X-ray signals converted from high-frequency gravitational waves emitted by spinning light primordial black hole dark matter

Asuka Ito; Kazunori Kohri

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 76 references

X-ray signals converted from high-frequency gravitational waves emitted by spinning light primordial black hole dark matter

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that future X-ray observations may detect photons converted from high-frequency gravitational waves emitted by spinning light primordial black holes, provided those black holes make up all of dark matter and formed in…

desk verdict Clean forecast with a real line-of-sight enhancement, but the detectability claim rests on a point-source comparison that does not apply to the unresolved diffuse X-ray line; the signal is likely below background. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12871 v1 pith:XUSFGY7R submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ph

Asuka Ito , Kazunori Kohri This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAgr-qchep-ph

keywords primordialblackholesdarkmatterhigh-frequencygravitationalwavessuperradiancegraviton-photonconversionX-rayastronomyGalacticmagneticfieldaxion-likeparticles

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Spinning primordial black holes—black holes that formed in the early Universe and could make up all of dark matter—can lose angular momentum through superradiance, emitting coherent gravitational waves near $10^{18}$ Hz if a keV-scale boson field is present. This paper shows that those gravitational waves can convert into X-ray photons in the Milky Way's magnetic field with a probability of about $3\times10^{-16}$, which looks tiny until one integrates over every superradiance event within a 20 kpc line of sight toward the Galactic center. In the region $r

What carries the argument

The mechanism is black-hole superradiance feeding graviton-to-photon conversion. A spinning PBH surrounded by a spin-0 boson of mass $m_b$ with Compton wavelength comparable to the black-hole size extracts rotational energy and emits coherent gravitational waves at angular frequency twice the boson mass; for $m_b\sim$ keV this is $f\sim 10^{18}$ Hz. The waves convert to photons in the Galactic magnetic field with probability $P(r)\simeq r^2B_G^2/(2M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2)$ for propagation length $r$ shorter than the oscillation length $l_{\mathrm{os}}\simeq 4\omega/\omega_p^2$, and the probability saturates beyond it. Because for $r<l_{\mathrm{os}}$ the converted photon number per event is independent of distance, volume integration over the Galactic dark-matter distribution along a narrow field of view near the Galactic center is what turns the otherwise tiny conversion probability into a potentially detectable X-ray line.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a one-year X-ray exposure with roughly $30\,\mathrm{m}^2$ effective area and a $30\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ field of view centered about $5^\circ$ off the Galactic center, searching for the Doppler-broadened line predicted at $2$–$10$ keV. If no line appears at the clustered-rate photon number, the optimistic claim for PBH masses $10^{-15}M_\odot$–$10^{-13}M_\odot$ is excluded, and follow-up observations would isolate whether the missing ingredient is merger-driven spin, the keV boson, or the clustered event rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that high-frequency gravitational waves produced by superradiance around spinning primordial black holes can be converted into X-ray photons in the Milky Way's magnetic field with a probability $P\sim 3\times10^{-16}$, and that this process becomes observable because the photon count from a single source does not drop with distance as long as the source lies within the oscillation length $l_{\mathrm{os}}\simeq20\,\mathrm{kpc}\,(f/2.6\times10^{18}\,\mathrm{Hz})$. Integrating over all sources in a 20 kpc line of sight toward the Galactic center therefore adds a large volume factor. For PBHs that make up 100% of dark matter with masses $10^{-15}M_\odot$ to $10^{-13}M_\odot$ and clustered initial conditions, the expected photon number overtakes the projected sensitivity of a future X-ray telescope with $30\,\mathrm{m}^2$ effective area and a $30\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ field of view in a one-year observation. The paper concludes that future X-ray observations could open this mass window on light PBH dark matter.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation counts every PBH merger as a superradiance event whose remnant is left spinning enough ($\Delta\chi\simeq0.5$) to emit a coherent gravitational-wave burst in a keV-scale boson field; if most merger remnants spin slowly or no such boson exists, the predicted X-ray signal shrinks or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A positive detection would simultaneously establish that light PBHs in the $10^{-15}M_\odot$–$10^{-13}M_\odot$ window make up all of dark matter and that a keV-scale spin-0 boson exists in nature.
The converted signal is a line whose frequency is set by the boson mass, so X-ray line searches directly map the PBH mass–boson mass plane.
Because distant events contribute as much as nearby ones inside $l_{\mathrm{os}}$, the predicted signal is a diffuse Galactic glow from the whole line of sight, not an individual burst, favoring large field-of-view instruments.
A null result in the clustered scenario would exclude 100% PBH dark matter in this mass range under that formation history, while the non-clustered rate remains below the benchmark sensitivity.
The same graviton-to-photon conversion mechanism can be reused for other high-frequency gravitational-wave sources, connecting X-ray astronomy to gravitational-wave probes in frequency bands no ground-based detector reaches.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper assumes the superradiance event rate equals the total merger rate; a direct consequence is that the detectable band is an upper envelope. Computing the post-merger spin distribution and the fraction of remnants with $\Delta\chi\simeq0.5$ would turn the upper edge into a firm prediction.
The keV boson required here is often invoked to explain astrophysical anomalies; if such a boson is found by other means, the X-ray line search becomes a nearly parameter-free test of light PBH dark matter.
The conversion probability depends on the transverse Galactic magnetic field along the line of sight; using a full three-dimensional field model would produce a sky map of the expected signal and identify the best observing directions with low astrophysical background.
The same superradiance mechanism with heavier or lighter bosons would shift the converted photons into the ultraviolet or soft gamma-ray bands; extending the calculation to those energies would give a broadband search strategy.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Dear colleague,

