Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

ALMA observations of the magnetar SGR 1745-2900 find no axion signal and set the first millimeter-wave limits that reach the meV-scale QCD axion window.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

ALMA observations of the magnetar SGR 1745-2900 exclude axion-photon couplings down to ~2e-13 GeV^-1 in the 0.55-0.62 meV mass range, reaching the QCD axion window under a dark-matter spike model.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Clean null result, shaky normalization: the ALMA data analysis is solid but the headline meV axion limit rides on a self-cited flux formula with a 2π unit ambiguity that could shift it an order of magnitude. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.06441 v2 pith:O2Y4OIY4 submitted 2025-12-06 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ex

Constraining meV Axion Dark Matter with ALMA Observations of the Galactic Center Magnetar SGR 1745-2900

Javier De Miguel , Evanthia Hatziminaoglou , Fr\'ed\'eric Poidevin , Nanda Rea , Daniel L. Walker , Davide De Grandis , Jaime Prieto-Polo This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ex
keywords axion dark matteraxion-photon couplingmagnetarSGR 1745-2900ALMAmillimeter-wave astronomyresonant conversionGalactic Center
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 dedicated millimeter-wave search for axion dark matter using ALMA observations of the magnetar SGR 1745-2900, located about 0.1 parsec from the Galactic Center. After careful subtraction of the bright Sgr A* background and cleaning of molecular line contamination, the four observed spectral windows show no statistically significant narrow emission features. Interpreting this null result through resonant axion-photon conversion in a magnetar magnetosphere, the authors derive 95% exclusion limits on the axion-photon coupling down to about 2e-13 GeV^-1 for axion masses 0.55-0.62 meV, assuming a dense dark-matter spike around Sagittarius A*. Without the spike, the limit is about 2e-11 GeV^-1. The result matters because it reaches, for the first time with a telescope-based search, the parameter space of QCD axions near the meV scale, complementing laboratory haloscope experiments.

Core claim

Using 4.8 hours of ALMA band-4 observations, the authors searched for axion-induced spectral lines from SGR 1745-2900. No candidate features were found in the bands 133.99-135.78, 135.91-137.70, 145.99-147.78, and 147.99-149.78 GHz, corresponding to axion masses 0.554-0.620 meV. A matched-filter analysis yielded a noise distribution consistent with Gaussian statistics, with no excursion above 3.5 sigma. Converting this null into constraints via resonant axion-photon conversion in a twisted-dipole magnetosphere, and adopting the dark-matter density expected from a spike around Sgr A*, the authors set one-sided 95% upper limits on the axion-photon coupling of g_gamma ~ 2e-13 GeV^-1 across the

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is resonant axion-photon conversion in the magnetar magnetosphere: axions from the dark-matter halo fall into the star, and where the axion mass equals the plasma frequency, they convert into photons with a flux density given by Eq. (3). That formula depends on stellar parameters (radius, magnetic field, spin), the dark-matter density at the source, and the magnetosphere's pair multiplicity M and plasma Lorentz factor gamma_p through the ratio M/gamma_p. The analysis pipeline uses matched filtering with Gaussian kernels matched to the expected axion line width, and converts the per-channel noise into frequency-dependent upper limits on the coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the assumed magnetosphere composition at the conversion radius — specifically that the plasma is dense enough (large pair multiplicity, modest Lorentz factor) to make resonant axion-photon conversion efficient at 150 GHz; if the real plasma is thinner or the particles faster, the quoted limit weakens.

