Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

The Hulse-Taylor binary's GR-consistent orbit excludes new axion quadratic couplings and sets the strongest muon limit below 10^-12 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 01:54 UTC pith:FJW6YEOF

load-bearing objection Genuinely new application of Hulse-Taylor timing to quadratic axion couplings, but the headline muon bound rests on an unpublished loop formula and one of the paper's own prefactors is off by ~10^6 — conditionally worth engaging. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25631 v1 pith:FJW6YEOF submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ph

Constraining axion quadratic couplings with the Hulse-Taylor binary system

Ziwen Yin , Shyam Balaji , Malcolm Fairbairn , David J. E. Marsh This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords axion dark matterquadratic axion-fermion couplingHulse-Taylor binary pulsarfifth forceorbital decayneutron starmuon couplingtachyonic phase transition
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.

The Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar's orbital period has been measured for fifty years and matches general relativity's prediction for gravitational-wave energy loss to high precision. This paper argues that the same measurement can be turned into a probe of axion interactions that break the shift symmetry and couple quadratically to stable neutron-star constituents: neutrons, electrons, and muons. Such interactions generate two effects—an extra long-range force between the stars and additional axion radiation—both of which would change the orbital decay. By fitting three timing observables and profiling over the neutron-star masses, the authors derive exclusions on the force and radiation parameters and map them onto axion couplings. The headline quantitative result is that for axion masses below about 10^-12 eV, the Hulse-Taylor bound on the axion-muon quadratic coupling is the strongest available, exceeding supernova-cooling limits and implying an effective scale Lambda_mu above about 10^10 GeV. If the underlying loop calculation is correct, this turns a historically gravitational-wave discovery into a direct particle-physics constraint.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Hulse-Taylor binary's GR-consistent orbital decay excludes novel quadratic axion-fermion couplings a^2 psi-bar psi / Lambda_psi for neutrons, electrons, and muons. In an ambient axion dark-matter background this operator gives a long-range spin-independent force via a one-loop diagram; inside neutron stars it can trigger a tachyonic phase transition that sources a Yukawa force. The same operator also emits dipole and quadrupole axion radiation. Fitting periastron advance, Einstein delay, and period derivative with parameters beta and xi, profiling over masses, yields exclusions. The headline result: for m_a below 10^-12 eV, the Hulse-Taylor bound on the axion-mu

What carries the argument

The key object is the dimension-five shift-symmetry-breaking operator a^2 psi-bar psi / Lambda_psi, which for a species psi generates (i) a background-enhanced long-range force in the axion dark-matter background, (ii) a tachyonic force from an axion profile inside neutron stars, and (iii) dipole and quadrupole axion radiation from the binary. The statistical core is a chi-square fit to the Hulse-Taylor timing observables with two parameters beta and xi, where beta rescales the gravitational potential and xi rescales radiative energy loss; neutron-star masses are profiled as nuisance parameters. This beta-xi parametrization is what separates conservative-force effects from radiation effects

Load-bearing premise

The paper's headline limits rest on an unverified loop calculation that treats each neutron star as a point-like source of the quadratic coupling; if that calculation is wrong, the muon and electron bounds from the background force vanish.

What would settle it

Recompute the two-body force between extended neutron stars using a method independent of the flat-space one-loop formula; if the rho_a/m_a^2 enhancement of Eq. (3.6) does not appear, the background-force bounds do not hold. Alternatively, find a binary with independently measured masses that demands a fifth force larger than the 95% beta-xi contour at a mass where the tachyonic channel is inactive.

