Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Status and Perspectives on Axion Searches

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that the axion search field is at a turning point: the next generation of haloscopes, helioscopes, and light-shining-through-wall experiments is expected to probe regions of the axion mass-coupling plane that are…

desk verdict A useful but error-prone conference review; fix the ALPS II coupling misprint before it is used for orientation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08733 v1 pith:6XCHFUVI submitted 2024-12-11 hep-ph astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ex

Maurizio Giannotti This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ex
keywords axionsaxion-likeparticlesaxion-photoncouplinghaloscopeshelioscopeslight-shining-through-walldarkmatterstrongCPproblem
topics Dark MatterThe Strong CP Problem
open problems Dark Matter
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

The paper is a short status review of experimental searches for axions and axion-like particles (ALPs), focused on the axion-photon coupling. It tries to establish that the field has entered a phase of rapid progress, in which cavity haloscopes have reached the QCD axion band, the CAST helioscope has pushed limits below other laboratory results, and light-shining-through-wall experiments such as ALPS II are nearing completion. Its central argument is that the next generation of experiments-along with solar, cavity, and laboratory searches-will probe previously unexplored regions of the mass-coupling plane within the coming decade. A sympathetic reader would care because a positive signal would be the first particle physics beyond the Standard Model for these well-motivated candidates, and even null results would sharpen astrophysical and cosmological constraints.

What carries the argument

The organizing object is the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma}$ in the low-energy Lagrangian $g_{a\gamma} a F_{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}$; nearly all searches convert axions to photons (or photons to axions) in a magnetic field, so the mass-coupling plane $m_a$ versus $g_{a\gamma}$ is the common canvas on which all experiments are plotted. The second structural piece is the three-source taxonomy-haloscopes (dark-matter axions), helioscopes (solar axions), and light-shining-through-wall (laboratory axions)-because each carries different assumptions: haloscope sensitivity assumes axions are the dark matter, helioscope sensitivity relies on solar models, and laboratory searches are assumption-light but suppressed as $g_{a\gamma}^4$. The review uses this machinery to compare experiments that have no other common metric.

What would settle it

Compare the ALPS II first-run result, announced for early 2025, with the Table 1 projection of $g_{a\gamma}\approx 2\times 10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$; if the published limit is orders of magnitude weaker, the paper's claim that light-shining-through-wall experiments are about to enter unexplored territory would be falsified, and the discrepancy between the text and table would be resolved in favor of the weaker value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The review's central claim, on its own terms, is that the axion search program is about to make a qualitative leap: the diversity of experimental strategies-resonant cavities, solar helioscopes, laboratory light-shining-through-wall setups, and astrophysical probes-now covers complementary patches of the $(m_a, g_{a\gamma})$ plane, and the projects now under construction or in an advanced planning stage are expected to close much of the gap between current laboratory sensitivity and the QCD axion band. The paper summarizes the current best limits: ADMX has reached the standard QCD band at masses around a few $\mu$eV, a separate cavity run has probed the DFSZ line near 4.55 $\mu$eV, CAST has set the most restrictive direct limit on the solar axion-photon coupling, and ALPS II has completed its first run with full optics expected in 2025. It argues that if these instruments perform as designed, axion or ALP discovery, or at least the exclusion of large parts of the theoretically motivated parameter space, becomes plausible within this decade.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every quoted sensitivity and limit faithfully reproduces the cited literature; the review itself strains that premise when Section 2.1 gives ALPS II as $g_{a\gamma}\approx 2\times 10^2$ GeV$^{-1}$ while Table 1 lists $2\times 10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$, a discrepancy of many orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ALPS II reaches its projected $g_{a\gamma}\approx 2\times 10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$, laboratory-only searches would enter parameter space currently constrained only by astrophysics for sub-0.1 meV masses.
  • BabyIAXO and IAXO, as successors to CAST, are projected to improve solar axion sensitivity by more than an order of magnitude and to test couplings below current stellar-evolution bounds.
  • Haloscope programs (ADMX-EFR, HAYSTACK, QUAX, RADES, ORGAN, MADMAX, plasma haloscopes, TOORAD, and BREAD) aim to cover masses from sub-$\mu$eV up to the meV range, including the QCD axion band.
  • FLASH and low-mass haloscope concepts (ABRACADABRA, SHAFT, BASE) extend sensitivity into the sub-$\mu$eV and $10^{-11}$ to $10^{-8}$ eV windows.
  • A signal in one channel would be cross-checkable: knowing the mass from a helioscope or laboratory search could let cavity haloscopes, if the mass is accessible, measure the axion dark-matter fraction directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper implicitly treats the axion-photon coupling as the universal search axis; if axion couplings to electrons or nucleons dominate and $g_{a\gamma}$ is suppressed, the relative ranking of these experiments would not reflect actual discovery reach. That is an extension, not a claim in the review.
  • The review's optimistic outlook is conditional on the projected sensitivities being realized on schedule; the first ALPS II publication, promised for early 2025, is an early test of whether the stated reach matches reality.
  • The same experimental platforms often target other weakly interacting slim particles, so even a null axion result from the next generation would tighten the broader WISP sector, not just the axion case.
  • Should the upcoming experiments resolve the QCD axion band without a detection, the combined null results would pressure the simplest dark-matter axion scenarios and motivate non-standard cosmological histories or alternative production mechanisms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This is a short conference-proceedings review of the experimental status and near-term prospects for axion and axion-like-particle (ALP) searches, focusing on the axion-photon coupling. The paper briefly surveys laboratory light-shining-through-wall (LSW) experiments, helioscopes, and haloscopes, and argues in the conclusion that the next generation of experiments (ALPS II, BabyIAXO/IAXO, MADMAX, FLASH, BREAD, etc.) will probe previously unexplored axion parameter space and potentially revolutionize the field. The review is descriptive and compiles existing results and projections rather than presenting new analysis or derivations.

