Detecting gravitational signatures of dark matter with atom gradiometers

Kathryn M. Zurek; Leonardo Badurina; Vincent S. H. Lee; Yikun Wang; Yufeng Du

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Detecting gravitational signatures of dark matter with atom gradiometers

T0 review · 1 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 A space-based atom gradiometer could detect dark matter clumps at about 10 percent of the local density and ultralight overdensities of ten times local, purely through gravity.

desk verdict Careful, transparent sensitivity forecast with a genuinely new parametric advantage for atom gradiometers; the headline reach numbers depend on an unvalidated shot-noise assumption that the paper itself flags. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00781 v2 pith:ZXYVHLNX submitted 2025-05-01 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Leonardo Badurina , Yufeng Du , Vincent S. H. Lee , Yikun Wang , Kathryn M. Zurek This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 95.35.+d04.80.Nn

keywords atomgradiometerdarkmatterclumpsultralightgravitationalredshiftinterferometrywavedetectorsmatchedfilteringsignatures

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether proposed long-baseline atom gradiometers—devices that compare the phases of two atom interferometers separated by a large baseline—can detect dark matter using gravity alone. It argues that a space-based gradiometer with a $4.4\times10^7$ m baseline and a $150$ s interrogation time could see a dark matter subcomponent of about 10 percent of the local density if that component is made of compact clumps of mass $10^6$–$10^{10}$ kg. For ultralight dark matter, the paper claims the same detector could probe an overdensity of roughly ten times the local density for masses below $10^{-17}$ eV, using the oscillating gravitational field produced by density and pressure fluctuations. The key reason is that the gradiometer's observable includes the relative gravitational redshift between separated atomic clouds, a signal that is not velocity suppressed, unlike the tidal (Doppler) effect that dominates laser interferometers. If the paper is right, this opens a mass window and a detection channel—pure gravity—that no other planned probe covers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coordinate-invariant decomposition of the gradiometer phase shift into Doppler (tidal displacement), Einstein (gravitational redshift), and Shapiro (photon time delay) terms, with detector response kernels $K_\pm(\omega)$ fixed by the baseline $L$, interrogation time $T$, and number of large-momentum-transfer kicks $n$ (Eqs. (1)–(3)). For clump signals the Doppler term dominates and is computed from the Newtonian potential of a passing point mass. For ultralight dark matter the Einstein term dominates and is driven by the $h_{00}$ component of the metric, which the field's density and pressure fluctuations produce at frequency $2m$; because this term is not velocity suppressed, it survives where the Doppler response is suppressed by the dark matter velocity. The reach estimates combine these phase-shift formulas with matched filtering against a shot-noise-limited phase-noise spectrum, using the 90th-percentile minimum impact parameter for clump encounters and a coherence-time-dependent signal-to-noise treatment for ultralight dark matter.

What would settle it

Measure the acceleration-noise spectral density of a space-based gradiometer in the $10^{-6}$–$10^{-3}$ Hz band; if it exceeds $\sqrt{S_a}\sim3\times10^{-18}\,\mathrm{m\,s^{-2}/Hz^{1/2}}$, the value the projections assume, the claimed $f_{\rm DM}$ reach weakens. A one-year run that sees no transient event above threshold for $f_{\rm DM}\approx0.1$ with clumps in the $10^6$–$10^{10}$ kg range would strongly disfavor the predicted 90 percent probability of at least one detectable encounter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the gravitational phase shift measured by an atom gradiometer has three physically distinct components—Doppler, Einstein, and Shapiro—and that this decomposition changes the reach for dark matter. For compact dark clumps the Doppler term, the tidal displacement of atoms along the baseline, dominates; the projected acceleration sensitivity of a space-based gradiometer then yields a 90 percent upper limit of $f_{\rm DM}\sim\mathcal{O}(0.1)$ on the clump fraction for masses $10^6\,{\rm kg}\lesssim M\lesssim10^{10}\,{\rm kg}$. For ultralight dark matter the fast-oscillating metric perturbations from density and pressure fluctuations enter chiefly through the Einstein term, the relative gravitational redshift between the two atom clouds; unlike the Doppler term this is not suppressed by the dark matter velocity, so the gradiometer is parametrically more sensitive than a laser interferometer with comparable strain sensitivity. The paper projects that such a detector could probe an ultralight dark matter overdensity of $\mathcal{O}(10)$ times the local density for $m\lesssim10^{-17}$ eV. The same calculation shows that terrestrial km-scale gradiometers would need much larger overdensities to see either class of signal.

