Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Search for a parity-violating long-range spin-dependent interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes new laboratory limits on a parity-violating, long-range spin-dependent interaction by operating a K-Rb-21Ne comagnetometer in the hybrid spin-resonance regime, improving previous constraints by three orders of…

desk verdict A real null-result experiment with a plausible three-order improvement, but the exotic-field calibration is under-documented and could soften the headline by a factor of five. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00483 v1 pith:7CEEKAJ5 submitted 2025-05-01 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Xing Heng , Zitong Xu , Xiaofei Huang , Dinghui Gong , Guoqing Tian , Wei Ji , Jiancheng Fang , Dmitry Budker
show 1 more author
Kai Wei
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords parityviolationspin-dependentinteractionSERFcomagnetometerhybridspinresonancepseudomagneticfieldexoticforceZ'bosonvibrationisolation
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

This paper reports a tabletop search for a hypothetical new force that couples a particle's spin to its velocity and violates parity, a generic low-energy signature of new vector bosons. The experiment runs a K-Rb-21Ne spin-exchange-relaxation-free comagnetometer in a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin-resonance regime, with two rotating lead blocks as source masses and a multistage vibration-isolation system that reduces vibration noise by more than a factor of 700. No exotic pseudomagnetic field is seen: the measured signal from the 21Ne nuclei is $(1.8 \pm 4.2_{\rm stat} \pm 2.0_{\rm syst})\,\mathrm{aT}$, consistent with zero. Interpreting this null as a bound on the potential $V_{\rm PV} = (g_A g_V \hbar/4\pi)(\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot\mathbf{v})\,e^{-r/\lambda}/r$, the paper reports the most stringent constraints over $0.03$-$400\,\mathrm{m}$, with $|g^n_A g^N_V| \le 2.9\times10^{-38}$ at $95\%$ confidence at $\lambda = 5\,\mathrm{m}$, a three-orders-of-magnitude improvement, and $|g^e_A g^N_V| \le 1.9\times10^{-35}$ for the electron-nucleon coupling. If correct, these bounds narrow the allowed parameter space for $Z'$-mediated parity-violating forces and demonstrate that the hybrid spin-resonance regime combines SERF-level sensitivity with the stability and bandwidth needed for long-duration precision searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin-resonance comagnetometer together with a movable mass source whose motion encodes the velocity dependence of the force. The exotic interaction is described by the parity-odd potential $V_{\rm PV} = (g_A g_V \hbar/4\pi)(\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot\mathbf{v})\,e^{-r/\lambda}/r$; because the force couples spin to velocity, rotating two lead blocks at 3 Hz produces a pseudomagnetic field $b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_y(t)$ at 6 Hz whose harmonic components are weighted by the geometry. The K-Rb-21Ne ensemble is operated at the resonance condition $B_z \approx -B^n_z$, where the electronic and nuclear spins are strongly coupled; the resulting HSR response has bandwidth up to 25 Hz and improved disturbance rejection, while the conversion factor $K_{b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_y}$ is calibrated using ordinary magnetic fields. A split vacuum chamber and vibration-isolated foundation suppress mechanical noise by over 700-fold, and a multi-harmonic weighting analysis extracts the coupling constant $g_A g_V$ from the measured Fourier components.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to measure the response phase $\varphi_{b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_y}$ as a function of modulation frequency from 1 to 25 Hz using the rotating lead masses and compare it with the phase response to a classical oscillating magnetic field; the calibration model predicts the two phase curves coincide within $5.6^\circ$, while a velocity-dependent exotic interaction with different spatial weighting would produce a different phase-frequency slope. A mismatch beyond the quoted uncertainty would show the inferred coupling is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a null result presented as improved exclusion limits. In the HSR regime the coupled Rb-21Ne spin ensemble