Significance. As a concise orientation to a broad and fast-moving field, the paper has clear value: it identifies the three main experimental strategies, gives a compact table of LSW results, and correctly emphasizes the complementarity of haloscopes, helioscopes, and laboratory searches. Its central claim—that the field is rapidly approaching new parameter space—is plausible and consistent with the current literature, provided the quoted experimental figures are accurate. The paper also lists a useful set of references and transparently notes key assumptions, such as the dark-matter-fraction assumption in haloscope limits. However, because the review's comparative assessments rest entirely on the reliability of quoted sensitivities, a serious numerical error in the ALPS II discussion undermines confidence in the presentation and must be corrected before the paper can serve as a dependable overview.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] The prose gives the ALPS II reach as g_aγ ≈ 2×10^2 GeV^{-1} for masses below 0.1 meV, but the adjacent Table 1 lists the ALPS-II sensitivity as 2×10^{-11} GeV^{-1}, and the cited ALPS II design paper (Ref. [25], arXiv:2009.14294) reports a projected reach around 2×10^{-11} GeV^{-1}. As written, the text makes ALPS II appear more than nine orders of magnitude weaker than ALPS-I (5×10^{-8} GeV^{-1}) and OSQAR (3.5×10^{-8} GeV^{-1}) also listed in Table 1, directly contradicting the surrounding statement that ALPS II is the forefront LSW experiment. A reader following the prose rather than the table would misjudge the reach of a flagship experiment by roughly thirteen orders of magnitude. This appears to be a missing negative exponent, but it must be fixed, and the authors should check all entries in Table 1 for the same class of error.
  2. [Sec. 4 / overall synthesis] The paper's central conclusion that the next generation of experiments is 'poised to revolutionize the field' depends on the accuracy of the projected sensitivities for those experiments. The ALPS II discrepancy demonstrates that this load-bearing assumption is currently violated at least once. Because the review's value is precisely to give readers a trustworthy orientation, the authors should cross-check every projected sensitivity mentioned in Secs. 2 and 3 (including JURA, MADMAX, FLASH, BREAD, BabyIAXO, and IAXO) against its cited source, and correct any discrepancies. A brief note in the text or a revised table with source annotations would sufficiently address this concern.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2] There is a typo: 'Howeever' should be 'However'.
  2. [Secs. 2.1 and 3 / reference consistency] The ALPS II collaboration is cited with different reference numbers in different places: Table 1 lists 'ALPS-II [25]', the text cites 'ALPS II [26]' and later 'ALPS II [71]'. Please unify these citations to avoid confusing the reader.
  3. [Table 1] The JURA entry cites Ref. [28], which is an unpublished workshop talk. Since the table presents a quantitative sensitivity (10^{-12} GeV^{-1}), consider citing a published design study or marking the entry as a project concept presented at a workshop.
  4. [Sec. 2.2] The statement that CAST is 'probing a wide mass region so far accessible only to astrophysics' is imprecise: astrophysical bounds and helioscope searches have different mass coverage and different assumptions (e.g., stellar evolution models versus direct solar-axion conversion). A short clarification of the intended comparison would improve accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a literature-based review that reports experimental sensitivities and prospects from external sources; it fits no parameters, derives no predictions from its own inputs, and its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a concise review of axion and ALP searches. It does not present a derivation chain, does not fit parameters, and does not claim to predict any experimental result from first principles. Its content is a survey of published experimental limits and projected sensitivities, with citations to the original experimental collaborations (ADMX, CAST, ALPS II, IAXO, etc.) and to previous review literature such as Ref. [11] (Irastorza and Redondo). The central claim—that next-generation experiments are poised to probe previously unexplored parameter space—is an assessment based on externally reported projections, not a result derived within the paper. The author cites several of their own papers (e.g., Refs. [6, 16, 37, 42, 74, 75, 76]), but these citations are used for standard background statements (e.g., QCD axion properties, astrophysical bounds, stellar-evolution implications) rather than to justify a unique conclusion that would otherwise lack support. There is no self-citation chain that forces a conclusion, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The only notable issue is an internal inconsistency in Sec. 2.1, where the prose states ALPS II will probe g_aγ ≈ 2×10^2 GeV^-1 while Table 1 lists 2×10^-11 GeV^-1; this is a numerical typo or transcription error affecting the review's usability, but it is not circular reasoning. Because the paper makes no predictive claims derived from fitted inputs or self-referential assumptions, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper, so the ledger is minimal. The central claim (the field is advancing) rests on the standard axion Lagrangian and on the accuracy of the cited experimental numbers. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced. The identified discrepancy between Sec. 2.1 and Table 1 directly attacks the second axiom.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The axion is a pseudoscalar field described by the low-energy Lagrangian in Eq. (1), with the specified couplings to fermions and photons.
    This Lagrangian is the framework used to compare all experimental sensitivities in the review (Sec. 1, Eq. (1)).
  • domain assumption The experimental limits and projections cited in Sec. 2 and Table 1 are accurate transcriptions of the references.
    The review's comparisons, e.g., the claim that CAST pushes limits below any other experimental results (Sec. 2.2), rely on these numbers; the paper's own Table 1 vs. Sec. 2.1 discrepancy on ALPS II shows this assumption is fragile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Status and Perspectives on Axion Searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XCHFUVI

@misc{pith2026241208733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Status and Perspectives on Axion Searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XCHFUVI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08733}
}
read the original abstract

The search for axions and axion-like particles (ALPs) remains a major endeavor in modern physics investigation. Axions play essential roles in the quest to understand dark matter, the strong CP problem, and various astrophysical phenomena. This paper provides a very brief overview of the current status of experimental efforts, highlighting significant advancements, ongoing projects, and future opportunities. Particular attention is given to cavity haloscopes, helioscopes, and laboratory-based light-shining-through-wall experiments, as well as astrophysical probes. Some future perspectives are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Running and proposed axion heliscope experiments; Right: Currently running cavity experiments, with the reported limits. Notice that the limits on 𝑔𝑎𝛾 are valid under the assumption that axions constitute the totality of the dark matter in the universe. Details about each experiment, including proper references, can be found in [17], from which both figures are extracted. 2.3 Haloscopes Cavity haloscopes searc… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Solar axion searches with RES-NOVA: projected sensitivity and first prototype limit

    hep-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RES-NOVA's projected 1 ton-year sensitivity reaches within a factor of ~2 of XENONnT on the solar-axion electron coupling, and a 32.4 g-day archaeological-lead prototype excludes new parts of the (g_ae, g_aγ) plane.

  2. Power of Axion Microwave Absorbed by Quantum Hall State in Haloscope

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A QCD-axion haloscope using a GaAs quantum-Hall transition layer is estimated to absorb P_s ≈ 1.5×10^-23 W with SNR ≈ 2.3 after 100 s at T = 100 mK.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [25]

    M. D. Ortiz, J. Gleason, H. Grote, A. Hallal, M. T. Hartman, H. Hollis, K. S. Isleif, A. James, K. Karan and T. Kozlowski, et al. Phys. Dark Univ. 35, 100968 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2022.100968 [arXiv:2009.14294 [physics.optics]]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Ringwald, [arXiv:1407.0546 [hep-ph]]

    A. Ringwald, [arXiv:1407.0546 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223-226 (1978) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223 6 Axion Searches Maurizio Giannotti

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.40.223 1978

  4. [3]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279-282 (1978) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.40.279 1978

  5. [4]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440-1443 (1977) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.38.1440 1977

  6. [5]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. 643, 1-79 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005 [arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept. 870, 1-117 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.06.002 [arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Belov, K

    C.B.Adams,N.Aggarwal,A.Agrawal,R.Balafendiev,C.Bartram,M.Baryakhtar,H.Bekker, P. Belov, K. K. Berggren and A. Berlin,et al. [arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

Show all 89 references
