Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

A proposed hybrid of resonant cavities and atomic quantum sensors could detect gravitational waves from 1 GHz to 10^15 Hz, reaching sensitivities beyond the BBN bound.

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

2026-08-04 09:28 UTC pith:IWJYK3GP

load-bearing objection The hybrid atomic-sensor idea is worth a look, but the BBN-reach claim is off by more than ten orders of magnitude because of an incorrect Ω_GW conversion. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.15031 v2 pith:IWJYK3GP submitted 2025-10-16 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ex

Atomic Quantum Sensors for High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Searches

Yi-fu Cai , Luca Visinelli , Sheng-Feng Yan This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ex
keywords high-frequency gravitational wavesGertsenshtein effectgraviton–photon conversionresonant cavityatomic quantum sensorsRydberg atomsRaman interferometrystochastic gravitational-wave background
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 paper proposes a new way to search for gravitational waves at frequencies from roughly 1 GHz to 10^15 Hz, a band no current detector reaches. The idea is to let a passing gravitational wave convert into electromagnetic radiation via the Gertsenshtein effect inside a strong static magnetic field, collect that radiation in a high-quality resonant cavity, and then read out the tiny cavity field with atomic quantum sensors such as Rydberg atoms or Raman transitions in alkali gases. The authors derive the graviton–photon conversion probability, the resulting cavity intensity, and the shot-noise-limited strain sensitivity for several concrete architectures. They project sensitivities from about 10^-22 Hz^-1/2 for conservative microwave setups to 10^-37 Hz^-1/2 for aggressive optical Raman schemes, which would surpass the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis bound on stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds. If these projections hold, the schemes could make the unexplored high-frequency band a direct probe of early-Universe physics: primordial black holes, cosmic strings, violent phase transitions, and preheating.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the unexplored high-frequency gravitational-wave band, from microwave to optical frequencies, can be brought within reach of a detection scheme that combines the Gertsenshtein effect with resonant cavities and atomic quantum sensors. The central result is a set of closed-form sensitivity formulas that map the shot-noise-limited strain spectral density to cavity, magnet, and atomic-ensemble parameters. For microwave Rydberg transitions at ~10 GHz the projected reach spans sqrt(S_h,min) ~ 10^-22 to 10^-30 Hz^-1/2 depending on configuration; for optical Raman schemes on the Cs D2 line it extends from ~10^-28 to 10^-37 Hz^-1/2. The aggressive optical confi

What carries the argument

The load-bearing chain is: a gravitational wave of strain spectral density S_h(f) converts, via the Gertsenshtein effect in a static magnetic field B, into electromagnetic radiation with probability P_{g->γ} ≈ 4π G B^2 L^2; a high-Q cavity of quality factor Q and mode volume V_mode stores and amplifies the resulting power, giving a field intensity I = (πη/2ξ) B^2 L Q f S_h(f) Δf, where η is conversion/readout efficiency and ξ the mode-overlap factor; and that intensity drives atomic transitions with Rabi frequency Ω, read out at the shot-noise limit over N atoms. The key identity is the proportionality Ω ∝ √S_h (direct Rydberg coupling) or Ω ∝ √I (in the Raman and two-photon schemes), which

Load-bearing premise

The reach to cosmological stochastic backgrounds depends on the unverified assumption that nearly all incoming gravitational-wave power converts into the resonant cavity mode; if the geometric acceptance or conversion/readout efficiency is far below unity, the projected sensitivities shrink accordingly.

What would settle it

Perform the angle-averaged graviton–photon conversion calculation for a realistic cavity mode and an isotropic stochastic background; if the averaged efficiency falls below ~1, the quoted sqrt(S_h) values for stochastic backgrounds are optimistic by that factor, which would move the microwave reach away from the BBN bound.

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

If this is right

  • The microwave Rydberg configuration opens the 1–100 GHz band, with the aggressive setup reaching Ω_GW h^2 ~ 10^-5, close to the BBN bound of ~10^-6 on stochastic backgrounds.
  • The optical Raman configuration reaches down to sqrt(S_h,min) ~ 10^-37 Hz^-1/2, several orders below typical cosmological HFGW predictions, potentially making the stochastic background from early-Universe sources detectable.
  • Even without a detection, the projected sensitivity would set the strongest direct constraints on high-frequency GW sources, including light primordial black holes, cosmic string bursts, and phase transitions at ~10^13 GeV.
  • Coherent, narrowband GW bursts remain detectable even when the stochastic background is not, because the shot-noise limit applies per frequency bin.
  • The scheme identifies concrete technology goals—high-Q superconducting and optical cavities, multi-tesla magnets, spin-squeezed large atomic ensembles—whose development has independent value for quantum metrology.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper sets η = ξ = 1 and uses the full S_h(f) without an antenna-pattern factor, the actual reach to isotropic stochastic backgrounds may be weaker: only gravitational waves whose wavevectors match the cavity mode convert efficiently, so the effective sensitivity could be reduced by a geometric acceptance factor.
  • The same cavity-plus-atomic-readout architecture can be repurposed for axion/ALP dark-matter searches, where the signal is also a resonant EM field in a magnetized cavity; atomic readout may beat amplifier noise in the relevant bands, a connection the paper mentions but does not develop.
  • The 'two-photon-from-cavity' variant, which avoids an external laser, is ~8 orders of magnitude less sensitive; applying spin squeezing or collective-state readout to that scheme could be a way to close the gap without the systematic noise of a strong control laser.
  • If strong coupling between atoms and cavity is deliberately engineered, the resulting polariton modes change how the gravitational-wave signal is transduced; this could turn the paper's noted caveat into a design lever rather than a limitation.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid detection framework for high-frequency gravitational waves (HFGWs) in the MHz-to-optical band. A GW traversing a static magnetic field converts into photons via the Gertsenshtein effect; the photons resonantly accumulate in a high-Q cavity and are read out by atomic quantum sensors (Rydberg microwave transitions or optical/NIR Raman schemes). The authors derive the conversion probability, the cavity field intensity, the effective Rabi couplings, and shot-noise-limited strain spectral densities for representative conservative, optimistic, and aggressive configurations. They report projected sensitivities from sqrt(S_h,min) ~ 10^-22 Hz^-1/2 (conservative microwave) to ~10^-37 Hz^-1/2 (aggressive optical Raman) and claim that the aggressive configurations can approach or surpass the BBN bound on a stochastic GW background. The central detection principle and the strain-sensitivity derivations are internally consistent under the stated idealized assumptions, but the conversion from strain sensitivity to Omega_GW is incorrect, which undermines the headline stochastic-background claim.

