Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A worldwide network of atomic magnetometers finds no sign of a solar axion halo, and its quadratic axion–proton coupling limits beat astrophysical bounds by over two orders of magnitude.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:11 UTC pith:O3XD74RT

load-bearing objection First dedicated search for a solar-bound axion halo with a global magnetometer network; a genuine null result whose headline limit is somewhat softer than the abstract suggests pending an end-to-end calibration study. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.10221 v2 pith:O3XD74RT submitted 2025-12-11 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Search for a solar-bound axion halo using the Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic physics searches

Tatum Z. Wilson , Derek F. Jackson Kimball , Samer Afach , Jiexiao Bi , B. C. Buchler , Dmitry Budker , Kaleb Cervantes , Joshua Eby
show 45 more authors
Nataniel L. Figueroa Ron Folman Jiawei Gao Daniel Gavil\'an-Mart\'in Menachem Givon Zoran D. Gruji\'c Hong Guo Paul Hamilton M. P. Hedges Zhejun Huang Dongok Kim Younggeun Kim Sami S. Khamis Emmanuel Klinger Abaz Kryemadhi Nina Kukowski Jianjun Li Grzegorz Lukasiewicz Hector Masia-Roig Tafai Muck Michal Padniuk Christopher A. Palm Chaitanya Paranjape Sun Yool Park Xiang Peng Gilad Perez Rayshaun Preston Szymon Pustelny Wolfram Ratzinger Yossi Rosenzweig Ophir M. Ruimi Amy Saputo Theo Scholtes P. C. Segura Yannis K. Semertzidis Yun Chang Shin Jason E. Stalnaker Ibrahim Sulai Dhruv Tandon Rayshaun Thompson Ken Vu Arne Wickenbrock Teng Wu Yucheng Yang Yixin Zhao
This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph quant-ph
keywords axion dark mattersolar axion haloatomic magnetometerspseudo-magnetic fieldaxion-proton couplinggravitational capturedaily modulationupper limits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper searches for a gravitationally bound halo of ultralight axions around the Sun, a configuration predicted to form if axion self-interactions dissipate energy and populate the ground state. If such a halo exists, its gradient coupling to proton spins would produce a common, monochromatic, daily-modulated pseudo-magnetic field across a worldwide array of shielded atomic magnetometers. Analyzing 69 days of data from 12 stations, the paper finds no statistically significant signal. It reports 95% confidence upper limits on the pseudo-magnetic field from about 0.05 to 20 Hz, and converts them into constraints on linear and quadratic axion–proton couplings under two benchmark halo densities. For the quadratic coupling, these limits surpass existing astrophysical bounds by more than two orders of magnitude over much of the accessible parameter space.

Core claim

The central claim is that a ground-state solar axion halo—described by the wavefunction a(r,t)=a0 cos(ωa t − k·r + θ) e^{−r/R*}, with R* the solar gravitational Bohr radius—would generate a direction-dependent pseudo-magnetic field whose radial and tangential components follow specific amplitudes oscillating at ωa (linear coupling) or 2ωa (quadratic coupling), and whose daily modulation is determined by Earth's rotation. The paper searches for this global pattern in the cross-correlated data of the magnetometer network. No candidate survives the two-stage test (amplitude consistency and modulation-shape fit). The resulting upper limits on the pseudo-magnetic field amplitude are translated in

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the signal model of a coherent, non-rotating, ground-state axion halo: all axions in the n=1, l=0 state, giving a monochromatic field a(r,t)=a0 cos(ωa t − k·r + θ) exp(−r/R*) in the solar rest frame. Its gradient (and gradient-squared) coupling to proton spins yields a pseudo-magnetic field Bp with a radial part from the spatial gradient and a tangential 'axion wind' part from the Earth's motion through the halo. Because the Earth rotates and orbits, the projection of Bp onto each station's sensitive axis modulates daily; the analysis aligns these modulations with time shifts and cross-correlates all station pairs, then fits the predicted daily modulation template

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the assumption that essentially all captured axions settle into the n=1, l=0 ground state of the solar halo, forming a coherent, non-rotating, monochromatic field; if the halo is excited or rotating, or if efficient gravitational capture did not occur, the predicted daily-modulation signal and therefore the limits do not follow.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to search for the predicted daily-modulated common pseudo-magnetic field at a frequency matching an axion Compton frequency in the 0.05–20 Hz band with a more sensitive network: a positive observation would confirm the halo, while a null observation using templates that include excited states would show whether the ground-state assumption is the reason nothing was seen. A data-only test is to recompute the upper limits using only the maximum halo density allowed by planetary ephemerides without the quartic capture model; if the quadratic coupling constraint then no longer s

