The axion signature of strange quark star in SGR 0501+4516

C.R. Das

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 80 references

The axion signature of strange quark star in SGR 0501+4516

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that axions from the strange quark core of SGR 0501+4516 convert to gamma rays in its strong magnetic field, giving a flux near the Fermi-LAT detection threshold.

desk verdict A promising scenario, but the paper announces a detection without ever performing the flux calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01373 v1 pith:E5QNGUHH submitted 2025-07-02 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

C.R. Das This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.HE

keywords axionstrangequarkstarmagnetarSGR0501+4516inversePrimakoffeffectNambu-Jona-LasiniomodelFermi-LATsoftgammarepeater

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 argues that the magnetar SGR 0501+4516, if it is a strange quark star, should emit axions from its quark-matter core and that those axions should convert into gamma rays in the star's intense magnetic field. Using a three-flavor Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model with the axion field built into the charge-parity violating interaction, it predicts a spectral energy distribution whose peak sits close to the point-source sensitivity of Fermi-LAT, at about $5\times10^{-9}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. The paper further claims this signal would be observable by Fermi-LAT, IXPE, and XMM-Newton, making the object a concrete target for axion searches. The reason to care is that a detection would simultaneously probe axion physics and the strange-quark-matter composition of compact stars.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the three-flavor Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) effective model of quark matter—a quark-level theory of strong interactions with scalar, vector, and six-fermion interactions—augmented by an axion field in the $U(1)_A$-breaking determinant term, together with the inverse Primakoff effect as the conversion mechanism. Axions couple to quarks through the Goldberger-Treiman relation with a form factor $F_3^5$, and the axion-two-photon vertex $L_{a\gamma\gamma}=g_{a\gamma\gamma}\,\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B}$ allows axions to turn into photons in the static magnetic field of the magnetar. The central formula is the conversion probability $P_{a\to\gamma}$ in Eq. (8), which depends on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}^2$, the magnetic field strength, the axion mass, and the stellar mass, and which drives the predicted photon flux.

What would settle it

A Fermi-LAT exposure deep enough to reach the predicted $5\times10^{-9}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ point-source flux that finds no gamma-ray excess at the predicted spectral energy distribution peak would falsify the detectable-signal claim, assuming the object really is a strange quark magnetar.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that axions are produced in the strange quark matter core of SGR 0501+4516 through the axion-quark couplings encoded in the three-flavor NJL model, and that those axions then decay to gamma rays by the inverse Primakoff effect in the magnetar's roughly $2\times10^{15}$ G magnetic field. The paper derives the axion-quark coupling from a form-factor relation, sets the axion decay constant at $f_a\simeq10^{15}$ GeV and the axion-photon coupling at $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=10^{-18}$ GeV$^{-1}$, and obtains a conversion probability that reaches about half its asymptotic value at roughly 30 stellar radii. The resulting spectral energy distribution shows a peak, with a severe cutoff before the Fermi momentum, very close to the Fermi-LAT point-source sensitivity of $5\times10^{-9}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The paper concludes that Fermi-LAT, IXPE, and XMM-Newton can detect this axion signature.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on the assumption, stated in the paper, that SGR 0501+4516 is a strange quark magnetar; the predicted quark-core axion flux would not follow for an ordinary neutron star, and weaker axion couplings would push the signal below detectability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A pointed Fermi-LAT observation of SGR 0501+4516 should see a steady gamma-ray excess at the predicted spectral peak if the strange-quark-magnetar picture and the assumed axion couplings are correct.
IXPE polarization data and XMM-Newton timing data from the same source can be combined with the gamma-ray spectrum in a multi-messenger search, improving sensitivity especially at lower strange-star temperatures.
Detection of the predicted signal would place the axion mass in the sub-neV range, with cosmological sub-neV masses said to be preferred.
A future gamma-ray telescope reaching down to about 5 MeV would test the same conversion mechanism with better sensitivity than Fermi-LAT's effective low-energy limit.
The X-ray pulse structure caused by axions is claimed to be generic for a large class of isolated strange quark stars, so the same search strategy can be applied to other magnetars.

