Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 71 references

Searching for axion dark matter gegenschein of the Vela supernova remnant with FAST

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first search for an axion gegenschein image of Vela finds no signal and limits the axion-photon coupling to below 2e-10 GeV^-1.

desk verdict First gegenschein search is credible but its headline limit rests on an unquantified Vela luminosity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08913 v1 pith:V6V33MCN submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Wenxiu Yang , Yitian Sun , Yougang Wang , Katelin Schutz , Yichao Li , Calvin Leung , Wenkai Hu , Shuanghao Shu
show 2 more authors
Kiyoshi Masui Xuelei Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords axiondarkmatteraxion-photoncouplinggegenscheinstimulateddecayVelasupernovaremnantFASTradiotelescopenulldetectionastronomy
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 observational search for an axion gegenschein, a radio counter-image formed when radiation from a bright source stimulates the decay of axion dark matter along the line of sight, using Vela supernova remnant as the primary source and 26.4 hours of effective ON-OFF data from the FAST L-band 19-beam receiver. The search covers axion masses of 8.7 to 9.44 micro-eV and 10.85 to 12.01 micro-eV, corresponding to the two cleanest frequency bands 1050-1129 MHz and 1313-1450 MHz, and finds no convincing line signal. From the null result the paper derives $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \lesssim 2 \times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ at 95% confidence in those mass ranges, a limit stronger than the existing FAST galaxy-cluster decay search in the same mass range and about a factor of three weaker than the CAST helioscope bound. The paper further shows that with roughly 2000 hours of ON-OFF observing the same technique should reach $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \sim 10^{-11}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, which would go below the CAST limit.

What carries the argument

The central object is the axion gegenschein flux formula, $S_g = (\hbar c^4 g_{a\gamma\gamma}^2 / 16) \int_0^{t_0 c/2} S_\nu(\nu_a, x_d) \rho(x_d) dx_d$, specialized to Vela as Eq. 4 with a luminosity history split into a free-expansion phase of constant specific luminosity and a Sedov-Taylor phase where the luminosity declines as $t^{-4p/5}$. This integral converts a null spectrum into a bound on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$, because the observed flux scales as $g_{a\gamma\gamma}^2$ and the primary-source history plus the dark-matter profile fix the proportionality constant. Around this sit a Doppler-Gaussian line profile with width $\sigma_i = \nu_i \sigma_d/c$, a two-dimensional Gaussian beam model for the FAST 19-beam receiver, and a likelihood-ratio test statistic $q_{g_{a\gamma\gamma}}$ whose 95% exclusion threshold is 2.71.

