Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 2 cited by

Axions as a probe of solar metals

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The planned IAXO helioscope could measure metal-induced peaks in the Sun's axion spectrum to about 20 percent.

desk verdict A careful, honest sensitivity forecast: IAXO-class helioscopes could measure metal-induced axion peak strengths to about 20%, with the atomic-model limitation clearly stated and the abundance conversion deferred. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10878 v2 pith:YGWWMVBF submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.SR hep-ph

Joerg Jaeckel , Lennert J. Thormaehlen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRhep-ph
keywords solaraxionsaxionhelioscopeIAXOmetallicityproblemcorebound-boundtransitionsopacityaxion-electroncoupling
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

The paper proposes that a future axion helioscope such as IAXO, once axions are detected, can serve as a solar-core spectrometer: metals like iron, neon, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, and sulfur imprint characteristic Lyman-series emission peaks on the axion flux produced by axion-electron interactions in the Sun's core. Using the planned IAXO+ setup with a five-year exposure and 10 eV energy resolution, the authors simulate the detected spectrum and show that the strength of the iron peak could be measured to 20% accuracy or better over a substantial, experimentally allowed region of axion coupling space, with similar but somewhat weaker prospects for other elements. Because peak strength is proportional to elemental abundance, such a measurement would offer a direct probe of solar metallicity in the energy-generating core, potentially arbitrating the conflict between high-metallicity helioseismic models and low-metallicity photospheric abundance determinations. However, the paper is explicit that converting peak strength into an abundance is currently blocked by large disagreements among four opacity calculations, which differ by factors up to 4.7 for oxygen; improved modelling of atomic states in the solar plasma is the decisive requirement.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the relation between the axion-electron emission spectrum and the monochromatic opacities of the solar plasma, following the derivation in Ref. [45]: bound-bound transitions of metal ions appear as Lyman-series peaks in the axion flux, and each element produces a characteristic pair of lines whose lower-energy Ly-$\alpha$ member dominates. On the detection side, the axion-photon conversion probability $P_{a\to\gamma}=g_{a\gamma}^2 B^2 L^2/4$ relates the detected X-ray flux to the solar axion flux, while the peak event count factorises as $\mu_{\text{peak}}=g_{a\gamma}^2 g_{ae}^2 C_{\text{metal}} n_{\text{metal}}$, where $C_{\text{metal}}$ encodes the solar-model and atomic-transition information and $n_{\text{metal}}$ is the elemental abundance. The statistical reach is computed with an analytic likelihood method that replaces the data by their expectation values, checked against full Monte Carlo simulation at selected parameter points. The four opacity data sets act as the systematic lens: they supply the atomic transition data that enter $C_{\text{metal}}$, and their disagreement is what currently prevents the final step from peak strength to abundance.

