Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

For initially unpolarized photons crossing a random magnetic field, axion-photon conversion makes all Stokes-parameter statistics expressible through two magnetic-field power spectra, including new consistency relations that hold for any sp

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

2026-08-03 14:12 UTC pith:V7YUYWEH

load-bearing objection Useful new formalism for polarization statistics in axion-photon conversion, but a sign error in the phase Π flips the headline circular-polarization prediction for m_a < m_pl; the fix is small and the core results survive. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.21108 v2 pith:V7YUYWEH submitted 2025-12-24 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEgr-qc

Axion-photon conversion in stochastic magnetic fields

Wataru Chiba , Ryusuke Jinno , Kimihiro Nomura This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords axion-photon conversionstochastic magnetic fieldsStokes parameterscircular polarizationhelical magnetic fieldsmagnetic-field power spectraBorn approximationgamma-ray polarization
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.

This paper tries to show that when initially unpolarized photons travel through a stochastic magnetic field, axion-photon conversion generically produces nonzero polarization variances — and, if the field is helically structured, a nonzero expectation value of circular polarization. The authors derive closed-form formulas for the expectation values and variances of the Stokes parameters I, Q, U, V in terms of the magnetic field's symmetric and antisymmetric (helical) power spectra, assuming a Gaussian, statistically homogeneous and isotropic field and a weak-coupling Born approximation. They then extract three consistency relations among these statistical quantities that do not depend on the specific shape of the power spectra, making them robust observational tests. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns high-energy photon observations of cosmological sources into a quantitative probe of axion parameters and magnetic-field helicity.

Core claim

For unpolarized photons in a Gaussian stochastic magnetic field, the ensemble mean and variance of every Stokes parameter are fully determined by the power spectra P_B(k) and P_aB(k) through the three integrals α, β, and γ (with a fourth integral δ vanishing identically). Explicitly, the expectation of fractional intensity loss is α, the expectation of circular polarization is −β, the linear-polarization means vanish, and the variances are given by ½(α²+β²+γ²), ½(α²−β²+γ²), and ½(α²+β²−γ²) for I, Q/U, and V respectively. These expressions lead to the spectrum-independent identities Var[Q]=Var[U], Var[1−I]=Var[Q]+Exp[V]², and Exp[1−I]²=Var[Q]+Var[V]. The paper also shows that a helical magnet

What carries the argument

The central object is the statistically homogeneous, isotropic Gaussian magnetic field, characterized by its two-point correlator in terms of a symmetric spectrum P_B(k) and an antisymmetric helical spectrum P_aB(k). The argument combines the Schrödinger-like mixing equation of axion-photon propagation with a first-order Born approximation, so the photon fields after propagation are linear in the magnetic field and the Stokes parameters become quadratic products. The ensemble statistics then reduce, via Wick-contracted four-point functions, to products of these two spectra weighted by two convolution kernels I(k_z;ω) and J(k_z;ω) — sinc-like integrals over the propagation path. The four inte

Load-bearing premise

The entire closed-form statistical machinery rests on the assumptions that the magnetic field is a Gaussian random field and that the conversion is weak enough for the first-order Born approximation to hold; if the real field is strongly non-Gaussian or the coupling is not perturbative, the formulas and the consistency relations lose their validity.

What would settle it

Take a set of many observed photon sources whose lines of sight traverse the same statistical magnetic-field region, measure their Stokes parameters, and compute the ensemble variance of Q and U; if the variances are unequal, or if the combination Var[1−I] − Var[Q] − Exp[V]² is measurably nonzero, the Gaussian-Born prediction is ruled out. Alternatively, a direct measurement of the four-point magnetic-field correlator would reveal non-Gaussianity and invalidate the Wick factorization at the heart of the derivation.

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

If this is right

  • Observations of many equivalent photon sources behind the same magnetized region should show Var[Q] = Var[U], providing a direct test that requires no knowledge of the magnetic-field spectrum.
  • A statistically helical magnetic field generates a circular-polarization signal whose mean is proportional to the helical power spectrum, with a peak whose location in frequency encodes the axion mass or the field correlation length.
  • In the frequency window where the dimensionless combination Π(ω)d lies between O(1) and k_*d, the variance of the conversion probability is suppressed relative to its expectation value, making this window advantageous for axion searches.
  • The three consistency relations give a falsifiable set of equalities that any Gaussian-Born axion-photon conversion signal must satisfy; deviations would point to non-Gaussian magnetic fields, stronger coupling, or additional physics.
  • Because the same integral kernels appear in graviton-photon conversion, the statistical structure derived here transfers to other weakly coupled particle-mixing scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The spectrum-independent relations could be turned into a null test for claims of axion-induced polarization from extragalactic sources: if the measured ensemble statistics do not satisfy these identities, the source of the signal lies elsewhere.
  • If real cosmological magnetic fields are intermittent or shock-dominated, their non-Gaussianity would generically break the closed-form variance formulas; comparing observed variances with the Gaussian prediction could therefore diagnose field statistics as well as axion physics.
  • The single-domain assumption is likely the main obstacle to direct cosmological application; a multi-domain generalization would effectively replace the model spectra here with a direction-dependent superposition, possibly smearing the distinctive peak structures.
  • The helicity-dependent circular polarization may provide a way to measure the handedness of primordial magnetic fields using gamma-ray observations, independent of Faraday rotation measurements.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a statistical treatment of axion-photon conversion in stochastic magnetic fields. It considers a photon propagating through a statistically homogeneous, isotropic Gaussian magnetic field, treats the axion-photon mixing in the Born approximation, and derives the ensemble mean and variance of the Stokes parameters after propagation. For initially unpolarized photons, the mean conversion probability and mean circular polarization are expressed in terms of two spectral integrals α and β, while the variances are quadratic forms in α, β, and γ. The paper also derives spectrum-independent consistency relations among these statistical moments and illustrates the frequency dependence with broken power-law spectra, finding a peak in the mean circular polarization for helical fields.

