Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 124 references

The Prospect from the Upcoming CMB Experiment LiteBIRD to Discover Axion-like Particles Using Milky Way

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A template-based analysis of Milky Way CMB distortions could constrain photon–axion couplings ten times better than CAST for masses below $10^{-14}$ eV.

desk verdict A genuinely new template-based forecast for Galactic ALP signals with LiteBIRD, but the quoted 95% limits are not calibrated under the null because the zero-signal posteriors are visibly shifted from zero. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11592 v2 pith:2CFDZSCP submitted 2025-05-16 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEhep-ph

Harsh Mehta , Suvodip Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords axion-likeparticlesphoton-ALPconversioncosmicmicrowavebackgroundLiteBIRDMilkyWaymagneticfieldtemplatematchingCMBspectraldistortionsbeyondStandardModel
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 argues that the upcoming CMB satellite LiteBIRD can detect or constrain axion-like particles by watching CMB photons convert into ALPs inside the Milky Way's magnetized gas. Because conversion happens only where the ALP mass matches the local plasma frequency, the distortion has a specific spatial and spectral signature that is strongly non-Gaussian. The authors replace the usual power-spectrum analysis with a fast template search on multi-frequency maps, and on mock LiteBIRD observations they recover both a null signal and a nonzero injected coupling. For the lightest masses considered, the forecast reaches $g_{a\gamma}\lesssim 4.5\times10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$ at 95% confidence, roughly an order of magnitude beyond the current CAST laboratory bound. If realized, that would open a new region of ALP parameter space to a dedicated CMB mission.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photon-ALP resonant conversion probability: at each resonance the conversion probability is $P_i \approx \pi \gamma_{ad,i}/2$, with adiabaticity $\gamma_{ad} = 2g_{a\gamma}^2 B_t^2 \omega(1+z)/|\nabla\omega_p^2|$, where $B_t$ is the transverse magnetic field and $\omega_p$ is the plasma frequency. The method then compresses the 3-D signal into 2-D template maps of the form $\Delta I(\theta^*,\phi^*) = A(\theta)+B(\theta)\cos\theta\sin\phi$, built from latitude-based radial functions $r=f(d,\theta)$ and coordinate-transformed to the solar system frame. These templates are cleaned with an internal linear combination of LiteBIRD's frequency channels, the best template is selected by reduced $\chi^2$, and the coupling is inferred by an MCMC Gaussian likelihood built from the distribution of no-ALP map realizations.

What would settle it

Regenerate the mock maps and run the same pipeline with an independent, data-driven reconstruction of the Galactic magnetic field and electron density, for example from pulsar Faraday-rotation and dispersion measures or from a different published field model. If the 95% upper limit on $g_{a\gamma}$ changes by more than the reported statistical error, the constraint is dominated by model choice rather than by data, and the forecast should not be read as a reliable LiteBIRD reach.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a spatial template, built from latitude-symmetric analytic functions plus an azimuthal asymmetry term, captures the large-scale sky shape of the Galactic photon-ALP conversion signal well enough that a joint temperature-polarization likelihood on multi-frequency LiteBIRD maps can recover the coupling. In mock skies with no ALPs, the 95% upper limits are $g_{a\gamma}<4.5\times10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$ at $m_a=5\times10^{-15}$ eV, $g_{a\gamma}<6.5\times10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$ at $m_a=10^{-14}$ eV, and $g_{a\gamma}<1.9\times10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$ at $m_a=5\times10^{-14}$ eV, all stronger than the CAST limit of $g_{a\gamma}<6.6\times10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$. When a nonzero coupling $g_{a\gamma}=10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$ is injected, the lighter-mass cases constrain it both from above and below, and a patch-by-patch analysis finds the all-sky inference consistent with the injected value while exposing which sky regions suffer the largest systematics. The authors flag in Sec. 4.3 that these inferences are limited by the accuracy of modeled galactic foregrounds, electron density, and magnetic field.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast stands or falls on the accuracy of the adopted large-scale models of the Milky Way's magnetic field and free-electron density, together with the simulated foregrounds standing in for the real sky; biased profiles would shift every quoted bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the template forecast holds, LiteBIRD will probe $g_{a\gamma}\lesssim10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$ for ALP masses around $10^{-15}$ eV, entering parameter space inaccessible to laboratory helioscopes.
  • A nonzero detection would require 3-D modeling of the Milky Way's magnetic field and electron density to fit small-scale structure and firm up the coupling estimate.
  • The template-plus-ILC pipeline can be applied to other non-Gaussian microwave signals for which the power spectrum is not a sufficient statistic, such as diffuse synchrotron and dust emission.
  • The patch-by-patch inference can be used as a diagnostic: outlier sky patches flag poorly modeled foregrounds or template misfit, and comparing patches estimates systematic error alongside the statistical bound.
  • The method is computationally cheap relative to full 3-D radiative-transfer searches, making full-sky Bayesian searches feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the quoted bounds are conditional on the adopted Milky Way magnetic-field and electron-density models; a model error common to all sky patches would survive the patch-by-patch consistency check and bias the coupling silently.
  • Editorial inference: because the templates fit polarized intensity only, the linear-polarization angle (Q/U phase) is unused; a template that also matches the polarization orientation could separate true conversion from foreground leakage and sharpen the limits.
  • Editorial inference: the same pipeline is a generic search tool for non-Gaussian, frequency-correlated distortions; adapting it to dark-photon conversion or other exotic spectral distortions would require only changing the spectral dependence and template shape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a forecast for constraining the photon–ALP coupling gaγ using resonant photon–ALP conversion of CMB photons in the Milky Way, as would be observed by LiteBIRD. The authors simulate ALP polarized-intensity maps for masses 5×10^-14, 10^-14, and 5×10^-15 eV using the Jansson–Farrar Galactic magnetic-field model and the NE2001 electron-density model, inject them into mock LiteBIRD observations with CMB, PySM foregrounds, and instrument noise, clean the maps with ILC, and fit a family of latitude-based spatial templates. A Gaussian likelihood on the sum of squared ILC-cleaned polarized intensities is then used to infer gaγ. The headline result is a projected 95% upper limit gaγ < 6.5×10^-12 GeV^-1 for ma below 10^-14 eV, about an order of magnitude stronger than the CAST bound, with the strongest individual-mass bound gaγ < 4.5×10^-12 GeV^-1 for ma=5×10^-15 eV.