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

If this is right

  • For m_a below about 10^-12 eV, the binary-pulsar constraint on the axion-muon quadratic coupling is the strongest available, beating supernova cooling (Appendix B) and requiring Lambda_mu above roughly 10^10 GeV.
  • In the light QCD axion scenario with the benchmark neutron coupling alpha_N = 5.4 MeV, the Hulse-Taylor data exclude a complementary region of 1/f_a for masses around 10^-20 to 10^-13 eV, extending the reach of existing fifth-force searches at both lower and higher masses.
  • The tachyonic force is independent of the dark-matter background and, for neutrons, revises and strengthens the earlier pulsar constraint; for muons it can provide a limit only when the neutron-star muon content is sufficiently high.
  • Other binary pulsars, especially the double-pulsar system J0737-3039A/B, give even stronger muon limits; equation-of-state uncertainty in the muon fraction affects the tachyonic bound but barely changes the background-force bound.
  • For electrons, the binary limit is stronger than supernova cooling but remains weaker than big-bang-nucleosynthesis limits; the paper's new supernova muon-annihilation bound is p-wave suppressed and leaves Lambda_mu at the 10^6-10^7 GeV scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the one-loop background-force formula fails for extended neutron stars, the muon and electron bounds from the background force are lost; the tachyonic channel alone would leave the electron unconstrained and the muon far weaker.
  • A future binary timing measurement that requires a repulsive fifth force—allowed by the tachyonic sign ambiguity—would provide a direct signal of the tachyonic mechanism, not just an exclusion.
  • Because Hulse-Taylor loses sensitivity above about 10^-12 eV, space-based gravitational-wave detectors that observe neutron-star inspirals at higher orbital frequencies could fill that gap using the same beta-xi formalism.
  • Improving neutron-star equation-of-state constraints on muon fractions would turn the muon tachyonic bound from a model-dependent region into a sharper testable prediction.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 to constrain quadratic axion-fermion couplings of the form a^2/Λ_ψ ψ̄ψ for neutrons, electrons, and muons. It introduces two phenomenological parameters, β (modification of the conservative inverse-square force) and ξ (fractional enhancement of radiative energy loss), constructs a profile-likelihood fit to the three post-Keplerian observables, and maps the resulting β-ξ constraints onto axion parameter space. Two force mechanisms are considered: a background-enhanced one-loop force in the axion dark-matter background, adapted from Refs. [36,37], and a tachyonic phase-transition force inside neutron stars. The paper claims new limits on 1/f_a for light QCD axions and the strongest available constraint on the axion-muon quadratic coupling for m_a ≲ 10^-12 eV, exceeding supernova cooling bounds.

