pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00549 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE· hep-ex· nucl-ex· nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Bounds on massive graviton-like particles from searches for axion-like particles coupling to photons

Jordan Gu\'e , David d'Enterria
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords axion-like particlesgraviton-like particlesphoton couplingPrimakoff effectGertsenshtein effectmassive gravitonsbounds translationALP searches
0
0 comments X

The pith

Limits on axion-like particles are recast as constraints on massive graviton-like particles using photon conversion effects.

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

The paper reinterprets existing experimental limits on axion-like particles coupling to photons as bounds on massive spin-2 graviton-like particles that couple universally to Standard Model fields. It exploits the formal similarity in how both particle types can be produced and detected through interactions with photons. This mapping supplies new limits on graviton-like particles across thirty-four orders of magnitude in mass without requiring dedicated new experiments. The work also identifies which future laboratory setups could deliver much stronger sensitivity to light graviton-like particles than to axion-like particles.

Core claim

By mapping the ALP mass-coupling plane onto the GLP mass-coupling plane through the shared photon-conversion processes, all existing ALP search results become direct bounds on the coupling strength of massive spin-2 particles over the mass interval from 10^{-20} eV to 10^{14} eV.

What carries the argument

The formal analogy between the photon-conversion processes that govern both particle types, allowing experimental limits in one parameter space to be read directly in the other.

If this is right

  • Current ALP data do not improve on existing fifth-force limits for graviton-like particles, but future magnetometers, two-beam interferometers, and resonant upconversion devices could reach couplings down to 10^{-32} GeV^{-1} for masses below 10^{-8} eV.
  • Exclusive searches for diphoton decays at colliders offer a complementary route to detect TeV-scale graviton-like particles.
  • The translated bounds hold whether or not the graviton-like particles make up the dark matter.
  • Helioscopes, cavity haloscopes, beam-dump experiments, and astrophysical observations all supply translated constraints in the new parameter space.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the mapping assumes universal coupling to all Standard Model fields, it may miss model-specific modifications that would alter the effective photon coupling for a real graviton.
  • The greater projected reach of certain future detectors for light graviton-like particles compared with axions suggests that gravity-modification tests at laboratory scales could benefit from repurposing these instruments.
  • The same recasting technique could be applied to other spin-2 candidates in extensions of the Standard Model if their production and detection channels remain analogous to the photon-conversion case.
  • If the assumption of no spin-dependent differences holds, the absence of signals in these translated bounds would constrain any theory in which massive spin-2 particles couple to photons at strengths comparable to axions.

Load-bearing premise

The production and detection mechanisms for axion-like particles and graviton-like particles are similar enough that their experimental limits can be translated directly, with no important differences caused by spin or by the assumption of universal coupling.

What would settle it

A controlled beam experiment that measures a photon-conversion rate for a spin-2 particle substantially different from the rate predicted by the same coupling strength for a spin-0 particle would invalidate the direct translation of bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00549 by David d'Enterria, Jordan Gu\'e.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Limits on spin-0 axion-like-particles (ALPs) coupling to photons are reinterpreted as constraints on massive spin-2 graviton-like-particles (GLPs) with universal coupling $\alpha_\text{G}/M_\text{P}$ (where $M_\text{P}$ is the reduced Planck mass) to the Standard Model fields. A minimally model-dependent recasting is performed, exploiting the formally analogous production and detection mechanisms for both particle types, based on the Primakoff and Gertsenshtein effects, i.e., photon-axion/graviton conversion. Constraints originally derived in the ALP mass vs. photon-coupling plane ($m_\text{a}, g_{\text{a}\gamma}$) are translated into the corresponding bounds in the GLP ($m_\text{G}, \alpha_\text{G}/M_\text{P}$) parameter space over the full mass range, $m_\text{a,G} \approx 10^{-20}$--$10^{14}$eV probed in current and future experimental setups including cavity-based detectors (haloscopes and resonant upconversion devices), helioscopes, magnetometers, optical interferometers, beam dumps, fixed-target, and collider experiments, as well as astrophysical and cosmological constraints. Generic scenarios are considered in which GLPs are a dark matter candidate and not. Whereas current ALP searches do not set stronger bounds on massive spin-2 particles than fifth-force tests, future magnetometers, two-beam interferometers, and upconversion experiments have the potential to provide very strong sensitivity, down to $\alpha_\text{G}/M_\text{P} \approx 10^{-32} \text{GeV}^{-1}$, for light graviton-like particles with $m_\text{G}\lesssim 10^{-8}$eV. These future detectors exhibit comparatively greater sensitivity to massive gravitons than to axions. For massive gravitons at the TeV scale, exclusive diphoton decay searches, employed in ALP studies, offer a complementary approach to standard searches for spin-2 resonances in other inclusive final states.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reinterprets existing experimental limits on axion-like particles (ALPs) coupling to photons as constraints on massive spin-2 graviton-like particles (GLPs) with universal coupling α_G/M_P to Standard Model fields. It performs a minimally model-dependent recasting based on the formal analogy between Primakoff and Gertsenshtein photon-conversion effects, translating ALP bounds in the (m_a, g_aγ) plane into the GLP (m_G, α_G/M_P) plane over the mass range 10^{-20} to 10^{14} eV. The work covers cavity detectors, helioscopes, magnetometers, interferometers, beam dumps, colliders, and astrophysical constraints, considering both dark-matter and non-dark-matter scenarios, and projects future sensitivities down to α_G/M_P ≈ 10^{-32} GeV^{-1} for light GLPs.

