Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Out of the darkness: probing the inflationary era with dark photon dark matter

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a confirmed detection of 19.5 micro-electronvolt dark photon dark matter in the TASEH data would pin the inflationary Hubble scale just below the current tensor-mode bound, turning a haloscope result into a probe of…

desk verdict A clean, honest conditional roadmap for connecting a dark photon detection to inflation, but it misses a likely fatal isocurvature constraint on its central fDM=1 prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08932 v1 pith:SXA77NA5 submitted 2025-07-11 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

Pierluca Carenza , Tassia Ferreira , Thong T. Q. Nguyen This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 95.35.+d98.80.Cq14.70.Pw
keywords darkphotonmatterinflationaryproductionhaloscopeTASEHsignallight-shining-through-a-walltensor-to-scalarratioreheatingtemperatureStueckelbergmechanism
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 asks what would follow if the 19.5 micro-electronvolt dark photon signal reported in a reanalysis of TASEH haloscope data is real. Because light dark photons can be produced by quantum fluctuations during inflation, the paper argues that a confirmed detection would turn a dark matter experiment into a first direct probe of the inflationary era. The authors show how combining the haloscope measurement with model-independent bounds and a future light-shining-through-a-wall experiment separates the kinetic mixing parameter from the dark matter fraction, and how the inflationary production formula then determines the Hubble scale during inflation, the tensor-to-scalar ratio, and the reheating temperature. For a full dark matter abundance, the inferred Hubble scale sits just below the current bound on tensor modes, making the scenario testable by next-generation CMB experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inflationary production formula for a Stueckelberg-massive dark photon, Eq. (5), which gives today's relic abundance as a function of the inflationary Hubble scale $H_I$, the reheating temperature $T_{\rm RH}$, and the dark photon mass $m_{A'}$; Eq. (6) is the inversion that extracts $H_I$ from an observed mass and abundance. The argument also rests on the experimental degeneracy: haloscopes measure only the product $\epsilon\sqrt{f_{\rm DM}}$, so the paper uses model-independent bounds and a next-generation light-shining-through-a-wall experiment to separate the two. The machinery is completed by the standard relation between $H_I$ and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, which connects the dark photon measurement to CMB observables.

What would settle it

A targeted haloscope search at $19.5~\mu$eV that sees no persistent power excess, or a future light-shining-through-a-wall experiment that excludes $\epsilon=2.2\times10^{-15}$ at that mass, would remove the assumed signal; so would a reanalysis showing the TASEH excess disappears once the detector's magnetic-field-off veto is accounted for.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a chain of inference. If the TASEH excess is confirmed as unpolarized dark photon dark matter at the local density of $0.45~{\rm GeV\,cm}^{-3}$, it fixes the dark photon mass at $19.5~\mu$eV; existing limits plus a proposed HyperLSW-class experiment lift the degeneracy between the kinetic mixing $\epsilon$ and the fractional abundance $f_{\rm DM}$; and the inflationary production formula then maps $f_{\rm DM}$ to the Hubble scale $H_I$. With $f_{\rm DM}=1$, Eq. (6) gives $H_I=(1.5\text{--}4.8)\times10^{13}$ GeV, which predicts a tensor-to-scalar ratio just below the current bound $r<0.036$ and within reach of experiments targeting $r\sim0.002$. A tensor-mode detection in that case fixes the relation between the reheating temperature $T_{\rm RH}$ and $f_{\rm DM}$, while even the smallest allowed abundance, $f_{\rm DM}\sim10^{-15}$, sets a lower bound on $H_I$. The authors also derive a lower bound $f_{\rm DM}\gtrsim(1.2\text{--}4.7)\times10^{-15}$ for the TASEH mass from existing spectral-distortion and light-shining-through-a-wall limits.