Significance. The paper addresses an interesting and timely question: whether a full-sky CMB polarization mission can probe ALP parameter space beyond current laboratory bounds using a non-Gaussian Galactic signal. The conversion-probability formalism is standard, the mock-observation pipeline is end-to-end, and the recovery of a non-zero injected coupling in Fig. 9 is a useful sanity check; the scaling of the template by (gaγ/g*)^4 follows from the conversion physics rather than being a fitted calibration. The patch-based systematics diagnostic in Sec. 4.3 is also a constructive idea. However, the central forecast is not yet calibrated: the null-hypothesis posteriors in Fig. 8 peak away from zero, the likelihood in Eq. (4.6) omits signal–noise cross terms, and the template fits have reduced chi-squared values between 1.55 and 1.66. Until these effects are corrected or incorporated as systematic terms, the quoted upper limits are conditional on the template and foreground models and should not be read as a validated LiteBIRD sensitivity projection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.6), Fig. 8] The fiducial (gaγ=0) posterior peaks are visibly displaced from zero for all three masses, and the figure caption itself attributes this to ILC residual foregrounds and template mismatch. The headline upper limits are read from these same uncalibrated posteriors, and the statement that the shifts can be accounted for by template matching or better cleaning is not accompanied by any such correction in the quoted intervals. The patch analysis in Sec. 4.3 diagnoses direction-dependent variation but does not add a global systematic term to the full-sky posterior. The reported 95% confidence intervals are therefore not calibrated under the null hypothesis, and the central claim gaγ < 6.5×10^-12 GeV^-1 is not established as stated.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.6)-(4.7)] The likelihood implicitly assumes E[Σ_i S_i^2] = ⟨R⟩ + (gaγ/g*)^4 Σ_i M_i^2. If D_i denotes the ILC-cleaned null map, a data map with an injected signal satisfies S_i ≈ D_i + (gaγ/g*)^2 M_i up to template mismatch, so the statistic has expectation 2(gaγ/g*)^2 Σ_i ⟨D_i M_i⟩ + (gaγ/g*)^4 Σ_i M_i^2 + [Σ_i D_i^2 − ⟨R⟩], not the assumed form. The cross term 2(gaγ/g*)^2 Σ_i ⟨D_i M_i⟩ is never estimated or demonstrated to be negligible. Since the residual foregrounds are non-Gaussian and spatially correlated with the Galactic ALP template, this term provides a concrete mechanism for the posterior shift seen in Fig. 8 and means the likelihood calibration is incomplete.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 4.3] The best-fit reduced chi-squared values 1.55, 1.60, and 1.66 show that the template family does not fully describe the simulated ALP maps, and Sec. 4.3 reports patch-to-patch variation of a factor of 2–3 in the inferred coupling. Neither effect is propagated into the quoted 95% upper limits: the likelihood in Eq. (4.6) has no term for template mismatch, and the patch analysis is used only as a diagnostic. A defensible forecast should either incorporate a template-mismatch or systematic term into the full-sky posterior or explicitly frame the bounds as conditional on the template family and foreground model rather than as projected LiteBIRD constraints.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The final sentence has a punctuation and capitalization error: 'CAST at gaγ < 6.6×10^-11 GeV^-1, This shows' should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 4] 'Interior Linear Combination' should be 'Internal Linear Combination' to match standard usage.
  3. [Sec. 2.3, Eqs. (2.15)-(2.17)] The superscript α in ΔI^α_T, ΔI^α_Q, and ΔI^α_U is not defined; please clarify what α labels.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 9] The non-zero coupling case is described only qualitatively; a numerical posterior interval or a table of the inferred gaγ values for each mass would greatly improve reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] The 95% C.I. notation is used for posterior-based intervals; these should be labeled as credible intervals or the construction should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forecast is a forward-model injection-recovery study whose coupling scaling is a derived physical law, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained as a forward-modeling forecast. The template signal is built from the physical conversion probability in Eqs. (2.4)-(2.6) and (2.15)-(2.18), using external Galactic electron-density and magnetic-field models (Jansson-Farrar and NE2001). The coupling inference in Eq. (4.6) uses the physically derived scaling S ∝ (g/g*)^2 M, so the (g/g*)^4 term in the likelihood is a scaling law, not a relation fitted to the data being constrained. The template coefficients A(θ) and B(θ) are fitted to simulated signal maps, but the subsequent MCMC inference is an injection-recovery calibration of LiteBIRD sensitivity; the quoted 95% limits are not statistically forced by that fit, as shown by the finite widths and mass-dependent shifts of the posteriors. The self-citations (e.g., [55,57,58,59,67]) supply prior derivations of the resonant-conversion formalism and the non-Gaussian character of the signal; they are not used as an unverified premise that defines the target result. The acknowledged null calibration issue in Sec. 4.2 and Fig. 8, where posterior peaks are displaced from g=0 due to ILC residuals and template misfit, is a statistical calibration and modeling systematic, not circularity: the likelihood's null mean ⟨R⟩ is estimated from independent null realizations rather than from the data map being constrained, and the paper explicitly identifies the shift as an effect to be mitigated by better cleaning and template matching. Similarly, the systematic patch-dependence in Sec. 4.3 is presented as an uncertainty analysis of the same mock pipeline, not as a hidden reuse of the answer. Overall, no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, and the central claim is an honest, model-dependent forecast rather than a renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on two prior-model assumptions: the Jansson and Farrar 2012 Galactic magnetic field model and the NE2001 electron density model. The paper's own template fits show reduced chi-squared of 1.55 to 1.66, and its patch-based analysis shows factor 2-3 variations in the inferred coupling, indicating that the template and foreground model choices carry the forecast. The free parameters are the template length scale, the amplitude coefficients, the injected ALP masses, and the flux threshold.