What would settle it

Measure the plasma density and Lorentz factor at the ~200 km conversion radius of SGR 1745-2900, for instance by modeling the rotation measure or the radio pulse morphology; if M/gamma_p is far below the assumed value, the 2e-13 GeV^-1 limit no longer follows from the null. Conversely, a confirmed narrow emission line with the expected ~100 MHz width in any of the four searched bands would refute the null result.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, axion-photon couplings above about 2e-13 GeV^-1 are excluded in the 0.55-0.62 meV mass window, reaching parameter space that laboratory haloscopes have not yet covered.
  • The exclusion applies only under the assumed dense dark-matter spike; with a standard halo profile the same null result yields a more conservative limit of about 2e-11 GeV^-1.
  • The published per-channel upper-limit spectrum can be reused for any other narrow-line dark-matter or exotic-physics search toward SGR 1745-2900.
  • The methodology can be extended to other magnetars and to other ALMA bands, broadening the covered axion mass range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The conversion yield scales steeply with the assumed M/gamma_p ratio, so the quoted limits are only as good as the magnetosphere model; a direct measurement of the plasma density near the conversion radius would either validate or loosen them.
  • Because the conversion factor f2(t) modulates on the 3.76-second stellar rotation, folding the same ALMA data on the spin period could reveal time-dependent axion signals that the time-averaged search might dilute.
  • If future observations stack several magnetars or deepen the integration, the method could close the gap to the remaining QCD axion benchmark lines, but doing so will require independent constraints on each magnetar's pair multiplicity and plasma Lorentz factor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 4.8 h ALMA Band-4 search for narrow axion-induced spectral lines toward the Galactic-Center magnetar SGR 1745-2900. After standard CASA calibration, Sgr A* subtraction, ON/OFF differencing, high-pass filtering, and matched filtering, no statistically significant features are found between 133.99-135.78, 135.91-137.70, 145.99-147.78, and 147.99-149.78 GHz; the SNR distribution is consistent with Gaussian noise (mean ~ 0.02, sigma ~ 1.01). The null is interpreted using resonant axion-photon conversion in a Beloborodov-type magnetosphere, with the flux model of Eq. (3) taken from Ref. [42]. With a dark-matter spike at the Galactic Center, the authors derive 95% CL limits g_gamma ~ (1.7-2.5)x10^-13 GeV^-1 in the 0.55-0.62 meV range, which they state access the QCD axion parameter space for the first time near the meV scale.

Significance. If the conversion model is correct, this is a genuinely new constraint: the ALMA data are public, the null result is well characterized, and the paper is explicit about the model dependence of the interpretation (NFW versus spike). The strongest quantitative claim, however, rests entirely on the flux normalization in Eq. (3), which is taken from a first-author self-citation and is not independently validated in the manuscript. Because an order-of-magnitude ambiguity in that normalization would shift the headline g_gamma limit in or out of the QCD-axion window, the paper needs a careful normalization check before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, Eq. (3)] The central limit is controlled by Eq. (3), taken from Ref. [42]. The text defines Omega_* = 2 pi/P above Eq. (2), but the dimensionless ratio Omega_*/1 Hz in Eq. (3) is not unique: with P = 3.76 s it is 1.67 if Omega_* is in rad/s, or 0.266 if the intended variable is the cyclic frequency nu = 1/P. These choices differ in S_nu by a factor (2 pi)^(8/3) ~ 130, and in g_gamma by a factor around 3-10. Table III is consistent with the former reading, but no derivation of the 1.6e-5 microJy prefactor is given and no comparison with Refs. [17,21,22] is made. Please provide the full derivation or an independent numerical cross-check, and state explicitly which frequency convention is used in Eqs. (3)-(4). The QCD axion parameter space claim depends on this normalization and must be settled before publication.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption and Results] The text calls M ~ 100, gamma_p ~ 10 'tenable', while the benchmark in Fig. 4 uses M ~ 50, gamma_p ~ 2, i.e. M/gamma_p = 25. From Eq. (4), limits scale as (M/gamma_p)^(3/4) at fixed sensitivity, and M/gamma_p also changes the resonance radius through Eq. (2). The choice is therefore not merely cosmetic: using the 'tenable' value M/gamma_p = 10 improves the limits by about a factor of two. Please justify the adopted M/gamma_p and show sensitivity. In addition, the rotation-averaged value of f2(t) used is not reported; since f2 enters through f2^(-1/2), a factor of a few in f2 changes the limits by tens of percent. State the averaged f2 and its range.
  3. [Data analysis and Table III] The statistical construction of the reported 95% CL upper limits is not fully specified. The text says limits are computed from the upper-limit amplitudes derived in the matched-filter analysis, but the mapping from matched-filter amplitudes with per-channel sigma_A ~ 35-46 microJy to a flux upper limit S_nu is not given. The implied line-flux limits in Table III are well below the per-channel 1-sigma values, indicating line-matched filtering over the expected width is used, but the exact procedure (amplitude + 1.64 sigma, profile likelihood, treatment of negative amplitudes and masked channels) should be stated so the reader can reproduce Table III.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and spacing: 'above1014G' in the Introduction, 'giving raise to' and 'taking give raise' in the Results section.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The definition of f1(t) is garbled: '3 cos theta hat m dot hat r' should presumably read '3 cos theta_m (hat m dot hat r)' or similar. Please define all angles unambiguously.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption lists the heavy model as (2.10 M_sun, 12.53 km, 1.14e15 G), but the text states M_* = 2.1 M_sun gives R = 12.13 km. Correct the inconsistency.
  4. [References] Ref. [43] is a duplicate of Ref. [18]. Remove the duplicate or cite different work.
  5. [Supplemental Material] The text refers to 'the Supplemental Material' for a discussion of 3D magnetospheric structure, but no supplemental material is included in the arXiv version. Add it or remove the reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the ALMA null detection is externally grounded, and the self-cited conversion formula is a model input rather than a prediction derived from the data.

