Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Dark matter pair absorption

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Two dark matter particles absorbed together by an atomic transition can deposit the full rest energy of the pair, and this paper shows the process could probe couplings far smaller than scattering can reach.

desk verdict The pair-absorption formalism is new and the rate calculations are careful, but the spin-flip projections are not physically attainable as stated because CMB photons drive the same transition orders of magnitude faster than the predicted signal. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14287 v1 pith:AYN2C6KS submitted 2025-07-18 hep-ph

Martin Bauer , Javier Perez-Soler , Jack D. Shergold This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords darkmatterpairabsorptionatomictransitionsspin-fliphydrogenhyperfinesplittingprincipalquantumnumberbosoniccosmicneutrinobackgroundelectroweak-scalecouplings
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 proposes a new detection channel for light dark matter: two dark matter quanta are absorbed together by an atomic transition, so the full rest energy $2m_\chi$ is deposited instead of the tiny recoil of a single scattering event. Because the pair-absorption rate scales as $n_\chi^2 \propto \rho^2/m_\chi^2$, it grows sharply for light bosonic dark matter and can outrun scattering by a factor as large as $10^{20}$ near the hydrogen hyperfine splitting. The authors compute rates for spin-flip, fine structure, and principal quantum number transitions in hydrogen, hydrogenic ions, and all stable multi-electron atoms, and project that $10^3$ moles of target operated background-free for one year would probe axial-vector and scalar couplings at the electroweak scale for dark matter masses from $\mu$eV to a few eV. The same pair-absorption logic applied to the relic neutrino background would bound its overdensity by $\eta_\nu \lesssim 1.12\times 10^9$ for $m_\nu \lesssim 1$ meV, roughly a hundred times stronger than the current laboratory constraint. Light fermionic dark matter is mostly out of reach because the exclusion principle forces very small number densities at low mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair-absorption rate $\Gamma_p = (\xi^2/128\pi^5)(\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}^2/m_{\mathrm{DM}}^3\beta_c^2)\,\mathcal{P}[|M_{fi}|^2]$, obtained from time-dependent perturbation theory with a two-body phase space weighted by the square of the dark matter distribution function. The quadratic density factor $\rho^2/m^3$ is what makes the mechanism explode for light bosons and die for heavy or fermionic dark matter. The squared amplitude is factored into an atomic tensor times field expectation values, and transition-specific overlap integrals set the overall rate: nearly unity for the hydrogen spin-flip case, but suppressed by roughly $(\alpha Z)^2$ for principal quantum number transitions. The same machinery, with the dark matter distribution replaced by the relic neutrino thermal distribution, produces the cosmic neutrino background pair-absorption rate and the overdensity constraint.

What would settle it

Run a one-year, magnetically scanned spin-flip search with $10^3$ moles of ground-state hydrogen and no background events. If no excess appears at the masses where the pair-absorption rate at $G_{S,A}=G_F$ would predict three events, the projected reach to weak-scale couplings in the $\mu$eV-meV window is ruled out; a genuine signal would be a line whose position tracks twice the assumed dark matter mass and whose rate falls as $m^{-3}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that bound-bound atomic transitions can absorb two dark matter particles at once when the dark matter couples to electrons through operators quadratic in the dark matter field, and this process does not make the dark matter unstable. For the hydrogen $1s^-_{1/2}\to 1s^+_{1/2}$ spin-flip transition, the pair-absorption rate for a complex scalar with axial-vector coupling $G_{S,A}$ is $\Gamma^S_p = (8.61\times 10^3/\mathrm{mol\,y})(G_{S,A}/G_F)^2(10\,\mu\mathrm{eV}/m_S)^3$, whereas the scattering rate at a comparable transition energy is $\Gamma^S_s \simeq (2.45\times 10^{-14}/\mathrm{mol\,y})(G_{S,A}/G_F)^2(m_S/10\,\mathrm{eV})$, giving pair absorption a ratio over scattering as large as $10^{20}$ near the hyperfine splitting. On this basis the authors project that spin-flip searches could reach $G_{S,A}\sim G_F$ for scalar masses from roughly $10\,\mu$eV to $1$ meV, fine structure transitions could probe meV-scale masses, and principal quantum number transitions in alkali metals could reach $G_{S,S}\sim G_F$ near $1$-$2$ eV under the stated exposure assumptions. For relic neutrinos, the same spin-flip transition would constrain the overdensity parameter to $\eta_\nu \lesssim 1.12\times 10^9$ for $m_\nu \lesssim 1$ meV, roughly two orders of magnitude stronger than the existing laboratory bound.

