Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Probing KSVZ Axion Dark Matter near 5.9 GHz Using a 8-Cell Cavity Haloscope

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No axions found: 8-cell cavity sets strictest limit near 5.9 GHz

desk verdict Solid new haloscope limit near 5.9 GHz, but the unexplained 5.87–5.88 GHz excesses and the odd hypothesis-testing language need work before the 90% CL is trustworthy in that band. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04344 v1 pith:LZDRVM5Q submitted 2025-07-06 hep-ex

Saebyeok Ahn , Caglar Kutlu , Soohyung Lee , SungWoo Youn , Sergey V. Uchaikin , Sungjae Bae , Junu Jeong , Arjan F. van Loo
show 4 more authors
Yasunobu Nakamura Seongjeong Oh Jihn E. Kim Yannis K. Semertzidis
This is my paper
classification hep-ex PACS 14.80.Va
keywords axiondarkmatterhaloscope8-cellcavityJosephsonparametricamplifierquantum-limitedreadoutsidebandsummingKSVZhigh-frequencysearch
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 reports a haloscope search for axion dark matter in the 5.83–5.94 GHz band, corresponding to axion masses of 24.11–24.57 µeV. It uses an eight-cell microwave cavity to reach frequencies about three times higher than a conventional single-cell cavity in the same magnet bore, and a flux-driven Josephson parametric amplifier operating near the quantum noise limit to read out the converted photons. With no statistically significant excess observed, it excludes axion-photon couplings $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ down to $1.2 \times 10^{-14}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ at 90% confidence, the most stringent limit in this mass range to date. This approaches the KSVZ benchmark prediction, so a KSVZ axion in this window at the upper end of the allowed coupling would have been detectable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the eight-cell microwave cavity, a cylindrical resonator split into eight coupled cells that supports a TM$_{010}$-like mode near 6.0 GHz with a total detection volume of 3.1 L and an average magnetic field of 6.97 T, reaching a frequency about three times that of a single-cell cavity in the same bore. The second key component is the flux-driven Josephson parametric amplifier, a SQUID-terminated coplanar waveguide that provides phase-preserving gain near the quantum noise limit and generates an idler tone at $f_i = f_p - f_s$; the analysis then uses sideband summing, Eq. (3), to coherently combine the signal and idler power excesses $\delta_k$ and $\delta_{-k}$ with optimized weights and a measured correlation coefficient $\rho$. The form factor, tuned by rotating alumina rods in each cell, ranges from 0.5 to 0.7, with fabrication asymmetries mitigated to below 1% degradation. The machinery operates together to convert axion-photon power, expressed by Eq. (1), into a measurable excess power spectrum.

What would settle it

Run a dedicated high-statistics scan with independent calibration over the 5.87–5.88 GHz band; if the negative excesses reappear at a level inconsistent with the noise model, the exclusion limit in that band is not valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no axion dark matter signal exists in the axion mass range 24.11–24.57 µeV for couplings above $g_{a\gamma\gamma} = 1.2 \times 10^{-14}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ at 90% confidence. The experiment demonstrates that an eight-cell cavity architecture, which supports a TM$_{010}$-like mode near 5.9 GHz while preserving a 3.1 L detection volume in an 8 T magnetic field, can sustain a haloscope search at frequencies roughly three times the reach of a single-cell cavity. Combined with a flux-driven Josephson parametric amplifier and a sideband-summing analysis that exploits the JPA's signal and idler modes, the search achieves system noise temperatures of 380–500 mK and an overall SNR efficiency of 84%, yielding the most stringent limit in this frequency range and sensitivity approaching the KSVZ benchmark. The null result is robust to follow-up scans of 85 candidate excesses, none of which persisted.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted limit depends on the assumption that the unexplained negative excesses seen near 5.87–5.88 GHz are instrumental artifacts, not signals, and that the supplementary scan used to replace those bins has the same systematic behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 8-cell cavity extends the reachable axion mass for a given magnet bore roughly threefold, opening higher-mass windows to haloscope searches.
  • The sideband-summing technique yields a consistent 4% SNR improvement over conventional analysis, which will be relevant wherever JPAs are used.
  • The 90% CL exclusion of $g_{a\gamma\gamma} < 1.2 \times 10^{-14}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ over 24.11–24.57 µeV is the most stringent limit in this mass range.
  • The achieved sensitivity approaches the KSVZ benchmark prediction, so the window at higher couplings is closed and only sub-benchmark couplings remain.
  • The null result constrains axion dark matter models with hadronic (KSVZ) couplings in this mass window.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the same 8-cell architecture with higher quality factors or larger volume could push the limit below the KSVZ line, allowing a definitive test of the model across a broader mass range.
  • The unexplained negative excesses in the 5.87–5.88 GHz band, present in two independent experiments, may point to a systematic tied to the cavity or amplifier configuration; identifying it could improve the robustness of future analyses.
  • The sideband-summing gain, though modest here, could become larger when the JPA idler noise is reduced or when the signal and idler have very different noise temperatures, making the technique more valuable in other searches.
  • The successful operation at 5.9 GHz suggests that similar multi-cell cavities could be pushed to even higher frequencies, for example with smaller cells or higher-order modes, to probe axion masses beyond 25 µeV.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a haloscope search for axion dark matter near 5.9 GHz using an 8-cell copper cavity in an 8 T magnet, read out with a flux-driven Josephson parametric amplifier and a sideband-summing analysis. The scan covers 5.83–5.94 GHz, finds no persistent candidate, and sets a 90% CL upper limit on the axion-photon coupling of 1.2 × 10^−14 GeV^−1 over the axion mass range 24.11–24.57 μeV, claimed as the most stringent limit in this range and approaching the KSVZ benchmark. The analysis includes in-situ noise-temperature calibrations, Savitzky–Golay baseline removal, sideband correlation, grandspectrum construction, and follow-up scans of candidate bins.

