GRB multi-TeV detection: Beyond standard physics?

Fabrizio Tavecchio; Giacomo Bonnoli; Giorgio Galanti; Lara Nava; Marco Roncadelli

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

GRB multi-TeV detection: Beyond standard physics?

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 18 TeV photons from GRB 221009A can be naturally explained if photons oscillate into axion-like particles in cosmic magnetic fields.

desk verdict A clearly-written proceedings summary of the authors' own ALP explanation for GRB 221009A; the physics is plausible but the 'strong hint' language outruns a single GCN photon and a parameter scan tuned at 15 TeV. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19320 v1 pith:I6QH5GRE submitted 2024-12-26 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Giorgio Galanti , Lara Nava , Marco Roncadelli , Fabrizio Tavecchio , Giacomo Bonnoli This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph PACS 98.70.Rz14.80.Va

keywords gamma-rayburstsGRB221009Aaxion-likeparticlesphoton-ALPoscillationsextragalacticbackgroundlightTeVastronomyLorentzinvarianceviolation

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 argues that the reported 18 TeV photon from the gamma-ray burst GRB 221009A cannot be explained by standard physics, because photons above about 10 TeV are almost completely absorbed by the extragalactic background light on their way to Earth. It proposes that photons convert into axion-like particles (ALPs) in cosmic magnetic fields, and that ALPs, being immune to that background light, allow the beam to survive the journey and reconvert into photons near us. With ALP parameters compatible with the most stringent existing bounds, the model reproduces the observed detection, which the authors read as a strong hint that ALPs are real. They also examine Lorentz invariance violation as an alternative, but conclude that it cannot account for the 18 TeV photon, only for a less reliable higher-energy event.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is photon–axion-like-particle mixing in external magnetic fields, described by the interaction Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{a\gamma\gamma} = -\frac{1}{4} g_{a\gamma\gamma} F_{\mu\nu} \widetilde{F}^{\mu\nu} a = g_{a\gamma\gamma}\,\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B}\,a$. Photons and ALPs oscillate into each other in a magnetized medium, and while a particle propagates as an ALP it does not interact with the extragalactic background light, effectively lowering the optical depth of the gamma-ray beam. The paper computes the total photon survival probability $P_{\rm ALP}$ by combining the transfer matrices of four regions: the GRB jet (where conversion is negligible because the path is short), the host galaxy (modeled either as a typical spiral or as a starburst similar to M82), extragalactic space (with $B_{\rm ext} = 1$ nG as the likely case and $B_{\rm ext} < 10^{-15}$ G as the extremely conservative case), and the Milky Way (using a magnetic field map and an electron density model). The result is compared with the standard survival probability $P_{\rm CP}$.

What would settle it

A final, published analysis of the burst that places the highest photon energy below about 10 TeV would eliminate the claimed anomaly, since standard absorption would then be mild; alternatively, a laboratory or astrophysical measurement that excludes ALP parameters around $m_a \simeq 10^{-10}$ eV and $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \simeq 4\times 10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$ would remove the preferred parameter window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the tension between the detection of multi-TeV gamma rays from GRB 221009A and the strong absorption expected from the extragalactic background light (EBL) is resolved naturally once photon–ALP oscillations are included. Over the magnetized regions crossed by the beam — the host galaxy, extragalactic space, and the Milky Way — a fraction of the gamma rays converts into axion-like particles, which are immune to EBL absorption and later reconvert into photons. Using a recent EBL model that predicts a standard survival probability of about $10^{-8}$ at 18 TeV (and $3\times 10^{-6}$ at 15 TeV, the value chosen to account for the detection's energy uncertainty), the ALP scenario raises the survival probability by many orders of magnitude for both a spiral and a starburst host galaxy and for both an efficient ($B_{\rm ext} = 1$ nG) and a negligible ($B_{\rm ext} < 10^{-15}$ G) extragalactic magnetic field. The paper identifies favorable ALP parameters around $m_a \sim 10^{-10}$ eV and $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \sim 4\times 10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$, which lie within the most stringent laboratory and astrophysical bounds and are compatible with earlier hints of ALPs in other astrophysical sources.

