Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 150 references

The paper establishes that very-high-energy blazar spectra primarily constrain the ratio r = α_EBL/h of the extragalactic background light normalisation to the reduced Hubble constant, measuring r = 1.723 ± 0.096, and that conditional H0 va

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 03:35 UTC pith:YFQD2XXF

load-bearing objection A solid, honestly framed Bayesian treatment of the gamma-ray opacity probe; the direct r measurement is credible but the quoted precision likely understates the unmodeled energy-scale systematic. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23095 v1 pith:YFQD2XXF submitted 2026-07-25 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Constraining cosmological parameters from very-high-energy γ-ray attenuation in blazar spectra: Bayesian inference and systematic uncertainties

Patryk Liniewicz , Emmanuel Moulin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO
keywords very-high-energy gamma raysextragalactic background lightHubble constantblazar spectragamma-ray opacityBayesian hierarchical inferencecosmological parametersEBL normalisation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that very-high-energy gamma-ray spectra of blazars, attenuated by pair production on the extragalactic background light (EBL), can probe cosmic expansion, but only through a particular combination: the ratio r of the EBL normalisation to the reduced Hubble constant. Fitting 241 archival spectra of 50 active galaxies with a hierarchical Bayesian model anchored to GeV-band catalogue spectra, it measures r = 1.723 ± 0.096, a precision of about 5.5 percent. Translating this into the Hubble constant requires an external assumption about the absolute EBL scale; the paper reports H0 = 58.3 ± 3.2 km/s/Mpc for a fixed EBL model and H0 = 60.5 ± 10.4 km/s/Mpc when an 18 percent EBL-scale uncertainty is allowed. Injection studies show the method recovers the input opacity with negligible bias and is insensitive to the tested intrinsic-spectrum and EBL-shape perturbations, except for large infrared-background mismodelling. The bottom line: the measurement is limited by EBL normalisation uncertainty rather than by gamma-ray statistics, so sharper external EBL constraints would make gamma-ray opacity a competitive, distance-ladder-independent probe of H0.

Core claim

Because the pair-production optical depth scales as α_EBL times a line-of-sight integral that carries a factor of 1/H0, the gamma-ray likelihood depends on the ratio r = α_EBL/h and not on the EBL scale and the Hubble constant separately. The paper measures r = 1.723^{+0.096}_{-0.095} at 68 percent credibility from 241 archival spectra of 50 AGN. With the EBL scale fixed (α_EBL = 1), this conditional result is H0 = 58.3^{+3.4}_{-3.0} km/s/Mpc; allowing an 18 percent EBL-scale uncertainty yields H0 = 60.5^{+10.8}_{-10.0} km/s/Mpc. Matched injections recover the injected opacity without appreciable bias, and the predominantly low-redshift sample leaves Ω_M weakly constrained. The paper's centr

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the identifiable opacity ratio r ≡ α_EBL/h, where α_EBL scales the EBL photon density and h is the reduced Hubble constant (H0 in units of 100 km/s/Mpc). Around this ratio, the paper builds a hierarchical Bayesian model: intrinsic source spectra are anchored to GeV-band catalogue power laws or log-parabolas, per-source index and curvature departures are drawn from population distributions, and per-dataset flux normalisations are marginalised analytically, so the surviving information comes from the energy- and redshift-dependent shape of the attenuation factor e^(−τ(E,z)). Matched-injection tests with tilted and rescaled EBL shapes and with coherent or scattered so

Load-bearing premise

The analysis treats published archival flux points as independent Gaussian measurements with symmetrised errors and no correlated inter-dataset energy-scale systematic, which is the load-bearing data-model premise; if real correlated energy-scale errors of a few percent exist, they can mimic a redshift-dependent opacity shift and bias r.

