Constraints on axion-like particles from the observation of Galactic sources by the LHAASO

  • High-energy photons may oscillate with axion-like particles (ALPs) when they propagate through the Milky Way's magnetic field, resulting in an alteration in the observed photon energy spectrum. Ultra-high energy gamma-ray spectra, measured by the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) up to O(1)PeV, provide a promising opportunity to investigate the ALP-photon oscillation effect. In this study, we utilize the gamma-ray spectra of four Galactic sources measured by the LHAASO, that is, the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326, to explore this effect. We employ the CLs method to set constraints on the ALP parameters. Our analysis of the observations of the four sources reveals that the ALP-photon coupling gaγ is constrained to be smaller than 1.4×1010 GeV1 for an ALP mass of 4×107eV at 95% C.L. Combining the observations of the Crab Nebula from the LHAASO and other experiments, we find that the ALP-photon coupling may be set to approximately 7.5×1011 GeV1 for an ALP mass of 4×107eV, which is similar to the CAST constraint.
  • The research on the ground properties of superheavy nuclei is important in nuclear physics. Uranium is the last element with a nearly stable isotope owing to its relatively longer half-life and unique nuclear properties; thus, its use is critical in several fields including nuclear energy [13] and astrophysics [4, 5] and in the study of nuclear matter under extreme conditions [68]. In superheavy nuclei, the shape of the ground state is no longer spherical. Increasing evidence from experimental [914] and nuclear theory research [1523] shows that not only quadrupole but also reflection-asymmetric or octupole deformations are prevalent, especially in the ground states of actinide nuclei.

    In 1995, octupole deformation was first studied in the relativistic mean-field model [24]. The study investigated the occurrence of stable octupolar deformation in the ground states of Ra isotopes and revealed that the mean-field force in use was very sensitive to the transition point from symmetric to asymmetric forms. More systematic studies of octupole deformed nuclei have subsequently been carried out using the macroscopic+microscopic (MM) approach [25] and non-relativistic Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) theories with the Gogny force [17]. By 2016, a global search for octupole deformation was performed using covariant density functional theory [26]. Researchers used five of the most recent covariant energy density functionals, DD-PC1 [27], NL3* [28], DD-ME2 [29], PC-PK1 [30], and DD-MEδ [31], with separable pairing interaction (TMR) [32, 33] to study the octupole deformation in the ground states of even-even nuclei. According to their conclusion, DD-ME2 with TMR pairing interaction can correctly predict the islands of octupole deformation and is in general agreement with the available experimental data.

    All the microscopic calculations are based on the even-even nuclei. In a recent study [34], based on the deformed relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov theory in the continuum (DRHBc), an automatic blocking procedure was adopted in which the orbital with the lowest quasiparticle energy was blocked during the iteration. Compared with the results of orbital-fixed blocking calculations, the computational cost was considerably reduced.

    In this study, the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) theory with multiple deformation constraint including the blocking effect based on the density-dependent functional (DD-ME2) and separable pairing interaction (TMR) is extended to describe the ground state of uranium isotopes from 225 to 240 for both even-even and odd-A nuclei. The theoretical framework is presented in Sec. II. The ground state properties of U isotopes are calculated using the RHB theory and compared with experimental data and Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculations with Gogny D1S in Sec. III. A summary and discussion are presented in Sec. IV.

    The covariant density functional theory (CDFT) has proven to be a powerful theory in nuclear physics and has gained wide attention in recent years for its many attractive advantages such as the automatic inclusion of nucleonic spin degree of freedom and spin-orbital interaction [35], explanation of pseudospin symmetry in nucleon spectra [36, 37] and spin symmetry in anti-nucleon spectra [38], and natural inclusion of nuclear magnetism [39]. Based on the CDFT and including pairing correlations, the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) theory was developed in 1996 [40]. After nearly 30 years of development, RHB has achieved great success in describing both stable and exotic nuclei [32, 33, 4145]. Very recently, the first nuclear mass table including the continuum effect was constructed based on the RHB theory [34, 46], and the blocking effect was considered to study the ground state of odd-A and odd-odd nuclei.

    The details of the RHB theory can be found in Refs. [40, 47]. Here, a brief introduction is presented in Sec. II.A, and the blocking procedure is introduced in Sec. II.B.

    In the RHB framework, quasiparticle wave functions U and V are determined by the RHB equations [47]

    (ˆhDλˆΔˆΔˆhD+λ)(UkVk)=Ek(UkVk),

    (1)

    where ˆhD is the Dirac Hamiltonian, λ is the Fermi energy, ˆΔ is the pairing potential, and Ek is the quasiparticle energy.

    ˆhD=δEδρ=ααpp+V(rr)+β(MS(rr)),

    (2)

    where M is the nucleon mass, and S(rr) and V(rr) are the scalar and vector potentials, respectively. In this study, we adopted the density-dependent meson-nucleon coupling model (DD-ME2) [29].

    The pairing field can be written as

    Δ=δEδκ=12Vppκ.

    (3)

    Here, we utilize a separable force form in our treatment of forces [45]. This conversion from momentum space to coordinate space enables a more comprehensive understanding of the role of forces in the calculations.

    V(r1,r2,r1,r2)=Gδ(RRRR)P(r)P(r)12(1Pσ).

    (4)

    In this equation, R=(r1+r2)R=(r1+r2)/2 and r=r1r2r=r1r2 are the center of mass and relative coordinates. P(r) is expressed in the separable form of Gaussian shape

    P(r)=1(4πa2)3/2er2/4a2.

    (5)

    In order to include the axial reflection asymmetric deformation, the calculation of the RHB function is modified to

    ERHB+i=2,3[Ci0(ˆQi0qi0)2+λi0(ˆQi0qi0)]

    (6)

    employing the method of augmented Lagrangian [48]. Here, ERHB is the total energy, ˆQ20 and ˆQ30 are the expectation values of the quadrupole and octupole moment

    ˆQ20=2z2x2y2,

    (7)

    ˆQ30=z(2z23x23y2),

    (8)

    qi0 represents the value of the quadrupole and octupole moment for constraint calculation. Ci0 and λi0 are the corresponding stiffness constants and the vector of Lagrange multipliters (additional details about λi0 available in Ref. [48]). When ˆQi0=qi0, the final result under the constraint of a certain deformation point will be output. For convenience, we convert Q20 and Q30 to β2 and β3, where R0=1.2A1/3.

    Q20=16π534πZR20β2,

    (9)

    Q30=16π734πZR30β3.

    (10)

    In order to calculate the odd-A or odd-odd nuclei, the blocking effect of the unpaired nucleon should be considered. For the ground state of the even-even system, |Φ is the vacuum state of the quasiparticle operator.

    αk|Φ=0,

    (11)

    αk=k>0Umkcm+Vmkcm,

    (12)

    where Umk and Vmk are the Hartree Bogoliubov coefficient, at which point the single particle density and pair tensor can be written as

    ρ=VVT,

    (13)

    κ=VUT,

    (14)

    and the one-quasiparticle state for an odd-mass nucleus or odd-odd nucleus is

    |Φ1=αk|Φ.