Reading between the lines

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

If the paper's picture is right, the same inverse-Primakoff conversion should produce a comparable axion-induced photon signal from other high-field magnetars with strange quark matter cores, making SGR 0501+4516 a prototype rather than an isolated case.
Because the predicted flux depends on whether the core is deconfined quark matter, a careful null search would test the strange-quark-matter hypothesis itself, not just axion couplings.
Completing the emissivity integral that the paper sketches would turn the peak-flux claim into a full spectrum and give Fermi-LAT a sharper predicted line shape to search for.
The predicted $5\times10^{-9}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ flux is close to but not clearly above the Fermi-LAT threshold, so stacked or repeated observations of several magnetars could test the claim even if one source alone is marginal.

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

Colleague,

You asked for my read on arXiv:2507.01373. The one-sentence version: this is a research proposal wearing a paper's clothes. The central claim—that axions from a strange quark magnetar produce an SED peak near Fermi-LAT sensitivity—is never backed by a calculation. The paper never writes down an axion emissivity, a luminosity, or a flux. Section 7 announces the peak, but there is no derivation. So the reader's REJECT verdict is right, and the stress-test note lands exactly where it should.

What is actually new: applying the axion-modified NJL model from [18] and the inverse Primakoff conversion formula from [63] to SGR 0501+4516. That specific application is new, though it is purely qualitative. The paper does cite the relevant literature on NJL, axions, and magnetar emission, and it is honest in Section 3 that the strange quark magnetar classification is an assumption, not a measured fact. That honesty counts for something.

The soft spots are not subtle. Equation (4) is dimensionally inconsistent: as written, |F_3^5| = q^4 f_a^2 alpha_s^4, which is not ~10^-26 for the quoted inputs. Equation (8) contains an undefined 'r' in the conversion probability and the accompanying text confuses radius and probability. More importantly, there is no thermal emissivity integral, no core temperature or density profile, no axion production rate Q_a, and no flux formula connecting luminosity to the claimed SED. The conclusion that Fermi-LAT, IXPE, and XMM-Newton will detect the signal is therefore an overclaim.

Is this worth peer review? Not as it stands. A serious referee would be asked to review an extended abstract. The scenario may be worth pursuing, but the manuscript needs a real calculation before it can be evaluated. I would not cite it, and I would not bring it to the reading group. If the author wants to make the case, they should compute the emissivity and flux and show the SED explicitly.

Recommendation: desk reject, or return for major revision with a request for the actual calculation.

Best

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that axions produced in a strange quark matter core of the magnetar SGR 0501+4516 convert into gamma rays in the star's strong magnetic field via the inverse Primakoff effect, and claims that the resulting spectral energy distribution peak is close to the Fermi-LAT point-source sensitivity of 5e-9 cm^-2 s^-1 and that Fermi-LAT, IXPE, and XMM-Newton could detect it. The model is formulated with a three-flavor Nambu-Jona-Lasinio Lagrangian augmented by axion terms, and the analysis is built on the assumption that SGR 0501+4516 is a strange quark magnetar. The paper contains no derivation of the axion emissivity, luminosity, or photon flux; the quantitative claims in the abstract and Section 7 are asserted rather than computed.

Significance. If the claimed effect were correctly derived, the paper would be significant because it connects axion physics to a specific magnetar target and gives observables for Fermi-LAT, IXPE, and XMM-Newton. The manuscript usefully collects relevant literature on NJL-based strange quark matter and axion-photon conversion, and it identifies a physically interesting channel, the inverse Primakoff process in a magnetar magnetosphere. However, the central quantitative prediction is not supported by any calculation: no emissivity, no flux formula, and no spectral energy distribution are derived. The paper also contains equations with dimensional inconsistencies, so its current contribution is a qualitative scenario rather than a testable prediction.

major comments (4)

