Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Indirect detection of the QCD axion

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using the Green Bank Telescope, the paper found no 5σ radio transient from axion minicluster–neutron star encounters in the Andromeda core, constraining the axion-photon coupling for 33–42 μeV axions under the assumed model.

desk verdict Proceedings summary of a real null result; all substance lives in Ref [1], and the text doesn't support its own constraint claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19441 v2 pith:JIKGAZPA submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th

Luca Visinelli , Bradley Johnson , Bradley J. Kavanagh , David J.E. Marsh , Jordan E. Shroyer , Liam Walters This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th
keywords QCDaxionminiclustersneutronstarmagnetospheresaxion-photonconversionradiotransientsGreenBankTelescopedarkmatterAndromeda
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 is trying to establish that radio observations can serve as an indirect detector for the QCD axion: when a dense axion minicluster sweeps past a neutron star, axions in the clump should convert into photons in the neutron star's magnetic field and emit a brief, narrow-band radio burst. The authors observed the center of Andromeda with the Green Bank Telescope's X-band receiver, covering 8–10 GHz with a sensitivity of 2 mJy per spectral channel, which corresponds to axion masses between 33 and 42 μeV. No candidate transient exceeded the 5σ threshold, so they conclude that no observable axion minicluster–neutron star encounter occurred in that field during the observation window. If the encounter model is correct, this non-detection bounds the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ in this mass range, though it does not by itself exclude the QCD axion.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is resonant axion-photon conversion in the neutron star magnetosphere: passing axions mix with the strong magnetic field and produce photons at a frequency fixed by the axion mass, so the radio frequency of the burst directly encodes $m_a$. The search apparatus is the VErsatile GBT Astronomical Spectrometer (VEGAS) on the Green Bank Telescope in the X band (8–10 GHz), which maps to axion masses $33\text{--}42\,\mu\text{eV}$ with a mass resolution of $3.8\times 10^{-4}\,\mu\text{eV}$; the analysis looks for narrow-band, short-duration transients and applies a 5σ detection threshold. The combination of the 2 mJy per-channel sensitivity, the spectral resolution, and the threshold defines exactly what would have counted as a detection.

What would settle it

Re-observe the Andromeda core in the X band with comparable or better sensitivity and longer exposure; a 5σ transient with the expected narrow-band signature would overturn the non-detection. Alternatively, an independent recalculation showing that the predicted flux for a $\delta=10$ encounter falls below 2 mJy would remove the constraint on the coupling even without new observations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is an absence: a dedicated, sensitive radio search found no burst with the narrow-band spectral signature and duration predicted for axion-photon conversion during a neutron star encounter with an axion minicluster. The sensitivity estimate assumes a single encounter with overdensity $\delta = 10$ and a specific minicluster density profile, and at that level the search would have been able to see the predicted signal. Since no 5σ candidate was found, the paper reports that no such transient was present in the Andromeda core during the 2022 X-band campaign, and it presents the resulting sensitivity reach for the axion-photon coupling in its Figure 1. The claim is explicitly conditional: it constrains the coupling under the assumed encounter and flux model, and it is not a standalone exclusion of the QCD axion.

Load-bearing premise

The result only constrains the axion if the predicted radio brightness and encounter rate of axion minicluster–neutron star events are accurate enough that a 2 mJy search over the observing window would have revealed a real event if one occurred.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the assumed model, the absence of transients translates into an upper limit on $|g_{a\gamma\gamma}|$ for axion masses $33\text{--}42\,\mu\text{eV}$, ruling out the strongest couplings in that slice of mass space.
  • The null result implies that dense axion minicluster–neutron star encounters in the Andromeda core are rare enough that none occurred during the observation window, or that the coupling is below this search's reach.
  • Because the updated model places the peak event rate near 3 GHz, the follow-up C-band and L-band searches are the more sensitive next tests of the same physics.
  • Longer observing campaigns are required for a meaningful constraint, since individual events are rare and the probability of catching one scales with total exposure.
  • A future candidate signal would fix the axion mass from the burst frequency and, together with the model, the coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$, allowing a cross-check with laboratory axion searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The constraint inherits every assumption in the encounter model, so if later work lowers the predicted flux or encounter rate for $\delta=10$ miniclusters, the same non-detection would imply a much weaker or no bound on the coupling; redrawing Figure 1 with updated model distributions is the most direct way to see how much survives.
  • The X-band slice is narrow, so the same pipeline could be extended across C band, L band, and higher-frequency receivers to cover a wider axion mass range, as the paper's own ongoing programs point toward.
  • A positive detection in this channel would probe axions bound in clumps rather than the smooth local halo, so it would not necessarily agree with haloscope searches in the same mass window; the two channels are complementary views of the same axion population.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution reports a search with the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) toward the core of M31 for radio transients produced by axion-photon conversion during encounters between neutron stars and axion miniclusters (AMCs). The paper claims an instrumental sensitivity of 2 mJy per spectral channel in the X band (8-10 GHz), covering QCD axion masses of 33-42 micro-eV, and states that no candidate signals above 5-sigma were identified. It also presents a sensitivity curve in the axion-photon coupling vs. mass plane, describes follow-up observations at lower frequencies (C band, L band, and higher-frequency observations of RBS1223), and outlines future plans.