Significance. If the strain sensitivities were realized, the framework would open the 1-100 GHz and 10^14-10^15 Hz bands to direct searches, complementing existing proposals such as BAW, FLASH, ADMX, and OSQAR. The paper's analytic derivations are standard and do not rely on fitted parameters; the parameter choices in Table I are clearly stated input assumptions. The explicit formulas (Eqs. 7-11) allow easy checking and extension. However, the significance of the central stochastic-background projection is substantially weakened by an algebraic error in converting S_h to Omega_GW (a missing power of f), and further optimism enters through setting eta=xi=1 and neglecting antenna-pattern averaging for isotropic backgrounds. The coherent/narrowband sensitivity estimates remain of interest, but the 'surpassing the BBN bound' claim is not supported by the presented results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (aggressive microwave and optical Raman paragraphs); Eq. (2)] The reported Omega_GW h^2 values are inconsistent with the paper's own Eq. (2). For the aggressive microwave example (f=10^10 Hz, sqrt(S_h,min)=10^-30 Hz^-1/2, so S_h=10^-60 s), the standard relation Omega_GW = (2 pi^2/(3 H0^2)) f^3 S_h gives Omega_GW h^2 ~ 10^6, not the quoted ~10^-5. The quoted value corresponds to using f^2 instead of f^3 in the conversion. Similarly, for the aggressive optical Raman example (f~10^15 Hz, sqrt(S_h,min)=10^-37 Hz^-1/2), one obtains Omega_GW h^2 ~ 10^7, again many orders above the BBN bound Omega_GW h^2 <~ 10^-6. Thus the statements in the Results and Conclusion that the aggressive configurations 'approach' or 'surpass' the BBN bound are not supported by the derived sensitivities. This is a load-bearing error for the stochastic-background claims, though the strain sensitivities themselves (as S_h,min) may still be relevant for narrowband or coherent sour
  2. [Methods, Eq. (4); Table I] All headline sensitivities are quoted with eta=xi=1 ('For simplicity, we set eta=xi=1 throughout'), neglecting conversion/readout inefficiency and the geometrical overlap between the conversion region and the cavity mode. For an isotropic stochastic background, an additional angular/antenna-pattern acceptance factor is required: only GWs whose propagation direction and polarization phase-match the resonant cavity mode convert efficiently, and the fraction of the sky contributing is not computed. Including such a factor would further suppress the projected sensitivity to stochastic backgrounds by an O(1) or larger factor. The strain sensitivities for coherent, optimally oriented bursts are less affected, but the stochastic-background projections should be revised with a quantitative antenna-pattern average.
  3. [Eqs. (7)-(11) and Table I] The shot-noise-limited sensitivity formulas assume ideal quantum projection noise and ignore technical noise, as acknowledged in the Discussion. However, for the 'aggressive' configurations the required combination of Q=10^11, N=10^10 atoms, tau=10 ms, and 20 dB squeezing is presented as a single scenario without a demonstration that these parameters can be simultaneously realized. In particular, the microwave aggressive case uses B=30 T, Q=10^11, and f=10^10 Hz; at this frequency, the cavity mode volume and the magnetized volume must overlap to a degree controlled by xi, which is set to unity. A quantitative feasibility check, or at least a discussion of the trade-offs between B, L, Q, and xi, is needed before the quoted aggressive sensitivities can be regarded as more than formal extrapolations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The phrase 'surpassing the cosmological bound from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis' should be removed or replaced with a statement about strain sensitivity, pending the corrected Omega_GW conversion. The abstract currently overstates what the derived S_h values imply for stochastic backgrounds.
  2. [Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The relation between S_h and Omega_GW is standard, but the paper never explicitly writes the conversion Omega_GW = (2 pi^2/(3 H0^2)) f^3 S_h. Adding this equation and using it in the Results would prevent the f^2/f^3 error and make the claimed BBN reach checkable.
  3. [Fig. 2] The figure compares sqrt(S_h,min) for different experiments, but some of the comparison experiments (e.g., ADMX, FLASH) are axion searches whose sensitivity curves are expressed in different units. The caption should state the conversion used for those curves, or at least clarify that the comparison is schematic.
  4. [Table I and text] The parameter table lists 'Squeezing No No 20 dB', but the text does not define how the 20 dB squeezing enters Eqs. (7)-(11). If it effectively increases N or reduces noise, the formula should be written explicitly, e.g., an effective N_eff = N * 10^{2*squeezing/10}.
  5. [Discussion (EUV and photoionization)] The sentence 'the resulting sensitivity is poor, sqrt(S_h,min) ~ (10^-10-10^-12) Hz^-1/2' is not meaningful unless the frequency and integration time are specified. The same applies to the photoionization estimate '10^-20-10^-22 Hz^-1/2'. Please give the assumed parameters in a table or in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the sensitivity derivation is self-contained; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations appear in the cosmology motivation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain (Eqs. 1–11) is self-contained: the Gertsenshtein conversion probability is cited to independent literature, the cavity intensity follows from standard energy storage, and the atomic Rabi-frequency formulas are standard textbook results. Table I parameters are hand-chosen inputs, not fitted outputs, and the quoted strain sensitivities are projections under stated assumptions. The self-citations [35], [101], and [102] appear only in the early-Universe motivation and do not support the detection derivation, so they are not load-bearing. The paper's own limitations (technical noise, eta=xi=1, neglected cavity-atom hybridization) are explicit caveats rather than circular reasoning. A possible arithmetic inconsistency in the conversion from S_h to Omega_GW would be a correctness issue, not a circularity, and is therefore outside this pass. No step was found where an input is defined in terms of the target result, or where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All sensitivity numbers follow from standard physics plus the free parameters listed above. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The main burden in the ledger is the idealization eta=xi=1 and the implicit no-angular-suppression assumption: the BBN-reaching stochastic sensitivities depend on every incident GW direction converting into the cavity mode with full efficiency.

