Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Bounds on PBH fraction in a stimulated axion/ALP decay scenario

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superradiant axion cloud around a spinning black hole would act as a monochromatic photon source, and observed diffuse sky light puts primordial black holes below 10^-17 of dark matter in a broad mass window.

desk verdict Clever idea, wrong wavelengths: the paper's headline f_PBH bound rests on a factor-25 unit error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16579 v1 pith:QCS6HWCG submitted 2025-06-19 hep-ph gr-qc

Yadir Garnica , J. Barranco , Luis A. Ureña-López This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phgr-qc
keywords primordialblackholesaxion-likeparticlessuperradiancestimulateddecaycosmicbackgroundradiationdarkmatterboundsbosoncloudsmonochromaticphotonemission
topics 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 axions or axion-like particles could turn primordial black holes into bright, narrow-band photon sources, and whether we would already have noticed. It argues that spinning black holes grow dense axion clouds by superradiance, and that stimulated axion decay into two photons makes those clouds lase, producing a monochromatic flux at photon energy E_gamma = mu/2. Comparing that predicted flux with measured cosmic background intensities at X-ray, optical, infrared, and radio wavelengths, the paper concludes that PBHs can make up at most f_PBH < $10^{-17}$ of dark matter for PBH masses between $10^{-19}$ and $10^{-7}$ solar masses, if the axion mass lies between $10^{-3}$ eV and 1 eV. These constraints are stronger than existing microlensing and evaporation bounds in the same mass window, making ambient diffuse light a way to probe ultralight dark sectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the superradiant axion/ALP cloud treated as a laser: a Kerr black hole accretes bosons at rate Gamma_s, the axion-photon coupling triggers stimulated decay once the cloud reaches the critical occupation N_a^c, and the photon number saturates at N_gamma^c with a monochromatic emission spectrum dN_gamma/dE dt = 2 N_a Gamma_s delta(E - mu/2). The paper maps the (mu, M_BH, a*) region where the cloud can grow within a Hubble time (Fig. 2), then folds the monochromatic line into the diffuse-background intensity integrals (27) and (31). The Boltzmann system (3) supplies the critical numbers and the validation of the lasing steady state.

What would settle it

Measure the absolute sky brightness at the four wavelengths in Table I (98 nm, 980 nm, 9.86 um, 98.6 um) with enough precision to test the predicted flux of Eq. (27); if a narrow line at E = mu/2 appears from a known PBH candidate at the level of Eq. (31), the mechanism is confirmed, and if it is absent well below that level, the assumed lasing steady state is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that stimulated decay of superradiant axion/ALP clouds around primordial black holes gives a new, stringent upper bound on the PBH fraction: f_PBH < $10^{-17}$ for $10^{-19}$ M_sun < M_BH < $10^{-7}$ M_sun when $10^{-3}$ eV < mu < 1 eV. The argument treats each PBH as a quasi-monochromatic emitter of photons at energy E_gamma = mu/2, using Eq. (23) to convert the steady-state superradiance accretion power into an escaping photon luminosity. Integrating the resulting cosmological flux (Eq. (27)) over a matter-dominated universe, or the local flux (Eq. (31)) over an NFW galactic halo, and requiring it not to exceed observed extragalactic background light, gives bounds for both a QCD axion (with f_a tied to mu) and a general ALP. The paper states these bounds are stronger than previous PBH limits in the $10^{-17}$ to $10^{-7}$ solar-mass window in every scenario considered.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that each PBH reaches the lasing steady state described by Eq. (23), where the escaping photon flux equals the superradiance accretion power, while the black hole spin is held fixed during cloud growth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, PBHs in the 10^-19 to 10^-7 solar-mass range cannot provide even 10^-17 of dark matter unless axion/ALP couplings are much smaller than assumed.
  • A future detection of diffuse background at the four Table I wavelengths that matches the predicted monochromatic flux would be evidence for both light PBHs and ultralight axions.
  • The bounds strengthen existing microlensing and evaporation exclusions across the whole studied window, including intermediate-mass regions previously less constrained.
  • For a fixed ALP decay constant f_a = 10^11 GeV, the constraints remain severe across mu from 10^-3 eV to 1 eV, so the scenario is broadly testable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cloud drains the black hole spin as it grows, the assumed constant a* would fail at late times, shortening the lasing phase and likely relaxing the bounds; this is not modeled in the paper.
  • The monochromatic line at E = mu/2 suggests a complementary search strategy: looking for narrow spectral lines from individual nearby PBHs instead of only the diffuse background.
  • The same calculation could be inverted to constrain the axion-photon coupling for a given f_PBH, turning the bounds into a laboratory constraint on ultralight particles.
  • Because the observed background includes known astrophysical sources, a full foreground model would be needed to claim a detection; the paper uses limits, so its bounds are conservative in that direction.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that axions/ALPs populated by superradiance around primordial black holes can form a lasing cloud, following the mechanism of Rosa and Kephart, and that stimulated decay of this cloud produces monochromatic photons at energy E = mu/2. The authors compute the resulting diffuse photon intensity from a cosmological population of PBHs and from a galactic NFW-distributed population, compare these intensities with observed cosmic background radiation data, and derive upper limits on the PBH fraction. They report f_PBH < 10^-17 for PBH masses in the range 10^-19 solar masses to 10^-7 solar masses and axion masses between 10^-3 eV and 1 eV, claiming that these bounds are stronger than previous constraints in that mass window.

