Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Axion-Like Particle Search with a Hybrid Cherenkov-Scintillation Detector

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No axion excess found; hybrid detector beats limits with less data

desk verdict A solid null ALP search and useful proof-of-concept for hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detection; the main soft spot is an unquantified prompt neutrino background in the ROI, but it does not undermine the central result. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12616 v1 pith:TZF6ZKIP submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ex

A.A. Aguilar-Arevalo , S. Biedron , J. Boissevain , M. Borrego , L. Bugel , M. Chavez-Estrada , J.M. Conrad , R.L. Cooper
show 38 more authors
J.R. Distel J.C. D'Olivo E. Dunton B. Dutta D.E. Fields M. Gold E. Guardincerri E.C. Huang N. Kamp D. Kim K. Knickerbocker W.C. Louis C.F. Macias-Acevedo R. Mahapatra J. Mezzetti J. Mirabal M.J. Mocko D.A. Newmark P. deNiverville C. O'Connor V. Pandey D. Poulson H. Ray E. Renner T.J. Schaub A. Schneider M.H. Shaevitz D. Smith W. Sondheim A.M. Szelc C. Taylor A. Thompson W.H. Thompson R.T. Thornton M. Tripathi R. Van Berg R.G. Van de Water J. Zettlemoyer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex PACS 14.80.Va29.40.Mc
keywords axion-likeparticleshybridCherenkov-scintillationdetectorliquidargonbeamdumpexperimentCherenkovradiationlog-likelihoodratiobackgroundrejectionALPexclusionlimits
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 reports the first axion-like particle (ALP) search carried out with a hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation optical detector in a beam-dump environment. Using the CCM200 liquid-argon detector, in which 80% of the photomultiplier tubes are wavelength-shifted to see scintillation light while 20% remain bare to catch prompt Cherenkov photons, the analysis builds four timing and topology observables and combines them into a log-likelihood ratio. No statistically significant excess over the expected steady-state background is found for ALP masses between $10^{-3}$ MeV and $10$ MeV. The paper's central positive claim is that the Cherenkov-based rejection reduces the surviving background to 0.49%, roughly six times lower than the predecessor CCM120 analysis, so the search excludes new ALP parameter space even though it uses only about 70% of the previous exposure. If this claim holds, hybrid optical readout can substitute optical information for raw exposure in rare-event searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hybrid readout: 80% of the photomultiplier tubes are coated with tetraphenyl butadiene (TPB), which shifts the 128 nm liquid-argon scintillation light into the visible, while 20% are left uncoated and therefore preferentially see the prompt visible component of Cherenkov radiation. Because Cherenkov photons arrive promptly and with a characteristic angular pattern, while scintillation light is delayed and isotropic, the difference in PMT type and in nanosecond timing gives the detector four discriminating handles. Those handles feed a log-likelihood ratio whose probability densities are built from simulated ALP events (signal) and prebeam steady-state data (background); the LLR $> 1$ cut is what reduces the background by a factor of about six relative to CCM120. The same time structure defines the physics region of interest: relativistic ALPs arrive in the prompt window from $-600$ to $-424$ ns, before the slower neutron flux.