  1. [8]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP 06, 051 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/06/051 [arXiv:hep-th/0605206 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.123530 [arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    M.Cicoli,M.GoodsellandA.Ringwald,JHEP 10,146(2012)doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2012)146 [arXiv:1206.0819 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [11]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89-159 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.003 [arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Sikivie, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, no.1, 015004 (2021) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015004 [arXiv:2003.02206 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    I.G.Irastorza,SciPostPhys.Lect.Notes 45,1(2022)doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.45 [arXiv:2109.07376 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Giannotti, Nature Phys.13, no.6, 530-531 (2017) doi:10.1038/nphys4139

    M. Giannotti, Nature Phys.13, no.6, 530-531 (2017) doi:10.1038/nphys4139

    2017 doi

  8. [15]

    Giannotti, J

    M. Giannotti, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2502, no.1, 012003 (2023) doi:10.1088/1742- 6596/2502/1/012003 [arXiv:2205.06831 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Carenza, M

    P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Isern, A. Mirizzi and O. Straniero, [arXiv:2411.02492 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    cajohare/AxionLimits: AxionLimits,

    C. O’Hare, “cajohare/AxionLimits: AxionLimits,” Zenodo, version v1.0, July 2020. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3932430. Available at:https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/

    2020 doi

  11. [18]

    S. Hoof, J. Jaeckel and L. J. Thormaehlen, JCAP 09, 006 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2021/09/006 [arXiv:2101.08789 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    E.Guarini,P.Carenza,J.Galan,M.GiannottiandA.Mirizzi,Phys.Rev.D 102,no.12,123024 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123024 [arXiv:2010.06601 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Caputo, A

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.12, 123004 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123004 [arXiv:2005.00078 [hep-ph]]. 7 Axion Searches Maurizio Giannotti

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, A. Caputo, A. J. Millar and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D102, no.4, 043019 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043019 [arXiv:2006.10415 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Ehret, M

    K. Ehret, M. Frede, S. Ghazaryan, M. Hildebrandt, E. A. Knabbe, D. Kracht, A. Lind- ner, J. List, T. Meier and N. Meyer, et al. Phys. Lett. B 689, 149-155 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.04.066 [arXiv:1004.1313 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [23]

    M. Betz, F. Caspers, M. Gasior, M. Thumm and S. W. Rieger, Phys. Rev. D88, no.7, 075014 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.075014 [arXiv:1310.8098 [physics.ins-det]]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Ballou et al

    R. Ballou et al. [OSQAR], Phys. Rev. D 92, no.9, 092002 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.092002 [arXiv:1506.08082 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Spector [ALPS], doi:10.3204/DESY-PROC-2009-03/Spector_Aaron [arXiv:1611.05863 [physics.ins-det]]

    A. Spector [ALPS], doi:10.3204/DESY-PROC-2009-03/Spector_Aaron [arXiv:1611.05863 [physics.ins-det]]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Any Light Particle Search II: status and first results,

    A. Lindner, “Any Light Particle Search II: status and first results,” Colloquium at Heidel- berg University, 9 July 2024. Available at:https://www.physik.uni-heidelberg.de/ hephysto/index.php?s=talk&id=11022

    2024

  20. [28]

    Lindner, talk given at Physics Beyond Colliders Annual Workshop, CERN, November

    A. Lindner, talk given at Physics Beyond Colliders Annual Workshop, CERN, November

  21. [29]