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

If this is right

  • A ground-state solar axion halo that would produce a pseudo-magnetic field above the quoted 95% confidence upper limits is ruled out for axion masses corresponding to the 0.05–20 Hz frequency range.
  • Quadratic axion–proton couplings in the probed mass range are constrained more tightly than any prior astrophysical bound, giving a new benchmark for axion models.
  • The time-shifted cross-correlation plus daily-modulation template method can be applied to other ultralight-boson halo signals, such as hidden-photon halos, and to other sensor networks.
  • The limits are conditional on halo formation and survival; they constrain the existence of present-day ground-state halos, not the existence of axion dark matter itself.
  • The paper notes that data from many other spin-based haloscope experiments could be reanalyzed to set further constraints or, possibly, reveal a candidate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a significant excited-state population or rotation is present in the halo, the daily-modulation coherence degrades, so the quoted limits would not apply; a natural extension is to build templates that include l≠0 states and search again.
  • The two benchmark halo densities bracket a wide range of possible axion self-interaction strengths, but the true density could lie outside this range, so the coupling constraints are conditional on the capture model.
  • The quadratic coupling sensitivity is particularly strong because the signal oscillates at 2ωa and scales linearly with halo density; future networks with lower noise could push these limits further and probe parameter space beyond current astrophysical constraints.
  • The paper mentions but does not include the possible Earth-surface enhancement of the quadratic axion gradient; incorporating that effect could turn the current null result into a path toward detection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for a gravitationally bound solar axion halo using data from the fifth GNOME science run (69 days, 12 stations). Assuming a ground-state, non-rotating axion Bose-Einstein condensate around the Sun, the authors derive the expected pseudo-magnetic field from linear and quadratic axion-proton gradient couplings, including the radial and transverse (axion-wind) components and the daily modulation pattern in a global magnetometer network. A cross-correlation pipeline with time-shifted data, normalized power spectra, a candidate threshold, and a daily-modulation fit yields no statistically significant candidates. The paper sets 95% CL upper limits on the pseudo-magnetic field amplitude in the 0.05-20 Hz range and converts these into constraints on the axion-proton couplings for two benchmark halo densities; for the quadratic coupling the limits are claimed to surpass SN1987A bounds by over two orders of magnitude across much of the accessible parameter space.

Significance. If the statistical calibration and halo-model assumptions hold, this is the first dedicated experimental search for a solar axion halo and provides a new, competitive null result in a theoretically motivated but observationally unexplored regime. The signal-model derivation is self-contained and clearly presented, the treatment of the two coupling operators and of the radial/transverse decomposition is careful, and the authors are unusually transparent about the conditional nature of the halo model and about the absence of end-to-end Monte-Carlo validation. The conservative 60% weakening for calibration and nuclear uncertainties is reasonable. However, the headline two-orders-of-magnitude improvement for the quadratic coupling rests on upper-limit calibration steps that are not fully validated, and the physical interpretation is conditional on a specific ground-state halo model. These issues are correctable in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II C and Sec. III B (Eqs. 34-35)] The 95% CL upper limits driving the headline result are not validated end-to-end. The manuscript explicitly notes (Sec. II C) that no full signal-injection/recovery Monte-Carlo was run; instead, P* = 3.35 is the empirical top-1% of the same Science Run 5 data (Sec. III A), the non-central chi-square noncentrality is matched to the quietest single day (Sec. III B), and the Z-distribution is fitted to the selected candidate frequencies themselves (Sec. II G / Sec. III C). Each of these steps can bias coverage. If the daily-modulation template or day-to-day noise correlations are mischaracterized, the limits in Eqs. (34)-(35) can over-cover, making the quadratic-coupling constraint look stronger than SN1987A by an overstated factor. The 60% systematic weakening in Sec. III D addresses calibration and nuclear factors, not statistical coverage. Please add injection/recovery tests through the
  2. [Sec. I, Eq. (10)-(11), footnote p.4] The physical interpretation is conditional on the premise that essentially all halo axions occupy the n=1, l=0 ground state with no rotation and negligible excited-state population. The analysis does not test this premise; a partially excited or rotating halo would degrade the daily-modulation coherence, and the resulting limits would not apply to that case. The paper acknowledges this in the footnote, but the abstract and Fig. 18 present the constraints more broadly. Please state explicitly in the abstract and conclusions that the bounds apply to ground-state solar halos under the benchmark densities of Refs. [3,4,12], and give some indication of what excited-state fraction or rotation velocity would substantially alter the sensitivity.
  3. [Sec. III D, Fig. 18] The 'over two orders of magnitude' claim is benchmark-dependent. The paper does present two models (maximum ephemeris density and the quartic-capture prediction), which is good, but the comparison to SN1987A is most favorable for the quartic-capture model of Ref. [12], which is self-cited. This is not circular, but to make the result more robust the paper should tabulate the minimum halo overdensity required to surpass the astrophysical bound, so readers can see the margin as a function of density. As written, the headline statement is tied to a specific model whose capture efficiency is still a matter of ongoing theoretical work.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Author affiliations] There are several typos: 'Havard University' should be 'Harvard University', 'Jagiellonian Universty' should be 'Jagiellonian University', and 'Astrononomy' should be 'Astronomy'.
  2. [Fig. 18 caption] The green shaded region is described as 'astrophysical constraints derived from observation of supernova 1987a [24, 44]', but Ref. [24] is the axion-domain-wall paper, not a supernova bound. Please correct the citation.
  3. [Eq. (31)] The test statistic Z is defined with a denominator χ²(model)-1, which can be zero or negative for well-fitting or overfit models. Please clarify how such cases are handled in the calculation of p-values.
  4. [Sec. III A] The definition of P* is somewhat convoluted: 'for 99% of frequencies, there exists at least one day... never exceeds P*'. Consider stating directly that P* is the empirical top-1% threshold of the distribution of maximum-daily normalized powers.
  5. [Sec. II C] The simulation used to compute time shifts and templates should specify how station outages and varying station availability are handled, since Fig. 12 shows day-to-day variation from station dropouts. A brief description of the handling of missing data in the simulation would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the experimental upper limits are calibrated from the data and the interpretation uses externally published halo benchmarks; self-citations are load-bearing for interpretation but not logically circular.