responds to an oscillating exotic pseudomagnetic field through the calibrated relation $P_x^e(t)=K_{b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_y}\,b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_{y0}\,\cos(\omega t+\varphi_{b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_y})$, so the measured optical-rotation signal can be converted into an equivalent field $b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_y$. Over 108 hours of data the field is $(1.8 \pm 4.2_{\rm stat} \pm 2.0_{\rm syst})\,\mathrm{aT}$, statistically consistent with zero. The paper's own statement of the result is $g^n_A g^N_V = (5.3 \pm 12.4_{\rm stat} \pm 5.9_{\rm syst})\times10^{-39}$ at $\lambda=5\,\mathrm{m}$, with a $95\%$ bound $|g^n_A g^N_V| \le 2.9\times10^{-38}$; the same data give $|g^e_A g^N_V| \le 1.9\times10^{-35}$. The paper argues that these are the most stringent laboratory limits on this P-odd, T-even interaction for force ranges from $0.03$ to $400$ metres and that the HSR operating regime, rather than the self-compensating or NMR modes used previously, is what makes the long stable run possible.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the comagnetometer's response to the exotic parity-violating spin-velocity field is exactly the response calibrated with ordinary magnetic fields, so that a single conversion factor $K_{b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_y}$ and a single phase $\varphi_{b^{\mathrm{Ne}}_y}=10.1\pm 5.6^\circ$ describe the signal; if the true exotic coupling has different spatial weighting, velocity dependence, or phase, the reported $g^n_A g^N_V$ shifts beyond the quoted systematics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same HSR comagnetometer can be turned to other exotic spin-dependent potentials in the 16-term classification, since only the source geometry and modulation frequency need to change.
  • The reported neutron-nucleon exclusion closes a factor of about 1000 in coupling strength at $\lambda = 5$ m, shifting the best laboratory limit in that range from the earlier spin-amplifier result to this comagnetometer result.
  • The multistage vibration-isolation scheme, with more than 700-fold suppression, provides a demonstrated path for quantum sensors that require sub-picometer mechanical stability.
  • The electron-nucleon bound, improved by more than two orders of magnitude, automatically yields a proton-nucleon bound by rescaling the nuclear spin fractions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct cross-check not reported here would use a different source geometry, such as a different ring radius or a non-lead source mass, to test whether the extracted $g^n_A g^N_V$ is independent of the assumed spatial weighting of the exotic field.
  • Because $V_{\rm PV}$ is velocity-dependent, the 6 Hz and higher harmonics of the rotating source carry independent spatial information; the multi-harmonic weights could in principle be used to reconstruct the velocity-weighting kernel directly from data rather than from simulation.
  • The same rotating-source apparatus could search for other parity-odd terms in the generalized spin-dependent potential, including spin-spin-velocity couplings, by changing the spin polarization of the source or the modulation scheme.
  • If future experiments use a different noble-gas species, comparing $^{21}$Ne results with, say, $^{129}$Xe results would test the nuclear spin-fraction corrections $\zeta_n$, $\zeta_p$ that convert the measured field into a coupling constant.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a laboratory search for a parity-violating, velocity-dependent long-range spin interaction of the form V_PV = (g_A g_V ħ/4π)(σ·v)e^{-r/λ}/r, using a K-Rb-21Ne comagnetometer operated in a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin-resonance (HSR) regime. Two rotating lead blocks provide an unpolarized nucleon source, and the comagnetometer response to the resulting pseudomagnetic field is measured over 108 h. The paper reports b_y^Ne = (1.8 ± 4.2_stat ± 2.0_syst) aT and, at λ = 5 m, g^n_A g^N_V = (5.3 ± 12.4_stat ± 5.9_syst) × 10^-39 with a 95% bound |g^n_A g^N_V| ≤ 2.9 × 10^-38, plus a corresponding electron-nucleon bound |g^e_A g^N_V| ≤ 1.9 × 10^-35. The authors claim the most stringent constraints over force ranges 0.03 to 400 m, with a three-orders-of-magnitude improvement over previous limits at λ = 5 m.