What would settle it

Re-analyse the same 50 sources at counts level using official instrument response functions; if the resulting r moves by more than roughly 0.1 (about one quoted sigma), the independent-Gaussian flux-point assumption is untenable. Alternatively, if a future external EBL-normalisation measurement with less than five percent uncertainty, combined with the measured r = 1.723, implies an H0 outside the 58–61 km/s/Mpc range by more than 2σ, the conditional translation would be falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The gamma-ray likelihood alone determines the opacity ratio r to about 5.5 percent, giving r = 1.723 ± 0.096.
  • Conditional H0 follows only under stated EBL-scale assumptions: 58.3^{+3.4}_{-3.0} km/s/Mpc for a fixed EBL model, and 60.5^{+10.8}_{-10.0} km/s/Mpc with an 18 percent EBL-scale uncertainty.
  • The matter-density parameter Ω_M is nearly unconstrained by this predominantly low-redshift sample; stronger Ω_M constraints require higher-redshift sources and broader spectral coverage.
  • The dominant limitation is the absolute EBL normalisation, not the gamma-ray statistics; the paper estimates that an external EBL-scale measurement at the few-percent level would convert this sample into an H0 measurement of roughly 3–4 km/s/Mpc precision.
  • The hierarchical model absorbs the tested intrinsic-spectrum and EBL-shape perturbations, with conditional H0 shifts below about 1.5 km/s/Mpc for the moderate cases, while a 1.3× enhancement of the infrared background would shift H0 by about 9 km/s/Mpc.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if correlated per-instrument energy-scale uncertainties of the order discussed in the paper are real, the quoted 5.5 percent precision on r is likely optimistic; a counts-level reanalysis with official instrument response functions is the direct test.
  • Editorial extension: the same hierarchical machinery could be applied to combined GeV–TeV data from next-generation gamma-ray observatories with higher-redshift sources, where Ω_M would gain leverage and the EBL-normalisation bottleneck could be broken.
  • Editorial extension: converging external EBL constraints from galaxy counts and direct photometry, once at the few-percent level, would make the measured r a sharp discriminator between early-universe and local distance-ladder values of H0.
  • Editorial extension: for the fixed-scale scenario, the measured r = 1.723 translates to H0 ≈ 58 km/s/Mpc, which is lower than most local determinations; the paper notes this follows from the data preferring slightly harder and less curved intrinsic spectra, a subtlety worth testing with independent spectral modelling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of 241 archival VHE gamma-ray spectra of 50 AGN from STeVECat, anchored to Fermi-LAT 3FHL spectral models. The central result is a direct posterior on the opacity ratio r = α_EBL/h, quoted as r = 1.723^{+0.096}_{-0.095}, together with a weakly constrained Ω_M posterior. Under explicitly stated external assumptions on the EBL scale, the authors transform r into conditional H0 values: 58.3^{+3.4}_{-3.0} km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} for α_EBL=1 and 60.5^{+10.8}_{-10.0} km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} for σ_α=0.18. The analysis is carefully set up: per-dataset normalisations are marginalised, source spectral-shape departures are modelled hierarchically, and extensive matched-injection tests probe EBL-shape and intrinsic-spectrum mismodelling. The paper's main claim is that the gamma-ray data constrain the opacity ratio to ~5.5% precision and that the measurement is limited by the external EBL normalisation rather than by statistics.

Significance. If correct, this work provides a distance-ladder-independent and sound-horizon-independent probe of H0 from gamma-ray opacity, with a transparent treatment of the α_EBL/h degeneracy. The explicit framing of the direct observable as r = α_EBL/h, rather than as H0 alone, is a methodological strength and sets a clear standard for future analyses. The matched injection-recovery tests, including coherent spectral-shift injections and the use of Asimov datasets, are a substantial validation effort beyond what is typical in this literature. The paper also correctly identifies that the current sample lacks redshift leverage for Ω_M and that the dominant limitation is the EBL scale. The main risk to the central claim is not an internal inconsistency but an unquantified data-modeling premise: the archival flux-point likelihood neglects correlated per-instrument energy-scale systematics, and the paper's own CIB-shape test demonstrates that coherent shape deformations can shift r by ~15%, larger than the quoted statistical uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.5)–(4.7)] The flux-point likelihood treats published STeVECat points as independent Gaussian measurements with no correlated inter-dataset systematic. As the paper states, a common energy-scale uncertainty of ~10–15% per instrument can partially mimic an opacity change. The per-dataset normalisation s_k in Eq. (4.7) absorbs only achromatic offsets. This is load-bearing: the paper's own CIB-mismodelling test (Sec. 4.3.1) shows that a coherent EBL-shape deformation shifts r by +14.5%, far exceeding the quoted ±0.095 statistical uncertainty. A few-percent energy-scale error is of the same type—a coherent, instrument-correlated spectral distortion—and could bias r and hence all conditional H0 values by more than the quoted uncertainty. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not quantify its impact. A quantitative estimate, or a justification for why the CIB 1.3× test brackets the energy-scale
  2. [§4.2.2, Eq. (4.11)] The source-population prior scales (0.11, 0.04, 0.30, 0.14) are calibrated from the z<0.05 subset of the same sample that enters the full fit. The paper labels this an 'informative regularisation', but it still uses the data twice: the same sources help set the prior width and then contribute to the posterior. If the calibration subset is small or unrepresentative, the population scatter could be underestimated, artificially sharpening the source hierarchy and affecting the recovered opacity. The injection tests in Sec. 4.3.2 perturb source spectra but keep the calibrated priors fixed; they do not test sensitivity to prior-scale misspecification. A concrete check—for example, re-calibrating on a disjoint low-z subset or widening the prior scales by a factor of two—would address whether the central r value is robust to this choice.
  3. [§5.2, Figure 3] The systematic-error budget as presented separates statistical uncertainty (σ(r)=0.077, 5.4%) from EBL-shape effects, but the 1.3× CIB-peak rescaling produces Δr=+0.209 (14.5%) and a conditional H0 shift of −8.9 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}. The paper states that the full shift should not be added in quadrature to σ_α because it contains a large coherent scale component. However, this reasoning is not fully developed: the CIB rescaling also contains an energy-dependent shape component, and the same logic would apply to any coherent EBL-shape error. Since the paper's headline conclusion is that the measurement is 'EBL-limited' rather than statistics-limited, the presentation should more clearly separate the shape-induced systematic floor from the scale-induced σ_α. As written, a reader could incorrectly interpret the 5.5% precision on r as the total uncertainty, when the paper's own tests show that
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (2.1)–(2.3)] The notation for EBL photon energy ε and gamma-ray energy E is introduced but used inconsistently: Eq. (2.2) uses E for the incident photon, while Eq. (2.3) uses E as an integration variable. Clarify the definitions and ensure dimensions are consistent in the threshold condition.
  2. [§4.2.3] The phrase 'confidence intervals' is used for Bayesian credible intervals, which could confuse readers. Consider using 'credible intervals' throughout, or add a note that the term is used informally.
  3. [§5.4, Figure 7] The comparison with Domínguez et al. contours is qualitative and digitised from published figures. The authors should state the uncertainty in the digitisation and avoid over-interpreting small differences in contour shapes, since the underlying data and nuisance treatments differ substantially.
  4. [References] Reference [16] is cited as a preprint with identifier 2603.12009; verify this is correct and that the year/venue are consistently formatted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central r measurement is a direct fit to archival spectra, and the H0 values are explicitly conditional transformations.