full rationale

The paper's measured output is an upper limit on the pseudo-magnetic field amplitude Bp, obtained from cross-correlation PSDs and a modulation-template fit in which Bp is the only free parameter (Eq. 29). No halo density, coupling constant, or other physical parameter is fitted from the GNOME data and then reported as a prediction. The conversion from Bp limits to axion-proton couplings uses Eq. (12) and Eqs. (15)-(18), which are explicit algebraic relations between the field amplitude, the halo density, and the couplings; this is unit conversion plus a signal model, not a circular reduction. The halo densities rho_halo(max) and rho_halo(quartic) are imported from Refs. [3,4,12], which include overlapping authors, but those are prior theoretical/observational benchmarks, not results of this analysis, and the paper explicitly labels the ground-state-halo assumption and the resulting limits as conditional (footnote: 'Our limits should therefore be read as conditional on one of these assumptions holding'). The threshold P* = 3.35 is set from the same Science Run 5 data and the paper admits that no end-to-end signal-injection/recovery was run ('Detection thresholds and upper limits are instead calibrated from the data themselves using the empirical noise statistics'); this is a statistical-calibration caveat concerning coverage, not a case of fitting a parameter and then predicting the same quantity. The headline comparison with astrophysical bounds is an interpretation of the limits under assumed halo benchmarks, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Therefore no significant circularity is present; the self-citations are load-bearing for interpretation but do not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim (limits on couplings assuming a halo) depends on the theoretical halo model and the nuclear-spin calibration; these are stated as assumptions in the paper. The only fitted parameters in the pipeline are the signal amplitude and an offset; the limits are derived from the noise distribution. No new physical entity beyond the halo is invented by this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Pseudo-magnetic field amplitude tilde(B)_p = Fitted per candidate frequency (upper limits reported, no detection)
    The fit of the daily modulation template has tilde(B)_p(ν) as a free parameter (Sec. II G, Eq. (29)). It is the only parameter fit to data in the pipeline; limits are derived from its null distribution.
  • Signal amplitude offset in daily-modulation fit = Fit per frequency (two-parameter fit: amplitude and offset)
    The reduced chi-squared test uses a two-parameter (amplitude and offset) fit; the offset is a free parameter absorbing DC/constant level of the normalized PSD.
  • P* threshold = 3.35
    Chosen so that 99% of frequencies pass to the next stage; calibrated from the data's empirical distribution, not from a first-principles noise model.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Axion dark matter is the majority of dark matter and is captured by the Sun via quartic self-interaction, forming a ground-state halo.
    The whole search target depends on the capture model of Refs. [3,4,12]; the paper itself notes the formation is conditional on late-time formation or survival through early Solar-System epochs (footnote in Sec. I).
  • domain assumption GNOME magnetometers are primarily sensitive to proton spins, and the ratio sigma_p/g (Table I) is correct within stated uncertainties.
    The interpretation of measured field in units of pseudo-magnetic field relies on Eq. (7) and Table I values (nuclear structure model from Ref. [28]). The paper does not independently verify these.
  • domain assumption The axion halo is non-rotating, monochromatic, and in the n=1, l=0 ground state with no significant excited-state population.
    Stated in Sec. I: 'we explicitly assume that we are measuring a solar halo where essentially all the axions are in the ground n=1, l=0, m_l=0 state.' This is load-bearing for the daily-modulation coherence and the axion-wind term.
  • domain assumption The solar halo density benchmarks rho_halo(max) and rho_halo(quartic) from Refs. [3,4,12] are correct.
    The coupling limits in Fig. 18 are derived by combining the measured B_p limits with these benchmark densities. The paper states the uncertainty in rho_halo is much larger and treats the two models as benchmarks.
invented entities (1)