Load-bearing premise

The entire program collapses unless the TASEH excess is actually dark photon dark matter at the standard local dark matter density of $0.45~{\rm GeV\,cm}^{-3}$, rather than a statistical fluctuation, a systematic artifact of the magnetic-field veto, or a signal boosted by a dense dark matter clump.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the TASEH signal is confirmed with $f_{\rm DM}=1$, inflation occurred at $H_I=(1.5\text{--}4.8)\times10^{13}$ GeV, and tensor modes should appear just below the current bound, detectable by planned CMB experiments.
  • A tensor-mode detection in this scenario would determine the reheating temperature $T_{\rm RH}$ as a function of $f_{\rm DM}$, and for full abundance would force $T_{\rm RH}$ below roughly $10^{16}$ GeV.
  • Even if dark photons are only a tiny fraction of dark matter, the signal still gives a lower bound on $H_I$, so the strategy yields cosmological information in the pessimistic case.
  • A HyperLSW-class experiment would break the $\epsilon$--$f_{\rm DM}$ degeneracy and, combined with haloscope data, would determine both parameters rather than only their product.
  • The same reasoning applies to any dark photon found by a haloscope in the mass range $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-4}$ eV, giving a general route from dark matter detection to inflationary parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the inflationary production formula is correct, the TASEH interpretation makes a sharp, independent prediction for CMB B-modes: a tensor signal at $r$ near $0.002$--$0.03$ whenever $f_{\rm DM}$ is order one, so near-term CMB data can test the dark photon hypothesis even before a dedicated LSW experiment is built.
  • Inference: the same program could be reversed: if LSW and CMB independently determine $\epsilon$ and $H_I$, any disagreement with the abundance predicted by Eq. (5) would point to a dark photon production mechanism other than inflationary fluctuations.
  • Inference: the overdensity caveat means the inferred $\epsilon$ and hence $H_I$ are conditional on the local dark matter density; an LSW measurement resolves this, but until then the inflationary claims should be read with that uncertainty in mind.
  • Inference: a confirmed detection at this mass would indirectly favour the Stueckelberg mass mechanism over a dark-Higgs origin, since the latter would not tie the abundance to inflation in the same way.
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 paper explores the cosmological implications of the tentative TASEH dark-photon signal at 19.5 μeV. Under the assumption that the signal is unpolarized dark-photon dark matter with fDM = 1 and local density 0.45 GeV/cm^3, the authors use the Kolb-Long inflationary production formula (Eq. (5)) to invert the observed mass and abundance into a prediction for the inflationary Hubble scale H_I = (1.5-4.8) × 10^13 GeV (Eq. (6)), corresponding to a tensor-to-scalar ratio r between about 0.002 and 0.036. They propose a next-generation LSW experiment (HyperLSW) to break the degeneracy between the kinetic mixing ϵ and the fractional abundance fDM, and derive a model-independent lower bound fDM ≳ (1.2-4.7) × 10^-15 from existing stellar, CMB spectral distortion, and LSW bounds. The paper concludes that a future CMB B-mode detection combined with a confirmed haloscope signal would determine H_I and constrain T_RH.

