Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

An attempt to study axion-photon coupling using compact binary systems with high Shapiro time delay

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pulsar binaries with high Shapiro delay can serve as a self-calibrating probe of axion-photon coupling, projecting limits near gaγγ ≈ 10^-10 GeV^-1.

desk verdict A genuinely new geometry for axion-photon conversion, honestly presented as a feasibility study, but the projected limits lean on unmeasured white-dwarf fields and an implicit assumption that these pulsars shine at optical energies. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19233 v1 pith:DI7Y2IPU submitted 2024-12-26 astro-ph.HE

Zhao-Yang Wang , Hao-Chen Tian , Yun-Feng Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords axion-photoncouplingaxion-likeparticlesShapirodelaypulsarbinariesmagneticwhitedwarfsphoton-axionconversionlinearpolarizationPSRJ1614-2230
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 proposes that pulsar binaries with high Shapiro delay—systems whose orbits are viewed nearly edge-on—can serve as a new laboratory for axion and axion-like particle searches. When the white-dwarf companion passes in front of the pulsar, the pulsar's radiation traverses the companion's magnetic field, and photon-to-axion conversion would slightly dim the flux and alter its linear polarization. Because the pulsar's intrinsic emission is extremely stable and observable during the rest of the orbit, the expected signal is self-calibrating. Applying this to PSR J1614-2230 and PSR J1910-5959A, the authors numerically solve the axion-photon mixing equations for a dipolar magnetic field and find projected upper limits on the coupling gaγγ around $10^{-10}$ $GeV^{-1}$ for axion masses below about 4 x $10^{-8}$ eV. These limits are weaker than existing ones, but the authors argue the method's lower systematic uncertainty makes it valuable and potentially competitive as more suitable binaries are found.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the three-state mixing of the two photon polarizations with the axion field in a background magnetic field, described by the WKB propagation equations in Eqs. (2)-(5). Only the photon component parallel to the transverse magnetic field mixes with axions, so conversion simultaneously changes intensity and linear polarization. The authors model the companion as a magnetic dipole (Eq. 7) and numerically integrate the equations along the photon path; the conversion probability pγ→a and the linear polarization degree Lp, computed from Stokes parameters, are the observable quantities. The advantage is that the source flux before entering the magnetosphere is known from the rest of the orbit.

What would settle it

Measure the surface magnetic field of the two white-dwarf companions through Zeeman-split spectral lines or spectropolarimetry: if PSR J1614-2230's companion has B_s below about 10 MG, or PSR J1910-5959A's companion shows no field at the 0.1 MG level, the predicted conversion probabilities and the projected limits in Figs. 5-6 would have to be revised downward, removing the paper's case for current value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a compact binary with a high Shapiro delay provides a clean astrophysical probe of the axion-photon interaction, because the unmodulated pulsar flux measured at other orbital phases fixes the initial intensity and polarization state of the photons that pass through the companion's magnetosphere. For the two best-known systems, the projected exclusions are gaγγ < 1.69 x $10^{-10}$ $GeV^{-1}$ (PSR J1614-2230 with B_s = 100 MG and 0.01% flux precision, ma < 4.10 x $10^{-8}$ eV) and gaγγ < 3.87 x $10^{-10}$ $GeV^{-1}$ (PSR J1910-5959A with B_s = 0.1 MG). These are weaker than the currently strongest limits (gaγγ ~ 5 x $10^{-12}$ $GeV^{-1}$), so the paper does not claim new boundaries on the axion parameter space; instead it argues that the method's reduced systematic uncertainty, rooted in the clock-like stability of millisecond pulsars, makes it a worthwhile complement, and that the reach would grow if a binary with impact parameter d <~ 4.2 x $10^{7}$ m were discovered.

