Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing photon-axion conversion probability with squeezed coherent states

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that preparing photons in a squeezed coherent state enhances photon-axion conversion, with the probability growing with the photon occupation of the prepared light.

desk verdict A correct QFT re-derivation of photon-axion conversion whose 'squeezing enhancement' is just mean-photon-number scaling; the formalism is worth a referee, the quantum-sensing claim is not. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14354 v2 pith:GPKITA4W submitted 2025-06-17 quant-ph gr-qchep-phhep-th

Taiki Ikeda , Sugumi Kanno , Jiro Soda This is my paper
classification quant-phgr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords photon-axionconversionsqueezedcoherentstatesquantumfieldtheoryaxiondetectionsensingChern-Simonsinteractionphoton-addedmagnetic
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

Ultra-light axions are a leading dark matter candidate, and one of the main experimental routes to finding them is the conversion of photons into axions (or back) in a strong magnetic field. This paper argues that this conversion should be treated quantum mechanically rather than as classical wave propagation, and that doing so reveals a practical handle: the conversion probability is enhanced when the photon field is prepared in a squeezed coherent state. The key result is Eq. (4.12), where the probability gains the factor $\cosh^2 r + |\beta|^2 (\cosh 2r + \sinh 2r \cos(2\delta-\varphi))$, which equals one plus the mean photon number of the squeezed coherent state underlying the initial single-photon-added state. Because this factor grows exponentially with the squeezing parameter $r$ and with the coherent amplitude $|\beta|$, squeezed light could improve the sensitivity of axion detection experiments that rely on photon-axion conversion. The paper also reproduces the standard conversion formula at leading order for a single photon, anchoring the new result to the known classical answer.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the interaction-picture quantum field theory of the Chern-Simons coupling $g\phi E\cdot B$ in a constant transverse magnetic field. The evolution operator is $U(t,0)=e^{-iQ}$, with $Q$ built from the interaction Hamiltonian containing the operators $U_k f(t) b_k^\dagger a_k$, $U_k f^*(t) a_k^\dagger b_k$, and the off-diagonal $V_k$ terms that couple $k$ and $-k$. To evaluate the squeezed-state matrix element, the paper uses the squeezing transformation $S^\dagger(\zeta) b_k S(\zeta) = b_k \cosh r + b^\dagger_k e^{i\varphi}\sinh r$, which converts the expectation value of photon occupation into the combination $\cosh^2 r + |\beta|^2(\cosh 2r + \sinh 2r\cos(2\delta-\varphi))$. This Bogoliubov-type rotation of the annihilation operator is what ties the interaction amplitude to the photon number of the prepared state, and it is this identity that carries the enhancement.

What would settle it

Carry out the same leading-order calculation for an initial two-mode state containing photons in both $k$ and $-k$; the $V_k g(t) b_k a_{-k}$ terms in Eq. (3.8) then contribute, and if the resulting probability differs from Eq. (4.12), the single-mode result is incomplete. Experimentally, one could also measure conversion in a cavity with squeezed light at a fixed average photon number and compare it with coherent light of the same average number, checking whether the enhancement is just photon-number scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the photon-axion conversion probability is enhanced when the photon field is prepared as a single photon added to a squeezed coherent state, $|k_\psi, \zeta, \beta\rangle = A b^\dagger_k |\zeta,\beta\rangle$. The leading-order probability to end with one axion is $P = (gB/2)^2 U_k^2 |f^*(t)|^2 [\cosh^2 r + |\beta|^2 (\cosh 2r + \sinh 2r \cos(2\delta-\varphi))]$. The bracketed factor is exactly one plus the mean photon number of the squeezed coherent state $|\zeta,\beta\rangle$, so the conversion probability scales with the photon occupation of the prepared light. Since $r$ can be made large with currently available squeezing (over 8 dB), this gives a concrete quantum enhancement over the single-photon or coherent-state formulas. The same mechanism works in reverse, so axion-to-photon conversion relevant for dark matter haloscopes is also enhanced.

