Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Axion-induced pair production: a new strategy for axion detection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Axion-induced pair production becomes the dominant detection channel for axions above roughly 10 MeV.

desk verdict Useful, honest phenomenology paper; the 2.6 coefficient and a sign typo need fixing, but the qualitative claim that pair production dominates high-energy axion detection holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19327 v2 pith:TLDRIGTE submitted 2024-11-28 hep-ph hep-ex

Fernando Arias-Aragón , Maurizio Giannotti , Giovanni Grilli di Cortona , Federico Mescia This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords axiondetectionaxion-inducedpairproductionaxion-electroncouplingsupernovaaxionssolar5.5MeVlineBethe-HeitlerprocessJUNOHyper-Kamiokande
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 argues that axions hitting a nucleus can convert into an electron-positron pair, and that this once-overlooked process becomes the most powerful detection channel for axions with energies above roughly 10 MeV. In the light-axion limit the authors derive a simple proportionality between the axion and photon pair-production cross sections, $\sigma_{aee}(E_a) \simeq 2.6\, g_{ae}^2/(4\pi\alpha)\, \sigma_{\gamma ee}(E_a)$. Since supernova axions carry energies up to hundreds of MeV, pair production would dominate their detection in large underground detectors and would improve projected sensitivities by factors around four to five. The paper applies the channel to the 5.5 MeV solar axion line and to supernova axions, recasting Borexino bounds and estimating the reach of JUNO and Hyper-Kamiokande.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the axion-induced pair production cross section in the nuclear Coulomb field, computed from the leptonic and hadronic tensor decomposition of Eq. (11) together with the atomic form factor $F_A^2(t) = Z^2 [a_Z^2 t/(1 + a_Z^2 t)]^2\, [1/(1 + t/d_A)]^2$, which accounts for electron screening. The key identity is Eq. (15), which ties this cross section to the photon Bethe-Heitler cross section $\sigma_{\gamma ee}(E_a)$ --- the conversion of a photon into an electron-positron pair in the field of a nucleus --- through a constant factor $2.6$, valid for axion masses negligible compared to the electron mass. This identity turns a heavy quantum-field-theory calculation into a practical formula that can be evaluated with tabulated photon cross sections, such as those in the XCOM database.