Significance. The paper is clearly written and the algebraic steps from Eq. (5) to Eq. (6) are internally consistent. The idea of combining a confirmed haloscope dark-photon detection with laboratory LSW bounds and CMB tensor-mode measurements to reconstruct inflationary parameters is a valuable cross-disciplinary program. The authors are explicit about the conditional nature of the TASEH hint and about the limitations of their LSW sensitivity estimate. However, the central prediction for fDM = 1 relies on the Graham-Mardon-Rajendran/Kolb-Long production mechanism, which in the minimal Stueckelberg scenario is known to generate large CDM isocurvature perturbations; the manuscript does not address this, and the fDM = 1 branch may already be excluded by Planck data. If the isocurvature issue can be resolved, the paper provides a useful roadmap; as written, the main conclusion is not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Constraining early Universe parameters, Eq. (5)] The inversion leading to Eq. (6) for fDM = 1 omits the CDM isocurvature constraint that is endemic to the inflationary production of a light Stueckelberg vector with no vacuum expectation value. The transverse components are light spectator fields during inflation; their superhorizon fluctuations are Gaussian with amplitude H_I/(2π), so the late-time dark-photon energy density has relative fluctuations δρ/ρ ~ 2/√N_e ~ 0.1–0.3 on CMB scales. For fDM = 1 this gives a CDM isocurvature fraction β_iso that exceeds the Planck upper bound (β_iso ≲ 0.04) by orders of magnitude, meaning the fDM = 1 branch of Eq. (6) and the associated prediction of detectable r are not secure. The manuscript should either demonstrate a suppression mechanism (e.g., a non-minimal coupling to gravity) or revise the predictions and conclusions to the subdominant-fDM regime where isocurvature constraints are satisfied.
  2. [A lower bound on fDM, Eqs. (3)-(4) and Fig. 2] The claimed reach of HyperLSW at the TASEH mass is not supported by the quantitative estimate. The calculation uses a photon frequency ω = 1.3 GHz, whereas the TASEH dark-photon mass 19.5 μeV corresponds to about 4.7 GHz; the conversion probability in Eq. (4) and the detection efficiency depend on the matching between the DP and the cavity mode, and the text notes that the mass-dependent efficiency is neglected. As a result, Fig. 2 does not demonstrate that the TASEH point (ϵ = 2.2 × 10^-15) lies within the reachable region at the actual mass. The sentence "We expect that a dedicated design of the detector will allow for probing the mass of the TASEH DP" is a conjecture, not a derived result. This is load-bearing for the claim that LSW can break the ϵ–fDM degeneracy for the TASEH signal; please provide a mass-dependent sensitivity estimate or clearly label this as a design assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "Combining these two experiences with cosmological data" should read "Combining these two experimental probes with cosmological data" or similar; "experiences" appears to be a typo.
  2. [Constraining early Universe parameters] The text states "The constraint is r < 0.035 at the 95% C.L." while Fig. 3 and the surrounding discussion use r = 0.036; please harmonize the value with the cited BICEP/Keck result.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The origin of the numerical prefactor range "(1–10)" is not explained; a brief note on its dependence on the inflationary model or the reheating history would help the reader interpret the width of the bands in Fig. 3.
  4. [Fig. 3] In the right panel, the x-axis extends to 10^-3 GeV but the BBN lower bound T_RH > 1 MeV is not indicated on the plot; adding this boundary would make the allowed region clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central HI and r predictions are algebraic inversions of externally imported production formula with independent fDM constraints.

full rationale

No circular steps identified. The central chain is: (i) accept the TASEH hint as dark photon dark matter; (ii) use independent stellar, CMB spectral-distortion, and LSW limits to derive a lower bound on fDM; (iii) import the inflationary production formula Eq. (5) from external Refs. [33,34], which share no authors with this paper; (iv) algebraically invert it to obtain Eq. (6); (v) translate HI into a tensor-to-scalar ratio prediction using the standard scalar-amplitude relation and external CMB constraints. No parameter is fitted to the paper's own target observable; the r prediction is an output, not an input. The TASEH signal interpretation is explicitly treated as an assumption ('we proceed under the assumption that the TASEH signal originates from DPDM'), making the conclusions conditional on an external premise rather than circular. Author self-citations (Refs. [9,22,25]) appear only in background reference lists and carry no argumentative weight. The prefactor range in Eq. (5) is an acknowledged model-dependence, not a fitted parameter. The derivation is therefore self-contained and no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four classes of external input: the tentative TASEH hint (mass, mixing, unpolarized fDM = 1 interpretation), the Kolb-Long inflationary production formula with its (1-10) prefactor, the standard HI-r relation, and assumed LSW projection parameters. None of these are established by this paper, and none are new entities introduced here. The dominant uncertainty is the production formula's prefactor, which propagates a factor of 10 into all HI and r predictions. The paper is transparent about these dependencies, listing them either explicitly (the DPDM assumption) or by citation (the production formula).