full rationale

The paper's central result is the direct posterior on r = α_EBL / h from the Gaussian flux-point likelihood (Eq. 4.5), with r defined in Eq. 4.13. Nothing about the likelihood or the priors (Eq. 4.12) presupposes the measured value of r or H0; the degeneracy is derived from the line element (Eq. 2.4) and the EBL scaling τ = α_EBL T_SL21, not assumed as an input. The conditional H0 values in Eq. 5.3 are explicitly stated to be transformations of p_γ(r, Ω_M | D) under stated external EBL-scale assumptions (α_EBL = 1 or σ_α = 0.10/0.18), with the Jacobian in Eq. 4.14. Thus the H0 numbers are not presented as independent predictions forced by a self-citation. The EBL template (SL21) and 3FHL spectral anchors are external, γ-ray-independent inputs, not products of this analysis. Mock injections (Sections 5.1–5.2) recover the injected opacity without bias, providing independent validation. The paper openly flags its limitations (Section 4.1: unmodeled correlated energy-scale systematics; Section 4.2.2: population-prior calibration using z < 0.05 sources also in the fit). These are data-modeling or regularization caveats, acknowledged by the authors, and neither reduces a prediction to its inputs nor relies on a load-bearing self-citation. Therefore no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement of r is largely honest: r is explicitly identified as the quantity constrained by the gamma-ray likelihood, and the external EBL-scale assumption is separated from the fit. The main ledger items beyond the target parameter are the nuisance hierarchy, its empirically calibrated priors, and the external EBL-scale assumptions. No new particles or forces are introduced; the ALP discussion in the introduction is background and not load-bearing.

