Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

MINER Reactor Based Search for Axion-Like Particles Using Sapphire (Al2O3) Detectors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The MINER experiment excludes axion-like particles with couplings as small as $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=10^{-5}$ and $g_{aee}=10^{-7}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for masses 3 keV to 10 MeV.

desk verdict First MINER ALP exclusion from reactor on/off data is a real incremental result, but the pure-thorium (Z=90) core approximation is load-bearing enough that the quoted couplings should not be trusted until the reactor model is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20960 v1 pith:HMFNCUZ2 submitted 2025-04-29 hep-ex

M. Mirzakhani , W. Baker , M. Chaudhuri , J. B. Dent , R. Dey , B. Dutta , V. Iyer , A. Jastram
show 15 more authors
V. K. S. Kashyap A. Kubik K. Lang R. Mahapatra S. Maludze N. Mirabolfathi B. Mohanty D. Mondal H. Neog J. L. Newstead M. Platt S. Sahoo J. Sander L. E. Strigari J. Walker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords axion-likeparticlesreactorneutrinoexperimentcryogenicsapphiredetectorPrimakoffprocessaxion-photoncouplingaxion-electronlow-thresholdphononTRIGA
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 reports the first axion-like particle (ALP) search from the MINER experiment, which places a stack of three cryogenic sapphire crystals about four meters from the 1 MW TRIGA reactor at the Texas A&M Nuclear Science Center. The detectors run with a roughly 100 eV threshold and a 3 keV analysis floor, and the analysis compares 59.5 hours of reactor-on single-scatter data with 163.8 hours of reactor-off background data. Assuming ALP production through the Primakoff and Compton-like processes in the core and detection through inverse Primakoff scattering, inverse Compton scattering, and decay, the experiment excludes $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=10^{-5}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ and $g_{aee}=10^{-7}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for ALP masses between 3 keV and 10 MeV at 90% confidence. The result matters because it shows a gram-scale, low-threshold crystal detector can set laboratory bounds on low-mass ALPs that are normally the province of far larger experiments or astrophysical observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Primakoff process, used in both directions: a photon scatters coherently off a high-$Z$ nucleus in the reactor core ($\gamma + N \to a + N$), whose cross-section is enhanced by $Z^2$, and the inverse process produces a photon in the sapphire crystal. The signal rate is the convolution of the MCNP-modeled reactor photon flux, the production cross-section, an ALP survival probability that accounts for decay in flight, and the detection cross-section, with the standard-model photon scattering cross-section (from XCOM) reducing the available production rate. A mass-by-mass $\kappa = N_s^2/N_b$ hypothesis test with $\kappa=4.61$ then converts the reactor-on versus reactor-off single-scatter rates into a 90% confidence exclusion curve.

What would settle it

Recompute the expected ALP event rate using the actual elemental composition of the TRIGA fuel-moderator assembly (uranium-zirconium-hydride) and regenerate the exclusion curves; if the $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ limit moves up by roughly $(90/Z_{\rm eff})^2$, the pure-thorium core approximation is the load-bearing assumption and the published limits are over-optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-background environment of the MINER sapphire detectors, combined with the high photon flux at 4 meters from a reactor core, makes the experiment a competitive probe of low-mass ALPs. Using single-scatter events and a $\kappa = N_s^2/N_b$ test statistic with $\kappa = 4.61$ (90% confidence), the paper derives exclusion limits on the two couplings of Eq. (1). For $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$, the limit is flat at $\sim 10^{-5}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ up to $m_a \simeq 30$ keV, then tightens as the two-photon decay channel becomes efficient; for $g_{aee}$, it reaches $\sim 10^{-7}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ with a feature near 1 MeV from pair decay. The calculation treats signals as unsmeared per 0.4 keV bin, justified by the measured 35–101 eV detector resolution, and reproduces the reference spectrum of Ref. [30]. The paper further projects that moving the same detector payload to the 85 MW HFIR reactor and expanding it to five crystals totaling 725 g would reach previously unexplored ALP parameter space, including the QCD axion band.