[§4, Eq. (5)] The section is titled 'Axion Emissivity of the Strange Star,' but no emissivity is ever defined. Equation (5) is an on-shell cross-section with a delta function, and there is no thermal phase-space integral, no core temperature or density profile, no axion production rate Q_a, and no integration over the star. Without this calculation, the claimed SED and detectability cannot be reproduced or checked from the text.
[§7] The central quantitative prediction, an SED peak 'extremely close' to the Fermi-LAT point-source sensitivity of 5e-9 cm^-2 s^-1, is asserted without a flux formula. No expression such as Phi_gamma = L_a P_(a→gamma)/(4 pi d^2) or a differential SED dPhi/dE appears anywhere, and the distance to SGR 0501+4516 is never used in a calculation. The abstract and Section 7 therefore state a detectability conclusion that the paper does not derive.
[§4, Eqs. (3)–(4)] Equation (4) is dimensionally inconsistent with the quoted numerical value. Substituting q_s = 87 MeV, f_a = 1e15 GeV, and alpha_s = 1e-2 into Eq. (4) gives |F_3^5| = q_s^4 f_a^2 alpha_s^4 ≈ 1e17 GeV^6, not the dimensionless value 1e-26 stated in the text. Alternatively, if the inverse of Eq. (4) is intended, the result has dimension GeV^-6 and still does not equal 1e-26. This also makes the Goldberger-Treiman relation in Eq. (3) dimensionally inconsistent, and it undermines the axion-quark coupling used in the emissivity section.
[§3] The premise that SGR 0501+4516 is a strange quark magnetar is stated as an assumption ('We assumed it is a strange quark magnetar'), but the detectability conclusion in Section 7 depends on this classification. If the object is a conventional neutron-star magnetar, the axion-quark emissivity from NJL quark matter does not apply, and the predicted signal disappears. The paper presents no observational evidence for the strange-quark-matter hypothesis for this object, so the Introduction's statement that the authors 'found' SGR 0501+4516 to be a candidate strange quark star overstates what the analysis establishes. The prediction should be framed as conditional on the strange quark star hypothesis.

minor comments (5)

[§1] The text defines 'soft gamma repeater (SRG)', but the standard abbreviation is SGR; the acronym is used inconsistently elsewhere in the manuscript.
[§4, Eq. (2)] The dual gluon field strength is written as both eG and ilde G in Eq. (2) and the surrounding text, but the notation is never defined.
[§6, Eqs. (8)–(9)] The sentence following Eq. (8) ('The strange star radius, a benchmark conversion probability as a function of radial distance r in the unit of rSGR 0501+4516') is not grammatical, and the variable r in Eq. (8) is never explicitly defined. In addition, Eq. (9) defines rconv implicitly because B(r) depends on rconv; the text should state this and explain how Figure 2 was generated.
[§5] The sentence 'These models assign values of 0 and -0.97 for KSVZ and 8/3 and 0.39 for DFSZ to gγ' is ambiguous because each model is assigned two numbers; please specify the model variant or limiting case to which each value applies.
[§7] The sentence 'For all magnetars, this section is dedicated [66]' is not coherent, and the remark that Fermi-LAT 'was intended to measure gamma rays with an energy of 30 MeV' is unclear, since a lower energy threshold rather than a central energy is presumably meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central SED prediction is asserted rather than derived, which is an evidentiary gap, not a reduction to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that axions produced in SGR 0501+4516 decay to gamma rays in the magnetar's magnetic field, giving an SED peak 'extremely close to the Fermi-LAT point source sensitivity of 5 × 10^-9 cm^-2 s^-1' (Section 7). To support this, the paper assumes SGR 0501+4516 is a strange quark magnetar ('We assumed it is a strange quark magnetar', Section 3), adopts axion-quark and axion-photon couplings from prior literature, and gives a conversion probability in Eq. (8). However, Section 4 is titled 'Axion Emissivity of the Strange Star' but contains no emissivity formula, and Section 6 gives no flux formula connecting the conversion probability to the claimed SED peak. The peak is thus stated without derivation. This is a serious completeness and correctness risk, but it is not circularity in the sense defined here: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no equation reduces to another by construction, and no load-bearing argument rests on self-citation by the author (C.R. Das cites no prior work of his own). The 'strange quark magnetar' assumption is an unverified premise, not a conclusion obtained by circular reasoning. Because the alleged prediction cannot be reproduced from the text, the appropriate criticism is unsupportedness, not circularity. Under the instruction to flag circularity only when a specific reduction can be exhibited, the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation draws on model parameters taken from the NJL literature, fixed axion parameters chosen by hand, and several unproven astrophysical assumptions. No new free parameters are fitted to data in this paper, but the assumed inputs fully determine the claimed signal.

free parameters (11)

