Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Monte Carlo simulation of GRB data to test Lorentz-invariance violation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GRB time delays need an energy-dependent intrinsic term before Lorentz-violation claims hold.

desk verdict A careful but self-referential Monte Carlo closure test that overstates model discrimination because the mock data are far denser than the real 17-photon sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15685 v2 pith:AANZJRI2 submitted 2025-04-22 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Hanlin Song , Bo-Qiang Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords Lorentzinvarianceviolationgamma-rayburstsspectrallagintrinsictimedelayBayesianparameterestimationTeVphotonGRB221009AsubluminalLVscale
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

This paper argues that previous claims of Lorentz-invariance violation from gamma-ray burst (GRB) photon lags rest on an incomplete model. It compares three delay models and shows, through Monte Carlo mock datasets and Bayesian fits, that only a model combining a Lorentz-violating (LV) propagation delay with an energy-dependent intrinsic emission delay (Model C) recovers the injected parameters in all simulated universes. Simpler alternatives—LV plus a constant intrinsic delay (Model A) or energy-dependent intrinsic delay without LV (Model B)—fail badly on datasets generated by the other mechanism, with tensions above 4.7σ. Applied to 14 Fermi-LAT multi-GeV photons plus three TeV photons, Model C yields a subluminal LV scale $E_{\rm LV} \simeq 3\times 10^{17}$ GeV, consistent with earlier Fermi-LAT constraints. The practical stake: if right, future LV searches must jointly fit source physics and propagation effects or they will mistake astrophysics for quantum gravity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combined delay relation $\Delta t_{\rm obs}/(1+z) = a_{\rm LV} K_1 + \alpha E_{h,s} + \mu$ (with scatter $\upsilon$), which unifies the LV propagation term and a linear intrinsic emission delay. A Taylor-expansion argument motivates the intrinsic term: any analytic source-frame emission time can be expanded in powers of energy, and fits to real data drive the quadratic and cubic coefficients to zero, leaving the linear term $\alpha$. The redshift function $f(z)$ in the single-burst form $C = a_{\rm LV} f(z) + \alpha$ shows that $a_{\rm LV}$ and $\alpha$ are completely degenerate for photons from one GRB; the degeneracy is broken only by combining multiple GRBs at different redshifts, which is what the multi-GRB likelihood does. On top of this, the mock-data machinery draws 1000 high-energy photons per burst from the GRB 221009A spectrum and repeats generation-plus-fit 250 times with different noise seeds to suppress sampling bias.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the 14+3 real photons with a model that lets $\alpha$ vary per GRB or adds a quadratic intrinsic term; if the posterior for $a_{\rm LV}$ then includes zero or the bound moves above the Planck scale, the claimed $3\times 10^{17}$ GeV detection would not survive. Alternatively, a future bright GRB with many TeV photons whose Model-C fit forces $\alpha$ consistent with zero would remove the need for the energy-dependent intrinsic delay.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed arrival-time lags of high-energy GRB photons are best described by Model C: $\Delta t_{\rm obs}/(1+z) = a_{\rm LV} K_1 + \alpha E_{h,s} + \Delta t_{\rm in,c}$, where $a_{\rm LV}=1/E_{\rm LV}$ is the inverse LV scale, $K_1$ a redshift-dependent propagation factor, and $\alpha E_{h,s}$ an intrinsic delay linear in source-frame energy. Using mock datasets generated under each of the three models and analyzed with the same Bayesian machinery, the paper reports that Model C recovers the injected $a_{\rm LV}$ and $\alpha$ within 1σ for all three datasets, while Models A and B show >4.7σ biases when applied to data generated under an alternative mechanism (up to 12σ for $\alpha$ in some cases). On real data—14 Fermi-LAT photons from eight GRBs plus the 99.3 GeV, 1.07 TeV, and 12.2 TeV photons from GRB 221009A and GRB 190114C—Model C gives a consistent subluminal scale $E_{\rm LV} \simeq 3\times 10^{17}$ GeV, with a negative $\alpha$ indicating high-energy photons are emitted earlier in the source frame. The paper therefore positions Model C as the generalized framework for future LV searches.