free parameters (5)
  • Opacity ratio r=α_EBL/h = 1.723^{+0.096}_{-0.095}
    Primary inferred quantity; defined in Eq. (4.13) and reported in Eq. (5.1). Fitted from the gamma-ray likelihood.
  • Source-population hyperparameters μ_coh, μ_b, σ_pop, σ_b = (-0.064, -0.026, 0.257, 0.114) posterior medians
    Hierarchical model parameters fitted jointly with r; priors in Eq. (4.11), posteriors in Eq. (5.2). These absorb GeV-to-TeV spectral uncertainty.
  • Per-dataset normalisation s_k = marginalised, not reported individually
    One log-uniform normalisation per dataset absorbs blazar flux-state variability; integrated out via Eq. (4.6)-(4.7).
  • External EBL-scale assumption α_EBL=1 or σ_α=0.10/0.18 = 1, 0.10, 0.18
    External scenario choices used to convert r into H0 through Eq. (4.14); not fitted to gamma-ray data. The σ_α=0.18 value is derived from the SL21 optical-depth envelope width.
  • Empirically calibrated prior scales (0.11, 0.04, 0.30, 0.14) = 0.11, 0.04, 0.30, 0.14
    Prior scales in Eq. (4.11) calibrated from deabsorbed 3FHL-to-VHE residuals in the z<0.05 subset of the same sources used in the full analysis. Only the residual scales, not signs, enter the priors.
axioms (8)
  • standard math Breit-Wheeler pair-production cross section and optical-depth integral, Eq. (2.1)-(2.3)
    Standard quantum-electrodynamics result for photon-photon pair production; not questioned in this paper.
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW cosmology with line element Eq. (2.4) and Ω_Λ=1−Ω_M
    Used to convert redshift to comoving distance in the optical-depth integral; standard cosmological assumption.
  • domain assumption SL21 galaxy-photometry EBL model correctly describes the redshift-dependent EBL spectral shape, with only a global scale α_EBL allowed to vary
    The analysis adopts the SL21 field (Section 2.2, 4.2.2) and perturbs only its normalisation or adds test tilts; systematic errors are assessed but the baseline shape is an external input.
  • domain assumption Cosmology dependence of the EBL model construction is negligible for z≲1
    Section 2.2 states galaxy-survey luminosity distances and comoving volumes in the EBL construction carry weak cosmology dependence for this low-redshift sample, so the geometry is not recomputed across the Ω_M grid.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic VHE spectra are anchored to 3FHL power-law/log-parabola shapes with departures modelled by Eq. (4.8)-(4.10), no intrinsic cutoff, and curvature truncated at zero
    Section 4.2.1 defines the source hierarchy. The no-hardening truncation b_s≥0 is an astrophysical assumption that prevents an upturn from being degenerate with reduced opacity.
  • domain assumption Published STeVECat flux points are independent Gaussian measurements with symmetrized errors and no correlated inter-dataset energy-scale systematic
    Section 4.1 makes this assumption explicit for the archival flux-point likelihood and acknowledges that unmodeled ~10-15% energy-scale errors can partially mimic an opacity change.
  • domain assumption External EBL-scale distribution p_α over 0.3<α_EBL<2 and h~U(0.4,1.1)
    Used in the change of variables Eq. (4.14) to map r to H0. This is an external assumption, not constrained by the gamma-ray data.
  • ad hoc to paper Source-population prior scales calibrated from the z<0.05 subset of the same sample provide an informative regularisation of the hierarchy
    Section 4.2.2 states the calibration uses sources that also occur in the full fit. This is a self-referential empirical-Bayes choice for nuisance hyperparameters, not for r itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32535 in / 10832 out tokens · 110439 ms · 2026-08-01T03:35:39.437637+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Very-high-energy $\gamma$ rays from active galactic nuclei are attenuated through pair production on the extragalactic background light (EBL), providing a probe of cosmic expansion. We develop a Bayesian inference analysis framework that uses an observationally driven, redshift-dependent EBL model and anchors intrinsic source spectra to the Fermi-LAT 3FHL catalogue while marginalising spectral-shape departures and dataset normalisations. The method is validated on realistic mock observations and applied to 241 archival H.E.S.S., MAGIC and VERITAS spectra of 50 AGN compiled in STeVECat. Because the leading opacity depends on the ratio of the EBL normalisation to the reduced Hubble constant, the gamma-ray data primarily constrain this ratio rather than $H_0$ alone. We measure $r=1.723^{+0.096}_{-0.095}$. For a fixed EBL scale, this gives $H_0=58.3^{+3.4}_{-3.0},\mathrm{km,s^{-1},Mpc^{-1}}$; allowing an 18\% EBL-scale uncertainty gives $H_0=60.5^{+10.8}_{-10.0},\mathrm{km,s^{-1},Mpc^{-1}}$. Matched injections recover the input opacity without appreciable bias, and the tested intrinsic-spectrum and EBL-shape perturbations are subdominant except for large infrared-background mismodelling. The predominantly low-redshift sample leaves $\Omega\mathrm{M}$ weakly constrained. The measurement is therefore limited by the EBL normalisation rather than statistics; reducing its uncertainty to a few per cent would make gamma-ray opacity a competitive, distance-ladder-independent probe of $H_0$.

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

150 extracted references · 35 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Nikishov,Absorption of High-Energy Photons in the Universe,Sov

    A.I. Nikishov,Absorption of High-Energy Photons in the Universe,Sov. Phys. JETP14 (1962) 393

    1962

  2. [2]

    Gould and G

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

    1966

  3. [4]

    Domínguez and M

    A. Domínguez and M. Ajello,Spectral analysis of Fermi-LAT blazars above 50 GeV, Astrophys. J. Lett.813(2015) L34 [1510.07913]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [5]

    Rosillo, A

    M.N. Rosillo, A. Domínguez, G. Chiaro, G. La Mura, A. Brill and V.S. Paliya,Hunting extreme BL Lacertae blazars with Fermi-Large Area Telescope,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 512(2022) 137 [2202.08785]. – 20 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [6]

    Aharonian, P.S

    F.A. Aharonian, P.S. Coppi and H.J. Voelk,Very high-energy gamma-rays from AGN: Cascading on the cosmic background radiation fields and the formation of pair halos, Astrophys. J. Lett.423(1994) L5 [astro-ph/9312045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  6. [7]

