,† and Shirley Weishi Li a‡ aFermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Theoretical Physics Department bUniversity of Chicago, Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics and cUniversity of Chicago, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics (Dated: August 27, 2021) It has recently been shown that a subdominant hidden sector of atomic dark matter in the early universe can resolve the Hubble tension while maintaining good agreement with most precision cosmological observables. However, such a solution requires a hidden sector whose energy density ratios are the same as in our sector and whose recombination also takes place at redshift z ≈ 1100, which presents an apparent fine tuning. We introduce a realistic model of this scenario that dynamically enforces these coincidences without fine tuning. In our setup, the hidden sector contains an identical copy of Standard Model (SM) fields, but has a smaller Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV) and a lower temperature. The baryon asymmetries and reheat temperatures in both sectors arise from the decays of an Affleck-Dine scalar field, whose branching ratios automatically ensure that the reheat temperature in each sector is proportional to the corresponding Higgs VEV. The same setup also naturally ensures that the Hydrogen binding energy in each sector is proportional to the corresponding VEV, so the ratios of binding energy to temperature are approximately equal in the two sectors. Furthermore, our scenario predicts a correlation between the SM/hidden temperature ratio and the atomic dark matter abundance and automatically yields values for these quantities that resolve the Hubble tension.

INTRODUCTION is the spectral tilt, and f is an arbitrary constant. The transformation in Eq. (1) preserves the form of all cosmo- The longstanding tension between the early universe logical perturbation equations in linear theory, thereby [1] and local [2] extractions of the Hubble constant H0 retaining the good agreement of CMB/BAO predictions may signal the breakdown of the standard Λ Cold Dark with data [17]. Matter (ΛCDM) paradigm (see [3] for reviews). Al- As noted in Ref. [17], this framework presents two though recent local measurements using the tip of the main observational challenges: 1) the model favors a red giant branch method suggest that late time measure- small CMB value of the cosmological helium fraction, ments might be more compatible with early universe ex- Yp ≈ 0.17 to within a few percent, which is in clear ten- tractions [4], it remains to be seen whether these results sion with the consensus value from Big Bang Nucleosyn- will ultimately converge without the need for new physics thesis (BBN) Yp = 0.245 ± 0.003 [18]; and 2) the best [5]. While the tension may still be an artifact of system- fit hidden/visible temperature ratio satisfies T 0/T ≈ 0.7, atic error in at least one measurement technique, many corresponding to a large value of ∆Neff ≈ 1.6 during models of new physics have been proposed to resolve the BBN, assuming identical SM field content in the hidden discrepancy (see [6–8] for recent reviews). sector. It has recently been shown that a subdominant com- Furthermore, at face value, mimicking this approxi- ponent of atomic dark matter (ADM) [9–16] can viably mate symmetry in Eq. (1) requires an ad-hoc coincidence increase the early universe value of H0 while preserving to ensure that dark and visible recombination both occur a good fit to other cosmic microwave background (CMB) at z ≈ 1100. Since the reheat temperature in each sector and baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) observables [17]. is an initial condition and the Hydrogen binding energy

arXiv:2108.11386v1 [hep-ph] 25 Aug 2021 In this scenario, the usual ΛCDM model is supplemented depends on strong, electromagnetic, and Higgs couplings, with a hidden sector of dark atoms, photons and neutri- such a coincidence across sectors with different masses nos which accounts for a few percent of the dark matter and thermal histories seems extremely unlikely at first and contributes to the radiation density. Unlike other glance; this situation calls for a dynamical explanation. models that propose modifications to the early universe, In this Letter we show how such a coincidence can arise this scenario mimics the behavior of visible matter by in a realistic model that accounts for the full cosmological maintaining the same matter/radiation ratio and under- history of the atomic hidden sector. We model the hidden going recombination at z ≈ 1100. The addition of this sector as an identical copy of the Standard Model with sector approximately mimics the scaling symmetry lighter elementary particles and derive the baryon asymmetry and initial temperature in each sector through its ρ → f 2ρ , σ n → fσ n ,A → A f 1−ns , (1) i i T e T e s s coupling to an Affleck-Dine scalar field that dominates th where ρi is the i energy density component, ne is the the early, post-inflationary universe. 2 2 electron density, σT = 8πα /(3me) is the Thomson cross Our model preserves all of the beneficial features iden- section, As is the amplitude of scalar fluctuations, ns tified in Ref. [17] while eliminating fine tuning needed 2 to time hidden sector recombination. Furthermore, this scenario correlates the interacting DM fraction fadm ≡ 0 Ωadm/Ωcdm and the T /T ratio, thereby removing one free parameter to make our scenario more predictive. However, since we recover the same hidden sector studied in Ref. [17], it inherits the tension in ∆Neff and Yp.

