Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Projected sensitivity of CTAO to axion-like particles from blazars with a machine learning approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CTAO observations of two bright blazars should extend axion-like-particle exclusion into a previously untested mass window, and a machine-learning classifier can match the standard statistical sensitivity.

desk verdict A careful, honest CTAO ALP sensitivity projection whose real contribution is the XGBoost/Beta-calibrated ML method; reach is conditional on the jet B-field model, but the statistics hold up and it deserves full refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.19259 v3 pith:VUR5YPPX submitted 2025-12-22 astro-ph.HE

Francesco Schiavone (1 , 2) , Leonardo Di Venere (2) , Francesco Giordano (1 , 2) ((1) Bari Univ. , (2) INFN Bari) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords axion-likeparticlesCTAOsensitivityblazarsgamma-rayspectroscopyphoton-ALPoscillationsmachinelearningclassifiersMrk501PKS2155-304
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 simulates what the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory would see when it observes two bright blazars, Mrk 501 and PKS 2155-304, and asks whether axion-like particles (ALPs) could be revealed by the way they alter gamma-ray spectra during propagation. The central claim is that CTAO will be able to exclude ALPs with couplings down to a few times 10^-11 GeV^-1 across a mass range of 0.1 to 1000 neV, and in particular will place limits on a much wider portion of previously unconstrained parameter space at masses 0.1–100 neV. A second claim is that a machine-learning classifier, trained on simulated spectra with and without ALP effects, reproduces the exclusion regions obtained by the standard likelihood-ratio test. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete, testable prediction: if CTAO data later show no spectral wiggles or hardening in these sources, the ALP hypothesis in that region would be constrained, and the machine-learning method would be validated as an alternative tool less tied to a particular spectral model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photon survival probability P_γγ(E) — the probability that a gamma ray from the source reaches Earth as a photon rather than oscillating into an ALP — computed along the line of sight through a model of the jet's magnetic field (a helical field with a tangled component, plus the Galactic field) and through the extragalactic background light. This function carries all the ALP physics: its energy-dependent shape produces the spectral wiggles and the high-energy hardening that the analysis searches for. The statistical comparison is carried out two ways: a likelihood-ratio test using the difference in fit quality between ALP and no-ALP models, and a grid of machin

What would settle it

Recompute the same simulated observations with a different published jet magnetic field model — for example a purely tangled field, or a helical field with half the assumed strength (about 0.4 G) — and check whether the projected 2σ exclusion region in the 0.1–100 neV mass range survives; the paper's own systematic test already shows noticeable contour shifts for a ±50% change in field strength.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: a projected sensitivity, not a detection. Simulating 50-hour baseline and 5-hour flare observations of Mrk 501 and PKS 2155-304, CTAO would exclude axion-like particles at the 2σ level across a parameter space of masses 0.1–1000 neV and couplings up to 7×10^-11 GeV^-1. The search relies on the photon survival probability from ALP-photon mixing in jet and Galactic magnetic fields, which creates spectral wiggles and high-energy hardening. A machine-learning classifier reproduces the exclusion regions from the standard likelihood-ratio test, and CTAO extends limits into previously unconstrained parameter space in the 0.1–100 neV mass range.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the assumed structure of the blazar jet's magnetic field — a helical-plus-tangled model with parameters taken from theoretical jet models — which the paper itself notes is almost unconstrained experimentally; if the real field's magnitude, coherence length, or topology differs, the predicted spectral signatures and the exclusion contours change accordingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CTAO observes Mrk 501 and PKS 2155-304 as modeled, it will exclude ALPs in a large fraction of the 0.1–1000 neV / 0.03–7×10^-11 GeV^-1 parameter space at the 2σ level, improving on current limits from other gamma-ray and helioscope experiments.
  • A 5-hour observation of a PKS 2155-304 flare would deliver stronger constraints than a 50-hour baseline observation, because the flaring spectrum brings high-energy photons above the CTAO sensitivity threshold, where extragalactic background-light absorption makes ALP effects most visible.
  • The machine-learning classifier method gives exclusion contours that agree with the standard likelihood-ratio test, providing a non-parametric cross-check that could be used in future ALP searches.
  • Asimov datasets — noise-free mock datasets often used for sensitivity estimates — cannot be used with the classifier method, because they systematically overestimate exclusion regions; noisy simulations are required instead.
  • The results are largely insensitive to the choice of energy binning and extragalactic background-light model, but sensitive to the assumed jet magnetic field strength: a ±50% change in field strength shifts the exclusion contours noticeably.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the classifier method is genuinely non-parametric, a natural next step is to train it on spectral features only and marginalize over the jet magnetic field parameters, which would test whether any exclusion region survives when the field model is varied — a step the paper explicitly leaves for future work.
  • The same procedure could be applied to other bright TeV blazars or to combined spectra from multiple sources; the fact that two blazars already yield wide exclusion regions suggests a program of ALP constraints from a sample of active galactic nuclei could quickly cover a large portion of the parameter space once CTAO is operational.
  • The paper's claim that CTAO will 'place limits on a much wider portion of previously unconstrained ALP parameter space in the 0.1–100 neV mass range' should be read as conditional on the adopted jet field model; a mis-estimated field could turn a projected exclusion into a false exclusion or a missed signal.
  • Because the machine-learning classifier learns which energy bins matter, its feature importance ranking could be used to design optimized energy binning or trigger strategies for CTAO observations aimed at ALP searches.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper projects the sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) to axion-like particles (ALPs) by simulating 50 h baseline and 5 h flaring observations of the blazars Mrk 501 and PKS 2155-304. The ALP-photon conversion is modeled with gammaALPs using a helical+tangled jet magnetic field, an EBL absorption model, and the Galactic magnetic field; CTAO observations are simulated with Gammapy using public prod5 IRFs. Two statistical methods are used to derive 2σ exclusion regions in the (m_a, g_aγ) plane: a standard likelihood-ratio test (LRT) and a new method based on XGBoost classifiers trained on ALP vs no-ALP simulated spectra. The two methods yield broadly consistent contours, and the authors conclude that CTAO will improve on current ALP limits over a wide portion of the 0.1-100 neV mass range.