Load-bearing premise

The central calculation assumes all participating photons live in a single mode $k$, and it ignores the terms in the interaction that couple $k$ and $-k$; if those cross-mode terms contribute, the conversion probability in Eq. (4.12) could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard single-photon conversion probability $P(\gamma\to\phi)\simeq (gBL/2)^2 [\sin^2(m^2L/4k)/(m^2L/4k)^2]$ is recovered as the leading-order term, so the quantum treatment is consistent with existing experimental formulas.
  • For an ordinary coherent state the probability gains a factor $|\beta|^2$, the laser intensity, matching the classical expectation that more photons mean more conversions.
  • For a single-photon-added squeezed coherent state the probability gains the factor $1+\langle n\rangle_{\zeta,\beta}$, which grows like $|\beta|^2 e^{2r}$ for large squeezing; with 8 dB squeezing already demonstrated this is a substantial, not marginal, improvement.
  • The enhancement applies to axion-to-photon conversion as well, so haloscope searches for axion dark matter could in principle be boosted by injecting squeezed light.
  • Higher-order corrections computed for the single-photon case show the expansion parameter is $gB U_k |f(t)|$; the same expansion structure carries over to the squeezed-state calculation at leading order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the enhancement factor is one plus the mean photon number of the squeezed coherent field, the net effect is essentially photon-number scaling; any high-occupation state would likely give a similar boost, with squeezing serving as a practical means to reach large occupation in one mode.
  • The calculation drops the $V_k$ cross terms that couple mode $k$ to mode $-k$; if the magnetic field or the photon state has multi-mode structure, those terms could add corrections to Eq. (4.12) that the leading-order single-mode result does not capture.
  • Extending the same computation to an axion field prepared in a squeezed state, which the paper notes is cosmologically plausible, would presumably multiply the enhancement by the axion occupation number, suggesting even larger signals from squeezed axion dark matter.
  • A direct laboratory test could compare conversion probabilities for coherent and squeezed light at equal mean photon number; if the enhancement is only the photon-number factor, the two should match, while any excess in the squeezed case would reveal a genuinely nonclassical contribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives photon-axion conversion probabilities in a quantum field-theoretic framework starting from the action (2.1). It reproduces the conventional leading-order result for a single photon in Eq. (3.12), then extends the calculation to coherent states in Eq. (4.10) and to single-photon-added squeezed coherent states in Eq. (4.12). The authors interpret the factor in Eq. (4.12) as an enhancement of the conversion probability due to squeezing.

Significance. The derivation is self-contained, parameter-free, and internally consistent, and reproducing the classical formula from a first-principles QFT calculation is a useful technical contribution. However, the central interpretive claim, that squeezed coherent states provide a quantum enhancement of the conversion probability, is not supported by the calculation: the enhancement factor in Eq. (4.12) is exactly the mean photon number of the background squeezed coherent state plus one, so the result is an instance of bosonic stimulation rather than a nonclassical advantage. The paper's value lies in the technical QFT framework; its stated quantum-sensing significance is overstated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.12)] The bracket in Eq. (4.12) is identically 1 + N_bg, where N_bg = <ζ,β|b†b|ζ,β> = sinh²r + |β|²(cosh 2r + sinh 2r cos(2δ−φ)) is the mean photon number of the squeezed coherent background state. Therefore the leading-order conversion probability is (gB/2)² U_k² |f|² (1 + N_bg), which is the single-photon probability multiplied by 1 plus the background photon number. This is the same bosonic-stimulation scaling as for the coherent state in Eq. (4.10), where P ∝ |β|² = N_bg. Moreover, the total mean photon number of the photon-added squeezed coherent state is <(1+N)²>/<1+N> ≥ 1 + N_bg, so a coherent state of the same total intensity yields a conversion probability at least as large. The factor |β|²e^{2r} quoted in the text is just the phase-matched large-r value of N_bg, not a squeezing-specific quantum effect. To support the quantum-sensing claim, the authors need to compare states of fixed total photon number and analyze the signal-to-noise ratio; as it stands, Eq. (4.12) demonstrates only that the conversion rate grows with photon number.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The state that produces Eq. (4.12) is the photon-added squeezed coherent state A b†_k |ζ,β>, not the squeezed coherent state itself. For the squeezed coherent state alone, the leading-order conversion amplitude is proportional to <ζ,β|b_k|ζ,β> = β and contains no squeezing factor at β=0; the enhancement appears only because a photon is added on top of the background. The title and abstract should be corrected to refer to photon-added squeezed coherent states, and the role of photon addition should be stated explicitly. This wording affects how the central result is interpreted and should be fixed in a revision.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.11) and (3.13)] The higher-order series coefficients in Eqs. (3.11) and (3.13) are asserted without derivation. If these series are meant to support the claim of higher-order corrections, a derivation or a closed-form expression should be supplied; otherwise the text should state explicitly that these terms are not used in the leading-order analysis.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The calculation restricts to a single mode k and uses a single-mode squeezing operator, while the interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. (3.8) contains terms coupling k and −k through V_k. The paper should justify this truncation, for example by arguing that these terms do not contribute at leading order for the states considered, or by specifying a physical single-mode setup in which the magnetic field geometry and the photon state justify the approximation.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'Coversion' in the Section 3 heading, 'usign' in Sec. 4.1, 'labotatory' in Sec. 4.2, 'determins' in Sec. 1, 'porblem' in Sec. 1, and 'calculaions' in Sec. 5.
  4. [Eq. (4.12)] The notation |f^*|^2 is redundant and slightly confusing; since f is complex, |f|^2 is sufficient, and the time argument should be written explicitly as |f(t)|^2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conversion probability is a direct leading-order matrix-element computation from the action, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. From the quadratic action Eq. (2.14), the interaction-picture Hamiltonian Eq. (3.6) yields the operator Q in Eq. (3.8), and the leading-order transition amplitudes in Eqs. (3.11), (4.10), and (4.12) are obtained by direct first-order matrix elements. No parameter is fitted to the target result, and no externally derived conversion probability is used as an input. In particular, Eq. (4.12) follows by evaluating A^2 |<zeta,beta| a_k e^{-iQ} b_k^dagger |zeta,beta>|^2 with A fixed in Eq. (4.11); the bracket cosh^2 r + |beta|^2 (cosh 2r + sinh 2r cos(2 delta - phi)) is exactly 1 plus the mean photon number of the squeezed coherent mode. The quoted 'enhancement' is therefore photon-number scaling, and whether this constitutes an advantage over a coherent state of the same intensity is a comparison-baseline question, not a circularity. Self-citations such as [25, 28, 34, 36-39] are contextual and are not load-bearing for the central result. The single-mode ansatz in Eq. (4.7) is an explicit modeling assumption rather than a smuggled input. Hence the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