Load-bearing premise

The signal rate calculation approximates the reactor core material as pure thorium with $Z=90$; since the Primakoff cross-section scales as $Z^2$, a lower true effective nuclear charge would reduce the predicted ALP yield and weaken the exclusion limits by a corresponding factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The current 435 g payload excludes couplings down to $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=10^{-5}$ and $g_{aee}=10^{-7}$, establishing MINER as a laboratory probe of low-mass ALPs.
  • Scaling the same detector tower to five crystals at the 85 MW HFIR reactor is projected to enter previously unexplored ALP parameter space, including masses up to 20 keV for the photon coupling.
  • The sub-3 keV energy range, currently blinded for the CEvNS analysis, remains a ready extension for even lighter ALPs once unblinded.
  • At masses below the decay threshold the limit is essentially background-limited, so improvements in shielding and event discrimination directly translate into stronger coupling bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the effective $Z$ of the TRIGA core is substantially lower than the assumed 90, the true Primakoff production rate falls and the published exclusion limits weaken; a composition-specific simulation would quantify this shift.
  • The same low-threshold phonon-detector technology could be applied to other intense photon sources, such as medical-isotope or spent-fuel facilities, to probe the same ALP couplings at new sites.
  • The deferred axio-electric (atomic ionization) channel likely dominates detection for sub-keV ALPs, so extending the analysis below 3 keV may strengthen the electron-coupling limit beyond the values reported here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a search for axion-like particles (ALPs) using three cryogenic sapphire (Al2O3) detectors operated about 4 m from the 1 MWth TRIGA reactor at Texas A&M University, with 59.5 h of reactor-on data and 163.8 h of reactor-off data. ALP production via the Primakoff and Compton-like processes is calculated from an MCNP photon-flux model, and the expected signal from inverse Primakoff scattering, inverse Compton scattering, and in-flight decay is compared with the measured single-scatter rate using the test statistic κ = N_s^2/N_b. The authors derive 90% exclusion limits down to g_aγγ ≈ 10^-5 GeV^-1 and g_aee ≈ 10^-7 GeV^-1 for ALP masses between 3 keV and 10 MeV, and they project improved sensitivity at the HFIR reactor.