What would settle it

A direct numerical evaluation of the differential cross section in Appendix A (Eqs. (10)-(14)) at representative energies (for example $E_a = 5.5$, $20$, and $100$ MeV) and for several target nuclei (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, lead) would settle whether Eq. (15) holds; any departure of the ratio from $2.6$ beyond a few percent would invalidate the universal formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that axion-induced external pair production, $a + {}^A_Z X \to {}^A_Z X + e^+ + e^-$, is not a negligible correction but the dominant detection channel for axions with $E_a \gtrsim 10$ MeV, and therefore the leading signal for supernova axions. In the limit $m_a \ll m_e$, the cross section is Eq. (15), a universal rescaling of the photon Bethe-Heitler cross section by the constant factor $2.6 g_{ae}^2/(4\pi\alpha)$. The authors provide a fresh derivation of this cross section including the nuclear form factor and electron screening, and they show that adding the channel changes the Borexino bound on the solar axion coupling product from $|g_{3aN}g_{ae}|\lesssim 5.7\times10^{-13}$ to $\lesssim 4.8\times10^{-13}$, while for supernova axions it produces the dominant event rate: at JUNO the pair-production-only sensitivity reaches $|g_{ap}g_{ae}|\lesssim 1.2\times10^{-19}$ in the free-streaming regime at 10 kpc.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ratio $\sigma_{aee}/\sigma_{\gamma ee}$ equals the single constant $2.6$ for every target nucleus and every axion energy in the regime $m_a \ll m_e$; if that ratio actually varies with energy, nuclear charge, or screening, the simple detection formula and all derived event rates and sensitivities change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Axion searches for energies above about 10 MeV that omit pair production will undercount the expected signal, in the supernova case by a factor of several.
  • Supernova axion studies at JUNO and Hyper-Kamiokande gain the most: including pair production improves the reach on $|g_{ap}g_{ae}|$ by factors of about 4-5 in the free-streaming regime and by factors of 3-4 in the trapping regime.
  • For the 5.5 MeV solar axion line, pair production contributes about a third of the combined expected events at Borexino, tightening the bound to $|g_{3aN}g_{ae}|\lesssim 4.8\times10^{-13}$.
  • Future experimental analyses should treat pair production as part of the signal, especially above 100 MeV, where the supernova neutrino background is negligible and pair production is the dominant channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: since $\sigma_{\gamma ee}$ grows strongly with nuclear charge, detectors with high-Z targets would see proportionally more pair-production events per unit mass, so a dedicated high-Z detector could outperform the carbon-based scintillators considered here.
  • Editorial inference: the exact value of the constant $2.6$ is the linchpin of all the projected limits; a numerical scan of Eqs. (10)-(14) across energies and target elements would show whether any material-specific correction is needed, something the paper does not do.
  • Editorial inference: the same mechanism should work for axion-like particles coupled to muons or taus, with the production threshold rising from $2m_e$ to $2m_\mu$ or $2m_\tau$, and correspondingly higher axion energies required.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's neglect of axion decay and of the axion-photon coupling is harmless for light QCD axions, but for heavier ALPs the decay length could suppress the flux, and including it would sharpen the projected constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies axion-induced external pair production in the nuclear Coulomb field, a + (A,Z)X -> (A,Z)X + e+ + e-, as a detection channel for axions coupled to electrons. The central technical result is Eq. (15), which relates the axion-induced pair production cross section to the standard Bethe-Heitler photon pair production cross section, sigma_aee(Ea) ~ 2.6 g_ae^2/(4 pi alpha) sigma_gammaee(Ea) in the limit m_a << m_e. The authors apply this formula to the 5.5 MeV solar axion line and to supernova axions in both free-streaming and trapping regimes, reporting recast Borexino bounds and projected JUNO and Hyper-Kamiokande sensitivities. Their main claim is that pair production becomes competitive with inverse Compton scattering at Ea ~ 10 MeV and is by far the dominant detection channel for SN axions. The cross section derivation is presented in Appendix A with a full matrix element, and the photon-channel benchmark is taken from the XCOM database.

