pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.24121 · v1 · pith:5BAM2AGLnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.SR· nucl-th

Solar Axions from Nuclear Transitions

Tanmoy Kumar , Newton Nath This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 15:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRnucl-th
keywords solar axionsnuclear transitions57Fe83Kraxion-nucleon couplingXSMquiet SunChandrayaan-2
0
0 comments X

The pith

Solar axion fluxes from 57Fe transitions exceed those from 83Kr by nearly three orders of magnitude despite similar couplings, producing stronger limits on axion parameters.

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

The paper calculates axion production rates in the 14.4 keV M1 transition of solar 57Fe and the 9.4 keV transition of 83Kr, then compares these rates against soft X-ray data from the quiet Sun recorded by the XSM instrument. The effective axion-nucleon couplings for the two nuclei are nearly identical, yet the iron flux is larger by a factor of roughly 1000. This difference translates directly into more than an order-of-magnitude tighter upper bounds on the product |g_aN^eff × g_aγγ| and on g_aγγ versus axion mass when the iron channel is used. The analysis therefore shows that existing quiet-Sun X-ray observations already supply useful constraints on axions without new hardware.

Core claim

Although the effective axion-nucleon couplings for 83Kr and 57Fe differ only slightly, their fluxes differ by nearly three orders of magnitude. Consequently, the limit on |g_aN^eff × g_aγγ| and only g_aγγ vs. m_a provide more than an order-of-magnitude stronger constraint for Fe than for Kr.

What carries the argument

Ratio of solar axion fluxes from the M1 nuclear transitions of 57Fe and 83Kr, evaluated with XSM quiet-Sun X-ray observations.

If this is right

  • Limits derived from the iron transition are more than ten times stronger than those from krypton for the same data set.
  • The product of axion-nucleon and axion-photon couplings receives tighter bounds when the higher-flux channel is analyzed.
  • Quiet-Sun X-ray monitors can serve as axion detectors for nuclear-transition channels without dedicated hardware.
  • Future solar X-ray data sets can be re-analyzed with the same flux-ratio method to improve the bounds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Transitions in other abundant solar nuclei with large M1 matrix elements could be checked for even higher production rates.
  • Simultaneous analysis of multiple nuclear lines in the same data set could test whether any excess scales with the predicted flux ratios.
  • The same XSM data could be re-examined at slightly different energies to search for the axion mass dependence of the conversion probability.

Load-bearing premise

The soft X-ray counts recorded by XSM can be interpreted as direct upper limits on axion-induced photons from the cited nuclear transitions, with no dominant contribution from other solar processes or instrumental backgrounds.

What would settle it

A calculation showing that ordinary solar coronal or instrumental X-ray emission fully accounts for the observed counts in the 9–15 keV band would remove the basis for the reported axion limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24121 by Newton Nath, Tanmoy Kumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Differential solar axion flux at Earth from various production mechanisms. The continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Axion to photon oscillation probability at a far away distance from the Sun as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the possibility of detecting 14.4 keV and 9.4 keV solar axions and axion-like particles that could be produced in the M1 nuclear transitions of $^{57}$Fe and $^{83}$Kr, respectively. To do so, we used data from soft X-ray observations of the quiet Sun collected by the Solar X-ray Monitor (XSM) on board India's Chandrayaan-2 lunar mission. We observe that although the effective axion-nucleon couplings for $^{83}$Kr and $^{57}$Fe differ only slightly, their fluxes differ by nearly three orders of magnitude. Consequently, the limit on $|g_{aN}^{\rm eff} \times g_{a\gamma\gamma}|$ and only $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ vs. $m_a$ provide more than an order-of-magnitude stronger constraint for Fe than for Kr.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the production of 14.4 keV and 9.4 keV solar axions via M1 nuclear transitions in 57Fe and 83Kr, respectively, and uses soft X-ray data from the XSM instrument on Chandrayaan-2 to derive upper limits on the axion fluxes. It reports that the effective axion-nucleon couplings for the two isotopes are similar, yet the fluxes differ by nearly three orders of magnitude, yielding more than an order-of-magnitude stronger constraints on |g_aN^eff × g_aγγ| and on g_aγγ versus m_a for 57Fe than for 83Kr.