Significance. If the limits are correct, the paper provides a new laboratory constraint in a mass range where reactor experiments are competitive with astrophysical bounds, and it demonstrates that gram-scale cryogenic detectors with ~100 eV thresholds can be used for ALP searches. The experiment has genuine strengths: a low-threshold phonon readout, a well-defined single-scatter selection, and a substantial reactor-off background measurement. However, the quantitative limits rest on two assumptions that need scrutiny: the reactor core is modeled as pure thorium with Z=90, and the background is taken from reactor-off data rather than from a clear on/off statistical treatment. Neither is adequately justified, so the headline exclusions are not yet supported at the claimed precision. The paper does not provide machine-checked code or auxiliary data, but the analysis is simple enough to be reproduced once the core model and statistical procedure are clarified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (2), Fig. 3] The approximation of the TRIGA core as pure thorium with Z=90 is a load-bearing input, not a minor modeling choice. Equation (2) gives dσ_P/dcosθ ∝ Z^2 F^2(t), and Eq. (3) propagates this into the signal N_s; the limits in Fig. 10 then scale through κ = N_s^2/N_b in Sec. 4.5. The actual TRIGA fuel is a UZrH matrix (Sec. 3.1), whose Z_i^2-weighted effective atomic number is around 25-30, not 90. Using Z=90 can therefore overestimate the Primakoff production rate by a substantial factor and shift the exclusion curves by roughly the square root of that factor. The inconsistency is visible in Fig. 3, whose caption identifies capture lines from 'thorium-based reactors' even though the experiment uses a 235U-fueled TRIGA. Please repeat the calculation with the actual fuel composition and with a scan over Z, and show how the limits change; without this, the headline values g_aγγ=1e-5 and g_aee=1e-7 are not quantitatively reliable.
  2. [Secs. 4.3-4.5] The statistical treatment of reactor-on versus reactor-off data is ambiguous and potentially circular. Section 4.4 states that reactor-off single-scatter events 'serve as a lower limit on the potential ALP-induced event rate,' while Sec. 4.5 computes κ = N_s^2/N_b with N_b from reactor-off data to set the limit. If the reactor-on dataset contains additional reactor-correlated backgrounds (neutrons, gamma flash, activation), then the relevant background for a limit from the on dataset is not the reactor-off rate, and using the off rate can make the limits artificially strong. Please specify the likelihood or test statistic used, report the on and off count rates above threshold with their uncertainties, and include a treatment of systematic errors such as flux normalization, detector mass, and live time.
  3. [Eqs. (3) and (5)] The normalization of the signal formulas needs clarification. In Eq. (3), dNγ/dEγ is described as 'the differential photon flux at the detector' with units time^-1 energy^-1, yet the expression also contains an explicit 1/(4π l_d^2) factor. If dNγ/dEγ is already the flux at the detector position, the geometric factor should not appear; if it is the source emission spectrum, the text should say so. The same issue affects Eq. (5), and the quantity A introduced in the text is not used in the displayed formula. Since this normalization directly sets N_s and hence the limits, please correct the definitions or the equations.
  4. [Sec. 4.4, Fig. 9] The statement that the simulated spectra are 'in good agreement with the findings reported in Ref. [30], thereby validating the exclusion limits' is not an independent validation: Ref. [30] shares multiple authors with the present paper and is the source of the production and detection formulas being applied. Agreement with a prior calculation by the same group checks internal consistency but does not validate the reactor model or the new data. Please compare the predicted flux with a measured reactor gamma spectrum or with an independent MCNP model, or state clearly that no such external validation is being claimed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 8] The y-axis units and the exposure scaling are not stated; please add axis labels and clarify whether the shown rates are per keV per kg per day or per keV per detector.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 3.2] The abstract emphasizes the ~100 eV threshold, but the analysis considers only energies above 3 keV; please state explicitly that the ALP analysis threshold is 3 keV and explain why the lower-energy data remain blinded.
  3. [Sec. 4.4] The text contains typos and spacing inconsistencies, including 'data collect' in Sec. 4.3, 'byby thehe' in Sec. 5, and irregular 'o ff' spacing throughout; a careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The coupling g_aee is said to have units of GeV^-1 following Ref. [26], but it is often defined as dimensionless; please state the convention explicitly to avoid confusion.
  5. [Fig. 10] The caption calls the black curve an 'exclusion limit' while the text says it is obtained from reactor-on data; please clarify whether the black curve is a measured limit or a projected sensitivity curve.
  6. [Sec. 4.2] The smearing argument quotes the bin width and the baseline resolution, but the fitted σ of the 55Fe Kα peak is not given; please provide the resolution values used for the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ALP exclusion limits are derived from measured reactor-off backgrounds and parameter-free signal formulas; self-citations to prior MINER/Ref. [30] work are used as inputs, not as the result itself.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: adopt the standard ALP Lagrangian (Eq. 1); compute the Primakoff production cross-section (Eq. 2) from published theory; estimate expected scattering and decay signals via Eqs. (3)-(6) using the reactor photon flux from the MINER MCNP model (Ref. [37]) and the framework of Ref. [30]; measure reactor-off single-scatter backgrounds; and set 90% confidence limits with the test statistic kappa = N_s^2/N_b, scanning the couplings rather than fitting them. The claimed exclusion limits are therefore not equivalent to any fitted input: the couplings are scan parameters, and the background comes from an independent reactor-off run. Refs. [30] and [37] have overlapping authors, but they are used as external, parameter-free inputs: Ref. [30] is a published theoretical calculation whose stated assumptions do not include the MINER result, and the MCNP photon flux in Ref. [37] was produced for background studies, not tuned to yield an ALP limit. The statement that the simulated spectra agree with Ref. [30] and 'thereby validate the exclusion limits' is a self-referential consistency check rather than independent confirmation, but it does not reduce the central claim to its own inputs. The 'pure thorium (Z=90)' core approximation in Sec. 4.4 is a modeling assumption that may bias the limits, but it is an input, not a fitted output, so it is a correctness risk rather than a circularity. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to the quantity it predicts.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one hand-chosen parameter (effective core Z), a trusted MCNP flux model from the collaboration's prior work, and the reactor-off background assumption. No new particles or entities are introduced; ALPs are already postulated in the literature.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective reactor core atomic number Z = 90
    The core is approximated as pure thorium (Z=90) for Primakoff production. This choice directly scales the predicted signal rate via Z^2 and hence the derived coupling limits; no justification or uncertainty is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The MCNP photon flux spectrum from Ref. [37] is an accurate representation of the gamma flux from the TRIGA core.
    The signal rate in Eqs. (3) and (5) is a convolution of this flux with the production cross-section; no independent validation of the flux is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The reactor core can be approximated as a pure thorium target with Z=90 for Primakoff production.
    Section 4.4 states the approximation 'for simplicity'. Since the Primakoff cross-section scales as Z^2, this assumption directly affects the predicted event rate and the exclusion limits.
  • domain assumption The reactor-off single-scatter rate is a valid background estimate for the reactor-on search.
    Section 4.5 takes the background Nb to be the reactor-off single-scatter rate and does not describe an explicit statistical subtraction of the reactor-on data.
  • domain assumption The ALP model with only photon and electron couplings, and the formulas of Ref. [30], accurately describe production and detection.
    The predicted spectra in Fig. 9 are validated against Ref. [30], which the authors co-wrote, rather than against an independent calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MINER Reactor Based Search for Axion-Like Particles Using Sapphire (Al2O3) Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMFNCUZ2