Significance. The strength of the paper is its analytic control: the Wick-contraction calculation in Appendix A is explicit, the convolution kernels are given in closed form in Appendix B, and the consistency relations are parameter-free consequences of the Gaussian and Born assumptions. If correct, the formalism provides a useful tool for estimating polarization signatures of axion-photon conversion in cosmic magnetic fields and gives falsifiable relations that can be checked in simulations or observations. The helical-field extension goes beyond existing domain-like and statistical treatments. However, a sign error in the definition of the oscillation frequency affects the predicted circular polarization on part of the parameter space, which is one of the paper's headline claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (3.26), Secs. III B, IV B, V C] The absolute value in Eq. (3.26) is not equivalent to the physical phase difference. From Eqs. (3.13)–(3.14), Π_a−Π_γ = (m_a^2−m_pl^2)/(2ω)+χ_CMBω, which is negative for m_a<m_pl and small ω. Since I(k_z;ω) in Eq. (4.6) is even in Π−k_z, replacing Π by −Π is equivalent to k_z→−k_z, and the angular integral defining β in Eq. (4.5) changes sign. Hence Exp[V]=−β flips sign on this branch. The variances and consistency relations involve only α², β², γ² and are unaffected. The numerical figures in Sec. V use only |m_a^2−m_pl^2| and do not specify the sign; the statement in Sec. V C that V is opposite to the magnetic helicity is therefore not generally valid. Please use the signed Π throughout and qualify the circular-polarization predictions by the sign of m_a^2−m_pl^2, or explicitly restrict to m_a>m_pl.
  2. [Sec. V] The numerical illustrations use representative parameters B_*∼nG, d∼100 Mpc, g_aγγ∼10^−12 GeV^−1, for which the first-order Born amplitude gBd is of order 0.1 and the truncation of the perturbation series is not obviously justified. Since the analytic results are explicitly leading order, the paper should either state the weak-coupling regime in which they apply or quantify the expected size of the next-order correction. This is not a problem for the formal derivation, but it is relevant for the observational conclusions drawn from the figures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI] The phrase "statically unpolarized" should be "statistically unpolarized" (or "initially unpolarized").
  2. [Abstract and Sec. V C] The claim that the circular polarization is opposite to the magnetic helicity needs a qualifier specifying the sign of m_a^2−m_pl^2; see Major Comment 1.
  3. [Eq. (4.4)] The δ² terms are displayed and then immediately set to zero; consider removing the intermediate equalities to avoid confusing the reader about a potentially nonvanishing quantity.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The definition of ω_eq uses |m_a^2−m_pl^2|; the caption should state this explicitly so that the folding of the frequency axis is not misinterpreted as a physical symmetry.
  5. [Sec. IV C] The consistency relations are clearly derived; it would be helpful to state once more that they hold only under Gaussian statistics and the Born approximation, as these are the assumptions that enter through Eq. (4.4).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Stokes statistics are derived from the stated Gaussian correlator by explicit Wick contractions; the only self-citation is a comparative remark, not a load-bearing input.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the Born-approximation transfer matrix (Eqs. 3.23–3.25), the paper obtains Stokes-parameter expressions (Eqs. 3.31–3.34) in terms of path integrals of the magnetic field. It then assumes the Gaussian, statistically homogeneous and isotropic correlator (Eq. 4.1) and computes the expectation values and variances in Appendix A using explicit Wick contractions. The resulting α, β, γ are convolutions of the input power spectra P_B(k) and P_aB(k) with kernels I, J defined by the same path integrals; they are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. In particular, Exp[V] = −β follows directly from the parity-odd part of Eq. (4.1) in Eq. (A7). The consistency relations (Eq. 4.18) are algebraic consequences of Eq. (4.4), and the paper also notes they are equivalent to ensemble-averaging the exact identity (Eq. 3.35). The citations to the authors' earlier work, especially Ref. [43], are used only to remark that the same convolution kernels appear in graviton-photon conversion; that remark is made after the derivation and supplies no formula or assumption to the present calculation. Thus no prediction reduces by construction to an input, and no load-bearing assertion is justified by self-citation. The sign of the absolute value in Eq. (3.26) may raise a physics/correctness question for m_a < m_pl, but that is not a circularity issue and does not affect this assessment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analytic central claim rests on the Gaussian, homogeneous, isotropic magnetic field assumption and the Born/relativistic approximations, all explicitly stated. The power-spectrum shape enters only in the numerical illustrations. No new particles, fields, or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-spectrum spectral indices (n_l=2, n_h=-11/3, n_al=3, n_ah=-11/3) = illustrative values from Ref [41]
    Used in the numerical examples (Sec V B) to evaluate α, β, γ; not fitted to data and not needed for the analytic central claim (4.4)-(4.18).
  • Helicity amplitude ratio P_aB*/P_B* = 1 (maximally helical)
    Chosen for the main numerical figures (Sec V B); the non-helical case (P_aB*=0) is in Appendix C. This choice does not enter the analytic derivation.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Magnetic field is a Gaussian random field with two-point function (4.1)
    Invoked in Sec IV A; enables Wick factorization of four-point functions in Appendix A, which is essential for the variance formulas.
  • domain assumption Statistical homogeneity and isotropy of the magnetic field
    Sec IV A; implies Exp[Q]=Exp[U]=0 and C_δ=0 in Eq (4.12).
  • domain assumption Born approximation: axion-photon mixing treated to first order in g_aγγ B
    Sec III B; all results are second order in B and neglect multiple conversions and M_γγ corrections to the axion-photon amplitude.
  • domain assumption Relativistic photons with ω ≫ m_pl; background field varies on scales much longer than the photon wavelength
    Sec II D, used to reduce Eq (2.28) to (2.31) and to keep B(z) outside derivatives.
  • domain assumption Initially unpolarized photons, I0=1, Q0=U0=V0=0
    Eq (3.28); all central results are derived for this initial condition.
  • standard math Euler-Heisenberg effective Lagrangian and axion-photon coupling Lagrangian from Raffelt-Stodolsky
    Sec II B and III A; these are accepted prior physics inputs, reviewed but not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Broken power-law form of P_B and P_aB (5.1)-(5.2)
    Adopted from Ref [41] for numerical evaluation in Sec V; not part of the analytic central claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30641 in / 15618 out tokens · 153965 ms · 2026-08-03T14:12:23.964632+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate axion-photon conversion in stochastic magnetic fields, focusing on the evolution of the photon intensity and polarizations induced by conversion into axions. Assuming Gaussian magnetic fields characterized by the power spectra of their helical/non-helical components, we express the expectation values and variances of the photon intensity and linear/circular polarizations after conversion in terms of these spectra. We find nontrivial dependencies of these statistical quantities on the characteristic magnetic field correlation length, the propagation distance, and the axion mass. Moreover, we find that nontrivial polarizations emerge even if the photons are initially unpolarized, that the variances of these observables become suppressed in specific frequency regions, and that a peak structure arises in the expectation value of the circular polarization in the presence of statistically helical magnetic fields. We also point out consistency relations among these statistical quantities that hold independently of the specific forms of the magnetic field power spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.21108 by Kimihiro Nomura, Ryusuke Jinno, Wataru Chiba.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Convolution kernels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Integrals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Conversion probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Stokes parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Stokes parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Conversion probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Stokes parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Stokes parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Circular polarization effects induced by photon-axion mixing in astrophysical environments

