Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Silicon plasmons turn reactor axion searches into a tenfold-better probe of ALP-photon couplings, with new limits from Connie and Atucha-II data and a projected order-of-magnitude gain over NEON.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:05 UTC pith:7PMN2GUT

load-bearing objection New application of DarkELF plasmon formalism to reactor ALPs, honest about current limits, but absolute flux normalization is unquantified and the abstract has an unresolved mismatch. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2601.07448 v2 pith:7PMN2GUT submitted 2026-01-12 hep-ph

Constraints on Axion-Like Particles with the Silicon Detector at a Nuclear Reactor

Yuanlin Gong , Jun Guo , Ning Liu , Liangliang Su , Wen-Na Yang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords axion-like particlesplasmon excitationsilicon detectorsSkipper-CCDreactor ALP searchPrimakoff processALP-photon couplingsub-MeV ALP limits
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.

Reactors copiously produce axion-like particles (ALPs) via the Primakoff conversion of their intense photon flux. This paper shows that those relativistic ALPs can be detected in silicon by a collective electronic resonance—the plasmon—peaking near 20 eV of deposited energy, a channel previously used for dark matter but not for reactor ALPs. Using low-threshold Skipper-CCD data from the Connie and Atucha-II experiments, the authors set 90% confidence upper limits on the ALP-photon coupling for ALP masses between 0.1 and 100 keV, though these limits are weaker than the existing NEON bounds because of the much smaller exposures. The paper's central projection is that a 30 kg·yr silicon detector of the planned Oscura type, placed 10 m from a 4 GW thermal reactor, would beat the NEON limit by about an order of magnitude, opening a terrestrial window onto sub-MeV ALPs and QCD axion parameter space.

Core claim

The paper derives the ALP-induced transition rate in semiconductors starting from the non-relativistic electron-photon interaction and the energy-loss-function formalism, obtaining a rate proportional to Im[−1/ϵ(Q,ω)] times a momentum-space potential V(Q,ω) that encodes the gaγγ coupling. It evaluates this for silicon, where the plasmon resonance provides a strong response at ω ≈ 20 eV for momentum transfers up to ~6 keV. Convolving this with the reactor ALP flux from the Primakoff process, it shows that relativistic sub-MeV ALPs produce a distinct low-energy peak in the deposited-energy spectrum. From the Connie and Atucha-II datasets (18.4 and 82 g·days respectively) the authors extract 90

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is plasmon excitation in silicon, captured by the energy-loss function Im[−1/ϵ(Q,ω)], which peaks near ω≈20 eV and is kinematically accessible to relativistic ALPs with masses below ~100 keV. The companion identity is the ALP-photon potential V(Q,ω) derived from the gaγγ coupling, which enters the transition rate via the Born amplitude and the electron-density response. Together they convert the detector material itself into a target for collective axion absorption, rather than single-electron scattering.

Load-bearing premise

The reactor photon flux is taken from a single empirical exponential formula whose normalization and slope are used without uncertainty; if the true reactor spectrum differs, the ALP flux and every derived limit shift in lockstep.

What would settle it

Measure the reactor gamma spectrum between 0.2 and 10 MeV at a power reactor and compare with dΦγ/dEγ = 5.8×10^17 (P/MW) e^{−1.1 Eγ/MeV}. If the measured flux is, say, a factor of two lower in the 1–10 MeV range that dominates Primakoff production, the projected Oscura sensitivity would drop by roughly the same factor, invalidating the order-of-magnitude claim.

