Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 56 references

An asymmetric neutrino background can rotate the polarization of AGN light with an anomalous frequency dependence, distinct from Faraday rotation.

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 08:43 UTC pith:CBA2WXWN

load-bearing objection The anomalous frequency scaling is likely an artifact of the absolute value in the directionality factor; the paper is a serious but flawed application that deserves referee attention. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2601.15910 v2 pith:CBA2WXWN submitted 2026-01-22 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Neutrino-Induced Polarization Rotation in Active Galactic Nuclei Plasmas

H. B. C\^amara , A. Smetana , A. A. Tursunov This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords neutrino birefringenceAGN jetsaccretion diskcosmic neutrino backgroundparity violationFaraday rotationneutrino-antineutrino asymmetryX-ray polarimetry
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 works out how a slight excess of neutrinos over antineutrinos twists the plane of polarized light traveling through the plasma of an active galactic nucleus. The twist comes from parity-violating birefringence, and the paper's key move is to include the relative motion between the neutrino medium and the plasma. That motion produces a directionality factor that, under the right conditions, makes the rotation angle fall off with an anomalous frequency power law instead of the standard omega^-2 of Faraday rotation. Applying the formula to jets and accretion disks, the largest predicted angle is about 10^-35 radians at X-ray frequencies, from a cosmic neutrino background permeating a dense accretion disk. All predicted angles sit below current sensitivity, so the paper is primarily a theoretical framework and a spectral signature to look for.

Core claim

The central claim is that the same parity-violating photon-neutrino interaction that produces background birefringence acquires an observable spectral fingerprint in AGN environments when the neutrino medium and the plasma move relative to each other. Specifically, the directionality factor K = |omega gamma (1 - beta cos(theta) / n(omega, omega_p))| inserts the frequency-dependent plasma refractive index into the parity-violating amplitude. When the neutrino energy E_nu^0 = m_nu omega / omega_p falls inside the observed neutrino energy band, the frequency dependence of the rotation angle changes from the Faraday-like const + omega^-2 to an anomalous term whose power depends on the neutrino s

What carries the argument

The directionality factor K in Eq. (8): |omega gamma (1 - beta cos(theta_ku) / n(omega, omega_p))|, where beta is the neutrino-medium bulk velocity relative to the plasma, gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - beta^2), theta_ku is the angle between the neutrino flow and the photon propagation direction, and n is the plasma refractive index. This factor carries the entire argument because it connects the rotary power to the frequency-dependent refractive index. When beta(E_nu) equals n(omega, omega_p), the factor vanishes, and integrating the rotation angle across that zero produces the anomalous frequency dependence that distinguishes the effect from Faraday rotation.

Load-bearing premise

Every predicted rotation angle is linear in the neutrino-antineutrino number asymmetry (n_nu - n_nubar), and the paper takes that asymmetry from a cosmological degeneracy parameter of order 0.05; if the true asymmetry is zero, all predicted angles vanish.

What would settle it

Compute the parity-violating photon self-energy in the combined moving neutrino-plus-plasma background from first principles; if the directionality factor K defined in Eq. (8) vanishes when evaluated in the plasma rest frame, the claimed anomalous scaling disappears. Observationally, once polarimetric sensitivity crosses about 10^-35 radians at X-ray wavelengths, the absence of any rotation with the predicted spectral law in a neutrino-bright AGN would rule the claim out.

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

If this is right

  • If the anomalous frequency scaling is observed, it would be a magnetic-field-independent signature of a neutrino-antineutrino asymmetry in an astrophysical environment.
  • In dense AGN accretion disks, the cosmic neutrino background alone can rotate X-ray polarization by up to roughly 10^-35 radians, many orders of magnitude larger than the same effect over intergalactic distances, though still below current polarimetric sensitivity.
  • For jet-produced neutrinos, the rotation angle's frequency law changes character from roughly omega^-1 to omega^-3 when the matched neutrino energy falls inside the observed neutrino spectrum, making the signature distinguishable from the universal omega^-2 of Faraday rotation.
  • The effect is proportional to the sign and size of the neutrino-antineutrino asymmetry, so a detection would encode not just the presence but also the sign of cosmic neutrino degeneracy.
  • Current X-ray polarimetry should see no neutrino-induced rotation; the non-detection is consistent with the paper's estimates and constrains the product of the asymmetry and the plasma density.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a future X-ray polarimeter reaches a sensitivity around 10^-35 radians, AGN accretion disks become a testbed for cosmic neutrino degeneracy that is independent of cosmological assumptions.
  • Because the anomalous term requires E_nu^0 = m_nu omega / omega_p to fall in the observed neutrino band, multi-frequency observations could scan across the transition where the rotation law changes from omega^-2 to anomalous, yielding a way to locate plasma densities along the line of sight.
  • The same formalism could be applied to other dense, neutrino-rich environments, such as gamma-ray bursts or tidal disruption events; higher neutrino fluxes or denser plasmas might push the predicted angle into detectable range.
  • Even without a detection, upper limits on polarization rotation in neutrino-bright AGNs could be translated into bounds on the local neutrino-antineutrino asymmetry.