Two things you should know. The theoretical setup is clean, and the line-of-sight integration effect is a real new observation. But the central detectability claim is not supported, because Fig. 1 compares the predicted photon number to a point-source sensitivity curve for what is actually an unresolved diffuse spectral line.

What is new: they apply the known graviton-to-photon conversion in the Galactic magnetic field to superradiant GWs from light PBHs in the 10^-15 to 10^-13 solar mass range, producing X-rays near 10^18 Hz. The genuine new piece is Eq. (9): the integrated photon count is enhanced by distant sources because each event's photon number is roughly distance-independent out to the oscillation length, so the line-of-sight integral grows as l_G^3 instead of being dominated by nearby events. That is a nice point, and the algebra checks out. The paper is also honest about its ingredients: it is a forecast assembled from published merger rates, superradiance amplitudes, and conversion probabilities, with no parameter fitted to the target signal.

The soft spots are serious. The Fig. 1 comparison is not the right statistic. Individual bursts are far below one photon, so the observable is a quasi-steady, unresolved line whose detection requires comparing N_sig to sqrt(N_bkg) in the same spectral bin (Delta E/E ~ 4e-4) and field of view. The paper does not compute N_bkg. A rough estimate from the cosmic X-ray background puts N_bkg in the 1e5-1e7 range (or higher), while the predicted N_tot in the red region is 1e2-1e4. That gives S/N below 3 even if you grant the clustered merger rate and the spin assumptions. So the point-source sensitivity line is not a valid proxy. A secondary gap is the unquantified systematic: they equate the superradiance rate to the PBH merger rate and take Delta chi ~ 0.5 without an error budget, and the result scales steeply with alpha (h0 ~ alpha^7). These are secondary; the detection statistic issue is the load-bearing one.

That said, the paper is not sloppy. The equations are internally consistent, the references to prior conversion calculations are appropriate, and the enhancement mechanism is worth taking seriously as an idea. It is just not a demonstrated detectability forecast yet.

Who is this for? People working on high-frequency GW detection or light PBH probes will find the LOS enhancement useful; anyone using the projected X-ray detectability band as a target should wait for a revised version that treats the diffuse line properly.

