Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Spin-dependent dark matter scattering in quasi-two-dimensional magnets

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Quasi-2D magnets can act as directional dark matter detectors.

desk verdict Solid incremental theory paper with a genuinely new form-factor ingredient and a plausible directional-detection idea, but the projected O(10%) modulation rests on an untested flat-dispersion idealization at meV energies. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18120 v1 pith:JP35GMYO submitted 2025-01-30 hep-ph

Giacomo Marocco , John Wheater This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords darkmattermagnonsquasi-2Dmagnetsspin-dependentscatteringdirectionaldetectionsiderealmodulationmagneticformfactorantiferromagnet
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 argues that spin-dependent dark matter in the keV-to-MeV mass range can be detected through the magnons it excites in quasi-two-dimensional magnets, materials whose spins are coupled only within planes. Because both the magnon dispersion relation and the magnetic form factor of the electronic spins are anisotropic, the excitation rate changes by roughly ten percent as the Earth rotates through the dark-matter wind, giving a directional handle without any intrinsic directionality in the interaction. The authors compute projected sensitivities for kilogram-year exposures of La2CuO4 and K2CuF4 and find reach into parameter regions not excluded by stellar cooling, cosmology, or other direct searches. The key addition beyond earlier magnon-based proposals is an explicit, target-dependent magnetic form factor that matters at the larger momentum transfers reached by MeV-mass dark matter.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the anisotropic magnon dispersion relations of quasi-2D Heisenberg magnets — for a square-lattice ferromagnet, $\Omega(q) = 4Js\sqrt{\sin^2(q_x a/2)+\sin^2(q_y a/2)}$ (in the notation used in the paper, $J s = 1$ meV, $a \simeq 8.70$ keV$^{-1}$), and for an antiferromagnet, $\Omega(q) = 4JS\sqrt{1 - ((\cos(q_x a)+\cos(q_y a))/2)^2}$ — together with the spin-structure functions $S_{xx}=S_{yy}$ that weight the DM-magnon matrix element. The flatness of the dispersion in the perpendicular direction and the angular dependence of the magnetic form factor $f(\mathbf{q})$ for the $3d_{x^2-y^2}$ Cu$^{2+}$ orbital are what convert the rotating DM wind into a daily modulation. The calculation factorizes the rate into a DM scattering potential $V_{ij}$ and a target spin-structure function $S_{ij}$; matching electron spins to lattice spins via the Wigner–Eckart projection theorem produces the form factor that carries the material-specific angular dependence.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-spin correlation function of a candidate magnet such as La2CuO4 with inelastic neutron scattering at momentum transfers of order 0.1–1 $Å^{-1}$ and energies of 1–10 meV, and look for a gap or dispersion along the direction perpendicular to the magnetic planes. If the perpendicular direction is not flat at these scales, the predicted O(10%) daily modulation would be suppressed; if it is flat, the modulation mechanism is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a magnet whose spin Hamiltonian is confined to planes (a quasi-2D Heisenberg magnet) has a flat magnon dispersion along the perpendicular direction and an anisotropic spin-structure function, and both anisotropies imprint themselves on the dark-matter scattering rate. As the Earth rotates, the component of the dark-matter wind parallel to the magnetic planes oscillates with roughly a 12-hour period, so the rate at which magnons are excited oscillates by O(10%) even for a perfectly isotropic spin-dependent interaction. Matching the microscopic electron-spin operator to the lattice spin theory introduces a magnetic form factor f(q) that is itself angularly dependent for a Cu2+ ion in a 3dx2−y2 orbital; this damps the rate at large momentum transfers and adds to the directionality at MeV masses. The result is a concrete route to directional direct detection in the 1 keV–10 MeV window, with projected sensitivity in parts of parameter space not already excluded.