Load-bearing premise

The projected limits depend on the white-dwarf companions being magnetic, with surface fields of 10-100 MG for PSR J1614-2230 (adopted from typical magnetic white dwarf values rather than measured for this star) and 0.1 MG for PSR J1910-5959A (adopted despite no Zeeman splitting being observed); if the true fields are lower, the conversion probability falls roughly as $B_s^{2}$ and the limits weaken by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 0.01% photometric precision and B_s = 100 MG, an optical observation of PSR J1614-2230 during conjunction could exclude gaγγ > 1.69 x 10^-10 GeV^-1 for ma < 4.10 x 10^-8 eV.
  • A similar observation of PSR J1910-5959A, under the 0.1 MG field assumption, could exclude gaγγ > 3.87 x 10^-10 GeV^-1 for ma < 8.21 x 10^-8 eV.
  • The absence of an intensity or polarization dip during conjunction, given the assumed field and sensitivity, would yield these exclusions; a detection of the dip would constitute evidence of axion-photon conversion.
  • The most sensitive geometry is when the magnetic axis is perpendicular to the line of sight (θ0 = π/2, ϕ0 = π/2); parallel alignment suppresses conversion because the reversing B-field converts axions back to photons.
  • To probe the currently unexcluded region near gaγγ ~ 10^-12 GeV^-1, a binary with impact parameter d <~ 4.2 x 10^7 m would be needed, corresponding to inclination i ~ 89.85°.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the self-calibrating property holds, the same method extends naturally to radio or X-ray bands, where pulsar fluxes are also stable; the peak conversion near E ~ 0.1 eV suggests optical and infrared observations are the most promising first target.
  • The requirement of a rare ultra-high-inclination binary suggests a targeted search in existing pulsar-timing datasets for previously unrecognized Shapiro delays with i > 89.5° could be a cheaper way to improve the method than building new detectors.
  • If axion conversion produces a measurable polarization dip but no intensity dip in some geometries—owing to the orientation dependence of the mixing—then polarization-only observations could double the statistical power of the probe, a possibility the paper leaves implicit.
  • The paper's quantitative reach is tied to the 1 eV photon energy; extending the calculation to the 0.1 eV peak could improve sensitivity for ma ~ 10^-8 eV, assuming detector precision can be maintained at those wavelengths.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes using pulsar binaries with high Shapiro delay (nearly edge-on orbits) as laboratories for axion-photon conversion. The authors set up the standard axion-photon mixing equations, model the companion white dwarf's dipole magnetic field along the photon path, solve the propagation equations numerically, and compute the conversion probability and induced linear polarization for PSR J1614-2230 and PSR J1910-5959A. Under assumed surface fields of 1-100 MG and 0.1 MG, respectively, and assumed photometric precision of 0.1%-0.01%, they derive projected upper limits of order g_{aγγ} ~ 10^{-10}-10^{-9} GeV^{-1}, which they acknowledge are weaker than existing constraints. They conclude that the method is still valuable because the pulsar source flux is intrinsically stable, and that future samples could strengthen constraints.

