Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Axion-like Particle Conversion in the Solar Magnetic Field

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Sun's magnetic field acts as a natural axion-to-photon converter, and NuSTAR's seven-hour solar-minimum observation has produced new limits on the ALP-photon coupling that surpass current and some future laboratory experiments.

desk verdict A faithful proceedings summary of two already-published solar ALP papers; no new results, but a sound, transparent overview. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15960 v1 pith:DTJAFER3 submitted 2025-01-27 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Elisa Todarello This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords axion-likeparticlesALP-photonconversionsolaratmospheremagneticfieldNuSTARdarkmatteraxionsX-rayboundsradiotelescopes
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 report describes two companion studies of the Sun as an axion-like-particle (ALP) converter. Its central claim is that ALPs interacting with the solar magnetic field become photons: dark-matter ALPs would produce a narrow radio line, while ALPs produced in the solar core would produce X-rays. It reports that NuSTAR's seven-hour X-ray observation of the solar disc during the 2020 solar minimum yields new limits on the ALP-photon coupling $g$ that surpass current and some future laboratory limits. The paper argues that the Sun's proximity and well-characterized atmosphere keep the systematic uncertainty below 30 percent, making this an unusually reliable astrophysical bound. If the claim is right, the Sun serves as a natural helioscope, complementing laboratory searches.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conversion probability in Eq. (2): $$P_{a\to\gamma}(h) = \frac{1}{4}$g^{2}$\frac{1}{v(h)}\left|\int^h dh'\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{n(h')}}B_\perp(h') $e^{{i\int^{h'}}$ dh''\, q(h'')}\right|^2.$$ The phase $q = k - k_a = n\omega - \sqrt{\omega^2 - m^2}$ controls interference, and resonant conversion occurs where the plasma frequency equals the ALP mass, $\omega_p = m$. The paper feeds into this formula the perpendicular component of the magnetic field from two magnetohydrodynamic simulations, one for the chromosphere and one for the corona, interpolated between the models' regions of validity, and checks the coronal field against a potential-field source-surface model for the observation day. For the radio case, free-free and gyro-resonance absorption are added to determine which photon trajectories escape the Sun.

What would settle it

Recompute the NuSTAR bound using a coronal magnetic-field model anchored to magnetograms from February 21, 2020, rather than the July 2019 eclipse configuration; if the resulting upper limit on $g$ moves by more than the claimed 30 percent systematic uncertainty, the central modeling assumption fails. A direct check would also come from coronal magnetometry resolving the perpendicular field at the conversion heights: a measured field half the model value would double the derived limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, in its own terms, is that axion-like particles convert into photons in the Sun's magnetic field with a probability given by the line-of-sight integral of the perpendicular magnetic field, and that this conversion is resonantly enhanced where the plasma frequency equals the ALP mass. For dark-matter ALPs this predicts a narrow radio line, and for ALPs produced in the solar core it predicts an X-ray flux from the center of the solar disc. Using the NuSTAR observation from February 21, 2020, the reported analysis sets 95% confidence upper limits on $g$ over a large mass range, limits that are more restrictive than current CAST results and some future laboratory projections. The report also presents a forecast for radio telescopes, with sunspots serving as the most sensitive conversion sites once gyro-resonance absorption is taken into account.

