pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.15269 · v2 · pith:UVPMRN2Anew · submitted 2026-06-13 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Line-of-sight magnetic-field propagation effects on axion-like particle constraints from GRB 221009A

Chengcheng Han , Zhanhong Lei , Jiajie Yang , Shutong Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 04:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords axion-like particlesGRB 221009Aintergalactic magnetic fieldphoton-ALP oscillationsgamma-ray burstsALP constraintsline-of-sight propagationmagnetic field modeling
0
0 comments X

The pith

The intergalactic magnetic field is the dominant uncertainty in ALP constraints from GRB 221009A

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

This paper examines how magnetic fields along the line of sight to GRB 221009A affect constraints on axion-like particles derived from LHAASO observations of high-energy photons. It models photon survival through host-galaxy, intergalactic, and Milky Way fields and finds that host-galaxy and Galactic choices produce only mild changes, while the intergalactic field's strength, coherence scale, and randomness can substantially shift the exclusion limits and introduce oscillatory features. A sympathetic reader would care because the work isolates the leading astrophysical uncertainty that limits the reliability of gamma-ray bursts as probes for new particles.

Core claim

High-energy photons from GRB 221009A provide a powerful opportunity to probe axion-like particles through photon-ALP oscillations in cosmic magnetic fields. Including the host-galaxy, intergalactic, and Milky-Way magnetic fields shows that the constraints are only mildly affected by the choice of host-galaxy and Galactic magnetic-field models, but can change significantly once the intergalactic magnetic field is varied. Its field strength, coherence scale, and stochastic properties can all leave visible imprints on the derived exclusion contours, and in some cases generate pronounced oscillatory features. This demonstrates that the intergalactic magnetic field constitutes the dominant astrop

What carries the argument

Photon survival probability computed from photon-ALP oscillations across host-galaxy, intergalactic, and Milky Way magnetic fields

If this is right

  • Varying the intergalactic magnetic field strength, coherence scale, and stochastic properties visibly alters the ALP exclusion contours and can produce oscillatory features.
  • Host-galaxy and Milky Way magnetic field models produce only mild shifts in the photon survival probability and derived limits.
  • Future gamma-ray searches for ALPs require realistic modeling of intergalactic propagation effects to extract reliable constraints.
  • Stochastic properties of the intergalactic field can leave distinct imprints on the mass-coupling exclusion plane.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Tighter observational bounds on the intergalactic magnetic field could reduce the uncertainty range in ALP limits from this and similar bursts.
  • The same line-of-sight propagation analysis could be applied to other high-energy transients to assess magnetic-field uncertainties in new-physics searches.
  • Unmodeled correlations between magnetic-field variations and source emission spectra might further affect the robustness of the extracted limits.

Load-bearing premise

The photon survival probability is accurately computed from specific models of host-galaxy, intergalactic, and Milky Way magnetic fields whose variations can be independently varied without additional unmodeled effects.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the intergalactic magnetic field strength and coherence scale along the line of sight to GRB 221009A that lies outside the varied model ranges and produces exclusion limits inconsistent with those reported here would falsify the dominance claim.