    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

  7. [8]

    Broderick, P

    A.E. Broderick, P. Chang and C. Pfrommer,The Cosmological Impact of Luminous TeV Blazars I: Implications of Plasma Instabilities for the Intergalactic Magnetic Field and Extragalactic Gamma-Ray Background,Astrophys. J.752(2012) 22 [1106.5494]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [9]

    Buehler, G

    R. Buehler, G. Gallardo, G. Maier, A. Domínguez, M. López and M. Meyer,Search for the imprint of axion-like particles in the highest-energy photons of hardγ-ray blazars,JCAP09 (2020) 027 [2004.09396]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [10]

    Barrau, A

    A. Barrau, A. Gorecki and J. Grain,An original constraint on the Hubble constant: h>74, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.389(2008) 919 [0804.3699]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [11]

    Domínguez and F

    A. Domínguez and F. Prada,Measurement of the Expansion Rate of the Universe fromγ-Ray Attenuation,Astrophys. J. Lett.771(2013) L34 [1305.2163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [12]

    Biteau and D.A

    J. Biteau and D.A. Williams,The extragalactic background light, the Hubble constant, and anomalies: conclusions from 20 years of TeV gamma-ray observations,Astrophys. J.812 (2015) 60 [1502.04166]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [13]

    Domínguez, R

    A. Domínguez, R. Wojtak, J. Finke, M. Ajello, K. Helgason, F. Prada et al.,A new measurement of the Hubble constant and matter content of the Universe using extragalactic background lightγ-ray attenuation,Astrophys. J.885(2019) 137 [1903.12097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [14]

    Paiano, A

    S. Paiano, A. Treves, A. Franceschini and R. Falomo,Predictions of TeV emission for a set of hard BL Lac objects,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508(2021) 6128 [2110.04051]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [15]

    Porras-Bedmar, M

    S. Porras-Bedmar, M. Meyer and D. Horns,Novel bounds on decaying axionlike particle dark matter from the cosmic background,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 103501 [2407.10618]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    Grimaud, D

    C. Grimaud, D. Malyshev and E. Moulin,Sensitivity to Axion-like Particle dark matter with very-high-energy gamma-ray observations of Active Galactic Nuclei located behind Galaxy Clusters,2603.12009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [17]

    Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [18]

    Kamionkowski and A.G

    M. Kamionkowski and A.G. Riess,The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73(2023) 153 [2211.04492]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [19]

    Domínguez, P

    A. Domínguez, P. Østergaard Kirkeberg, R. Wojtak, A. Saldana-Lopez, A. Desai, J.R. Primack et al.,A new derivation of the Hubble constant fromγ-ray attenuation using improved optical depths for the Fermi and CTA era,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527(2024) 4632

    2024

  19. [20]

    Gréaux, J

    L. Gréaux, J. Biteau and M. Nievas Rosillo,A model-independent determination of the local extragalactic background light and the Hubble constant from TeV gamma-ray observations, Astrophys. J. Lett.975(2024) L18 [2410.07011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [21]

    Saldana-Lopez, A

    A. Saldana-Lopez, A. Domínguez, P.G. Pérez-González, 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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society507(2021) 5144

    2021

  21. [22]

    Cooray,Extragalactic background light measurements and applications,Royal Society Open Science3(2016) 150555 [1602.03512]

    A. Cooray,Extragalactic background light measurements and applications,Royal Society Open Science3(2016) 150555 [1602.03512]. – 21 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [23]

    Hauser and E

    M.G. Hauser and E. Dwek,The cosmic infrared background: Measurements and implications, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics39(2001) 249 [astro-ph/0105539]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  23. [24]

    Keenan, A.J

    R.C. Keenan, A.J. Barger, L.L. Cowie and W.-H. Wang,The resolved near-infrared extragalactic background,The Astrophysical Journal723(2010) 40

    2010

  24. [25]

    Zemcov, J

    M. Zemcov, J. Smidt, T. Arai, J. Bock, A. Cooray, Y. Gong et al.,On the origin of near-infrared extragalactic background light anisotropy,Science346(2014) 732 [https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1258168]

    doi:10.1126/science.1258168 2014

  25. [26]

    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

  26. [27]

    Gilmore, R.S

    R.C. Gilmore, R.S. Somerville, J.R. Primack and A. Dominguez,Semi-analytic modeling of the EBL and consequences for extragalactic gamma-ray spectra,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 422(2012) 3189 [1104.0671]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [28]

    Domínguez, J.R

    A. Domínguez, J.R. Primack, D.J. Rosario, F. Prada, R.C. Gilmore, S.M. Faber et al., Extragalactic background light inferred from AEGIS galaxy-SED-type fractions,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society410(2011) 2556

    2011

  28. [29]

