Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Response of Comagnetometer to Exotic Spin-Dependent Couplings

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the frequency-dependent response of a differential comagnetometer and shows that static conversions misstate axion-nucleon coupling strengths by up to 75 percent.

desk verdict Useful and mostly sound: the differential-comagnetometer frequency response is new, the magnetic part is experimentally backed, and the exotic-response gap is an addressable calibration issue rather than a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15046 v1 pith:BNYROQBS submitted 2025-06-18 hep-ph cond-mat.mes-hallhep-exphysics.atom-ph

Yixin Zhao , Xiang Peng , Teng Wu , Hong Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phcond-mat.mes-hallhep-exphysics.atom-ph
keywords comagnetometerfrequencyresponseexoticspin-dependentcouplingsaxionwindaxion-nucleoncouplinglight-shiftcalibrationBell-Bloommagnetometerfreeinductiondecay
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

A differential comagnetometer compares two magnetometers in the same volume to cancel magnetic noise while remaining sensitive to exotic spin-dependent forces. The paper focuses on the version built from the two hyperfine levels (two energy-level channels of one alkali atom) and derives an analytic expression for its response to oscillating magnetic fields and oscillating exotic couplings: each channel behaves like a low-pass filter, and the differential output is the difference of two such filtered responses. Because the two channels relax at different rates, the conversion from a measured differential signal to an equivalent exotic field is frequency dependent rather than a single constant. For axion-wind signals, using the old static conversion overestimates the axion-proton coupling by 40% at 2 Hz and underestimates it by 75% at 20 Hz. The authors measure the magnetic response of a free-induction-decay comagnetometer, simulate the exotic response, and propose a light-shift calibration that would verify the exotic response directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the difference-of-low-pass-filters identity $$k_{\mathrm{Co}}(\omega_s)=\left|\frac{K_a R_{e,a}}{\sqrt{\$omega_s^{2}$+R_{e,a}^2}}-\frac{K_b R_{e,b}}{\sqrt{\$omega_s^{2}$+R_{e,b}^2}}\right|,$$ which expresses the output-to-input amplitude response of a differential comagnetometer as the difference of two single-magnetometer responses, each a first-order low-pass filter in $\omega_s$ with cutoff $R_{e,j}$. It comes from a first-order perturbative solution of the electron-polarization Bloch equation, where the pump modulation frequency provides the reference and the oscillating perturbation produces a quadrature signal of amplitude $R_{e,j}/\sqrt{\omega_s^2+R_{e,j}^2}$. Exotic couplings enter through equivalent pseudomagnetic fields, so the whole identity reduces to the coefficients $K_a$ and $K_b$: 1 for magnetic fields, $\gamma/\gamma_a$ and $\gamma/\gamma_b$ for electron-spin couplings, and $2I\gamma/\gamma_a$ and $(2I+2)\gamma/\gamma_b$ for nuclear-spin couplings. The two channels' differing relaxation rates are what make the conversion factor frequency dependent.