    (15)

    Thus, we can achieve the blocking effect through the conversion between αk and αk. Thus, the density matrix and pairing tensor are replaced by [34]

    ρ=ρ+12(UkbUTkbVkbVTkb),

    (16)

    κ=κ+12(UkbVTkbVkbUTkb).

    (17)

    In order to determine the ground state of an odd-A or odd-odd nucleus, it is crucial to identify the correct deformation minimum and the orbital that needs to be blocked. In the spherical case, we can perform calculations by blocking orbitals individually near the Fermi surface. In the deformed case, many more orbitals are close to the Fermi surface than those in the spherical case. Moreover, if we want to calculate the potential energy surface (PES) of the odd-A or odd-odd nuclei, the computational cost of the orbital-fixed blocking calculation will be extremely high. To enhance computational efficiency, it is crucial to implement an automatic blocking method. One possible blocking procedure for obtaining the ground state of an odd-A or odd-odd nucleus involves blocking the lowest quasiparticle orbital(s) in each iteration, as introduced in Ref. [34].

    In this section, the ground state properties of U-isotopes, including the PES, binding energy, and three-point pairing interaction are calculated by RHB with the density-dependent meson coupling parameters set (DD-ME2) and separable paring interaction.

    In this section, we perform the two-dimensional (β2,β3) constrained calculations for the U-isotopes from 225U to 240U. In Figs. 14, we display the PES of U isotopes from 225U to 232U in the (β2,β3) plane from RHB calculations. The two-dimensional constrained method uses Eqs. (7) and (8). All these calculations use Nf=20 shells. The RHB equations are solved for each point on the deformation lattice (β2,β3), in which both β2 and β3 run from 0.0 to 0.5 with a step of 0.025. This deformation lattice covers the shape space of the ground state of all the U-isotopes. The odd-A nuclei are calculated with the automatic blocking procedure.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Potential energy surface (PES) of U isotopes from 225U to 228U in the (β2,β3) plane from RHB calculations.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) Same as described in the caption to Fig. 1 but for isotopes 229U to 232U.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Same as described in the caption to Fig. 1 but for isotopes 233U to 236U. The red pentagrams correspond to the deformation of the ground state, which is obtained from the experimental data [9].

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Same as described in the caption to Fig. 1 but for isotopes 237U to 240U. The red pentagrams correspond to the deformation of the ground state, which is obtained from the experimental data [9].

    As we can see in Figs. 14, the ground states of most of the U isotopes have the reflection asymmetric deformation minimum. The red pentagrams in the PES of 234U, 236U, and 238U represent the experimental measurement deformation of the ground state point [9]. For the light nuclei 225U, since the neutron number is close to the magic number 126, there are two minimums of the ground state. One is the spherical case, the other is the well deformed case. Moreover, for the rest of the nuclei, the ground state with the octupole deformation is preferred. Although the PESs of the ground states for 239U and 240U become very flat, the ground states of these nuclei with the octupole deformation are still preferred.

    We obtained the ground state binding energies of the U isotopes from 225U to 240U with RHB calculations by considering the lowest points of Figs. 14. In Fig. 5, we show a comparison of the ground state binding energies of the RHB calculation with the experimental data [49, 50] and the HFB calculation with Gogny D1S [51]. The red curve is the result of the RHB calculation including the octupole deformation, the blue curve is the result of the RHB calculation considering only the symmetric cases, the green curve is the result of the non-relativistic Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculation, and the black curve represents the experimental values.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5.  (color online) Comparison of ground state binding energies of U-isotopes. A represents the mass number of uranium. The red curve is the result of the RHB calculation including the octupole deformation, the blue curve is the result of the RHB calculation considering only the symmetric cases, the green curve is the result of the non-relativistic Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov calculation, and the black curve represents the experimental values.

    In Fig. 6, we show the difference between the theoretically calculated binding energies and experimental data. The root mean square (RMS) deviations for the binding energy given by the RHB calculations, including the reflection asymmetric deformation, are 2.42 MeV for all the U isotopes. Without the reflection-asymmetric deformation, the total RMS deviation is 4.12 MeV; in the HFB results, the total RMS deviation is 7.98 MeV. These results indicate that for both even-even and odd-A isotopes, the description of the nuclear masses is significantly improved by including the reflection-asymmetric deformation effect.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6.  (color online) Difference between the experimental binding energy and RHB and HFB calculations for U-isotopes. The results of RHB calculations include the reflection symmetric and asymmetric cases.

    The three-point pairing energy, which is often used to quantify the odd-even staggering (OES) of binding energies, can also be used to access the strength of pairing correlations [52].

    Δ3n(N)=12[B(N1)2B(N)+B(N+1)],

    (18)

    where B(N) is the binding energy of a nucleus with N particles. In Eq. (20), since we calculate the U-isotopes, the proton number is fixed, and N denotes the neutron number.

    In Fig. 7, we show the three-point pairing energy of U-isotopes obtained in the automatic blocking and no blocking RHB calculations. In general, we reproduce the experimental data, and our calculated values are slightly smaller than the experimental data. However, when compared to the results without blocking, the calculations incorporating blocking can clearly demonstrate the distinction between odd and even nuclei. We tried to change the strength of pairing interaction to decrease the deviations between the three-point pairing energies of RHB calculations and experimental data. However, as we know, the deformation of superheavy nuclei is very sensitive to pairing interaction, and when we change the strength of the pairing interaction, the deformation of the ground state will slightly change. To find the real ground state of the U isotopes, we need to calculate the PESs of each nuclei. Thus, it is very difficult to include a discussion on the strength of the pairing interaction in this paper. We hope to present this discussion in the near future.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7.  (color online) Comparison of three-point pairing energy of U-isotopes. The red curve is the result of the RHB calculation with blocking, the blue curve is the result of the RHB calculation without blocking, and the black curve represents the experimental values.

    In this work, we applied the RHB method with density-dependent meson exchange parameter (DD-ME2) and separable pairing interaction to calculate the ground state properties of U isotopes from 225U to 240U.

    To calculate the odd A nuclei, we introduced an automatic blocking method into the RHB calculation. By blocking the lowest quasiparticle orbital in each iteration, we saved a significant amount of computational time to obtain the PES of the odd-A nuclei in relation to that required when blocking the orbitals individually.

    We obtained the PES of both even and odd-A nuclei of the U isotopes in the (β2,β3) plane from RHB calculations. By searching for the minimum binding energy in the PES of our calculation, we obtained the ground state of the U-isotope. Moreover, we found that for most of the U isotopes, ground states with octupole deformation are preferred. In addition, we compared the binding energy and three-point pairing energy with the experimental data. Our results are much closer to the experimental data than the RHB and HFB calculations without reflection asymmetry deformation.

    In the future, we will investigate the ground state properties of the actinide nuclei with more types of relativistic mean field parameters such as NL3 [53], DD-PC1 [27], and PC-PK1 [30]. In addition, we will discuss the effect of the strength of the pairing interaction on the ground state properties, especially the pairing energy.