@misc{pith2026250420960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MINER Reactor Based Search for Axion-Like Particles Using Sapphire (Al2O3) Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMFNCUZ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20960}
}
abstract

The absence of definitive results for WIMP dark matter has sparked growing interest in alternative dark matter candidates, such as axions and Axion-Like Particles (ALPs), which also provide insight into the strong CP problem. The Mitchell Institute Neutrino Experiment at Reactor (MINER), conducted at the Nuclear Science Center of Texas A&M University, investigated ALPs near a 1 MW TRIGA nuclear reactor core, positioned approximately 4 meters away. This experiment employed cryogenic sapphire detectors with a low detection threshold (approximately 100 eV), equipped with a Transition Edge Sensor capable of detecting athermal phonons. Due to the low-background environment, we were able to exclude ALPs with axion-photon coupling and axion-electron coupling as small as \(g_{a\gamma\gamma} = 10^{-5}\) and \(g_{aee} = 10^{-7}\), respectively. Energy depositions below 3 keV were not considered and remain blinded for our Coherent Elastic Neutrino Nucleus Scattering (CEvNS) analysis. This is the first result demonstrating the MINER experiment's potential to probe low-mass ALPs, enabled by its low-threshold detector and proximity to a reactor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20960 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic illustration of axion-like particles (ALPs) and their inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mechanisms for producing ALPs at the reactor facility: (a) represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulated photon flux at a distance of 4 m from the reactor core, ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A schematic representation of the three detectors, with the outer de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A 4 mm sapphire detector in a copper housing. Reflection of the fab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MINER experiment shielding. 3.4. Data acquisition For data acquisition, we have used a VME-based CAEN V1740D digitizer which is a 30 MHz analog-to-digital con￾verter with 64-channels, 12-bit resolution, and 62.5 MS/s sam￾pling rate with DPP-QDC (Digital Pulse Processin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Optimal Filter (OF) amplitude spectra for 4 mm detector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured reactor-on and reactor-off count rates for single-scatter events (top) for combination of 3 detectors and multiple-scatter events (bot￾tom) for 4 mm detector. These events are identified according to the definition of single-scatter events described in Section…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: For projections involving the HFIR reactor, we assume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Representative example of photon spectrum resulting from inverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Exclusion limits and projected sensitivity to ALP-photon couplings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Axion-Like Particle Search with a Hybrid Cherenkov-Scintillation Detector

    hep-ex 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A beam-dump experiment using a 10-ton hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detector found no axion-like particles, but demonstrated background rejection about six times stronger than its predecessor, yielding improved exclu...