free parameters (4)
  • Template length scale d = 12 to 20.5 kpc (best fit varies with template choice)
    An effective parameter controlling the radial extent of the template; varied in steps of 0.5 kpc to minimize reduced chi-squared (Sec. 4).
  • Template amplitude coefficients A(theta) and B(theta) = Fitted per latitude bin, values not tabulated
    These set the amplitude and left-right asymmetry of the template in Eq. (3.2); they are fitted to the simulated signal using SciPy curve_fit (Sec. 3.2.2).
  • Injected ALP masses = 5e-14, 1e-14, and 5e-15 eV
    Three test masses are chosen for the forecast, and the headline bound is reported for masses below 1e-14 eV, so the result is not a continuous mass scan.
  • Flux threshold = 1e-3 microK
    Pixels below this threshold are discarded in the template fitting (Sec. 4), an ad hoc analysis choice that affects the fit quality and constraints.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The photon-ALP conversion probability follows the Landau-Zener formula (Eq. 2.4) and the multi-resonance sum (Eq. 2.6).
    Taken from prior axion literature (Mukherjee et al. 2018) and used without re-derivation; standard but not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption The Jansson and Farrar (2012) Galactic magnetic field model with the Gaensler scale height is accurate enough at large scales to template the ALP signal.
    Used in Sec. 2.2 to simulate the signal; the paper acknowledges in Sec. 4.3 that the inference is limited by the accuracy of this model.
  • domain assumption The NE2001 electron density model describes the large-scale free electron distribution in the Milky Way.
    Used in Sec. 2.2; the paper notes that turbulence, HII regions, and supernova remnants add uncertainty to the electron density modeling.
  • domain assumption Faraday rotation is negligible at microwave frequencies and can be ignored.
    Stated in Sec. 2.1; if Faraday rotation were significant, it would alter the polarization signal and the template fit.
  • domain assumption The ILC cleaning leaves residual foreground contamination that is captured by the 500-realization covariance.
    Used in Sec. 4; the peak shift in Fig. 8 shows that residuals are not fully captured by the covariance, so this assumption is partially violated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Prospect from the Upcoming CMB Experiment LiteBIRD to Discover Axion-like Particles Using Milky Way." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2CFDZSCP

@misc{pith2026250511592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Prospect from the Upcoming CMB Experiment LiteBIRD to Discover Axion-like Particles Using Milky Way},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2CFDZSCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11592}
}
abstract