free parameters (3)
  • Inflationary model prefactor in the relic abundance formula = (1-10) model-dependent range
    Appears in Eq. (5) multiplying the HI squared and TRH terms. The paper does not fit it, but every quantitative result inherits this factor-of-10 spread, which is why the fDM = 1 band straddles the current r bound.
  • HyperLSW projection parameters (omega, L, Pomega, delta t, S, beta) = omega = 1.3 GHz, L = 4 m, Pomega = 300 W, delta t = 5000 h, S around 170, beta = 10^10 to 10^14
    Assumed experimental configuration for the Fig. 2 reach estimate. No error bars are given, and the mass-dependent detection efficiency drop is explicitly not included, so the claimed reach at the TASEH mass is an order-of-magnitude estimate.
  • Local dark matter density = 0.45 GeV/cm^3
    Standard halo value assumed in the TASEH interpretation. The paper acknowledges that traversing an overdensity of up to 10^6 times the average would change the inferred mixing by orders of magnitude, which propagates into the fDM bounds.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper TASEH reanalysis excess at 19.5 micro-electronvolts is dark photon dark matter with epsilon = 2.2 times 10^-15, unpolarized, with fDM = 1 and local density 0.45 GeV/cm^3
    The paper states: 'we proceed under the assumption that the TASEH signal originates from DPDM distributed with a local DM density of 0.45 GeV cm^-3.' The known alternative, a local overdensity up to 10^6 times average, would change the inferred mixing and abundance. All subsequent results are conditional on this.
  • domain assumption Dark photon mass is generated by the Stueckelberg mechanism rather than a dark Higgs sector
    The paper argues a Higgs origin is disfavored for such a small mass, citing Ref. [31], which selects the inflationary quantum-fluctuation production channel used throughout. If a Higgs mechanism actually generates the mass, the production formula and the inferred HI values would not apply.
  • domain assumption Eq. (5), the Kolb-Long relic abundance formula with its TRH-dependent branches and (1-10) model prefactor, correctly describes inflationary dark photon production
    This formula is imported from Refs. [33, 34]. The inversion in Eq. (6), the HI lower bounds in Eq. (9), and the tensor-mode projections in Fig. 3 all inherit its structure and its factor-of-10 prefactor uncertainty. The paper does not re-derive or test it.
  • standard math Standard relation between the tensor-to-scalar ratio r and the inflationary Hubble scale, with As proportional to HI squared over r, and the current bound r < 0.035 to 0.036
    Used to translate the inferred HI into the r predictions shown in Fig. 3 and to state the current constraint HI < 4.8 times 10^13 GeV. This is standard single-field slow-roll cosmology, with the caveat that the quoted current limit cites a forecast paper rather than the direct experimental analysis.
  • standard math BBN requires TRH > 1 MeV and the theoretical lower bound of Eq. (2) on HI from the requirement that inflation precedes reheating
    These define the allowed parameter ranges in Fig. 3. Standard cosmological inputs from Refs. [35, 36].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Out of the darkness: probing the inflationary era with dark photon dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXA77NA5

@misc{pith2026250708932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Out of the darkness: probing the inflationary era with dark photon dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXA77NA5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08932}
}
abstract

A recent hint reported by the TASEH haloscope suggests the possible detection of dark photon dark matter with mass $19.5~{\rm \mu eV}$. Due to their production during inflation, dark photons act as unique messengers from this primordial epoch. We explore the implications that a confirmed detection would have in directly probing the inflationary era for the first time. To resolve the intrinsic degeneracy between the dark photon mixing parameter and its fractional relic abundance introduced by haloscope measurements, we motivate a next-generation light-shining-through-a-wall experiment. Combining these two experiences with cosmological data, particularly measurements of the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, we propose an interdisciplinary approach to reconstruct dark photon properties. We delineate a coherent strategy for simultaneously determining the dark photon kinetic coupling, abundance, and properties of the inflationary era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08932 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Bound on the DPDM fraction as a function of mass, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Reach of the HyperLSW experiment for DPs, shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Hubble scale during inflation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Routing for Heterogeneous Multi-Hop Wireless Networks

    eess.SP 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A DQN routing scheme with channel-based neighbor selection is claimed to match optimal end-to-end rates, but the full text is about dark photon searches, not wireless routing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- dondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP 06, 013 (2012), arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Bertone and T

    G. Bertone and T. Tait, M. P., Nature 562, 51 (2018), 6 arXiv:1810.01668 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Antel et al

    C. Antel et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1122 (2023), arXiv:2305.01715 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Caputo, A

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095029 (2021), arXiv:2105.04565 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, (2020), 10.1007/978-3-030-62519-1, arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986)

    1986

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Linden, T

    T. Linden, T. T. Q. Nguyen, and T. M. P. Tait, (2024), arXiv:2406.19445 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    L. B. Okun, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 502 (1982)

    1982

  3. [11]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1415 (1983), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 52, 695 (1984)]

    1983

  4. [12]

    B. M. Brubaker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 061302 (2017), arXiv:1610.02580 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Du et al