What would settle it

Measure the two strongest iron Lyman lines in the solar axion spectrum with a helioscope of about 10 eV resolution and compare their observed intensity ratio with the ratios predicted by the Opacity Project, OPAS, ATOMIC, and LEDCOP data sets. Because the overall iron abundance multiplies both lines equally, the ratio isolates the atomic-transition modelling; a 20% measurement would distinguish among the four predictions. If none matches, the claimed path from peak strength to abundance fails; if one matches, that data set's transition model becomes the basis for an abundance measurement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the solar axion spectrum from the axion-electron coupling contains narrow bound-bound emission lines whose integrated strengths are set by the abundances of the emitting metals, and that a next-generation helioscope with sufficient energy resolution can measure those line strengths. For the benchmark IAXO+ parameters, the simulated likelihood analysis yields 20% relative-error contours for iron, silicon, sulfur, oxygen, magnesium, and neon that extend into coupling regions not yet excluded by current experiments, including the region preferred by stellar-cooling hints. The asymptotic shape of the contours is understood analytically: in the Primakoff-dominated regime the required axion-electron coupling is roughly constant, while in the electron-dominated regime it falls as $g_{a\gamma}^{-1}$. The paper also demonstrates that the measured peak strengths are not yet interpretable as abundances: comparing the Opacity Project, OPAS, ATOMIC, and LEDCOP data sets gives relative iron peak strengths from 0.39 to 1.68 and oxygen from no clear peak to 4.70 relative to the Opacity Project result, so unambiguous abundance determination awaits better atomic models. The abstract states the same caveat: improved modelling of the states of atoms inside the solar plasma is required.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion from measured peak strength to elemental abundance assumes that current opacity calculations correctly predict the absolute strength of bound-bound atomic transitions of metal ions in the solar-core plasma; the paper's own Table II shows those calculations disagree by factors up to 4.7, so this assumption currently fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If axions are detected and IAXO is built with high-resolution X-ray detectors, the iron peak strength can be measured to at least 20% precision in a large part of the currently allowed parameter space, including the region favoured by stellar-cooling observations.
  • For elements other than iron, the achievable precision depends on the Primakoff background: oxygen becomes relatively easier to detect when the two-photon coupling dominates the continuum, while neon, silicon, magnesium, and sulfur each have viable regions of parameter space.
  • Even before abundances can be extracted, measuring the peaks tests the atomic models used in solar opacity calculations, for example by comparing different emission lines of the same element.
  • Combining axion measurements of heavy elements with CNO neutrino measurements of carbon and nitrogen would cover the elements that dominate the total metallicity, since carbon and nitrogen contribute about 22% of the metallicity but do not produce large axion peaks.
  • The asymptotic behaviour of the 20% accuracy contours is understood analytically, so the parameter regions in which each element is measurable can be predicted without further simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same measured spectra could be read in reverse: with abundances supplied by independent means, the peak strengths would determine the product $g_{a\gamma}^2 g_{ae}^2$, offering a new laboratory-independent check on axion couplings in the region where stellar-cooling hints and direct limits currently disagree.
  • A natural next calculation would be to treat the spread among the four opacity tables as a systematic prior and quote model-averaged abundance uncertainties; the factors in Table II suggest those error bars would currently dwarf the 20% statistical precision, making atomic-model improvement the single highest-leverage step.
  • If the atomic calculations converge, the method would supply the first direct measurement of metal abundances in the solar core itself, rather than at the photosphere or convective envelope, and could therefore test whether the solar abundance problem is a real composition effect or an artefact of surface modelling.
  • The peak-strength ratios between different elements could be compared against the same four opacity tables as a consistency check, potentially revealing whether the opacity discrepancies are element-specific or a global offset in bound-bound transition strengths.
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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. Using the planned International Axion Observatory (IAXO) as a concrete example, the paper argues that a future helioscope with sufficient energy resolution and exposure could measure the strength of characteristic bound-bound emission peaks in the solar axion spectrum caused by heavy elements, thereby providing a new probe of solar metallicities. The authors compute the solar axion flux from axion-electron processes following Redondo (2013) using the OP opacity tables and the low-metallicity AGSS09 solar model, reproduce Redondo's flux to good accuracy, and model the expected IAXO+ signal with a simplified likelihood analysis. Using Asimov data sets validated by Monte Carlo, they present contours in the (gaγ, gae) plane along which the peak strength of Fe, Si, S, O, Mg, and Ne could be measured to 20% relative precision. They find that iron is the most promising element, with the 20% contours extending into parameter space not excluded by CAST or LUX and partly into the stellar-cooling hint region. The paper explicitly states that converting these peak-strength measurements into elemental abundances is currently blocked by order-one disagreements among four opacity data sets (OP, OPAS, ATOMIC, LEDCOP), which they quantify in Table II.