Significance. If the lasing mechanism and the flux calculation were correct, this would be a novel and powerful way to constrain PBHs using existing diffuse background measurements, complementary to microlensing and Hawking-radiation bounds. A genuine strength is that the central bound is not circular: the flux is derived from an externally published rate-equation system, and no parameter is fitted to the observed background data. The paper also provides explicit analytic expressions for the critical particle numbers and for the final intensity, which would facilitate independent checks. However, as written, the numerical implementation contains a systematic wavelength error that affects every flux comparison in the paper, and several key steps in the flux derivation are asserted rather than demonstrated. The idea is promising, but the headline constraint is not supported by the current calculation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Table I, Fig. 2, Fig. 3] The wavelength assignments used for all flux comparisons are internally inconsistent with the stated photon energy. Equation (23) sets E_gamma = mu/2, so the rest wavelength is lambda_gamma = hc/E_gamma = 4 pi hbar c / mu, which is approximately 2479.6 nm for mu = 1 eV and scales as 1/mu. Figure 2's upper axis is compatible with this relation. Table I, however, assigns mu = 1 eV to lambda = 98 nm, mu = 10^-1 eV to 980 nm, mu = 10^-2 eV to 9.86 micron, and mu = 10^-3 eV to 98.6 micron, which is shorter than the correct value by a factor of about 8 pi. Since cosmological redshift only increases the observed wavelength, a line at 2.48 micron cannot be observed at 98 nm. Every panel of Fig. 3 compares the predicted line intensity with the observed intensity at these incorrect wavelengths, so the quoted f_PBH < 10^-17 is not supported by the present calculation. The analysis must be redone using the correct rest wavelength and the observed background intensities at the corresponding observed wavelengths.
  2. [Secs. II and III, Eq. (23)] The monochromatic spectral energy distribution in Eq. (23), dN_gamma/(dE dt) = 2 N_a Gamma_s delta(E - mu/2), is asserted rather than derived from the Boltzmann system (3). To justify this expression one must show that once the system reaches the saturated state N_a = N_a^c and N_gamma = N_gamma^c, the photon production rate is indeed 2 N_a Gamma_s and that the surface-loss term Gamma_e N_gamma does not alter this identification. The sentence preceding Eq. (23), 'if we use N_gamma^c = Gamma_S/(A Gamma_a_gamma_gamma), this implies Gamma_a_gamma_gamma N_a -> 2 Gamma_s N_a^c', is not a derivation: the relevant stimulated term in Eq. (3b) is 2 Gamma_a A N_a N_gamma, and one must still justify the factor of 2, the delta-function line shape, and the connection to the escaping photon luminosity. Since the integrated flux in Eqs. (25) and (27) is proportional to this SED, the normalization of all subsequent bounds depends on this step.
  3. [Sec. III, Eqs. (27) and (31)] The numerical prefactors in the final intensity formulas are not derived. The transition from Eq. (22) to Eq. (27) involves integrating over the delta function, changing the integration variable from t to lambda_0, and evaluating N_a(t) and M(t) at t(lambda_0/lambda_gamma); the resulting factor 9c/(8 pi) is not justified in the text. Similarly, Eq. (31) states a detailed scaling I proportional to (M_BH)^6 (mu)^7 (a*/0.9) (1/C_a_gamma_gamma)^2 with a prefactor 2.18 x 10^-3, but no derivation or consistency check with Eqs. (28)-(30) is provided. Because the f_PBH limits are inversely proportional to these calculated intensities, an error in either prefactor translates directly into an error in the quoted bound.
  4. [Secs. II and III] Backreaction on the black hole is neglected throughout. Superradiance transfers energy and angular momentum from the black hole to the axion cloud, so a* and M_BH evolve during the growth leading to N_a^c. The time condition (16), the critical photon number (14), and the maximum photon number condition (15) are all evaluated at fixed a*. Since the emitted flux depends sensitively on a* and M_BH, the authors should either estimate the fractional spin-down during cloud formation or restrict the analysis to the parameter region where this backreaction is negligible. Without such an estimate, the allowed region in Fig. 2 and the fluxes in Fig. 3 may be overestimated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (11a)-(12)] The definition 'Making B = A - Gamma_a - Gamma_e' in Eq. (12) is dimensionally inconsistent: A is a dimensionless coefficient, while Gamma_a and Gamma_e have units of inverse time. This should be clarified or corrected, for example by defining B = 2 Gamma_a A N_a(0) - Gamma_e explicitly.
  2. [Sec. II, Fig. 1 caption and text] The caption of Fig. 1 states M_BH = 5 x 10^-11 solar masses, while the text above the figure says M = 3.35 x 10^-11 solar masses for the same example. Please reconcile these values.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (31)] The units label 'CU's' appears to be a typo for the stated unit photons s^-1 cm^-2 str^-1 Angstrom^-1.
  4. [Introduction and Abstract] The Introduction says the relevant PBH mass window is 'around 10^-13 to 10^-7 solar masses', whereas the Abstract and Conclusions quote 10^-19 to 10^-7 solar masses. Please make the stated range consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; central limits rest on external lasing model and direct observed-background comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The lasing rate equations (3), the critical occupancies N_a^c and N_gamma^c, and the steady-state photon emission spectrum (23) are imported from the external work of Rosa and Kephart [21] and from standard superradiance and decay rates [11,12,46-48,49,50]; none of these load-bearing citations are self-citations. The predicted intensity I_lambda (27) and the local flux (31) are derived analytically from those inputs and are compared with observed diffuse-background intensities taken from [30,51]; no parameter is fitted to the data, and f_PBH enters only as a linear coefficient whose upper bound is set by demanding I_lambda < I_lambda^obs. The authors' own earlier papers [5,6,15-20] appear only as contextual citations and are not load-bearing. The only concern worth flagging is a possible internal inconsistency in the Table I / Figure 2 wavelength assignments (the stated E_gamma = mu/2 maps mu = 1 eV to about 2.48 micron, while Table I lists 98 nm for mu = 1 eV); this is a correctness/consistency issue and not a circular reduction, since the comparison uses externally tabulated intensities and does not define the model output in terms of the data. The paper even acknowledges model dependence in its conclusion ('the bounds are model-dependent'), which further indicates the central claim is an externally anchored prediction rather than a repackaged input. Hence no significant circularity, score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the lasing model of [21] plus a set of astrophysical assumptions about PBH distribution, NFW profile, and background intensities. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are the axion mass and decay constant, the PBH spin, and the NFW parameters, all taken from scans or literature rather than fitted to the observed fluxes.