Significance. If the reported non-detection and sensitivity are fully supported by the companion paper (Ref. [1]), this would be a useful null result for an interesting transient-search channel. The paper is commendably transparent that the updated event-rate modeling moves the peak rate to about 3 GHz, making X-band detections less likely, and that the sensitivity curve in Fig. 1 assumes a single encounter with overdensity delta=10. However, the proceedings text alone does not provide enough information to check the central non-detection claim: no noise statistics, flux calibration, candidate-selection procedure, or significance calculation are given, and there is an internal inconsistency between the abstract and Section 3 about the number of 5-sigma candidates. Because the expected event count in the observing window is not stated, the null observation cannot by itself be converted into an exclusion of axion parameter space in the manner implied by the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract states that 'no candidate signals exceeding the 5-sigma level were identified,' but Section 3 reports that during the 2022 campaign 'seven candidate signals were identified above the 5-sigma detection threshold' and were subsequently rejected because they lacked the expected characteristics of AMC-NS transients. These statements must be reconciled. The non-detection claim should specify whether 'candidate' means after rejection, and the rejection criteria should be given or explicitly deferred to Ref. [1]. This is load-bearing because the central claim of the paper is the null result.
  2. [Section 3 and Figure 1] Figure 1 is labelled 'Approximate sensitivity assuming a single NS-AMC encounter (with delta=10),' i.e., it is a per-event reach, not a limit derived from the actual observation. The text states that the updated model places the peak event rate near 3 GHz and that detectable X-band events are less frequent, requiring longer and broader observing windows. Yet the paper gives no expected number of AMC-NS encounters in the four two-hour GBT22A-067 sessions or in M31 within the X band. Without that expected count, observing zero final candidates does not exclude any part of the g_a-gamma-gamma parameter space in Figure 1, and the abstract's statement that the search 'strengthens constraints on axion DM models' is unsupported by this text. Please provide the expected event rate or explicitly state that no constraint is claimed.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3] The claimed 'instrumental sensitivity of 2 mJy per spectral channel' and the '5-sigma' threshold are not defined in this manuscript. A spectral channel requires a frequency resolution and an integration time; the 5-sigma threshold requires a noise model and a trials factor. The abstract promises 'detailed observational and analytical strategies,' but Section 3 instead refers the reader to Ref. [1] for details. This is acceptable if the paper is explicitly a proceedings summary, but as written the central observational claim cannot be checked from this text. At minimum, state which quantities are taken from Ref. [1] and which are new.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1] The axis labels contain corrupted exponent notation (e.g., '10□6', '10□5', '10□4', '10□15'); these should be rendered as 10^{-6}, 10^{-5}, 10^{-4}, 10^{-15}.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'no candidate signals exceeding the 5-sigma level were identified' should be qualified as 'after rejection criteria were applied' if that is the intended meaning, to avoid contradicting Section 3.
  3. [Section 3] The text should explicitly mark which results are from Ref. [1] and which are new to this proceedings, since the paper begins with 'Based on Refs. [1-3] and ongoing work' but does not attribute the GBT22A-067 null result to Ref. [1] until later.
  4. [Section 3] Minor typographical and formatting issues: 'RBS1223' should be 'RBS 1223', and the frequency-to-mass conversions could benefit from stating the relation nu = m_a c^2/h explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the null GBT result is an observational fact and the model predictions are imported from independent published simulations, not fitted here.

