Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Hunting for Axions in REactor neutrino COherent scattering Detection Experiment

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RECODE's two germanium detectors at a reactor would set world-leading limits on MeV-scale axions, and a 100 kg·year upgrade would fully close the cosmological triangle.

desk verdict A solid, standard sensitivity forecast for axions at a reactor experiment, but the missing detection efficiency could soften the key cosmological-triangle coverage claim; worth refereeing with a request for revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01538 v1 pith:GR7EGFEH submitted 2025-09-01 hep-ph hep-exnucl-ex

Wei Dai , Yuanlin Gong , Guanhua Gu , Liangliang Su , Li Wang , Lei Wu , Yongcheng Wu , Litao Yang This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-ex PACS 14.80.Va29.40.Wk
keywords axion-likeparticlessub-MeVaxionsPrimakoffeffectALP-photoncouplingALP-electronreactorneutrinoexperimentgermaniumdetectorscosmologicaltriangle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes to use the RECODE reactor experiment—two low-threshold germanium detectors sitting 11 m and 22 m from a 3.4 GW reactor core—to search for axion-like particles (ALPs) in the sub-MeV to few-MeV mass range. The reactor's intense photon flux would produce ALPs through Primakoff and Compton-like scattering, and the detectors would catch them via inverse Primakoff scattering, diphoton decay, or dielectron decay. With a 10 kg·year exposure the authors project sensitivities to ALP-photon and ALP-electron couplings that match or beat existing beam-dump experiments, and with a 100 kg·year upgrade the projected reach fully covers the so-called cosmological triangle, a band of axion parameter space left unexplored by astrophysical and terrestrial searches. If the projections are right, a planned neutrino-coherent-scattering experiment becomes a leading terrestrial probe of light axions.

What carries the argument

The governing mechanism is the reactor-to-detector ALP beam: reactor photons scatter off nuclei (Primakoff) and electrons (Compton-like) to make ALPs, which then inverse-Primakoff scatter in the germanium to yield a monoenergetic photon, or decay in flight into two photons or an electron-positron pair. Eq. (6) multiplies this flux by the detector's nuclear surface density, the inverse cross section, the in-detector decay probability, and the exposure time. The 11 m/22 m near-far layout suppresses correlated backgrounds, and the high ratio P/L² = 0.028 GW/m² gives RECODE its flux edge over other reactor neutrino experiments. The cosmological triangle is the unprobed gap in the ALP-photon coup

What would settle it

Expose the RECODE germanium detectors to calibrated monoenergetic gamma sources in the 0.3–1 MeV range and measure the fraction of full-energy events. If that efficiency is substantially below 100%, recompute Eq. (6) with it: event rates fall proportionally, and the 100 kg·year coverage of the cosmological triangle may not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a reactor-based experiment can fill the MeV gap in axion searches. RECODE's two 5 kg germanium detectors, 11 m and 22 m from a 3.4 GW reactor, catch ALPs produced by Primakoff and Compton-like scattering via inverse Primakoff, diphoton, or dielectron signals. The event-rate calculation combines reactor photon flux, production cross section, survival probability, and detector signal probability, then smears energies by the detector resolution against a 2 cpkkd background. Projected 90% C.L. contours at 10 kg·year match or beat beam-dump bounds; at 100 kg·year the contour fully covers the cosmological triangle, the unprobed 0.3–0.9 MeV window with gaγ between 1.3×10⁻⁵ and