Load-bearing premise

The whole case rests on the reported 18 TeV photon from GRB 221009A being real and correctly attributed to the burst; if the true highest photon energy is lower, the extragalactic background light absorbs far less and the anomaly — and the need for axion-like particles — largely disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the ALP interpretation is correct, GRB 221009A provides a new, independent piece of evidence for axion-like particles, reinforcing previous astrophysical hints.
The favored ALP mass and coupling are consistent with the most stringent current bounds, so the explanation does not require violating existing laboratory limits.
The model predicts that the effective attenuation of very-high-energy gamma rays from other distant sources should be weaker than standard EBL models predict, a signature that can be searched for in other gamma-ray bursts and active galactic nuclei.
Because Lorentz invariance violation cannot explain the 18 TeV photon, the photon-ALP scenario is the one that naturally accounts for the primary detection, while LIV at best explains the less reliable higher-energy event.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same photon-ALP conversion mechanism would imprint a characteristic energy- and redshift-dependent pattern on the spectra of many TeV sources; stacking spectra from a catalog of gamma-ray bursts and blazars could reveal a systematic excess over standard EBL absorption, independent of GRB 221009A.
The paper models the host galaxy's magnetic field through two idealized configurations; if the actual host geometry and field strength of GRB 221009A are measured with future observations, the predicted survival probability could be recomputed and the ALP parameter window narrowed.
Because photon-ALP conversion rotates the polarization of the beam, X-ray and gamma-ray polarization measurements of GRB afterglows could provide an independent cross-check, a test the paper does not develop.
The favored parameter region lies within the projected reach of next-generation laboratory searches for axions, meaning the GRB hint could eventually be tested on Earth rather than only in the sky.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a conference summary of the authors' own 2022 ALP interpretation of the 18 TeV LHAASO photon from GRB 221009A. It is readable, honest about some limits, and useful as a quick overview. But the abstract's 'strong hint at ALP existence' is more confident than the evidence warrants.

What the paper does well: it lays out the photon-ALP oscillation mechanism in a compact way, quotes the current experimental bounds, compares with LIV, and explicitly says a firm assessment has to wait for the final LHAASO spectrum. It also says the conclusion does not depend on one fine-tuned pair of ALP parameters, since lower couplings and both host-galaxy and extragalactic field assumptions still give large survival probabilities. That is a fair and testable claim, and it is worth checking.

The soft spots are real but not fatal to the underlying idea. First, the whole anomaly rests on a single 18 TeV photon from a GCN circular. The paper itself quotes P_CP ~1e-8 at 18 TeV and ~3e-6 at 15 TeV, so a 15-20% energy uncertainty changes the required survival by two orders of magnitude. Second, the parameters in Fig. 2 are chosen to maximize survival at exactly 15 TeV, so the 'explanation' is partly tuned to the datum it explains. The paper's robustness statement helps, but a full spectral fit would be much more convincing. Third, the central calculation is not here; it is in Galanti et al. (2022a), so a referee cannot check the numbers from this text alone.

None of this means the ALP idea is wrong. It means this particular paper is a summary, not a self-contained evidence claim. The internal tension between the abstract ('strong hint') and the conclusion ('strong indication' until final data arrive) should be fixed.

Who benefits: a reader who wants the gist of the ALP explanation in ten minutes, or someone looking for a concise citation to the authors' program. For peer review, I would not send this as a new submission; there is nothing new to adjudicate. I would desk-reject it as a proceedings piece and encourage the authors to come back with a paper built on the final LHAASO spectrum and a predictive parameter scan, not a post-hoc maximum.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the LHAASO detection of a photon of up to 18 TeV from GRB 221009A (z = 0.151) is difficult to reconcile with standard EBL absorption, since the standard survival probability is P_CP ~ 1e-8 at 18 TeV. It proposes that photon-ALP oscillations in magnetized media (the GRB jet, host galaxy, extragalactic space, and Milky Way) reduce the effective optical depth, making the detection natural and thereby providing a 'strong hint at ALP existence'. The paper also compares this scenario with Lorentz invariance violation, concluding that LIV can explain the less reliable Carpet-2 detection but not the LHAASO one. The quantitative results, including the survival probabilities in Figs. 1-3, are taken from the authors' previous work (Galanti et al. 2022a), and the paper is structured as a short proceedings-style summary.

