Searching for axion-like particles with SPHEREx

Jorge Terol Calvo; Marco Regis; Marco Taoso

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Searching for axion-like particles with SPHEREx

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper forecasts that SPHEREx, a wide-field near-infrared space telescope, can improve current limits on the axion-photon coupling for axion-like-particle dark matter in the 0.5–3 eV mass range, with the Milky Way halo as the best…

desk verdict First SPHEREx ALP forecast with a genuinely clever MW Deep Field target; the headline reach, however, hinges on an unquantified foreground subtraction that may sink it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12286 v2 pith:XWODP2TT submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Marco Regis , Marco Taoso , Jorge Terol Calvo This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COhep-ph

keywords axion-likeparticlesdarkmatterSPHERExnear-infraredspectroscopyaxion-photoncouplingdwarfspheroidalgalaxiesLargeMagellanicCloudMilkyWayhalo

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 forecasts whether the SPHEREx near-infrared all-sky spectral survey can detect the radiative decay of axion-like-particle (ALP) dark matter. If an ALP of mass $m_a$ makes up the dark matter, it decays into two photons, each carrying energy $m_a/2$, producing a narrow spectral line; SPHEREx's 0.75–5 $\mu$m coverage maps that line to ALP masses of 0.5–3 eV. The authors compute the expected line surface brightness from three targets — dwarf spheroidal galaxies, the Large Magellanic Cloud, and the Milky Way halo — using the integrated dark-matter column (the D-factor) and compare it with SPHEREx's per-pixel sensitivity. They conclude that SPHEREx can significantly improve current bounds on the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma}$, with the Milky Way halo in the north Deep Field giving the strongest projected sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ALP-photon interaction $\mathcal{L}= -\tfrac14 g_{a\gamma} a F_{\mu\nu}\tilde F^{\mu\nu}$, which gives ALPs a decay width $\Gamma_{a\to\gamma\gamma}=g_{a\gamma}^2 m_a^3/(64\pi)$. The observable is a nearly monochromatic line at photon energy $E_\gamma \simeq m_a/2$, with a flux proportional to the D-factor $D=\int_{\Delta\Omega} d\Omega \int_{\rm l.o.s.} ds\, \rho(r)$, the dark-matter column density integrated over the instrument's field of view. The forecast sensitivity is derived from a $\chi^2$ sum over SPHEREx's 6.2''×6.2'' pixels, comparing the predicted line surface brightness with the quoted per-pixel noise for the all-sky survey and the two 100 deg$^2$ Deep Fields.

What would settle it

Take real SPHEREx spectra of the north Deep Field, subtract the best-fit continuum model, and measure the residual noise in the spectral channel that would contain the ALP line at $m_a/2$; if the residual exceeds the quoted 2.3 nW/m$^2$/sr per-pixel noise at 5 $\mu$m, the claimed reach on $g_{a\gamma}$ is not achievable and must be weakened accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SPHEREx will be able to probe axion-like-particle dark matter in the mass window 0.5–3 eV with sensitivity to the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma}$ that surpasses existing constraints. The signal is the two-photon decay of ALPs in dark-matter halos, with decay rate $\Gamma_{a\to\gamma\gamma}=g_{a\gamma}^2 m_a^3/(64\pi)$ controlling the flux. For each target, the flux is proportional to a D-factor, the integral of the halo density along the line of sight and over the field of view. Comparing this to the surface-brightness noise in SPHEREx pixels at all-sky and Deep Field depths, the authors find that the Milky Way halo observed in the north Deep Field gives the best reach, because the large sky area compensates for the low dark-matter density away from the Galactic center. The Large Magellanic Cloud, lying partly in the south Deep Field, also improves on current bounds, while the combined dwarf-spheroidal observations give a weaker but complementary constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The projected sensitivity assumes that zodiacal light, starlight, and the LMC's own continuum can be modeled and subtracted down to SPHEREx's photon-noise level, and that bright sources can be masked, without leaving a systematic background that mimics or hides the line.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