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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies parity-violating birefringence of photons in AGN plasmas induced by an asymmetric neutrino background. It uses the directionality factor K from Ref. [20] and the two-loop coefficient Cφ from Ref. [19] to write the rotary power as a function of neutrino energy and plasma refractive index (Eq. 11). It then applies the formula to three scenarios: jets propagating through the CνB (Sec. III A), jets containing UHE neutrinos produced in pγ interactions (Sec. III B), and accretion disks permeated by the CνB (Sec. IV). The main claimed result is that when the crossing energy E0ν = mν ω/ωp falls inside the observed neutrino spectrum, the spectral integral over an absolute-value directionality factor produces a new term with a non-Faraday frequency dependence (Eq. 20c). The estimated rotation angles are tiny, the largest being ~1e-35 rad at X-ray frequencies, and the authors acknowledge that these are below current polarimetric sensitivity.

Significance. If the spectral claim is correct, the paper would identify a magnetic-field-independent signature of neutrino asymmetries in AGN, with a frequency dependence distinguishable from Faraday rotation. The paper is transparent about the small magnitudes and lists its inputs explicitly; the anomalous scaling is not obtained by fitting parameters. The application to three astrophysical environments is concrete and the paper is clearly organized. However, the main physical conclusion presently depends on an absolute value in the directionality factor whose sign behavior is not derived; until this is resolved, the anomalous scaling claim is conditional.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (11) and (17)-(20)] The claimed anomalous scaling rests entirely on the absolute value in the directionality factor. Eq. (11) writes the per-energy rotary power with |1 - β(Eν)/n|, and Eq. (17) integrates this absolute value over the neutrino spectrum. But the rotary power in Eq. (3) is a signed quantity: ΠP is linear in the neutrino four-velocity background, so for co-aligned propagation the integrand should be γ(1 - β(Eν)/n), not γ|1 - β(Eν)/n|. Since β(Eν) crosses n at E0ν (Eq. 18), the signed integrand is analytic on the full interval, and the integral from Emin to Emax depends on ω only through the smooth n(ω) factor; no term of the form (20c) appears. The authors need to derive K from the forward-scattering amplitude, or from Ref. [20], and show that contributions from the two sides of E0ν add constructively. If the sign flips at E0ν, the anomalous term is an artifact and the central abstract claim is
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III B] The notation E0 is used both for the reference energy in the flux normalization (Eq. 16) and for the crossing energy E0ν (Eq. 18). In Eqs. (19)-(20) the distinction is essential for the ω-dependence of Eq. (20c); please rename the reference energy (e.g., E_ref).
  2. [Sec. III B, Eq. (19)] The expressions contain factors 1/(1-σ) and are not defined at σ=1. Since σ is a free parameter, the special case σ=1 should be noted or explicitly excluded.
  3. [Sec. III B, after Eq. (20)] The local neutrino flux inside the jet is estimated from the observed IceCube flux by the geometric factor (D/l)^2 assuming isotropic emission over the full solid angle. For a beamed jet the relevant factor is 4π/Ω_j times a Doppler factor. This does not affect the spectral scaling but changes the amplitude estimates by an order of magnitude or more; please state this assumption and its uncertainty.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. II] The abstract says 'we derive a directionality factor', but Eq. (8) is taken from Ref. [20]. Please reword to avoid implying a new derivation.
  5. [Sec. III A] The sentence 'Since the EM wave phase velocity is greater than the bulk velocity of the plasma β, we set θ_ku=π' is confusing; the phase velocity condition does not by itself determine θ_ku. Clarify the geometry in the plasma rest frame.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular fit: the anomalous frequency dependence follows analytically from the directionality factor imported from the authors' earlier Ref. [20]; only minor self-citation, carried by non-circular external astrophysical inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the anomalous ω-dependence in Eq. (20c), is obtained by evaluating the integral in Eq. (17), whose integrand contains the directionality factor K = ωγ|n − β cos θ| imported from Ref. [20]. This is not a case of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction: the IceCube flux parameters and the plasma density are external, fixed inputs; the anomalous term (20c) emerges purely from splitting the integral at E0ν = mν ω/ωp, the zero of the absolute value. That is a mathematical consequence of the assumed form, not a parameter fitted to make the scaling appear. Similarly, the CνB asymmetry ξν ~ O(0.05) is taken from cosmological analyses, not from the rotation angles being predicted. The core formula Eq. (11) and the two-loop constant Cφ rely on Refs. [20] and [19]; Ref. [20] shares a coauthor (Smetana). This is a load-bearing citation for the directionality factor, but it is a separate published derivation with stated assumptions, and the present paper applies it to new AGN scenarios with external observables; no argument in the paper reduces Eq. (20c) to the fitted values or to a tautology. The skeptic's concern that the absolute value may produce a spurious sign-flip cusp is a physical correctness question about the imported K, not a circularity of the present derivation. The paper itself acknowledges the predicted angles are far below current sensitivity, so the result is not validated by data, but lack of validation is not circularity. Overall, no circular step can be exhibited; the only issue is reliance on earlier work by the same coauthor, hence score 2.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by inputs imported from prior work: the loop coefficient (Eq. 5), the two-loop enhancement (Eq. 7), the directionality factor (Eq. 8), and the CνB asymmetry (Eq. 13). The paper's own contribution is the integration over a neutrino spectrum and the AGN application. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • CνB degeneracy parameter ξν = ~0.05 (flavor-equilibrated)