Significance. The topic is timely and the statistical framework is transparent: the β-ξ profile-likelihood construction is clearly specified, benchmark parameters are tabulated, and the appendices give useful pedagogical derivations of the timing formulae and a first estimate of the supernova muon bound. If the constraints hold, the paper provides an independent astrophysical probe of quadratic axion couplings, particularly for muons where existing limits are weak. However, the quantitative reach of the headline bounds is carried by two ingredients that are not established within the manuscript: the background-enhanced force formula of Eq. (3.6), which is only cited to preprints, and the tachyonic-force prefactor of Eq. (4.2), whose numerical evaluation is inconsistent with the printed formula. A missing loop factor in Eq. (3.6) alone would shift the 1/Λ_μ boundary by roughly a factor of 40. The paper is therefore not ready for acceptance in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.2)] The numerical prefactor of the tachyonic-force ratio is incorrect by about six orders of magnitude. Evaluating the printed expression with M_Pl=2.435×10^18 GeV, r_NS=10 km (5.07×10^19 GeV^-1), M1=1.44 M_sun, M2=1.39 M_sun, and f_a=10^14 GeV gives β_tach ≈ 1.9×10^-8, not the quoted 0.019. Furthermore, Eq. (4.2) is inconsistent with the charge assignment in Eq. (3.20): the coefficient 4π f_a^2 r_NS^2 × 8π M_Pl^2/(M1 M2) follows from q_eff=4π f_a r_NS, whereas Eq. (3.20) defines q_n,tachy = ±2π f_a r_NS M_Pl, which would give a different dependence on M_Pl. Since all tachyonic-force exclusion regions in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 6 are based on this prefactor, the analytic formula and the numerics must be reconciled and corrected.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.6)] The background-enhanced potential V_bk(r) is the linchpin of the muon and electron EFT-scale bounds in Figs. 4 and 5; the paper's claim to set the strongest axion-muon constraint relies entirely on this formula. However, the manuscript only cites Refs. [36,37] and qualitatively discusses the modified propagator in Eq. (3.5). It does not present the one-loop calculation, the loop factor (e.g., 1/(16π^2) or equivalent), or the justification for applying this elementary-fermion result to macroscopic neutron stars with all nucleons contributing coherently. A missing 1/(16π^2) would shift the excluded 1/Λ_μ boundary by about a factor of 40. The authors should provide a self-contained derivation, or at least a detailed cross-check against an independent formalism (e.g., Refs. [32,38]), and state the regime of validity for composite sources.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.1)] The chi-squared in Eq. (2.1) treats the three post-Keplerian observables (˙ω, γ, ˙P_b) as statistically independent. For PSR B1913+16 these quantities are extracted from the same timing solution and are correlated through the unknown masses and orbital inclination. The paper does not report the covariance matrix or argue that off-diagonal correlations are negligible at the Δχ²=5.99 threshold used for the 95% contours. Ignoring these correlations can bias the allowed β-ξ region and hence the derived axion constraints. The authors should either use the published timing covariance, perform a full timing-model fit, or demonstrate explicitly that correlations do not affect the results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'form a ≲10 −12 eV' should read 'for m_a ≲10^{-12} eV'; the LaTeX conversion appears corrupted.
  2. [Eq. (4.1)] '2M^2_PI' should presumably be '2M_Pl^2' (reduced Planck mass). Please correct the notation.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 / Eq. (3.19)] 'effective scalar change' should be 'effective scalar charge'.
  4. [Fig. 4] The caption mentions both 'repulsive and attractive' tachyonic forces, but the legend shows only the repulsive line. Please clarify which curve is plotted and where the attractive case is addressed.
  5. [Reproducibility] Since the profile-likelihood calculation is a central component, it would be helpful to provide code or tabulated β-ξ confidence contours to allow independent verification of the constraints.
  6. [References] Refs. [36,37] are cited as the source of Eq. (3.6) but appear to be preprints; if they are not yet peer-reviewed, this should be stated, and the manuscript should make the dependence on them explicit in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: constraints follow from external Hulse-Taylor data and independent model formulas; benchmark couplings are not fitted to the target observable.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The Hulse-Taylor timing data and post-Keplerian parameters are taken from the external timing analysis (their Table 1 from Ref. [46]), and the constraints are obtained by comparing model-modified predictions for ω-dot, γ, and P-dot_b to those measurements via the profile likelihood of Eqs. (2.1)-(2.5). The benchmark quadratic-coupling coefficients α_N, α_μ, and α_e are fixed inputs from prior model calculations (e.g. Refs. [25,26,41]), not parameters fitted to the Hulse-Taylor data; the paper explicitly labels them benchmark values in Table 2. The force and radiation formulas, notably the background-enhanced potential Eq. (3.6) and the tachyonic force Eq. (3.14), are imported from independent groups (Refs. [36,37] and [29,40]), not from the present authors' prior work. The paper's self-citations [3,11,51] are background review citations and are not load-bearing for the central exclusion (Figs. 4-6). A possible prefactor discrepancy in Eq. (4.2) and the unvalidated status of the unpublished Eq. (3.6) are correctness/verification concerns, not instances of circularity: no target quantity is defined in terms of the result, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The central claims therefore have independent content, so a score of 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim inherits the one-loop background-force calculation (not reproduced here) and the tachyonic NS hair result (Ref [29]), plus several astrophysical inputs (ρ_a, Y_μ, r_NS). The statistical analysis assumes uncorrelated Gaussian PK measurements. No genuinely new entity is introduced; the axion itself and its quadratic operator are prior literature.