SPHEREx can improve current upper limits on $g_{a\gamma}$ in the 0.5–3 eV ALP mass range, reaching couplings below the existing optical and near-infrared line constraints.
The Milky Way halo in the north Deep Field is the most sensitive target, with the LMC in the south Deep Field yielding the second-best reach.
A null detection at the projected sensitivity would set new exclusion limits that complement laboratory haloscope searches for masses above about 1 eV.
The same wide-field maps can also be used to search for the extragalactic ALP-decay background through line intensity mapping, with sensitivity comparable to the Milky Way analysis.
Because the bounds scale with the square root of the halo density profile, the forecasts are robust to the choice of NFW versus Einasto profile for the Milky Way and to moderate changes in the LMC density model.

Reading between the lines

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

If the foreground subtraction performs as assumed, a line search on real SPHEREx data would also constrain the ALP lifetime fairly directly, since the high-latitude Milky Way D-factor is one of the better-determined astrophysical inputs.
A null result at the projected sensitivity would close part of the favored parameter space for eV-scale ALP dark matter and would strengthen the case for dedicated line-intensity-mapping programs in the same mass range.
The same sensitivity calculation could be applied to other wide-area near-infrared surveys by scaling with sky area and noise, though the paper notes that SPHEREx's all-sky survey does not beat its own Deep Field because of the higher all-sky noise.
A positive line candidate would need to be checked against instrumental artifacts, zodiacal-light residuals, and known emission lines, because the paper does not model those backgrounds in detail.

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

Short version: this is a clean, useful forecast — the first SPHEREx-specific one for ALP decay lines I know — and the Milky Way north Deep Field target is a genuinely new configuration. But the stress-test concern is right and it is load-bearing: the projected MW-halo line is ~4e-3 nW/m2/sr against a zodiacal continuum of order 10–100 nW/m2/sr, so the continuum subtraction must work at the ~1e-4 relative level. That is not demonstrated, and a smooth parametric fit is unlikely to get there because the zodiacal spectrum contains solar absorption features. Since the MW-halo signal is spatially uniform, those features are common to the whole field and pixel averaging won't remove them. A residual at the 0.1% level would wipe out most of the claimed improvement over current bounds. So the paper's headline claim is conditional in a way the conclusion does not fully convey.

What is genuinely good: the calculation is transparent and standard — decay rate, D-factors, SPHEREx noise from public products — and the result doesn't depend on any fitted version of the target coupling. The authors test profile choices and say clearly that masking and background subtraction are deferred. That honesty matters; many forecasts hide those steps. The LMC in the south Deep Field and the MW halo in the north Deep Field are concrete, checkable ideas, and Fig. 1 makes the comparison to existing limits easy to read.

The soft spots, in proportion: the foreground-subtraction issue is not a minor caveat, it is the main uncertainty. The quoted SPHEREx noise includes photon noise from zodiacal light, but not residuals from modeling and subtracting it. For the LMC, the paper notes the continuum is comparable to zodiacal and says a cleaning procedure should work; that's a hope, not a calculation. Masking bright sources is also deferred, though the expected masked fraction argument is plausible. The dSph forecast is the least interesting but also the least problematic. I would not want to see this paper rejected over the missing foreground study; I would want to see the foreground study added, or at least an explicit mapping of reach versus residual amplitude.

Who is this for: ALP/astro-particle forecasters and anyone planning SPHEREx line searches. It deserves serious peer review. If I were the referee, my main request would be a contamination study for Sec. 4.3, plus a statement of how much of the forecasted gain survives residuals at 0.1% and 1%.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper forecasts the sensitivity of the SPHEREx near-infrared all-sky spectroscopic survey to the two-photon decay line of axion-like-particle (ALP) dark matter. The signal is computed with the standard ALP decay rate and the D-factor formalism of Eq. (2.2), using NFW (and, for the Milky Way, Einasto) halo profiles for eight dwarf spheroidal galaxies, the Large Magellanic Cloud, and the Milky Way halo. The projected 95% C.L. limits on the axion-photon coupling gaγ are derived from a chi-square estimate, Eq. (4.1), using public SPHEREx pixel noise levels for the all-sky and Deep Field surveys. The main result, shown in Fig. 1, is that SPHEREx observations, especially of the Milky Way halo in the north Deep Field, could improve current constraints on gaγ in the 0.5–3 eV ALP mass range.