    We would like to thank Prof. Peter Ring (TMU) for the friendly discussions and Prof. Yifei Niu (LZU) for the great advice.

    [1] K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 225 (2021), arXiv:2012.05029 doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-120720-031147
    [2] I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.003
    [3] A. De Angelis, O. Mansutti, and M. Roncadelli, Physics Letters B 659, 847 (2008) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.12.012
    [4] P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux et al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 485 (2015), arXiv:1602.00039 doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022120
    [5] R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1791
    [6] R. D. Peccei, Lect. Notes Phys. 741, 3 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0607268 doi: /10.1007/978-3-540-73518-2_1
    [7] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223
    [8] F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279
    [9] G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1237 (1988) doi: 10.1103/PHYSREVD.37.1237
    [10] A. De Angelis, M. Roncadelli, and O. Mansutti, Phys. Rev. D 76, 121301 (2007), arXiv:0707.4312 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.121301
    [11] D. Hooper and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 231102 (2007), arXiv:0706.3203 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.231102
    [12] M. Simet, D. Hooper, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063001 (2008), arXiv:0712.2825 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.063001
    [13] A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D 76, 023001 (2007), arXiv:0704.3044 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.023001
    [14] A. Mirizzi and D. Montanino, JCAP 12, 004 (2009), arXiv:0911.0015 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/12/004
    [15] A. V. Belikov, L. Goodenough, and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D 83, 063005 (2011), arXiv:1007.4862 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.063005
    [16] A. De Angelis, G. Galanti, and M. Roncadelli, Phys. Rev. D 2011 , 105030(2011), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 87, 109903 (2013)], arXiv: 1106.1132
    [17] D. Horns, L. Maccione, M. Meyer et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 075024 (2012), arXiv:1207.0776 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.075024
    [18] A. Abramowski et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 102003 (2013), arXiv:1311.3148 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.102003
    [19] M. Meyer, D. Horns, and M. Raue, Phys. Rev. D 87, 035027 (2013), arXiv:1302.1208 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.035027
    [20] F. Tavecchio, M. Roncadelli, and G. Galanti, Phys. Lett. B 744, 375 (2015), arXiv:1406.2303 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.04.017
    [21] M. Meyer, D. Montanino, and J. Conrad, JCAP 09, 003 (2014), arXiv:1406.5972 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/09/003
    [22] M. Meyer and J. Conrad, JCAP 12, 016 (2014), arXiv:1410.1556 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/12/016
    [23] M. Ajello et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161101 (2016), arXiv:1603.06978 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161101
    [24] M. Meyer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 011103 (2017), arXiv:1609.02350 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.011103
    [25] B. Berenji, J. Gaskins, and M. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D 93, 045019 (2016), arXiv:1602.00091 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.045019
    [26] G. Galanti, F. Tavecchio, M. Roncadelli et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 123 (2019), arXiv:1811.03548 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1144
    [27] G. Galanti and M. Roncadelli, JHEAp 20, 1 (2018), arXiv:1805.12055 doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2018.07.002
    [28] C. Zhang, Y.-F. Liang, S. Li et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 063009 (2018), arXiv:1802.08420 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.063009
    [29] Y.-F. Liang, C. Zhang, Z.-Q. Xia et al., JCAP 06, 042 (2019), arXiv:1804.07186 doi: /10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/042
    [30] Z.-Q. Xia, C. Zhang, Y.-F. Liang et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 063003 (2018), arXiv:1801.01646 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.063003
    [31] X.-J. Bi, Y. Gao, J. Guo et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 043018 (2021), arXiv:2002.01796 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043018
    [32] J. Guo, H.-J. Li, X.-J. Bi et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 025105 (2021), arXiv:2002.07571 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abcd2e
    [33] H.-J. Li, J.-G. Guo, X.-J. Bi et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 083003 (2021), arXiv:2008.09464 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083003
    [34] H.-J. Li, X.-J. Bi, and P.-F. Yin, Chin. Phys. C 46, 085105 (2022), arXiv:2110.13636 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac6d4f
    [35] J.-G. Cheng, Y.-J. He, Y.-F. Liang et al., Phys. Lett. B 821, 136611 (2021), arXiv:2010.12396 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136611
    [36] Y.-F. Liang, X.-F. Zhang, J.-G. Cheng et al., JCAP 11, 030 (2021), arXiv:2012.15513 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/030
    [37] L.-Q. Gao, X.-J. Bi, J.-G. Guo et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 063003 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063003
    [38] L.-Q. Gao, X.-J. Bi, J. Li et al., JCAP 01, 026 (2024) doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/026
    [39] J. Majumdar, F. Calore, and D. Horns, JCAP 04, 048 (2018), arXiv:1801.08813 doi: /10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/048
    [40] Z.-Q. Xia, Y.-F. Liang, L. Feng et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 123004 (2019), arXiv:1911.08096 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.123004
    [41] C. Eckner and F. Calore, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083020 (2022), arXiv:2204.12487 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.083020
    [42] G. Galanti, M. Roncadelli, F. Tavecchio et al., Phys. Rev. D 107, 103007 (2023), arXiv:2202.12286 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103007
    [43] C. Dessert, D. Dunsky, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103034 (2022), arXiv:2203.04319 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103034
    [44] J. S. Mathis, P. G. Mezger, and N. Panagia, Astron. Astrophys. 128, 212 (1983)
    [45] I. V. Moskalenko, T. A. Porter, and A. W. Strong, Astrophys. J. Lett. 640, L155 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511149 doi: 10.1086/503524
    [46] T. A. Porter, I. V. Moskalenko, and A. W. Strong, The Astrophysical Journal 648, L29 (2006) doi: 10.1086/507770
    [47] V. Vavryčuk, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 478, 283 (2018) doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty974
    [48] J. D. Finke, S. Razzaque, and C. D. Dermer, Astrophys. J. 712, 238 (2010), arXiv:0905.1115 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/238
    [49] A. Cooray, arXiv: 1602.03512
    [50] E. Dwek and F. Krennrich, Astropart. Phys. 43, 112 (2013), arXiv:1209.4661 doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.003
    [51] R. A. Bernstein, The Astrophysical Journal 666, 663 (2007) doi: 10.1086/519824
    [52] Z. Cao et al., Nature 594, 33 (2021) doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03498-z
    [53] Z. Cao et al., Science 373, 425 (2021), arXiv:2111.06545 doi: 10.1126/science.abg5137
    [54] F. Aharonian et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 085002 (2021) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac041b
    [55] S. C. Hu, G. M. Xiang, M. Zha, and Z. G. Yao, PoS ICRC2023, 655 (2023)
    [56] M. Breuhaus, B. Reville, and J. A. Hinton, Astron. Astrophys. 660, A8 (2022), arXiv:2109.05296 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142097
    [57] A. U. Abeysekara et al., Astrophys. J. 843, 40 (2017), arXiv:1702.02992 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7556
    [58] K. Malone, arXiv: 1908.07059
    [59] A. U. Abeysekara et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 021102 (2020), arXiv:1909.08609 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.021102
    [60] A. Albert et al., Astrophys. J. 911, 143 (2021), arXiv:2101.01649 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abecda
    [61] Z. Cao et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 919, L22 (2021), arXiv:2106.09865 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2579
    [62] X.-H. Ma et al., Chin. Phys. C 46, 030001 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3fa6
    [63] T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434, 435 (1999), arXiv:hepex/9902006 doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2
    [64] A. L. Read, J. Phys. G 28, 2693 (2002) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313
    [65] A. U. Abeysekara et al., Astrophys. J. 881, 134 (2019), arXiv:1905.12518 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7d
    [66] M. Amenomori et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 051101 (2019), arXiv:1906.05521 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.051101
    [67] F. Aharonian, et al., Astrophys. J. 614, 897 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407118 doi: 10.1086/423931
    [68] J. Sitarek, E. Carmona, P. Colin et al., arXiv: 1508.04575 [astro-ph.IM]
    [69] F. Aharonian et al., Astron. Astrophys. 457, 899 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607333 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065351
    [70] K. Meagher, arXiv: 1508.06442
    [71] Z. Cao, et al (LHAASO Collaboration), arXiv: 2401.01038
    [72] A. Esmaili and P. D. Serpico, JCAP 10, 014 (2015), arXiv:1505.06486 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/014
    [73] T. A. Porter, G. P. Rowell, G. Jóhannesson et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 041302 (2018), arXiv:1808.07596 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.041302
    [74] S. Vernetto and P. Lipari, Phys. Rev. D 94, 063009 (2016), arXiv:1608.01587 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063009
    [75] V. Canuto, J. Lodenquai, and M. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2303 (1971) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2303
    [76] H. Herold, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2868 (1979) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.19.2868
    [77] R. Jansson and G. R. Farrar, Astrophys. J. 757, 14 (2012), arXiv:1204.3662 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14
    [78] J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio (2002), arXiv: astro-ph/0207156
    [79] S. S. Wilks, Annals Math. Statist. 9, 60 (1938) doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177732360
    [80] L. Lista, arXiv: 1609.04150
    [81] V. Anastassopoulos et al., Nature Phys. 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 doi: 10.1038/nphys4109
    [82] M. S. Pshirkov, P. G. Tinyakov, P. P. Kronberg et al., Astrophys. J. 738, 192 (2011), arXiv:1103.0814 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/192