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Photon-axion mixing in magnetic fields induces circular polarization that constrains the axion-photon coupling to g_aγγ ≤ 5×10^{-12} GeV^{-1} for m_a ~10^{-16}--10^{-10} eV using blazar data, with peak sensitivity in ...

  2. Circular polarization effects induced by photon-axion mixing in astrophysical environments

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 conditional novelty 4.0

    The paper derives analytic circular-polarization signals from photon-axion mixing and uses the blazar S4 0954+65 optical circular-polarization limit to bound g_aγγ around 10^-12 to 10^-11 GeV^-1 for ultralight axion masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Using Eq

    Calculations of the expectation values We first compute the expectation value ofa. Using Eq. (4.1), it is evaluated as ⟨a⟩= gaγγ 2 2 Z s,s′ e−iΠ(s−s′)⟨Bx(s)Bx(s′) +B y(s)By(s′)⟩ = gaγγ 2 2 Z s,s′ e−iΠ(s−s′) Z k eikz(s−s′)(2− ˆk2 x − ˆk2 y)PB(k) = 2 gaγγ 2 2 Z k Z s,s′ e−i(Π−kz)(s−s′) 1 + ˆk2 z 2 PB(k) = 2 gaγγ 2 2 Z k I(k z;ω) 1 + ˆk2 z 2 PB(k)≡2α .(A3) I...

  2. [2]

    10-5 2.5 10-5 10-1100101102103 0.5 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 10±110±210±3 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-1100101102103 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 10±110±210±3 -1. 10-5 -0.5 10-5

  3. [3]

    10-5 3.5 10-5 10-1100101102103 0.5 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5 10±110±210±3 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-1100101102103 10-2 10-1 100 10±110±210±3 0.5 10-5

  4. [4]

    10-5 2.5 10-5 10-1100101102103 -1. -0.5 0. 0.5 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 10±110±210±3 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-1100101102103 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 FIG. 2. Integralsα(top),β(middle), andγ(bottom) with the magnetic field power spectra (5.1) and (5.2) are plotted. The black, red, green, and blue curves correspond to the case ofk ∗d= 0.1, 1, 10, and 100, respectively....

  5. [5]

    The variance of the intensityIis given by Var[I] = ⟨I 2⟩ − ⟨I⟩2 = (⟨a2⟩ − ⟨a⟩2)/4

    Calculations of the variances Next, we compute the variances of the Stokes parameters. The variance of the intensityIis given by Var[I] = ⟨I 2⟩ − ⟨I⟩2 = (⟨a2⟩ − ⟨a⟩2)/4. Using the definition ofain Eq. (A2), we can compute⟨a 2⟩as ⟨a2⟩= gaγγ 2 4 Z s,s′ e−iΠ(s−s′)[Bx(s)Bx(s′) +B y(s)By(s′)] 2 = gaγγ 2 4 Z s,s′ e−iΠ(s−s′)Bx(s)Bx(s′) Z s,s′ e−iΠ(s−s′)Bx(s)Bx(s...