Load-bearing premise

The headline reach assumes the space-based gradiometer is atom shot-noise limited with a phase-noise floor of $10^{-4}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ between about $10^{-6}$ and $10^{-3}$ Hz, and that unresolved astrophysical binary signals and asteroid gravity-gradient noise do not fill that band.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A space-based atom gradiometer would become the first purely gravitational probe of dark clumps in the $10^6$–$10^{10}$ kg window, reaching a 10 percent subcomponent of the local dark matter density.
For ultralight dark matter below about $10^{-17}$ eV, the same detector could explore overdensities of roughly ten times the local density, a regime that planetary ephemeris and laser-ranging measurements can only reach at much larger densities.
Atom gradiometers are parametrically more sensitive than laser interferometers with comparable strain sensitivity to fast-oscillating metric perturbations, so the instrument would double as a dark matter detector and a mid-frequency gravitational wave detector.
Terrestrial km-scale designs are unlikely to reach interesting dark matter fractions for either clumps or ultralight fluctuations, so the space-based configuration carries the claimed reach.
If unresolved galactic and extragalactic binary foregrounds contaminate the $10^{-6}$–$10^{-2}$ Hz band, the projected reach degrades, though the best space-based design should still outperform a design with atoms confined inside the satellites.

Reading between the lines

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

The same Einstein-term enhancement should apply to any clock-comparison measurement, not only atom gradiometers; a network of two or more space-based gradiometers could cross-correlate to extract the stochastic ultralight signal from colored noise, a direction the paper leaves open.
Because the gravitational signal is independent of the atomic species, comparing two gradiometers that use different atomic transitions could serve as a built-in check against non-gravitational systematic shifts.
If unresolved binary foregrounds are as strong as current models suggest, the headline $\mathcal{O}(0.1)$ clump fraction and $\mathcal{O}(10)$ ultralight overdensity claims could degrade by orders of magnitude; a direct measurement of that foreground in the $10^{-3}$–$10^{-2}$ Hz band would sharpen or overturn these projections.
Treating clumps as point-like masses sets a lower bound on the signal; extending the calculation to finite-size objects such as axion stars or dark-photon stars would change the signal when the impact parameter is comparable to the object's radius, most likely at the low-mass end of the reach.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read it. It's a serious, carefully derived sensitivity forecast for purely gravitational DM searches with atom gradiometers. The new physics is real: a space-based AEDGE+-like detector could open a clump mass window (10^6–10^10 kg) that no other gravitational probe touches, and the paper identifies a parametric advantage—the Einstein time-delay term—that makes AGs more sensitive than laser interferometers to fast ULDM density oscillations. That last point is the strongest part; it's an argument about the measurement itself, not about noise curves, so it survives even if the projected reaches move.

The derivations in Secs. IIIB and IVB are internally consistent and match the heuristics; the velocity suppression of the Doppler term and the Shapiro cancellation in Newtonian gauge are shown explicitly. They use their own published framework (Ref. [68]), which is a general derivation, not fitted to these claims, so the circularity concern is low. The paper is also unusually transparent about what it doesn't know.

The real soft spot is the noise budget. The headline AEDGE+ reach assumes shot-noise-limited performance between 10^-6 and 10^-3 Hz, but Appendix A's Fig. 5 shows unresolved galactic and extragalactic binary foregrounds exceed that curve below about 10^-2 Hz—exactly where the ULDM signal at m~10^-17 eV and clump events with b ~ 5x10^6–10^9 m live. The SNR integral in Eq. (25) only includes Sn, and the authors explicitly leave noise analysis for future work. The stress-test concern lands. That said, they flag it in the text, including a passage admitting the constraints would weaken to f_DM~1 for clumps around 10^6 kg and to f_DM>10^3 for ULDM if foregrounds dominate. The projected O(0.1) clump fraction and O(10) ULDM overdensity are conditional, not predictions. A reader should not take those numbers as robust.

This paper deserves a serious referee. The physics derivations and the parametric enhancement argument are strong, the noise caveat is real but identified, and the mass window is genuinely new territory. I'd send it to review with the expectation that the authors strengthen the foreground discussion, possibly by adding foregrounds to the noise budget or at least making the conditional nature of the headline claims impossible to miss. For my own work, I'd cite it for the ULDM gravitational detection argument. For a reading group, yes—the two derivations and the sensitivity comparison are worth reading carefully.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the purely gravitational signatures of dark matter in proposed long-baseline atom gradiometers. Using the phase-shift framework of Ref. [68], the authors decompose the gradiometer signal into Doppler, Einstein, and Shapiro contributions, and apply it to two dark matter scenarios: compact dark clumps with masses between about 10^6 and 10^10 kg, and ultralight dark matter with masses below about 10^-17 eV. For clumps, they find that the Doppler term dominates and project that an AEDGE+-like space-based gradiometer could probe a clump subcomponent at the 10% level of the local dark matter density. For ultralight dark matter, they find that the Einstein gravitational-redshift term, which is not velocity suppressed, dominates and yields a parametric enhancement over laser interferometers; they project sensitivity to overdensity factors around 10 for masses below 10^-17 eV. The calculations are presented for terrestrial (AION-km, MAGIS-km) and space-based (MAGIS-space, AEDGE, AEDGE+) concepts, with Monte Carlo and analytic estimates for the clump reach and power-averaged sensitivity curves for the ultralight case.