    Franceschini and G

    A. Franceschini and G. Rodighiero,The extragalactic background light revisited and the cosmic photon-photon opacity,Astron. Astrophys.603(2017) A34 [1705.10256]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [30]

    Khaire and R

    V. Khaire and R. Srianand,New synthesis models of consistent extragalactic background light over cosmic time,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society484(2019) 4174

    2019

  30. [31]

    Finke, M

    J.D. Finke, M. Ajello, A. Domínguez, A. Desai, D.H. Hartmann, V.S. Paliya et al.,Modeling the extragalactic background light and the cosmic star formation history,The Astrophysical Journal941(2022) 33

    2022

  31. [32]

    Aharonian et al.,A low level of extragalactic background light as revealed byγ-rays from blazars,Nature440(2006) 1018

    F. Aharonian et al.,A low level of extragalactic background light as revealed byγ-rays from blazars,Nature440(2006) 1018

    2006

  32. [33]

    Windhorst, S.H

    R.A. Windhorst, S.H. Cohen, R.A. Jansen, J. Summers, S. Tompkins, C.J. Conselice et al., Jwst pearls. prime extragalactic areas for reionization and lensing science: Project overview and first results,The Astronomical Journal165(2022) 13

    2022

  33. [34]

    Banerjee, J.D

    A. Banerjee, J.D. Finke, M. Ajello, A. Domínguez, A. Desai, J. Baxter et al.,A new measurement of the extragalactic background light using 15yr of Fermi-LAT data,arXiv e-prints(2026) [2604.09139]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [35]

    Baxter et al.,A TeV-based determination of the local extragalactic background light and its consistency with galaxy counts and direct measurements,Astrophys

    J. Baxter et al.,A TeV-based determination of the local extragalactic background light and its consistency with galaxy counts and direct measurements,Astrophys. J. Lett., accepted(2026) [2604.09397]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [36]

    Breit and J.A

    G. Breit and J.A. Wheeler,Collision of two light quanta,Phys. Rev.46(1934) 1087. [37]Fermi-LATcollaboration,3FHL: The Third Catalog of Hard Fermi-LAT Sources,Astrophys. J. Suppl.232(2017) 18 [1702.00664]. [38]https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/HESS/. [39]H.E.S.S.collaboration,Search for Dark Matter Annihilation Signals in the H.E.S.S. Inner Galaxy Survey,Phys. Rev...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1934

  36. [41]

    Abe et al.,Performance of the joint LST-1 and MAGIC observations evaluated with Crab Nebula data,Astron

    H. Abe et al.,Performance of the joint LST-1 and MAGIC observations evaluated with Crab Nebula data,Astron. Astrophys.680(2023) A66 [2310.01954]. [42]https://veritas.sao.arizona.edu

    arXiv 2023

  37. [43]

    Adams et al.,The throughput calibration of the VERITAS telescopes,Astron

    C.B. Adams et al.,The throughput calibration of the VERITAS telescopes,Astron. Astrophys. 658(2022) A83 [2111.04676]. – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [44]

    Gréaux, J

    L. Gréaux, J. Biteau, T. Hassan, O. Hervet, M. Nievas Rosillo and D.A. Williams,Stevecat, the spectral tev extragalactic catalog, inProceedings of 7th Heidelberg International Symposium on High-Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy — PoS(Gamma2022), Gamma2022, p. 171, Sissa Medialab, Apr., 2023, DOI

    2023

  39. [45]

    Gelman, J.B

    A. Gelman, J.B. Carlin, H.S. Stern, D.B. Dunson, A. Vehtari and D.B. Rubin,Bayesian Data Analysis, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 3rd ed. (2013)

    2013

  40. [46]

    Kelly,Some Aspects of Measurement Error in Linear Regression of Astronomical Data, Astrophys

    B.C. Kelly,Some Aspects of Measurement Error in Linear Regression of Astronomical Data, Astrophys. J.665(2007) 1489 [0705.2774]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  41. [47]

    March, R

    M.C. March, R. Trotta, P. Berkes, G.D. Starkman and P.M. Vaudrevange,Improved constraints on cosmological parameters from SNIa data,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.418 (2011) 2308 [1102.3237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [48]

    Feeney, D.J

    S.M. Feeney, D.J. Mortlock and N. Dalmasso,Clarifying the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierarchical model of the local distance ladder,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476 (2018) 3861 [1707.00007]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [49]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot,An introduction to Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: Parameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical models,Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.36(2019) e010 [1809.02293]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [50]

    Venters and V

    T.M. Venters and V. Pavlidou,The Spectral Index Distribution of EGRET Blazars: Prospects for GLAST,Astrophys. J.666(2007) 128 [0704.2417]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  45. [51]

    S.-S. Du, Y. Gong, J.-J. Wei, Z.-K. Liu, Z.-Q. You, Y.-Z. Meng et al.,Hierarchical Test of Lorentz Invariance with Gamma-Ray Burst Spectral-Lag Measurements,arXiv e-prints(2025) [2512.22875]

    arXiv 2025

  46. [52]