Significance. If the projected sensitivity is realized, the SPHEREx Deep Field campaign would probe new parameter space for ALP dark matter in the 0.5–3 eV mass range, complementing existing optical and near-infrared line searches (MUSE, WINERED, JWST) and future laboratory experiments such as LAMPOST. The forecast is well posed: no parameter is fitted to the signal, the halo inputs come from published analyses, the instrument noise is taken from public SPHEREx products, and the D-factor calculation is standard. The central quantity (sensitivity to gaγ) is not circularly related to the assumed coupling. The main caveat, explicitly acknowledged in Sec. 4 but not yet quantified, is that the claimed reach depends on the ability to subtract astrophysical continuum foregrounds down to a level far below the photon-noise floor.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 4 (Eq. 4.1) and Sec. 4.3] The background-subtraction step is load-bearing but is deferred to future work, and I do not think the current text establishes it. For the Milky Way north Deep Field, the projected line surface brightness at the 95% C.L. is of order a few times 10^-3 nW/m^2/sr (from Eq. (4.1) with the quoted Deep Field noise of 2-4 nW/m^2/sr per pixel and roughly 10^6 pixels), while the zodiacal light continuum in the same SPHEREx channel is orders of magnitude brighter. The statement that the continuum will be accounted for by fitting a parametric function is not sufficient, because a residual spectral feature common to the whole ~100 deg^2 field (for example, solar absorption structure in the zodiacal spectrum) cannot be suppressed by spatial pixel averaging. I ask the authors to provide a quantitative assessment: the expected foreground brightness in the relevant channels, the expected residual level after the parametric fit (e.g., from simulations using the SPHEREx spectral resolution), and the corresponding systematic term to be added in quadrature in Eq. (4.1). The same request applies to the LMC and dSph targets, where masking and intrinsic source emission are relevant.
[Sec. 3 and Sec. 4.2] The noise model is described inconsistently. Section 3 states that the quoted pixel noise includes read noise and the photon noise from zodiacal light, while Sec. 4.2 states that the noise level includes 'the noise induced by the subtraction of the zodiacal light emission.' These are not equivalent: photon noise from a foreground is not the residual after subtracting that foreground. As written, Eq. (4.1) contains only statistical fluctuations and no term for residual systematic contamination. Please state explicitly whether the quoted sigma is purely statistical, and justify that the foreground residual after subtraction is below the statistical floor for each target.

minor comments (5)

[Eqs. (2.1)-(2.2) and Eq. (4.1)] The notation jumps between a photon flux in Eq. (2.2) and a surface brightness in Eq. (4.1). Please specify the explicit conversion factor (including the relevant powers of m_a and hbar) that maps the D-factor to the energy surface brightness in nW/m^2/sr used in the chi-square calculation.
[Sec. 4.1] The text says that ALP decays in the Milky Way halo can contribute significantly to the dSph signal at angular radii near 1 deg, but then states that this contribution is neglected because the signal is spatially uniform. Please clarify whether the Milky Way halo contribution is treated as a background to be subtracted or simply ignored, since a uniform additive component would affect the chi-square if not removed.
[Fig. 1] The legend label 'Globular Clusters WINERED' appears to merge two separate constraints (globular clusters and the WINERED survey). Please separate the two entries for clarity.
[Sec. 4.3] The discussion of an all-sky search assumes the noise scales with the square root of the area and uses 15,000 deg^2 as an example. Please justify this scaling and specify the effective exposure per pixel for the all-sky survey, since the exposure is not uniform over the sky.
[Sec. 3] The quoted noise values are for the full two-year nominal mission. For reproducibility, please state the assumed integration time per pixel for the all-sky and Deep Field surveys, or cite the specific public product that provides these noise levels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SPHEREx ALP sensitivity forecast is derived from external inputs and standard physics, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the projected 95% C.L. sensitivity to gaγ, is obtained by combining the standard ALP decay rate (Eq. 2.1), the D-factors of external DM profiles (Eq. 2.2, with NFW parameters from Refs. [30,31,34]), and SPHEREx surface-brightness noise values taken from the public instrument products (Sec. 3). The target parameter gaγ appears only on the left-hand side of the sensitivity statement; it is never fitted to the data that define the forecast, nor is any quantity equivalent to the final limit used as an input. The only self-citations (Refs. [10,11,31]) provide external observational data and density profiles and are not invoked as authority to fix the ALP physics. The paper explicitly defers background subtraction and source masking (Sec. 4), so those systematics are a correctness/robustness caveat, not a circular step. The forecast is therefore self-contained with respect to the central quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast relies on external halo parameter fits and on SPHEREx sensitivity numbers, plus the standard assumption that ALPs are all of the dark matter. No new entities are introduced. The central systematic risk is the foreground subtraction assumption, acknowledged by the authors.