    N. Du et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05750 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    L. H. Nguyen, A. Lobanov, and D. Horns, JCAP 10, 014 (2019), arXiv:1907.12449 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    K. M. Backes et al.(HAYSTAC), Nature 590, 238 (2021), arXiv:2008.01853 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kwon et al

    O. Kwon et al. (CAPP), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 191802 (2021), arXiv:2012.10764 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Cervantes et al., Phys

    R. Cervantes et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, 102002 (2022), arXiv:2204.09475 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cervantes et al., Phys

    R. Cervantes et al., Phys. Rev. D 110, 043022 (2024), arXiv:2208.03183 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. T. McAllister, A. Quiskamp, C. A. J. O’Hare, P. Altin, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, and M. E. Tobar, Annalen Phys. 536, 2200622 (2024), arXiv:2212.01971 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cervantes et al., Phys

    R. Cervantes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 201301 (2022), arXiv:2204.03818 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Schneemann, K

    T. Schneemann, K. Schmieden, and M. Schott, (2023), arXiv:2308.08337 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. T. Q. Nguyen, I. John, T. Linden, and T. M. P. Tait, (2024), arXiv:2412.00180 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Linden, T

    T. Linden, T. T. Q. Nguyen, and T. M. P. Tait, (2024), arXiv:2402.01839 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    T. T. Q. Nguyen, PoS COSMICWISPers2024, 066 (2025), arXiv:2506.12153 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    De la Torre Luque, P

    P. De la Torre Luque, P. Carenza, and T. T. Q. Nguyen, (2025), arXiv:2507.01962 [hep-ph]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Tang et al

    Z. Tang et al. (SHANHE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021005 (2024), arXiv:2305.09711 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    He et al

    D. He et al. (APEX), Phys. Rev. D 110, L021101 (2024), arXiv:2404.00908 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    He et al

    D. He et al. , Chin. Phys. C 48, 073004 (2024), arXiv:2404.10264 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chang et al

    H. Chang et al. (TASEH), Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93, 084501 (2022), arXiv:2205.01477 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chang, C.-W

    Y.-H. Chang, C.-W. Chiang, H. T. Doan, N. Hous- ton, J. Li, T. Li, L. Wu, and X. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2507.00784 [hep-ex]

    2025

  23. [31]

    Kitajima, S

    N. Kitajima, S. Nakagawa, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, Phys. Lett. B 862, 139304 (2025), arXiv:2410.17964 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    E. C. G. Stueckelberg, Helv. Phys. Acta 11, 225 (1938)

    1938

  25. [33]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    E. W. Kolb and A. J. Long, JHEP 03, 283 (2021), arXiv:2009.03828 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    G. F. Giudice, E. W. Kolb, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 64, 023508 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0005123

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    G. G. Ross, Rept. Prog. Phys. 44, 655 (1981)

    1981

  29. [37]

    Paoletti, F

    D. Paoletti, F. Finelli, J. Valiviita, and M. Hazumi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083528 (2022), arXiv:2208.10482 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. P. Hertzberg and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 95, 063516 (2017), arXiv:1407.6010 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Chang et al

    H. Chang et al. (TASEH), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111802 (2022), arXiv:2205.05574 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Chang et al

    H. Chang et al. (TASEH), Phys. Rev. D 106, 052002 (2022), arXiv:2204.14265 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gorghetto, E

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, J. March-Russell, N. Song, and S. M. West, JCAP 08, 018 (2022), arXiv:2203.10100 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. Chen, L. H. Nguyen, and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043031 (2025), arXiv:2407.17315 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 041302 (2013), arXiv:1304.3461 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Redondo and G

    J. Redondo and G. Raffelt, JCAP 08, 034 (2013), arXiv:1305.2920 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Fradette, M

    A. Fradette, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 90, 035022 (2014), arXiv:1407.0993 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Vogel and J

    H. Vogel and J. Redondo, JCAP 02, 029 (2014), arXiv:1311.2600 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Essig et al., in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]

    R. Essig et al., in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Caputo, H

    A. Caputo, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma, and J. T. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 221303 (2020), arXiv:2002.05165 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    S. D. McDermott and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063030 (2020), arXiv:1911.05086 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chluba, B