full rationale

The paper reports a GBT X-band search for radio transients from AMC-NS encounters and concludes that no surviving 5-sigma candidates were identified. This null result is an observational statement, not a derived quantity, and no parameter is fitted to the data in this proceedings. The sensitivity interpretation in Fig. 1 is explicitly labelled as an approximate per-encounter reach assuming a single NS-AMC encounter with overdensity delta=10, taken from Ref. [1]; the underlying flux and event-rate predictions are imported from Refs. [2,3], which are published simulation papers with a public numerical pipeline, not fitted here. The paper even states that the updated modeling places the event-rate peak near 3 GHz and that X-band events are less frequent, which undercuts rather than circularly supports any claimed exclusion in the 8-10 GHz band. The apparent discrepancy between the abstract's 'no candidate signals exceeding 5 sigma' and Section 3's report of seven candidates above 5 sigma later rejected is a reporting inconsistency, not a circular derivation. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitted parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The central null result and its interpretation rest on prior model assumptions from the authors' companion papers, which are listed above.

free parameters (4)
  • f_AMC = 1% to ~100% (input)
    Fraction of dark matter in axion miniclusters; the expected event rate scales with f_AMC. The paper cites simulation bounds [54,55] and does not fit it.
  • overdensity delta = 10 (assumed)
    Used in Fig. 1 to compute sensitivity reach from a single NS-AMC encounter; an explicit assumption, not a measured value.
  • smooth DM fraction = 10% of 0.45 GeV/cm^3
    Assumed smooth halo component in the Fig. 1 sensitivity estimate.
  • axion mass m_a = 33-42 ueV (probed); 20 ueV (simulation)
    The probed mass range is set by the 8-10 GHz band; the 20 ueV value is the reference mass used in the Ref [2] event-rate simulations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The QCD axion exists and couples to photons.
    The entire search targets the axion-photon coupling g_agg as the emission mechanism; this is the hypothesis under test.
  • domain assumption PQ symmetry broke after inflation, producing axion miniclusters.
    The search targets AMCs, which only form in the post-inflationary scenario; if PQ broke during inflation, the expected dense clumps would not exist.
  • domain assumption Axion-photon conversion in NS magnetospheres produces radio transients with the assumed flux.
    The predicted flux and event rate come from Refs [2,3,77]; the sensitivity interpretation depends on this model.
  • domain assumption The GBT X-band sensitivity (2 mJy per channel) and 5-sigma threshold are computed correctly.
    The null result is only interpretable if the instrumental sensitivity and detection threshold are as stated; no calibration data are shown.
  • domain assumption The AMC population in M31 matches the Milky Way models used in Refs [2,3].
    The expected event rate for the Andromeda core is extrapolated from Galactic simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indirect detection of the QCD axion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIKGAZPA

@misc{pith2026241119441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indirect detection of the QCD axion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIKGAZPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19441}
}
abstract

The QCD axion, originally proposed to solve the strong CP problem in QCD, is a prominent candidate for dark matter (DM). In the presence of strong magnetic fields, such as those around neutron stars, axions can theoretically convert into photons, producing detectable electromagnetic signals. This axion-photon coupling provides a unique experimental pathway to probe axions within a specific mass range. We investigate a novel observational approach using the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) to search for radio transients that could arise from interactions between neutron stars and dense DM clumps known as axion miniclusters. By observing the core of Andromeda with the VErsatile GBT Astronomical Spectrometer (VEGAS) and the X-band receiver (8 to 10 GHz), we achieve sensitivity to axions with masses in the range of (33 - 42)$\,\mu$eV, with a mass resolution of $3.8 \times 10^{-4}\,\mu$eV. We detail our observational and analytical strategies developed to capture transient signals from axion-photon conversion, achieving an instrumental sensitivity of $2\,$mJy per spectral channel. Despite our sensitivity threshold, no candidate signals exceeding the 5$\sigma$ level were identified. Future implementations will extend this search across additional spectral bands and refine the modeling used for the processes involved, strengthening the constraints on axion DM models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimated sensitivity to axion-photon couplings assuming the observation of a single AMC-NS encounter, compared with the QCD axion model band (yellow) and a number of existing constraints from haloscopes, helioscopes, and astrophysical searches. Details are given in Ref. [1]. Figure adapted from https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/AxionLimits. a concentration of events near the Galactic center, mirroring the NS s… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Status and Perspectives on Axion Searches

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional

    A concise review of axion and ALP search experiments, their recent limits, and upcoming projects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Walters, J

    L. Walters, J. E. Shroyer, M. Edenton, P. Agrawal, B. Johnson, B. J. Kavanagh et al.,Axions in Andromeda: Searching for minicluster-neutron star encounters with the Green Bank Telescope,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 123002 [2407.13060]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, L. Visinelli and C. Weniger,Transient Radio Signatures from Neutron Star Encounters with QCD Axion Miniclusters,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 131103 [2011.05378]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    B. J. Kavanagh, T. D. P. Edwards, L. Visinelli and C. Weniger,Stellar disruption of axion miniclusters in the Milky Way,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 063038 [2011.05377]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