free parameters (6)
  • Y_μ (muon-to-neutron abundance) = 0.01 (1-3% depending on EoS)
    Muon-coupled force/radiation scale as Y_μ; Fig. 6 shows the bound weakens with pessimistic muon content.
  • Y_e (electron-to-neutron abundance) = ~10^-2
    Sets the strength of axion-electron effects; no direct constraint on this in the paper.
  • ρ_a (local axion DM density) = 0.4 GeV/cm^3
    Background-enhanced force is linear in ρ_a; an over/underestimate directly shifts 1/f_a bounds.
  • r_NS (neutron star radius) = 10 km
    Tachyonic scalar charge and β_tach scale as r_NS²; also used in self-binding correction.
  • α_N, α_μ, α_e benchmark couplings = 5.4 MeV, 570 eV, 2.75 eV
    Model-dependent inputs used to recast limits on f_a; for α_μ the tachyonic bound changes if this value is different.
  • M1, M2 (NS masses) = 1.44, 1.39 M_sun (profiled)
    Profiled in χ² over [1, 2.5] M_sun; the β-ξ degeneracy uses their scaling.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The one-loop background-enhanced potential V_bk from Refs [36,37] (Eq 3.6) is correct and applies to neutron stars with all nucleons contributing coherently.
    This is the sole basis for the headline muon bound; the paper does not reproduce the loop calculation or address strong-gravity/degeneracy corrections.
  • domain assumption The tachyonic phase transition condition and scalar charge q_eff = ±2π f_a r_NS M_Pl (Eqs. 3.8-3.20) from Ref [29] are correct.
    Used for the lower exclusion regions; numerical evaluation of β_tach in Eq (4.2) appears inconsistent with benchmark units.
  • domain assumption The three PK observables are independent Gaussian measurements with the uncertainties in Table 1; covariance is negligible.
    χ² in Eq (2.1) assumes diagonal covariance; the paper does not quote correlation coefficients from the pulsar timing fit.
  • domain assumption The standard QCD axion mass-coupling relation and α_N ≈ 5.4 MeV hold for the 'light QCD axion' scenario.
    Needed to recast neutron constraints as f_a limits; models with ϵ ≪ 1 are fine-tuned (acknowledged in Sec. 3.1).
  • domain assumption The local DM density at the Hulse-Taylor binary equals 0.4 GeV/cm^3 and the DM background is unperturbed.
    Background-enhanced force is proportional to ρ_a.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15772 in / 46591 out tokens · 461627 ms · 2026-08-01T01:54:36.185410+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The orbital evolution of the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system is described to high precision by general relativity, in which gravity is the only long-range force and gravitational waves provide the dominant energy-loss channel. We use this precision test of relativistic binary dynamics to derive new constraints on axion couplings to stable neutron star constituents: neutrons, electrons, and muons. Quadratic shift symmetry breaking axion-fermion couplings allow binary systems to lose energy through dipole and quadrupole emission of axion waves. These couplings also mediate long range, spin independent forces in two different regimes: in an ambient DM background, and when a tachyonic phase transition is triggered inside the neutron stars. For light QCD axions our constraints can be recast as limits on the axion decay constant, which are complementary to other probes for $m_a\lesssim 10^{-12}\text{ eV}$ and $f_a\lesssim M_\textrm{pl}$. We also place the strongest constraint available on the axion-muon quadratic coupling, which is otherwise only constrained by supernova cooling.

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

67 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Taylor and J.M

    J.H. Taylor and J.M. Weisberg,A new test of general relativity - Gravitational radiation and the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16,Astrophys. J.253(1982) 908

    1913

  2. [2]

    Mohanty and P

    S. Mohanty and P. Kumar Panda,Particle physics bounds from the Hulse-Taylor binary, Phys. Rev. D53(1996) 5723 [hep-ph/9403205]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  3. [3]

    Marsh,Axion Cosmology,Phys

    D.J.E. Marsh,Axion Cosmology,Phys. Rept.643(2016) 1 [1510.07633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis and D.J.E. Marsh,Axion dark matter: What is it and why now?, Sci. Adv.8(2022) abj3618 [2105.01406]. – 20 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    O’Hare,Cosmology of axion dark matter,PoSCOSMICWISPers(2024) 040 [2403.17697]

