A new probe of Axion-Like Particles: CMB polarization distortions due to cluster magnetic fields

Benjamin D. Wandelt; David N. Spergel; Rishi Khatri; Suvodip Mukherjee

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A new probe of Axion-Like Particles: CMB polarization distortions due to cluster magnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Galaxy clusters imprint a polarized distortion on the CMB when CMB photons convert into axion-like particles, and the paper forecasts that next-generation ground-based surveys can measure it, tightening the photon-ALP coupling bound by…

desk verdict A clever and carefully argued forecast for a polarized cluster ALP signal, but the headline two-order-of-magnitude reach rests on an untested coherent-field assumption that the paper itself shelves. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07534 v2 pith:T6SZSS2T submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th

Suvodip Mukherjee , David N. Spergel , Rishi Khatri , Benjamin D. Wandelt This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

keywords axion-likeparticlesCMBpolarizationspectraldistortionsgalaxyclustermagneticfieldsresonantphoton-ALPconversionkinematicSunyaev-ZeldovicheffectCMB-S4forecastinternallinearcombination

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 galaxy clusters can serve as natural laboratories for axion-like particles (ALPs). When CMB photons pass through a cluster, they can resonantly convert into ALPs at the shell where the ALP mass equals the effective photon mass in the plasma, and because only the polarization state parallel to the magnetic field converts, the resulting blackbody distortion is polarized. The paper shows that this polarized $\alpha$-type distortion has a distinct radial profile around each cluster and can be separated from the nearly degenerate kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal using polarization information. Simulating the signal together with CMB anisotropy, synchrotron, dust, and instrument noise for a next-generation ground-based experiment, the paper forecasts that the photon-ALP coupling can be constrained about two orders of magnitude more tightly than current bounds for ALP masses in the range $10^{-13}$ to $10^{-12}$ eV. If this is right, upcoming CMB polarization surveys become a competitive ALP search channel.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is resonant photon-ALP conversion, a close analogue of the MSW effect for neutrinos: photons and ALPs mix in the presence of a magnetic field and plasma, and conversion is most efficient at the shell where the ALP mass equals the effective photon mass, $m_a = m_\gamma = \sqrt{4\pi\alpha n_e/m_e}$. The key quantity is the adiabaticity parameter $\gamma_{\rm ad} = 2g_{\gamma a}^2 B^2 \nu / |\nabla \omega_p^2|$ evaluated at resonance, which enters the Landau-Zener probability $p = e^{-\pi\gamma_{\rm ad}/2}$; each line of sight crosses the shell twice, so the net conversion probability for a single resonance is approximately $\pi\gamma_{\rm ad}/2$. Because the magnetic field direction fixes the polarization angle of the converted component, the distortion appears in the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps, and that polarization is what distinguishes it from the kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. The forecast is carried by this conversion probability together with an observed electron-density profile, a radial magnetic-field profile with random directions, and the beam and noise specifications of the planned surveys.

What would settle it

If a next-generation CMB survey stacks aperture-photometry polarization around thousands of tSZ-selected clusters and finds no excess in $Q$ and $U$ at the level predicted for $g_{\gamma a}\sim 10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, then the projected two-order-of-magnitude improvement is falsified. A second decisive test is to observe the same clusters at two beam sizes: if the recovered polarization signal drops sharply when the beam is finer than the field coherence length, sub-beam turbulence is depolarizing the distortion, and the central forecast no longer holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that resonant photon-ALP conversion in cluster magnetic fields creates a polarized spectral distortion of the CMB that is measurable with planned CMB polarization surveys. For a spherically symmetric cluster, conversion of a given ALP mass happens in a thin spherical shell where $m_a = m_\gamma(r)$, so the projected signal is a disk whose angular size depends on the ALP mass and the cluster redshift. The conversion probability follows from the Landau-Zener adiabaticity parameter, $P(\gamma\to a)\simeq \pi\gamma_{\rm ad}/2$ for a single resonance, and the signal is stronger for lighter ALPs because they convert farther out, where the electron density gradient is shallower. The paper simulates this signal with foregrounds, CMB anisotropies, and the noise of the planned surveys, cleans the maps with an internal linear combination method, and extracts the signal with aperture photometry around tSZ-selected clusters. The result is an error forecast on the photon-ALP coupling $g_{\gamma a}$ that improves on current laboratory and astrophysical bounds by roughly two orders of magnitude over the mass range $10^{-13}$ to $10^{-12}$ eV.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that cluster magnetic fields remain coherent over scales at least as large as the telescope beam, so beam averaging does not depolarize the distortion; the paper explicitly assumes that turbulence on sub-beam scales, including within the resonance shell, is negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the forecast holds, a next-generation ground-based CMB survey can measure $g_{\gamma a}$ with roughly a hundred times better precision than the current laboratory and supernova bounds for ALP masses from $10^{-13}$ eV to $10^{-12}$ eV.
Because the distortion is polarized, it remains separable from the kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect even though the two spectra are nearly degenerate, so total-intensity confusion does not block the measurement.
The angular size of the distortion selects the ALP mass: heavier ALPs convert closer to the cluster core and produce smaller disks, so the beam resolution of the survey sets the maximum accessible mass, around $10^{-12}$ eV for a 1-arcminute beam.
Better measurements of cluster electron density and magnetic fields, from X-ray, tSZ, and radio observations, translate directly into a better signal-to-noise ratio on the coupling, improving the projected error bars.
A high-resolution successor experiment with roughly 15-arcsecond beams and ten times more clusters would push the accessible mass to about $2\times 10^{-12}$ eV and shrink the coupling error bar by roughly a factor of three.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not apply its statistic to currently existing cluster catalogs, but stacking tSZ-selected clusters already observed would convert those data into an ALP search without waiting for a new survey.
If the signal is found, measuring the same clusters with progressively sharper beams would map the coherence scale of cluster magnetic fields, because sub-beam turbulence depolarizes the distortion.
The $(1+z)$ growth of the conversion probability suggests that splitting the cluster sample by redshift could separate the ALP coupling from the unknown magnetic-field normalization without relying on a prior for $B$.
A null detection would tighten coupling bounds but would remain degenerate with a weaker large-scale field, so combining the CMB measurement with independent Faraday-rotation estimates of cluster fields would be needed to interpret it.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a solid, honest forecast paper. The genuinely new thing is the polarization handle: the authors show that resonant photon-ALP conversion in cluster magnetic fields produces a 100% polarized distortion whose spectrum is nearly degenerate with kSZ, and that the polarization can separate the two. That is a real step beyond the earlier Milky Way analysis [13] and the Coma/Hydra work [26]. The pipeline—PySM foregrounds, ILC cleaning, aperture photometry, and SO / CMB-S4 noise—is described in enough detail to reproduce, and the forecasts look carefully executed.