    Della Valle, A

    F. Della Valle, A. Ejlli, U. Gastaldi, G. Messineo, E. Milotti, R. Pengo, G. Ruoso and G. Zavattini, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no.1, 24 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3869-8 [arXiv:1510.08052 [physics.optics]]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ejlli, F

    A. Ejlli, F. Della Valle, U. Gastaldi, G. Messineo, R. Pengo, G. Ruoso and G. Zavat- tini, Phys. Rept. 871, 1-74 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.06.001 [arXiv:2005.12913 [physics.optics]]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kunc [VMB@CERN], PoSCOSMICWISPers, 032 (2024) doi:10.22323/1.454.0032

    S. Kunc [VMB@CERN], PoSCOSMICWISPers, 032 (2024) doi:10.22323/1.454.0032

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415-1417 (1983) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 695 (1984)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.51.1415

    1983 doi

  25. [33]

    Di Luzio, J

    L. Di Luzio, J. Galan, M. Giannotti, I. G. Irastorza, J. Jaeckel, A. Lindner, J. Ruz, U. Schneekloth, L. Sohl and L. J. Thormaehlen,et al. Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.2, 120 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10061-1 [arXiv:2111.06407 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    O’Shea, A

    T. O’Shea, A. C. Davis, M. Giannotti, S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli and J. K. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.6, 063027 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063027 [arXiv:2406.01691 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    O’Shea, M

    T. O’Shea, M. Giannotti, I. G. Irastorza, L. M. Plasencia, J. Redondo, J. Ruz and J. K. Vogel, JCAP 06, 070 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/070 [arXiv:2312.10150 [hep-ph]]. 8 Axion Searches Maurizio Giannotti

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Altenmüller et al

    K. Altenmüller et al. [CAST], Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.22, 221005 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.221005 [arXiv:2406.16840 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    113,no.19, 191302 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.191302 [arXiv:1406.6053 [astro-ph.SR]]

    A.Ayala,I.Domínguez,M.Giannotti,A.MirizziandO.Straniero,Phys.Rev.Lett. 113,no.19, 191302 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.191302 [arXiv:1406.6053 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. J. Dolan, F. J. Hiskens and R. R. Volkas, JCAP10, 096 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2022/10/096 [arXiv:2207.03102 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Abeln et al

    A. Abeln et al. [IAXO], JHEP 05, 137 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)137 [arXiv:2010.12076 [physics.ins-det]]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ahyouneet al

    S. Ahyouneet al. [IAXO], [arXiv:2411.13915 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. [IAXO], JCAP 06, 047 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/047 [arXiv:1904.09155 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Straniero, C

    O. Straniero, C. Pallanca, E. Dalessandro, I. Dominguez, F. R. Ferraro, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi and L. Piersanti, Astron. Astrophys. 644, A166 (2020) doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/202038775 [arXiv:2010.03833 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Capozzi and G

    F. Capozzi and G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.8, 083007 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083007 [arXiv:2007.03694 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. Ruz, E. Todarello, J. K. Vogel, M. Giannotti, B. Grefenstette, H. S. Hudson, I. G. Hannah, I. G. Irastorza, C. S. Kim and T. O’Shea,et al. [arXiv:2407.03828 [astro-ph.CO]]

  37. [45]

    Du et al

    N. Du et al. [ADMX], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no.15, 151301 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.151301 [arXiv:1804.05750 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Braine et al

    T. Braine et al. [ADMX], Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.10, 101303 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.101303 [arXiv:1910.08638 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bartram et al

    C. Bartram et al. [ADMX], Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.26, 261803 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.261803 [arXiv:2110.06096 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    The US axion searches program, ADMX plans,

    G. Rybka, “The US axion searches program, ADMX plans,” presented at the GGI Workshop “Axions across boundaries between Particle Physics, Astrophysics, Cosmology and forefront Detection Technologies,” Florence, Italy, 6 June 2023. Available at:https://www.ggi. infn.it/showevent...