Load-bearing premise

The headline conclusions rest on mock datasets with 1000 high-energy photons per GRB, whereas the real data contain only 17 photons; if the simulated data are not representative of the sparse real observations, the claimed failures of Models A and B may be overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Model C is correct, earlier analyses that assumed a constant intrinsic delay (Model A) systematically overestimate the LV scale by absorbing energy-dependent source delays into $a_{\rm LV}$.
  • Energy-dependent intrinsic delays must be included in all future LV fits; without them, fits to TeV photons and multi-GeV photons cannot be reconciled.
  • The LV scale $E_{\rm LV} \simeq 3 \times 10^{17}$ GeV (subluminal, $n=1$) is consistent across Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, and LHAASO data, making it a cross-instrument constraint.
  • The negative $\alpha$ under Model C implies that high-energy photons are emitted before low-energy photons in the GRB source frame, a physical claim about jet emission.
  • Next-generation TeV observatories such as LHAASO and CTA can use Model C for joint $(E_{\rm LV},\alpha,z)$ reconstruction with roughly a thousand GRBs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the source-frame intrinsic delay is truly linear in energy, the same Model-C machinery could be applied to other transients, such as fast radio bursts or AGN flares, where a similar degeneracy between propagation and emission effects exists.
  • The paper's mock GRBs contain 1000 high-energy photons each, whereas the real dataset has only 17 photons; a natural follow-up is to re-run the recovery tests with realistic sparse samples to see how the >4.7σ verdicts scale.
  • A testable prediction is that the inferred $\alpha$ should remain stable as more GRBs are added; if $\alpha$ drifts toward zero with a larger sample, the claimed LV scale would need upward revision.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a Monte Carlo study of three competing time-delay models for gamma-ray burst (GRB) spectral lags in the context of Lorentz-invariance violation (LV): Model A (LV delay plus a constant intrinsic delay), Model B (energy-dependent intrinsic delay only), and Model C (LV delay plus a linear energy-dependent intrinsic delay). Mock datasets of ten GRBs, each containing 1000 high-energy photons drawn from a GRB 221009A-like spectrum, are generated under each model, and Bayesian parameter estimation (Eqs. (12)-(16)) is used to test parameter recovery (Sec. IV, Tables I-III). The authors find that Models A and B exhibit 4.7-12 sigma biases when applied to data generated under alternative mechanisms, while Model C recovers the injected parameters in all cases. The same machinery is then applied to a realistic sample of 17 photons (14 Fermi-LAT multi-GeV photons plus one 99.3 GeV, one MAGIC 1.07 TeV, and one LHAASO 12.2 TeV photon), with Model C reported to yield a subluminal LV scale E_LV about 3 x 10^17 GeV consistently across datasets. The paper concludes that energy-dependent intrinsic delays are essential and that Model C is the definitive framework for future LV searches.