Significance. If the 18 TeV LHAASO photon is robust and if the photon-ALP formalism is correctly applied, the paper addresses a genuine tension in gamma-ray astrophysics and offers a concrete new-physics resolution that is testable with future data. The use of the Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021) EBL model, the explicit consideration of ALP bounds from CAST, Sisk-Reynés et al., and Dessert et al., and the comparison with LIV are all appropriate and useful. However, the strength of the conclusion ('strong hint at ALP existence') is not commensurate with the evidence presented in this manuscript, because the ALP parameters are chosen to maximize the survival probability at the energy of the observed photon, because the central calculation is imported from self-cited papers rather than derived here, and because the observational anchor is a GCN circular rather than a final spectral analysis. The paper is best viewed as a summary of a promising scenario, not as a decisive demonstration.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Fig. 2] The ALP parameters ma = 10^-10 eV and gaγγ = 4e-12 GeV^-1 are explicitly selected to maximize PALP at E = 15 TeV, which is the energy of the observed LHAASO photon after accounting for the 15-20% energy uncertainty. The calculation is therefore a postdiction tuned to the very datum it is invoked to explain, and the phrase 'strong hint at ALP existence' is not supported as a predictive claim. The paper should quantify how robust the conclusion is to parameter choices away from the maximum, for example by showing PALP over a multi-dimensional grid and reporting the fraction of the allowed (ma, gaγγ) region that yields a survival probability large enough to explain the observation.
[Sections 1, 2, and 5] The entire anomaly chain rests on a single photon reported at 18 TeV in LHAASO GCN Circular 32677, and the authors themselves concede in Section 5 that a firm assessment will only be possible when the final LHAASO spectral data are known. Because the EBL survival probability rises extremely steeply with decreasing energy (P_CP ~ 1e-8 at 18 TeV versus ~ 3e-6 at 15 TeV), a downward revision of the robust maximum photon energy in the final LHAASO analysis would remove most or all of the tension. The conclusion should be explicitly conditional on the GCN value, and the claim of a 'strong hint' should be softened until the published spectrum is available.
[Section 2] The paper compares survival probabilities but does not perform an event-rate or likelihood calculation. A high survival probability alone is not sufficient to establish that the observed photon is 'naturally explained', because the expected number of detected photons also depends on the intrinsic spectrum, the detector exposure, the energy dispersion, and the background. Without a forward-model estimate (or at least the expected number of >10 TeV photons with and without ALPs under a reference intrinsic spectrum), the quantitative support for the claim is incomplete. Adding such an estimate would materially strengthen the paper.
[Section 3 and Figs. 1-3] The central calculation of PALP and the figures are imported from Galanti et al. (2022a), with the present paper providing only a qualitative description of the magnetic-field regions. Since the claim of a 'strong hint at ALP existence' depends on the numerical values of PALP, the reader cannot verify the result from the material presented. The authors should either reproduce the essential elements of the transfer-matrix calculation (magnetic-field strengths, coherence lengths, and propagation distances in each region) or state clearly that this is a summary paper and restrict the conclusions to the strength appropriate for a summary.

minor comments (4)