full rationale

The paper's only data-driven claim is the absence of statistically significant narrow spectral features in four ALMA spectral windows. That null result is derived from public ALMA observations through standard CASA calibration, Sgr A* subtraction, OFF-source differencing, and matched filtering; no parameter is fitted to the spectrum and then renamed as a prediction. The conversion from null flux limits to axion-photon coupling limits uses Eq. (3), taken from Ref. [42], a first-author self-citation. This is inherited model dependence, not circularity: the formula is an external input, not an output of the present analysis, and the reported g_gamma limits are not equal to any fitted quantity by construction. The benchmark choices M=50, gamma_p=2 in Fig. 4 are stated assumptions (with text noting M~100 and gamma_p~10 are 'tenable'), not fits to the ALMA data. The reviewer's concern about a possible 2pi ambiguity in the normalization of (Omega_*/1 Hz) in Eq. (3) is a potential unit/correctness issue that would shift the sensitivity numerically, but it does not make the derivation equal to its inputs; a wrong unit convention is an error, not a circular step. The paper explicitly notes its simplified 1D magnetospheric framework and refers to Supplemental Material for 3D structure, which is a stated limitation rather than a circularity. No uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is invoked to forbid alternatives; the model choice is presented as a framework, not as a forced consequence of the data. The central claim therefore has independent empirical content, and the self-citation, while load-bearing for the interpretation, does not reduce the result to the input formula.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The reported g_γ constraints inherit every term in Eqs. 3-4. The only truly external, source-independent inputs are the ALMA noise levels (Table I). The magnetic field B0, spin period P, distance d, and radial velocity v0 come from prior observations of the magnetar; M, γ_p, the geometric factors, and ρ_a are model assumptions grafted from Ref. [42] and the spike literature.

free parameters (4)
  • M/γ_p (pair multiplicity / plasma Lorentz factor) = 50/2 in benchmark (text also calls 100/10 'tenable')
    Sets plasma frequency and conversion radius (Eq. 2) and flux (Eq. 3); g_γ limit scales as (M/γ_p)^{3/4}. A factor 2.5 change in the ratio shifts the limit by ~2.
  • Geometric/time factors f1(t), f2(t) (θ_m, θ, ε) = θ_m≈10°, θ≈20°, ε≈0.9
    Angular configuration of the oblique rotator and line-broadening geometry; chosen from the model, not measured.
  • DM density at magnetar position ρ_a = 6.4×10^8 GeV cm^-3 (spike model)
    Taken from Refs [24,25,28,30]; enters as ρ_a^{-1/2} in g_γ limit; if NFW only, limits are ~100× weaker.
  • Axion linewidth kernel width (plasma-mirror scenario) = FWHM~100 MHz
    Sets the matched-filter width; depends on ε and conversion altitude; affects which channels are combined.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Resonant conversion condition m_a ≃ ω_p (Eq. 2)
    The conversion only happens where axion mass equals plasma frequency; standard in the axion-magnetar literature but a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Beloborodov magnetosphere model with pair cascades
    The magnetosphere is sustained by pair cascades with M~100, γ_p~10; the flux formula (Eq. 3) is derived under this model in Ref. [42].
  • domain assumption DM spike profile γ_sp=7/3, R_sp=0.1 kpc around Sgr A*
    The spike is consistent with the S2 orbit's 99.7% upper limit [28,30], but not required by it; drives the headline sensitivity.
  • standard math BSk24 nuclear equation of state maps M_* → R_*, I_*
    Used to derive radii and moments of inertia for the three benchmark masses; external astrophysical input.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining meV Axion Dark Matter with ALMA Observations of the Galactic Center Magnetar SGR 1745-2900." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O2Y4OIY4