    C.A.J. O’Hare,Cosmology of axion dark matter,PoSCOSMICWISPers(2024) 040 [2403.17697]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Peccei and H.R

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

    1977

  7. [7]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

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

    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(1978) 279

    1978

  9. [9]

    Abel et al.,Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron,Phys

    C. Abel et al.,Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 081803 [2001.11966]. [10]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [11]

    Marsh, D

    D.J.E. Marsh, D. Ellis and V.M. Mehta,Dark Matter: Evidence, Theory, and Constraints, Princeton Series in Astrophysics, Princeton University Press (10, 2024), 10.1515/9780691249711

    doi:10.1515/9780691249711 2024

  11. [12]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten,Axions In String Theory,JHEP06(2006) 051 [hep-th/0605206]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  12. [13]

    Arvanitaki, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [14]

    Cicoli, M

    M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell and A. Ringwald,The type IIB string axiverse and its low-energy phenomenology,JHEP10(2012) 146 [1206.0819]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [15]

    Demirtas, N

    M. Demirtas, N. Gendler, C. Long, L. McAllister and J. Moritz,PQ axiverse,JHEP06 (2023) 092 [2112.04503]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [16]

    Preskill, M.B

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

    1983

  16. [17]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B120(1983) 137

    1983

  17. [18]

    Abbott and P

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

    1983

  18. [19]

    Zimmermann, J

    T. Zimmermann, J. Alvey, D.J.E. Marsh, M. Fairbairn and J.I. Read,Dwarf Galaxies Imply Dark Matter is Heavier than 2.2×10-21 eV,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 151001 [2405.20374]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    Moody and F

    J.E. Moody and F. Wilczek,NEW MACROSCOPIC FORCES?,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 130

    1984

  20. [21]

    Graham and S

    P.W. Graham and S. Rajendran,New Observables for Direct Detection of Axion Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 035023 [1306.6088]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [22]

    Garcon et al.,The cosmic axion spin precession experiment (CASPEr): a dark-matter search with nuclear magnetic resonance,Quantum Sci

    A. Garcon et al.,The cosmic axion spin precession experiment (CASPEr): a dark-matter search with nuclear magnetic resonance,Quantum Sci. Technol.3(2017) 014008 [1707.05312]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [23]

    Garcon et al.,Constraints on bosonic dark matter from ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance,Sci

    A. Garcon et al.,Constraints on bosonic dark matter from ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance,Sci. Adv.5(2019) eaax4539 [1902.04644]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [24]

    Arvanitaki and A.A

    A. Arvanitaki and A.A. Geraci,Resonantly Detecting Axion-Mediated Forces with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 161801 [1403.1290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [25]

    Bauer and G

    M. Bauer and G. Rostagni,Fifth Forces from QCD Axions Scale Differently,Phys. Rev. Lett. 132(2024) 101802 [2307.09516]. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [26]

    H. Kim, A. Lenoci, G. Perez and W. Ratzinger,Probing an ultralight QCD axion with electromagnetic quadratic interaction,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 015030 [2307.14962]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [27]

    Adelberger, B.R

    E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel and A.E. Nelson,Tests of the gravitational inverse-square law, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.53(2003) 77 [hep-ph/0307284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  27. [28]

    Raffelt,Particle physics from stars,Ann

    G.G. Raffelt,Particle physics from stars,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.49(1999) 163 [hep-ph/9903472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  28. [29]

    Hook and J

    A. Hook and J. Huang,Probing axions with neutron star inspirals,JHEP2018(2018) 36 [1708.08464]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [30]

    Croon, G

    D. Croon, G. Elor, R.K. Leane and S.D. McDermott,Supernova Muons: New Constraints on Z’ Bosons, Axions and ALPs,JHEP01(2021) 107 [2006.13942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [31]