Significance. If the quantitative projections hold, this paper identifies an otherwise unexplored mass window for purely gravitational dark matter searches and makes a credible parametric argument that atom gradiometers are better suited than laser interferometers to fast-oscillating metric perturbations sourced by ultralight dark matter. The strength of the paper is that the signal derivations are internally consistent, the heuristic estimates agree with the full calculation, and the authors are unusually transparent about the assumptions behind their reach projections. The central parametric claim does not depend on the unvalidated noise assumptions; however, the headline numerical reaches for AEDGE+ do depend on them, and the paper itself repeatedly defers the needed noise analysis. The projected sensitivity curves should therefore be treated as conditional until foregrounds are included or explicitly shown to be subdominant.

major comments (1)

[Section IV B, Eq. (37)] The step from the Fourier-domain expressions in Eq. (36) to the amplitude formula Eq. (37) is not shown. The normalization of Eq. (37) depends on the treatment of the Rayleigh-distributed field amplitude phi_0, the Fourier convention for the delta-function peak at omega = 2m, and the combination K_+(omega) + K_-(omega). Since Eq. (37) sets the normalization of the projected reach curves in Fig. 4, please provide the intermediate derivation or explicitly state the averaging convention used for sqrt(<|Delta phi|^2>).

minor comments (5)

[Section IV B] There is a typo in the sentence 'Phi does not interact affect the free evolution of photons'; it should read 'does not affect'.
[Table I and Section II A] The table reports sqrt(S_n) in units of 1/sqrt(Hz), while Eq. (13) and related expressions use S_n in units of Hz^-1. The notation is understandable but should be made uniform to avoid confusion.
[Section III C] The caption of Fig. 2 states SNR_t ~ 2, while the text states SNR_t^2 ~ 4 with a chi-squared threshold. This is consistent, but the caption could clarify that the threshold is on SNR^2.
[Abstract and Section V] The abstract says 'depending on astrophysical backgrounds' while Section V says 'under optimistic noise projections'. Using one consistent qualifier would make the conditional nature of the headline claims clearer.
[Section III A, Eq. (7)] The factor min(1, 2L/b) in Eq. (7) is stated without derivation; clarifying that it comes from the relative acceleration of two separated accelerometers in a gradient field would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase-shift derivation and sensitivity projections are self-contained, with self-citations only to general published frameworks.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are not circular. The AG phase-shift master equations are imported from Ref. [68] (Sec. II B, Eqs. (1)-(6)), but that framework is a general decomposition of gradiometer observables into Doppler, Einstein, and Shapiro terms and is not fitted to the DM claims made here; the DM signal calculations (Secs. III B and IV B) are performed in this paper from the Newtonian potential or from the scalar stress tensor. The ULDM metric perturbation (Eq. (35) and Appendix C) is derived from T_mu_nu and is stated to agree with independent Refs. [36, 37]. The clump heuristic of Sec. III A is checked against the full general relativistic calculation rather than used to define it, and Eq. (37)'s mapping to GW and linearly-coupled scalar ULDM signals is presented as a consistency check, not as the input. No free parameters are fitted to data and then renamed as predictions; the SNR prescription of Eq. (25) uses the assumed shot-noise PSD, and the paper explicitly and repeatedly flags that astrophysical foregrounds are neglected in the projections (Secs. III C, IV C, V, and Appendix A). That is a limitation on the robustness of the quantitative reach, not a circular step. The self-citations to Refs. [13, 68] are load-bearing only as methodology or comparison baselines, and both are published, parameter-free general results whose assumptions do not include the target detection claims, so they constitute independent support under the review rules. No circularity score above 0 is warranted.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces or conserved quantities. The quasiparticle picture for ULDM fluctuations is a heuristic used only for intuition. The free parameters in the sensitivity analysis, such as f_DM, rho_DM and the SHM velocity parameters, are physical inputs or scanned variables, not fitted to make a prediction work.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Atom gradiometer phase shift decomposes into Doppler, Einstein and Shapiro contributions per Eq. (2), valid at leading order in the metric perturbation and the atom recoil velocity.
Adopted from the authors' prior framework Ref. [68]; this is the master equation for all signal calculations in Sections III and IV.
domain assumption Dark clumps are point masses with radius negligible relative to all experimental length scales.
Section III B states this assumption; it sets the Newtonian potential in Eq. (16) and is required for the 10^6 to 10^10 kg reach.
domain assumption The local dark matter velocity distribution is the Standard Halo Model with v0 = 238 km/s, vobs = 252 km/s and vesc = 600 km/s.
Used in the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis in Section III C and in the event-rate estimates; the clump reach depends on this distribution.
domain assumption Ultralight dark matter is modeled as a free, minimally coupled real scalar field with a single near-monochromatic Fourier mode and Rayleigh-distributed amplitude.
Section IV B derives the metric perturbation in Eq. (35) from this model and neglects self-interactions and gravitational focusing corrections, which are discussed but not included.
domain assumption The proposed detectors are atom shot-noise limited between omega_min and omega_max with the parameters in Table I, and astrophysical foregrounds are neglected in the central projections.
The authors state this in Sections III C, IV C and Appendix A; the headline AEDGE+ reaches depend on this assumption.
standard math Linearized gravity in Newtonian gauge is used, and for the ULDM calculation the baseline is much smaller than the de Broglie coherence length, L / lambda_c much less than 1.
The metric perturbations are computed in Appendix C and the L / lambda_c limit is applied in Eq. (36); this is a standard weak-field approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting gravitational signatures of dark matter with atom gradiometers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXYVHLNX

@misc{pith2026250500781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting gravitational signatures of dark matter with atom gradiometers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXYVHLNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00781}
}

abstract

We study the purely gravitational signatures of dark matter from the ultralight to the ultraheavy mass range in proposed long-baseline atom gradiometers, focusing on terrestrial designs, such as AION-km and MAGIS-km, as well as space-based concepts, such as MAGIS-space, AEDGE and AEDGE+. Due to its exceptional acceleration sensitivity and depending on astrophysical backgrounds, a detector similar to AEDGE+ could detect a dark matter subcomponent which constitutes $\mathcal{O}(10\%)$ of the local dark matter energy density and is populated by compact clumps of mass between $10^6$~kg and $10^{10}$~kg ($10^{-25}~M_\odot\lesssim M \lesssim 10^{-21}~M_\odot$) in an otherwise unexplored region of dark matter model space. Furthermore, because the gravitational observable depends on the relative gravitational time delay measured by spatially separated atomic clouds, we find that atom gradiometers are parametrically more sensitive than laser interferometers, such as LIGO and LISA, to fast-oscillating spacetime perturbations sourced by energy density and pressure fluctuations of ultralight dark matter. Depending on astrophysical backgrounds, a detector akin to AEDGE+ could probe a DM overdensity of $\mathcal{O}(10)$ times the local dark matter energy density for masses $m\lesssim 10^{-17}$~eV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00781 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** MC-generated projected 90% upper limits on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Acceleration sensitivity of LISA (solid gray) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Projected 90% upper limits on the fraction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Power-averaged atom shot-noise limited strain sen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

Pulsar Timing Sensitivity to Dark Matter Substructure in the Presence of a Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

A stochastic GWB suppresses PTA reach to DM substructure by 1–3 orders of magnitude relative to white-noise forecasts, with dynamic Shapiro least affected near 10^{-2} M_⊙.
Probing Quadratically Coupled Ultralight Dark Matter with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

LISA forecasts for quadratically coupled ultralight dark matter show competitive or superior sensitivity to terrestrial and astrophysical probes in selected mass windows, free of screening.
Towards the Direct Detection of Composite Ultraheavy Dark Matter in Quantum Sensor Arrays
hep-ph 2025-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A quantum sensor array could be sensitive to Planck-mass composite dark matter with radii around a centimeter via Yukawa forces, with a signal that scales as λ² instead of exponentially for short screening lengths.
Detection prospects for the Cosmic Neutrino Background using matter interferometers
hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The Cosmic Neutrino Background is predicted to induce phase shifts of ~1e-22 to 1e-14 rad in matter interferometers, far below current and near-future sensitivity.
Detecting dark objects in the Solar System with Gravitational Wave observatories
gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

DECIGO could detect compact dark matter objects with masses 10^7 to 10^11 g flying through the solar system via their gravitational perturbation of the detector test masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

[68]

S. Baum, Z. Bogorad, and P. W. Graham, JCAP05, 027, arXiv:2309.07952 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv
[1]

space- based (outside)

Frequency-dependence Because of the nontrivial frequency-dependence of the the three AG phase shift contributions, we now study the behavior of the signal at low and high frequencies, and 8 the hierarchy between the Doppler, Einstein and Shapiro phase shifts. As anticipated at the beginning of this sub- section, we show that the signal is: (i) power law a...