What would settle it

Run the proposed light-shift calibration with the beam tuned to the Cs D1 $F_g=4\to F_e=3$ transition, modulate its intensity at several frequencies spanning $R_{e,a}$ and $R_{e,b}$, and compare the measured differential comagnetometer amplitude with Eq. (20); a systematic mismatch in the transition region $\omega_s\sim R_{e,j}$ would falsify the assumed difference-of-low-pass-filter response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is the amplitude response identity $$k_{\mathrm{Co}}(\omega_s)=\left|\frac{K_a R_{e,a}}{\sqrt{\$omega_s^{2}$+R_{e,a}^2}}-\frac{K_b R_{e,b}}{\sqrt{\$omega_s^{2}$+R_{e,b}^2}}\right|,$$ giving the ratio of the differential comagnetometer output to the amplitude of an oscillating perturbation at frequency $\omega_s$. The derivation starts from the Bloch equation for the electron polarization in a Bell-Bloom magnetometer (an amplitude-modulated optical pumping scheme), treats the perturbation in first order, and maps electron-, proton-, and neutron-coupled exotic fields onto equivalent pseudomagnetic fields $b_e,b_p,b_n$; each coupling type enters only through the coefficients $K_a,K_b$. For a magnetic field the coefficients are equal, so the difference cancels at low frequency, whereas for nuclear-spin couplings they differ enough to leave a nonzero low-frequency response near 2. Since the two hyperfine channels have different relaxation rates, the cancellation is imperfect at intermediate frequencies and the conversion factor varies with $\omega_s$. The paper uses this to correct axion-wind analyses: with $R_{e,a}=2\pi\times 1.5$ Hz and $R_{e,b}=2\pi\times 2.5$ Hz, the conversion factor is about 2.8 at 2 Hz and drops to about 0.5 at 20 Hz, so the static formula overestimates $\chi_p$ by 40% and underestimates it by 75%. Experimental magnetic-response data from a free-induction-decay comagnetometer match the predicted shape, and simulations show that device's exotic response is flat in its operating band; the light-shift protocol is proposed to confirm the non-magnetic response directly.

Load-bearing premise

The entire conversion rests on the assumption that each hyperfine channel relaxes independently with a scalar rate and that the exotic interaction is a Zeeman-like vector along the bias field; if spin-exchange mixes the channels or the coupling has a different tensor structure, the response formula and the calibration conversion change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Axion-nucleon coupling limits extracted from a comagnetometer must be quoted with the frequency-dependent conversion; otherwise a null result at high frequency may be read as a constraint on the coupling rather than on the sensor's response.
  • The static conversion formula is recovered in the limit of zero signal frequency, so the correction matters only when the axion oscillation frequency is comparable to the hyperfine relaxation rates.
  • For a free-induction-decay comagnetometer sampled well below its intrinsic linewidth, the exotic response stays nearly constant, so no correction is needed; correction becomes necessary when the sampling bandwidth approaches the linewidth.
  • The proposed light-shift calibration can verify the non-magnetic response using known optical parameters, because the vector light shift on one hyperfine level is calculable and the other can be suppressed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Direct test: reanalyzing existing comagnetometer axion limits with the new response formula would shift published static bounds in the hertz window by tens of percent, provided the relaxation rates used in those experiments are available.
  • The same difference-of-low-pass-filters structure should apply to any two-sensor gradiometer, so a magnetic gradiometer calibration could be converted into a predicted non-magnetic response at every frequency without new apparatus.
  • If spin-exchange coupling between hyperfine channels is non-negligible at operating densities, the independent-channel assumption breaks and the formula would need a coupled-oscillator generalization; comparing a magnetic sweep with the light-shift protocol would expose such coupling.
  • The correction depends only on relaxation rates and the angular-momentum coefficients, so the procedure transfers from cesium to other alkali species; comparing predicted correction curves across species would test the framework in a network search.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives the amplitude frequency response of a single-species, two-hyperfine-level differential alkali comagnetometer to oscillating magnetic fields and to exotic spin-dependent couplings, expressing the latter as equivalent pseudo-magnetic fields. The central result is Eq. (10), which gives the comagnetometer response k_Co(ω_s) as the difference of two first-order low-pass responses weighted by the coefficients K_i in Table I. For magnetic fields the response vanishes at DC, while for nucleon couplings it tends to about 2 at DC, and the paper shows that converting a measured comagnetometer signal into an axion–proton coupling strength requires a frequency-dependent correction factor: for the representative parameters R_e,a = 2π×1.5 Hz and R_e,b = 2π×2.5 Hz, the static formula overestimates χ_p by 40% at 2 Hz and underestimates it by 75% at 20 Hz (Section II C). The magnetic-response model is tested experimentally with a Bell-Bloom magnetometer (Fig. 1) and an FID comagnetometer (Fig. 3); the FID response to exotic couplings is obtained by simulation (Section III B), and a light-shift-based calibration protocol is proposed but not executed (Section IV).