Significance. If the central formula is correct, the paper fills a genuine gap: axion-induced pair production has received little phenomenological attention, and the paper shows it can substantially improve supernova-axion sensitivities in large underground detectors, by factors of 15-23 in event rate for the examples considered. The study is parameter-free with respect to the axion model: the coefficient 2.6 is in principle computed, not fitted, and the SN spectra come from a public simulation archive. The authors also disclose the main assumptions in footnotes, including equal detection efficiencies for pair production and inverse Compton. However, the quantitative bridge of the paper, the coefficient 2.6, is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the printed derivation in Appendix A contains internal sign errors and an incorrect dot-product expression. These issues must be resolved before the numerical results in Section V can be considered reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (15)] The coefficient 2.6 is load-bearing: all SN event rates in Sec. V.B and the claim of pair-production dominance depend on it. Yet the manuscript states 'Comparing the two computations in the limit of ma << me, we find ...' without showing the comparison, the integration, or any plot of the ratio sigma_aee/sigma_gammaee as a function of Ea or target nucleus. I request that the authors present the ratio for representative targets (e.g., carbon, hydrogen, oxygen) over the energy range relevant to the SN analysis, including the approach to the m_a -> 0 limit, so that the universality and value of 2.6 can be checked. Without this, the central quantitative result is unverifiable from the manuscript.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (10), (A4) and (A2)] The printed derivation of the cross section is internally inconsistent. Eq. (10) has an overall minus sign, which the text attributes to a Jacobian J = -1 for the azimuthal angle transformation; a physical differential cross section must be positive, and the relevant Jacobian for (phi+, phi-) -> (phi, psi) has absolute value 1. The sentence after Eq. (A4) also states that the delta function imposes E+ = E- - Ea, which should be E+ = Ea - E-. In addition, Eq. (A2) gives l+- . p2 = |ka||l+-| cos(theta+-) - |l+||l-| (1/4) sin(2 theta+) sin(2 theta-) cos(phi) - |l+-|^2, but the standard dot product l+ . l- is |l+||l-|(sin theta+ sin theta- cos phi + cos theta+ cos theta-), so the printed angular factor is incorrect. These errors make it impossible to reproduce the numerical value 2.6 from the material provided; please correct them and confirm that the numerical evaluation used the correct expressions.
  3. [Sec. V.A, footnote 6] The Borexino pair-production bound assumes the same detection efficiency as inverse Compton (epsilon = 0.358), with the justification that this is an estimate. Pair production and inverse Compton have different final-state topologies, so the efficiencies are not necessarily equal. While the solar-axion bound is only modestly improved by including pair production, the quoted pair-production-only limit |g3aN gae| <= 8.8e-13 depends directly on this assumption. Please provide a sensitivity test (e.g., vary epsilon from 0.2 to 1.0) or justify the equality quantitatively.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (8)] The formula for the inverse Compton cross section appears to have unbalanced parentheses in the second term; please check the typesetting and ensure that all brackets are closed and the expression matches the cited literature.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (5)] The numerical coefficient 0.54 in Eq. (5) is stated without derivation; a brief explanation of how it follows from the preceding expression, including the values of alpha and mu3, would improve transparency.
  3. [Table I] The table mixes approximate ('~') and upper-limit ('<=') symbols for similar entries; please standardize the notation so it is clear which entries are bounds and which are sensitivities.
  4. [Sec. IV.D, Eq. (17)] In the chi-squared expression, the same symbol N_bkg_i is used both for the observed counts and for the expectation in the Poisson term, and N_sig_i is reused; please clarify the notation to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main cross-section ratio is a parameter-free QFT comparison, not a fit or a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central bridge, Eq. (15), relates the axion pair-production cross section to the photon Bethe-Heitler cross section via a coefficient 2.6 obtained by 'comparing the two computations.' The comparison is not displayed and Eq. (10) contains an unexplained sign (J = -1), which makes the numerical coefficient hard to verify from the manuscript alone. These are reproducibility and correctness concerns, not circularity: nothing in the text indicates that the 2.6 was fitted to axion data or defined in terms of the target predictions. The axion cross section is computed from a stated matrix element, phase space, and form factor, while the photon cross section is taken from an external database, so the ratio is not equal to its inputs by construction. The SN spectra are independent Garching-model outputs and prior published spectra, and the Borexino limit is an external experimental result. Self-citations occur as inputs and background calculations, not as the justification for the new pair-production claim. Thus no load-bearing step reduces to its own input; at most there is one minor self-citation dependence on same-group SN spectrum work, which is not circular because those spectra are independently computed external inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or forces and fits no parameter to data. The coefficient 2.6 in Eq. (15) is presented as a derived quantity, not a fitted one. The principal untested inputs are: the Tsai form factor (Eq. 14) as a description of the nuclear field, the Garching SN model with pion abundance Y_pi = 1%, the assumption of zero axion-photon coupling, the zero-background approximation above 100 MeV, and the use of the inverse Compton efficiency for pair production in the Borexino recast. These are acknowledged as estimates or benchmarks by the authors.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard QFT and Bethe-Heitler formalism
    The cross section calculation in Appendix A assumes standard Dirac trace techniques and the three-body phase-space formulation from Ref. [59].
  • domain assumption Tsai atomic form factor (Eq. 14) accurately describes the nuclear Coulomb field with electron screening
    Used for the light nuclei (H, C) in Borexino, JUNO, and Hyper-K at momentum transfers relevant for E_a from 5.5 MeV to hundreds of MeV.
  • domain assumption Vanishing axion-photon coupling, so axions do not decay en route from the Sun
    Sec. II.A explicitly sets the axion-photon coupling to zero and sets the exponential flux-attenuation factor to 1.
  • domain assumption Garching SFHo-s18.8 supernova model with pion abundance Y_pi = 1% gives the SN axion spectra
    Sec. II.B adopts these inputs; the pion abundance in particular is theoretically uncertain.
  • domain assumption Negligible background above E_cutoff = 100 MeV in the SN burst analyses
    Sec. IV.D: the authors require 3 signal events above 100 MeV and note that this assumption 'may be modified or refined'.
  • ad hoc to paper The Borexino detection efficiency for pair production equals that for inverse Compton scattering
    Footnote 6 states this is an estimate, as a complete efficiency analysis is outside the scope.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axion-induced pair production: a new strategy for axion detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TLDRIGTE

