Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multiple-cavities interferometric analysis for dark matter axions directional-sensitive search based on signal cross-correlation processing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cross-correlating signals from multiple haloscope cavities sharpens axion detection and exposes a daily velocity-driven modulation.

desk verdict Worth engaging for the co-located directional method, but the long-baseline phase-shift claim ignores axion spatial decoherence and the modulation significance is below 1. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09580 v2 pith:2SPAAHZP submitted 2025-02-13 hep-ex

José Reina-Valero , Alejandro Díaz-Morcillo , Benito Gimeno , Antonio José Lozano-Guerrero , Iván Martí-Vidal , Juan Monzó-Cabrera , Jose R. Navarro-Madrid , Carlos Peña-Garay This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords axiondarkmatterhaloscopemultiplecavitiescross-correlationsignal-to-noiseratiodailymodulationdirectionalsensitivityBI-RME3D
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that treating an array of axion haloscopes as an interferometer, rather than summing their powers, improves the search in two ways. Cross-correlating the voltage signals from $n$ cavities makes the signal-to-noise ratio grow faster with integration time, by a factor $\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1-1/n}$ over power summation, so the same sensitivity can be reached in less exposure time. The same processing also converts the small velocity-dependent de Broglie phase difference between cavities into a measurable daily modulation of the imaginary part of the cross-spectrum, which the paper proposes as a way to characterise the axion velocity distribution after a detection. Three multi-cavity layouts are simulated, and phase shifts above $2^\circ$ appear for the longest cavities in the geographically separated and co-located perpendicular layouts. The authors read the result as the first application of cross-correlation to directional sensitivity analysis of a haloscope array.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the de Broglie phase term $\vec{k}_{\mathrm{DB}}\cdot\vec{r}$ entering the axion-induced voltage, computed through the BI-RME3D method (boundary-integral resonant-mode expansion), which returns each cavity voltage as a phasor with amplitude and phase rather than only a power. The cross-correlation in the Fourier domain, $\mathrm{FT}[h]=\mathrm{FT}[s_1]\,\mathrm{FT}[s_2]^*$, is the operation that converts that phase difference into an observable: the imaginary part of the cross-spectrum is first-order in the phase shift, while the real part is only second-order, which is why the daily modulation appears in $\mathrm{Im}(H_M)$ and not in the real part. The velocity model combines the galactic halo Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with the laboratory-frame velocity built from galactic, solar, Earth orbital, and rotational motions, producing a shifted Maxwellian frequency distribution whose parameters change with sidereal time and latitude.