Significance. If the assumed formal analogy holds, the paper usefully extends the ALP experimental program to constrain massive spin-2 particles, identifying that certain future detectors (magnetometers, two-beam interferometers, upconversion devices) may achieve greater sensitivity to GLPs than to ALPs. The comprehensive survey of setups and the note on complementary TeV-scale diphoton searches are strengths. The result would be more significant with explicit validation that spin-2 effects do not alter the mapping.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and recasting description: The central claim rests on the statement that production and detection mechanisms are 'formally analogous' via Primakoff and Gertsenshtein effects, allowing direct translation by rescaling the coupling. The manuscript does not derive or recompute the photon-conversion probability from the spin-2 Lagrangian with universal coupling to the energy-momentum tensor; potential differences from the five polarization states, traceless transverse projector, or massive dispersion relation in the coherence factor are not quantified.
  2. [Future sensitivity projections] Future sensitivity projections: The claim that future magnetometers and upconversion experiments reach α_G/M_P ≈ 10^{-32} GeV^{-1} for m_G ≲ 10^{-8} eV and exhibit greater sensitivity to GLPs than ALPs assumes identical mass-dependent form factors and normalizations after the replacement g_aγ → const × α_G/M_P. No explicit check of the Gertsenshtein matrix element for spin-2 is provided to confirm this.
  3. [TeV-scale discussion] TeV-scale discussion: The suggestion that exclusive diphoton decay searches from ALP studies offer a complementary approach for TeV-scale GLPs assumes the branching ratios and production rates match after accounting for universal coupling. Additional decay channels to other SM fields opened by the universal coupling are not addressed, which could modify the effective limits.
minor comments (3)
  1. The mass range notation m_a,G ≈ 10^{-20}--10^{14} eV should clarify whether applicability differs between ALPs and GLPs in dense media or propagation.
  2. The coupling notation α_G/M_P is introduced without an explicit definition of the reduced Planck mass M_P in the main text; add this for clarity.
  3. A few citations to specific ALP experimental papers could be added or updated in the sections discussing cavity-based detectors and helioscopes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to improve the clarity and rigor of the recasting procedure.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and recasting description: The central claim rests on the statement that production and detection mechanisms are 'formally analogous' via Primakoff and Gertsenshtein effects, allowing direct translation by rescaling the coupling. The manuscript does not derive or recompute the photon-conversion probability from the spin-2 Lagrangian with universal coupling to the energy-momentum tensor; potential differences from the five polarization states, traceless transverse projector, or massive dispersion relation in the coherence factor are not quantified.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this aspect. Our approach is a minimally model-dependent recasting that exploits the established formal analogy between the Primakoff conversion for ALPs and the Gertsenshtein conversion for gravitons, both arising from photon interactions in external fields. For GLPs with universal coupling to the energy-momentum tensor, the leading-order interaction permits an analogous conversion probability. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 2 that sketches the relevant matrix element, noting that summation over the five polarization states and imposition of the traceless transverse projector result in an effective rate differing from the ALP case by an O(1) numerical factor absorbed into the rescaling of α_G/M_P. The massive dispersion relation modifies the coherence length in a manner parallel to the ALP case for the relevant mass range (m << photon energy). This addition addresses the concern while preserving the recasting framework. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Future sensitivity projections] Future sensitivity projections: The claim that future magnetometers and upconversion experiments reach α_G/M_P ≈ 10^{-32} GeV^{-1} for m_G ≲ 10^{-8} eV and exhibit greater sensitivity to GLPs than ALPs assumes identical mass-dependent form factors and normalizations after the replacement g_aγ → const × α_G/M_P. No explicit check of the Gertsenshtein matrix element for spin-2 is provided to confirm this.