free parameters (4)

MW NFW halo parameters (rs, rho_s) = rs = 14.46 kpc, rho_s = 0.566 GeV/cm^3 (Ref [34])
Normalization and scale radius of the Milky Way dark matter halo, fitted to kinematic data in the cited literature; they set the D-factor for the north Deep Field target, the most sensitive one. The paper checks consistency with an Einasto profile from Ref [35].
LMC NFW halo parameters = Taken from Ref [31]
Dark matter density profile of the LMC fitted to kinematic data in Ref [31]; the paper checks the effect of using other profiles from the same reference.
dSph DM profiles = NFW plus tidal truncation, parameters from Ref [30]
Profiles fitted to stellar kinematics for the eight dSphs; used for the all-sky survey forecast. The D-factors dominate the combined sensitivity.
SPHEREx surface brightness noise sigma = 27-16 nW/m^2/sr for all-sky, 3.8-2.3 nW/m^2/sr for Deep Fields (0.75-5 um)
Instrument noise used in the chi^2 calculation, taken from SPHEREx public products. The projected sensitivity scales directly with this assumed noise floor.

assumptions (6)

standard math The ALP decay rate is Gamma = ga_gamma^2 ma^3 / (64 pi), and the line is unresolved by SPHEREx spectral channels.
Standard result for pseudoscalar decay to two photons; the photon energies are half the ALP mass, well within the spectral resolution.
domain assumption DM halos are described by NFW profiles with the quoted parameters.
Used for the Milky Way, LMC, and dSphs. The paper tests alternative profiles for the MW and LMC.
domain assumption The quoted SPHEREx surface brightness sensitivities are accurate and include read noise and zodiacal photon noise.
Taken from public GitHub repository of SPHEREx; the forecasts depend on these noise levels.
domain assumption Continuum foregrounds can be subtracted and bright sources masked with negligible noise penalty.
The paper states this is deferred to future analysis; it is the main systematic uncertainty.
domain assumption Dust extinction is negligible at SPHEREx wavelengths except near bright LMC regions, which are masked.
Estimated from Refs [27,28], impact on bounds below a few percent at 0.75 um.
domain assumption ALPs constitute all of the dark matter.
Stated in the abstract and introduction; if the ALP fraction is lower, the projected sensitivity degrades linearly.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for axion-like particles with SPHEREx." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWODP2TT

@misc{pith2026241212286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for axion-like particles with SPHEREx},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWODP2TT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12286}
}

read the original abstract

We study prospects to detect axion-like particles (ALPs) with the upcoming near-infrared telescope SPHEREx. The signal under investigation is the ALP decay into two photons. Assuming dark matter (DM) to be in the form of ALPs, we analyze the signal from the DM halos of dwarf spheroidal galaxies, the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Milky Way. We find that SPHEREx can significantly improve current limits on the axion-photon coupling in the 0.5-3 eV ALP mass range.

