Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 82 references

Constraining Axion-Like Particles from observations of AGN B2 2234+28A and 3C 454.3

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that axion-photon oscillation improves the fit to very-high-energy gamma-ray spectra of two distant blazars, giving couplings near 1e-11 GeV^-1 and masses near 5e-8 eV.

desk verdict The abstract's B2A best-fit is statistically unsupported — the paper's own upper-limit caveat undercuts it — but the CLs exclusion and source-selection heuristic are worth a look. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08577 v1 pith:3YBEOZJX submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COhep-ph

Yu-Chong Chen , Siyu Chen , Wei-Cong Huang , Qing Yang , Hong-Hao Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords axion-likeparticlesALP-photonoscillationvery-high-energygammaraysflat-spectrumradioquasarsMarkovchainMonteCarloextragalacticbackgroundlightmagneticfieldcellularmodelblazarSEDfitting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that the very-high-energy $\gamma$-ray spectra of two distant flat-spectrum radio quasars, B2 2234+28A at $z=0.790$ and 3C 454.3 at $z=0.859$, carry a measurable imprint of axion-like particles. It combines Fermi-LAT and MAGIC data with a cellular model for magnetic fields and Markov chain Monte Carlo fitting, claiming that the ALP scenario fits the high-energy SEDs better than the no-ALP null hypothesis. The reported best-fit parameters are $g_{a\gamma}=3.05^{+0.51}_{-0.31}\times10^{-11}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ and $m_a=5.25^{+2.35}_{-2.65}\times10^{-8}\,\mathrm{eV}$ for B2A, and $g_{a\gamma}=7.40^{+2.65}_{-2.74}\times10^{-11}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ and $m_a=5.50^{+1.69}_{-2.17}\times10^{-8}\,\mathrm{eV}$ for 3C4. If the claim stands, these two sources also demonstrate a practical selection rule for finding other AGN that can tighten ALP limits, especially at low mass.

What carries the argument

The central object is the photon–axion conversion probability computed under the cellular model of galactic magnetic fields, in which each galaxy is divided into cells of scale $r$ with equal field strength but random directions. The mixing is governed by the matrix entries $\Delta_{a\gamma}$, $\Delta_a$, and $\Delta_{pl}$, giving the per-cell probability $P_0=(\Delta_{a\gamma}r)^2\,\sin^2(\Delta_{\mathrm{osc}}r/2)/(\Delta_{\mathrm{osc}}r/2)^2$ and the total conversion probability $P_{\gamma\to a}=\frac{1}{3}(1-e^{-3P_0L/2r})$. The detected fraction of a source's flux is $P_{\gamma\to\gamma}=P^S_{\gamma\to a}P^G_{a\to\gamma}+(1-P^S_{\gamma\to\gamma})e^{-\tau_{\gamma\gamma}}$, where the first term is the axion-regeneration channel and $e^{-\tau_{\gamma\gamma}}$ is the EBL absorption. A source-selection criterion uses the critical energy for conversion and demands photon energies near 0.5 TeV from sources at redshift 0.6–0.8, where the ALP transmission gain exceeds a factor of ten.

What would settle it

Re-fit the B2A SED treating its last seven MAGIC points as upper limits in a censored likelihood instead of the ordinary chi-square, or re-fit either source with an independently measured kpc-scale magnetic field; if the best-fit $g_{a\gamma}$ leaves the quoted $1\sigma$ intervals, the reported values are artifacts of those assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the high-energy excess seen in the SEDs of B2 2234+28A and 3C 454.3 is naturally accounted for by axion-photon conversion, with both sources yielding ALP masses near $5\times10^{-8}$ eV and couplings of a few $10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$. It further claims that the 95% confidence-level exclusion regions derived from these sources improve existing bounds in the small-mass part of the ALP parameter space. The paper presents the results as model-dependent constraints rather than a detection, and explicitly notes that the B2A result should be read as an upper threshold because its high-energy points are MAGIC upper limits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the last seven B2A spectral points can be fitted as ordinary measured fluxes even though they are only upper limits, and that the magnetic field in each source is 5 microgauss with 3-kiloparsec cells; if either is wrong, the fitted coupling shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the fits are right, ALP masses near $5\times10^{-8}$ eV and couplings of a few $10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$ can explain why very-high-energy photons from $z\simeq0.8$ blazars reach Earth despite EBL absorption.
  • The 95% CL exclusion regions from B2A and 3C4 extend existing bounds in the low-mass part of the ALP parameter space, where laboratory and other gamma-ray limits are weaker.
  • The selection rule (redshift 0.6–0.8, photon energy near 0.5 TeV) gives a concrete recipe for choosing additional AGN targets for ALP searches.
  • For 3C4, the ALP enhancement dominates the high-energy SED so strongly that the intrinsic cutoff energy $E_c$ is poorly constrained; more VHE detections would separate the two effects.
  • For B2A, the quoted coupling should be read as an upper threshold because the high-energy data are upper limits; actual detections would turn it into a two-sided measurement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper: because the conversion probability scales roughly as $(g_{a\gamma}B_T)^2$, a direct measurement of the kpc-scale magnetic field in either source would rescale the fitted couplings; for a $1\,\mu\mathrm{G}$ field instead of $5\,\mu\mathrm{G}$, the implied coupling would be roughly five times larger.
  • Going beyond the paper: treating the seven B2A upper limits with a censored likelihood rather than ordinary flux points would test whether the quoted best-fit $g_{a\gamma}$ survives; the paper itself says the result can only serve as an upper threshold.
  • Going beyond the paper: the same redshift–energy selection rule could be applied to a population of Fermi-LAT flat-spectrum radio quasars to build a stacked ALP constraint that averages over unknown source magnetic fields.
  • Going beyond the paper: if the ALP interpretation is correct, the predicted axion regeneration in the Milky Way should imprint a characteristic energy-dependent hardening that could be searched for in the spectra of all $z>0.6$ blazars under a single magnetic-field model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a model-dependent source-selection criterion based on the ALP-photon conversion critical energy and a redshift-energy window, and applies it to two flat-spectrum radio quasars, B2 2234+28A and 3C 454.3, using Fermi-LAT and MAGIC data. The authors perform Markov Chain Monte Carlo fits with a power-law-with-exponential-cutoff intrinsic spectrum and a cellular magnetic-field model, reporting best-fit ALP parameters gaγ = 3.05+0.51-0.31 × 10^-11 GeV^-1 and ma = 5.25+2.35-2.65 × 10^-8 eV for B2A, and gaγ = 7.40+2.65-2.74 × 10^-11 GeV^-1 and ma = 5.50+1.69-2.17 × 10^-8 eV for 3C 454.3, together with a CLs exclusion region. The central claim is that the ALP scenario provides a better description of the observed high-energy spectral energy distributions than the no-ALP null hypothesis.

