AG-2026.03-1798·hep-ph·cross-listed: astro-ph.CO
Conventional and Unitarity-Conserving Peccei-Quinn Inflation Models and ACT
Authors
- J. McDonald
Abstract
We compare conventional non-minimally coupled Peccei-Quinn (PQ) inflation with a version of the model in which unitarity conservation is imposed by additional Jordan frame interactions. Assuming instantaneous reheating, the unitarity-conserving model is within 1$σ$ agreement with the central value of the scalar spectral index reported by the ACT collaboration, whereas conventional PQ inflation is more than 2$σ$ below the ACT central value. In the case where dark matter is composed of axions and PQ symmetry is not restored after inflation, the axion isocurvature constraint of the unitarity-conserving model typically allows a much larger axion decay constant $f_{a}$ than the conventional model, with the conventional model upper bound being larger only if the PQ scalar self-coupling is extremely small, $λ< 10^{-12}$. For $λ= 0.1$, the axion isocurvature upper bounds are $f_{a} \leq 1.1 \times 10^{9} $ GeV for conventional PQ inflation and $f_{a} \leq 6.4 \times 10^{13}$ GeV for unitarity-conserving PQ inflation, with the latter bound being independent of $λ$. We also find a new isocurvature upper bound for conventional PQ inflation which is 650 times smaller than the existing bound. A modest reduction of the reheating temperature of the unitarity-conserving model from its maximum possible value will ensure that the PQ symmetry is not restored after inflation, allowing values of $f_{a}$ up to $6.4 \times 10^{13}$ GeV. Thus only the unitarity-conserving PQ inflation model allows $f_{a}$ to access values greater than the symmetry restoration cosmological upper bound $\sim 10^{12}$ GeV with naturally large values of the PQ scalar self-coupling.
Submitted
31 March 20263 weeks ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2603.29780
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.