The soft spot is exactly what the authors flag, but do not quantify. The projected two-order-of-magnitude sensitivity in Sec. 5.2 assumes the cluster B-field is coherent on scales at least as large as the beam. If sub-beam turbulence is present, the resonant-conversion signal depolarizes, the polarization handle vanishes, and the distortion becomes nearly degenerate with kSZ. The paper acknowledges this in Sec. 3 and Sec. 5.2, but the simulation randomizing B direction line-of-sight to line-of-sight is not a turbulence model—it sets no coherence length and no rms fluctuation, so it does not test the assumption. I read the central forecast as an upper envelope, not a robust reach.

To be fair, the authors do not pretend otherwise. They explicitly split the problem into a turbulent extreme (depolarized, hard to separate) and a smooth-field extreme (that is this paper). For the smooth-field case, the forecast is credible. But the abstract's claim of "two orders of magnitude better accuracy" does not prominently carry that caveat, and a reader could come away with a stronger impression than the model supports.

Other weak spots are minor: the universal magnetic field profile B(r) = 3 microG sqrt(10 kpc/r) is an assumption, and Figs. 5–6 show factor-of-few variations with profile parameters that are not fully propagated into the final error bars. The scattered CMB quadrupole polarization (PQ) is acknowledged as a ~1-sigma bias for CMB-S4. No code is released, so reproducibility is partial, though the description is sufficient for an expert to implement.

This is serious work: the Landau-Zerner formalism is applied correctly, there is no circularity in the inference, and the observational concept is new. It should go to peer review, not be desk-rejected. A referee should ask for either a quantitative treatment of beam-scale turbulence or an explicit recasting of the forecast as conditional on the coherent-field assumption. I would bring this to the reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new CMB observable: resonant conversion of CMB photons into axion-like particles (ALPs) in galaxy cluster magnetic fields produces a polarized, frequency-dependent spectral distortion localized in disk-shaped regions around clusters. The spectrum is close to the kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal, but the authors argue it can be separated using polarization information. They compute the conversion probability with the standard Landau-Zener formalism, adopt universal electron-density and magnetic-field profiles, simulate polarized sky maps with PySM foregrounds and instrument noise for Simons Observatory and CMB-S4, clean the maps with an internal linear combination method, and estimate detectability with aperture photometry. The central forecast is that CMB-S4 can constrain the photon-ALP coupling g_gamma_a in the mass range 10^-13 to 10^-12 eV about two orders of magnitude better than current CAST and SN1987A bounds.