  2. Constraints on Axion-Like Particles with the Silicon Detector at a Nuclear Reactor

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New 90% C.L. limits on the ALP–photon coupling in the 0.1–100 keV range are derived from Connie and Atucha-II reactor data via plasmon excitation in silicon; a 30 kg·yr Oscura-style run could improve on NEON by about tenfold.

  3. Hunting for Axions in REactor neutrino COherent scattering Detection Experiment

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    RECODE, a reactor experiment with two germanium detectors, could probe axion-photon and axion-electron couplings into the cosmological triangle region at masses around 0.3 to 0.9 MeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, D. Kim, S. Liao, R. Mahapatra, K. Sinha, A. Thompson, New directions for axion searches via scattering at reactor neutrino experiments, Physical Review Letters 124 (21) (2020) 211804

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    R. D. Peccei, H. R. Quinn, CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440–1443. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.38.1440 1977

  3. [2]

    R. D. Peccei, H. R. Quinn, Constraints imposed by CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1791–1797. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1791. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1791

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1791 1977

  4. [3]

    Mirzakhani, S

    M. Mirzakhani, S. Maludze, Germanium and silicon detectors for wimp searches: Key experimental insights, International Journal of Modern Physics A (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Weinberg, A new light boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A new light boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 223–226. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.40.223 1978

  6. [5]

    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) 279–282. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.40.279 1978

  7. [6]

    Zioutas, C

    K. Zioutas, C. Aalseth, D. Abriola, F. Avignone Iii, R. Brodzinski, J. Collar, R. Creswick, D. Di Gregorio, H. Farach, A. Gattone, et al., A decommissioned lhc model magnet as an axion telescope, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 425 (3) (1999) 480–487

    work page 1999

  8. [7]

    Anastassopoulos, et al., New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction, Nature Phys

    V . Anastassopoulos, et al., New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction, Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 584–590. arXiv:1705.02290, doi:10.1038/nphys4109

    arXiv 2017

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Irastorza, et al., The International Axion Observatory IAXO

    I. Irastorza, et al., The International Axion Observatory IAXO. Letter of Intent to the CERN SPS committee (8 2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    Asztalos, E

    S. Asztalos, E. Daw, H. Peng, L. Rosenberg, C. Hagmann, D. Kinion, W. Stoeffl, K. van Bibber, P. Sikivie, N. Sullivan, et al., Large-scale microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions, Physical Review D 64 (9) (2001) 092003

    2001

  3. [10]

    N. Du, N. Force, R. Khatiwada, E. Lentz, R. Ottens, L. Rosenberg, G. Rybka, G. Carosi, N. Woollett, D. Bowring, et al., Search for invisible axion dark matter with the axion dark matter experiment, Physical review letters 120 (15) (2018) 151301

    2018

  4. [11]

    Y . Kahn, B. R. Safdi, J. Thaler, Broadband and resonant approaches to axion dark matter detection, Physical review letters 117 (14) (2016) 141801

    2016

  5. [12]

    C. P. Salemi, First results from abracadabra-10cm: a search for low-mass axion dark matter, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06882 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    B. M. Brubaker, et al., First results from a microwave cavity axion search at 24µeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (6) (2017) 061302. arXiv:1610.02580, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.061302

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    A. G. Droster, K. van Bibber, Haystac status, results, and plans, arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.01668 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Spector, ALPSII Status Report, in: 14th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, 2019

    A. Spector, ALPSII Status Report, in: 14th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, 2019. arXiv:1906.09011

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Moriyama, Proposal to search for a monochromatic component of solar axions using 57fe, Phys