What would settle it

Take two cavities separated by much more than the axion coherence length, for example the North Pole and Equator sites of Setup 1, and measure the phase of the cross-spectrum maximum over a year: if the phase difference is random instead of tracking $\frac{1}{2}(k_{\mathrm{DB},x}a+k_{\mathrm{DB},y}b+k_{\mathrm{DB},z}d)$, the coherent-wave assumption and the predicted daily modulation fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the BI-RME3D modal method, the paper derives the voltage $\hat{V}_c$ induced in a rectangular haloscope cavity by the axion field and shows that its phase contains a contribution $\frac{1}{2}(k_{\mathrm{DB},x}a+k_{\mathrm{DB},y}b+k_{\mathrm{DB},z}d)$ from the axion de Broglie wavevector, so different cavity lengths and orientations sample different velocity components. Cross-correlating pairs of cavity signals in the Fourier domain makes the uncorrelated thermal noises cancel while the common axion signal survives; for $n$ cavities the resulting SNR is $\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1-1/n}$ times that of the standard power-summation combination, reaching about 1.29 for six cavities. For the three simulated layouts, the longest cavities ($d\simeq 3955$ mm, mode $\mathrm{TE}_{10,21}$) show relative phase shifts above $2^\circ$ between sites or orientations. The central observable is the maximum of the cross-correlated spectrum $\mathrm{Im}(H_M)$, whose variation over the year tracks the changing laboratory-frame axion velocity and therefore shows a daily modulation; the paper characterises this modulation by the ratio $R=(\max-\min)\mathrm{Im}(H_{\mathrm{axion},M})/\sigma\{\mathrm{Im}(H_{\mathrm{noise},M})\}$, obtaining $R=0.33$ at SNR 16 and $R=0.51$ at SNR 23.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation treats the axion field as a single coherent plane wave sharing one phase across all cavities, which is valid only when the cavities are closer together than the roughly 300 m axion coherence length; the paper does not state or justify this for the intercontinental setup.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A six-cavity array using cross-correlation instead of power summation improves the SNR by about 29% for the same integration time, equivalently reducing the exposure needed to reach a given sensitivity.
  • Long cavities (mode order $l=21$, length about 3.95 m) make the predicted phase shifts exceed $2^\circ$, a scale the paper argues is measurable with synchronised clocks.
  • In the co-located six-cavity layout, the imaginary part of the cross-spectrum maximum varies over the year with an amplitude that, at high SNR, could be used to characterise the axion velocity distribution after a detection.
  • Power loss from raising the mode order is roughly a factor of 15 for the longest cavity relative to the short one, and the paper points to cylindrical $\mathrm{TM}_{010}$ cavities or multi-filter multicavities to recover it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the common-phase assumption holds, the array is effectively an axion interferometer, and the daily phase sweep could be fitted to recover the full axion velocity vector, not just the width of its distribution.
  • Beyond the paper: because the SNR gain $\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1-1/n}$ depends only on uncorrelated receiver noise and a common coherent signal, it should transfer to other multi-receiver dark-matter searches, such as hidden-photon or chameleon haloscopes.
  • Beyond the paper: the coherence requirement is a testable constraint; for 1 GHz axions the coherence length is about 300 m, so a site-to-site setup with separations far beyond that would see the daily modulation washed out, and the paper does not address this.
  • Beyond the paper: the R values of 0.33 and 0.51 are below unity, so the modulation is not a standalone detection channel at these SNRs; raising the phase shift with longer cavities or TM010 geometry is the natural next step the paper sketches.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript models microwave haloscope arrays with the BI-RME3D modal method, including the de Broglie phase of the axion field in the expression for the detected voltage (Eq. 3.2). It proposes three multi-cavity interferometric setups, computes phase differences among cavities that arise from different laboratory-frame velocity components, and evaluates the signal-to-noise ratio improvement from pairwise cross-correlation, finding a factor sqrt(2) sqrt(1 - 1/n) relative to power summation. The paper also reports a daily modulation in the imaginary part of the cross-spectrum for Setup 3 and claims this could be used to characterize the axion velocity distribution.

