Forecast constraints on the axion-photon coupling from interstellar medium heating

Makoto Amakawa; Shinji Tsujikawa; Tomohiro Fujita

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 65 references

Forecast constraints on the axion-photon coupling from interstellar medium heating

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Axion dark matter resonantly heats interstellar plasma when its mass matches the plasma frequency, turning observed cooling rates into forecast limits on the axion-photon coupling $g$.

desk verdict A genuinely new probe idea, but the headline constraints rest on a monochromatic axion that real axion dark matter is not; the limits are likely too strong by about two orders of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00992 v2 pith:7TBK4BMX submitted 2025-01-02 hep-ph astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-th

Makoto Amakawa , Tomohiro Fujita , Shinji Tsujikawa This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.GAgr-qchep-th

keywords axion-photoncouplingaxiondarkmatterinterstellarplasmaheatingforcedresonancefrequencycoolingrateboundultralightaxionsforecastconstraints

topics 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

This paper proposes that dark-matter axions can be probed through the heat they deposit in interstellar plasma. When a background magnetic field is present, the interaction $-g\phi\,\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B}$ drives the electric field; at the resonant mass $m_\phi=\omega_p$, energy flows from the axion field into the plasma at a rate $\dot{Q}$. The paper's central claim is that requiring $\dot{Q}\le\dot{C}$, where $\dot{C}$ is the observed cooling rate of a medium such as the Leo T dwarf galaxy, yields forecast upper bounds on $g$, with a fiducial value $g\le1.9\times10^{-14}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ at $m_\phi=\omega_p$ for $B_0=10^{-6}\,\mathrm{G}$, stronger than the magnetic white dwarf bound. The resonance selects the mass window $10^{-15}\,\mathrm{eV}\lesssim m_\phi\lesssim10^{-9}\,\mathrm{eV}$, a range where laboratory searches are not competitive.