Significance. If the central result holds, Eq. (10) and the associated conversion procedure are practically useful: they show that frequency response must be folded into comagnetometer searches for axion-like dark matter, and the proposed light-shift protocol addresses a real calibration problem for non-magnetic couplings. The analytic derivation in Appendix B is internally consistent, the magnetic-channel experiments provide a genuine check of the low-pass response shape, and the paper is transparent about the simulation-based status of the FID exotic response. The main reservation is that the most novel part—the exotic-response transfer function and the 40%/75% axion corrections—rests on an independent-channel Bloch model that the experiments do not directly validate for non-magnetic couplings, and the proposed calibration is not performed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II A and Appendix A, Eq. (1)] The model in Eq. (1) and Appendix A treats the two hyperfine channels F_a and F_b as independent first-order systems with scalar relaxation rates R_e,a and R_e,b and contains no spin-exchange coherence-transfer terms between the channels. The paper does not report the alkali density or spin-exchange rate, so the measured linewidths alone do not establish the independence assumption. If spin-exchange coupling is comparable to R_e,a and R_e,b, the response is a coupled two-channel system, and Eq. (10) is not the correct response. The magnetic validation in Section III is not sufficient to exclude this: the magnetic coupling vector is (K_a,K_b)=(1,1), whereas the proton-coupling vector is (7,9), so off-diagonal channel mixing affects the exotic response differently from the magnetic response. Please either provide a quantitative justification for neglecting spin exchange in the present cell or generalize the derivation to the coupled case and estimate the impact on the axion corrections in Section II C.
  2. [Sections III B and IV] The exotic-response claims for the FID comagnetometer are simulation-based (Section III B), and the light-shift calibration that would directly test a non-magnetic response is introduced as a protocol but is not performed (Section IV). Since Eq. (10) and the axion conversion are the central results, the manuscript should state explicitly in the abstract and conclusions that the exotic-response transfer function is a theoretical prediction and that the experiments validate only the magnetic-field response. Ideally, the Section IV calibration should be executed, at least for the electron-type coupling, or the paper should be reframed as a theoretical proposal with a magnetic experimental check.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (20)] The proposed light-shift calibration generates an equivalent field that couples only to electrons (b_e = L, b_p = b_n = 0). Even if executed, it verifies the frequency-dependent filter shape only for the electron-type coefficients K_i ≈ 1; it does not test the nuclear-spin coefficients K_a = 7 and K_b = 9 that enter the axion-wind result in Eq. (13). The manuscript should clarify this limitation, because the calibration protocol cannot directly validate the specific nuclear-coupling example that motivates the frequency-response correction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation throughout] The relaxation rates are denoted R_e,a and R_e,b in Eqs. (4)-(13) but R_e,1 and R_e,2 in Section III and Table II; please unify the notation for readability.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption of Fig. 3(b) contains the typo 'Experiement'; it should read 'Experiment'.
  3. [Section III A] The sentence 'the Nyquist bandwidth is smaller than the magnetometer’s bandwidth' is confusing because the FID measurement involves time-window averaging rather than a conventional sampling-rate Nyquist limit; please clarify the role of the 1.5-second measurement interval.
  4. [Eq. (14)] The factor 36γ_a in Eq. (14) appears abruptly after the k_Co ≈ 2 statement; a short derivation connecting b_p in Eq. (12) to A in Eq. (14) would help the reader verify the conversion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exotic-response transfer functions are derived from the Bloch-equation Hamiltonian, and the magnetic measurements only calibrate the relaxation rates; the frequency-dependent conversion is a derived consequence, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The core result, Eq. (10), is obtained by substituting the perturbative Bloch-equation response, Eq. (8), into the definition of the comagnetometer differential signal, Eq. (9). Eq. (8) is derived in Appendix B from the Hamiltonian Eq. (A1), not assumed; the coefficients K_i in Table I follow from angular momentum projection (Eqs. A9-A10). The magnetic-field measurements are used only to calibrate R_e,a and R_e,b, which are then inserted into the analytically derived transfer functions; no exotic-interaction data are fitted to produce the claimed frequency dependence. The cited works [27,34,45] describe the single-species comagnetometer apparatus and light-shift calculations, but the frequency-response claim does not reduce to them; the same-group citations are descriptive rather than load-bearing. The proposed light-shift calibration (Section IV) is explicitly a protocol for future verification, not an input to the derivation. The absence of a direct measurement of the exotic response is an experimental validation gap, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its calculation rests on named standard approximations, measured relaxation rates, and previously published nuclear spin content and dark matter density inputs. The equivalent pseudomagnetic fields are bookkeeping variables rather than new physical entities.