Load-bearing premise

The projections assume every ALP-triggered interaction inside the germanium crystal is counted; the event-rate formula has no detection-efficiency factor, so any real-world loss in reconstructing the photon or electron-positron final state reduces the reach and can weaken the claimed coverage of the cosmological triangle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 10 kg·year of exposure, RECODE would set the best reactor-based limits on both gaγ and gae in the 0.3–1 MeV window, reaching beyond current beam-dump sensitivities.
  • At 100 kg·year, a null result would exclude ALP-photon couplings across the entire cosmological triangle, clearing a parameter region that astrophysical and terrestrial constraints have left open.
  • The same exposure would simultaneously constrain ALP-electron couplings, with projected sensitivity that surpasses existing beam-dump bounds and improves further if the electron-loop diphoton decay is unsuppressed.
  • Because the near-far geometry suppresses correlated backgrounds, the projected limits scale almost linearly with exposure, so the upgrade path is a straightforward continuation of the first run.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's event-rate formula assumes every ALP-induced interaction is counted; a realistic full-energy detection efficiency, often tens of percent for germanium at these energies, would lower the event rates and likely shrink the claimed coverage of the cosmological triangle.
  • The reactor photon spectrum is taken from a 1984 exponential approximation said to hold above 0.2 MeV; a measured MeV-range spectrum at the reactor core could shift the ALP production rate and the resulting limits in either direction.
  • The same near-far germanium configuration could be applied to other weakly-coupled light particles with monoenergetic or two-body final states, such as dark photons or light scalars, by reusing the event-rate machinery with a different production mechanism.
  • The claimed full coverage of the triangle is a projection based on design background rates; measured backgrounds at the near position inside containment could be higher, which would weaken the upgrade's reach.
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 paper proposes a search for sub-MeV axion-like particles at RECODE, a reactor-neutrino experiment with two 5 kg high-purity germanium detectors at 11 m and 22 m from a 3.4 GW reactor. ALPs are assumed to be produced via Primakoff and Compton-like processes in the reactor; detection proceeds through inverse Primakoff scattering, inverse Compton scattering, and two-body decays in the germanium detector. The authors compute event rates and use a binned chi-squared analysis to project 90% C.L. exclusion limits on the axion-photon coupling g_aγ and axion-electron coupling g_ae. They claim that a 10 kg·yr exposure is competitive with or surpasses beam-dump bounds and that a 100 kg·yr upgrade would fully cover the 'cosmological triangle' in the (m_a, g_aγ) plane.

Significance. If the sensitivity projections are reliable, the paper identifies a genuinely promising experimental path: reactor-based searches could probe ALP parameter space that is currently covered only by beam-dump limits and, at higher exposure, the cosmological triangle. The production cross sections and reactor photon flux are standard and properly cited; the analysis is transparent and includes a comparison with existing constraints (beam dump, NEON, stellar, SN1987A). The paper is also candid about the model dependence of the electron-loop-induced decay in the appendix. The main limitation is that the detector response is idealized, which directly affects the quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (6) and 'Experimental sensitivity'] The event rate in Eq. (6) counts every inverse-Primakoff interaction as a registered event; no detection efficiency factor appears. For the relevant ALP masses (0.3–1 MeV), the signal is a monoenergetic photon with E≈E_a, and the full-energy-peak efficiency of an HPGe detector for internal photons in this energy range is typically 20–50%. Since the sensitivity scales as g_{aγ}^4, an efficiency ε=0.2 shifts the 90% C.L. limit by ε^{-1/4}≈1.5 (and ε=0.1 by ≈1.8). The 100 kg·yr curve in Fig. 4 is described as only 'almost' excluding the cosmological triangle, so this factor can determine whether the headline 'full coverage' claim survives. The authors should fold an energy-dependent detection efficiency into Eq. (6) or explicitly justify that all deposited energy is used as signal.
  2. [Experimental sensitivity, chi-squared paragraph] The sensitivity estimate includes only statistical uncertainty; the text concedes that 'systematics depends on realistic detector performances' but does not implement any systematic term. The background rate B=2 cpkkd is taken as an input assumption, and the planned near–far joint analysis is described only as an anticipated improvement. Given that the central claim is to surpass beam-dump bounds and exclude the cosmological triangle, the projected contours should include representative systematic uncertainties on the background rate and signal shape, or state explicitly the conditions under which they are negligible.
  3. [Abstract and introduction] The abstract states that the upgrade 'will fully cover the so-called cosmological triangle region,' while the introduction defines the triangle as 0.3 MeV ≲ m_a ≲ 0.9 MeV; the abstract later refers to '0.3 to 1 MeV.' These numbers should be harmonized, and the projection should be presented as 'almost exclude' (as in the body text) rather than 'fully cover' unless the efficiency issue is resolved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Experimental sensitivity] Typo: 'suprressed' should be 'suppressed.'
  2. [Equation (10)] The loop function f_p in Eq. (11) is defined, but the subscript notation is opaque; a brief definition in words would improve readability.
  3. [Figure 1] In the supplied text the figure caption contains corrupted glyphs and undefined symbols; the final version should have a clean caption describing the production and detection processes.
  4. [References] The reference to the XCOM database [81] should include a URL or version identifier, since the cross-section input is central to the flux calculation.
  5. [General] The sentence 'Due to its high thermal power reactor source and short baseline configuration' is awkward; consider rephrasing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: sensitivity projections are computed independently of the external bounds used for comparison.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The ALP flux is obtained from the reactor photon flux approximation of Eq. (5), the Primakoff/Compton-like cross sections of Eqs. (2) and (7), and the survival/decay probabilities, with the event rate assembled in Eq. (6). No parameter is fitted to the beam-dump, NEON, stellar, or supernova constraints that appear in Fig. 4; those are used only as comparison curves. The projected 90% C.L. sensitivities are computed from a χ² statistic over signal and background counts, independent of the limits they claim to surpass. The only self-citation is [74], which describes the RECODE detector setup; that citation supplies design parameters such as mass, baseline, and background rate, but these are input assumptions, not outputs of the ALP prediction. The skeptic's concern about missing detection efficiency is a modeling/correctness issue, not circularity: it affects the numerical sensitivity but does not make the derivation reduce to its inputs. The paper even acknowledges that systematics depend on realistic detector performance, which is an honest limitation rather than a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The projected sensitivity is largely determined by detector assumptions (background rate, implicit unit efficiency, binning) and the adopted reactor photon flux model. There are no newly invented particles or forces; the physics input is standard. The free parameters and axioms show that the central claim is a forecast contingent on optimistic detector modeling.