I would send it to peer review, because the core idea and the integration calculation are valuable, and a competent referee can pin down the sensitivity issue. The right outcome is major revision, not desk rejection.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that high-frequency gravitational waves emitted by superradiance of spinning light primordial black holes (PBHs) in the mass range 10^-15 to 10^-11 solar masses can convert into X-ray photons in the Galactic magnetic field. The authors compute the total number of converted photons N_tot from all superradiance events within a 30 deg^2 field of view around the Galactic center over one year, using PBH merger rates for non-clustered and clustered initial conditions. They compare N_tot with a point-source sensitivity scaled from the projected Lynx X-ray satellite and conclude that, for clustered initial conditions, future X-ray observations may detect the converted photons for PBH masses around 10^-15 to 10^-13 solar masses. The calculation is analytic, builds on published superradiance amplitudes, merger rates, and a simple Galactic magnetic-field model, and contains no parameter fitted to the target X-ray signal.

Significance. If the detectability claim holds, this would provide a genuinely new observational window on light PBH dark matter, complementary to existing gravitational-wave and radio searches. The paper is commendably explicit in its assumptions and hedges its conclusion as a 'may be detectable' forecast. The geometric enhancement from integrating over distant sources is clearly derived, and the internal algebra connecting the conversion probability, the oscillation length, and the line-of-sight integral is consistent. However, the central comparison in Fig. 1 is statistically inappropriate for the predicted diffuse, unresolved signal, and the paper omits any quantitative treatment of the X-ray background that would actually limit such a measurement. As a result, the main claim is currently not established, although the underlying calculation appears sound and the missing pieces are local and fixable.

major comments (1)

[References [70, 71]] The Lynx sensitivity is cited to a team report and a website rather than a peer-reviewed publication. The specific assumptions behind the point-source sensitivity (energy band, integration time, and significance level) should be stated in the text, since the detectability forecast depends on them.

minor comments (4)

[III, Fig. 1] The figure caption does not define the red shaded region's boundaries in terms of Eqs. (5) and (6) explicitly; adding 'lower edge: Eq. (5), upper edge: Eq. (6)' would help the reader.
[II, Eq. (1)] The notation '10 18Hz' and '10 −15M⊙' is likely a formatting artifact in the reproduction, but the authors should ensure that all exponents are typeset consistently in the published version.
[III, after Eq. (8)] The sentence 'we assume that the electron density in the Milky Way is of order ne~10^-2 cm^-3 on average' should cite the specific model used (Ref. [68]) more precisely; also, the line of sight is not the same as the average Galactic medium, so it would be helpful to state whether this value is appropriate for the theta_off = 5 degrees direction.
[II, after Eq. (6)] The values h^2 Omega_GW ~ 1e-8 and 1e-2 are stated without derivation; a footnote indicating the formula used to relate the merger rate to the stochastic background would be useful for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the predicted X-ray photon count is assembled from external superradiance, merger-rate, and conversion results; no parameter is fitted to the target signal.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the target observable. The GW amplitude h0 and coherence time tau_c (Eqs. (3)-(4)) are taken from superradiance reviews [23,53]; the PBH merger rates (Eqs. (5)-(6)) are taken from independent literature [10,59,61]; and the graviton-photon conversion probability (Eq. (7)) is the standard Raffelt-Stodolsky result, cited to [41,67]. Equation (9) then integrates these external inputs over the line of sight with no fitted parameter. The paper's self-citations [40,41] support the conversion formula, but that formula is parameter-free and independently established, so those citations are not load-bearing. The detectability claim rests on comparing N_tot to a scaled point-source sensitivity line; whether that comparison is appropriate for a diffuse unresolved line is a correctness and robustness issue, not a circularity. No quoted equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central detectability prediction rests on several external inputs: the existence of a keV-scale boson, the 100% PBH dark matter assumption, the merger-driven spin scenario, and standard superradiance and conversion formulas. The main free parameters chosen by hand are alpha, Delta chi, B_G, and n_e. None are fitted to the target X-ray signal, so the circularity burden is low, but the stacked assumptions make the forecast fragile.

