arxiv: 2604.09283 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.CO· gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Probing Solar Symmetrons with Direct Detection

Hannah Banks , Anne-Christine Davis , Luca Visinelli

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords symmetronsscreened scalarssolar tachoclinephoton conversiondirect detectionXENONnTconformal couplingdisformal coupling

0 comments

The pith

The Sun produces symmetrons through photon conversion in its tachocline that reach Earth and can be absorbed by underground xenon detectors, setting new limits on these screened scalar fields.

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

This paper examines how symmetrons, scalar fields whose couplings to ordinary matter depend on the local density, could be created inside the Sun and then detected in terrestrial experiments. The authors calculate the flux generated when solar photons convert to symmetrons in the tachocline's magnetic field and require that the associated energy loss remain below three percent of the Sun's total luminosity. They show that this already excludes previously allowed regions of the symmetron mass and coupling parameter space. The same flux arriving at Earth produces a keV-scale spectrum that liquid xenon detectors can absorb through both conformal and disformal interactions with electrons. Data from XENONnT then supplies additional laboratory bounds that complement the solar-luminosity constraint and further restrict the viable parameter space.

Core claim

Symmetrons produced by photon conversion in the solar tachocline carry a keV-scale spectrum to Earth whose absorption in liquid xenon via conformal and disformal couplings to electrons yields direct-detection limits that tighten the parameter space already bounded by requiring symmetron luminosity to stay below three percent of solar output.

What carries the argument

Photon-to-symmetron conversion in the tachocline magnetic field, which generates the Earth flux, followed by density-dependent absorption on electrons in xenon targets.

If this is right

Solar luminosity supplies astrophysical upper limits on symmetron mass and coupling strength in regions not previously excluded.
The arriving symmetron spectrum at Earth is predicted to peak in the keV range.
XENONnT electron-recoil data set complementary laboratory limits that narrow the allowed parameter space further.
The Sun acts as a steady, exploitable source of symmetrons for testing screened scalar models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same production and detection strategy could be applied to other density-dependent scalars that couple to photons in stellar magnetic fields.
More sensitive future xenon or other target detectors could probe lower coupling strengths or different mass ranges.
If symmetrons contribute to cosmic acceleration, the solar bounds would restrict their possible role in late-time cosmology.

Load-bearing premise

Symmetron production is taken to occur only inside the tachocline with photon conversion as the dominant channel, and the total symmetron energy output is capped at three percent of the Sun's luminosity.

What would settle it

An observed solar energy loss in symmetrons exceeding three percent of luminosity, or a measured absorption rate in XENONnT that is inconsistent with the predicted keV spectrum, would invalidate the derived bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09283 by Anne-Christine Davis, Hannah Banks, Luca Visinelli.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Predicted symmetron spectrum at Earth, normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Direct detection bounds on the symmetron parameter space derived from the XENONnT binned data. Each panel shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Lowest–order contribution to the symmetron self– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We provide the first investigation of the solar production of symmetrons, a well-motivated class of screened scalar fields with density dependent couplings to the Standard Model, and their subsequent absorption in underground direct detection experiments. We compute the flux of symmetrons produced through photon conversion in the magnetic field of the solar tachocline, and constrain the resulting luminosity to not exceed 3% of the observed solar output. Even under the conservative assumption that production occurs only in the tachocline, this criterion yields robust astrophysical bounds on previously uncharted regions of symmetron parameter space, and predicts a keV-scale symmetron spectrum at Earth. We then derive the corresponding absorption signal in liquid xenon detectors, where symmetrons can interact with electrons through both conformal and disformal couplings. Using binned data from XENONnT, we obtain new direct-detection limits that are complementary to the solar luminosity constraint, further tightening the viable symmetron parameter space. Our results demonstrate that the Sun provides a testable, previously unexploited, source of symmetrons, and highlight that the interplay of astrophysical and laboratory searches offers a powerful strategy for probing screened scalar theories.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper's main contribution is a first calculation of symmetron flux from tachocline photon conversion feeding into XENONnT absorption limits that complement a solar luminosity bound, though the 3% cap and production-site choice rest on thin justification.