@misc{pith2026241119327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axion-induced pair production: a new strategy for axion detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TLDRIGTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19327}
}
abstract

We revisit and update the axion-induced pair production process in a nuclear electric field mediated by the axion-electron coupling, $a+{{}^{A}_{Z}X} \rightarrow {{}^{A}_{Z}X} + e^{+} + e^{-}$. This process emerges as one of the most efficient channels for detecting axions with energies above a few MeV in large underground detectors. It is particularly relevant for detecting axions produced in nuclear reactions, such as the $p+d~\rightarrow~{ }^3 \mathrm{He}~+~a(5.5\,\mathrm{MeV})$ reaction in the solar pp-chain, and for axions originating in supernovae. Despite recent interest in detecting high-energy axions, the pair production process has received limited attention, even in scenarios where it is the dominant detection channel. This study fills this gap by demonstrating that pair production is a highly effective detection mechanism for high-energy axions. We apply our results to axions from supernovae and the solar 5.5 MeV line, recasting the current bounds of Borexino and comparing the detection capabilities of the JUNO and Hyper-Kamiokande detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. External pair production induced by a pseu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time-integrated axion production spectrum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the comparison between the cross sections for the axio-electric effect (orange), the in￾verse Compton scattering (blue) and the external pair production channel (green) for an axion with a coupling to electrons of gae = 10−9 and a mass of ma = 10−4 MeV, interacting in LAB (C19H32). The three different processes dominate in different ranges of axion energies. For Ea ≲ 5×10−2 MeV the axio-electric effect dominat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: , adding the external pair production process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Exclusion region plot in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Exclusion region in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

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. MeV Electrophilic Axion-like Particles from Sun

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MeV axion-like particles could be made when 5.5 MeV solar fusion photons Compton-scatter off electrons; current LZ, PandaX-4T and Borexino data would then constrain g_ae to (1.7-3.7)e-6 in the 0.4-1 MeV window.

  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

72 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    the 5.5 MeV axion flux from the solar pp- chain [5, 9], Eq. (2)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Nevertheless, in this paper, we are interested only in the axion-electron coupling

    the SN axion flux, produced through nucleon bremsstrahlung [10] and pion Compton scat- 1 Their analyses also considered detection channels through the axion-photon coupling. Nevertheless, in this paper, we are interested only in the axion-electron coupling. tering [11, 12], in both trapping and free- streaming regime. In our study, we consider axions or a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    inverse Compton scattering, a + e− → γ + e−

    work page

  4. [4]

    the axio-electric effect a + e− + Ze → e− + Ze

    work page

  5. [5]

    Iniziativa Specifica

    axion-induced pair production in the electric field of nuclei, a + A Z X → A Z X + e+ + e−. Below, we provide a brief overview of each and dis- cuss axion pair production in more detail, as it is considerably less explored in the literature. A. Inverse Compton scattering The total cross section for the process where an axion scatter on the atomic electron...