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

    1977

  5. [5]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. D 16(1977) 1791

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

    S. Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys. Rev. Lett.40 (1978) 223

    1978

  7. [7]

    Wilczek,Problem of Strong𝑃 and 𝑇 Invariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys

    F. Wilczek,Problem of Strong𝑃 and 𝑇 Invariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett.40 (1978) 279

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

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

    1983

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Dine and W

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

    1983

  2. [10]

    Preskill, M

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

    1983

  3. [11]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo,New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.102(2018) 89 [1801.08127]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi and L. Visinelli,The landscape of QCD axion models,Phys. Rept.870(2020) 1 [2003.01100]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis and D. J. E. Marsh,Axion dark matter: What is it and why now?, Sci. Adv.8 (2022) abj3618 [2105.01406]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Giannotti,Status and Perspectives on Axion Searches, 12, 2024,2412.08733

    M. Giannotti,Status and Perspectives on Axion Searches, 12, 2024,2412.08733

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sikivie,Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion,Phys

    P. Sikivie,Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Rev. Lett.51 (1983) 1415

    1983

  8. [16]

    Sikivie,Detection Rates for ’Invisible’ Axion Searches,Phys

    P. Sikivie,Detection Rates for ’Invisible’ Axion Searches,Phys. Rev. D32 (1985) 2988

    1985

  9. [17]

    Wilczek,Two Applications of Axion Electrodynamics,Phys

    F. Wilczek,Two Applications of Axion Electrodynamics,Phys. Rev. Lett.58 (1987) 1799

    1987

  10. [18]

    S. V. Krasnikov,New astrophysical constraints on the light pseudoscalar photon coupling,Phys. Rev. Lett.76 (1996) 2633

    1996

  11. [19]

    Visinelli,Axion-Electromagnetic Waves, Mod

    L. Visinelli,Axion-Electromagnetic Waves, Mod. Phys. Lett. A28 (2013) 1350162 [1401.0709]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Terças, J

    H. Terças, J. D. Rodrigues and J. T. Mendonça,Axion-plasmon polaritons in strongly magnetized plasmas,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 181803 [1801.06254]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Visinelli and H

    L. Visinelli and H. Terças,B-field induced mixing between Langmuir waves and axions,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 096024 [1807.06828]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    ADMX collaboration,Results from a high sensitivity search for cosmic axions, Phys. Rev. Lett.80 (1998) 2043 [astro-ph/9801286]. 6 Indirect detection of the QCD axion Luca Visinelli

    1998 arXiv

  15. [23]

    ADMX collaboration,Large scale microwave cavity search for dark matter axions,Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 092003

    2001

  16. [24]

    ADMX collaboration,An Improved RF cavity search for halo axions,Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 011101 [astro-ph/0310042]

    2004 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lindner and K. A. van Bibber,Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-Like Particles,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65 (2015) 485 [1602.00039]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ADMXcollaboration,Extended Search for the Invisible Axion with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett. 124(2020) 101303 [1910.08638]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Al Kenany et al.,Design and operational experience of a microwave cavity axion detector for the 20–100𝜇eV range,Nucl

    S. Al Kenany et al.,Design and operational experience of a microwave cavity axion detector for the 20–100𝜇eV range,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A854(2017) 11 [1611.07123]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. M. Brubaker et al.,First results from a microwave cavity axion search at 24𝜇eV,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 061302 [1610.02580]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    MADMAX Working Group collaboration, Dielectric Haloscopes: A New Way to Detect Axion Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 091801 [1611.05865]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    MADMAX Working Group collaboration, MADMAX: A new Dark Matter Axion Search using a Dielectric Haloscope, in12th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, 11, 2016, DOI [1611.04549]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    D.Alesini, D.Babusci, D.DiGioacchino, C.Gatti, G.LamannaandC.Ligi, TheKLASHProposal , 1707.06010

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Alesini et al.,KLASH Conceptual Design Report, 1911.02427

    D. Alesini et al.,KLASH Conceptual Design Report, 1911.02427

    1911 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi and J. Thaler,Broadband and Resonant Approaches to Axion Dark Matter Detection,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 141801 [1602.01086]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. L. Ouellet et al.,First Results from ABRACADABRA-10 cm: A Search for Sub-𝜇eV Axion Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 121802 [1810.12257]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Budker, P