Load-bearing premise

The bound rests on the assumption that the magnetohydrodynamic models of the chromospheric and coronal magnetic field accurately reproduce the Sun's field along the ALP trajectories on the day of the NuSTAR observation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The NuSTAR bound on $g$ is stronger than the current CAST limit across the relevant mass range, so a single solar observation achieves what a laboratory helioscope has not yet reached.
  • Dark-matter ALPs would appear as a narrow radio line with width $\sim 10^{-6}\,m$; with 100 hours of SKA-1 Low observations, sunspot targets could reach couplings below current haloscope bounds.
  • The same formalism predicts that solar ALP production yields a central X-ray excess above the quiet-Sun background, which is the signature the NuSTAR data exclude.
  • Because the total systematic uncertainty is below 30 percent and is dominated by the magnetic field, improving solar field models would directly sharpen the derived limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the NuSTAR observation was taken at solar minimum; applying the same analysis to active-phase data, with their much stronger magnetic fields, could either detect a signal or improve the bound once flare background is modeled.
  • The radio forecast suggests a novel observational program: monitoring individual sunspots as they rotate across the solar disc would produce a time-modulated axion signal whose period is set by solar rotation, a testable extension not discussed in the paper.
  • If the magnetohydrodynamic field models are replaced by magnetogram-driven reconstructions for each observation date, archived NuSTAR solar data from other epochs could be re-analyzed to produce independent ALP limits.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This is a proceedings contribution from the COSMIC WISPers conference. It summarizes two recent studies of axion-like particle (ALP) conversion in the solar magnetic field: one on dark-matter ALPs converting to radio photons in the solar corona (Ref. [1]) and one on solar-core ALPs converting to X-rays in the solar atmosphere, analyzed with NuSTAR data (Ref. [2]). The paper starts with the standard ALP-photon conversion formalism (Section 2), describes the relevant solar atmospheric layers (Section 3), then outlines the dark-matter ALP signal and SKA-1 sensitivity forecast (Section 4) and the NuSTAR solar-ALP bound with its systematic uncertainties (Section 5). The central quantitative claim, taken from Ref. [2], is that NuSTAR observations during the 2020 solar minimum yield new limits on the ALP-photon coupling g that surpass current and some future laboratory bounds, with a total systematic uncertainty below 30%.

Significance. If the results summarized from Ref. [2] are correct, the NuSTAR-based limit represents a notable improvement in ALP-photon sensitivity in the mass range shown in Figure 2, exceeding existing helioscope and some astrophysical constraints. The paper provides a clear and accurate presentation of the conversion formalism and of the solar modeling needed for the calculation, and the figures are informative. The paper's own contribution is as a review: it does not derive any new bound, but rather transmits results from the author's related work. As a concise introduction for nonspecialists and proceedings participants, it is useful; as a standalone research paper, its novelty is limited.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5] The paper's central quantitative claim that the total systematic uncertainty on the NuSTAR bound is 'less than 30%' is stated without any derivation or error budget. Since this claim is load-bearing for the characterization of the bound as 'robust', the manuscript should either provide a breakdown of the uncertainty contributions (magnetic field, solar ALP flux, X-ray background) and how they are combined, or state explicitly that this estimate is taken from Ref. [2] and cite the relevant section or equation there.
  2. [Section 5] The consistency check with the PFSS model is invoked to support using a July 2019 eclipse-time MHD coronal model for NuSTAR observations taken on February 21, 2020. PFSS is a potential-field extrapolation and does not constrain the non-potential, current-carrying component of B_perp or the plasma density profile, both of which directly affect the conversion probability in Eq. (2) (B_perp quadratically, and n_e through the phase q(h)). The claim of 'excellent agreement' is not quantified, and it is not shown that the agreement extends to the conversion-relevant heights and field components. The authors should quantify the comparison (e.g., the maximum fractional difference in B_perp between the MHD and PFSS maps at the relevant heights) and explicitly state that the PFSS comparison validates only the large-scale magnetic connectivity, with the residual small-scale uncertainty included in the 30% estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The conversion probability formula is stated without specifying its regime of validity; it would help to note that v(h) and n(h) are assumed to vary slowly over the coherence length, or to point to the original derivation for the precise assumptions.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The dashed line is labeled 'sunspot 4 G'; a sunspot magnetic field of 4 G is unrealistically weak, as typical sunspot fields are hundreds of gauss to kilogauss. Please check whether the intended value is 4 kG or a different characterization (e.g., a plage region).
  3. [Acknowledgements] The text 'ETissupported' is missing a space; it should read 'ET is supported'.
  4. [References] Several references are incomplete (e.g., [12], [13], [19], [20] lack page numbers or full titles). A consistent reference style would improve the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this proceedings paper summarizes results from Refs. [1] and [2] without re-deriving them, and the underlying NuSTAR bound rests on external observations and independent MHD modeling.

