pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09139 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

A New Measurement of the Extragalactic Background Light using 15\,yr of {it Fermi}-Large Area Telescope Data

Anuvab Banerjee , Justin D. Finke , Marco Ajello , Alberto Dom\'inguez , Abhishek Desai , Joshua Baxter , Dieter Hartmann , Vaidehi S. Paliya
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords extragalactic background lightEBLgamma-ray attenuationFermi-LATblazarsoptical depthredshift evolutionstar formation history
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fermi gamma-ray observations of 1576 blazars detect extragalactic background light absorption at 23 sigma significance.

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

The paper measures the extragalactic background light by analyzing how it absorbs gamma rays from distant blazars. Using 15 years of Fermi Large Area Telescope data on 1576 blazars, the authors detect this absorption at 23 sigma significance and determine the optical depth in 19 redshift bins from 0 to 4.3. This detailed mapping allows reconstruction of the EBL's evolution over cosmic time. The results are consistent with models of star formation and galaxy evolution, providing the most precise GeV gamma-ray measurement of the EBL to date.

Core claim

Using 15 years of Fermi-LAT data and 1576 blazars, the EBL attenuation is detected with ~23 sigma significance. The optical depth is measured in 19 redshift bins extending to z=4.3. This permits reconstruction of the EBL evolution, which shows general consistency with recent models, and constitutes the most precise determination of the EBL with GeV gamma rays.

What carries the argument

The imprint of EBL absorption on the gamma-ray spectra of blazars, from which the optical depth is extracted in multiple redshift bins.

Load-bearing premise

The observed spectral softening in the blazar sample is produced entirely by EBL absorption rather than by intrinsic source physics, selection effects, or unmodeled instrumental systematics.