What carries the argument

The central object is the forced-resonance solution of the coupled axion-Maxwell-plasma equations in the homogeneous, long-wavelength limit, where the plasma frequency is $\omega_p=\sqrt{n_ee^2/m_e}$ and $\nu$ is the electron-ion friction rate. Keeping only the component parallel to $\mathbf{B}_0$, the electric field obeys a damped driven oscillator, and the resonance condition $m_\phi=\omega_p$ fixes where the heating is strongest. The load-bearing formula is the time-averaged heating rate $\dot{Q}=g^2\bar\phi_0^2B_0^2\nu m_\phi^2(m_\phi^2+\nu^2)/[2(m_\phi^2-\omega_p^2)^2+2m_\phi^2\nu^2]$, which at resonance becomes $\dot{Q}_{\mathrm{max}}\simeq g^2B_0^2\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}/\nu$; the cooling-rate inequality $\dot{Q}\le\dot{C}$ is what converts this into a bound on $g$.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to recompute the heating rate with the axion momentum distribution instead of a single oscillator, spreading the drive over $\Delta\omega\sim m_\phi v^2\sim5\times10^{-19}$ eV; if the resonant heating is suppressed by roughly $\nu/\Delta\omega\sim10^{-3}$ relative to $\dot{Q}_{\mathrm{max}}\simeq g^2B_0^2\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}/\nu$, then the forecast limits in Eq. (4.12) are too strong by about two orders of magnitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a nonrelativistic electron-ion plasma with a homogeneous magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_0$ along the $x$-axis, only the electric-field component parallel to $\mathbf{B}_0$ feels the axion coupling. Its equation of motion is a damped, forced oscillator whose steady-state amplitude peaks sharply at $m_\phi=\omega_p$ with width $\nu$. Time-averaging the energy balance gives $\dot{Q}=\dot{Q}_\nu$: the power extracted from axions equals the frictional power dissipated into the plasma, and at resonance this common value is $\dot{Q}_{\mathrm{max}}\simeq g^2B_0^2\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}/\nu$. Imposing $\dot{Q}_{\mathrm{max}}\le\dot{C}$ produces the analytic bound $g\le1.9\times10^{-14}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}\,(B_0/10^{-6}\,\mathrm{G})^{-1}(\nu/10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV})^{1/2}(\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}/0.3\,\mathrm{GeV}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3})^{-1/2}(\dot{C}/10^{-27}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1})^{1/2}$, which the paper reports is tighter than the magnetic white dwarf constraint for typical interstellar parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes the axion dark matter field is a single homogeneous oscillator with one frequency, $\phi_0(t)=\bar\phi_0\cos(m_\phi t)$; if the axions' realistic velocity spread broadens the drive far beyond the narrow resonance width $\nu$, the computed heating rate and the bounds built on it weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At $m_\phi=\omega_p$, the forecast coupling limit is stronger for smaller plasma friction $\nu$, larger magnetic field $B_0$, and smaller observed cooling rate $\dot{C}$; the fiducial value is $g\le1.9\times10^{-14}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$.
Larger interstellar fields, up to $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{G}$ in the galactic center, widen the mass range that the bound covers, potentially constraining $10^{-15}$ to $10^{-9}$ eV more tightly than the magnetic white dwarf limit.
Heating occurs only along the magnetic-field direction; the transverse electric-field components are unaffected, so any signal is anisotropic and depends on the geometry of $\mathbf{B}_0$.
Future discoveries of gas-rich dwarf galaxies with cooling rates below that of Leo T would directly strengthen the constraint, since $\dot{C}$ enters the bound only through the inequality $\dot{Q}\le\dot{C}$.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension the paper does not make: real axion dark matter has a velocity dispersion, so the drive is a band of frequencies of width $\Delta\omega\sim m_\phi v^2\sim10^{-19}$ eV rather than a single tone; because this exceeds the resonance width $\nu\sim10^{-22}$ eV, the resonant heating rate is expected to be suppressed by roughly $\nu/\Delta\omega$, which would loosen the quoted $g$ limits by
The same $\dot{Q}\le\dot{C}$ balance could be applied to hidden-photon dark matter or other ultralight bosons with an analogous electromagnetic coupling, giving a unified plasma-heating probe over the same mass window.
Because the media in the paper's Table I do not have measured magnetic field strengths, turning the forecast into an actual constraint requires pairing cooling-rate data with independent measurements of $B_0$ in the same regions, for example through Faraday rotation or synchrotron emission.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper proposes resonant heating of interstellar plasma by axion dark matter and derives forecast constraints on the axion-photon coupling from observed cooling rates. The mechanism is genuinely new — the closest analog is hidden photon heating, and the authors correctly cite it. The analytic derivation is clean, and the paper is honest that these are forecast bounds, not measurements. If the axion were a single homogeneous oscillator, the resonance at m_phi = omega_p would give Qdot ~ g^2 B^2 rho_DM / nu, and (4.12) would beat the MWD limit by a wide margin.

That "if" is the soft spot. Eq. (3.12) treats the axion as a monochromatic field with no velocity dispersion. Real virialized axion dark matter has v ~ 1e-3, giving a frequency spread Delta_omega ~ m v^2 ~ 1e-18 eV, orders of magnitude larger than the plasma resonance width nu ~ 1e-22 eV. The plasma oscillator only sees the axion power inside its own narrow linewidth, so the steady-state heating rate is suppressed by roughly nu / Delta_omega relative to Eq. (4.11). That weakens the bound on g by sqrt(Delta_omega / nu) ~ 100. Figure 1 is exactly the regime where this suppression dominates: sharper resonance gives stronger claimed limits, but real axions cannot drive a resonance that narrow.

This is not a marginal correction; it changes the headline numbers. The forecasting itself is fine — the paper acknowledges that B0 is not measured in the target regions — and the comparison to MWD constraints is fair only as an upper envelope. The self-citations are introductory and do not enter the calculation.

