Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 56 references

New Limits on Ultralight Axionlike Dark Matter from Reanalyzed Data

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reanalyzing a 129Xe+3He co-magnetometer run that originally bounded Lorentz/CPT violation sets the strongest laboratory limits on the axion-nucleon coupling in the 10^-24 to 5e-21 eV mass range.

desk verdict A promising idea undermined by a synthetic-data 'reanalysis': the limits are not established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08117 v2 pith:SDCYDYQC submitted 2025-01-14 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

K. Y. Zhang , L. Y. Wu , H. Yan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords axiondarkmatteraxion-nucleoncouplingultralightaxionsLorentzviolationCPTco-magnetometernuclearspinprecessionSN1987Acooling
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper takes a published dataset from a dual-species 129Xe+3He co-magnetometer that was originally used to bound Lorentz and CPT violation and reinterprets its bound on an equatorial effective magnetic field as a limit on ultralight axion dark matter coupled to nucleons. It claims the first laboratory constraints on the axion-nucleon coupling for axion masses below $10^{-22}$ eV, and for $10^{-22}$ to 5×$10^{-21}$ eV limits more than three orders of magnitude stronger than previous lab searches, exceeding supernova SN1987A cooling bounds for the first time in the laboratory. The analysis pays explicit attention to the local phase of the axion field, which matters at these ultralow frequencies, and marginalizes over it under a uniform prior. The same reanalysis also yields much stronger constraints on a quadratic wind coupling and on dark-photon-nucleon interactions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective magnetic field Ba = (2gaNN/γ)√(2ħcρa) sin(2πνa t + ϕ) va induced on nuclear spins by the coherently oscillating axion dark matter field, whose equatorial component is modulated at the sidereal frequency as the Earth rotates. The previous comagnetometer bound on that equatorial component supplies the data, and a Gaussian likelihood over roughly 3×$10^{5}$ samples gives the estimator ĝ for each mass and phase; the reported limit is the 68% upper quantile after phase marginalization.

What would settle it

Pin down the local axion phase at these frequencies, or rerun the analysis quoting the worst-case phase rather than the phase average: if the phase is near 0 or π, the Fig. 3 exclusion region for ma < $10^{-21}$ eV should shrink or disappear, so the claimed limits would be contradicted by a measurement with independent sensitivity in the same mass range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that data from a $10^{6}$ second run of a 129Xe+3He free-spin-precession co-magnetometer, with the upper limit B⊥ < 8.4×$10^{-34}$ GeV on the sidereal-modulated equatorial component of an effective magnetic field at 68% CL, translate into new upper limits on the axion-nucleon coupling gaNN over $10^{-24}$ ≤ ma ≤ 5×$10^{-21}$ eV. For axion masses below $10^{-22}$ eV these are the first laboratory constraints; in the overlapping band $10^{-22}$ to 5×$10^{-21}$ eV they improve on the PSI neutron EDM and NMR comagnetometer limits by more than three orders of magnitude and for the first time beat the SN1987A cooling bounds. The limits are derived by a likelihood analysis of time-series data that includes the unknown axion phase ϕ, with the 68% upper bound obtained after marginalizing ϕ uniformly over [0,2π].

Load-bearing premise

The reported limits assume the unknown local phase of the ultralight axion field is uniformly distributed over [0,2π]; if the real phase is near 0 or π for masses below $10^{-21}$ eV, the bounds become overly stringent and would not be valid exclusions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The axion-nucleon coupling in 10^-22 ≤ ma ≤ 5×10^-21 eV is now more tightly constrained by a tabletop lab measurement than by SN1987A cooling, closing a long-standing gap between lab and astrophysics.
  • The first lab limits below 10^-22 eV make the regime inaccessible to other searches testable already with existing data.
  • The derived sensitivity is comparable to the projected one-year HIBEAM neutron-beam experiment at ESS, so the reanalysis demonstrates that current datasets can reach design sensitivity without new apparatus.
  • The quadratic wind coupling gquad is bounded about two orders of magnitude more tightly than the best previous lab result and more than four orders better than SN1987A.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the phase-averaging assumption is conservative, the same data could be folded to give phase-dependent exclusion plots; publishing worst-case phase bounds would let other experiments compare in a prior-free way.
  • The method should carry over to longer co-magnetometer datasets or multiple runs, where partial oscillations of lower-frequency axions would reduce phase sensitivity and push limits to even lower masses.
  • The same reinterpretation logic may be applied to other Lorentz/CPT-violation searches with different species, potentially covering mass ranges between 5×10^-21 eV and the sidereal frequency cutoff.
  • Because the constraints on gdMDM mirror gaNN, improvements here automatically tighten dark-photon magnetic coupling limits without additional analysis.
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

