pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.14110 · v3 · pith:SSKOMJTRnew · submitted 2025-12-16 · ✦ hep-ex · astro-ph.GA· hep-ph

Any Light Particle Searches with ALPS II: first science results

Daniel C. Brotherton , Zachary R. Bush , Sandy Croatto , Mauricio Diaz-Ortiz Jr. , Jacob Egge , Aldo Ejlli , Henry Fr\"adrich , Joe Gleason
show 32 more authors
Hartmut Grote Ayman Hallal Michael T. Hartman Harold Hollis Katharina-Sophie Isleif Alasdair L. James Friederike Januschek Kanioar Karan Sven Karstensen Todd Kozlowski Axel Lindner Giuseppe Messineo Manuel Meyer Guido M\"uller Ryan Netrval Isabella Oceano Gulden Othman Jan H. P\~old David Reuther Andreas Ringwald Elmeri Rivasto Jos\'e Alejandro Rubiera Gimeno J\"orn Schaffran Uwe Schneekloth Christina Schwemmbauer Richard C.G. Smith Aaron D. Spector David B. Tanner Dieter Trines Li-Wei Wei Benno Willke Rachel Wolf
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 17:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex astro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords axionslight-shining-through-wallALPS IIpseudoscalar bosonsparticle regenerationbeyond Standard Modeldark matter candidatesprecision optics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ALPS II experiment sets a new upper limit of 1.5e-9 GeV^{-1} on the photon coupling of light pseudoscalar particles, a factor of more than 20 tighter than prior bounds.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The ALPS II light-shining-through-a-wall experiment at DESY ran its first science campaign from February to May 2024 searching for axions and other light particles that could convert to and from photons in a magnetic field. No evidence for such particles was observed. For pseudoscalar bosons with masses below about 0.1 meV the run establishes an upper bound on the two-photon coupling strength of 1.5 × 10^{-9} GeV^{-1} at 95 percent . The result improves on all previous experiments of this type by more than a factor of twenty and also supplies limits for scalar, vector and tensor bosons. The campaign further demonstrated stable long-term operation and reliable optical calibration of the apparatus.

Core claim

No evidence for the existence of axions or similar lightweight particles was found. For pseudoscalar bosons like the axion, with masses below about 0.1 meV, a limit for the di-photon coupling strength of 1.5e-9 1/GeV was achieved at a 95% confidence level. This is more than a factor of 20 improvement compared to all previous similar experiments. Limits on photon interactions were also provided for scalar, vector and tensor bosons.

What carries the argument

The light-shining-through-a-wall regeneration technique, in which a laser photon converts to a hypothetical particle inside a strong magnetic field, traverses an opaque barrier, and reconverts to a detectable photon on the far side.

If this is right

  • The new coupling limit narrows the viable parameter space for axion-like particles that could solve the strong CP problem or constitute dark matter.
  • Demonstrated long-term stability and calibration accuracy support the planned optical upgrade that targets another two orders of magnitude in sensitivity.
  • The same data set supplies exclusion bounds for scalar, vector, and tensor bosons interacting with photons.
  • Absence of signal in the current configuration tightens the requirements any future detection claim must satisfy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Continued null results after the upgrade would push theorists toward models with even weaker couplings or entirely different production mechanisms.
  • The calibration procedures developed for ALPS II could be adapted to other precision laser experiments seeking rare conversions.
  • The improved laboratory bound complements astrophysical and cosmological constraints, potentially excluding certain axion windows that remain open when only one type of bound is considered.

Load-bearing premise

The background model, noise characterization, and optical calibration are accurate enough that any potential signal would have been detected above the stated limit.