Significance. If the projected sensitivity could be realized, the method would add a new astrophysical channel for axion searches with a well-controlled baseline: the pulsar's stable flux and polarization would reduce the systematic uncertainty that plagues other astrophysical conversion searches. A concrete strength is that the paper is honest about the negative result and states explicitly that no real data are used and the limits are weaker than current ones. It also uses standard, well-established propagation equations and clearly lists its assumptions. However, the quantitative value of the forecast is contingent on several unconstrained inputs, and as it stands the paper is a feasibility study rather than a robust sensitivity projection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. III A and III B, Figs. 5-6] The projected limits are computed for B_s = 10-100 MG (J1614-2230) and B_s = 0.1 MG (J1910-5959A), but for neither source is the companion's surface field measured. For J1910-5959A the paper itself notes the absence of Zeeman splitting and adopts 0.1 MG only as a value below 1 MG. Since p_{γ→a} ∝ B_s^2 (shown in Fig. 3 and stated near it), an actual B_s of order kG instead of 100 MG would shift the accessible g_{aγγ} upward by roughly 10^5, removing the method from near-term reach. The quantitative claims should therefore be recast as scaling relations in B_s or as conditional limits that await an observational determination of B_s.
  2. [Secs. II B and III A, Fig. 5] The forecast assumes an optical (1 eV) pulsar signal that is initially natural light and that the source flux is stable enough to identify intensity variations of 10^{-3}-10^{-4}. The manuscript does not establish that either target has a detectable 1 eV pulsed flux with the required stability and a known intrinsic polarization state; J1614-2230 and J1910-5959A are radio millisecond pulsars, and no optical pulsed detection is cited. Since the central claimed advantage is the well-determined intrinsic source state, the paper should either identify a concrete observing band and source for which this holds or explicitly label the calculation as an idealized sensitivity estimate.
  3. [Sec. III A, Figs. 5-6] The detection thresholds p_{γ→a} > 0.1% and p_{γ→a} > 0.01% are assumed without reference to a concrete instrument, exposure time, or systematic error budget. Because the quoted limits such as g_{aγγ} < 1.69×10^{-10} GeV^{-1} scale approximately as the square root of the assumed threshold, the headline numbers are directly set by an arbitrary precision assumption. The authors should either tie the threshold to a realistic observing configuration or state unambiguously that every quoted limit is conditional on that assumed precision.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The phrase 'weaker then existing constraints' should read 'weaker than existing constraints'.
  2. [Sec. III B and Fig. 6] The inequality signs are reversed in the quoted exclusion: the upper limit should be g_{aγγ} < 3.87×10^{-10} GeV^{-1} and the mass range should be m_a < 8.21×10^{-8} eV, not '>' as printed.
  3. [Figs. 5 and 6] The legend entry 'ABRADCADABRA' is a typo for 'ABRADABRA'.
  4. [Sec. III A] The text contains several grammatical slips: 'substituating' should be 'substituting', and 'the photons is brought' should be 'the photons are brought'.
  5. [Sec. III A, paragraph on energy dependence] The explanation of the low- and high-energy suppression of p_{γ→a} is compressed; a sentence clarifying which terms dominate in each limit, and that the low-energy cutoff is set by the axion mass rather than by plasma effects, would help the reader.
  6. [Eq. (7)] The notation B(r,m) should use bold vector symbols for the field and unit vectors, for consistency with the coordinate description in Fig. 1 and the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the projected limits are forward-modeled from the standard axion-photon mixing equations with explicitly stated assumptions, not fitted to data or derived from a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central product is a set of expected sensitivity curves (Figs. 5 and 6) computed by inserting assumed binary parameters, assumed white-dwarf surface magnetic fields, and assumed detector precisions into the standard axion-photon mixing equations (Eqs. 2-5). No quantity is fitted to the data that the curves purport to constrain; the paper explicitly states that 'this work does not use real data to place constraints but only discuss the possible probe/exclusion capability.' The magnetic-field values for PSR J1614-2230 are taken from Ferrario et al.'s typical magnetic-white-dwarf values, and the value for PSR J1910-5959A is an upper-limit-motivated assumption based on the absence of Zeeman splitting; these are inputs, not outputs, and the paper does not disguise them as measurements. The choice of the maximizing magnetic-axis angle is a transparent sensitivity choice derived from the same model, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation (Ref. [28]) appears in a general list of gamma-ray axion constraints and is not load-bearing for the derivation. The skeptical concern that the projected limits scale as B_s^2 with B_s unmeasured is a legitimate assumption-sensitivity issue, but it is not circularity: the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction, and the claim is explicitly framed as a feasibility study. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on four hand-chosen input parameters (two WD field strengths, one orientation, one sensitivity threshold) that are not measured for the specific sources. The physical framework itself uses standard axion-photon mixing and dipole field axioms. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • WD surface magnetic field B_s for PSR J1614-2230 = 10 MG and 100 MG (also 1 MG in Fig. 3)
    Chosen as typical MWD values from Ferrario et al. [49]; no measurement for this source is cited, and the paper does not note whether this WD is actually magnetic.
  • WD surface magnetic field B_s for PSR J1910-5959A = 0.1 MG
    Assumed despite no Zeeman splitting in the spectrum; upper bound from Euchner et al. is <1 MG, so the choice is at the boundary of the allowed range.
  • Magnetic axis angles θ0, φ0 = θ0 = π/2, φ0 = π/2
    Set to the orientation that maximizes conversion probability; not constrained by observations for either source.
  • Detector sensitivity threshold = 0.1% and 0.01% (10^-3 and 10^-4)
    Assumed values for a feasibility analysis; no specific instrument is identified for the optical (1 eV) band.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Axion-photon mixing equations from Raffelt-Stodolsky, including Euler-Heisenberg term, are correct and applicable in the WKB regime.
    Used to derive Eq. (2) and Eq. (4); assumes magnetic field scale larger than photon wavelength.
  • domain assumption The companion's magnetic field is a pure dipole field, with multipole contributions negligible at the photon impact parameter.
    Stated in Sec II B; valid if the impact parameter is > 10 WD radii, which holds for the two systems.
  • domain assumption Initially unpolarized natural light for the pulsar emission.
    Adopted for the calculations; real pulsar optical/radio emission is often significantly polarized, which would change the conversion probability and polarization evolution.
  • domain assumption Plasma effects on the mixing are negligible.
    Based on interstellar electron density ne ~ 0.1 cm^-3; relevant only if the line of sight is inside a stellar wind or magnetosphere, which is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Gravitational light deflection by the WD is negligible.
    Deflection angle ~10^-5 rad, so the path can be treated as a straight line; stated in Sec III.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An attempt to study axion-photon coupling using compact binary systems with high Shapiro time delay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DI7Y2IPU