Significance. If the projections are correct, they quantify a promising discovery/constraint channel for ALPs with CTAO, going beyond current limits from H.E.S.S., MAGIC, Fermi, and CAST. A notable strength of the paper is that the entire simulation chain is based on public, widely used packages (Gammapy, gammaALPs, prod5 IRFs, ebltable), making the analysis reproducible. The systematic checks in Appendix A—binning, EBL model, B-field scaling, and training randomization—are appropriate and add value. The comparison of a non-parametric ML classifier with a classical LRT in the context of ALP spectral searches is a useful proof of principle, though the paper correctly notes that the ML method as implemented uses the same model assumptions and thus does not yet reduce model dependence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Table 1, Fig. 8c, §6] The projected exclusion regions are computed under a single jet magnetic field model (helical+tangled, parameters from Potter & Cotter 2015 / Tavecchio et al. 2010). As the paper states in §6, the field structure in blazar jets is 'almost unconstrained experimentally.' Fig. 8c shows that a ±50% change in B0 alone noticeably shifts the 2σ contours. The abstract and conclusions claim CTAO 'will be able to consistently improve present limits' and 'place limits on a much wider portion of previously unconstrained ALP parameter space.' These claims are conditional on the assumed field morphology, magnitude, and coherence scale. The authors should either (i) robustly test alternative field configurations (e.g., purely tangled fields, different coherence lengths, radial vs helical components, B0 over a plausible range) and quantify the resulting variations in the excluded region, or (ii) substan
  2. [§3, Eqs. (11)-(13); §4, Eq. (19)] The test statistic used to define the sensitivity is the average TS0 (or Π0) over 100 simulated ALP-less datasets, while the reference distribution under the ALP hypothesis is built from single-dataset TS (or Π) values, fitted to Gamma (or Beta) PDFs. Comparing an average of 100 independent test statistics to the distribution of a single test statistic is not statistically correct unless this is explicitly intended as a 'median expected sensitivity' calculation. In that case, the use of the mean of 100 as a proxy for the median, and the interpretation of the resulting CL as a median expected confidence, should be stated and justified. As written, the CL and z-scores are systematically overestimated (the variance of the average is ~100 times smaller than the single-dataset variance), which can inflate the 2σ contours in Fig. 6 and the claimed improvement over current limits in Fig. 7. The
  3. [§4.2, Table 3] The ML classifiers are trained on datasets in which the intrinsic spectral parameters are randomized over the ranges listed in Table 3, but the ALP-less test datasets are generated with the nominal (central) spectral parameters. The paper does not specify whether the 2,000 ALP-like datasets used to construct the Π distribution also use randomized parameters or nominal ones. If they use nominal parameters, the classifier will appear better calibrated than in a realistic analysis where the true intrinsic spectrum is uncertain, potentially biasing the Π distribution and the resulting exclusion contours. To make the ML sensitivity estimate self-consistent, the spectral-parameter distributions used for training and for the ALP-like test samples should be matched, or the authors should show that the results are insensitive to this choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] 'CTAO will be able to consistently improve present limits' is too strong in light of the model dependence noted in §6. Suggest rewording to 'is expected to' or 'may improve' to reflect the conditional nature of the projections.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The sentence 'Additionally, the parameters r_vhe and r_T are used, both set equal to r0 and taken to be ∼100 times the size of the transition region R_T' is confusing and seems internally contradictory. Please clarify the definitions and values.
  3. [§3, Fig. 3] The quantity TS0 is defined as an average over 100 datasets, but the fitted Gamma distribution is for single datasets. Even if the analysis is intended as a median-sensitivity estimate, this distinction should be made explicit when the CL is computed (cf. major comment 2).
  4. [Appendix D, §5] Appendix D notes that higher-confidence limits (3σ, 5σ) from the ML method are less reliable and depend on the goodness of the Beta fit. Since the color maps in Fig. 6 display values up to 7σ, this caveat should appear in the main text near the figure.
  5. [§2.1] The statement that extending the 4FGL models to 10 TeV is 'conservative' could use a brief justification, since an exponential cutoff around 1 TeV might in principle suppress or enhance ALP-related features depending on the ALP parameters. The paper checks this in an earlier line, but the wording is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the projected sensitivity is a Monte Carlo power calculation using independent simulated data; the ML/LRT agreement is an internal consistency check under the same explicitly stated external model assumptions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the statistical sense. P_γγ is computed with gammaALPs from externally published environments (Davies et al. 2020, Potter & Cotter 2015, Tavecchio et al. 2010 for the jet; Jansson & Farrar 2012 for the GMF; Domínguez et al. 2011 for EBL), and mock CTAO observations are generated with Gammapy from public IRFs (CTAO prod5 v0.1). The LRT and ML pipelines both compare independently simulated ALP-bearing and ALP-free datasets; no ALP parameter is fitted to a real spectrum and then renamed as a predicted limit, and no equation is defined in terms of the target result. The ML method trains classifiers on simulated ALP spectra but evaluates them on independent no-ALP test data, so the exclusion contours are a genuine power estimate. The agreement between ML and LRT (Section 5, 'the overall shapes and extensions of the projected exclusion regions are in agreement between the two methods') is expected because both methods use the same P_γγ inputs; the paper explicitly calls this a first step and concedes that the classifier method 'uses the same modeling assumptions as the traditional method, thus not really solving the issue of systematic uncertainties' (Section 6). The jet B-field model dependence is acknowledged: 'The magnetic field structure in blazar jets, in particular, is almost unconstrained experimentally and can only be estimated from theoretical arguments, thus making ALP searches from blazars somewhat model-dependent' (Section 6). That is an empirical/physics-input limitation (and a correctness risk if the field model is wrong), but not circularity: the projection is conditional on a stated environmental model. References to CTAO consortium works [51,54,78] supply instrument response functions and comparison limits; they are not load-bearing logical premises of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a sensitivity projection, so the central claim is supported by forward simulation rather than a closed-form derivation. All input parameters come from the literature or are chosen by hand; none are fitted to enforce the result. The weakest links are the assumed jet B-field parameters and the ML hyperparameters, both of which are acknowledged as uncertain.