    Cash,Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio., Astrophys

    W. Cash,Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio., Astrophys. J.228(1979) 939

    1979

  47. [53]

    Buchner,Ultranest – a robust, general purpose bayesian inference engine,J

    J. Buchner,Ultranest – a robust, general purpose bayesian inference engine,J. Open Source Softw.6(2021) 3001 [2101.09604]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [54]

    Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [55]

    Freedman,Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,Astrophys

    W.L. Freedman,Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,Astrophys. J.919(2021) 16 [2106.15656]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [56]

    E. Aliu, S. Archambault, T. Arlen, T. Aune, M. Beilicke, W. Benbow et al.,Discovery of high-energy and very high energyγ-ray emission from the blazar rbs 0413,The Astrophysical Journal750(2012) 94

    2012

  51. [57]

    Abramowski, F

    A. Abramowski, F. Aharonian, F. Ait Benkhali, A.G. Akhperjanian, E. Angüner, G. Anton et al.,Search for extendedγ-ray emission around agn with h.e.s.s. andfermi-lat,Astronomy & Astrophysics562(2014) A145

    2014

  52. [58]

    Acciari, S

    V.A. Acciari, S. Ansoldi, L.A. Antonelli, A. Arbet Engels, D. Baack, A. Babić et al., Measurement of the extragalactic background light using magic and fermi-lat gamma-ray observations of blazars up to z = 1,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486 (2019) 4233

    2019

  53. [59]

    E. Aliu, S. Archambault, T. Arlen, T. Aune, B. Behera, M. Beilicke et al.,A three-year multi-wavelength study of the very-high-energyγ-ray blazar 1es 0229+200,The Astrophysical Journal782(2014) 13

    2014

  54. [60]

    Aharonian, A.G

    F. Aharonian, A.G. Akhperjanian, U. Barres de Almeida, A.R. Bazer-Bachi, B. Behera, M. Beilicke et al.,Discovery of vheγ-rays from the distant bl lacertae 1es 0347-121, Astronomy & Astrophysics473(2007) L25. – 23 –

    2007

  55. [61]

    Abramowski, F

    A. Abramowski, F. Acero, F. Aharonian, A.G. Akhperjanian, G. Anton, A. Balzer et al., Discovery of hard-spectrumγ-ray emission from the bl lacertae object 1es 0414+009, Astronomy & Astrophysics538(2012) A103

    2012

  56. [62]

    E. Aliu, S. Archambault, T. Arlen, T. Aune, M. Beilicke, W. Benbow et al.,Multiwavelength observations of the agn 1es 0414+009 with veritas,fermi-lat,swift-xrt, and mdm,The Astrophysical Journal755(2012) 118

    2012

  57. [63]

    Aleksić, S

    J. Aleksić, S. Ansoldi, L.A. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, A. Babic, P. Bangale et al.,Magic detection of short-term variability of the high-peaked bl lac object 1es 0806+524,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society451(2015) 739

    2015

  58. [64]

    Acciari, E

    V. Acciari, E. Aliu, T. Arlen, M. Bautista, M. Beilicke, W. Benbow et al.,Discovery of very high energy gamma-ray radiation from the bl lac 1es 0806+524,The Astrophysical Journal 690(2008) L126

    2008

  59. [65]

    Archambault, A

    S. Archambault, A. Archer, A. Barnacka, B. Behera, M. Beilicke, W. Benbow et al.,Discovery of very high energy gamma rays from 1es 1440+122,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society461(2016) 202

    2016

  60. [66]

    Albert, E

    J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub, P. Antoranz, A. Armada, M. Asensio et al.,Observation of very high energy gamma-ray emission from the active galactic nucleus 1es 1959+650 using the magic telescope,The Astrophysical Journal639(2006) 761

    1959

  61. [67]

    Tagliaferri, L

    G. Tagliaferri, L. Foschini, G. Ghisellini, L. Maraschi, G. Tosti, J. Albert et al.,Simultaneous multiwavelength observations of the blazar 1es 1959+650 at a low tev flux,The Astrophysical Journal679(2008) 1029

    1959

  62. [68]

    Acciari, S

    V.A. Acciari, S. Ansoldi, L.A. Antonelli, A. Arbet Engels, D. Baack, A. Babić et al., Broadband characterisation of the very intense tev flares of the blazar 1es 1959+650 in 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics638(2020) A14

    1959

  63. [69]

    Acciari, S

    V.A. Acciari, S. Ansoldi, L.A. Antonelli, A. Arbet Engels, D. Baack, A. Babić et al.,Testing two-component models on very high-energy gamma-ray-emitting bl lac objects,Astronomy & Astrophysics640(2020) A132