read the letter

The one or two things to know are that the authors compute symmetron production in the solar tachocline and then absorption in XENONnT, yielding new limits that sit next to a solar luminosity bound. They do this by assuming production only in the tachocline, capping the luminosity at 3% of solar output, calculating the flux and spectrum at Earth, and folding in the detector response for both coupling types. This is new because prior symmetron papers did not combine solar production with direct detection in this way. The approach is straightforward and uses real data, which gives it practical value. The assumptions around the 3% figure and the exclusive tachocline production are the soft spots. The abstract does not derive the 3% from solar measurements, and the stress-test concern about missing uncertainty propagation on the magnetic field holds up based on what is shown. Those choices affect the size of the excluded region, so referees will want to see sensitivity checks. This work is for people in the symmetron or screened scalar community who are looking for astrophysical tests that can be cross-checked with lab experiments. It is worth a serious referee because the idea is concrete and the calculation can be verified or improved. Recommendation: yes, send it for peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to provide the first investigation of solar symmetron production via photon conversion in the tachocline magnetic field, with the resulting luminosity constrained to not exceed 3% of the observed solar output. Under the conservative tachocline-only assumption, this yields astrophysical bounds on symmetron parameter space and predicts a keV-scale spectrum at Earth. The work then derives the absorption signal in liquid xenon via conformal and disformal couplings, obtaining new limits from XENONnT binned data that are complementary to the solar constraint.

Significance. If the key assumptions hold, the result is significant as it opens a previously unexploited solar source for probing screened scalars, demonstrates complementarity between astrophysical luminosity bounds and direct-detection limits, and uses existing XENONnT data to tighten viable parameter space. The conservative framing and focus on falsifiable predictions strengthen the contribution.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and luminosity-constraint section] The 3% solar-luminosity ceiling (abstract) is load-bearing for the flux normalization and all derived bounds, yet no derivation ties it to helioseismology, neutrino fluxes, or sound-speed profiles; the text must show how this specific fraction follows from solar observables rather than being chosen for conservatism.
[Production mechanism and flux computation] The tachocline-only production assumption (abstract) together with the photon-conversion channel is central to the predicted Earth flux and XENONnT exclusion contours, but the manuscript does not propagate observational uncertainties in tachocline B-field strength or coherence length into the conversion probability; because the mixing angle is density-dependent, any additional channels or screening suppression would rescale the signal and weaken the claimed robustness.

minor comments (2)

[Direct-detection analysis] Clarify the precise energy range and binning used for the XENONnT absorption signal to allow direct reproduction of the limits.
[Results section] Add a short table or plot comparing the new DD limits with the solar-luminosity bounds across the symmetron parameter space.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below. Where the suggestions identify areas for improved clarity or justification, we have revised the text accordingly while preserving the conservative framing of our assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and luminosity-constraint section] The 3% solar-luminosity ceiling (abstract) is load-bearing for the flux normalization and all derived bounds, yet no derivation ties it to helioseismology, neutrino fluxes, or sound-speed profiles; the text must show how this specific fraction follows from solar observables rather than being chosen for conservatism.

Authors: We agree that the 3% threshold benefits from explicit justification tied to solar observables. This value is chosen conservatively so that the additional symmetron luminosity remains a small perturbation on the total solar output, which is known to high precision. In the revised manuscript we expand the luminosity-constraint section to note that standard solar models, calibrated to helioseismological sound-speed profiles and neutrino flux measurements, tolerate additional energy losses at the few-percent level before significant tension arises with observations. The 3% ceiling therefore provides a transparent, model-independent upper limit that is consistent with these constraints while remaining deliberately conservative; we do not claim a first-principles derivation from a full solar-model re-fit. revision: yes
Referee: [Production mechanism and flux computation] The tachocline-only production assumption (abstract) together with the photon-conversion channel is central to the predicted Earth flux and XENONnT exclusion contours, but the manuscript does not propagate observational uncertainties in tachocline B-field strength or coherence length into the conversion probability; because the mixing angle is density-dependent, any additional channels or screening suppression would rescale the signal and weaken the claimed robustness.