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims to derive new limits on the axion-nucleon coupling over the mass range 10^-24 <= m_a <= 5e-21 eV by reanalyzing data from a 3He-129Xe comagnetometer measurement of Lorentz and CPT violation (Ref. [50]). The analysis in the 'Derived constraints' section does not use the original time series; instead, it generates synthetic samples from a generalized Rice distribution, fits them with a Gaussian likelihood using a |sin| template, and marginalizes over the unknown axion field phase. The authors report improvements of more than three orders of magnitude over previous laboratory limits, the first laboratory limits exceeding SN1987A cooling bounds in part of the mass range, and similar constraints for quadratic wind coupling and dark photon couplings.

Significance. If the reported limits were valid, they would constitute a significant advance: they would extend laboratory axion-nucleon constraints to masses below 10^-22 eV for the first time and surpass astrophysical bounds in the range 10^-22 to 5e-21 eV, with direct implications for the proposed ESS neutron-beam search. However, the central result currently rests on a statistical procedure that is misspecified and on simulated rather than actual data, so the claimed exclusion is not established. The paper does not provide reproducible code or the referenced supplemental material, and the primary figures present a single phase-marginalized curve with an acknowledged phase sensitivity. The significance is therefore conditional on a substantial revision that either uses the real data or reframes the results as a projection from the published bound.

major comments (5)
  1. [Derived constraints (Eq. (10) and surrounding text)] The likelihood in Eq. (10) is evaluated on b_i defined as 'random samples from the generalized Rice distribution that the equatorial component follows,' not on the actual measured time series from Ref. [50]. The abstract and title say the limits come from 'reanalyzed data,' but the analysis uses simulated data. The published bound B_perp < 8.4e-34 GeV is a single fitted sidereal amplitude, not N ~ 3e5 independent measurements; the paper does not demonstrate that the Rice-distributed samples reproduce the experiment's noise, correlations, or systematics. As it stands, the limits in Figs. 3-5 are projections from a synthetic-data model, and the central claim of new limits from reanalyzed data is unsupported.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The signal template is written as |sin(2*pi*nu_a*t + phi)|, but the physical effective field in Eq. (8) is proportional to sin(2*pi*nu_a*t + phi), with no absolute value. Rectifying the sinusoid changes the mean of the signal and biases the amplitude estimator in Eq. (11), most severely at low frequencies where the paper claims the largest improvements. The authors do not justify the absolute value or quantify this bias.
  3. [Eq. (10) and Eq. (11)] The likelihood in Eq. (10) is Gaussian in b_i, yet b_i are explicitly drawn from a generalized Rice distribution. For magnitude or envelope data, the correct likelihood is Rician; using a Gaussian likelihood leads to incorrect confidence intervals even if the template were correct. No argument is given for why the Gaussian approximation is valid for N ~ 3e5 samples, and the misspecification directly affects the quoted 68% bounds.
  4. [Conclusion and discussion; Fig. 3] The 68% upper limits in Fig. 3 are obtained by marginalizing over a uniform prior on the phase phi, and the authors state in the conclusion that for phi near 0 or pi the limits for m_a < 10^-21 eV 'may become overly stringent.' Since the phase is unknowable a priori, a single marginalized curve does not constitute a valid exclusion for all phase values; the phase-dependent results of Fig. 2 should be the primary presentation, or a conservative worst-case envelope should be quoted. The abstract and Fig. 3 present the marginalized curve without this caveat.
  5. [Basic idea / Derived constraints, m_a <= 5e-21 eV] The limit B_perp from Ref. [50] is derived by demodulating at the sidereal frequency Omega. The paper extends the bound to axion frequencies up to 2*pi*nu_a ~ 0.1*Omega without providing a quantitative transfer function or leakage analysis for the comagnetometer's frequency response. The statement that the bound applies 'when 2*pi*nu_a is significantly less than Omega, for instance, by an order of magnitude' is an assumption, not a derivation; the validity of the 5e-21 eV endpoint is therefore not established.
minor comments (3)
  1. [References] Ref. [51] is cited as 'Supplemental Material' but the supplement is not included in the arXiv posting; please include it so the Rice distribution parameters and the averaging method can be checked.
  2. [Conclusion and discussion] The conclusion states that the new limits 'exceed the projected reach' of the ESS proposal, while the abstract says they are 'nearly equivalent' to that projection; please reconcile these statements.
  3. [Figures 2-5] The figure captions do not specify the 68% confidence level, the assumed local dark matter density, or the exact definition of the shaded exclusion regions; please add these details for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central limits are a physical recast of the external Lorentz/CPT bound (Eq. 9) into axion-nucleon coupling via Eqs. (3)-(8), with no fitted target coupling and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The claimed new limits are not circular in the sense of reducing to their inputs by construction. The input is the external experimental bound of Ref. [50], B_perp < 8.4e-34 GeV at 68% CL (Eq. 9), obtained from a 3He-129Xe comagnetometer search for Lorentz and CPT violation. The paper maps this measured equatorial effective-field bound into the axion-nucleon coupling using the derived relation B_a_perp = (2 gaNN |v_a|/gamma) sqrt(2 hbar c rho_a) cos(delta) sin(2 pi nu_a t + phi) (Eq. 8), plus analogous quadratic and dark-photon forms. The target coupling gaNN is not a fitted parameter elsewhere; the likelihood (Eq. 10) estimates g from b_i, and the phase phi is marginalized rather than tuned to produce a preferred limit. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., Refs. [24-26,46]) are background on spin-dependent searches and comagnetometry, not the authority for the central limit, so there is no load-bearing self-citation chain. The paper's own admitted caveat in the conclusion--that for local phase near 0 or pi the limits for m_a < 1e-21 eV may be overly stringent--is a statistical robustness limitation, not a circular reduction. A separate data-provenance concern arises in 'Derived constraints,' where the text says 'b_i are random samples from the generalized Rice distribution that the equatorial component follows [51]' rather than using the original time series; this affects the validity of the 'reanalysis' claim and the statistical model, but without evidence that the distribution parameters or sigma were fitted to the axion bound itself, it does not make the axion limit equivalent to its input by definition. The derivation is therefore self-contained as a recasting of an independent measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard axion dark matter phenomenology (derivative coupling, classical oscillating field) and on the statistical interpretation of the external comagnetometer data. The only genuinely paper-specific assumptions are the uniform phase prior and the frequency boundary for the sidereal demodulation.