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

If this is right

  • If the projections hold, a single 30 kg·yr silicon detector at a commercial reactor would improve the best terrestrial limit on sub-MeV ALP-photon coupling by an order of magnitude.
  • The plasmon channel gives a factor-of-two sensitivity gain over NaI detectors for the same flux and exposure, as shown by the Connie-like comparison with NEON.
  • The method extends to other semiconductor targets and other ALP couplings (e.g., axion-electron coupling), since the energy-loss formalism is material-specific but interaction-agnostic.
  • The limits above ~100 keV degrade naturally because the required momentum transfer leaves the plasmon resonance, so the technique targets a specific mass window rather than all ALP masses.
  • The derived event rate is directly applicable to other reactor-based low-threshold detectors, turning background-limited CCDs into ALP spectrometers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A reader should note that the abstract and full text disagree on the projected experiment and gain factor: the abstract names vIOLETA and a threefold improvement, while the full text projects Oscura with a tenfold gain. If the full-text analysis is the intended one, the claimed reach is more aggressive than the abstract states.
  • The reactor gamma-ray spectrum is modeled by a single exponential (from a 1984 parameterization) with no uncertainty; because all limits scale linearly with this flux, a dedicated measurement of the reactor spectrum up to 10 MeV would directly translate into a systematic uncertainty on the reported bounds.
  • The bibliography contains at least one garbled entry (reference [84] appears to have corrupted year and journal data), making the provenance of that key reactor-spectrum input difficult to verify from the reference list.
  • The same plasmon formalism could be applied to search for other light, fast-moving particles (e.g., dark photons or millicharged particles) from reactors, extending the technique beyond ALPs.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes detecting reactor-produced ALPs via plasmon excitations in silicon Skipper-CCD detectors. It computes the ALP flux from the Primakoff process using a 1984 empirical photon spectrum, then uses the DarkELF energy-loss function to calculate the ALP-induced electronic transition rate. Using published single-bin event-count upper limits from the Connie and Atucha-II experiments, it derives 90% C.L. upper limits on g_{aγγ} in the ALP mass range 0.1–100 keV. It also presents a sensitivity projection for a 30 kg·yr Oscura-type silicon detector at 10 m from a 4 GW_th reactor, claiming an improvement over the NEON limit of about one order of magnitude in the main text, while the abstract states a factor of three and refers to the vIOLETA experiment.

Significance. If the absolute normalization is correct, the paper identifies a genuinely new experimental channel: relativistic reactor ALPs exciting plasmons in low-threshold silicon detectors. The appendix derivation of the transition rate is standard and internally consistent, and the use of the public DarkELF energy-loss function plus published Connie/Atucha-II data makes the analysis reproducible in principle. The main physics idea is interesting and the projected sensitivity, even if more modest than the headline claim, would motivate further work. However, the numerical limits and projections are directly controlled by an unquantified reactor photon parametrization and by an incompletely specified flux normalization, so the quantitative claims are not yet firmly established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Production of ALPs, Eq. (3)] The printed expression for dΦa/dEa does not contain the detector distance L or a source-volume / path-length integral. If dΦγ/dEγ in Eq. (1) is the total reactor photon emission rate, a factor 1/(4πL²) is missing. If it is instead a photon flux at some reference point, the conversion probability through the core is not specified. The relative ordering of the curves in Fig. 3 (Oscura > Atucha-II > Connie) suggests that an L-dependent normalization was used in the numerical evaluation, but it is absent from the displayed equation. Please write the complete expression for the ALP flux at the detector, or explicitly state the convention used for dΦγ/dEγ.
  2. [Production of ALPs, Eq. (1)] The reactor photon spectrum is a 1984 single-exponential fit, used without uncertainty. The ALP flux, all event rates, and the final g_{aγγ} limits are proportional to this input. The parametrization is not validated below 0.2 MeV or above 10 MeV, and no sensitivity study is provided. I ask the authors to quantify how the limits and projections change under reasonable variations of the normalization A and slope β (or, better, to compare with a modern evaluated reactor gamma spectrum). Since the claimed projection is an order-of-magnitude improvement, a factor-of-two uncertainty in the photon flux would directly affect the comparison.
  3. [Experimental sensitivity / Fig. 4] The claimed order-of-magnitude improvement over NEON is not supported by the stated exposure and flux numbers. For NEON (4.37 kg·yr at 2.8 GW_th, 23.7 m) and Oscura (30 kg·yr at 4 GW_th, 10 m), the exposure×flux product is larger by only (30/4.37)×[(4/10²)/(2.8/23.7²)] ≈ 55. Since the signal rate scales as g^4, this gives a factor ≈ 2.7 in the limit before any detector-response enhancement. Including the factor-of-two improvement claimed for a Connie-like silicon setup gives ≈ 5.5, not 10. The abstract's factor-of-three statement is much closer to this estimate. Please show the full derivation of the projected limit and reconcile the discrepancy.
  4. [Abstract vs. full text] The abstract states that the projected sensitivity is for the 'vIOLETA' experiment and exceeds the NEON limit by a factor of three, while the body and Fig. 4 present the Oscura experiment and claim about one order of magnitude. The experiment 'vIOLETA' is not defined anywhere in the text. This internal inconsistency in the headline result must be fixed before publication.
  5. [Experimental sensitivity] The 90% C.L. limits are not derived from the raw experimental data but from single-bin event-count upper limits (6.2 events for Connie, 30.9 for Atucha-II) taken from Ref. [73]. The paper should state the full statistical procedure used to map these counts to g_{aγγ}, including the likelihood, the treatment of the energy bin, detection efficiency uncertainties, background systematic uncertainties, and the uncertainty in the DarkELF energy-loss function. As written, it is not possible to assess how much of the final result is controlled by these external inputs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The units in Eq. (1) are written as 'MeV·sec', which appears malformed. Presumably the intended normalization is photons MeV^{-1} s^{-1} (or photons cm^{-2} s^{-1} MeV^{-1}). Please clarify.
  2. [Fig. 4] The legend entry 'Connie× (4.37/4.08×10^{-5})' is cryptic. What is being plotted, and why is the label not expanded?
  3. [References] Ref. [84] has a corrupted year and article number ('21959'), and Ref. [85] lacks a journal name. These should be corrected.
  4. [Fig. 2] The threshold Im[-1/ϵ(Q,ω)] > 10^{-1} used to define the plasmon region is arbitrary. It should be justified, or the figure should show the actual energy-loss function values.
  5. [Appendix, Eq. (13)] The notation dTa in the first line of Eq. (13) is confusing; dEa would be clearer. Also, the step function Θ[Eγ−E±] should be written more explicitly to define the integration limits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the limits and projections follow from external spectra, standard cross sections, and external null results.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is not equivalent to its inputs. ALP production (Eq. 3) convolves an external empirical reactor photon spectrum (Eq. 1, from 1984 ref. [85]) with the standard Primakoff cross section; no parameter in those formulas is fitted to the Connie/Atucha-II event counts or to the Oscura projection. The detection rate (Eqs. 5-7) uses the DarkELF first-principles energy loss function (ref. [89]) and the ALP-photon vertex, with the many-body response computed from DFT rather than tuned to the present target. The 90% C.L. limits are set by comparing the predicted signal, after external efficiency convolution, to published upper limits of 6.2 and 30.9 events from ref. [73] — an external null result, not an output of this paper. Self-citations ([69], [79], [80], [82]) appear only alongside independent references or independently validated code (e.g., [66], [89]) and are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as the sole justification for any central step. The unquantified reactor gamma parametrization is a legitimate robustness concern (a correctness risk), but it is not circular because its constants were determined in prior literature, not fitted to the paper's own limits.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation imports a fitted reactor photon spectrum (Eq. 1), standard Primakoff cross sections, and a DFT-computed energy loss function; no new entities are introduced. The four free parameters are either historical fits or assumed design parameters for the projection.