    Sets nν − nνbar ≈ O(5) cm^-3 via Eq. (13); taken from cosmological fits [26–30]. Every CνB-induced rotation angle is linearly proportional to it.
  • Jet electron density n_e = 10^4 cm^-3 (fiducial); 0.1 cm^-3 in Fig. 1
    Sets the plasma frequency ωp via Eq. (9) and the resonance condition Eq. (18); AGN jet densities vary over orders of magnitude.
  • Accretion disk electron density n_e = 10^15 cm^-3
    Maximizes the prefactor ωp² in Eq. (22) and produces the headline φd ∼ 10^-35 rad in Eq. (23).
  • Propagation length l = 1 pc (jets); r_g = 4e-5 pc (disk)
    Rotation accumulates linearly with l; chosen as fiducial values for AGN jets and a 10^9 M_sun black hole.
  • Bulk velocity β of neutrino medium relative to plasma = 0.9 (CνB-jet); β ≈ 1 (jet-produced)
    Enters the directionality factor Eq. (8); only θ_k u = 0, π are considered.
  • TXS 0506+056 neutrino flux parameters = σ = 2.58, Φ0 = 1.68e-18 GeV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1, E_min = 3 TeV, E_max = 550 TeV, E0 = 100 TeV
    Adopted from the IceCube fit [51] and used in Eqs. (16)–(20) for the UHE-jet estimate.
  • Neutrino mass mν = 0.1 eV
    Sets the resonance energy E0_ν = mν ω/ωp in Eq. (18), the position of the anomalous scaling feature; from oscillation/cosmological bounds.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The SM loop-level neutrino-photon interaction produces parity-violating birefringence ΠP ∝ (nν − nνbar) K with coefficient Cϕ from [19].
    Eq. (5) is taken from [19,20]; the paper does not re-derive the loop integral. If new physics modifies neutrino EM couplings, all results change.
  • domain assumption The two-loop-enhanced coefficient Cϕ = 7π²/(2α) C0 is the appropriate coefficient.
    Eq. (7) adopts the 'improved estimate' of [19] rather than the one-loop value of [11]; a ~10^3 enhancement is assumed.
  • domain assumption The plasma is cold, non-magnetized, and dilute, with refractive index n = sqrt(1 − ωp²/ω²); magnetic Faraday rotation is neglected.
    Eqs. (9)–(10); this isolates the neutrino-induced, magnetic-field-independent rotation.
  • domain assumption The directionality factor K = ωγ |n − β cosθ_ku| from [20] is valid for a two-component medium with relative bulk motion.
    Eq. (8); the paper's 'derivation' of this factor is actually a citation to prior work by one of the authors.
  • domain assumption The CνB carries a nonzero neutrino–antineutrino asymmetry ξν ∼ O(0.05), giving nν − nνbar ∼ O(5) cm^-3.
    Eq. (13) and surrounding text; inferred from cosmological fits [26–30], not directly measured. All CνB estimates vanish if ξν = 0.
  • ad hoc to paper For jet-produced neutrinos, the observed IceCube flux can be rescaled to the local jet flux by a factor (D/l)^2 over the full solid angle.
    Sec. III B: 'we use the simple geometric factor (D/l)^2 to estimate the local neutrino flux within the jet integrated over the full solid angle.' This ignores beaming, absorption, and source geometry; it affects the UHE-jet estimates by orders of magnitude.
  • domain assumption Photons propagate coherently over the full path length l in a homogeneous medium; no absorption, scattering, or inhomogeneity washes out the rotation.
    The rotation is computed as (φ/l) × l. In real AGN jets and disks, inhomogeneities and the ω < ωp cutoff limit coherent propagation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11358 in / 19769 out tokens · 178239 ms · 2026-08-03T08:43:41.769443+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study parity-violating birefringence induced by an asymmetric neutrino background in plasmas associated with active galactic nuclei (AGN). We derive a directionality factor arising from the relative bulk motion between the neutrino medium and plasma, and show that it can produce an anomalous frequency dependence of the polarization-rotation angle, distinct from the $\omega^{-2}$ scaling of Faraday rotation. This anomalous scaling can occur either at the resonance plasma frequency condition $\omega \simeq \omega_p$, or when $E_\nu^{0}\simeq m_\nu \omega/\omega_p$ lies within the range of the neutrino energy spectrum. We estimate the effect for three scenarios: jets propagating through the cosmic neutrino background (C$\nu$B), jets with an internal flux of high-energy neutrinos, and accretion-disk plasma permeated by the C$\nu$B. Of the three scenarios, the latter gives the largest rotation angle $\phi_{\rm d} \sim 10^{-35}\,\mathrm{rad}$, at X-ray frequencies. Although the predicted rotation angles are below current polarimetric sensitivity, the identified spectral signatures provide a theoretical framework for probing neutrino asymmetries and AGN plasma properties independent of magnetic field models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15910 by A. A. Tursunov, A. Smetana, H. B. C\^amara.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Birefringence angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 40 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Kajita, Rev