What would settle it

A dataset of blazar spectra showing redshift-dependent spectral softening inconsistent with the reported optical depths or lacking the expected increase with distance would contradict the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09139 by Abhishek Desai, Alberto Dom\'inguez, Anuvab Banerjee, Dieter Hartmann, Joshua Baxter, Justin D. Finke, Marco Ajello, Vaidehi S. Paliya.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Redshift distribution of the sources used in this analysis on a logarithmic scale. a measurement of the EBL optical depth across 12 epochs. Here, we update this measurement using a factor ∼ 1.7 larger exposure and an almost twice larger blazar sample (1464 vs 759 blazars) reaching z=4.3 instead of z=3.1. This paper is organized as follows: § 2 describes the sample and analysis technique, § 3 presents the m… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Emax versus redshift for the blazar sample. Emax corresponds to the energy at which the optical depth satisfies τγγ = 0.1 for the EBL model of Finke et al. (2022) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: TSEBL profiles of the EBL detection as a function of the renormalizing parameter b, for the EBL models of Finke et al. (2022, left), Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021, center) and Franceschini et al. (2008, right). The dark and light shaded regions show the 1σ and 2σ confidence intervals around the best-fit b values. The dashed red, blue and black lines correspond to the FSRQ, BL Lac and combined T S profiles, re… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the computation of the optical depth for the 0.70 ≤ z < 0.79 bin and photon energies between 215 GeV - 464 GeV using the τ -values corresponding to the three different models. The horizontal dashed line is the average optical depth derived using the three models, while the gray band shows the uncertainty encompassing the uncertainty of all models. used to determine the intrinsic spectrum ca… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measurements of the EBL optical depth, τγγ, as a function of energy and redshift. The solid lines show the estimates of three different EBL models. The cosmic gamma-ray horizon (CGRH) is defined as the energy ECGRH(z) at which the optical depth τγγ(E, z) = 1, marking the transition between the transparent and opaque Universe. This threshold is an integral measure of the evolving photon field, from UV to FI… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measurement of the cosmic γ-ray horizon derived from the EBL optical depth measurements (blue data points). The lines correspond to the estimates of three EBL models (described in the legend). The gray data points are the single most energetic photon detected from each source used in this analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lightcurve of 4FGL J1504.4+1029 produced using a two-week bin. The red line shows the Bayesian Blocks. The consistency of our results with the models reinforces the robustness of the Fermi-LAT gamma-ray attenuation method and supports the validity of current EBL modeling across a range of methodologies and assumptions. 3.4. Time-Resolved Analysis Blazars exhibit intrinsic variability across all wavelengths… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 68% contour EBL intensity results as a function of wavelength at z = 0 for our empirical model here. Also shown are measurements and models, as described in the legend. γ-ray optical depth here, our physical model result here is most similar to Model B from Finke et al. (2022), where earlier γ-ray optical depth data were fit. The physically-based model is more constraining than the empirical model, since t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 68% contour luminosity density results for as a function of redshift for three wavelengths (labeled on the plots) for our empirical model here. The blue curve is the model from Finke et al. (2010), and the symbols show the measurements from Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021, red squares), Tresse et al. (2007, blue triangles), and other sources (black circles) described in Finke et al. (2022). is below the data in… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 68% contour EBL intensity results as a function of wavelength at z = 0 for our physically-based model here. Also shown are measurements and models, as described in the legend. with independent measurements from galaxy surveys. This consistency indicates that the γ-ray–driven constraints are compatible with standard assumptions about star formation and dust reprocessing. 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The a… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The orange region shows the 68% contour luminosity density results as a function of redshift for three wavelengths (labeled on the plots) for our physically-based model here. The violet shaded region is the 68% contour result from Finke et al. (2022) Model B. The blue curve is the model from Finke et al. (2010), and the symbols show the measurements from Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021, red squares), Tresse et… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The orange region shows the 68% contour luminosity density results as a function of wavelength for four redshifts for our physically-based model here; the redshifts (z) are labeled on the plots. The violet shaded region is the 68% contour result from Finke et al. (2022) Model B. The blue curve is the model from Finke et al. (2010), and the symbols are the same measurements in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 68% contour star formation rate density as a function of density for the physical model result presented here, and Model A (including a fit to luminosity density and γ-ray optical depth data) and Model B (which only did a fit to γ-ray optical depth data), and the curves from Madau & Dickinson (2014) and Madau & Fragos (2017). The symbols are the same measurements in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The extragalactic background Light (EBL) from ultraviolet to infrared comprises the emission from all stars, galaxies, and actively accreting black holes in the observable Universe. A precise measurement of the EBL is critically important to probe models of star formation and galaxy evolution. The EBL can be measured via the absorption imprint left on the spectra of gamma-ray blazars. In this work, we rely on 15 years of {\it Fermi}-LAT data and 1576 blazars to measure the EBL optical depth in the $0<z<4.3$ range. We detect the EBL attenuation with $\sim23\sigma$ significance and measure the optical depth in 19 redshift bins, extending the coverage and improving on our previous results. This allows us to reconstruct the EBL evolution and find general consistency with recent EBL models. These results represent the most precise determination of the EBL with GeV $\gamma$ rays to date.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a measurement of the extragalactic background light (EBL) optical depth τ(E,z) derived from the gamma-ray spectra of 1576 blazars observed with the Fermi-LAT over 15 years. The authors claim a ~23σ detection of EBL attenuation, provide τ measurements in 19 redshift bins spanning 0 < z < 4.3, reconstruct the EBL evolution, and report general consistency with recent EBL models. The work is presented as an extension and improvement over prior results, constituting the most precise GeV-scale determination to date.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing modeling assumptions, the large sample and extended redshift coverage would tighten constraints on the integrated star-formation history and galaxy evolution. The high claimed significance and bin-by-bin optical-depth reconstruction represent a potentially valuable data product for the field, provided the separation of intrinsic and extrinsic spectral effects is robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Analysis section (spectral modeling and fitting)] The joint spectral fitting procedure (described in the analysis section) assumes intrinsic blazar spectra are adequately described by power-law or log-parabola forms with no additional redshift-dependent curvature. No quantitative test is presented for the possibility that a non-negligible fraction of the sample exhibits intrinsic softening that correlates with redshift or flux, which would systematically bias the recovered τ(E,z) values and the 23σ significance claim.
  2. [Sample selection and data analysis] The sample selection of 1576 blazars and any redshift-dependent cuts are not shown to be free of bias toward harder spectra at low z. Without explicit checks (e.g., control samples or Monte Carlo simulations of selection effects), the attribution of all observed spectral softening to EBL attenuation remains unverified and load-bearing for the 19-bin measurement.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and discussion] The abstract states results are 'in general consistency with recent EBL models' but does not specify whether any model parameters were adjusted to the current dataset or used purely for post-hoc comparison; this should be clarified in the text.
  2. [Figures and tables] Figure captions and table headers should explicitly state the energy range and redshift binning used for the optical-depth measurements to allow direct comparison with prior work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below. Where the comments identify areas requiring additional validation, we have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested tests and clarifications, which we believe further support the robustness of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Analysis section (spectral modeling and fitting)] The joint spectral fitting procedure (described in the analysis section) assumes intrinsic blazar spectra are adequately described by power-law or log-parabola forms with no additional redshift-dependent curvature. No quantitative test is presented for the possibility that a non-negligible fraction of the sample exhibits intrinsic softening that correlates with redshift or flux, which would systematically bias the recovered τ(E,z) values and the 23σ significance claim.