free parameters (1)
  • Hyperfine relaxation rates R_e,a and R_e,b = 2π×1.5 Hz and 2π×2.5 Hz in Table II; 2π×2.1 Hz for Fig. 1(c)
    These rates set the cutoff frequency in Eqs. (8) and (10). They are measured or estimated system parameters rather than derived quantities, and the axion-wind correction factor changes if they change.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Rotating wave approximation and truncation of the perturbative expansion to first order in γ B_s / R_e
    Used in Appendix B to obtain Eqs. (4), (8), and (10); assumes small perturbations and neglect of rapidly oscillating terms.
  • domain assumption Each hyperfine channel obeys an independent Bloch equation with scalar relaxation and optical pumping, with no spin-exchange cross-coupling between channels
    Eq. (1) and Appendix A; if spin-exchange couples the two hyperfine channels, the differential response in Eq. (10) would be modified.
  • domain assumption The perturbation field is aligned with the bias-field z-axis, and only the z-projection of the axion wind v_z is relevant
    Eq. (2) and Eq. (12); off-axis fields may produce different angular response, which is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption Schmidt-model proton spin content σ_p = -1/9 for 133Cs and local dark matter density ρ_DM ≈ 0.4 GeV/cm^3
    Used in Section II C to convert an axion-wind equivalent field into χ_p; uncertainties in σ_p or ρ_DM propagate directly into the coupling estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Response of Comagnetometer to Exotic Spin-Dependent Couplings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNYROQBS

@misc{pith2026250615046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Response of Comagnetometer to Exotic Spin-Dependent Couplings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNYROQBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15046}
}
read the original abstract

Comagnetometers offer unique advantages in measuring exotic spin-dependent interactions by suppressing magnetic noise. Understanding the frequency response to exotic interactions is essential for evaluating and improving the sensitivity of comagnetometers, as the signals often exhibit distinct spectral features. We conduct theoretical and experimental studies on the frequency response of a differential comagnetometer. We derive analytical expressions for the frequency response of the differential comagnetometer to both magnetic field and exotic couplings, along with the conversion relationship between them. Based on this, we revise the method for determining the axion-nucleon coupling strength with comagnetometers. Furthermore, we introduce a light-shift-based calibration protocol to verify the response to exotic interactions. This work helps predict the sensitivity of comagnetometers in detecting exotic fields and advances the exploration of dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The frequency response of a magnetometer to magnetic field perturbations. (a) Simulated demodulated magnetometer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Simulated frequency responses of the two channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Frequency responses of the FID magnetometer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (2) into Eq

    Magnetic perturbation Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (1),B→B+B s(t), be =b p =b n = 0, letγ a =γ(1 + 2I· gI gS ), the evolution ofPforF a can be rewritten as dP dt =γ a (B+B s(t))×P−R eP−R p(t)(P−P 0).(3) We can use numerical integration methods, specifically ordinary differential equations (ODEs), to simulate the response of atoms to magnetic perturbation...