  • Solar axion halo (ground-state axion Bose-Einstein condensate around the Sun) no independent evidence
    purpose: Target of the search; provides a density enhancement of the axion field at Earth's location.
    The halo is a theoretical construct from Refs. [3,4,12]; this paper searches for it but does not provide independent evidence of its existence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28033 in / 8942 out tokens · 65893 ms · 2026-08-03T17:11:52.981125+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We report on a search for a gravitationally bound solar axion halo using data from the Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic physics searches (GNOME), a worldwide array of magnetically shielded atomic magnetometers with sensitivity to exotic spin couplings. Motivated by recent theoretical work suggesting that self-interacting ultralight axions can be captured by the Sun's gravitational field and thermalize into the ground state, we develop a signal model for the pseudo-magnetic fields generated by axion-proton gradient couplings in such a halo. The analysis focuses on the fifth GNOME Science Run (69 days, 12 stations), employing a cross-correlation pipeline with time-shifted daily modulation templates to search for the global, direction-dependent, monochromatic signal expected from a solar axion halo. No statistically significant candidate signals are observed. We set 95% confidence-level upper limits on the amplitude of the axion-induced pseudo-magnetic field over the frequency range $\approx 0.05-20$ Hz, translating to constraints on the linear and quadratic axion-proton couplings for halo densities predicted by gravitational capture models and for the maximum overdensities allowed by planetary ephemerides. In the quadratic coupling case, our limits surpass existing astrophysical bounds by over two orders of magnitude across much of the accessible parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.10221 by Abaz Kryemadhi, Amy Saputo, Arne Wickenbrock, B. C. Buchler, Chaitanya Paranjape, Christopher A. Palm, Daniel Gavil\'an-Mart\'in, Derek F. Jackson Kimball, Dhruv Tandon, Dmitry Budker, Dongok Kim, Emmanuel Klinger, Gilad Perez, Grzegorz Lukasiewicz, Hector Masia-Roig, Hong Guo, Ibrahim Sulai, Jason E. Stalnaker, Jianjun Li, Jiawei Gao, Jiexiao Bi, Joshua Eby, Kaleb Cervantes, Ken Vu, Menachem Givon, Michal Padniuk, M. P. Hedges, Nataniel L. Figueroa, Nina Kukowski, Ophir M. Ruimi, Paul Hamilton, P. C. Segura, Rayshaun Preston, Rayshaun Thompson, Ron Folman, Samer Afach, Sami S. Khamis, Sun Yool Park, Szymon Pustelny, Tafai Muck, Tatum Z. Wilson, Teng Wu, Theo Scholtes, Wolfram Ratzinger, Xiang Peng, Yannis K. Semertzidis, Yixin Zhao, Yossi Rosenzweig, Younggeun Kim, Yucheng Yang, Yun Chang Shin, Zhejun Huang, Zoran D. Gruji\'c.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The potential enhanced density at the position of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Map and list of locations of presently active GNOME [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic diagram of the Earth moving through a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Schematic flow chart diagramming key elements of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The solid lines show the maximum possible pseudo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The plot on the top shows the predicted signal am [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Schematic flowchart diagram describing the data analysis procedure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Example of the cross-correlation [Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Example of the power spectral density (PSD), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Example of a normalized PSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Example of the combined normalized weighted PSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Predicted daily modulation of the combined nor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The plot shows the fraction of the net power of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Histograms of a Monte Carlo simulation describing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Calculated upper limit on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Derived constraints on the linear, 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cavity Multimodes as an Array for High-Frequency Gravitational Waves

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    A 9-cell microwave cavity's 18 modes can act as a synthetic detector array that reconstructs the direction, polarization, and chirp of a high-frequency gravitational-wave signal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Estimates forσ p/gfor the new GNOME magnetometers are discussed below

    New and modified GNOME magnetometers in Science Run 4 In Science Run 4 several new magnetometers joined GNOME (Los Angeles, Moxa, and Oberlin) and one mag- netometer (Hayward) changed its scheme and species. Estimates forσ p/gfor the new GNOME magnetometers are discussed below. a. Hayward Between Science Runs 3 and 4 Hayward switched to a 87Rb SERF magnet...

  2. [2]

    Estimates forσ p/gfor the new GNOME magnetometers are discussed below and the results are summarized in Table I

    New and modified GNOME magnetometers in Science Run 5 In Science Run 5 there are yet again new magnetome- ters (Belgrade and Canberra) and two magnetometers 19 (Krakow and Mainz) changed their scheme and species. Estimates forσ p/gfor the new GNOME magnetometers are discussed below and the results are summarized in Table I. a. Belgrade Belgrade operates a...

  3. [3]

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lind- ner, and K. A. van Bibber, Experimental searches for the axion and axion-like particles, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65, 485 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball and K. van Bibber,The Search for Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter(Springer, 2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Banerjee, D

    A. Banerjee, D. Budker, J. Eby, H. Kim, and G. Perez, Relaxion stars and their detection via atomic physics, Commun. Phys.3, 1 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Banerjee, D

    A. Banerjee, D. Budker, J. Eby, V. V. Flambaum, H. Kim, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Perez, Searching for earth/solar axion halos, J. High Energy Phys.2020(9), 4

    2020

  7. [7]

    Tretiak, X

    O. Tretiak, X. Zhang, N. L. Figueroa, D. Antypas, A. Brogna, A. Banerjee, G. Perez, and D. Budker, Im- proved bounds on ultralight scalar dark matter in the radio-frequency range, arXiv:2201.02042 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Xu and E

    X. Xu and E. Siegel, Dark matter in the solar system, arXiv:0806.3767 (2008)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Khriplovich and D

    I. Khriplovich and D. Shepelyansky, Capture of dark matter by the solar system, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18, 1903 (2009)

    1903

  10. [10]

    Khriplovich, Capture of dark matter by the solar sys- tem: simple estimates, Int

    I. Khriplovich, Capture of dark matter by the solar sys- tem: simple estimates, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20, 17 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    Khriplovich, Capture of dark matter by the solar sys- tem

    I. Khriplovich, Capture of dark matter by the solar sys- tem. analytical estimates, inGribov-80 Memorial Vol- ume: Quantum Chromodynamics and Beyond(World Scientific, 2011) pp. 471–478

    2011

  12. [12]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and H. Okawa, Accretion of dark matter by stars, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 111301 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, C. F. Macedo, H. Okawa, and C. Palenzuela, Interaction between bosonic dark matter and stars, Phys. Rev. D93, 044045 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Budker, J

    D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Gorghetto, M. Jiang, and G. Perez, A generic formation mechanism of ultralight dark matter solar halos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023(12), 021

    2023

  15. [15]

    Kryemadhi, M

    A. Kryemadhi, M. Maroudas, A. Mastronikolis, and K. Zioutas, Gravitational focusing effects on streaming dark matter as a new detection concept, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123043 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Kim and A

    H. Kim and A. Lenoci, Gravitational focusing of wave dark matter, Phys. Rev. D105, 063032 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    B. R. Patla, R. J. Nemiroff, D. H. Hoffmann, and K. Zioutas, Flux enhancement of slow-moving particles by sun or jupiter: can they be detected on earth?, Astro- phys. J.780, 158 (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    J. W. Foster, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Revealing the dark matter halo with axion direct detection, Phys. Rev. D97, 123006 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    D. Y. Cheong, N. L. Rodd, and L.-T. Wang, Quantum de- scription of wave dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111, 015028 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    P. F. de Salas and A. Widmark, Dark matter local density determination: recent observations and future prospects, Rep. Prog. Phys.84, 104901 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    P. D. Group, R. Workman, V. Burkert, V. Crede, E. Klempt, U. Thoma, L. Tiator, K. Agashe, G. Aielli, B. Allanach,et al., Review of particle physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Pitjev and E