2021
[2]

Zimmermann, J

T. Zimmermann, J. Alvey, D. J. E. Marsh, M. Fairbairn, and J. I. Read, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151001 (2025), arXiv:2405.20374 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[3]

A. M. Green, Nucl. Phys. B1003, 116494 (2024), arXiv:2402.15211 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024
[4]

Carney, S

D. Carney, S. Ghosh, G. Krnjaic, and J. M. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D102, 072003 (2020), arXiv:1903.00492 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2020
[5]

Blanco, B

C. Blanco, B. Elshimy, R. F. Lang, and R. Orlando, Phys. Rev. D105, 115031 (2022), arXiv:2112.14784 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2022
[6]

Attanasioet al.(Windchime), inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.07242 [hep-ex]

A. Attanasioet al.(Windchime), inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.07242 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022
[7]

A. W. Adams and J. S. Bloom, (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0405266

arXiv 2004

Show all 126 references

[8]

Seto and A

N. Seto and A. Cooray, Phys. Rev. D70, 063512 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0405216

2004 arXiv
[9]

E. D. Hall, R. X. Adhikari, V. V. Frolov, H. M¨ uller, M. Pospelov, and R. X. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. D98, 083019 (2018), arXiv:1605.01103 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[10]

Kawasaki, Phys

A. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D99, 023005 (2019), arXiv:1809.00968 [physics.ins-det]

2019 arXiv
[11]

Jaeckel, S

J. Jaeckel, S. Schenk, and M. Spannowsky, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 828 (2021), arXiv:2004.13724 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[12]

S. Baum, M. A. Fedderke, and P. W. Graham, Phys. Rev. D106, 063015 (2022), arXiv:2206.14832 [astro- ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[13]

C.-H. Lee, R. Primulando, and M. Spinrath, Phys. Rev. D107, 035029 (2023), arXiv:2208.06232 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[14]

Y. Du, V. S. H. Lee, Y. Wang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D108, 122003 (2023), arXiv:2306.13122 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[15]

E. R. Siegel, M. P. Hertzberg, and J. N. Fry, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.382, 879 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0702546

2007
[16]

Ramani, T

H. Ramani, T. Trickle, and K. M. Zurek, JCAP12, 033, arXiv:2005.03030 [astro-ph.CO]

2005 arXiv
[17]

J. A. Dror, H. Ramani, T. Trickle, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D100, 023003 (2019), arXiv:1901.04490 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[18]

H. A. Clark, G. F. Lewis, and P. Scott, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.456, 1394 (2016), [Erra- tum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 464, 2468 (2017)], arXiv:1509.02938 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[19]

Kashiyama and M

K. Kashiyama and M. Oguri, (2018), arXiv:1801.07847 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Schutz and A

K. Schutz and A. Liu, Phys. Rev. D95, 023002 (2017), arXiv:1610.04234 [astro-ph.CO]. 19

2017 arXiv
[21]

Baghram, N

S. Baghram, N. Afshordi, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D84, 043511 (2011), arXiv:1101.5487 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[22]

V. S. H. Lee, A. Mitridate, T. Trickle, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP06, 028, arXiv:2012.09857 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[23]

V. S. H. Lee, S. R. Taylor, T. Trickle, and K. M. Zurek, JCAP08, 025, arXiv:2104.05717 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[24]

B. Carr, F. Kuhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[25]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 355 (2020), arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[26]

Chakraborty, P

A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, K. L. Pandey, and S. Das, Astrophys. J.932, 119 (2022), arXiv:2204.09628 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[27]

M. B. Wise and Y. Zhang, JHEP02, 023, [Erratum: JHEP 10, 165 (2015)], arXiv:1411.1772 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[28]

M. B. Wise and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D90, 055030 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 039907 (2015)], arXiv:1407.4121 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[29]

Hardy, R

E. Hardy, R. Lasenby, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP06, 011, arXiv:1411.3739 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[30]

M. I. Gresham, H. K. Lou, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D97, 036003 (2018), arXiv:1707.02316 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[31]

M. I. Gresham, H. K. Lou, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D96, 096012 (2017), arXiv:1707.02313 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[32]

Y. Bai, A. J. Long, and S. Lu, Phys. Rev. D99, 055047 (2019), arXiv:1810.04360 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[33]

Khmelnitsky and V

A. Khmelnitsky and V. Rubakov, JCAP02, 019, arXiv:1309.5888 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[34]

Kim and A

H. Kim and A. Mitridate, Phys. Rev. D109, 055017 (2024), arXiv:2312.12225 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[35]

K. K. Boddy, J. A. Dror, and A. Lam, (2025), arXiv:2502.15874 [hep-ph]

2025
[36]