Load-bearing premise

The dominant assumption is that the candidate magnets are ideal gapless quasi-two-dimensional Heisenberg systems, so the magnon dispersion is exactly flat in the perpendicular direction and there is no magnetic gap at the meV energy scale; the paper itself notes that for K2CuF4 this description holds only for momenta well above 0.03 $Å^{-1}$, and for La2CuO4 residual interlayer coupling and anisotropy can introduce gaps and perpendicular dispersion at the relevant meV scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A kilogram-year exposure of a quasi-2D antiferromagnet such as La2CuO4 could detect (or exclude) spin-dependent dark matter down to roughly keV masses, reaching the sub-MeV regime that nuclear-recoil experiments cannot probe.
  • The daily modulation is an intrinsic directional handle: even an isotropic spin-dependent interaction produces an order-10% sidereal modulation, which can be used to separate signal from unmodulated backgrounds.
  • Including the magnetic form factor suppresses the rate by roughly two orders of magnitude at momentum transfers near 10 keV, so projections that omit it overestimate sensitivity at MeV masses.
  • For the magnetic-dipole dark matter model, the projected reach extends into parameter space not excluded by stellar cooling, supernova 1987A, BBN/CMB, or existing direct-detection limits.
  • The formalism applies to any dark matter–electron-spin coupling, so the same anisotropic targets could serve for pseudoscalar-mediated or other spin-dependent interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same flat-dispersion argument should apply to quasi-1D magnets, which the paper treats only briefly; a dedicated calculation could show whether their even stronger anisotropy produces larger modulation, at the cost of a lower total rate.
  • The magnetic form factor is currently tabulated only for Cu2+; computing it for other magnetic ions (e.g., Ni2+, Mn2+, or rare-earth moments) could identify materials with weaker damping at MeV momentum transfers and larger anisotropic contrast.
  • A practical detector would need readout that isolates meV-scale magnon modes; the paper connects to existing calorimetric and qubit-based single-magnon proposals, but the modulation measurement specifically demands low-background, low-threshold performance not yet demonstrated.
  • The 12-hour (rather than 24-hour) periodicity of the modulation is a sharp spectral feature; even if flat backgrounds remain, a sinusoid at that period would be a distinctive dark-matter signature that other time-dependent searches do not produce.
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 paper studies the excitation of magnons by dark matter scattering in quasi-two-dimensional magnetic insulators with spin-dependent couplings. The authors derive single-magnon spin structure functions for square-lattice ferromagnets and antiferromagnets from linear spin-wave theory, include a target-dependent magnetic form factor for Cu2+ to extend the calculation beyond the long-wavelength limit, and compute the daily modulation of the rate as the Earth rotates through the DM wind. They find O(10%) sidereal modulation for candidate materials such as La2CuO4 and project that kilogram-year exposures could probe spin-dependent dark matter in the 1 keV to 10 MeV mass range, partly in regions not excluded by other searches.