    Authors: We agree that verifying the absence of redshift- or flux-correlated intrinsic curvature is important for the reliability of the optical-depth measurement. In the original analysis, the spectral model for each source (power law or log parabola) was selected via a likelihood-ratio test, which already incorporates curvature when statistically preferred. To directly address the concern, the revised manuscript includes a new set of Monte Carlo simulations in which artificial redshift-dependent intrinsic softening is injected into the spectra prior to refitting. These tests show that the recovered τ(E,z) values in the 19 redshift bins and the overall ~23σ significance remain consistent with the reported results within uncertainties, indicating that any such bias does not materially affect the conclusions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sample selection and data analysis] The sample selection of 1576 blazars and any redshift-dependent cuts are not shown to be free of bias toward harder spectra at low z. Without explicit checks (e.g., control samples or Monte Carlo simulations of selection effects), the attribution of all observed spectral softening to EBL attenuation remains unverified and load-bearing for the 19-bin measurement.

    Authors: The selection criteria are described in Section 2 and are based on detection significance and spectral-fit quality to ensure reliable parameter estimation. We acknowledge that explicit validation against selection biases is warranted. In the revised manuscript we have added (i) the spectral-index distribution versus redshift and flux, (ii) Monte Carlo simulations of the full selection pipeline, and (iii) a control-sample comparison using low-redshift blazars. These checks demonstrate no significant bias toward harder spectra at low redshift and confirm that the observed spectral softening is consistent with EBL attenuation rather than an artifact of the selection process. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in the EBL optical-depth measurement

full rationale

The derivation consists of a direct spectral fit to 15 years of Fermi-LAT data on 1576 blazars, extracting the EBL optical depth in 19 redshift bins under the modeling assumption that all observed softening is due to attenuation. The result is then compared to existing EBL models for consistency rather than derived from them. No quoted step reduces the claimed 23σ detection or binned τ(E,z) values to a self-definition, a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The analysis is self-contained against the gamma-ray dataset and standard likelihood fitting; external benchmarks are used only for post-hoc validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard assumption that blazar spectra are intrinsically power-law-like and that any observed softening is due to EBL pair-production absorption; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Blazar spectra are power laws modified only by EBL absorption and known instrumental effects
    Invoked implicitly when attributing all spectral softening to EBL; standard in the field but not proven for every source.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5507 in / 1165 out tokens · 30135 ms · 2026-05-10T17:29:39.237734+00:00 · methodology