Kim, Phys

H. Kim, Phys. Rev. D110, 083031 (2024), arXiv:2406.03539 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[37]

J. A. Dror and S. Verner, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 111003 (2025), arXiv:2406.03526 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[38]

Kim, JCAP12, 018, arXiv:2306.13348 [hep-ph]

H. Kim, JCAP12, 018, arXiv:2306.13348 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[39]

M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kim- ball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018), arXiv:1710.01833 [physics.atom-ph]

2018 arXiv
[40]

Abend, B

S. Abend, B. Allard, I. Alonso, J. Antoniadis, H. Ara´ ujo, G. Arduini, A. S. Arnold, T. Asano, N. Augst, L. Badu- rina,et al., AVS Quantum Science6, 10.1116/5.0185291 (2024), arXiv:2310.08183 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[41]

Abdallaet al., EPJ Quant

A. Abdallaet al., EPJ Quant. Technol.12, 42 (2025), arXiv:2412.14960 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[42]

Badurinaet al., JCAP05, 011, arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

L. Badurinaet al., JCAP05, 011, arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

1911 arXiv
[44]

Canuelet al., Sci

B. Canuelet al., Sci. Rep.8, 14064 (2018), arXiv:1703.02490 [physics.atom-ph]

2018 arXiv
[45]

Canuelet al., Class

B. Canuelet al., Class. Quant. Grav.37, 225017 (2020), arXiv:1911.03701 [physics.atom-ph]

2020 arXiv
[46]

Zhanet al., Int

M.-S. Zhanet al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 1940005 (2019), arXiv:1903.09288 [physics.atom-ph]

2019 arXiv
[47]

P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, S. Rajendran, and R. W. Romani (MAGIS), (2017), arXiv:1711.02225 [astro-ph.IM]

2017 arXiv
[48]

Wolfet al.(STE-QUEST), (2022), arXiv:2211.15412 [physics.space-ph]

P. Wolfet al.(STE-QUEST), (2022), arXiv:2211.15412 [physics.space-ph]

2022 arXiv
[49]

Y. A. El-Neajet al.(AEDGE), EPJ Quant. Technol.7, 6 (2020), arXiv:1908.00802 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[50]

Badurina, O

L. Badurina, O. Buchmueller, J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, C. McCabe, and V. Vaskonen, Phil. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.380, 20210060 (2021), arXiv:2108.02468 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[51]

Dimopoulos, P

S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D78, 122002 (2008), arXiv:0806.2125 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[52]

Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 201301 (2015), arXiv:1503.08540 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[53]

Arvanitaki, P

A. Arvanitaki, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, S. Rajen- dran, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D97, 075020 (2018), arXiv:1606.04541 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[54]

Badurina, D

L. Badurina, D. Blas, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023006 (2022), arXiv:2109.10965 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[55]

Badurina, V

L. Badurina, V. Gibson, C. McCabe, and J. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. D107, 055002 (2023), arXiv:2211.01854 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[56]

Badurina, A

L. Badurina, A. Beniwal, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. D108, 083016 (2023), arXiv:2306.16477 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[57]

P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and W. A. Terrano, Phys. Rev. D93, 075029 (2016), arXiv:1512.06165 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[58]

Y. Du, C. Murgui, K. Pardo, Y. Wang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D106, 095041 (2022), arXiv:2205.13546 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[59]

Badurina, C

L. Badurina, C. Murgui, and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. A 110, 033311 (2024), arXiv:2402.03421 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[60]

D. Blas, J. Carlton, and C. McCabe, (2024), arXiv:2412.14282 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[61]

Banks, D

H. Banks, D. M. Grabowska, and M. McCullough, Phys. Rev. D108, 035017 (2023), arXiv:2302.07887 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[62]

Dimopoulos, P

S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 111102 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0610047

2007
[63]

Dimopoulos, P

S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Ka- sevich, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Lett. B678, 37 (2009), arXiv:0712.1250 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[64]

P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 171102 (2013), arXiv:1206.0818 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[65]

P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D94, 104022 (2016), arXiv:1606.01860 [physics.atom-ph]

2016 arXiv
[66]

P. W. Graham and S. Jung, Phys. Rev. D97, 024052 (2018), arXiv:1710.03269 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[67]

Ellis and V

J. Ellis and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D101, 124013 (2020), arXiv:2003.13480 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[69]

Badurina, Y

L. Badurina, Y. Du, V. S. H. Lee, Y. Wang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D111, 042002 (2025), arXiv:2409.03828 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[70]

Rakhmanov, Phys

M. Rakhmanov, Phys. Rev. D71, 084003 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0406009

2005 arXiv
[71]

V. S. H. Lee and K. M. Zurek, (2024), arXiv:2408.03363 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[72]

Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

2007
[73]

Abend, M

S. Abend, M. Gersemann, C. Schubert, D. Schlip- pert, E. M. Rasel, M. Zimmermann, M. A. Efremov, A. Roura, F. A. Narducci, and W. P. Schleich, inIn- ternational School of Physics ’Enrico Fermi’ Course 197 ’Foundations of Quantum Theory’, edited by E. M. Rasel, W. P. Schleich, ...