Authors: The tachocline-only assumption is explicitly labeled conservative in the abstract and main text precisely because production in other solar regions would be suppressed by the density-dependent screening mechanism. The conversion probability already incorporates the density-dependent mixing angle through the standard photon-scalar oscillation formalism evaluated at tachocline conditions. We acknowledge that a quantitative propagation of uncertainties in B-field strength and coherence length was not presented. In the revision we add a dedicated paragraph that (i) cites the observational ranges for these quantities from helioseismology, (ii) shows the scaling of the conversion probability with B and coherence length, and (iii) demonstrates that the resulting Earth flux and XENONnT limits vary by less than an order of magnitude under factor-of-two variations in either parameter. Additional production channels would only increase the predicted flux and therefore strengthen the bounds; our conservative choice to restrict to the tachocline therefore does not weaken the robustness claim but rather makes the reported limits a lower bound on the constraining power. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central bounds and predictions use external solar luminosity data and XENONnT results

full rationale

The paper computes symmetron flux via photon conversion in the tachocline under an explicit conservative assumption (production only there, luminosity capped at 3% of observed solar output), then derives the keV-scale spectrum at Earth and absorption rates in xenon from standard mixing and coupling formulas. These steps rely on external solar output measurements and published XENONnT binned data rather than any parameter fitted inside the paper or any self-citation chain. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to an input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled via self-reference. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, consistent with the default expectation of no circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the symmetron model and couplings taken from prior literature, standard solar interior and magnetic-field assumptions, and the interaction model for xenon detectors. No new free parameters are introduced; the 3% luminosity ceiling is a conservative external bound rather than a fit.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Symmetrons are produced primarily through photon conversion in the solar tachocline magnetic field
Invoked to compute the Earth flux under the conservative assumption stated in the abstract.
domain assumption Symmetron-electron interactions occur via both conformal and disformal couplings
Required for the absorption signal derivation in liquid xenon.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5502 in / 1470 out tokens · 67777 ms · 2026-05-10T17:30:25.112844+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astrophys. J.159, 379 (1970)

1970
[2]

A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1998
[3]

Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

S.Perlmutteret al.(SupernovaCosmologyProject),As- trophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1999
[4]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

1989
[5]

A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[6]

Evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics?

G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.538, 875 (2025), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Ratra and P

B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

1988
[8]

Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant

I. Zlatev, L.-M. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807002

work page Pith review arXiv 1999
[9]

E.J.Copeland, M.Sami, andS.Tsujikawa,Int.J.Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[10]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.9, 3 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0510072

work page arXiv 2006
[11]

Burrage and J

C. Burrage and J. Sakstein, Living Rev. Rel.21, 1 (2018), arXiv:1709.09071 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2018
[12]

Chameleon Fields: Awaiting Surprises for Tests of Gravity in Space

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171104 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0309300

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[13]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis, J. Khoury, and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D70, 123518 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0408415

work page arXiv 2004
[14]

Hinterbichler and J

K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 231301 (2010), arXiv:1001.4525 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2010
[15]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis, B. Li, B. Schmauch, and D. J. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D84, 123524 (2011), arXiv:1108.3082 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2011
[16]

The string dilaton and a least co upling principle

T. Damour and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B423, 532 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401069

work page arXiv 1994
[17]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis, and D. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D82, 063519 (2010), arXiv:1005.3735 [astro- ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[18]

Burrage, A

C. Burrage, A. Macdonald, M. P. Ross, G. Rybka, and E. Todarello, Phys. Rev. D113, 063505 (2026), arXiv:2507.16526 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[19]

A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B39, 393 (1972)

1972
[20]

Davis, E

A.-C. Davis, E. A. Lim, J. Sakstein, and D. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D85, 123006 (2012), arXiv:1102.5278 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2012
[21]

Brax, A.-C

P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and B. Li, Phys. Lett. B715, 38 (2012), arXiv:1111.6613 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2012
[22]

Upadhye, Phys

A. Upadhye, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 031301 (2013), arXiv:1210.7804 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[23]

Burrage, E

C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, C. Käding, and P. Milling- ton, Phys. Rev. D99, 043539 (2019), arXiv:1811.12301 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[24]

Feleppa, G

F. Feleppa, G. Lambiase, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D112, 084011 (2025), arXiv:2508.18448 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Bartnick, K

K. Bartnick, K. Springmann, S. Stelzl, and A. Weiler, (2025), arXiv:2509.25305 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

X. Gan, H. Kim, and A. Mitridate, Phys. Rev. D113, 063034 (2026), arXiv:2510.13945 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

Feleppa, W.M

F. Feleppa, W. M. de Graaf, P. Brax, and G. Lambiase, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 101002 (2026), arXiv:2511.08448 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[28]

P.BraxandK.Zioutas,Phys.Rev.D82,043007(2010), arXiv:1004.1846 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2010
[29]

Redondo and G

J. Redondo and G. Raffelt, JCAP08, 034 (2013), arXiv:1305.2920 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[30]

Redondo,Solar axion flux from the axion-electron coupling,JCAP12(2013) 008 [1310.0823]

J. Redondo, JCAP12, 008 (2013), arXiv:1310.0823 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2013
[31]

New axion and hidden photon constraints from a solar data global fit,

N. Vinyoles, A. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Redondo, and J. Isern, JCAP10, 015 (2015), arXiv:1501.01639 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2015
[32]

Vagnozzi, L

S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli, P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D104, 063023 (2021), arXiv:2103.15834 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[33]

Aprile et al

E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. D102, 072004 (2020), arXiv:2006.09721 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2020
[34]

P. Brax, A. Lindner, and K. Zioutas, Phys. Rev. D85, 043014 (2012), arXiv:1110.2583 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2012
[35]

O’Shea, A.-C

T. O’Shea, A.-C. Davis, M. Giannotti, S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli, and J. K. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D110, 063027 (2024), arXiv:2406.01691 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[36]

Yuan, A.-C

G.-W. Yuan, A.-C. Davis, M. Giannotti, S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli, and J. K. Vogel, (2025), arXiv:2511.01655 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161805 15 (2022), arXiv:2207.11330 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022
[38]

G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rept.198, 1 (1990)

1990
[39]

G. G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(University of Chicago Press, 1996)

1996
[40]

Di Luzio, M

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

work page arXiv 2020
[41]

Zioutaset al.(CAST), Phys

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

work page arXiv 2005
[42]

Jaeckel and A

J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 405 (2010), arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2010
[43]

Inoue, T

Y. Inoue, T. Namba, S. Moriyama, M. Minowa, Y. Takasu, T. Horiuchi, and A. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. B536, 18 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0204388

work page arXiv 2002
[44]

Andriamonjeet al.(CAST), JCAP04, 010 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0702006

S. Andriamonjeet al.(CAST), JCAP04, 010 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0702006

work page arXiv 2007
[45]

Ariket al.(CAST), Phys

M. Ariket al.(CAST), Phys. Rev. D92, 021101 (2015), arXiv:1503.00610 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2015
[46]

Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), Phys

V. Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), Phys. Lett. B749, 172 (2015), arXiv:1503.04561 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2015
[47]

13 (2017) 584 [1705.02290]

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

work page arXiv 2017
[48]

Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), JCAP01, 032 (2019), arXiv:1808.00066 [hep-ex]

V. Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), JCAP01, 032 (2019), arXiv:1808.00066 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2019
[49]

Armengaudet al.(IAXO), JCAP06, 047 (2019), arXiv:1904.09155 [hep-ph]

E. Armengaudet al.(IAXO), JCAP06, 047 (2019), arXiv:1904.09155 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[50]

Arcusaet al.(IAXO), (2025), arXiv:2504.00079 [hep-ph]

A. Arcusaet al.(IAXO), (2025), arXiv:2504.00079 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[51]

Zhanget al.(PandaX), Phys

D. Zhanget al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161804 (2022), arXiv:2206.02339 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022
[52]

Liet al.(PandaX), Phys

T. Liet al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 071004 (2025), arXiv:2409.00773 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2025
[53]

Zenget al.(PandaX), Phys

X. Zenget al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 041001 (2025), arXiv:2408.07641 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2025
[54]

Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. D108, 072006 (2023), arXiv:2307.15753 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2023
[55]

D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), (2025), arXiv:2512.08065 [hep- ex]

work page arXiv 2025
[56]

Dominguez, O

I. Dominguez, O. Straniero, and J. Isern, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.306, 1 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9905033

work page arXiv 1999
[57]

Neutrino and axion bounds from the globular cluster M5 (NGC 5904),

N. Viaux, M. Catelan, P. B. Stetson, G. Raffelt, J. Redondo, A. A. R. Valcarce, and A. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 231301 (2013), arXiv:1311.1669 [astro- ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2013
[58]

Stranieroet al., Astron

O. Stranieroet al., Astron. Astrophys.644, A166 (2020), arXiv:2010.03833 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2020
[59]

M. T. Dennis and J. Sakstein, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102168 (2025), arXiv:2305.03113 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

Domínguez, O

I. Domínguez, O. Straniero, L. Piersanti, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Astron. Astrophys.702, A240 (2025), arXiv:2508.17779 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2025
[61]

J. N. Bahcall and M. H. Pinsonneault, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 781 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505425

work page arXiv 1995
[62]

Christensen-Dalsgaardet al., Science272, 1286 (1996)

J. Christensen-Dalsgaardet al., Science272, 1286 (1996)

1996
[63]

D. O. Goughet al., Science272, 1296 (1996)

1996
[64]

D. O. Gough and M. E. McIntyre, Nature394, 755 (1998)

1998
[65]

Grevesse and A

N. Grevesse and A. J. Sauval, Space Sci. Rev.85, 161 (1998)

1998
[66]

The chemical composition of the Sun

M. Asplund, N. Grevesse, A. J. Sauval, and P. Scott, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.47, 481 (2009), arXiv:0909.0948 [astro-ph.SR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2009
[67]

Caffau, H.-G

E. Caffau, H.-G. Ludwig, M. Steffen, B. Frey- tag, and P. Bonifacio, Solar Phys.268, 255 (2011), arXiv:1003.1190 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2011
[68]

Scott, N

P. Scott, N. Grevesse, M. Asplund, A. J. Sauval, K. Lind, Y. Takeda, R. Collet, R. Trampedach, and W. Hayek, Astron. Astrophys.573, A25 (2015), arXiv:1405.0279 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2015
[69]

Scott, M

P. Scott, M. Asplund, N. Grevesse, M. Bergemann, and A. J. Sauval, Astron. Astrophys.573, A26 (2015), arXiv:1405.0287 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2015
[70]

von Steiger and T

R. von Steiger and T. H. Zurbuchen, Astrophys. J.816, 13 (2016)

2016
[71]

Vagnozzi, K

S. Vagnozzi, K. Freese, and T. H. Zurbuchen, Astro- phys. J.839, 55 (2017), arXiv:1603.05960 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2017
[72]

A new Generation of Standard Solar Models

N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergström, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Peña-Garay, and N. Song, Astrophys. J.835, 202 (2017), arXiv:1611.09867 [astro-ph.SR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[73]

Vagnozzi, Atoms7, 41 (2019), arXiv:1703.10834 [astro-ph.SR]

S. Vagnozzi, Atoms7, 41 (2019), arXiv:1703.10834 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2019
[74]

M., & Grevesse, N

M. Benisty, A. M. Amarsi, and N. Grevesse, Astron. Astrophys.653, A141 (2021), arXiv:2105.01661 [astro- ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2021
[75]

G. G. Raffelt, Lect. Notes Phys.741, 51 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0611350

work page arXiv 2008
[76]

Gondolo and G

P. Gondolo and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D79, 107301 (2009), arXiv:0807.2926 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2009
[77]

On Gauge couplings in string theory,

V. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Nucl. Phys. B444, 191 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9502077

work page arXiv 1995
[78]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D48, 3641 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9211017

work page arXiv 1993
[79]

Brax and C

P. Brax and C. Burrage, Phys. Rev. D90, 104009 (2014), arXiv:1407.1861 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2014
[80]

Caputo, A

A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D101, 123004 (2020), arXiv:2005.00078 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.