  • [1] K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 225 (2021), arXiv:2012.05029 doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-120720-031147
    [2] I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.003
    [3] A. De Angelis, O. Mansutti, and M. Roncadelli, Physics Letters B 659, 847 (2008) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.12.012
    [4] P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux et al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 485 (2015), arXiv:1602.00039 doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022120
    [5] R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1791
    [6] R. D. Peccei, Lect. Notes Phys. 741, 3 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0607268 doi: /10.1007/978-3-540-73518-2_1
    [7] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223
    [8] F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279
    [9] G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1237 (1988) doi: 10.1103/PHYSREVD.37.1237
    [10] A. De Angelis, M. Roncadelli, and O. Mansutti, Phys. Rev. D 76, 121301 (2007), arXiv:0707.4312 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.121301
    [11] D. Hooper and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 231102 (2007), arXiv:0706.3203 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.231102
    [12] M. Simet, D. Hooper, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063001 (2008), arXiv:0712.2825 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.063001
    [13] A. Mirizzi, G. G. Raffelt, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D 76, 023001 (2007), arXiv:0704.3044 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.023001
    [14] A. Mirizzi and D. Montanino, JCAP 12, 004 (2009), arXiv:0911.0015 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/12/004
    [15] A. V. Belikov, L. Goodenough, and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D 83, 063005 (2011), arXiv:1007.4862 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.063005
    [16] A. De Angelis, G. Galanti, and M. Roncadelli, Phys. Rev. D 2011 , 105030(2011), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 87, 109903 (2013)], arXiv: 1106.1132
    [17] D. Horns, L. Maccione, M. Meyer et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 075024 (2012), arXiv:1207.0776 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.075024
    [18] A. Abramowski et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 102003 (2013), arXiv:1311.3148 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.102003
    [19] M. Meyer, D. Horns, and M. Raue, Phys. Rev. D 87, 035027 (2013), arXiv:1302.1208 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.035027
    [20] F. Tavecchio, M. Roncadelli, and G. Galanti, Phys. Lett. B 744, 375 (2015), arXiv:1406.2303 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.04.017
    [21] M. Meyer, D. Montanino, and J. Conrad, JCAP 09, 003 (2014), arXiv:1406.5972 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/09/003
    [22] M. Meyer and J. Conrad, JCAP 12, 016 (2014), arXiv:1410.1556 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/12/016
    [23] M. Ajello et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161101 (2016), arXiv:1603.06978 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161101
    [24] M. Meyer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 011103 (2017), arXiv:1609.02350 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.011103
    [25] B. Berenji, J. Gaskins, and M. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D 93, 045019 (2016), arXiv:1602.00091 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.045019
    [26] G. Galanti, F. Tavecchio, M. Roncadelli et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 123 (2019), arXiv:1811.03548 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1144
    [27] G. Galanti and M. Roncadelli, JHEAp 20, 1 (2018), arXiv:1805.12055 doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2018.07.002
    [28] C. Zhang, Y.-F. Liang, S. Li et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 063009 (2018), arXiv:1802.08420 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.063009
    [29] Y.-F. Liang, C. Zhang, Z.-Q. Xia et al., JCAP 06, 042 (2019), arXiv:1804.07186 doi: /10.1088/1475-7516/2019/06/042
    [30] Z.-Q. Xia, C. Zhang, Y.-F. Liang et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 063003 (2018), arXiv:1801.01646 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.063003
    [31] X.-J. Bi, Y. Gao, J. Guo et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 043018 (2021), arXiv:2002.01796 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043018
    [32] J. Guo, H.-J. Li, X.-J. Bi et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 025105 (2021), arXiv:2002.07571 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abcd2e
    [33] H.-J. Li, J.-G. Guo, X.-J. Bi et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 083003 (2021), arXiv:2008.09464 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083003
    [34] H.-J. Li, X.-J. Bi, and P.-F. Yin, Chin. Phys. C 46, 085105 (2022), arXiv:2110.13636 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac6d4f
    [35] J.-G. Cheng, Y.-J. He, Y.-F. Liang et al., Phys. Lett. B 821, 136611 (2021), arXiv:2010.12396 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136611
    [36] Y.-F. Liang, X.-F. Zhang, J.-G. Cheng et al., JCAP 11, 030 (2021), arXiv:2012.15513 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/030
    [37] L.-Q. Gao, X.-J. Bi, J.-G. Guo et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 063003 (2023) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063003
    [38] L.-Q. Gao, X.-J. Bi, J. Li et al., JCAP 01, 026 (2024) doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/026
    [39] J. Majumdar, F. Calore, and D. Horns, JCAP 04, 048 (2018), arXiv:1801.08813 doi: /10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/048
    [40] Z.-Q. Xia, Y.-F. Liang, L. Feng et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 123004 (2019), arXiv:1911.08096 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.123004
    [41] C. Eckner and F. Calore, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083020 (2022), arXiv:2204.12487 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.083020
    [42] G. Galanti, M. Roncadelli, F. Tavecchio et al., Phys. Rev. D 107, 103007 (2023), arXiv:2202.12286 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103007
    [43] C. Dessert, D. Dunsky, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103034 (2022), arXiv:2203.04319 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103034
    [44] J. S. Mathis, P. G. Mezger, and N. Panagia, Astron. Astrophys. 128, 212 (1983)
    [45] I. V. Moskalenko, T. A. Porter, and A. W. Strong, Astrophys. J. Lett. 640, L155 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511149 doi: 10.1086/503524
    [46] T. A. Porter, I. V. Moskalenko, and A. W. Strong, The Astrophysical Journal 648, L29 (2006) doi: 10.1086/507770
    [47] V. Vavryčuk, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 478, 283 (2018) doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty974
    [48] J. D. Finke, S. Razzaque, and C. D. Dermer, Astrophys. J. 712, 238 (2010), arXiv:0905.1115 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/238
    [49] A. Cooray, arXiv: 1602.03512
    [50] E. Dwek and F. Krennrich, Astropart. Phys. 43, 112 (2013), arXiv:1209.4661 doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.003
    [51] R. A. Bernstein, The Astrophysical Journal 666, 663 (2007) doi: 10.1086/519824
    [52] Z. Cao et al., Nature 594, 33 (2021) doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03498-z
    [53] Z. Cao et al., Science 373, 425 (2021), arXiv:2111.06545 doi: 10.1126/science.abg5137
    [54] F. Aharonian et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 085002 (2021) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac041b
    [55] S. C. Hu, G. M. Xiang, M. Zha, and Z. G. Yao, PoS ICRC2023, 655 (2023)
    [56] M. Breuhaus, B. Reville, and J. A. Hinton, Astron. Astrophys. 660, A8 (2022), arXiv:2109.05296 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142097
    [57] A. U. Abeysekara et al., Astrophys. J. 843, 40 (2017), arXiv:1702.02992 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7556
    [58] K. Malone, arXiv: 1908.07059
    [59] A. U. Abeysekara et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 021102 (2020), arXiv:1909.08609 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.021102
    [60] A. Albert et al., Astrophys. J. 911, 143 (2021), arXiv:2101.01649 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abecda
    [61] Z. Cao et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 919, L22 (2021), arXiv:2106.09865 doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2579
    [62] X.-H. Ma et al., Chin. Phys. C 46, 030001 (2022) doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3fa6
    [63] T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434, 435 (1999), arXiv:hepex/9902006 doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2
    [64] A. L. Read, J. Phys. G 28, 2693 (2002) doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313
    [65] A. U. Abeysekara et al., Astrophys. J. 881, 134 (2019), arXiv:1905.12518 doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7d
    [66] M. Amenomori et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 051101 (2019), arXiv:1906.05521 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.051101
    [67] F. Aharonian, et al., Astrophys. J. 614, 897 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407118 doi: 10.1086/423931
    [68] J. Sitarek, E. Carmona, P. Colin et al., arXiv: 1508.04575 [astro-ph.IM]
    [69] F. Aharonian et al., Astron. Astrophys. 457, 899 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607333 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065351
    [70] K. Meagher, arXiv: 1508.06442
    [71] Z. Cao, et al (LHAASO Collaboration), arXiv: 2401.01038
    [72] A. Esmaili and P. D. Serpico, JCAP 10, 014 (2015), arXiv:1505.06486 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/014
    [73] T. A. Porter, G. P. Rowell, G. Jóhannesson et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 041302 (2018), arXiv:1808.07596 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.041302
    [74] S. Vernetto and P. Lipari, Phys. Rev. D 94, 063009 (2016), arXiv:1608.01587 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063009
    [75] V. Canuto, J. Lodenquai, and M. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2303 (1971) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2303
    [76] H. Herold, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2868 (1979) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.19.2868
    [77] R. Jansson and G. R. Farrar, Astrophys. J. 757, 14 (2012), arXiv:1204.3662 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14
    [78] J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio (2002), arXiv: astro-ph/0207156
    [79] S. S. Wilks, Annals Math. Statist. 9, 60 (1938) doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177732360
    [80] L. Lista, arXiv: 1609.04150
    [81] V. Anastassopoulos et al., Nature Phys. 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 doi: 10.1038/nphys4109
    [82] M. S. Pshirkov, P. G. Tinyakov, P. P. Kronberg et al., Astrophys. J. 738, 192 (2011), arXiv:1103.0814 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/192
  • 加载中