  6. [6]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, A new light boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg, A new light boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    Wilczek, Problem of strongpandtinvariance in the presence of instantons, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of strongpandtinvariance in the presence of instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  9. [9]

    J. E. Kim, Weak-interaction singlet and strong CP invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  10. [10]

    Shifman, A

    M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, Can confinement ensure natural cp invariance of strong interactions?, Nuclear Physics B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  11. [11]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, A simple solution to the strong cp problem with a harmless axion, Physics Letters B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  12. [12]

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

    1980

  13. [13]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions In String Theory, JHEP06, 051, arXiv:hep-th/0605206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Axion Cosmology, Phys. Rept.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    Carenza, M

    P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Isern, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, Axion astrophysics, Phys. Rept.1117, 1 (2025), arXiv:2411.02492 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible axion, Physics Letters B120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  17. [17]

    Freese, J

    K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. V. Olinto, Natural inflation with pseudo nambu-goldstone bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 3233 (1990)

    1990

  18. [18]

    J. E. Kim, H. P. Nilles, and M. Peloso, Completing natural inflation, JCAP01, 005, arXiv:hep-ph/0409138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Dimopoulos, S

    S. Dimopoulos, S. Kachru, J. McGreevy, and J. G. Wacker, N-flation, JCAP08, 003, arXiv:hep-th/0507205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Isern, S

    J. Isern, S. Catalan, E. Garcia-Berro, M. Salaris, and S. Torres, Axion cooling of white dwarfs (2013), arXiv:1304.7652 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Carenza, Axion emission from supernovae: a cheatsheet, Eur

    P. Carenza, Axion emission from supernovae: a cheatsheet, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 836 (2023), arXiv:2309.14798 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Maiani, R

    L. Maiani, R. Petronzio, and E. Zavattini, Effects of nearly massless, spin-zero particles on light propagation in a magnetic field, Physics Letters B175, 359 (1986)

    1986

  23. [23]

    Raffelt and L

    G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles, Phys. Rev. D37, 1237 (1988)

    1988

  24. [24]

    Sikivie, Experimental tests of the ”invisible” axion, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Experimental tests of the ”invisible” axion, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  25. [25]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction, Nature Phys.13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    V. Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction, Nature Phys.13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Armengaudet al., Conceptual Design of the International Axion Observatory (IAXO), JINST9, T05002, arXiv:1401.3233 [physics.ins-det]

    E. Armengaudet al., Conceptual Design of the International Axion Observatory (IAXO), JINST9, T05002, arXiv:1401.3233 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    S. J. Asztalos, G. Carosi, C. Hagmann, D. Kinion, K. van Bibber, M. Hotz, L. J. Rosenberg, G. Rybka, J. Hoskins, J. Hwang, P. Sikivie, D. B. Tanner, R. Bradley, and J. Clarke, Squid-based microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions, Physical Review Letters104, 10.1103/physrevlett.104.041301 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.041301 2010

  29. [29]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Nomura, K

    K. Nomura, K. Saito, and J. Soda, Observing axions through photon ring dimming of black holes, Phys. Rev. D107, 123505 (2023), arXiv:2212.03020 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Hooper and P

    D. Hooper and P. D. Serpico, Detecting Axion-Like Particles With Gamma Ray Telescopes, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 231102 (2007), arXiv:0706.3203 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  32. [32]

    K. A. Hochmuth and G. Sigl, Effects of Axion-Photon Mixing on Gamma-Ray Spectra from Magnetized Astrophysical Sources, Phys. Rev. D76, 123011 (2007), arXiv:0708.1144 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    Ballet, P

    J. Ballet, P. Bruel, T. H. Burnett, B. Lott, and T. F.-L. collaboration, Fermi large area telescope fourth source catalog data release 4 (4fgl-dr4) (2024), arXiv:2307.12546 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    V. A. Acciariet al.(MAGIC), MAGIC very large zenith angle observations of the Crab Nebula up to 100 TeV, Astron. Astrophys.635, A158 (2020), arXiv:2001.09566 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Caoet al.(LHAASO), The First LHAASO Catalog of Gamma-Ray Sources, Astrophys

    Z. Caoet al.(LHAASO), The First LHAASO Catalog of Gamma-Ray Sources, Astrophys. J. Suppl.271, 25 (2024), arXiv:2305.17030 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Dzhappuev, I