read the original abstract

High-energy photons from GRB 221009A provide a powerful opportunity to probe axion-like particles (ALPs) through photon-ALP oscillations in cosmic magnetic fields. We revisit the ALP constraints implied by the LHAASO observation of this burst, with particular emphasis on the magnetic-field environments encountered along the line of sight. We include the host-galaxy, intergalactic, and Milky-Way magnetic fields and assess their respective impacts on the photon survival probability and on the exclusion limits in the ALP mass-coupling plane. We show that the constraints are only mildly affected by the choice of host-galaxy and Galactic magnetic-field models, but can change significantly once the intergalactic magnetic field is varied. Its field strength, coherence scale, and stochastic properties can all leave visible imprints on the derived exclusion contours, and in some cases generate pronounced oscillatory features. This demonstrates that the intergalactic magnetic field constitutes the dominant astrophysical uncertainty in extracting ALP limits from GRB 221009A. Our analysis highlights the importance of realistic propagation modeling in future gamma-ray searches for ALPs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that high-energy photons from GRB 221009A provide an opportunity to probe ALPs via photon-ALP oscillations. By modeling propagation through host-galaxy, intergalactic (IGMF), and Milky Way magnetic fields, the authors find that ALP exclusion limits in the mass-coupling plane are only mildly affected by choices of host-galaxy and Galactic field models but can change significantly when the IGMF strength, coherence scale, and stochastic properties are varied, sometimes producing oscillatory features in the contours. They conclude that the IGMF is the dominant astrophysical uncertainty for ALP constraints from this burst and stress the importance of realistic line-of-sight magnetic-field modeling.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, the result would be significant for gamma-ray ALP searches by identifying IGMF modeling as the leading source of systematic uncertainty in photon survival probabilities and exclusion limits. The analysis gains strength from its explicit inclusion of all three magnetic-field components along the line of sight and from its demonstration of visible imprints on the derived contours from IGMF variations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the IGMF 'constitutes the dominant astrophysical uncertainty' is load-bearing and rests on the statement that constraints 'are only mildly affected' by host-galaxy and Galactic models but 'can change significantly' with IGMF. The IGMF exploration spans three distinct aspects (strength, coherence scale, stochastic properties), while the host and Milky Way explorations are described with less detail on the number of parameters or relative ranges varied. Without an explicit side-by-side comparison showing that the scopes are commensurate (e.g., in the sections presenting the photon survival probability and exclusion contours), the observed difference does not yet establish intrinsic dominance rather than differences in sampling breadth.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract mentions 'pronounced oscillatory features' generated by some IGMF models; indicating in which specific figures or parameter choices these appear would improve clarity for readers.
  2. A summary table listing the exact parameter ranges and number of models explored for each magnetic-field component (host, IGMF, MW) would make the comparison of impacts more transparent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and for highlighting the need to substantiate the claim of IGMF dominance with a clearer comparison of exploration scopes. We agree this strengthens the manuscript and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the IGMF 'constitutes the dominant astrophysical uncertainty' is load-bearing and rests on the statement that constraints 'are only mildly affected' by host-galaxy and Galactic models but 'can change significantly' with IGMF. The IGMF exploration spans three distinct aspects (strength, coherence scale, stochastic properties), while the host and Milky Way explorations are described with less detail on the number of parameters or relative ranges varied. Without an explicit side-by-side comparison showing that the scopes are commensurate (e.g., in the sections presenting the photon survival probability and exclusion contours), the observed difference does not yet establish intrinsic dominance rather than differences in sampling breadth.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's point that the IGMF variations (strength, coherence length, and stochastic realizations) are more extensive than those for the host-galaxy and Milky Way fields. This difference in sampling breadth partly reflects the current observational constraints: host-galaxy and Galactic field models are drawn from a narrower set of observationally motivated templates, while IGMF parameters remain far less constrained. Nevertheless, to make the comparison explicit and avoid any ambiguity about whether the observed differences arise from sampling rather than intrinsic uncertainty, we will add a new table (or subsection) in the revised manuscript. This table will list, for each magnetic-field component, the specific parameters varied, their ranges, and the number of models/realizations considered. We will also reference this table when discussing the photon survival probabilities and exclusion contours, thereby directly addressing the commensurability concern. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analysis relies on external magnetic-field models

full rationale

The paper computes photon survival probabilities and ALP exclusion contours by propagating photons through explicit models of host-galaxy, intergalactic, and Milky-Way magnetic fields. The claim that IGMF dominates the uncertainty is reached by direct numerical comparison of how changes in each field's parameters shift the survival probability and the resulting limits. No equation or result is defined in terms of itself, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields limited visibility into parameters and assumptions; IGMF models are treated as variable inputs whose details are not specified here.

free parameters (1)
  • IGMF strength and coherence scale
    Treated as variable inputs whose specific values are scanned to assess impact on constraints.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Photon-ALP oscillation probability is determined by line-of-sight magnetic fields
    Standard assumption in ALP propagation studies invoked to link magnetic field models to survival probability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5734 in / 1175 out tokens · 38903 ms · 2026-06-27T04:24:19.976214+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 22 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Gould and G

    R. Gould and G. Schr´ eder,Opacity of the Universe to High-Energy Photons,Phys. Rev. Lett. 16(1966) 252

    1966

  2. [2]