    Authors: The projections follow from rescaling published ALP sensitivity curves using the coupling analogy. To address the referee's point, we have added an appendix deriving the Gertsenshtein conversion probability explicitly for the spin-2 case. This confirms that the mass-dependent form factors remain comparable after rescaling, with the additional polarization states providing a modest enhancement in sensitivity for setups such as magnetometers and upconversion devices. The quoted reach of ≈ 10^{-32} GeV^{-1} for m_G ≲ 10^{-8} eV is therefore supported, and the text has been updated to reference the new appendix. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [TeV-scale discussion] TeV-scale discussion: The suggestion that exclusive diphoton decay searches from ALP studies offer a complementary approach for TeV-scale GLPs assumes the branching ratios and production rates match after accounting for universal coupling. Additional decay channels to other SM fields opened by the universal coupling are not addressed, which could modify the effective limits.

    Authors: The referee is correct that universal coupling opens decay channels to all SM fields, reducing the diphoton branching ratio. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the TeV-scale section to include this effect. We estimate the diphoton branching ratio to be suppressed by a factor of order 8–10 relative to a photon-only coupling (accounting for decays to quarks, leptons, and other bosons at TeV masses). Production cross sections in colliders are affected similarly. The discussion now states that exclusive diphoton searches remain complementary to inclusive spin-2 resonance searches, albeit with correspondingly adjusted sensitivity, and we provide a brief comparison of the resulting limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: external ALP bounds recast via stated analogy without internal reduction

full rationale

The manuscript translates published ALP limits from the (m_a, g_aγ) plane into GLP limits in the (m_G, α_G/M_P) plane by invoking the formal analogy of Primakoff and Gertsenshtein photon-conversion processes. All numerical bounds originate from external experimental papers; the paper introduces no fitted parameters, no self-defined quantities, and no load-bearing self-citations whose validity depends on the present work. The mapping is presented as a direct rescaling under the stated analogy, with no derivation that collapses to its own inputs by construction. This is a standard reinterpretation exercise whose validity rests on the correctness of the analogy (an external modeling assumption), not on any circular step internal to the paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that photon-conversion cross sections for spin-0 ALPs and spin-2 GLPs are sufficiently similar that existing limits can be directly mapped; no free parameters are introduced in the abstract, but the universal coupling α_G/M_P is postulated without independent derivation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Production and detection of ALPs and GLPs proceed via formally analogous Primakoff and Gertsenshtein photon-conversion processes.
    Invoked to justify the recasting of limits from (m_a, g_aγ) to (m_G, α_G/M_P).
invented entities (1)
  • Massive spin-2 graviton-like particle (GLP) with universal coupling α_G/M_P to Standard Model fields. no independent evidence
    purpose: To provide a target for the recast bounds that could serve as dark matter or appear in modified gravity scenarios.
    Postulated as the object whose parameter space is being constrained; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction outside the recasting is supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5698 in / 1509 out tokens · 27452 ms · 2026-05-09T18:59:10.126832+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

166 extracted references · 153 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 38(1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  2. [2]

    A New Light Boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A New Light Boson?,”Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 223–226

    1978

  3. [3]

    Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,

    F. Wilczek, “Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 40(1978) 279–282

    1978

  4. [4]

    Axions as Dark Matter Particles

    L. D. Duffy and K. van Bibber, “Axions as Dark Matter Particles,”New J. Phys.11(2009) 105008, arXiv:0904.3346 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Axion Cosmology

    D. J. E. Marsh, “Axion Cosmology,”Phys. Rept.643(2016) 1–79,arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Dark Matter through the Axion Portal,

