pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09397 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

A TeV-based Determination of the Local Extragalactic Background Light and its Consistency with Galaxy Counts and Direct Measurements

J. Baxter , A. Dominguez , J. D. Finke , A. Desai , M. Ajello , A. Banerjee , Dieter Hartmann , Vaidehi S. Paliya
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords extragalactic background lightgamma-ray attenuationTeV gamma raysEBL reconstructiongalaxy countsnear-infrared excesspair production
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gamma-ray attenuation from 45 distant sources shows the local extragalactic background light matches integrated galaxy light and rules out the reported near-infrared excess.

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

The paper analyzes very-high-energy gamma-ray spectra from 45 sources to measure the local extragalactic background light through pair-production attenuation. It reconstructs the EBL intensity at z=0 using template-marginalized optical depths combined with GeV data, finding agreement with integrated galaxy light to within 2-3 nW m^{-2} sr^{-1} over 0.5-30 μm. The results align with low-zodiacal-light direct measurements but show the near-IR excess from IRTS and CIBER exceeds the reconstruction by 3-5 sigma, making it incompatible with the observed gamma-ray attenuation. This provides a VHE-anchored determination of the local EBL that leaves limited room for additional diffuse components beyond known galaxies.

Core claim

A sample of 268 spectra from 45 VHE sources is used in a model-dependent study showing seven EBL templates require only ≤10% rescaling to fit the data, with the galaxy-count-anchored model matching closest. Template-marginalized TeV optical depths are combined with Fermi-LAT GeV measurements to reconstruct the local EBL, which follows integrated galaxy light within 2-3 nW m^{-2} sr^{-1} (typically <25%) over 0.5-30 μm while the IRTS/CIBER excess exceeds it by 3-5σ.

What carries the argument

Pair-production optical depth extracted from VHE gamma-ray spectral steepening, marginalized over EBL templates and combined with GeV constraints to reconstruct local EBL intensity.

If this is right

  • Seven standard EBL templates fit the gamma-ray attenuation data after at most 10% rescaling, and the galaxy-count-anchored model provides the best match.
  • The reconstructed local EBL intensity agrees with integrated galaxy light to within 2-3 nW m^{-2} sr^{-1} over 0.5-30 μm.
  • The near-IR excess reported by IRTS and CIBER exceeds the reconstructed intensity by 3-5 sigma and is incompatible with the gamma-ray optical depths.
  • Combined with GeV constraints on EBL evolution to z ≃ 4, the TeV data yield a VHE-anchored determination of the local EBL consistent with known galaxy populations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This leaves limited room for any additional diffuse component in the optical and near-IR background beyond known galaxies.
  • The approach could be extended with more distant sources to constrain EBL evolution at higher redshifts.
  • It directly links gamma-ray propagation observations to models of galaxy formation and cosmic star-formation history.

Load-bearing premise

The intrinsic unattenuated spectra of the 45 gamma-ray sources can be modeled accurately enough that any observed steepening is attributable solely to EBL pair-production attenuation.