Despite the flaw, the paper deserves a serious referee. The mechanism is worth understanding, the calculation is explicit, and the velocity-dispersion issue is fixable by convolving with the axion momentum distribution. A revised version with the broadband treatment would yield a more modest but potentially interesting constraint, or could show the resonance channel is well below current sensitivities. I would send it to review, asking the authors to address the coherence issue head-on.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new method to constrain the axion-photon coupling g using resonant heating of the interstellar medium. The authors model a nonrelativistic electron-ion plasma with damping ν and plasma frequency ωp in a background magnetic field B0. Treating axion dark matter as a homogeneous monochromatic oscillator ϕ0 = ϕ̄0 cos(mϕ t), they solve for the driven vector potential and electric field parallel to B0 and compute the time-averaged energy transfer rate Q̇ in Eq. (4.7). At resonance mϕ = ωp they obtain Q̇max ≈ g²B0²ρDM/ν, and requiring Q̇ ≤ Ċ, where Ċ is the observed interstellar cooling rate, they derive the forecast bound in Eq. (4.12), g ≲ 1.9×10⁻¹⁴ GeV⁻¹ for B0 = 10⁻⁶ G, ν = 10⁻²² eV, ρDM = 0.3 GeV cm⁻³, and Ċ = 10⁻²⁷ erg cm⁻³ s⁻¹. They compare this with magnetic white dwarf bounds and give off-resonance scalings and Fig. 1 for several ν and B0.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper offers a genuinely new, observationally motivated probe of ultralight axions in the 10⁻¹⁵–10⁻⁹ eV mass range, with transparent analytic formulas and a falsifiable condition based on measured cooling rates. The derivation is internally consistent under its stated assumptions, and the paper includes a useful backreaction check in Appendix I. The main caveat is that the central quantitative result rests on treating the axion field as a single homogeneous oscillator; for realistic virialized dark matter the velocity dispersion makes the drive broadband, and this suppresses the resonant heating rate. The projected constraints are likely weakened substantially, though the method may still remain competitive. The paper therefore needs a significant revision of its central estimate before the forecast bounds can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III, Eq. (3.12); Sec. IV, Eqs. (4.7), (4.11), (4.12)] The load-bearing assumption is that axion dark matter is a single homogeneous oscillator ϕ0(t) = ϕ̄0 cos(mϕ t) with no momentum spread. Real virialized axion DM has a velocity dispersion v ∼ 10⁻³, giving a frequency spread Δω ∼ mϕ v²/2 ∼ 5×10⁻¹⁹ eV for mϕ = 10⁻¹² eV. This is orders of magnitude larger than the plasma damping width ν ∼ 10⁻²² eV used in Eq. (4.7). A damped oscillator driven by a broadband source with bandwidth Δω ≫ ν absorbs only a fraction ∼ ν/Δω of the monochromatic resonant power, so Eq. (4.11) overestimates the heating rate and Eq. (4.12) overestimates the reach of the constraint by roughly sqrt(Δω/ν) ∼ 70 for ν = 10⁻²² eV, with larger suppression for the smaller ν values shown in Fig. 1. This directly affects the abstract's claim that the forecast bound beats the magnetic white dwarf limit and changes the shape of the resonance. The authors should recompute Q̇ by convolving the axion spectral density with the plasma Lorentzian response, or justify physically why the axion field remains coherent on timescales much longer than 1/Δω.
[Sec. IV, Eqs. (4.13)–(4.17); Fig. 1] The off-resonance bounds and the wide-mass-range conclusions inherit the same broadband problem. Equations (4.16)–(4.17) and the curves in Fig. 1 assume that a monochromatic axion of mass mϕ drives the plasma at frequency mϕ. If the axion bandwidth Δω is much larger than the resonance width ν, then for |mϕ − ωp| ≫ Δω no Fourier component of the field lies within the resonance, so the heating is much smaller than the monochromatic off-resonance estimate. The constrained mass range should therefore be controlled by Δω rather than by ν, and the claimed intervals such as 1.1×10⁻¹⁴ eV ≤ mϕ ≤ 9.0×10⁻¹¹ eV in the right panel of Fig. 1 need to be revisited. This is not a minor technicality; it changes the quantitative forecasts for the off-resonance region that the paper highlights as a way to constrain a wider mass range with larger B0.