free parameters (10)
  • Magnetic field B = 1 T / 30 T
    Chosen per scenario in Table I; not fitted.
  • Interaction length L = 1 m / 10 m
    Chosen per scenario in Table I.
  • Cavity quality factor Q = 1e6 / 1e11
    Chosen per scenario; 1e11 is an optimistic extrapolation.
  • Atom number N = 1e6 / 1e10
    Chosen per scenario in Table I.
  • Interrogation time tau = 10 us / 10 ms
    Chosen per scenario in Table I.
  • Spin squeezing = 0 / 20 dB
    Assumed in the aggressive configuration to improve projection noise.
  • Single-photon detuning Delta = 2 pi GHz
    Chosen to suppress spontaneous scattering while keeping the Raman coupling large.
  • Control laser field E_laser = 1e5 V/m
    Chosen as a strong but plausible classical laser amplitude.
  • Conversion/readout efficiency eta = 1
    Set by hand 'for simplicity'; the paper acknowledges realistic eta < 1.
  • Geometric overlap factor xi = 1
    Set by hand 'for simplicity'; assumes perfect mode overlap between conversion region and cavity mode.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Gertsenshtein conversion probability P_g->gamma = 4 pi G B^2 L^2 (Eq. 1)
    Assumes a GW converts to a collinear EM wave in a static transverse B field with zero phase mismatch, integrated over a finite slab of length L. Standard, but central to all sensitivity projections.
  • standard math GW energy flux-spectral density relation dS_GW/d ln f = (pi/4G) f^3 S_h(f) (Eq. 2)
    Standard stochastic-GW relation from Allen-Romano; converts strain spectral density into energy flux.
  • standard math Cavity resonance formulas U = P_in Q/(2 pi f) and Delta f = min(1/tau, f/(2Q)) (Eqs. 4-5)
    Definition of cavity quality factor and integration bandwidth; assumes the GW frequency sits on a cavity eigenmode.
  • domain assumption Shot-noise-limited readout condition Omega tau sqrt(N) ~ 1 (Eqs. 7, 9, 11)
    Assumes quantum projection noise is the only noise and perfect readout; the paper later notes technical noise dominates in practice.
  • domain assumption Unit conversion/overlap efficiency for all incoming GW directions: eta = xi = 1 (Methods)
    Load-bearing for stochastic-background reach: assumes every incoming GW direction couples to the single resonant cavity mode with full efficiency, ignoring angular/antenna-pattern and mode-overlap suppression.
  • standard math Two-photon Rabi frequency formulas (Eqs. 8 and 10)
    Standard second-order perturbation results from quantum optics for Raman transitions with large detuning.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11812 in / 16717 out tokens · 148004 ms · 2026-08-04T09:28:15.680682+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