Significance. If correct, the SNR result is a modest but useful processing gain for haloscope arrays and is consistent with the earlier result in [35]; the directional phase-shift formalism, if properly averaged over the halo velocity distribution, could provide a new observable for axion searches. The paper is largely self-contained: it re-derives the axion frequency distribution in Appendix A, gives an explicit voltage-phase expression from BI-RME3D, and supports the SNR scaling with numerical simulations. The main limitations are that the central daily-modulation claim has a significance ratio below 1 by the paper's own metric, and the Setup 1 predictions rely on a coherence assumption that is not stated or justified in the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [3, Eq. (3.2)] The voltage expression in Eq. (3.2) is derived from the axion current in Eq. (2.1), which contains a single intrinsic phase and a single wavevector, and it does not include the absolute position term k_DB dot r0 for each cavity. For Setup 1, whose cavities are separated by thousands of kilometers, the predicted phase shifts in Figures 12-14 therefore presuppose a coherent plane-wave axion field over the whole Earth. A realistic halo has a velocity dispersion, and the spatial correlation function of the axion field decays on a scale of order 1/(m_a sigma_v), which for 1 GHz axions is roughly 50-300 m, far smaller than the Setup 1 baselines. The manuscript neither states nor justifies the coherence assumption, so the Setup 1 phase-shift predictions are not robust. This part of the analysis should be either removed, restricted to co-located cavities, or supplemented by an explicit treatment of spatial decoherence.
  2. [4.3, Eq. (4.5)] The modulation ratio defined in Eq. (4.5) is reported as R = 0.33 for SNR = 16 and R = 0.51 for SNR = 23. Both values are below 1, which means the yearly excursion of the axion-only imaginary part of the cross-spectral maximum is smaller than the noise standard deviation of the same quantity. By the authors' own metric, the daily modulation is not statistically significant in either simulation, so the abstract and Section 5 claims that the modulation 'could be potentially used for the characterization of the axion velocity distribution' and is 'likely to be observed' are not supported. The authors should either present a configuration with R > 1, or explicitly label the daily-modulation result as a model-level proof of principle that requires a different design to become observable.
  3. [2.3, Table 3] The velocity distribution in Eq. (2.9) and the frequency distribution in Eq. (2.13) are introduced, but the numerical phase calculations in Section 4.3 use a single deterministic velocity vector per latitude and day (Table 3). In a real axion halo, the de Broglie phase is a stochastic variable with a spread set by the velocity dispersion, so the computed voltages, phase shifts, and daily modulation represent only one realization of the field. For quantitative predictions one should average the cross-correlation over the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, or at least estimate the variance of the phase; otherwise the directional sensitivity and daily modulation amplitudes are not well defined. This is particularly important for the Setup 3 modulation claim, which is the paper's main observable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3, after Eq. (3.4)] There is a duplicated word 'velocities velocities' in the sentence beginning 'Analyzing this result', and 'even thought' should be 'even though'.
  2. [4.3, Figure 15] The labels '127' and '308' are placed directly on the plot without being identified in the caption; the caption should explain that these are the days of maximum and minimum differences among the velocity components.
  3. [4.2, Eq. (4.2)] The comparison with power summation uses cavities with equal signal amplitudes and zero relative phase; this assumption should be stated explicitly, since the de Broglie phases computed later in the paper reduce the cross-correlation signal by a factor of approximately cos(delta_phi).
  4. [4.2, paragraph after Eq. (3.8)] The sentence 'both the standard deviation and the mean of the noises will decrease' is imprecise for cross-correlation: the mean of the cross-spectral noise is zero by construction, and only the effective noise level decreases with the number of averages.
  5. [References] The discussion of spatial coherence of the axion field would benefit from citing and engaging with the existing axion-interferometry and coherence literature, including reference [28] (O'Hare and Green), which is already in the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SNR gain and daily phase modulation are forward-model results, not fitted quantities or definitions of their own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Equation (3.2) is obtained by inserting the TE_10l mode (3.1) into the BI-RME3D current formula (2.1), so the inter-cavity phase shift follows from the de Broglie term k_DB·r rather than being presupposed. The SNR improvement in Eq. (3.8) is derived from the uncorrelated-noise scaling sigma_noise ~ sigma_0/(2 sqrt(m)) and the number of cavity pairs n(n-1)/2, and the numerical results in Figs. 10-11 are checks of that expression, not fits. The daily modulation in Im(H_M) is computed from the velocity model (2.12) and Eq. (3.2), with no parameter fitted to the modulation. The authors' self-citations (BI-RME3D [32-34] and RADES [23,24]) support the numerical method and experimental context, but they do not by definition force the predicted phase shifts or SNR ratios. The single-plane-wave coherence ansatz in Eq. (3.2) is a physical-assumption concern for long baselines, not a circular reduction, because the phase shifts are computed rather than fitted. Likewise, the low modulation ratios R = 0.33 and 0.51 reported after Eq. (4.5) are a significance limitation, not evidence that the prediction reduces to its inputs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard halo model, a single-mode cavity approximation, and a coherent plane-wave axion field whose validity depends on cavity separation. The only hand-chosen numerical input is the axion signal amplitude relative to noise, which sets the simulated SNR values and therefore the reported R values.