free parameters (6)
  • axion/ALP mass mu = scanned: 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 eV (1e-3 to 1 eV)
    The axion/ALP mass sets the photon energy E_gamma = mu/2 and the superradiance rate. It is a model parameter, not fitted.
  • axion decay constant f_a = QCD axion: 5.69 (mu/meV)^-1 10^9 GeV; ALP: 10^11 GeV; also 10^8 GeV in Fig. 2
    The coupling strength sets the decay rate and the critical numbers. Different values are considered, but the bounds depend strongly on this choice.
  • PBH spin parameter a* = a* = 1 and 0.1 for Fig. 2; a* = 0.9 for Eq. (31)
    Superradiance requires a* > 0; the maximum growth rate is at a* near 1. The chosen values bracket the allowed region.
  • PBH mass M_BH = scanned over about 1e-19 to 1e-7 solar masses for the abstract claim
    The mass is the integration variable in the flux calculation; bounds are shown as a function of M_BH.
  • NFW profile parameters = rho_s = 0.4 GeV/cm^3, r_s = 21 kpc, d = 8 kpc, aperture = 40 arcsec
    These values are taken from the literature and set the local PBH density in the galactic constraint.
  • Observed background intensities = 658, 235, 1335, 29719 in units of A^-1 s^-1 ster^-1 cm^-2 at 98 nm, 980 nm, 9.86 micron, 98.6 micron
    Interpolated from refs. [30,51]; the constraints compare the theoretical differential intensity with these values.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The superradiance growth rate Gamma_s for a scalar field around a Kerr black hole is given by Eq. (7) with the fastest mode l=1, m=1, n=0.
    Taken from the literature [11,12,48] and used in Eq. (8) to compute the parameter space in Fig. 2.
  • domain assumption The coupled axion-photon Boltzmann system (3) and its steady-state lasing solution from [21] are valid for PBHs.
    The paper assumes the mechanism of stimulated decay described by Rosa and Kephart applies unchanged to primordial black holes, including the photon escape rate Gamma_e = c/(sqrt(5) r0).
  • ad hoc to paper The emitted photon spectrum is monochromatic at E_gamma = mu/2 with rate 2 N_a Gamma_s (Eq. 23).
    This is the key step equating the luminosity to the superradiance power; it is not derived in the text and is not obviously valid outside the lasing steady state.
  • domain assumption The universe is matter-dominated for the redshifts contributing to the EBL bounds (z roughly 25).
    Used to set R(t) proportional to t^(2/3) in deriving Eq. (27). This is appropriate for the specific wavelengths chosen, but is an assumption.
  • domain assumption PBHs have a monochromatic mass distribution and their number density is conserved (no evaporation, no accretion) over the relevant redshift range.
    The EBL calculation in Eq. (24) uses a conserved comoving number density; evaporation is neglected due to the mass choice.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way dark matter halo follows an NFW profile with the given parameters and PBHs trace this profile proportionally to f_PBH.
    Used in Sec. III.B to compute the local flux from clustered PBHs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounds on PBH fraction in a stimulated axion/ALP decay scenario." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCS6HWCG