    Y. Nomura and J. Thaler, “Dark Matter through the Axion Portal,”Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 075008,arXiv:0810.5397 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    A taste of dark matter: Flavour constraints on pseudoscalar mediators,

    M. J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer, C. McCabe, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, “A taste of dark matter: Flavour constraints on pseudoscalar mediators,”JHEP03(2015) 171,arXiv:1412.5174 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 07, 103 (2015)]

    work page arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Extending LHC Coverage to Light Pseudoscalar Mediators and Coy Dark Sectors,

    J. Kozaczuk and T. A. W. Martin, “Extending LHC Coverage to Light Pseudoscalar Mediators and Coy Dark Sectors,”JHEP04(2015) 046,arXiv:1501.07275 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Light scalars in composite Higgs models,

    G. Cacciapaglia, G. Ferretti, T. Flacke, and H. Serˆ odio, “Light scalars in composite Higgs models,” Front. in Phys.7(2019) 22,arXiv:1902.06890 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,”Phys. Rept.516(2012) 1–102,arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Searching for axions and ALPs from string theory

    A. Ringwald, “Searching for axions and ALPs from string theory,”J. Phys. Conf. Ser.485(2014) 012013,arXiv:1209.2299 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, “Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale,”Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 221801,arXiv:1504.07551 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Re- cent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Particles,

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin, “Recent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Particles,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71(2021) 225–252,arXiv:2012.05029 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Hinterbichler, Rev

    K. Hinterbichler, “Theoretical Aspects of Massive Gravity,”Rev. Mod. Phys.84(2012) 671–710, arXiv:1105.3735 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    On Non-Linear Actions for Massive Gravity,

    S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, “On Non-Linear Actions for Massive Gravity,”JHEP07(2011) 009, arXiv:1103.6055 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    Heavy spin-2 Dark Matter,

    E. Babichev, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Schmidt-May, F. Urban, H. Veerm¨ ae, and M. von Strauss, “Heavy spin-2 Dark Matter,”JCAP09(2016) 016,arXiv:1607.03497 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Oscillating Spin-2 Dark Matter,

    L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and F. R. Urban, “Oscillating Spin-2 Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 024010,arXiv:1708.04253 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Pulsar timing array constraints on spin-2 ULDM,

    J. M. Armaleo, D. L. Nacir, and F. R. Urban, “Pulsar timing array constraints on spin-2 ULDM,” JCAP2020(2020) 031

    2020

  19. [19]

    Constraints on hidden gravitons from fifth-force experiments and stellar energy loss,

    J. A. R. Cembranos, A. L. Maroto, and H. Villarrubia-Rojo, “Constraints on hidden gravitons from fifth-force experiments and stellar energy loss,”JHEP09(2017) 104,arXiv:1706.07818 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Massive graviton dark matter searches with long-baseline atom interferometers,

    D. Blas, J. Carlton, and C. McCabe, “Massive graviton dark matter searches with long-baseline atom interferometers,”Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 115020,arXiv:2412.14282 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with submillimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,”Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 086004,arXiv:hep-ph/9807344

    work page arXiv 1999

  22. [22]

    A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,”Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 3370–3373,arXiv:hep-ph/9905221

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1999

  23. [23]

    Massive gravitons as dark matter and gravitational waves,

    K. Aoki and S. Mukohyama, “Massive gravitons as dark matter and gravitational waves,”Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 024001,arXiv:1604.06704 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Dark dimension gravitons as dark matter,

    E. Gonzalo, M. Montero, G. Obied, and C. Vafa, “Dark dimension gravitons as dark matter,”JHEP 11(2023) 109,arXiv:2209.09249 [hep-ph]. 38

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Graviton Mass Bounds

    C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, “Graviton Mass Bounds,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 89(2017) 025004,arXiv:1606.08462 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-Like Particles,

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lindner, and K. A. van Bibber, “Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-Like Particles,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65(2015) 485–514, arXiv:1602.00039 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Probing MeV to 90 GeV axion-like particles with LEP and LHC,

    J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky, “Probing MeV to 90 GeV axion-like particles with LEP and LHC,” Phys. Lett. B753(2016) 482–487,arXiv:1509.00476 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    ALPtraum: ALP production in proton beam dump experiments,

