Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Dark matter decaying to axions would create a gamma-ray glow in cosmic filaments — and the observed background intensity rules out a broad swath of axion parameter space, including masses below 10^-5 eV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:37 UTC pith:4WALQDEF

load-bearing objection A plausible and useful extension of the graviton-photon filament idea to axions, with two normalization bugs that shift all contours; worth refereeing after fixes. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18372 v1 pith:4WALQDEF submitted 2026-07-20 hep-ph

Probing the Cosmic Axion Background via Axion-Photon Conversion in Filaments

Duncan Rocha , Gordan Krnjaic , Matthew J. Baldwin This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords cosmic axion backgroundaxion-photon conversioncosmological filamentsdecaying dark matterisotropic gamma-ray backgroundPrimakoff effectQCD axionindirect detection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper establishes a new indirect probe of decaying dark matter: if dark matter decays to relativistic axions, those axions convert to gamma rays in the magnetic fields of cosmic filaments, adding to the isotropic gamma-ray background. Comparing the predicted flux with observed background levels, the paper excludes axion masses below about 10^-5 eV for a broad range of dark matter masses and lifetimes up to 10^30 seconds, assuming conservative filament field strengths around 1 nG. For stronger filament fields, around 100 nG, the same mechanism reaches into the QCD axion band for TeV-scale dark matter. The result matters because it turns a purely astrophysical background into a sensitive test of particle properties, complementing laboratory searches.

Core claim

The central claim is an exclusion region in the (axion mass, axion-photon coupling) plane for the scenario where dark matter decays primarily to axions. The paper computes the present-day isotropic gamma-ray flux from axion-photon conversion in cosmological filaments and compares it with measurements. For a conservative filament magnetic field of about 1 nG and dark matter mass around 10 GeV, the constraints improve on existing bounds by up to four orders of magnitude; for an optimistic benchmark with a 250 nG field and TeV-scale dark matter, the excluded region includes a portion of the QCD axion band and improves by up to seven orders of magnitude. The exclusion holds for axion masses belo

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the Primakoff conversion of axions into photons in the magnetic fields of cosmic filaments. The paper models filaments with a magnetic field scaling as B0(1+z)^2, a Gaussian distribution of transit lengths with mean 2r0/(1+z), and a volume filling fraction around 0.15, and derives the conversion probability averaged over filament crossings. Convolving this probability with the axion flux from dark matter decays yields an isotropic gamma-ray flux that scales as g_aγγ² B0² f_vol — the reason the constraints are sensitive to these astrophysical parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The entire exclusion region rests on the assumed filament magnetic field strength B0 ≈ 1–100 nG and a constant volume filling fraction around 15%; if real filaments are much weaker or rarer, the predicted gamma-ray flux falls below current sensitivity and the claimed exclusions vanish.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the average magnetic field in cosmic filaments (e.g., via Faraday rotation of background radio sources) that yields B0 < 0.1 nG, or a determination that the filament filling fraction is below a few percent, would reduce the predicted flux below current sensitivity and falsify the central exclusion claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any dark matter model whose χ→aa decay falls in the excluded (m_a, g_aγγ) region cannot be the dominant source of dark matter, since it would overproduce the observed gamma-ray background.
  • The constraints are strongest for ultralight axions (below ~10^-5 eV) and decay lifetimes near the large-scale-structure bound (~10^19 s), where the conversion probability is highest.
  • For filament fields near the optimistic 100 nG end, the method competes with laboratory haloscopes in probing the QCD axion band, at least for TeV-scale dark matter.
  • Because the predicted flux scales linearly with the filament filling fraction and quadratically with field strength, the limits are conservative when filaments are the only magnetic environment considered; including clusters and voids would strengthen them.
  • The calculation generalizes straightforwardly to 1→n decay topologies or non-unity axion branching fractions, so the exclusion applies to a broader class of decaying dark matter models than the benchmark 100% branching case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same filament-conversion machinery could be applied to other relativistic axion populations, such as those produced by topological defects or primordial thermal processes, effectively turning the isotropic gamma-ray background into a general detector for ultralight particles.
  • If future radio surveys pin down the filament magnetic field to a value below ~0.1 nG, the derived exclusions would weaken substantially; if fields near 100 nG are confirmed, the QCD-axion reach would expand to lower dark matter masses.
  • A future detection of a gamma-ray excess with the distinctive energy shape predicted by filament conversion would allow a measurement of both the axion coupling and the dark matter decay lifetime, converting this constraint channel into a discovery tool.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new indirect detection channel: if dark matter decays with 100% branching ratio to axions, the resulting relativistic cosmic axion background (CaB) can convert to GeV-scale gamma rays via the Primakoff effect in the magnetic fields of cosmological filaments. The authors compute the conversion probability averaged over a Gaussian model for filament chord lengths, convolve it with the axion flux from dark matter decays, and compare the resulting isotropic gamma-ray background (IGRB) contribution against Fermi-LAT, EGRET, COMPTEL, and INTEGRAL data. They derive exclusion regions in the (m_a, g_{a\gamma\gamma}) plane for benchmark dark matter masses and lifetimes, claiming up to seven orders-of-magnitude improvement over existing bounds in an optimistic benchmark and four orders in a conservative benchmark.

Significance. If the result is correct, the paper opens a genuinely new and timely channel for probing axion-like particles and decaying dark matter. The derivation is transparent, the relevant formulas are given in enough detail to check, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the reduction to the graviton-photon conversion result in the appropriate limit. A particular strength is that, given the astrophysical inputs, the flux prediction is parameter-free and thus directly falsifiable. However, the quantitative claims as printed are not reproducible because of two normalization errors and the lack of a propagated uncertainty treatment for the astrophysical inputs. These issues affect every exclusion contour, so the numerical results require substantial revision before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The first line of Eq. (10) is not the l_osc >> <l_f> limit of Eq. (9). Expanding the exponential and cosine in Eq. (9) to leading order gives <P> ~ (g^2 B^2 l_osc^2 / 8) * [2<l_f^2>/l_osc^2] = g^2 B^2 <l_f^2>/4, which, using Eq. (7), equals g^2 B^2 <l_f>^2/3. The factor 1/8 in Eq. (10) is therefore internally inconsistent. This changes the predicted flux by 8/3 and the coupling reach by sqrt(8/3) ~ 1.6, affecting every exclusion contour in Fig. 5.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (17)] The flux formula as written is an all-sky flux. The IGRB data from Fermi-LAT, EGRET, COMPTEL, and INTEGRAL are reported per steradian, so comparing Eq. (17) directly to those data overestimates the predicted contribution by a factor 4 pi, corresponding to sqrt(4 pi) ~ 3.5 in g_aγγ. Please state explicitly whether dPhi/dE_a is intended as all-sky or per-steradian; if per-steradian is intended, insert the missing 1/(4 pi) in Eq. (15) and Eq. (17) and regenerate all limits.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 5; Sec. II.C] The exclusion claim is controlled by B0^2 f_vol and depends on r0 through <l_f>^2. The two displayed benchmarks, B0 = 250 nG and B0 = 1 nG, are point estimates with no uncertainty propagation. The cited measurements of filament magnetic fields span a wide range, and a field below ~1 nG would remove the conservative-benchmark exclusions. Please provide a scan or uncertainty band over B0, f_vol, and r0, and include a treatment of IGRB systematic uncertainties, so that the statement 'we exclude significant parameter space' is quantitatively supported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and formatting: 'theQCD axionfirst', '1→ndecays', and 'larger that' in Appendix C should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 5] The shaded regions are said to be determined from 'interpolated IGRB flux constraints', but the interpolation method and the treatment of data systematic uncertainties are not described. A short description would aid reproducibility.
  3. [Eq. (16)] The phrase 'present-day axion energy spectrum' is ambiguous. Please distinguish clearly between the emission-frame spectrum and the spectrum after cosmological redshift.
  4. [Ref. [42]] The axion limits code repository is a living resource; please include a version number or access date for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the IGRB flux prediction is derived from first-principles mixing and decay kinematics, not from the data it constrains; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The conversion probability (Eq. 3) is the standard Primakoff two-level mixing result; the filament-averaged probability (Eqs. 8-9) is an analytic Gaussian average; the cumulative conversion probability (Eqs. 11-14) uses external inputs (B0, fvol, r0) that are assumed, not fitted to IGRB data; the axion flux from dark-matter decay (Eqs. 15-16) is standard decay kinematics; and the final IGRB flux (Eq. 17) is a convolution of these independently derived pieces. The constraints then come from comparing this predicted flux to external Fermi/EGRET/COMPTEL/INTEGRAL measurements. No parameter is fitted to the IGRB data and then renamed a prediction. The magnetic-field strength and filling fraction are external physical assumptions, not restatements of the exclusion claim. The only author-overlapping citation is Ref. [19] (Gordan Krnjaic is a coauthor of both works), used for context and for the cascade extrapolation comment 'As in Ref. [19], we expect the strongest constraints on these heavier dark matter candidates to be comparable to TeV mass dark matter up to O(1) factors.' That comment is not load-bearing for the central contours, which are computed directly in this paper, and footnote 6's remark that a limit matches Ref. [19] is a cross-check, not a derivation. The skeptic's normalization concerns (absence of a 1/(4π) factor in Eq. 17 and the factor 8/3 mismatch between Eq. 9 and Eq. 10) are internal correctness/reproducibility issues that would change the contours but are not circularity: they do not make the prediction equivalent to its input. Score 2 reflects one minor, non-load-bearing self-citation; otherwise the derivation is self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central computation depends on a set of astrophysical inputs (B0, f_vol, r0) chosen by hand from a wide observed range, and on the standard axion-photon mixing formalism. There are no invented entities. The calculation is not fitted to the IGRB data; the IGRB data is used as an upper limit, so circularity is low.

free parameters (5)
  • B0 (filament magnetic field at z=0) = 1 nG (conservative), 100–250 nG (large/optimistic)
    Chosen by hand; the entire flux scales as B0^2 and the QCD-axion reach requires the large values.
  • f_vol (filament volume filling fraction) = 0.15
    Assumed constant at all redshifts; enters linearly in the conversion rate (Eq. 11); uncertainty directly shifts the exclusion contours.
  • r0 (average filament radius) = 2 Mpc
    Taken from simulations; sets the chord-length scale and the l_osc ≫/≪ <l_f> limits (Eq. 7).
  • mχ (dark matter mass) = 10 GeV and 10^3 GeV benchmarks; up to 1 TeV
    Benchmark masses for the constraint plots; production kinematics and redshift reach depend on mχ.
  • τχ (dark matter decay lifetime) = 10^19–10^30 s (scanned)
    The flux scales as 1/τχ; plots show contours for representative lifetimes above the ΛCDM LSS bound.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Axion-photon coupling Lagrangian and Primakoff conversion probability (Eqs. 1, 3)
    Standard effective field theory for axion-photon mixing.
  • domain assumption QCD axion mass-coupling relation g_aγγ ≈ (0.203 E/N - 0.39) m_a/GeV GeV^-1 (Eq. 2)
    Used to translate constraints into the QCD-axion band.
  • domain assumption Dark matter decays to two axions with 100% branching fraction
    Sec. II.A; the entire CaB flux is proportional to this branching fraction.
  • domain assumption Filament magnetic field evolution B(z)=B0(1+z)^2 (Eq. 6)
    Assumes flux-freezing-like scaling of the field with redshift.
  • ad hoc to paper Filament chord-length distribution treated as Gaussian with simulated first two moments
    Sec. II.C, Eq. (8); authors acknowledge ~15% error from extending the integral to negative l_f.
  • ad hoc to paper Saturation of conversion probability at min(P,0.5)
    Footnote 7; used to avoid P>1 in strong-field/large-coupling cases; an equilibrium argument rather than a rigorous multi-level calculation.
  • domain assumption No electromagnetic cascades for mχ ≤ 1 TeV; heavier masses approximate TeV results
    Sec. III.B; used to cut the analysis at 1 TeV.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10042 in / 37039 out tokens · 280031 ms · 2026-08-01T15:37:48.229780+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The cosmic axion background (CaB) is a hypothetical population of relativistic axions produced in the early universe. If the CaB is produced from dark matter decays, the axions in this population can convert to photons in the magnetic fields of cosmological filaments, resulting in an isotropic gamma ray background flux. We present new indirect detection constraints on the axion mass and axion-photon coupling, for GeV-TeV dark matter with a decay lifetime below $10^{30}$ sec, by comparing this flux against experimental data. We exclude significant parameter space for axion masses below $10^{-5}$~eV for a broad range of dark matter masses and lifetimes, assuming conservative filament magnetic field strengths ($\sim 1$ nG). For large filament fields ($\sim 100$ nG), our strategy also constrains a portion of the QCD-axion parameter space for TeV-scale dark matter masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18372 by Duncan Rocha, Gordan Krnjaic, Matthew J. Baldwin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the process that converts dark matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Present-day oscillation lengths as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Differential probability per unit redshift for an axion with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Differential IGRB fluxes from axion-photon conversions within cosmological filaments for a dark matter lifetime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Constraints on the axion mass and axion-photon coupling using IGRB flux constraints, for various dark matter lifetimes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

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

47 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Suppose the SM is extended by three fields, one PQ-charged Weyl fermionχ, a neutral Weyl fermion η, and a PQ-breaking scalar Φ

    Light PQ F ermions The role of decaying dark matter can be realized through PQ-symmetry breaking in a technically natu- ral way. Suppose the SM is extended by three fields, one PQ-charged Weyl fermionχ, a neutral Weyl fermion η, and a PQ-breaking scalar Φ. Enforcing the axial PQ symmetry, we have the fully generic Lagrangian L=L SM +η †i¯σµ∂µη+χ †i¯σµ∂µχ+...

  2. [2]

    Model-Agnostic Scenario In this scenario we assume scalar dark matterχand decouple the axion mass from the scale of dark matter. We should therefore preserve the shift symmetry of the axion in the operator that generates the decay, which suggests that the leading order operator is L ⊃Λ f 2a χ(∂µa)(∂µa).(A5) This operator breaks the shift symmetry ofχ, and...

  3. [3]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M Collaboration), Probing benchmark models of hidden-sector dark matter with damic-m, Phys

    K. Aggarwalet al.(DAMIC-M Collaboration), Probing benchmark models of hidden-sector dark matter with damic-m, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 071002 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

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

    1977

  6. [6]

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

    1977

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, A new light boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A new light boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    Wilczek, Problem of strongpandtinvariance in the presence of instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of strongpandtinvariance in the presence of instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  9. [9]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    J. A. Dror, H. Murayama, and N. L. Rodd, Cosmic axion background, Phys. Rev. D103, 115004 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 119902 (2022)], arXiv:2101.09287 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Langhoff, N

    K. Langhoff, N. J. Outmezguine, and N. L. Rodd, Irre- ducible Axion Background, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 241101 (2022), arXiv:2209.06216 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988). 8

    1988

  13. [13]

    Sikivie, Experimental tests of the ”invisible” axion, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Experimental tests of the ”invisible” axion, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  14. [14]

    A. D. Amaral, T. Vernstrom, and B. M. Gaensler, Constraints on large-scale magnetic fields in the in- tergalactic medium using cross-correlation methods, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society503, 2913 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/503/2/2913/36757118/stab564.pdf

    2021

  15. [15]

    Vernstrom, G

    T. Vernstrom, G. Heald, F. Vazza, T. J. Galvin, J. L. West, N. Locatelli, N. Fornengo, and E. Pinetti, Discovery of magnetic fields along stacked cosmic filaments as revealed by radio and x-ray emission, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society505, 4178 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/505/3/4178/38816124/stab1301.pdf

    2021

  16. [16]

    Carretti, F

    E. Carretti, F. Vazza, S. P. O’Sullivan, V. Vacca, A. Bonafede, G. Heald, C. Horellou, S. Mtchedlidze, and T. Vernstrom, The nature of LOF AR rotation measures and new constraints on magnetic fields in cosmic fila- ments and on magnetogenesis scenarios, Astron. Astro- phys.693, A208 (2025), arXiv:2411.13499 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    M. D. Mauro (Fermi-LAT), The origin of the fermi-lat γ-ray background, inThe Fourteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting(2016) pp. 3098–3104, arXiv:1601.04323 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and O. Reimer, Diffuse galactic continuum gamma rays: A model compatible with egret data and cosmic-ray measurements, The As- trophysical Journal613, 962–976 (2004)

    2004

  19. [19]

    S. C. Kappadath,Ph.D. Thesis, Ph.D. thesis, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA (1998), ph.D. the- sis

    1998

  20. [20]

    Bouchet, E

    L. Bouchet, E. Jourdain, J. Roques, A. Strong, R. Diehl, F. Lebrun, and R. Terrier, Integralspi all-sky view in soft gamma rays: A study of point-source and galactic dif- fuse emission, The Astrophysical Journal679, 1315–1326 (2008)

    2008

  21. [21]

    D. I. Dunsky, G. Krnjaic, and E. Pinetti, Observing Dark Matter Decays to Gravitons via Graviton-Photon Con- version, (2025), arXiv:2503.19019 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Nittaet al.(ADMX), Search for a Dark-Matter- Induced Cosmic Axion Background with ADMX, Phys

    T. Nittaet al.(ADMX), Search for a Dark-Matter- Induced Cosmic Axion Background with ADMX, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 101002 (2023), arXiv:2303.06282 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    J. E. Kim, Weak-interaction singlet and strong CP in- variance, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  24. [24]

    Shifman, A

    M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, Can con- finement ensure natural cp invariance of strong interac- tions?, Nuclear Physics B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  25. [25]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, A simple solution to the strong cp problem with a harmless axion, Physics Letters B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  26. [26]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 (1980)

    1980

  27. [27]

    Brown, T

    S. Brown, T. Vernstrom, E. Carretti, K. Dolag, B. M. Gaensler, L. Staveley-Smith, G. Bernardi, M. Haverkorn, M. Kesteven, and S. Poppi, Limiting magnetic fields in the cosmic web with diffuse radio emission, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society468, 4246–4253 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Vaccaet al., Observations of a nearby filament of galaxy clusters with the sardinia radio telescope, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society479, 776–806 (2018)

    V. Vaccaet al., Observations of a nearby filament of galaxy clusters with the sardinia radio telescope, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society479, 776–806 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    S. P. O’Sullivanet al., The intergalactic magnetic field probed by a giant radio galaxy, Astronomy & Astro- physics622, A16 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Vernstromet al., Differences in faraday rotation be- tween adjacent extragalactic radio sources as a probe of cosmic magnetic fields, The Astrophysical Journal878, 92 (2019)

    T. Vernstromet al., Differences in faraday rotation be- tween adjacent extragalactic radio sources as a probe of cosmic magnetic fields, The Astrophysical Journal878, 92 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    S. P. O’Sullivanet al., New constraints on the magne- tization of the cosmic web using lofar faraday rotation observations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society495, 2607–2619 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Locatelliet al., New constraints on the magnetic field in cosmic web filaments, Astronomy & Astrophysics652, A80 (2021)

    N. Locatelliet al., New constraints on the magnetic field in cosmic web filaments, Astronomy & Astrophysics652, A80 (2021)

    2021

  33. [33]

    Carrettiet al., Magnetic field strength in cosmic web filaments, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety512, 945–959 (2022)

    E. Carrettiet al., Magnetic field strength in cosmic web filaments, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety512, 945–959 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    D. N. Hoanget al., A search for intercluster filaments with lofar and erosita, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society523, 6320–6335 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    C. S. Andersonet al., Probing the magnetised gas dis- tribution in galaxy groups and the cosmic web with pos- sum faraday rotation measures (2024), arXiv:2407.20325 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Grasso and H

    D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Magnetic fields in the early universe, Physics Reports348, 163 (2001)

    2001

  37. [37]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Approximate rate of neutron multiplica- tion for a solid of arbitrary shape and uniform density, declassified british report ms-d-5, part i, Second World War Atomic Energy Research in Britain (1943)

    1943

  38. [38]

    K. M. Case, Introduction to the theory of neutron diffu- sion, vol. 1., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (1953)

    1953

  39. [39]

    Sanchez, On the use of the average chord length, An- nals of Nuclear Energy31, 2211 (2004)

    R. Sanchez, On the use of the average chord length, An- nals of Nuclear Energy31, 2211 (2004)

    2004

  40. [40]

    J. M. Colberg, K. S. Krughoff, and A. J. Connolly, Inter- cluster filaments in a Λcdm universe, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society359, 272 (2005)

    2005

  41. [41]

    W. Wanget al., The boundary of cosmic filaments, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society532, 4604 (2024), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/532/4/4604/58736341/stae1801.pdf

    2024

  42. [42]

    T. Dome, A. Fialkov, N. Sartorio, and P. Mocz, Cosmic web dissection in fuzzy dark matter cosmologies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society525, 348–363 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    N. I. Libeskindet al., Tracing the cosmic web, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society473, 1195–1217 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

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

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

    2020

  45. [45]

    Alnussiratet al., The Advanced Particle-astrophysics Telescope: Simulation of the Instrument Performance for Gamma-Ray Detection, PoSICRC2021, 590 (2021)

    S. Alnussiratet al., The Advanced Particle-astrophysics Telescope: Simulation of the Instrument Performance for Gamma-Ray Detection, PoSICRC2021, 590 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    Blanco and D

    C. Blanco and D. Hooper, Constraints on decaying dark matter from the isotropic gamma-ray background, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(03), 019–019

  47. [47]

    Poulin, P

    V. Poulin, P. D. Serpico, and J. Lesgourgues, A fresh look at linear cosmological constraints on a decaying dark matter component, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2016(08), 036–036