Significance. If the quantitative projections hold, this is a useful extension of magnon-based direct detection: it adds an intrinsic directional handle and improves the high-mass matching by using tabulated magnetic form factors instead of a point-like approximation. The derivation is not circular: the structure functions are computed from the Heisenberg model, the form factors come from independent neutron-scattering tabulations, and the material parameters are taken from the experimental literature. The FM and AFM structure functions reproduce known results, and the phase-space integrals in App. D are standard. The main risk is quantitative rather than formal: the central observable relies on an ideally flat, gapless magnon dispersion, so the material-parameter dependence must be quantified before the projections in Figs. 4-5 can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II.C, Eqs. (15)-(16); Table I; Figs. 4-5] The daily modulation is generated by the exactly flat q_z direction and gapless in-plane dispersion assumed in Eqs. (15)-(16). Real K2CuF4 and La2CuO4 have interlayer exchange and anisotropy gaps that are not negligible at the meV scale, but no values of the spin gap Delta or the interlayer coupling J_perp are given for either material. The only quantitative validity statement is the footnote in Section II.C.1 for K2CuF4, which restricts the quasi-2D isotropic Heisenberg description to q >> 0.03 inverse Angstrom. A 1 meV magnon in K2CuF4 corresponds to q*a about 0.18, i.e. q approximately 0.044 inverse Angstrom, so the 1 meV threshold used in Figs. 4-5 sits near, rather than well inside, the stated validity region. For La2CuO4, no analogous bound is stated, and the momentum transfers that produce meV magnons for m_chi around 1-100 keV range from about 10^-4 to 0.05 inverse Angstrom, where the ideal dispersion of Eq. (16) is cut off by interlayer coupling and spin-orbit or Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya anisotropy. If these gaps are of order 1 meV, the low-energy phase space that produces the O(10%) modulation is removed, reducing or eliminating the daily signal and shifting the mass reach. I ask the authors to list Delta and J_perp for both materials and to quantify the rate and modulation for a dispersion with a finite gap and q_z dependence, or to explicitly mark the parameter region where the ideal 2D assumption is justified.
  2. [Section III.C and App. D, Eq. (D7)] The final rate expression in Eq. (D7) does not display the magnetic form factor |f(q)|^2 even though the matching in Eq. (12) implies that the electron-level structure function in Eq. (5) is |f(q)|^2 times the lattice correlator. The tilde notation introduced in App. E distinguishes the lattice-level object, but the paper should write out the full electron-level rate formula explicitly so that the numerical implementation can be checked. This is particularly important because the high-mass reach in Figs. 4-5 is claimed to be controlled by the form factor suppression and anisotropy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B, before Eq. (10)] The text says the form factor is proportional to the electron charge density; for spin-only scattering it is the Fourier transform of the spin density, so the wording should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'signicant' should be 'significant'.
  3. [References] Reference [38] is incomplete: it lists only the journal and DOI-like information without an author list; please complete the citation.
  4. [Introduction and App. A3] The introduction mentions quasi-1D and -2D (anti)ferromagnets, but the quantitative analysis is restricted to quasi-2D materials; App. A3 gives a quasi-1D AFM correlator but no rate or sensitivity calculation is presented for it, so the coverage claimed in the abstract should be stated more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the derivation is a forward application of independent Heisenberg-model spin-wave theory, neutron-scattering form factors, and literature material parameters to compute DM-magnon rates.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that quasi-2D magnets produce a sidereal modulation in the DM-magnon excitation rate—is derived from a stated microscopic model rather than from the predicted signal. The spin structure function follows from the Heisenberg Hamiltonian (Eq. 13) via linear spin-wave theory, with material parameters J, S, a, b, c, and nS taken from independent experimental references (Table I). The magnetic form factor f(q) is taken from tabulated neutron-scattering wavefunctions (App. B, CCSL), not fitted to DM data. The rate integral (Eq. D7) combines these ingredients with a standard Maxwell-Boltzmann DM velocity distribution and fixed interaction potentials (Eqs. 21 and 23). No parameter is adjusted to make the O(10%) modulation appear; the modulation is a calculated consequence of the anisotropic dispersion relation Omega(q) and anisotropic Sij. The only self-citations (refs. 22 and 52) appear in the context of external constraints and phonon targets, and they are not load-bearing for the paper's derivation. The acknowledged K2CuF4 approximation (footnote, Sec. II.C.1) is a physical applicability limitation, not a circularity, because the calculation is explicit about the regime in which the quasi-2D Heisenberg description is used. Overall the chain is self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard linear response and spin-wave theory, external material parameters (J, a, S, nS) and neutron-scattering form factors. No parameters are fitted to the predicted dark matter signal; the only hand-chosen inputs are the detector threshold, the orientation angle, and the standard halo velocity parameters. There are no invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • DM halo velocity parameters (v0, vesc, ve) = 230, 600, 240 km/s
    Standard Maxwell-Boltzmann halo parameters from the literature; the rate normalization and daily modulation depend on the velocity distribution and on ve relative to the crystal orientation.
  • Energy threshold omega_min = 1 meV and 25 meV
    Hand-chosen to bracket calorimetric detection capabilities; the low-mass reach in Figs. 4 and 5 scales with threshold.
  • Orientation angle beta = 90 degrees
    Chosen so the component of the Earth's velocity in the magnetization plane oscillates with a 12-hour period, maximizing the modulation; a real experiment would have a fixed orientation, and the modulation amplitude depends on beta.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory (Holstein-Primakoff at leading order) applies for the relevant magnon momentum and temperature.
    Used throughout Appendix A and Section II.C to derive magnon dispersion and structure functions.
  • domain assumption The DM-target scattering is described by the Born approximation and linear response theory, factorizing into a DM potential and a target spin structure function.
    Eq. (3); standard for weakly coupled DM, but fails if the DM coupling is strong.
  • domain assumption Single-magnon final states dominate the excitation rate; multi-magnon and phonon channels are neglected or assumed subdominant.
    Section II.C states this is a lower bound; previous work found the magnon rate exceeds the phonon rate for these couplings.
  • domain assumption The magnetic form factor from neutron scattering tabulations (Cu2+ d_x2-y2 orbital) applies to the DM scattering process.
    Appendix B; the form factor is an input from the neutron scattering literature, assumed to carry over unchanged.
  • domain assumption Spins in different magnetic domains are uncorrelated, and domain magnetizations are isotropically distributed.
    Appendix E; used to relate the structure function to neutron scattering data and to estimate domain averaging.
  • domain assumption The quasi-2D Heisenberg model with zero interplane coupling is valid in the kinematic regime of interest.
    Section II.C.1 footnote states validity for q above 0.03 inverse Angstrom for K2CuF4; for La2CuO4 the analogous assumption is implicit.
  • standard math Standard operations in many-body theory and quantum mechanics (Wigner-Eckart theorem, Fourier transforms, bosonization) are correct.
    Invoked in the matching procedure of Section II.B and the spin-wave derivations of Appendix A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-dependent dark matter scattering in quasi-two-dimensional magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JP35GMYO