Significance. The paper introduces a useful idea: selecting high-redshift AGNs in a specific redshift-energy window to maximize sensitivity to ALP-photon oscillations. The authors use publicly available Fermi-LAT and MAGIC data, provide a clear description of the propagation model, and explicitly compare their CLs exclusion region with CAST, HESS, and Fermi limits. The MCMC machinery and the CLs scan are standard and reproducible in principle. If the statistical treatment of upper limits and the magnetic-field systematics were corrected, the method could contribute meaningful constraints in the small-mass ALP parameter space. The authors' explicit admission in Section V.A that the B2A result is only an upper threshold is a candid limitation, but it is not reflected in the abstract.

major comments (6)
  1. [V.A and Eq. (16)] The last seven B2A SED points are upper limits, as stated in Section V.A, but Eq. (16) enters all points as symmetric Gaussian measurements. A model prediction below an upper limit is statistically consistent, yet the chi-square term penalizes it; entering the nominal upper-limit value as a central value biases the fit and the quoted gaγ. The paper itself concedes that the B2A result can only serve as an upper threshold, so the abstract's report of gaγ = 3.05+0.51-0.31 × 10^-11 GeV^-1 as a fit result is not supported. The fit should be redone with a censored likelihood or one-sided terms, and the B2A results should be presented only as upper limits.
  2. [V.B and Table I] The best-fit couplings for the two sources, gaγ = 3.05 × 10^-11 GeV^-1 and 7.40 × 10^-11 GeV^-1, do not agree within their quoted 68% intervals. Since ALP parameters are universal, two independent measurements should be consistent; the paper's statement that the difference 'may arise from our assumptions regarding the magnetic field' is not quantified. A joint fit or an explicit treatment of source-by-source systematics is needed before the results can be interpreted as constraints on a single ALP.
  3. [V.B and V.C] The 3C 454.3 best-fit gaγ = 7.40 × 10^-11 GeV^-1 lies above the CAST limit gaγ < 6.6 × 10^-11 GeV^-1 quoted later in the paper, yet the paper does not discuss this tension. A best-fit value in a region excluded by a laboratory experiment requires explanation; at minimum, the 3C 454.3 result should be reported as an upper limit with the CAST constraint overlaid.
  4. [III.A-B] The conversion probability depends sensitively on the assumed magnetic field, with Pγ→a ~ (gaγ BT)^2 in the small-mixing regime, but BT = 5 μG, r = 3 kpc, and L = 10r are set by hand without source-specific data. The MCMC uncertainties therefore include only statistical errors and not the dominant systematic uncertainty from the magnetic-field model. The authors should provide a systematic error budget or scan over plausible BT, r, and L values.
  5. [IV.B] The CLs procedure uses a threshold of χ²/d.o.f > 2.7 for 95% CL, but the justification is not given. For two fitted parameters, the 95% confidence region is usually defined by Δχ² = 5.99 relative to the minimum; the 'half-χ² distribution' in Eq. (18) is nonstandard and needs a derivation or a proper citation. Without this, the exclusion region in Fig. 10 may be incorrect.
  6. [V.A and Table I] The reduced chi-square for B2A is 3.38, which indicates a poor fit even with the ALP contribution. The paper does not report the null-hypothesis chi-square or a likelihood-ratio statistic, so the claim that the ALP scenario fits the high-energy data 'better' is not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III.B] The selection interval is z ∈ [0.6, 0.8], but 3C 454.3 has z = 0.859; the paper should explain why this source is included outside the stated interval.
  2. [Table I] Uncertainties are given in the text but not in the table; include the 68% intervals for all fitted parameters.
  3. [V.C and Fig. 10] Figure 10 caption and text disagree on which line corresponds to which source (B2A vs 3C 454.3); please check and make consistent.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'sectioin' (Section III.A), 'threotical' (Section III.A), 'F ermi-LAT' (multiple), 'souce's' (Section II.C), '3C 354.3' (Section V.C), and 'confidential level' (Section IV.A).
  5. [IV.A] The notation L = lp - χ²/2 in Eq. (17) should be defined; if lp is the log-prior, this is the log-posterior, but the text calls it the likelihood.