    Balaji, P.S.B

    S. Balaji, P.S.B. Dev, J. Silk and Y. Zhang,Improved stellar limits on a light CP-even scalar,JCAP12(2022) 024 [2205.01669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [32]

    H. Day, D. Liu, M.A. Luty and Y. Zhao,Blowing in the dark matter wind,JHEP07(2024) 136 [2312.13345]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [33]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji and P. Carenza,Multimessenger search for electrophilic feebly interacting particles from supernovae,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 103028 [2307.13731]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    De la Torre Luque, S

    P. De la Torre Luque, S. Balaji, P. Carenza and L. Mastrototaro,γrays from in-flight positron annihilation as a probe of new physics,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) L061303 [2405.08482]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    Fiorillo, A

    D.F.G. Fiorillo, A. Lella, G.G. Raffelt, N. Selimovic and E. Vitagliano,Neutron Star Bounds on Muonic Fifth Forces from Picometer to Kilometer Scales,2605.24094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [36]

    Grossman, B

    Y. Grossman, B. Yu and S. Zhou,Axion forces in axion backgrounds,2504.00104

    arXiv

  36. [37]

    Cheng and S

    Y. Cheng and S. Ge,Background-Enhanced Axion Force by Axion Dark Matter,2504.02702

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [38]

    Van Tilburg,Wake forces in a background of quadratically coupled mediators,Phys

    K. Van Tilburg,Wake forces in a background of quadratically coupled mediators,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 096036 [2401.08745]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [39]

    X. Gan, D. Liu, D. Liu, X. Luo and B. Yu,Detecting Ultralight Dark Matter with Matter Effect,2504.11522

    arXiv

  39. [40]

    Huang, M.C

    J. Huang, M.C. Johnson, L. Sagunski, M. Sakellariadou and J. Zhang,Prospects for axion searches with Advanced LIGO through binary mergers,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 063013 [1807.02133]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [41]

    Banerjee, I.M

    A. Banerjee, I.M. Bloch, Q. Bonnefoy, S.A.R. Ellis, G. Perez, I. Savoray et al.,Momentum and Matter Matter for axion Dark Matter matters on Earth,JHEP06(2026) 039 [2502.04455]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [42]

    Cohen, W.D

    J.M. Cohen, W.D. Langer, L.C. Rosen and A. Cameron,Neutron star models based on an improved equation of state,Astrophysics and Space Science6(1970) 228

    1970

  42. [43]

    Garani and J

    R. Garani and J. Heeck,Dark matter interactions with muons in neutron stars,Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 035039

    2019

  43. [44]

    Zhang and B.-A

    N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li,Constraints on the muon fraction and density profile in neutron stars,Astrophys. J.893(2020) 61 [2002.06446]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [45]

    J.A. Dror, R. Laha and T. Opferkuch,Probing muonic forces with neutron star binaries, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 023005 [1909.12845]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [46]

    Weisberg and Y

    J.M. Weisberg and Y. Huang,Relativistic Measurements from Timing the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16,Astrophys. J.829(2016) 55 [1606.02744]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [47]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega and G. Villadoro,The QCD axion, precisely, JHEP01(2016) 034 [1511.02867]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [48]

    Beadle, S.A.R

    C. Beadle, S.A.R. Ellis, J. Quevillon and P.N. Hoa Vuong,Quadratic coupling of the axion to photons,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 035019 [2307.10362]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [49]

    Blumenhagen, M

    R. Blumenhagen, M. Cvetic and T. Weigand,Spacetime instanton corrections in 4D string vacua: The Seesaw mechanism for D-Brane models,Nucl. Phys. B771(2007) 113 [hep-th/0609191]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  49. [50]

    Leontaris,Instanton induced charged fermion and neutrino masses in a minimal Standard Model scenario from intersecting D-branes,Int

    G.K. Leontaris,Instanton induced charged fermion and neutrino masses in a minimal Standard Model scenario from intersecting D-branes,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24(2009) 6035 [0903.3691]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  50. [51]