Significance. The Bayesian machinery appears correctly implemented: the marginal likelihoods in Eqs. (12)-(15) properly integrate out the per-photon intrinsic delay with parameter-dependent normalization, and the 250-seed repetition of the injection-recovery test is a reasonable way to check the pipeline. The single-GRB degeneracy a_LV f(z) + alpha identified in Sec. V.A is correct and clearly explained, and the closure tests do establish that the four-parameter model family is identifiable from multi-GRB data at high statistics. However, the paper's central quantitative claims - that Models A and B fail 'catastrophically' at >5 sigma and that energy-dependent intrinsic delays are required by the data - are established only for mock datasets with about 10^4 photons, roughly 600 times the real sample, and the model discrimination is never quantified on the 17 observed photons (the AIC comparison is cited to the authors' own Ref. [33]). The headline E_LV of about 3 x 10^17 GeV is a fitted parameter under Model C, not a prediction, and the 'validation' is a closure test with injections taken from the authors' own earlier posteriors.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, IV, VI] The mock datasets used for every quantitative discrimination claim contain 1000 high-energy photons per GRB (Sec. II: 'we randomly draw 1000 high-energy photons ... for each GRB'), i.e., 10^4 photons per set, while the realistic analysis of Sec. V uses 17 photons. The reported tensions - 11 sigma and 4.7 sigma in the Set A/B analyses, 6.9 sigma and 12 sigma in Set C, and the Sec. VI statement that Models A and B 'exhibit catastrophic failures ... exceeding about 5 sigma' - are all computed from the dense mock posteriors of Tables I-III, whose widths shrink roughly as N^{-1/2} in the information-dominated limit. These significances therefore do not transfer to the 17-photon sample, and the paper never performs an injection-recovery or model-selection test at realistic photon counts. The real-data evidence for model discrimination is presented only qualitatively in Sec. V.C (the AIC-based preference for Model C is cited to the authors' own Ref. [33] and not computed here), so the abstract/conclusion claims that intrinsic delays must be energy-dependent are not established at the actual sample's statistical weight. A realistic-count simulation (e.g., using the actual 17 observed energies, with roughly two photons per burst) or an explicit Bayes-factor/evidence computation on the 17-photon sample should be added.
  2. [IV, VI] The recovery tests are closure tests by construction. The injected parameters in Tables I-III are the posterior modes of the same authors' fits in Refs. [28, 32, 33] (as the captions state and Sec. VI confirms: parameters 'injected from real-data posterior distributions'), and the mock generator draws the common intrinsic delay independently for each photon (Sec. IV), exactly matching the likelihood's N(mu, upsilon^2) noise model in Eqs. (12)-(15). Such tests verify the internal consistency of the machinery and the identifiability of the model family at high statistics, but they cannot provide independent support for the physical content of Model C, because any misspecification of the noise model or of the Taylor truncation in Eq. (5) would be reproduced identically in generation and recovery. The concluding phrase 'To validate our framework' (Sec. VI) therefore overstates the evidential value; the tests should be labeled as internal-consistency/closure checks, with the independent case for Model C resting on the real-data analysis of Sec. V.