free parameters (4)
  • photon flux normalization A = 5.8e17 MeV^-1 s^-1 MW^-1
    Empirical normalization of the reactor gamma flux in Eq. (1), taken from Bechteler et al. (1984).
  • photon flux exponential slope β = 1.1 MeV^-1
    Empirical slope of the reactor gamma flux in Eq. (1), taken from Bechteler et al. (1984).
  • Oscura background rate = 0.01 kg^-1 day^-1 keV^-1
    Assumed background for the 30 kg·yr projection, from the Oscura design goal.
  • Oscura detection efficiency = 0.6
    Assumed flat detection efficiency across 10–200 eV for the projection, with no energy dependence.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The reactor gamma-ray spectrum is described by a single exponential (Eq. 1) with no spectral shape detail below 0.2 MeV or above 10 MeV.
    Entered in Eq. (1); affects the ALP flux normalization and shape.
  • domain assumption ALP production in the reactor is dominated by Primakoff conversion of photons on nucleons; other channels (e.g., nuclear transitions) are neglected.
    Introduced in 'Production of ALPs'; the mass range 0.1–100 keV justifies this.
  • domain assumption The detector response is modeled by the energy-loss function formalism with the silicon energy loss function from DarkELF, and the non-relativistic EFT truncation keeps only the density (A0) coupling.
    Used in Eqs. (4)–(5).
  • domain assumption The final-state photon escapes the detector without depositing energy; no detector response to the photon is modeled.
    Abstract states 'the accompanying energetic photon typically escapes'; implicit in Eq. (7).
  • domain assumption The single-bin upper limits (6.2 and 30.9 events) from Ref. [73] are directly applicable to the ALP-induced signal after efficiency correction.
    Used in 'Experimental sensitivity'.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 85 in / 14611 out tokens · 200583 ms · 2026-08-03T11:05:30.784481+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Axion and axion-like particles (ALPs), predicted in various extensions of the Standard Model, can be abundantly produced in nuclear reactors via the Primakoff process. In this work, we explore the detection of ALPs in silicon detectors through plasmon excitations. Owing to their relativistic nature, reactor-produced ALPs can efficiently excite plasmon resonances, while the accompanying energetic photon typically escapes from the thin detector without depositing an appreciable amount of energy. Utilizing the data from the Connie and Atucha-II experiments, we set the 90\% confidence level upper limits on the ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ over the axion mass range $0.1-100$ keV. We further show that, for an exposure of 30 kg$\cdot$yr, the projected sensitivity of vIOLETA exceeds the current NEON limit by a factor of three in the same mass range. This improvement would expand the explored region of the QCD axion and ALP parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07448 by Jun Guo, Liangliang Su, Ning Liu, Wen-Na Yang, Yuanlin Gong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The ALP flux at a detector located 30 m from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The blue region illustrates the plasmonic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The differential event rate dR/dω as a function of the deposited energy ω for the plasmon effect, with an ALP with a mass of 40 keV and a coupling constant of gaγγ = 10−4 GeV−1 , produced via the Primakoff process. The curves correspond to different experimental settings: Connie (blue), Atucha-II (orange), and Oscura (green). The Oscura experiment aims to lead the search for low- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 90% C.L. upper limits on the ALP-photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_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.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Inelastic Scattering Effects on Attenuation of Boosted Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Resonant excitation of nucleons into Δ(1232) during Earth passage is a non-negligible attenuation channel for boosted dark matter at E_χ ≈ 1–2 GeV, lowering the PandaX-4T upper bound on σ̄_n in the heavy-mediator regime.