What would settle it

Independent measurement of the intrinsic spectra for one or more of these sources showing attenuation levels inconsistent with the reconstructed EBL optical depths would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09397 by A. Banerjee, A. Desai, A. Dominguez, Dieter Hartmann, J. Baxter, J. D. Finke, M. Ajello, Vaidehi S. Paliya.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Reconstructed optical depth τ as a function of γ-ray energy in four redshift bins: top left (0.01 < z < 0.03), top right (0.03 < z < 0.1), bottom left (0.1 < z < 0.4), and bottom right (0.4 < z < 0.95). Blue data points show the results of this work, with vertical error bars indicating 1σ statistical uncertainties and horizontal bars representing the energy binning. Predictions from EBL models are overplot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stacked ∆TS as a function of the EBL scaling fac￾tor α for the four models used in the optical depth measure￾ment: Dom´ınguez et al. (2011), Franceschini & Rodighiero (2017), Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021), and Finke et al. (2022). Vertical dashed lines mark the best-fit α for each model. that the TeV data do not require any substantial addi￾tional diffuse component on top of the resolved galaxy light. Nevert… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spectral energy distribution of the EBL at z = 0. Top panel: reconstruction from our physically motivated EBL model (red shaded region denoting the 68% confidence interval). Bottom panel: empirical reconstruction (blue shaded region), shown together with the result of Desai et al. (2019, green band). In both panels, γ-ray-based constraints from H.E.S.S. (H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al. 2017), MAGIC+Fermi-… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Residual between our γ-ray derived extragalactic background light intensity and IGL measurements (Driver et al. 2016; Koushan et al. 2021) at z = 0. Panels display, from top to bottom, the residual Ri = νIIGL ν,i − νIγray ν,i , the corresponding Z-score, and the two-sided p-value as a function of wavelength. Results are presented for both the empirical reconstruction and the physical one. The horizontal gr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Residual comparison between direct measurements of the EBL and γ-ray reconstructions. The left column shows results for the empirical reconstruction, and the right column shows the physical forward model. Panels display, from top to bottom, the residual Ri = νIIGL ν,i − νIγray ν,i , the corresponding Z-score, and the two-sided p-value as a function of wavelength. Markers indicate data from different instru… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of the EBL that may remain as a dif￾fuse component in three broad wavelength bands, computed as fdiffuse = (Iγ − IIGL)/Iγ from the reconstructed γ-ray EBL intensities (empirical and physical models) and the in￾tegrated galaxy light. Points are shown at the geometric mean wavelength of each band, with small horizontal offsets for clarity. tory. A. Desai was supported by an appointment to the NASA P… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The extragalactic background light (EBL), the cumulative radiation from all extragalactic sources, traces galaxy formation and cosmic evolution. High-energy $\gamma$ rays attenuated via pair production with EBL photons are a powerful probe of the EBL. In this work, we use very-high-energy (VHE; $E_\gamma > 100\,\mathrm{GeV}$) $\gamma$ rays to measure the local EBL intensity and test its consistency with galaxy counts and direct measurements. Our analysis employs a sample of 268 spectra from 45 sources observed with Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes. A model-dependent study shows seven EBL templates require only $\le 10\%$ rescaling to fit the observed $\gamma$-ray attenuation. The galaxy-count-anchored model gives the closest match. We then derive template-marginalized TeV optical depths from a representative model subset. We combine them with \textit{Fermi}-LAT GeV measurements to reconstruct the EBL at $z = 0$ using empirical and physically motivated models. The two reconstructions agree and follow the integrated galaxy light to within $2$--$3\,\mathrm{nW\,m^{-2}\,sr^{-1}}$ (typically $<25\%$) over $0.5$--$30\,\mu$m. Both are consistent with low-zodiacal-light observations, including outer solar system and dark cloud measurements. In contrast, the near-IR excess reported by IRTS and CIBER exceeds our reconstructed intensity by $3$--$5\sigma$, implying an additional $\gtrsim 5$--$10\,\mathrm{nW\,m^{-2}\,sr^{-1}}$ incompatible with the $\gamma$-ray optical depths. Combined with GeV constraints on EBL evolution to $z \simeq 4$, these TeV optical depths provide a VHE-anchored determination of the local EBL intensity. The agreement with galaxy counts and deep-space measurements indicates that known galaxy populations account for most of the optical and near-IR background, leaving limited room for an additional diffuse component.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims a TeV-based reconstruction of the local EBL intensity from 268 VHE spectra of 45 sources, showing that seven EBL templates require only ≤10% rescaling to match the observed attenuation. Template-marginalized optical depths combined with Fermi-LAT GeV data yield an EBL spectrum consistent with integrated galaxy light to within 2–3 nW m^{-2} sr^{-1} (typically <25%) from 0.5–30 μm. This reconstruction is incompatible at 3–5σ with the near-IR excess reported by IRTS and CIBER, implying an additional diffuse component ≳5–10 nW m^{-2} sr^{-1} that would violate the gamma-ray optical depths.