[Header and formatting] There are several typographical artifacts to correct: 'V ol. 75' should read 'Vol. 75', and 'e ffective' and 'di ffer' contain erroneous spaces. These appear to be production/OCRed text issues and should be cleaned up.
[Section 3, last paragraph] The statement that a broad region of parameter space (including Bext < 10^-15 G and a spiral host) gives a large enough PALP is not shown in any figure or table in this manuscript. Adding a supplementary figure or a quantitative statement of the range of (ma, gaγγ) and magnetic-field assumptions would make this claim verifiable.
[Section 4] The treatment of LIV is very brief: the reader is told that LIV is ineffective for the LHAASO energies but effective for Carpet-2, without the underlying dispersion-relation calculation. For a self-contained proceedings paper, either expand this discussion or clearly label it as a qualitative summary of Galanti et al. (2022a).
[Section 5] The phrase 'strong indication of the existence of ALPs' is repeated in the conclusions; given the points raised in the major comments, the wording should be moderated to 'a possible hint' or 'an encouraging indication' consistent with the acknowledged dependence on the provisional LHAASO GCN datum.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'strong hint at ALP existence' rests on ALP parameters chosen to maximize survival at exactly the observed 15-18 TeV anomaly, with all quantitative curves imported from the authors' own prior paper.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Fig. 2 caption (p. 284-285)]
"In Fig. 2 we report both PCP and PALP (for Bext = 1 nG and Bext < 10−15 G) versus E for the case of a starburst hosting galaxy and employing the EBL model of Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021) by assuming ma = 10−10 eV and gaγγ = 4× 10−12 GeV−1, which represent the values of the ALP parameter space (ma, gaγγ) maximizing PALP at E = 15 TeV, as shown in Fig. 1, within the most stringent ALP bounds (Sisk-Reyn´es et al. (2022); Dessert et al. (2022))."

The paper's claimed 'natural explanation' of the LHAASO detection is evaluated for a parameter point selected specifically to maximize the photon survival probability at E = 15 TeV, i.e., at the energy of the single 18 TeV photon shifted down by the paper's assumed 15-20% energy uncertainty. Thus P_ALP is not a prediction from first principles; it is the result of tuning the two free ALP parameters to the target observation. The conclusion that GRB 221009A is 'naturally explained' (abstract) is then guaranteed at that point to the extent the allowed parameter space contains such a value. No independent spectral or event-rate fit, and no prediction at other energies, is presented, so the 'strong hint at ALP existence' reduces to a successful two-parameter fit to one data point.
self citation load bearing [Section 5, Discussion and Conclusions (p. 285-286)]
"In conclusion, although a firm assessment will be possible only when the spectral data of the LHAASO detection are known, we have at least a strong indication of the existence of ALPs coming from GRB 221009A (Galanti et al. (2022a)) with parameters compatible with two previous ALP hints (Tavecchio et al. (2012); Galanti et al. (2020b))."

The central conclusion ('strong indication of ALPs') is directly referred to the authors' own prior paper Galanti et al. (2022a), which is also the source of the P_ALP curves and of the parameter point maximizing P_ALP at 15 TeV used in Fig. 2. That prior work is not machine-checked or code-reproduced in this paper, and it concerns the same GRB 221009A observation with the same fitted ALP parameters, so citing it does not provide independent external support but rather references the same constructed calculation. The additional 'previous ALP hints' cited are also largely from the same author group. The 'strong indication' therefore rests on a self-citation chain whose quantitative content is the fitted explanation itself.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that photon-ALP oscillations remove the EBL opacity tension for GRB 221009A and thereby provide a 'strong hint at ALP existence.' Walking the derivation chain: the anomaly is a single 18 TeV photon (LHAASO GCN); standard survival is P_CP ~ 1e-8 at 18 TeV and 3e-6 at 15 TeV; the ALP survival probability P_ALP is then displayed for parameters ma = 1e-10 eV, gaγγ = 4e-12 GeV^-1, which the paper explicitly states are the values 'maximizing PALP at E = 15 TeV' within allowed bounds. Thus the explanation is evaluated at an optimized point whose objective function is the survival of the very photon to be explained; the claimed 'hint' is not a parameter-free prediction but a fit to the target datum. All of the quantitative curves are credited to the same authors' Galanti et al. (2022a), and the concluding 'strong indication' is a direct citation to that work, so the load-bearing computation is a self-citation chain rather than an independently reproduced result. On the other hand, the ALP framework itself is standard (Raffelt-Stodolsky), the EBL model and magnetic-field models are external, and the paper is transparent about the 15-20% energy uncertainty and about the fact that a firm assessment awaits final LHAASO spectra. These caveats show the circularity is partial: the paper does not claim to have predicted the photon before the fact, and it acknowledges the preliminary status. But the central 'strong hint' still reduces, by the paper's own statement, to a parameter choice optimized on the anomaly, which is the hallmark of a fitted input presented as an explanation. Overall score 6.