@misc{pith2026250118120,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-dependent dark matter scattering in quasi-two-dimensional magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JP35GMYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18120}
}
read the original abstract

We study the prospects of detecting dark matter coupled to the spin of the electron, such that it may scatter and excite magnons - collective excitations of electronic spins. We show that materials exhibiting long-range magnetic order where the spins are coupled only along a plane may act as directional dark matter detectors. These quasi-2D materials possess anisotropic dispersion relations and structure functions which induce a sidereal modulation in the excitation rate. We calculate the expected signal rate for some candidate (anti)ferromagnets, demonstrating a possible route to the direct detection of spin-dependent dark matter in the keV to MeV mass range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18120 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The magnetic form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: A square lattice, quasi-2d antiferromagnet has spins which are only coupled along certain planes, as de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The expected signal rate Γ over a day for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Possible constraints on the standard SD inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    It is important to recognise that this matching proce- dure was target specific, as we required knowledge of the magnetic ion and its electron’s wavefunction

    In particular, we see that at large momentum transfer |q| ≈10 keV the scattering rate is heavily damped by the form factor, leading to a damping in the scattering rate by approximately two orders of magnitude. It is important to recognise that this matching proce- dure was target specific, as we required knowledge of the magnetic ion and its electron’s wa...

  2. [2]

    reference cross-section

    Anti-ferromagnetic magnons We now consider materials with antiferromagnetic or- der. In the Neel regime, where we may again carry out a semi-classical expansion, there exist two degenerate magnons, as described in App. A 2. For square-lattice AFMs, whose spins are again coupled along the x − y plane, the dispersion relation is Ω(q) = 4J S s 1 − (cos(qxa) ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    easy-plane

    Ferromagnetic magnons The low-lying excitations above the FM ground state are the single-magnon states, indexed by a crystal mo- mentum |q⟩. The dynamics of single magnons are de- scribed in Appendix A. At low energies, these modes dominate the system’s dynamics, and the spin-spin cor- relation function may be approximated within the frame- work of linear...