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

No parameters are fitted; g, m, B are experimental inputs. The derivation assumes standard QFT quantization, the Coulomb gauge with k·B=0, neglect of plasma and Euler-Heisenberg effects, and leading-order perturbation theory. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard canonical quantization and interaction picture in quantum field theory.
    Used throughout Section 3 to define mode expansions and the time evolution operator.
  • domain assumption Coulomb gauge A0=0 and transverse magnetic field k·B=0.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (2.9) and the following paragraph, to decouple A0 and reduce the photon to the scalar ψ.
  • domain assumption Neglect of the Euler-Heisenberg term and plasma effects for photon energies below 1 MeV.
    Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (2.1).
  • domain assumption Leading-order perturbation theory in the small parameter gBL.
    The paper computes the conversion probability to leading order in gB and lists higher-order corrections; the main claim uses the leading-order term.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing photon-axion conversion probability with squeezed coherent states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GPKITA4W

@misc{pith2026250614354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing photon-axion conversion probability with squeezed coherent states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GPKITA4W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14354}
}
read the original abstract

In particle physics, axions and axion-like particles are ubiquitous. Remarkably, ultra-light axions could constitute dark matter or dark energy. Therefore, it is important to detect axions experimentally. In the presence of a magnetic field, a photon can be converted into an axion, and vice versa. Utilizing the conversion phenomenon, several methods for detecting axions have been proposed. To improve detectability, it is desirable to use quantum sensing. However, since the conversion process is usually treated as classical wave dynamics, it is unclear how to incorporate quantum effects such as entanglement. In this work, we formulate the photon-axion conversion in a quantum field theoretical manner. As a result, we succeed in evaluating the conversion probability from a photon quantum state to an axion quantum state. In particular, it turns out that squeezed coherent states can enhance the conversion probability.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Photon-to-graviton conversion in a magnetic field is shown to be enhanced by squeezed photon states and by the squeezed vacuum of primordial gravitational waves, with entanglement generation proposed as a quantum signature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and Helen R. Quinn. CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 38:1440–1443, 1977

    1977

  2. [2]

    A New Light Boson? Phys

    Steven Weinberg. A New Light Boson? Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:223–226, 1978