free parameters (1)
  • Axion signal amplitude relative to noise = Not stated; adjusted to yield SNR = 16 and SNR = 23 in Section 4.3
    The daily modulation ratio R (Eq. 4.5) is computed at SNR=16 and SNR=23, and the paper states 'high SNR has been considered' to observe the modulation. The amplitude ratio is an input parameter, not derived from a real experiment, and directly determines whether the effect is observable.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Axion halo follows a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution in the Milky Way frame (Eq. 2.9)
    Standard halo model assumption, cited to [27,36]; used to derive the frequency distribution in Eq. (2.13).
  • domain assumption The cavity is modeled by a single TE10l mode truncated from the modal sum in Eq. (3.2)
    The paper states 'we need to truncate the summatory over modes to the studied TE10l mode' to obtain a concise voltage expression. This ignores mode mixing and higher-order corrections that could affect the phase.
  • domain assumption Axion field is treated as a coherent plane wave with a common phase and wavevector k_DB across all cavities (Eq. 3.2)
    The relative phase term (k_DB,x a + k_DB,y b + k_DB,z d)/2 assumes a single plane wave. For same-location setups the ~300 m coherence length makes this valid, but for Setup 1 with Earth-scale baselines it fails. This assumption is not stated or justified.
  • standard math Velocities of LSR, solar peculiar, Earth revolution and rotation combine as in Eq. (2.12)
    Standard kinematic transformation from galactic to laboratory coordinates, with coefficients from [37-40].
  • standard math Network model of cavity as a current source with admittances (Eqs. 2.1-2.3) and BI-RME3D method
    BI-RME3D is a validated EM method from [32-34]; the equivalent circuit model is standard.
  • domain assumption Thermal noise normalized so Pw = kBT Delta nu (Eq. 2.7)
    Noise model assumes only thermal noise and a Gaussian random current density; does not include amplifier noise or other noise sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiple-cavities interferometric analysis for dark matter axions directional-sensitive search based on signal cross-correlation processing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2SPAAHZP

@misc{pith2026250209580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiple-cavities interferometric analysis for dark matter axions directional-sensitive search based on signal cross-correlation processing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2SPAAHZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09580}
}
abstract

Current axion detection limits neglect the relevance of the relative velocity between the axion field and the detectors. However, this aspect can lead to a daily modulation of the detected axion signal. In this work, we calculate the cross-correlation of various signals potentially originated in multiple-cavity setups, and we analyze how the signal-to-noise ratio and directional sensitivity depend on the signal cross-correlation among multiple cavities. The signal-to-noise ratio after cross-correlation exhibits a greater rate of increase over time compared to the power-summation technique, making it clear that this method could be potentially employed in a real setup for the reduction of the exposure time. For the study of the daily modulation, three interferometric experiments have been proposed in this manuscript: (i) three rectangular cavities in different Earth locations; (ii) three rectangular cavities located in the same Earth spot but oriented towards different perpendicular directions; (iii) six rectangular cavities in the same Earth location but oriented towards different directions. In each set-up, we have simulated three different cavity lengths. Similar results have been found for the cases (i) and (ii): when the highest length upon the three proposed is considered, a phase difference between the recorded voltages of more than $2^{\circ}$ has been obtained with our numerical calculations. We observe a daily modulation in the imaginary part of the signals cross-correlation for experiment (iii), that could be potentially used for the characterization of the axion velocity distribution. To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first time that the cross-correlation technique has been applied to the directional sensitivity analysis of an array of haloscopes.