What would settle it

Detection of a statistically significant excess of regenerated photons above the measured background in a follow-up run with comparable or better sensitivity would falsify the null result and the quoted coupling bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14110 by Aaron D. Spector, Alasdair L. James, Aldo Ejlli, Andreas Ringwald, Axel Lindner, Ayman Hallal, Benno Willke, Christina Schwemmbauer, Daniel C. Brotherton, David B. Tanner, David Reuther, Dieter Trines, Elmeri Rivasto, Friederike Januschek, Giuseppe Messineo, Guido M\"uller, Gulden Othman, Harold Hollis, Hartmut Grote, Henry Fr\"adrich, Isabella Oceano, Jacob Egge, Jan H. P\~old, Joe Gleason, J\"orn Schaffran, Jos\'e Alejandro Rubiera Gimeno, Kanioar Karan, Katharina-Sophie Isleif, Li-Wei Wei, Manuel Meyer, Mauricio Diaz-Ortiz Jr., Michael T. Hartman, Rachel Wolf, Richard C.G. Smith, Ryan Netrval, Sandy Croatto, Sven Karstensen, Todd Kozlowski, Uwe Schneekloth, Zachary R. Bush.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The optical system implemented in the first science run of ALPS II (taken from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: , which displays the spectral power normalized by the open shutter power, Pγ(∆fs)/Popen, for fre￾quency offsets ∆fs from the signals’s heterodyne fre￾quency fs. These normalized spectral power distributions were determined by evaluating the power modulation on PDscience at frequencies in the vicinity of fs. A clear signal above background shows up at ∆fs = 0 Hz. How￾ever, this peak is much broader than exp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Limits on pseudoscalar bosons: “Previous labora [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Limits on hidden photons: “Previous laboratory” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Limits on tensor bosons coupling strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The light-shining-through-a-wall experiment ALPS II at DESY in Hamburg searched for axions and similar lightweight particles in its first science campaign from February to May 2024. No evidence for the existence of such particles was found. For pseudoscalar bosons like the axion, with masses below about 0.1 meV, we achieved a limit for the di-photon coupling strength of 1.5e-9 1/GeV at a 95% confidence level. This is more than a factor of 20 improvement compared to all previous similar experiments. We also provide limits on photon interactions for scalar, vector and tensor bosons. An achievement of this first science campaign is the demonstration of stable operation and robust calibration of the complex experiment. Currently, the optical system of ALPS II is being upgraded aiming for another two orders of magnitude sensitivity increase.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents first science results from the ALPS II light-shining-through-a-wall experiment at DESY, with data taken February–May 2024. No evidence for axions or similar light bosons is reported. For pseudoscalars with m < 0.1 meV a 95 % CL upper limit g_{aγγ} < 1.5 × 10^{-9} GeV^{-1} is quoted, stated to be more than a factor of 20 stronger than all prior LSW experiments. Limits are also given for scalar, vector and tensor bosons. The text stresses successful demonstration of stable long-term operation and robust calibration of the complex apparatus, with an optical upgrade path outlined for a further two orders of magnitude in sensitivity.

Significance. If the quoted limit and its uncertainty budget are substantiated, the result marks a clear technical advance for laboratory axion searches. The factor-of-20 improvement over previous LSW runs (ALPS I, OSQAR, etc.) would place the experiment in a new regime of sensitivity, while the documented stable operation provides the necessary foundation for the planned upgrades. The null outcome itself is unsurprising but the calibration and stability achievements are valuable for the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results section] Results section (limit-setting paragraph): the conversion from observed regenerated-photon upper limit to g_{aγγ} is stated but the numerical inputs (P_laser, B-field integral, L, η_regen, T) and their measured values are not tabulated, nor is the explicit formula used for the conversion shown. This information is required to verify the factor-of-20 improvement claim.
  2. [Calibration and systematics discussion] Calibration and systematics discussion: although 'robust calibration' is asserted, no quantitative propagation of the dominant systematic uncertainties (power-meter traceability, cavity finesse drift, residual-gas birefringence, detector efficiency) into the final 1.5 × 10^{-9} GeV^{-1} bound is provided. If these systematics exceed the statistical component, the improvement factor relative to prior experiments is not yet demonstrated.
  3. [Data-analysis subsection] Data-analysis subsection: the background model, noise characterization, and the precise statistical procedure (likelihood or frequentist construction) used to extract the 95 % CL photon-rate limit are not described with sufficient detail or supporting figures to allow independent assessment of the no-signal conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the live time and magnet configuration used for each data set.
  2. [Introduction] The exact reference for the ALPS-I limit used in the factor-of-20 comparison should be cited in the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript on the first science results from ALPS II. We address each major comment point by point below. Revisions have been made to the manuscript to provide the requested details, formulas, tables, and expanded descriptions, thereby improving verifiability without altering the reported results or conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results section] Results section (limit-setting paragraph): the conversion from observed regenerated-photon upper limit to g_{aγγ} is stated but the numerical inputs (P_laser, B-field integral, L, η_regen, T) and their measured values are not tabulated, nor is the explicit formula used for the conversion shown. This information is required to verify the factor-of-20 improvement claim.