What would settle it

Recompute the expected flux using the alternative electron model listed in Table 1, $S_\nu \propto t^{-2(p+1)/5}$, in place of $S_\nu \propto t^{-4p/5}$: if the resulting 95% upper limit on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ rises above the CAST bound, then the quoted constraint is not robust to the luminosity-evolution assumption, whereas a measurement tying down Vela's early radio light curve would decide which model is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that if axions with masses in the two covered windows make up the Milky Way dark matter halo, they do not produce a detectable gegenschein image of Vela at the sensitivity of this pilot observation, so the axion-photon coupling must be below about $2 \times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ there. The predicted signal flux is proportional to $g_{a\gamma\gamma}^2$ times an integral over distance of the Vela radio luminosity at the Doppler-broadened frequency $\nu_a = m_a c^2/2h$ and the dark-matter density. After RFI flagging, bandpass and gain calibration, ON-OFF subtraction, baseline fitting, and standing-wave removal, the nineteen beams and four OFF-source positions are weighted and stacked; eight candidate spectral features are found, but none survives a time-split subgroup cross-check, so the data are treated as null and the noise level is converted into a 95% upper limit using a likelihood-ratio test.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted gegenschein flux assumes a particular history for how bright Vela's radio emission was over the past 12,000 years, especially during the unobserved first centuries after the supernova, and if Vela was dimmer then, the derived coupling limit would be looser.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limit is correct, axions in the mass windows 8.7-9.44 and 10.85-12.01 micro-eV cannot constitute the dark matter with coupling above about $2 \times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, narrowing the allowed parameter space for QCD axion and axion-like-particle models.
  • The successful end-to-end search demonstrates that a single-dish telescope with ON-OFF observing can place competitive axion constraints, so the same pipeline can be pointed at other bright, nearby radio sources to build a multi-source axion search.
  • The projected sensitivity of about $10^{-11}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ with roughly 2000 hours of integration would beat the current CAST limit in these mass ranges, making radio telescopes competitive with laboratory helioscopes for axion dark matter.
  • The eight candidate features that failed the subgroup cross-check imply that any future claimed axion line must appear stably across time-split data subsets before being treated as a detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Vela's early free-expansion luminosity were substantially lower than the assumed constant, which the paper itself flags as unknown and conservatively modeled, the quoted limit would weaken roughly as the square root of the flux reduction, so a firmer early light curve would sharpen the result.
  • The gap in coverage between 9.44 and 10.85 micro-eV is set by radio-frequency interference; targeted RFI mitigation or an observing site with a cleaner spectrum could close that mass window without additional integration time.
  • The same data set can be re-interpreted as a probe of the dark-matter velocity structure, because a detected line's width would map the velocity dispersion and a null result with a known source could constrain line-of-sight dark-matter clumpiness.
  • If axions make up only a fraction $f$ of the dark matter, the coupling limit scales roughly as $f^{-1/2}$, so future searches should report limits as a function of $f$ to stay comparable across cosmological and local dark-matter models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first search for an axion gegenschein image of the Vela supernova remnant using 26.4 hours of effective ON-OFF data from the FAST L-band 19-beam receiver. Assuming a Milky Way NFW dark matter halo and a parameterized Vela SNR luminosity evolution model taken from Sun et al. (2022), the authors predict a faint spectral line signal at frequencies corresponding to half the axion mass. They find no convincing candidate after RFI flagging, bandpass and flux calibration, baseline and standing-wave removal, and a two-subgroup cross-check of eight candidate excesses. From the null detection they derive a 95% upper limit g_{aγγ} ≲ 2×10^{-10} GeV^{-1} in the mass ranges 8.7–9.44 μeV and 10.85–12.01 μeV, noting that this is stronger than the FAST galaxy-cluster search limit but about a factor of three weaker than the CAST limit, and that roughly 2000 hours of observation could reach ~10^{-11} GeV^{-1}.