Significance. If the limit is robust, this is a valuable null result in a mass range that is difficult to reach with conventional single-cell cavities, and the 8-cell resonator is a useful technical advance. The paper provides detailed experimental characterization: in-situ JPA gain monitoring, 24-hour stability checks, injection-based measurement of the Savitzky–Golay SNR efficiency (84%), and explicit follow-up of all threshold-crossing candidates. However, the statistical interpretation is weakened by untreated non-Gaussian tails and by the ad hoc substitution of data in the 5.87–5.88 GHz band; these issues must be resolved before the 90% CL claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Data analysis (paragraph beginning 'We observed several strong negative excesses...')] The exclusion of anomalous bins in the 5.87–5.88 GHz range and their replacement with data from a supplementary scan is not accompanied by a demonstrated instrumental mechanism or by a quantitative check that the two datasets have identical noise properties. Because the quoted result is a 90% CL exclusion, the effective noise distribution in this band must be validated: please either explain the anomalies as understood instrumental effects, or present a conservative limit that does not rely on the substitution (for example, a limit computed with the original bins included, or with an enlarged noise model in that band). As written, the coverage of the claimed limit in 5.87–5.88 GHz is unvalidated.
  2. [Data analysis (hypothesis testing and grandspectrum)] The paper states that after normalization to N(0,1) the grandspectrum still produced 85 bins above the 3.47σ threshold, far more than the O(1) expected for a pure Gaussian, and that follow-up scans showed none was persistent. This indicates that the noise model used to define the 90% CL threshold has unexplained tails. The expected number of threshold crossings under the null hypothesis, including the effect of Savitzky–Golay bin-to-bin correlations, should be computed and compared with the observed 85 before the threshold can be regarded as calibrated. If the excess is due to correlations or residual systematics, that must be quantified; otherwise the 90% coverage of the limit is not established.
  3. [Data analysis and result (Fig. 4)] No systematic uncertainty budget is provided for the final upper limit. The limit should propagate the uncertainties in the system noise temperature, the JPA gain and its stability, the form-factor degradation (quoted as below 1%), the Savitzky–Golay SNR efficiency (84%), the sideband-summing weights and correlation coefficient, and the grandspectrum normalization. Even if the total systematic is negligible relative to the statistical power, a quantitative statement is required to support the single quoted value of 1.2 × 10^−14 GeV^−1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Conclusion] In the conclusion, 'we exclude axion-photon couplings gaγγ ≳ 1.2 × 10^−14 GeV^−1' uses the wrong inequality direction; the abstract and Fig. 4 correctly state the limit as an upper bound ('down to' or '<').
  2. [System noise temperature paragraph] The decomposition 'Tsys = Tcav + Trcv' is immediately followed by definitions using Ton and Toff without connecting Trcv to those quantities; please clarify the notation so that Eq. (2) is self-contained.
  3. [Preprocessing paragraph] The statement that 'The distribution of δ was consistent with the standard normal distribution' is difficult to reconcile with the later reported grandspectrum width of 0.85 and the 85 threshold-crossing bins; please specify the quantitative consistency test used and elaborate on how these observations are consistent.
  4. [Reference [26]] The author list of Ref. [26] contains 'i. m. c. b. u. Kutlu', which appears to be a metadata corruption of the author name 'C. Kutlu'; please correct it.
  5. [Experimental setup and Fig. 3 caption] The text contains 'with an built-in down-converter' (should be 'a built-in'), and the Fig. 3 caption uses 'the idle signals' where 'idler signals' is the standard terminology for the JPA-generated intermodulation tone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central exclusion limit is an experimentally measured null result with independent content.