    N. Pitjev and E. Pitjeva, Constraints on dark matter in the solar system, Astron. Lett.39, 141 (2013)

    2013

  23. [23]

    P. W. Graham and S. Rajendran, New observables for direct detection of axion dark matter, Phys. Rev. D88, 035023 (2013)

    2013

  24. [24]

    Stadnik and V

    Y. Stadnik and V. Flambaum, Axion-induced effects in atoms, molecules, and nuclei: Parity nonconservation, anapole moments, electric dipole moments, and spin- gravity and spin-axion momentum couplings, Phys. Rev. D89, 043522 (2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    L. Cong, W. Ji, P. Fadeev, F. Ficek, M. Jiang, V. V. Flambaum, H. Guan, D. F. Jackson Kimball, M. G. Ko- zlov, Y. V. Stadnik,et al., Spin-dependent exotic inter- actions, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 025005 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Pospelov, S

    M. Pospelov, S. Pustelny, M. P. Ledbetter, D. F. Jack- son Kimball, W. Gawlik, and D. Budker, Detecting do- main walls of axionlike models using terrestrial experi- ments, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 021803 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Safronova, D

    M. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. Jackson Kim- ball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Dailey, C

    C. Dailey, C. Bradley, D. F. Jackson Kimball, I. A. Sulai, S. Pustelny, A. Wickenbrock, and A. Derevianko, Quan- tum sensor networks as exotic field telescopes for multi- messenger astronomy, Nature Astron.5, 150 (2021). 20 TABLE I. Characteristics of the magnetometers active during Science Run 5. The station name, location in longitude and latitude, orie...

    2021

  29. [29]

    Afach, D

    S. Afach, D. A. Tumturk, H. Bekker, B. Buchler, D. Bud- ker, K. Cervantes, A. Derevianko, J. Eby, N. Figueroa, R. Folman,et al., What can a GNOME do? Search tar- gets for the Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic physics searches, Ann. Phys. (Berl.)2023, 2300083 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, Nuclear spin content and con- straints on exotic spin-dependent couplings, New J. Phys. 17, 073008 (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Jackson Kimball, J

    D. Jackson Kimball, J. Dudley, Y. Li, S. Thulasi, S. Pustelny, D. Budker, and M. Zolotorev, Magnetic shielding and exotic spin-dependent interactions, Phys. Rev. D94, 082005 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    Pustelny, D

    S. Pustelny, D. F. Jackson Kimball, C. Pankow, M. P. Ledbetter, P. Wlodarczyk, P. Wcislo, M. Pospelov, J. R. Smith, J. Read, W. Gawlik,et al., The global network of optical magnetometers for exotic physics (gnome): A novel scheme to search for physics beyond the standard model, Annalen der Physik525, 659 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    Jackson Kimball, D

    D. Jackson Kimball, D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Pospelov, S. Pustelny, T. Scholtes, Y. Stadnik, A. Weis, and A. Wickenbrock, Searching for axion stars and q-balls with a terrestrial magnetometer network, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043002 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    Afach, D

    S. Afach, D. Budker, G. DeCamp, V. Dumont, Z. D. Gruji´ c, H. Guo, D. Jackson Kimball, T. Kornack, V. Lebedev, W. Li,et al., Characterization of the global network of optical magnetometers to search for exotic physics (gnome), Phys. Dark Universe22, 162 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Masia-Roig, J

    H. Masia-Roig, J. A. Smiga, D. Budker, V. Dumont, Z. Grujic, D. Kim, D. F. Jackson Kimball, V. Lebe- dev, M. Monroy, S. Pustelny,et al., Analysis method for detecting topological defect dark matter with a global magnetometer network, Phys. Dark Universe28, 100494 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Afach, B

    S. Afach, B. C. Buchler, D. Budker, C. Dailey, A. Dere- vianko, V. Dumont, N. L. Figueroa, I. Gerhardt, Z. D. Gruji´ c, H. Guo,et al., Search for topological defect dark matter with a global network of optical magnetometers, Nature Physics17, 1396 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Budker and M

    D. Budker and M. Romalis, Optical magnetometry, Na- ture Phys.3, 227 (2007)

    2007

  38. [38]

    Budker and D

    D. Budker and D. F. Jackson Kimball,Optical Magne- tometry(Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    Budker, W

    D. Budker, W. Gawlik, D. Kimball, S. Rochester, V. Yashchuk, and A. Weis, Resonant nonlinear magneto- optical effects in atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 1153 (2002)