Significance. If the limit is robust, this is the first observational constraint on axion dark matter from the gegenschein effect and demonstrates a new observational probe of axion dark matter in the ~10 μeV mass range. The paper is careful in its data processing: it includes detailed RFI flagging, a mock-signal injection check for the standing-wave removal, a candidate search with a quantitative cross-check between independent data subsets, and an explicit comparison of achieved versus thermal-noise sensitivity. These are real strengths. However, the central limit is model-dependent: the predicted signal flux in Eq. (4) depends on the unobserved early-time luminosity of Vela and on the assumed dark matter halo profile, and the paper does not propagate these systematics into the quoted bound. The reported constraint should therefore be understood as conditional on the adopted SNR and halo models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (4) and Table 1] The free-expansion phase of the Vela SNR luminosity is unobserved and is set to a constant, with the text noting 'large modeling uncertainties' but no propagation of this uncertainty into the result. Since the predicted gegenschein flux S_g is proportional to the luminosity integral over x_d, and the derived limit scales as g_{aγγ} ∝ S_g^{-1/2}, an unmodeled factor of 2 in the early-time luminosity changes the quoted 2×10^{-10} GeV^{-1} limit by roughly 40%. The 'conservative' choice of a constant is conservative only relative to a brighter past; if Vela was dimmer in the free-expansion phase, the true limit would be weaker. Please propagate the Table 1 parameter uncertainties (t_MFA, p, t0) and explicitly test a dimmer early-luminosity case, as well as the alternative electron model Sν ∝ t^{-2(p+1)/5} listed in Table 1, and show how the limit shifts.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (3)] The dark matter density is fixed to an NFW profile with r_s = 16 kpc and local density 0.46 GeV/c^2/cm^3, but the line-of-sight integral in Eq. (4) is dominated by large x_d, where halo profile uncertainties are largest. The paper does not quantify the sensitivity of the limit to reasonable alternative halo models (e.g., Einasto or cored profiles) or to the quoted uncertainties on the local density from Sivertsson et al. (2018) and Nitschai et al. (2020). Because the limit again scales as the inverse square root of the integrated column density, this systematic should be evaluated and reported.
  3. [Sec. 4.4 and Sec. 5.1] The OFF-source weights w_OFF,i are optimized to maximize the S/N of the final spectrum using the same data that are later used to set the upper limit, and the noise RMS entering the likelihood in Eq. (24) is measured from that same weighted spectrum. This introduces data-fitting degrees of freedom that are not accounted for in the statistical interpretation. The authors should demonstrate with signal-injection simulations that this weight optimization does not bias the 95% bound, or alternatively quote the limit for fixed weights, which would make the analysis more conservative and easier to interpret.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and header] The title and header contain 'V ela' with a stray space; this should be corrected to 'Vela'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is typeset with ambiguous integral limits and the notation 'tMF A' should be written as t_MFA; please clarify the integrands and the limits of integration.
  3. [Sec. 4.4] The arPLS smoothness parameter is stated as λ = 10^3, but no sensitivity test around this value is given; a brief statement of robustness to λ would strengthen the baseline-subtraction description.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence 'which had been used in the the Com...' contains a duplicated article; please remove the extra 'the'.
  5. [Sec. 4.1] The term 'galactic HI' should be written as 'galactic H I' to follow standard astronomical nomenclature.
  6. [Sec. 5.1] In Eq. (22), the symbols η_A and A_illu are not defined in the text; please define them explicitly or use the notation introduced in Eq. (12) for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gaγγ upper limit is an observed null result; the gegenschein flux template (Eq. 4) is a parameter-free input with stated assumptions, and the OFF-source weight optimization is data processing, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational upper limit on gaγγ from a null search, not a derived quantity reduced from fitted inputs. The signal template in Sec. 2.2 (Eq. 4) is taken from Sun et al. (2022), a prior forecast by overlapping authors, but that citation supplies a parameter-free model with stated external assumptions: a constant free-expansion luminosity and a Sedov-Taylor scaling Sν ∝ t^{-4p/5}, with parameters from Table 1. It does not contain or fix the target quantity gaγγ. The only quantities fitted to the data are the four OFF-source weights wOFF,i in Sec. 4.4, optimized to maximize S/N using the gegenschein template normalized to eliminate gaγγ; these are nuisance weights, not a prediction of gaγγ, and they cannot force the final upper limit by construction. The acknowledged modeling uncertainty in Sec. 2.2 — 'we conservatively set it to be a constant due to the large modeling uncertainties associated with this epoch' — is a systematic input that scales the limit rather than a circular step; the paper does not propagate this uncertainty into the quoted bound, which is a correctness risk, not circularity. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, no known result is renamed, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The minor self-citation to Sun et al. (2022) is not load-bearing in a circular sense, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (the upper limit on gaγγ) is an observational result. It rests on the theoretical axion-photon coupling model, the assumed dark matter distribution, and a reconstructed luminosity history of Vela SNR, all taken from prior literature. No new entities are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • OFF-source weights w_OFF,i = Band 1: (0.115, 0.045, 0.563, 0.277); Band 2: (0.413, 0.117, 0.122, 0.348)
    Weights for combining the four OFF-source spectra are left free and optimized to maximize S/N on the same data used for the final upper limit (Sec. 4.4). This is a fit to the noise realization and may bias the noise estimate low.
  • arPLS smoothness parameter lambda = 10^3
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 4.4 to balance baseline fitting and signal retention; it affects the residual spectrum and therefore the noise estimate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The axion-photon interaction L = g a E dot B and the stimulated decay rate leading to Eq. (2) hold as described.
    Taken from Sikivie (1983) and Arza & Sikivie (2019), cited in Sec. 2.1; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way dark matter density follows the NFW profile (Eq. 3) with rs = 16 kpc and local density 0.46 GeV/cm^3.
    Standard halo model from Navarro et al. (1996, 1997), Sivertsson et al. (2018), Nitschai et al. (2020), cited in Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption The Vela SNR luminosity evolution is described by the free-expansion and Sedov-Taylor phases with the fiducial parameters of Table 1 (Eq. 4).
    Model from Sushch & Hnatyk (2014) and Sun et al. (2022); the early free-expansion luminosity is unobserved and is set to a constant, stated in Sec. 2.2.
  • domain assumption The gegenschein image is spatially Gaussian and the flat-sky approximation applies (Eqs. 5-6).
    Simplification stated in Sec. 2.2 to compute the observed flux with the beam pattern.
  • standard math The likelihood ratio test statistic follows the asymptotic chi-square distribution (Wilks theorem).
    Used in Sec. 5.1 to set the 95% confidence threshold q = 2.71, following Cowan et al. (2011).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for axion dark matter gegenschein of the Vela supernova remnant with FAST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6V33MCN