The existence of axion-like particles (ALPs) can be probed from their signatures in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) due to the photon-ALP resonant conversion over the mass range of ALPs that matches with the effective mass of photons in the plasma in the astrophysical systems. Such a conversion can also occur in the Milky Way halo and disk and can cause a unique spatial and spectral distortion. The signal is highly non-Gaussian and cannot be measured precisely by the usual power-spectrum approach. We devise a new technique to search for this signal from the upcoming full-sky CMB experiment LiteBIRD using its multi-frequency band using a template-based spatial profile of the ALP distortion signal. This technique captures the large-scale non-Gaussian aspects of the ALP distortion signal in terms of a spatial template and makes it possible to search for any non-zero ALP signal. We show that the inference of the ALP coupling using the template-based technique from LiteBIRD can provide constraints on the coupling constant approximately $ g_{a\gamma} < 6.5 \times 10^{-12} \, \mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for ALP masses below $10^{-14}$ eV at 95\% confidence interval which is an order of magnitude better than the current bounds from CERN Axion Solar Telescope (CAST) at $g_{a\gamma} < 6.6 \times 10^{-11} \, \mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, This shows the capability of future multi-band CMB experiment LiteBIRD in opening the discovery space towards physics beyond the standard model.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dodelson,Modern Cosmology, Academic Press, Amsterdam (2003)

    S. Dodelson,Modern Cosmology, Academic Press, Amsterdam (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    Fixsen, E.S

    D.J. Fixsen, E.S. Cheng, J.M. Gales, J.C. Mather, R.A. Shafer and E.L. Wright,The cosmic microwave background spectrum from the fullcobefiras data set, The Astrophysical Journal473 (1996) 576–587

    1996

  3. [3]

    Fixsen,The temperature of the cosmic microwave background, The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2009) 916–920

    D.J. Fixsen,The temperature of the cosmic microwave background, The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2009) 916–920

    2009

  4. [4]

    Hanson and A

    D. Hanson and A. Lewis,Estimators for cmb statistical anisotropy, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology80 (2009) 063004

    2009

  5. [5]

    Hu and S

    W. Hu and S. Dodelson,Cosmic microwave background anisotropies, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics40 (2002) 171

    2002

  6. [6]

    Hu and N

    W. Hu and N. Sugiyama,Toward understanding cmb anisotropies and their implications, Physical Review D51 (1995) 2599

    1995

  7. [7]

    Hu and M

    W. Hu and M. White,Cmb anisotropies: Total angular momentum method, Physical Review D 56 (1997) 596

    1997

  8. [8]

    W. Hu, U. Seljak, M. White and M. Zaldarriaga,Complete treatment of cmb anisotropies in a frw universe, Physical Review D57 (1998) 3290

    1998

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    Lewis,Cmb anisotropies from primordial inhomogeneous magnetic fields, Physical Review D 70 (2004) 043011

    A. Lewis,Cmb anisotropies from primordial inhomogeneous magnetic fields, Physical Review D 70 (2004) 043011

    2004

  2. [10]

    Sunyaev and Y.B

    R.A. Sunyaev and Y.B. Zeldovich,The Observations of Relic Radiation as a Test of the Nature of X-Ray Radiation from the Clusters of Galaxies, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics4 (1972) 173

    1972

  3. [11]

    Smith, O

    K.M. Smith, O. Zahn and O. Doré,Detection of gravitational lensing in the cosmic microwave background, Physical Review D76 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor,Weak gravitational lensing of the cmb, Physics Reports429 (2006) 1

    2006

  5. [13]

    R. Adam, N. Aghanim, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al.,Planck intermediate results-xlvii. planck constraints on reionization history, Astronomy & Astrophysics 596 (2016) A108

    2016

  6. [14]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb,In the beginning: the first sources of light and the reionization of the universe, Physics reports349 (2001) 125

    2001

  7. [15]

    Erler, K

    J. Erler, K. Basu, J. Chluba and F. Bertoldi,Planck’s view on the spectrum of the sunyaev–zeldovich effect, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society476 (2018) 3360

    2018

  8. [16]

    Chluba and R

    J. Chluba and R. Sunyaev,The evolution of cmb spectral distortions in the early universe, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society419 (2012) 1294. 1Link to the HEALPix website http://healpix.sf.net – 24 –

    2012

  9. [17]

    Tashiro,CMB spectral distortions and energy release in the early universe, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2014 (2014) 06B107

    H. Tashiro,CMB spectral distortions and energy release in the early universe, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2014 (2014) 06B107

    2014

  10. [18]

    Lucca, N

    M. Lucca, N. Schöneberg, D.C. Hooper, J. Lesgourgues and J. Chluba,The synergy between cmb spectral distortions and anisotropies, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (2020) 026

    2020

  11. [19]

    B. Cyr, J. Chluba and P.B.G. Manoj,Revisiting Constraints on Resonant Axion-Photon Conversions from CMB Spectral Distortions, 2411.13701

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chluba,Which spectral distortions doesλcdm actually predict?, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460 (2016) 227

    J. Chluba,Which spectral distortions doesλcdm actually predict?, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460 (2016) 227

    2016

  13. [21]

    Chluba, M

    J. Chluba, M. Abitbol, N. Aghanim, Y. Ali-Haimoud, M. Alvarez, K. Basu et al.,New horizons in cosmology with spectral distortions of the cosmic microwave background, Experimental Astronomy51 (2021) 1515

    2021

  14. [22]

    Shoemaker and K

    I.M. Shoemaker and K. Murase,Probing bsm neutrino physics with flavor and spectral distortions: Prospects for future high-energy neutrino telescopes, Physical Review D93 (2016) 085004