2019 arXiv
[74]

Foot,Atomic physics(Oxford University Press, USA, 2005)

C. Foot,Atomic physics(Oxford University Press, USA, 2005)

2005
[75]

Yu and M

N. Yu and M. Tinto, Gen. Rel. Grav.43, 1943 (2011), arXiv:1003.4218 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[76]

Rudolph, T

J. Rudolph, T. Wilkason, M. Nantel, H. Swan, C. M. Holland, Y. Jiang, B. E. Garber, S. P. Carman, and J. M. Hogan, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 083604 (2020), arXiv:1910.05459 [physics.atom-ph]

2020 arXiv
[77]

C. F. A. Baynhamet al.(AION), (2025), arXiv:2504.09158 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[78]

Kasevich and S

M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 181 (1991)

1991
[79]

J. M. McGuirk, M. J. Snadden, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4498 (2000)

2000
[80]

Lorianiet al., New J

S. Lorianiet al., New J. Phys.21, 063030 (2019), arXiv:1812.11348 [physics.atom-ph]

2019 arXiv
[81]

M. M. Boyd, T. Zelevinsky, A. D. Ludlow, S. Blatt, T. Zanon-Willette, S. M. Foreman, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. A76, 022510 (2007)

2007
[82]

J. A. Muniz, D. J. Young, J. R. K. Cline, and J. K. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023152 (2021)

2021
[83]

Carlton, V

J. Carlton, V. Gibson, T. Kovachy, C. McCabe, and J. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. D111, 082003 (2025), arXiv:2412.05379 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[84]

M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D103, 103017 (2021), arXiv:2011.13833 [gr- qc]

2021 arXiv
[85]

Karnesis, S

N. Karnesis, S. Babak, M. Pieroni, N. Cornish, and T. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D104, 043019 (2021), arXiv:2103.14598 [astro-ph.IM]

2021 arXiv
[86]

A. J. Farmer and E. S. Phinney, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.346, 1197 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0304393

2003 arXiv
[87]

Staelens and G

S. Staelens and G. Nelemans, Astron. Astrophys.683, A139 (2024), arXiv:2310.19448 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[88]

Hofman and G

S. Hofman and G. Nelemans, Astron. Astrophys.691, A261 (2024), arXiv:2407.10642 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[89]

Boileau, T

G. Boileau, T. Bruel, A. Toubiana, A. Lamberts, and N. Christensen, (2025), arXiv:2506.18390 [gr-qc]

2025
[90]

Lewicki and V

M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 168 (2023), arXiv:2111.05847 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[91]

Abeet al., Quantum Sci

M. Abeet al., Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 044003 (2021), arXiv:2104.02835 [physics.atom-ph]

2021 arXiv
[92]

Dimopoulos, P

S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. D78, 042003 (2008), arXiv:0802.4098 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[93]

Roura, Phys

A. Roura, Phys. Rev. X10, 021014 (2020), arXiv:1810.06744 [physics.atom-ph]

2020 arXiv
[94]

Werner, P

M. Werner, P. K. Schwartz, J.-N. Kirsten-Siemß, N. Gaaloul, D. Giulini, and K. Hammerer, Phys. Rev. D109, 022008 (2024), arXiv:2310.03719 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[95]

Roura, Quantum Sci

A. Roura, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 025004 (2025), arXiv:2402.11065 [physics.atom-ph]

2025 arXiv
[96]

C. J. Moore, R. H. Cole, and C. P. L. Berry, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 015014 (2015), arXiv:1408.0740 [gr- qc]

2015 arXiv
[97]

Storey and C

P. Storey and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Phys. II4, 1999 (1994)

1994
[98]

Griest, Phys

K. Griest, Phys. Rev. D37, 2703 (1988)

1988
[99]

Legere and K

R. Legere and K. Gibble, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5780 (1998)

1998
[100]

Savoie, M

D. Savoie, M. Altorio, B. Fang, L. A. Sidorenkov, R. Geiger, and A. Landragin, Sci. Adv.4, eaau7948 (2018), arXiv:1808.10801 [physics.atom-ph]

2018 arXiv
[101]

J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Astropart. Phys.6, 87 (1996)

1996
[102]