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

  1. Cavity Multimodes as an Array for High-Frequency Gravitational Waves

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 9-cell microwave cavity's 18 modes can act as a synthetic detector array that reconstructs the direction, polarization, and chirp of a high-frequency gravitational-wave signal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [35]

    Mcallister, S.R

    B.T. Mcallister, S.R. Parker, E.N. Ivanov and M.E. Tobar, Cross-Correlation Signal Processing for Axion and WISP Dark Matter Searches , IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 66 (2019) 236

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Peccei and H.R

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

    work page 1977

  3. [2]

    Kim and G

    J.E. Kim and G. Carosi, Axions and the Strong CP Problem , Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 557 [0807.3125]

    arXiv 2010

  4. [3]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson? , Phys

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

    1978

  5. [4]

    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

    1978

  6. [5]

    Primakoff, Photoproduction of neutral mesons in nuclear electric fields and the mean life of the neutral meson , Phys

    H. Primakoff, Photoproduction of neutral mesons in nuclear electric fields and the mean life of the neutral meson , Phys. Rev. 81 (1951) 899

    1951

  7. [6]

    invisible

    P. Sikivie, Detection rates for “invisible”-axion searches , Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985) 2988

    work page 1985

  8. [7]

    Kim, Weak-Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance, Phys

    J.E. Kim, Weak-Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 103. – 25 –

    work page 1979

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions? , Nucl. Phys. B 166 (1980) 493

    1980

  2. [9]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki, A simple solution to the strong CP problem with a harmless axion , Physics Letters B 104 (1981) 199

    1981

  3. [10]

    Zhitnitsky, On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions

    A.R. Zhitnitsky, On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian) , Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31 (1980) 260

    1980

  4. [11]

    Povey, J.G

    R.G. Povey, J.G. Hartnett and M.E. Tobar, Microwave cavity light shining through a wall optimization and experiment , Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 052003

    2010

  5. [12]

    Wagner, G

    A. Wagner, G. Rybka, M. Hotz, L.J. Rosenberg, S.J. Asztalos, G. Carosi et al., Search for hidden sector photons with the admx detector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 171801

    2010

  6. [13]

    M. Betz, F. Caspers, M. Gasior, M. Thumm and S.W. Rieger, First results of the cern resonant weakly interacting sub-ev particle search (crows) , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 075014

    2013

  7. [14]

    Parker, J.G

    S.R. Parker, J.G. Hartnett, R.G. Povey and M.E. Tobar, Cryogenic resonant microwave cavity searches for hidden sector photons , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 112004

    2013

  8. [15]

    Slocum, O

    P. Slocum, O. Baker, J. Hirshfield, Y. Jiang, A. Malagon, A. Martin et al., Design and calibration of the 34ghz yale microwave cavity experiment , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 770...

    2015

  9. [16]

    Sikivie, Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion , Phys

    P. Sikivie, Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion , Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1415

    1983

  10. [17]

    ADMX collaboration, A Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 151301 [ 1804.05750]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

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

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    CAPP collaboration, Extensive Search for Axion Dark Matter over 1 GHz with CAPP’S Main Axion Experiment, Phys. Rev. X 14 (2024) 031023 [ 2402.12892]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    HAYSTAC collaboration, A quantum-enhanced search for dark matter axions , Nature 590 (2021) 238 [ 2008.01853]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    QUAX collaboration, Search for axion dark matter with the QUAX–LNF tunable haloscope , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 022008 [ 2402.19063]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    McAllister, G

    B.T. McAllister, G. Flower, E.N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill and M.E. Tobar, The ORGAN experiment: An axion haloscope above 15 GHz , Physics of the Dark Universe 18 (2017) 67

    2017

  16. [23]

    ´Alvarez Melc´ on, S.A

    A. ´Alvarez Melc´ on, S.A. Cuendis, C. Cogollos, A. D ´ ıaz-Morcillo, B. D¨ obrich, J.D. Gallego et al., Axion searches with microwave filters: the RADES project , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (2018) 040

    2018

  17. [24]

    ´Alvarez Melc´ on et al.,Scalable haloscopes for axion dark matter detection in the 30 µeV range with RADES , JHEP 07 (2020) 084 [ 2002.07639]