    2002

  40. [40]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, W. A. Terrano, L. Trahms, and T. Wilkason, Spin pre- cession experiments for light axionic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D97, 055006 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Y. G. del Castillo, B. Hammett, and J. Jaeckel, Enhanced Axion-wind near Earth’s Surface, arXiv:2502.04456 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Banerjee, I

    A. Banerjee, I. M. Bloch, Q. Bonnefoy, S. A. Ellis, G. Perez, I. Savoray, K. Springmann, and Y. V. Stad- nik, Momentum and matter matter for axion dark matter matters on earth, arXiv:2502.04455 (2025). 21

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y. V. Stadnik, and P. Wolf, Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar dark matter, Phys. Rev. D98, 064051 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Banerjee, G

    A. Banerjee, G. Perez, M. Safronova, I. Savoray, and A. Shalit, The phenomenology of quadratically coupled ultra light dark matter, J. High Energy Phys.2023(10), 42

    2023

  45. [45]

    S. S. Khamis, I. A. Sulai, P. Hamilton, S. Afach, B. Buch- ler, D. Budker, N. Figueroa, R. Folman, D. Gavil´ an- Mart ´ ın, M. Givon,et al., Multimessenger Search for Ex- otic Field Emission with a Global Magnetometer Net- work, Phys. Rev. X15, 031048 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Lella, P

    A. Lella, P. Carenza, G. Co’, G. Lucente, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and T. Rauscher, Getting the most on super- nova axions, Phys. Rev. D109, 023001 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. Budker, T. E. Chupp, A. A. Geraci, S. Kolkowitz, J. T. Singh, and A. O. Sushkov, Probing fundamental physics with spin-based quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. A , 010101 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    Jiang, H

    M. Jiang, H. Su, Y. Chen, M. Jiao, Y. Huang, Y. Wang, X. Rong, X. Peng, and J. Du, Searches for exotic spin- dependent interactions with spin sensors, Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 016401 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Gavilan-Martin, G

    D. Gavilan-Martin, G. Lukasiewicz, M. Padniuk, E. Klinger, M. Smolis, N. L. Figueroa, D. F. Jack- son Kimball, A. O. Sushkov, S. Pustelny, D. Budker, et al., Searching for dark matter with a spin-based in- terferometer, Nature Communications16, 4953 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Jiang, H

    M. Jiang, H. Su, A. Garcon, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Search for axion-like dark matter with spin-based ampli- fiers, Nature Phys.17, 1402 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Jiang, T

    M. Jiang, T. Hong, D. Hu, Y. Chen, F. Yang, T. Hu, X. Yang, J. Shu, Y. Zhao, X. Peng,et al., Long-baseline quantum sensor network as dark matter haloscope, Na- ture Commun.15, 3331 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    C. Abel, N. J. Ayres, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, M. Daum, M. Fairbairn, V. V. Flambaum, P. Geltenbort,et al., Search for axionlike dark matter through nuclear spin precession in electric and magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. X7, 041034 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    Aybas, J

    D. Aybas, J. Adam, E. Blumenthal, A. V. Gramolin, D. Johnson, A. Kleyheeg, S. Afach, J. W. Blanchard, G. P. Centers, A. Garcon,et al., Search for axionlike dark matter using solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 141802 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    Z. Xu, X. Ma, K. Wei, Y. He, X. Heng, X. Huang, T. Ai, J. Liao, W. Ji, J. Liu,et al., Constraining ultralight dark matter through an accelerated resonant search, Commun. Phys.7, 226 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    Garcon, J

    A. Garcon, J. W. Blanchard, G. P. Centers, N. L. Figueroa, P. W. Graham, D. F. Jackson Kimball, S. Ra- jendran, A. O. Sushkov, Y. V. Stadnik, A. Wickenbrock, et al., Constraints on bosonic dark matter from ultralow- field nuclear magnetic resonance, Sci. Adv. , eaax4539 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    Walter, O