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

89 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 159

    Abdalla, H., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2018, ApJ, 865, 159

    2018

  2. [2]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1514

    Abdalla, H., Razzaque, S., B¨ ottcher, M., Finke, J., & Dom´ ınguez, A. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1514 2024

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 5590

    Abdalla, H., Adam, R., Aharonian, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5590

    2020

  4. [4]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1082, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1082

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/2/1082 2010

  5. [5]

    2018, Science, 362, 1031, doi: 10.1126/science.aat8123

    Abdollahi, S., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1031, doi: 10.1126/science.aat8123

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aat8123 2018

  6. [6]

    2013, A&A, 550, A4

    Abramowski, A., Acero, F., Aharonian, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A4

    2013

  7. [7]

    2012, Science, 338, 1190

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 1190

    2012

  8. [8]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 32

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 32

    2018

  9. [9]

    1993, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9312045

    Aharonian, F., Coppi, P., & Voelk, H. 1993, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9312045

    work page arXiv 1993

  10. [10]

    2006, Nature, 440, 1018

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A., Bazer-Bachi, A., et al. 2006, Nature, 440, 1018

    2006

  11. [11]

    B., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A., De Almeida, U. B., et al. 2007, A&A, 475, L9

    2007

  12. [12]

    S., Romani, R

    Ajello, M., Shaw, M. S., Romani, R. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/108 2012

  13. [13]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523

    Ajello, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523 2022

  14. [14]

    2008, Science, 320, 1752

    Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2008, Science, 320, 1752

    2008

  15. [15]

    2001, PhRvD, 64, 036005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.036005

    Amelino-Camelia, G., & Piran, T. 2001, PhRvD, 64, 036005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.036005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.036005 2001

  16. [16]

    K., Driver, S

    Andrews, S. K., Driver, S. P., Davies, L. J. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1279

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1279 2017

  17. [17]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 1071

    2009

  18. [18]

    K., & Glazebrook, K

    Baldry, I. K., & Glazebrook, K. 2003, ApJ, 593, 258, doi: 10.1086/376502

    work page doi:10.1086/376502 2003

  19. [19]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1803, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13522.x 30

    Barrau, A., Gorecki, A., & Grain, J. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 919, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13607.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13607.x 2008

  20. [20]

    D., et al

    Baxter, J., Dom´ ınguez, A., Finke, J. D., et al. 2026, ApJ, submitted

    2026

  21. [21]

    A., Freedman, W

    Bernstein, R. A., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 2002, ApJ, 571, 107

    2002

  22. [22]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 39

    Biteau, J., & Meyer, M. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 39

    2022

  23. [23]

    Biteau, J., & Williams, D. A. 2015, ApJ, 812, 60

    2015

  24. [24]

    2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 598, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.03.009

    Blanch, O., & Martinez, M. 2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 598, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.03.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.03.009 2005

  25. [25]

    2025, A&A, 694, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453361

    Blinov, D., & Novikova, P. 2025, A&A, 694, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453361

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453361 2025

  26. [26]

    H., Digel, S

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T., Digel, S., et al. 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11394

    work page arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/027 19

    Buehler, R., Gallardo, G., Maier, G., et al. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/027 19

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/027 2020

  28. [28]

    C., & Ritz, S

    Chen, A., Reyes, L. C., & Ritz, S. 2004, ApJ, 608, 686, doi: 10.1086/383456

    work page doi:10.1086/383456 2004

  29. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aee D’Ammando, F., Antolini, E., Tosti, G., et al

    Cheng, Y.-T., & Chang, T.-C. 2022, ApJ, 925, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aee D’Ammando, F., Antolini, E., Tosti, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt344

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aee 2022

  30. [30]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 768

    Davies, L., Robotham, A., Driver, S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 768

    2018

  31. [31]

    D., Cavadini, M., Razzaque, S., et al

    Dermer, C. D., Cavadini, M., Razzaque, S., et al. 2011, ApJL, 733, L21

    2011

  32. [32]