free parameters (3)
  • Background rate B = 2 cpkkd for 10 kg year, 0.2 cpkkd for 100 kg year upgrade
    Assumed flat background after shielding and vetoes. It directly sets the statistical floor for the chi-squared limits and is the most influential detector parameter.
  • Implicit detection efficiency epsilon = 1 (no efficiency factor in Eq. (6))
    The event rate in Eq. (6) has no efficiency multiplier, so every ALP interaction in the germanium is effectively counted. This is an optimistic, unstated choice.
  • Analysis binning = Seven 700-keV bins over 100 to 5000 keV
    The chi-squared analysis uses seven fixed bins. The bin width and range are hand-chosen and affect the limit, but they are not varied or justified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Reactor photon flux follows dPhi_gamma/dE_gamma = 5.8e17 (P/MW) e^{-1.1 E_gamma/MeV} for E_gamma > 0.2 MeV (Eq. 5)
    Adopted from Bechteler et al. (1984). The ALP production rate for ma ~ 0.3 to 0.9 MeV depends on this spectrum at E_gamma ~ ma, and no uncertainty on the flux is propagated.
  • domain assumption ALP production is computed as the photon emission rate times sigma_P / sigma_tot (Eq. 4)
    Assumes each emitted photon has a conversion probability set by the ratio of the Primakoff cross-section to the total photon interaction cross-section, without a full radiation transport model of the reactor core.
  • domain assumption Only one ALP coupling (ga_gamma or gae) is active at a time
    The Lagrangian in Eq. (1) sets either ga_gamma or gae to zero. Real ALP models often have both couplings present, which could change the signal rates and limits.
  • ad hoc to paper Systematic uncertainties are negligible; only statistical uncertainty enters the chi-squared
    Explicitly stated in the sensitivity section. No systematic floor is assigned, so the projected limits assume perfect background shape knowledge and calibration.
  • domain assumption Germanium detector response is Gaussian energy smearing with sigma(E) = (35.8 + 16.6 sqrt(E)) eV
    Taken from CDEX references. This parameterizes the energy resolution but does not include detection efficiency or pile-up effects.
  • ad hoc to paper Electron-loop induced a -> gamma gamma decay is not suppressed (appendix sensitivity)
    The appendix Fig. 5 assumes no cancellation in the loop amplitude. The authors flag this as an assumption, so it is not hidden, but it is still load-bearing for that specific projection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hunting for Axions in REactor neutrino COherent scattering Detection Experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GR7EGFEH