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

Constraining eV-scale axion-like particle dark matter: insights from the M87 Galaxy
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Using M87's infrared-to-ultraviolet observations, the authors constrain the axion-photon coupling for eV-scale axion-like particle dark matter, claiming order-of-magnitude improvements over previous bounds at masses f...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 127

work page 1983
[2]

Abbott and P

L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invisible axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 133

work page 1983
[3]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not so harmless axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 137

1983
[4]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP conservation in the presence of instantons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440

work page 1977
[5]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1791

work page 1977
[6]

Weinberg, A New Light Boson? , Phys

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

1978
[7]

Wilczek, Problem of Strong p and t Invariance in the Presence of Instantons , Phys

F. Wilczek, Problem of Strong p and t Invariance in the Presence of Instantons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 279

work page 1978
[8]

Arias, D

P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, WISPy cold dark matter , JCAP 06 (2012) 013 [ 1201.5902]

arXiv 2012

Show all 36 references

[9]

D. Grin, G. Covone, J.-P. Kneib, M. Kamionkowski, A. Blain and E. Jullo, A Telescope Search for Decaying Relic Axions , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 105018 [ astro-ph/0611502]

2007 arXiv
[10]

Regis, M

M. Regis, M. Taoso, D. Vaz, J. Brinchmann, S. L. Zoutendijk, N. F. Bouch´ e and M. Steinmetz, Searching for light in the darkness: Bounds on ALP dark matter with the optical MUSE-faint survey, Phys. Lett. B 814 (2021) 136075 [ 2009.01310]

2021 arXiv
[11]

Todarello, M

E. Todarello, M. Regis, J. Reynoso-Cordova, M. Taoso, D. Vaz, J. Brinchmann, M. Steinmetz and S. L. Zoutendijke, Robust bounds on ALP dark matter from dwarf spheroidal galaxies in the optical MUSE-Faint survey , JCAP 05 (2024) 043 [ 2307.07403]

2024 arXiv
[12]

Wang et al., Spectroscopic search for optical emission lines from dark matter decay , Phys

H. Wang et al., Spectroscopic search for optical emission lines from dark matter decay , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 103007 [ 2311.05476]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Janish and E

R. Janish and E. Pinetti, Hunting Dark Matter Lines in the Infrared Background with the James Webb Space Telescope, 2310.15395

arXiv
[14]

Yin et al., First Result for Dark Matter Search by WINERED , 2402.07976

W. Yin et al., First Result for Dark Matter Search by WINERED , 2402.07976

arXiv
[15]

Ayala, I

A. Ayala, I. Dom ´ ınguez, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi and O. Straniero, Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from Globular Clusters , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 191302 [1406.6053]

2014 arXiv
[16]

M. J. Dolan, F. J. Hiskens and R. R. Volkas, Advancing globular cluster constraints on the axion-photon coupling, JCAP 10 (2022) 096 [ 2207.03102]

2022 arXiv
[17]

B. P. Crill et al., SPHEREx: NASA’s near-infrared spectrophotometric all-sky survey , in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave (M. Lystrup and M. D. Perrin, eds.), vol. 11443 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPI...

2020 arXiv
[18]

Dor´ e et al.,Cosmology with the SPHEREX All-Sky Spectral Survey, 1412.4872

SPHEREx Collaboration, O. Dor´ e et al.,Cosmology with the SPHEREX All-Sky Spectral Survey, 1412.4872

arXiv
[19]

SPHEREx Collaboration, O. Dor´ e et al.,Science Impacts of the SPHEREx All-Sky Optical to Near-Infrared Spectral Survey: Report of a Community Workshop Examining Extragalactic, Galactic, Stellar and Planetary Science , 1606.07039. – 8 –

arXiv
[20]

SPHEREx Collaboration, O. Dor´ e 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 , 1805.05489

arXiv
[21]

M. F. Skrutskie et al., The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) , AJ 131 (2006) 1163

2006
[22]

Creque-Sarbinowski and M

C. Creque-Sarbinowski and M. Kamionkowski, Searching for Decaying and Annihilating Dark Matter with Line Intensity Mapping , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 063524 [ 1806.11119]

2018 arXiv
[23]

J. L. Bernal, A. Caputo and M. Kamionkowski, Strategies to Detect Dark-Matter Decays with Line-Intensity Mapping, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 063523 [2012.00771]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 089901 (2022)]

2021 arXiv
[24]

Baryakhtar, J

M. Baryakhtar, J. Huang and R. Lasenby, Axion and hidden photon dark matter detection with multilayer optical haloscopes, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 035006 [ 1803.11455]

2018 arXiv
[25]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, The Structure of cold dark matter halos , Astrophys. J. 462 (1996) 563 [ astro-ph/9508025]

1996 arXiv
[26]

S. Roy, C. Blanco, C. Dessert, A. Prabhu and T. Temim, Sensitivity of JWST to eV-Scale Decaying Axion Dark Matter , 2311.04987

arXiv
[27]

E. F. Schlafly and D. P. Finkbeiner, Measuring Reddening with Sloan Digital Sky Survey Stellar Spectra and Recalibrating SFD, ApJ 737 (2011) 103 [ 1012.4804]

2011 arXiv
[28]

G´ orski, B

M. G´ orski, B. Zgirski, G. Pietrzy´ nski, W. Gieren, P. Wielg´ orski, D. Graczyk, R.-P. Kudritzki, B. Pilecki, W. Narloch, P. Karczmarek, K. Suchomska and M. Taormina, Empirical Calibration of the Reddening Maps in the Magellanic Clouds , ApJ 889 (2020) 179 [ 2001.08242]

2020 arXiv
[29]

R. M. Feder, D. C. Masters, B. Lee, J. J. Bock, Y.-K. Chiang, A. Choi, O. Dore, S. Hemmati and O. Ilbert, The Universe SPHEREx Will See: Empirically Based Galaxy Simulations and Redshift Predictions, Astrophys. J. 972 (2024) 68 [ 2312.04636]

2024 arXiv
[30]

D. Song, N. Hiroshima and K. Murase, Search for heavy dark matter from dwarf spheroidal galaxies: leveraging cascades and subhalo models , JCAP 05 (2024) 087 [ 2401.15606]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Regis et al., The EMU view of the Large Magellanic Cloud: troubles for sub-TeV WIMPs , JCAP 11 (2021) 046 [ 2106.08025]

M. Regis et al., The EMU view of the Large Magellanic Cloud: troubles for sub-TeV WIMPs , JCAP 11 (2021) 046 [ 2106.08025]

2021 arXiv
[32]

F. P. Israel, W. F. Wall, D. Raban, W. T. Reach, C. Bot, J. B. R. Oonk, N. Ysard and J. P. Bernard, Sub-millimeter to centimeter excess emission from the Magellanic Clouds. I. Global spectral energy distribution, Astron. Astrophys. 519 (2010) A67 [ 1006.2232]

2010 arXiv
[33]

Paradis, C

D. Paradis, C. M´ eny, K. Demyk, A. Noriega-Crespo and I. Ristorcelli, Toward a better understanding of the mid-infrared emission in the large magellanic cloud , A&A 674 (2023) A141

2023
[34]

Cirelli, A

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan, Dark Matter , 2406.01705

arXiv
[35]

Ou, A.-C

X. Ou, A.-C. Eilers, L. Necib and A. Frebel, The dark matter profile of the Milky Way inferred from its circular velocity curve , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528 (2024) 693 [ 2303.12838]

2024 arXiv
[36]

Scaramella et al., Euclid preparation

Euclid Collaboration, R. Scaramella et al., Euclid preparation. I. The Euclid Wide Survey , Astron. Astrophys. 662 (2022) A112 [ 2108.01201]. – 9 –

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 127

work page 1983

[2] [2]

Abbott and P

L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invisible axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 133

work page 1983

[3] [3]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not so harmless axion , Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 137

1983

[4] [4]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP conservation in the presence of instantons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440

work page 1977

[5] [5]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1791

work page 1977

[6] [6]

Weinberg, A New Light Boson? , Phys

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

1978

[7] [7]

Wilczek, Problem of Strong p and t Invariance in the Presence of Instantons , Phys

F. Wilczek, Problem of Strong p and t Invariance in the Presence of Instantons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 279

work page 1978

[8] [8]

Arias, D

P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, WISPy cold dark matter , JCAP 06 (2012) 013 [ 1201.5902]

arXiv 2012