Significance. If the forecast holds, the paper opens a genuinely new CMB polarization window on ALP physics, complementary to laboratory bounds and X-ray cluster constraints. The manuscript applies the standard photon-ALP mixing formalism carefully and builds an end-to-end simulation pipeline (PySM foregrounds, ILC cleaning, aperture photometry) that is transparent and largely reproducible. It also identifies the leading astrophysical contaminants, including the polarized quadrupole-scattering signal P_Q. The main caveat is that the headline reach statement depends on magnetic-field coherence on beam scales and on the adopted universal cluster profiles, both of which the authors themselves flag as assumptions. With those caveats quantified, the proposal would be a solid forecast; as written, the headline sensitivity is an upper envelope rather than a robust reach estimate.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3 and Sec. 5.2, Eqs. (5.1) and (5.4)] The central sensitivity claim is built on the assumption that the cluster magnetic field is coherent on scales at least as large as the beam, and the paper explicitly says that sub-beam turbulence is ignored and that turbulence would depolarize the distortion. However, the aperture-photometry estimator in Eq. (5.1) uses the polarization intensity sqrt(Q^2+U^2), and the SNR sum in Eq. (5.4) depends directly on preserving that polarized component. If magnetic field fluctuations on scales below the beam depolarize the resonance-shell signal, the distortion becomes nearly degenerate with the unpolarized kSZ signal and the claimed two-order-of-magnitude improvement in g_gamma_a is not established. Please quantify this effect with a realistic turbulent magnetic-field model with a specified coherence length and power spectrum, or present the forecast explicitly as an upper envelope conditional on large-scale coherence.
[Sec. 3 and Sec. 5.2, Fig. 14] The forecast assumes a single universal electron-density profile in Eq. (3.2) and a single magnetic-field profile in Eq. (3.3), while the cited observations show 20-40% cluster-to-cluster scatter in the density profile and the magnetic field amplitude is only marginalized with a 30% prior. Because the resonance radius is set by m_a = m_gamma and the conversion probability is proportional to 1/|grad omega_p^2|, density-profile scatter directly shifts both the mass reach and the signal amplitude; Fig. 5 shows order-one shifts in resonance radius for +/-20% parameter changes. Please propagate these variations into the SNR calculation, or clearly restrict the central claim to the fiducial profile.
[Sec. 5.1 and Sec. 6] The forecast does not include the polarized signal P_Q from scattering of the local CMB quadrupole by cluster electrons in the simulated sky maps, although Sec. 6 estimates that this contamination can bias the CMB-S4 measurement of g_gamma_a by about 1 sigma for the fiducial analysis. Since the covariance in Eq. (5.4) therefore understates the noise budget for exactly the survey that produces the headline claim, the projected sensitivity should either include P_Q in the simulations or be stated with a core mask and a joint estimator for P_Q and the ALP signal.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (2.2)] There is a typo in the units: "Gev" should be "GeV" in the definition of the mixing entry Delta_i^{gamma a}.
[Sec. 3 and Acknowledgement] Please fix the typos "denegracy" (should be "degeneracy") and "misssion" (should be "mission"), and correct the grammar in "we have not included P_Q in simulated the sky signal."
[Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.3)] The estimator is defined on the nonlinear polarization intensity sqrt(Q^2+U^2), while the covariance in Eq. (5.3) is written as if the aperture photometry were a linear filter on a Gaussian map. Near the detection threshold, the noise bias of this quadratic estimator may be non-negligible; please specify the definition of N_l^{P,ILC} and validate the covariance with Monte Carlo realizations.
[Sec. 5.2 and Fig. 8] The assumed cluster redshift distribution N(z)/Delta z is an input to the SNR calculation, but the text does not specify the underlying cluster selection function, mass threshold, or survey completeness. Please state these assumptions explicitly so that Eq. (5.4) is reproducible.
[Sec. 5.2 and Abstract] The abstract states "two orders of magnitude better accuracy" while Sec. 5.2 compares with existing CAST and SN1987A bounds; please clarify whether the comparison is between projected 1-sigma or 2-sigma sensitivities and the published 95% C.L. limits, and specify the frequency/noise assumptions underlying the 10^-9 K and 10^-10 K noise levels in Fig. 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity forecast is a self-contained forward model from independently observed cluster profiles and standard resonant-conversion physics; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central forecast is a forward calculation, not a fit masquerading as a prediction. The photon-ALP conversion probability is computed from the standard Landau-Zener level-crossing formula (Eqs. 2.7 and 2.13), with cluster electron density taken from X-ray-motivated models (Eq. 3.2, citing Vikhlinin et al.) and magnetic field strength taken from radio/Faraday-rotation observations (Eq. 3.3, citing Bonafede et al.). These inputs do not contain the predicted quantity: the projected constraint on the photon-ALP coupling g_gamma_a is obtained with the fiducial signal amplitude set to zero in Fig. 14, and the comparison bounds from CAST and SN1987A are used only as external benchmarks, not as inputs. The paper does cite the authors' own earlier work [13,14] for elements of the resonant-conversion formalism, but those equations are also standard results cited to [58-63] and are restated with their derivation in Sec. 2, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The main caveat, acknowledged in Sec. 3 and Sec. 5.2, is that sub-beam magnetic-field turbulence would depolarize the signal and degrade the separation from kSZ; this is a physical assumption limiting the forecast's reach, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. No step in the derivation chain defines a prediction in terms of the very quantity it claims to forecast.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast is built on standard photon-axion mixing theory plus externally supplied cluster density and magnetic field models. None of the parameters are fitted to the target ALP signal, so the circularity burden is low, but the projected constraints inherit the uncertainty in those cluster models.

free parameters (3)

Magnetic field normalization B0 and scale radius rb = B0 = 3 microG, rb = 10 kpc
Adopted in Eq. (3.3) from radio observations of cluster fields. The ALP conversion probability scales as B^2, so the projected coupling constraint is directly proportional to this assumed normalization; only a 30% prior is marginalized over its amplitude.
Electron density profile parameters of Eq. (3.2) = rc1=100 kpc, n0=1e-3 cm^-3, rs=1000 kpc, alpha=2, gamma=3, beta=0.64, epsilon=4, beta2=1, rc2=10 kpc, n02=1e-1 cm^-3
Taken from Vikhlinin et al. 2006. These set the resonance radii through m_gamma(r)=m_a and the gradient in Eq. (3.4). Observed cluster-to-cluster scatter is 20-40%, which is not propagated into the forecast.
Maximum radius for the cluster signal = 4 Mpc
Chosen in Sec. 5.2 as the truncation of the cluster profile; it sets the minimum reachable ALP mass of about 1e-13 eV and therefore defines the accessible parameter window.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Landau-Zener transition probabilities with no interference between successive resonances
Eqs. (2.10)-(2.11) treat each level crossing as an independent classical probability and ignore interference. This determines P(gamma->a)=p for even N and the two-resonance counting in Eq. (2.13).
domain assumption Universal, smooth, spherically symmetric electron density and magnetic field profiles in all clusters
Eqs. (3.2) and (3.3) are adopted as universal. The resonant radius, angular size, and amplitude all follow from these profiles; real clusters have asphericity, cool cores, and large scatter.
domain assumption Magnetic field is coherent on scales larger than the beam and sub-beam turbulence is small
The polarization-based separation from kSZ requires the polarization orientation to survive beam averaging. The paper explicitly assumes turbulence effects are small in Sec. 3 and Sec. 5.2.
standard math Emission and detection occur far from resonance so the mixing angles theta0 and thetad are approximately zero
Used in Sec. 2 to reduce P(gamma->a) to p or 1-p; it is a standard condition for CMB photons outside the cluster plasma.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new probe of Axion-Like Particles: CMB polarization distortions due to cluster magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6SZSS2T