    Gendler, D.J.E

    N. Gendler, D.J.E. Marsh, L. McAllister and J. Moritz,Glimmers from the axiverse,JCAP 09(2024) 071 [2309.13145]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    Barbosa and S

    S. Barbosa and S. Fichet,Background-induced forces from dark relics,JHEP01(2025) 021 [2403.13894]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    Ross,Multipole expansion at the level of the action,Phys

    A. Ross,Multipole expansion at the level of the action,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 125033 [1202.4750]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [54]

    Gu´ e, P

    J. Gu´ e, P. Wolf and A. Hees,Search for QCD Coupled Axion Dark Matter with Data from the MICROSCOPE Space Experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 171001 [2504.00720]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [55]

    Abel et al.,Search for Axionlike Dark Matter through Nuclear Spin Precession in Electric and Magnetic Fields,Phys

    C. Abel et al.,Search for Axionlike Dark Matter through Nuclear Spin Precession in Electric and Magnetic Fields,Phys. Rev. X7(2017) 041034 [1708.06367]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [56]

    Blum, R.T

    K. Blum, R.T. D’Agnolo, M. Lisanti and B.R. Safdi,Constraining Axion Dark Matter with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,Phys. Lett. B737(2014) 30 [1401.6460]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [57]

    Springmann, M

    K. Springmann, M. Stadlbauer, S. Stelzl and A. Weiler,Universal bound on QCD axions from supernovae,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 075009 [2410.19902]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    Balkin, J

    R. Balkin, J. Serra, K. Springmann, S. Stelzl and A. Weiler,White dwarfs as a probe of exceptionally light QCD axions,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 095032 [2211.02661]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [59]

    Zhang, Z

    J. Zhang, Z. Lyu, J. Huang, M.C. Johnson, L. Sagunski, M. Sakellariadou et al.,First Constraints on Nuclear Coupling of Axionlike Particles from the Binary Neutron Star Gravitational Wave Event GW170817,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 161101 [2105.13963]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [60]

    Damour,1974: the discovery of the first binary pulsar,Class

    T. Damour,1974: the discovery of the first binary pulsar,Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 124009 [1411.3930]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1974

  60. [61]

    Kramer et al.,Strong-Field Gravity Tests with the Double Pulsar,Phys

    M. Kramer et al.,Strong-Field Gravity Tests with the Double Pulsar,Phys. Rev. X11 (2021) 041050 [2112.06795]

    arXiv 2021

  61. [62]

    Ding, A.T

    H. Ding, A.T. Deller, E. Fonseca, I.H. Stairs, B. Stappers and A. Lyne,The Orbital-decay Test of General Relativity to the 2% Level with 6 yr VLBA Astrometry of the Double Neutron Star PSR J1537+1155,Astrophys. J. Lett.921(2021) L19 [2110.10590]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [63]

    Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment,Computing in Science and Engineering9(2007) 90

    J.D. Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment,Computing in Science and Engineering9(2007) 90

    2007

  63. [64]

    Harris et al.,Array programming with NumPy,Nature585(2020) 357 [2006.10256]

    C.R. Harris et al.,Array programming with NumPy,Nature585(2020) 357 [2006.10256]. – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [65]

    Virtanen et al.,SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nature Methods17(2020) 261 [1907.10121]

    P. Virtanen et al.,SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nature Methods17(2020) 261 [1907.10121]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [66]

    Olive and M

    K.A. Olive and M. Pospelov,Environmental dependence of masses and coupling constants, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 043524 [0709.3825]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  66. [67]

    Bollig et al.,Muon Creation in Supernova Matter Facilitates Neutrino-Driven Explosions, Phys

    R. Bollig et al.,Muon Creation in Supernova Matter Facilitates Neutrino-Driven Explosions, Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 242702 [1706.04630]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [68]

    Fischer, G

    T. Fischer, G. Guo, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, M. Liebend¨ orfer and A. Mezzacappa,Muonization of supernova matter,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 123001 [2008.13628]. – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020