full rationale

The central claim is a 90% CL upper limit on the axion-photon coupling derived from measured cavity power spectra, calibrated noise temperatures, JPA gain measurements, and injected synthetic signals. The limit is not obtained by fitting a model and then re-predicting a closely related quantity; it is an experimental null result. The sideband-summing correlation coefficient is estimated from the data, but it only produces a SNR improvement of about 4% and is validated by synthetic signal injection. Normalizing the grandspectrum with its observed mean and standard deviation is a statistical presentation choice, not a prediction. Self-citations to prior CAPP work describe hardware designs, operational procedures, and analysis methods, but the exclusion limit does not rest on an unverified self-cited uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in by citation. The manuscript itself explicitly flags that the origin of negative excesses near 5.87–5.88 GHz remains unknown and that those bins were substituted with supplementary scan data; this is a data-quality limitation rather than a circular derivation. External comparisons to HAYSTAC and other limits, as well as the KSVZ benchmark, provide independent context for the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The limit depends on standard axion halo assumptions and measured or calibrated experimental quantities. The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The main non-standard inputs are three data-derived calibration quantities (grandspectrum normalization, JPA correlation, SG efficiency) whose uncertainties are not propagated; these are listed as free parameters. The central claim is an experimental upper limit, not a derivation, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (3)
  • Grandspectrum normalization mean and standard deviation = normalized to N(0,1); observed raw standard deviation 0.85
    The grandspectrum is normalized using its observed mean and standard deviation rather than the theoretical noise level, absorbing any miscalibration; the impact on the limit is not shown separately.
  • JPA signal-idler correlation coefficient rho = not quoted
    Estimated from all individual spectra and used in Eq. (3) to combine sidebands; only a 4% SNR improvement is reported, and its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • Savitzky-Golay SNR efficiency = 0.84 (average)
    Measured by injecting synthetic axion signals; the paper does not show how this correction is applied to the final limit or whether it varies with frequency.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Local axion dark matter density rho_a = 0.45 GeV/cm^3 and the standard halo axion lineshape describe the expected signal.
    Eq. (1) and the grandspectrum weighting assume this density and velocity distribution; a different halo model would shift the limit.
  • domain assumption The axion-photon coupling formula g_aγγ = alpha g_gamma / (pi f_a) with g_gamma = -0.97 for KSVZ is the correct relation for interpreting the excluded coupling.
    Used in the abstract and Fig. 4 to relate the measured power to the model; this is standard axion theory.
  • domain assumption The TM010 mode form factor C and average magnetic field B_rms = 6.97 T from finite-element simulation, with degradation mitigated below 1%, represent the physical cavity.
    These enter Eq. (1) linearly in the signal power; a 10% error in C times B_rms^2 changes the limit by about 5%.
  • domain assumption After baseline removal, frequency bins are statistically independent and Gaussian, and candidate excesses are statistical fluctuations unless confirmed in follow-up scans.
    The hypothesis testing and limit rely on this; the SG filter introduces correlations, which the paper handles via normalization and injection studies, but the assumptions are not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing KSVZ Axion Dark Matter near 5.9 GHz Using a 8-Cell Cavity Haloscope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZDRVM5Q

@misc{pith2026250704344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing KSVZ Axion Dark Matter near 5.9 GHz Using a 8-Cell Cavity Haloscope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZDRVM5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04344}
}
abstract