What would settle it

Measure the event rate in the identical prompt window with the proton beam diverted or the target removed: if the rate exceeds the prebeam extrapolation in a way that scales with beam intensity, the uniform-background assumption fails and the derived limits would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that separating Cherenkov light from scintillation light in a single liquid-argon detector is a working background-rejection tool for accelerator beam-dump searches, and that it makes a smaller-exposure search more sensitive than a larger predecessor. The argument runs through four observables, each capturing a different fingerprint of the directional, prompt Cherenkov light that ALP-induced electromagnetic showers produce: prompt hits on uncoated PMTs, a charge-weighted directionality metric, a pulse-shape ratio, and a charge-weighted spatial RMS. Combined into a log-likelihood ratio with a cut at LLR $> 1$, these observables reduce the prebeam steady-state sample to 0.49% of its original size, versus 3.2% for CCM120. Fitting the two-dimensional energy-time distribution in the prompt window gives a best-fit ALP signal at $m_a = 0.18$ MeV and $g_{a\gamma} = 1.63 \times 10^{-4}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ with local significance $0.86\sigma$, which the paper reads as no evidence for ALPs; the resulting 90% confidence exclusion contour still pushes beyond the CCM120 bound over much of the $10^{-3}$ to $10$ MeV range.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the background measured during the quiet time before each beam pulse also holds inside the brief prompt window where ALPs would appear, so any beam-related neutrino events arriving in that window would be silently counted as uniform background.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the probed mass range, the observed 90% confidence exclusion contour is the first ALP constraint produced by a hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detector at a beam-dump facility.
  • The sixfold improvement in steady-state background rejection means hybrid optical detection can compensate for reduced exposure in rare-particle searches, not just add modest discrimination.
  • The successful use of the neutron-dominated sample as a data-driven cross-check indicates the same four-observable selection can be transferred to other electromagnetic final-state searches in the same detector.
  • Extending the calibrated energy range to roughly 50 MeV with Michel electrons would let the CCM200 program reach higher-mass ALPs, where the current 10 MeV cutoff suppresses efficiency.
  • With the full dataset, roughly $3\times10^{21}$ protons on target, the same hybrid selection is expected to strengthen these limits further, since the signal scales linearly with beam exposure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same hybrid separation could be applied to other beam-dump signatures with electromagnetic final states, such as dark photons, millicharged particles, or coherent neutrino scattering, where neutron-induced backgrounds are the main obstacle.
  • The uniform-background assumption could be tested with a target-out or beam-off run: if the prompt-window rate depends on beam intensity, part of the 'steady-state' background is actually beam-induced and the limits would shift.
  • If future detectors push the uncoated-PMT fraction or timing resolution further, the directionality metric could evolve into a true Cherenkov ring-imaging observable, converting the current proof-of-concept into a precision background tagger.
  • A 5 MeV feature in the selected background, possibly from neutron capture on argon, suggests that previous-spill neutrons are captured in the detector; quantifying this component could improve background modeling in the next 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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for axion-like particles (ALPs) in the CCM200 liquid argon detector at the Lujan spallation source, using the hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation readout. The analysis defines four discriminating observables (prompt uncoated-PMT hit multiplicity, directionality, pulse-shape ratio, and spatial RMS), combines them into a log-likelihood-ratio discriminant, and applies it to 1.23×10^21 protons on target. A two-dimensional template fit in reconstructed energy and event start time, with a uniform prebeam background and three profiled nuisance parameters, finds no significant excess; the most signal-like fit has a local significance of 0.86σ. The authors present 90% CL exclusion limits and argue that, despite using only ~70% of the CCM120 exposure, the ~6-fold improvement in prebeam background rejection gives comparable or better sensitivity across the 10^-3–10 MeV mass range.