    T. Kajita, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 030501 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    A. B. McDonald, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 030502 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart ´ ınez- Mirav´ e, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP02, 071 (2021), arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216 (2024), arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Capozzi, W

    F. Capozzi, W. Giar` e, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Mel- chiorri, and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D111, 093006 (2025), arXiv:2503.07752 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Capozzi, E

    F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, F. Marcone, A. Marrone, and A. Palazzo, (2025), arXiv:2511.21650 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Akeret al.(KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    M. Akeret al.(KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Royer, Phys

    J. Royer, Phys. Rev.174, 1719 (1968)

    1968

  10. [10]

    D. A. Dicus and W. W. Repko, Phys. Rev. D48, 5106 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9305284

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  11. [11]

    Mohanty, J

    S. Mohanty, J. F. Nieves, and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D 58, 093007 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9712414

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  12. [12]

    Abbasabadi and W

    A. Abbasabadi and W. W. Repko, Phys. Rev. D64, 113007 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107166

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  13. [13]

    Abbasabadi and W

    A. Abbasabadi and W. W. Repko, Phys. Rev. D67, 073018 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  14. [14]

    Karl and V

    G. Karl and V. Novikov, JETP Lett.81, 249 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  15. [15]

    J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D39, 652 (1989), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 40, 2148 (1989)]

    1989

  16. [16]

    J. F. Nieves and S. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D71, 073006 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  17. [17]

    Dvornikov and V

    M. Dvornikov and V. B. Semikoz, JCAP05, 002 (2014), arXiv:1311.5267 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D102, 036004 (2020), arXiv:2005.09376 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Dvornikov and V

    M. Dvornikov and V. B. Semikoz, JCAP03, 028 (2021), arXiv:2011.14883 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Petropavlova and A

    M. Petropavlova and A. Smetana, Phys. Rev. D106, 053003 (2022), arXiv:2204.02886 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Wielgus, S

    M. Wielgus, S. Issaoun, I. Marti-Vidal, R. Emami, M. Moscibrodzka, C. D. Brinkerink, C. Goddi, and E. Fomalont, Astron. Astrophys.682, A97 (2024), arXiv:2308.11712 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.964, L26 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Penget al., Astrophys

    S. Penget al., Astrophys. J.975, 103 (2024), arXiv:2409.12028 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Dovˇ ciak, J