@misc{pith2026250616579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounds on PBH fraction in a stimulated axion/ALP decay scenario},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCS6HWCG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16579}
}
abstract

In this work, we show that stimulated decay of axions or axion-like particles (ALP) in black hole superradiance is an efficient way to find and hunt primordial black holes (PBH). When de Broglie's wavelength of the axion/ ALP is comparable or larger than the black hole horizon radius, a large population of them accumulates in the surroundings of the black hole. When these axions or ALPs couple to photons, the bosonic cloud decays into radiation that contributes to the X-ray, visible light, and radio wave background flux that can exceed current observational limits measured at Earth. If the masses are in the interval of $10^{-3}\mathrm{eV}<\mu <1\mathrm{eV}$, to be consistent with current observations of microwave background light, we found that the fraction of primordial black holes should be smaller than $f_{PBH} < 10^{-17}$ for primordial black holes with masses within $10^{-19} M_{\odot}<M_{BH}<10^{-7} M_\odot$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16579 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Parameter space for an axion/ALP involving the min [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For the axion case the bounds are shown in the left-lower panel while the case for ALP with fa = 1011 GeV in the right-lower panel. B. Constraints on fBH for clustered PBHs in the Milky-Way Now, we are interested in calculating the total luminos￾ity associated with the number of photons yielded in the damped regime due to the cloud of axions of a galactic distribution of PBH. For simplicity we will consider that PBH… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    There is a homogeneous distribution of extragalac- 4 tic PBH