Significance. The central proposition—that a post-discovery axion helioscope can act as a solar metallicity probe—is novel, falsifiable, and timely given the ongoing solar abundance problem. The paper's quantitative methodology is careful: the spectral flux calculation is benchmarked against an independent reference (Redondo), the statistical inference is standard Asimov likelihood with Monte Carlo coverage checks, and the dominant systematic (atomic modeling) is openly quantified rather than swept under the rug. The headline claim is deliberately narrow: what is forecast is the precision with which peak strengths can be measured for a fixed atomic template, not an uncontaminated abundance extraction. That honesty, plus the explicit limitation in the abstract and Sec. II.C, makes the result credible even though the abundance interpretation must await improved atomic data. The paper also offers a useful observation that the peak-strength measurement could be turned around to test opacity models.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A] The section title 'Metals and and the solar axion flux' contains a duplicated 'and'.
  2. [Section II.C, final paragraph] The statement that 'the OP data ... predicts a rather conservative power' is ambiguous in light of Table II, where ATOMIC/OP = 0.39 for iron (i.e., ATOMIC predicts a much lower power than OP). Clarify that the conservativeness refers to the comparison with OPAS, or rephrase to avoid the impression that OP is the lowest of the four.
  3. [Section II.B and Fig. 2] Consider stating explicitly in the figure caption or text that the 20% contours are statistical-only, computed with the OP/AGSS09 template; the effect of the atomic-model systematics on the contours is not shown, although the detection robustness is discussed in Sec. II.C. This would help readers avoid over-interpreting the precision as including atomic-model uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the peak-strength forecast is a forward simulation built from external opacity data and IAXO parameters, and the model-systematic limitation on abundance extraction is explicitly acknowledged.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a forecast: with IAXO-like parameters and a given axion flux, helioscopes could measure metal-induced peak strengths to about 20% in parts of coupling space. The derivation chain is forward and self-contained: the solar axion flux is taken from Redondo's independent derivation and opacity tables (OP, OPAS, ATOMIC, LEDCOP), the detector response is fixed by IAXO+ parameters, and the statistical precision is evaluated with an Asimov likelihood whose coverage is checked by Monte Carlo. No parameter is fitted to a data subset and then renamed as a prediction: the peak strength is the target observable, not a fitted input. Equation (3), mu_peak = g^2_aγ g^2_ae C_metal n_metal, is used transparently, and the paper explicitly identifies C_metal as the main uncertainty, showing in Table II that different opacity models disagree by factors of order unity. The authors do not claim an unambiguous abundance determination; the abstract and Sec. II.C state that improved atomic modelling is required. The only minor self-citation, Ref. [37] for measuring gaγgae, is not load-bearing for the peak-strength forecast, and the paper does not rely on an unverified uniqueness theorem. The residual caveat that the OP spectrum is used both as the injected signal and the fitted template is a model-systematic limitation, not a circular reduction, because the forecast is conditional on the OP model and the authors quantify the effect of an alternative iron-peak normalization.

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

The analysis uses no fitted free parameters; the quoted couplings and detector parameters are assumed inputs. The main external reliance is on the prior derivation of the axion flux from opacities (Redondo 2013) and on the accuracy of four opacity models, which the paper itself shows to differ significantly.

free parameters (5)
  • gaγ (axion-photon coupling) = Scanned over 1e-12 to 1e-10 GeV^-1 (Fig. 2)
    Input parameter scanned to map sensitivity contours; not fitted to data.
  • gae (axion-electron coupling) = Scanned over 1e-13 to 1e-10 (Fig. 2)
    Input parameter scanned to map sensitivity contours; not fitted to data.
  • Detector energy resolution = 10 eV
    Assumed high resolution smaller than peak widths; chosen by hand and required for peak separation.
  • Observation time = 5 years
    Assumed IAXO+ exposure; not fitted.
  • IAXO+ setup parameters (B, A, L, Q) = B=3.5 T, A=3.9 m2, L=22 m, Q=0.28 (Table I)
    Taken from the IAXO+ proposal; not fitted to the target result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Redondo's relation between solar axion emission and monochromatic opacities
    The paper takes as its starting point the prior derivation that axion-electron emission in the Sun is proportional to atomic opacities (Section II.A).
  • domain assumption Axion couplings to electrons and photons parametrized by gae and gaγ
    Standard axion/ALP phenomenology assumed throughout (Section I.B).
  • domain assumption Solar model AGSS09 as the benchmark profile
    Used for the flux computation; the low-Z photospheric model is a choice consistent with the literature (Section II.A).
  • domain assumption Background is effectively negligible apart from the Primakoff contribution
    Stated in Table I and used for the sensitivity estimate in Section II.B.
  • domain assumption The four opacity data sets are representative of the true atomic transition strengths
    The central systematic uncertainty; the paper itself shows these sets disagree by large factors (Table II), so this axiom is known to be unreliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axions as a probe of solar metals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGWWMVBF

@misc{pith2026190810878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axions as a probe of solar metals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGWWMVBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10878}
}
read the original abstract

If axions or axion-like particles exist and are detected, they will not only extend the standard model of particle physics but will also open a new way to probe their sources. Axion helioscopes aim to detect axions which are produced in the core of the sun. Their spectrum contains information about the solar interior and could in principle help to solve the conflict between high and low metallicity solar models. Using the planned International Axion Observatory (IAXO) as an example, we show that helioscopes could measure the strength of characteristic emission peaks caused by the presence of heavier elements with good precision. In order to determine unambiguously the elemental abundances from this information, an improved modelling of the states of atoms inside the solar plasma is required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The solar axion flux from axion-electron processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Contours of 20% relative error in the measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Characteristic axion emission line of iron ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Experiments to test the hypothesis for solar and dark matter axions

    hep-ph 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    This is a pedagogical review of haloscope and helioscope experiments searching for dark matter and solar axions, with an overview of near-future technological developments.