    work page

  2. [2]

    axion wind

    Exotic spin-dependent perturbation Following a similar procedure as for magnetic pertur- bations mentioned above, by substitutingb e,b p orb n in Eq. (1) withB s, the demodulated signal for differ- ent couplings can be expressed accordingly. Utilizing the slope of the magnetic resonance signal in Eq. (6), the de- modulated signal induced by anomalous inte...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Ripka, Magnetic sensors and magnetometers, Meas

    P. Ripka, Magnetic sensors and magnetometers, Meas. Sci. Technol13, 645 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Bertoldi, D

    A. Bertoldi, D. Bassi, L. Ricci, D. Covi, and S. Varas, Magnetoresistive magnetometer with improved band- width and response characteristics, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 065106 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Bevilacqua, V

    G. Bevilacqua, V. Biancalana, P. Chessa, and Y. Dancheva, Multichannel optical atomic magnetome- ter operating in unshielded environment, Appl. Phys. B 122, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Bevilacqua, V

    G. Bevilacqua, V. Biancalana, Y. Dancheva, A. Fregosi, and A. Vigilante, Spin dynamic response to a time de- pendent field, Appl. Phys. B127, 128 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Zhang, T

    R. Zhang, T. Wu, J. Chen, X. Peng, and H. Guo, Fre- quency response of optically pumped magnetometer with nonlinear Zeeman effect, Appl. Sci.10, 7031 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    R. Li, F. N. Baynes, A. N. Luiten, and C. Perrella, Con- tinuous high-sensitivity and high-bandwidth atomic mag- netometer, Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 064067 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, Influence of atomic magnetometer’s orienta- tion on its frequency response, Sensors25, 1364 (2025)

    R. Zhang, Influence of atomic magnetometer’s orienta- tion on its frequency response, Sensors25, 1364 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    C. Abel, N. J. Ayres, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, M. Daum, M. Fairbairn, V. V. Flambaum, P. Geltenbort,et al., Search for axionlike dark matter through nuclear spin precession in electric and magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. X7, 041034 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Safronova, D

    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, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. Budker, T. E. Chupp, A. A. Geraci, S. Kolkowitz, J. T. Singh, and A. O. Sushkov, Probing fundamental physics with spin-based quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. A108, 010101 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbott, Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger, Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L12 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Dailey, C

    C. Dailey, C. Bradley, D. F. Jackson Kimball, I. A. Sulai, S. Pustelny, A. Wickenbrock, and A. Derevianko, Quan- tum sensor networks as exotic field telescopes for multi- messenger astronomy, Nat. Astron.5, 150 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Afach, B

    S. Afach, B. C. Buchler, D. Budker, C. Dailey, A. Dere- vianko, V. Dumont, N. L. Figueroa, I. Gerhardt, Z. D. Gruji´ c, H. Guo,et al., Search for topological defect dark matter with a global network of optical magnetometers, Nat. Phys.17, 1396 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Jiang, H

    M. Jiang, H. Su, A. Garcon, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Search for axion-like dark matter with spin-based ampli- fiers, Nat. Phys.17, 1402 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, D. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, D. Main, G. Araneda, C. Ballance, and D. Lucas, An el- ementary quantum network of entangled optical atomic clocks, Nature609, 689 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Venema, P

    B. Venema, P. Majumder, S. Lamoreaux, B. Heckel, and E. Fortson, Search for a coupling of the Earth’s gravi- tational field to nuclear spins in atomic mercury, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 135 (1992)

    1992

  11. [19]

    Terrano and M

    W. Terrano and M. Romalis, Comagnetometer probes of dark matter and new physics, Quantum Sci. Technol.7, 014001 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, J. Dudley, Y. Li, D. Patel, and 12 J. Valdez, Constraints on long-range spin-gravity and monopole-dipole couplings of the proton, Phys. Rev. D 96, 075004 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Zhang, Z.-L