    M. Dovˇ ciak, J. Podgorn´ y, J. Svoboda, J. F. Steiner, P. Kaaret, H. Krawczynski, A. Ingram, V. Kravtsov, L. Marra, F. Muleri, J. A. Garc ´ ıa, G. Mastroserio, R. Mikuˇ sincov´ a, A. Ratheesh, and N. R. Cavero, Galax- ies12(2024), 10.3390/galaxies12050054

    doi:10.3390/galaxies12050054 2024

  25. [25]

    Iocco, G

    F. Iocco, G. Mangano, G. Miele, O. Pisanti, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rept.472, 1 (2009), arXiv:0809.0631 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [26]

    Escudero, A

    M. Escudero, A. Ibarra, and V. Maura, Phys. Rev. D 107, 035024 (2023), arXiv:2208.03201 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Burns, T

    A.-K. Burns, T. M. P. Tait, and M. Valli, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 86 (2024), arXiv:2307.07061 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Froustey and C

    J. Froustey and C. Pitrou, Phys. Rev. D110, 103551 (2024), arXiv:2405.06509 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Li and J.-H

    Y.-Z. Li and J.-H. Yu, JHEP06, 213 (2025), arXiv:2409.08280 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Li and J.-H

    Y.-Z. Li and J.-H. Yu, (2025), arXiv:2501.13153 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Ringwald and Y

    A. Ringwald and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP12, 005 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0408241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    P. F. de Salas, S. Gariazzo, J. Lesgourgues, and S. Pastor, JCAP09, 034 (2017), arXiv:1706.09850 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Zhang and X

    J. Zhang and X. Zhang, Nature Commun.9, 1833 (2018), arXiv:1712.01153 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Mertsch, G

    P. Mertsch, G. Parimbelli, P. F. de Salas, S. Gariazzo, J. Lesgourgues, and S. Pastor, JCAP01, 015 (2020), arXiv:1910.13388 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 021103 (2013), arXiv:1304.5356 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Science342, 1242856 (2013), arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  37. [37]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 101101 (2014), arXiv:1405.5303 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AG- ILE, ASAS-SN, HA WC, H.E.S.S., INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, Liverpool Telescope, Subaru, Swift NuS- TAR, VERITAS, VLA/17B-403), Science361, eaat1378 (2018), arXiv:1807.08816 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Science361, 147 (2018), arXiv:1807.08794 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Britzenet al., Mon

    S. Britzenet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 3145 (2021), arXiv:2103.00292 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Padovani, B

    P. Padovani, B. Boccardi, R. Falomo, and P. Giommi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 4697 (2022), arXiv:2202.04363 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Acharyyaet al.(VERITAS, H.E.S.S.), Astrophys

    A. Acharyyaet al.(VERITAS, H.E.S.S.), Astrophys. J. 954, 70 (2023), arXiv:2306.17819 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J

    S. Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J. Phys. G43, 084001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), Astropart

    S. Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), Astropart. Phys.111, 100 (2019), arXiv:1810.08499 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Muller, A

    R. Muller, A. Heijboer, and T. van Eeden (KM3NeT), PoSICRC2023, 1018 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), Nature638, 376 (2025), [Er- ratum: Nature 640, E3 (2025)]

    S. Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), Nature638, 376 (2025), [Er- ratum: Nature 640, E3 (2025)]

    2025

  47. [47]

    Adrianiet al.(KM3NeT), Astrophys

    O. Adrianiet al.(KM3NeT), Astrophys. J. Lett.984, L41 (2025), arXiv:2502.08508 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Adrianiet al.(KM3NeT), (2025), arXiv:2511.13886 [astro-ph.HE]

    O. Adrianiet al.(KM3NeT), (2025), arXiv:2511.13886 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Biehl, A

    D. Biehl, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino, T. J. Weiler, and W. Winter, JCAP01, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.07983 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, Universe10, 149 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. D110, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2402.18026 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    J. A. Garc ´ ıa, A. C. Fabian, T. R. Kallman, T. Dauser, M. L. Parker, J. E. McClintock, J. F. Steiner, and J. Wilms, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.462, 751 (2016), arXiv:1603.05259 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Svensson and A

    R. Svensson and A. A. Zdziarski, Astrophys. J.436, 599 (1994)

    1994

  54. [54]

    Jiang, A

    J. Jiang, A. C. Fabian, T. Dauser, L. Gallo, J. A. Garcia, 8 E. Kara, M. L. Parker, J. A. Tomsick, D. J. Walton, and C. S. Reynolds, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 3436 (2019), arXiv:1908.07272 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science378, 538 (2022), arXiv:2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science378, 538 (2022), arXiv:2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Abbasiet al., (2025), arXiv:2510.13403 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al., (2025), arXiv:2510.13403 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025