minor comments (3)

[Introduction] In the sentence beginning 'by choosing the typical galactic magnetic field strength B0 ≈ 10⁻⁶ eV', the unit should be G, not eV.
[Sec. III, after Eq. (3.4)] The phrase 'we can express Eq. (3.2) andν = 0, icomponents of Eq. (3.3), as' appears garbled; it should refer to the time and spatial components of Eq. (3.3).
[Fig. 1 caption] The right panel uses B0 = 1 G, which is far outside the typical interstellar values quoted in the text; the caption should state explicitly that this is an illustrative extrapolation rather than a currently observed configuration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the heating-rate bound is derived from an independently constructed plasma-axion forced-resonance calculation and compared with literature cooling rates, with no fitted parameter or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. It starts from the standard nonrelativistic plasma equations (2.2)-(2.6), the axion field equation (3.5), and the Chern-Simons coupling, then solves the forced oscillator system (3.30)-(3.38) to obtain the steady-state electric-field amplitude. The heating rate Qdot is computed algebraically in Eq. (4.7), and at resonance it reduces to Eq. (4.11), Qdot_max ~ g^2 B0^2 rho_DM / nu. The forecast bound (4.12) is then obtained by imposing the inequality Qdot_max <= Cdot with cooling rates Cdot taken from the observational literature in Table I. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted: the cooling rates, plasma frequency, friction rate, and dark-matter density are inputs measured or estimated independently, and the coupling g is the unknown being constrained. The cited works by the authors appear only in the introduction as contextual references on axion reviews and polarization searches, and they do not enter the heating-rate calculation or the bound. The monochromatic axion ansatz (3.12) is an assumption, and its validity is discussed in Appendix I, but an assumption or possible physical limitation is not circularity. The paper explicitly labels the result as a forecast, and the derived inequality does not presuppose any particular value of g. Therefore no circular step exists, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard plasma and axion physics; no new particles are invented. The quantitative output depends on the assumed homogeneous-monochromatic axion, the typical densities and field strengths, and the use of Table I cooling rates. The most fragile input is the monochromatic axion approximation, which is not valid for real virialized dark matter at m_phi around 1e-12 eV.

free parameters (3)

electron number density n_e = 1e-3 cm^-3
Chosen as a typical value for warm neutral medium like Leo T; sets plasma frequency and friction in Eqs. (2.3) and (2.7).
background magnetic field amplitude B0 = 1e-6 G in the main estimate; varied up to 1 G
Assumed rather than measured for the cooling regions; the headline bound scales as B0^-1 and is therefore a forecast.
local dark matter density rho_DM = 0.3 GeV cm^-3
Standard value assumed for an axion making up all dark matter; the bound scales as rho_DM^-1/2.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The axion field is homogeneous and monochromatic: phi0(t) = phi_bar cos(m_phi t).
Stated around Eq. (3.12); neglects the velocity dispersion of real axion dark matter, which is load-bearing for the resonance width.
domain assumption The plasma is a nonrelativistic electron fluid with heavy ions at rest and incompressible flow, div u_e = 0.
Used to derive the current equation (2.6); standard for cold interstellar plasma but ignores some kinetic effects.
domain assumption Spatial gradient terms can be neglected relative to time-dependent terms, k << omega_p.
Invoked in Sec. III around Eq. (3.16) to reduce Maxwell equations to driven oscillators.
domain assumption The observed cooling rates in Table I provide the correct energy-balance baseline for axion heating.
Used to convert the computed heating rate into an upper bound on g in Sec. IV; assumes the interstellar medium is in thermal balance.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forecast constraints on the axion-photon coupling from interstellar medium heating." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TBK4BMX