    D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Rajendran and A. Sushkov,Proposal for a Cosmic Axion Spin Precession Experiment (CASPEr), Phys. Rev. X4(2014) 021030 [1306.6089]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Barbieri, C

    R. Barbieri, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, C. S. Gallo, A. Lombardi, A. Ortolan et al.,Searching for galactic axions through magnetized media: the QUAX proposal,Phys. Dark Univ.15 (2017) 135 [1606.02201]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    S. Lee, S. Ahn, J. Choi, B. R. Ko and Y. K. Semertzidis,Axion Dark Matter Search around 6.7𝜇eV,Phys. Rev. Lett. 124(2020) 101802 [2001.05102]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Alesini et al.,Search for Galactic axions with a high-Q dielectric cavity, Phys

    D. Alesini et al.,Search for Galactic axions with a high-Q dielectric cavity, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 052007 [2208.12670]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Alesini et al.,The future search for low-frequency axions and new physics with the FLASH resonant cavity experiment at Frascati National Laboratories,Phys

    D. Alesini et al.,The future search for low-frequency axions and new physics with the FLASH resonant cavity experiment at Frascati National Laboratories,Phys. Dark Univ.42 (2023) 101370 [2309.00351]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Gatti, L

    C. Gatti, L. Visinelli and M. Zantedeschi,Cavity detection of gravitational waves: Where do we stand?,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 023018 [2403.18610]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    ADMX collaboration,Search for non-virialized axions with 3.3-4.2𝜇eV mass at selected resolving powers, 2410.09203

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    O’Shea, M

    T. O’Shea, M. Giannotti, I. G. Irastorza, L. M. Plasencia, J. Redondo, J. Ruz et al.,Prospects on the detection of solar dark photons by the International Axion Observatory,JCAP 06 (2024) 070 [2312.10150]. 7 Indirect detection of the QCD axion Luca Visinelli

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    O’Shea, A.-C

    T. O’Shea, A.-C. Davis, M. Giannotti, S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli and J. K. Vogel,Solar chameleons: Novel channels,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 063027 [2406.01691]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ruz et al.,NuSTAR as an Axion Helioscope, 2407.03828

    J. Ruz et al.,NuSTAR as an Axion Helioscope, 2407.03828

  37. [45]

    M. S. Pshirkov and S. B. Popov,Conversion of Dark matter axions to photons in magnetospheres of neutron stars, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.108(2009) 384 [0711.1264]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    F. P. Huang, K. Kadota, T. Sekiguchi and H. Tashiro,Radio telescope search for the resonant conversion of cold dark matter axions from the magnetized astrophysical sources,Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 123001 [1803.08230]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. Hook, Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi and Z. Sun,Radio Signals from Axion Dark Matter Conversion in Neutron Star Magnetospheres,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 241102 [1804.03145]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    B. R. Safdi, Z. Sun and A. Y. Chen,Detecting Axion Dark Matter with Radio Lines from Neutron Star Populations,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 123021 [1811.01020]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Leroy, M

    M. Leroy, M. Chianese, T. D. P. Edwards and C. Weniger,Radio Signal of Axion-Photon Conversion in Neutron Stars: A Ray Tracing Analysis,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 123003 [1912.08815]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    C. J. Hogan and M. J. Rees,AXION MINICLUSTERS,Phys. Lett. B205(1988) 228

    1988

  43. [51]

    D 49(1994) 5040 [astro-ph/9311037]

    E.W.KolbandI.I.Tkachev, Nonlinearaxiondynamicsandformationofcosmologicalpseudosolitons ,Phys.Rev. D 49(1994) 5040 [astro-ph/9311037]

    1994 arXiv

  44. [52]

    E. W. Kolb and I. I. Tkachev,Axion miniclusters and Bose stars,Phys. Rev. Lett.71 (1993) 3051 [hep-ph/9303313]

    1993 arXiv

  45. [53]

    K. M. Zurek, C. J. Hogan and T. R. Quinn,Astrophysical Effects of Scalar Dark Matter Miniclusters,Phys. Rev. D 75(2007) 043511 [astro-ph/0607341]

    2007 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Vaquero, J

    A. Vaquero, J. Redondo and J. Stadler,Early seeds of axion miniclusters,JCAP 04 (2019) 012 [1809.09241]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Buschmann, J

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

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Sikivie,Axion Cosmology,Lect