Significance. If the result holds, the work supplies a valuable independent, VHE-anchored constraint on the local EBL that aligns with galaxy counts and low-zodiacal-light direct measurements. It supports the conclusion that known galaxy populations account for most of the optical/near-IR background and limits the allowed intensity of any additional diffuse component. The large sample size, template marginalization, and joint use of TeV and GeV data are methodological strengths that enhance the robustness of the optical-depth reconstruction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (VHE spectral fitting and optical-depth derivation)] The central claim that observed spectral steepening above ~100 GeV is produced exclusively by EBL pair-production attenuation (rather than source-intrinsic curvature) is load-bearing for the entire reconstruction and the 3–5σ discrepancy result. The manuscript reports ≤10% rescaling of EBL templates but does not present explicit tests or limits on possible intrinsic curvature from SSC/EC components or redshift-dependent effects that could be absorbed into the derived optical depths.
  2. [Results (EBL reconstruction and direct-measurement comparison)] The 3–5σ incompatibility with the IRTS/CIBER near-IR excess is a key quantitative result, yet the propagation of uncertainties—including those from template marginalization, the representative model subset, and the joint GeV constraints—is not detailed. This makes it impossible to verify whether the quoted significance is robust or sensitive to analysis choices.
minor comments (3)
  1. Data selection criteria for the 45 sources and 268 spectra (e.g., redshift cuts, spectral quality thresholds, or exclusion of sources with known intrinsic features) are not fully specified, hindering reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'a representative model subset' without listing the models or the quantitative criteria used for selection; this should be clarified in the methods.
  3. A summary table of the 45 sources (redshifts, observation details, fitted parameters) would improve clarity and allow readers to assess the sample homogeneity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work's significance and for the detailed major comments. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional tests and details as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (VHE spectral fitting and optical-depth derivation)] The central claim that observed spectral steepening above ~100 GeV is produced exclusively by EBL pair-production attenuation (rather than source-intrinsic curvature) is load-bearing for the entire reconstruction and the 3–5σ discrepancy result. The manuscript reports ≤10% rescaling of EBL templates but does not present explicit tests or limits on possible intrinsic curvature from SSC/EC components or redshift-dependent effects that could be absorbed into the derived optical depths.

    Authors: We agree that explicit tests for intrinsic curvature would further strengthen the robustness of the optical-depth derivation. While the large sample (268 spectra from 45 sources) and marginalization over seven EBL templates already reduce the scope for source-specific effects to bias the ensemble result, we will add a dedicated subsection in the revised Methods section. This will include: (i) fits with and without EBL attenuation to quantify residual curvature, (ii) limits on SSC/EC-like components by examining spectral residuals, and (iii) redshift-binned analyses to check for any z-dependent systematics. These additions will directly address the concern without altering the central conclusions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (EBL reconstruction and direct-measurement comparison)] The 3–5σ incompatibility with the IRTS/CIBER near-IR excess is a key quantitative result, yet the propagation of uncertainties—including those from template marginalization, the representative model subset, and the joint GeV constraints—is not detailed. This makes it impossible to verify whether the quoted significance is robust or sensitive to analysis choices.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a more explicit description of uncertainty propagation is needed to allow verification of the 3–5σ result. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Results and Methods sections with: (i) a step-by-step account of how template-marginalization uncertainties, model-subset selection, and Fermi-LAT GeV constraints are combined into the final EBL intensity errors; (ii) sensitivity tests varying the representative model subset and analysis choices; and (iii) a quantitative breakdown showing how these propagate into the discrepancy significance with IRTS/CIBER. This will make the robustness assessment transparent while preserving the reported level of incompatibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation uses independent VHE spectra and external galaxy-count models with no reduction to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper derives template-marginalized TeV optical depths from 268 spectra of 45 sources, then combines them with Fermi-LAT GeV data to reconstruct local EBL intensity via empirical and physically motivated models. This is compared to integrated galaxy light from external counts and direct measurements. No quoted step equates a prediction or result to its own fitted inputs or self-citations by definition; rescaling of seven EBL templates is data-driven and the galaxy-count-anchored template is one external input among others. The central agreement claim (within 2-3 nW m^{-2} sr^{-1}) rests on new attenuation measurements rather than tautological renaming or self-referential fitting.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard gamma-ray propagation physics and EBL template libraries from prior work; the only notable free parameters are the small rescaling factors applied to the seven templates.