free parameters (4)

alpha (dimensionless gravitational coupling) = 0.1 (benchmark)
Sets the superradiance frequency and amplitude. The GW amplitude scales as alpha^7 and the coherence time as alpha^-15, so the detectability window is extremely sensitive to this chosen value.
Delta chi (change in BH spin parameter) = 0.5 (benchmark)
Controls the GW amplitude and coherence time in Eqs. (3) and (4). Chosen as representative; the merger-to-superradiance mapping does not determine the final spin distribution.
B_G (Galactic magnetic field transverse component) = 1 microGauss (average)
The conversion probability scales as B_G^2. This is a simplified average over the large-scale Galactic field, within the observed 1-10 microGauss range.
n_e (Galactic electron density) = 1e-2 cm^-3 (average)
Sets the plasma frequency and thus the oscillation length l_os in Eq. (8). The frequency at which the enhancement peaks depends on this value.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption A spin-0 bosonic field with mass in the 100 eV to 10 keV range exists and couples to the PBH spin to trigger superradiance.
Invoked in Section II around Eq. (1). The paper cites the string axiverse and tentative observations [54-58], but no confirmed detection of such a particle exists.
domain assumption PBHs with masses around 1e-15 to 1e-11 solar masses can constitute 100% of dark matter.
Used in the introduction and in the event-rate estimates of Section II. This relies on current constraints as cited in [3,10].
domain assumption PBHs acquire sufficiently high spins in present-day mergers, with the superradiance event rate equal to the PBH merger rate and Delta chi ~ 0.5.
Stated in Section II after Eq. (4). The mapping from merger statistics to superradiant GW sources assumes a spin distribution that is not derived in the paper.
standard math Standard superradiance formulas and graviton-photon conversion probability are valid at these frequencies and magnetic-field parameters.
Eqs. (1)-(4) and (7) are taken from prior literature [23,53,41,67] without new derivation. This is a standard physics assumption, not ad hoc to this paper.

invented entities (1)

keV-scale spin-0 bosonic field (axion-like particle)
purpose: Necessary to drive superradiance of spinning PBHs and set the GW frequency around 10^18 Hz.
No confirmed particle in this mass range exists. The paper cites the string axiverse and indirect observational hints [54-58], but those do not provide an established falsifiable handle outside this model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray signals converted from high-frequency gravitational waves emitted by spinning light primordial black hole dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUSFGY7R

@misc{pith2026260812871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray signals converted from high-frequency gravitational waves emitted by spinning light primordial black hole dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUSFGY7R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12871}
}

abstract

We investigate the detectability of high-frequency gravitational waves from the superradiance of light primordial black hole dark matter through photons converted in the Galactic magnetic field. We find that the signal is significantly enhanced in the X-ray frequency range around $10^{18}$Hz. For clustered initial conditions, future X-ray observations may detect the converted photons from primordial black holes in the mass range $10^{-15}M_{\odot} \sim 10^{-13}M_{\odot}$. Our results indicate that future X-ray observations could provide a new probe of light primordial black hole dark matter through high-frequency gravitational waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12871 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010), arXiv:0912.5297 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2010
[2]

B. Carr, F. Kuhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016
[3]

B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2021
[4]

Sasaki, T

M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018
[5]

A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes48, 1 (2022), arXiv:2110.02821 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2022
[7]

Escriv` a, F

A. Escriv` a, F. Kuhnel, and Y. Tada, (2022), 10.1016/B978-0-32-395636-9.00012-8, arXiv:2211.05767 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2022
[8]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, (2025), arXiv:2502.15279 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

Show all 76 references

[9]

B. Carr, A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Riv. Nuovo Cim.49, 225 (2026), arXiv:2601.06024 [astro-ph.CO]

2026
[10]

Franciolini, A

G. Franciolini, A. Maharana, and F. Muia, Phys. Rev. D106, 103520 (2022), arXiv:2205.02153 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[11]

Saito and J

R. Saito and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 161101 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 107, 069901 (2011)], arXiv:0812.4339 [astro-ph]. 5

2009 arXiv
[12]

Kohri and T

K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D97, 123532 (2018), arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[13]

R.-g. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 201101 (2019), arXiv:1810.11000 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[14]

Inomata and T

K. Inomata and T. Nakama, Phys. Rev. D99, 043511 (2019), arXiv:1812.00674 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[15]

D. Y. Cheong, K. Kohri, and S. C. Park, JCAP10, 015 (2022), arXiv:2205.14813 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[16]

Y. S. Furuta, M. Karˇ ciauskas, K. Kohri, and A. S´ aez, (2025), arXiv:2511.23182 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[17]