Significance. If the XSM quiet-Sun count rates can be robustly interpreted as direct upper bounds on the specific axion fluxes (with negligible contamination from other solar X-ray processes), the result would supply new, isotope-specific limits that exploit differences in solar abundances and transition energies. The work would thereby illustrate how nuclear-physics inputs and solar composition can produce large variations in sensitivity even when couplings are comparable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (final paragraph) and § on data analysis: the conversion of XSM count rates at 9.4 keV and 14.4 keV into axion-flux upper limits is asserted without any displayed derivation, error budget, energy-resolution modeling, or explicit data-selection criteria. This step is load-bearing for the claimed flux ratio of ~1000 and the resulting order-of-magnitude difference in limits.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (final paragraph) and discussion of XSM observations: the claim that the observed soft X-ray signal can be treated as an upper limit on axion-induced photons requires explicit demonstration that thermal bremsstrahlung, other elemental lines, coronal activity, and instrumental backgrounds do not dominate at the quoted energies. No such supporting analysis or reference is indicated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (final paragraph) and § on data analysis: the conversion of XSM count rates at 9.4 keV and 14.4 keV into axion-flux upper limits is asserted without any displayed derivation, error budget, energy-resolution modeling, or explicit data-selection criteria. This step is load-bearing for the claimed flux ratio of ~1000 and the resulting order-of-magnitude difference in limits.

    Authors: We agree that the conversion step requires explicit documentation. The revised manuscript will include a new subsection (or appendix) that derives the axion-flux upper limits from the XSM count rates, incorporating the instrument energy resolution, the full error budget, and the precise data-selection criteria applied at 9.4 keV and 14.4 keV. This addition will directly support the reported flux ratio and the resulting constraints. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (final paragraph) and discussion of XSM observations: the claim that the observed soft X-ray signal can be treated as an upper limit on axion-induced photons requires explicit demonstration that thermal bremsstrahlung, other elemental lines, coronal activity, and instrumental backgrounds do not dominate at the quoted energies. No such supporting analysis or reference is indicated.

    Authors: The manuscript currently adopts the quiet-Sun XSM count rates as conservative upper bounds on any axion-induced contribution at the nuclear-transition energies. We acknowledge that a more detailed justification is needed. In the revision we will add references to published quiet-Sun X-ray spectral studies and include a short discussion (or supporting figure) showing that, within the XSM energy resolution at 9.4 keV and 14.4 keV, the dominant backgrounds do not preclude the use of the total observed rate as an upper limit on an additional axion signal. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external XSM data and independent nuclear inputs

full rationale

The paper calculates axion fluxes from M1 transitions in 57Fe and 83Kr using standard nuclear matrix elements and solar abundances, then converts XSM quiet-Sun count rates into upper limits on |g_aN^eff × g_aγγ| and g_aγγ(m_a). No equation defines a flux or coupling in terms of a fitted parameter taken from the same XSM dataset; the reported order-of-magnitude difference between isotopes follows directly from the nuclear physics inputs and the energy-dependent detector response. The central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain or to renaming a known result. The interpretation of XSM data as axion-flux bounds is an external assumption, not a definitional loop internal to the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or detailed axioms; the two domain assumptions below are the minimal set required to reach the stated conclusion from the given text.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption M1 nuclear transitions in 57Fe and 83Kr produce axions at 14.4 keV and 9.4 keV respectively with effective couplings that differ only slightly
    Invoked in the first sentence of the abstract to justify comparing the two isotopes
  • domain assumption XSM soft X-ray counts from the quiet Sun can be converted into upper limits on axion fluxes
    Required for the final sentence that translates the flux difference into coupling limits

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5680 in / 1616 out tokens · 46844 ms · 2026-06-30T15:49:31.088639+00:00 · methodology