@misc{pith2026250901538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hunting for Axions in REactor neutrino COherent scattering Detection Experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GR7EGFEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01538}
}
abstract

Nuclear power plants are not only vital sources of clean energy but also powerful facilities for probing new physics beyond the Standard Model. Due to the intense gamma-ray flux and an appropriate energy conditions, they are particularly well-suited for searches of light hypothetical particles such as sub-MeV axions and axion-like particles (ALPs). In this work, we propose to search for the ALPs in the REactor Neutrino COherent scattering Detection Experiment (RECODE), where two low-threshold, high-purity germanium detectors are placed at 11 m (near point) and 22 m (far point) from a 3.4 GW nuclear reactor at Sanmen nuclear power plant. With a 10 kg$\cdot$year exposure, we demonstrate that the expected sensitivities to the ALP couplings to the electrons and photons are competitive with or surpass the available results from the beam-dump experiments. A planned upgrade to 100 kg$\cdot$year will fully cover the so-called {$\it$ cosmological triangle} region, probing unexplored parameter space relevant to axions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cartoon of the ALPs production, decay, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of event rates between the inverse Pri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The projected 90% C.L. exclusion limits for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Fig. 4, but for ALP-electron couplings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Migdal Ionization as a Probe of Light Dark Matter from Nuclear Transition

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Migdal ionization of reactor-produced sub-MeV dark matter in TEXONO germanium yields new 95% C.L. limits on the reference DM–proton cross section for 0.01 MeV ≤ mχ ≲ 2.6 MeV.

  2. Migdal Ionization as a Probe of Light Dark Matter from Nuclear Transition

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Migdal ionization in a germanium detector can turn reactor-produced sub-MeV dark matter into observable signals, yielding new 95% C.L. limits on the DM–proton cross section for masses 0.01–2.6 MeV.

  3. Probing Dark Photons from Nuclear De-excitation in Reactor Neutrino Experiment

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Nuclear de-excitation in reactors produces on-shell dark photons up to nuclear transition energies, yielding stronger TEXONO limits on ε than Compton-like production for 0.1 MeV < m_A' < 6.9 MeV.

  4. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  5. [5]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  6. [6]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 (1980)

    1980

  7. [7]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  8. [8]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 149, 351 (1984)

    1984

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Physics Letters B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  2. [10]

    R. J. Gaitskell, 54, 315 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP 06, 051 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605206

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Brivio, M

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey, and V. Sanz, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 572 (2017), arXiv:1701.05379 [hep-ph]

    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]

    Braine et al

    T. Braine et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 101303 (2020), arXiv:1910.08638 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Zioutas et al

    K. Zioutas et al. (CAST), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 121301 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0411033

    2005 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Andriamonje et al

    S. Andriamonje et al. (CAST), JCAP 04, 010 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0702006

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Anastassopoulos et al.(CAST), Nature Phys

    V. Anastassopoulos et al.(CAST), Nature Phys. 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. L. Ouellet et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 121802 (2019), arXiv:1810.12257 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C. P. Salemi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 081801 (2021), arXiv:2102.06722 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Budker, P

    D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Rajen- dran, and A. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021030 (2014), arXiv:1306.6089 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball et al., Springer Proc. Phys. 245, 105 (2020), arXiv:1711.08999 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Zhong et al

    L. Zhong et al. (HAYSTAC), Phys. Rev. D 97, 092001 (2018), arXiv:1803.03690 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fu et al

    C. Fu et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181806 (2017), arXiv:1707.07921 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261301 (2017), arXiv:1704.02297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aralis et al.(SuperCDMS), Phys

    T. Aralis et al.(SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D 101, 052008 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 103, 039901 (2021)], arXiv:1911.11905 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sikivie, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015004 (2021), arXiv:2003.02206 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hook, Phys

    A. Hook, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 141801 (2015), arXiv:1411.3325 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Fukuda, K

    H. Fukuda, K. Harigaya, M. Ibe, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 92, 015021 (2015), arXiv:1504.06084 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dimopoulos, A