@misc{pith2026250208913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for axion dark matter gegenschein of the Vela supernova remnant with FAST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6V33MCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08913}
}
abstract

Axions are one of the leading dark matter candidates. If we are embedded in a Milky Way dark matter halo comprised of axions, their stimulated decay would enable us to observe a counterimage (``axion gegenschein") with a frequency equal to half the axion mass in the opposite direction of a bright radio source. This spectral line emission will be broadened to $\Delta \nu/\nu \sim \sigma_d/c \sim 10^{-3}$ due to the velocity dispersion of dark matter, $\sigma_d$. In this pilot study, we perform the first search for the expected axion gegenschein image of Vela supernova remnant (SNR) with 26.4 hours of effective ON-OFF data from the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) L-band (1.0 - 1.5~GHz) 19-beam receiver. Our null detection limits the axion-photon coupling strength to be $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \lesssim 2 \times 10^{-10} \mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ in the mass ranges of $8.7\,\mu\mathrm{eV} \leq m_a \leq 9.44\,\mu\mathrm{eV}$ and $10.85\,\mu\mathrm{eV} \leq m_a \leq 12.01\,\mu\mathrm{eV} $. These results provide a stronger constraint on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ in this axion mass range than the current limits obtained by the direct search of axion decay signal from galaxy clusters which uses FAST observations, but is a factor of $\sim 3$ times weaker than the current CAST limit.Based on our observation strategy, data processing methods, and results, the expected sensitivity will reach $\sim 10^{-11}\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ with $\sim 2000$ hours of observation in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08913 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of constraint on gaγγ. The blue solid line dis￾plays the upper limits with 95% C.L., while the black dashed line shows the expected limit for pure thermal noise spectrum with our observation parameters. ions in the Milky Way dark matter halo (Ghosh et al. 2020; Arza & Todarello 2022; Sun et al. 2022; Buen-Abad et al. 2022; Arza et al. 2023; Sun et al. 2023). The counter-image is sometimes called “axion gegen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of axion gegenschein geometry. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we introduce the theory of axion gegenschein, as well as the model for a specific source as studied in Sun et al. (2022). Observation data are described in Sec. 3, then Sec. 4 is about data processing. We show the results of a search for an axion signal and the resulting parameter constraints in Sec. 5 and provide a d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: the luminosity evolution model of Vela SNR at 1 GHz. The vertical dashed line marks the transition position of two evolution phases. Right: specific flux density of Vela SNR at 1GHz (red line, left y-axis) and dark matter density (blue line, right y-axis) at different values of xd along the direction of the gegenschein image. Parameters adopted here are fiducial values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Surroundings of the Vela SNR gegenschein source. The normalized intensity of the gegenschein is shown in color map, the FAST beams are shown as circles at the ON-source (black) and four OFF-source (white) positions. Also shown are galactic radio emis￾sion estimated by …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Waterfall plots of raw data of M01, XX polarization. The blank regions correspond to the switching between ON-source and OFF￾source positions. Left: data A, Day 1. Middle: data B, Day 3. Right: data C, Day 1. 