  3. [V, Fig. 4, Eq. (8)] The manuscript never lists the observed arrival-time differences Delta_t_obs of the 17 real photons or the residuals of the best-fit Model C, so the central claim of consistency at E_LV about 3 x 10^17 GeV cannot be verified from the text. This is not a formality: for GRB 221009A, Eq. (8) with E_LV about 3 x 10^17 GeV assigns an LV delay of about 2.8 x 10^3 s to the 12.2 TeV photon, which the fit must nearly cancel with an intrinsic delay of the opposite sign (alpha E_h,s about -2.8 x 10^3 s); the predicted arrival time is thus the small difference of two large terms, and whether the 17-photon posterior actually reproduces the observed near-simultaneous TeV arrival depends on the joint (alpha, mu) correlations, which are not shown. I request a table of observed versus predicted delays (with 68% credible bands) for all 17 photons under each model, and a stress test of the linear extrapolation of alpha from about 0.1 TeV to about 14 TeV (e.g., adding a beta E^2 term and checking the evidence), since the TeV-photon 'consistency' rests entirely on that linear form.
minor comments (6)
  1. [VI] Sec. VI states that the recovery achieves 'subpercent biases in E_LV and alpha estimates,' but Table III (Set C) shows a recovered a_LV that differs from the injected value by about 3% and a recovered alpha differing by about 7%; the wording should be 'percent-level' or the numbers should be recomputed.
  2. [II] Sec. II justifies truncating the intrinsic-delay Taylor series at the linear term by noting that beta and gamma 'converge toward 0 through data fitting' in Ref. [32]; since this truncation defines Model C, the manuscript should briefly display that evidence (e.g., fitted beta, gamma and their uncertainties) or explicitly refer to it as an assumption inherited from Ref. [28].
  3. [Fig. 4] Fig. 4 is difficult to parse in the compiled text because the numerical values and axis labels are interleaved in the captions and the panel structure is not self-evident; a single clean figure with separately labeled panels per model (posterior means and 68% credible intervals for a_LV, alpha, mu, sigma) would be much clearer.
  4. [III] Eqs. (13)-(15) treat the intrinsic delay of every photon, including multiple photons from the same GRB, as an independent draw from N(mu, upsilon^2); the justification for this independence (as opposed to a per-GRB common offset) should be stated, since it affects the interpretation of the 14+3-photon constraints.
  5. [II] Sec. II's opening sentence ('Physics is an experimental science...') is rhetorical and unrelated to the mock-data construction; it could be removed. Also, please clarify whether the same spectral template (Eq. (9), fitted to GRB 221009A) is applied to bursts at other redshifts without a k-correction, and whether that is a deliberate choice.
  6. [II, IV] For a Monte Carlo study of this kind, the mock-generation and fitting code and the list of the 17 observed photons (energies, arrival times, uncertainties) should be made available as supplemental material or a repository for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Simulation 'validation' injects the same fitted LV scale it later reports as consistency, and the real-data constraints are imported from the authors' own prior fits.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. VI (Conclusions), Eq. (17), and Fig. 4 caption]
    "Three distinct mock datasets based on Models A, B and C are constructed by embedding time delays governed by [Eq. (17)], where parameters (aLV, α, µ, υ) are injected from real-data posterior distributions. ... Model C robustly identifies a subluminal Lorentz violation characterized by an energy scale of ELV ≃ 3×10^17 GeV, which is consistent with earlier constraints."