    2019, ApJL, 874, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c10 Dom´ ınguez, A., & Ajello, M

    Desai, A., Helgason, K., Ajello, M., et al. 2019, ApJL, 874, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c10

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c10 2019

  33. [33]

    2006, A&A, 451, 417 Dom´ ınguez, A., & Ajello, M

    Dole, H., Lagache, G., Puget, J.-L., et al. 2006, A&A, 451, 417 Dom´ ınguez, A., & Ajello, M. 2015, ApJL, 813, L34

    2006

  34. [34]

    2011a, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011, 020

    Dominguez, A., S´ anchez-Conde, M., & Prada, F. 2011a, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011, 020

    2011

  35. [35]

    R., Rosario, D., et al

    Dominguez, A., Primack, J. R., Rosario, D., et al. 2011b, MNRAS, 410, 2556 Dom´ ınguez, A., Wojtak, R., Finke, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 137 Dom´ ınguez, A., Østergaard Kirkeberg, P., Wojtak, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3425 Dom´ ınguez, A., L´ ainez, M., Paliya, V. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4763

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3425 2019

  36. [36]

    P., Hill, D

    Driver, S. P., Hill, D. T., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971

    2011

  37. [37]

    P., Andrews, S

    Driver, S. P., Andrews, S. K., Davies, L. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 108

    2016

  38. [38]

    2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 112, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.003

    Dwek, E., & Krennrich, F. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 112, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.003 2013

  39. [39]

    2013, PhRvD, 88, 043002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043002

    Fairbairn, M. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 043002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043002 2013

  40. [40]

    G., & Stecker, F

    Fazio, G. G., & Stecker, F. W. 1970, Nature, 226, 135, doi: 10.1038/226135a0 Fermi-LAT Collaboration, Abdollahi, S., Ackermann, M., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1031, doi: 10.1126/science.aat8123

    work page doi:10.1038/226135a0 1970

  41. [41]

    D., Ajello, M., Dom´ ınguez, A., et al

    Finke, J. D., Ajello, M., Dom´ ınguez, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 33

    2022

  42. [42]

    D., & Razzaque, S

    Finke, J. D., & Razzaque, S. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1761

    2009

  43. [43]

    D., & Razzaque, S

    Finke, J. D., & Razzaque, S. 2023, ApJL, 942, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acade1 2023

  44. [44]

    D., Razzaque, S., & Dermer, C

    Finke, J. D., Razzaque, S., & Dermer, C. D. 2010, ApJ, 712, 238

    2010

  45. [45]

    D., Reyes, L

    Finke, J. D., Reyes, L. C., Georganopoulos, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 20

    2015

  46. [46]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  47. [47]

    2017, A&A, 603, A34

    Franceschini, A., & Rodighiero, G. 2017, A&A, 603, A34

    2017

  48. [48]

    2008, A&A, 487, 837

    Franceschini, A., Rodighiero, G., & Vaccari, M. 2008, A&A, 487, 837

    2008

  49. [49]

    D., & Reyes, L

    Georganopoulos, M., Finke, J. D., & Reyes, L. C. 2010, ApJL, 714, L157

    2010

  50. [50]

    C., Somerville, R

    Gilmore, R. C., Somerville, R. S., Primack, J. R., & Dom´ ınguez, A. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 3189

    2012

  51. [51]

    J., & Schr´ eder, G

    Gould, R. J., & Schr´ eder, G. P. 1967a, Physical Review, 155, 1408, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1408 —. 1967b, Physical Review, 155, 1404, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1404 Gr´ eaux, L., Biteau, J., & Nievas Rosillo, M. 2024, ApJL, 975, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad85c9

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1408 2024

  52. [52]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35

    2011

  53. [53]

    G., Arendt, R

    Hauser, M. G., Arendt, R. G., Kelsall, T., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 25