  2. Status and Perspectives on Axion Searches

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional

    A concise review of axion and ALP search experiments, their recent limits, and upcoming projects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Solar Models, Neutrino Experiments and Helioseismology,

    J. N. Bahcall and R. K. Ulrich, “Solar Models, Neutrino Experiments and Helioseismology,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 60 (1988) 297

    work page 1988

  2. [2]

    So- lar models: Current epoch and time dependences, neu- trinos, and helioseismological properties,

    J. N. Bahcall, M. H. Pinsonneault and S. Basu, “So- lar models: Current epoch and time dependences, neu- trinos, and helioseismological properties,” Astrophys. J. 555 (2001) 990 [astro-ph/0010346]

    arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    Are standard solar mod- els reliable?,

    J. N. Bahcall, M. H. Pinsonneault, S. Basu and J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, “Are standard solar mod- els reliable?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 171 [astro- ph/9610250]

    work page arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    Helioseismological Implications of Recent Solar Abundance Determinations

    J. N. Bahcall, S. Basu, M. H. Pinsonneault and A. Serenelli, “Helioseismological implications of recent solar abundance determinations,” Astrophys. J. 618 (2005) 1049 [astro-ph/0407060]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    The discrepancy between solar abundances and helioseismology

    H. M. Antia and S. Basu, “The Discrepancy between so- lar abundances and helioseismology,” Astrophys. J. 620 (2005) L129 [astro-ph/0501129]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Solar neutrinos and the solar composition problem,

    C. Pena-Garay and A. Serenelli, “Solar neutrinos and the solar composition problem,” arXiv:0811.2424 [astro-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    The chemical composition of the Sun,

    M. Asplund, N. Grevesse, A. J. Sauval and P. Scott, “The chemical composition of the Sun,” Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys. 47 (2009) 481 [arXiv:0909.0948 [astro-ph.SR]]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    New Solar Composition: The Problem With So- lar Models Revisited,

    A. Serenelli, S. Basu, J. W. Ferguson and M. As- plund, “New Solar Composition: The Problem With So- lar Models Revisited,” Astrophys. J. 705 (2009) L123 [arXiv:0909.2668 [astro-ph.SR]]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Determining solar abundances using helioseismology,

    H. M. Antia and S. Basu, “Determining solar abundances using helioseismology,” Astrophys. J. 644 (2006) 1292 [astro-ph/0603001]

    2006 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Helioseismology,

    J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, “Helioseismology,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 1073 [astro-ph/0207403]

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Helioseismology and Solar Abundances,

    S. Basu and H. M. Antia, “Helioseismology and Solar Abundances,” Phys. Rept. 457 (2008) 217 [arXiv:0711.4590 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Standard Solar Compo- sition,

    N. Grevesse and A. J. Sauval, “Standard Solar Compo- sition,” Space Sci. Rev. 85 (1998) 161

    1998

  5. [13]

    The Solar chemical composition,

    M. Asplund, N. Grevesse and A. J. Sauval, “The Solar chemical composition,” Nucl. Phys. A 777 (2006) 1 [ASP Conf. Ser. 336 (2005) 25] [astro-ph/0410214]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The elemental composition of the Sun I. The intermediate mass elements Na to Ca,

    P. Scott et al. , “The elemental composition of the Sun I. The intermediate mass elements Na to Ca,” Astron. As- trophys. 573 (2015) A25 [arXiv:1405.0279 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The elemental composition of the Sun II. The iron group elements Sc to Ni,

    P. Scott, M. Asplund, N. Grevesse, M. Bergemann and A. J. Sauval, “The elemental composition of the Sun II. The iron group elements Sc to Ni,” Astron. Astrophys. 573 (2015) A26 [arXiv:1405.0287 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    The elemental composition of the Sun III. The heavy elements Cu to Th,

    N. Grevesse, P. Scott, M. Asplund and A. J. Sauval, “The elemental composition of the Sun III. The heavy elements Cu to Th,” Astron. Astrophys. 573 (2015) A27 [arXiv:1405.0288 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alive and well: a short review about stan- dard solar models,