    2016

  15. [23]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The not-so-harmless axion, Physics Letters B120 (1983) 137

    1983

  16. [24]

    Preskill, M.B

    J. Preskill, M.B. Wise and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the invisible axion, Physics Letters B 120 (1983) 127

    1983

  17. [25]

    Ghosh, P

    A. Ghosh, P. Konar and R. Roshan,Top-philic dark matter in a hybrid KSVZ axion framework, JHEP 12 (2022) 167 [2207.00487]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sakharov and M.Y

    A. Sakharov and M.Y. Khlopov,The nonhomogeneity problem for the primordial axion field, Physics of Atomic Nuclei57 (1994) 485

    1994

  19. [27]

    Sakharov, D

    A. Sakharov, D. Sokoloff and M.Y. Khlopov,Large-scale modulation of the distribution of coherent oscillations of a primordial axion field in the universe, Physics of Atomic Nuclei59 (1996)

    1996

  20. [28]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn,Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1791

    1977

  21. [29]

    Wilczek,Problem of StrongP and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek,Problem of StrongP and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.40 (1978) 279

    1978

  22. [30]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?, Phys

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

    1978

  23. [31]

    Peccei,A short review of axions, in19th International Conference on High-Energy Physics, pp

    R.D. Peccei,A short review of axions, in19th International Conference on High-Energy Physics, pp. 385–388, 1979

    1979

  24. [32]

    Peccei, T.T

    R.D. Peccei, T.T. Wu and T. Yanagida,A viable axion model, Physics Letters B172 (1986) 435

    1986

  25. [33]

    Kim,Light Pseudoscalars, Particle Physics and Cosmology, Phys

    J.E. Kim,Light Pseudoscalars, Particle Physics and Cosmology, Phys. Rept.150 (1987) 1

    1987

  26. [34]

    Cheng,The Strong CP Problem Revisited, Phys

    H.-Y. Cheng,The Strong CP Problem Revisited, Phys. Rept.158 (1988) 1

    1988

  27. [35]

    Turner,Windows on the axion, Physics Reports197 (1990) 67

    M.S. Turner,Windows on the axion, Physics Reports197 (1990) 67

    1990

  28. [36]

    Berezhiani and M.Y

    Z. Berezhiani and M.Y. Khlopov,Cosmology of spontaneously broken gauge family symmetry with axion solution of strong cp-problem, Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields49 (1991) 73

    1991

  29. [37]

    Peccei,Qcd, strong cp and axions, arXiv preprint hep-ph/9606475(1996)

    R.D. Peccei,Qcd, strong cp and axions, arXiv preprint hep-ph/9606475(1996)

    1996 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Berezhiani, L

    Z. Berezhiani, L. Gianfagna and M. Giannotti,Strong cp problem and mirror world: the weinberg–wilczek axion revisited, Physics Letters B500 (2001) 286. – 25 –

    2001

  31. [39]

    Peccei,The strong cp problem and axions, inAxions: Theory, Cosmology, and Experimental Searches, pp

    R.D. Peccei,The strong cp problem and axions, inAxions: Theory, Cosmology, and Experimental Searches, pp. 3–17, Springer (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Weinberg and F

    S. Weinberg and F. Wilcek,No axions, but what instead?,

  33. [41]

    Abbott and P

    L.F. Abbott and P. Sikivie,A cosmological bound on the invisible axion, Physics Letters B 120 (1983) 133

    1983

  34. [42]

    Khlopov, A

    M.Y. Khlopov, A. Sakharov and D. Sokoloff,The nonlinear modulation of the density distribution in standard axionic cdm and its cosmological impact, Nuclear Physics B-Proceedings Supplements72 (1999) 105

    1999

  35. [43]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis and D.J. Marsh,Axion dark matter: What is it and why now?, Science advances8 (2022) eabj3618

    2022

  36. [44]

    Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(5, 1996)

    G.G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(5, 1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    Choi, S.H

    K. Choi, S.H. Im and C.S. Shin,Recent progress in the physics of axions and axion-like particles, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science71 (2021) 225–252

    2021

  38. [46]

    Smirnov,The msw effect and matter effects in neutrino oscillations, Physica Scripta 2005 (2005) 57

    A.Y. Smirnov,The msw effect and matter effects in neutrino oscillations, Physica Scripta 2005 (2005) 57

    2005

  39. [47]

    Duan, G.M

    H. Duan, G.M. Fuller and Y.-Z. Qian,Collective neutrino oscillations, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science60 (2010) 569

    2010

  40. [48]

    Wolfenstein,Neutrino oscillations in matter, inSolar neutrinos, pp

    L. Wolfenstein,Neutrino oscillations in matter, inSolar neutrinos, pp. 294–299, CRC Press (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Bilenky, C

    S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus,Phenomenology of neutrino oscillations, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics43 (1999) 1

    1999

  42. [50]

    McDonald, B

    J. McDonald, B. Garbrecht and P. Millington,Axion-photon conversion in 3d media and astrophysical plasmas, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023 (2023) 031