Figures(6)

Get Citation
Jun Li, Xiao-Jun Bi, Lin-Qing Gao, Xiaoyuan Huang, Run-Min Yao and Peng-Fei Yin. Constraints on Axion-like Particles from the Observation of Galactic Sources by LHAASO[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad361e
Jun Li, Xiao-Jun Bi, Lin-Qing Gao, Xiaoyuan Huang, Run-Min Yao and Peng-Fei Yin. Constraints on Axion-like Particles from the Observation of Galactic Sources by LHAASO[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad361e shu
Milestone
Received: 2024-01-08
Article Metric

Article Views(1812)
PDF Downloads(21)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of subscription content published by CPC, the users need to request permission from CPC, unless the content was published under an Open Access license which automatically permits that type of reuse.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Constraints on axion-like particles from the observation of Galactic sources by the LHAASO

  • 1. Key Laboratory of Dark Matter and Space Astronomy, Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210033, China
  • 2. School of Astronomy and Space Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
  • 3. Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 4. School of Physical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 5. School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China

Abstract: High-energy photons may oscillate with axion-like particles (ALPs) when they propagate through the Milky Way's magnetic field, resulting in an alteration in the observed photon energy spectrum. Ultra-high energy gamma-ray spectra, measured by the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) up to O(1)PeV, provide a promising opportunity to investigate the ALP-photon oscillation effect. In this study, we utilize the gamma-ray spectra of four Galactic sources measured by the LHAASO, that is, the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326, to explore this effect. We employ the CLs method to set constraints on the ALP parameters. Our analysis of the observations of the four sources reveals that the ALP-photon coupling gaγ is constrained to be smaller than 1.4×1010 GeV1 for an ALP mass of 4×107eV at 95% C.L. Combining the observations of the Crab Nebula from the LHAASO and other experiments, we find that the ALP-photon coupling may be set to approximately 7.5×1011 GeV1 for an ALP mass of 4×107eV, which is similar to the CAST constraint.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • Axion-like particles (ALPs) [14], a class of pseudo-scalar bosons, arise as a consequence of symmetry breaking in many extensions of the standard model. ALPs possess a broader parameter space and a rich phenomenology that is yet to be fully explored, compared to quantum chromodynamics axions addressing the strong CP problem [58]. The effective coupling between ALPs and photons can lead to ALP-photon oscillation in an external magnetic field. This phenomenon has attracted significant attention in astrophysics owing to the ubiquitous astrophysical magnetic fields [943].