    The mock Set C is generated with aLV = 3.38×10^-18 GeV^-1 (ELV ≈ 2.96×10^17 GeV) and α = -0.15 s·GeV^-1, values taken from the authors' own Model C posterior fit to the 14 Fermi-LAT photons in Ref. [28]. The simulation then fits the same model family to that mock data and recovers aLV ≈ 3.28×10^-18 GeV^-1. This is a closure test of the fitting procedure, not an independent determination of the LV scale. The conclusion nevertheless presents the recovered scale as an identification 'consistent with earlier constraints,' where those earlier constraints are the same authors' earlier fits of the same parameterization to the same events (Refs. [22,23,28]).

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. V.C-V.D and Fig. 4]
    "The results presented in Ref. [33] (as shown in the left plot of Fig. 4) indicate that Model A fails to provide a consistent framework ... The results obtained from Model C are particularly intriguing, as they reveal a remarkable consistency in the parameters across various combinations of datasets ... More detailed illustrations and in-depth analyses on the results from Model C can be found in Ref. [32]."

    The paper's central real-data conclusion—that Model C is the only viable model and yields ELV ≈ 3×10^17 GeV—is not independently derived in this work. It is imported from Refs. [32] and [33], both by the same two authors and using the same Bayesian method. The 'earlier constraints' invoked as consistency checks (Refs. [22,23,28]) are also the same group's prior fits. While the paper reproduces the 14+3 photon fit in Fig. 4, that fit uses the same Model C parameterization and dataset, so it cannot serve as an external validation. The load-bearing claim that Model C is the 'definitive framework' for future LV searches thus rests on a self-citation chain rather than on an independent, machine-checked, or externally falsifiable benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's simulation protocol is a standard closure test: generate mock data from Models A, B, and C, then see whether the fitting machinery recovers the injected parameters. Demonstrating that Model C recovers parameters across all three sets and that Model A/B fail on data generated under alternative mechanisms is a valid internal-consistency check, and that part is not circular by itself. However, the headline empirical result is not a prediction: the mock datasets are seeded with aLV and α values taken from the authors' own Model C fit to the real Fermi data (Ref. [28]), so the subsequent 'recovery' of ELV ≈ 3×10^17 GeV is an input-output consistency check, not new evidence for that scale. The real-data analysis in Section V is likewise a recapitulation of the same group's earlier papers (Refs. [28,32,33]), with 'consistency with earlier constraints' referring mainly to self-consistency among those same fits. The paper is transparent about the injection and does not hide the provenance of the parameters, but the conclusion still presents a fitted, already-known value as a robust identification. Additional realism concerns—1000 mock photons per GRB versus 17 real photons—affect the strength of the model-discrimination claims but are not themselves circularity. Overall, the central claim partially reduces to its own fitted inputs and self-citations, though the methodological content gives it some independent value; hence score 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on four fitted parameters (aLV, alpha, mu, upsilon) and several domain assumptions. No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced. The 'energy-dependent intrinsic delay' is a parameterization, not a new entity. The an-hoc truncation of the intrinsic delay Taylor expansion and the unrealistic simulation photon count are the most fragile inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • aLV (inverse LV scale) = 3.34 +0.91 -0.90 x 10^-18 GeV^-1 (Model C, 14+3 photons, Fig. 4)
    Central LV parameter; fit to real multi-GeV and TeV photon time delays, not predicted from first principles.
  • alpha (energy-dependent intrinsic delay) = -0.20 +0.07 -0.07 s/GeV (Model C, 14+3 photons, Fig. 4)
    Coefficient of the linear energy-dependent intrinsic delay term; fit to data.
  • mu (mean common intrinsic delay) = -1.07 +3.51 -3.44 s (Model C, 14+3 photons, Fig. 4)
    Nuisance parameter in the Gaussian intrinsic delay distribution.
  • upsilon (std dev of intrinsic delay) = 5.09 +2.00 -1.50 s (Model C, 14+3 photons, Fig. 4)
    Nuisance parameter, labeled sigma in Fig. 4; width of the intrinsic delay distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The photon dispersion relation is modified as in Eq. (1), with n=1 and subluminal sign, leading to the LV time delay of Eq. (3).
    Phenomenological starting point common in LV searches; not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The intrinsic source-frame delay can be represented as a Taylor expansion truncated at the linear energy term, Delta_tin = Delta_tin,c + alpha E_h,s (Eq. 5).
    The paper justifies it via a generic Taylor expansion, but the truncation at first order is an ad hoc modeling choice; the authors note in Ref. [32] that higher-order coefficients are consistent with zero in their fits, which is an empirical observation rather than an independent derivation.
  • domain assumption All GRBs share the same intrinsic spectral and delay properties, using the GRB 221009A spectrum as a universal template.
    Adopted in Section II to generate mock data; described as an initial approximation and not physically motivated.
  • domain assumption Measurement errors are independent Gaussian, with a +/-5 s positional uncertainty for the low-energy peak and energy resolutions of 10%, 15%, 20% for Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, LHAASO respectively.
    Standard statistical assumptions from the observational literature, used in the likelihood.
  • domain assumption Standard LambdaCDM cosmology with fixed H0, Omega_m, Omega_Lambda for the K1 factor in Eq. (11).
    Taken from standard cosmology; not re-parameterized in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monte Carlo simulation of GRB data to test Lorentz-invariance violation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AANZJRI2

@misc{pith2026250415685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monte Carlo simulation of GRB data to test Lorentz-invariance violation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AANZJRI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15685}
}
abstract