@misc{pith2026241219233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An attempt to study axion-photon coupling using compact binary systems with high Shapiro time delay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DI7Y2IPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19233}
}
read the original abstract

We study the axion-photon conversion process in pulsar binary systems with high Shapiro time delay. In these binary systems, the orbital plane is nearly parallel to the line of sight. When the companion star is positioned between the pulsar and the Earth, the pulsar radiation beam will pass through the companion's magnetic field, potentially leading to axion-photon conversion that affects the intensity and linear polarization of the photons. The advantage of using such systems for axion or axion-like particle (ALP) research is that the intrinsic intensity and polarization state of the source photons can be well determined. This work analyzes the axion-photon conversion and the magnetic field along the photon path, establishing the corresponding model and solving it numerically. We choose PSR J1614-2230 and PSR J1910-5959A for our study. By assuming the companion's magnetic field, magnetic axis angle, and detector sensitivity, we discuss the feasibility of using high Shapiro delay binary systems to constrain the axion/ALP parameter space. We find that the upper limits derived from these two sources are weaker then existing constraints. However, considering the higher reliability, the method proposed in this work is still valuable. As more suitable samples and richer observational results are discovered, further constraints on the axion parameters could be strengthened.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The coordinate system used in this work. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The photon-to-axion conversion probability (left panel) and linear polarization degree (right panel) for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. In the PSR J1614-2230 binary system, with the mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Expected limits on axion parameter space that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Similar to Fig. 5 but for the source PSR J1910- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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, 279 (1978)

    1978

  2. [2]

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

    work page 1977

  3. [3]

    R. D. Peccei and Helen R. Quinn, Constraints imposed by CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions in string theory, Journal of High Energy Physics 2006, 051 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Jaeckel et al., Axion dark matter (2023), arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]

    J. Jaeckel et al., Axion dark matter (2023), arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Preskill, M

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

    1983

  8. [8]

    Abbott and P

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

    work page 1983

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    David J. E. Marsh, Axiverse extended: Vacuum desta- bilization, early dark energy, and cosmological collapse, Phys. Rev. D 83, 123526 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    W. Chao, M. Jin, H.-J. Li, Y.-Q. Peng, and Y. Wang, Ax- ionlike dark matter from the type-ii seesaw mechanism, Phys. Rev. D 109, 115027 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Baryakhtar, M

    M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, R. Lasenby, and O. Simon, Black hole superradiance of self-interacting scalar fields, Phys. Rev. D 103, 095019 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Klaus Ehret et al., New alps results on hidden-sector lightweights, Physics Letters B 689, 149 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    R B¨ ahre et al., Any light particle search ii — technical design report, Journal of Instrumentation8 (09), T09001

  6. [14]

    CAST Collaboration et al., A new upper limit on the axion-photon coupling with an extended CAST run with a Xe-based Micromegas detector, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.16840 (2024), arXiv:2406.16840 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Anastassopoulos et al., New CAST limit on the axion-photon interaction, Nature Physics 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    V. Anastassopoulos et al., New CAST limit on the axion-photon interaction, Nature Physics 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    et al., Search for low-mass axion dark matter with abracadabra-10 cm, Phys

    Salemi, Chiara P. et al., Search for low-mass axion dark matter with abracadabra-10 cm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 081801 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Pandey, E