free parameters (6)
  • Jet magnetic field parameters (Mrk 501) = r0=0.36 pc, B0=0.81 G, gmax=9, gmin=2, n0=4.5e4 cm^-3, rjet=3.2e3 pc, alpha=1.68
    Taken from refs [65] and [68]; the ALP-photon conversion probability, and hence the projected sensitivity, depends on these values. The paper varies B0 by ±50% (Fig. 8c) but adopts these as fiducial.
  • Jet magnetic field parameters (PKS 2155-304) = r0=0.33 pc, B0=0.82 G, gmax=15, gmin=7, n0=1.65e4 cm^-3, rjet=3.2e3 pc, alpha=1.70
    Same as above, adapted from the 0FGL-source 'J2158' in ref [65].
  • Spectral parameters (baseline/flare) = See Table 3
    Input spectral shapes from 4FGL-DR4 [56] and refs [57,58]; the ML training randomizes within ±Δp, and the LRT profiles over them; the projected sensitivity depends on the assumed intrinsic spectra.
  • ML hyperparameters = n_estimators=100, max_depth=3, reg_lambda=500, reg_alpha=10, eta=0.3
    Chosen as fiducial ('arbitrary to a certain extent'); they affect classifier accuracy and therefore the exclusion contours.
  • EBL model = Dominguez et al. (2011) [33]
    Used for absorption; Appendix A shows contours are stable across models, so this is a minor parameter.
  • Galactic magnetic field model = Jansson & Farrar (2012) [69]
    Used for MW ALP mixing; not varied in the systematic checks.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math ALP-photon mixing obeys the Schrodinger-like / von Neumann equation (eq. 5) with Raffelt-Stodolsky Hamiltonian.
    Basis of the ALP-induced spectral signatures; standard quantum-mechanical treatment.
  • domain assumption The blazar jet magnetic field is described by the helical+tangled model of Potter & Cotter / Davies et al.
    Section 2.2 and Table 1; if the real jet field topology differs, the P_γγ(E) spectral features change.
  • ad hoc to paper Intrinsic spectra from 4FGL-DR4 and flare states can be extrapolated up to 10 TeV.
    Section 2.1 states this assumption explicitly; a 1 TeV cutoff is checked not to change results significantly.
  • domain assumption The intergalactic magnetic field is negligible for the line of sight.
    Section 2.2, justified by large uncertainty, in line with refs [53,46,54,47].
  • ad hoc to paper Wilks' theorem does not apply for the ALP TS; MC-generated distributions fitted by Gamma/Beta PDFs are used.
    Sections 3-4; the validity of the fitted PDF is checked for the 2σ contours in Appendix D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Projected sensitivity of CTAO to axion-like particles from blazars with a machine learning approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUR5YPPX

@misc{pith2026251219259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Projected sensitivity of CTAO to axion-like particles from blazars with a machine learning approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUR5YPPX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19259}
}
abstract