    S. Moriyama, Proposal to search for a monochromatic component of solar axions using 57fe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 3222–3225. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3222. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3222

    1995 doi

  10. [17]

    Kr ˇcmar, Z

    M. Kr ˇcmar, Z. Kreˇcak, M. Stipˇcevi´c, A. Ljubiˇci´c, D. Bradley, Search for solar axions using 57fe, Physics Letters B 442 (1) (1998) 38–42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01231-3

    1998 doi

  11. [18]

    Kr ˇcmar, Z

    M. Kr ˇcmar, Z. Kreˇcak, A. Ljubiˇci´c, M. Stipˇcevi´c, D. A. Bradley, Search for solar axions using 7Li, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 115016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.115016. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.115016

    2001 doi

  12. [19]

    Derbin, S

    A. Derbin, S. Bakhlanov, A. Egorov, I. Mitropol’sky, V . Muratova, D. Semenov, E. Unzhakov, Search for solar axions produced by primakoff conversion using resonant absorption by 169tm nuclei, Physics Letters B 678 (2) (2009) 181–185. 7 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.06.016. URL h...

    2009 doi

  13. [20]

    Creswick, D

    R. Creswick, D. Li, F. T. Avignone, Y . Wang, Sensitivity of oriented single crystal germanium bolometers to 14.4 kev solar axions emitted by the m1 nuclear transition of 57fe, in: 13th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, 2018, pp. 11–14. doi:$10.3204/DESY-PROC-2017-02...

    2018 doi

  14. [21]

    A. M. Gangapshev, et al., Search for the resonance absorption of solar axions emitted in the M1 transition of 83Kr and 57Fe nuclei in the Sun, in: SN 1987A, Quark Phase Transition in Compact Objects and Multimessenger Astronomy, 2018, pp. 80–85. doi:10.26119/SAO.2020.1.5231

    2018 doi

  15. [22]

    Collaboration, G

    M. Collaboration, G. Agnolet, W. Baker, D. Barker, R. Beck, T. J. Carroll, J. Cesar, P. Cushman, J. B. Dent, S. D. Rijck, B. Dutta, W. Flanagan, M. Fritts, Y . Gao, H. R. Harris, C. C. Hays, V . Iyer, A. Jastram, F. Kadribasic, A. Kennedy, A. Kubik, I. Ogawa, K. Lang, R. Mahap...

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    C. Buck, K. F ¨ulber, J. Hakenm¨uller, G. Heusser, M. Lindner, W. Maneschg, T. Rink, H. Strecker, T. Schierhuber, V . Wagner, et al., A novel experiment for coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering: Conus, in: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, V ol. 1342, IOP Publishi...

    2020

  17. [24]

    Collaboration, A

    C. Collaboration, A. Aguilar-Arevalo, X. Bertou, C. Bonifazi, M. Butner, G. Cancelo, A. C. Vazquez, B. C. Vergara, C. R. Chavez, H. D. Motta, J. C. D’Olivo, J. D. Anjos, J. Estrada, G. F. Moroni, R. Ford, A. Foguel, K. P. H. Torres, F. Izraelevitch, A. Kavner, B. Kilminster, K...

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Strauss, J

    R. Strauss, J. Rothe, G. Angloher, A. Bento, A. G ¨utlein, D. Hauff, H. Kluck, M. Mancuso, L. Oberauer, F. Petricca, F. Pr¨obst, J. Schieck, S. Sch¨onert, W. Seidel, L. Stodolsky, Theν-cleus experiment: a gram-scale fiducial-volume cryogenic detector for the first detection of...