    S. Dimopoulos, A. Hook, J. Huang, and G. Marques- Tavares, JHEP 11, 052 (2016), arXiv:1606.03097 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. Hook, S. Kumar, Z. Liu, and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 221801 (2020), arXiv:1911.12364 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kamionkowski and J

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, Physics Letters B 282, 137 (1992)

    1992

  25. [33]

    Holman, S

    R. Holman, S. D. Hsu, T. W. Kephart, E. W. Kolb, R. Watkins, and L. M. Widrow, Physics Letters B 282, 132 (1992)

    1992

  26. [34]

    Ghigna, M

    S. Ghigna, M. Lusignoli, and M. Roncadelli, Physics Letters B 283, 278 (1992)

    1992

  27. [35]

    S. M. Barr and D. Seckel, Physical Review D 46, 539 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    Giannotti, I

    M. Giannotti, I. Irastorza, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP 05, 057 (2016), arXiv:1512.08108 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    H. T. Janka, (2017), 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 109, arXiv:1702.08825 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bollig, W

    R. Bollig, W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 051104 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 126, 189901 (2021)], arXiv:2005.07141 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Carenza, O

    P. Carenza, O. Straniero, B. D¨ obrich, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135709 (2020), arXiv:2004.08399 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lucente, P

    G. Lucente, P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP 12, 008 (2020), arXiv:2008.04918 [hep- ph]

    2020

  33. [41]

    P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JCAP 05, 009 (2020), arXiv:2002.08370 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    R. Z. Ferreira, M. C. D. Marsh, and E. M¨ uller, JCAP 11, 057 (2022), arXiv:2205.07896 [hep-ph]. 6

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lucente, O

    G. Lucente, O. Straniero, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 011101 (2022), arXiv:2203.01336 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    E. M. Riordan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 755 (1987)

    1987

  37. [45]

    Mimasu and V

    K. Mimasu and V. Sanz, JHEP 06, 173 (2015), arXiv:1409.4792 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Jaeckel and M

    J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Lett. B 753, 482 (2016), arXiv:1509.00476 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    D¨ obrich, J

    B. D¨ obrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ring- wald, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP 02, 018 (2016), arXiv:1512.03069 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 031802 (2017), arXiv:1704.08207 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, JHEP 12, 044 (2017), arXiv:1708.00443 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. J. Dolan, T. Ferber, C. Hearty, F. Kahlhoefer, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP 12, 094 (2017), [Erratum: JHEP 03, 190 (2021)], arXiv:1709.00009 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Harland-Lang, J

    L. Harland-Lang, J. Jaeckel, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Lett. B 793, 281 (2019), arXiv:1902.04878 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. B. Gavela, J. M. No, V. Sanz, and J. F. de Troc´ oniz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 051802 (2020), arXiv:1905.12953 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (CCM), Phys. Rev. D 107, 095036 (2023), arXiv:2112.09979 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J. Ren, D. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and M. Zhang, JHEP 11, 138 (2021), arXiv:2106.07018 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. Wang, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095016 (2021), arXiv:2102.01532 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Capozzi, B

    F. Capozzi, B. Dutta, G. Gurung, W. Jang, I. M. Shoe- maker, A. Thompson, and J. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 075019 (2023), arXiv:2307.03878 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, D. Kim, S. Liao, R. Mahapatra, K. Sinha, and A. Thompson, Physical Review Letters 124, 211804 (2020), arXiv:1912.05733 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Brdar, B

    V. Brdar, B. Dutta, W. Jang, D. Kim, I. M. Shoemaker, Z. Tabrizi, A. Thompson, and J. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 201801 (2021), arXiv:2011.07054 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Fernandez Moroni, J

    G. Fernandez Moroni, J. Estrada, E. E. Paolini, G. Can- celo, J. Tiffenberg, and J. Molina, Phys. Rev. D 91, 072001 (2015), arXiv:1405.5761 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Belov et al., JINST 10, P12011 (2015)

    V. Belov et al., JINST 10, P12011 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    D. Y. Akimov et al., JINST 12, C06018 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Arias-Arag´ on, V