0 1 P o w e r [ × 1 0 12 ] XX data A 1100 1200 1300 1400 Fre…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Raw spectra at 1050-1450 MHz in Day 1 of data A (left), Day 3 of data B (middle) and Day 1 of data C (right) of XX polarization (top) and YY polarization (bottom). Each line represents data from a single beam. We divide the raw data into three frequency bands (1050- 11…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: A demonstration of flagging and refilling on a single frequency point (1381.35 MHz). Lines with different colors show data with RFI (blue), data without interference (green), smoothed baseline (red), and refilled data at the contaminated time range (orange), resp…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example of bad data from data A, Day 8, M10, yy polarization whose time variation is mostly contaminated before search￾ing for a signal in the final frequency spectrum. Furthermore, to avoid artificially underestimating the noise level of the fi￾p nal spectrum, we i…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: comparison between spectra of ON and OFF from 1 day’s observation. Middle: comparison between spectra of ON − OFF3 from 4 different days. Right: comparison between spectra of ON − OFFi, i = 1, 2, 3, 4 for 4 days of data. 20 40 Flux [mJy] data baseline 1050 1100 0…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time-averaged calibrated data at 1050-1135 MHz and 1313-1450 MHz. Top panel: spectrum after flux calibration (blue) and baseline fitting (orange); Bottom panel: baseline subtraction result. where λ is a smoothness parameter which is set to 103 in this work, and D is a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The delay spectra of the observed data in 1050-1135 MHz (upper panel) and 1313-1450 MHz (lower panel). The orange peaks are associated with the standing wave components that we need to remove, and the red dashed lines mark the delay τ corre￾sponding to the ripples at …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The final spectrum after baseline subtraction and standing waves removal at 1050-1129 MHz and 1313-1450 MHz. The grey lines show data which are severely contaminated by known strong RFIs and galactic HI signals. contamination, baseline, etc., so the total noise does n…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The test statistic −2ln Λ(gaγγ) at 5 different values of the axion mass as examples. The horizontal dashed line is qgaγγ = 2.71, with regions to the right of the intersection being ruled out at 95% confidence for each value of ma. qgaγγ (gaγγ = C) represents the stren…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: the blue line shows the q0 at different frequency channels. Middle: the spectrum of candidate 5 as an example. The blue line is the observed spectrum, the orange is the best-fit model and the red dashed line marks the central frequency. Right: the likelihood dis…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of normalized bandpass (normalized to data B, Day 5, M01, xx polarization). Lines in the upper panel show bandpass normalized by the median value, while lines in the lower panel display the relative bandpass shape in comparison with the average of all time …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Histograms of the residual normalized bandpass gerr(ν, t) in Day 1 of data set A and Day 5 of data set B. Statis￾tical results of data set A and B are shown by red curve and the blue curve respectively. The Gaussian fitted results of the histograms are plotted with gr…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Spectra from 4 days for ON − OFF3 observation. The 4 colorful lines represent each day’s spectrum respectively and the black line shows the spectrum for 4 days averaged data. Note that we move some spectra up to make all lines clear to see. All of them are actually ce…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Histogram (blue lines) of noise in the final spectrum at frequency band 1050-1135MHz (left panel) and 1313-1450MHz (right panel). The red dashed lines show Gaussian fitted curve of the histogram. median filter, and subtract the smoothed temporal baselines bνi (t). The…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The pointing error in right ascension (δRA, top panel), and declination (δDEC, second panel), offset distance (δr, third panel) and zenith angle (θZA, bottom panel) during tracking ob￾servation in the 2022 observation season (B time). Different colors represent data f…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The simulated impact of pointing error (δRA = −1 ′ , δDEC = −0.5 ′ ) at 1250MHz. Upper panel: flux density of the 19 beams with (dashed lines) or without (solid lines) pointing deviation. Lower panel: relative variation in flux. Different colors represent the results …
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The flux spectra of different observations. The blue curve shows the spectrum at OFF-source position 1 in dataset A. The orange and green curve represent spectra at OFF-source posi￾tions 1 and 2 in dataset B. The red and purple lines are OFF-source position spectra in…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Akerlof, C