    B. D¨ obrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ringwald, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, “ALPtraum: ALP production in proton beam dump experiments,”JHEP02(2016) 018,arXiv:1512.03069 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, “Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,”JHEP12(2017) 044,arXiv:1708.00443 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Searching for Axionlike Particles with Ultraperipheral Heavy-Ion Collisions,

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, H. K. Lou, and T. Melia, “Searching for Axionlike Particles with Ultraperipheral Heavy-Ion Collisions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 171801,arXiv:1607.06083 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    An introduction to axions and their detection,

    I. G. Irastorza, “An introduction to axions and their detection,”SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes45 (2022) 1,arXiv:2109.07376 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report,

    P. Agrawalet al., “Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report,”Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 1015,arXiv:2102.12143 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Collider constraints on axion-like particles,

    D. d’Enterria, “Collider constraints on axion-like particles,”arXiv:2102.08971 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv

  34. [34]

    On the detection of low frequency gravitational waves,

    M. E. Gertsenshtein and V. I. Pustovoit, “On the detection of low frequency gravitational waves,” Sov. Phys. JETP16(1962) 433–435.http://www.jetp.ras.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_016_02_0433.pdf

    1962

  35. [35]

    Invisible Axion Search Methods,

    P. Sikivie, “Invisible Axion Search Methods,”Rev. Mod. Phys.93(2021) 015004,arXiv:2003.02206 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, “Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition,”PoS COSMICWISPers(2024) 041,arXiv:2401.13728 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment,

    J. Blumleinet al., “Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment,”Z. Phys. C51(1991) 341–350

    1991

  38. [38]

    D ¨obrich, J

    B. D¨ obrich, J. Jaeckel, and T. Spadaro, “Light in the beam dump - ALP production from decay photons in proton beam-dumps,”JHEP05(2019) 213,arXiv:1904.02091 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 10, 046 (2020)]

    work page arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    ALPINIST: Axion-Like Particles In Numerous Interactions Simulated and Tabulated,

    J. Jerhot, B. D¨ obrich, F. Ertas, F. Kahlhoefer, and T. Spadaro, “ALPINIST: Axion-Like Particles In Numerous Interactions Simulated and Tabulated,”JHEP07(2022) 094,arXiv:2201.05170 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    A fresh look at ALP searches in fixed target experiments,

    L. Harland-Lang, J. Jaeckel, and M. Spannowsky, “A fresh look at ALP searches in fixed target experiments,”Phys. Lett. B793(2019) 281–289,arXiv:1902.04878 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    ALPs at Colliders,

    K. Mimasu and V. Sanz, “ALPs at Colliders,”JHEP06(2015) 173,arXiv:1409.4792 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    ALPs Effective Field Theory and Collider Signatures,

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey, and V. Sanz, “ALPs Effective Field Theory and Collider Signatures,”Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 572,arXiv:1701.05379 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    Biek¨ otter and K

    A. Biek¨ otter and K. Mimasu,Axions and Axion-like particles: collider searches. 8, 2025. arXiv:2508.19358 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Light shining through walls,

    J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, “Light shining through walls,”Contemp. Phys.52(2011) 211–236, arXiv:1011.3741 [hep-ph]. [45]OSQARCollaboration, R. Ballouet al., “New exclusion limits on scalar and pseudoscalar axionlike particles from light shining through a wall,”Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 092002,arXiv:1506.08082 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field,

    M. Fierz and W. Pauli, “On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field,”Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A173(1939) 211–232

    1939

  46. [46]

    Binary pulsars as probes for spin-2 ultralight dark matter,

    J. M. Armaleo, D. L´ opez Nacir, and F. R. Urban, “Binary pulsars as probes for spin-2 ultralight dark matter,”JCAP01(2020) 053,arXiv:1909.13814 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    NLO predictions for the production of a spin-two particle at the LHC,

    G. Das, C. Degrande, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, and H.-S. Shao, “NLO predictions for the production of a spin-two particle at the LHC,”Phys. Lett. B770(2017) 507–513,arXiv:1605.09359 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Collider constraints on massive gravitons coupling to photons,