@misc{pith2026190807534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new probe of Axion-Like Particles: CMB polarization distortions due to cluster magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6SZSS2T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07534}
}

abstract

We propose using the upcoming Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) ground based experiments to detect the signal of ALPs (Axion like particles) interacting with magnetic fields in galaxy clusters. The conversion between CMB photons and ALPs in the presence of the cluster magnetic field can cause a polarized spectral distortion in the CMB around a galaxy cluster. The strength of the signal depends upon the redshift of the galaxy cluster and will exhibit a distinctive spatial profile around it depending upon the structure of electron density and magnetic field. This distortion produces a different shape from the other known spectral distortions like $y$-type and $\mu$-type and hence are separable from the multi-frequency CMB observation. The spectrum is close to kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich (kSZ) signal but can be separated from it using the polarization information. For the future ground-based CMB experiments such as Simons Observatory and CMB-S4, we estimate the measurability of this signal in the presence of foreground contamination, instrument noise and CMB anisotropies. This new avenue can probe the photon-ALP coupling over the ALP mass range from $10^{-13}$ eV to $10^{-12}$ eV with two orders of magnitude better accuracy from CMB-S4 than the current existing bounds.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

New Horizons in Cosmology with Spectral Distortions of the Cosmic Microwave Background
astro-ph.CO 2019-09 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

A white paper advocating for a CMB spectral distortion mission to detect predicted mu, y, and recombination signals and probe inflation, dark matter, and particle physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[13]

Mukherjee, R

S. Mukherjee, R. Khatri and B. D. Wandelt, Polarized anisotropic spectral distortions of the CMB: Galactic and extragalactic constraints on photon-axion conversion , JCAP 1804 (2018) 045 [1801.09701]

arXiv 2018
[26]

Constraining ALP-photon coupling using galaxy clusters

M. Schlederer and G. Sigl, Constraining ALP-photon coupling using galaxy clusters , JCAP 1601 (2016) 038 [ 1507.02855]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[1]

R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, The interaction of matter and radiation in the hot model of the Universe, II , ApSS 7 (1970) 20

1970
[2]

Danese and G

L. Danese and G. de Zotti, Double Compton process and the spectrum of the microwave background, A&A 107 (1982) 39

1982
[3]

Hu and J

W. Hu and J. Silk, Thermalization and spectral distortions of the cosmic background radiation, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 485

1993
[4]

Khatri and R

R. Khatri and R. A. Sunyaev, Beyond y and µ: the shape of the CMB spectral distortions in the intermediate epoch, 1.5×104 ≲z ≲ 2×105, JCAP 9 (2012) 016 [ 1207.6654]

arXiv 2012
[5]

Y. B. Zeldovich and R. A. Sunyaev, The Interaction of Matter and Radiation in a Hot-Model Universe, ApSS 4 (1969) 301

1969
[6]

W. Hu, D. Scott and J. Silk, Power spectrum constraints from spectral distortions in the cosmic microwave background, ApJL 430 (1994) L5 [ astro-ph/9402045]

arXiv 1994

Show all 114 references

[7]

Chluba, R

J. Chluba, R. Khatri and R. A. Sunyaev, CMB at 2 × 2 order: the dissipation of primordial acoustic waves and the observable part of the associated energy release , MNRAS 425 (2012) 1129 [1202.0057]

2012 arXiv
[8]

Khatri and R

R. Khatri and R. A. Sunyaev, Creation of the CMB spectrum: precise analytic solutions for the blackbody photosphere, JCAP 6 (2012) 038 [ 1203.2601]

2012 arXiv
[9]

Khatri, R

R. Khatri, R. A. Sunyaev and J. Chluba, Mixing of blackbodies: entropy production and dissipation of sound waves in the early Universe , A&A 543 (2012) A136 [ 1205.2871]

2012 arXiv
[10]

J. C. Hill, N. Battaglia, J. Chluba, S. Ferraro, E. Schaan and D. N. Spergel, Taking the Universe’s Temperature with Spectral Distortions of the Cosmic Microwave Background , Physical Review Letters 115 (2015) 261301 [ 1507.01583]

2015 arXiv
[11]

Y. B. Zeldovich, V. G. Kurt and R. A. Syunyaev, Recombination of Hydrogen in the Hot Model of the Universe , Zhurnal Eksperimentalnoi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki 55 (1968) 278

1968
[12]

R. A. Sunyaev and J. Chluba, Signals from the epoch of cosmological recombination (Karl Schwarzschild Award Lecture 2008), Astronomische Nachrichten 330 (2009) 657 [ 0908.0435]

2009 arXiv
[14]

Mukherjee, R

S. Mukherjee, R. Khatri and B. D. Wandelt, Constraints on non-resonant photon-axion conversion from the Planck satellite data , 1811.11177

arXiv
[15]

Sikivie, Experimental tests of the ’invisible’ axion , Physical Review Letters 51 (1983) 1415

P. Sikivie, Experimental tests of the ’invisible’ axion , Physical Review Letters 51 (1983) 1415

1983
[16]

Raﬀelt and L

G. Raﬀelt and L. Stodolsky, Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles , Phys.Rev.D 37 (1988) 1237. 9Link to the HEALPix website https://healpix.sourceforge.io – 29 –

1988
[17]