Significance. If the background model is correct, this is a valuable proof-of-principle: it is the first ALP search with a hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detector at a beam dump, and the Cherenkov-based rejection is physically well motivated. The analysis is honest in reporting a null result, and it rests on several strengths: a data-driven prebeam background estimate, direct measurement of the six-fold steady-state rejection (0.49% vs 3.2%), a neutron-dominated control sample, and a calibrated simulation chain (position reconstruction validated with 22Na, energy response validated at the ~10% level). The main risk is not the internal consistency of the prebeam model but its extrapolation into the physics ROI, where prompt neutrinos are expected; this threatens the sensitivity claim as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV.B.1 and Sec. IV.A] The background model is a uniform PDF normalized to the prebeam rate of 11.82 ± 0.17 events/ns, but the physics ROI (-600 to -424 ns) begins with the arrival of prompt relativistic particles, and Sec. I explicitly notes that "prompt neutrinos and near-speed-of-light BSM particles reach the detector with minimal delay." The paper does not construct a beam-neutrino background template, a beam-on/beam-off subtraction, or a data-driven estimate of the neutrino rate after the LLR>1 selection. Because the Gaussian prior on the background normalization is only 0.17 events/ns, a prompt-neutrino rate at or above that level could bias the fitted background and signal, and thereby the 90% CL limits in Fig. 13 and the comparison with CCM120 in Table II. Please add a quantitative estimate of this background or a control measurement that validates the uniform extrapolation into the ROI.
  2. [Sec. III.F and Sec. I] The only data-driven validation of the LLR discriminant is the neutron-dominated sample, which the paper excludes from the ROI because of its later arrival and different event structure. This control cannot validate the LLR behavior for a prompt neutrino component, whose electromagnetic final states resemble the ALP signal. An additional in-beam control, for example a comparison of the ROI events with a scaled beam-off sample or a dedicated neutrino simulation, is needed to support the claim that the background is fully described by the prebeam model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.E] The choice of the LLR threshold (LLR>1) is described qualitatively; if it was selected after inspecting the data, the possible selection bias should be discussed, and if it was fixed a priori, that should be stated.
  2. [Fig. 7] The prebeam time distribution is shown only down to -1000 ns; adding a marker or inset for the ROI (-600 to -424 ns) would make the uniform extrapolation easier to assess.
  3. [Table I] The table reports individual cut efficiencies, but it is not clear whether the 18.29% and 80.93% entries are sequential efficiencies for events passing the preceding cuts or inclusive fractions; this should be clarified.
  4. [Appendix A.1] The ~5 cm per-coordinate position resolution is quoted for simulated electron events, while the 22Na validation shows widths of order 10-13 cm because the source emits gammas that convert at a distance; the main text should state this distinction where the resolution is quoted.
  5. [Abstract and Section V] Minor wording issues include the subject-verb agreement in "allows ... demonstrate" (should be "demonstrates") and the repeated use of "proof-of-concept" where "proof-of-principle" is used elsewhere; these should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: signal templates come from external ALP/GEANT4/SIREN simulations, backgrounds are data-driven prebeam samples, and the limit is a standard frequentist fit with independently constrained nuisance parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The ALP signal model is built from the published alplib framework, a GEANT4 simulation of the Mark-IV target, the SIREN injection tool, and the detector optical model from Refs. [1,2]; these are prior experimental and simulation results with stated assumptions, not quantities defined in terms of the outcome of this search. The background description is data-driven: the four LLR observables use PDFs derived from prebeam data and ALP Monte Carlo, the background time distribution is modeled as uniform because the selected prebeam sample is found to be time-independent (Fig. 7, rate 11.82 ± 0.17 events/ns), and the fitted nuisance parameters are constrained by independent measurements: the background normalization prior from the prebeam rate, the POT normalization from a beam-current calibration with 5% uncertainty, and the beam start time from the ROI determination with a 30 ns width. The final fit minimises an effective binned likelihood with Wilks-theorem intervals and compares a background-only hypothesis with a signal-plus-background hypothesis; no parameter is fitted to the observed ROI data and then renamed a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. The cited works by the same collaboration are used for detector calibration, optical modeling, and the previous CCM120 search, but none of these citations is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the present analysis; the central sensitivity claim follows from the independently constructed templates and the observed data. The possible concern about unmodeled prompt beam-neutrino events in the ROI is a model-adequacy or correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard ALP physics assumptions, the detector simulation validated on calibration data, the uniform background extrapolation from the prebeam sample, and a few analysis choices (LLR threshold, time windows, CFD fraction). No new particles or forces are introduced. The most fragile component is the prebeam-to-ROI background extrapolation, which omits an explicit beam-neutrino background estimate.