Significance. If the reported limits are correct, this is a significant experimental advance. The paper combines a 108 h integration, a multistage vibration-isolation system with a claimed >700-fold suppression, and a comagnetometer operated in a relatively new HSR regime with calibration parameters listed in Table I. The claimed improvement by three orders of magnitude at λ = 5 m over prior laboratory bounds, and the extension of sensitivity over 0.03-400 m, would be of broad interest for searches for exotic spin-dependent interactions. The HSR technique itself appears useful for suppressing low-frequency magnetic noise while retaining high sensitivity. The main risk is the calibration chain: the conversion from optical signal to exotic pseudomagnetic field rests on a classical-field calibration whose frequency dependence is not documented, and the quoted 95% bound is not reproducible from the stated uncertainties without an explicit statistical prescription.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (Hybrid spin-resonance regime) and Discussion] The central conversion in Eq. (2) uses K_bny, stated to be calibrated with classical magnetic fields, while the Discussion reports a fivefold magnetic suppression factor for a classical B_y relative to a pseudomagnetic field b_y^Ne below 40 mHz in the HSR regime. The manuscript does not state the frequency at which K_bny was calibrated, whether the calibration was performed at the 6 Hz signal frequency, or whether the suppression factor was measured and divided out at 6 Hz. If the low-frequency classical calibration constant was used without this frequency-dependent correction, the inferred b_y^Ne would be overestimated by up to a factor of five, weakening the derived limit by the same factor and reducing the claimed three-orders-of-magnitude improvement at λ = 5 m to roughly two orders. Please specify the calibration frequency, the coil geometry, and the measured or modeled suppression factor at 6 Hz, or apply the universal calibration procedure of Ref. [23] so that the response to the pseudo-magnetic coupling is directly calibrated.
  2. [Results (New constraints) and Data processing] The quoted 95% bound is not derivable from the stated numbers without an explicit statistical prescription. At λ = 5 m the paper reports g^n_A g^N_V = (5.3 ± 12.4_stat ± 5.9_syst) × 10^-39, giving a total standard uncertainty of about 13.7 × 10^-39. A conventional two-sided 95% interval would extend to roughly 32 × 10^-39, not the quoted 2.9 × 10^-38 (i.e., 29 × 10^-39). If a one-sided or profile-likelihood construction was used, that construction should be stated; the same clarification is needed for the electron-nucleon bound. Without this, the headline numerical constraints are not reproducible from the information given.
  3. [Table I and Discussion] The largest systematic contribution in Table I is attributed to vibration noise, with a residual vibration level below 5.6 × 10^-10 m/s/Hz^1/2 and a resulting contribution to Δg^n_A g^N_V below 5.4 × 10^-39. However, the manuscript does not describe how mechanical vibration is converted into an equivalent pseudomagnetic-field error or how the numerical factor 5.4 × 10^-39 was obtained. Since this term dominates the quoted systematic budget, the coupling mechanism (e.g., cell motion in residual gradients, light-beam misalignment, or acoustic coupling) and the calibration or model used should be described; otherwise the dominant systematic uncertainty cannot be independently assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 4] The limit curves are shown without uncertainty bands. Please state whether the curves incorporate the uncertainties in K_bny, phase, and geometry, and if so, how; otherwise the curves should be labeled as central sensitivity only.
  2. [Table I] The entries for the phase-uncertainty contribution (+1.4/-2.3) are missing explicit units; presumably they are in units of 10^-39, but this should be stated in the table header.
  3. [General notation] The coupling constant is denoted inconsistently as g^n_AgN_V, gAgV, and related forms in the text, equations, and figures; please use a single consistent notation throughout.
  4. [Table I and Fig. 1] The coordinates X, Y, Z used in Table I are not defined in the main text or figure captions; please define the coordinate origin and positive directions, and clarify the relation between the quoted source-cell separation (52.5 cm) and the 50.0 cm rotation radius.
  5. [Discussion] There are minor typos: 'sheding light' should be 'shedding light', and in the Acknowledgements 'Fundamental Research Founds' should be 'Fundamental Research Funds'.
  6. [Figure 3] The inset reports a Gaussian fit with reduced χ^2 = 1.16; please state the number of degrees of freedom so the goodness-of-fit can be interpreted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the null constraint is produced by independent calibration and forward simulation, not by the target coupling.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a measured null value of the pseudomagnetic field, converted into a coupling bound. The conversion chain has three parts: (i) optical rotation to bNe_y via Eq. (2), using Kbny calibrated with ordinary magnetic fields; (ii) bNe_y to gAgV via a simulated volume integral over the lead masses using the potential of Eq. (1) and nuclear spin fractions; and (iii) a matched-filter harmonic analysis with Fourier coefficients c_k taken from the same forward model. None of these steps fits or defines the target constant gAgV: Kbny and the ensemble parameters are set by independent calibration, and the c_k are model coefficients, not data-derived parameters. The HSR response model and simulation methodology are cited from the group's prior work (Refs. [16,22,24]), but those references supply calculational tools and nuclear-structure inputs, not the measured limit; the spin fractions are additionally supported by Ref. [25], and the calibration is experimentally determined. No uniqueness theorem is imported to force the choice of model. The use of classical-field calibration for the exotic pseudomagnetic response is a physics assumption that could produce a systematic error, but it is not a logical reduction of the result to its input. The constraint is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The central limits are not obtained from a closed-form derivation; they inherit several calibrated and imported numbers. The free parameters listed are the ones with a direct multiplicative effect on the extracted coupling constant.