    S.-B. Zhang, Z.-L. Ba, D.-H. Ning, N.-F. Zhai, Z.-T. Lu, and D. Sheng, Search for spin-dependent gravitational interactions at earth range, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 201401 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Rosenberry and T

    M. Rosenberry and T. Chupp, Atomic electric dipole mo- ment measurement using spin exchange pumped masers of 129Xe and 3He, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 22 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    Baker, D

    C. Baker, D. Doyle, P. Geltenbort, K. Green, M. Van der Grinten, P. Harris, P. Iaydjiev, S. Ivanov, D. May, J. Pendlebury,et al., Improved experimental limit on the electric dipole moment of the neutron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 131801 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    B. M. Roberts, G. Blewitt, C. Dailey, M. Murphy, M. Pospelov, A. Rollings, J. Sherman, W. Williams, and A. Derevianko, Search for domain wall dark matter with atomic clocks on board global positioning system satel- lites, Nat. Commun.8, 1195 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Pospelov, S. Pustelny, T. Scholtes, Y. Stadnik, A. Weis, and A. Wickenbrock, Searching for axion stars andq-balls with a terrestrial magnetometer network, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043002 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    P. W. Graham and S. Rajendran, New observables for direct detection of axion dark matter, Phys. Rev. D88, 035023 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    C. Gao, W. Halperin, Y. Kahn, M. Nguyen, J. Sch¨ utte- Engel, and J. W. Scott, Axion wind detection with the homogeneous precession domain of superfluid helium-3, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 211801 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Tullney, F

    K. Tullney, F. Allmendinger, M. Burghoff, W. Heil, S. Karpuk, W. Kilian, S. Knappe-Gr¨ uneberg, W. M¨ uller, U. Schmidt, A. Schnabel,et al., Constraints on spin- dependent short-range interaction between nucleons, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 100801 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Z. Wang, X. Peng, R. Zhang, H. Luo, J. Li, Z. Xiong, S. Wang, and H. Guo, Single-species atomic comagne- tometer based on 87Rb atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 193002 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Zhang, Z.-L

    S.-B. Zhang, Z.-L. Ba, D.-H. Ning, N.-F. Zhai, Z.-T. Lu, and D. Sheng, Search for spin-dependent gravitational interactions at Earth range, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 201401 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    T. W. Kornack and M. V. Romalis, Dynamics of two overlapping spin ensembles interacting by spin exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 253002 (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    J. Lee, A. Almasi, and M. Romalis, Improved limits on spin-mass interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 161801 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Padniuk, M

    M. Padniuk, M. Kopciuch, R. Cipolletti, A. Wicken- brock, D. Budker, and S. Pustelny, Response of atomic spin-based sensors to magnetic and nonmagnetic pertur- bations, Sci. Rep.12, 324 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Padniuk, E

    M. Padniuk, E. Klinger, G. Lukasiewicz, D. Gavilan- Martin, T. Liu, S. Pustelny, D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. Budker, and A. Wickenbrock, Universal determina- tion of comagnetometer response to spin couplings, Phys. Rev. Research6, 013339 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Rosenzweig, Y

    Y. Rosenzweig, Y. Kats, M. Givon, Y. Japha, and R. Fol- man, Atomic probe of dark matter differential interac- tions with subatomic particles, Phys. Rev. D110, 015015 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Y. Zhao, J. Zheng, W. Xiao, X. Peng, T. Wu, and H. Guo, Suppression of systematic effects in a single- species atomic comagnetometer, Phys. Rev. A110, 063122 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Sheng, A

    D. Sheng, A. R. Perry, S. P. Krzyzewski, S. Geller, J. Kitching, and S. Knappe, A microfabricated optically- pumped magnetic gradiometer, Appl. Phys. Lett.110, 031106 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Sulai, Z