A. A. Anselm, Experimental test for arion ↔ photon oscillations in a homogeneous constant magnetic ﬁeld, Phys.Rev.D 37 (1988) 2001

1988
[18]

G. G. Raﬀelt, Particle Physics From Stars , Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 49 (1999) 163 [ hep-ph/9903472]

1999 arXiv
[19]

M. I. Vysotsky, Ya. B. Zeldovich, M. Yu. Khlopov and V. M. Chechetkin, Some Astrophysical Limitations on Axion Mass , Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 27 (1978) 533

1978
[20]

Z. G. Berezhiani, A. S. Sakharov and M. Yu. Khlopov, Primordial background of cosmological axions, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 55 (1992) 1063

1992
[21]

P. Jain, S. Panda and S. Sarala, Electromagnetic polarization eﬀects due to axion photon mixing, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 085007 [ hep-ph/0206046]

2002 arXiv
[22]

Vogel, R

H. Vogel, R. Laha and M. Meyer, Diﬀuse axion-like particle searches , 1712.01839

arXiv
[23]

De Angelis, M

A. De Angelis, M. Roncadelli and O. Mansutti, Evidence for a new light spin-zero boson from cosmological gamma-ray propagation?, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 121301

2007
[24]

De Angelis, G

A. De Angelis, G. Galanti and M. Roncadelli, Relevance of axionlike particles for very-high-energy astrophysics, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 105030

2011
[25]

Tavecchio, M

F. Tavecchio, M. Roncadelli, G. Galanti and G. Bonnoli, Evidence for an axion-like particle from pks 1222+216?, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 085036

2012
[27]

C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard et al., Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results , ApJS 208 (2013) 20 [ 1212.5225]

2013 arXiv
[28]

Planck Collaboration, R. Adam, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. I. R. Alves et al., Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and scientiﬁc results , A&A 594 (2016) A1 [1502.01582]

2016 arXiv
[29]

Hasselﬁeld et al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Sunyaev-Zel’dovich selected galaxyclusters at 148 GHz from three seasons of data , JCAP 1307 (2013) 008 [ 1301.0816]

M. Hasselﬁeld et al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Sunyaev-Zel’dovich selected galaxyclusters at 148 GHz from three seasons of data , JCAP 1307 (2013) 008 [ 1301.0816]

2013 arXiv
[30]

SPT collaboration, Galaxy Clusters Discovered via the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Eﬀect in the 2500-square-degree SPT-SZ survey, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 216 (2015) 27 [ 1409.0850]

2015 arXiv
[31]

Emami, E

R. Emami, E. Dimastrogiovanni, J. Chluba and M. Kamionkowski, Probing the scale dependence of non-Gaussianity with spectral distortions of the cosmic microwave background , Phys.Rev.D 91 (2015) 123531 [ 1504.00675]

2015 arXiv
[32]

Planck collaboration, Planck 2015 results. XXVII. The Second Planck Catalogue of Sunyaev-Zeldovich Sources, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A27 [ 1502.01598]

2016 arXiv
[33]

Staniszewski et al., Galaxy clusters discovered with a Sunyaev-Zel’dovich eﬀect survey , Astrophys

Z. Staniszewski et al., Galaxy clusters discovered with a Sunyaev-Zel’dovich eﬀect survey , Astrophys. J. 701 (2009) 32 [ 0810.1578]

2009 arXiv
[34]

Zemcov et al., First detection of the Sunyaev Zel’dovich eﬀect increment at λ <650 µm, A&A 518 (2010) L16 [ 1005.3824]

M. Zemcov et al., First detection of the Sunyaev Zel’dovich eﬀect increment at λ <650 µm, A&A 518 (2010) L16 [ 1005.3824]

2010 arXiv
[35]

Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, F. Atrio-Barandela et al., Planck intermediate results. VIII. Filaments between interacting clusters, A&A 550 (2013) A134 [ 1208.5911]

2013 arXiv
[36]

Khatri and R

R. Khatri and R. Sunyaev, Limits on the ﬂuctuating part of y-type distortion monopole from Planck and SPT results , JCAP 8 (2015) 013 [ 1505.00781]. – 30 –

2015 arXiv
[37]

D. J. Fixsen, E. S. Cheng, J. M. Gales, J. C. Mather, R. A. Shafer and E. L. Wright, The Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from the Full COBE FIRAS Data Set , ApJ 473 (1996) 576

1996
[38]

D. J. Fixsen, G. Hinshaw, C. L. Bennett and J. C. Mather, The Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy from the Combined COBE FIRAS and DMR Observations, ApJ 486 (1997) 623 [ astro-ph/9704176]

1997 arXiv
[39]

D. J. Fixsen and J. C. Mather, The Spectral Results of the Far-Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer Instrument on COBE , ApJ 581 (2002) 817

2002
[40]

D. J. Fixsen, The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background , ApJ 707 (2009) 916 [0911.1955]

2009 arXiv
[41]

S. W. Henderson et al., Advanced ACTPol Cryogenic Detector Arrays and Readout , J. Low. Temp. Phys. 184 (2016) 772 [ 1510.02809]

2016 arXiv
[42]

SPIE Int

SPT-3G collaboration, SPT-3G: A Next-Generation Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Experiment on the South Pole Telescope , Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 9153 (2014) 91531P [ 1407.2973]

2014 arXiv
[43]

Stebor et al., The Simons Array CMB polarization experiment , Proc

N. Stebor et al., The Simons Array CMB polarization experiment , Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 9914 (2016) 99141H

2016
[44]

Simons Observatory collaboration, The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts , 1808.07445

arXiv
[45]

CMB-S4 collaboration, CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition , 1610.02743

arXiv
[46]