  6. [II.C] The sentence about not incorporating the term for unabsorbed photons converting to ALP before reception is unclear; 'reception area' should be 'Milky Way', and the statement that B_G = 0.5 μG is 'much less significant' should be quantified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fitted gaγ and ma values are outputs of an MCMC fit to external Fermi-LAT/MAGIC data, and no fitted quantity is recycled as an input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward model: the propagation probability in Eqs. (11)-(14) is evaluated at trial values of (gaγ, ma), and the MCMC likelihood in Eq. (16) compares the resulting SED with external Fermi-LAT and MAGIC fluxes. The best-fit values reported in Section V are outputs of that fit, not inputs. Eq. (15) and the reference point (gaγ = 2e-11 GeV^-1, ma = 1e-8 eV) are used only to select a redshift and energy window; they do not fix the fitted ALP parameters. The paper's self-citation [41] supplies a critical-energy estimate and a remark about M87, but the same formula is also attributed to the external reference [62], and it is not a uniqueness argument or an output-forcing input. The statement in Section V.A that the last seven B2A points are upper limits and that the B2A result can only serve as an upper threshold raises a legitimate statistical concern about how Eq. (16) treats those points, but treating an upper limit as a measurement is a data-treatment issue, not a circular reduction of the kind required by the hard rules. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing prediction is equivalent by construction to fitted data.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; ALPs are pre-existing theoretical objects. The central claim rests on several hand-set astrophysical parameters (magnetic field strength, cell size, path length), on the choice of intrinsic spectral model, and on a likelihood that mishandles upper limits. These inputs, not the ALP hypothesis itself, carry most of the uncertainty in the reported constraints.

free parameters (7)
  • gaγ (ALP-photon coupling) = 3.05+0.51-0.31 x 10^-11 GeV^-1 (B2A); 7.40+2.65-2.74 x 10^-11 GeV^-1 (3C4)
    MCMC fitted ALP-photon coupling, the central result. Degenerate with the assumed source magnetic field strength.
  • ma (ALP mass) = 5.25+2.35-2.65 x 10^-8 eV (B2A); 5.50+1.69-2.17 x 10^-8 eV (3C4)
    MCMC fitted ALP mass; weakly constrained at small ma where the coupling term dominates.
  • phi0 (PLC normalization) = 6.08 x 10^-12 TeV cm^-2 s^-1 (B2A); 1.49 x 10^-9 TeV cm^-2 s^-1 (3C4)
    Intrinsic spectral normalization from low-energy data; enters the theoretical flux in Eq. (14).
  • alpha (PLC photon index) = 2.13 (B2A); 2.34 (3C4)
    Intrinsic spectral slope, fitted along with the ALP parameters.
  • Ec (PLC cutoff energy) = 47 TeV (B2A); 46 TeV (3C4)
    Intrinsic cutoff energy; noted by the authors as degenerate with the ALP enhancement at high energies.
  • BT (source transverse magnetic field) = 5 μG (assumed)
    Chosen as a typical AGN value without source-specific data; conversion probability scales as (gaγ BT)^2, so the fitted coupling is directly tied to this hand-set value.
  • r, L (cellular model scales) = r = 3 kpc, L = 10r
    Cell size and total path length in the source galaxy, adopted by hand in Section III; changing them changes the conversion probability.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Standard ALP-photon mixing dynamics in a magnetic field (Raffelt-Stodolsky equations, Eqs. 2-11)
    Used throughout Section II to compute propagation probabilities; this is the accepted theoretical foundation of the analysis.
  • domain assumption Cellular model for galactic magnetic fields: equal field strength, random direction per cell
    Eqs. (11)-(12) from [57] approximate the source and Milky Way magnetic field structures; real AGN fields are not directly measured for these sources.
  • ad hoc to paper Source and Milky Way magnetic field parameters BT = 5 μG, r = 3 kpc, L = 10r
    Section III states there is no data on the two sources' magnetic field distributions, yet these values are taken as fixed inputs and dominate the normalization of the axion signal.
  • domain assumption Extragalactic background light attenuation model of Finke et al. 2022
    Adopted in Section II.C for e^-tau; different EBL models change the expected absorption and therefore the required ALP enhancement.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic source spectrum is a power law with exponential cutoff (PLC)
    Eq. (14) and Section II.C assume the unabsorbed SED follows this form; a different intrinsic model would change the inferred ALP parameters.
  • domain assumption Neglect of intergalactic magnetic field conversion; only source and Milky Way conversion are included
    Eq. (13) contains only source-to-axion and Milky-Way-to-photon probabilities; conversions in intervening magnetic fields are not modeled, which could alter the survival probability.
  • standard math Neglect of Faraday rotation and Cotton-Mouton effect for VHE photons
    Section II.A omits these terms following approximations in [52]; this is accepted for TeV photons but is still an assumption.
  • domain assumption MCMC likelihood with flat priors and symmetric chi-square for all data points including upper limits
    Eqs. (16)-(17) define the likelihood; treating upper limits as ordinary measurements is not statistically justified and is the main flaw in the B2A result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining Axion-Like Particles from observations of AGN B2 2234+28A and 3C 454.3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YBEOZJX