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

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

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

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

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 80 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Y.Chikashige, R.N.Mohapatra, andR.D.Peccei,Phys. Lett. B98, 265 (1981)

    1981

  2. [2]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1549 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    Masso and R

    E. Masso and R. Toldra, Phys. Rev. D52, 1755 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9503293

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  4. [4]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept.516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP06, 051 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    L. D. Duffy and K. van Bibber, New J. Phys.11, 105008 (2009), arXiv:0904.3346 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    Boehm, M

    C. Boehm, M. J. Dolan, C. McCabe, M. Spannowsky, andC.J.Wallace,JCAP05,009(2014),arXiv:1401.6458 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Hooper, and S. D. McDermott, Phys. Rev. D89, 115022 (2014), arXiv:1404.0022 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    M. J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer, C. McCabe, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP03, 171 (2015), [Erratum: JHEP 07, 103 (2015)], arXiv:1412.5174 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- dondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP06, 013 (2012), arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

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

    1977

  14. [14]

    Weinberg, Phys

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

    1978

  15. [15]

    Wilczek, Phys

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

    1978

  16. [16]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 221801 (2015), arXiv:1504.07551 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Flacke, C

    T. Flacke, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, R. S. Gupta, and G. Perez, JHEP06, 050 (2017), arXiv:1610.02025 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  19. [19]

    Brivio, M

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey, and V. Sanz, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 572 (2017), arXiv:1701.05379 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Di Luzio, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Arzaet al., (2025), arXiv:2511.16553 [hep-ph]

    A. Arzaet al., (2025), arXiv:2511.16553 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Guo, Y.-L

    Z.-Q. Guo, Y.-L. S. Tsai, L. Wu, and Z.-Q. Xia, Phys. Rev. D112, 075008 (2025), arXiv:2507.07786 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Jaeckel and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Sikivie, Rev

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    N. Song, L. Su, and L. Wu, Phys. Rev. D111, 043025 (2025), arXiv:2402.15144 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    and IAXO [28]), haloscopes ( ABRACADABRA[29], ADMX [30] and HAYSTAC[31]), light-shining-through- walls experiments like ALPS II [32], and interferome- try [33–35]. Light ALPs withO(keV) mass remain of significant interest due to their potential implications for Big Bang Nucleosynthesis [36–40], anomalous astrophys- ical emission lines [41, 42], and unexpl...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Braineet al.(ADMX), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Zhonget al.(HAYSTAC), Phys

    L. Zhonget al.(HAYSTAC), Phys. Rev. D97, 092001 (2018), arXiv:1803.03690 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Spector (ALPS), in14th Patras Workshop on Ax- ions, WIMPs and WISPs(2019) arXiv:1906.09011 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Spector (ALPS), in14th Patras Workshop on Ax- ions, WIMPs and WISPs(2019) arXiv:1906.09011 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    DeRocco and A

    W. DeRocco and A. Hook, Phys. Rev. D98, 035021 (2018), arXiv:1802.07273 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Obata, T

    I. Obata, T. Fujita, and Y. Michimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161301 (2018), arXiv:1805.11753 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    H. Liu, B. D. Elwood, M. Evans, and J. Thaler, Phys. Rev. D100, 023548 (2019), arXiv:1809.01656 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Masso and R

    E. Masso and R. Toldra, Phys. Rev. D55, 7967 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9702275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  38. [38]

    Cadamuro, S

    D. Cadamuro, S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt, and J. Redondo, JCAP02, 003 (2011), arXiv:1011.3694 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [39]