    J. Chluba, B. Cyr, and M. C. Johnson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 535, 1874 (2024), arXiv:2409.12115 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Arsenadze, A

    G. Arsenadze, A. Caputo, X. Gan, H. Liu, and J. T. Ruderman, JHEP 03, 018 (2025), arXiv:2409.12940 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. Betz, F. Caspers, M. Gasior, M. Thumm, and S. W. Rieger, Phys. Rev. D 88, 075014 (2013), arXiv:1310.8098 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Romanenko et al., Phys

    A. Romanenko et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 261801 (2023), arXiv:2301.11512 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. Hoof, J. Jaeckel, and G. Lucente, Phys. Rev. D 111, 015003 (2025), arXiv:2407.04772 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Vinyoles, A

    N. Vinyoles, A. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Redondo, and J. Isern, JCAP 10, 015 (2015), arXiv:1501.01639 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Li and X.-J

    S.-P. Li and X.-J. Xu, JCAP 09, 009 (2023), arXiv:2304.12907 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ehret et al

    K. Ehret et al. , Phys. Lett. B 689, 149 (2010), arXiv:1004.1313 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ahlers, H

    M. Ahlers, H. Gies, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ring- wald, Phys. Rev. D 77, 095001 (2008), arXiv:0711.4991 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M. D. Ortiz et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 35, 100968 (2022), arXiv:2009.14294 [physics.optics]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Miyazaki, T

    A. Miyazaki, T. Lofnes, F. Caspers, P. Spagnolo, J. Jelon- nek, T. Ruess, J. L. Steinmann, and M. Thumm, Annalen Phys. 536, 2200619 (2024), arXiv:2212.01139 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Berlin et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.12714 [hep-ph]

    A. Berlin et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.12714 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Betz, The CERN Resonant Weakly Interacting Sub-eV 7 Particle Search (CROWS), Ph.D

    M. Betz, The CERN Resonant Weakly Interacting Sub-eV 7 Particle Search (CROWS), Ph.D. thesis, KIT Karlsruhe (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    Hoogeveen and T

    F. Hoogeveen and T. Ziegenhagen, Nucl. Phys. B 358, 3 (1991)

    1991

  56. [64]

    D. A. Burton and A. Noble, New J. Phys. 20, 033022 (2018), arXiv:1710.01906 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    X. An, M. Chen, J. Liu, Z. Bai, L. Ji, Z. Sheng, and J. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2504.12500 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2025

  58. [66]

    Redondo and M

    J. Redondo and M. Postma, JCAP 02, 005 (2009), arXiv:0811.0326 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  59. [67]

    A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, Phys. Rev. D 84, 103501 (2011), arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. A. Dror, K. Harigaya, and V. Narayan, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035036 (2019), arXiv:1810.07195 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    R. T. Co, A. Pierce, Z. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 99, 075002 (2019), arXiv:1810.07196 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. J. Long and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063529 (2019), arXiv:1901.03312 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 30, 682 (1979)

    1979

  64. [72]

    Seljak and M

    U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2054 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9609169

    1997 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and A. Stebbins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2058 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9609132

    1997 arXiv

  66. [74]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP2, Planck), Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 101301 (2015), arXiv:1502.00612 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP2, Keck Array), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 031302 (2016), arXiv:1510.09217 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP2, Keck Array), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221301 (2018), arXiv:1810.05216 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  70. [78]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    P. D. Meerburg, R. Hloˇ zek, B. Hadzhiyska, and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D 91, 103505 (2015), arXiv:1502.00302 [astro- ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 121101 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 029901 (2017)], arXiv:1612.02029 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Cabass, L

    G. Cabass, L. Pagano, L. Salvati, M. Gerbino, E. Giusarma, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 93, 063508 (2016), arXiv:1511.05146 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Ade et al.(Simons Observatory), JCAP 02, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    P. Ade et al.(Simons Observatory), JCAP 02, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4), (2016), arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Allys et al

    E. Allys et al. (LiteBIRD), PTEP 2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Abazajian et al

    K. Abazajian et al. (CMB-S4), Astrophys. J. 926, 54 (2022), arXiv:2008.12619 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Addamo et al

    G. Addamo et al. (LSPE), JCAP 08, 008 (2021), arXiv:2008.11049 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.