    2025

  6. [6]

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

    1977

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Bethe and W

    H. Bethe and W. Heitler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 146, 83 (1934)

    1934

  2. [10]

    Bellini et al

    G. Bellini et al. (Borexino), Phys. Rev. D 85, 092003 (2012), arXiv:1203.6258 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Lucente, N

    G. Lucente, N. Nath, F. Capozzi, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123007 (2022), arXiv:2209.11780 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    An et al

    F. An et al. (JUNO), J. Phys. G 43, 030401 (2016), arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande), (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Lett. B 119, 323 (1982)

    1982

  7. [15]

    Carenza, T

    P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, G. Guo, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP 10, 016 (2019), [Erratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2020)], arXiv:1906.11844 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lella, P

    A. Lella, P. Carenza, G. Lucente, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103017 (2023), arXiv:2211.13760 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Lella, P

    A. Lella, P. Carenza, G. Co’, G. Lucente, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and T. Rauscher, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023001 (2024), arXiv:2306.01048 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept. 870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Antel et al

    C. Antel et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1122 (2023), arXiv:2305.01715 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, PoS COSMICWISPers, 041 (2024), arXiv:2401.13728 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Carenza, M

    P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Isern, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, (2024), arXiv:2411.02492 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. W. Donnelly, S. J. Freedman, R. S. Lytel, R. D. Peccei, and M. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D 18, 1607 (1978)

    1978

  15. [23]

    W. C. Haxton and K. Y. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2557 (1991)

    1991

  16. [24]

    Di Luzio et al

    L. Di Luzio et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 120 (2022), arXiv:2111.06407 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Massarczyk, P

    R. Massarczyk, P. H. Chu, and S. R. Elliott, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015031 (2022), arXiv:2112.08285 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Janka, K

    H.-T. Janka, K. Langanke, A. Marek, G. Martinez-Pinedo, and B. Mueller, Phys. Rept. 442, 38 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0612072

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl, and S. Chakraborty, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.00785 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Rozwadowska, F

    K. Rozwadowska, F. Vissani, and E. Cappellaro, New Astron. 83, 101498 (2021), arXiv:2009.03438 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. L. Costantini, A. Ianni, and F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 139, 27 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Lella, E

    A. Lella, E. Ravensburg, P. Carenza, and M. C. D. Marsh, (2024), arXiv:2405.00153 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Fore and S

    B. Fore and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 101, 035809 (2020), arXiv:1911.02632 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Carenza, B

    P. Carenza, B. Fore, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 071102 (2021), arXiv:2010.02943 [hep-ph]. 13

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S.-Y. Ho, J. Kim, P. Ko, and J.-h. Park, Phys. Rev. D 107, 075002 (2023), arXiv:2212.01155 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, JCAP 08, 045 (2022), arXiv:2204.11862 [astro-ph.SR]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Engel, D

    J. Engel, D. Seckel, and A. C. Hayes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 960 (1990)

    1990

  28. [36]

    S.-F. Ge, K. Hamaguchi, K. Ichimura, K. Ishidoshiro, Y. Kanazawa, Y. Kishimoto, N. Nagata, and J. Zheng, JCAP 11, 059 (2020), arXiv:2008.03924 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    S. Asai, Y. Kanazawa, T. Moroi, and T. Sichanugrist, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137137 (2022), arXiv:2203.01519 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Carenza, G

    P. Carenza, G. Co, M. Giannotti, A. Lella, G. Lucente, A. Mirizzi, and T. Rauscher, Phys. Rev. C 109, 015501 (2024), arXiv:2306.17055 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Carenza, G

    P. Carenza, G. Co’, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and T. Rauscher, in 14th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs (2018) arXiv:1808.04101 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Meyer, M

    M. Meyer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, J. Conrad, and M. A. S´ anchez-Conde, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 011103 (2017), arXiv:1609.02350 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Calore, P