free parameters (1)
  • EBL template rescaling factors
    Seven templates are allowed to rescale by ≤10% to fit the observed attenuation; these factors are fitted to the gamma-ray data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Pair production with EBL photons is the dominant attenuation process for VHE gamma rays above 100 GeV
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the basis for using gamma-ray spectra to probe EBL.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5724 in / 1372 out tokens · 38104 ms · 2026-05-10T17:11:33.855437+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

55 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aat8123 2018

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 680, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346927

    Abe, H., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346927

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346927 2023

  4. [4]

    U., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4817

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4817 2019

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Acciari, V. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz943

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz943 2019

  6. [6]

    2021, VTSCat: The VERITAS Catalog of Gamma-Ray Observations, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4723219

    Acharyya, A., et al. 2021, VTSCat: The VERITAS Catalog of Gamma-Ray Observations, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4723219

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4723219 2021

  7. [7]

    B., Archer, A., et al

    Acharyya, A., Adams, C. B., Archer, A., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 6, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acb147

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acb147 2023

  8. [8]

    2012, Science, 338, 1190, doi: 10.1126/science.1227160

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 1190, doi: 10.1126/science.1227160

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1227160 2012

  9. [9]

    2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 457, 899, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065351

    Aharonian, F., et al. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 457, 899, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065351

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065351 2006

  10. [10]

    A., Coppi, P

    Aharonian, F. A., Coppi, P. S., & Voelk, H. J. 1994, ApJL, 423, L5, doi: 10.1086/187222 Aleksi´ c, J., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 76, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.02.005 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ...

    work page doi:10.1086/187222 1994

  11. [11]

    K., & Glazebrook, K

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

    work page doi:10.1086/376502 2003

  12. [12]

    D., Ajello, M., et al

    Banerjee, A., Finke, J. D., Ajello, M., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal

    2026

  13. [13]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 39

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

    2022

  14. [14]

    Biteau, J., & Williams, D. A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/60 2015

  15. [15]

    Breit, G., & Wheeler, J. A. 1934, Phys. Rev., 46, 1087, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.46.1087

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.46.1087 1934

  16. [16]

    doi:10.1098/rsos.150555 , eprint =

    Cooray, A. 2016, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150555, doi: 10.1098/rsos.150555

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.150555 2016

  17. [17]

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

    Desai, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 874, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c10 Dom´ ınguez, A., & Ajello, M. 2015, ApJL, 813, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L34 Dom´ ınguez, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2556, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17631.x Dom´ ınguez, A., Østergaard Kirkeberg, P., Wojtak, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3425 Dom...

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

  18. [18]

    P., et al

    Driver, S. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 108

    2016

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    D., et al

    Finke, J. D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9843

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9843 2022

  21. [21]

    Application to the calibration of bright galaxy counts

    Fioc, M., & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1997, A&A, 326, 950, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9707017

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9707017 1997

  22. [22]

    and Lang, Dustin and Goodman, Jonathan , title =

    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

  23. [23]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 603, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629684

    Franceschini, A., & Rodighiero, G. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 603, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629684

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629684 2017

  24. [24]

    2012 , month = apr, journal =

    Gilmore, R. C., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 3189, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20841.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20841.x 2012

  25. [25]

    J., & Schr´ eder, G

    Gould, R. J., & Schr´ eder, G. 1966, Physical Review Letters, 16, 252

    1966

  26. [26]