High-frequency gravitational waves (GWs), spanning frequencies from the microwave to the optical band, remain experimentally unexplored despite strong motivation from early-Universe dynamics, high-energy cosmology, and exotic compact objects. We propose a detection framework in which an incident GW excites an eigenmode of a high-$Q$ resonator in the presence of a static magnetic field through GW-induced electromagnetic mode conversion; the resulting cavity field is then read out using atomic sensors placed outside the magnetized volume. We analyze two concrete architectures: microwave detection based on Rydberg transitions and optical/near-infrared Raman schemes. For each, we derive projected strain sensitivities achievable with realistic, though ambitious, magnetic fields, cavity parameters, and atomic ensembles. Under optimistic assumptions on cavity performance, signal coherence, and technical noise, optical Raman implementations could approach benchmark narrowband coherent strain sensitivities relevant for speculative high frequency GW scenarios, while microwave systems may probe benchmark sensitivities in an otherwise unexplored frequency range. These setups motivate advances in high-$Q$ cavities, strong-field magnets, and quantum-limited atomic sensors, with broader implications for quantum instrumentation and fundamental physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15031 by Luca Visinelli, Sheng-Feng Yan, Yi-Fu Cai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the detection concept. A HFGW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Shot-noise-limited strain spectral density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum Noise Fraction and the Thermal Frontier in High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Detection

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The quantum noise fraction β shows resonant mass gravitational wave detectors are thermally dominated below ~230 MHz, with quantum enhancement viable only above the thermal frontier ħω = k_B T ln 3, exemplified by a 1...

  2. Quantum Noise Fraction and the Thermal Frontier in High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Detection

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new diagnostic β shows resonant high-frequency GW detectors are thermally dominated below ~230 MHz, with a proposed 1 GHz bulk acoustic resonator array reaching 7.6e-26 /sqrt(Hz) sensitivity after squeezing but stil...

  3. Gravitational Waves from Primordial Black Holes: Connecting Low-Frequency Scalar-Induced Signatures to High-Frequency Binary Mergers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Establishes a model-independent link between scalar-induced GW backgrounds and PBH binary merger signals, including the mass-independent relation f_peak = 1.79 f_ISCO.

  4. Gravitational Waves from Primordial Black Holes: Connecting Low-Frequency Scalar-Induced Signatures to High-Frequency Binary Mergers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    For monochromatic primordial black holes, the low-frequency scalar-induced gravitational-wave peak and the high-frequency binary-merger ISCO frequency are linked by fISCO ≈ 3.4×10^20 Hz × (fSIGW/Hz)^2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 85 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific), Rept. Prog. Phys. 72, 076901 (2009), arXiv:0711.3041 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Accadia and B

    T. Accadia and B. L. Swinkels (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.27, 084002 (2010), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 27, 149801 (2010)]

    2010

  4. [4]

    Punturoet al., Class

    M. Punturoet al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    E. D. Hall, Galaxies10, 90 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), PTEP2022, 063F01 (2022), arXiv:2203.01270 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), PTEP2022, 063F01 (2022), arXiv:2203.01270 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Jennrich, N

    O. Jennrich, N. Luetzgendorf, J. I. Thorpe, J. Slut- sky, and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D104, 062003 (2021), arXiv:2107.03138 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Bakeret al., Bull

    J. Bakeret al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 243 (2019), arXiv:1907.11305 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Lu, Y.-J

    X.-Y. Lu, Y.-J. Tan, and C.-G. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044042 (2019), arXiv:2007.03400 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Z. Luo, Z. Guo, G. Jin, Y. Wu, and W. Hu, Results Phys.16, 102918 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Baileset al., Nature Rev

    M. Baileset al., Nature Rev. Phys.3, 344 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Cai, Z.-K

    R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, B. Hu, C. Liu, Y. Lu, W.-T. Ni, W.-H. Ruan, N. Seto, G. Wang, and Y.-L. Wu, Fund. Res.4, 1072 (2024), arXiv:2305.04551 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Z. Ren, T. Zhao, Z. Cao, Z.-K. Guo, W.-B. Han, H.-B. Jin, and Y.-L. Wu, Front. Phys. (Beijing)18, 64302 (2023), arXiv:2301.02967 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    R. Wang, Y. Xu, G. Wang, B. Hu, and R.-G. Cai, (2025), arXiv:2506.10768 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    B. Wang, B. Li, Q. Xiao, G. Mo, and Y.-F. Cai, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 249512 (2025), arXiv:2410.04340 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Kerret al., Publ