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

67 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · 19 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The Not So Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the Invisible Axion, Phys. Lett. B120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    R. L. Davis, Cosmic Axions from Cosmic Strings, Phys. Lett. B180, 225 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Axions and the Strong CP Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 557 (2010), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)], arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Axion Cosmology, Phys. Rept.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    C. B. Adamset al., Axion Dark Matter, in2022 Snowmass Summer Study(2022) arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Baryakhtaret al., Dark Matter In Extreme Astrophysical Environments, in2022 Snowmass Summer Study(2022) arXiv:2203.07984 [hep-ph]

    M. Baryakhtaret al., Dark Matter In Extreme Astrophysical Environments, in2022 Snowmass Summer Study(2022) arXiv:2203.07984 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    The landscape of QCD axion models

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 405 (2010), arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Stellar Recipes for Axion Hunters

    M. Giannotti, I. G. Irastorza, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald, and K. Saikawa, Stellar Recipes for Axion Hunters, JCAP10, 010, arXiv:1708.02111 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Agrawalet al., Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur

    P. Agrawalet al., Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1015 (2021), arXiv:2102.12143 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Fedele, M. Giannotti, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, Stellar evolution confronts axion models, JCAP02(02), 035, arXiv:2109.10368 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  17. [17]

    Giannotti, Exciting times, Nature Phys.13, 530 (2017)

    M. Giannotti, Exciting times, Nature Phys.13, 530 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    Giannotti, Aspects of Axions and ALPs Phenomenology, in10th Symposium on Large TPCs for Low-Energy Rare Event Detection(2022) arXiv:2205.06831 [hep-ph]

    M. Giannotti, Aspects of Axions and ALPs Phenomenology, in10th Symposium on Large TPCs for Low-Energy Rare Event Detection(2022) arXiv:2205.06831 [hep-ph]. 18

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Round Table on Axions and Axion-like Particles

    P. Di Vecchia, M. Giannotti, M. Lattanzi, and A. Lindner, Round Table on Axions and Axion-like Particles, PoSConfinement2018, 034 (2019), arXiv:1902.06567 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Sikivie, Invisible Axion Search Methods, Rev

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Arzaet al., (2026), arXiv:2603.03433 [hep-ph]

    A. Arzaet al., The cosmic wispers white paper: The physics case for weakly interacting slim particles (2026), arXiv:2603.03433 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/(2020)

    C. O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/(2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    G. G. Raffelt, ASTROPHYSICAL AXION BOUNDS DIMINISHED BY SCREENING EFFECTS, Phys. Rev. D33, 897 (1986)

    1986

  25. [25]

    G. G. Raffelt, Plasmon Decay Into Low Mass Bosons in Stars, Phys. Rev. D37, 1356 (1988)

    1988

  26. [26]

    Caputo, A

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, and E. Vitagliano, Revisiting longitudinal plasmon-axion conversion in external magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D101, 123004 (2020), arXiv:2005.00078 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, and E. Vitagliano, Axion helioscopes as solar magnetometers, Phys. Rev. D102, 043019 (2020), arXiv:2006.10415 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Guarini, P

    E. Guarini, P. Carenza, J. Galan, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Production of axionlike parti- cles from photon conversions in large-scale solar magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D102, 123024 (2020), arXiv:2010.06601 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Solar axion flux from the axion-electron coupling

    J. Redondo, Solar axion flux from the axion-electron coupling, JCAP12, 008, arXiv:1310.0823 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    S. Hoof, J. Jaeckel, and L. J. Thormaehlen, Quantifying uncertainties in the solar axion flux and their impact on determining axion model parameters, JCAP09, 006, arXiv:2101.08789 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  31. [31]

    New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from Globular Clusters

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Straniero, A

    O. Straniero, A. Ayala, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and I. Dominguez, Axion-Photon Coupling: Astro- physical Constraints, in11th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs(2015) pp. 77–81

    2015

  34. [34]

    M. J. Dolan, F. J. Hiskens, and R. R. Volkas, Advancing globular cluster constraints on the axion-photon coupling, JCAP10, 096, arXiv:2207.03102 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  35. [35]

    T. W. Donnelly, S. J. Freedman, R. S. Lytel, R. D. Peccei, and M. Schwartz, Do Axions Exist?, Phys. Rev. D18, 1607 (1978)