@misc{pith2026250100992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forecast constraints on the axion-photon coupling from interstellar medium heating},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TBK4BMX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00992}
}

abstract

In interstellar media characterized by a nonrelativistic plasma of electrons and heavy ions, we study the effect of axion dark matter coupled to photons on the dynamics of an electric field. In particular, we assume the presence of a background magnetic field aligned in a specific direction. We show that there is an energy transfer from the oscillating axion field to photons and then to the plasma induced by forced resonance. This resonance is most prominent for the axion mass $m_{\phi}$ equivalent to the plasma frequency $\omega_p$. Requiring that the heating rate of the interstellar medium caused by the energy transfer does not exceed the observed astrophysical cooling rate, we place forecast constraints on the axion-photon coupling $g$ for several different amplitudes of the background magnetic field $B_0$. By choosing a typical value $B_0=10^{-6}$ G, we find that, for the resonance mass $m_{\phi}=\omega_p$, the upper limit of $g$ can be stronger than those derived from other measurements in the literature. With increased values of $B_0$, it is possible to put more stringent constraints on $g$ for a wider range of the axion mass away from the resonance point.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00992 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

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

1977
[2]

Weinberg, Phys

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

1978
[3]

Wilczek, Phys

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

1978
[4]

Grilli di Cortona, E

G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, JHEP 01, 034 (2016), arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016
[5]

J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

1979
[6]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

1980
[7]

M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B104, 199 (1981)

work page 1981
[8]

A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31, 260 (1980)

1980

Show all 65 references

[9]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B120, 127 (1983)

1983
[10]

L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 (1983)

1983
[11]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

1983
[12]

J. E. Kim, Phys. Rept. 150, 1 (1987)

1987
[13]

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

1990
[14]

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

2010 arXiv
[15]

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

2016 arXiv
[16]

Di Luzio, M

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

2020 arXiv
[17]

J. E. Kim, Y. Semertzidis, and S. Tsujikawa, Front. in Phys.2, 60 (2014), arXiv:1409.2497 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[18]

Witten, Phys

E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B149, 351 (1984)

1984
[19]

Svrcek and E

P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP 06, 051 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605206

2006 arXiv
[20]

J. P. Conlon, JHEP 05, 078 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0602233

2006 arXiv
[21]

Arvanitaki, S

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

2010 arXiv
[22]

B. S. Acharya, K. Bobkov, and P. Kumar, JHEP 11, 105 (2010), arXiv:1004.5138 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[23]

Cicoli, M

M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, JHEP 10, 146 (2012), arXiv:1206.0819 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[24]

Halverson, C

J. Halverson, C. Long, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D96, 056025 (2017), arXiv:1703.07779 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[25]

Demirtas, C

M. Demirtas, C. Long, L. McAllister, and M. Stillman, JHEP 04, 138 (2020), arXiv:1808.01282 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[26]

Sikivie, Phys

P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 52, 695 (1984)]

1983
[27]

Ehret et al

K. Ehret et al. (ALPS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A612, 83 (2009), arXiv:0905.4159 [physics.ins-det]. 13

2009 arXiv
[28]

Ehret et al., Phys

K. Ehret et al., Phys. Lett. B689, 149 (2010), arXiv:1004.1313 [hep-ex]

2010 arXiv
[29]

Anastassopoulos et al

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

2017 arXiv
[30]

Armengaud et al., JINST 9, T05002 (2014), arXiv:1401.3233 [physics.ins-det]

E. Armengaud et al., JINST 9, T05002 (2014), arXiv:1401.3233 [physics.ins-det]

2014 arXiv
[31]

Primakoff, Phys

H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 81, 899 (1951)

1951
[32]

G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D33, 897 (1986)

1986
[33]

Payez, C

A. Payez, C. Evoli, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and A. Ringwald, JCAP 02, 006 (2015), arXiv:1410.3747 [astro- ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[34]

Dessert, J

C. Dessert, J. W. Foster, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 261102 (2020), arXiv:2008.03305 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Dessert, D

C. Dessert, D. Dunsky, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D105, 103034 (2022), arXiv:2203.04319 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[36]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

2000 arXiv
[37]

Fujita, R

T. Fujita, R. Tazaki, and K. Toma, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 191101 (2019), arXiv:1811.03525 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[38]

Adachi et al

S. Adachi et al. (POLARBEAR), Phys. Rev. D108, 043017 (2023), arXiv:2303.08410 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[39]