free parameters (5)
  • Calibration factor K_b^n_y = 0.193 ± 0.016 µV/fT
    Determined by classical magnetic field calibration (Table I) and used in Eq. (2) to convert optical rotation into the exotic pseudomagnetic field; its uncertainty contributes 0.77 × 10^-39 to the final error budget.
  • Signal phase φ_bNe_y = 10.1 ± 5.6 degrees
    Estimated from simulation and calibration; used to align the demodulation window, with a systematic effect of +1.4 and -2.3 × 10^-39 on the extracted coupling.
  • 21Ne neutron spin fraction ζ_n = 0.58
    Imported from nuclear structure (Refs. [24,25]) and used to convert the measured pseudomagnetic field into a neutron-nucleon coupling limit.
  • 21Ne proton spin fraction ζ_p = 0.04
    Imported from nuclear structure (Refs. [24,25]); its small value suppresses the proton contribution to the 21Ne signal.
  • Rb electron spin fraction in the e-N analysis = about 0.13
    Used with the Rb response curve to derive g^e_A g^N_V from the same comagnetometer data; the value is taken from prior polarization estimates.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The parity-violating potential has the form V_PV = g_A g_V ħ/(4π) (σ·v) e^{-r/λ}/r (Eq. 1) from the 16-term classification of exotic spin-dependent interactions.
    Borrowed from Refs. [10,13]; the entire limit interpretation depends on this potential form.
  • domain assumption The comagnetometer response to a noble-gas pseudomagnetic field is described by Eq. (2) with the same transfer function K_b^n_y used for a classical magnetic field.
    The response model is from Ref. [22], and the calibration equivalence is assumed but not independently demonstrated for the exotic spin-velocity coupling.
  • domain assumption The 21Ne spin polarization fractions are ζ_n = 0.58 and ζ_p = 0.04.
    Taken from Refs. [24,25]; errors in these fractions would scale the reported coupling limits.
  • domain assumption Lead has a nucleon density of 6.8 × 10^24 /cm^3 and all source nucleons contribute coherently through the vector coupling.
    Source model used to integrate Eq. (1) over the lead blocks; no polarization of the source is required for this interaction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for a parity-violating long-range spin-dependent interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7CEEKAJ5

@misc{pith2026250500483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for a parity-violating long-range spin-dependent interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7CEEKAJ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00483}
}
read the original abstract

High-sensitivity quantum sensors are a promising tool for experimental searches for beyond-Standard-Model interactions. Here, we demonstrate an atomic comagnetometer operating under a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin-resonance (HSR) regime to probe P-odd, T-even interactions. The HSR regime enables robust nuclear-electron spin coupling, enhancing measurement bandwidth and stability without compromising the high sensitivity of spin-exchange relaxation-free magnetometers. To minimize vibration noise from velocity-modulated sources, we implement a multistage vibration isolation system, achieving a vibration noise reduction exceeding 700-fold. We establish new constraints on vector-boson-mediated parity-violating interactions, improving experimental sensitivity by three orders of magnitude compared to previous limits. The new constraints complement existing astrophysical and laboratory studies of potential extensions to the Standard Model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Principle of the experiment. (a) Parity can be tested by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Data acquisition and simulation process. (a) The optical en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental results of the exotic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Effective bandwidth and disturbance rejection of K-Rb- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

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. Dynamically Polarized SERF Atomic Comagnetometer

    physics.atom-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Pulsed pumping of a hybrid alkali-noble-gas comagnetometer suppresses technical noise by about 38.5% and lowers low-frequency magnetic-field response by about 51.1%, supported by a three-phase analytical model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [16]

    Dark matter search with a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin system,

    K. Wei, Z. Xu, Y . He, X. Ma, X. Heng, X. Huang, W. Quan, W. Ji, J. Liu, X.-P. Wang,et al., “Dark matter search with a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin system,” Reports on Progress in Physics (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [23]