Baxteret al., Eur

D. Baxteret al., Eur. Phys. J. C81, 907 (2021), arXiv:2105.00599 [hep-ex]

2021 arXiv
[103]

M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D105, 103018 (2022), arXiv:2112.11431 [gr- qc]

2022 arXiv
[104]

Babak, A

S. Babak, A. Petiteau, and M. Hewitson, (2021), arXiv:2108.01167 [astro-ph.IM]

2021 arXiv
[105]

Robson, N

T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 105011 (2019), arXiv:1803.01944 [astro- ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[106]

Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

2017 arXiv
[107]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro- ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[108]

J. T. VanderPlas, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series236, 16 (2018)

2018
[109]

N. P. Pitjev and E. V. Pitjeva, Astron. Lett.39, 141 (2013), arXiv:1306.5534 [astro-ph.EP]

2013 arXiv
[110]

S. L. Adler, J. Phys. A41, 412002 (2008), arXiv:0808.0899 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[111]

Bertotti, L

B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, Nature425, 374 (2003)

2003
[112]

D. Blas, D. L. Nacir, and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261102 (2017), arXiv:1612.06789 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[113]

J. W. Foster, D. Blas, A. Bourgoin, A. Hees, M. Herrero-Valea, A. C. Jenkins, and X. Xue, (2025), arXiv:2504.15334 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[114]

Afzalet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

A. Afzalet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 971, L27 (2024), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 971, L27 (2024)], arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[115]

D. Y. Cheong, N. L. Rodd, and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D111, 015028 (2025), arXiv:2408.04696 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[116]

Kim and A

H. Kim and A. Lenoci, Phys. Rev. D105, 063032 (2022), arXiv:2112.05718 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[117]

Berlin, R

A. Berlin, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, and K. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D104, L111701 (2021), arXiv:2007.15656 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[118]

G. P. Centerset al., Nature Commun.12, 7321 (2021), arXiv:1905.13650 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[119]

A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[120]

Gorghetto, E

M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, J. March-Russell, N. Song, and S. M. West, JCAP08(08), 018, arXiv:2203.10100 [hep- ph]

arXiv
[121]

Gorghetto, E

M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, and G. Villadoro, JHEP08, 126, arXiv:2405.19389 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[122]

Budker, J

D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Gorghetto, M. Jiang, and G. Perez, JCAP12, 021, arXiv:2306.12477 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[123]

Junca, A

J. Junca, A. Bertoldi, D. Sabulsky, G. Lef` evre, X. Zou, J.-B. Decitre, R. Geiger, A. Landragin, S. Gaffet, P. Bouyer, and B. Canuel, Physical Review D99, 10.1103/physrevd.99.104026 (2019), arXiv:1902.05337 [physics.atom-ph]

2019 arXiv
[124]

Mitchell, T

J. Mitchell, T. Kovachy, S. Hahn, P. Adamson, and S. Chattopadhyay, Journal of Instrumentation17(02), E02001
[125]

Cella, inRecent Developments in General Relativity, edited by B

G. Cella, inRecent Developments in General Relativity, edited by B. Casciaro, D. Fortunato, M. Francaviglia, and A. Masiello (2000) p. 495

2000
[126]

Yagi and N

K. Yagi and N. Seto, Phys. Rev. D83, 044011 21 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 109901 (2017)], arXiv:1101.3940 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[127]

Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2018)

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [68]

S. Baum, Z. Bogorad, and P. W. Graham, JCAP05, 027, arXiv:2309.07952 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [1]

space- based (outside)

Frequency-dependence Because of the nontrivial frequency-dependence of the the three AG phase shift contributions, we now study the behavior of the signal at low and high frequencies, and 8 the hierarchy between the Doppler, Einstein and Shapiro phase shifts. As anticipated at the beginning of this sub- section, we show that the signal is: (i) power law a...

2021

[3] [2]

Zimmermann, J

T. Zimmermann, J. Alvey, D. J. E. Marsh, M. Fairbairn, and J. I. Read, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151001 (2025), arXiv:2405.20374 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[4] [3]

A. M. Green, Nucl. Phys. B1003, 116494 (2024), arXiv:2402.15211 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

Carney, S

D. Carney, S. Ghosh, G. Krnjaic, and J. M. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D102, 072003 (2020), arXiv:1903.00492 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2020

[6] [5]

Blanco, B

C. Blanco, B. Elshimy, R. F. Lang, and R. Orlando, Phys. Rev. D105, 115031 (2022), arXiv:2112.14784 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2022

[7] [6]

Attanasioet al.(Windchime), inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.07242 [hep-ex]

A. Attanasioet al.(Windchime), inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.07242 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022

[8] [7]

A. W. Adams and J. S. Bloom, (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0405266

arXiv 2004