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

The paper invokes axion-like particles, which are a pre-existing theoretical construct from string theory and other extensions of the Standard Model, not introduced by this paper. It does not propose a new entity. The main free parameters are the ALP mass and coupling, chosen to fit the observed anomaly, plus model choices for the extragalactic and host-galaxy magnetic fields. The EBL model and magnetic field descriptions are treated as given inputs from the literature.

free parameters (4)

ALP mass ma = 1e-10 eV
Chosen to maximize the photon survival probability PALP at 15 TeV in the ALP parameter scan (Section 3, Fig. 1).
ALP-photon coupling gaγγ = 4e-12 GeV-1
Chosen together with ma to maximize PALP at 15 TeV while staying within the bounds of Sisk-Reynes et al. (2022) and Dessert et al. (2022) (Section 3, Fig. 2).
Extragalactic magnetic field Bext = 1 nG
Adopted as the 'more likely' option to produce efficient photon-ALP conversion; the paper also considers Bext < 1e-15 G as a conservative case (Section 3).
Host galaxy magnetic configuration = starburst / spiral
Two possibilities are considered (spiral and starburst similar to M82), each with different magnetic field assumptions, and the starburst case is used in the main figures (Section 3).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The EBL model of Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021) is the correct description of the extragalactic background light, specifically in the infrared band affecting >5 TeV photons.
The paper selects this model as 'most robust' and uses it to compute PCP and PALP (Section 2).
standard math The photon-ALP oscillation formalism of Raffelt and Stodolsky applies in the astrophysical magnetic fields considered.
Invoked in Section 3 without derivation; this is a standard quantum-mechanical mixing framework.
domain assumption The magnetic field model of Jansson and Farrar and the electron density model of Yao et al. accurately describe the Milky Way propagation.
Used to compute photon-ALP conversion in the Milky Way (Section 3).
domain assumption The host galaxy of GRB 221009A is a disc-like galaxy seen edge-on with the GRB near the nucleus, enabling efficient conversion.
Based on Levan et al. (2023) results, used to justify the host galaxy magnetic field configuration (Section 3).
standard math QED vacuum polarization and CMB photon dispersion effects are included in the beam propagation.
Mentioned in Section 3 as effects considered in the calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRB multi-TeV detection: Beyond standard physics?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I6QH5GRE

@misc{pith2026241219320,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRB multi-TeV detection: Beyond standard physics?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I6QH5GRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19320}
}

abstract

The recent detection by LHAASO up to 18 TeV of the gamma ray burst GRB 221009A at redshift $z = 0.151$ challenges standard physics because of the strong absorption due to the extragalactic background light (EBL) for photons with energies above 10 TeV. Emission models partially avoiding EBL absorption proposed to explain such an event are unsatisfactory since they require peculiar and contrived assumptions. By introducing in magnetized media the interaction of photons with axion-like particles (ALPs) - which are a generic prediction of most theories extending the standard model of particle physics towards a more satisfying theory - the detection of GRB 221009A can be naturally explained, thereby providing a strong hint at ALP existence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19320 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Behavior of PALP at E = 15 TeV as a function of ma and gaγγ by assuming the EBL model of Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021), Bext = 1 nG and a starburst hosting galaxy. ALP bounds are also plotted (CAST Collaboration (2017); Sisk-Reynes et al. ´ (2022); Dessert et al. (2022)). (Credit: Galanti et al. (2022a)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Behavior of PCP and of PALP (for Bext = 1 nG and Bext < 10−15 G) versus E for the case of a starburst hosting galaxy and employing the EBL model of Saldana-Lopez et al. (2021). We assume ma = 10−10 eV and gaγγ = 4 × 10−12 GeV−1 . (Credit: Galanti et al. (2022a)). (2021), Bext = 1 nG and a starburst hosting galaxy. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Behavior of PCP and of PLIV versus E. (Credit: adapted from Galanti et al. (2022a)). and secondary emission from ultra-high energy protons (Mirabal (2023); Gonzalez et al. (2023); Das & Razzaque (2023); Zhao et al. (2023); Sahu et al. (2023)) – can hardly explain the detection of E > 10 TeV photons from GRB 221009A even assuming ad hoc and often contrived choices of the parameters because of the EBL absorption. S… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