      The oscillation between ALPs and photons has the potential to induce irregularities in the gamma-ray spectrum. Detecting this phenomenon is typically more achievable at lower energies because detectors exhibit superior energy resolution for low-energy photons compared to high-energy photons. Nevertheless, the impact of ALP-photon oscillation on the astrophysical gamma-ray spectrum may also become pronounced at high energies. Interactions involving high-energy photons and low-energy background photons, such as those originating from the interstellar radiation field (ISRF) [4446], cosmic microwave background (CMB) [47], and extragalactic background light [4851], lead to the absorption of high-energy photons, thereby attenuating the observed gamma-ray spectra at high energies. The conversion of photons to ALPs may mitigate this absorption effect because of the interaction between ALPs and high-energy photons. Consequently, the presence of ALPs leads to a modification of the expected gamma-ray spectrum at high energies within the standard astrophysical framework. The observation of these effects would serve as evidence for the existence of ALPs. However, because there is no positive signal of such effects, we can only establish constraints on the ALP parameters based on the observation.

      In recent years, significant progress in high-energy gamma-ray observation experiments has led to remarkable measurements of high-energy gamma-ray spectra [5261]. Notably, the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) [62] has contributed significantly to this field. In 2021, the LHAASO collaboration reported the detection of ultra-high energy gamma-rays from the Crab Nebula [53]. This measurement encompassed results from two detectors, namely, the Water Cherenkov Detector Array (WCDA) and Kilometer Square Array (KM2A), offering a precise gamma-ray spectrum of the Crab Nebula that spans more than three energy orders, from 500GeV to 1.1PeV. In the same year, the LHAASO collaboration reported the detection of over 530 photons with energies above 100TeV and up to 1.4PeV from 12 ultra-high-energy gamma-ray sources [52]. The energy spectra of four Galactic sources, namely, the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326, were provided in the same report [52]. These measurements of high-energy gamma-ray spectra offer a promising opportunity to investigate the ALP-photon oscillation effect.

      In this study, we utilize the LHAASO observations from the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326 to impose constraints on the ALP parameters. We consider the absorption effect induced by CMB and ISRF photons on ultra-high-energy photons within the Milky Way. Although several studies [30, 31, 39, 40] derived constraints on the ALP parameters from high energy gamma-ray observations of Galactic sources, we emphasize that the photons from the four Galactic sources considered in this study are more energetic. Furthermore, we employ the CLs method [63, 64] to establish robust constraints on the ALP parameters, as in [37, 38]. To further enhance the constraints, we also conduct a combined analysis, incorporating Crab observations from many other experiments, including HAWC [65], ASγ [66], HEGRA [67], MAGIC [68], HESS [69], and VERITAS [70].

      Recently, the LHAASO collaboration reported updated selection criteria for photons and presented a new Crab spectrum within the energy range 10−1000 TeV using KM2A data from August 2021 to August 2022 [71]. We treat this measurement as independent and incorporate it into the combined analysis.

      This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the ALP-photon oscillation effect and the absorption of high-energy photons in the Milky Way. In Sec. III, we describe the process of fitting the gamma-ray spectra and the CLs method. In Sec. IV, we present the constraints on the ALP parameters from the LHAASO observations of four Galactic sources and the combined constraint from the observations of the Crab Nebula from multiple experiments. Finally, we conclude in Sec. V.

    II.   ALP-PHOTON OSCILLATION
    • In this section, we provide a brief introduction to the ALP-photon oscillation effect in Galactic magnetic fields. The interaction between an ALP and photons can be described by the Lagrangian term

      Laγ=14gaγaFμν˜Fμν=gaγaEB,

      (1)

      where gaγ denotes the coupling coefficient between the ALP and photons, a denotes the ALP field, F denotes the electromagnetic field strength tensor, ˜F denotes its dual tensor, E denotes the photon electric field, and B denotes the magnetic field. The propagation equation for a monochromatic ALP/photon beam can be written as [9]

      (iddz+E+M)Ψ(z)=0,

      (2)

      where z denotes the distance along the propagation direction ˆz, E denotes the energy of the ALP/photon, and Ψ(A,A,a)T , with A and A representing the photon polarization amplitudes perpendicular and parallel to the transverse component of the external magnetic field Bt, respectively. The matrix M encompasses the ALP-photon oscillation effect and the absorption effects of high-energy photons and can be written as

      M=M+i(ΓBGΓBG0).

      (3)

      The mixing matrix M includes the interaction between photons and ALPs and environment effects and is expressed as

      M=[Δ000ΔΔaγ0ΔaγΔa],

      (4)

      where Δ=Δpl+2ΔQED, Δ=Δpl+7/2ΔQED, Δa=m2a/(2E), and Δaγ=gaγBt/2. Here, ma is the mass of the ALP. The term Δpl=ω2pl/(2E) describes the effective mass of photons in plasma with the typical frequency ωpl. ΔQED=αE/(45π)(Bt/Bcr)2 is the QED vacuum polarization term, where α is the fine structure constant, me is the electron mass, and Bcrm2e/|e| is the critical magnetic field. The off-diagonal element Δaγ=gaγBt/2 describes the ALP-photon mixing effect.

      When ultra-high-energy photons propagate in the Galactic magnetic field, the absorption effect induced by CMB and ISRF photons through the pair production process γ+γbkge++e [45, 72, 73] cannot be neglected. ΓBG representing these effects is calculated as

      ΓBG=12dEBGdnBGdEBGˆσ,

      (5)

      where EBG and nBG are the energy and number density of background radiation fields, respectively. In this analysis, we utilize the ISRF model presented in Ref. [74]. The term ˆσ is given by

      ˆσ=20dxx2σγγ,

      (6)

      where x1cosθγγ, and θγγ is the angle between incident photons. The cross section of the pair production σγγ is given by

      σγγ=316σT(1β2)[(3β4)ln1+β1β2β(2β2)],

      (7)

      where β(14m2e/s)1/2, σT is the Thomson cross section [75, 76], and s=2xEEBG is the center-of-mass energy. For photons from the Crab Nebula with energies of 1PeV, this absorption would result in a loss of 19% of the photon flux.

      The generalized density matrix ρΨΨ can be used to describe the polarized states of the ALP-photon system. This matrix ρ obeys the Von Neumann-like equation [10, 14]

      idρdz=[ρ,M].

      (8)

      The solution to Eq. (8) in a homogeneous magnetic field can be expressed as ρ(z)=T(z)ρ(0)T(z), where the transfer function T(z) is obtained from the solution of Eq. (2). High energy photons emitted from Galactic sources encounter the magnetic field of the Milky Way before reaching the Earth. The entire path can be divided into many pieces, with the magnetic field in each domain considered to be homogeneous. The total transfer matrix is given by

      T(z)=niTi(Δzi),

      (9)

      where Ti(Δzi) represents the transfer matrix in the i-th piece.