@misc{pith2026241108577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining Axion-Like Particles from observations of AGN B2 2234+28A and 3C 454.3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YBEOZJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08577}
}
abstract

Axion-photon oscillation effect provides a possible explanation for the presence of very-high-energy (VHE) $\gamma$-ray signals from distant sources. In this work, we propose a model-dependent method to select possible sources that may give sufficient constraints on the axion parameters. We investigate such effect in the spectra of active galactic nuclei (AGN) B2 2234+28A and 3C 454.3 based on data obtained from Fermi Large Area Telescope (Fermi-LAT) and MAGIC U.L. We utilize the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method to fit the axion parameters, yielding a result of $g_{a\gamma}=3.05^{+0.51}_{-0.31} \times 10^{-11}$ GeV$^{-1}$ for the axion-photon coupling strength and $m_{a}=5.25^{+2.35}_{-2.65} \times 10^{-8} $ eV for the axion mass. We also perform 95\% confidence level (CL) constraints to set an upper limit for $g_{a\gamma}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08577 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Contour plot for critical conversion energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Contour plot for transmission probability ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: SED of Mrk 421 F7 phase obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: SED of B2 2234+28A. The Green data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: SED of 3C 454.3. Green data points are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Constraints form the CLs method. Space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cp conser- vation in the presence of pseudoparticles

    Roberto D Peccei and Helen R Quinn. Cp conser- vation in the presence of pseudoparticles. Physical Review Letters, 38(25):1440, 1977

    1977

  2. [2]

    A new light boson? Physical Re- view Letters, 40(4):223, 1978

    Steven Weinberg. A new light boson? Physical Re- view Letters, 40(4):223, 1978

    1978

  3. [3]

    F. Wilczek. Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:279– 282, Jan 1978

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    The µ-problem and the strong cp-problem

    Jihn E Kim and Hans Peter Nilles. The µ-problem and the strong cp-problem. Physics Letters B, 138(1- 3):150–154, 1984

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    The strong cp problem revisited

    Hai-Yang Cheng. The strong cp problem revisited. Physics Reports, 158(1):1–89, 1988

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    Axions and the strong cp problem

    Jihn E Kim and Gianpaolo Carosi. Axions and the strong cp problem. Reviews of Modern Physics , 82(1):557–601, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Axions in string theory

    Peter Svrcek and Edward Witten. Axions in string theory. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2006(06):051, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    The Low- Energy Frontier of Particle Physics

    Joerg Jaeckel and Andreas Ringwald. The Low- Energy Frontier of Particle Physics. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. , 60:405–437, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Cos- mology of the invisible axion

    John Preskill, Mark B Wise, and Frank Wilczek. Cos- mology of the invisible axion. Physics Letters B , 120(1-3):127–132, 1983

    1983

  2. [10]

    The not-so- harmless axion

    Michael Dine and Willy Fischler. The not-so- harmless axion. Physics Letters B, 120(1-3):137–141, 1983

    1983

  3. [11]

    A cosmologi- cal bound on the invisible axion

    Laurence F Abbott and Pierre Sikivie. A cosmologi- cal bound on the invisible axion. Physics Letters B , 120(1-3):133–136, 1983

    1983

  4. [12]

    Axions as dark matter particles

    Leanne D Duffy and Karl Van Bibber. Axions as dark matter particles. New Journal of Physics , 11(10):105008, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles

    Georg Raffelt and Leo Stodolsky. Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles. Physical Review D , 37(5):1237, 1988

    1988

  6. [14]

    Opening the axion window

    David B Kaplan. Opening the axion window. Nuclear Physics B , 260(1):215–226, 1985

    1985

  7. [15]

    P. Sikivie. Experimental tests of the ”invisible” ax- ion. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 51:1415–1417, Oct 1983

    1983

  8. [16]

    Exper- imental searches for the axion and axion-like parti- cles

    Peter W Graham, Igor G Irastorza, Steven K Lam- oreaux, Axel Lindner, and Karl A van Bibber. Exper- imental searches for the axion and axion-like parti- cles. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science , 65(1):485–514, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Windows on the axion

    Michael S Turner. Windows on the axion. Physics Reports, 197(2):67–97, 1990

    1990

  10. [18]

    A decommissioned lhc model magnet as an axion telescope

    Konstantinos Zioutas, CE Aalseth, D Abriola, FT Avignone Iii, RL Brodzinski, JI Collar, R Creswick, DE Di Gregorio, H Farach, AO Gat- tone, et al. A decommissioned lhc model magnet as an axion telescope. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerato...