    Fazio and F.W

    G.G. Fazio and F.W. Stecker,Predicted high energy break in the isotropic gamma-ray spectrum: A Test of cosmological origin,Nature226(1970) 135

    1970

  3. [3]

    Protheroe and H

    R.J. Protheroe and H. Meyer,An Infrared background TeV gamma-ray crisis?,Phys. Lett. B 493(2000) 1 [astro-ph/0005349]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

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

    S. Lesage et al.,Fermi-GBM Discovery of GRB 221009A: An Extraordinarily Bright GRB from Onset to Afterglow,Astrophys. J. Lett.952(2023) L42 [2303.14172]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    de Ugarte Postigo, L

    A. de Ugarte Postigo, L. Izzo, G. Pugliese, D. Xu, B. Schneider, J.P.U. Fynbo et al.,GRB 221009A: Redshift from X-shooter/VLT,GRB Coordinates Network32648(2022) 1

    2022

  6. [6]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Hu, S. Chen, M. Zha, C. Liu, Z. Yao et al.,LHAASO observed GRB 221009A with more than 5000 VHE photons up to around 18 TeV,GRB Coordinates Network32677 (2022) 1. [7]LHAASA, LHAASOcollaboration,Very high-energy gamma-ray emission beyond 10 TeV from GRB 221009A,Sci. Adv.9(2023) adj2778 [2310.08845]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Dominguez et al.,Extragalactic Background Light Inferred from AEGIS Galaxy SED-type Fractions,Mon

    A. Dominguez et al.,Extragalactic Background Light Inferred from AEGIS Galaxy SED-type Fractions,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.410(2011) 2556 [1007.1459]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Saldana-Lopez, A

    A. Saldana-Lopez, A. Dom´ ınguez, P.G. P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, J. Finke, M. Ajello, J.R. Primack et al.,An observational determination of the evolving extragalactic background light from the multiwavelength HST/CANDELS survey in the Fermi and CTA era,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507(2021) 5144 [2012.03035]

    arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Finke, S

    J.D. Finke, S. Razzaque and C.D. Dermer,Modeling the Extragalactic Background Light from Stars and Dust,Astrophys. J.712(2010) 238 [0905.1115]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Finke, M

    J.D. Finke, M. Ajello, A. Dominguez, A. Desai, D.H. Hartmann, V.S. Paliya et al.,Modeling the Extragalactic Background Light and the Cosmic Star Formation History,Astrophys. J. 941(2022) 33 [2210.01157]

    arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    He and B.-Q

    P. He and B.-Q. Ma,Lorentz Symmetry Violation of Cosmic Photons,Universe8(2022) 323 [2206.08180]

    arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Galanti and M

    G. Galanti and M. Roncadelli,Axion-like Particles Implications for High-Energy Astrophysics,Universe8(2022) 253 [2205.00940]

    arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky,Mixing of the Photon with Low Mass Particles,Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 1237

    1988

  14. [14]

    Maiani, R

    L. Maiani, R. Petronzio and E. Zavattini,Effects of Nearly Massless, Spin Zero Particles on Light Propagation in a Magnetic Field,Phys. Lett. B175(1986) 359

    1986

  15. [15]

    Sikivie,Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion,Phys

    P. Sikivie,Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Rev. Lett.51(1983) 1415

    1983

  16. [16]

    Zhang and B.-Q

    G. Zhang and B.-Q. Ma,Axion-Photon Conversion of LHAASO Multi-TeV and PeV Photons,Chin. Phys. Lett.40(2023) 011401 [2210.13120]

    arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Fiorillo, ´A

    D.F. Fiorillo, ´A. Gil Muyor, H.-T. Janka, G.G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano,Axion-photon conversion in transient compact stars: Systematics, constraints, and opportunities,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2026(2026) 053. – 26 –

    2026

  18. [18]

    Kanodia, D

    B. Kanodia, D. Bose, S. Bouri and R. Laha,Lights, camera, axion: Tracing axions from supernovae in the diffuseγ-ray sky, 2026

    2026

  19. [19]

    Cand´ on, D.F

    F.R. Cand´ on, D.F. Fiorillo,´A.G. Muyor, H.-T. Janka, G.G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano, Stripped-envelope supernovae for qcd axion detection,Physical Review Letters136(2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    Fiorillo, ´Angel Gil Muyor, G.G