Xue et al., arXiv:2412.02229 [astro-ph.HE]

X. Xue et al., arXiv:2412.02229 [astro-ph.HE]
[40]

M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D100, 015040 (2019), arXiv:1903.02666 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[41]

Minami and E

Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 221301 (2020), arXiv:2011.11254 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[42]

Diego-Palazuelos et al., Phys

P. Diego-Palazuelos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 091302 (2022), arXiv:2201.07682 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[43]

S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3067 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9806099

1998 arXiv
[44]

Lue, L.-M

A. Lue, L.-M. Wang, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1506 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812088

1999 arXiv
[45]

Fujita, Y

T. Fujita, Y. Minami, K. Murai, and H. Nakatsuka, Phys. Rev. D103, 063508 (2021), arXiv:2008.02473 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[46]

Fujita, K

T. Fujita, K. Murai, H. Nakatsuka, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D103, 043509 (2021), arXiv:2011.11894 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[47]

Chen, Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, Springer International Publishing (2016)

F. Chen, Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, Springer International Publishing (2016)

2016
[48]

Gibbon, arXiv:1705.10529 [physics.acc-ph]

P. Gibbon, arXiv:1705.10529 [physics.acc-ph]

arXiv
[49]

Jansson and G

R. Jansson and G. R. Farrar, Astrophys. J. 757, 14 (2012), arXiv:1204.3662 [astro-ph.GA]

2012 arXiv
[50]

Wadekar and Z

D. Wadekar and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D106, 075007 (2022), arXiv:2111.08025 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[51]

Ferriere, Astron

K. Ferriere, Astron. Astrophys.505, 1183 (2009), arXiv:0908.2037 [astro-ph.GA]

2009 arXiv
[52]

Matsuhara, M

H. Matsuhara, M. Tanaka, Y. Yonekura, Y. Fukui, M. Kawada, and J. J. Bock, Astrophys. J.490, 744 (1997), arXiv:astro- ph/9707264

1997
[53]

Lehner, B

N. Lehner, B. P. Wakker, and B. D. Savage, Astrophys. J. 615, 767 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407363

2004 arXiv
[54]

Wadekar and G

D. Wadekar and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D103, 123028 (2021), arXiv:1903.12190 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[55]

Wadekar and Z

D. Wadekar and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D107, 083011 (2023), arXiv:2211.07668 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[56]

R. S. Chivukula, A. G. Cohen, S. Dimopoulos, and T. P. Walker, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 957 (1990)

1990
[57]

Dubovsky and G

S. Dubovsky and G. Hern´ andez-Chifflet,JCAP 12, 054 (2015), arXiv:1509.00039 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[58]

Hardy and R

E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, JHEP 02, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[59]

Bhoonah, J

A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, F. Elahi, and S. Schon, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 131101 (2018), arXiv:1806.06857 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[60]

Bhoonah, J

A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, F. Elahi, and S. Schon, Phys. Rev. D100, 023001 (2019), arXiv:1812.10919 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[61]

G. R. Farrar, F. J. Lockman, N. M. McClure-Griffiths, and D. Wadekar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 029001 (2020), arXiv:1903.12191 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[62]

Bhoonah, J

A. Bhoonah, J. Bramante, S. Schon, and N. Song, Phys. Rev. D103, 123026 (2021), arXiv:2010.07240 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[63]

Shoji, E

Y. Shoji, E. Kuflik, Y. Birnboim, and N. C. Stone, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 4082 (2024), arXiv:2306.08679 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[64]

Takeshita and T

A. Takeshita and T. Kitabayashi, arXiv:2409.03981 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[65]

J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, arXiv:astro-ph/0207156

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

1977

[2] [2]

Weinberg, Phys

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

1978

[3] [3]

Wilczek, Phys

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

1978

[4] [4]

Grilli di Cortona, E

G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, JHEP 01, 034 (2016), arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016

[5] [5]

J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

1979

[6] [6]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

1980

[7] [7]

M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B104, 199 (1981)

work page 1981

[8] [8]

A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31, 260 (1980)

1980