free parameters (2)
  • axion field phase phi = not fitted; marginalized uniformly over [0, 2pi]
    The signal amplitude depends on sin(2pi nu_a t + phi). With no knowledge of phi, the paper assumes a uniform distribution and derives a 68% upper bound over phases; this modeling choice directly affects the limits.
  • noise variance sigma^2 = not stated
    The likelihood assumes white Gaussian noise with variance sigma^2. The value is not given in the main text and is presumably estimated from the original comagnetometer data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The axion-nucleon interaction is described by the derivative coupling Lint = gaNN dmu a * Nbar gamma^mu gamma5 N, Eq. (1).
    The entire analysis is built on this specific coupling form, which is standard for axion-fermion interactions.
  • domain assumption The axion dark matter field is a classical oscillating field a(t) = a0 cos(2pi nu_a t + phi) with amplitude set by the local DM density rho_a ~ 0.4 GeV/cm^3.
    This assumes the axion field is coherent and that the local density is the standard dark matter density; if axions are only a fraction of dark matter, the limits scale accordingly.
  • domain assumption The equatorial component of the effective field from the 2014 comagnetometer follows a generalized Rice distribution, and the likelihood can be built from random samples of that distribution.
    This is the statistical model for the data. Its validity and the actual data provenance are not demonstrated in the main text and are deferred to the supplemental.
  • ad hoc to paper The sidereal-frequency demodulation used to extract the B_perp limit remains valid for axion frequencies up to 5e-21 eV, i.e., within an order of magnitude of the sidereal frequency.
    The paper states the limit applies when 2pi nu_a is significantly less than the sidereal angular frequency Omega, but then quotes a mass bound of 5e-21 eV without deriving this boundary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Limits on Ultralight Axionlike Dark Matter from Reanalyzed Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDCYDYQC

@misc{pith2026250108117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Limits on Ultralight Axionlike Dark Matter from Reanalyzed Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDCYDYQC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08117}
}
abstract