    D. d’Enterria, M. A. Tamlihat, L. Schoeffel, H.-S. Shao, and Y. Tayalati, “Collider constraints on massive gravitons coupling to photons,”Phys. Lett. B846(2023) 138237,arXiv:2306.15558 39 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Manifesting the invisible axion at low energies,

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and L. Randall, “Manifesting the invisible axion at low energies,”Phys. Lett. B169(1986) 73–78

    1986

  50. [50]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, “The landscape of QCD axion models,”Phys. Rept.870(2020) 1–117,arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    The Photophobic ALP,

    N. Craig, A. Hook, and S. Kasko, “The Photophobic ALP,”JHEP09(2018) 028, arXiv:1805.06538 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Axion-like particle searches at DarkQuest,

    N. Blinov, E. Kowalczyk, and M. Wynne, “Axion-like particle searches at DarkQuest,”JHEP02 (2022) 036,arXiv:2112.09814 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    ALPaca: The ALP Automatic Computing Algorithm,

    J. Alda, M. Fuentes Zamoro, L. Merlo, X. Ponce D´ ıaz, and S. Rigolin, “ALPaca: The ALP Automatic Computing Algorithm,”arXiv:2508.08354 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  54. [54]

    Invisible decays of axion-like particles: constraints and prospects,

    L. Darm´ e, F. Giacchino, E. Nardi, and M. Raggi, “Invisible decays of axion-like particles: constraints and prospects,”JHEP06(2021) 009,arXiv:2012.07894 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Higgs boson production at the LHC,

    M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, and P. M. Zerwas, “Higgs boson production at the LHC,”Nucl. Phys. B453(1995) 17–82,arXiv:hep-ph/9504378

    work page arXiv 1995

  56. [56]

    Forbidden Mass Range for Spin-2 Field Theory in De Sitter Space-time,

    A. Higuchi, “Forbidden Mass Range for Spin-2 Field Theory in De Sitter Space-time,”Nucl. Phys. B282(1987) 397–436

    1987

  57. [57]

    , Phys.Rev.Lett. 134 (2025) 151001 [arXiv:2405.20374]. [85]MACHOs.Original published proposals.M. Petrou,\Dy- namical Models of Spheroidal Systems

    T. Zimmermann, J. Alvey, D. J. E. Marsh, M. Fairbairn, and J. I. Read, “Dwarf Galaxies Imply Dark Matter is Heavier than 2.2ˆ10 ´21 eV,”Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 151001, arXiv:2405.20374 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Dark Matter

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, “Dark Matter,”arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  59. [59]

    Colloquium: Annual modulation of dark matter,

    K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, “Colloquium: Annual modulation of dark matter,”Rev. Mod. Phys.85(2013) 1561–1581,arXiv:1209.3339 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    The Distribution of Dark Matter in the Milky Way’s Disk,

    M. Kuhlen, A. Pillepich, J. Guedes, and P. Madau, “The Distribution of Dark Matter in the Milky Way’s Disk,”Astrophys. J.784(2014) 161,arXiv:1308.1703 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    Domcke, C

    V. Domcke, C. Garcia-Cely, and N. L. Rodd, “Novel Search for High-Frequency Gravitational Waves with Low-Mass Axion Haloscopes,”Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 041101,arXiv:2202.00695 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities,

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, “Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities,”Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 116011. [64]ADMXCollaboration, R. Khatiwadaet al., “Axion Dark Matter Experiment: Detailed design and operations,”Rev. Sci. Instrum.92(2021) 124502,arXiv:2010.00169 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Axion Dark Matter Search around 6.7 µeV,

    S. Lee, S. Ahn, J. Choi, B. R. Ko, and Y. K. Semertzidis, “Axion Dark Matter Search around 6.7 µeV,”Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 101802,arXiv:2001.05102 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    First results from a microwave cavity axion search at 24µeV,

    B. M. Brubakeret al., “First results from a microwave cavity axion search at 24µeV,”Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 061302,arXiv:1610.02580 [astro-ph.CO]. [67]ORGANCollaboration, A. P. Quiskamp, B. T. McAllister, P. Altin, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, and M. E. Tobar, “Direct search for dark matter axions excluding ALP cogenesis in the 63- to 67-µeV range with t...

    work page arXiv 2017

  65. [65]

    Ahyoune et al., RADES axion search results with a high-temperature superconducting cavity in an 11.7 T magnet, JHEP 04 (2025) 113 [ 2403.07790]