Abazajian, G

K. Abazajian, G. Addison, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, S. W. Allen, D. Alonso et al., CMB-S4 Science Case, Reference Design, and Project Plan , arXiv e-prints (2019) arXiv:1907.04473 [1907.04473]

2019 arXiv
[47]

Matsumura, Y

T. Matsumura, Y. Akiba, J. Borrill, Y. Chinone, M. Dobbs, H. Fuke et al., Mission Design of LiteBIRD, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 176 (2014) 733 [ 1311.2847]

2014 arXiv
[48]

Young, M

K. Young, M. Alvarez, N. Battaglia, J. Bock, J. Borrill, D. Chuss et al., Optical Design of PICO, a Concept for a Space Mission to Probe Inﬂation and Cosmic Origins , ArXiv e-prints (2018) [ 1808.01369]

2018 arXiv
[49]

Hanany, M

S. Hanany, M. Alvarez, E. Artis, P. Ashton, J. Aumont, R. Aurlien et al., PICO: Probe of Inﬂation and Cosmic Origins , arXiv e-prints (2019) arXiv:1902.10541 [ 1902.10541]

2019 arXiv
[50]

C. L. Carilli and G. B. Taylor, Cluster magnetic ﬁelds , Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 40 (2002) 319 [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093852]

2002
[51]

Bhringer, G

H. Bhringer, G. Chon and P. P. Kronberg, The Cosmic Large-Scale Structure in X-rays (CLASSIX) Cluster Survey I: Probing galaxy cluster magnetic ﬁelds with line of sight rotation measures, Astron. Astrophys. 596 (2016) A22 [ 1610.02887]

2016 arXiv
[52]

G. G. Raﬀelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics : the astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles . University of Chicago Press, 1996

1996
[53]

Wolfenstein, Neutrino Oscillations in Matter , Phys

L. Wolfenstein, Neutrino Oscillations in Matter , Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 2369

1978
[54]

S. P. Mikheyev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Resonance Ampliﬁcation of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42 (1985) 913

1985
[55]

S. P. Mikheev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Neutrino Oscillations in a Variable Density Medium and Neutrino Bursts Due to the Gravitational Collapse of Stars , Sov. Phys. JETP 64 (1986) 4 [0706.0454]

1986 arXiv
[56]

G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman, Radiative processes in astrophysics. 1979. – 31 –

1979
[57]

Takada, H

M. Takada, H. Ohno and N. Sugiyama, Faraday rotation eﬀect of intracluster magnetic ﬁeld on cosmic microwave background polarization , astro-ph/0112412

arXiv
[58]

G. G. Raﬀelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics . 1996

1996
[59]

T. K. Kuo and J. Pantaleone, Neutrino oscillations in matter , Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (1989) 937

1989
[60]

G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, D. Montanino and A. Mirizzi, Analysis of energy and time dependence of supernova shock eﬀects on neutrino crossing probabilities , Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 033005 [hep-ph/0304056]

2003 arXiv
[61]

L. D. Landau, To the theory of energy transmission in collissions. II , Phys. Zs. Sowjet., 2, p. 46, 1932 (English and German) 2 (1932) 46

1932
[62]

Zener, Non-Adiabatic Crossing of Energy Levels , Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 137 (1932) 696

C. Zener, Non-Adiabatic Crossing of Energy Levels , Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 137 (1932) 696

1932
[63]

E. C. G. Stueckelberg, Theorie der unelastischen Stoesse zwischenAtomen , Helvetica Physica Acta 5 (1932) 369

1932
[64]

Jaeckel, J

J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, Signatures of a hidden cosmic microwave background, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 131801 [ 0804.4157]

2008 arXiv
[65]

Mirizzi, J

A. Mirizzi, J. Redondo and G. Sigl, Constraining resonant photon-axion conversions in the Early Universe, JCAP 0908 (2009) 001 [ 0905.4865]

2009 arXiv
[66]

Hu and M

W. Hu and M. J. White, A CMB polarization primer , New Astron. 2 (1997) 323 [astro-ph/9706147]

1997 arXiv
[67]

Govoni and L

F. Govoni and L. Feretti, Magnetic ﬁeld in clusters of galaxies , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13 (2004) 1549 [astro-ph/0410182]

2004 arXiv
[68]

T. E. Clarke, P. P. Kronberg and H. Bohringer, A new radio-x-ray probe of galaxy cluster magnetic ﬁelds, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 547 (2001) L111

2001
[69]

Pfrommer and L

C. Pfrommer and L. Jonathan Dursi, Detecting the orientation of magnetic ﬁelds in galaxy clusters, Nature Physics 6 (2010) 520 [ 0911.2476]

2010 arXiv
[70]

Cavaliere and R

A. Cavaliere and R. Fusco-Femiano, The Distribution of Hot Gas in Clusters of Galaxies , A&A 70 (1978) 677

1978
[71]

Vikhlinin, A

A. Vikhlinin, A. Kravtsov, W. Forman, C. Jones, M. Markevitch, S. S. Murray et al., Chandra sample of nearby relaxed galaxy clusters: Mass, gas fraction, and mass-temperature relation , Astrophys. J. 640 (2006) 691 [ astro-ph/0507092]

2006 arXiv
[72]

Bartalucci, M

I. Bartalucci, M. Arnaud, G. W. Pratt, A. Vikhlinin, E. Pointecouteau, W. R. Forman et al., Recovering galaxy cluster gas density proﬁles with XMM-Newton and Chandra , A&A 608 (2017) A88 [ 1709.06570]

2017 arXiv
[73]