    1999

  11. [19]

    Results from the osqar photon- 9 regeneration experiment: No light shining through a wall

    Pierre Pugnat, Lionel Duvillaret, Remy Jost, Guy Vitrant, Daniele Romanini, Andrzej Siemko, Rafik Ballou, Bernard Barbara, Michael Finger, Miroslav Finger, et al. Results from the osqar photon- 9 regeneration experiment: No light shining through a wall. Physical Review D—Parti...

    2008

  12. [20]

    New exclusion limits on scalar and pseudoscalar axionlike particles from light shining through a wall

    R Ballou, G Deferne, M Finger Jr, M Fin- ger, L Flekova, J Hosek, S Kunc, K Macuchova, KA Meissner, P Pugnat, et al. New exclusion limits on scalar and pseudoscalar axionlike particles from light shining through a wall. Physical Review D , 92(9):092002, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Zavattini et al

    E. Zavattini et al. Experimental observation of op- tical rotation generated in vacuum by a magnetic field. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 96:110406, 2006. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 99, 129901 (2007)]

    2007

  14. [22]

    Bregant et al

    M. Bregant et al. Limits on Low Energy Photon- Photon Scattering from an Experiment on Magnetic Vacuum Birefringence. Phys. Rev. D , 78:032006, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Modeling the extragalactic background light from stars and dust

    Justin D Finke, Soebur Razzaque, and Charles D Dermer. Modeling the extragalactic background light from stars and dust. The Astrophysical Journal , 712(1):238, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Semi-analytic mod- elling of the extragalactic background light and consequences for extragalactic gamma-ray spectra

    Rudy C Gilmore, Rachel S Somerville, Joel R Pri- mack, and Alberto Dom ´ ınguez. Semi-analytic mod- elling of the extragalactic background light and consequences for extragalactic gamma-ray spectra. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 422(4):3189–3207, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    The extragalactic background light and the gamma-ray opacity of the universe

    Eli Dwek and Frank Krennrich. The extragalactic background light and the gamma-ray opacity of the universe. Astroparticle Physics, 43:112–133, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Cosmic gamma rays , volume

    Floyd William Stecker. Cosmic gamma rays , volume

  19. [27]

    Implications of cosmological gamma- ray absorption-ii

    Tanja M Kneiske, T Bretz, K Mannheim, and DH Hartmann. Implications of cosmological gamma- ray absorption-ii. modification of gamma-ray spectra. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 413(3):807–815, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Evidence for a new light spin-zero boson from cosmological gamma-ray propagation? Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 76(12):121301, 2007

    Alessandro De Angelis, Marco Roncadelli, and Ori- ana Mansutti. Evidence for a new light spin-zero boson from cosmological gamma-ray propagation? Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 76(12):121301, 2007

    2007

  21. [29]

    Detecting ax- ionlike particles with gamma ray telescopes

    Dan Hooper and Pasquale D Serpico. Detecting ax- ionlike particles with gamma ray telescopes. Physical Review Letters, 99(23):231102, 2007

    2007

  22. [30]

    Hints of the existence of axionlike particles from the gamma-ray spectra of cosmologi- cal sources

    MA S´ anchez-Conde, D Paneque, E Bloom, F Prada, and A Dominguez. Hints of the existence of axionlike particles from the gamma-ray spectra of cosmologi- cal sources. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 79(12):123511, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    Axion-like particles, cosmic magnetic fields and gamma-ray astrophysics

    Alessandro De Angelis, Oriana Mansutti, and Marco Roncadelli. Axion-like particles, cosmic magnetic fields and gamma-ray astrophysics. Physics Letters B, 659(5):847–855, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Ser- pico

    Melanie Simet, Dan Hooper, and Pasquale D. Ser- pico. Milky way as a kiloparsec-scale axionscope. Phys. Rev. D , 77:063001, Mar 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    On detecting oscillations of gamma rays into axion-like particles in turbulent and coherent mag- netic fields

    Manuel Meyer, Daniele Montanino, and Jan Con- rad. On detecting oscillations of gamma rays into axion-like particles in turbulent and coherent mag- netic fields. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014(09):003, sep 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Very high-energy gamma- ray emission beyond 10 tev from grb 221009a.Science Advances, 9(46):eadj2778, 2023