    D. Dzhappuev, I. Dzaparova, T. Dzhatdoev, E. Gorbacheva, I. Karpikov, M. Khadzhiev, N. Klimenko, A. Kudzhaev, A. Kurenya, A. Lidvansky, O. Mikhailova, V. Petkov, E. Podlesnyi, N. Pozdnukhov, V. Romanenko, G. Rubtsov, S. Troit- sky, I. Unatlokov, N. Vasiliev, A. Yanin, and K. Zhuravleva, Carpet-3 detection of a photonlike air shower with esti- mated primar...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.102005 2025

  37. [37]

    Mirizzi and D

    A. Mirizzi and D. Montanino, Stochastic conversions of TeV photons into axion-like particles in extragalactic magnetic fields, JCAP12, 004, arXiv:0911.0015 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Masaki, A

    E. Masaki, A. Aoki, and J. Soda, Photon-axion conversion, magnetic field configuration, and polarization of photons, Phys. Rev. D96, 043519 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Galanti and M

    G. Galanti and M. Roncadelli, Behavior of axionlike particles in smoothed out domainlike magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D 98, 043018 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    Li, Primordial black holes induced stochastic axion-photon oscillations in primordial magnetic field, JCAP11, 045, arXiv:2208.04605 [astro-ph.CO]

    H.-J. Li, Primordial black holes induced stochastic axion-photon oscillations in primordial magnetic field, JCAP11, 045, arXiv:2208.04605 [astro-ph.CO]. 31

    arXiv

  41. [41]

    Setabuddin, M. R. Haque, R. Karmakar, and S. Pal, Axion-photon conversion in flrw with primordial magnetic fields: Explaining the radio excess (2025), arXiv:2509.09472 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    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, 083003 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 109905 (2017)], arXiv:1412.4777 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    Galanti, Axion-like Particle Effects on Photon Polarization in High-Energy Astrophysics, Universe10, 312 (2024), arXiv:2407.21421 [hep-ph]

    G. Galanti, Axion-like Particle Effects on Photon Polarization in High-Energy Astrophysics, Universe10, 312 (2024), arXiv:2407.21421 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    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, 251001 (2023), arXiv:2210.05659 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    H.-J. Li, W. Chao, X.-H. Tan, and Y.-F. Zhou, Axion effects on gamma-ray spectral irregularities. II: Implications of EBL absorption, Phys. Lett. B862, 139334 (2025), arXiv:2410.14791 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Durrer and A

    R. Durrer and A. Neronov, Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation, Astron. Astro- phys. Rev.21, 62 (2013), arXiv:1303.7121 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    Brandenburg, R

    A. Brandenburg, R. Durrer, T. Kahniashvili, S. Mandal, and W. W. Yin, Statistical Properties of Scale-Invariant Helical Magnetic Fields and Applications to Cosmology, JCAP08, 034, arXiv:1804.01177 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Chiba, R

    W. Chiba, R. Jinno, and K. Nomura, Graviton-photon conversion in stochastic magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D112, 083539 (2025), arXiv:2505.10926 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    C. D. Dermer and B. Giebels, Active galactic nuclei at gamma-ray energies, Comptes Rendus. Physique17, 594 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    Luongo and M

    O. Luongo and M. Muccino, A roadmap to gamma-ray bursts: new developments and applications to cosmology (2021), arXiv:2110.14408 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Kargaltsev, B

    O. Kargaltsev, B. Cerutti, Y. Lyubarsky, and E. Striani, Pulsar-wind nebulae: Recent progress in observations and theory, Space Science Reviews191, 391 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    Vink, Supernova remnants: the x-ray perspective, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review20, 10.1007/s00159-011- 0049-1 (2011)

    J. Vink, Supernova remnants: the x-ray perspective, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review20, 10.1007/s00159-011- 0049-1 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-011- 2011

  53. [53]

    L. J. Tacconi, R. Genzel, and A. Sternberg, The evolution of the star-forming interstellar medium across cosmic time, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics58, 157 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Bhattacharjee and G

    P. Bhattacharjee and G. Sigl, Origin and propagation of extremely high-energy cosmic rays, Physics Reports327, 109 (2000)

    2000

  55. [55]

    Massaro, D

    F. Massaro, D. J. Thompson, and E. C. Ferrara, The extragalactic gamma-ray sky in the fermi era, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review24, 10.1007/s00159-015-0090-6 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-015-0090-6 2015