      In this study, we focus on Galactic sources and investigate the ALP-photon oscillation effect in the Galactic field. The Galactic magnetic field consists of a regular component and turbulent component. As the latter component is small and can be safely ignored, we only consider the regular component. The Galactic magnetic model utilized in this study is the Jansson & Farrar model [77]. Additionally, we take the NE2001 model [78] for the Galactic electron distribution.

      The survival probability of the photon can be expressed as [9, 13]

      Pγγ=Tr((ρ11+ρ22)T(z)ρ(0)T(z)),

      (10)

      where ρ(0)=diag(1/2,1/2,0), ρ11=diag(1,0,0), and ρ22=diag(0,1,0) for unpolarized photons. Considering the ALP-photon oscillation and the absorption effects described above, the observed photon energy spectrum is given by

      dNdE=PγγdNdE|int,

      (11)

      where dNdE|int is the intrinsic spectrum of the source. For the sources considered in this study, we set their intrinsic spectra to be a log-parabolic function given by F0(E/E0)Γblog(E/E0), where F0, Γ, and b are free parameters, and E0 is set as 10TeV. This choice is based on the results in Refs. [52] and [53], where the log-parabolic spectrum provides better fitting results.

    III.   METHOD
    • In this section, we briefly introduce the analysis method used to set constraints on the ALP parameters. The best-fit spectrum can be obtained by minimizing the χ2 function

      χ2=jχ2j,

      (12)

      where χ2j denotes the χ2 function of the j-th source. χ2j is given by

      χ2j=i(˜ΦiΦi)2δΦi2,

      (13)

      where ˜Φi, Φi, and δΦi represent the predicted value, observed value, and experimental uncertainty of the photon flux in the i-th energy bin, respectively.

      For given ma and gaγ, we define the test statistic (TS) as

      TS(ma,gaγ)=χ2ALP(^F0,^Γ,^b;ma,gaγ)χ2Null(^F0,ˆΓ,ˆb),

      (14)

      where χ2Null represents the best-fit χ2 value under the null hypothesis without the ALP-photon oscillation effect, χ2ALP represents the best-fit χ2 value under the alternative hypothesis including the ALP-photon oscillation effect with the given two parameters ma and gaγ, and (^F0,ˆΓ,ˆb) and (^F0,^Γ,^b) denote the best-fit values of the parameters of the intrinsic spectrum under the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively.

      Owing to the non-linear impact of ALPs on the photon spectrum, the application of Wilks' theorem [79] is unsuitable here, as discussed in [23]. Therefore, the TS distribution cannot be adequately described by a χ2 distribution, necessitating Monte Carlo simulations to obtain a realistic TS distribution. In this study, we employ the CLs method [63, 64, 80] to establish constraints on the ALP parameters. The constraints are derived following the same procedure as that described in Refs. [37, 38]. Here, we only offer a concise introduction to this method.

      We explore the (ma,gaγ) parameter space and assess the exclusion of each parameter point using the CLs method in accordance with observations. For each parameter point, we generate two mock datasets, denoted as {d}s+b and {d}b, based on the expected spectra with and without ALPs, respectively. Both mock datasets {d}s+b and {d}b consist of 1000 samples. For a specific mock data sample, in each energy bin, the photon flux is randomly generated from a Gaussian distribution, where the mean value and deviation are set as the expected flux and experimental uncertainty, respectively. Utilizing {d}s+b and {d}b, we obtain two TS distributions {TS}b and {TS}s+b using Eq. (14). Given the TS value TSobs obtained from the actual observed data, the CLs value is defined as

      CLs=CLs+bCLb,

      (15)

      where CLs+b and CLb represent the probabilities of finding a TS value larger than TSobs according to the distributions {TS}s+b and {TS}b, respectively. If CLs is less than 0.05, this parameter point is considered to be excluded at the 95% confidence level (C.L.).

      In Fig. 1, we show the TS distributions {TS}s+b and {TS}b for two specific parameter points (ma,gaγ)=(8×107eV,3×1010GeV1) and (3×107eV,1010GeV1) as examples. The corresponding CLs values for these two parameter points are 0.0 and 0.16, respectively. These results indicate that the first parameter point can be excluded at the 95% C.L., whereas the second parameter point is still allowed.

      Figure 1.  (color online) TS distributions {TS}b and {TS}s+b for two parameter points (ma,gaγ)=(8×107eV,3×1010GeV1) and (3×107eV,1010GeV1) are shown in the left and right panels, respectively. The vertical black solid lines represent TSobs.

    IV.   RESULTS
    • In this section, we present the constraints on the ALP parameters derived from the LHAASO observations of four Galactic sources, namely, the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326. Note that LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326 have multiple potential candidates, as detailed in Extended Data Table 2 in Ref. [52]. The distances to these sources are important for determining the propagation length of photons within the Galactic magnetic field, thereby influencing the constraints on the ALP parameters. For consistency, the distances used in Ref. [52] for spectral fitting are adopted here, which are 0.8 kpc for LHAASO J2226+6057, 3.4 kpc for LHAASO J1908+0621, and 3.1 kpc for LHAASO J1825-1326.

      In our analysis, we calculate the best-fit χ2 values for the four sources under the null hypothesis, yielding χ2/d.o.f. = 1.98, where d.o.f. denotes the number of degrees of freedom. These results indicate that the observed data align well with the null hypothesis without the presence of ALPs. The corresponding best-fit spectra are depicted by the blue lines in Fig. 2. Furthermore, to illustrate the influence of ALPs on the spectrum, we include the best-fit spectra for three ALP parameter points in Fig. 2.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Best-fit spectra for the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J1825-1326, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J2226+6057. The solid and dashed lines represent the spectra under the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively. The black points denote the photon spectra measured by the LHAASO [52, 53].

      Using the CLs method, we scan the parameter space with ma[108,105]eV and gaγ[1011,109]GeV1 and establish constraints at the 95% C.L. for each source, as illustrated in Fig 1. The solid lines in black, purple, red, and blue represent the constraints derived from the LHAASO observations of the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326, respectively. The most stringent constraint of gaγ is approximately 1.4×1010 GeV1 with an ALP mass of ma4×107eV.

      Notably, the constraints from the Crab Nebula are considerably more stringent than those from the other sources. This can be attributed to two advantages of the LHAASO observations of the Crab Nebula. First, the spectrum of the Crab Nebula encompasses both WCDA and KM2A results and is precise in the energy regions of O(1) TeV. In contrast, the spectra of the other sources only include the KM2A observations at energies above O(10) TeV. This indicates that it is easier to precisely determine the intrinsic spectrum of the Crab Nebula and investigate the effects of ALP-photon oscillation in the Crab spectrum at lower energies. Second, the highest energy bin of the Crab spectrum reaches 1PeV, surpassing that of the other sources. As previously mentioned, the compensation of ALP-photon oscillation to the absorption effect may be considerably more significant for higher energy photons. These characteristics enable the Crab Nebula to provide more stringent constraints.

      Given that the constraints from the individual sources complement each other in the parameter space, we present the combined analysis result in Fig. 3. The green region represents the combined constraint of these sources. This improves the constraints from a single source for ALP masses above 106eV.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Constraints at the 95% C.L. in the magaγ plane resulting from the LHAASO observations of the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+ 0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326. The black dashed line represents the constraints obtained from CAST observations, indicating gaγ<6.6×1011GeV1 [81].