Blazars are a class of active galactic nuclei, supermassive black holes located at the centres of distant galaxies characterised by strong emission across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays. Their relativistic jets, closely aligned to the line of sight from Earth, are a rich and complex environment, characterised by the presence of strong magnetic fields over parsec-scale lengths. Owing to their cosmological distance from Earth, these sources serve as ideal targets to probe non-standard gamma-ray propagation. In particular, axion-like particles (ALPs) could be detected through their coupling to photons, which enables ALP-photon conversions in external magnetic fields, leading to distinct signatures in the blazars' gamma-ray spectra. In this work, we estimate the potential of the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO) to constrain the ALP parameter space by simulating observations of two bright blazars, Mrk 501 and PKS 2155$-$304. We obtain projected $2\sigma$ exclusion regions, demonstrating that CTAO will be able to consistently improve present limits thanks to its greater energy resolution and point-source sensitivity with respect to present ground-based gamma-ray telescopes. In addition to the standard statistical technique based on the likelihood ratio test, we further demonstrate the application of a new method based on machine learning classifiers, which may help in reducing the effect of systematic model-dependent uncertainties in future ALP searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ALP effects on the baseline and flaring spectral shapes chosen for the sources in this work. For large enough [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example simulated SEDs for two 50-hour observations of the Mrk 501 baseline state. Spectral fits are shown for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example likelihood-ratio TS distribution obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: XGB metrics for the baseline state of Mrk 501 over the ALP parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example distributions of the Π statistic defined in eq. (19), comparing good and suboptimal performance of a classifier algorithm in different regions of the ALP parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ALP exclusion significance computed with the ML-based method, with the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the CTAO 2σ exclusion regions on the ALP parameter space obtained in this work with ref￾erence constraints from the literature (green). The pro￾jected sensitivities obtained from 50-hour observations of Mrk 501 (red) and PKS 2155−304 (blue) in their base￾…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CTAO sensitivity to the ALP parameter space obtained from a 50-hour simulated observation of PKS 2155 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Accuracy of the XGBoost classifier grids defined over the ALP parameter space with the hyperparameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of a highly skewed Π distribution ob￾tained for a ML classifier close to maximal accuracy References 1. R. D. Peccei and Helen R. Quinn. CP Conservation in the Presence of Pseudoparticles. Phys. Rev. Lett., 38:1440– 1443, Jun 1977. 2. Steven Weinberg. A New Li…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Weakly supervised machine learning for model-agnostic searches of new phenomena in the $\gamma$-ray sky

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Weakly supervised classifiers trained on background-versus-mixture samples can identify anomalous gamma-ray sources without labeled signal templates, approaching supervised performance in controlled benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and Helen R. Quinn. CP Conservation in the Presence of Pseudoparticles.Phys. Rev. Lett., 38:1440– 1443, Jun 1977

    1977

  2. [2]

    A New Light Boson?Phys

    Steven Weinberg. A New Light Boson?Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:223–226, Jan 1978

    1978

  3. [3]

    F. Wilczek. Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 40:279–282, Jan 1978

    1978

  4. [4]

    T. W. Donnelly, S. J. Freedman, R. S. Lytel, R. D. Peccei, and M. Schwartz. Do axions exist?Phys. Rev. D, 18:1607– 1620, Sep 1978

    1978

  5. [5]

    A. Zehnder. Axion search in a monochromaticγ- transition: A new lower limit for the axion mass.Phys. Lett. B, 104(6):494–498, 1981

    1981

  6. [6]

    Jihn E. Kim. Weak-Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance.Phys. Rev. Lett., 43:103–107, Jul 1979

    1979

  7. [7]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, and V.I. Zakharov. Can confinement ensure natural CP invariance of strong inter- actions?Nucl. Phys. B, 166(3):493–506, 1980

    1980

  8. [8]

    A sim- ple solution to the strong CP problem with a harmless axion.Phys

    Michael Dine, Willy Fischler, and Mark Srednicki. A sim- ple solution to the strong CP problem with a harmless axion.Phys. Lett. B, 104(3):199–202, 1981

    1981

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky. On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian).Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 31:260, 1980

    1980

  2. [10]

    The low-energy frontier of particle physics.Annu

    Joerg Jaeckel and Andreas Ringwald. The low-energy frontier of particle physics.Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 60(Volume 60, 2010):405–437, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Exploring the role of axions and other WISPs in the dark universe.Phys

    Andreas Ringwald. Exploring the role of axions and other WISPs in the dark universe.Phys. Dark Universe, 1(1):116–135, 2012. Next Decade in Dark Matter and Dark Energy

    2012

  4. [12]

    Irastorza and Javier Redondo

    Igor G. Irastorza and Javier Redondo. New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 102:89–159, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    The landscape of QCD axion models.Phys

    Luca Di Luzio, Maurizio Giannotti, Enrico Nardi, and Luca Visinelli. The landscape of QCD axion models.Phys. Rep., 870:1–117, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    P. Sikivie. Experimental Tests of the ”Invisible” Axion. Phys. Rev. Lett., 51:1415–1417, Oct 1983

    1983

  7. [15]

    Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles.Phys

    Georg Raffelt and Leo Stodolsky. Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles.Phys. Rev. D, 37:1237–1249, Mar 1988