    I. Sulai, Z. DeLand, M. Bulatowicz, C. Wahl, R. Wakai, and T. Walker, Characterizing atomic magnetic gra- diometers for fetal magnetocardiography, Rev. Sci. In- strum.90, 085003 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    H. Dong, H. Ye, M. Hu, and Z. Ma, Recent developments in fabrication methods and measurement schemes for op- tically pumped magnetic gradiometers: a comprehensive review, Micromachines15, 59 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints imposed by CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  33. [41]

    Schmidt, ¨Uber die magnetischen momente der atom- kerne, Z

    T. Schmidt, ¨Uber die magnetischen momente der atom- kerne, Z. Physik106, 358 (1937)

    1937

  34. [42]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, Nuclear spin content and con- straints on exotic spin-dependent couplings, New J. Phys. 17, 073008 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. Flambaum, Axion-induced effects in atoms, molecules, and nuclei: Parity nonconservation, anapole moments, electric dipole moments, and spin- gravity and spin-axion momentum couplings, Phys. Rev. D89, 043522 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    T. Wu, J. W. Blanchard, G. P. Centers, N. L. Figueroa, A. Garcon, P. W. Graham, D. F. J. Kimball, S. Rajen- dran, Y. V. Stadnik, A. O. Sushkov,et al., Search for axionlike dark matter with a liquid-state nuclear spin co- magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 191302 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Bevington, R

    P. Bevington, R. Gartman, Y. V. Stadnik, and W. Chalupczak, Dual-frequency cesium spin maser, Phys. Rev. A102, 032804 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Z. Wang, X. Peng, Z. Xiong, J. Zheng, H. Luo, and H. Guo, Atomic comagnetometer with a closed-loop op- tically aligned 87Rb dual-frequency oscillator, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 024021 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Y. Yang, T. Wu, J. Chen, X. Peng, and H. Guo, All-optical single-species cesium atomic comagnetometer with optical free induction decay detection, Appl. Phys. B127, 1 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Hunter, R

    D. Hunter, R. Jim´ enez-Mart´ ınez, J. Herbsommer, S. Ra- maswamy, W. Li, and E. Riis, Waveform reconstruc- tion with a Cs based free-induction-decay magnetometer, Opt. Express26, 30523 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    W. Xiao, M. Liu, T. Wu, X. Peng, and H. Guo, Fem- totesla atomic magnetometer employing diffusion optical pumping to search for exotic spin-dependent interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 143201 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Cohen-Tannoudji and J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji and J. Dupont-Roc, Experimental study of zeeman light shifts in weak magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. A5, 968 (1972)

    1972

  43. [51]

    Zhang, W

    R. Zhang, W. Xiao, Y. Ding, Y. Feng, X. Peng, L. Shen, C. Sun, T. Wu, Y. Wu, Y. Yang,et al., Recording brain activities in unshielded Earth’s field with optically pumped atomic magnetometers, Sci. Adv.6, eaba8792 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Z. Wu, J. Zhang, C. Wei, Z. Ou, H. Yue, C. Cheng, and Y. Liu, Effects of system parameters on a single- 13 beam synthetic gradiometer with a dual-cell structure, Opt. Lett.49, 2781 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    S. Li, J. Liu, M. Jin, K. T. Akiti, P. Dai, Z. Xu, and T. E.-T. Nwodom, A kilohertz bandwidth and sensitive scalar atomic magnetometer using an optical multipass cell, Measurement190, 110704 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    K. Yi, Y. Liu, B. Wang, W. Xiao, D. Sheng, X. Peng, and H. Guo, Free-induction-decay 4He magnetometer using a multipass cell, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 014084 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Afach, D

    S. Afach, D. Aybas Tumturk, H. Bekker, B. C. Buchler, D. Budker, K. Cervantes, A. Derevianko, J. Eby, N. L. Figueroa, R. Folman,et al., What can a GNOME do? Search targets for the global network of optical magne- tometers for exotic physics searches, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 536, 2...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.