Harada, C.-M

T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo, K. Kohri, Y. Koga, and T. Monobe, Astrophys. J.908, 140 (2021), arXiv:2011.00710 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[18]

Chiba and S

T. Chiba and S. Yokoyama, PTEP2017, 083E01 (2017), arXiv:1704.06573 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[19]

W. Ye, Y. Gong, T. Harada, Z. Kang, K. Kohri, D. Saito, and C.-M. Yoo, Phys. Rev. D112, 103524 (2025), arXiv:2508.10070 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[20]

Harada, C.-M

T. Harada, C.-M. Yoo, K. Kohri, and K.-I. Nakao, Phys. Rev. D96, 083517 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 99, 069904 (2019)], arXiv:1707.03595 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[21]

De Luca, G

V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, JCAP04, 052 (2020), arXiv:2003.02778 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[22]

De Luca, G

V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, JCAP06, 044 (2020), arXiv:2005.05641 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Aggarwal et al., Living Rev

N. Aggarwal et al., Living Rev. Rel.28, 10 (2025), arXiv:2501.11723 [gr-qc]

2025
[24]

A. Ito, T. Ikeda, K. Miuchi, and J. Soda, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 179 (2020), arXiv:1903.04843 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[25]

Ito and J

A. Ito and J. Soda, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 545 (2020), arXiv:2004.04646 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[26]

Berlin, D

A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, Phys. Rev. D105, 116011 (2022), arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[27]

Ito and J

A. Ito and J. Soda, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 766 (2023), arXiv:2212.04094 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Ito and R

A. Ito and R. Kitano, JCAP04, 068 (2024), arXiv:2309.02992 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Berlin, D

A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and M. Wentzel, Phys. Rev. D108, 084058 (2023), arXiv:2303.01518 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Bringmann, V

T. Bringmann, V. Domcke, E. Fuchs, and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. D108, L061303 (2023), arXiv:2304.10579 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Kanno, J

S. Kanno, J. Soda, and A. Taniguchi, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 31 (2025), arXiv:2311.03890 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[32]

Matsuo and A

H. Matsuo and A. Ito, JCAP10, 061 (2025), arXiv:2505.08457 [gr-qc]

2025
[33]

A. Ito, R. Kitano, W. Nakano, and R. Takai, JCAP05, 039 (2026), arXiv:2512.19053 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[34]

Y.-F. Cai, L. Visinelli, and S.-F. Yan, Phys. Dark Univ. 53, 102374 (2026), arXiv:2510.15031 [hep-ph]

2026 arXiv
[35]

M. S. Pshirkov and D. Baskaran, Phys. Rev. D80, 042002 (2009), arXiv:0903.4160 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[36]

A. D. Dolgov and D. Ejlli, JCAP12, 003 (2012), arXiv:1211.0500 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[37]

Domcke and C

V. Domcke and C. Garcia-Cely, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 021104 (2021), arXiv:2006.01161 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[38]

Ramazanov, R

S. Ramazanov, R. Samanta, G. Trenkler, and F. R. Urban, JCAP06, 019 (2023), arXiv:2304.11222 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[39]

T. Liu, J. Ren, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 131402 (2024), arXiv:2305.01832 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[40]

A. Ito, K. Kohri, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D109, 063026 (2024), arXiv:2305.13984 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[41]

A. Ito, K. Kohri, and K. Nakayama, PTEP2024, 023E03 (2024), arXiv:2309.14765 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[42]

Dandoy, T

V. Dandoy, T. Bert´ olez-Mart´ ınez, and F. Costa, JCAP 12, 023 (2024), arXiv:2402.14092 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[43]

Y. He, S. K. Giri, R. Sharma, S. Mtchedlidze, and I. Georgiev, JCAP05, 051 (2024), arXiv:2312.17636 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Lella, F

A. Lella, F. Calore, P. Carenza, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 083042 (2024), arXiv:2406.17853 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[45]

J. I. McDonald and S. A. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D110, 103003 (2024), arXiv:2406.18634 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[46]

Kushwaha and R

A. Kushwaha and R. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. D112, L021301 (2025), arXiv:2502.12517 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[47]