full rationale

The manuscript is a conference proceedings report on two prior studies; it contains no derivation that reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs. The strongest claim—that Ref. [2] derives NuSTAR bounds on the ALP-photon coupling—is explicitly attributed to that separate analysis, which uses external NuSTAR data, solar ALP flux calculations, and independent MHD simulations (Rempel 2014; Mikić et al. 2018). Eq. (2) is a standard conversion formula cited from the literature, not a fitted result. The PFSS comparison described in Section 5 is presented as a cross-check of the coronal model, not as the source of the bound. Although the author is a co-author of Ref. [1] and acknowledges collaborators of Ref. [2], this self-citation is not load-bearing in the sense of substituting for evidence: the bounds and sensitivities are externally falsifiable and are not constructed from the conclusions of the present paper. No circular step can be quoted, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The review introduces no new free parameters, but the forecast sensitivity curves in Fig. 1 depend on chosen magnetic field strengths, conversion surface radius, and the k=4 gyro-resonance cutoff. The physical assumptions are the standard ALP-photon interaction, the weakly magnetized plasma dispersion, and the fidelity of the MHD solar magnetic field models. ALPs themselves are hypothetical but not invented by this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • Quiet Sun coronal magnetic field strength = 1 G
    Used for the dotted sensitivity curve in Fig. 1; an assumed typical quiet-Sun value.
  • Sunspot magnetic field strength (moderate) = 4 G
    Used for the dashed sensitivity curve in Fig. 1; chosen to represent a modest sunspot field.
  • Sunspot magnetic field strength (maximum) = Not specified (limited by gyro-resonance condition)
    Used for the solid sensitivity curve; the maximum field allowed by the condition omega_p > k Omega_B with k=4.
  • Conversion surface radius above sunspot = 4e4 km
    Assumed radius of the conversion region above a sunspot, affecting the solid forecast line in Fig. 1.
  • Gyro-resonance harmonic cutoff = k = 4
    Chosen as the maximum harmonic at which gyro-resonance absorption is significant; affects which ALP masses are absorbed above sunspots.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ALP-photon interaction Lagrangian L = g a E·B (Eq. 1) is the only interaction responsible for conversion.
    Assumes ALPs couple to photons only through this effective operator; standard for ALP searches but an assumption about new physics.
  • domain assumption The solar atmosphere is weakly magnetized, so the index of refraction is n = sqrt(omega^2 - omega_p^2)/omega.
    Invoked in Section 2 to derive the phase mismatch q and the resonance condition; fails in strong-field regions where QED or cyclotron effects matter.
  • standard math The conversion probability formula (Eq. 2) from references [8,9] is valid in the solar atmosphere.
    Taken from published literature; assumes collinear propagation and a static background, which the paper does not re-derive.
  • domain assumption MHD simulations of the chromosphere (Rempel 2014) and corona (Mikić et al. 2018) accurately describe the solar magnetic field during the observation.
    Used in Section 5 to compute the perpendicular magnetic field entering the conversion probability; interpolation between the two models and extrapolation to the observation date are assumptions.
  • domain assumption The dark matter density rho at the conversion location in the solar corona is known.
    Enters Eq. (5) for the DM ALP radio signal; the local DM density and its distribution near the Sun are uncertain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axion-like Particle Conversion in the Solar Magnetic Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DTJAFER3

@misc{pith2026250115960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axion-like Particle Conversion in the Solar Magnetic Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DTJAFER3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15960}
}
read the original abstract

Axion-like particles (ALPs), hypothetical extensions of the Standard Model, can convert into photons in an external magnetic field. Two recent studies~\cite{Todarello:2023ptf, Ruz:2024gkl} explored the phenomenology of ALP-photon conversion in the magnetic field of the solar atmosphere. Dark matter ALPs convert into radio photons and may be detected with next-generation radio interferometers, while ALPs produced in the solar core convert into X-rays. Thanks to solar observation acquired with the NuSTAR X-ray telescope, Ref.~\cite{Ruz:2024gkl} establishes stringent robust bounds on the ALP-photon coupling over a large portion of parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15960 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected sensitivity on the ALP-photon coupling 𝑔 versus ALP mass 𝑚, assuming 100 hours of observations with SKA-1 Low. The solid line represents the sensitivity for observing a sunspot with the maximum magnetic field allowed by the gyro-resonance absorption condition 𝜔𝑝 > 𝑛Ω𝐵 at the conversion location, with 𝑘 = 4 (see [1] for more details). The radius of the conversion surface above the sunspot is assumed to be ℓ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NuSTAR’s 95% CL upper limit on the axion–photon coupling strength 𝑔 from [2] (blue region). Bounds from haloscopes [12, 18–45] are shown in dark red while the CAST helioscope constraint [46–51] is in light red. Sensitivity projections for future experiments [52–55] are also shown. Figure adapted from [2]. 5. Conversion of Solar Axions Solar ALPs produced in the core travel outward and interact with the magnetic fiel… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Todarello, M