Lorentz-invariance violation (LV) at energy scales approaching the Planck regime serves as a critical probe for understanding quantum gravity phenomenology. Astrophysical observations of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) present a promising avenue for testing LV-induced spectral lag phenomena; however, interpretations are complicated by degeneracies between LV effects and intrinsic emission delays. This study systematically investigates three competing time delay models: Model A (LV delay combined with a constant intrinsic delay), Model B (energy-dependent intrinsic delay without LV), and Model C (LV delay combined with energy-dependent intrinsic delay). We utilize mock GRB datasets generated under distinct delay mechanisms and employ Bayesian parameter estimation on simulated observations of 10 GRBs. Our findings demonstrate that Model C consistently recovers input parameters across all datasets. In contrast, Models A and B struggle to reconcile data generated under alternative mechanisms, particularly when confronted with high-energy TeV photons from GRB 190114C and GRB 221009A. Our analysis confirms that the incorporation of energy-dependent intrinsic delays in Model C is essential for establishing robust LV constraints, effectively resolving prior ambiguities in the interpretation of multi-GeV and TeV photon emissions. The results validate Model C as a generalized framework for future LV searches, yielding a subluminal LV scale of \(E_{\rm LV} \simeq 3 \times 10^{17}\) GeV based on realistic datasets. These findings are consistent with earlier constraints derived from Fermi-LAT datasets. This work underscores the necessity for joint modeling of LV and astrophysical emission processes in next-generation LV studies utilizing observatories such as LHAASO and CTA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15685 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Results of examining Set A with three Models. The 2D contours represent with different confidence levels, denoting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Same as Fig. 1, but for Set B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 1, but for Set C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The results obtained from Model C are particularly in￾triguing, as they reveal a remarkable consistency in the parameters across various combinations of datasets, as illustrated in the right plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Examining three models with 14 + 3 photons from Ref. [33]. The orange lines in each subfigure denotes the inference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Song, B.-Q

    H. Song, B.-Q. Ma, Energy-dependent intrinsic time de- lay of gamma-ray bursts on testing Lorentz invariance violation, Phys. Lett. B 856 (2024) 138951. arXiv: 2408.14719, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138951

    arXiv 2024

  2. [33]

    Examining Lorentz invariance violation with three remarkable GRB photons

    H. Song, B.-Q. Ma, Examining Lorentz invariance viola- tion with three remarkable GRB photons, Phys. Dark Univ. 47 (2025) 101808. arXiv:2504.14295, doi:10. 1016/j.dark.2025.101808

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, Distance measurement and wave dis- persion in a Liouville string approach to quantum grav- ity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) 607–624. arXiv: hep-th/9605211, doi:10.1142/S0217751X97000566

    arXiv 1997

  4. [2]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, S. Sarkar, Tests of quantum grav- ity from observations of gamma-ray bursts, Nature 393 (1998) 763–765. arXiv:astro-ph/9712103, doi:10. 1038/31647

    arXiv 1998

  5. [3]

    J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, Search for quantum gravity, Gen. Rel. Grav. 31 (1999) 1257–1262. arXiv:gr-qc/9905048, doi:10.1023/A: 1026720723556

    arXiv 1999

  6. [4]

    J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, Quan- tum gravitational diffusion and stochastic fluctuations in the velocity of light, Gen. Rel. Grav. 32 (2000) 127–144. arXiv:gr-qc/9904068, doi:10.1023/A:1001852601248

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  7. [5]

    J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, Derivation of a Vacuum Refractive Index in a Stringy Space-Time Foam Model, Phys. Lett. B 665 (2008) 412–

    work page 2008

  8. [6]

    T. Li, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, D. Xie, Time Delays of Strings in D-particle Backgrounds and Vacuum Refractive Indices, Phys. Lett. B 679 (2009) 10 407–413. arXiv:0903.1303, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2009.07.062

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

Show all 42 references
  1. [7]

    Li, B.-Q

    C. Li, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation in a string the- ory model for space-time foam, Phys. Lett. B 819 (2021) 136443. arXiv:2105.06151, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2021.136443

    2021 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Li, B.-Q

    C. Li, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation with brane/string- inspired space-time foam, Results Phys. 26 (2021) 104380. arXiv:2109.07096, doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2021. 104380

    2021 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Gambini, J

    R. Gambini, J. Pullin, Nonstandard optics from quan- tum space-time, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 124021. arXiv: gr-qc/9809038, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.124021

    1999 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Alfaro, H

    J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Tecotl, L. F. Urrutia, Quantum gravity corrections to neutrino propagation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2318–2321. arXiv:gr-qc/9909079, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2318

    2000 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Li, B.-Q

    H. Li, B.-Q. Ma, Speed variations of cosmic photons and neutrinos from loop quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B 836 (2023) 137613. arXiv:2212.04220, doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2022.137613

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Amelino-Camelia, Doubly special relativity, Nature 418 (2002) 34–35

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Doubly special relativity, Nature 418 (2002) 34–35. arXiv:gr-qc/0207049, doi:10.1038/ 418034a

    2002 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Amelino-Camelia, Doubly special relativity: First results and key open problems, Int

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Doubly special relativity: First results and key open problems, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11 (2002) 1643. arXiv:gr-qc/0210063, doi:10.1142/ S021827180200302X

    2002 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Amelino-Camelia, Relativity in space-times with short distance structure governed by an observer indepen- dent (Planckian) length scale, Int

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Relativity in space-times with short distance structure governed by an observer indepen- dent (Planckian) length scale, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11 (2002) 35–60. arXiv:gr-qc/0012051, doi:10.1142/ S0218271802001330

    2002 arXiv

  9. [15]

    He, B.-Q

    P. He, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz Symmetry Violation of Cosmic Photons, Universe 8 (6) (2022) 323. arXiv:2206.08180, doi:10.3390/universe8060323

    2022 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Alves Batista, et al., White paper and roadmap for quantum gravity phenomenology in the multi-messenger era, Class

    R. Alves Batista, et al., White paper and roadmap for quantum gravity phenomenology in the multi-messenger era, Class. Quant. Grav. 42 (3) (2025) 032001. arXiv: 2312.00409, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad605a

    2025 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Xiao, B.-Q

    Z. Xiao, B.-Q. Ma, Constraints on Lorentz invariance violation from gamma-ray burst GRB090510, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 116005. arXiv:0909.4927, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.80.116005

    2009 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Jacob, T

    U. Jacob, T. Piran, Lorentz-violation-induced arrival delays of cosmological particles, JCAP 01 (2008)

    2008

  13. [19]

    Zhu, B.-Q

    J. Zhu, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz-violation-induced arrival time delay of astroparticles in Finsler spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 105 (12) (2022) 124069. arXiv:2206.07616, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.105.124069

    2022 arXiv

  14. [20]

    L. Shao, Z. Xiao, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz violation from cos- mological objects with very high energy photon emis- sions, Astropart. Phys. 33 (2010) 312–315. arXiv:0911. 2276, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.03.003

    2010 doi

  15. [21]

    Zhang, B.-Q

    S. Zhang, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz violation from gamma-ray bursts, Astropart. Phys. 61 (2015) 108–112. arXiv:1406. 4568, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.04.008

    2015 doi

  16. [22]

    Xu, B.-Q

    H. Xu, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation from gamma-ray bursts, Astropart. Phys. 82 (2016) 72–76. arXiv:1607. 03203, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.05.008

    2016 doi

  17. [23]

    Xu, B.-Q

    H. Xu, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation from gamma ray burst GRB 160509A, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 602–604. arXiv:1607.08043, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07. 044

    2016 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Liu, B.-Q

    Y. Liu, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation from gamma ray bursts: criteria for low energy photons, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (10) (2018) 825. arXiv:1810.00636, doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-018-6294-y

    2018 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Zhu, B.-Q

    J. Zhu, B.-Q. Ma, Pre-burst events of gamma-ray bursts with light speed variation, Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136518. arXiv:2108.05804, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2021.136518