    1978

  36. [36]

    Massarczyk, P

    R. Massarczyk, P. H. Chu, and S. R. Elliott, Axion emission from nuclear magnetic dipole transitions, Phys. Rev. D105, 015031 (2022), arXiv:2112.08285 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    A. V. Derbin, A. I. Egorov, I. A. Mitropolsky, and V. N. Muratova, Search for solar axions emitted in an M1 transition in Li-7 nuclei, JETP Lett.81, 365 (2005). 19

    2005

  38. [38]

    Belliet al., Li-7 solar axions: Preliminary results and feasibility studies, Nucl

    P. Belliet al., Li-7 solar axions: Preliminary results and feasibility studies, Nucl. Phys. A806, 388 (2008)

    2008

  39. [39]

    Belliniet al.(Borexino), Search for solar axions emitted in the M1-transition of Li-7* with Borexino CTF, Eur

    G. Belliniet al.(Borexino), Search for solar axions emitted in the M1-transition of Li-7* with Borexino CTF, Eur. Phys. J. C54, 61 (2008)

    2008

  40. [40]

    Search for solar axion emission from 7Li and D(p,gamma)3He nuclear decays with the CAST gamma-ray calorimeter

    S. Andriamonjeet al.(CAST), Search for solar axion emission from 7LiandD(p, γ) 3Henuclear decays with the CASTγ-ray calorimeter, JCAP03, 032, arXiv:0904.2103 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    A proposal to search for a monochromatic component of solar axions using $^{57}$Fe

    S. Moriyama, A Proposal to search for a monochromatic component of solar axions using Fe-57, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3222 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9504318

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  42. [42]

    Search for Solar Axions Using Fe-57

    M. Krcmar, Z. Krecak, M. Stipcevic, A. Ljubicic, and D. A. Bradley, Search for invisible axions using Fe-57, Phys. Lett. B442, 38 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9801005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  43. [43]

    Search for 14.4 keV solar axions emitted in the M1-transition of 57Fe nuclei with CAST

    S. Andriamonjeet al.(CAST), Search for 14.4-keV solar axions emitted in the M1-transition of Fe-57 nuclei with CAST, JCAP12, 002, arXiv:0906.4488 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Search for 14.4 keV solar axions from M1 transition of Fe-57 with CUORE crystals

    F. Alessandriaet al.(CUORE), Search for 14.4 keV solar axions from M1 transition of Fe-57 with CUORE crystals, JCAP05, 007, arXiv:1209.2800 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    A Search For Solar Hadronic Axions Using Kr-83

    K. Jakovcic, Z. Krecak, M. Krcmar, and A. Ljubicic, A Search for solar hadronic axions using 83Kr, Radiat. Phys. Chem.71, 793 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0402016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  46. [46]

    Y. M. Gavrilyuket al., First result of the experimental search for the 9.4 keV solar axion reactions with 83Kr in the copper proportional counter, Phys. Part. Nucl.46, 152 (2015), arXiv:1405.1271 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Di Luzioet al., Eur

    L. Di Luzioet al., Probing the axion–nucleon coupling with the next generation of axion helioscopes, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 120 (2022), arXiv:2111.06407 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Bhusal, N

    A. Bhusal, N. Houston, and T. Li, Searching for Solar Axions Using Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 091601 (2021), arXiv:2004.02733 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, New Particles From Nuclear Reactions in the Sun, Phys. Lett. B119, 323 (1982)

    1982

  50. [50]

    Search for Solar Axions Produced in $p(d,\rm{^3He})A$ Reaction with Borexino Detector

    G. Belliniet al.(Borexino), Search for Solar Axions Produced inp(d, 3He)A Reaction with Borexino Detector, Phys. Rev. D85, 092003 (2012), arXiv:1203.6258 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    Lucente, N