    Aalbers, J., Akerib, D. S., Akerlof, C. W., et al. 2023, PhRvL, 131, 041002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041002 2023

  2. [2]

    Abazajian, K. N. 2017, PhR, 711, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.003 2017

  3. [3]

    2023, PhRvL, 130, 181001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.181001

    An, H., Ge, S., Guo, W.-Q., et al. 2023, PhRvL, 130, 181001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.181001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.181001 2023

  4. [4]

    2017, Nature Physics, 13, 584, doi: 10.1038/nphys4109

    Anastassopoulos, V ., Aune, S., Barth, K., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 584, doi: 10.1038/nphys4109

    doi:10.1038/nphys4109 2017

  5. [5]

    2023, PhRvL, 131, 041003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041003

    Aprile, E., Abe, K., Agostini, F., et al. 2023, PhRvL, 131, 041003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041003

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041003 2023

  6. [6]

    T., Betz, M., et al

    Armengaud, E., Avignone, F. T., Betz, M., et al. 2014, Journal of Instrumentation, 9, T05002, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/9/05/T05002

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/05/t05002 2014

  7. [7]

    2019, JCAP, 2019, 047, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/047

    Armengaud, E., Atti´e, D., Basso, S., et al. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 047, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/047

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/047 2019

  8. [8]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.06857, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.06857

    Arza, A., Guo, Q., Wu, L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.06857, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.06857

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.06857 2023

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2019, PhRvL, 123, 131804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.131804

    Arza, A., & Sikivie, P. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 131804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.131804

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, PhRvD, 105, 023023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023023

    Arza, A., & Todarello, E. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023023

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Bradley, R

    Asztalos, S. J., Bradley, R. F., Duffy, L., et al. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.011101

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    2015, Analyst, 140, 250

    Baek, S.-J., Park, A., Ahn, Y .-J., & Choo, J. 2015, Analyst, 140, 250

    2015

  5. [13]

    G., & V¨olk, H

    Berezhko, E. G., & V¨olk, H. J. 2004, A&A, 427, 525, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041111

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al

    Bietenholz, M. F., Bartel, N., Argo, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abccd9

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    H., et al

    Boutan, C., Jones, M., LaRoque, B. H., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 261302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261302

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2009, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 59, 191, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.010909.083654

    Boyarsky, A., Ruchayskiy, O., & Shaposhnikov, M. 2009, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 59, 191, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.010909.083654

    2009

  9. [17]

    A., Fan, J., & Sun, C

    Buen-Abad, M. A., Fan, J., & Sun, C. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 075006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.075006

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    J., O’Hare, C

    Caputo, A., Millar, A. J., O’Hare, C. A. J., & Vitagliano, E. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 095029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.095029

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Caputo, A., Regis, M., Taoso, M., & Witte, S. J. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/027 CHIME Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.01242. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.01242 19

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2011a, European Physical Journal C, 71, 1554, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 —

    Cowan, G., Cranmer, K., Gross, E., & Vitells, O. 2011a, European Physical Journal C, 71, 1554, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 —. 2011b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1105.3166, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1105.3166

    doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    C., Moskowitz, B

    DePanfilis, S., Melissinos, A. C., Moskowitz, B. E., et al. 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett., 59, 839, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.839

    1987 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Hall, P

    Dewdney, P. E., Hall, P. J., Schilizzi, R. T., & Lazio, T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  15. [23]

    Dodelson, S., & Widrow, L. M. 1994, PhRvL, 72, 17, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.17

    1994 doi

  16. [24]

    E., & McCulloch, P

    Dodson, R., Legge, D., Reynolds, J. E., & McCulloch, P. M. 2003, ApJ, 596, 1137, doi: 10.1086/378089

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    2015, A&A Rv, 23, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-015-0083-5

    Dubner, G., & Giacani, E. 2015, A&A Rv, 23, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-015-0083-5

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.01515

    Fabbrichesi, M., Gabrielli, E., & Lanfranchi, G. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.01515. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01515

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Feng, J. L. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 495, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101659

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Kongsore, M., Dessert, C., et al

    Foster, J. W., Kongsore, M., Dessert, C., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 127, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.051101

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2008.02729

    Ghosh, O., Salvado, J., & Miralda-Escud´e, J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2008.02729. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02729

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    W., Irastorza, I

    Graham, P. W., Irastorza, I. G., Lamoreaux, S. K., Lindner, A., & van Bibber, K. A. 2015, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 65, 485, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022120

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, PhRvD, 107, 103011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103011

    Guo, W.-Q., Li, Y ., Huang, X., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 103011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103011

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, Physics Letters B, 852, 138631, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138631

    Guo, W.-Q., Xia, Z.-Q., & Huang, X. 2024, Physics Letters B, 852, 138631, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138631

    2024

  25. [33]

    S., & Tanner, D

    Hagmann, C., Sikivie, P., Sullivan, N. S., & Tanner, D. B. 1990, Phys. Rev. D, 42, 1297, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.42.1297

    1990 doi

  26. [34]

    Haslam, C. G. T., Salter, C. J., Stoffel, H., & Wilson, W. E. 1982, A&AS, 47, 1

    1982

  27. [35]

    1986, Physics Letters B, 166, 196, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)91377-8

    Holdom, B. 1986, Physics Letters B, 166, 196, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)91377-8

    1986 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 5854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    Hu, W., Wang, X., Wu, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2728

    Hu, W., Li, Y ., Wang, Y ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2728