G. W. Pratt, E. Pointecouteau, M. Arnaud and R. F. J. van der Burg, The hot gas content of fossil galaxy clusters , A&A 590 (2016) L1

2016
[74]

McDonald et al., The Growth of Cool Cores and Evolution of Cooling Properties in a Sample of 83 Galaxy Clusters at 0.3 <z < 1.2 Selected from the SPT-SZ Survey , Astrophys

M. McDonald et al., The Growth of Cool Cores and Evolution of Cooling Properties in a Sample of 83 Galaxy Clusters at 0.3 <z < 1.2 Selected from the SPT-SZ Survey , Astrophys. J. 774 (2013) 23 [ 1305.2915]

2013 arXiv
[75]

SPT collaboration, The Remarkable Similarity of Massive Galaxy Clusters from z 0 to z 1.9 , Astrophys. J. 843 (2017) 28 [ 1702.05094]

2017 arXiv
[76]

Battaglia, The Tau of Galaxy Clusters , JCAP 1608 (2016) 058 [ 1607.02442]

N. Battaglia, The Tau of Galaxy Clusters , JCAP 1608 (2016) 058 [ 1607.02442]

2016 arXiv
[77]

Bonafede, L

A. Bonafede, L. Feretti, M. Murgia, F. Govoni, G. Giovannini and V. Vacca, Galaxy cluster magnetic ﬁelds from radio polarized emission , ArXiv e-prints (2010) [ 1009.1233]. – 32 –

2010 arXiv
[78]

Hall and A

A. Hall and A. Challinor, Detecting the polarization induced by scattering of the microwave background quadrupole in galaxy clusters , Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 063518 [ 1407.5135]

2014 arXiv
[79]

Louis, E

T. Louis, E. F. Bunn, B. Wandelt and J. Silk, Measuring Polarized Emission in Clusters in the CMB S4 Era , Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 123509 [ 1707.04102]

2017 arXiv
[80]

Planck Collaboration, R. Adam, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. I. R. Alves, M. Arnaud et al., Planck 2015 results. X. Diﬀuse component separation: Foreground maps , A&A 594 (2016) A10

2016
[81]

Thorne, J

B. Thorne, J. Dunkley, D. Alonso and S. Naess, The Python Sky Model: software for simulating the Galactic microwave sky , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 469 (2017) 2821 [1608.02841]

2017 arXiv
[82]

M. H. Abitbol, J. Chluba, J. C. Hill and B. R. Johnson, Prospects for Measuring Cosmic Microwave Background Spectral Distortions in the Presence of Foregrounds , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471 (2017) 1126 [ 1705.01534]

2017 arXiv
[83]

http://pysm-public.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

“http://pysm-public.readthedocs.io/en/latest/.”
[84]

S. Y. Sazonov and R. A. Sunyaev, Microwave polarization in the direction of galaxy clusters induced by the CMB quadrupole anisotropy , MNRAS 310 (1999) 765 [ astro-ph/9903287]

1999 arXiv
[85]

Tegmark and G

M. Tegmark and G. Efstathiou, A method for subtracting foregrounds from multi-frequency cmb sky maps , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 281 (1996) 1297 [ astro-ph/9507009]

1996 arXiv
[86]

C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon et al., First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results, ApJS 148 (2003) 1

2003
[87]

H. K. Eriksen, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski and P. B. Lilje, Foreground removal by an internal linear combination method: Limitations and implications , Astrophys. J. 612 (2004) 633 [astro-ph/0403098]

2004 arXiv
[88]

Herranz, J

D. Herranz, J. L. Sanz, M. P. Hobson, R. B. Barreiro, J. M. Diego, E. Martinez-Gonzalez et al., Filtering techniques for the detection of sunyaev-zel’dovich clusters in multifrequency cmb maps, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 336 (2002) 1057 [ astro-ph/0203486]

2002 arXiv
[89]

Melin, J

J.-B. Melin, J. G. Bartlett and J. Delabrouille, Catalog extraction in sz cluster surveys: a matched ﬁlter approach, Astron. Astrophys. 459 (2006) 341 [ astro-ph/0602424]

2006 arXiv
[90]

Abrial, Y

P. Abrial, Y. Moudden, J. L. Starck, J. Fadili, J. Delabrouille and M. K. Nguyen, CMB data analysis and sparsity , Stat. Meth. 5 (2008) 289 [ 0804.1295]

2008 arXiv
[91]

K. T. Inoue, P. Cabella and E. Komatsu, Harmonic Inpainting of the Cosmic Microwave Background Sky I:Formulation and Error Estimate , Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 123539 [0804.0527]

2008 arXiv
[92]

Elsner and B

F. Elsner and B. D. Wandelt, Eﬃcient Wiener ﬁltering without preconditioning , A&A 549 (2013) A111 [ 1210.4931]

2013 arXiv
[93]

Ferraro and B

S. Ferraro and B. Hensley, Background subtraction uncertainty from submillimetre to millimetre wavelengths, MNRAS 451 (2015) 1606 [ 1406.2921]

2015 arXiv
[94]

Merloni, P

A. Merloni, P. Predehl, W. Becker, H. B¨ ohringer, T. Boller, H. Brunner et al., eROSITA Science Book: Mapping the Structure of the Energetic Universe , ArXiv e-prints (2012) [1209.3114]

2012 arXiv
[95]

F. Loi, F. Govoni, M. Murgia, V. Vacca, H. Li, L. Feretti et al., Magnetic ﬁelds in galaxy clusters in the SKA era , Journal of Physics: Conference Series 841 (2017) 012005

2017
[96]