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Zhu, B.-Q

    J. Zhu, B.-Q. Ma, Pre-burst neutrinos of gamma-ray bursters accompanied by high-energy photons, Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136546. arXiv:2108.08425, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136546

    2021 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Zhu, B.-Q

    J. Zhu, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation from GRB 221009A, J. Phys. G 50 (6) (2023) 06LT01. arXiv: 2210.11376, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/accebb

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Lesage, et al., Fermi-GBM Discovery of GRB 221009A: An Extraordinarily Bright GRB from Onset to After- glow, Astrophys

    S. Lesage, et al., Fermi-GBM Discovery of GRB 221009A: An Extraordinarily Bright GRB from Onset to After- glow, Astrophys. J. Lett. 952 (2) (2023) L42. arXiv: 2303.14172, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace5b4

    2023

  23. [30]

    Cao, et al., Very high energy gamma-ray emis- sion beyond 10 TeV from GRB 221009A, Sci

    Z. Cao, et al., Very high energy gamma-ray emis- sion beyond 10 TeV from GRB 221009A, Sci. Adv. 9 (46) (2023) adj2778. arXiv:2310.08845, doi:10.1126/ sciadv.adj2778

    2023

  24. [31]

    arXiv:0712.2170, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/ 01/031

    2008 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Song, B.-Q

    H. Song, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz invariance violation from gamma-ray bursts, Astrophys. J. 983 (1) (2025) 9.arXiv: 2504.00918, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb8d4

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    V. A. Acciari, et al., Teraelectronvolt emission from the γ-ray burst GRB 190114C, Nature 575 (7783) (2019) 455–458. arXiv:2006.07249, doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1750-x

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. A. Abdo, et al., Fermi Large Area Telescope Mea- surements of the Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission at Inter- mediate Galactic Latitudes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 251101. arXiv:0912.0973, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 103.251101

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Akaike, Likelihood of a model and information crite- ria, Journal of Econometrics 16 (1) (1981) 3–14

    H. Akaike, Likelihood of a model and information crite- ria, Journal of Econometrics 16 (1) (1981) 3–14

    1981

  29. [37]

    Cao, et al., A tera–electron volt afterglow from a nar- row jet in an extremely bright gamma-ray burst, Sci- ence 380 (6652) (2023) adg9328

    Z. Cao, et al., A tera–electron volt afterglow from a nar- row jet in an extremely bright gamma-ray burst, Sci- ence 380 (6652) (2023) adg9328. arXiv:2306.06372, doi:10.1126/science.adg9328

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Q. Liu, H. Song, B.-Q. Ma, Direct Evidence for Preburst Stage of Gamma-Ray Burst from GRB 221009A Data, Res. Notes AAS 8 (10) (2024) 263. arXiv:2410.12243, doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad85e7

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    This establishes Model C as the current preferred framework while highlighting TeV photons as crucial probes of both quantum gravity and compact object as- trophysics

    will revolutionize LV studies through: •∼1000 GRB events with z >2 probes; • millisecond timing at 0.1-100 TeV energies; • 3D or multi-D parameter reconstruction (ELV,α,z ). This establishes Model C as the current preferred framework while highlighting TeV photons as crucial p...

  32. [40]

    Biesiada, A

    M. Biesiada, A. Piorkowska, Lorentz invariance violation- induced time delays in GRBs in different cosmological models, Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009) 125007. arXiv: 1008.2615, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/12/125007

    2009 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Actis, et al., Design concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array CTA: An advanced facility for ground- based high-energy gamma-ray astronomy, Exper

    M. Actis, et al., Design concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array CTA: An advanced facility for ground- based high-energy gamma-ray astronomy, Exper. Astron. 32 (2011) 193–316. arXiv:1008.3703, doi:10.1007/ s10686-011-9247-0

    2011 arXiv

  34. [417]

    arXiv:0804.3566, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008. 06.029

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.