    1988

  8. [16]

    Any light particle search II – Technical Design Report.J

    R B¨ ahre, B D¨ obrich, J Dreyling-Eschweiler, S Ghazaryan, R Hodajerdi, et al. Any light particle search II – Technical Design Report.J. Instrum., 8(09):T09001, sep 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Zioutas, C.E

    K. Zioutas, C.E. Aalseth, D. Abriola, F.T. Avignone III, R.L. Brodzinski, et al. A decommissioned lhc model mag- net as an axion telescope.Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 425(3):480–487, 1999

    1999

  10. [18]

    Armengaud, D

    E. Armengaud, D. Atti´ e, S. Basso, P. Brun, N. Bykovskiy, et al. Physics potential of the International Axion Obser- vatory (IAXO).JCAP, 2019(06):047, jun 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    N. Du, N. Force, R. Khatiwada, E. Lentz, R. Ottens, et al. Search for Invisible Axion Dark Matter with the Axion Dark Matter Experiment.Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:151301, Apr 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    P. Brun, A. Caldwell, L. Chevalier, G. Dvali, P. Freire, et al. A new experimental approach to probe QCD axion dark matter in the mass range above 40µeV.EPJ C, 79(3), March 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Dan Hooper and Pasquale D. Serpico. Detecting axionlike particles with gamma ray telescopes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:231102, Dec 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    Raffelt, and Pasquale D

    Alessandro Mirizzi, Georg G. Raffelt, and Pasquale D. Ser- pico. Signatures of axionlike particles in the spectra of TeV gamma-ray sources.Phys. Rev. D, 76:023001, Jul 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    Raffelt, and Pasquale D

    Alessandro Mirizzi, Georg G. Raffelt, and Pasquale D. Serpico.Photon-Axion Conversion in Intergalactic Mag- netic Fields and Cosmological Consequences, pages 115–

  16. [24]

    Evidence for a new light spin-zero boson from cosmological gamma-ray propagation?Phys

    Alessandro De Angelis, Marco Roncadelli, and Oriana Mansutti. Evidence for a new light spin-zero boson from cosmological gamma-ray propagation?Phys. Rev. D, 76:121301, Dec 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

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

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

    2008

  18. [26]

    Relevance of axionlike particles for very-high- energy astrophysics.Phys

    Alessandro De Angelis, Giorgio Galanti, and Marco Ron- cadelli. Relevance of axionlike particles for very-high- energy astrophysics.Phys. Rev. D, 84:105030, Nov 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Hard- ening of TeV gamma spectrum of active galactic nuclei in galaxy clusters by conversions of photons into axionlike particles.Phys

    Dieter Horns, Luca Maccione, Manuel Meyer, Alessandro Mirizzi, Daniele Montanino, and Marco Roncadelli. Hard- ening of TeV gamma spectrum of active galactic nuclei in galaxy clusters by conversions of photons into axionlike particles.Phys. Rev. D, 86:075024, Oct 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Axion-like Particle Searches with IACTs.Universe, 7(6), 2021

    Ivana Batkovi´ c, Alessandro De Angelis, Michele Doro, and Marina Manganaro. Axion-like Particle Searches with IACTs.Universe, 7(6), 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Axion-like Parti- cles Implications for High-Energy Astrophysics.Universe, 8(5), 2022

    Giorgio Galanti and Marco Roncadelli. Axion-like Parti- cles Implications for High-Energy Astrophysics.Universe, 8(5), 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Axion-like particle effects on the polarization of cosmic high-energy gamma sources.JCAP, 2010(05):010, may 2010

    Nicola Bassan, Alessandro Mirizzi, and Marco Roncadelli. Axion-like particle effects on the polarization of cosmic high-energy gamma sources.JCAP, 2010(05):010, may 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    Axion-like particle effects on photon po- larization in high-energy astrophysics.Universe, (8), 2024

    Giorgio Galanti. Axion-like particle effects on photon po- larization in high-energy astrophysics.Universe, (8), 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Breit and John A

    G. Breit and John A. Wheeler. Collision of two light quanta.Phys. Rev., 46:1087–1091, Dec 1934. 16 F. Schiavone, L. Di Venere, F. Giordano: CTAO sensitivity to axion-like particles from blazars

    1934

  25. [33]

    Dom ´ ınguez, J

    A. Dom ´ ınguez, J. R. Primack, D. J. Rosario, F. Prada, R. C. Gilmore, et al. Extragalactic background light in- ferred from AEGIS galaxy-SED-type fractions.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 410(4):2556–2578, 01 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Franceschini, G

    A. Franceschini, G. Rodighiero, and M. Vaccari. Ex- tragalactic optical-infrared background radiation, its time evolution and the cosmic photon-photon opacity.A&A, 487(3):837–852, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Finke, Soebur Razzaque, and Charles D

    Justin D. Finke, Soebur Razzaque, and Charles D. Der- mer. Modeling the extragalactic background light from stars and dust.Astrophys. J., 712(1):238, feb 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Gilmore, Rachel S

    Rudy C. Gilmore, Rachel S. Somerville, Joel R. Primack, and Alberto Dom ´ ınguez. Semi-analytic modelling of the extragalactic background light and consequences for extra- galactic gamma-ray spectra.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 422(4):3189–3207, 05 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    An observational determination of the evolving extragalactic background light from the multiwavelength HST/CAN- DELS survey in the Fermi and CTA era.Mon

    Alberto Saldana-Lopez, Alberto Dom ´ ınguez, Pablo G P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, Justin Finke, Marco Ajello, et al. An observational determination of the evolving extragalactic background light from the multiwavelength HST/CAN- DELS survey in the Fermi and CTA era.Mon. Not. R. Astron....