Load-bearing premise

The projected coupling limits in Section V assume that $10^3$ moles of target atoms can be run essentially background-free for one year and that three signal events are enough; if a real experiment cannot reach that exposure, the claimed electroweak-scale reach and the $\eta_\nu \sim 10^9$ neutrino bound weaken as the inverse square root of the exposure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A magnetically scanned hydrogen spin-flip search could probe $G_{S,A}\sim G_F$ for scalar dark matter from about $10\,\mu$eV to $1$ meV, a regime where no other method reaches weak-scale couplings.
  • Fine structure transitions in light multi-electron atoms such as B, C, Si, and Al offer narrow meV mass windows with per-mole rates that exceed those of spin-flip searches at the same mass, because no observing time is lost to scanning.
  • Principal quantum number transitions are the only channel sensitive to the scalar coupling $G_{S,S}$, and alkali-metal targets could reach $G_{S,S}\sim G_F$ for dark matter masses around $1$-$2$ eV.
  • Relic neutrino pair absorption could bound the cosmic neutrino background overdensity to $\eta_\nu\lesssim10^9$ for $m_\nu\lesssim1$ meV, about a hundred times stronger than current laboratory constraints, even without detecting the background.
  • The method is effectively blind to fermionic dark matter below the eV scale because the exclusion principle caps the number density, so pair absorption is primarily a probe of bosonic dark matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper assumes the dark matter particle and antiparticle share one momentum distribution; if the dark matter sector is asymmetric, the pair-absorption rate should scale as the product of the two abundances, so the same apparatus could bound the antiparticle fraction in a way that scattering cannot.
  • Because the projected reach scales as $(N_T t_{\mathrm{exp}})^{-1/2}$, the headline electroweak-scale projections are hostage to reaching mole-scale targets; a target two orders of magnitude smaller would weaken the coupling reach by a factor of ten, so scalable target design and background rejection are the practical bottlenecks.
  • The sharp $m^{-3}$ mass dependence of the pair-absorption rate is a diagnostic: a magnetic-field scan that sees a line whose rate falls as $m^{-3}$ would distinguish pair absorption from single-particle absorption or a smooth background.
  • The same quadratic-density formalism should transfer to nuclear transitions and gapped condensed-matter systems, where different energy gaps would open different dark matter mass windows; the paper notes this extension but does not quantify it.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript introduces a formalism for atomic transitions induced by the pair absorption of dark matter, in which two DM particles are absorbed and deposit energy equal to twice the DM mass. The authors compute transition rates for spin-flip, fine-structure, and principal-quantum-number transitions in hydrogen and multi-electron atoms using Fermi's golden rule and the CINCO code, and compare pair absorption with ordinary DM scattering. They find that pair absorption is enhanced relative to scattering at low DM masses, and they present projected sensitivities for scalar and fermionic DM couplings. Under an assumed exposure of 10^3 moles of target atoms and one year of observation, they claim that spin-flip transitions in hydrogen can constrain an axial-vector coupling at the electroweak scale for dm masses around 10-100 micro-eV, that principal quantum number transitions in alkali metals can constrain scalar couplings at the electroweak scale near 1-2 eV, and that the cosmic neutrino background overdensity can be bounded to eta_nu ~ 10^9 for m_nu below about 1 meV.