@misc{pith2026251206441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining meV Axion Dark Matter with ALMA Observations of the Galactic Center Magnetar SGR 1745-2900},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O2Y4OIY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.06441}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We report a mm-wave search for axion dark matter from SGR 1745-2900, based on 4.8 h of ALMA observations. No candidate features are found between 133.99-135.78, 135.91-137.70, 145.99-147.78, and 147.99-149.78~GHz, corresponding to 0.55-0.62 meV. Interpreting this null result within a state-of-the-art stellar framework, we derive sensitivity to the axion-photon coupling at the level of $g_{\gamma}\gtrsim 2\times10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$ under a standard Navarro-Frenk-White profile; down to $g_{\gamma}\gtrsim 2\times10^{-13}$ GeV$^{-1}$ upon accounting for a dense dark-matter spike around Sagittarius A*, probing the quantum chromodynamics axion parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.06441 by Daniel L. Walker, Davide De Grandis, Evanthia Hatziminaoglou, Fr\'ed\'eric Poidevin, Jaime Prieto-Polo, Javier De Miguel, Nanda Rea.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. ALMA 2-mm continuum of the GC before (top) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Top: raw ON–source spectrum toward SGR 1745–2900 (blue) and averaged OFF reference (orange), shown per spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Left: distribution of SNR across frequency after ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 95% CL constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,CPconservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, A new light boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A new light boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    Wilczek, Problem of strongpandtinvariance in the presence of instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of strongpandtinvariance in the presence of instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Abbott and P

    L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invisible axion, Physics Letters B120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not-so-harmless axion, Physics Letters B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible axion, Physics Letters B120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    Zwicky, Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln, Helvetica Physica Acta6, 110 (1933)

    F. Zwicky, Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln, Helvetica Physica Acta6, 110 (1933)

    1933

  8. [8]

    V. C. Rubin and J. Ford, W. Kent, Rotation of the An- dromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emis- sion Regions, Astrophys. J.159, 379 (1970)

    1970

  9. [9]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, History of dark mat- ter, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 045002 (2018), arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Massó and R

    E. Massó and R. Toldrà, Light spinless particle coupled to photons, Phys. Rev. D52, 1755 (1995)

    1995

  11. [11]

    Primakoff, Photoproduction of neutral mesons in nu- clear electric fields and the mean life of the neutral me- son, Phys

    H. Primakoff, Photoproduction of neutral mesons in nu- clear electric fields and the mean life of the neutral me- son, Phys. Rev.81, 899 (1951)

    1951

  12. [12]

    Iwamoto, Axion Emission from Neutron Stars, Phys

    N. Iwamoto, Axion Emission from Neutron Stars, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 1198 (1984)

    1984

  13. [13]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  14. [14]

    D. E. Morris, Axion Mass Limits From Pulsar X-rays, Phys. Rev. D34, 843 (1986)

    1986

  15. [15]

    Yoshimura, Resonant axion-photon conversion in magnetized plasma, Phys

    M. Yoshimura, Resonant axion-photon conversion in magnetized plasma, Phys. Rev. D37, 2039 (1988)

    2039

  16. [16]

    Lai and J

    D. Lai and J. Heyl, Probing Axions with Radiation from Magnetic Stars, Phys. Rev. D74, 123003 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0609775

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [17]

    A. Hook, Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi, and Z. Sun, Radio sig- nals from axion dark matter conversion in neutron star magnetospheres, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 241102 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    F. P. Huang, K. Kadota, T. Sekiguchi, and H. Tashiro, Radio telescope search for the resonant conversion of cold dark matter axions from the magnetized astro- physical sources, Phys. Rev. D97, 123001 (2018), arXiv:1803.08230 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Leroy, M

    M. Leroy, M. Chianese, T. D. P. Edwards, and C. Weniger, Radio Signal of Axion-Photon Conversion in Neutron Stars: A Ray Tracing Analysis, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123003 (2020), arXiv:1912.08815 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    B. R. Safdi, Z. Sun, and A. Y. Chen, Detecting Axion Dark Matter with Radio Lines from Neutron Star Populations, Phys. Rev. D99, 123021 (2019), arXiv:1811.01020 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    R. A. Battye, B. Garbrecht, J. I. McDonald, F. Pace, and S. Srinivasan, Dark matter axion detection in the radio/mm waveband, Phys. Rev. D102, 023504 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    S. J. Witte, D. Noordhuis, T. D. P. Edwards, and C. Weniger, Axion-photon conversion in neutron star magnetospheres: TheroleoftheplasmaintheGoldreich- Julian model, Phys. Rev. D104, 103030 (2021), arXiv:2104.07670 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    R. A. Battye, B. Garbrecht, J. I. McDonald, and S. Srini- vasan, Radio line properties of axion dark matter conver- sion in neutron stars, JHEP09, 105, arXiv:2104.08290 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Darling, Search for Axionic Dark Matter Using the Magnetar PSR J1745-2900, Phys