    E. Todarello, M. Regis, M. Taoso, M. Giannotti, J. Ruz and J.K. Vogel,The Sun as a target for axion dark matter detection,Phys. Lett. B854 (2024) 138752 [2312.13984]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Ruz et al.,NuSTAR as an Axion Helioscope, 2407.03828

    J. Ruz et al.,NuSTAR as an Axion Helioscope, 2407.03828

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn,CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    Peccei and H.R

    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

  5. [5]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?, Phys

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

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    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]. 6 Axion-like Particle Conversion in the Solar Magnetic Field

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Leroy, M

    M. Leroy, M. Chianese, T.D.P. Edwards and C. Weniger,Radio Signal of Axion-Photon Conversion in Neutron Stars: A Ray Tracing Analysis, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 123003 [1912.08815]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Sikivie,Invisible Axion Search Methods, Rev

    P. Sikivie,Invisible Axion Search Methods, Rev. Mod. Phys.93 (2021) 015004 [2003.02206]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Wedemeyer-Bohm, A

    S. Wedemeyer-Bohm, A. Lagg and A. Nordlund,Coupling from the photosphere to the chromosphere and the corona,Space Sci. Rev.144 (2009) 317 [0809.0987]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Arregui and T

    I. Arregui and T. Van Doorsselaere,Coronal heating, arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2409.13318 [2409.13318]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Asztalos, G

    S.J. Asztalos, G. Carosi, C. Hagmann, D. Kinion, K. van Bibber, M. Hotz et al.,Squid-based microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions, Physical Review Letters104(2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    New cast limit on the axion–photon interaction, Nature Physics13(2017) 584–590

    2017

  6. [14]

    Dolan, F.J

    M.J. Dolan, F.J. Hiskens and R.R. Volkas,Advancing globular cluster constraints on the axion-photon coupling,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022 (2022) 096

    2022

  7. [16]

    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, 2023

    2023

  8. [17]

    Braun, A

    R. Braun, A. Bonaldi, T. Bourke, E. Keane and J. Wagg,Anticipated Performance of the Square Kilometre Array – Phase 1 (SKA1), arXiv e-prints(2019) arXiv:1912.12699 [1912.12699]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [18]

    N. Du, N. Force, R. Khatiwada, E. Lentz, R. Ottens, L.J. Rosenberg et al.,Search for invisible axion dark matter with the axion dark matter experiment, Physical Review Letters 120 (2018)

    2018

  10. [19]

    Braine, R

    T. Braine, R. Cervantes, N. Crisosto, N. Du, S. Kimes, L.J. Rosenberg et al.,Extended search for the invisible axion with the axion dark matter experiment, Physical Review Letters124 (2020)

    2020

  11. [20]

    ADMX collaboration,Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter in the 3.3–4.2𝜇eV Mass Range,Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 261803 [2110.06096]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Boutan, M

    C. Boutan, M. Jones, B.H. LaRoque, N.S. Oblath, R. Cervantes, N. Du et al., Piezoelectrically tuned multimode cavity search for axion dark matter,Physical Review Letters 121 (2018)

    2018

  13. [22]

    Bartram, T

    C. Bartram, T. Braine, R. Cervantes, N. Crisosto, N. Du, G. Leum et al.,Dark matter axion search using a josephson traveling wave parametric amplifier, Review of Scientific Instruments 94(2023) . 7 Axion-like Particle Conversion in the Solar Magnetic Field

    2023

  14. [23]

    Hagmann, P

    C. Hagmann, P. Sikivie, N.S. Sullivan and D.B. Tanner,Results from a search for cosmic axions,Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 1297

    1990

  15. [24]

    Zhong, S

    L. Zhong, S. Al Kenany, K.M. Backes, B.M. Brubaker, S.B. Cahn, G. Carosi et al.,Results from phase 1 of the haystac microwave cavity axion experiment,Physical Review D97 (2018)

    2018

  16. [25]

    Backes, D.A

    K.M. Backes, D.A. Palken, S.A. Kenany, B.M. Brubaker, S.B. Cahn, A. Droster et al.,A quantum enhanced search for dark matter axions, Nature 590 (2021) 238–242

    2021

  17. [26]

    Collaboration, M.J

    H. Collaboration, M.J. Jewell, A.F. Leder, K.M. Backes, X. Bai, K. van Bibber et al.,New results from haystac’s phase ii operation with a squeezed state receiver, 2023

    2023

  18. [27]

    S. Lee, S. Ahn, J. Choi, B.R. Ko and Y.K. Semertzidis,Axion Dark Matter Search around 6.7𝜇eV, Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020) 101802 [2001.05102]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Jeong, S

    J. Jeong, S. Youn, S. Bae, J. Kim, T. Seong, J.E. Kim et al.,Search for invisible axion dark matter with a multiple-cell haloscope, Physical Review Letters125 (2020)

    2020

  20. [29]

    CAPPcollaboration, First Results from an Axion Haloscope at CAPP around 10.7𝜇eV, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 191802 [2012.10764]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Y. Lee, B. Yang, H. Yoon, M. Ahn, H. Park, B. Min et al.,Searching for invisible axion dark matter with an 18 t magnet haloscope,Physical Review Letters128 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    Kim et al.,Near-Quantum-Noise Axion Dark Matter Search at CAPP around 9.5𝜇eV, Phys

    J. Kim et al.,Near-Quantum-Noise Axion Dark Matter Search at CAPP around 9.5𝜇eV, Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) 091602 [2207.13597]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Yi et al.,Axion Dark Matter Search around 4.55𝜇eV with Dine-Fischler-Srednicki-Zhitnitskii Sensitivity, Phys

    A.K. Yi et al.,Axion Dark Matter Search around 4.55𝜇eV with Dine-Fischler-Srednicki-Zhitnitskii Sensitivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) 071002 [2210.10961]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [33]

    B. Yang, H. Yoon, M. Ahn, Y. Lee and J. Yoo,Extended axion dark matter search using the capp18t haloscope,Physical Review Letters131 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    Y. Kim, J. Jeong, S. Youn, S. Bae, K. Lee, A.F. van Loo et al.,Experimental search for invisible axions as a test of axion cosmology around 22 uev, 2023

    2023

  26. [35]

    S. Ahn, J. Kim, B.I. Ivanov, O. Kwon, H. Byun, A.F. van Loo et al.,Extensive search for axion dark matter over 1ghz with capp’s main axion experiment, 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    Quiskamp, B.T

    A. Quiskamp, B.T. McAllister, P. Altin, E.N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev and M.E. Tobar,Direct search for dark matter axions excluding alp cogenesis in the 63- to 67-𝜇ev range with the organ experiment,Science Advances8 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    Quiskamp, B.T

    A. Quiskamp, B.T. McAllister, P. Altin, E.N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev and M.E. Tobar, Exclusion of alp cogenesis dark matter in a mass window above 100𝜇ev, 2023. 8 Axion-like Particle Conversion in the Solar Magnetic Field

    2023

  29. [38]

    McAllister, G

    B.T. McAllister, G. Flower, E.N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill and M.E. Tobar,The organexperiment: Anaxionhaloscopeabove15ghz ,PhysicsoftheDarkUniverse 18(2017) 67–72

    2017

  30. [39]

    Alesini, C

    D. Alesini, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, N. Crescini, D. D’Agostino, D. Di Gioacchino et al., Galacticaxionssearchwithasuperconductingresonantcavity ,PhysicalReviewD 99(2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    Alesini, C

    D. Alesini, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, N. Crescini, D. D’Agostino, D. Di Gioacchino et al., Search for invisible axion dark matter of mass with the quax experiment, Physical Review D 103 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    Di Vora, A