New limits on the axion-nucleon coupling over the axion mass region $10^{-24} \leq m_a \leq 5 \times 10^{-21}$ eV are derived by reanalyzing data from laboratory measurements on Lorentz and $CPT$ violation. These results establish the first laboratory constraints on the axion-nucleon coupling for axion masses below $10^{-22}$ eV. For $10^{-22} \leq m_a \leq 5 \times 10^{-21}$ eV, the results improve upon previous laboratory limits by more than 3 orders of magnitude, exceeding for the first time the astrophysical limits from supernova SN1987A cooling. For the axion mass range of interest corresponding to ultralow frequencies, the crucial local phase of the axion field is considered. Furthermore, the obtained limits are nearly equivalent to those projected for a recently proposed experiment employing high-intensity neutron beams at the European Spallation Source. For an alternative type of axion-nucleon interaction, the quadratic wind coupling, the constraints exceed the current best results by approximately 2 orders of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Galactic coordinates (a) and celestial coordinates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Likelihood analysis results for the coupling strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Same as Fig. 3 but for dark photon-nucleon dMDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig. 3 but for axion quadratic coupling with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Allmendinger, W

    F. Allmendinger, W. Heil, S. Karpuk, W. Kilian, A. Scharth, U. Schmidt, A. Schnabel, Y. Sobolev, and K. Tullney, New Limit on Lorentz-Invariance- andCP T- Violating Neutron Spin Interactions Using a Free-Spin- Precession 3He-129Xe Comagnetometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 110801 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    J. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Ji, Current status of direct dark matter detection experiments, Nat. Phys. 13, 212 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Bertone and T

    G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, A new era in the search for dark matter, Nature 562, 51 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, History of dark matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045002 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  6. [5]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rep. 405, 279 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [6]

    Y. K. Semertzidis and S. Youn, Axion dark matter: How to see it?, Sci. Adv. 8, eabm9928 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

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

    1977

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints imposed by CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  2. [9]

    Wilczek, Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  3. [10]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys

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

    1978

  4. [11]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions in string theory, J. High Energy Phys. 2006 (06), 051

    2006

  5. [12]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    Invisible

    P. Sikivie, Experimental Tests of the “Invisible” Axion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  7. [14]

    Bradley, J

    R. Bradley, J. Clarke, D. Kinion, L. J. Rosenberg, K. van Bibber, S. Matsuki, M. M¨ uck, and P. Sikivie, Microwave cavity searches for dark-matter axions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 777 (2003)

    2003

  8. [15]

    S. J. Asztalos et al., SQUID-Based Microwave Cavity Search for Dark-Matter Axions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 041301 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    B. M. Brubaker et al., First Results from a Microwave Cavity Axion Search at 24 µeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 061302 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, Axion-induced ef- fects in atoms, molecules, and nuclei: Parity nonconser- vation, anapole moments, electric dipole moments, and spin-gravity and spin-axion momentum couplings, Phys. Rev. D 89, 043522 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    B. M. Roberts, Y. V. Stadnik, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flam- baum, N. Leefer, and D. Budker, Limiting P -Odd Inter- actions of Cosmic Fields with Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 081601 (2014)

    2014

  12. [19]

    Wu et al., Search for Axionlike Dark Matter with a Liquid-State Nuclear Spin Comagnetometer, Phys

    T. Wu et al., Search for Axionlike Dark Matter with a Liquid-State Nuclear Spin Comagnetometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 191302 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    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, eaax4539 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Aybas et al., Search for Axionlike Dark Matter Us- ing Solid-State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Phys

    D. Aybas et al., Search for Axionlike Dark Matter Us- ing Solid-State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141802 (2021). 6

    2021

  15. [22]

    J. E. Moody and F. Wilczek, New macroscopic forces?, Phys. Rev. D 30, 130 (1984)

    1984

  16. [23]

    Sikivie, Invisible axion search methods, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Invisible axion search methods, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015004 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    K. Y. Wu, S. Y. Chen, G. A. Sun, S. M. Peng, M. Peng, and H. Yan, Experimental limits on exotic spin and veloc- ity dependent interactions using rotationally modulated source masses and an atomic-magnetometer array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 051802 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    L. Y. Wu, K. Y. Zhang, M. Peng, J. Gong, and H. Yan, New Limits on Exotic Spin-Dependent Interactions at Astronomical Distances, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 091002 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    L. Y. Wu, K. Y. Zhang, and H. Yan, Exotic spin- dependent interactions through unparticle exchange, J. High Energ. Phys. 2024 (1), 83

    2024

  20. [27]

    Bozek, D

    B. Bozek, D. J. E. Marsh, J. Silk, and R. F. G. Wyse, Galaxy UV-luminosity function and reionization con- straints on axion dark matter, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, 209 (2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst, and K.-W. Huang, Contrasting Galaxy Formation from Quantum Wave Dark Matter, ΨDM, with ΛCDM, Astrophys. J. 818, 89 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    D. J. Marsh, Axion cosmology, Phys. Rep. 643, 1 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    Van Tilburg, N