J.-K. Li, W. Hong, and T.-J. Zhang, Astrophys. J.985, 137 (2025), arXiv:2504.13115 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[48]

Amaral et al., (2026), arXiv:2603.24645 [astro-ph.IM]

D. Amaral et al., (2026), arXiv:2603.24645 [astro-ph.IM]

2026
[49]

Baker and H

E. Baker and H. Liu, (2026), arXiv:2606.09968 [hep-ph]

2026 arXiv
[50]

Matsuo, A

H. Matsuo, A. Ito, K. Kohri, T. Suyama, and R. Tomo- matsu, (2026), arXiv:2606.19757 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[51]

Arvanitaki and A

A. Arvanitaki and A. A. Geraci, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 071105 (2013), arXiv:1207.5320 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[52]

R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

1954
[53]

Brito, V

R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1 (2015), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[54]

Jaeckel, J

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

2014 arXiv
[55]

J. P. Conlon and F. V. Day, JCAP11, 033 (2014), arXiv:1404.7741 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[56]

Higaki, N

T. Higaki, N. Kitajima, and F. Takahashi, JCAP12, 004 (2014), arXiv:1408.3936 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[57]

Boyarsky, O

A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, D. Iakubovskyi, and J. Franse, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 251301 (2014), arXiv:1402.4119 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[58]

Takahashi, M

F. Takahashi, M. Yamada, and W. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 161801 (2020), arXiv:2006.10035 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[59]

H¨ utsi, M

G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP03, 068 (2021), arXiv:2012.02786 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[60]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[61]

De Luca, G

V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, JCAP11, 039 (2021), arXiv:2106.13769 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[62]

Haverkorn, (2014), arXiv:1406.0283 [astro-ph.GA]

M. Haverkorn, (2014), arXiv:1406.0283 [astro-ph.GA]

2014 arXiv
[63]

Boulanger et al., JCAP08, 049 (2018), arXiv:1805.02496 [astro-ph.GA]

F. Boulanger et al., JCAP08, 049 (2018), arXiv:1805.02496 [astro-ph.GA]

2018 arXiv
[64]

Haverkorn, B

M. Haverkorn, B. M. Gaensler, N. M. McClure-Griffiths, J. M. Dickey, and A. J. Green, Astrophys. J.609, 776 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403655

2004 arXiv
[65]

Iacobelli et al., Astron

M. Iacobelli et al., Astron. Astrophys.558, A72 (2013), arXiv:1308.2804 [astro-ph.GA]

2013 arXiv
[66]

Haverkorn, J

M. Haverkorn, J. C. Brown, B. M. Gaensler, and N. M. McClure-Griffiths, Astrophys. J.680, 362 (2008), arXiv:0802.2740 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[67]

Raffelt and L

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

1988
[68]

J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0207156

2002
[69]

Jansson and G

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

2012 arXiv
[70]

Vikhlinin, F

A. Vikhlinin, F. ¨Ozel, and J. Gaskin (LYNX Team), (2022)

2022
[71]

Lynx Concept Study,

“Lynx Concept Study,” Accessed: 2026-07-09. 6

2026
[72]

E. G. Speckhard, K. C. Y. Ng, J. F. Beacom, and R. Laha, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 031301 (2016), arXiv:1507.04744 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[73]

Arvanitaki, S

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

2010 arXiv
[74]

Svrcek and E

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

2006 arXiv
[75]

Cicoli, M

M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, JHEP10, 146 (2012), arXiv:1206.0819 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[76]

P. F. de Salas and A. Widmark, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 104901 (2021), arXiv:2012.11477 [astro-ph.GA]

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010), arXiv:0912.5297 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2010

[2] [2]

B. Carr, F. Kuhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016

[3] [3]

B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

Sasaki, T

M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes48, 1 (2022), arXiv:2110.02821 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Escriv` a, F

A. Escriv` a, F. Kuhnel, and Y. Tada, (2022), 10.1016/B978-0-32-395636-9.00012-8, arXiv:2211.05767 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Carr and F

B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, (2025), arXiv:2502.15279 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2025