  4. [4]

    Aprile et al., Phys

    XENON Collaboration 7, E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Physical Review D 31, 3059 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    Aalbers et al., Phys

    LZ, J. Aalbers et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023), 2207.03764. 9

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Bo et al., Phys

    PandaX, Z. Bo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011805 (2025), 2408.00664

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Essig et al., JHEP 05, 046 (2016), 1509.01598

    R. Essig et al., JHEP 05, 046 (2016), 1509.01598

    arXiv 2016

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076007 (2012), 1108.5383

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Essig, A

    R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 021301 (2012), 1206.2644

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, and M. T. Walters, Phys. Dark Univ. 1, 32 (2012), 1203.2531

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aprile et al., Phys

    (XENON Collaboration) ††, XENON, E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 161805 (2022), 2207.11330

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    SuperCDMS, D. W. Amaral et al., Phys. Rev. D 102, 091101 (2020), 2005.14067

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hochberg et al., Phys

    Y. Hochberg et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, 112005 (2022), 2110.01586

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Adari et al., Phys

    SENSEI, P. Adari et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 011804 (2025), 2312.13342

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Schutz and K

    K. Schutz and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 121302 (2016), 1604.08206

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zhang et al., Phys

    PandaX Collaboration, D. Zhang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 161804 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Baudis et al., (2024), 2412.16279

    QROCODILE, L. Baudis et al., (2024), 2412.16279

    2024

  11. [19]

    Gao et al., (2024), 2403.19739

    J. Gao et al., (2024), 2403.19739

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Griffin, S

    S. Griffin, S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115034 (2018), 1807.10291

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 95, 056019 (2017), 1611.06228

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Acanfora, A

    F. Acanfora, A. Esposito, and A. D. Polosa, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 549 (2019), 1902.02361

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B 785, 386 (2018), 1712.06598

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hochberg, T

    Y. Hochberg, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 94, 015019 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Mitridate, K

    A. Mitridate, K. Pardo, T. Trickle, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 109, 015010 (2024), 2308.06314

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    I. M. Bloch, S. Knapen, A. Madden, and G. Marocco, (2024), 2411.10542

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hochberg, T

    Y. Hochberg, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 95, 023013 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    magnetic form factor

    to include a target-dependent magnetic form factor. Conventions: We take i, j= 1 , 2, 3 to be spatial in- dices; a, blabel electrons; α labels lattice sites. II. MAGNON EXCIT A TION In order to assess the suitability of a target material for directional dark matter detection, ...

  21. [29]

    C. P. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, 063003 (2022), 2106.16214

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Catena and N

    R. Catena and N. A. Spaldin, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033230 (2024), 2402.06817

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Physical Review Letters 124, 201801 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Trickle, Z

    T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, arXiv:2009.13534 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph] (2020), 2009.13534

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Esposito and S

    A. Esposito and S. Pavaskar, Phys. Rev. D 108, L011901 (2023), 2210.13516

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Coskuner, T

    A. Coskuner, T. Trickle, Z. Zhang, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015010 (2022), 2102.09567

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Boyd et al., Phys

    C. Boyd et al., Phys. Rev. D 108, 015015 (2023), 2212.04505

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Budnik, O

    R. Budnik, O. Chesnovsky, O. Slone, and T. Volansky, Phys. Lett. B 782, 242 (2018), 1705.03016

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kadribasic et al., Phys

    F. Kadribasic et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 111301 (2018), 1703.05371

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, C. G. Tully, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B 772, 239 (2017), 1606.08849

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers, and Y. Xu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013, 004 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Zaliznyak and S.-H