    J. Walter, O. Maliaka, Y. Zhang, J. W. Blanchard, G. Centers, A. Dogan, M. Engler, N. L. Figueroa, Y. Kim, D. F. J. Kimball,et al., Search for axionlike dark matter using liquid-state nuclear magnetic reso- nance, Phys. Rev. D112, 052008 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    C. Abel, N. J. Ayres, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, E. Chanel, C. Crawford, M. Daum, B. Dechenaux,et al., Search for ultralight axion dark matter in a side-band analysis of a Hg-199 free-spin pre- cession signal, SciPost Phys.15, 058 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    I. M. Bloch, R. Shaham, Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and O. Katz, Constraints on axion-like dark matter from a serf comagnetometer, Nature Commun. 14, 5784 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    K. Wei, Z. Xu, Y. He, X. Ma, X. Heng, X. Huang, W. Quan, W. Ji, J. Liu, X.-P. Wang,et al., Dark mat- ter search with a resonantly-coupled hybrid spin system, Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 057801 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    I. M. Bloch, G. Ronen, R. Shaham, O. Katz, T. Volansky, and O. Katz, New constraints on axion-like dark matter using a Floquet quantum detector, Sci. Adv.8, eabl8919 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    T. Wu, J. W. Blanchard, G. P. Centers, N. L. Figueroa, A. Garcon, P. W. Graham, D. F. J. Kimball, S. Rajen- dran, Y. V. Stadnik, A. O. Sushkov,et al., Search for axionlike dark matter with a liquid-state nuclear spin co- magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 191302 (2019)

    2019

  62. [62]

    Crescini, D

    N. Crescini, D. Alesini, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, D. D’Agostino, D. Di Gioacchino, P. Falferi, U. Gam- bardella, C. Gatti, G. Iannone,et al., Axion search with a quantum-limited ferromagnetic haloscope, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 171801 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    D. Kim, D. F. J. Kimball, H. Masia-Roig, J. A. Smiga, A. Wickenbrock, D. Budker, Y. Kim, Y. C. Shin, and Y. K. Semertzidis, A machine learning algorithm for di- rect detection of axion-like particle domain walls, Physics of the Dark Universe37, 101118 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Masia-Roig, N

    H. Masia-Roig, N. L. Figueroa, A. Bordon, J. A. Smiga, Y. V. Stadnik, D. Budker, G. P. Centers, A. V. Gramolin, P. S. Hamilton, S. Khamis,et al., Intensity interferom- etry for ultralight bosonic dark matter detection, Phys. Rev. D108, 015003 (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    J. Eby, S. Shirai, Y. V. Stadnik, and V. Takhistov, Probing relativistic axions from transient astrophysical sources, Phys. Lett. B825, 136858 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    Arakawa, M

    J. Arakawa, M. H. Zaheer, V. Takhistov, M. S. Safronova, J. Eby, and C. Cheung, Multimessenger astronomy be- yond the standard model: New window from quantum sensors, arXiv:2502.08716 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Osborne, J

    J. Osborne, J. Orton, O. Alem, and V. Shah, Fully in- tegrated standalone zero field optically pumped magne- tometer for biomagnetism, inSteep Dispersion Engineer- ing and Opto-Atomic Precision Metrology XI, Vol. 10548 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2018) p. 105481G

    2018

  68. [68]

    Savukov and M

    I. Savukov and M. Romalis, Effects of spin-exchange colli- sions in a high-density alkali-metal vapor in low magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. A71, 023405 (2005)

    2005

  69. [69]

    Appelt, A

    S. Appelt, A. B.-A. Baranga, C. Erickson, M. Romalis, A. Young, and W. Happer, Theory of spin-exchange op- tical pumping of 3 he and 129 xe, Phys. Rev. A58, 1412 (1998)

    1998

  70. [70]

    Schmidt, ¨Uber die magnetischen momente der atom- kerne, Z

    T. Schmidt, ¨Uber die magnetischen momente der atom- kerne, Z. Phys.106, 358 (1937)

    1937

  71. [71]

    Budker, D

    D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, and D. P. DeMille,Atomic physics: an exploration through problems and solutions (Oxford University Press, USA, 2008)

    2008

  72. [72]

    Budker, D

    D. Budker, D. Kimball, V. Yashchuk, and M. Zolotorev, Nonlinear magneto-optical rotation with frequency- modulated light, Phys. Rev. A65, 055403 (2002)

    2002

  73. [73]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, L. R. Jacome, S. Guttikonda, E. J. Bahr, and L. F. Chan, Magnetometric sensi- 22 tivity optimization for nonlinear optical rotation with frequency-modulated light: Rubidium d2 line, J. Appl. Phys.106, 063113 (2009)

    2009

  74. [74]

    Gawlik, L

    W. Gawlik, L. Krzemie´ n, S. Pustelny, D. Sangla, J. Za- chorowski, M. Graf, A. Sushkov, and D. Budker, Nonlin- ear magneto-optical rotation with amplitude modulated light, Appl. Phys. Lett.88, 131108 (2006)

    2006

  75. [75]

    Allred, R

    J. Allred, R. Lyman, T. Kornack, and M. V. Roma- lis, High-sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaffected by spin-exchange relaxation, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 130801 (2002)

    2002