    LHAASO collaboration. Very high-energy gamma- ray emission beyond 10 tev from grb 221009a.Science Advances, 9(46):eadj2778, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Constraints on axion-like particles from the observation of GRB 221009A by LHAASO

    Lin-Qing Gao, Xiao-Jun Bi, Jun Li, Run-Min Yao, and Peng-Fei Yin. Constraints on axion-like particles from the observation of GRB 221009A by LHAASO. JCAP, 01:026, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Axion and dark photon limits from crab nebula high-energy gamma rays

    Xiaojun Bi, Yu Gao, Junguang Guo, Nick Houston, Tianjun Li, Fangzhou Xu, and Xin Zhang. Axion and dark photon limits from crab nebula high-energy gamma rays. Physical Review D , 103(4):043018, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Limits on axionlike par- ticles from mrk 421 with 4.5-year period observa- tions by argo-ybj and fermi-lat

    Hai-Jun Li, Jun-Guang Guo, Xiao-Jun Bi, Su-Jie Lin, and Peng-Fei Yin. Limits on axionlike par- ticles from mrk 421 with 4.5-year period observa- tions by argo-ybj and fermi-lat. Physical Review D , 103(8):083003, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Search- ing for axion-like particles with the blazar observa- tions of magic and fermi-lat

    Hai-Jun Li, Xiao-Jun Bi, and Peng-Fei Yin. Search- ing for axion-like particles with the blazar observa- tions of magic and fermi-lat. Chinese Physics C , 46(8):085105, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Con- straints on axion-like particles from the observation of galactic sources by the lhaaso

    Jun Li, Xiao-Jun Bi, Lin-Qing Gao, Xiaoyuan Huang, Run-Min Yao, and Peng-Fei Yin. Con- straints on axion-like particles from the observation of galactic sources by the lhaaso. Chinese Physics C , 48(6):065107, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Upper limit on the axion-photon coupling from Markarian

    Hai-Jun Li, Wei Chao, and Yu-Feng Zhou. Upper limit on the axion-photon coupling from Markarian

  33. [41]

    Probing µ ev alps with future lhaaso ob- servations of agn γ-ray spectra

    Guangbo Long, Siyu Chen, Shuo Xu, and Hong-Hao Zhang. Probing µ ev alps with future lhaaso ob- servations of agn γ-ray spectra. Physical Review D , 104(8):083014, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Observation of gamma-ray emission from the galaxy m87 above 250 gev with veritas

    V A Acciari, M Beilicke, G Blaylock, SM Bradbury, JH Buckley, V Bugaev, Y Butt, O Celik, A Cesarini, L Ciupik, et al. Observation of gamma-ray emission from the galaxy m87 above 250 gev with veritas. The Astrophysical Journal, 679(1):397, 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, W. B. At- wood, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Bar- biellini, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, Bona- mente, and Others. Fermi large area telescope gamma-ray detection of the radio gal...

    2009

  36. [44]

    Production of tev gamma radiation in the vicinity of the super- massive black hole in the giant radio galaxy m87.The Astrophysical Journal, 671(1):85, 2007

    Andrii Neronov and Felix A Aharonian. Production of tev gamma radiation in the vicinity of the super- massive black hole in the giant radio galaxy m87.The Astrophysical Journal, 671(1):85, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    Constraints on vhe gamma-ray emission of flat spectrum radio quasars with the magic telescopes

    MAGIC Collaboration et al. Constraints on vhe gamma-ray emission of flat spectrum radio quasars with the magic telescopes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13713, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    A. A. Abdo, Markus Ackermann, Marco Ajello, WB Atwood, Magnus Axelsson, Luca Baldini, Jean Ballet, Guido Barbiellini, Denis Bastieri, M Bat- telino, et al. Early fermi gamma-ray space telescope observations of the quasar 3c 454.3. The Astrophys- ical Journal, 699(1):817, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    The first fermi-lat catalog of sources above 10 gev

    Markus Ackermann, Marco Ajello, A Allafort, WB Atwood, Luca Baldini, Jean Ballet, Guido Bar- biellini, Denis Bastieri, K Bechtol, Aea Belfiore, et al. The first fermi-lat catalog of sources above 10 gev. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , 209(2):34, 2013. 10

    2013

  40. [48]

    Fermi-lat observations of high-energy γ-ray emission toward the galactic center

    M Ajello, Andrea Albert, WB Atwood, G Barbi- ellini, Denis Bastieri, K Bechtol, Ronaldo Bellazz- ini, E Bissaldi, RD Blandford, ED Bloom, et al. Fermi-lat observations of high-energy γ-ray emission toward the galactic center. The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 819(1):44, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Modelling the broad-band emission of 3c 454.3

    N Sahakyan. Modelling the broad-band emission of 3c 454.3. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504(4):5074–5086, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Observation of gamma rays from the galactic center with the magic telescope

    J Albert, E Aliu, H Anderhub, P Antoranz, A Ar- mada, M Asensio, C Baixeras, JA Barrio, M Bartelt, H Bartko, et al. Observation of gamma rays from the galactic center with the magic telescope. The Astrophysical Journal, 638(2):L101, 2006

    2006

  43. [51]

    The major upgrade of the magic telescopes, part ii: A performance study using observations of the crab nebula

    Jelena Aleksi´ c, Stefano Ansoldi, Lucio Angelo An- tonelli, P Antoranz, A Babic, P Bangale, M Barcel´ o, JA Barrio, J Becerra Gonz´ alez, W Bednarek, et al. The major upgrade of the magic telescopes, part ii: A performance study using observations of the crab nebula. Astropar...