    2020

  64. [70]

    E. Aliu, S. Archambault, T. Arlen, T. Aune, M. Beilicke, W. Benbow et al.,Multiwavelength observations and modeling of 1es 1959+650 in a low flux state,The Astrophysical Journal 775(2013) 3

    1959

  65. [71]

    E. Aliu, S. Archambault, T. Arlen, T. Aune, A. Barnacka, M. Beilicke et al.,Investigating broadband variability of the tev blazar 1es 1959+650,The Astrophysical Journal797(2014) 89

    1959

  66. [72]

    Albert, E

    J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub, P. Antoranz, A. Armada, C. Baixeras et al.,Observation of very high energyγ-rays from the agn 1es 2344+514 in a low emission state with the magic telescope,The Astrophysical Journal662(2007) 892

    2007

  67. [73]

    Aleksić, L.A

    J. Aleksić, L.A. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, M. Asensio, M. Backes, U. Barres de Almeida et al., The simultaneous low state spectral energy distribution of 1es 2344+514 from radio to very high energies,Astronomy & Astrophysics556(2013) A67

    2013

  68. [74]

    Acciari, E

    V.A. Acciari, E. Aliu, T. Arlen, T. Aune, M. Beilicke, W. Benbow et al.,Multiwavelength observations of the very high energy blazar 1es 2344+514,The Astrophysical Journal738 (2011) 169

    2011

  69. [75]

    Allen, S

    C. Allen, S. Archambault, A. Archer, W. Benbow, R. Bird, E. Bourbeau et al., Very-high-energyγ-ray observations of the blazar 1es 2344+514 with veritas,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society471(2017) 2117

    2017

  70. [76]

    Acciari, E

    V.A. Acciari, E. Aliu, T. Arlen, T. Aune, M. Bautista, M. Beilicke et al.,The discovery of γ-ray emission from the blazar rgb j0710+591,The Astrophysical Journal715(2010) L49. – 24 –

    2010

  71. [77]

    Albert, E

    J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub, P. Antoranz, A. Armada, C. Baixeras et al.,Discovery of very high energyγ-rays from 1es 1011+496 atz= 0.212,The Astrophysical Journal667 (2007) L21

    2007

  72. [78]

    Aleksić, S

    J. Aleksić, S. Ansoldi, L.A. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, C. Arcaro, A. Babic et al.,Insights into the emission of the blazar 1es 1011+496 through unprecedented broadband observations during 2011 and 2012,Astronomy & Astrophysics591(2016) A10

    2011

  73. [79]

    Ahnen, S

    M.L. Ahnen, S. Ansoldi, L.A. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, A. Babic, B. Banerjee et al., Multi-wavelength observations of the blazar 1es 1011+496 in spring 2008,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society(2016) stw710

    2008

  74. [80]

    Abramowski, F

    A. Abramowski, F. Acero, F. Aharonian, A.G. Akhperjanian, G. Anton, A. Balzer et al., Discovery of vheγ-ray emission and multi-wavelength observations of the bl lacertae object 1rxs j101015.9 – 311909,Astronomy & Astrophysics542(2012) A94

    2012

  75. [81]

    Archer, W

    A. Archer, W. Benbow, R. Bird, A. Brill, M. Buchovecky, J.H. Buckley et al.,Veritas discovery of vhe emission from the radio galaxy 3c 264: A multiwavelength study,The Astrophysical Journal896(2020) 41

    2020

  76. [82]

    Abdalla, R

    H. Abdalla, R. Adam, F. Aharonian, F. Ait Benkhali, E.O. Angüner, M. Arakawa et al., Constraints on the emission region of 3c 279 during strong flares in 2014 and 2015 through vheγ-ray observations with h.e.s.s.,Astronomy & Astrophysics627(2019) A159

    2014

  77. [83]

    MAGIC Collaboration,Very-High-Energy Gamma Rays from a Distant Quasar: How Transparent Is the Universe?,Science320(2008) 1752 [0807.2822]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  78. [84]

    Aleksić, L.A

    J. Aleksić, L.A. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, M. Backes, J.A. Barrio, D. Bastieri et al.,Magic observations and multiwavelength properties of the quasar 3c 279 in 2007 and 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics530(2011) A4

    2007

  79. [85]

    Aleksić, L.A

    J. Aleksić, L.A. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, M. Backes, J.A. Barrio, D. Bastieri et al.,Magic discovery of very high energy emission from the fsrq pks 1222+21,The Astrophysical Journal 730(2011) L8

    2011

  80. [86]

    Abramowski, F

    A. Abramowski, F. Aharonian, F. Ait Benkhali, A.G. Akhperjanian, E. Angüner, G. Anton et al.,The high-energyγ-ray emission of ap librae,Astronomy & Astrophysics573(2014) A31

    2014

Showing first 80 references.