We report on a search for axion dark matter in the frequency range near 5.9 GHz, conducted using the haloscope technique. The experiment employed an 8-cell microwave resonator designed to extend the accessible frequency range by a multi-fold factor relative to conventional single-cell configurations, while maintaining a large detection volume. To enhance sensitivity, a flux-driven Josephson parametric amplifier (JPA) operating near the quantum noise limit was utilized, together with a sideband-summing method that coherently combines mirrored spectral components generated by the JPA. Data were acquired over the frequency range 5.83-5.94 GHz. With no statistically significant excess observed, we exclude axion-photon couplings $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ down to $1.2 \times 10^{-14}$ GeV$^{-1}$ at a 90% confidence level. The achieved sensitivity approaches the KSVZ benchmark prediction, setting the most stringent limits to date in this range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04344 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: Cutaway view of the 8-cell cavity design. Right: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We implemented a sideband-summing technique [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Power spectra with a synthetic axion signal injected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Exclusion limit on the axion-photon coupling, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8 (1976)

    1976

  2. [2]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D 14, 3432 (1978)

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D 18, 2199 (1978)

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    J. H. Smith, E. M. Purcell, and N. F. Ramsey, Phys. Rev. 108, 120 (1957)

    work page 1957

  5. [5]

    W. B. Dress, P. D. Miller, J. M. Pendlebury, P. Perrin, and N. F. Ramsey, Phys. Rev. D 15, 9 (1977)

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    I. S. Altarev, Y. V. Borisov, A. B. Brandin, A. I. Egorov, V. F. Ezhov, S. N. Ivanov, V. M. Lobashov, V. A. Nazarenko, G. D. Porsev, V. L. Ryabov, A. P. Serebrov, and R. R. Taldaev, Nucl. Phys. A 341, 269 (1980)

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  8. [8]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  2. [10]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Ast- 5 FIG. 4. Exclusion limit on the axion-photon coupling, gaγγ , as a function of axion mass, ma, set by this work at the 90% CL. The black dashed line represents the KSVZ benchmark model. The gap around 24.35 µeV is attri...

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  4. [12]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  5. [13]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  6. [14]

    A. R. Zhitnitskii, Yad. Fiz. 31, 497 (1980)

    1980

  7. [15]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. 104B, 199 (1981)

    1981

  8. [16]

    Jeong, S

    J. Jeong, S. Youn, S. Ahn, J. E. Kim, and Y. K. Semertzidis, Phys. Lett. B 777, 412 (2018), arXiv:1710.06969

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jeong, S

    J. Jeong, S. Youn, S. Bae, J. Kim, T. Seong, J. E. Kim, and Y. K. Semertzidis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 221302 (2020), arXiv:2008.10141

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    https://www.comsol.com

  11. [19]

    Jeong, S

    J. Jeong, S. Youn, and J. E. Kim, Multiple-cell cavity design for high mass axion searches: An extended study, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1053, 168327 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Yamamoto, K

    T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, T. Miyazaki, W. D. Oliver, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 042510 (2008), arXiv:0808.1386

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kutlu, A

    C ¸ . Kutlu, A. F. van Loo, S. V. Uchaikin, A. N. Mat- lashov, D. Lee, S. Oh, J. Kim, W. Chung, Y. Naka- mura, and Y. K. Semertzidis, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 34, 085013 (2021), arXiv:2101.08496

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kutlu, S

    C ¸ . Kutlu, S. Ahn, S. V. Uchaikin, S. Lee, A. F. van Loo, Y. Nakamura, S. Oh, and Y. K. Semertzidis, JPS Conf. Proc. 38, 011202 (2023), arXiv:2305.08866

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. B. Johnson, Thermal agitation of electricity in conduc- tors, Phys. Rev. 32, 97 (1928)

    1928

  16. [24]

    Nyquist, Thermal agitation of electric charge in con- ductors, Phys

    H. Nyquist, Thermal agitation of electric charge in con- ductors, Phys. Rev. 32, 110 (1928)

    1928

  17. [25]

    Savitzky and M

    A. Savitzky and M. J. E. Golay, Smoothing and differ- entiation of data by simplified least squares procedures, Analytical Chemistry 36, 1627 (1964)

    1964

  18. [26]

    S. Ahn, J. Kim, B. I. Ivanov, O. Kwon, H. Byun, A. F. van Loo, S. Park, J. Jeong, S. Lee, J. Kim, i. m. c. b. u. Kutlu, A. K. Yi, Y. Nakamura, S. Oh, D. Ahn, S. Bae, H. Choi, J. Choi, Y. Chong, W. Chung, V. Gkika, J. E. Kim, Y. Kim, B. R. Ko, L. Miceli, D. Lee, J. Lee, K. W. L...