    A. Serenelli, “Alive and well: a short review about stan- dard solar models,” Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) no.4, 78 [arXiv:1601.07179 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The Solar Metallicity Problem: What is the Solution?,

    S. Basu, “The Solar Metallicity Problem: What is the Solution?,” in “Solar-Stellar Dynamos as Revealed by Helio- and Asteroseismology,” Proceedings of Astronom- ical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    A new Generation of Standard Solar Models,

    N. Vinyoles et al. , “A new Generation of Standard Solar Models,” Astrophys. J. 835 (2017) no.2, 202 [arXiv:1611.09867 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Solar models in light of new high metallicity measurements from solar wind data,

    S. Vagnozzi, K. Freese and T. H. Zurbuchen, “Solar models in light of new high metallicity measurements from solar wind data,” Astrophys. J. 839 (2017) 55 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6931 [arXiv:1603.05960 [astro- ph.SR]]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    New solar metallicity measurements,

    S. Vagnozzi, “New solar metallicity measurements,” Atoms 7 (2019) 41 doi:10.3390/atoms7020041 [arXiv:1703.10834 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Pseudoparticles,

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

    1977

  15. [23]

    Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Pseudoparticles,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Pseudoparticles,” Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1791

    1977

  16. [24]

    A New Light Boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A New Light Boson?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 223. 6

    1978

  17. [25]

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

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

    1978

  18. [26]

    The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, “The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60 (2010) 405 [arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Axion Cosmology,

    D. J. E. Marsh, “Axion Cosmology,” Phys. Rept. 643 (2016) 1 [arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, “Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 127 [Phys. Lett. 120B (1983) 127]

    1983

  21. [29]

    A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, “A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 133 [Phys. Lett. 120B (1983) 133]

    1983

  22. [30]

    The Not So Harmless Axion,

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, “The Not So Harmless Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 137 [Phys. Lett. 120B (1983) 137]

    1983

  23. [31]

    WISPy Cold Dark Matter,

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- dondo and A. Ringwald, “WISPy Cold Dark Matter,” JCAP 1206 (2012) 013 [arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Physics po- tential of the International Axion Observatory (IAXO),

    E. Armengaud et al. [IAXO Collaboration], “Physics po- tential of the International Axion Observatory (IAXO),” arXiv:1904.09155 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion,

    P. Sikivie, “Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1415 Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 695]

    1983

  26. [34]

    Towards a new generation ax- ion helioscope,

    I. G. Irastorza et al. , “Towards a new generation ax- ion helioscope,” JCAP 1106 (2011) 013 [arXiv:1103.5334 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    The Inter- national Axion Observatory IAXO. Letter of Intent to the CERN SPS committee,

    I. G. Irastorza et al. [IAXO Collaboration], “The Inter- national Axion Observatory IAXO. Letter of Intent to the CERN SPS committee,” CERN-SPSC-2013-022

    2013

  28. [36]

    Conceptual Design of the Inter- national Axion Observatory (IAXO),

    E. Armengaud et al. , “Conceptual Design of the Inter- national Axion Observatory (IAXO),” JINST 9 (2014) T05002 [arXiv:1401.3233 [physics.ins-det]]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Distinguishing Ax- ion Models with IAXO,

    J. Jaeckel and L. J. Thormaehlen, “Distinguishing Ax- ion Models with IAXO,” JCAP 1903 (2019) no.03, 039 [arXiv:1811.09278 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Weighing the solar axion,

    T. Dafni et al. , “Weighing the solar axion,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.3, 035037 [arXiv:1811.09290 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Direct detection of dark matter axions with directional sensitivity,

    I. G. Irastorza and J. A. Garcia, “Direct detection of dark matter axions with directional sensitivity,” JCAP 1210 (2012) 022 [arXiv:1207.6129 [physics.ins-det]]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    An antenna for directional detection of WISPy dark matter,

    J. Jaeckel and J. Redondo, “An antenna for directional detection of WISPy dark matter,” JCAP 1311 (2013) 016 [arXiv:1307.7181 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Directional Resolution of Dish Antenna Experiments to Search for WISPy Dark Mat- ter,