    work page

  2. [2]

    Thus, galaxies are overdensities of dark matter with a Navarro-Frenk- White (NFW) density profile

    Dark matter is composed of PBH that has followed hierarchical structure formation. Thus, galaxies are overdensities of dark matter with a Navarro-Frenk- White (NFW) density profile. Additionally, for each scenario, we will consider two pos- sibilities: one case corresponds to fa fixed for the QCD axion field, i.e. [52] fa = 5. 69 ( µ meV ) −1 109GeV (17) and...

    work page

  3. [3]

    shining black holes

    9 ) ( µ 10−3eV ) 7( 1 Caγγ ) 2 CU′s . (31) Comparing the intensity calculated Eq. (31) with the observed intensity for a fixed mass of the axion/ALP par- ticle shown in Table I we set bounds on fP BH shown in the upper panel of Figure 3. Two cases were considered: left panel for the case of an axion particle with fa given by Eq. (17) and for an ALP the bou...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Matos and L

    T. Matos and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Phys. Rev. D 63, 063506 (2001), astro-ph/0006024

    arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Matos and L

    T. Matos and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, L75 (2000), astro-ph/0004332

    arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), 1610.08297

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 6, 47 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Matos, L

    T. Matos, L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, and J.-W. Lee (2023), 2312.00254

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. 643, 1 (2016), 1510.07633

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Y. B. Zel’Dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 14, 180 (1971)

    1971

  4. [12]

    Y. B. Zel’Dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 35, 1085 (1972)

    1972

  5. [13]

    PENROSE and R

    R. PENROSE and R. M. FLOYD, Nature Physical Sci- ence 229, 177 (1971), ISSN 2058-1106, URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/physci229177a0

    1971 doi

  6. [14]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Sov. Phys. JETP 37, 28 (1973)

    1973

  7. [15]

    A. A. Starobinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 64, 48 (1973)

    1973

  8. [16]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 134001 (2015), 1411.0686

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 041101 (2017), 1704.04791

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Barranco, A

    J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedo r, M. Megevand, M. Alcubierre, D. N´ u˜ nez, and O. Sarbach, Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology 84, 1 (2011), ISSN 15507998, 1108.0931

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Barranco, A

    J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedo r, M. Megevand, M. Alcubierre, D. Nunez, and O. Sarbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 081102 (2012), 1207.2153

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Barranco, A

    J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedo r, M. Megevand, M. Alcubierre, D. N´ u˜ nez, and O. Sarbach, Phys. Rev. D 89, 083006 (2014), 1312.5808

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Barranco, A

    J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedo r, M. Megevand, D. Nunez, and O. Sarbach, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024049 (2017), 1704.03450

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aguilar-Nieto, V

    A. Aguilar-Nieto, V. Jaramillo, J. Barranco, A. Bernal , J. C. Degollado, and D. N´ u˜ nez, Phys. Rev. D107, 044070 (2023), 2211.10456

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Alcubierre, J

    M. Alcubierre, J. Barranco, A. Bernal, J. C. Degollado, A. Diez-Tejedor, M. Megevand, D. N´ u˜ nez, and O. Sar- bach (2024), 2411.18601

    2024

  16. [24]

    J. G. Rosa and T. W. Kephart, Physical Review Letters 120, 1 (2018), ISSN 10797114, 1709.06581

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Paczynski, Astrophys

    B. Paczynski, Astrophys. J. 304, 1 (1986)

    1986

  18. [26]