free parameters (6)
  • LLR threshold = 1
    Cut on the combined discriminant adopted to balance signal efficiency and background rejection (Sec. III.E); no optimality criterion or scan reported.
  • Prompt window for Cherenkov observables = -6 to -2 ns relative to CFD start time
    Fixed time window for the four observables (Sec. III.A-D), chosen for maximal sensitivity to prompt Cherenkov light without documented optimization.
  • CFD fraction = 0.2
    Constant fraction discrimination fraction used to define the event start time (Sec. III); chosen by hand.
  • Background normalization (profiled nuisance) = 11.74 events/ns
    Nuisance parameter with Gaussian prior from the prebeam measurement (11.82 +/- 0.17 events/ns); best-fit value from the likelihood scan (Sec. IV.C).
  • POT scaling (profiled nuisance) = 0.99
    Multiplicative signal normalization nuisance parameter with a 5% Gaussian prior; best-fit value from the fit (Sec. IV.C).
  • Beam start time (profiled nuisance) = -584.52 ns
    Gaussian prior of 30 ns around -600 ns; best-fit value from the fit (Sec. IV.C).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ALP-photon interaction is described by the effective Lagrangian L = -1/4 g_aγ a F_{μν} F̃^{μν} (Eq. 1), with production via Primakoff and detection via inverse Primakoff and diphoton decay.
    The signal model inherits this from the ALP literature and the alplib framework (Sec. II); it is the target physics hypothesis, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The prebeam event sample, recorded before the beam spill, is representative of all backgrounds in the physics ROI, so the expected background time distribution is uniform.
    Used in Sec. IV.B.1 to set the background template; no beam-neutrino background is estimated.
  • domain assumption The GEANT4 optical model, GraphNeT position reconstruction, and position-dependent energy calibration accurately describe the detector response for signal simulation.
    Validated with 22Na calibration data in Appendix A and Refs [1,2]; systematic uncertainties on this validation are not propagated into the fit.
  • standard math Wilks' theorem applies to the profile likelihood ratio used for deriving confidence intervals.
    Sec. IV.C; standard asymptotic result, typically valid for large samples; with roughly 2000 background events the approximation is reasonable.
  • domain assumption The ALP production cross sections and decay widths are correctly implemented in alplib and SIREN for the Lujan beam and target configuration.
    Sec. II; relies on external code (Refs [38,41]) and the previous CCM120 analysis [3] without an independent derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axion-Like Particle Search with a Hybrid Cherenkov-Scintillation Detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZF6ZKIP

@misc{pith2026260812616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axion-Like Particle Search with a Hybrid Cherenkov-Scintillation Detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZF6ZKIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12616}
}
abstract

This analysis presents the first proof-of-concept search for axion-like particles (ALPs) using a hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detector at a beam-dump facility. The work is based on the Coherent CAPTAIN-Mills (CCM) experiment, a 10-ton liquid argon light collection detector located at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The CCM200 detector is instrumented with 200 photomultiplier tubes (PMTs), providing approximately 50% photocathode coverage. To enable optical discrimination, 80% of the PMTs are coated with a wavelength-shifting material while the remaining 20% are left uncoated. This configuration, combined with nanosecond-scale timing resolution, provides sensitivity to prompt Cherenkov radiation while maintaining efficient detection of liquid argon scintillation light [1, 2]. This analysis constructs four observables that exploit the Cherenkov emission and event topology expected from ALP-induced electromagnetic interactions. These observables are combined into a likelihood-ratio classifier that provides powerful rejection of steady-state backgrounds. No statistically significant excess above the expected background prediction is observed for $10^{-3}~\mathrm{MeV} < m_a < 10~\mathrm{MeV}$. Nevertheless, the improved background rejection enabled by hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detection allows this analysis to surpass the sensitivity of the previous CCM120 search [3] despite less exposure and demonstrate the physics potential for hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagrams of production and detection processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Number of hits on the uncoated PMTs for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Distribution of the directionality metric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Pulse shape ratio distributions across the ALP, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spatial extent of the early reconstructed charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Log-likelihood ratio (LLR) discriminant formed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time distribution of prebeam events after all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Overall signal selection efficiency as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Reconstructed energy spectrum of prebeam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Two-dimensional reconstructed energy and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Projected reconstructed energy distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Projected event start-time distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Observed 90% confidence level exclusion lim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Two-dimensional distributions comparing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Residual distributions for the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Reconstructed position distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. True versus reconstructed energies for simu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Energy reconstruction resolution versus true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Energy reconstruction validation with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    7), with a best-fit value of11.82±0.17events/ns

    Background Normalization The selected prebeam sample exhibits a time- independent event rate (Fig. 7), with a best-fit value of11.82±0.17events/ns. The background normal- ization is therefore treated as a nuisance parameter with a Gaussian prior centered at 11.82 events/ns and a standard deviation of 0.17 events/ns. This allows the fit to vary the overall...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Total Protons on Target The expected ALP signal scales linearly with the total POT accumulated during data taking. The POT is determined from a calibration between an external beam current monitor and the beam cur- rent reported by the LANSCE accelerator division, resulting in an overall normalization uncertainty of approximately 5%. This uncertainty is i...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Beam Timing The time distribution of the signal prediction de- pends on the relative timing between the proton beam and the detector. The earliest arrival time of prompt beam related particles is known to within approximately 30 ns, due to statistics of the ROI 10 start time determination, producing a correspond- ing uncertainty in the predicted ALP timin...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Position Reconstruction Position reconstruction provides strong discrim- ination between signal and background events. Beam-related and cosmic-ray backgrounds predom- inantly originate outside the detector and therefore reconstruct near its boundaries, while signal events are expected to be uniformly distributed throughout the active volume. Improving the...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The de- positedenergyisinferredfromtheobservedscintilla- tion light, with the total number of detected photo- electrons(PEs)servingasaproxyforthetrueenergy deposition