MODEL OVERVIEW

Inspired by Twin Higgs models [19], we postulate a FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of our setup. A non- mirror hidden sector which contains an identical copy of relativistic condensate of Affleck-Dine scalar field φ dominates all Standard Model (SM) fields, coupling constants, and the energy density of the post-inflationary early universe and gauge interactions. As in Twin Higgs models, the two carries net baryon number. Upon decay, φ transfers its asym- sectors here have different values for the Higgs vacuum metry to SM and hidden sector fields with branching ratios expectation values (VEVs), but in our scenario we de- proportional to the Higgs VEV in each sector. mand that v0/v < 1 where v(0) is the SM (hidden) Higgs VEV and we use primed symbols to refer to hidden sec- Eq. (1), we add one additional source of scaling violation tor quantities throughout this work. Since all other cou- in the hidden sector Thomson cross section σ0 /σ = plings are identical, the QCD confinement scales in both T T (v/v0)2 > 1. The hidden radiation is more tightly coupled sectors satisfy Λ ≈ Λ0 ≈ 200 MeV [20], which also qcd qcd to its matter content as a result. Nonetheless, we find yields a similar proton mass for both sectors; all other el- that this additional symmetry violating detail does not ementary particle masses in the hidden sector are scaled spoil the good CMB/BAO fit from Ref. [17]. down by an overall factor of v0/v relative to the SM. Un- like in Twin Higgs models, our setup does not invoke any direct couplings between the two sectors and does not COSMOLOGICAL EVOLUTION address the electroweak hierarchy problem, so there are no collider constraints on the VEV ratio. We assume the post-inflationary early universe is dom- To ensure viable bound state formation to explain the √ inated by a complex scalar field φ = reiθ/ 2 that carries Hubble tension in this framework, we must satisfy the baryon number B and realizes Affleck-Dine baryogen- following conditions: φ esis [21] as depicted schematically in Fig.1. In polar 1. There must be a hidden baryon asymmetry to pre- coordinates, the scalar potential is vent hidden sector particles from completely anni- 2 m λ κ hilating into radiation. V (r, θ) = φ r2 + r4 − r4 cos 4θ , (2) 2 8 8 2. Any interaction between sectors must be suffi- where m is the φ mass, |κ| |λ| are dimensionless cou- ciently feeble to prevent them from reaching ther- plings, and the explicit θ dependence in the last term mal equilibrium. provides a source of baryon violation. After inflation1, 3. The reheat temperature in each sector must be φ starts rolling at t = ti, and the φ baryon asymmetry 2 ˙ directly proportional to the corresponding Higgs nφ(t) = Bφr θ evolves according to VEV. Since we have exhausted all the freedom in 1 ∂ ∂V (a3n ) = −B , (3) choosing field content and coupling constants, the a3 ∂t φ φ ∂θ VEV dependence in the Hydrogen binding energy where a is the Friedman Robertson Walker scale factor B ∝ v is compensated by T ∝ v, so B/T ≈ B0/T 0 and we assume a symmetric initial condition, nφ(ti) = 0. and both sectors undergo recombination at the Integrating Eq. (3) approximately yields [23] same time. B a(t )3 ∂V n (t) ≈ − φ i (t ), (4) In what follows, we realize all of these requirements φ H(t ) a(t)3 ∂θ i by coupling both sectors to an Affleck-Dine field whose i decays simultaneously yield the requisite particle asym- where H =a/a ˙ is the Hubble rate and this expres- metries and temperature relations to resolve the Hubble sion gives the baryon number stored in φ until it decays tension in a subdominant atomic dark sector; we assume the remaining CDM in this scenario arises from a different source. 