    2023

  43. [51]

    Lecce, A

    F. Lecce, A. Lella, G. Lucente, V. Vijayan, A. Bauswein, M. Giannotti et al.,Probing axion-like particles with multimessenger observations of neutron star mergers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02032 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Conlon and F.V

    J.P. Conlon and F.V. Day,3.55 kev photon lines from axion to photon conversion in the milky way and m31, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014 (2014) 033

    2014

  45. [53]

    Carenza, C

    P. Carenza, C. Evoli, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi and D. Montanino,Turbulent axion-photon conversions in the milky way, Physical Review D104 (2021) 023003

    2021

  46. [54]

    Simet, D

    M. Simet, D. Hooper and P.D. Serpico,Milky way as a kiloparsec-scale axionscope, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology77 (2008) 063001

    2008

  47. [55]

    Mukherjee, R

    S. Mukherjee, R. Khatri and B.D. Wandelt,Polarized anisotropic spectral distortions of the cmb: galactic and extragalactic constraints on photon-axion conversion, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018 (2018) 045–045

    2018

  48. [56]

    Mukherjee, R

    S. Mukherjee, R. Khatri and B.D. Wandelt,Constraints on non-resonant photon-axion conversion from the planck satellite data, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (2019) 031–031

    2019

  49. [57]

    Mukherjee, D.N

    S. Mukherjee, D.N. Spergel, R. Khatri and B.D. Wandelt,A new probe of axion-like particles: Cmb polarization distortions due to cluster magnetic fields, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020 (2020) 032–032

    2020

  50. [58]

    Mehta and S

    H. Mehta and S. Mukherjee,A diffused background from axion-like particles in the microwave sky, JCAP 07 (2024) 084 [2405.08879]. – 26 –

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Mehta and S

    H. Mehta and S. Mukherjee,A power spectrum approach to the search for axion-like particles from resolved galaxy clusters using CMB as a backlight, JCAP 09 (2024) 037 [2405.08878]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mondino, D

    C. Mondino, D. Pîrvu, J. Huang and M.C. Johnson,Axion-induced patchy screening of the cosmic microwave background, 2405.08059

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Day,Cosmic axion background propagation in galaxies, Physics Letters B753 (2016) 600

    F.V. Day,Cosmic axion background propagation in galaxies, Physics Letters B753 (2016) 600

    2016

  54. [62]

    Schlederer and G

    M. Schlederer and G. Sigl,Constraining alp-photon coupling using galaxy clusters, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Jansson and G.R

    R. Jansson and G.R. Farrar,The galactic magnetic field, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 761 (2012) L11

    2012

  56. [64]

    Jansson and G.R

    R. Jansson and G.R. Farrar,A new model of the galactic magnetic field, The Astrophysical Journal 757 (2012) 14

    2012

  57. [65]

    Oppermann, H

    N. Oppermann, H. Junklewitz, G. Robbers, M.R. Bell, T. Enßlin, A. Bonafede et al.,An improved map of the galactic faraday sky, Astronomy & Astrophysics542 (2012) A93

    2012

  58. [66]

    Mehta and S

    H. Mehta and S. Mukherjee,SpectrAx: Spectral Search of Axion-Like Particles Using Multi-Band Observations of Galaxy Clusters from SKA, SO, CMB-S4 and eROSITA, 2409.10632

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Mehta and S

    H. Mehta and S. Mukherjee,Turbulence induced non-gaussian spectral distortion in the microwave sky from photon-axion conversion in galaxy clusters, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05302 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    New cast limit on the axion–photon interaction, Nature Physics13 (2017) 584–590

    2017

  61. [69]

    Paoletti, J

    D. Paoletti, J. Rubino-Martin, M. Shiraishi, D. Molinari, J. Chluba, F. Finelli et al.,Litebird science goals and forecasts: primordial magnetic fields, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024 (2024) 086

    2024

  62. [70]

    Collaboration, E

    L. Collaboration, E. Allys, K. Arnold, J. Aumont, R. Aurlien, S. Azzoni et al.,Probing cosmic inflation with the litebird cosmic microwave background polarization survey, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2023 (2023) 042F01

    2023

  63. [71]

    Matsumura, Y

    T. Matsumura, Y. Akiba, J. Borrill, Y. Chinone, M. Dobbs, H. Fuke et al.,Mission design of litebird, Journal of Low Temperature Physics176 (2014) 733

    2014

  64. [72]

    Takakura, Y

    H. Takakura, Y. Sekimoto, J. Inatani, S. Kashima, M. Sugimoto, R. Nakano et al.,Wide-field polarization angle measurements of a litebird low-frequency telescope scaled antenna, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems9 (2023) 024003

    2023

  65. [73]

    Waelkens, T

    A. Waelkens, T. Jaffe, M. Reinecke, F. Kitaura and T. Enßlin,Simulating polarized galactic synchrotron emission at all frequencies-the hammurabi code, Astronomy & Astrophysics495 (2009) 697

    2009

  66. [74]

    Phillipps, S

    S. Phillipps, S. Kearsey, J. Osborne, C. Haslam and H. Stoffel,Distribution of galactic synchrotron emission. i, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 98, no. 2, May 1981, p. 286-294. 98 (1981) 286

    1981

  67. [75]

    Finkbeiner, M

    D.P. Finkbeiner, M. Davis and D.J. Schlegel,Extrapolation of galactic dust emission at 100 microns to cosmic microwave background radiation frequencies using firas, The Astrophysical Journal 524 (1999) 867

    1999

  68. [76]

    Benoit, P

    A. Benoit, P. Ade, A. Amblard, R. Ansari, É. Aubourg, S. Bargot et al.,First detection of polarization of the submillimetre diffuse galactic dust emission by archeops, Astronomy & Astrophysics 424 (2004) 571

    2004

  69. [77]

    Terry, C

    P. Terry, C. McKay and E. Fernandez,The role of electron density in magnetic turbulence, Physics of Plasmas8 (2001) 2707. – 27 –

    2001

  70. [78]

    Seta and C

    A. Seta and C. Federrath,Magnetic fields in the milky way from pulsar observations: effect of the correlation between thermal electrons and magnetic fields, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502 (2021) 2220

    2021

  71. [79]

    Haverkorn,Magnetic fields in the milky way, inMagnetic fields in diffuse media, pp

    M. Haverkorn,Magnetic fields in the milky way, inMagnetic fields in diffuse media, pp. 483–506, Springer (2014)

    2014

  72. [80]

    A.M. Beck, H. Lesch, K. Dolag, H. Kotarba, A. Geng and F.A. Stasyszyn,Origin of strong magnetic fields in milky way-like galactic haloes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 422 (2012) 2152

    2012

  73. [81]

    Vallée,Cosmic magnetic fields–as observed in the universe, in galactic dynamos, and in the milky way, New Astronomy Reviews48 (2004) 763

    J.P. Vallée,Cosmic magnetic fields–as observed in the universe, in galactic dynamos, and in the milky way, New Astronomy Reviews48 (2004) 763

    2004

  74. [82]

    Beck and R

    R. Beck and R. Wielebinski,Magnetic fields in the milky way and in galaxies, Planets, stars and stellar systems5 (2013) 641

    2013

  75. [83]

    Unger and G.R

    M. Unger and G.R. Farrar,The coherent magnetic field of the milky way, The Astrophysical Journal 970 (2024) 95

    2024

  76. [84]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al., Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics641 (2020) A6

    2020

  77. [85]

    Gaensler, G

    B. Gaensler, G. Madsen, S. Chatterjee and S. Mao,The vertical structure of warm ionised gas in the milky way, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia25 (2008) 184

    2008

  78. [86]

    Cordes,Ne2001: a new model for the galactic electron density and its fluctuations, inMilky Way Surveys: The Structure and Evolution of our Galaxy, vol

    J. Cordes,Ne2001: a new model for the galactic electron density and its fluctuations, inMilky Way Surveys: The Structure and Evolution of our Galaxy, vol. 317, p. 211, 2004

    2004

  79. [87]

    Miller and J.N

    M.J. Miller and J.N. Bregman,The structure of the milky way’s hot gas halo, The Astrophysical Journal770 (2013) 118

    2013

  80. [88]

    Cox,Modeling the local bubble, inInternational Astronomical Union Colloquium, vol

    D.P. Cox,Modeling the local bubble, inInternational Astronomical Union Colloquium, vol. 166, pp. 121–131, Cambridge University Press, 1997

    1997

  81. [89]

    Phillips and A.W

    J. Phillips and A.W. Clegg,Electron density fluctuations in the local interstellar bubble, Nature 360 (1992) 137

    1992

  82. [90]

    Welsh and R.L

    B.Y. Welsh and R.L. Shelton,The trouble with the local bubble, Astrophysics and Space Science 323 (2009) 1

    2009

  83. [91]

    Austermann, K.A

    J.E. Austermann, K.A. Aird, J.A. Beall, D. Becker, A. Bender, B.A. Benson et al.,Sptpol: an instrument for cmb polarization measurements with the south pole telescope, inMillimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, W.S. Holland, e...

    2012

  84. [92]

    Akrami, M

    Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A.J. Banday et al., Planck2018 results: Vii. isotropy and statistics of the cmb, Astronomy &; Astrophysics641 (2020) A7

    2020

  85. [93]

    Ghatak,Optics, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited (2009)

    A. Ghatak,Optics, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited (2009)

    2009

  86. [94]

    Aghanim and O

    N. Aghanim and O. Forni,Searching for the non-gaussian signature of the cmb secondary anisotropies, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9905124(1999)

    1999 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Challinor,Cmb anisotropy science: a review, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 8 (2012) 42

    A. Challinor,Cmb anisotropy science: a review, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union 8 (2012) 42

    2012

  88. [96]

    Liguori, F.K

    M. Liguori, F.K. Hansen, E. Komatsu, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto,Testing primordial non-gaussianity in cmb anisotropies, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 73 (2006) 043505

    2006

  89. [97]

    P.A. Ade, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, P. Aluri, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown et al.,Planck 2015 results-xvi. isotropy and statistics of the cmb, Astronomy & Astrophysics594 (2016) A16. – 28 –

    2016

  90. [98]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T.E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy and D.e.a. Cournapeau, SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Methods17 (2020) 261

    2020

  91. [99]

    Thorne, J

    B. Thorne, J. Dunkley, D. Alonso and S. Næss,The python sky model: software for simulating the galactic microwave sky, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society469 (2017) 2821–2833

    2017

  92. [100]

    Dickinson, R

    C. Dickinson, R. Davies and R. Davis,Towards a free–free template for cmb foregrounds, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society341 (2003) 369

    2003

  93. [101]

    Dickinson,Cmb foregrounds-a brief review, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03606(2016)

    C. Dickinson,Cmb foregrounds-a brief review, arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03606(2016)

    2016 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Ichiki,Cmb foreground: A concise review, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2014 (2014) 06B109

    K. Ichiki,Cmb foreground: A concise review, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2014 (2014) 06B109

    2014

  95. [103]

    Carretti,Galactic foregrounds and cmb polarization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1008.4983 (2010)

    E. Carretti,Galactic foregrounds and cmb polarization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1008.4983 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Tegmark, A

    M. Tegmark, A. de Oliveira-Costa and A.J. Hamilton,High resolution foreground cleaned cmb map from wmap, Physical Review D68 (2003) 123523

    2003

  97. [105]

    internal linear combination

    R. Vio and P. Andreani,"internal linear combination" method for the separation of cmb from galactic foregrounds in the harmonic domain, 0811.4277

    arXiv

  98. [106]

    Eriksen, A.J

    H.K. Eriksen, A.J. Banday, K.M. Gorski and P.B. Lilje,On foreground removal from thewilkinson microwave anisotropy probedata by an internal linear combination method: Limitations and implications, The Astrophysical Journal612

  99. [107]

    Hansen, A.J

    F.K. Hansen, A.J. Banday, H.K. Eriksen, K.M. Gorski and P.B. Lilje,Foreground subtraction of cosmic microwave background maps using wi-fit (wavelet-based high-resolution fitting of internal templates), The Astrophysical Journal648 (2006) 784–796

    2006

  100. [108]

    Trotta,Bayesian methods in cosmology, arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.01467(2017)

    R. Trotta,Bayesian methods in cosmology, arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.01467(2017)

    2017 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics49 (2008) 71

    R. Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemporary Physics49 (2008) 71

    2008

  102. [110]

    Heavens,Bayesian statistics in cosmology, inLectures and workshops at SCMA V, 2011

    A. Heavens,Bayesian statistics in cosmology, inLectures and workshops at SCMA V, 2011

    2011

  103. [111]

    Hobson,Bayesian methods in cosmology, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    M.P. Hobson,Bayesian methods in cosmology, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    2010

  104. [112]

    Foreman-Mackey, D.W

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,<tt>emcee</tt>: The mcmc hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125 (2013) 306–312

    2013

  105. [113]

    P. Ade, J. Aguirre and Z.e.a. Ahmed,The simons observatory: science goals and forecasts, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019 (2019) 056–056

    2019

  106. [114]

    Abazajian, P

    K.N. Abazajian, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed and S.W.A. et al.,Cmb-s4 science book, first edition, 2016

    2016

  107. [115]

    Sehgal, S

    N. Sehgal, S. Aiola, Y. Akrami and K.B. et al.,Cmb-hd: An ultra-deep, high-resolution millimeter-wave survey over half the sky, 1906.10134

    1906 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Robitaille, E.J

    Astropy Collaboration, T.P. Robitaille, E.J. Tollerud, P. Greenfield, M. Droettboom and E.e.a. Bray,Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy, A&A558 (2013) A33 [1307.6212]

    2013 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Price-Whelan, P.L

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, P.L. Lim and N.e.a. Earl,The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package, ApJ935 (2022) 167 [2206.14220]

    2022 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Price-Whelan, B.M

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, B.M. Sipőcz, H.M. Günther, P.L. Lim and S.M.e.a. Crawford,The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package, AJ156 (2018) 123 [1801.02634]. – 29 –

    2018 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Harris, K.J

    C.R. Harris, K.J. Millman, S.J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen and D.C. et al., Array programming with NumPy, Nature 585 (2020) 357

    2020

  112. [120]

    CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, “CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1102.026, Feb., 2011

    2011

  113. [121]

    Meurer, C.P

    A. Meurer, C.P. Smith and M.e.a. Paprocki,Sympy: symbolic computing in python, PeerJ Computer Science3 (2017) e103

    2017

  114. [122]

    Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment, Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

    J.D. Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment, Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

    2007

  115. [123]

    Górski, E

    K.M. Górski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere, ApJ622 (2005) 759 [arXiv:astro-ph/0409513]

    2005 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon et al.,healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in python, Journal of Open Source Software4 (2019) 1298. – 30 –

    2019

Pith tools

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