    Authors: We agree that tabulating the measured inputs and stating the explicit conversion formula would strengthen the presentation and allow independent verification of the quoted limit and improvement factor. In the revised manuscript, we have added a table in the Results section listing the measured values of P_laser, the magnetic field integral, regeneration length L, regeneration efficiency η_regen, and transmission T. We also explicitly provide the conversion formula relating the upper limit on the regenerated photon rate to g_{aγγ}. These additions substantiate the factor-of-20 improvement relative to prior LSW experiments such as ALPS I and OSQAR. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Calibration and systematics discussion] Calibration and systematics discussion: although 'robust calibration' is asserted, no quantitative propagation of the dominant systematic uncertainties (power-meter traceability, cavity finesse drift, residual-gas birefringence, detector efficiency) into the final 1.5 × 10^{-9} GeV^{-1} bound is provided. If these systematics exceed the statistical component, the improvement factor relative to prior experiments is not yet demonstrated.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of a quantitative uncertainty budget to confirm that systematics do not undermine the claimed sensitivity improvement. Although the original manuscript described the calibration procedures, we have now expanded the Calibration and systematics discussion to include a dedicated table propagating the dominant uncertainties (power-meter traceability, cavity finesse drift, residual-gas birefringence, and detector efficiency) into the final bound. The updated analysis demonstrates that these systematics remain sub-dominant to the statistical component, thereby validating the 1.5 × 10^{-9} GeV^{-1} limit and the overall improvement factor. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Data-analysis subsection] Data-analysis subsection: the background model, noise characterization, and the precise statistical procedure (likelihood or frequentist construction) used to extract the 95 % CL photon-rate limit are not described with sufficient detail or supporting figures to allow independent assessment of the no-signal conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that greater detail on the background model, noise characterization, and statistical method is needed for independent evaluation of the no-signal result. The revised manuscript expands the Data-analysis subsection to describe the background model (based on sideband and control-region measurements), noise characterization (including power spectral density and stability metrics), and the statistical procedure (a frequentist upper limit derived from a profile likelihood ratio test statistic). A new supporting figure has been added showing the likelihood scan and the construction of the 95% CL photon-rate limit. These changes enable full assessment of the analysis and the null result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in experimental limit-setting

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental results from the ALPS II light-shining-through-a-wall search. The central claim—an upper limit on the axion-photon coupling of 1.5e-9 GeV^{-1} at 95% CL with no detected signal—is obtained by applying the standard theoretical regeneration probability formula to measured quantities (laser power, magnetic field strength and length, optical efficiency, and observed background rate) and performing a statistical analysis. No derivation step reduces by construction to a self-referential definition, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The factor-of-20 improvement is stated relative to prior independent experiments. The analysis chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on standard assumptions of axion-photon conversion in magnetic fields and on the validity of the experimental background model; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Axion-photon mixing occurs in external magnetic fields according to standard quantum field theory
    The light-shining-through-a-wall technique relies on this conversion mechanism to set coupling limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5878 in / 1258 out tokens · 74188 ms · 2026-05-21T17:58:26.374117+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Any Light Particle Searches with ALPS II: Description of the first science campaign

    hep-ex 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    ALPS II's initial science run found no evidence for new bosons and set photon-boson conversion sensitivities at a few 10^{-13}.

  2. Characterization of a Two-Channel Optical and Near-infrared Transition Edge Sensor System for Rare-Event Searches

    physics.ins-det 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A two-channel TES system for 1064 nm achieves 86% efficiency, <7% energy resolution, and <6 mHz background, allowing 5-sigma detection of signals at 2.7e-5 Hz (5e-24 W) in 20 days.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Any Light Particle Searches with ALPS II: first science results

    and references therein). This axion was named “in- visible” as its coupling strengths to Standard Model con- stituents are predicted to be proportional tof −1 a . While fa being much larger than the electroweak scale comes with huge experimental challenges, it makes the axion an ideal cold dark matter candidate [6–12], adding strong cosmological motivatio...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    artist’s

    and references therein. The golden axion band shows an “artist’s” view on the approximate range given by KSVZ- and DFSZ-inspired models [55–58], while the yellow range refers to a more recent model [52]. The green area shows the result of this analysis; the purple line, the ALPS II prospects. Pγ / Popen (without the systematic uncertainties) via Limit(⊥+∥...