    2023

  41. [49]

    130,no.7,071002(2023)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.071002 [arXiv:2210.10961 [hep-ex]]

    A.K.Yi,S.Ahn,Ç.Kutlu,J.Kim,B.R.Ko,B.I.Ivanov,H.Byun,A.F.vanLoo,S.Parkand J.Jeong, et al.Phys.Rev.Lett. 130,no.7,071002(2023)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.071002 [arXiv:2210.10961 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    B. M. Brubaker, L. Zhong, Y. V. Gurevich, S. B. Cahn, S. K. Lamoreaux, M. Simanovskaia, J. R. Root, S. M. Lewis, S. Al Kenany and K. M. Backes,et al. Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no.6, 061302 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.061302 [arXiv:1610.02580 [astro-ph.CO]]. 9 Axion Searches ...

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Alesini, C

    D. Alesini, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, N. Crescini, D. D’Agostino, D. Di Gioacchino, R. Di Vora, P. Falferi, U. Gambardella and C. Gatti,et al. Phys. Rev. D103, no.10, 102004 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.102004 [arXiv:2012.09498 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. Á. Melcón et al. [CAST], JHEP 21, 075 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)075 [arXiv:2104.13798 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    B. T. McAllister, G. Flower, J. Kruger, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill and M. E. To- bar, Phys. Dark Univ.18, 67-72 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2017.09.010 [arXiv:1706.00209 [physics.ins-det]]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J. A. Devlin, M. J. Borchert, S. Erlewein, M. Fleck, J. A. Harrington, B. Latacz, J. Warncke, E.Wursten,M.A.BohmanandA.H.Mooser, et al.Phys.Rev.Lett. 126,no.4,041301(2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.041301 [arXiv:2101.11290 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. V. Gramolin, D. Aybas, D. Johnson, J. Adam and A. O. Sushkov, Nature Phys.17, no.1, 79-84 (2021) doi:10.1038/s41567-020-1006-6 [arXiv:2003.03348 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J.L.Ouellet,C.P.Salemi,J.W.Foster,R.Henning,Z.Bogorad,J.M.Conrad,J.A.Formaggio, Y. Kahn, J. Minervini and A. Radovinsky,et al. Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no.12, 121802 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.121802 [arXiv:1810.12257 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Caldwellet al

    A. Caldwellet al. [MADMAX Working Group], Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no.9, 091801 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.091801 [arXiv:1611.05865 [physics.ins-det]]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Brunet al

    P. Brunet al. [MADMAX], Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.3, 186 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 019-6683-x [arXiv:1901.07401 [physics.ins-det]]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    de la Fuente and J

    B.Aja,S.A.Cuendis,I.Arregui,E.Artal,R.BelénBarreiro,F.J.Casas,M.C.deOry,A.Díaz- Morcillo, L. de la Fuente and J. D. Gallego,et al. JCAP 11, 044 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2022/11/044 [arXiv:2206.02980 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Y. K. Semertzidis, J. E. Kim, S. Youn, J. Choi, W. Chung, S. Haciomeroglu, D. Kim, J. Kim, B. Ko and O. Kwon,et al. [arXiv:1910.11591 [physics.ins-det]]

    1910 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Lawson, A

    M. Lawson, A. J. Millar, M. Pancaldi, E. Vitagliano and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, no.14, 141802 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.141802 [arXiv:1904.11872 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    D. J. E. Marsh, K. C. Fong, E. W. Lentz, L. Smejkal and M. N. Ali, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, no.12, 121601 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.121601 [arXiv:1807.08810 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Schütte-Engel, D

    J. Schütte-Engel, D. J. E. Marsh, A. J. Millar, A. Sekine, F. Chadha-Day, S. Hoof, M. N. Ali, K. C. Fong, E. Hardy and L. Šmejkal, JCAP08, 066 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2021/08/066 [arXiv:2102.05366 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Liu et al

    J. Liu et al. [BREAD], Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.13, 131801 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.131801 [arXiv:2111.12103 [physics.ins-det]]. 10 Axion Searches Maurizio Giannotti

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Alesini, D

    D. Alesini, D. Babusci, P. Beltrame, S.J., F. Björkeroth, F. Bossi, P. Ciambrone, G. Delle Monache, D. Di Gioacchino, P. Falferi and A. Gallo,et al. [arXiv:1911.02427 [physics.ins- det]]

    1911 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Alesini, D

    D. Alesini, D. Babusci, P. Beltrame, F. Bossi, P. Ciambrone, A. D’Elia, D. Di Gioacchino, G. Di Pirro, B. Döbrich and P. Falferi, et al. Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101370 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101370 [arXiv:2309.00351 [physics.ins-det]]