Significance. The central theoretical contribution is novel and, if the underlying rates are correct, it identifies a qualitatively new detection channel: pair absorption of light bosonic dark matter, with energy deposition set by 2 m_dm rather than by the small recoil momentum. The derivation is largely self-contained and internally consistent. The use of CINCO for atomic overlap integrals is a strength, and the careful treatment of the Tremaine-Gunn bound for fermions is welcome. The phase-space fits in Table I have small quoted errors (PMV values below 1 percent), and the exact ultrarelativistic limit in Eq. (57) for the neutrino phase-space integral is a useful analytic result. However, the headline 'constrain' statements rest on an experimental exposure and background assumption that are not demonstrated. The rates themselves may be correct, but the projected sensitivities and the claims of constraints in the abstract and conclusion are not robust without a concrete target design and a background estimate. The paper is therefore valuable as a rate calculation and sensitivity projection, but its main phenomenological conclusions require substantial qualification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eqs. (49)-(50), (58), and Figures 4-5] The projected constraints, including the abstract's claim of constraining electroweak-scale couplings and the eta_nu ~ 10^9 bound, all use the criterion N_T Gamma_p t_eff > 3 with N_T = 10^3 mol, t_exp = 1 year, and the explicit assumption of a background-free experiment. This assumption is not justified for the spin-flip transition. The 1s^-_{1/2} -> 1s^+_{1/2} transition is magnetic-dipole allowed; its spontaneous rate is A ~ 2.9e-15 s^-1 at the 21 cm energy, and in a 2.7 K blackbody photon field the induced absorption rate at micro-eV energies is of order 10^-13 to 10^-12 s^-1 per atom. By contrast, Eq. (26) gives a DM pair-absorption rate of about 4.5e-28 s^-1 per atom at G_S,A = G_F and m_S = 10 micro-eV. Thus the photon background exceeds the signal by roughly fifteen orders of magnitude unless the target is shielded and cooled to milli-Kelvin temperatures, a condition not stated or modeled in the paper. The background-free premise of Eq. (49) is therefore load-bearing and unsupported, and the same issue affects the neutrino projection in Eq. (58). The authors need to quantify the thermal photon background at the transition frequency and show that it can be reduced below the 3-event threshold, or else replace the 'constrain' language with an explicit sensitivity projection that accounts for backgrounds.
  2. [Section V] All headline numbers scale as (N_T t_exp)^(-1/2), and the quoted values follow from the specific exposure N_T = 10^3 mol and t_exp = 1 year. No demonstrated atomic-hydrogen target provides 10^3 moles of atoms in a magnetically scanned spin-flip configuration; existing trapped-hydrogen and hydrogen-maser systems operate at roughly 10^13-10^14 atoms, many orders of magnitude below 10^3 mol. Section IV notes that collective enhancement, if it were available, would require a Dicke-state preparation in an ensemble far larger than 10^12 atoms, but no such prepared target exists. As a result, the statements in the abstract and Section VII that spin-flip transitions 'can constrain' G_S,A ~ G_F, and that the cosmic neutrino background can be constrained at eta_nu ~ 10^9, are projections based on an undemonstrated experimental exposure. The calculations of the per-atom rates are not affected, but the reach claims must be reframed as functions of the target size and runtime, and the paper should state clearly which values of N_T and t_exp correspond to any existing or proposed experiment.
  3. [Section III A] The text repeatedly describes the spin-flip transition as 'highly forbidden for photons' and claims that photon backgrounds are 'naturally low' (end of Section II), but the 1s^-_{1/2} -> 1s^+_{1/2} transition is magnetic-dipole allowed and has a spontaneous emission rate of about 2.9e-15 s^-1 at zero magnetic field, as the paper itself notes when quoting a ~10^7 year lifetime. This is not a statement that the transition is forbidden; it is a statement about the smallness of the M1 matrix element. The distinction matters because the CMB drives this M1 transition at a rate far exceeding the proposed DM signal at the masses of interest, as detailed in the first major comment. The manuscript should correct the 'forbidden for photons' language and provide the actual photon-absorption rate for the transition.
  4. [Section V] The paper presents Eqs. (49), (50), and (58) as ways to 'set constraints', but these relations are simply inversions of the condition N_T Gamma t > 3 events in the absence of background. They are not constraints in the usual experimental sense unless the background, efficiency, and target-systematics are specified. I recommend that the manuscript clearly separate the rate calculation (which is a theoretical result) from the sensitivity projection (which depends on unvalidated experimental assumptions), and that the abstract and conclusions use 'projected sensitivity' or 'would be sensitive' rather than 'constrain'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'due its necessarily tiny density' should read 'due to its necessarily tiny density'.
  2. [Equation (31)] The formula for the fine-structure splitting contains an unspecified difference (j_f - j_i); for the np_1/2 -> np_3/2 transition this is unity, and the notation should be made explicit.
  3. [Table I] The column header 'Max RMSE (PMV)' is ambiguous: the maximum value, the RMSE, and the PMV are three separate quantities, and the reader must parse the table to disentangle them. Separate the columns or clarify the header.
  4. [Figure 4] The vertical lines for fine-structure and principal-quantum-number transitions are described in the caption but the figure itself appears to lack labels identifying individual elements; add visible labels or a clear legend.
  5. [Section II] The sentence 'the absorption rate is proportional to the square the DM number density' is missing 'of' after 'square'.
  6. [Appendix A] In the sentence defining the widths, 'If, at the domain boundary, the function does not reach half of its maximum value, we use the boundary point' is missing a final period; also, the sentence is incomplete as written.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: rates follow from Fermi's golden rule and the given Hamiltonians; self-citations are to a parameter-free code and a contextual review, not to fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The pair-absorption rate in Eq. (11) follows from Fermi's golden rule (5) with the phase-space element (7)-(12), and the scalar and fermionic amplitudes (23), (28), (33)-(34), (41)-(42) are evaluated from the Hamiltonians (3)-(4) using hydrogenic overlap integrals (22) computed by CINCO [1]. The CINCO citation is to the authors' own code, but it is a parameter-free numerical evaluation of standard hydrogenic wavefunctions and does not contain the pair-absorption result as an input, so it counts as independent support rather than circularity. The axial-vector and scalar rates in Eqs. (26), (35), (43) are converted into projected sensitivities via Eqs. (48)-(50) and (58) with an explicit assumed exposure of N_T = 10^3 mol, t_exp = 1 y, and 3 signal events; that exposure is an experimental assumption, not a quantity fitted to or defined by the claimed constraints. The statement that pair absorption dominates over scattering by up to 10^20 near the hyperfine splitting is a comparison of the independently computed rates (26) and (27), not a redefinition. The neutrino overdensity bound in Eq. (58) inverts the computed rate (53), with no target result fed back as input. Concerns about the physical attainability of the assumed exposure, including CMB-driven spin-flip backgrounds and the absence of a demonstrated 10^3 mol hydrogen target, are experimental feasibility and correctness issues outside the scope of circularity. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or degrees of freedom are introduced. The DM operators (3)-(4) are standard effective interactions from the literature, and the CnuB neutrinos are Standard Model. The paper's inputs are halo parameters, atomic effective-charge estimates, and the assumed experimental exposure.

free parameters (5)
  • Local dark matter density rho_DM = 0.39 GeV cm^-3
    Adopted from [21]; enters all pair absorption rates quadratically (Eq. 11), so every projected constraint scales as rho_DM^2.
  • DM circular velocity beta_c = 7.8 x 10^-4
    Input to the Maxwellian distribution (8); the phase space integrals and the transition widths (Table I) are computed with this value and would shift under an alternative halo model.
  • Maxwellian normalization xi = 44.8
    Derived from the assumed escape-velocity cutoff at 5 beta_c / 2 (Eq. 8); not fitted to the target results but sets the overall scale of every rate.
  • Effective charges Zeff and overlaps Iff = Tabulated per element (Tables III-IV; uncertainties up to ~50%)
    Hydrogenic estimates for multi-electron principal quantum number rates (Fig. 3); rates scale as Iff^2, so quoted Zeff uncertainties alone shift rates by factors of order 2-4.
  • Assumed experimental exposure = 10^3 moles, 1 year, 3 events
    Used for all projected constraints (Eqs. 49-50, 58); no existing experiment meets this configuration.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fermi's golden rule and the CINCO operator decomposition (Eq. 6) correctly give atomic transition amplitudes
    The rate machinery of Section III; the amplitudes rely on hydrogenic Dirac wavefunctions.
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonians (3)-(4) cover the relevant dimension-6 DM-electron interactions
    The projected constraints apply only to these operator structures; other structures (pseudoscalar, vector) are stated to be much harder to constrain.
  • domain assumption DM particles and antiparticles share the same Maxwellian distribution (8)
    Stated after Eq. (7); an asymmetric or non-Maxwellian local halo changes the pair phase space and all rates.
  • domain assumption Relic neutrinos follow an isotropic massless Fermi-Dirac distribution at T_nu,0 = 0.168 meV with left-handed neutrinos only (Eq. 52)
    Underlies the CnuB rate (53) and the overdensity interpretation (58); clustering or a non-thermal spectrum would change P_nu.
  • domain assumption The Tremaine-Gunn bound is enforced by the replacement rho_DM to epsilon rho_DM (Eq. 10)
    Drives the fermionic DM conclusions; the bound value depends on the assumed Maxwellian halo shape.
  • domain assumption Multi-electron transitions are approximated by hydrogenic wavefunctions with effective charge Zeff
    Used for Figures 2-3 and Tables III-IV; the approximation is uncontrolled for states with significant configuration mixing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark matter pair absorption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYN2C6KS