    2016

  44. [52]

    Photon-axion conversion in intergalactic magnetic fields and cosmological consequences

    Alessandro Mirizzi, Georg G Raffelt1, and Pasquale D Serpico. Photon-axion conversion in intergalactic magnetic fields and cosmological consequences. In Axions: Theory, Cosmology, and Experimental Searches , pages 115–134. Springer, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    The cotton-mouton effect in gases: experiment and theory

    Carlo Rizzo, Antonio Rizzo, and David M Bishop. The cotton-mouton effect in gases: experiment and theory. International Reviews in Physical Chemistry , 16(1):81–111, 1997

    1997

  46. [54]

    On the cmb circular polarization: I

    Damian Ejlli. On the cmb circular polarization: I. the cotton–mouton effect. The European Physical Jour- nal C , 79(3):1–27, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Effects of axion-photon mixing on gamma-ray spectra from magnetized astrophysical sources

    Kathrin A Hochmuth and G¨ unter Sigl. Effects of axion-photon mixing on gamma-ray spectra from magnetized astrophysical sources. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 76(12):123011, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    Axion-photon conversion of grb221009a

    Luohan Wang and Bo-Qiang Ma. Axion-photon conversion of grb221009a. Physical Review D , 108(2):023002, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Ef- fects of initial axion production and photon–axion oscillation on type ia supernova dimming

    Yuval Grossman, Sourov Roy, and Jure Zupan. Ef- fects of initial axion production and photon–axion oscillation on type ia supernova dimming. Physics Letters B, 543(1-2):23–28, 2002

    2002

  50. [58]

    Modeling the extragalactic background light and the cosmic star formation history

    Justin D Finke, Marco Ajello, Alberto Dom ´ ınguez, Abhishek Desai, Dieter H Hartmann, Vaidehi S Paliya, and Alberto Saldana-Lopez. Modeling the extragalactic background light and the cosmic star formation history. The Astrophysical Journal , 941(1):33, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Measurement of the extragalactic background light imprint on the spectra of the brightest blazars observed with hess

    A Abramowski, Fabio Acero, F Aharonian, AG Akh- perjanian, G Anton, S Balenderan, Agn` es Balzer, Anna Barnacka, Yvonne Becherini, J Becker Tjus, et al. Measurement of the extragalactic background light imprint on the spectra of the brightest blazars observed with hess. Astron...

    2013

  52. [60]

    Long-term spectra of the blazars mrk 421 and mrk 501 at tev energies seen by hawc

    A Albert, R Alfaro, C Alvarez, JR Angeles Camacho, JC Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, KP Arunbabu, D Avila Ro- jas, HA Ayala Solares, V Baghmanyan, E Belmont- Moreno, et al. Long-term spectra of the blazars mrk 421 and mrk 501 at tev energies seen by hawc. The Astrophysical Journal, 929(...

    2022

  53. [61]

    Curvature in the very-high energy gamma-ray spectrum of m

    F Aharonian, F Ait Benkhali, J Aschersleben, H Ashkar, M Backes, V Barbosa Martins, R Batzofin, Y Becherini, D Berge, K Bernl¨ ohr, et al. Curvature in the very-high energy gamma-ray spectrum of m

  54. [62]

    Stochas- tic conversions of tev photons into axion-like particles in extragalactic magnetic fields

    Alessandro Mirizzi and Daniele Montanino. Stochas- tic conversions of tev photons into axion-like particles in extragalactic magnetic fields. Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics , 2009(12):004, 2009

    2009

  55. [63]

    Leonardo Mastrototaro, Pierluca Carenza, Marco Chianese, Damiano F. G. Fiorillo, Gennaro Miele, Alessandro Mirizzi, and Daniele Montanino. Con- straining axion-like particles with the diffuse gamma- ray flux measured by the large high altitude air shower observatory. The Europ...

    2022

  56. [64]

    Magnetic fields in galaxies

    Rainer Beck. Magnetic fields in galaxies. Space sci- ence reviews, 166(1):215–230, 2012

    2012

  57. [65]

    Galactic magnetic fields and hierarchical galaxy formation

    Luiz Felippe S Rodrigues, Anvar Shukurov, Andrew Fletcher, and CM Baugh. Galactic magnetic fields and hierarchical galaxy formation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450(4):3472–3489, 2015

    2015

  58. [66]

    4.5 years of multi- wavelength observations of mrk 421 during the argo- ybj and fermi common operation time

    Bruno Bartoli, Paolo Bernardini, XJ Bi, Z Cao, Sergio Catalanotti, SZ Chen, TL Chen, SW Cui, BZ Dai, Antonio D’Amone, et al. 4.5 years of multi- wavelength observations of mrk 421 during the argo- ybj and fermi common operation time. The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Seri...