    2021

  30. [38]

    De Angelis, G

    A. De Angelis, G. Galanti, and M. Roncadelli. Trans- parency of the universe to gamma-rays.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 432(4):3245–3249, 05 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Padovani, D

    P. Padovani, D. M. Alexander, R. J. Assef, B. De Marco, P. Giommi, et al. Active galactic nuclei: what’s in a name? Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 25(1), August 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    B¨ ottcher, A

    M. B¨ ottcher, A. Reimer, K. Sweeney, and A. Prakash. Lep- tonic and hadronic modeling offermi-detected blazars.As- trophys. J., 768(1):54, apr 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Leptonic and hadronic radiative processes in supermassive-black-hole jets.Galaxies, 8(4), 2020

    Matteo Cerruti. Leptonic and hadronic radiative processes in supermassive-black-hole jets.Galaxies, 8(4), 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Progress in Multi-Wavelength and Multi-Messenger Observations of Blazars and Theoretical Challenges.Galaxies, 7(1), 2019

    Markus B¨ ottcher. Progress in Multi-Wavelength and Multi-Messenger Observations of Blazars and Theoretical Challenges.Galaxies, 7(1), 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Abramowski, F

    A. Abramowski, F. Acero, F. Aharonian, F. Ait Benkhali, A. G. Akhperjanian, et al. Constraints on axionlike par- ticles with H.E.S.S. from the irregularity of the PKS 2155−304 energy spectrum.Phys. Rev. D, 88:102003, Nov 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    Constraining axion-like particles with HA WC observations of TeV blazars.JCAP, 2023(10):009, oct 2023

    Sunniva Jacobsen, Tim Linden, and Katherine Freese. Constraining axion-like particles with HA WC observations of TeV blazars.JCAP, 2023(10):009, oct 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Con- straints on axionlike particles from a combined analysis of three flaringF ermiflat-spectrum radio quasars.Phys

    James Davies, Manuel Meyer, and Garret Cotter. Con- straints on axionlike particles from a combined analysis of three flaringF ermiflat-spectrum radio quasars.Phys. Rev. D, 107:083027, Apr 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Ajello, A

    M. Ajello, A. Albert, B. Anderson, L. Baldini, G. Bar- biellini, et al. Search for Spectral Irregularities due to Photon–Axionlike-Particle Oscillations with the Fermi Large Area Telescope.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:161101, Apr 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    H. Abe, S. Abe, J. Abhir, V.A. Acciari, I. Agudo, et al. Constraints on axion-like particles with the Perseus Galaxy Cluster with MAGIC.Phys. Dark Universe, 44:101425, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Acharya, M

    B.S. Acharya, M. Actis, T. Aghajani, G. Agnetta, J. Aguilar, et al. Introducing the CTA concept.Astropart. Phys., 43:3–18, 2013. Seeing the High-Energy Universe with the Cherenkov Telescope Array - The Science Ex- plored with the CTA

    2013

  41. [49]

    Cta+: an italian program to enhance the southern cherenkov telescope array observatory.Jour- nal of Physics: Conference Series, 3053(1):012020, jul 2025

    Serena Loporchio. Cta+: an italian program to enhance the southern cherenkov telescope array observatory.Jour- nal of Physics: Conference Series, 3053(1):012020, jul 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Adams, R

    C.B. Adams, R. Alfaro, G. Ambrosi, M. Ambrosio, C. Aramo, et al. Detection of the Crab Nebula with the 9.7 m prototype Schwarzschild-Couder telescope.Astropart. Phys., 128:102562, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Acharya, I

    B.S. Acharya, I. Agudo, I. Al Samarai, R. Alfaro, J. Alfaro, et al.Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array. World Scientific, February 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    On detecting oscillations of gamma rays into axion-like par- ticles in turbulent and coherent magnetic fields.JCAP, 2014(09):003, sep 2014

    Manuel Meyer, Daniele Montanino, and Jan Conrad. On detecting oscillations of gamma rays into axion-like par- ticles in turbulent and coherent magnetic fields.JCAP, 2014(09):003, sep 2014

    2014

  45. [53]

    Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to the detection of axion- like particles at high gamma-ray opacities.JCAP, 2014(12):016, dec 2014

    Manuel Meyer and Jan Conrad. Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to the detection of axion- like particles at high gamma-ray opacities.JCAP, 2014(12):016, dec 2014

    2014

  46. [54]

    Abdalla, H

    H. Abdalla, H. Abe, F. Acero, A. Acharyya, R. Adam, et al. Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array for probing cosmology and fundamental physics with gamma- ray propagation.JCAP, 2021(02):048, feb 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Abdollahi, F