@misc{pith2026250714287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark matter pair absorption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYN2C6KS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14287}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of the sensitivity of atomic transitions to light dark matter pair absorption. Unlike scattering, where only a fraction of the dark matter energy is deposited, pair absorption processes absorb the full mass, and are therefore capable of constraining far lighter dark matter. Spin-flip and fine structure transitions are able to constrain electroweak scale axial-vector couplings for bosonic dark matter with $\mu\mathrm{eV}$ to eV masses, whilst principal quantum number transitions are able to set similar constraints on bosonic dark matter with scalar couplings. Unfortunately, pair absorption is largely insensitive to light fermionic DM due its necessarily tiny density at low masses. We also demonstrate the sensitivity of pair absorption to the cosmic neutrino background, and find that spin-flip transitions can set constraints on the overdensity parameter of $\eta_\nu \lesssim 10^9$ for neutrino masses $m_\nu \lesssim 1\,\mathrm{meV}$, around a hundred times stronger than existing constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14287 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Left panel: scalar-induced, and right panel: fermion-induced 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Scalar-induced, fine structure transition rates from the ground state in all stable, multi-electron elements, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Scalar-induced, principal quantum number transition rates from the ground state in all stable, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Sensitivity to dark matter pair absorption via the axial coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Constraints that could be set on the cosmic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Generalised hydrogen interactions with $\texttt{CINCO}$: a window to new physics

    M. Bauer, J. Perez-Soler, and J. D. Shergold, JHEP 10, 176, arXiv:2407.12913 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [2]

    T. W. Donnelly, S. J. Freedman, R. S. Lytel, R. D. Peccei, and M. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D 18, 1607 (1978)

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, and R. Mcgehee, JHEP 02, 134, arXiv:1908.10861 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1908

  4. [4]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 201301 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 125, 029901 (2020)], arXiv:1409.2806 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    J. D. Vergados, F. T. Avignone, S. Cohen, and R. J. Creswick, Axion Detection via Atomic Excitations (2018), arXiv:1801.02072 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    J. D. Vergados, S. Cohen, F. T. Avignone, and R. Creswick, Particles 7, 96 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Braggio et al

    C. Braggio et al. , Sci. Rep. 7, 15168 (2017), arXiv:1707.06103 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Mitridate, T

    A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 09, 123, arXiv:2106.12586 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041001 (2018), arXiv:1709.05354 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Santamaria, C

    L. Santamaria, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, V. D. Sarno, P. Maddaloni, and G. Ruoso, New J. Phys. 17, 113025 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Yang and S

    Q. Yang and S. Dong, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138004 (2023), arXiv:1912.11472 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H.-Y. Chen, A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, M. Bernardi, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D106, 015024 (2022), arXiv:2202.11716 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Yang and H

    Q. Yang and H. Di, Phys. Lett. B 780, 622 (2018), arXiv:1606.01492 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    ´Alvarez-Luna and J

    C. ´Alvarez-Luna and J. A. R. Cembranos, JHEP07, 110, arXiv:1812.08501 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Krnjaic and T

    G. Krnjaic and T. Trickle, Phys. Rev. D 108, 015024 (2023), arXiv:2303.11344 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. L. Graesser, R. A. Gustafson, K. Hildebrandt, V. Mathur, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 109, 095015 (2024), arXiv:2402.00941 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    We will work in units with ℏ = c = kB = 1 throughout

  10. [18]

    Ge, X.-G

    S.-F. Ge, X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, and J. Sheng, JHEP 05, 191, arXiv:2201.11497 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and I. B. Samsonov, Phys. Rev. D 109, 115032 (2024), arXiv:2312.10566 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Note that (7) does not include the erroneous factors of the DM velocity that appear in the absorption phase space element given in [1]

  13. [21]

