- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Search for QCD Coupled Axion Dark Matter with Data from the MICROSCOPE Space Experiment

Jordan Gué1,*, Peter Wolf2, and Aurélien Hees2

  • *Contact author: jgue@ifae.es
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 171001 – Published 21 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/fwzv-g1jg

Abstract

Axion dark matter coupled via QCD induces a nonzero differential acceleration between test masses of different composition. Tests of the equivalence principle, like the recent MICROSCOPE space mission, are sensitive to such a signal. We use the final released data of the MICROSCOPE experiment to search for this effect. We find no positive signal consistent with the dark matter model, and set upper limits on the axion-gluon coupling that improve existing laboratory bounds by up to 2 orders of magnitude for axion masses in the 10−17 to 10−13  eV range.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (56)

  1. F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933).
  2. G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, Nature (London) 562, 51 (2018).
  3. L. Hui, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 247 (2021).
  4. M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, arXiv:2406.01705.
  5. J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 120B, 127 (1983).
  6. L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. 120B, 133 (1983).
  7. M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. 120B, 137 (1983).
  8. R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977).
  9. D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rep. 643, 1 (2016).
  10. C. O’Hare, Proc. Sci. COSMICWISPers (2024) 040.
  11. C. O’Hare, cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits, https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/ (2020).
  12. G. G. di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. P. Vega, and G. Villadoro, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2016) 034.
  13. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978).
  14. L. Di Luzio, B. Gavela, P. Quilez, and A. Ringwald, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 184.
  15. A. Hook, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261802 (2018).
  16. P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B171, 253 (1980).
  17. H. Kim and G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 109, 015005 (2024).
  18. A. Hook and J. Huang, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2018) 036.
  19. R. Balkin, J. Serra, K. Springmann, S. Stelzl, and A. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D 109, 095032 (2024).
  20. R. Balkin, J. Serra, K. Springmann, S. Stelzl, and A. Weiler, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2025) 141.
  21. K. Springmann, M. Stadlbauer, S. Stelzl, and A. Weiler, arXiv:2410.19902.
  22. J. Gasser, M. E. Sainio, and A. Švarc, Nucl. Phys. B307, 779 (1988).
  23. V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, J. Kambor, and U.-G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. B388, 315 (1992).
  24. S. Scherer and M. Schindler, A Primer for Chiral Perturbation Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 830 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012).
  25. T. Damour and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 82, 084033 (2010).
  26. J. Gué, A. Hees, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D 110, 035005 (2024).
  27. M. Bauer and S. Chakraborti, arXiv:2408.06408.
  28. E. Madge, G. Perez, and Z. Meir, Phys. Rev. D 110, 015008 (2024).
  29. X. Zhang, A. Banerjee, M. Leyser, G. Perez, S. Schiller, D. Budker, and D. Antypas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 251002 (2023).
  30. A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y. V. Stadnik, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064051 (2018).
  31. A. Banerjee, I. M. Bloch, Q. Bonnefoy, S. A. R. Ellis, G. Perez, I. Savoray, K. Springmann, and Y. V. Stadnik, arXiv:2502.04455.
  32. Y. G. del Castillo, B. Hammett, and J. Jaeckel, arXiv:2502.04456.
  33. P. Touboul et al. (MICROSCOPE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 121102 (2022).
  34. P. Touboul et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 39, 204009 (2022).
  35. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/fwzv-g1jg, which includes Refs. [17,25,26,30–32,34,36–42], for details on the signal modeling and the data analysis.
  36. N. W. Evans, C. A. J. O’Hare, and C. McCabe, Phys. Rev. D 99, 023012 (2019).
  37. A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042506 (2018).
  38. J. W. Foster, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123006 (2018).
  39. G. P. Centers, J. W. Blanchard, J. Conrad, N. L. Figueroa, A. Garcon, A. V. Gramolin, D. F. J. Kimball, M. Lawson, B. Pelssers, J. A. Smiga, A. O. Sushkov, A. Wickenbrock, D. Budker, and A. Derevianko, Nat. Commun. 12, 7321 (2021).
  40. E. Savalle, A. Hees, F. Frank, E. Cantin, P.-E. Pottie, B. M. Roberts, L. Cros, B. T. Mcallister, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 051301 (2021).
  41. P. Touboul et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 231101 (2017).
  42. A. Hees and O. Minazzoli, arXiv:1512.05233.

  43. We use a convention where the axion field amplitude is dimensionless; other conventions exist; see, e.g., Refs. [17, 26].

  44. Relevant to this analysis, the axionic charge of the Earth, modeled as a homogeneous SiO2 ball, is QME=−68.442×10−3 and for the two MICROSCOPE test masses QMPt=−69.065×10−3 and QMTi=−68.770×10−3.

  45. P. J. McMillan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 414, 2446 (2011).
  46. K. Freese, M. Lisanti, and C. Savage, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1561 (2013).
  47. A. Pillepich, M. Kuhlen, J. Guedes, and P. Madau, Astrophys. J. 784, 161 (2014).
  48. H. Nakatsuka, S. Morisaki, T. Fujita, J. Kume, Y. Michimura, K. Nagano, and I. Obata, Phys. Rev. D 108, 092010 (2023).
  49. I. Schulthess et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 191801 (2022).
  50. C. Abel et al., Phys. Rev. X 7, 041034 (2017).
  51. P. Brax, C. Burrage, J. A. R. Cembranos, and P. Valageas, Phys. Rev. D 107, 095015 (2023).

  52. Not all such bands are visible on Fig. 2 because its resolution is too low to see the narrower ones (cf. Fig. 1).

  53. J. Zhang, Z. Lyu, J. Huang, M. C. Johnson, L. Sagunski, M. Sakellariadou, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 161101 (2021).
  54. K. Blum, R. T. D’Agnolo, M. Lisanti, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Lett. B 737, 30 (2014).
  55. J. Bergé, Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 066901 (2023).
  56. N. Gaaloul et al., arXiv:2211.15412.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 171001– Published 21 October, 2025
  • Received 2 April 2025
  • Revised 17 June 2025
  • Accepted 3 September 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation