Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 109 references

Reappraisal of the Constraints on Heavy Axion-like Particles from Gamma-Ray Bursts

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Gamma-ray bursts may cast X-ray shadows of hidden particles

desk verdict Solid reappraisal with a real correction and a speculative but legitimate new probe; deserves a serious referee read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07297 v1 pith:R7HRADVE submitted 2026-07-08 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Christopher V. Cappiello , Saurav Das , P. S. Bhupal Dev , Takuya Okawa , Soebur Razzaque This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords fireballgamma-rayheavyproductionalpsaxion-likeburstsconstraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that previous constraints on heavy axion-like particles (ALPs) from gamma-ray burst (GRB) cooling were based on unrealistically high fireball temperatures. Using more physically motivated GRB parameters, the authors find ALP production is far less efficient than previously claimed, weakening the cooling bounds. However, they show that even at realistic temperatures, enough ALPs can still be produced to form a secondary fireball, an expanding shell of thermalized plasma fed by ALP decays into photons. This secondary fireball emits X-rays nearly isotropically, meaning the signal need not align with the GRB jet direction. Future X-ray and MeV gamma-ray telescopes could detect this isotropic glow from a sufficiently nearby and energetic GRB, constraining ALP masses around 100 MeV and photon couplings down to roughly 10^{-9} GeV^{-1}, in a region of parameter space not excluded by existing laboratory or astrophysical limits.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two pillars. First, the GRB fireball temperature is recomputed under two scenarios: sustained luminosity-driven outflow (Eq. 3, giving temperatures of a few MeV) and instantaneous energy injection (Eq. 5, giving tens of MeV for realistic energies). Both yield temperatures far below the hundreds of MeV assumed in prior work. Second, the secondary fireball formation is governed by two criteria: the pair-production optical depth (Eq. 19) and the bremsstrahlung thermalization rate (Eq. 25). When both are satisfied, ALP decay photons thermalize into a plasma shell whose surface emits a modified blackbody spectrum. The photon flux at Earth (Eq. 36) depends on the secondary fi

What would settle it

Non-detection of an isotropic X-ray transient from a sufficiently nearby and energetic sGRB would falsify the ALP parameter space that predicts a secondary fireball flux above telescope sensitivity. Conversely, detection of an unexplained isotropic X-ray glow correlated with a GRB event would support the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that a secondary fireball, formed when ALPs produced inside a GRB jet decay into photons that subsequently pair-produce electron-positron pairs, persists across a wide range of ALP masses and couplings even when the GRB fireball temperature is reduced to physically realistic values of tens of MeV. This secondary fireball reprocesses ALP decay photons into isotropic X-ray emission from its surface, opening a detection channel that does not require the GRB jet to point at Earth and that can probe ALP parameter space complementary to existing bounds, provided a sufficiently energetic GRB occurs within about 100 Mpc.

Load-bearing premise

The secondary fireball is treated as approximately spherically symmetric in the lab frame, but the ALPs are produced inside a collimated jet with a bulk Lorentz factor that grows with radius. If the jet geometry significantly distorts the fireball, the isotropic emission assumption and the flux estimates could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a bright sGRB occurs within ~100 Mpc and no isotropic X-ray transient is observed by instruments like Swift/BAT or future missions such as THESEUS or AMEGO, the ALP parameter space producing a secondary fireball can be excluded.
  • The isotropic nature of the secondary fireball signal means off-axis GRBs, whose jets do not point toward Earth, can still serve as ALP probes through their secondary X-ray emission.
  • The secondary fireball mechanism is independent of the fate of the GRB progenitor remnant, applying equally whether the merger immediately collapses to a black hole or forms a hypermassive neutron star.
  • The method complements supernova and neutron star merger ALP searches, extending the astrophysical probe toolkit to a different production environment with potentially higher plasma temperatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sensitivity of this probe scales steeply with GRB distance; since the local sGRB rate within 100 Mpc is low, the practical utility may depend on stacking analyses or extending to long GRBs despite their lower temperatures.
  • If the jet geometry significantly distorts the secondary fireball from spherical symmetry, the isotropic emission assumption breaks down and the flux along different viewing angles could vary, potentially creating a directional dependence that could itself serve as a diagnostic.
  • The same secondary fireball mechanism could operate in other astrophysical environments with hot plasmas and ALP production, such as magnetar flares or accretion disk coronae, if the ALP production rate and decay geometry are favorable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reassesses ALP-photon coupling constraints from GRBs, critiquing and correcting the analysis of Ghosh et al. [35]. The authors argue that realistic GRB fireball temperatures are O(10 MeV) rather than the O(300 MeV) assumed in [35], significantly weakening the cooling bounds. They then show that even at these lower temperatures, ALP production can still be efficient enough to form a secondary fireball whose isotropic X-ray emission may be detectable by future telescopes, providing a new probe of O(100 MeV)-scale ALPs. The temperature arguments (Eqs. 3, 5) and ALP production rates follow standard thermal field theory, and the secondary fireball formalism follows Refs. [34, 42]. The critique of [35] in Appendix A is specific and well-reasoned.

Significance. The paper makes a useful contribution on two fronts. First, it identifies and corrects what appear to be physically unrealistic assumptions in a recent claim of strong ALP bounds from GRBs (the inconsistency between the luminosity limit and the energy required for the assumed temperature is a concrete and important point). Second, it proposes a genuinely new observational signature—secondary fireball X-rays emitted isotropically, detectable even off-axis—that could probe ALP parameter space complementary to existing bounds. The sensitivity estimates in Fig. 5 are presented as projections for future instruments, with appropriate benchmark variation across temperatures and distances. The authors are commendably explicit about their approximations in Sec. VI.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. IV, Eqs. (22)–(24): The ALP production spectrum dṅ_a/dE_a in Eq. (10) is computed in the comoving frame, with E_a the comoving energy. The escape factor e^{-(r_esc−r)/λ_{a→γγ}} uses λ_{a→γγ}(E_a) from Eq. (16), which depends on the comoving energy. However, ALPs escaping the fireball propagate in the lab frame, where their energy is E_lab ≈ Γ × E_a with Γ = r/r_i from Eq. (2). The lab-frame decay length should therefore be λ_lab ≈ Γ × λ_{a→γγ}(E_a^{comoving}), not λ_{a→γγ}(E_a^{comoving}). Over the integration region r_i to r_c = 1.5r_i, Γ ranges from 1 to 1.5, so this introduces up to a ~50% effect on: (i) the escape probability, (ii) the secondary fireball radius ⟨r_γ⟩ in Eq. (21), (iii) the photon energy from ALP decay, and (iv) downstream quantities (T_s, flux). The authors acknowledge related issues in Sec. VI but do not quantify them. Since the conservative-case flux (T_i = 5,
  2. Sec. IV and Sec. VI: The treatment of the secondary fireball as approximately spherically symmetric in the lab frame is a load-bearing assumption for the isotropic emission claim, which is the key observational advantage of this signature. The authors note that 'most of the ALPs are produced in the innermost region where Γ is small,' but this is not quantitatively demonstrated. It would strengthen the paper to estimate what fraction of ALP production occurs at r/r_i close to 1 versus near r_c = 1.5r_i, and to argue more concretely that the jet geometry does not significantly distort the secondary fireball. Even a rough estimate of the angular asymmetry of the ALP decay photon distribution would help justify the isotropic approximation.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 2 caption: the chemical potential panel is labeled 'η' in the caption but Eq. (31) defines η = −μ/T. It would help to state this connection explicitly in the figure caption for clarity.
  2. Eq. (9): the approximation ω_pl ≃ T/10 is stated without derivation steps; a brief intermediate step or reference would help the reader verify the numerical coefficient.
  3. Table I: Case 6 is mentioned in the caption of Fig. 6 as not appearing on the plot because its exclusion region only extends to ~1 MeV. It would be cleaner to note this directly in Table I or add a footnote.
  4. Sec. V: The statement 'The sensitivity of current space-based X-ray and gamma-ray instruments to sGRBs is typically at the level of F_min ~ 10^{-8}–10^{-7} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1}' could benefit from a reference for the Fermi-GBM threshold specifically, though Ref. [88] is cited.
  5. The paper uses both 'fireball' and 'secondary fireball' terminology; in Appendix A the authors clarify that 'fireball' refers to the initial SM fireball. This clarification should appear earlier, perhaps at first use in Sec. I.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: forward calculation from GRB benchmarks to ALP flux predictions with no fitted-to-predicted reduction

full rationale

The paper performs a forward calculation chain: GRB benchmark parameters (M_r = 3 M_sun, r_i = 3 r_s, t_sGRB = 1 s) from observations/literature → ALP production rate from standard thermal field theory (Eqs. 7-17) → secondary fireball formation criteria from Refs. [34, 42] (Eqs. 19-30) → photon flux at Earth (Eqs. 31-36) → comparison with telescope sensitivity (Figs. 4-5). No parameter is fitted to data and then presented as a prediction. The secondary fireball formalism (Eqs. 19-30) is cited from Refs. [34, 42] (Diamond, Fiorillo, Marques-Tavares, Tamborra, Vitagliano), which have no author overlap with the present paper, so there is no self-citation chain. The ALP production spectra (Eqs. 10, 12) are standard results from thermal field theory. The flux formula (Eq. 36) is derived analytically from the phase-space distribution (Eq. 31) without introducing any quantity that is defined in terms of the output being predicted. The constraints in Fig. 5 are obtained by asking whether the forward-computed flux exceeds a telescope sensitivity threshold F_min, which is an external experimental quantity. The skeptic's concern about a missing Lorentz boost factor in the escape/decay calculation is a correctness issue (potentially affecting quantitative results by ~50%), not a circularity issue — it does not make any output equivalent to an input by construction. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities
free parameters (5)
  • Remnant mass M_r = 3 M_sun
    Benchmark choice for GRB progenitor; representative but not fitted to data (Sec. II.C)
  • Initial radius r_i = 3 r_s
    Chosen as innermost stable circular orbit; more conservative than Ref. [35]'s r_i = r_s (Sec. II.C)
  • sGRB duration t_sGRB = 1 s
    Representative value for short GRB duration (Sec. IV)
  • Critical radius r_c = 1.5 r_i
    Radius where fireball becomes matter-dominated; authors note results are insensitive to this choice (Sec. IV)
  • Escape radius r_esc = 2 r_i
    Distance beyond which ALPs escape before decaying; justified by geometry of fireball base (Sec. IV)
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium in GRB fireball plasma with g* = 43/4 (photons, e±, neutrinos)
    Standard assumption for fireball physics; invoked in Eq. (5) and surrounding text (Sec. II.C)
  • domain assumption ALP-photon coupling Lagrangian L ⊃ (g_aγ/4) a F_μν F̃^μν with no other ALP couplings
    Standard phenomenological assumption; stated in Sec. III
  • domain assumption Secondary fireball formation criteria: pair-production and bremsstrahlung optical depth conditions (Eqs. 19, 25)
    Borrowed from Refs. [34, 42]; applied to GRB context in Sec. IV
  • domain assumption Steady-state outflow scaling T ∝ r^{-1}, Γ ∝ r for fireball
    Standard fireball model from Refs. [65, 68]; invoked in Eq. (2)

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reappraisal of the Constraints on Heavy Axion-like Particles from Gamma-Ray Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R7HRADVE

@misc{pith2026260707297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reappraisal of the Constraints on Heavy Axion-like Particles from Gamma-Ray Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R7HRADVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07297}
}
abstract

We reassess existing limits and derive new constraints on heavy axion-like particle (ALP) coupling to photons using gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). ALPs can be produced in the hot dense fireball plasma during the initial stage of GRB outflow, thus potentially disrupting the primary fireball and altering the GRB luminosity. We consider the ALP production rate for various GRB parameters in two different energy injection scenarios of GRB fireball formation, and point out that ALP production is less efficient than previously assumed unless a GRB event is exceptionally energetic. We update the existing energy loss bounds using more realistic GRB parameters. We also point out that in the region of parameter space previously constrained by GRB luminosity criterion, ALP production turns out to be still efficient enough to form a secondary fireball via ALP decay to two photons and their subsequent annihilation to electron-positron pair. This secondary fireball reprocesses the gamma-rays from heavy ALP decay into $X$-rays, emitted isotropically from its surface, thus allowing us to probe $\mathcal{O}(100~\mathrm{MeV})$-scale ALPs indirectly using $X$-ray (or future MeV gamma-ray) telescopes, not necessarily directed toward the GRB jet itself. We show that the future point-source sensitivity of $X$-ray and MeV gamma-ray telescopes may allow us to constrain new ALP parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Production of a secondary fireball (yellow) by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Secondary fireball properties as functions of the ALP mass and the ALP-photon coupling. The left, middle, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Secondary fireball formation region for differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Photon flux at the Earth from a secondary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity of future X-ray observations to the photon flux from secondary ALP-induced fireball in sGRBs. The solid (dashed) contours are for an initial fireball temperature of Ti = 5 (44) MeV, while the green, orange and red contours are for GRB distance scale of 1 Gp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on ALP parameters based on sGRB energy loss, assuming the different combinations of sGRB parameters presented in Table I. Note that for Case 6, the exclusion region only extends up to a mass of around an MeV, and thus does not appear on this plot. 4. Initia…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 109 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Low-Energy Supernovae Severely Constrain Radiative Particle Decays

    A. Caputo, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, “Low-Energy Supernovae Severely Constrain Radiative Particle Decays,”Phys. Rev. Lett.128no. 22, (2022) 221103, [2201.09890]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    fireball

    and GECCO [91] are expected to reach sensitivi- ties up to an order of magnitude better thanSwift/BAT. Similarly, next-generation MeV gamma-ray observato- ries, such asAMEGO[92] ande-ASTROGAM[93], are designed to achieve a flux sensitivity ofF min ∼ 10−2 10−1 100 Eγ [MeV] 10−14 10−13 10−12 10−11 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7 Fγ [erg cm−2 s−1] ma = 30 MeV, g aγ = 1...

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    [35], the probability for an ALP to escape the fireball is encoded in a factor e−r/λa→γγ ,(A1) withrbeing the distance from the center of the gravita- tional remnant

    Trapping via Decay In Ref. [35], the probability for an ALP to escape the fireball is encoded in a factor e−r/λa→γγ ,(A1) withrbeing the distance from the center of the gravita- tional remnant. This factor suggests that ALPs produced close tor= 0 are more likely to escape without decaying than ALPs produced at the outer edge of the fireball. We instead us...

    work page

  4. [3]

    [35] sets limits on heavy ALPs by requiring that the energy loss rate due to ALP production not ex- ceed the intrinsic GRB luminosity

    Consistency of Energy and Luminosity Values Ref. [35] sets limits on heavy ALPs by requiring that the energy loss rate due to ALP production not ex- ceed the intrinsic GRB luminosity. Specifically, the au- thors require that the ALP luminosity not exceed phys- ical GRB luminosity of 10 50 erg/s, corresponding to an isotropic-equivalent luminosity of appro...

    work page

  5. [4]

    [35], reaching temperatures of a few hundred MeV for a 3M ⊙ merger remnant requires an isotropic-equivalent energy of around 1055 erg

    Assumed GRB Energy As stated above, even under the assumption that ri =r s, and even using the same formula for temper- ature used in Ref. [35], reaching temperatures of a few hundred MeV for a 3M ⊙ merger remnant requires an isotropic-equivalent energy of around 1055 erg. However, the most energetic known sGRB was estimated to have an isotropic-equivalen...

    work page

  6. [5]

    [35], the initial radius of the fireball is taken to be equal tor s, the Schwarzschild Radius of the remnant sourcing the fireball

    Initial Launch Radius In Ref. [35], the initial radius of the fireball is taken to be equal tor s, the Schwarzschild Radius of the remnant sourcing the fireball. However, we find this choice very aggressive. For a simple comparison, it is much smaller than the values given for the initial radius in classic GRB literature [105], the values often chosen in ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    [35] follows Refs

    Temperature Formula Ref. [35] follows Refs. [40, 75] in computing the tem- perature of the fireball in terms of the energy released, using Eq. (5). This formula may be derived by assuming that all of the GRB’s energy is deposited instantaneously in a spherical region of radiusr i. The assumption of in- stantaneous energy injection here can lead to extreme...

    work page

  8. [7]

    A New Light Boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A New Light Boson?,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 40(1978) 223–226

    work page 1978

Show all 109 references
  1. [8]

    Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,

    F. Wilczek, “Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. Lett.40 (1978) 279–282

    1978

  2. [9]

    Axions In String Theory,

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, “Axions In String Theory,” JHEP06(2006) 051, [hep-th/0605206]

    2006 arXiv

  3. [10]

    String Axiverse,

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, “String Axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 123530, [0905.4720]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [11]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. Lett.38 (1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  5. [12]

    Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1791–1797

    1977

  6. [13]

    New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles,

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, “New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.102(2018) 89–159, [1801.08127]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Recent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Particles,

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin, “Recent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Particles,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71(2021) 225–252, [2012.05029]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    The COSMIC WISPers White Paper: The physics case for Weakly Interacting Slim Particles,

    A. Arzaet al., “The COSMIC WISPers White Paper: The physics case for Weakly Interacting Slim Particles,” [2603.03433]

  9. [16]

    Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition,

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, “Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition,”PoSCOSMICWISPers (2024) 041, [2401.13728]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Axion astrophysics,

    P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Isern, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, “Axion astrophysics,”Phys. Rept.1117 (2025) 1–102, [2411.02492]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    G. G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles. 5, 1996

    1996

  12. [19]

    Axion emission by magnetic field induced conversion of longitudinal plasmons,

    N. V. Mikheev, G. Raffelt, and L. A. Vassilevskaya, “Axion emission by magnetic field induced conversion of longitudinal plasmons,”Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 12 Benchmark Point Difference from Ref. [35] Core Temperature [MeV] Eiso [erg] Luminosity Limit [erg/s] 1 Ref. [35] 337 2.8×1...

    1998 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Revisiting longitudinal plasmon-axion conversion in external magnetic fields,

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, and E. Vitagliano, “Revisiting longitudinal plasmon-axion conversion in external magnetic fields,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 12, (2020) 123004, [2005.00078]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Turbulent axion-photon conversions in the Milky Way,

    P. Carenza, C. Evoli, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and D. Montanino, “Turbulent axion-photon conversions in the Milky Way,”Phys. Rev. D104no. 2, (2021) 023003, [2104.13935]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Uncovering axionlike particles in supernova gamma-ray spectra,

    F. Calore, P. Carenza, C. Eckner, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, A. Mirizzi, and F. Sivo, “Uncovering axionlike particles in supernova gamma-ray spectra,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 4, (2024) 043010, [2306.03925]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Lights, Camera, Axion: Tracing Axions from Supernovae in the Diffuseγ-ray Sky,

    B. Kanodia, D. Bose, S. Bouri, and R. Laha, “Lights, Camera, Axion: Tracing Axions from Supernovae in the Diffuseγ-ray Sky,” [2604.01277]

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Magnetic Turbulence Boosts Supernova Signals of Axion-Photon Conversion,

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, ´A. Gil Muyor, G. G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, “Magnetic Turbulence Boosts Supernova Signals of Axion-Photon Conversion,” [2605.15261]

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    New constraints for heavy axion-like particles from supernovae,

    M. Giannotti, L. D. Duffy, and R. Nita, “New constraints for heavy axion-like particles from supernovae,”JCAP01(2011) 015, [1009.5714]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Decay photons from the axionlike particles burst of type II supernovae,

    J. Jaeckel, P. C. Malta, and J. Redondo, “Decay photons from the axionlike particles burst of type II supernovae,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 5, (2018) 055032, [1702.02964]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Updated constraints on axion-like particles from temporal information in supernova SN1987A gamma-ray data,

    S. Hoof and L. Schulz, “Updated constraints on axion-like particles from temporal information in supernova SN1987A gamma-ray data,”JCAP03 (2023) 054, [2212.09764]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Investigating the gamma-ray burst from decaying MeV-scale axion-like particles produced in supernova explosions,

    E. M¨ uller, F. Calore, P. Carenza, C. Eckner, and M. C. D. Marsh, “Investigating the gamma-ray burst from decaying MeV-scale axion-like particles produced in supernova explosions,”JCAP07(2023) 056, [2304.01060]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from Globular Clusters,

    A. Ayala, I. Dom´ ınguez, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, “Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from Globular Clusters,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 113no. 19, (2014) 191302, [1406.6053]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Constraints on the coupling with photons of heavy axion-like-particles from Globular Clusters,

    P. Carenza, O. Straniero, B. D¨ obrich, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, and A. Mirizzi, “Constraints on the coupling with photons of heavy axion-like-particles from Globular Clusters,”Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135709, [2004.08399]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

    X-ray Searches for Axions from Super Star Clusters,

    C. Dessert, J. W. Foster, and B. R. Safdi, “X-ray Searches for Axions from Super Star Clusters,”Phys. Rev. Lett.125no. 26, (2020) 261102, [2008.03305]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Constraining Heavy Axionlike Particles by Energy Deposition in Globular Cluster Stars,

    G. Lucente, O. Straniero, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, “Constraining Heavy Axionlike Particles by Energy Deposition in Globular Cluster Stars,”Phys. Rev. Lett.129no. 1, (2022) 011101, [2203.01336]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    NuSTAR Bounds on Radiatively Decaying Particles from M82,

    F. R. Cand´ on, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Lucente, E. Vitagliano, and J. K. Vogel, “NuSTAR Bounds on Radiatively Decaying Particles from M82,”Phys. Rev. Lett.134no. 17, (2025) 171004, [2412.03660]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Probing Heavy Axion-like Particles from Massive Stars with X-rays and Gamma Rays,

    J. H. Buckley, P. S. B. Dev, F. Ferrer, and T. Okawa, “Probing Heavy Axion-like Particles from Massive Stars with X-rays and Gamma Rays,” [2412.21163]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Strong supernovae bounds on ALPs from quantum loops,

    R. Z. Ferreira, M. C. D. Marsh, and E. M¨ uller, “Strong supernovae bounds on ALPs from quantum loops,”JCAP11(2022) 057, [2205.07896]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Time-delayed gamma-ray signatures of heavy axions from core-collapse supernovae,

    J. N. Benabou, C. A. Manzari, Y. Park, G. Prabhakar, B. R. Safdi, and I. Savoray, “Time-delayed gamma-ray signatures of heavy axions from core-collapse supernovae,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 9, (2025) 095029, [2412.13247]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Energy Transfer by Feebly Interacting Particles in Supernovae: The Trapping Regime,

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, T. Pitik, and E. Vitagliano, “Energy Transfer by Feebly Interacting Particles in Supernovae: The Trapping Regime,”Phys. Rev. Lett.135no. 7, (2025) 071005, [2503.13653]

    2025

  31. [39]

    First Constraints on the Photon Coupling of Axionlike Particles from Multimessenger Studies of the Neutron Star Merger GW170817,

    P. S. B. Dev, J.-F. Fortin, S. P. Harris, K. Sinha, and Y. Zhang, “First Constraints on the Photon Coupling of Axionlike Particles from Multimessenger Studies of the Neutron Star Merger GW170817,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 132no. 10, (2024) 101003, [2305.01002]

    2024

  32. [40]

    Multimessenger Constraints on Radiatively Decaying Axions from GW170817,

    M. Diamond, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Marques-Tavares, I. Tamborra, and E. Vitagliano, “Multimessenger Constraints on Radiatively Decaying Axions from GW170817,”Phys. Rev. Lett.132no. 10, (2024) 101004, [2305.10327]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Heavy axions can disruptγ-ray bursts,

    O. Ghosh, S. Jacobsen, and T. Linden, “Heavy axions can disruptγ-ray bursts,”Phys. Rev. D113no. 2, (2026) 023033, [2501.08978]

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Gamma-Ray Bursts: What Do We Know Today That We Did Not Know 10 Years Ago?,

    A. Pe’er, “Gamma-Ray Bursts: What Do We Know Today That We Did Not Know 10 Years Ago?,” Galaxies13no. 1, (2025) 2, [2412.18681]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gamma-ray bursts via emission of axion - like particles,

    Z. Berezhiani and A. Drago, “Gamma-ray bursts via emission of axion - like particles,”Phys. Lett. B473 13 (2000) 281–290, [hep-ph/9911333]

    2000 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mirror world, supersymmetric axion and gamma ray bursts,

    L. Gianfagna, M. Giannotti, and F. Nesti, “Mirror world, supersymmetric axion and gamma ray bursts,” JHEP10(2004) 044, [hep-ph/0409185]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Signatures of photon and axion-like particle mixing in the gamma-ray burst jet,

    O. Mena, S. Razzaque, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, “Signatures of photon and axion-like particle mixing in the gamma-ray burst jet,”JCAP02(2011) 030, [1101.1903]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Effects of Goldstone Bosons on Gamma-Ray Bursts,

    H. Tu and K.-W. Ng, “Effects of Goldstone Bosons on Gamma-Ray Bursts,”JCAP03(2016) 037, [1512.05165]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    On the production of heavy axion-like particles in the accretion disks of gamma-ray bursts,

    M. M. Reynoso, “On the production of heavy axion-like particles in the accretion disks of gamma-ray bursts,”Phys. Lett. B775(2017) 338–347, [1705.04761]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Axion-sourced fireballs from supernovae,

    M. Diamond, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Marques-Tavares, and E. Vitagliano, “Axion-sourced fireballs from supernovae,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 10, (2023) 103029, [2303.11395]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 049902 (2023)]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    The 157 Month Swift/BAT All-sky Hard X-Ray Survey,

    A. Y. Lienet al., “The 157 Month Swift/BAT All-sky Hard X-Ray Survey,”Astrophys. J.989no. 2, (2025) 161, [2506.04109]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gamma Ray Bursts in the Swift-Fermi Era,

    N. Gehrels and S. Razzaque, “Gamma Ray Bursts in the Swift-Fermi Era,”Front. Phys. (Beijing)8(2013) 661–678, [1301.0840]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A Roadmap to Gamma-Ray Bursts: New Developments and Applications to Cosmology,

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, “A Roadmap to Gamma-Ray Bursts: New Developments and Applications to Cosmology,”Galaxies9no. 4, (2021) 77, [2110.14408]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gamma-ray Bursts: 50 Years and Counting!,

    A. A. Vigliano and F. Longo, “Gamma-ray Bursts: 50 Years and Counting!,”Universe10no. 2, (2024) 57

    2024

  45. [53]

    SAX: the wideband mission for x-ray astronomy,

    L. Piro, L. Scarsi, and R. C. Butler, “SAX: the wideband mission for x-ray astronomy,” inX-Ray and EUV/FUV Spectroscopy and Polarimetry, S. Fineschi, ed., vol. 2517 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, pp. 169–181. Oct., 1995

    1995

  46. [54]

    Discovery of an X-ray afterglow associated with the gamma-ray burst of 28 February 1997,

    E. Costaet al., “Discovery of an X-ray afterglow associated with the gamma-ray burst of 28 February 1997,”Nature387(1997) 783–785, [astro-ph/9706065]. [49]LIGO Scientific, VirgoCollaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., “GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neut...

    1997 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Catalog of cosmic gamma-ray bursts from the KONUS experiment data,

    E. P. Mazetset al., “Catalog of cosmic gamma-ray bursts from the KONUS experiment data,”Astrophys. Space Sci.80no. 1, (1981) 3–83

    1981

  48. [56]

    Identification of two classes of gamma-ray bursts,

    C. Kouveliotou, C. A. Meegan, G. J. Fishman, N. P. Bhyat, M. S. Briggs, T. M. Koshut, W. S. Paciesas, and G. N. Pendleton, “Identification of two classes of gamma-ray bursts,”Astrophys. J. Lett.413(1993) L101–104

    1993

  49. [57]

    Kouveliotou, R

    C. Kouveliotou, R. A. M. J. Wijers, and S. Woosley, Gamma-ray Bursts. 2012

    2012

  50. [58]

    X-ray flashes and X-ray rich gamma-ray bursts,

    J. Heise, J. J. M. in ’t Zand, M. Kippen, and P. Woods, “X-ray flashes and X-ray rich gamma-ray bursts,”AIP Conf. Proc.662no. 1, (2003) 229–236, [astro-ph/0111246]

    2003 arXiv

  51. [59]

    The Origin of Long, Short and Low-luminosity Gamma-Ray Bursts,

    T. Piran, O. Bromberg, E. Nakar, and R. Sari, “The Origin of Long, Short and Low-luminosity Gamma-Ray Bursts,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 371(2013) 0273, [1206.0700]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Closing in on a short-hard burst progenitor: Constraints from early-time optical imaging and spectroscopy of a possible host galaxy of GRB 050509b,

    J. S. Bloomet al., “Closing in on a short-hard burst progenitor: Constraints from early-time optical imaging and spectroscopy of a possible host galaxy of GRB 050509b,”Astrophys. J.638(2006) 354–368, [astro-ph/0505480]

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A short gamma-ray burst apparently asssociated with an elliptical galaxy at redshift z=0.225,

    N. Gehrelset al., “A short gamma-ray burst apparently asssociated with an elliptical galaxy at redshift z=0.225,”Nature437(2005) 851–854, [astro-ph/0505630]

    2005 arXiv

  54. [62]

    An origin for short gamma-ray bursts unassociated with current star formation,

    S. D. Barthelmyet al., “An origin for short gamma-ray bursts unassociated with current star formation,” Nature438(2005) 994, [astro-ph/0511579]

    2005 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Are Super-Luminous supernovae and Long GRBs produced exclusively in young dense star clusters?,

    E. P. J. van den Heuvel and S. Portegies Zwart, “Are Super-Luminous supernovae and Long GRBs produced exclusively in young dense star clusters?,”Astrophys. J.779(2013) 114, [1303.6961]

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    The Supernova gamma-ray burst connection,

    L.-f. Wang and J. C. Wheeler, “The Supernova gamma-ray burst connection,”Astrophys. J. Lett.504 (1998) L87, [astro-ph/9806212]

    1998 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Short-Duration Gamma-Ray Bursts,

    E. Berger, “Short-Duration Gamma-Ray Bursts,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.52(2014) 43–105, [1311.2603]

    2014 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Are gamma-ray bursts optically thick?,

    J. Goodman, “Are gamma-ray bursts optically thick?,” Astrophys. J. Lett.308(1986) L47–L50

    1986

  59. [67]

    The physics of gamma-ray bursts,

    T. Piran, “The physics of gamma-ray bursts,”Rev. Mod. Phys.76(2004) 1143–1210, [astro-ph/0405503]

    2004 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Estimating Long GRB Jet Opening Angles and Rest-Frame Energetics,

    A. Goldstein, V. Connaughton, M. S. Briggs, and E. Burns, “Estimating Long GRB Jet Opening Angles and Rest-Frame Energetics,”Astrophys. J.818no. 1, (2016) 18, [1512.04464]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Gamma-ray bursters at cosmological distances,

    B. Paczynski, “Gamma-ray bursters at cosmological distances,”Astrophys. J. Lett.308(1986) L43–L46

    1986

  62. [70]

    Dynamical evolution, light curves and spectra of spherical and collimated gamma-ray burst remnants,

    A. Panaitescu and P. Meszaros, “Dynamical evolution, light curves and spectra of spherical and collimated gamma-ray burst remnants,”Astrophys. J.526(1999) 707–715, [astro-ph/9806016]

    1999 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Jets in GRBs,

    R. Sari, T. Piran, and J. Halpern, “Jets in GRBs,” Astrophys. J. Lett.519(1999) L17, [astro-ph/9903339]

    1999 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Stationary spherical accretion into black holes II. Theory of optically thick accretion.,

    R. A. Flammang, “Stationary spherical accretion into black holes II. Theory of optically thick accretion.,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.199(June, 1982) 833–867

    1982

  65. [73]

    Hydrodynamic Properties of Gamma-ray Burst Outflows Deduced From the Thermal Component,

    A. Pe’er, H. Barlow, S. O’Mahony, R. Margutti, F. Ryde, J. Larsson, D. Lazzati, and M. Livio, “Hydrodynamic Properties of Gamma-ray Burst Outflows Deduced From the Thermal Component,” Astrophys. J.813no. 2, (2015) 127, [1507.00873]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Unsteady outflow models for cosmological gamma-ray bursts,

    M. J. Rees and P. Meszaros, “Unsteady outflow models for cosmological gamma-ray bursts,”Astrophys. J. Lett.430(1994) L93–L96, [astro-ph/9404038]

    1994 arXiv

  67. [75]

    The Expected thermal precursors of gamma-ray bursts in the internal shock model,

    F. Daigne and R. Mochkovitch, “The Expected thermal precursors of gamma-ray bursts in the internal shock model,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.336 (2002) 1271–1280, [astro-ph/0207456]

    2002 arXiv

  68. [76]

    5-GeV to 10-GeV neutrinos from gamma-ray burst fireballs,

    J. N. Bahcall and P. Meszaros, “5-GeV to 10-GeV neutrinos from gamma-ray burst fireballs,”Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000) 1362–1365, [hep-ph/0004019]. 14

    2000 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Neutron-loaded outflows in gamma-ray bursts,

    E. M. Rossi, A. M. Beloborodov, and M. J. Rees, “Neutron-loaded outflows in gamma-ray bursts,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.369(2006) 1797–1807, [astro-ph/0512495]

    2006 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Mev-gev emission from neutron-loaded short gamma-ray burst jets,

    S. Razzaque and P. Meszaros, “Mev-gev emission from neutron-loaded short gamma-ray burst jets,” Astrophys. J.650(2006) 998–1003, [astro-ph/0601652]

    2006 arXiv

  71. [79]

    The Effect of neutrinos on the initial fireballs in gamma-ray bursts,

    H. B. J. Koers and R. A. M. J. Wijers, “The Effect of neutrinos on the initial fireballs in gamma-ray bursts,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.364(2005) 934–942, [astro-ph/0505533]

    2005 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Gamma-ray burst energetics,

    P. Kumar, “Gamma-ray burst energetics,”Astrophys. J. Lett.523(1999) L113, [astro-ph/9907096]

    1999 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Short versus Long Gamma-Ray Bursts: spectra, energetics, and luminosities,

    G. Ghirlanda, L. Nava, G. Ghisellini, A. Celotti, and C. Firmani, “Short versus Long Gamma-Ray Bursts: spectra, energetics, and luminosities,”Astron. Astrophys.496(2009) 585, [0902.0983]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [82]

    The physics of gamma-ray bursts\& relativistic jets,

    P. Kumar and B. Zhang, “The physics of gamma-ray bursts\& relativistic jets,”Phys. Rept.561(2014) 1–109, [1410.0679]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    The luminosity function and the rate of Swift’s Gamma Ray Bursts,

    D. Wanderman and T. Piran, “The luminosity function and the rate of Swift’s Gamma Ray Bursts,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.406(2010) 1944–1958, [0912.0709]

    2010 arXiv

  76. [84]

    ALPs Effective Field Theory and Collider Signatures,

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey, and V. Sanz, “ALPs Effective Field Theory and Collider Signatures,”Eur. Phys. J. C77 no. 8, (2017) 572, [1701.05379]

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, “Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,”JHEP12(2017) 044, [1708.00443]

    2017 arXiv

  78. [86]

    The Low-Energy Effective Theory of Axions and ALPs,

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, “The Low-Energy Effective Theory of Axions and ALPs,”JHEP04(2021) 063, [2012.12272]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Axions and the Strong CP Problem,

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, “Axions and the Strong CP Problem,”Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 557–602, [0807.3125]. [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)]

    2010 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Redefining the Axion Window,

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, “Redefining the Axion Window,”Phys. Rev. Lett.118no. 3, (2017) 031801, [1610.07593]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Neutrino energy loss from the plasma process at all temperatures and densities,