    Y. Zhou, X. Li, Y. Huang, and H. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 946, 73 (2023), arXiv:2212.10393 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Monari, G., Famaey, B., Carrillo, I., Piffl, T., Stein- metz, M., Wyse, R. F. G., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., and Janßen, K., Astron. Astrophys. 616, L9 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Tremaine and J

    S. Tremaine and J. E. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 407 (1979)

    1979

  16. [24]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.11), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2024, July 15]. National Institute of Standards and Tech- nology, Gaithersburg, MD. (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Lanzini and H

    F. Lanzini and H. O. Di Rocco, High Energy Density Physics 17, 240 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Other vertices may contribute at order q2⟨r⟩2 ≪ 1, with q the modulus of the momentum transfer, and ⟨r⟩ the mean electron radius

    At leading order in the long wavelength approximation. Other vertices may contribute at order q2⟨r⟩2 ≪ 1, with q the modulus of the momentum transfer, and ⟨r⟩ the mean electron radius. 15 Element Transition ∆ Ef i[meV] B 2P ◦ 1/2 → 2P ◦ 3/2 1.895 C 3P0 → 3P1 2.035 O 3P2 → 3P1 ...

  19. [27]

    A. Hees, J. Gu´ ena, M. Abgrall, S. Bize, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061301 (2016), arXiv:1604.08514 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    G. M. Tino, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 024014 (2021), arXiv:2009.01484 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and M. Galanis, Phys. Rev. D 111, 055015 (2025), arXiv:2408.04021 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Zarkeshian, C

    P. Zarkeshian, C. Deshmukh, N. Sinclair, S. K. Goyal, G. H. Aguilar, P. Lefebvre, M. Grimau Puigibert, V. B. Verma, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, S. W. Nam, K. Heshami, D. Oblak, W. Tittel, and C. Simon, Nature Communica- tions 8, 906 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Q. Yang, B. Li, and P. R. Shapiro, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 280409 (2025), arXiv:2503.16773 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hook and J

    A. Hook and J. Huang, JHEP 06, 036, arXiv:1708.08464 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y. V. Stad- nik, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064051 (2018), arXiv:1807.04512 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Beadle, S

    C. Beadle, S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, and P. N. Hoa Vuong, Phys. Rev. D 110, 035019 (2024), arXiv:2307.10362 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bauer and S

    M. Bauer and S. Chakraborti, On the Validity of Bounds on Light Axions for f ≲ 1013 GeV (2024), arXiv:2408.06408 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bauer, S

    M. Bauer, S. Chakraborti, and G. Rostagni, JHEP 05, 023, arXiv:2408.06412 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Banerjee, I

    A. Banerjee, I. M. Bloch, Q. Bonnefoy, S. A. R. Ellis, G. Perez, I. Savoray, K. Springmann, and Y. V. Stadnik, Momentum and Matter Matter for Axion Dark Matter Matters on Earth (2025), arXiv:2502.04455 [hep-ph]

    2025

  30. [38]

    Y. G. del Castillo, B. Hammett, and J. Jaeckel, Enhanced Axion-wind near Earth’s Surface (2025), arXiv:2502.04456 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Banerjee, G

    A. Banerjee, G. Perez, M. Safronova, I. Savoray, and A. Shalit, JHEP 10, 042, arXiv:2211.05174 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Touboul et al

    P. Touboul et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 231101 (2017), arXiv:1712.01176 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Touboul et al., Class

    P. Touboul et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 204009 (2022), arXiv:2209.15488 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bauer and J

    M. Bauer and J. D. Shergold, JCAP 01, 003, arXiv:2207.12413 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 011806 (2022), arXiv:2202.04587 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cranmer, Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolicregression.jl (2023), arXiv:2305.01582 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Cranmer, Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolicregression.jl (2023), arXiv:2305.01582 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Peter Lepage, Journal of Computational Physics 27, 192 (1978)

    G. Peter Lepage, Journal of Computational Physics 27, 192 (1978). 16 Element Term (Electron) ∆ Ef i[eV] Zeff Igg ≃ −If f[10−5] H 2S1/2 (1s1/2 → 2s1/2) 10 .20 1 0 .55785 He 1S0 (1s1/2 → 2s1/2) 20 .62 1 .47(22) 1 .29(40) Li 2S1/2 (2s1/2 → 3s1/2) 3 .373 1 .39(10) 0 .380(58) Be 1S...

    1978

Pith tools

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