    J. Darling, Search for Axionic Dark Matter Using the Magnetar PSR J1745-2900, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 121103 (2020), arXiv:2008.01877 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Darling, New Limits on Axionic Dark Matter from the Magnetar PSR J1745-2900, Astrophys

    J. Darling, New Limits on Axionic Dark Matter from the Magnetar PSR J1745-2900, Astrophys. J. Lett.900, L28 (2020), arXiv:2008.11188 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    De Miguel and C

    J. De Miguel and C. Otani, Superdense beaming of axion darkmatterinthevicinityofthelightcylinderofpulsars, JCAP08(08), 026, arXiv:2111.01746 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    De Miguel and C

    J. De Miguel and C. Otani, Axion-photon multimes- senger astronomy with giant flares, Phys. Rev. D106, L041302 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    P. J. McMillan, The mass distribution and gravitational potential of the milky way, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society465, 76 (2016)

    2016

  29. [29]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Structure of cold dark matter halos, Astrophys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  30. [30]

    T.Lacroix,Dynamicalconstraintsonadarkmatterspike at the Galactic centre from stellar orbits, Astronomy & Astrophysics619, A46 (2018), arXiv:1801.01308 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Moriet al., NuSTAR discovery of a 3.76-second tran- sient magnetar near Sagittarius A*, Astrophys

    K. Moriet al., NuSTAR discovery of a 3.76-second tran- sient magnetar near Sagittarius A*, Astrophys. J. Lett. 770, L23 (2013), arXiv:1305.1945 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Beanet al.(CASA Team), CASA, Common Astron- omy Software Applications for Radio Astronomy, Publ

    B. Beanet al.(CASA Team), CASA, Common Astron- omy Software Applications for Radio Astronomy, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.134, 114501 (2022), arXiv:2210.02276 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Albentosa-Ruiz, I

    E. Albentosa-Ruiz, I. Martí-Vidal, C. Goddi, and A.Mus,Anovelcalibrationandimagingmethodforalma observations of sgra* (2025), arXiv:2503.11258 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Yusef-Zadeh, R

    F. Yusef-Zadeh, R. Schödel, M. Wardle, H. Bushouse, W. Cotton, M. J. Royster, D. Kunneriath, D. A. Roberts, and E. Gallego-Cano, Alma and vla obser- vations of emission from the environment of sgr a*, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470, 4209 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/470/4/4209/18800855/stx1439.pdf

    2017

  35. [35]

    J. W. Foster, Y. Kahn, O. Macias, Z. Sun, R. P. Eatough, V. I. Kondratiev, W. M. Peters, C. Weniger, and B. R. Safdi, Green bank and effelsberg radio telescope searches for axion dark matter conversion in neutron star magne- tospheres, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 171301 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Goldreich and W

    P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, Pulsar Electrodynamics, Astrophys. J.157, 869 (1969)

    1969

  37. [37]

    A. M. Beloborodov, ON THE MECHANISM OF HARD x-RAY EMISSION FROM MAGNETARS, The Astro- physical Journal762, 13 (2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    A. M. Beloborodov, ELECTRON-POSITRON FLOWS AROUND MAGNETARS, The Astrophysical Journal 777, 114 (2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    M. A. Ruderman and P. G. Sutherland, Theory of pul- sars: polar gaps, sparks, and coherent microwave radia- tion., Astrophys. J.196, 51 (1975). 7

    1975

  40. [40]

    Arons and E

    J. Arons and E. T. Scharlemann, Pair formation above pulsar polar caps: structure of the low altitude accelera- tion zone., Astrophysical Journal231, 854 (1979)

    1979

  41. [41]

    Kramer, K

    M. Kramer, K. M. Xilouris, A. Jessner, D. R. Lorimer, R. Wielebinski, and A. G. Lyne, Origin of pulsar radio emission. I. High frequency data., Astronomy and Astro- physics322, 846 (1997)

    1997

  42. [42]

    De Miguel, Retuning radio astronomy for axion dark matterwithneutronstars,PhysicsLettersB862,139328 (2025)