    Universal determination of comagnetometer response to spin couplings,

    M. Padniuk, E. Klinger, G. Łukasiewicz, D. Gavilan-Martin, T. Liu, S. Pustelny, D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. Budker, and A. Wickenbrock, “Universal determination of comagnetometer response to spin couplings,” Physical Review Research 6 no. 1, (2024) 013339

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Experimental test of parity conservation in beta decay,

    C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson, “Experimental test of parity conservation in beta decay,”Phys. Rev. 105 (Feb, 1957) 1413–1415. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.105.1413

    doi:10.1103/physrev.105.1413 1957

  4. [2]

    Pis’ma zh. eksp. teor. fiz. 27, 379 [jetp lett. 27, 357 (1978)],

    L. M. Barkov and M. S. Zolotorev, “Pis’ma zh. eksp. teor. fiz. 27, 379 [jetp lett. 27, 357 (1978)],” Pis’ma Zhurnal ´Eksperimental’no˘ı i Teoretichesko˘ı Fiziki 27 (1978) 379. JETP Lett. 27, 357 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [3]

    Preliminary observation of parity nonconservation in atomic thallium,

    R. Conti, P. Bucksbaum, S. Chu, E. Commins, and L. Hunter, “Preliminary observation of parity nonconservation in atomic thallium,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 (Feb, 1979) 343–346. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.343

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.42.343 1979

  6. [4]

    Measurement of parity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium,

    C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. E. Tanner, and C. E. Wieman, “Measurement of parity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium,” Science 275 no. 5307, (1997) 1759–1763

    work page 1997

  7. [5]

    Atomic Parity Violation. Early days, present results, prospects

    M.-A. Bouchiat, “Atomic parity violation. early days, present results, prospects,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.2172 (2011)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  8. [6]

    Studies of the weak interaction in atomic systems: towards measurements of atomic parity non-conservation in francium,

    G. Gwinner and L. A. Orozco, “Studies of the weak interaction in atomic systems: towards measurements of atomic parity non-conservation in francium,” Quantum Science and Technology 7 no. 2, (Jan, 2022) 024001. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ac4424

    doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac4424 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Observation of a large atomic parity violation effect in ytterbium,

    K. Tsigutkin, D. Dounas-Frazer, A. Family, J. E. Stalnaker, V . V . Yashchuk, and D. Budker, “Observation of a large atomic parity violation effect in ytterbium,” Physical Review Letters 103 no. 7, (2009) 071601

    2009

  2. [8]

    Isotopic variation of parity violation in atomic ytterbium,

    D. Antypas, A. Fabricant, J. E. Stalnaker, K. Tsigutkin, V . V . Flambaum, and D. Budker, “Isotopic variation of parity violation in atomic ytterbium,” 1804.05747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0312-8 . Publisher: Springer US

    arXiv

  3. [9]

    Search for new physics with atoms and molecules,

    M. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, “Search for new physics with atoms and molecules,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 no. 2, (2018) 025008

    2018

  4. [10]

    Spin-dependent macroscopic forces from new particle exchange,

    B. A. Dobrescu and I. Mocioiu, “Spin-dependent macroscopic forces from new particle exchange,” J. High Energy Phys. 2006 no. 11, (2006) 005

    2006

  5. [11]

    New macroscopic forces?,

    J. Moody and F. Wilczek, “New macroscopic forces?,” Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 130

    1984

  6. [12]

    Revisiting spin-dependent forces mediated by new bosons: potentials in the coordinate-space representation for macroscopic-and atomic-scale experiments,

    P. Fadeev, Y . V . Stadnik, F. Ficek, M. G. Kozlov, V . V . Flambaum, and D. Budker, “Revisiting spin-dependent forces mediated by new bosons: potentials in the coordinate-space representation for macroscopic-and atomic-scale experiments,” Phys. Rev. A 99 no. 2, (2019) 022113

    2019

  7. [13]

    Spin-dependent exotic interactions,

    L. Cong, W. Ji, P. Fadeev, F. Ficek, M. Jiang, V . V . Flambaum, H. Guan, D. F. J. Kimball, M. G. Kozlov, Y . V . Stadnik,et al., “Spin-dependent exotic interactions,” Rev. Mod. Phys. ((2025))