NJL scalar coupling GS*Lambda^2 = 3.6
Quoted from Refs. [28,29] and used in Eq. (1); the NJL dynamics depend on it.
NJL t'Hooft coupling K*Lambda^5 = 8.9
Quoted from Refs. [28,29]; controls U(1)_A breaking in Eq. (1).
Current quark masses mu=md, ms = 3.6 MeV, 87 MeV
Inputs from Refs. [28,29] in the NJL Lagrangian.
Momentum cutoff Lambda = 750 MeV
Regularization scale from Refs. [28,29]; needed to define the NJL integrals.
Axion decay constant fa = 1e15 GeV
Chosen in Sections 4-5 within the allowed 1e8 to 1e17 GeV range; sets gaγγ via Eq. (7).
Axion-photon coupling gaγγ = 1e-18 GeV^-1
Set in Section 5 from fa and model-dependent gγ; used in conversion probability Eq. (8).
Strong coupling alpha_s at quark scale = 1e-2
Chosen in Section 4 for the form factor Eq. (4); no running coupling calculation is shown.
Surface magnetic field B_SGR0501+4516 = 2e15 Gauss
Observed magnetar field quoted in Section 3; enters Eqs. (8)-(9).
Strange star radius r_SGR = 10 km
Assumed in Eq. (9); not derived.
Photon energy omega = 5 keV
Benchmark energy in Eq. (9) and Section 7.
Axion mass ma = sub-neV (<1e-9 eV)
Concluded in Section 7; Eq. (8) depends on ma, so the flux depends on this choice.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Strange quark matter is the true ground state of dense matter.
Background hypothesis from Refs. [1,2]; the paper relies on it to treat SGR 0501+4516 as a strange quark magnetar.
domain assumption Axions exist and couple to photons through Laγγ = -gaγγ/4 F Ftilde a.
Assumed particle physics input, standard in axion literature; used in Eq. (6).
ad hoc to paper The axion field is near its vacuum expectation value with a/fa between 0 and pi.
Stated in Section 2; allows the simplified axion-quark coupling.
domain assumption The NJL Lagrangian Eq. (1) with axion modification describes quark matter in the star.
Model choice from Ref. [18].
domain assumption Goldberger-Treiman relation and form factor Eqs. (3)-(4) give the axion-quark couplings.
Used without derivation in Section 4; the dimensional inconsistency of Eq. (4) makes this fragile.
ad hoc to paper Magnetic field is a pure dipole B(r) = B0 (r/r0)^-3.
Assumed in Eq. (9) and stated in Section 6; higher multipoles are neglected.
domain assumption The conversion probability in Eq. (8) from Ref. [63] applies to this magnetar.
Imported from prior literature; the meaning of the factor 's' is unexplained.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The axion signature of strange quark star in SGR 0501+4516." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5QNGUHH

@misc{pith2026250701373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The axion signature of strange quark star in SGR 0501+4516},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5QNGUHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01373}
}

read the original abstract

We study the axion effects on quark matter and quark-matter cores in strange quark magnetars using a three-flavor Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model to represent the charge-parity violating effects through the axion field. Here, axions decay to gamma rays in a very strong magnetic field, which the Fermi Large Area Telescope (Fermi-LAT), Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE), and XMM-Newton will be able to detect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01373 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Axion-to-photon conversion probability (Pa→γ) as a function of rconv/rSGR 0501+4516 for SGR 0501 + 4516 in Eq. 9. For the benchmark displayed, it gets close to half of its asymptotic value at ∼ 30 rSGR 0501+4516 , which is far from the magnetar surface. Fermi gamma-ray study alone. Since cosmological sub-neV ( ≲ 10−9 eV) [53, 67] is the lowest mass that is consistent with the physical parameters, we conclude that it… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

[18]

H. Liu, Y. H. Liu, Y. H. Yang, M. Ju, X. H. Wu, H. M. Liu and P. C. Chu, Phys. Rev. D111, (2025) L051501

work page 2025
[63]

J. I. McDonald, B. Garbrecht and P. Millington, JCAP12, (2023) 031

work page 2023
[1]

Witten, Phys

E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D.30, (1984) 272

work page 1984
[2]

Farhi and R

E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D.30, (1984) 2379

work page 1984
[3]

Alcock, E

C. Alcock, E. Farhi and A. Olinto, The Astrophys. J.310, (1986) 261

work page 1986
[4]

Colpi and J

M. Colpi and J. C. Miller, The Astrophys. J.388, (1992) 513

work page 1992
[5]

Satherley, C

J. Satherley, C. Gordon and C. Stevens, Phys. Rev. D.111, (2025) 063008

work page 2025
[6]

N. K. Glendenning and F. Weber, The Astrophys. J.400, (1992) 647

work page 1992

Show all 80 references

[7]