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

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

    work page 1977

  5. [5]

    Weinberg, Phys

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

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    Wilczek, Phys

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

    work page 1978

  7. [7]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 52, 695 (1984)]

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 (1983)

    work page 1983

  9. [9]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    work page 1983

  10. [10]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

    work page 1983

  11. [11]

    WISPy Cold Dark Matter

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- 8 dondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP06, 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    The landscape of QCD axion models

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept.870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis, and D. J. E. Marsh, Sci. Adv. 8, abj3618 (2022), arXiv:2105.01406 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Er¨ oncel, R

    C. Er¨ oncel, R. Sato, G. Servant, and P. Sørensen, JCAP 10, 053, arXiv:2206.14259 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D100, 015048 (2019), arXiv:1902.06793 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    J. R. Espinosa, C. Grojean, G. Panico, A. Pomarol, O. Pujol` as, and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 251803 (2015), arXiv:1506.09217 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Seto and Y

    O. Seto and Y. Toda, Phys. Rev. D110, 083501 (2024), arXiv:2405.11869 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    F. J. Qu, K. M. Surrao, B. Bolliet, J. C. Hill, B. D. Sherwin, H. T. Jense, and A. La Posta, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123507 (2025), arXiv:2404.16805 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    String Axiverse

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    The type IIB string axiverse and its low-energy phenomenology

    M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, JHEP10, 146, arXiv:1206.0819 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 405 (2010), arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    Hui,Wave Dark Matter,Ann

    L. Hui, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Dvali, A

    G. Dvali, A. Kobakhidze, and O. Sakhelashvili, Phys. Rev. D111, 113002 (2025), arXiv:2408.07535 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Sikivie, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015004 (2021), arXiv:2003.02206 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Abelnet al.(IAXO), JHEP05, 137, arXiv:2010.12076 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Abelnet al.(IAXO), JHEP05, 137, arXiv:2010.12076 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Eggeet al.(MADMAX), Phys

    J. Eggeet al.(MADMAX), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151004 (2025), arXiv:2408.02368 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    B. A. d. S. Garciaet al.(MADMAX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 041001 (2025), arXiv:2409.11777 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Light shining through walls

    J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, Contemp. Phys.52, 211 (2011), arXiv:1011.3741 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Optimizing Light-Shining-through-a-Wall Experiments for Axion and other WISP Searches

    P. Arias, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D82, 115018 (2010), arXiv:1009.4875 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    Resonant laser power build-up in ALPS -- a "light-shining-through-walls" experiment

    K. Ehretet al.(ALPS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A612, 83 (2009), arXiv:0905.4159 [physics.ins-det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    New ALPS Results on Hidden-Sector Lightweights

    K. Ehretet al., Phys. Lett. B689, 149 (2010), arXiv:1004.1313 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  32. [32]

    New Exclusion Limits for the Search of Scalar and Pseudoscalar Axion-Like Particles from "Light Shining Through a Wall"

    R. Ballouet al.(OSQAR), Phys. Rev. D92, 092002 (2015), arXiv:1506.08082 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Ejlli, D

    A. Ejlli, D. Ejlli, A. M. Cruise, G. Pisano, and H. Grote, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 1032 (2019), arXiv:1908.00232 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Ringwald, J

    A. Ringwald, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and C. Tamarit, JCAP 03, 054, arXiv:2011.04731 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  35. [35]

    de Giorgi, J

    A. de Giorgi, J. Jaeckel, S. Monath, and V. Takhistov, (2025), arXiv:2512.16837 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Garc´ ıa-Cely and A

    C. Garc´ ıa-Cely and A. Ringwald, (2025), arXiv:2511.03707 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988)

    work page 1988

  38. [38]

    Kˇ r´ ıˇ zov´ a,Observational aspects of a massive graviton, Bachelor thesis, Charles U

    R. Kˇ r´ ıˇ zov´ a,Observational aspects of a massive graviton, Bachelor thesis, Charles U. (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Any Light Particle Search II -- Technical Design Report