    2025

  8. [14]

    Ultrasensitive atomic comagnetometer with enhanced nuclear spin coherence,

    K. Wei, T. Zhao, X. Fang, Z. Xu, C. Liu, Q. Cao, A. Wickenbrock, Y . Hu, W. Ji, J. Fang,et al., “Ultrasensitive atomic comagnetometer with enhanced nuclear spin coherence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 no. 6, (2023) 063201

    2023

  9. [15]

    Ultrasensitive optical rotation detection with closed-loop suppression of spin polarization error,

    X. Heng, K. Wei, T. Zhao, Z. Xu, Q. Cao, X. Huang, Y . Zhai, M. Ye, and W. Quan, “Ultrasensitive optical rotation detection with closed-loop suppression of spin polarization error,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 72 (2023) 1–12

    2023

  10. [17]

    Search for exotic spin-dependent interactions with a spin-based amplifier,

    H. Su, Y . Wang, M. Jiang, W. Ji, P. Fadeev, D. Hu, X. Peng, and D. Budker, “Search for exotic spin-dependent interactions with a spin-based amplifier,” Sci. Adv. 7 no. 47, (2021) eabi9535. 7

    2021

  11. [18]

    Searching for new spin-and velocity-dependent interactions by spin relaxation of polarized he 3 gas,

    H. Yan, G. Sun, S. Peng, Y . Zhang, C. Fu, H. Guo, and B. Liu, “Searching for new spin-and velocity-dependent interactions by spin relaxation of polarized he 3 gas,” Physical Review Letters 115 no. 18, (2015) 182001

    2015

  12. [19]

    Improved limits on spin-mass interactions,

    J. Lee, A. Almasi, and M. Romalis, “Improved limits on spin-mass interactions,” Physical review letters 120 no. 16, (2018) 161801

    2018

  13. [20]

    New constraints on exotic spin-dependent interactions with an ensemble-nv-diamond magnetometer,

    H. Liang, M. Jiao, Y . Huang, P. Yu, X. Ye, Y . Wang, Y . Xie, Y .-F. Cai, X. Rong, and J. Du, “New constraints on exotic spin-dependent interactions with an ensemble-nv-diamond magnetometer,” National Science Review 10 no. 7, (2023) nwac262

    2023

  14. [21]

    Search of spin-dependent fifth forces with precision magnetometry,

    N. Crescini, G. Carugno, P. Falferi, A. Ortolan, G. Ruoso, and C. Speake, “Search of spin-dependent fifth forces with precision magnetometry,”Physical Review D 105 no. 2, (2022) 022007

    2022

  15. [22]

    Critical dynamics of strongly interacting ensembles in spin-exchange-relaxation-free comagnetometers,

    Z. Xu, K. Wei, X. Heng, X. Huang, and Y . Zhai, “Critical dynamics of strongly interacting ensembles in spin-exchange-relaxation-free comagnetometers,” Phys. Rev. Applied 18 no. 4, (2022) 044049

    2022

  16. [24]

    Constraints on exotic spin-velocity-dependent interactions,

    K. Wei, W. Ji, C. Fu, A. Wickenbrock, V . V . Flambaum, J. Fang, and D. Budker, “Constraints on exotic spin-velocity-dependent interactions,” Nat. Commun. 13 no. 1, (2022) 7387

    2022

  17. [25]

    New limits on anomalous spin-spin interactions,

    A. Almasi, J. Lee, H. Winarto, M. Smiciklas, and M. V . Romalis, “New limits on anomalous spin-spin interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 no. 20, (2020) 201802

    2020

  18. [26]

    New experimental limits on exotic spin-spin-velocity-dependent interactions by using smco 5 spin sources,

    W. Ji, Y . Chen, C. Fu, M. Ding, J. Fang, Z. Xiao, K. Wei, and H. Yan, “New experimental limits on exotic spin-spin-velocity-dependent interactions by using smco 5 spin sources,” Physical review letters 121 no. 26, (2018) 261803

    2018

  19. [27]

    New constraints on axion mediated dipole-dipole interactions,

    Z. Xu, X. Heng, G. Tian, D. Gong, L. Cong, W. Ji, D. Budker, and K. Wei, “New constraints on axion mediated dipole-dipole interactions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07865 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Constraints on spin-spin velocity-dependent interactions,