Y. F. Huang and T. Lu, A&A325, (1997) 189

1997
[8]

J. L. Zdunik, Astron. Astrophys.394, (2002) 641

2002
[9]

V. M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, ARA&A55, (2017) 261. 10 Advances in Nuclear Science and Applications Volume 1, Issue 1 (2025)

2017
[10]

Turolla, S

R. Turolla, S. Zane and A. L. Watts, Rep. Prog. Phys.78, (2015) 116901

2015
[11]

Mereghetti, J

S. Mereghetti, J. A. Pons and A. Melatos, Space. Sci. Rev.191, (2015) 315

2015
[12]

Bentz and A

W. Bentz and A. W. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. A696, (2001) 138

2001
[13]

V. G. Vaks and A. I. Larkin, Sov. Phys. JETP13, (1961) 979

1961
[14]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, (1961) 345

1961
[15]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.124, (1961) 246

1961
[16]

Eguchi and H

T. Eguchi and H. Sugawara, Phys. Rev. D.10, (1974) 4257

1974
[17]

Kikkawa, Prog

K. Kikkawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.56, (1976) 947

1976
[19]

t’ Hooft, Phys

G. t’ Hooft, Phys. Rev. D14, (1976) 3432; Erratum Phys. Rev. D18, (1978) 2199

1976
[20]

R. D. Peccei, Lect. Notes in Phys.741, (2008) 3

2008
[21]

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

1979
[22]

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

1980
[23]

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

1981
[24]

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

1980
[25]

G. G. Raffelt, Lect. Notes in Phys.741, (2008) 51

2008
[26]

J. H. Chang, R. Essig and S. D. McDermott, J. High Energ. Phys.2018, (2018) 51

2018
[27]

N. Bar, K. Blum and G. D’Amico, Phys. Rev. D101, (2020) 123025

2020
[28]

M. Lutz, S. Klimt and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A542, (1992) 521

1992
[29]

Bratovic, T

N. Bratovic, T. Hatsuda and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B719, (2013) 131

2013
[30]

S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, (1992) 649

1992
[31]

Buballa, Phys

M. Buballa, Phys. Rep.407, (2005) 205. 11 Advances in Nuclear Science and Applications Volume 1, Issue 1 (2025)

2005
[32]

P. C. Chu, H. Liu, H. M. Liu, X. H. Li, M. Ju, X. H. Wu and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 110, (2024) 123031

2024
[33]

A. J. van der Horstet al., The Astrophys. J. Lett.711, (2010) L1

2010
[34]

Göˇ güşet al., The Astrophys

E. Göˇ güşet al., The Astrophys. J.718, (2010) 331

2010
[35]

M. J. Millardet al., The Astrophys. J.893, (2020) 98

2020
[36]

Rea et al., Mon

N. Rea et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.396 (4), (2009) 2419

2009
[37]

A. A. Chrimeset al., A&A 696, (2025) A127

2025
[38]

Dine, arXiv: hep-ph/0011376

M. Dine, arXiv: hep-ph/0011376

arXiv
[39]

S. B. Rüster, V. Werth, M. Buballa, I. A. Shovkovy and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 73, (2006) 034025

2006
[40]

K. S. A. Hassaneen, J. Mod. Phys.5, (2014) 1713

2014
[41]

A. A. Hujeirat and M. M. Wicker, J. Mod. Phys.14, (2023) 1458

2023
[42]

Weber, Prog

F. Weber, Prog. Part. and Nucl. Phys.54, (2005) 193

2005
[43]

M. G. Alford, Nucl. Phys. A830, (2009) 385c

2009
[44]

J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B. R. Holstein,Dynamics of the Standard Model: Second edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023) p. 347

2023
[45]

P. W. Graham and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D88, (2013) 035023

2013
[46]

K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, (2021) 071302

2021
[47]

Berenji, J

B. Berenji, J. Mod. Phys.16, (2025) 152

2025
[48]

Sikivie, Phys

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

1983
[49]

Sikivie, Phys

P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. D32, (1985) 2988; Erratum Phys. Rev. D36, (1987) 974

1985
[50]

Sikivie, Rev

P. Sikivie, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, (2021) 015004

2021
[51]

Semertzidis and J

Y. Semertzidis and J. D. Vergados, Nucl. Phys. B879, (2015) 821

2015
[52]