2022, Progr

Addazi, A., et al. 2022, Progr. in Part. and Nucl. Phys., 125, 103948

work page 2022
[2]

& Jain, P

Agarwal, N., Kamal, A. & Jain, P. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 065014

work page 2011
[3]

2012, JCAP, 06, 013

Arias, P., et al. 2012, JCAP, 06, 013

work page 2012
[4]

& Roncadelli, M

Bassan, N., Mirizzi, A. & Roncadelli, M. 2010, JCAP, 05, 010

work page 2010
[5]

2016, A&A Rev., 24, 4 Carpet-2 Collaboration 2022, ATel #15669, https://astronomerstelegram.org/ ?read=15669 CAST Collaboration 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 584

Beck, R. 2016, A&A Rev., 24, 4 Carpet-2 Collaboration 2022, ATel #15669, https://astronomerstelegram.org/ ?read=15669 CAST Collaboration 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 584

work page 2016
[6]

& Razzaque, S

Das, S. & Razzaque, S. 2023, A&A, 670, 12

work page 2023
[7]

& Krippendorf, S

Day, F. & Krippendorf, S. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 45 De Angelis, A., Galanti, G. & Roncadelli, M. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 105030 De Angelis, A., Roncadelli, M. & Mansutti, O. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 121301

work page 2018
[8]

& Safdi, B

Dessert, C., Dunsky, D. & Safdi, B. R. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103034

work page 2022

Show all 52 references

[9]

& Ra ffelt, G

Dobrynina, A., Kartavtsev, A. & Ra ffelt, G. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 083003 Dom´ınguez, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2556

2015
[10]

& Neronov, A

Durrer, R. & Neronov, A. 2013 A&A Rev., 21, 62

2013
[11]

& Krennrich, F

Dwek, E. & Krennrich, F. 2013, Astropart. Phys., 43, 112

2013
[12]

& Rodighiero, G

Franceschini, A. & Rodighiero, G. 2017, A&A, 603, 34

2017
[13]

& Loeb, A

Furlanetto, S. & Loeb, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 619

2001
[14]

2022, Phys

Galanti, G. 2022, Phys. Rev. D,105, 083022

2022
[15]

Galanti, G., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 043006

2023
[16]

& Bonnoli, G., 2022a, arXiv:2210.05659

Tavecchio, F. & Bonnoli, G., 2022a, arXiv:2210.05659

arXiv
[17]

& Roncadelli, M

Galanti, G. & Roncadelli, M. 2022, Universe, 8, 253

2022
[18]

& Tavecchio, F

Galanti, G., Roncadelli, M. & Tavecchio, F. 2022b, arXiv:2211.06935

arXiv
[19]

& Tavecchio, F

Galanti, G., Roncadelli, M. & Tavecchio, F. 2023b, arXiv:2301.08204

arXiv
[20]

2019, MNRAS, 487, 123

Evoli, C. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 123

2019
[21]

C., Somerville, R

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

2012
[22]

M., et al

Gonzalez, M. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 178

2023
[23]

& Euler, H

Heisenberg, W. & Euler, H. 1936, Z. Phys., 98, 714

1936
[24]

1969, Nature, 223, 936

Hoyle, F. 1969, Nature, 223, 936

1969
[25]

& Ringwald, A

Jaeckel, J. & Ringwald, A. 2010, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 60, 405

2010
[26]

& Sarala, S

Jain, P., Panda, S. & Sarala, S. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 085007

2002
[27]

& Kodama, H

Kohri, K. & Kodama, H. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 051701

2017
[28]

P., Lesch, H

Kronberg, P. P., Lesch, H. & Hopp, U. 1999, ApJ, 511, 56 Labb´e, I., et al. 2022, arXiv:2207.12446

1999 arXiv
[29]

G., Mart´ınez-Huerta, H

Lang, R. G., Mart´ınez-Huerta, H. & de Souza, V . 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 043015 Galanti et al.: GRB multi-TeV detection: Beyond standard physics? 287

2019
[30]

J., et al

Levan, A. J., et al. 2023, arXiv:2302.07761 LHAASO Collaboration 2022, GCN Circular n. 32677, https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/ gcn3/32677.gcn3