    D.F.G. Fiorillo, ´Angel Gil Muyor, G.G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano,Magnetic turbulence boosts supernova signals of axion-photon conversion, 2026

    2026

  21. [21]

    De Angelis, M

    A. De Angelis, M. Roncadelli and O. Mansutti,Evidence for a new light spin-zero boson from cosmological gamma-ray propagation?,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 121301 [0707.4312]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Tavecchio, M

    F. Tavecchio, M. Roncadelli and G. Galanti,Photons to axion-like particles conversion in Active Galactic Nuclei,Phys. Lett. B744(2015) 375 [1406.2303]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Galanti, M

    G. Galanti, M. Roncadelli, A. De Angelis and G.F. Bignami,Hint at an axion-like particle from the redshift dependence of blazar spectra,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493(2020) 1553 [1503.04436]

    arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Galanti, F

    G. Galanti, F. Tavecchio, M. Roncadelli and C. Evoli,Blazar VHE spectral alterations induced by photon–ALP oscillations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.487(2019) 123 [1811.03548]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    De Angelis, G

    A. De Angelis, G. Galanti and M. Roncadelli,Relevance of axion-like particles for very-high-energy astrophysics,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 105030 [1106.1132]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    Sanchez-Conde, D

    M.A. Sanchez-Conde, D. Paneque, E. Bloom, F. Prada and A. Dominguez,Hints of the existence of Axion-Like-Particles from the gamma-ray spectra of cosmological sources,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 123511 [0905.3270]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    Simet, D

    M. Simet, D. Hooper and P.D. Serpico,The Milky Way as a Kiloparsec-Scale Axionscope, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 063001 [0712.2825]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Gao, X.-J

    L.-Q. Gao, X.-J. Bi, J. Li, R.-M. Yao and P.-F. Yin,Constraints on axion-like particles from the observation of GRB 221009A by LHAASO,JCAP01(2024) 026 [2310.11391]

    arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Galanti, L

    G. Galanti, L. Nava, M. Roncadelli, F. Tavecchio and G. Bonnoli,Observability of the Very-High-Energy Emission from GRB 221009A,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 251001 [2210.05659]

    arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Baktash, D

    A. Baktash, D. Horns and M. Meyer,Interpretation of multi-TeV photons from GRB221009A,arXiv e-prints(2022) arXiv:2210.07172 [2210.07172]

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Gonzalez, D.A

    M.M. Gonzalez, D.A. Rojas, A. Pratts, S. Hernandez-Cadena, N. Fraija, R. Alfaro et al., GRB 221009A: A Light Dark Matter Burst or an Extremely Bright Inverse Compton Component?,Astrophys. J.944(2023) 178 [2210.15857]

    arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Carenza and M.C.D

    P. Carenza and M.C.D. Marsh,On ALP scenarios and GRB 221009A,arXiv e-prints(2022) arXiv:2211.02010 [2211.02010]

    arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Troitsky,Towards a model of photon-axion conversion in the host galaxy of GRB 221009A,JCAP01(2024) 016 [2307.08313]

    S. Troitsky,Towards a model of photon-axion conversion in the host galaxy of GRB 221009A,JCAP01(2024) 016 [2307.08313]

    arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Levan et al.,The First JWST Spectrum of a GRB Afterglow: No Bright Supernova in Observations of the Brightest GRB of all Time, GRB 221009A,Astrophys

    A.J. Levan et al.,The First JWST Spectrum of a GRB Afterglow: No Bright Supernova in Observations of the Brightest GRB of all Time, GRB 221009A,Astrophys. J. Lett.946 (2023) L28 [2302.07761]

    arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Kronberg,Extragalactic magnetic fields,Rept

    P.P. Kronberg,Extragalactic magnetic fields,Rept. Prog. Phys.57(1994) 325. – 27 –

    1994

  36. [36]

    Grasso and H.R

    D. Grasso and H.R. Rubinstein,Magnetic fields in the early universe,Phys. Rept.348(2001) 163 [astro-ph/0009061]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  37. [37]

    Galanti and M

    G. Galanti and M. Roncadelli,Behavior of axionlike particles in smoothed out domainlike magnetic fields,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 043018 [1804.09443]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Kartavtsev, G