    J. De Miguel, Retuning radio astronomy for axion dark matterwithneutronstars,PhysicsLettersB862,139328 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    F. P. Huang, K. Kadota, T. Sekiguchi, and H. Tashiro, Radio telescope search for the resonant conversion of cold dark matter axions from the magnetized astrophysical sources, Phys. Rev. D97, 123001 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    G. C. Boweret al., The Proper Motion of the Galactic Center Pulsar Relative to Sagittarius A*, Astrophys. J. 798, 120 (2015), arXiv:1411.0399 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Altenmüller, V

    K. Altenmüller, V. Anastassopoulos, S. Arguedas- Cuendis, S. Aune, J. Baier, K. Barth, H. Bräuninger, G. Cantatore, F. Caspers, J. F. Castel, S. A. Çetin, F. Christensen, C. Cogollos, T. Dafni, M. Davenport, T. A. Decker, K. Desch, D. Díez-Ibáñez, B. Döbrich, E. Ferrer-Ribas, H. Fischer, W. Funk, J. Galán, J. A. García, A. Gardikiotis, I. Giomataris, J. G...

    2024

  46. [46]

    Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction, Nature Phys.13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    V. Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction, Nature Phys.13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Domínguez, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, Revisiting the bound on axion-photon cou- pling from Globular Clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 191302 (2014), arXiv:1406.6053 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    M. J. Dolan, F. J. Hiskens, and R. R. Volkas, Advanc- ing globular cluster constraints on the axion-photon cou- pling, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022(10), 096, arXiv:2207.03102 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Di Luzio, F

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, Redefining the Axion Window, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 031801 (2017), arXiv:1610.07593 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    J. E. Kim, Weak-interaction singlet and strongCPin- variance, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  51. [51]

    M. A. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Can confinement ensure natural cp invariance of strong inter- actions, Nuclear Physics166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  52. [52]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, A simple so- lution to the strong cp problem with a harmless axion, Physics Letters B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  53. [53]

    A. P. Zhitnitskii, Possible suppression of axion-hadron interactions, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. (Engl. Transl.); (United States)31:2, (1980)

    1980

  54. [54]

    Y. D. Mutafchieva, Z. K. Stoyanov, N. Chamel, J. M. Pearson, and L. M. Mihailov, Unified equation of state for the outer and inner crusts of magnetars, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1555, 012015 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    J. G. Martinez, K. Stovall, P. C. C. Freire, J. S. Deneva, F. A. Jenet, M. A. McLaughlin, M. Bagchi, S. D. Bates, and A. Ridolfi, Pulsar j0453+1559: A double neutron star system with a large mass asymmetry, The Astro- physical Journal812, 143 (2015)

    2015

  56. [56]

    H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. De- morest, Z. Arzoumanian, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. E. DeCesar, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, N. Garver-Daniels, P. A. Gentile, M. L. Jones, M. T. Lam, D. R. Lorimer, R. S. Lynch, M. A. McLaugh- lin, C. Ng, D. J. Nice, T. T. Pennucci, R. Spiewak, I. H. Stairs, K. Stovall, J. K. Swi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    J.DeMiguel,Adarkmattertelescopeprobingthe6to60 GHz band, JCAP04, 075, arXiv:2003.06874 [physics.ins- det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  58. [58]

    De Miguel, J

    J. De Miguel, J. F. Hernández-Cabrera, E. Hernández- Suárez, E. Joven-Álvarez, C. Otani, and J. Alberto Ru- biño Martín (On behalf of the DALI Collaboration), Dis- covery prospects with the dark-photons & axion-like par- ticles interferometer, Phys. Rev. D109, 062002 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    J. F. Hernández-Cabrera, J. De Miguel, E. Joven Ál- varez, E. Hernández-Suárez, J. A. Rubiño-Martín, and C. Otani, A forecast of the sensitivity of the dali ex- periment to galactic axion dark matter, Symmetry16, 10.3390/sym16020163 (2024)

    work page doi:10.3390/sym16020163 2024

  60. [60]

    J. F. Hernández-Cabrera, J. De Miguel, E. Hernández- Suárez, E. Joven-Álvarez, H. Lorenzo-Hernández, C. Otani, M. A. Rapado-Tamarit, and J. A. Rubiño- Martín (DALI), Experimental measurement of the qual- ity factor of a Fabry-Pérot open-cavity axion haloscope, JINST19(01), P01022, arXiv:2310.16013 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    De Miguel, A

    J. De Miguel, A. Kryemadhi, and K. Zioutas (On behalf of the DALI Collaboration), Dali sensitivity to streaming axion dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111, 023016 (2025)

    2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.