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons

    Frank Wilczek. Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:279–282, 1978

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    Jihn E. Kim. Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance. Phys. Rev. Lett., 43:103, 1979

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    Shifman, A

    Mikhail A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and Valentin I. Zakharov. Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions? Nucl. Phys. B, 166:493–506, 1980. 11

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion

    Michael Dine, Willy Fischler, and Mark Srednicki. A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion. Phys. Lett. B, 104:199–202, 1981

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

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

    work page 1980

  8. [8]

    Axions In String Theory

    Peter Svrcek and Edward Witten. Axions In String Theory. JHEP, 06:051, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    David J. E. Marsh. Axion Cosmology. Phys. Rept., 643:1–79, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Frieman, and Angela V

    Katherine Freese, Joshua A. Frieman, and Angela V. Olinto. Natural inflation with pseudo - Nambu-Goldstone bosons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 65:3233–3236, 1990

    1990

  3. [11]

    Wise, and Frank Wilczek

    John Preskill, Mark B. Wise, and Frank Wilczek. Cosmology of the Invisible Axion. Phys. Lett. B, 120:127–132, 1983

    1983

  4. [12]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie. A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion. Phys. Lett. B, 120:133–136, 1983

    1983

  5. [13]

    The Not So Harmless Axion

    Michael Dine and Willy Fischler. The Not So Harmless Axion. Phys. Lett. B, 120:137–141, 1983

    1983

  6. [14]

    Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, and Edward Witten

    Lam Hui, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, and Edward Witten. Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 95(4):043541, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Frieman, Christopher T

    Joshua A. Frieman, Christopher T. Hill, Albert Stebbins, and Ioav Waga. Cosmology with ultralight pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:2077–2080, 1995

    1995

  8. [16]

    Mixing of the Photon with Low Mass Particles

    Georg Raffelt and Leo Stodolsky. Mixing of the Photon with Low Mass Particles. Phys. Rev. D, 37:1237, 1988

    1988

  9. [17]

    P. Sikivie. Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion. Phys. Rev. Lett., 51:1415–1417, 1983. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 52, 695 (1984)]

    1984

  10. [18]

    Irastorza and Javier Redondo

    Igor G. Irastorza and Javier Redondo. New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 102:89–159, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Anastassopoulos et al

    V. Anastassopoulos et al. New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction. Nature Phys., 13:584–590, 2017. 12

    2017

  12. [20]

    S. J. Asztalos et al. A SQUID-based microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 104:041301, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Stochastic conversions of TeV photons into axion-like particles in extragalactic magnetic fields

    Alessandro Mirizzi and Daniele Montanino. Stochastic conversions of TeV photons into axion-like particles in extragalactic magnetic fields. JCAP, 12:004, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Photon-Axion Conversion, Magnetic Field Con- figuration, and Polarization of Photons

    Emi Masaki, Arata Aoki, and Jiro Soda. Photon-Axion Conversion, Magnetic Field Con- figuration, and Polarization of Photons. Phys. Rev. D, 96(4):043519, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Observing axions through photon ring dimming of black holes

    Kimihiro Nomura, Kaishu Saito, and Jiro Soda. Observing axions through photon ring dimming of black holes. Phys. Rev. D, 107(12):123505, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro. Quantum sensing.Rev. Mod. Phys., 89:035002, Jul 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Blasone, P

    M. Blasone, P. A. Henning, and Giuseppe Vitiello. Mixing transformations in quantum field theory and neutrino oscillations. Frascati Phys. Ser., 5:139–152, 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    Quantum field theory of meson mixing

    Michael Binger and Chueng-Ryong Ji. Quantum field theory of meson mixing. Phys. Rev. D, 60:056005, 1999

    1999

  19. [27]

    Quantum field theory of boson mixing

    Massimo Blasone, Antonio Capolupo, Oreste Romei, and Giuseppe Vitiello. Quantum field theory of boson mixing. Phys. Rev. D, 63:125015, 2001

    2001

  20. [28]

    Capolupo, I

    A. Capolupo, I. De Martino, G. Lambiase, and An. Stabile. Axion–photon mixing in quantum field theory and vacuum energy. Phys. Lett. B, 790:427–435, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    G. S. Agarwal and K. Tara. Nonclassical properties of states generated by the excitations on a coherent state. Phys. Rev. A, 43:492–497, 1991