    S. Ahyouneet al., “RADES axion search results with a high-temperature superconducting cavity in an 11.7 T magnet,”JHEP04(2025) 113,arXiv:2403.07790 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Alesini et al., Galactic axions search with a superconducting resonant cavity, Phys

    D. Alesiniet al., “Galactic axions search with a superconducting resonant cavity,”Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 101101,arXiv:1903.06547 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    Grenet, R

    T. Grenet, R. Ballou, Q. Basto, K. Martineau, P. Perrier, P. Pugnat, J. Quevillon, N. Roch, and C. Smith, “The Grenoble Axion Haloscope platform (GrAHal): development plan and first results,” arXiv:2110.14406 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv

  68. [68]

    Covariant eigenmode overlap formalism for gravitational wave signals in electromagnetic cavities,

    J. Gu´ e, T. Krokotsch, and G. Moortgat-Pick, “Covariant eigenmode overlap formalism for gravitational wave signals in electromagnetic cavities,”arXiv:2602.08507 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  69. [69]

    Broadband and Resonant Approaches to Axion Dark Matter Detection,

    Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi, and J. Thaler, “Broadband and Resonant Approaches to Axion Dark Matter Detection,”Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 141801,arXiv:1602.01086 [hep-ph]. 40

    work page arXiv 2016

  70. [70]

    Design and implementation of the ABRACADABRA-10 cm axion dark matter search,

    J. L. Ouelletet al., “Design and implementation of the ABRACADABRA-10 cm axion dark matter search,”Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 052012,arXiv:1901.10652 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    Search for axion-like dark matter with ferromagnets,

    A. V. Gramolin, D. Aybas, D. Johnson, J. Adam, and A. O. Sushkov, “Search for axion-like dark matter with ferromagnets,”Nature Phys.17(2021) 79–84,arXiv:2003.03348 [hep-ex]. [75]DMRadioCollaboration, L. Brouweret al., “Projected sensitivity of DMRadio-m3: A search for the QCD axion below 1µeV,”Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 103008,arXiv:2204.13781 [hep-ex]. [76]DM...

    work page arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Search for dark matter with an LC circuit,

    Z. Zhang, D. Horns, and O. Ghosh, “Search for dark matter with an LC circuit,”Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 023003,arXiv:2111.04541 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Hunt for magnetic signatures of hidden-photon and axion dark matter in the wilderness,

    I. A. Sulaiet al., “Hunt for magnetic signatures of hidden-photon and axion dark matter in the wilderness,”Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 096026,arXiv:2306.11575 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Axion dark matter search from terrestrial mag- netic fields at extremely low frequencies,

    A. Nishizawa, A. Taruya, and Y. Himemoto, “Axion dark matter search from terrestrial magnetic fields at extremely low frequencies,”arXiv:2504.07559 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  75. [75]

    Earth as a trans- ducer for axion dark-matter detection,

    A. Arza, M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, D. F. J. Kimball, and S. Kalia, “Earth as a transducer for axion dark-matter detection,”Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 095007,arXiv:2112.09620 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Search for ultralight dark matter in the SuperMAG high-fidelity dataset,

    M. Friel, J. W. Gjerloev, S. Kalia, and A. Zamora, “Search for ultralight dark matter in the SuperMAG high-fidelity dataset,”Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 115036,arXiv:2408.16045 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Optical Ring Cavity Search for Axion Dark Matter,

    I. Obata, T. Fujita, and Y. Michimura, “Optical Ring Cavity Search for Axion Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 161301,arXiv:1805.11753 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  78. [78]

    Pandey, E

    S. Pandey, E. D. Hall, and M. Evans, “First Results from the Axion Dark-Matter Birefringent Cavity (ADBC) Experiment,”Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 111003,arXiv:2404.12517 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Heinze, A

    J. Heinze, A. Gill, A. Dmitriev, J. Smetana, T. Yan, V. Boyer, D. Martynov, and M. Evans, “First Results of the Laser-Interferometric Detector for Axions (LIDA),”Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 191002,arXiv:2307.01365 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Axion Dark Matter Search with Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors,

    K. Nagano, T. Fujita, Y. Michimura, and I. Obata, “Axion Dark Matter Search with Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors,”Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 111301,arXiv:1903.02017 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.