1 In principle, the scalar φ could itself be the inflaton field as in While our model and the phenomenological scenario Ref. [22], but this is not required for our scenario. Exploring in Ref. [17] both approximately realize the symmetry in this connection further is beyond the scope of this work. 3 through baryon conserving interactions to transfer the the two sectors (e.g., ρb/ργ = ρb0 /ργ0 ), as required to asymmetry to the two sectors. Since the baryon density approximate the symmetry in Eq. (1). in each sector is set by the corresponding φ branching Since the hidden sector satisfies me0 mp0 , the bind- (0) (0) (0) ing energy of Hydrogen in both sectors obeys fraction, the baryon-to-entropy ratios ηb ≡ nb /s satisfy 2 (0) α (0) (0) 3 B = µ ∝ v , (10) ηb0 BRφ→SM0 g?,s(TRH) TRH 2 ≈ 0 0 0 , (5) ηb BRφ→SM g?,s(TRH) TRH where µ(0) is the electron-proton reduced mass. There- 0 0 0 (0) fore, for g? = g? in Eq. (8), we predict B /T ≈ B/T , where g?,s is the number entropic degrees of freedom in which suffices to trigger hidden recombination around each sector and T (0) is the visible (hidden) reheat tem- 0 RH z ≈ 1100. In order to ensure that TRH/TRH < 1, we perature. Thus, the baryon asymmetry transferred to require v0 < v, so massive elementary particles are uni- each sector will differ based on model parameters and formly lighter in the hidden sector. Note that the expres- initial conditions in this framework. sion in Eq. (10) is only an approximate equality because To calculate the branching ratios, we postulate baryon the redshift of recombination is logarithmically sensitive conserving interactions of the form to ηb and our scenario predicts ηb 6= ηb0 from Eq. (5). However, since the temperature ratio of the two sectors φ 2 L = H2Oˆ + H0 Oˆ0 + h.c., (6) is only of order one [17], this mild deviation is negligible int Λn for our purposes. where H(0) is the visible (hidden) Higgs doublet, Oˆ(0) is Finally, we note that our model is more predictive an operator with compensating baryon number −Bφ,Λ than the phenomenological study in Ref. [17] because is the cutoff scale of the effective interaction, and n is the ADM fraction of the total dark matter density is an integer chosen to ensure that the full expression has 0 4 0 4 mass dimension 4. The form of the operator in Eq. (6) ρadm ρb v T /T fadm ≡ = ≈ 0.05 , (11) schematic, and a non-trivial contraction of SU(2)L in- ρcdm ρcdm v 0.7 dices may be required to ensure the leading φ coupling where we have assumed ρ /ρ ≈ 1/5 and used Eq. (8) is proportional to v2 or v0 2; for our purposes, any oper- b cdm with g = g0 . Thus f is correlated with the temper- ator will suffice as long as the coefficient preserves this ? ? adm ature ratio and lies naturally in the range favored to ex- proportionality. Since both sectors carry baryon number plain the Hubble tension for the best fit value T 0/T ≈ 0.7 and the φ branching ratios to each sector satisfy in Ref [17]. 0 4 BR 0 v φ→SM ≈ , (7) BR v φ→SM CAVEATS AND COMMENTS where this approximate expression neglects the contribu- tions from loop level decays through virtual Higgs propa- Affleck-Dine Mass Scale gators that need not be proportional to the same powers of v; however, such process are suppressed by loop factors Assuming φ decays take place during a cold, matter- of order (16π2)−2 ≈ 4×10−5 and can be safely neglected. dominated phase, both sectors are in the broken elec- Assuming instantaneous reheating through φ decays, troweak phase throughout reheating; if this were not the the energy density of each sector is proportional to the case, the branching fractions would not necessarily scale corresponding branching fraction, so the reheat temper- according to the relation in Eq. (7). Furthermore, in the 2 atures satisfy broken vacuum, the H proportionality√ in Eq. (6) can be T 1/4 expanded using H = [0, (v + h)/ 2] to generate inter- T 0 v0 g (T ) ˆ n RH ≈ ? RH , (8) actions of the form vhφ O/Λ , whose branching fraction 0 0 2 4 TRH v g?(TRH) scales as ∝ v , not v , as desired in Eq. (7). Such decays can be kinematically forbidden if m < m 0 . (0) φ h where g? is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom in each sector. Thus, using Eqs. (7) and (8), Eq. (5) becomes Reheat Temperature

0 0 0 1/4 η 0 v g (T ) b ≈ ? RH , (9) To ensure that the branching ratios in Eq. (7) are sat- η v g (T ) b ? RH isfied throughout the early universe, we demand that yielding a simple relationship between the asymmetries both sectors reheat to temperatures below the scale of 0 (0) (0) of our sectors. Note that in the g? = g? limit, Eqs. (8) electroweak symmetry breaking, TRH . v . Since this and (9) imply that all energy density ratios are equal in requirement necessarily implies that some fields in each 4 sector will not be produced, we must nonetheless ensure particle that has been integrated out. While this real- 0 0 that g?(TRH) = g?(TRH). However, since the field content ization satisfies all of our requirements, the gauge and in the two sectors is identical, this can be achieved across baryon charge assignments for χ also allow direct φχχ a wide range of temperature ratios. For example, with couplings, which would induce decays that violate the 0 v /v = 1/2 and TRH = 50 GeV, all leptons, light quarks, VEV scaling in Eq. (7). This issue can be avoided if φ and massless gauge bosons are produced in both sectors, carries baryon minus lepton number, which allows the but neither thermalizes its W ±,Z0, h, or t particles. operator φ(LH)2χχ/Λ5 and forbids the renormalizable Assuming a non-relativistic φ-dominated universe, in- φχχ interaction3; as noted below, this operator dimen- stantaneous φ decays, and rapid equilibration (compared sion can still yield a sufficiently high reheat temperature to Hubble expansion) in each sector, the reheat temper- for BBN. ature of each sector can be approximated as For all candidate decay operators, it is important to 1/4 1/2 forbid mixed terms that involve fields from both sec- BR (0) (0) φ→SM 0.5 µs tors. From the example above, a complete ultravio- TRH ≈ 1 GeV , (12) 0.33 τφ let model must forbid operator variations of the form 0 0 0 5 where τφ is the scalar lifetime. However, the scaling in φ(LH)χ(L H )χ /Λ , which would spoil the required re- Eq. (12) is highly model dependent and can be modi- lation in Eq. (7). Such a sequestration can be achieved, fied, for example, with additional decay channels for φ for example, in extra dimensional models in which the or by parametric resonance effects [24]. Our scenario is two sectors live on different four dimensional branes, but compatible with any of these reheating variations as long φ lives in a higher dimensional bulk, so hybrid operators as φ decays in the broken electroweak vacuum and the involving both sectors are forbidden by locality (see Refs. relation in Eq. (7) is preserved to good approximation. [25, 26] for examples). The mixed operators can also be suppressed if χ(0) is endowed with a parity symmetry under which χχ0 transforms non-trivially; this symmetry Choosing The Decay Operator is then spontaneously broken to allow for χ(0) decays to baryons. To realize the branching ratio relation in Eq. (7), the operators in Eq. (6) must be chosen with care. Since the early universe is always in the broken electroweak phase, Avoiding Thermalization φ decays must directly generate a net baryon asymmetry; a purely lepton number asymmetry would not yield a Since the two sectors in our setup must not thermal- baryon asymmetry here since sphalerons are always out ize with each other, we conservatively demand that φ of equilibrium in our scenario. never thermalize with SM whose energy density is always Furthermore, since SM operators with net baryon num- greater. For an interaction rate based on Eq. (6) in the ˆ 4 2n−3 2n ber involve many insertions of quark fields (e.g., O = broken electroweak phase, Γφ−SM ∼ v TRH /Λ < H ucdcdc where uc and dc are respectively up- and down- at reheating, so the suppression scale must satisfy type SU(2)L singlet quarks), the exponent n in Eq. (6) 1/2n 4 2n−5 ! 