    2017 doi

  19. [26]

    Aguilar-Arevalo, et al., Axion-like particles at coherent captain-mills (2021)

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo, et al., Axion-like particles at coherent captain-mills (2021)

    2021

  20. [27]

    Roos, Sources of gamma radiation in a reactor core, Journal of Nuclear Energy

    M. Roos, Sources of gamma radiation in a reactor core, Journal of Nuclear Energy. Part B. Reactor Technology 1 (2) (1959) 98–104

    1959

  21. [28]

    D. A. Sierra, V . De Romeri, L. J. Flores, D. Papoulias, Axionlike particles searches in reactor experiments, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (3) (2021) 1–38

    2021

  22. [29]

    Sahoo, S

    S. Sahoo, S. Verma, M. Mirzakhani, N. Mishra, A. Thompson, S. Maludze, R. Mahapatra, M. Platt, Reactor-based search for axion-like particles using csi(tl) detector (2024). arXiv:2407.14704. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14704

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Aloni, C

    D. Aloni, C. Fanelli, Y . Soreq, M. Williams, Photoproduction of axionlike particles, Physical Review Letters 123 (7) (Aug. 2019). doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.071801. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.071801

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Y . S. Tsai, Axion bremsstrahlung by an electron beam, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 1326–1331. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1326. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1326

    1986 doi

  25. [33]

    e. a. Berger, M.J., Xcom: Photon cross sections database (2010). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.18434/T48G6X

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    S. D. Verma, Fabrication of cdms dark matter detector using bi-layer lift-off technique and detection of axions/axion like particles (alps) using csi(tl) scintillator detectors, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A-M (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Derevianko, V

    A. Derevianko, V . A. Dzuba, V . V . Flambaum, M. Pospelov, Axio-electric effect, Physical Review D 82 (6) (Sep. 2010). doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.065006. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.065006

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    URL https://engineering.tamu.edu/nuclear/research/ facilities/nuclear-science-center.html

    Updated technical specifications for the nuclear science center reactor. URL https://engineering.tamu.edu/nuclear/research/ facilities/nuclear-science-center.html

  29. [37]

    G. Agnolet, et al.(MINER Collaboration), Background studies for the miner coherent neutrino scattering reactor experiment, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 853 (2017) 53–60. doi:https...

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    K. D. Irwin, S. W. Nam, B. Cabrera, B. Chugg, B. A. Young, A quasiparticle-trap-assisted transition-edge sensor for phonon-mediated particle detection, Review of Scientific Instruments 66 (11) (1995) 5322–5326. arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/ article-pdf/66/11/5322/1914731...

    1995 doi

  31. [39]

    Maludze, M

    S. Maludze, M. Mirzakhani, W. Baker, M. Lee, C. Savage, H. Neog, R. Mahapatra, N. Mirabolfathi, M. Platt, A. Jastram, Measurement of low energy nuclear recoil events with the phonon-mediated voltage-assisted hybrid detector for rare event searches, Nuclear Instruments and Meth...

    2025

  32. [40]

    J. W. Brockway, E. D. Carlson, G. G. Ra ffelt, Sn 1987a gamma-ray limits on the conversion of pseudoscalars, Physics Letters B 383 (4) (1996) 439–443. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)00778-2

    1996 doi

  33. [41]

    G. G. Ra ffelt, Astrophysical axion bounds diminished by screening effects, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 897–909. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.897. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.33.897

    1986 doi

  34. [42]

    G. G. Ra ffelt, D. S. P. Dearborn, Bounds on hadronic axions from stellar evolution, Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 2211–2225. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2211. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2211

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Dom ´ınguez, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, O. Straniero, Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from globular clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 191302. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.191302. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.191302

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Carenza, O

    P. Carenza, O. Straniero, B. D ¨obrich, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, A. Mirizzi, Constraints on the coupling with photons of heavy axion-like-particles from globular clusters, Physics Letters B 809 (2020) 135709. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135709

    2020

  37. [45]

    Lucente, P

    G. Lucente, P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, Heavy axion-like particles and core-collapse supernovae: constraints and impact on the explosion mechanism, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (12) (2020) 008–008. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/008....

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V . De Romeri, L. J. Flores, D. K. Papoulias, Axionlike particles searches in reactor experiments, JHEP 03 (2021)

    2021

  39. [294]

    arXiv:2010.15712, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)294. 8

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.