    Energy Reconstruction In addition to position, energy reconstruction is also essential for event characterization. The de- positedenergyisinferredfromtheobservedscintilla- tion light, with the total number of detected photo- electrons(PEs)servingasaproxyforthetrueenergy deposition. However, the light yield depends on the interaction position within the de...

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 171804 (2025), arXiv:2507.08886 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. D 112, 072010 (2025), arXiv:2507.08887 [physics.ins- det]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. D 107, 095036 (2023), arXiv:2112.09979 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [10]

    C. A. Bakeret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 131801 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0602020

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Abelet al., Phys

    C. Abelet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. E. Kim, Physical Review Letters43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  5. [13]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  6. [14]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  7. [15]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31, 260 (1980)

    1980

  8. [16]

    Lanfranchi, M

    G. Lanfranchi, M. Pospelov, and P. Schuster, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 279 (2021), arXiv:2011.02157 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Carosiet al.(ADMX), Phys

    G. Carosiet al.(ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 191001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07279 [hep-ex]

    2025

  10. [18]

    Altenmülleret al.(CAST), Phys

    K. Altenmülleret al.(CAST), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 221005 (2024), arXiv:2406.16840 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Armengaudet al.(IAXO), JCAP06, 047, arXiv:1904.09155 [hep-ph]

    E. Armengaudet al.(IAXO), JCAP06, 047, arXiv:1904.09155 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Baiet al.(HAYSTAC), Phys

    X. Baiet al.(HAYSTAC), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151006 (2025), arXiv:2409.08998 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    X.Baiet al.(HAYSTAC),Phys.Rev.D113,012010 (2026), arXiv:2510.15848 [hep-ex]

    2026

  14. [22]

    Ankelet al., DMRadio-Core: A new approach for GUT-scale axion searches (2026), arXiv:2604.16602 [hep-ex]

    V. Ankelet al., DMRadio-Core: A new approach for GUT-scale axion searches (2026), arXiv:2604.16602 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cortina Gilet al.(NA62), Eur

    E. Cortina Gilet al.(NA62), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 571 (2025), arXiv:2502.04241 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. R. Dusaev, D. V. Kirpichnikov, and M. M. Kirsanov, Phys. Rev. D102, 055018 (2020), arXiv:2004.04469 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Banerjeeet al.(NA64), Phys

    D. Banerjeeet al.(NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 081801 (2020), arXiv:2005.02710 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Berlin, S

    A. Berlin, S. Gori, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D98, 035011 (2018), arXiv:1804.00661 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Blinov, E

    N. Blinov, E. Kowalczyk, and M. Wynne, JHEP02, 036, arXiv:2112.09814 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. J. Parket al.(NEON), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 201002 (2025), arXiv:2406.06117 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Mirzakhaniet al., Phys

    M. Mirzakhaniet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 032013 (2025), arXiv:2504.20960 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Alimontiet al.(Borexino), Nucl

    G. Alimontiet al.(Borexino), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A600, 568 (2009), arXiv:0806.2400 [physics.ins- det]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Albaneseet al.(SNO+), JINST16(08), P08059, arXiv:2104.11687 [physics.ins-det]

    V. Albaneseet al.(SNO+), JINST16(08), P08059, arXiv:2104.11687 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Djurcicet al.(JUNO), JUNO Conceptual Design 16 Report (2015), arXiv:1508.07166 [physics.ins-det]

    Z. Djurcicet al.(JUNO), JUNO Conceptual Design 16 Report (2015), arXiv:1508.07166 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), Phys

    K. Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0212021

    2003 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Askinset al.(Theia), Eur