    A. Kartavtsev, G. Raffelt and H. Vogel,Extragalactic photon-ALP conversion at CTA energies,JCAP01(2017) 024 [1611.04526]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Jansson and G.R

    R. Jansson and G.R. Farrar,A new model of the Galactic magnetic field,Astrophys. J.757 (2012) 14 [1204.3662]. [41]Planckcollaboration,Planck intermediate results.: XLII. Large-scale Galactic magnetic fields,Astron. Astrophys.596(2016) A103 [1601.00546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Unger and G.R

    M. Unger and G.R. Farrar,The Coherent Magnetic Field of the Milky Way,Astrophys. J. 970(2024) 95 [2311.12120]

    arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Davies, M

    J. Davies, M. Meyer and G. Cotter,Relevance of jet magnetic field structure for blazar axionlike particle searches,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 023008 [2011.08123]

    arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Meyer, D

    M. Meyer, D. Montanino and J. Conrad,On detecting oscillations of gamma rays into axion-like particles in turbulent and coherent magnetic fields,JCAP09(2014) 003 [1406.5972]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler,Folgerungen aus der diracschen theorie des positrons, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik98(1936) 714

    1936

  44. [44]

    Weisskopf, ¨Uber die elektrodynamik des vakuums auf grund des quanten-theorie des elektrons,Dan

    V.F. Weisskopf, ¨Uber die elektrodynamik des vakuums auf grund des quanten-theorie des elektrons,Dan. Mat. Fys. Medd.14(1936) 1

    1936

  45. [45]

    Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,Phys

    J.S. Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,Phys. Rev.82(1951) 664

    1951

  46. [46]

    Dobrynina, A

    A. Dobrynina, A. Kartavtsev and G. Raffelt,Photon-photon dispersion of TeV gamma rays and its role for photon-ALP conversion,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 083003 [1412.4777]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Govoni and L

    F. Govoni and L. Feretti,Magnetic field in clusters of galaxies,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13 (2004) 1549 [astro-ph/0410182]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  48. [48]

    Feretti, G

    L. Feretti, G. Giovannini, F. Govoni and M. Murgia,Clusters of galaxies: observational properties of the diffuse radio emission,Astron. Astrophys. Rev.20(2012) 54 [1205.1919]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Cordes and T.J.W

    J.M. Cordes and T.J.W. Lazio,NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations,arXiv e-prints(2002) astro [astro-ph/0207156]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  50. [50]

    Meyer,ebltable,Zenodo(2022)

    M. Meyer,ebltable,Zenodo(2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    Neronov and I

    A. Neronov and I. Vovk,Evidence for strong extragalactic magnetic fields from Fermi observations of TeV blazars,Science328(2010) 73 [1006.3504]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    Durrer and A

    R. Durrer and A. Neronov,Cosmological magnetic fields: their generation, evolution and observation,Astron. Astrophys. Rev.21(2013) 62 [1303.7121]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [53]

    Pshirkov, P.G

    M.S. Pshirkov, P.G. Tinyakov and F.R. Urban,New limits on extragalactic magnetic fields from rotation measures,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 191302 [1504.06546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    Tjemsland, M

    J. Tjemsland, M. Meyer and F. Vazza,Constraining the astrophysical origin of intergalactic magnetic fields,Astrophys. J.963(2024) 135 [2311.04273]. – 28 –

    arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Haverkorn, J.C

    M. Haverkorn, J.C. Brown, B.M. Gaensler and N.M. McClure-Griffiths,The outer scale of turbulence in the magnetoionized Galactic interstellar medium,Astrophys. J.680(2008) 362 [0802.2740]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Gaensler and S

    B.M. Gaensler and S. Johnston,The pulsar/supernova remnant connection,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.277(1995) 1243

    1995

  57. [57]

    Meyer, J

    M. Meyer, J. Davies and J. Kuhlmann,gammaALPs: An open-source python package for computing photon-axion-like-particle oscillations in astrophysical environments,PoS ICRC2021(2021) 557 [2108.02061]

    arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Meyer, J

    M. Meyer, J. Davies and J. Kuhlmann,gammaALPs: Conversion probability between photons and axions/axionlike particles,Astrophysics Source Code Library(2021) ascl:2109.001. – 29 –

    2021