    R. Di Vora, A. Lombardi, A. Ortolan, R. Pengo, G. Ruoso, C. Braggio et al.,Search for galactic axions with a traveling wave parametric amplifier,Physical Review D108 (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    Devlin et al.,Constraints on the Coupling between Axionlike Dark Matter and Photons Using an Antiproton Superconducting Tuned Detection Circuit in a Cryogenic Penning Trap, Phys

    J.A. Devlin et al.,Constraints on the Coupling between Axionlike Dark Matter and Photons Using an Antiproton Superconducting Tuned Detection Circuit in a Cryogenic Penning Trap, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 041301 [2101.11290]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Ouellet, C.P

    J.L. Ouellet, C.P. Salemi, J.W. Foster, R. Henning, Z. Bogorad, J.M. Conrad et al.,First results from abracadabra-10 cm: A search for sub-axion dark matter,Physical Review Letters 122 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    Salemi, J.W

    C.P. Salemi, J.W. Foster, J.L. Ouellet, A. Gavin, K.M.W. Pappas, S. Cheng et al.,Search for low-mass axion dark matter with abracadabra-10 cm,Physical Review Letters127 (2021)

    2021

  36. [45]

    Crisosto, P

    N. Crisosto, P. Sikivie, N.S. Sullivan, D.B. Tanner, J. Yang and G. Rybka,ADMX SLIC: Results from a Superconducting𝐿𝐶 Circuit Investigating Cold Axions, Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020) 241101 [1911.05772]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [46]

    CAST Collaborationcollaboration,Firstresults fromthecernaxion solartelescope ,Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005) 121301

    2005

  38. [47]

    Andriamonje, S

    S. Andriamonje, S. Aune, D. Autiero, K. Barth, A. Belov, B. Beltrán et al.,An improved limit on the axion–photon coupling from the cast experiment, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2007(2007) 010–010

    2007

  39. [48]

    E. Arik, S. Aune, D. Autiero, K. Barth, A. Belov, B. Beltrán et al.,Probing ev-scale axions with cast,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2009(2009) 008

    2009

  40. [49]

    CAST Collaborationcollaboration,Search for sub-ev mass solar axions by the cern axion solar telescope with3He buffer gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 261302

    2011

  41. [50]

    CAST Collaborationcollaboration,Search for solar axions by the cern axion solar telescope with3Hebuffer gas: Closing the hot dark matter gap,Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014) 091302

    2014

  42. [51]

    Anastassopoulos, S

    V. Anastassopoulos, S. Aune, K. Barth, A. Belov, H. Bräuninger, G. Cantatore et al.,New cast limit on the axion–photon interaction, Nature Physics13 (2017) 584. 9 Axion-like Particle Conversion in the Solar Magnetic Field

    2017

  43. [52]

    Bahre, B

    R. Bahre, B. Dobrich, J. Dreyling-Eschweiler, S. Ghazaryan, R. Hodajerdi, D. Horns et al., Any light particle search ii — technical design report, Journal of Instrumentation8(2013) T09001

    2013

  44. [53]

    Armengaud, D

    E. Armengaud, D. Attié, S. Basso, P. Brun, N. Bykovskiy, J. Carmona et al.,Physics potential of the international axion observatory (iaxo), Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(2019) 047

    2019

  45. [54]

    Abeln et al.,Conceptual design of BabyIAXO, the intermediate stage towards the International Axion Observatory,J

    A. Abeln et al.,Conceptual design of BabyIAXO, the intermediate stage towards the International Axion Observatory,J. High Energ. Phys.2021(2021) 137

    2021

  46. [55]

    Armengaud et al.,Conceptual Design of the International Axion Observatory (IAXO), JINST 9 (2014) T05002 [1401.3233]

    E. Armengaud et al.,Conceptual Design of the International Axion Observatory (IAXO), JINST 9 (2014) T05002 [1401.3233]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Rempel,Numerical simulations of quiet sun magnetism: On the contribution from a small-scale dynamo, The Astrophysical Journal789 (2014) 132

    M. Rempel,Numerical simulations of quiet sun magnetism: On the contribution from a small-scale dynamo, The Astrophysical Journal789 (2014) 132

    2014

  48. [57]