    2024

  19. [27]

    M. S. Turner, Periodic signatures for the detection of cosmic axions, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3572 (1990)

    1990

  20. [29]

    A. K. Yi, S. Ahn, B. R. Ko, and Y. K. Semertzidis, Ana- lytical estimation of the signal to noise ratio efficiency in axion dark matter searches using a savitzky-golay filter, J. High Energy Phys. 2023 (11)

    2023

  21. [30]

    B. Yang, H. Yoon, M. Ahn, Y. Lee, and J. Yoo, Extended axion dark matter search using the capp18t haloscope, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 081801 (2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    Y. Lee, B. Yang, H. Yoon, M. Ahn, H. Park, B. Min, D. Kim, and J. Yoo, Searching for invisible axion dark matter with an 18 t magnet haloscope, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 241805 (2022)

    2022

  23. [32]

    Y. Kim, J. Jeong, S. Youn, S. Bae, K. Lee, A. F. van Loo, Y. Nakamura, S. Oh, T. Seong, S. Uchaikin, J. E. Kim, and Y. K. Semertzidis, Experimental search for in- visible dark matter axions around 22 µeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 051802 (2024)

    2024

  24. [33]

    S. Bae, J. Jeong, Y. Kim, S. Youn, H. Park, T. Seong, S. Oh, and Y. K. Semertzidis, Search for dark matter 6 axions with tunable tm 020 mode, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211803 (2024)

    2024

  25. [34]

    C. M. Adair, K. Altenm¨ uller, V. Anastassopoulos, S. Ar- guedas Cuendis, J. Baier, K. Barth, A. Belov, D. Bozice- vic, H. Br¨ auninger, G. Cantatore, F. Caspers, J. F. Cas- tel, S. A. C ¸ etin, W. Chung, H. Choi, J. Choi, T. Dafni, M. Davenport, A. Dermenev, K. Desch, B. D¨ o...

    2022

  26. [35]

    B. M. Brubaker, L. Zhong, Y. V. Gurevich, S. B. Cahn, S. K. Lamoreaux, M. Simanovskaia, J. R. Root, S. M. Lewis, S. Al Kenany, K. M. Backes, I. Urdinaran, N. M. Rapidis, T. M. Shokair, K. A. van Bibber, D. A. Palken, M. Malnou, W. F. Kindel, M. A. Anil, K. W. Lehn- ert, and G....

    2017

  27. [36]

    K. M. Backes, D. A. Palken, S. A. Kenany, B. M. Brubaker, S. B. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jackson, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. F. Leder, K. W. Lehnert, S. M. Lewis, M. Malnou, R. H. Maruyama, N. M. Rapidis, M. Simanovskaia, S. Singh, D. H. Speller, I. Urdinaran, L. ...

    2021

  28. [37]

    M. J. Jewell, A. F. Leder, K. M. Backes, X. Bai, K. van Bibber, B. M. Brubaker, S. B. Cahn, A. Droster, M. H. Esmat, S. Ghosh, E. Graham, G. C. Hilton, H. Jackson, C. Laffan, S. K. Lamoreaux, K. W. Lehnert, S. M. Lewis, M. Malnou, R. H. Maruyama, D. A. Palken, N. M. Ra- pidis,...

    2023

  29. [38]

    X. Bai, M. J. Jewell, J. Echevers, K. van Bibber, A. Droster, M. H. Esmat, S. Ghosh, E. Graham, H. Jackson, C. Laffan, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. F. Leder, K. W. Lehnert, S. M. Lewis, R. H. Maruyama, R. D. Nath, N. M. Rapidis, E. P. Ruddy, M. Silva-Feaver, M. Simanovskaia, S. Singh, ...

    2025

  30. [39]

    Chang, J.-Y

    H. Chang, J.-Y. Chang, Y.-C. Chang, Y.-H. Chang, Y.- H. Chang, C.-H. Chen, C.-F. Chen, K.-Y. Chen, Y.-F. Chen, W.-Y. Chiang, W.-C. Chien, H. T. Doan, W.-C. Hung, W. Kuo, S.-B. Lai, H.-W. Liu, M.-W. OuYang, P.-I. Wu, and S.-S. Yu (TASEH Collaboration), First re- sults from the ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.