    F. Arias-Arag´ on, V. Brdar, and J. Quevillon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 211802 (2024), arXiv:2310.03631 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Singh et al

    L. Singh et al. (TEXONO), Phys. Rev. D 99, 032009 (2019), arXiv:1808.02719 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Cai et al.(RELICS), Phys

    C. Cai et al.(RELICS), Phys. Rev. D110, 072011 (2024), arXiv:2405.05554 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al.(CONNIE, Atucha-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071801 (2025), arXiv:2405.16316 [hep- ex]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    J. F. Cavaignac et al., Phys. Lett. B 121, 193 (1983)

    1983

  59. [67]

    B. J. Park et al. (NEON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 201002 (2025), arXiv:2406.06117 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, L. J. Flores, and D. K. Papoulias, JHEP 03, 294 (2021), arXiv:2010.15712 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Bartram et al.(ADMX), Phys

    C. Bartram et al.(ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261803 (2021), arXiv:2110.06096 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Liu et al

    J. Liu et al. (BREAD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 131801 (2022), arXiv:2111.12103 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Sahoo, S

    S. Sahoo, S. Verma, M. Mirzakhani, N. Mishra, A. Thompson, S. Maludze, R. Mahapatra, and M. Platt, (2024), arXiv:2407.14704 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Mirzakhani et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.20960 [hep-ex]

    M. Mirzakhani et al., (2025), arXiv:2504.20960 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    H. M. Chang et al. (TEXONO), Physical Review D: Particles and Fields 75, 052004 (2007), arXiv:hep- ex/0609001

    2007

  66. [74]

    L. T. Yang, Y. F. Liang, and Q. Yue, PoS T AUP2023, 296 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    H. T.-K. Wong, The Universe 3, 22 (2015), arXiv:1608.00306 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Strauss et al

    R. Strauss et al. (NUCLEUS), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 506 (2017), arXiv:1704.04320 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Fernandez-Moroni, P

    G. Fernandez-Moroni, P. A. N. Machado, I. Martinez- Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, D. Rodrigues, and S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, JHEP 03, 186 (2021), arXiv:2009.10741 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Abreu et al

    Y. Abreu et al. (SoLid), JINST 16, P02025 (2021), arXiv:2002.05914 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ackermann et al

    N. Ackermann et al. (CONUS+), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1265 (2024), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 19 (2025)], arXiv:2407.11912 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Alekseev et al

    I. Alekseev et al. (νGeN), Phys. Rev. D 106, L051101 (2022), arXiv:2205.04305 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    XCOM: Photon Cross Sections Database, 2010,

    “XCOM: Photon Cross Sections Database, 2010,”

    2010

  74. [82]

    Bechteler, H

    H. Bechteler, H. Faissner, R. Yogeshwar, and H. Sey- farth, , p. 62–63. (1984)

    1984

  75. [83]

    Zhao et al.(CDEX), Phys

    W. Zhao et al.(CDEX), Phys. Rev. D 93, 092003 (2016), arXiv:1601.04581 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    J. X. Liu et al.(CDEX), (2024), arXiv:2404.09793 [hep- ex]

    2024

  77. [85]

    J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu, L. W. Mo, T. A. Nunamaker, and P. Rassmann, Phys. Rev. D 38, 3375 (1988)

    1988

  78. [86]

    D. J. Bechis, T. W. Dombeck, R. W. Ellsworth, E. V. Sager, P. H. Steinberg, L. J. Teig, J. K. Yoh, and R. L. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1511 (1979), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 43, 90 (1979)]

    1979

  79. [87]

    E. M. Riordan, M. Krasny, K. Lang, P. Barbaro, A. Bodek, S. Dasu, N. Varelas, X. Wang, R. Arnold, and D. Benton, Physical review letters 59 7, 755 (1987)

    1987

  80. [88]

    Blumlein et al., Int

    J. Blumlein et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 7, 3835 (1992)

    1992

  81. [89]

    Andreas, O

    S. Andreas, O. Lebedev, S. Ramos-Sanchez, and A. Ringwald, JHEP 08, 003 (2010), arXiv:1005.3978 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Hardy and R

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, JHEP 02, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept. 870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.