    2016

  59. [67]

    Leptohadronic multi-messenger mod- eling of 324 gamma-ray blazars

    Xavier Rodrigues, Vaidehi S Paliya, Simone Gar- rappa, Anastasiia Omeliukh, Anna Franckowiak, and Walter Winter. Leptohadronic multi-messenger mod- eling of 324 gamma-ray blazars. Astronomy & Astro- physics, 681:A119, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    blazar zone

    Marek Sikora, Rafa Moderski, and Greg M Made- jski. 3c 454.3 reveals the structure and physics of its “blazar zone”. The Astrophysical Journal, 675(1):71, 2008

    2008

  61. [69]

    Multiband variability analysis of 3c 454.3 and implications for the center structure

    HZ Li, LE Chen, TF Yi, YG Jiang, X Chen, LZ L¨ u, and KY Li. Multiband variability analysis of 3c 454.3 and implications for the center structure. Pub- lications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , 127(947):1, 2015

    2015

  62. [70]

    Magnetic fields in spiral galaxies

    Rainer Beck. Magnetic fields in spiral galaxies. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review , 24(1):4, 2016

    2016

  63. [71]

    emcee: the mcmc hammer

    Daniel Foreman-Mackey, David W Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman. emcee: the mcmc hammer. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , 125(925):306, 2013

    2013

  64. [72]

    Gammapy-a pro- totype for the cta science tools

    Christoph Deil, Roberta Zanin, Julien Lefaucheur, Catherine Boisson, Bruno Kh´ elifi, R´ egis Ter- rier, Matthew Wood, Lars Mohrmann, Nachiketa Chakraborty, Jason Watson, et al. Gammapy-a pro- totype for the cta science tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.01751, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Gammapy: A python package for gamma-ray astronomy

    Axel Donath, R´ egis Terrier, Quentin Remy, Atreyee Sinha, Cosimo Nigro, Fabio Pintore, Bruno Kh´ elifi, Laura Olivera-Nieto, Jose Enrique Ruiz, Kai Br¨ ugge, et al. Gammapy: A python package for gamma-ray astronomy. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 678:A157, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    me-manu/ebltable: ebltable: Python packages to read in and interpolate tables of the ex- tragalactic background light

    Manuel Meyer. me-manu/ebltable: ebltable: Python packages to read in and interpolate tables of the ex- tragalactic background light. https://github.com/ 11 me-manu/ebltable. Accessed November 10, 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlim- its

    Ciaran O’Hare. cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlim- its. https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/, July 2020

    2020

  68. [76]

    Constraints on axion-like parti- cles from the observation of grb 221009a by lhaaso

    Lin-Qing Gao, Xiao-Jun Bi, Jun Li, Run-Min Yao, and Peng-Fei Yin. Constraints on axion-like parti- cles from the observation of grb 221009a by lhaaso. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2024(01):026, 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    New cast limit on the axion-photon interaction

    V Anastassopoulos, S Aune, K Barth, A Belov, G Cantatore, JM Carmona, JF Castel, SA Cetin, F Christensen, JI Collar, et al. New cast limit on the axion-photon interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02290, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Constraints on axionlike par- ticles with hess from the irregularity¡? format?¿ of the pks 2155-304 energy spectrum

    Attila Abramowski, Fabio Acero, F Aharonian, Faical Ait Benkhali, AG Akhperjanian, E Ang¨ uner, Gisela Anton, Shangkari Balenderan, Agn` es Balzer, Anna Barnacka, et al. Constraints on axionlike par- ticles with hess from the irregularity¡? format?¿ of the pks 2155-304 energy ...

    2013

  71. [79]

    Search for spectral irregularities due to photon–axionlike- particle oscillations with the fermi large area tele- scope

    M Ajello, A Albert, Brandon Anderson, Luca Bal- dini, G Barbiellini, Denis Bastieri, R Bellazzini, E Bissaldi, RD Blandford, ED Bloom, et al. Search for spectral irregularities due to photon–axionlike- particle oscillations with the fermi large area tele- scope. Physical Revie...

    2016

  72. [80]

    Magic gamma-ray telescope observation of the perseus clus- ter of galaxies: Implications for cosmic rays, dark matter, and ngc 1275

    Jelena Aleksi´ c, LA Antonelli, P Antoranz, M Backes, C Baixeras, S Balestra, JA Barrio, Denis Bastieri, J Becerra Gonz´ alez, W Bednarek, et al. Magic gamma-ray telescope observation of the perseus clus- ter of galaxies: Implications for cosmic rays, dark matter, and ngc 1275...

    2010

  73. [87]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , 685:A96, 2024

    2024

  74. [249]

    Scientific and Technical Information Office, Na- tional Aeronautics and Space . . . , 1971

    1971

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.