    M. Askinset al.(Theia), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 416 (2020), arXiv:1911.03501 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Andersonet al., JINST18(02), P02009, arXiv:2211.11969 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Andersonet al., JINST18(02), P02009, arXiv:2211.11969 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ascencio-Sosaet al.(ANNIE), JINST19(05), P05070, arXiv:2312.09335 [hep-ex]

    M. Ascencio-Sosaet al.(ANNIE), JINST19(05), P05070, arXiv:2312.09335 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. D 106, 012001 (2022), arXiv:2105.14020 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 021801 (2022), arXiv:2109.14146 [hep- ex]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. D 109, 095017 (2024), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 111, 035030 (2025)], arXiv:2309.02599 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dutta, B.-S

    B. Dutta, B.-S. Hu, W.-C. Huang, and R. G. Van de Water, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011801 (2025), arXiv:2410.17968 [hep-ph]

    2025

  33. [41]

    D. A. Newmark,First Demonstration of a Hybrid Cherenkov and Scintillation Detector in a Proof-of- Principle Axion Search at a Beam Dump, Ph.D. the- sis, MIT (2026), arXiv:2607.07476 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. D. Group and Workman, Progress of Theo- retical and Experimental Physics2022, 083C01 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2022/8/083C01/49175539/ptac097.pdf

    2022

  35. [43]

    Thompson and W.-C

    A. Thompson and W.-C. Huang, athompson- git/alplib: alpha (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Zavorka, M

    L. Zavorka, M. J. Mocko, and P. E. Koehler, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment901, 189 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4), Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  38. [46]

    Schneider, N

    A. Schneider, N. W. Kamp, and A. Y. Wen, Comput. Phys. Commun.316, 109799 (2025), arXiv:2406.01745 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Adhikariet al.(DEAP), Eur

    P. Adhikariet al.(DEAP), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 823 (2021), arXiv:2103.12202 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Fiorillo, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Sup- plements150, 372 (2006), proceedings of the 9th Topical Seminar on Innovative Particle and Radia- tion Detectors

    G. Fiorillo, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Sup- plements150, 372 (2006), proceedings of the 9th Topical Seminar on Innovative Particle and Radia- tion Detectors

    2006

  41. [49]

    Agostiniet al., Eur

    M. Agostiniet al., Eur. Phys. J. C75, 506 (2015), arXiv:1501.05762 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    C. E. Aalsethet al.(DarkSide-20k), Eur. Phys. J. Plus133, 131 (2018), arXiv:1707.08145 [physics.ins- det]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    C. A. Argüelles, A. Schneider, and T. Yuan, JHEP 06, 030, arXiv:1901.04645 [physics.data-an]

    1901 arXiv

  44. [52]

    S. S. Wilks, Annals Math. Statist.9, 60 (1938)

    1938

  45. [53]

    Jaeckel and M

    J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky, Physics Letters B 753, 482 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Blümleinet al., International Journal of Modern Physics A07, 3835 (1992), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X9200171X

    J. Blümleinet al., International Journal of Modern Physics A07, 3835 (1992), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X9200171X

    1992 doi

  47. [55]

    Jaeckel, E

    J. Jaeckel, E. Massó, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald, and F. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D75, 013004 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171104 (2004)

    2004

  49. [57]

    Massó and J

    E. Massó and J. Redondo, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 151802 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    Dupays, E

    A. Dupays, E. Massó, J. Redondo, and C. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 131802 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    R. N. Mohapatra and S. Nasri, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 050402 (2007)

    2007

  52. [60]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, and A.-C. Davis, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 121103 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    DeRocco, P

    W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D102, 075015 (2020), arXiv:2006.15112 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Massó and J

    E. Massó and J. Redondo, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2005(09), 015

  55. [63]

    Acosta, J

    P. Acosta, J. Bendavid, M. D’Alfonso, J. Eyser- mans, C. Freer, M. Goncharov,et al., EPJ Research Infrastructures2, 1 (2026)

    2026

  56. [64]

    Søgaardet al., J

    A. Søgaardet al., J. Open Source Softw.8, 4971 (2023), arXiv:2210.12194 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bukhari, D

    H. Bukhari, D. Chakraborty, P. Eller, T. Ito, M. V. Shugaev, and R. Ørsøe, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 646 (2024), arXiv:2310.15674 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization (2014), arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.