    A. ´Alvarez Melc´ on et al.,Scalable haloscopes for axion dark matter detection in the 30 µeV range with RADES , JHEP 07 (2020) 084 [ 2002.07639]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Alesini, D

    D. Alesini, D. Babusci, P. Beltrame, F. Bossi, P. Ciambrone, A. D’Elia et al., The future search for low-frequency axions and new physics with the flash resonant cavity experiment at frascati national laboratories, Physics of the Dark Universe 42 (2023) 101370

    2023

  19. [26]

    Aja, S.A

    B. Aja, S.A. Cuendis, I. Arregui, E. Artal, R.B. Barreiro, F.J. Casas et al., The Canfranc Axion Detection Experiment (CADEx): search for axions at 90 GHz with Kinetic Inductance Detectors, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (2022) 044

    2022

  20. [27]

    Turner, Periodic signatures for the detection of cosmic axions , Phys

    M.S. Turner, Periodic signatures for the detection of cosmic axions , Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 3572. – 26 –

    1990

  21. [28]

    O’Hare and A.M

    C.A.J. O’Hare and A.M. Green, Axion astronomy with microwave cavity experiments , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 063017

    2017

  22. [29]

    Knirck, A.J

    S. Knirck, A.J. Millar, C.A. O’Hare, J. Redondo and F.D. Steffen, Directional axion detection, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (2018) 051

    2018

  23. [30]

    G.W.S.J. A. Richard Thompson, James M. Moran, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, Springer Cham (2017), 10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4

    2017 doi

  24. [31]

    Thomas L

    S.H. Thomas L. Wilson, Kristen Rohlfs, Tools of Radio Astronomy, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2008), 10.1007/978-3-540-85122-6

    2008 doi

  25. [32]

    Giuseppe Conciauro, Marco Guglielmi, Advanced Modal Analysis, Wiley (1999)

    R.S. Giuseppe Conciauro, Marco Guglielmi, Advanced Modal Analysis, Wiley (1999)

    1999

  26. [33]

    Arcioni, M

    P. Arcioni, M. Bozzi, M. Bressan, G. Conciauro and L. Perregrini, The BI-RME method: An historical overview, in 2014 International Conference on Numerical Electromagnetic Modeling and Optimization for RF, Microwave, and Terahertz Applications (NEMO) , pp. 1–4, 2014, DOI

    2014

  27. [34]

    Navarro, B

    P. Navarro, B. Gimeno, A. ´Alvarez Melc´ on, S.A. Cuendis, C. Cogollos, A. D ´ ıaz-Morcillo et al., Wide-band full-wave electromagnetic modal analysis of the coupling between dark-matter axions and photons in microwave resonators , Physics of the Dark Universe 36 (2022) 101001

    2022

  28. [36]

    Brubaker, L

    B.M. Brubaker, L. Zhong, S.K. Lamoreaux, K.W. Lehnert and K.A. van Bibber, HAYSTAC axion search analysis procedure, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 123008

    2017

  29. [37]

    Kerr and D

    F.J. Kerr and D. Lynden-Bell, Review of galactic constants , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 221 (1986) 1023

    1986

  30. [38]

    McMillan and J.J

    P.J. McMillan and J.J. Binney, The uncertainty in Galactic parameters , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 402 (2010) 934 [ 0907.4685]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Schoenrich, J

    R. Schoenrich, J. Binney and W. Dehnen, Local Kinematics and the Local Standard of Rest , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 403 (2010) 1829 [ 0912.3693]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    McCabe, The Earth’s velocity for direct detection experiments , JCAP 02 (2014) 027 [1312.1355]

    C. McCabe, The Earth’s velocity for direct detection experiments , JCAP 02 (2014) 027 [1312.1355]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Nyquist, Certain topics in telegraph transmission theory , Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers 47 (1928) 617

    H. Nyquist, Certain topics in telegraph transmission theory , Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers 47 (1928) 617. – 27 –

    1928

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.