    M. Kerret al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e020 (2020), arXiv:2003.09780 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astro- phys.678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    L. Z. Kelley, (2025), arXiv:2505.00797 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 171102 (2013), arXiv:1206.0818 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, S. Ra- jendran, and R. W. Romani (MAGIS), (2017), arXiv:1711.02225 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Badurinaet al., JCAP05, 011 (2020), arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    L. Badurinaet al., JCAP05, 011 (2020), arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Y. A. El-Neajet al.(AEDGE), EPJ Quant. Technol.7, 6 (2020), arXiv:1908.00802 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Bianet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.19747 [gr-qc]

    L. Bianet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.19747 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    B. S. Sathyaprakash and B. F. Schutz, Living Rev. Rel. 12, 2 (2009), arXiv:0903.0338 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [26]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 163001 (2018), arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Aggarwalet al., Living Rev

    N. Aggarwalet al., Living Rev. Rel.24, 4 (2021), arXiv:2011.12414 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Aggarwalet al., (2025), arXiv:2501.11723 [gr-qc]

    N. Aggarwalet al., (2025), arXiv:2501.11723 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Gatti, L

    C. Gatti, L. Visinelli, and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D110, 023018 (2024), arXiv:2403.18610 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. D95, 015020 (2017), arXiv:1604.05035 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D98, 063532 (2018), arXiv:1807.00336 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Huang, F

    W.-C. Huang, F. Sannino, and Z.-W. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102, 095025 (2020), arXiv:2004.02332 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Okada, O

    N. Okada, O. Seto, and H. Uchida, PTEP2021, 033B01 (2021), arXiv:2006.01406 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Nakai, M

    Y. Nakai, M. Suzuki, F. Takahashi, and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B816, 136238 (2021), arXiv:2009.09754 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Addazi, Y.-F

    A. Addazi, Y.-F. Cai, A. Marciano, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D109, 015028 (2024), arXiv:2306.17205 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D64, 064008 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0104026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  37. [37]

    Leblond, B

    L. Leblond, B. Shlaer, and X. Siemens, Phys. Rev. D 79, 123519 (2009), arXiv:0903.4686 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    Jones-Smith, L

    K. Jones-Smith, L. M. Krauss, and H. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 131302 (2008), arXiv:0712.0778 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    Abdikamalov, G

    E. Abdikamalov, G. Pagliaroli, and D. Radice, (2020), 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 21-1, arXiv:2010.04356 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Mateos, and M. Sanchez- Garitaonandia, (2022), arXiv:2210.03171 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel.22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    S. S. Bavera, G. Franciolini, G. Cusin, A. Riotto, M. Zevin, and T. Fragos, Astron. Astrophys.660, A26 (2022), arXiv:2109.05836 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    B. Carr, S. Clesse, J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Hawkins, and F. Kuhnel, Phys. Rept.1054, 1 (2024), arXiv:2306.03903 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Baguiet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Liv- ing Rev

    E. Baguiet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Liv- ing Rev. Rel.28, 1 (2025), arXiv:2310.19857 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    R. Dong, W. H. Kinney, and D. Stojkovic, JCAP10, 034 (2016), arXiv:1511.05642 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    M. E. Gertsenshtein, Sov. Phys. JETP14, 84 (1962)

    1962

  47. [47]

    Chen, Phys

    P. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 634 (1995), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 74, 3091 (1995)]

    1995

  48. [48]

    A. N. Cillis and D. D. Harari, Phys. Rev. D54, 4757 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9609200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  49. [49]