    J., & Schr´ eder, G

    Gould, R. J., & Schr´ eder, G. P. 1967, Physical Review, 155, 1408, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1408 Gr´ eaux, L., Biteau, J., Hassan, T., et al. 2023, STeVECat: The Spectral TeV Extragalactic Catalog, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8152245 Gr´ eaux, L., Biteau, J., Hassan, T., et al. 2024a, in 7th Heidelberg International Symposium on High-Energy Gamma-Ray Ast...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1408 1967

  27. [27]

    K., Mattila, K., & V¨ ais¨ anen, P

    Haikala, L. K., Mattila, K., & V¨ ais¨ anen, P. 2026, A&A, 706, A358, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557566

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557566 2026

  28. [28]

    G., et al

    Hauser, M. G., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 25, doi: 10.1086/306379

    work page doi:10.1086/306379 1998

  29. [29]

    W., & Scott, D

    Hill, R., Masui, K. W., & Scott, D. 2018, Applied Spectroscopy, 72, 663, doi: 10.1177/0003702818767133

    work page doi:10.1177/0003702818767133 2018

  30. [30]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 197, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/197

    Inoue, Y., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 197, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/197

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/197 2013

  31. [31]

    M., & Dole, H

    Kneiske, T. M., & Dole, H. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 515, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912000

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912000 2010

  32. [32]

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

    Koushan, S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 2033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab540

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab540 2021

  33. [34]

    R., Postman, M., Weaver, H

    Lauer, T. R., Postman, M., Weaver, H. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc881

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc881 2021

  34. [35]

    R., et al

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

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

  35. [36]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  36. [37]

    G., Pyo, J., & Tsumura, K

    Matsumoto, T., Kim, M. G., Pyo, J., & Tsumura, K. 2015, ApJ, 807, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/57 2015

  37. [38]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, 31, doi: 10.1086/429383

    Matsumoto, T., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 626, 31, doi: 10.1086/429383

    work page doi:10.1086/429383 2005

  38. [39]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/119

    Matsuoka, Y., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/119 2011

  39. [40]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/2

    Matsuura, S., Shirahata, M., Kawada, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/2

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/2 2011

  40. [41]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6843

    Matsuura, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6843

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6843 2017

  41. [42]

    Quantum error correction: an introductory guide,

    Mattila, K., & V¨ ais¨ anen, P. 2019, Contemporary Physics, 60, 23, doi: 10.1080/00107514.2019.1586130

    work page doi:10.1080/00107514.2019.1586130 2019

  42. [43]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1295

    Mattila, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1295

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1295 2017

  43. [44]

    S., Ajello, M., Cao, H.-M., et al

    Paliya, V. S., Ajello, M., Cao, H.-M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1a 2020

  44. [45]

    2015, in Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1508.07070

    Park, N. 2015, in Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1508.07070

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1508.07070 2015

  45. [46]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology, doi: 10.1515/9780691206721

    work page doi:10.1515/9780691206721 1993

  46. [47]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, 103501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103501

    Porras-Bedmar, S., Meyer, M., & Horns, D. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 103501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.103501 2024

  47. [48]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 95

    Postman, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 95

    2024

  48. [49]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 5144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2393

    Saldana-Lopez, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2393

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2393 2021

  49. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa37

    Symons, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaa37 2023

  50. [51]

    A., et al

    Tompkins, S. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.03412, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.03412

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.03412 2025

  51. [52]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  52. [53]

    H., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al

    Weiss, L. H., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc0f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc0f9 2025

  53. [54]

    Wilks, S. S. 1938, Annals Math. Statist., 9, 60, doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177732360

    work page doi:10.1214/aoms/1177732360 1938

  54. [55]

    A., et al

    Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac82af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac82af 2022

  55. [56]

    Wright, E. L. 2001, ApJ, 553, 538, doi: 10.1086/320942

    work page doi:10.1086/320942 2001