    Mikić, C

    Z. Mikić, C. Downs, J.A. Linker, R.M. Caplan, D.H. Mackay, L.A. Upton et al.,Predicting the corona for the 21 august 2017 total solar eclipse, Nature Astronomy2 (2018) 913–921

    2018

  49. [58]

    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, Physical Review D103 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    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 C46 (2022) 085105

    2022

  51. [60]

    Reynolds, M.C

    C.S. Reynolds, M.C. David Marsh, H. R. Russell, A.C. Fabian, R. Smith, F. Tombesi et al., Astrophysical limits on very light axion-like particles from chandra grating spectroscopy of ngc 1275, The Astrophysical Journal890 (2020) 59

    2020

  52. [61]

    Abramowski, F

    A. Abramowski, F. Acero, F. Aharonian, F. Ait Benkhali, A.G. Akhperjanian, E. Angüner et al.,Constraints on axionlike particles with h.e.s.s. from the irregularity of the pks energy spectrum,Physical Review D88(2013)

    2013

  53. [62]

    Ajello, A

    M. Ajello, A. Albert, B. Anderson, L. Baldini, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri et al.,Search for spectral irregularities due to photon–axionlike-particle oscillations with the fermi large area telescope, Physical Review Letters116 (2016)

    2016

  54. [63]

    Davies, M

    J. Davies, M. Meyer and G. Cotter,Constraints on axionlike particles from a combined analysis of three flaring flat-spectrum radio quasars,Physical Review D107 (2023)

    2023

  55. [64]

    Jacobsen, T

    S. Jacobsen, T. Linden and K. Freese,Constraining axion-like particles with HAWC observations of TeV blazars, JCAP 10(2023) 009 [2203.04332]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [65]

    H.-J. Li, W. Chao and Y.-F. Zhou,Upper limit on axion-photon coupling from Markarian 421, 6, 2024. 10 Axion-like Particle Conversion in the Solar Magnetic Field

    2024

  57. [66]

    Xiao, K.M

    M. Xiao, K.M. Perez, M. Giannotti, O. Straniero, A. Mirizzi, B.W. Grefenstette et al., Constraints on Axionlike Particles from a Hard X-Ray Observation of Betelgeuse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 031101 [2009.09059]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Ning and B.R

    O. Ning and B.R. Safdi,Leading Axion-Photon Sensitivity with NuSTAR Observations of M82 and M87, 4, 2024

    2024

  59. [68]

    Dessert, D

    C. Dessert, D. Dunsky and B.R. Safdi,Upper limit on the axion-photon coupling from magnetic white dwarf polarization, Physical Review D105 (2022)

    2022

  60. [69]

    Dessert, A.J

    C. Dessert, A.J. Long and B.R. Safdi,No evidence for axions from chandra observation of the magnetic white dwarf re j0317-853,Physical Review Letters128 (2022)

    2022

  61. [70]

    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 (2023) 111004 [2209.09917]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Dessert, J.W

    C. Dessert, J.W. Foster and B.R. Safdi,X-ray searches for axions from super star clusters, Physical Review Letters125 (2020)

    2020

  63. [72]

    Hoof and L

    S. Hoof and L. Schulz,Updated constraints on axion-like particles from temporal information in supernova sn1987a gamma-raydata,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023(2023) 054

    2023

  64. [73]

    Manzari, Y

    C.A. Manzari, Y. Park, B.R. Safdi and I. Savoray,Supernova axions convert to gamma-rays in magnetic fields of progenitor stars, 5, 2024

    2024

  65. [74]

    Foster, S.J

    J.W. Foster, S.J. Witte, M. Lawson, T. Linden, V. Gajjar, C. Weniger et al.,Extraterrestrial Axion Search with the Breakthrough Listen Galactic Center Survey,Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 251102 [2202.08274]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Battye, M.J

    R.A. Battye, M.J. Keith, J.I. McDonald, S. Srinivasan, B.W. Stappers and P. Weltevrede, Searching for time-dependent axion dark matter signals in pulsars, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 063001 [2303.11792]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Escudero, C.K

    M. Escudero, C.K. Pooni, M. Fairbairn, D. Blas, X. Du and D.J.E. Marsh,Axion star explosions: A new source for axion indirect detection, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 043018 [2302.10206]. 11

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.