    T. Liu, J. Ren, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 131402 (2024), arXiv:2305.01832 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    G. M. Harry, T. R. Stevenson, and H. J. Paik, Phys. Rev. D54, 2409 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9602018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  51. [51]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, Phys. Rev. D105, 116011 (2022), arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    O. D. Aguiar, Res. Astron. Astrophys.11, 1 (2011), arXiv:1009.1138 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    Li, M.-X

    F.-Y. Li, M.-X. Tang, and D.-P. Shi, Phys. Rev. D67, 104008 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0306092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  54. [54]

    J. Ye, H. J. Kimble, and H. Katori, Science320, 1148259 (2008)

    2008

  55. [55]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014), arXiv:1303.0733 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Appl. Phys. B54, 321 (1992). 7

    1992

  57. [57]

    U. R. Fischer, Class. Quant. Grav.11, 463 (1994), arXiv:2412.02378 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  58. [58]

    Kanno, J

    S. Kanno, J. Soda, and A. Taniguchi, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 31 (2025), arXiv:2311.03890 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Domcke and C

    V. Domcke and C. Garcia-Cely, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 021104 (2021), arXiv:2006.01161 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    Domcke, C

    V. Domcke, C. Garcia-Cely, and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 041101 (2022), arXiv:2202.00695 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Palessandro and T

    A. Palessandro and T. Rothman, Phys. Dark Univ.40, 101187 (2023), arXiv:2301.02072 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Hwang and H

    J.-c. Hwang and H. Noh, Phys. Dark Univ.43, 101426 (2024), arXiv:2310.04150 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D59, 102001 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9710117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  64. [64]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, G

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, G. Grynberg, and J. Dupont-Roc, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Appli- cations(Wiley, New York, 1992)

    1992

  65. [65]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cam- bridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  66. [66]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Rept.331, 283 (2000), arXiv:gr- qc/9909001

    arXiv 2000

  67. [67]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and E. Skill- man, Astropart. Phys.23, 313 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0408033

    arXiv 2005

  68. [68]

    Cesium d line data,

    D. A. Steck, “Cesium d line data,”http://steck.us/ alkalidata(2010), revision 2.1.4, 23 December 2010

    2010

  69. [69]

    Goryachev and M

    M. Goryachev and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. D90, 102005 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 129901 (2023)], arXiv:1410.2334 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    Alesiniet al., (2019), arXiv:1911.02427 [physics.ins- det]

    D. Alesiniet al., (2019), arXiv:1911.02427 [physics.ins- det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    Alesiniet al., Phys

    D. Alesiniet al., Phys. Dark Univ.42, 101370 (2023), arXiv:2309.00351 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Duet al.(ADMX), Phys

    N. Duet al.(ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05750 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  73. [73]

    Braineet al.(ADMX), Phys

    T. Braineet al.(ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 101303 (2020), arXiv:1910.08638 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    Bartramet al.(ADMX), Phys

    C. Bartramet al.(ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 261803 (2021), arXiv:2110.06096 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    Chakrabartyet al., Phys

    S. Chakrabartyet al., Phys. Rev. D109, 042004 (2024), arXiv:2303.07116 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Lawson, A

    M. Lawson, A. J. Millar, M. Pancaldi, E. Vitagliano, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 141802 (2019), arXiv:1904.11872 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    A. J. Millaret al.(ALPHA), Phys. Rev. D107, 055013 (2023), arXiv:2210.00017 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Pugnatet al.(OSQAR), Phys

    P. Pugnatet al.(OSQAR), Phys. Rev. D78, 092003 (2008), arXiv:0712.3362 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  79. [79]

    Ballouet al., in10th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs(2014) pp

    R. Ballouet al., in10th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs(2014) pp. 125–130, arXiv:1410.2566 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  80. [80]

    F. Li, N. Yang, Z. Fang, R. M. L. Baker, Jr., G. V. Stephenson, and H. Wen, Phys. Rev. D80, 064013 (2009), arXiv:0909.4118 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

Showing first 80 references.