    G. Lucente, N. Nath, F. Capozzi, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Probing high-energy solar axion flux with a large scintillation neutrino detector, Phys. Rev. D106, 123007 (2022), arXiv:2209.11780 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    M. Asplund, A. M. Amarsi, and N. Grevesse, The chemical make-up of the Sun: A 2020 vision, Astron. Astrophys.653, A141 (2021), arXiv:2105.01661 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    S. V. Vadawaleet al., Observations of the Quiet Sun during the Deepest Solar Minimum of the Past Century with Chandrayaan-2 XSM: Elemental Abundances in the Quiescent Corona, Astrophys. J. Lett.912, L12 (2021), arXiv:2103.16643 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    S. V. Vadawaleet al., Observations of the Quiet Sun during the Deepest Solar Minimum of the Past Century with Chandrayaan-2 XSM: Sub-A-class Microflares outside Active Regions, Astrophys. J. Lett. 912, L13 (2021), arXiv:2103.16644 [astro-ph.SR]. 20

    work page arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Kumar, N

    T. Kumar, N. P. S. Mithun, S. Mohanty, S. Roy, B. S. B. Saiguhan, and S. Vadawale, Limits on the axion-photon coupling from Chandrayaan-2 observations, Phys. Rev. D113, L061303 (2026), arXiv:2510.06087 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Ruz et al.,NuSTAR as an Axion Helioscope,Phys

    J. Ruzet al., NuSTAR as an Axion Helioscope, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 141001 (2025), arXiv:2407.03828 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    F. T. Avignone, C. Baktash, W. C. Barker, F. P. Calaprice, R. W. Dunford, W. C. Haxton, D. Kahana, R. T. Kouzes, H. S. Miley, and D. M. Moltz, Search for Axions From the 1115-kev Transition of 65Cu, Phys. Rev. D37, 618 (1988)

    1988

  58. [58]

    Herrera and A

    Y. Herrera and A. Serenelli, Standard solar models B23 / SF-III (v1.2), 10.5281/zenodo.10822316 (2023)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10822316 2023

  59. [59]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Mixing of the Photon with Low Mass Particles, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  60. [60]

    C. A. Manzari, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, and I. Savoray, Supernova Axions Convert to Gamma Rays in Magnetic Fields of Progenitor Stars, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 211002 (2024), arXiv:2405.19393 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    R. P. Dufresne, G. Del Zanna, P. R. Young, K. P. Dere, E. Deliporanidou, W. T. Barnes, and E. Landi, CHIANTI—An Atomic Database for Emission Lines—Paper. XVIII. Version 11, Advanced Ionization Equilibrium Models: Density and Charge Transfer Effects, Astrophys. J.974, 71 (2024), arXiv:2403.16922 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Del Zanna, K

    G. Del Zanna, K. P. Dere, P. R. Young, and E. Landi, CHIANTI—An Atomic Database for Emis- sion Lines. XVI. Version 10, Further Extensions, Astrophys. J.909, 38 (2021), arXiv:2011.05211 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Chiantipy,https://github.com/chianti-atomic/ChiantiPy/(2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Berger, J

    M. Berger, J. Hubbell, S. Seltzer, J. Chang, J. Coursey, R. Sukumar, D. Zucker, and K. Olsen, Xcom: Photon cross sections database,https://www.nist.gov/pml/ xcom-photon-cross-sections-database

  65. [65]

    Shanmugam, S

    M. Shanmugam, S. V. Vadawale, A. R. Patel, H. K. Adalaja, N. P. S. Mithun, T. Ladiya, S. K. Goyal, N. K. Tiwari, N. Singh, S. Kumar, D. K. Painkra, Y. B. Acharya, A. Bhardwaj, A. K. Hait, A. Patinge, A. Kapoor, H. N. S. Kumar, N. Satya, G. Saxena, and K. Arvind, Solar X-ray Monitor onboard Chandrayaan-2 Orbiter, Current Science118, 45 (2020), arXiv:1910.0...

    work page arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    N. P. S. Mithunet al., Solar X-Ray Monitor on Board the Chandrayaan-2 Orbiter: In-Flight Perfor- mance and Science Prospects, Sol. Phys.295, 139 (2020), arXiv:2009.09759 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.398, 1601 (2009), arXiv:0809.3437 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009