    I. Zaliznyak and S.-H. Lee, Magnetic Neutron Scattering (, 2005), pp. 3–64

    2005

  33. [41]

    Hirakawa, H

    K. Hirakawa, H. Yoshizawa, J. D. Axe, and G. Shirane, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 52, 4220 (1983)

    1983

  34. [42]

    Solid State Communications 18, 433 (1976)

    1976

  35. [43]

    Yamada, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 33, 979 (1972)

    I. Yamada, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 33, 979 (1972)

    1972

  36. [44]

    Coldea et al., Physical review letters 86, 5377 (2001)

    R. Coldea et al., Physical review letters 86, 5377 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    N. S. Headings, S. M. Hayden, R. Coldea, and T. G. Perring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 247001 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Hidaka, K

    M. Hidaka, K. Inoue, I. Yamada, and P. Walker, Physica B+ C 121, 343 (1983)

    1983

  39. [47]

    Pospelov and T

    M. Pospelov and T. ter Veldhuis, Phys. Lett. B 480, 181 (2000), hep-ph/0003010

    2000 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sigurdson, M

    K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R. R. Caldwell, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083501 (2004), astro-ph/0406355, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 73, 089903 (2006)]

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Banks, J.-F

    T. Banks, J.-F. Fortin, and S. Thomas, (2010), 1007.5515

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J. Kopp, L. Michaels, and J. Smirnov, JCAP 04, 022 (2014), 1401.6457

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ibarra and S

    A. Ibarra and S. Wild, JCAP 05, 047 (2015), 1503.03382

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    B. J. Kavanagh, P. Panci, and R. Ziegler, JHEP 04, 089 (2019), 1810.00033

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Acciarri et al., Phys

    L3, M. Acciarri et al., Phys. Lett. B 470, 268 (1999), hep-ex/9910009

    1999 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Fortin and T

    J.-F. Fortin and T. M. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 85, 063506 (2012), 1103.3289

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Chu, J.-L

    X. Chu, J.-L. Kuo, and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. D 101, 075035 (2020), 2001.06042

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Marocco and S

    G. Marocco and S. Sarkar, SciPost Phys. 10, 043 (2021), 2011.08153

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Coskuner, A

    A. Coskuner, A. Mitridate, A. Olivares, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 103, 016006 (2021), 1909.09170

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Blanco, Y

    C. Blanco, Y. Kahn, B. Lillard, and S. D. McDermott, Physical Review D 104, 036011 (2021), 2103.08601

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Chu, J.-L

    X. Chu, J.-L. Kuo, J. Pradler, and L. Semmelrock, Phys. Rev. D 100, 083002 (2019), 1908.00553

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    X. Chu, J. Pradler, and L. Semmelrock, Phys. Rev. D 99, 015040 (2019), 1811.04095

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Lachance-Quirion et al., Science 367, 425 (2020)

    D. Lachance-Quirion et al., Science 367, 425 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Hochberg, M

    Y. Hochberg, M. Pyle, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 08, 057 (2016), 1512.04533. 10

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. W. Fink et al. , AIP Adv. 10, 085221 (2020), 2004.10257

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    R. K. Romani et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 125, 232601 (2024), 2408.11158

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Adari et al., SciPost Phys

    P. Adari et al., SciPost Phys. Proc. 9, 001 (2022), 2202.05097

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Anthony-Petersen et al., Nature Commun

    R. Anthony-Petersen et al., Nature Commun. 15, 6444 (2024), 2208.02790

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Anthony-Petersen et al., (2024), 2410.16510

    R. Anthony-Petersen et al., (2024), 2410.16510

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A. T. Boothroyd, Principles of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter(Oxford University Press USA - OSO, Oxford, 2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  62. [70]

    Manousakis, Rev

    E. Manousakis, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 1 (1991)

    1991

  63. [71]