2023 arXiv
[31]

& Schmelz, J

Targhi, M. & Schmelz, J. T. 2021, ApJ, 914, 24

2021
[32]

& Zavattini, E., 1986, Phys

Maiani, L., Petronzio, R. & Zavattini, E., 1986, Phys. Lett. B, 175, 359

1986
[33]

2023, MNRAS, 519, 85

Mirabal, N. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 85

2023
[34]

& V ovk, I

Neronov, A. & V ovk, I. 2010, Science, 328, 73

2010
[35]

Payez, A., Cudell, J. R. & Hutsem ´ekers, D. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 085029

2011
[36]

2012, ApJ, 748, 116

Perna, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 116

2012
[37]

S., Tinyakov, P

Pshirkov, M. S., Tinyakov, P. G. & Urban, F. R. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 191302

2016
[38]

& Stodolsky, L

Raffelt, G. & Stodolsky, L. 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 37, 1237

1988
[39]

Rees, M. J. & Setti, G. 1968, Nature, 219, 127

1968
[40]

2012, Phys

Ringwald, A. 2012, Phys. Dark Univ., 1, 116

2012
[41]

& Rajpoot, S

Sahu, S., Medina-Carrillo, B., S´anchez-Col´on, G. & Rajpoot, S. 2023, ApJ, 942, 30

2023
[42]

2021, MNRAS, 507, 5144 S´anchez-Conde, M

Saldana-Lopez, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5144 S´anchez-Conde, M. A., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 123511

2021
[43]

1951, Phys

Schwinger, J. 1951, Phys. Rev., 82, 664

1951
[44]

& Serpico, P

Simet, M., Hooper, D. & Serpico, P. D. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 063001 Sisk-Reyn´es, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1264 Stargate Collaboration 2022, GCN Circular n. 32648, https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/ gcn3/32648.gcn3

2008
[45]

& Bonnoli, G

Tavecchio, F. & Bonnoli, G. 2016, A&A, 585, A25

2016
[46]

& Galanti, G

Tavecchio, F., Roncadelli, M. & Galanti, G. 2015, Phys. Lett. B, 744, 375

2015
[47]

2012, Phys

Bonnoli, G. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 085036

2012
[48]

A., et al

Thompson, T. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 186

2006
[49]

Weisskopf, V . S. 1936, K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd., 14, 6

1936
[50]

& Brun, P

Wouters, D. & Brun, P. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 043005

2012
[51]

M., Manchester, R

Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N. & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29

2017
[52]

& Wang, S

Zhao, Z.-C., Zhou, Y . & Wang, S. 2023, EPJC, 83, 92

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2022, Progr

Addazi, A., et al. 2022, Progr. in Part. and Nucl. Phys., 125, 103948

work page 2022

[2] [2]

& Jain, P

Agarwal, N., Kamal, A. & Jain, P. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 065014

work page 2011

[3] [3]

2012, JCAP, 06, 013

Arias, P., et al. 2012, JCAP, 06, 013

work page 2012

[4] [4]

& Roncadelli, M

Bassan, N., Mirizzi, A. & Roncadelli, M. 2010, JCAP, 05, 010

work page 2010

[5] [5]

2016, A&A Rev., 24, 4 Carpet-2 Collaboration 2022, ATel #15669, https://astronomerstelegram.org/ ?read=15669 CAST Collaboration 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 584

Beck, R. 2016, A&A Rev., 24, 4 Carpet-2 Collaboration 2022, ATel #15669, https://astronomerstelegram.org/ ?read=15669 CAST Collaboration 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 584

work page 2016

[6] [6]

& Razzaque, S

Das, S. & Razzaque, S. 2023, A&A, 670, 12

work page 2023

[7] [7]

& Krippendorf, S

Day, F. & Krippendorf, S. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 45 De Angelis, A., Galanti, G. & Roncadelli, M. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 105030 De Angelis, A., Roncadelli, M. & Mansutti, O. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 121301

work page 2018

[8] [8]

& Safdi, B

Dessert, C., Dunsky, D. & Safdi, B. R. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103034

work page 2022