    F. Calore, P. Carenza, C. Eckner, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, A. Mirizzi, and F. Sivo, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043010 (2024), arXiv:2306.03925 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lella, F

    A. Lella, F. Calore, P. Carenza, C. Eckner, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, and A. Mirizzi, (2024), arXiv:2405.02395 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Garching core-collapse supernova research archive,

    “Garching core-collapse supernova research archive,” https://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/ccsnarchive//

  36. [44]

    Rampp and H

    M. Rampp and H. T. Janka, Astron. Astrophys. 396, 361 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0203101

    2002 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Hempel and J

    M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A 837, 210 (2010), arXiv:0911.4073 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Astrophys. J. 774, 17 (2013), arXiv:1207.2184 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Sukhbold, S

    T. Sukhbold, S. Woosley, and A. Heger, Astrophys. J. 860, 93 (2018), arXiv:1710.03243 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky and Y. I. Skovpen, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 29, 513 (1979)

    1979

  41. [49]

    F. T. Avignone, C. Baktash, W. C. Barker, F. P. Calaprice, R. W. Dunford, W. C. Haxton, D. Kahana, R. T. Kouzes, H. S. Miley, and D. M. Moltz, Phys. Rev. D 37, 618 (1988)

    1988

  42. [50]

    Dimopoulos, G

    S. Dimopoulos, G. D. Starkman, and B. W. Lynn, Phys. Lett. B 168, 145 (1986)

    1986

  43. [51]

    P. F. Smith and J. D. Lewin, Phys. Rept. 187, 203 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    L. J. Rosenberg and K. A. van Bibber, Phys. Rept. 325, 1 (2000)

    2000

  45. [53]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 115012 (2008), arXiv:0807.3279 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Arisaka, P

    K. Arisaka, P. Beltrame, C. Ghag, J. Kaidi, K. Lung, A. Lyashenko, R. D. Peccei, P. Smith, and K. Ye, Astropart. Phys. 44, 59 (2013), arXiv:1209.3810 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Xcom: Photon cross sections database,

    M. Berger, J. Hubbell, S. Seltzer, J. Chang, J. Coursey, R. Sukumar, D. Zucker, and K. Olsen, “Xcom: Photon cross sections database,” https://www.nist.gov/pml/xcom-photon-cross-sections-database

  48. [56]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261301 (2017), arXiv:1704.02297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fu et al

    C. Fu et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181806 (2017), arXiv:1707.07921 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. D 106, 022001 (2022), arXiv:2112.12116 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101002 (2023), arXiv:2207.11968 [hep-ex]

    2023

  52. [60]

    B. R. Kim, R. Rodenberg, and C. Stamm, Phys. Lett. B 122, 87 (1983)

    1983

  53. [61]

    B. R. Kim, B. H. Cho, S. K. Oh, C. Stamm, and R. Rodenberg, Nucl. Phys. B 242, 189 (1984)

    1984

  54. [62]

    Blumlein et al

    J. Blumlein et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 7, 3835 (1992)

    1992

  55. [63]

    W. A. Bardeen, S. H. H. Tye, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Phys. Lett. B 76, 580 (1978)

    1978

  56. [64]

    Tsai, Rev

    Y.-S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 815 (1974), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 49, 421–423 (1977)]

    1974

  57. [65]

    K. J. Kim and Y.-S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 8, 3109 (1973)

    1973

  58. [66]

    Abusleme et al

    A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), Chin. Phys. C 45, 023004 (2021), arXiv:2006.11760 [hep-ex]

    2021

  59. [67]

    Woo, Ryan, Reuters (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande), Astrophys. J. 916, 15 (2021), arXiv:2101.05269 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D 109, 092001 (2024), arXiv:2312.12907 [hep-ex]

    2024

  62. [70]

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

    1980

  63. [71]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  64. [72]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, JHEP 01, 034 (2016), arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.