    S. Pandey, E. D. Hall, and M. Evans, First results from the axion dark-matter birefringent cavity (adbc) experi- ment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111003 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    A. V. Gramolin, D. Aybas, D. Johnson, J. Adam, and A. O. Sushkov, Search for axion-like dark mat- ter with ferromagnets, Nature Physics 17, 79 (2021), arXiv:2003.03348 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi, and J. Thaler, Broadband and Resonant Approaches to Axion Dark Matter Detection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 141801 (2016), arXiv:1602.01086 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Braine et al., Extended Search for the Invisible Ax- ion with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment, Phys

    T. Braine et al., Extended Search for the Invisible Ax- ion with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 101303 (2020), arXiv:1910.08638 [hep-ex]. 8

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Braine et al., Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter in the 3.3 -4.2 µ eV Mass Range, Phys

    T. Braine et al., Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter in the 3.3 -4.2 µ eV Mass Range, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261803 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Gill and J

    R. Gill and J. S. Heyl, Constraining the photon- axion coupling constant with magnetic white dwarfs, Phys. Rev. D 84, 085001 (2011), arXiv:1105.2083 [astro- ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dessert, D

    C. Dessert, D. Dunsky, and B. R. Safdi, Upper limit on the axion-photon coupling from magnetic white dwarf polarization, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103034 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Dessert, A

    C. Dessert, A. J. Long, and B. R. Safdi, No Evidence for Axions from Chandra Observation of the Magnetic White Dwarf RE J0317-853, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 071102 (2022), arXiv:2104.12772 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dessert, A

    C. Dessert, A. J. Long, and B. R. Safdi, X-ray signatures of axion conversion in magnetic white dwarf stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 061104 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    (The Fermi-LAT Col- laboration), Search for spectral irregularities due to photon–axionlike-particle oscillations with the fermi large area telescope, Phys

    FERMI-LAT Collaboration et al. (The Fermi-LAT Col- laboration), Search for spectral irregularities due to photon–axionlike-particle oscillations with the fermi large area telescope, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 161101 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Davies, M

    J. Davies, M. Meyer, and G. Cotter, Constraints on ax- ionlike particles from a combined analysis of three flaring f ermiflat-spectrum radio quasars, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083027 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Cheng, Y.-J

    J.-G. Cheng, Y.-J. He, Y.-F. Liang, R.-J. Lu, and E.-W. Liang, Revisiting the analysis of axion-like particles with the Fermi-LAT gamma-ray observation of NGC1275, Physics Letters B 821, 136611 (2021), arXiv:2010.12396 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Abe et al., Constraints on axion-like particles with the Perseus Galaxy Cluster with MAGIC, Physics of the Dark Universe 44, 101425 (2024), arXiv:2401.07798 [astro-ph.HE]

    H. Abe et al., Constraints on axion-like particles with the Perseus Galaxy Cluster with MAGIC, Physics of the Dark Universe 44, 101425 (2024), arXiv:2401.07798 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  22. [30]

    Noordhuis, A

    D. Noordhuis, A. Prabhu, S. J. Witte, A. Y. Chen, F. Cruz, and C. Weniger, Novel Constraints on Axions Produced in Pulsar Polar-Cap Cascades, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 111004 (2023), arXiv:2209.09917 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wang, X.-J

    J.-W. Wang, X.-J. Bi, R.-M. Yao, and P.-F. Yin, Explor- ing axion dark matter through radio signals from mag- netic white dwarf stars, Phys. Rev. D103, 115021 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    X.-J. Bi, Y. Gao, J.-G. Guo, N. Houston, T.-J. Li, F.-Z. Xu, and X. Zhang, Axion and dark photon limits from crab nebula high-energy gamma rays, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043018 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Li, J.-G

    H.-J. Li, J.-G. Guo, X.-J. Bi, S.-J. Lin, and P.-F. Yin, Limits on axionlike particles from mrk 421 with 4.5-year period observations by argo-ybj and fermi-lat, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083003 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Li, X.-J

    H.-J. Li, X.-J. Bi, and P.-F. Yin, Searching for axion- like particles with the blazar observations of magic and fermi-lat *, Chinese Physics C 46, 085105 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Li and W