    K. Van Tilburg, N. Leefer, L. Bougas, and D. Budker, Search for Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter with Atomic Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 011802 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Searching for dilaton dark matter with atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. D 91, 015015 (2015)

    2015

  25. [32]

    A. Hees, J. Gu´ ena, M. Abgrall, S. Bize, and P. Wolf, Searching for an Oscillating Massive Scalar Field as a Dark Matter Candidate Using Atomic Hyperfine Fre- quency Comparisons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061301 (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Fuzzy Cold Dark Matter: The Wave Properties of Ultralight Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000)

    2000

  27. [34]

    D. J. E. Marsh and J. Silk, A model for halo formation with axion mixed dark matter, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 437, 2652 (2013)

    2013

  28. [35]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Cosmic structure as the quantum interference of a coherent dark wave, Nat. Phys. 10, 496 (2014)

    2014

  29. [36]

    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. X 7, 041034 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    W. A. Terrano, E. G. Adelberger, C. A. Hagedorn, and B. R. Heckel, Constraints on Axionlike Dark Matter with Masses Down to 10 −23 eV/c2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 231301 (2019)

    2019

  31. [38]

    Smorra et al., Direct limits on the interaction of an- tiprotons with axion-like dark matter, Nature 575, 310 (2019)

    C. Smorra et al., Direct limits on the interaction of an- tiprotons with axion-like dark matter, Nature 575, 310 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    Fierlinger, M

    P. Fierlinger, M. Holl, D. Milstead, V. Santoro, W. M. Snow, and Y. V. Stadnik, Proposal for a Ramsey Neutron-Beam Experiment to Search for Ultralight Ax- ion Dark Matter at the European Spallation Source, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 181001 (2024)

    2024

  33. [40]

    Preskill, M

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

    1983

  34. [41]

    Abbott and P

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

    1983

  35. [42]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not-so-harmless axion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  36. [43]

    Catena and P

    R. Catena and P. Ullio, A novel determination of the local dark matter density, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2010 (08), 004

    2010

  37. [44]

    Jiang, H

    M. Jiang, H. Su, A. Garcon, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Search for axion-like dark matter with spin-based ampli- fiers, Nat. Phys. 17, 1402 (2021)

    2021

  38. [45]

    Lambda-tools, lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/conv co- ordinate.cgi

  39. [46]

    Bulatowicz, R

    M. Bulatowicz, R. Griffith, M. Larsen, J. Mirijanian, C. B. Fu, E. Smith, W. M. Snow, H. Yan, and T. G. Walker, Laboratory Search for a Long-Range T -Odd, P - Odd Interaction from Axionlike Particles Using Dual- Species Nuclear Magnetic Resonance with Polarized 129Xe and 131Xe...

    2013

  40. [47]

    B. J. Venema, P. K. Majumder, S. K. Lamoreaux, B. R. Heckel, and E. N. Fortson, Search for a coupling of the Earth’s gravitational field to nuclear spins in atomic mer- cury, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 135 (1992)

    1992

  41. [48]

    Sachdeva et al., New Limit on the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of 129Xe Using 3He Comagnetometry and SQUID Detection, Phys

    N. Sachdeva et al., New Limit on the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of 129Xe Using 3He Comagnetometry and SQUID Detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 143003 (2019)

    2019

  42. [49]

    J. M. Brown, S. J. Smullin, T. W. Kornack, and M. V. Romalis, New Limit on Lorentz- and CP T-Violating Neutron Spin Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 151604 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    See Supplemental Material for details of the likeli- hood analysis and the similar results from an averaging method

  44. [52]

    G. G. Raffelt, Astrophysical methods to constrain axions and other novel particle phenomena, Phys. Rep. 198, 1 (1990)

    1990

  45. [53]

    G. G. Raffelt, Astrophysical axion bounds, in Axions: Theory, Cosmology, and Experimental Searches, edited by M. Kuster, G. Raffelt, and B. Beltr´ an (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 51–71

    2008

  46. [54]

    K. A. Olive and M. Pospelov, Environmental depen- dence of masses and coupling constants, Phys. Rev. D 77, 043524 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    Pospelov, S

    M. Pospelov, S. Pustelny, M. P. Ledbetter, D. F. J. Kim- ball, W. Gawlik, and D. Budker, Detecting Domain Walls of Axionlike Models Using Terrestrial Experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 021803 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, The Physics of the Dark Photon (Springer Cham, 2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.