    1998

  54. [54]

    L., Chen, C.-C., & Barger, A

    Hsu, Q.-N., Cowie, L. L., Chen, C.-C., & Barger, A. J. 2024, ApJL, 964, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3421

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3421 2024

  55. [55]

    A., et al

    Inoue, Y., Inoue, S., Kobayashi, M. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 197

    2013

  56. [56]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 33

    Khaire, V., & Srianand, R. 2015, ApJ, 805, 33

    2015

  57. [57]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz174 , eprint =

    Khaire, V., & Srianand, R. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz174

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz174 2019

  58. [58]

    1999, ApJL, 518, L21, doi: 10.1086/312057 Klu´ zniak, W

    Kifune, T. 1999, ApJL, 518, L21, doi: 10.1086/312057 Klu´ zniak, W. 1999, Astroparticle Physics, 11, 117, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(99)00070-5

    work page doi:10.1086/312057 1999

  59. [59]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 2033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab540

    Koushan, S., Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab540 L´ ainez, M., Nievas-Rosillo, M., Dom´ ınguez, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11888

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab540 2021

  60. [60]

    R., Postman, M., Weaver, H

    Lauer, T. R., Postman, M., Weaver, H. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 77

    2021

  61. [61]

    R., et al

    Lauer, T. R., Postman, M., Spencer, J. R., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac573d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac573d 2022

  62. [62]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    2014

  63. [63]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    Madau, P., & Fragos, T. 2017, ApJ, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 2017

  64. [64]

    A., Scully, S

    Malkan, M. A., Scully, S. T., & Stecker, F. W. 2021, ApJ, 909, 52

    2021

  65. [65]

    A., Scully, S

    Malkan, M. A., Scully, S. T., & Stecker, F. W. 2021, ApJ, 909, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abda3f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda3f 2021

  66. [66]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 31

    Matsumoto, T., Matsuura, S., Murakami, H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 31

    2005

  67. [67]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 2

    Matsuura, S., Shirahata, M., Kawada, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 2

    2011

  68. [68]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 119, doi: 10.1086/375182 20 Mu˜ noz, J

    Mattila, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 119, doi: 10.1086/375182 20 Mu˜ noz, J. B., Mirocha, J., Chisholm, J., Furlanetto, S. R., & Mason, C. 2024, MNRAS, 535, L37, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086

    work page doi:10.1086/375182 2003

  69. [69]

    Nikishov, A. I. 1962, JETP, 393, 14

    1962

  70. [70]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 6128

    Paiano, S., Treves, A., Franceschini, A., & Falomo, R. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 6128

    2021

  71. [71]

    S., Dom´ ınguez, A., Cabello, C., et al

    Paliya, V. S., Dom´ ınguez, A., Cabello, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 903, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc06

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abbc06 2020

  72. [72]

    R., Parker, J

    Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Parker, J. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 95

    2024

  73. [73]

    2010 , month = jul, journal =

    Tavecchio, F. 2010, MNRAS, 405, L76, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00862.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00862.x 2010

  74. [74]

    J., & Meyer, H

    Protheroe, R. J., & Meyer, H. 2000, Physics Letters B, 493, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01113-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)01113-8 2000

  75. [75]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab96c4

    Rajagopal, M., Kaur, A., Ajello, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab96c4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab96c4 2020

  76. [76]

    2012, A&A, 538, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118159

    Rau, A., Schady, P., Greiner, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118159

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118159 2012

  77. [77]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe87b

    Rodrigues, X., Garrappa, S., Gao, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe87b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe87b 2021

  78. [78]

    G., et al

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Dom´ ınguez, A., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5144

    2021

  79. [79]

    Scargle, J. D. 1998, ApJ, 504, 405, doi: 10.1086/306064

    work page doi:10.1086/306064 1998

  80. [80]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1, doi: 10.1086/516585

    work page doi:10.1086/516585 2007

Showing first 80 references.