    S. Abdollahi, F. Acero, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, D. Bastieri, et al. Incremental Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog.ApJS, 260(2):53, jun 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Ballet, P

    J. Ballet, P. Bruel, T. H. Burnett, B. Lott, and The Fermi- LAT collaboration. Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4), 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Albert, E

    J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub, P. Antoranz, A. Armada, et al. Variable Very High Energyγ-Ray Emission from Markarian 501.Astrophys. J., 669(2):862, nov 2007

    2007

  50. [58]

    Aharonian, A

    F. Aharonian, A. G. Akhperjanian, G. Anton, U. Barres de Almeida, A. R. Bazer-Bachi, et al. Simultaneous multi- wavelength observations of the second exceptionalγ-ray flare of PKS 2155–304 in July 2006.Astron. Astrophys., 502(3):749–770, 2009

    2006

  51. [59]

    gam- maALPs: An open-source python package for computing photon-axion-like-particle oscillations in astrophysical en- vironments.PoS, ICRC2021:557, 2021

    Manuel Meyer, James Davies, and Julian Kuhlmann. gam- maALPs: An open-source python package for computing photon-axion-like-particle oscillations in astrophysical en- vironments.PoS, ICRC2021:557, 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    Rele- vance of jet magnetic field structure for blazar axionlike particle searches.Phys

    James Davies, Manuel Meyer, and Garret Cotter. Rele- vance of jet magnetic field structure for blazar axionlike particle searches.Phys. Rev. D, 103:023008, Jan 2021

    2021

  53. [61]

    Potter and Garret Cotter

    William J. Potter and Garret Cotter. Synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission from blazar jets – I. A uniform conical jet model.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 423(1):756– 765, 05 2012

    2012

  54. [62]

    Potter and Garret Cotter

    William J. Potter and Garret Cotter. Synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission from blazar jets – II. An accel- erating jet model with a geometry set by observations of M87.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 429(2):1189–1205, 12 2012

    2012

  55. [63]

    Potter and Garret Cotter

    William J. Potter and Garret Cotter. Synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission from blazar jets – III. Compton-dominant blazars.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 431(2):1840–1852, 03 2013

    2013

  56. [64]

    Potter and Garret Cotter

    William J. Potter and Garret Cotter. Synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission from blazar jets – IV. BL Lac type blazars and the physical basis for the blazar sequence. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 436(1):304–314, 10 2013

    2013

  57. [65]

    Potter and Garret Cotter

    William J. Potter and Garret Cotter. New constraints on the structure and dynamics of black hole jets.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 453(4):4070–4088, 09 2015. F. Schiavone, L. Di Venere, F. Giordano: CTAO sensitivity to axion-like particles from blazars 17

    2015

  58. [66]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, W. B. Atwood, M. Axelsson, et al. Fermi/Large Area Telescope Bright Gamma-Ray Source List.ApJS, 183(1):46, jun 2009

    2009

  59. [67]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, I. Agudo, M. Ajello, H. D. Aller, et al. The Spectral Energy Distribution of Fermi Bright Blazars.Astrophys. J., 716(1):30, may 2010

    2010

  60. [68]

    Tavecchio, G

    F. Tavecchio, G. Ghisellini, G. Ghirlanda, L. Foschini, and L. Maraschi. TeV BL Lac objects at the dawn of the Fermi era.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 401(3):1570–1586, 01 2010

    2010

  61. [69]

    Ronnie Jansson and Glennys R. Farrar. A new model of the Galactic magnetic field.Astrophys. J., 757(1):14, aug 2012

    2012

  62. [70]

    P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, F. Arroja, M. Ash- down, et al. Planck 2015 results - XIX. Constraints on primordial magnetic fields.Astron. Astrophys., 594:A19, 2016

    2015

  63. [71]

    Gammapy: A Python package for gamma-ray astronomy.Astron

    Axel Donath, R´ egis Terrier, Quentin Remy, Atreyee Sinha, Cosimo Nigro, et al. Gammapy: A Python package for gamma-ray astronomy.Astron. Astrophys., 678:A157, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Gammapy: Python toolbox for gamma-ray astronomy, March 2023

    Fabio Acero, Arnau Aguasca-Cabot, Johannes Buchner, David Carreto Fidalgo, Andrew Chen, et al. Gammapy: Python toolbox for gamma-ray astronomy, March 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy.Astron

    Astropy Collaboration et al. Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy.Astron. Astrophys., 558:A33, October 2013

    2013

  66. [74]

    The Astropy Project: Build- ing an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package.Astrophys

    Astropy Collaboration et al. The Astropy Project: Build- ing an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package.Astrophys. J., 156(3):123, September 2018

    2018

  67. [75]

    The Astropy Project: Sus- taining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package.Astrophys

    Astropy Collaboration et al. The Astropy Project: Sus- taining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package.Astrophys. J., 935(2):167, August 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    Gammapy: Python toolbox for gamma-ray astronomy, January 2025

    Fabio Acero, Arnau Aguasca-Cabot, Juan Bernete, Noah Biederbeck, Julia Djuvsland, et al. Gammapy: Python toolbox for gamma-ray astronomy, January 2025