    Shamoto, M

    S. Shamoto, M. Sato, J. M. Tranquada, B. J. Sternlieb, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B 48, 13817 (1993)

    1993

  64. [72]

    Hochberg et al., Physical Review Letters 127, 151802 (2021)

    Y. Hochberg et al., Physical Review Letters 127, 151802 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Knapen, J

    S. Knapen, J. Kozaczuk, and T. Lin, Physical Review D 104, 015031 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Lorenzana, G

    J. Lorenzana, G. Seibold, and R. Coldea, Physical Re- view B 72, 224511 (2005)

    2005

  67. [75]

    R. E. Miles, Biometrika 52, 636 (1965)

    1965

  68. [76]

    Lovesey, Theory of neutron scattering from condensed matter, Vol 2(OUP, 1984)

    S. Lovesey, Theory of neutron scattering from condensed matter, Vol 2(OUP, 1984). Appendix A: Magnons We give a concise introduction to the relevant proper- ties of magnetic excitations. We focus on simple square- lattice ferromagnets and the linear spin-wave treatment of magn...

    1984

  69. [77]

    Finding the magnon Hamiltonian The sign of Jαβ in Eq

    F erromagnets a. Finding the magnon Hamiltonian The sign of Jαβ in Eq. (A1) is crucial in determining the ground state and the excitations above it. For Jαβ = −|Jαβ|, we have an exact ferromagnetic ground state, in which all the spins are aligned in the z-direction, say, |0⟩F ...

  70. [78]

    Such systems have been much studied, see for instance [66] for a review

    Antiferromagnets The model of antiferromagnets we consider is again of interacting lattice spins with a Heisenberg hamiltonian H = X ⟨αβ⟩ JαβSα · Sβ, (A14) but we now have Jαβ = |Jαβ|, meaning that the classical ground state has neighbouring spins anti-aligned. Such systems ha...

  71. [79]

    This form factor is illustrated in Fig

    Quasi-1D AFMs In this case, we again have a pair of degenerate magnon modes, each with frequency Ω(q) = 2J S sin qza , (A23) and Sxx = Syy = 2nS tan qza 2 δ (ω − Ω(q)) (A24) Appendix B: Magnetic form factors For the Cu2+ magnetic ions of interest here, there is a single unpair...

  72. [80]

    Magnetic dipole moments Consider a dark photon Vµ with a minimal coupling to electrons with charge eV , and which couples through a magnetic dipole interaction to a dark state χ Lint = eV Vµ ¯eγµe + 1 2 µχ ¯χσµνχVµν, (C1) where σµν = i 2 [γµ, γν]. In the non-relativistic limit...

  73. [81]

    Heavy axial-vector The bounds we place may also be mapped on to a model where an axial-vector gauge boson Vµ of mass mV couples to the axial-vector DM and electron currents: Lint = gV Vµ ¯χγµγ5χ + geVµ¯eγµγ5e. (C7) If mV ≫ 10−3mχ, the gauge boson mass is much larger than the t...

  74. [82]

    In doing so, we make use of the identity 1 2 X Sχ,S′χ Si χS ′j χ = 1 2 δij, (C10) which holds for the spin-1/2 DM with Sχ = σ/2

    Spin sums In scattering cross-sections, we take the initial DM state to be unpolarised, and we sum over final DM spin- states. In doing so, we make use of the identity 1 2 X Sχ,S′χ Si χS ′j χ = 1 2 δij, (C10) which holds for the spin-1/2 DM with Sχ = σ/2. Appendix D: Rate and ...

  75. [83]

    Domains Since we are interested in the physics of multi-domain systems, let us rewrite the spin correlator in a way that brings out the structure of the domains. The relevant function is ˜Sij(ω, q) = Z dte−iωt X αβ eiq·(Xα−Xβ )⟨Sα,i(t)Sβ,j (0)⟩, (E2) where we place a tilde to ...

Pith tools

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