    W. Ji, W. Li, P. Fadeev, F. Ficek, J. Qin, K. Wei, Y .-C. Liu, and D. Budker, “Constraints on spin-spin velocity-dependent interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 no. 13, (2023) 133202

    2023

  21. [29]

    Modeling and suppression of atomic comagnetometer’s response to micro-vibration,

    C. Liu, Z. Xu, K. Wei, D. Gong, X. Heng, X. Huang, W. Quan, and Y . Zhai, “Modeling and suppression of atomic comagnetometer’s response to micro-vibration,”Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 359 (2023) 114503

    2023

  22. [30]

    Active control of low-frequency vibrations with parameter self-optimization for quantum sensing,

    G. Tian, X. Gong, M. Xia, D. Gong, K. Qi, C. Liu, R. Wang, and K. Wei, “Active control of low-frequency vibrations with parameter self-optimization for quantum sensing,” Measurement (2025) 117195

    2025

  23. [31]

    Experimental limits on exotic spin and velocity dependent interactions using rotationally modulated source masses and an atomic-magnetometer array,

    K. Wu, S. Chen, G. Sun, S. Peng, M. Peng, and H. Yan, “Experimental limits on exotic spin and velocity dependent interactions using rotationally modulated source masses and an atomic-magnetometer array,”Physical Review Letters 129 no. 5, (2022) 051802

    2022

  24. [32]

    Experimental limit on an exotic parity-odd spin-and velocity-dependent interaction using an optically polarized vapor,

    Y . J. Kim, P.-H. Chu, I. Savukov, and S. Newman, “Experimental limit on an exotic parity-odd spin-and velocity-dependent interaction using an optically polarized vapor,”Nature Communications 10 no. 1, (2019) 2245

    2019

  25. [33]

    New limit on possible long-range parity-odd interactions of the neutron from neutron-spin rotation in liquid 4He,

    H. Yan and W. Snow, “New limit on possible long-range parity-odd interactions of the neutron from neutron-spin rotation in liquid 4He,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 no. 8, (2013) 082003

    2013

  26. [34]

    Using earth to search for long-range spin-velocity interactions,

    N. B. Clayburn and L. R. Hunter, “Using earth to search for long-range spin-velocity interactions,” Physical Review D 108 no. 5, (2023) L051701

    2023

  27. [35]

    Advanced ligo,

    J. Aasi, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, et al., “Advanced ligo,”Classical and quantum gravity 32 no. 7, (2015) 074001

    2015

  28. [36]

    Concurrent spin squeezing and field tracking with machine learning,

    J. Duan, Z. Hu, X. Lu, L. Xiao, S. Jia, K. Mølmer, and Y . Xiao, “Concurrent spin squeezing and field tracking with machine learning,” Nature Physics (2025) 1–7

    2025

  29. [37]

    Squeezed-light enhancement and backaction evasion in a high sensitivity optically pumped magnetometer,

    C. Troullinou, R. Jim ´enez-Mart´ınez, J. Kong, V . Lucivero, and M. Mitchell, “Squeezed-light enhancement and backaction evasion in a high sensitivity optically pumped magnetometer,” Physical Review Letters 127 no. 19, (2021) 193601

    2021

  30. [38]

    Parity nonconservation in the first order in the weak-interaction constant in electron scattering and other effects,

    Y . B. Zel’dovich, “Parity nonconservation in the first order in the weak-interaction constant in electron scattering and other effects,” Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics (JETP) 36 (1959) 964–966

    1959

  31. [39]

    Constraining ultralight dark matter through an accelerated resonant search,

    Z. Xu, X. Ma, K. Wei, Y . He, X. Heng, X. Huang, T. Ai, J. Liao, W. Ji, J. Liu,et al., “Constraining ultralight dark matter through an accelerated resonant search,” Commun. Phys. 7 no. 1, (2024) 226

    2024

  32. [40]

    Searching for exotic spin-dependent interactions using rotationally modulated source masses and an atomic magnetometer array,

    K. Wu, S. Chen, J. Gong, M. Peng, and H. Yan, “Searching for exotic spin-dependent interactions using rotationally modulated source masses and an atomic magnetometer array,” Physical Review D 105 no. 5, (2022) 055020

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.