MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Search for Ultralight Dark Matter with Spectroscopy of Radio-Frequency Atomic Transitions

2023· article· en· W4381888718 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xue Zhang, Abhishek Banerjee, Mahapan Leyser, Gilad Pérez, S. Schiller, D. Antypas

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeAzrieli FoundationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean Cooperation in Science and Technology
KeywordsPhysicsPseudoscalarDark matterScalar (mathematics)Hyperfine structureSpectroscopyScalar fieldAtomic physicsField (mathematics)Particle physicsQuantum mechanicsMeson

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of scalar and pseudoscalar ultralight bosonic dark matter (UBDM) were searched for by comparing the frequency of a quartz oscillator to that of a hyperfine-structure transition in $^{87}\mathrm{Rb}$, and an electronic transition in $^{164}\mathrm{Dy}$. We constrain linear interactions between a scalar UBDM field and standard-model (SM) fields for an underlying UBDM particle mass in the range $1\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}17}--8.3\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$ and quadratic interactions between a pseudoscalar UBDM field and SM fields in the range $5\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}18}--4.1\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$. Within regions of the respective ranges, our constraints on linear interactions significantly improve on results from previous, direct searches for oscillations in atomic parameters, while constraints on quadratic interactions surpass limits imposed by such direct searches as well as by astrophysical observations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207