    E. Braaten and D. Segel, “Neutrino energy loss from the plasma process at all temperatures and densities,” Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 1478–1491, [hep-ph/9302213]

    1993 arXiv

  82. [90]

    ASTROPHYSICAL AXION BOUNDS DIMINISHED BY SCREENING EFFECTS,

    G. G. Raffelt, “ASTROPHYSICAL AXION BOUNDS DIMINISHED BY SCREENING EFFECTS,”Phys. Rev. D33(1986) 897

    1986

  83. [91]

    Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Swift Era,

    N. Gehrels, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, and D. B. Fox, “Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Swift Era,”Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.47no. 1, (Sept., 2009) 567–617, [0909.1531]

    2009 arXiv

  84. [92]

    The fermi gamma-ray burst monitor,

    C. Meeganet al., “The fermi gamma-ray burst monitor,”Astrophys. J.702(2009) 791

    2009

  85. [93]

    The SVOM mission,

    J.-L. Atteia, B. Cordier, and J. Wei, “The SVOM mission,”International Journal of Modern Physics D 31no. 5, (Apr., 2022) 2230008, [2203.10962]

    2022

  86. [94]

    The theseus mission concept,

    L. Amatiet al., “The theseus mission concept,”Adv. Space Res.62(2018) 191

    2018

  87. [95]

    Exploring the MeV sky with a combined coded mask and Compton telescope: the Galactic Explorer with a Coded aperture mask Compton telescope (GECCO),

    E. Orlandoet al., “Exploring the MeV sky with a combined coded mask and Compton telescope: the Galactic Explorer with a Coded aperture mask Compton telescope (GECCO),”JCAP07no. 07, (2022) 036, [2112.07190]. [92]AMEGOCollaboration, R. Caputoet al., “All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-...

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    The Rate of Short-Duration Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Local Universe,

    S. Mandhai, N. Tanvir, G. Lamb, A. Levan, and D. Tsang, “The Rate of Short-Duration Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Local Universe,”Galaxies6no. 4, (2018) 130, [1812.00507]

    2018 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Short gamma-ray bursts within 200 Mpc,

    S. Dichiara, E. Troja, B. O’Connor, F. E. Marshall, P. Beniamini, J. K. Cannizzo, A. Y. Lien, and T. Sakamoto, “Short gamma-ray bursts within 200 Mpc,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.492no. 4, (2020) 5011–5022, [1912.08698]

    2020 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Rates of compact object coalescences,

    I. Mandel and F. S. Broekgaarden, “Rates of compact object coalescences,”Living Rev. Rel.25no. 1, (2022) 1, [2107.14239]

    2022 arXiv

  91. [99]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits

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

    2020

  92. [100]

    Cosmological bounds on sub-MeV mass axions,

    D. Cadamuro, S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt, and J. Redondo, “Cosmological bounds on sub-MeV mass axions,”JCAP02(2011) 003, [1011.3694]

    2011 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Nucleosynthesis and CMB bounds on photophilic ALPs: a fresh look,

    M. Escudero, C. Garcia-Perez, and M. Ovchynnikov, “Nucleosynthesis and CMB bounds on photophilic ALPs: a fresh look,” [2511.00157]

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    Robust cosmological constraints on axion-like particles,

    P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, “Robust cosmological constraints on axion-like particles,”JCAP05(2020) 009, [2002.08370]

    2020 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Axion Emission From a Hot Plasma,

    T. Altherr, “Axion Emission From a Hot Plasma,”Z. Phys. C47(1990) 559–564

    1990

  96. [104]

    Gauge field theory methods for ultradegenerate and ultrarelativistic plasmas,

    T. Altherr and U. Kraemmer, “Gauge field theory methods for ultradegenerate and ultrarelativistic plasmas,”Astropart. Phys.1(1992) 133–158

    1992

  97. [105]

    Axion emission from red giants and white dwarfs,

    T. Altherr, E. Petitgirard, and T. del Rio Gaztelurrutia, “Axion emission from red giants and white dwarfs,”Astropart. Phys.2(1994) 175–186, [hep-ph/9310304]

    1994 arXiv

  98. [106]

    GRB 060121: Implications of a Short/Intermediate Duration Gamma-Ray Burst at High Redshift,

    A. de Ugarte Postigoet al., “GRB 060121: Implications of a Short/Intermediate Duration Gamma-Ray Burst at High Redshift,”Astrophys. J. Lett.648(2006) L83–L88, [astro-ph/0605516]

    2006 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Gamma-ray bursts and the fireball model,

    T. Piran, “Gamma-ray bursts and the fireball model,” Phys. Rept.314(1999) 575–667, [astro-ph/9810256]

    1999 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Collapsars: Gamma-ray bursts and explosions in ’failed supernovae’,

    A. MacFadyen and S. E. Woosley, “Collapsars: Gamma-ray bursts and explosions in ’failed supernovae’,”Astrophys. J.524(1999) 262, [astro-ph/9810274]

    1999 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Small Progenitors, Large Couplings: Type Ic Supernova Constraints on Radiatively Decaying Particles,

    F. R. Cand´ on, D. F. G. Fiorillo, H.-T. Janka, B. F. A. van Baal, and E. Vitagliano, “Small Progenitors, Large Couplings: Type Ic Supernova Constraints on Radiatively Decaying Particles,” [2509.18253]

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.