    R. B¨ ahreet al., JINST8, T09001, arXiv:1302.5647 [physics.ins-det]. [38]HERA - A Proposal for a Large Electron Proton Colliding Beam Facility at DESY(1981)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1981

  40. [40]

    Hoogeveen and T

    F. Hoogeveen and T. Ziegenhagen, Nucl. Phys. B358, 3 (1991)

    work page 1991

  41. [41]

    Fukuda, T

    Y. Fukuda, T. Kohmoto, S. i. Nakajima, and M. Ku- nitomo, Prog. Cryst. Growth Charact. Mater.33, 363 (1996)

    work page 1996

  42. [42]

    Resonantly Enhanced Axion-Photon Regeneration

    P. Sikivie, D. B. Tanner, and K. van Bibber, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 172002 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701198

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  43. [43]

    Ringwald, Phys

    A. Ringwald, Phys. Lett. B569, 51 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0306106

    work page arXiv 2003

  44. [44]

    Horlitz, in10th International Cryogenic Engineering Conference(1984) pp

    G. Horlitz, in10th International Cryogenic Engineering Conference(1984) pp. 377–381

    work page 1984

  45. [45]

    Albrecht, S

    C. Albrecht, S. Barbanotti, H. Hintz, K. Jensch, R. Klos, W. Maschmann, O. Sawlanski, M. Stolper, and D. Trines, EPJ Tech. Instrum.8, 5 (2021), arXiv:2004.13441 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    M. D. Ortizet al., Phys. Dark Univ.35, 100968 (2022), arXiv:2009.14294 [physics.optics]

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Kozlowskiet al., Opt

    T. Kozlowskiet al., Opt. Express33, 11153 (2025), arXiv:2408.13218 [physics.optics]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    A. D. Spectoret al., (2026), arXiv:2601.18684 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Hallal, G

    A. Hallal, G. Messineo, M. D. Ortiz, J. Gleason, H. Hollis, D. B. Tanner, G. Mueller, and A. Spector, Phys. Dark Univ.35, 100914 (2022), arXiv:2010.02334 [physics.ins- det]

    work page arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    J. A. Rubiera Gimeno, F. Januschek, K.-S. Isleif, A. Lind- ner, M. Meyer, G. Othman, C. Schwemmbauer, and R. Shah, PoSEPS-HEP2023, 567 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    R. D. Cousins and V. L. Highland, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment320, 331 (1992)

    work page 1992

  52. [52]

    O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,https:// cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/(2020)

    C. O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,https:// cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/(2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    A. V. Sokolov and A. Ringwald, JHEP06, 123, arXiv:2104.02574 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  54. [54]

    Ejlli, F

    A. Ejlli, F. Della Valle, U. Gastaldi, G. Messineo, R. Pengo, G. Ruoso, and G. Zavattini, Phys. Rept.871, 1 (2020), arXiv:2005.12913 [physics.optics]

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Altenm¨ ulleret al.(CAST), Phys

    K. Altenm¨ ulleret al.(CAST), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 221005 (2024), arXiv:2406.16840 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

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

    work page 1979

  57. [57]

    Shifman, A

    M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, Nuclear Physics B166, 493 (1980)

    work page 1980

  58. [58]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Physics Letters B104, 199 (1981)

    work page 1981

  59. [59]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31, 260 (1980)

    work page 1980

  60. [60]

    D. Blas, J. Carlton, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. D111, 115020 (2025)

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Adelberger, B

    E. Adelberger, B. Heckel, and A. Nelson, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science53, 77–121 (2003)

    work page 2003

  62. [62]

    A. S. Konopliv, S. W. Asmar, W. M. Folkner, ¨Ozg¨ ur Karatekin, D. C. Nunes, S. E. Smrekar, C. F. Yoder, and M. T. Zuber, Icarus211, 401 (2011)

    work page 2011

  63. [63]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys- ical Review Letters116, 10.1103/physrevlett.116.031102 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.031102 2016

  64. [64]

    M. Betz, F. Caspers, M. Gasior, M. Thumm, and S. W. Rieger, Physical Review D88, 10.1103/phys- revd.88.075014 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2013

  65. [65]

    Redondo, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2008(07), 008

    J. Redondo, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2008(07), 008

    work page

  66. [66]

    J. A. R. Cembranos, A. L. Maroto, and H. Villarrubia- Rojo, JHEP09, 104, arXiv:1706.07818 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv