Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 110 references

Probing light axion-like particle via primordial black hole evaporation with gamma-ray observations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A MeV satellite could spot axions from black-hole evaporation

desk verdict A useful but geometry-sensitive forecast paper: the new channels are real, the projected one-order improvement in gaγγ rests on optimistic conversion assumptions that need line-of-sight averaging before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14185 v2 pith:7OQWOMD2 submitted 2025-04-19 hep-ph

Tong Li , Rui-Jia Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d14.80.Va04.70.Dy95.85.Pw
keywords axion-likeparticlesprimordialblackholesHawkingradiationALP-photonconversiongamma-rayastronomyFisherforecastdarkmattersatellitetelescopes
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

This paper asks whether evaporating primordial black holes, one dark-matter candidate, can be turned into a source of axion-like particles, another dark-matter candidate. It works out two gamma-ray production paths: ALPs emitted by PBHs convert into photons in cosmic magnetic fields, and PBH-emitted electrons scatter off an ALP dark-matter halo, producing gamma rays through the ALP-photon coupling. Forecasting one year of exposure for the proposed AMEGO, e-ASTROGAM, and MAST satellites, it projects sensitivity to the ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ down to about $10^{-13}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for ALP masses below $10^{-10}$ eV, roughly an order of magnitude better than current astrophysical limits. If the forecast holds, the same satellite data would also constrain the PBH dark-matter fraction $f_{\mathrm{PBH}}$, joining two dark-matter programmes in a single signal.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the propagation-matrix treatment of ALP-photon conversion in a turbulent magnetized medium. A Schr\"odinger-like mixing equation for the photon and ALP amplitudes is integrated domain by domain: 100 randomly oriented coherent cells for a galaxy cluster, and eight spiral-arm segments along a fixed Galactic Center-to-Sun path in a simplified JF12 galactic-field model. The cluster conversion probability is the median of 1000 Monte Carlo realizations, and both galactic and extragalactic probabilities are Gaussian-smoothed before being folded into the signal. Hawking emission spectra are generated with the BlackHawk v2.1 code, and the projected limits come from a profiled Fisher information matrix that treats astrophysical-background parameters as nuisance variables. For the scattering channel, the load-bearing object is the differential cross section of the inverse Primakoff process $e^- + a \to e^- + \gamma$, integrated over the PBH electron flux and the ALP DM halo density.

What would settle it

Compute the conversion signal using the actual PBH spatial distribution and a modern Bayesian galactic magnetic-field model, assigning a separate line-of-sight conversion probability to every PBH rather than one shared path; if the flux averaged over the $|l|\le5^\circ$, $|b|\le5^\circ$ region differs from the paper's single-path value by more than about a factor of two, the projected $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ and $f_{\mathrm{PBH}}$ limits in Section IV are not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that current and near-future gamma-ray satellites can test two dark-matter candidates at once through Hawking radiation from primordial black holes. In the evaporation-conversion channel, ALPs of mass $m_a$ emitted by PBHs of mass $M_{\mathrm{PBH}}$ oscillate into photons in the Milky Way's magnetic field and in galaxy-cluster magnetic fields; the paper finds that AMEGO can reach $g_{a\gamma\gamma}\sim 1\times 10^{-13}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for $m_a<10^{-10}$ eV at $M_{\mathrm{PBH}}=3\times10^{16}$ g and zero PBH spin, improving on existing astrophysical constraints by an order of magnitude, while MAST extends coverage to $m_a>10^{-10}$ eV. In the evaporation-scattering channel, relativistic electrons from PBHs near $10^{14}$ g scatter on non-relativistic ALP dark matter and produce gamma rays, yielding projected constraints on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ comparable to the strongest cosmic-ray-scattering limits, although the parameter space for heavier PBHs is already excluded by other bounds. The paper also derives projected 95% confidence upper limits on the PBH fraction $f_{\mathrm{PBH}}$ for both channels.

Load-bearing premise

Every galactic PBH is assumed to lie on one fixed Galactic Center-to-Sun path and every extragalactic PBH is assumed to sit at the center of a galaxy cluster with a prescribed 100-domain turbulent field, so if real sightlines or field configurations change the conversion probability by even a factor of a few, the projected limits shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-detection by AMEGO in its 150 keV to 5 MeV window would exclude ALP-photon couplings above roughly $10^{-13}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for ultralight ALPs from $3\times10^{16}$ g PBHs, a decade beyond current astrophysical bounds.
  • MAST's large effective area at 100 MeV to 3 GeV gives complementary sensitivity for ALP masses above $10^{-10}$ eV, where AMEGO's reach declines.
  • The evaporation-scattering channel would place PBH-electron constraints on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ comparable to cosmic-ray-scattering limits for PBHs near $10^{14}$ g, effectively converting a PBH-abundance bound into an ALP-coupling probe.
  • Both channels turn one observing campaign into joint limits on $f_{\mathrm{PBH}}$ and $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$, so a single future gamma-ray telescope could constrain two dark-matter candidates simultaneously.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: because the conversion signal and the direct PBH gamma-ray background both scale with $f_{\mathrm{PBH}}$, a simultaneous spectral fit could separate the conversion bump from the Hawking continuum; this separation could be tested with existing detector simulations before launch.
  • Inference: a multi-line-of-sight treatment that assigns each galactic PBH its own conversion path would likely smooth the oscillatory probability and could shift the projected limits by a factor of a few, so the order-of-magnitude improvement is a target for re-analysis rather than a fixed promise.
  • Inference: if future surveys tighten the allowed PBH abundance, the same AMEGO and MAST data would automatically convert those bounds into stronger ALP limits, linking PBH searches with axion searches in a way the paper only partially exploits.
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. The paper studies two gamma-ray production mechanisms involving primordial black hole (PBH) evaporation and axion-like particles (ALPs). In the first, "evaporation-conversion" scenario, PBH-emitted ALPs propagate through cosmic magnetic fields and convert into photons; in the second, "evaporation-scattering" scenario, PBH-emitted relativistic electrons scatter off a Galactic ALP DM halo. Using BlackHawk for Hawking spectra, a transfer-matrix treatment for ALP-photon conversion, and a Fisher forecasting procedure, the authors derive projected 95% C.L. sensitivities to the PBH DM fraction f_PBH and the ALP-photon coupling g_aγγ for the future AMEGO, e-ASTROGAM, and MAST telescopes. The central quantitative claims are that in the conversion channel AMEGO can probe g_aγγ down to about 1e-13 GeV^-1 for m_a < 1e-10 eV with M_PBH = 3e16 g, improving on current astrophysical bounds by one order of magnitude, while MAST gives complementary coverage at higher masses; and that in the scattering channel PBHs of about 1e14 g can give limits comparable to the strongest cosmic-ray-scattering constraints, though the corresponding parameter space is already excluded.

Significance. If the projected sensitivities are robust, the paper offers a genuinely new window onto light ALPs: Hawking radiation from asteroid-mass PBHs provides an ALP source whose subsequent conversion in magnetic fields can be probed by future MeV-GeV satellites, and the same signal carries information about f_PBH. The use of established tools (BlackHawk, the Raffelt-Stodolsky transfer matrix, and publicly available detector responses) is a strength, as is the explicit, falsifiable nature of the forecasts. The main caveat is that the conversion probability that sets the entire g_aγγ reach is computed under strong idealized assumptions about the astrophysical magnetic-field environments and source locations; if those assumptions are relaxed, the magnitude and even the existence of the claimed one-order-of-magnitude improvement is uncertain. The paper is therefore interesting and timely, but its headline projection is not yet demonstrated to be robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (14)-(16), Fig. 6]
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (20), Fig. 7]
  3. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (14) and Fig. 2]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 (right)]
  2. [Sec. III.A]
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (24)]
  4. [Fig. 6 (right)]
  5. [Throughout]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the projection chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Hawking emission spectra are generated with the public code BlackHawk v2.1, and the ALP flux does not depend on the ALP-photon coupling; the coupling enters only through the subsequent propagation and scattering physics. The conversion probabilities are computed from the standard ALP-photon mixing formalism with external magnetic field models (JF12 for the Milky Way and a turbulent cluster model with parameters taken from the literature), and the Fisher forecasting procedure compares an independent signal model against astrophysical background models. The projected limits on f_PBH and g_aγγ are obtained by varying those parameters in the Fisher matrix, not by fitting them to the target result. The self-citation to Ref. [57] is contextual and concerns an earlier terrestrial-detection proposal; it is not load-bearing for the gamma-ray conversion or scattering forecasts presented here. The modeling choices for the conversion path, such as the single Galactic Center-to-Sun trajectory and the cluster-centered extragalactic assumption, are physical approximations that affect sensitivity but do not make the prediction equivalent to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecasts rest on standard Hawking emission physics plus a chain of astrophysical modeling choices. No new particle or force is introduced; the free parameters are benchmark masses, couplings, and magnetic-field or environment values, mostly taken from the literature, plus paper-specific simplifications of the propagation geometry. The scattering channel additionally assumes negligible electron energy losses without an error estimate.

free parameters (11)
  • gaγγ benchmark for fPBH projections = 5e-13 GeV^-1
    Fixed to derive fPBH limits in Fig. 6; the later gaγγ limits are also computed at fixed benchmarks. Not fitted to data, but the reach is conditional on it.
  • ALP mass ma for conversion channel = 1e-12 eV (also 1e-11, 1e-10, 1e-9 eV)
    Benchmark masses in the ultralight regime, chosen to avoid mass suppression in the oscillation probability.
  • PBH mass MPBH benchmark = 2e16 g, 2e14 g, 3e16 g, 5e15 g, 1e14-5e16 g
    Asteroid-scale masses whose Hawking emission peaks in the MeV-GeV windows; the central coupling limit is quoted for 3e16 g.
  • PBH DM fraction fPBH benchmark = 1e-2, 1.41e-8, 4.22e-7, 0.055, 7.7e-5
    Values taken from existing gamma-ray constraints so the projected benchmarks are not already excluded.
  • PBH spin a* = 0 and 0.9999
    Two spin benchmarks; emission spectra differ substantially above 100 MeV.
  • Cluster magnetic field shape parameters = B0=10 μG, n0e=1e-2 cm^-3, β=2/3, η=0.5, rcore=100 kpc, R=1 Mpc, lc=10 kpc
    Characteristic cluster parameters cited from Refs. [93-95]; conversion probability inherits them directly.
  • Milky Way thermal electron density = 1e-2 cm^-3
    Sets the plasma frequency in the propagation matrix for the Galactic conversion calculation.
  • Galactic propagation path length = 8.2 kpc
    Single GC-to-Sun path used instead of the full line-of-sight integral over field directions.
  • Electron integration cutoff Emax_e = 200 MeV (1e15 g) and 20 MeV (2e16 g)
    Chosen to capture 99.99% of the electron emission flux; affects the scattering-channel signal normalization.
  • Observation time = 1 year
    Uniform exposure assumption for all three instruments; the Fisher limits scale with exposure.
  • Gamma-ray background model parameters = 0.004135,1.48e-7,2.31,362 GeV,0.013,0.00538,1.8,3.32,20,45708,2,-0.343
    Adopted from Fermi, COMPTEL, INTEGRAL, and Ref. [105] fits; used as nuisance parameters in the Fisher matrix, not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Hawking radiation spectrum and graybody factors as implemented in BlackHawk v2.1 (Eq. 3)
    The entire signal flux starts from this emission spectrum; the paper does not re-derive it.
  • domain assumption PBHs have a monochromatic mass distribution
    Used in Sec. II for both galactic and extragalactic fluxes; broad mass functions would change spectra.
  • domain assumption NFW profile with given parameters describes the galactic DM distribution
    Eq. (6) sets ρ⊙=0.4 GeV/cm^3, r⊙=8.5 kpc, rs=20 kpc; inner slope and normalization affect PBH flux.
  • standard math ALP-photon propagation follows the Schrödinger-like mixing equation with the Raffelt-Stodolsky matrix (Eq. 11)
    Standard formalism from Ref. [84]; accepted as background theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Cluster magnetic fields can be represented by 100 coherent domains with random orientations and 1000 MC realizations
    Chosen in Sec. III.A to make the propagation matrix tractable; the median over realizations is used as the final probability.
  • ad hoc to paper Milky Way magnetic field can be reduced to a 2D disk with a single GC-Sun path and no halo or X-field components
    Stated simplifications in Sec. III.A after Eq. (14); this is a load-bearing modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Inverse Primakoff cross-section e- + a -> e- + gamma from Refs. [64,65] is correct
    Used in Eq. (20) and kinematics Eq. (21); no derivation is included in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Energy losses of PBH-emitted electrons are negligible while propagating through and beyond the Milky Way
    Explicitly assumed in Sec. III.B; unquantified and load-bearing for the scattering-channel signal.
  • standard math Fisher information matrix with profiled nuisance parameters gives reliable 95% CL projected limits
    Standard method from Refs. [105,106]; assumes a local Gaussian likelihood, which may not hold for small signals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing light axion-like particle via primordial black hole evaporation with gamma-ray observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7OQWOMD2

@misc{pith2026250414185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing light axion-like particle via primordial black hole evaporation with gamma-ray observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7OQWOMD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14185}
}
abstract

The axion-like particle (ALP) and primordial black hole (PBH) are two representative dark matter (DM) candidates as light bosonic DM and macroscopic objects, respectively. In this work, we investigate the gamma-ray production mechanisms induced by PBH evaporation and ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$. The detection of gamma-rays is also explored in future satellite telescopes, including AMEGO, e-ASTROGAM and MAST. We first propose the evaporation-conversion scenario in which light ALPs are emitted by PBHs and are converted into photons in the presence of magnetic field in the Universe. The second scenario assumes ALPs as dominant DM component in the Milky Way and considers the relativistic electron production from PBH evaporation. The emitted electrons scatter off non-relativistic ALP in DM halo and produce gamma-rays through the ALP-photon coupling. Using the Fisher forecasting method, we calculate the gamma-ray energy spectra from these two scenarios and derive projected sensitivity for the fraction of DM composed of PBHs $f_{\rm PBH}$ and ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The spectrum of ALPs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: Probability of ALP conversion into photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A schematic illustration of conversion from PBH ALPs in cosmic background magnetic fields. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Differential gamma-ray flux from PBH emitted ALPs after propagating through the galactic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left: The minimum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left: Projected 95% C.L. upper limits on the PBH DM fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Projected limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

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

    1977

  3. [3]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, Phys

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

    1978

  5. [5]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978). 18

    1978

  6. [6]

    Di Luzio, M

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

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 84, 435 (1979)

    1979

  8. [8]

    S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1035 (1981)

    1981

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

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

    1980

  2. [10]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  3. [11]

    Holdom and M

    B. Holdom and M. E. Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B 208, 397 (1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B 260, 215 (1985)

    1985

  5. [13]

    Srednicki, Nucl

    M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B 260, 689 (1985)

    1985

  6. [14]

    J. M. Flynn and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B 293, 731 (1987)

    1987

  7. [15]

    Kamionkowski and J

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B 282, 137 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9202003

    1992 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Berezhiani, L

    Z. Berezhiani, L. Gianfagna, and M. Giannotti, Phys. Lett. B 500, 286 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0009290

    2001

  9. [17]

    S. D. H. Hsu and F. Sannino, Phys. Lett. B 605, 369 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0408319

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hook, Phys

    A. Hook, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 141801 (2015), arXiv:1411.3325 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alonso- ´Alvarez, M

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, M. B. Gavela, and P. Quilez, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 223 (2019), arXiv:1811.05466 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. Hook, S. Kumar, Z. Liu, and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 221801 (2020), arXiv:1911.12364 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  14. [22]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    Preskill, M

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

    1983

  16. [24]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, JHEP 01, 034 (2016), arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

    2000 arXiv

  18. [26]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. C. Niemeyer, (2019), 10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103787, arXiv:1912.07064 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019

  20. [28]

    Y . B. . N. Zel’dovich, I. D., Soviet Astron. AJ (Engl. Transl. ),10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  21. [29]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  22. [30]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J. 201, 1 (1975)

    1975

  23. [31]

    M. Y . Khlopov, Res. Astron. Astrophys.10, 495 (2010), arXiv:0801.0116 [astro-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Barrau, D

    A. Barrau, D. Blais, G. Boudoul, and D. Polarski, Annalen Phys. 13, 115 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0303330

    2004

  25. [33]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 48, 1 (2022), arXiv:2110.02821 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]. 19

    1975

  28. [36]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y . Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Laha, Phys

    R. Laha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251101 (2019), arXiv:1906.09994 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    R. Laha, J. B. Mu ˜noz, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D101, 123514 (2020), arXiv:2004.00627 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. K. Saha and R. Laha, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103026 (2022), arXiv:2112.10794 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. Ray, R. Laha, J. B. Mu ˜noz, and R. Caputo, Phys. Rev. D 104, 023516 (2021), arXiv:2102.06714 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dasgupta, R

    B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101101 (2020), arXiv:1912.01014 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Wang, D.-M

    S. Wang, D.-M. Xia, X. Zhang, S. Zhou, and Z. Chang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043010 (2021), arXiv:2010.16053 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Calabrese, D

    R. Calabrese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Miele, S. Morisi, and A. Palazzo, (2021), arXiv:2106.02492 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    De Romeri, P

    V . De Romeri, P. Mart´ınez-Mirav´e, and M. T ´ortola, (2021), arXiv:2106.05013 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ghosh, A

    D. Ghosh, A. Guha, and D. Sachdeva, (2021), arXiv:2110.00025 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Capanema, A

    A. Capanema, A. Esmaeili, and A. Esmaili, (2021), arXiv:2110.05637 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    W. Chao, T. Li, and J. Liao, (2021), arXiv:2108.05608 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bernal, V

    N. Bernal, V . Mu ˜noz Albornoz, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and P. Villanueva-Domingo, (2022), arXiv:2203.14979 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Huang and Y .-F

    J.-Z. Huang and Y .-F. Zhou, (2024), arXiv:2403.04987 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Wu and X.-J

    Q.-f. Wu and X.-J. Xu, JCAP 02, 059 (2025), arXiv:2409.09468 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zantedeschi and L

    M. Zantedeschi and L. Visinelli, (2024), arXiv:2410.07037 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. P. Klipfel and D. I. Kaiser, (2025), arXiv:2503.19227 [hep-ph]

    2025

  45. [53]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D 105, L021302 (2022), arXiv:2107.13001 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Li and J

    T. Li and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. D 106, 055043 (2022), arXiv:2203.14443 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Calabrese, M

    R. Calabrese, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, and N. Saviano, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103024 (2022), arXiv:2203.17093 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Z. H. Zhang et al. (CDEX), Phys. Rev. D 108, 052006 (2023), arXiv:2211.07477 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Li and R.-J

    T. Li and R.-J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 095034 (2022), arXiv:2208.02696 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Jho, T.-G

    Y . Jho, T.-G. Kim, J.-C. Park, S. C. Park, and Y . Park, (2022), arXiv:2212.11977 [hep-ph]

    2022

  51. [59]

    Agashe, J

    K. Agashe, J. H. Chang, S. J. Clark, B. Dutta, Y . Tsai, and T. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023014 (2023), arXiv:2212.11980 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    De Romeri, Y

    V . De Romeri, Y . F. Perez-Gonzalez, and A. Tolino, (2024), arXiv:2405.00124 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Federico and S

    K. Federico and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063006 (2025), arXiv:2411.17038 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Cheung, C

    K. Cheung, C. J. Ouseph, P.-Y . Tseng, and S. K. Kang, (2025), arXiv:2503.04175 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    De Angelis, G

    A. De Angelis, G. Galanti, and M. Roncadelli, Phys. Rev. D 84, 105030 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 109903 (2013)], arXiv:1106.1132 [astro-ph.HE]. 20

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, A. Rodriguez, I. M. Shoemaker, Z. Tabrizi, and N. T. Arellano, Phys. Rev. D 104, 055044 (2021), arXiv:2012.07930 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    V . P. Goncalves, E. Moulin, I. Reis, and A. Viana, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043011 (2025), arXiv:2501.11691 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Caputo et al

    R. Caputo et al. (AMEGO), (2019), arXiv:1907.07558 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    C. A. Kierans (AMEGO Team), Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 11444, 1144431 (2020), arXiv:2101.03105 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    De Angelis et al

    A. De Angelis et al. (e-ASTROGAM), Exper. Astron. 44, 25 (2017), arXiv:1611.02232 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Tavani et al

    M. Tavani et al. (e-ASTROGAM), JHEAp 19, 1 (2018), arXiv:1711.01265 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Dzhatdoev and E

    T. Dzhatdoev and E. Podlesnyi, Astropart. Phys. 112, 1 (2019), arXiv:1902.01491 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Auffinger, Prog

    J. Auffinger, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131, 104040 (2023), arXiv:2206.02672 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 13, 198 (1976)

    1976

  65. [73]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 16, 2402 (1977)

    1977

  66. [74]

    J. H. MacGibbon and B. R. Webber, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3052 (1990)

    1990

  67. [75]

    J. H. MacGibbon, Phys. Rev. D 44, 376 (1991)

    1991

  68. [76]

    Hawking, Mon

    S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  69. [77]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 14, 3260 (1976)