    Cadamuro and J

    D. Cadamuro and J. Redondo, JCAP02, 032 (2012), arXiv:1110.2895 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Millea, L

    M. Millea, L. Knox, and B. Fields, Phys. Rev. D92, 023010 (2015), arXiv:1501.04097 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JCAP05, 009 (2020), arXiv:2002.08370 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Jaeckel, J

    J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D 89, 103511 (2014), arXiv:1402.7335 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Higaki, K

    T. Higaki, K. S. Jeong, and F. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B 733, 25 (2014), arXiv:1402.6965 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Ellwanger and S

    U. Ellwanger and S. Moretti, JHEP11, 039 (2016), arXiv:1609.01669 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    A. J. Krasznahorkayet al., (2019), arXiv:1910.10459 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Domínguez, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 191302 (2014), arXiv:1406.6053 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    Hardy and R

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, JHEP02, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, A. Rodriguez, I. M. Shoemaker, Z. Tabrizi, and N. T. Arellano, Phys. Rev. D104, 055044 (2021), arXiv:2012.07930 [hep-ph]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Bollig, W

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Carenza, O

    P. Carenza, O. Straniero, B. Döbrich, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Lett. B809, 135709 (2020), arXiv:2004.08399 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JCAP04, 011 (2021), arXiv:2011.06519 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Abeet al.(Belle-II), (2010), arXiv:1011.0352 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Abeet al.(Belle-II), (2010), arXiv:1011.0352 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  55. [56]

    Acanfora, PoSEPS-HEP2023, 049 (2024)

    F. Acanfora, PoSEPS-HEP2023, 049 (2024)

    2024

  56. [57]

    Astieret al.(NOMAD), Phys

    P. Astieret al.(NOMAD), Phys. Lett. B479, 371 (2000)

    2000

  57. [58]

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

    1987

  58. [59]

    Mimasu and V

    K. Mimasu and V. Sanz, JHEP06, 173 (2015), arXiv:1409.4792 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [60]

    Döbrich, J

    B. Döbrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ring- wald, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP02, 018 (2016), arXiv:1512.03069 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [61]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, JHEP12, 044 (2017), arXiv:1708.00443 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [62]

    Harland-Lang, J

    L. Harland-Lang, J. Jaeckel, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Lett. B793, 281 (2019), arXiv:1902.04878 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [63]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [64]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. D107, 095036 (2023), arXiv:2112.09979 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [65]

    Capozzi, B

    F. Capozzi, B. Dutta, G. Gurung, W. Jang, I. M. Shoe- maker, A. Thompson, and J. Yu, Phys. Rev. D108, 075019 (2023), arXiv:2307.03878 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [66]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [67]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, L. J. Flores, and D. K. Papoulias, JHEP03, 294 (2021), arXiv:2010.15712 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [68]

    H. M. Changet al.(TEXONO), Physical Review D: Particles and Fields75, 052004 (2007), arXiv:hep- ex/0609001

    arXiv 2007

  68. [69]

    Arias-Aragón, V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [70]

    W. Dai, Y. Gong, G. Gu, L. Su, L. Wang, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and L. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2509.01538 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [71]

    Fernandez Moroni, J

    G. Fernandez Moroni, J. Estrada, E. E. Paolini, G. Can- celo, J. Tiffenberg, and J. Molina, Phys. Rev. D91, 072001 (2015), arXiv:1405.5761 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [72]

    L. J. Floreset al.(SBC, CEνNS Theory Group at IF-UNAM), Phys. Rev. D103, L091301 (2021), arXiv:2101.08785 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [73]

    Alfonso-Pita and E

    E. Alfonso-Pita and E. Vázquez-Jáuregui (SBC), Nuovo Cim. C45, 18 (2021)

    2021

  73. [74]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [75]

    Singhet al.(TEXONO), Phys

    L. Singhet al.(TEXONO), Phys. Rev. D99, 032009 (2019), arXiv:1808.02719 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [76]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [77]

    G. B. Gelmini, V. Takhistov, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Lett. B809, 135779 (2020), arXiv:2006.13909 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [78]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Phys. Rev. D104, 015031 (2021), arXiv:2101.08275 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [79]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, N. Kurinsky, B. V. Lehmann, T. C. Yu, and K. K. Berggren, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151802 (2021), arXiv:2101.08263 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  79. [80]

    Liang, L

    Z.-L. Liang, L. Su, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071001 (2025), arXiv:2401.11971 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

    J. Guo, L. Wu, and B. Zhu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 280404 (2025), arXiv:2412.18330 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.