    Griest, A

    K. Griest, A. M. Cieplak, and M. J. Lehner, Astrophys. J. 786, 158 (2014), 1307.5798. 7

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Niikura et al., Nature Astron

    H. Niikura et al., Nature Astron. 3, 524 (2019), 1701.02151

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Barnacka, J

    A. Barnacka, J. F. Glicenstein, and R. Moderski, Phys. Rev. D 86, 043001 (2012), 1204.2056

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Boudaud and M

    M. Boudaud and M. Cirelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 041104 (2019), 1807.03075

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dasgupta, R

    B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101101 (2020), 1912.01014

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ballesteros, J

    G. Ballesteros, J. Coronado-Bl´ azquez, and D. Gaggero , Phys. Lett. B 808, 135624 (2020), 1906.10113

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Capela, M

    F. Capela, M. Pshirkov, and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. D 87, 123524 (2013), 1301.4984

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Overduin and P

    J. Overduin and P. Wesson, Physics Reports 402, 267 (2004), ISSN 0370-1573, URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0370157304002996

    2004

  26. [34]

    Van Tilburg, N

    K. Van Tilburg, N. Leefer, L. Bougas, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 011802 (2015), 1503.06886

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Oswald et al., Phys

    R. Oswald et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 031302 (2022), 2111.06883

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Filzinger, S

    M. Filzinger, S. D¨ orscher, R. Lange, J. Klose, M. Stein el, E. Benkler, E. Peik, C. Lisdat, and N. Huntemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 253001 (2023), 2301.03433

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zhang, A

    X. Zhang, A. Banerjee, M. Leyser, G. Perez, S. Schiller, D. Budker, and D. Antypas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 251002 (2023), 2212.04413

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    G. G. Raffelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles (1996), ISBN 978-0- 226-70272-8

    1996

  31. [39]

    S. J. Asztalos et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 041301 (2010), 0910.5914

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Irastorza et al

    I. Irastorza et al. (IAXO) (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    d’Enterria, arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08971 (2021 )

    D. d’Enterria, arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08971 (2021 )

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Aiko and M

    M. Aiko and M. Endo, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 147 (2023), ISSN 1029-8479, URL https://doi. org/10.1007/JHEP05(2023)147

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Barth, A

    K. Barth, A. Belov, B. Beltran, H. Br¨ auninger, J. Car- mona, J. Collar, T. Dafni, M. Davenport, L. Di Lella, C. Eleftheriadis, et al., Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2013, 010 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Aprile, J

    E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, F. Agostini, M. Alfonsi, F. Amaro , M. Anthony, B. Antunes, F. Arneodo, M. Balata, P. Bar- row, et al., The European Physical Journal C 77, 1 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    D. S. Akerib, S. Alsum, C. Aquino, H. M. Ara´ ujo, X. Bai, A. J. Bailey, J. Balajthy, P. Beltrame, E. P. Bernard, A. Bernstein, et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261301 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.261301

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    C. Fu, X. Zhou, X. Chen, Y. Chen, X. Cui, D. Fang, K. Giboni, F. Giuliani, K. Han, X. Huang, et al., Physical review letters 119, 181806 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    T. W. Kephart and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 171 (1987)

    1987

  40. [48]

    T. W. Kephart and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D 52, 3226 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 44 (2017), ISSN 1029-8479, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2017)044

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Heiles, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    S. L. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2323 (1980)

    1980

  44. [52]

    T. W. Kephart and T. J. Weiler, Physical review letters 58, 171 (1987)

    1987

  45. [53]

    T. W. Kephart and T. J. Weiler, Physical Review D 52, 3226 (1995)

    1995

  46. [54]

    Cooray, Royal Society Open Science 3, 150555 (2016)

    A. Cooray, Royal Society Open Science 3, 150555 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Yunis, C

    R. Yunis, C. R. Arg¨ uelles, N. E. Mavromatos, A. Molin´ e, A. Krut, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini (2018), 1810.05756

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.