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    G., Avignone, F

    Irastorza, I. G., Avignone, F. T., Caspi, S., et al. 2011, JCAP, 2011, 013, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/06/013

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y ., Hou, L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    1996, PhR, 267, 195, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5

    Jungman, G., Kamionkowski, M., & Griest, K. 1996, PhR, 267, 195, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5

    1996 doi

  33. [41]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li, D., Wang, P., Qian, L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    2018

  34. [42]

    2021a, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 059, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/3/059

    Li, J.-X., Wu, F.-Q., Sun, S.-J., et al. 2021a, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 059, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/3/059

    doi

  35. [43]

    G., Grainge, K., Harper, S., & Wang, J

    Li, Y ., Santos, M. G., Grainge, K., Harper, S., & Wang, J. 2021b, MNRAS, 501, 4344, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3856

    doi

  36. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    Li, Y ., Wang, Y ., Deng, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2022a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.09555

    Liu, B., Wang, L., Wang, J., Peng, B., & Wang, H. 2022a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.09555. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.09555

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    2022b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 081001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac7d43

    Liu, D.-J., Xu, Y ., Li, Y .-J., et al. 2022b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 081001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac7d43

    doi

  39. [47]

    Marsh, D. J. E. 2016, PhR, 643, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173 —. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1996 doi

  42. [50]

    Ng, K. C. Y ., Roach, B. M., Perez, K., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 083005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083005

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    S., Cappellari, M., & Neumayer, N

    Nitschai, M. S., Cappellari, M., & Neumayer, N. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 6001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1128 O’Neil, K. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    278, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications, ed

    Series, V ol. 278, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications, ed. S. Stanimirovic, D. Altschuler, P. Goldsmith, & C. Salter, 293–311. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203001

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    R., & Backer, D

    Parsons, A. R., & Backer, D. C. 2009, AJ, 138, 219, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/1/219

    2009 doi

  46. [54]

    D., & Quinn, H

    Peccei, R. D., & Quinn, H. R. 1977, Phys. Rev. Lett., 38, 1440, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    1977 doi

  47. [55]

    2011, Contemporary Physics, 52, 211, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2011.563516

    Redondo, J., & Ringwald, A. 2011, Contemporary Physics, 52, 211, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2011.563516

    2011

  48. [56]

    J., Bigot-Sazy, M

    Remazeilles, M., Dickinson, C., Banday, A. J., Bigot-Sazy, M. A., & Ghosh, T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1274

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    M., & Trojanowski, S

    Roszkowski, L., Sessolo, E. M., & Trojanowski, S. 2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 81, 066201, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aab913

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    1983, Phys

    Sikivie, P. 1983, Phys. Rev. Lett., 51, 1415, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.51.1415 —. 1985, Phys. Rev. D, 32, 2988, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.32.2988

    1983 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015004, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015004

    Sikivie, P. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015004, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015004

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    I., Bertone, G., & Steger, P

    Sivertsson, S., Silverwood, H., Read, J. I., Bertone, G., & Steger, P. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty977

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    Steigman, G., Dasgupta, B., & Beacom, J. F. 2012, Physical Review D, 86, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.86.023506 20

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    2022, PhRvD, 105, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063007

    Sun, Y ., Schutz, K., Nambrath, A., Leung, C., & Masui, K. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063007

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    Sun, Y ., Schutz, K., Sewalls, H., Leung, C., & Masui, K. W. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03788

    2023 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    2014, A&A, 561, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322569

    Sushch, I., & Hnatyk, B. 2014, A&A, 561, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322569

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White

    Vanderlinde, K., Liu, A., Gaensler, B., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White

    2019

  58. [66]

    2020, 28, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    Papers, V ol. 2020, 28, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Wilks, S. S. 1938, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 9, 60 , doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177732360

    1938

  60. [68]

    U., De Panfilis-Wuensch, S., Semertzidis, Y

    Wuensch, W. U., De Panfilis-Wuensch, S., Semertzidis, Y . K., et al. 1989, Phys. Rev. D, 40, 3153, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.40.3153

    1989 doi

  61. [69]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08173, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08173

    Yang, W., Wolz, L., Li, Y ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08173, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08173

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 075, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/75

    Zhang, H.-Y ., Wu, M.-C., Yue, Y .-L., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 075, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/75

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    Zhou, Y .-F., Houston, N., J´ozsa, G. I. G., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 083006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.083006

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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