    2023

  59. [67]

    Gatti, P

    C. Gatti, P. Gianotti, C. Ligi, M. Raggi and P. Valente, Universe7, no.7, 236 (2021) doi:10.3390/universe7070236

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    Gatti, L

    C. Gatti, L. Visinelli and M. Zantedeschi, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.2, 023018 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023018 [arXiv:2403.18610 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Visinelli, [arXiv:2411.19441 [astro-ph.CO]]

    L. Visinelli, [arXiv:2411.19441 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi and J. Thaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.14, 141801 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.141801 [arXiv:1602.01086 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bähre, B

    R. Bähre, B. Döbrich, J. Dreyling-Eschweiler, S. Ghazaryan, R. Hodajerdi, D. Horns, F. Januschek, E. A. Knabbe, A. Lindner and D. Notz, et al. JINST 8, T09001 (2013) doi:10.1088/1748-0221/8/09/T09001 [arXiv:1302.5647 [physics.ins-det]]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Dafni and J

    T. Dafni and J. Galán, Universe 8, no.1, 37 (2022) doi:10.3390/universe8010037 [arXiv:2112.02286 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [73]

    S. Hoof, J. Jaeckel and G. Lucente, [arXiv:2407.04772 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Giannotti, I

    M. Giannotti, I. Irastorza, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, JCAP 05, 057 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/057 [arXiv:1512.08108 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2016 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Giannotti, I

    M. Giannotti, I. G. Irastorza, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald and K. Saikawa, JCAP10, 010 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/010 [arXiv:1708.02111 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Fedele, M. Giannotti, F. Mescia and E. Nardi, JCAP02, no.02, 035 (2022) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/02/035 [arXiv:2109.10368 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    S. Hoof, J. Jaeckel and L. J. Thormaehlen, JCAP 10, 024 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2023/10/024 [arXiv:2306.00077 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Jaeckel and L

    J. Jaeckel and L. J. Thormaehlen, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.12, 123020 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.123020 [arXiv:1908.10878 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Hoof and J

    S. Hoof and J. Jaeckel, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.11, 115016 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.115016 [arXiv:1709.01090 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    M. Xiao, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, K. M. Perez, O. Straniero and B. W. Grefen- stette, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.12, 123019 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123019 [arXiv:2204.03121 [astro-ph.HE]]. 11 Axion Searches Maurizio Giannotti

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    M. Xiao, K. M. Perez, M. Giannotti, O. Straniero, A. Mirizzi, B. W. Grefen- stette, B. M. Roach and M. Nynka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.3, 031101 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.031101 [arXiv:2009.09059 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    F.Arias-Aragón,M.Giannotti,G.G.diCortonaandF.Mescia,[arXiv:2411.19327[hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    P.Carenza,G.Co’,T.Fischer,M.Giannotti,A.MirizziandT.Rauscher,doi:10.3204/PUBDB- 2018-02580 [arXiv:1808.04101 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Lella, P

    A. Lella, P. Carenza, G. Lucente, M. Giannotti and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D107, no.10, 103017 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103017 [arXiv:2211.13760 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    A.Lella,P.Carenza,G.Co’,G.Lucente,M.Giannotti,A.MirizziandT.Rauscher,Phys.Rev.D 109, no.2, 023001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023001 [arXiv:2306.01048 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    D 109, no.4, 043010 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043010 [arXiv:2306.03925 [astro- ph.HE]]

    F.Calore,P.Carenza,C.Eckner,M.Giannotti,G.Lucente,A.MirizziandF.Sivo,Phys.Rev. D 109, no.4, 043010 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043010 [arXiv:2306.03925 [astro- ph.HE]]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    P.Carenza,G.Co,M.Giannotti,A.Lella,G.Lucente,A.MirizziandT.Rauscher,Phys.Rev.C 109, no.1, 015501 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.015501 [arXiv:2306.17055 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Lella, F

    A. Lella, F. Calore, P. Carenza, C. Eckner, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente and A. Mirizzi, JCAP 11, 009 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/009 [arXiv:2405.02395 [hep-ph]]. 12

    2024 arXiv

  81. [2017]

    Available at:https://indico.cern.ch/event/644287/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.