      Because the observation of the Crab Nebula provides the most stringent constraints among the four sources, we conduct an analysis combining the observations from the LHAASO and other experiments, including HAWC [65], ASγ [66], HEGRA [67], MAGIC [68], HESS [69], and VERITAS [70] for the Crab Nebula. χ2 for this analysis is defined as [31]

      χ2=ki(˜Φk,ifn1kΦk,i)2(fn1kδΦk,i)2+k(fk1)2δf2k,

      (16)

      where the subscript k denotes the k-th experimental data, i denotes the i-th energy bin, and ˜Φ, Φ, and δΦ are the expected value, observed value, and uncertainty of the photon flux, respectively. Because the high-energy gamma-ray experiments under consideration typically have an energy resolution of approximately O(10) percent, the spectra measured by different experiments may not precisely match. To derive consistent results for all experiments while accounting for this effect, we introduce additional free parameters f to scale the energies of all the experiments except for the LHAASO and add their Gaussian contributions to the χ2 function. As experimental data is often presented in the form of EndNdE, Φ and δΦ are also scaled by a factor of fn1, with n=2 in this study. We take the deviations of scale factors δf according to experimental energy resolutions, with values of 0.15 for HEGRA, MAGIC, HESS, and VERITAS, 0.14 for HAWC, and 0.12 for ASγ. This approach enables us to accommodate the uncertainties arising from energy reconstruction and conduct a more comprehensive analysis incorporating data from multiple experiments.

      We achieve a best-fit χ2/d.o.f. of 1.39 under the null hypothesis, with the corresponding spectrum illustrated in Fig. 4. Furthermore, the best-fit spectra for three ALP parameter points and the observational data of the Crab Nebula from various experiments are depicted in Fig. 4. Utilizing the CLs method, we establish 95% C.L. constraints on the ALP parameters, as depicted by the red solid line in Fig. 5. Notably, the constraints exceed the results obtained solely from the LHAASO observations. For comparison, constraints derived from observations by ASγ, HAWC, HEGRA, and MAGIC, as reported in [31], are also included in Fig. 5. It is evident that our constraints are more stringent than those in Ref. [31], and the most stringent constraint at ma4×107eV is similar to the CAST constraint in [81].

      Figure 4.  (color online) Best-fit photon spectra for the Crab Nebula. The solid and dashed lines represent the spectra under the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively. The ALP parameter points I, II, and III represent (ma,gaγ)=(1×106eV,1×109GeV1), (8×106eV,1×109GeV1), and (1×106eV,5×1011GeV1), respectively. The data points represent observations from the LHAASO [53], HAWC [65], ASγ [66], HEGRA [67], MAGIC [68], HESS [69], and VERITAS [70].

      Figure 5.  (color online) Constraint at the 95% C.L. in the magaγ plane derived from observations of the Crab Nebula, combining the data from seven experiments, that is, the LHAASO [53], HAWC [65], ASγ [66], HEGRA [67], MAGIC [68], HESS [69], and VERITAS [70], is depicted by the red solid line. The blue solid line represents the combined constraint at the 95% C.L. with the inclusion of the new LHAASO KM2A measurement [71] derived in this study. For comparison, the constraint from the observations of ASγ, HAWC, HEGRA, and MAGIC, as reported in Ref. [31], is depicted as the orange dashed line. The shaded region represents the parameter space excluded by CAST [81]. The constraints from the NGC 1275 observation of Fermi-LAT [23] (brown dashed line), the Mrk 421 observation of MAGIC [33] (purple dashed line), the PKS 2155-304 observation of H.E.S.S. [18] (gray dashed line), and the polarization measurements of thermal radiation from magnetic white dwarf stars [43] (green dashed line) are also presented.

      The full LHAASO array has been operational since July 2021. Recently, the LHAASO collaboration reported the refined selection criteria of the detector KM2A for very high and ultra-high-energy photons, using data from August 2021 to August 2022 [71]. With these updated data selections, the LHAASO collaboration presented a new spectrum of the Crab Nebula. In comparison to the 2021 spectrum, the highest energy bin of this new spectrum was below 1 PeV. Because only KM2A data is utilized in the analysis, the energy of this new spectrum is presented above 10 TeV. Given the differing datasets and selections of these two analyses, we treat the new LHAASO measurement as independent and integrate it into the combined analysis for the Crab Nebula. The constraint is illustrated in Fig. 5. As shown, this new constraint exhibits a slight improvement over the constraint derived in the previous analysis.

      Fig. 5 shows constraints that are more stringent than the CAST constraint, including those derived from the NGC 1275 observation of Fermi-LAT [23], the Mrk 421 observation of MAGIC [33], the PKS 2155-304 observation of H.E.S.S. [18], and the polarization measurements of thermal radiation from magnetic white dwarf stars [43], for comparative purposes. It is expected that future precise measurements of the high-energy gamma-ray spectra of the LHAASO will further improve the constraints from extragalactic sources. It is important to note that although these constraints are more stringent than those derived from the high-energy Galactic sources in our study, they are contingent upon specific magnetic field models and the astrophysical environments of different sources. The constraints derived in our study are independent and hold significance.

      The oscillation effect between ALPs and photons is heavily reliant on the strength and structure of astrophysical magnetic fields. As a result, the main theoretical uncertainties arise from the uncertainties in the magnetic field model. In the previous analysis, we employ the Jansson & Farrar model as a benchmark Galactic magnetic field model. To investigate the impact of the Galactic magnetic field model, we conduct analyses using two alternative models, namely, the Pshirkov bisymmetric and Pshirkov axisymmetric models [82]. Our findings depicted in Fig. 6 indicate that these magnetic field models yield consistent results with our previous findings.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Constraints derived from observations of the Crab Nebula with various Galactic magnetic field models, including the Jansson & Farrar [77], Pshirkov bisymmetric [82], and Pshirkov axisymmetric models [82].

    V.   CONCLUSION
    • In this study, we investigate the impact of the ALP-photon oscillation effect on the gamma-ray spectra of four Galactic sources, namely, the Crab Nebula, LHAASO J2226+6057, LHAASO J1908+0621, and LHAASO J1825-1326, measured by the LHAASO. We consider the compensation of ALP-photon oscillation to the absorption effect for high-energy photons and utilize the CLs method to set constraints on the ALP parameters.

      Among the four sources, the Crab Nebula provides considerably more stringent constraints than the other sources owing to its energy spectra spanning a wide range over three orders. By combining the data from the four sources, we find that ALP-photon couplings larger than 1.4×1010 GeV1 can be excluded for an ALP mass of 4×107eV at the 95% C.L. Furthermore, we perform a combined analysis for the observations of the Crab Nebula from the LHAASO and other experiments. Our analysis sets a limit on gaγ of approximately 7.5×1011 GeV1 for an ALP mass of 4×107eV, which is similar to the CAST constraint.

Reference (82)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return