    2025

  69. [77]

    S. P. Wakely and D. Horan. TeVCat: An online catalog for Very High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy.International Cosmic Ray Conference, 3:1341–1344, 2008

    2008

  70. [78]

    CTAO Instrument Response Functions - prod5 version v0.1 , September 2021

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory and Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium. CTAO Instrument Response Functions - prod5 version v0.1 , September 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    Altenm¨ uller, V

    K. Altenm¨ uller, V. Anastassopoulos, S. Arguedas-Cuendis, S. Aune, J. Baier, et al. New upper limit on the axion- photon coupling with an extended cast run with a xe-based micromegas detector.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133:221005, Nov 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    S. S. Wilks. The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likeli- hood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses.Ann. Math. Statist., 9(1):60 – 62, 1938

    1938

  73. [81]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, et al

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Al- gorithms for Scientific Computing in Python.Nat. Meth- ods, 17:261–272, 2020

    2020

  74. [82]

    Sebastian Raschka and Vahid Mirjalili.Python Machine Learning, 2nd Ed.Packt Publishing, Birmingham, UK, 2 edition, 2017

    2017

  75. [83]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825– 2830, 2011

    2011

  76. [84]

    R.K. Bock, A. Chilingarian, M. Gaug, F. Hakl, T. Heng- stebeck, et al. Methods for multidimensional event clas- sification: a case study using images from a Cherenkov gamma-ray telescope.Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A516(2):511– 528, 2004

    2004

  77. [85]

    Albert, E

    J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub, P. Antoranz, A. Armada, et al. Implementation of the Random Forest method for the Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope MAGIC. Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A588(3):424–432, 2008

    2008

  78. [86]

    S. Ohm, C. van Eldik, and K. Egberts.γ/hadron sepa- ration in very-high-energyγ-ray astronomy using a multi- variate analysis method.Astropart. Phys., 31(5):383–391, 2009

    2009

  79. [87]

    A. M. Hillas. Cerenkov Light Images of EAS Produced by Primary Gamma Rays and by Nuclei. In F. C. Jones, edi- tor,19th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC19), Volume 3, volume 3 ofInternational Cosmic Ray Confer- ence, page 445, August 1985

    1985

  80. [88]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discov- ery and Data Mining, KDD ’16, page 785–794. ACM, Au- gust 2016

    2016

  81. [89]

    Accelerating the search for axion-like particles with machine learning

    Francesca Day and Sven Krippendorf. Accelerating the search for axion-like particles with machine learning. JCAP, 2020(03):046–046, March 2020

    2020

  82. [90]

    Li and Y.-Q

    T.-P. Li and Y.-Q. Ma. Analysis methods for results in gamma-ray astronomy.Astrophys. J., 272:317–324, September 1983

    1983

  83. [91]

    Acharyya, R

    A. Acharyya, R. Adam, C. Adams, I. Agudo, A. Aguirre- Santaella, et al. Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to a dark matter signal from the Galactic centre. JCAP, 2021(01):057, jan 2021

    2021

  84. [92]

    Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to TeV photon emission from the Large Magellanic Cloud.Mon

    A Acharyya, R Adam, A Aguasca-Cabot, I Agudo, A Aguirre-Santaella, et al. Sensitivity of the Cherenkov Telescope Array to TeV photon emission from the Large Magellanic Cloud.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 523(4):5353–5387, 05 2023

    2023

  85. [93]

    S. Abe, J. Abhir, A. Abhishek, F. Acero, A. Acharyya, et al. Dark matter line searches with the Cherenkov Tele- scope Array.JCAP, 2024(07):047, jul 2024

    2024

  86. [94]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics.Eur

    Glen Cowan, Kyle Cranmer, Eilam Gross, and Ofer Vitells. Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics.Eur. Phys. J. C, 71(2), February 2011

    2011

  87. [95]

    Axion-like particles and recent observations of the cosmic infrared background radiation.Phys

    Kazunori Kohri and Hideo Kodama. Axion-like particles and recent observations of the cosmic infrared background radiation.Phys. Rev. D, 96:051701, Sep 2017

    2017

  88. [96]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits.https: //cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/, July 2020

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

    2020

  89. [97]

    Christopher Dessert, David Dunsky, and Benjamin R. Safdi. Upper limit on the axion-photon coupling from mag- netic white dwarf polarization.Phys. Rev. D, 105:103034, May 2022

    2022

  90. [98]

    Witte, Alexander Y

    Dion Noordhuis, Anirudh Prabhu, Samuel J. Witte, Alexander Y. Chen, F´ abio Cruz, and Christoph Weniger. Novel constraints on axions produced in pulsar polar-cap cascades.Phys. Rev. Lett., 131:111004, Sep 2023

    2023

  91. [99]

    Safdi, and Inbar Savoray

    Claudio Andrea Manzari, Yujin Park, Benjamin R. Safdi, and Inbar Savoray. Supernova axions convert to gamma rays in magnetic fields of progenitor stars.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133:211002, Nov 2024

    2024

  92. [134]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.