M. H. S. Bukhari, Universe6, (2020) 28. 12 Advances in Nuclear Science and Applications Volume 1, Issue 1 (2025)

2020
[53]

D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rep.643, (2016) 1

2016
[54]

Visinelli and P

L. Visinelli and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D80, (2009) 035024

2009
[55]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) and 2025 update, 030001

2024
[56]

Cadamuro, arXiv:1210.3196 [hep-ph]

D. Cadamuro, arXiv:1210.3196 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[57]

Q. F. Wu and X. J. Xu, JCAP07, (2024) 013

2024
[58]

Stern, PoS ICHEP2016282, (2016) 198

I. Stern, PoS ICHEP2016282, (2016) 198

2016
[59]

Y. K. Semertzidis and S. Youn, Sci. Adv.8, (2022) 1

2022
[60]

Khelashvili, M

M. Khelashvili, M. Lisanti, A. Prabhu and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D111, (2025) 083027

2025
[61]

J. F. Fortin, H. K. Guo, S. P. Harris, E. Sheridan and K. Sinha, JCAP06, (2021) 036

2021
[62]

Raffelt and L

G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D37, (1988) 1237

1988
[64]

Annala, T

E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys. 16, (2020) 907

2020
[65]

J. J. Fan, L. Li and C. Sun, arXiv: 2501.12440 [hep-ph]
[66]

S. A. Olausen and V. M. Kaspi, The Astrophys. J. Suppl.212, (2014) 6

2014
[67]

Higaki, K

T. Higaki, K. S. Jeong, N. Kitajima and F. Takahashi, J. High Energ. Phys. 2016, (2016) 150

2016
[68]

Lande et al., The Astrophys

J. Lande et al., The Astrophys. J.756, (2012) 5

2012
[69]

B. B. Kamenetskaia, N. Fraija and G. Herrera, Phys. Rev. D111, (2025) 115008

2025
[70]

Liu and J

Z. Liu and J. Zhang, arXiv: 2506.05795 [astro-ph.CO]
[71]

M. C. Weisskopfet al., Proc. SPIE9905, (2016) 990517

2016
[72]

Tavernaet al., Science 378, (2022) 646

R. Tavernaet al., Science 378, (2022) 646

2022
[73]

Zane andet al., The Astrophys

S. Zane andet al., The Astrophys. J. Lett.944, (2023) L27. 13 Advances in Nuclear Science and Applications Volume 1, Issue 1 (2025)

2023
[74]

E. Gau, F. Hajkarim, S. P. Harris, P. S. B. Dev, J. F. Fortin, H. Krawczynski and K. Sinha, Phys. of the Dark Univ.46, (2024) 101709

2024
[75]

A. J. Long and E. D. Schiappacasse, Phys. Rev. D110, (2024) 103020

2024
[76]

Smarra and P

C. Smarra and P. Carenza, Phys. Rev. D111, (2025) 063021

2025
[77]

Bhura, R

U. Bhura, R. A. Battye, J. I. McDonald and S. Srinivasan, JCAP11, (2024) 029

2024
[78]

H. C. Tian, Z. Y. Wang, Y. F. Liang and Z. W. Du, Phys. Rev. D111, (2025) 123010

2025
[79]

Fukushima, Phys

K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B591, (2004) 277

2004
[80]

V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. D52, (1995) 4747. 14

1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [18]

H. Liu, Y. H. Liu, Y. H. Yang, M. Ju, X. H. Wu, H. M. Liu and P. C. Chu, Phys. Rev. D111, (2025) L051501

work page 2025

[2] [63]

J. I. McDonald, B. Garbrecht and P. Millington, JCAP12, (2023) 031

work page 2023

[3] [1]

Witten, Phys

E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D.30, (1984) 272

work page 1984

[4] [2]

Farhi and R

E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D.30, (1984) 2379

work page 1984

[5] [3]

Alcock, E

C. Alcock, E. Farhi and A. Olinto, The Astrophys. J.310, (1986) 261

work page 1986

[6] [4]

Colpi and J

M. Colpi and J. C. Miller, The Astrophys. J.388, (1992) 513

work page 1992

[7] [5]

Satherley, C

J. Satherley, C. Gordon and C. Stevens, Phys. Rev. D.111, (2025) 063008

work page 2025

[8] [6]

N. K. Glendenning and F. Weber, The Astrophys. J.400, (1992) 647

work page 1992