    P. Sikivie,Axion Cosmology,Lect. Notes Phys.741(2008) 19 [astro-ph/0610440]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M. P. Hertzberg, E. D. Schiappacasse and T. T. Yanagida,Axion Star Nucleation in Dark Minihalos around Primordial Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 023013 [2001.07476]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Yin and L

    Z. Yin and L. Visinelli,Axion star condensation around primordial black holes and microlensing limits, JCAP 10 (2024) 013 [2404.10340]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    V. S. Berezinsky, V. I. Dokuchaev and Y. N. Eroshenko,Formation and internal structure of superdense dark matter clumps and ultracompact minihaloes,JCAP 11 (2013) 059 [1308.6742]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Tinyakov, I

    P. Tinyakov, I. Tkachev and K. Zioutas,Tidal streams from axion miniclusters and direct axion searches,JCAP 01 (2016) 035 [1512.02884]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Dandoy, T

    V. Dandoy, T. Schwetz and E. Todarello,A self-consistent wave description of axion miniclusters and their survival in the galaxy,JCAP 09(2022) 081 [2206.04619]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    X. Shen, H. Xiao, P. F. Hopkins and K. M. Zurek,Disruption of Dark Matter Minihalos in the Milky Way Environment: Implications for Axion Miniclusters and Early Matter Domination,Astrophys. J.962(2024) 9 [2207.11276]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, G. Pierobon and J. Redondo,Axion Minicluster Streams in the Solar Neighborhood,Phys. Rev. Lett. 133(2024) 081001 [2311.17367]. 8 Indirect detection of the QCD axion Luca Visinelli

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    DSouza and C

    I. DSouza and C. Gordon,Disruption of dark matter minihalos by successive stellar encounters, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 123035 [2402.03236]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin and I. I. Tkachev,Gravitational Bose-Einstein condensation in the kinetic regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 151301 [1804.05857]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Eggemeier and J

    B. Eggemeier and J. C. Niemeyer,Formation and mass growth of axion stars in axion miniclusters,Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 063528 [1906.01348]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. Chen, X. Du, E. W. Lentz, D. J. E. Marsh and J. C. Niemeyer,New insights into the formation and growth of boson stars in dark matter halos,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 083022 [2011.01333]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A. S. Dmitriev, D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin and I. I. Tkachev,Self-Similar Growth of Bose Stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132(2024) 091001 [2305.01005]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Visinelli, S

    L. Visinelli, S. Baum, J. Redondo, K. Freese and F. Wilczek,Dilute and dense axion stars,Phys. Lett. B777 (2018) 64 [1710.08910]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    E. D. Schiappacasse and M. P. Hertzberg,Analysis of Dark Matter Axion Clumps with Spherical Symmetry,JCAP 01(2018) 037 [1710.04729]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Visinelli and P

    L. Visinelli and P. Gondolo,Axion cold dark matter in non-standard cosmologies,Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 063508 [0912.0015]

    2010 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Eggemeier, J

    B. Eggemeier, J. Redondo, K. Dolag, J. C. Niemeyer and A. Vaquero,First Simulations of Axion Minicluster Halos, Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 041301 [1911.09417]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Eggemeier, C

    B. Eggemeier, C. A. J. O’Hare, G. Pierobon, J. Redondo and Y. Y. Y. Wong,Axion minivoids and implications for direct detection,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 083510 [2212.00560]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Buschmann, J

    M. Buschmann, J. W. Foster, A. Hook, A. Peterson, D. E. Willcox, W. Zhang et al.,Dark matter from axion strings with adaptive mesh refinement,Nature Commun.13 (2022) 1049 [2108.05368]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White,The Structure of cold dark matter halos,Astrophys. J.462(1996) 563 [astro-ph/9508025]

    1996 arXiv

  68. [76]

    V. I. Dokuchaev, Y. N. Eroshenko and I. I. Tkachev,Destruction of axion miniclusters in the Galaxy,J. Exp. Theor. Phys.125 (2017) 434 [1710.09586]

    2017 arXiv

  69. [77]

    S. J. Witte, D. Noordhuis, T. D. P. Edwards and C. Weniger,Axion-photon conversion in neutron star magnetospheres: The role of the plasma in the Goldreich-Julian model,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 103030 [2104.07670]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, G. Pierobon, J. Redondo and Y. Y. Y. Wong,Simulations of axionlike particles in the postinflationary scenario,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 055025 [2112.05117]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Gorghetto and E

    M. Gorghetto and E. Hardy,Post-inflationary axions: a minimal target for axion haloscopes,JHEP 05(2023) 030 [2212.13263]. 9

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.