1/2 is a large integer. This suppression makes it generically mPlv TRH TRH Λ & p ≈ 2 TeV , (13) difficult to reheat the universe above the MeV scale while g?(TRH) 10 GeV keeping mφ < mh, required to maintain the relation in 19 Eq. (7). However, in the presence of additional baryon- where mPl = 1.22 × 10 GeV is the Planck mass and charged fields in each sector this problem can be avoided. in the last step we took n = 5. Thus, one can ensure As a toy example, we can add to each sector a gauge that TRH & MeV as required by the success of standard singlet Weyl fermion χ(0) and its Dirac partner χc(0) with BBN [27–30] without thermalizing φ with either sector. baryon number ∓Bφ/2, respectively. This enables us We expect that a careful treatment of the phasespace to posit φ decay interactions of the form φ|H|2χχ/Λ2, in the above thermalization rate would only change the which can ensure the relations in Eq. (7) while giving φ bound on Λ by O(1) because of the 2n’th root. sufficiently prompt φ → χ(0)χ(0) decay channels. Once In addition to avoiding thermalizing the two sectors the universe is populated with χ particles at TRH > through the φ interactions, we must also ensure that 2 0 2 MeV, prompt χ → 3q decays can proceed through a mixed operators of the form λ|H| |H | are either for- 0 0 χcucdcdc/M 2 operator 2 to transfer the baryon asym- bidden or sufficiently suppressed such that hh ↔ h h metry to SM particles, where M is the mass of a heavy reactions are always slower than Hubble expansion. As

2 4 5 3 2 5 It is generically easy to ensure τφ τχ, where τχ ∼ M /mχ ∼ Forbidding the φχχ operator but allowing the φ(LH) χχ/Λ in- −9 4 5 10 s (M/100 TeV) (10 GeV/mχ) is the χ lifetime. Thus, M teraction may require baryon minus lepton number to be gauged can be sufficiently large to evade empirical bounds. and spontaneously broken at low energies. 5 noted above, such hybrid interactions can be naturally dial helium fraction and the theoretical prediction of Big suppressed by locality in extra dimensional theories that Bang nucleosynthesis accounting for the large value of require the two sectors to live on different branes. ∆Neff ≈ 1.6 (assuming the full SM-like field content in the hidden sector). These points of tension persist in our scenario, but because we approximately realize the scal- DISCUSSION ing relation in Eq. (1), we also inherit a good fit to CMB −1 −1 observables and a larger value of H0 ≈ 72 km s Mpc , In this Letter we have introduced a realistic model provided that Yp and ∆Neff are allowed to float. of atomic dark matter that can viably resolve the Hub- It would be interesting to study whether hidden sector ble tension following the phenomenological study in Ref. model variations can overcome these observational limi- [17]. Our approach is inspired by Twin Higgs models tations. For example, it may be possible to realize our in which a hidden sector contains an identical copy of scenario with only a subset of SM generations in the hid- the SM, but with a slightly different Higgs VEV, v0, den sector, in analogy with Fraternal Twin Higgs models and temperature, T 0. The baryon asymmetry and reheat [37], but such studies are beyond the scope of this work. temperature in each sector is set by the VEV-dependent Finally, we note that our scenario may imply several branching ratio of an Affleck-Dine scalar field φ, and all interesting consequences that are worth exploring in de- differences between sectors are governed by v0/v. Since tail. For example, an atomic dark sector with identi- the φ branching ratio to the visible and hidden sectors cal field content may yield dark nuclei [32–34], galactic scales as ∝ v4 and v04, respectively, the hydrogen binding disks [38, 39], and stars [40–45] but exploring the ob- energy-to-temperature ratio, B/T , is the same in both servational implications of these structures is beyond the sectors and recombination occurs for all atomic species scope of this work. Moreover, UV completions of the var- at z ≈ 1100. As a result, there is no fine tuning required ious effective operators required to realize our proposal to ensure this coincidence. might lead to additional signatures. For example, it may Our model features several notable differences with re- be possible for neutral hidden-visible oscillations between spect to the phenomenological treatment of Ref. [17]: each sector’s neutrinos, neutrons, and photons, as long 1. Since our hidden sector has a smaller electron as the mixing interactions that enable these processes do 0 not thermalize the two sectors at early times. mass, the Thomson cross section satisfies σT = 0 2 (v/v ) σT , so even if recombination still occurs at z ≈ 1100 on account of B/T = B0/T 0, it is possi- Acknowledgments. We thank Asher Berlin, Kim- ble that this difference affects other CMB/BAO ob- berly Boddy, David Curtin, Raymond Co, Jeff Dror, servables. Using CLASS with an interacting dark Xiao Fang, Paddy Fox, Roni Harnik, Dan Hooper, Julian matter and dark radiation module [31], we have Muñoz,Harikrishnan Ramani, Dan “Danimal” Scolnic, checked that the best fit model parameters from and Flip Tanedo for helpful conversations. This work Ref. [17] still provide a good fit to the CMB and is supported by the Fermi Research Alliance, LLC un- the matter power spectrum despite this difference. der Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High 2. Unlike Ref. [17], which assumed ηb0 = ηb ≈ Energy Physics. This work was partly completed at the −11 9×10 [18], from Eqs. (5) and (9), our framework Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National predicts a different baryon asymmetry in the hid- Science Foundation grant PHY-1607611. den sector. Since we, nonetheless, recover ρb0 /ργ0 = ρb/ργ , this difference does not affect any CMB observables, but can play an important role in hidden sector BBN. While hidden BBN does not affect visible sector CMB observables, it may have interest- ∗ [email protected], ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002- 2845-961X ing observational consequences that warrant fur- † ther study [32–36]. [email protected], ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001- 7420-9577 3. From Eq. (11) our scenario features a one-to- ‡ [email protected], ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002- 2157-8982 one correspondence between fadm and the hidden/visible temperature ratio, so our model has [1] N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. fewer free parameters than [17]. It is also no- [2] A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, table that the relation in Eq. (11) is automati- L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. Lett. cally consistent with the approximate best fit values 908, L6 (2021), arXiv:2012.08534 [astro-ph.CO]. 0 fadm ≈ 0.05 and T /T ≈ 0.7. [3] L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]. As noted in [17], this framework is in generic ten- [4] W. L. Freedman, (2021), arXiv:2106.15656 [astro- sion with both the direct measurement of the primor- ph.CO]. 6

[5] G. S. Anand, R. B. Tully, L. Rizzi, A. G. Riess, and and Cosmology: The Quest for Physics Beyond the Stan- W. Yuan, (2021), arXiv:2108.00007 [astro-ph.CO]. dard Model(s) (2004) arXiv:hep-ph/0404096. [6] L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043533 (2020), [26] R. Sundrum, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]. Elementary Particle Physics: Physics in D = 4 (2005) [7] E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, arXiv:hep-th/0508134. A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, [27] M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 D62, 023506 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002127 [astro-ph]. [astro-ph.CO]. [28] S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. D70, 043506 (2004), [8] N. Schöneberg, G. F. Abellán, A. P. Sánchez, S. J. arXiv:astro-ph/0403291 [astro-ph]. Witte, c. V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, (2021), [29] P. de Salas, M. Lattanzi, G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pas- arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]. tor, and O. Pisanti, Phys. Rev. D 92, 123534 (2015), [9] R. Foot and S. Mitra, Phys. Rev. D 66, 061301 (2002), arXiv:1511.00672 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:hep-ph/0204256. [30] T. Hasegawa, N. Hiroshima, K. Kohri, R. S. Hansen, [10] R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 68, 021304 T. Tram, and S. Hannestad, JCAP 12, 012 (2019), (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304261. arXiv:1908.10189 [hep-ph]. [11] D. E. Kaplan, G. Z. Krnjaic, K. R. Rehermann, and [31] M. Archidiacono, D. C. Hooper, R. Murgia, S. Bohr, C. M. Wells, JCAP 05, 021 (2010), arXiv:0909.0753 [hep- J. Lesgourgues, and M. Viel, JCAP 10, 055 (2019), ph]. arXiv:1907.01496 [astro-ph.CO]. [12] D. E. Kaplan, G. Z. Krnjaic, K. R. Rehermann, and [32] G. Krnjaic and K. Sigurdson, Phys. Lett. B 751, 464 C. M. Wells, JCAP 10, 011 (2011), arXiv:1105.2073 [hep- (2015), arXiv:1406.1171 [hep-ph]. ph]. [33] E. Hardy, R. Lasenby, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, [13] J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. D 85, JHEP 06, 011 (2015), arXiv:1411.3739 [hep-ph]. 101302 (2012), arXiv:1201.4858 [hep-ph]. [34] W. Detmold, M. McCullough, and A. Pochinsky, Phys. [14] F.-Y. Cyr-Racine and K. Sigurdson, Phys. Rev. D 87, Rev. D 90, 115013 (2014), arXiv:1406.2276 [hep-ph]. 103515 (2013), arXiv:1209.5752 [astro-ph.CO]. [35] M. Redi and A. Tesi, JHEP 04, 108 (2019), [15] J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, G. Moore, and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. arXiv:1812.08784 [hep-ph]. D 89, 043514 (2014), arXiv:1311.6468 [hep-ph]. [36] A. Mathur, S. Rajendran, and H. Ramani, (2021), [16] J. M. Cline (2021) arXiv:2108.10314 [hep-ph]. arXiv:2102.11284 [hep-ph]. [17] F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, F. Ge, and L. Knox, (2021), [37] N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum, JHEP arXiv:2107.13000 [astro-ph.CO]. 07, 105 (2015), arXiv:1501.05310 [hep-ph]. [18] P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020, [38] J. Fan, A. Katz, L. Randall, and M. Reece, Phys. Dark 083C01 (2020). Univ. 2, 139 (2013), arXiv:1303.1521 [astro-ph.CO]. [19] Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [39] M. McCullough and L. Randall, JCAP 10, 058 (2013), 96, 231802 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506256. arXiv:1307.4095 [hep-ph]. [20] Z. Chacko, D. Curtin, M. Geller, and Y. Tsai, JHEP 09, [40] M. Hippert, J. Setford, H. Tan, D. Curtin, J. Noronha- 163 (2018), arXiv:1803.03263 [hep-ph]. Hostler, and N. Yunes, (2021), arXiv:2103.01965 [astro- [21] I. Affleck and M. Dine, Nucl. Phys. B 249, 361 (1985). ph.HE]. [22] J. M. Cline, M. Puel, and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. D 101, [41] F. Sandin and P. Ciarcelluti, Astropart. Phys. 32, 278 043014 (2020), arXiv:1909.12300 [hep-ph]. (2009), arXiv:0809.2942 [astro-ph]. [23] V. A. Rubakov and D. S. Gorbunov, Introduction to [42] D. Curtin and J. Setford, Phys. Lett. B 804, 135391 the Theory of the Early Universe: Hot big bang theory (2020), arXiv:1909.04071 [hep-ph]. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2017). [43] D. Curtin and J. Setford, JHEP 03, 041 (2020), [24] L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. arXiv:1909.04072 [hep-ph]. D 56, 3258–3295 (1997). [44] D. Curtin and J. Setford, JHEP 03, 166 (2021), [25] C. Csaki, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Ele- arXiv:2010.00601 [hep-ph]. mentary Particle Physics (TASI 2002): Particle Physics [45] H. Winch, J. Setford, J. Bovy, and D. Curtin, (2020), arXiv:2012.07136 [astro-ph.GA].