    1976

  70. [78]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 693 (2019), arXiv:1905.04268 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 910 (2021), arXiv:2108.02737 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro- ph/9611107

    1997

  73. [81]

    Salucci, F

    P. Salucci, F. Nesti, G. Gentile, and C. F. Martins, Astron. Astrophys. 523, A83 (2010), arXiv:1003.3101 [astro-ph.GA]

    2010 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Yuan, S.-J

    Q. Yuan, S.-J. Lin, K. Fang, and X.-J. Bi, Phys. Rev. D 95, 083007 (2017), arXiv:1701.06149 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  77. [85]

    Mirizzi, G

    A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt, and P. D. Serpico, Lect. Notes Phys. 741, 115 (2008), arXiv:astro- ph/0607415

    2008

  78. [86]

    Galanti and M

    G. Galanti and M. Roncadelli, Universe 8, 253 (2022), arXiv:2205.00940 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    M. S. Pshirkov, P. G. Tinyakov, P. P. Kronberg, and K. J. Newton-McGee, Astrophys. J. 738, 192 (2011), arXiv:1103.0814 [astro-ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Jansson and G

    R. Jansson and G. R. Farrar, Astrophys. J. 757, 14 (2012), arXiv:1204.3662 [astro-ph.GA]

    2012 arXiv

  81. [89]

    G. B. Taylor and R. A. Perley, Astrophys. J. 416, 554 (1993)

    1993

  82. [90]

    T. A. Ensslin and C. V ogt, Astron. Astrophys.401, 835 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302426

    2003 arXiv

  83. [91]

    V ogt and T

    C. V ogt and T. A. Ensslin, Astron. Astrophys.412, 373 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0309441. 21

    2003 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Horns, L

    D. Horns, L. Maccione, M. Meyer, A. Mirizzi, D. Montanino, and M. Roncadelli, Phys. Rev. D 86, 075024 (2012), arXiv:1207.0776 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Govoni and L

    F. Govoni and L. Feretti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13, 1549 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0410182

    2004 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Meyer, D

    M. Meyer, D. Horns, and M. Raue, Phys. Rev. D 87, 035027 (2013), arXiv:1302.1208 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Vikhlinin, A

    A. Vikhlinin, A. Kravtsov, W. Forman, C. Jones, M. Markevitch, S. S. Murray, and L. Van Spey- broeck, Astrophys. J. 640, 691 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507092

    2006 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Abuter et al

    R. Abuter et al. (Gravity), Astron. Astrophys. 625 (2019), 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656, arXiv:1904.05721 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Beck, AIP Conf

    R. Beck, AIP Conf. Proc. 1085, 83 (2009), arXiv:0810.2923 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  90. [98]

    J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207156

    2002 arXiv

  91. [99]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A19 (2016), arXiv:1502.01594 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  92. [100]

    M. S. Pshirkov, P. G. Tinyakov, and F. R. Urban, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 191302 (2016), arXiv:1504.06546 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Ackermann et al

    M. Ackermann et al. (Fermi-LAT), Astrophys. J. 799, 86 (2015), arXiv:1410.3696 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Weidenspointner et al., AIP Conf

    G. Weidenspointner et al., AIP Conf. Proc. 510, 581 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0012332

    2000 arXiv

  95. [103]

    S. S. Tsygankov, A. A. Lutovinov, E. M. Churazov, and R. A. Sunyaev, Astron. Lett.33, 368 (2007), arXiv:0704.2874 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Ballesteros, J

    G. Ballesteros, J. Coronado-Bl ´azquez, and D. Gaggero, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135624 (2020), arXiv:1906.10113 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Bartels, D

    R. Bartels, D. Gaggero, and C. Weniger, JCAP 05, 001 (2017), arXiv:1703.02546 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  98. [106]

    T. D. P. Edwards and C. Weniger, JCAP 02, 021 (2018), arXiv:1704.05458 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Mittal, A

    S. Mittal, A. Ray, G. Kulkarni, and B. Dasgupta, JCAP 03, 030 (2022), arXiv:2107.02190 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  100. [108]

    A. K. Saha, A. Singh, P. Parashari, and R. Laha, (2024), arXiv:2409.10617 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  101. [109]

    N. K. Khan, A. Ray, G. Kulkarni, and B. Dasgupta, (2025), arXiv:2503.15595 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  102. [110]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,

    C. O’Hare, “cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,” https://cajohare.github.io/ AxionLimits/ (2020). 22

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.