DESI collaboration, The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design , arXiv (2016) [ 1611.00036]. – 33 –

2016 arXiv
[97]

Refregier, A

A. Refregier, A. Amara, T. D. Kitching, A. Rassat, R. Scaramella, J. Weller et al., Euclid Imaging Consortium Science Book , ArXiv e-prints (2010) [ 1001.0061]

2010 arXiv
[98]

LSST Science Collaboration, P. A. Abell, J. Allison, S. F. Anderson, J. R. Andrew, J. R. P. Angel et al., LSST Science Book, Version 2.0 , ArXiv e-prints (2009) [ 0912.0201]

2009 arXiv
[99]

O. Dore et al., Science Impacts of the SPHEREx All-Sky Optical to Near-Infrared Spectral Survey II: Report of a Community Workshop on the Scientiﬁc Synergies Between the SPHEREx Survey and Other Astronomy Observatories , arXiv (2018) [ 1805.05489]

2018 arXiv
[100]

WFIRST collaboration, WFIRST Science Investigation Team ”Cosmology with the High Latitude Survey” Annual Report 2017 , ArXiv e-prints (2018) [ 1804.03628]

2018 arXiv
[101]

Sehgal et al., CMB-HD: An Ultra-Deep, High-Resolution Millimeter-Wave Survey Over Half the Sky , 1906.10134

N. Sehgal et al., CMB-HD: An Ultra-Deep, High-Resolution Millimeter-Wave Survey Over Half the Sky , 1906.10134

1906 arXiv
[102]

13 (2017) 584 [ 1705.02290]

CAST collaboration, New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction , Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 584 [ 1705.02290]

2017 arXiv
[103]

Payez, C

A. Payez, C. Evoli, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi and A. Ringwald, Revisiting the SN1987A gamma-ray limit on ultralight axion-like particles , JCAP 2 (2015) 006 [ 1410.3747]

2015 arXiv
[104]

J. P. Conlon, M. C. D. Marsh and A. J. Powell, Galaxy cluster thermal x-ray spectra constrain axionlike particles, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 123526 [ 1509.06748]

2016 arXiv
[105]

M. Berg, J. P. Conlon, F. Day, N. Jennings, S. Krippendorf, A. J. Powell et al., Constraints on Axion-Like Particles from X-ray Observations of NGC1275 , Astrophys. J. 847 (2017) 101 [1605.01043]

2017 arXiv
[106]

D. A. Schwartz, Invited Review Article: The Chandra X-ray Observatory , Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 85 (2014) 061101

2014
[107]

Astropy Collaboration, T. P. Robitaille, E. J. Tollerud, P. Greenﬁeld, M. Droettboom, E. Bray et al., Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy , A&A 558 (2013) A33 [1307.6212]

2013 arXiv
[108]

Astropy Collaboration, A. M. Price-Whelan, B. M. Sip˝ ocz, H. M. G¨ unther, P. L. Lim, S. M. Crawford et al., The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package, AJ 156 (2018) 123 [ 1801.02634]

2018 arXiv
[109]

P´ erez and B

F. P´ erez and B. E. Granger,IPython: a system for interactive scientiﬁc computing , Computing in Science and Engineering 9 (2007) 21

2007
[110]

K. M. Gorski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., HEALPix - A Framework for high resolution discretization, and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere , Astrophys. J. 622 (2005) 759 [ astro-ph/0409513]

2005 arXiv
[111]

Mathematica, Version 12.0

W. R. Inc., “Mathematica, Version 12.0.”
[112]

J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment , Computing In Science & Engineering 9 (2007) 90

2007
[113]

van der Walt, S

S. van der Walt, S. C. Colbert and G. Varoquaux, The NumPy Array: A Structure for Eﬃcient Numerical Computation , Computing in Science and Engineering 13 (2011) 22 [1102.1523]

2011 arXiv
[114]

Jones, T

E. Jones, T. Oliphant, P. Peterson et al., SciPy: Open source scientiﬁc tools for Python , 2001–. – 34 –

2001

Pith tools

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

[1] [13]

Mukherjee, R

S. Mukherjee, R. Khatri and B. D. Wandelt, Polarized anisotropic spectral distortions of the CMB: Galactic and extragalactic constraints on photon-axion conversion , JCAP 1804 (2018) 045 [1801.09701]

arXiv 2018

[2] [26]

Constraining ALP-photon coupling using galaxy clusters

M. Schlederer and G. Sigl, Constraining ALP-photon coupling using galaxy clusters , JCAP 1601 (2016) 038 [ 1507.02855]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[3] [1]

R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, The interaction of matter and radiation in the hot model of the Universe, II , ApSS 7 (1970) 20

1970

[4] [2]

Danese and G

L. Danese and G. de Zotti, Double Compton process and the spectrum of the microwave background, A&A 107 (1982) 39

1982

[5] [3]

Hu and J

W. Hu and J. Silk, Thermalization and spectral distortions of the cosmic background radiation, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 485

1993

[6] [4]

Khatri and R

R. Khatri and R. A. Sunyaev, Beyond y and µ: the shape of the CMB spectral distortions in the intermediate epoch, 1.5×104 ≲z ≲ 2×105, JCAP 9 (2012) 016 [ 1207.6654]

arXiv 2012

[7] [5]

Y. B. Zeldovich and R. A. Sunyaev, The Interaction of Matter and Radiation in a Hot-Model Universe, ApSS 4 (1969) 301

1969

[8] [6]

W. Hu, D. Scott and J. Silk, Power spectrum constraints from spectral distortions in the cosmic microwave background, ApJL 430 (1994) L5 [ astro-ph/9402045]

arXiv 1994