    J. Jaeckel and S. Knirck, “Directional Resolution of Dish Antenna Experiments to Search for WISPy Dark Mat- ter,” JCAP 1601 (2016) 005 [arXiv:1509.00371 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Axion astron- omy with microwave cavity experiments,

    C. A. J. O’Hare and A. M. Green, “Axion astron- omy with microwave cavity experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.6, 063017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063017 [arXiv:1701.03118 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Directional axion detection,

    S. Knirck, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, J. Redondo and F. D. Steffen, “Directional axion detection,” JCAP 1811 (2018) no.11, 051 [arXiv:1806.05927 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    CNO Neutrino Grand Prix: The race to solve the solar metallicity problem,

    D. G. Cerdeno, J. H. Davis, M. Fairbairn and A. C. Vin- cent, “CNO Neutrino Grand Prix: The race to solve the solar metallicity problem,” JCAP 1804 (2018) 037 [arXiv:1712.06522 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Solar axion flux from the axion-electron coupling,

    J. Redondo, “Solar axion flux from the axion-electron coupling,” JCAP 1312 (2013) 008 [arXiv:1310.0823 [hep- ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Updated opacities from the Opacity Project,

    N. R. Badnell, M. A. Bautista, K. Butler, F. De- lahaye, C. Mendoza, P. Palmeri, C. J. Zeippen and M. J. Seaton, “Updated opacities from the Opacity Project,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 360 (2005) 458 [astro-ph/0410744]

    2005 arXiv

  39. [47]

    OP data on CD for mean opacities and ra- diative accelerations,

    M. J. Seaton, “OP data on CD for mean opacities and ra- diative accelerations,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 362 (2005) L1 [astro-ph/0411010]

    2005 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Solar Mix- ture Opacity Calculations Using Detailed Configuration and Level Accounting Treatments

    C. Blancard, P. Coss and G. Faussurier, “Solar Mix- ture Opacity Calculations Using Detailed Configuration and Level Accounting Treatments.” Astrophysical Jour- nal 745 (2012) 10

    2012

  41. [49]

    Opacity Calculations for Solar Mixtures

    G. Mondet, C. Blancard, P. Coss and G. Faussurier, “Opacity Calculations for Solar Mixtures”, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series 220 (2015) 2

    2015

  42. [50]

    A New Generation of Los Alamos Opacity Tables,

    J. Colgan, et al. , “A New Generation of Los Alamos Opacity Tables,” arXiv:1601.01005 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Atomic Structure Calculations and New Los Alamos Astrophysical Opacities,

    N. H. Magee, et al. , “Atomic Structure Calculations and New Los Alamos Astrophysical Opacities,” Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series (Astrophysical Applications of Powerful New Databases, S. J. Adelman and W. L. Wiese eds.) 78 (1995) 51

    1995

  44. [52]

    Physics and Applications of Metallic Magnetic Calorimeters,

    S. Kempf, A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo and C. Enss, “Physics and Applications of Metallic Magnetic Calorimeters,” J Low Temp Phys 193 (2018) 365

    2018

  45. [53]

    Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, “Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554 Erratum: [Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2501] [arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    New experimental ap- proaches in the search for axion-like particles,

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, “New experimental ap- proaches in the search for axion-like particles,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102 (2018) 89 [arXiv:1801.08127 [hep- ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Exploring Two Higgs Dou- blet Models Through Higgs Production,

    C. Y. Chen and S. Dawson, “Exploring Two Higgs Dou- blet Models Through Higgs Production,” Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 055016 [arXiv:1301.0309 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Stellar Recipes for Axion Hunters,

    M. Giannotti, I. G. Irastorza, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald and K. Saikawa, “Stellar Recipes for Axion Hunters,” JCAP 1710 (2017) no.10, 010 [arXiv:1708.02111 [hep- ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    CAST constraints on the axion-electron coupling,

    K. Barth et al., “CAST constraints on the axion-electron coupling,” JCAP 1305 (2013) 010 [arXiv:1302.6283 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction,

    V. Anastassopoulos et al. [CAST Collaboration], “New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction,” Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 584 doi:10.1038/nphys4109 [arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    First Searches for Axions and Axionlike Particles with the LUX Ex- periment,

    D. S. Akerib et al. [LUX Collaboration], “First Searches for Axions and Axionlike Particles with the LUX Ex- periment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) no.26, 261301 [arXiv:1704.02297 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    http://aphysics2.lanl.gov/opacity/lanl (accessed 08/2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.