    H.-J. Li and W. Chao, Axion effects on gamma-ray spec- tral irregularities with agn redshift uncertainty, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063031 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    H.-J. Li, W. Chao, and Y.-F. Zhou, Upper limit on the axion-photon coupling from Markarian 421, Physics Let- ters B 858, 139075 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    H.-J. Li, W. Chao, and Y.-F. Zhou, Axion limits from the 10-year gamma-ray emission 1es 1215+303, Physics Letters B 850, 138531 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Gao, X.-J

    L.-Q. Gao, X.-J. Bi, J. Li, and P.-F. Yin, Impact of pa- rameters in the blazar jet magnetic field model on axion- like particle constraints (2024), arXiv:2407.20118 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    B. A. Jacoby, A. W. Hotan, M. Bailes, S. M. Ord, and S. R. Kulkarni, The Mass of a Millisecond Pul- sar, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 207 (2005) p. 183.03

    2005

  32. [40]

    P¨ ossel, The Shapiro time delay and the equiva- lence principle, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2001.00229 (2019), arXiv:2001.00229 [gr-qc]

    M. P¨ ossel, The Shapiro time delay and the equiva- lence principle, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2001.00229 (2019), arXiv:2001.00229 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. P. W. Verbiest et al., Precision Timing of PSR J0437-4715: An Accurate Pulsar Distance, a High Pul- sar Mass, and a Limit on the Variation of Newton’s Gravitational Constant, Astrophys. J. 679, 675 (2008), arXiv:0801.2589 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  35. [43]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Consequences of dirac theory of the positron (2006), arXiv:physics/0605038 [physics.hist-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations, arXiv e-prints , astro-ph/0207156 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207156 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, A two-solar-mass neutron star measured using Shapiro delay, Nature (London)467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    NANOGrav Collaboration et al., The nanograv 15 yr data set: Observations and timing of 68 millisecond pul- sars, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951, L9 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    M. Shamohammadi et al., Searches for Shapiro delay in seven binary pulsars using the MeerKAT telescope, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 520, 1789 (2023), arXiv:2212.04051 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Nauenberg, Analytic Approximations to the Mass- Radius Relation and Energy of Zero-Temperature Stars, Astrophys

    M. Nauenberg, Analytic Approximations to the Mass- Radius Relation and Energy of Zero-Temperature Stars, Astrophys. J. 175, 417 (1972)

    1972

  41. [49]

    Ferrario, Lilia, de Martino, Domitilla, and G¨ ansicke, Boris T., Magnetic white dwarfs, Space Science Reviews 191, 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 (2015)

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits, https:// cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/ (2020)

    C. O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits, https:// cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/ (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Corongiu et al., Psr j1910–5959a: A rare gravitational laboratory for testing white dwarf models, A&A 671, A72 (2023)

    A. Corongiu et al., Psr j1910–5959a: A rare gravitational laboratory for testing white dwarf models, A&A 671, A72 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    C. G. Bassa, M. H. van Kerkwijk, D. Koester, and F. Ver- bunt, The masses of PSR J1911-5958A and its white dwarf companion, A&A 456, 295 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0603267 [astro-ph]

    2006

  45. [53]

    A. G. Istrate, P. Marchant, T. M. Tauris, N. Langer, R. J. Stancliffe, and L. Grassitelli, Models of low-mass he- lium white dwarfs including gravitational settling, ther- mal and chemical diffusion, and rotational mixing, A&A 595, A35 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Euchner, S

    F. Euchner, S. Jordan, K. Beuermann, B. T. G¨ ansicke, and F. V. Hessman, Zeeman tomography of magnetic white dwarfs. I. Reconstruction of the field geometry from synthetic spectra, A&A 390, 633 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0205294 [astro-ph]

    2002

  47. [55]

    H. T. Cromartie et al., Relativistic Shapiro delay mea- surements of an extremely massive millisecond pulsar, Nature Astronomy 4, 72 (2020), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gautam et al., Detection of the relativistic Shapiro 9 delay in a highly inclined millisecond pulsar binary PSR J1012 −4235, A&A 682, A103 (2024), arXiv:2311.13563 [astro-ph.HE]

    T. Gautam et al., Detection of the relativistic Shapiro 9 delay in a highly inclined millisecond pulsar binary PSR J1012 −4235, A&A 682, A103 (2024), arXiv:2311.13563 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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