    1991

  22. [30]

    Quantum-to-Classical Transition with Single-Photon-Added Coherent States of Light

    Alessandro Zavatta, Silvia Viciani, and Marco Bellini. Quantum-to-Classical Transition with Single-Photon-Added Coherent States of Light. Science, 306(5696):1103190, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    Experimental preparation of multiphoton-added coherent states of light

    Jiˇ r ´ ı Fadrn´ y, Michal Neset, Martin Bielak, Miroslav Jeˇ zek, Jan B ´ ılek, and Jarom ´ ır Fiur´ aˇ sek. Experimental preparation of multiphoton-added coherent states of light. npj Quantum Inf., 10(1):89, 2024. 13

    2024

  24. [32]

    Banerji, and Anirban Pathak

    Kishore Thapliyal, Nigam Lahiri Samantray, J. Banerji, and Anirban Pathak. Comparison of lower order and higher order nonclassicality in photon added and photon subtracted squeezed coherent states. Phys. Lett. A, 381:3178–3187, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Over-8-dB squeezed light generation by a broadband waveguide optical parametric amplifier toward fault- tolerant ultra-fast quantum computers

    Takahiro Kashiwazaki, Taichi Yamashima, Koji Enbutsu, Takushi Kazama, Asuka Inoue, Kosuke Fukui, Mamoru Endo, Takeshi Umeki, and Akira Furusawa. Over-8-dB squeezed light generation by a broadband waveguide optical parametric amplifier toward fault- tolerant ultra-fast quantum ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Squeezed quantum states of graviton and axion in the universe

    Sugumi Kanno and Jiro Soda. Squeezed quantum states of graviton and axion in the universe. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 31(13):2250098, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Stability of Axion Dark Matter-Photon Conversion

    Emi Masaki, Arata Aoki, and Jiro Soda. Stability of Axion Dark Matter-Photon Conversion. Phys. Rev. D, 101(4):043505, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion

    Taiki Ikeda, Youka Kaku, Sugumi Kanno, and Jiro Soda. Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion. 7 2025. arXiv: 2507.01609[quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Conversion of squeezed gravitons into photons during inflation

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Kazushige Ueda. Conversion of squeezed gravitons into photons during inflation. Phys. Rev. D, 106(8):083508, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Impact of quantum en- tanglement induced by magnetic fields on primordial gravitational waves

    Sugumi Kanno, Ann Mukuno, Jiro Soda, and Kazushige Ueda. Impact of quantum en- tanglement induced by magnetic fields on primordial gravitational waves. Phys. Rev. D, 107(6):063503, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    A peak in the power spec- trum of primordial gravitational waves induced by primordial dark magnetic fields

    Sugumi Kanno, Ann Mukuno, Jiro Soda, and Kazushige Ueda. A peak in the power spec- trum of primordial gravitational waves induced by primordial dark magnetic fields. JCAP, 05:052, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Probing GHz gravitational waves with graviton–magnon resonance

    Asuka Ito, Tomonori Ikeda, Kentaro Miuchi, and Jiro Soda. Probing GHz gravitational waves with graviton–magnon resonance. Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(3):179, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Upper limits on the amplitude of ultra-high-frequency gravitational waves from graviton to photon conversion

    Aldo Ejlli, Damian Ejlli, Adrian Mike Cruise, Giampaolo Pisano, and Hartmut Grote. Upper limits on the amplitude of ultra-high-frequency gravitational waves from graviton to photon conversion. Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(12):1032, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    A formalism for magnon gravitational wave detectors

    Asuka Ito and Jiro Soda. A formalism for magnon gravitational wave detectors. Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(6):545, 2020. 14

    2020

  35. [43]

    Asher Berlin, Diego Blas, Raffaele Tito D’Agnolo, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, Roni Harnik, Yonatan Kahn, and Jan Sch¨ utte-Engel. Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities. Phys. Rev. D, 105(11):116011, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Valerie Domcke, Camilo Garcia-Cely, and Nicholas L. Rodd. Novel Search for High- Frequency Gravitational Waves with Low-Mass Axion Haloscopes. Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(4):041101, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Exploring high-frequency gravitational waves with magnons

    Asuka Ito and Jiro Soda. Exploring high-frequency gravitational waves with magnons. Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(8):766, 2023. 15

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.