arxiv: 2604.25996 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Distortion of a relativistic jet echoing a magnetic flux eruption

Krzysztof Nalewajko , Mateusz Kapusta , Bart Ripperda , Alexander A. Philippov

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords relativistic jetsmagnetic flux eruptionblack hole accretionGRMHD simulationblazarsjet distortionmagnetically arrested diskssuperluminal knots

0 comments

The pith

Following a magnetic flux eruption, a weakened relativistic jet develops a helical distortion with poloidal bypasses along its sheath.

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

The paper examines results from a high-resolution three-dimensional simulation of thick accretion onto a spinning black hole that has reached a magnetically saturated state. Excess flux builds up and then erupts outward in an episodic event that briefly reduces the power of the launched jets. After the eruption the jet develops a pronounced helical twist. The magnetic field running lengthwise through the jet core stays unchanged, while field lines that left the black hole and later returned form side channels of poloidal field along the jet's inner boundary. These features could produce visible asymmetric moving knots and changes in apparent brightness for distant observers.

Core claim

In a single cycle of magnetic flux eruption and re-accumulation within a high-resolution 3D general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulation of geometrically thick, magnetically arrested accretion onto a high-spin Kerr black hole, the weakened jet develops a strong helical distortion. The poloidal magnetic field along the jet core remains unaffected by the eruption. Toroidal field lines ejected from the black hole during the eruption and subsequently re-advected onto it form poloidal bypasses along the inner jet sheath. The section of the jet re-powered by renewed magnetic flux accumulation is tilted by a few degrees.

What carries the argument

The distinct post-eruption magnetic field configuration in which unaffected poloidal lines occupy the jet core while re-advected toroidal lines create poloidal bypasses along the inner sheath.

If this is right

The distortion may appear in sources fed by geometrically thick accretion flows as an asymmetric superluminal knot strongly interacting with the jet sheath along an oblique working surface.
The re-powered jet section being tilted by a few degrees implies significant variations in radiation boost toward observers of BL Lac blazars.
The intrinsic structure of the jet spine remains consistent with axisymmetric semi-analytical models.
Such helical features are expected only in jets launched from magnetically saturated accretion states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Radio monitoring campaigns could search for helical distortions and spine tilts to identify past flux eruption events in active galactic nuclei.
The bypass structure may alter the long-term stability and collimation of relativistic jets beyond the immediate post-eruption phase.
Linking the simulated tilt and knot asymmetry to observed blazar variability timescales could constrain the typical interval between flux accumulation and eruption cycles.

Load-bearing premise

The high-resolution 3D general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulation accurately captures the episodic magnetic flux eruption and the subsequent jet distortion without significant numerical artifacts from resolution, grid choice, or artificial resistivity.

What would settle it

High-resolution radio or very-long-baseline interferometry imaging that shows a helical jet distortion with a few-degree spine tilt and clear poloidal bypass signatures occurring immediately after a measurable temporary drop in jet power would support the claim; the repeated absence of such structures in monitored blazar jets would falsify it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25996 by Alexander A. Philippov, Bart Ripperda, Krzysztof Nalewajko, Mateusz Kapusta.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: presents the time evolution of ΦBH(t) as fraction of the total torus flux (Φ0 = 161.11 in code units) for an episode of the simulation including a magnetic flux eruption (decrease of ΦBH by ≃ 29% over ∆terupt ≃ 230tg from ≃ 0.52Φ0 at t = 7.2ktg to ≃ 0.37Φ0 at t = 7.43ktg) and subsequent accumulation of magnetic flux on the BH back to ΦBH ≃ 0.52Φ0 by t = 8.63ktg (∆taccum ∼ 1 ktg). 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Maps in the (r, ϕ) coordinates (r < 36rg) of slices along the equatorial plane θ = π/2 of ‘vertical’ (on the equator) magnetic field component −Bθ (multiplied by r 2 to compensate for its radial decay) showing magnetic flux tubes (‘hotspots’; red). The 3 panels show different time epochs spanning a magnetic flux eruption, as indicated with the gray vertical dashed lines in view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Maps in the (x, z) coordinates of slices along the ϕ = 0, π plane of ‘axial’ magnetic field component Bz (multiplied by r; red: Bz > 0, blue: Bz < 0), showing the time evolution of jet spine geometry following a BH flux eruption, delineated by contours of cold magnetization σc = 1 (black lines). The 5 panels show different time epochs spanning the BH flux accumulation phase , as indicated with the black ve… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Centroids (x0, y0) of ellipses fitted to the jet spine boundary (σ = 1 contour), functions of distance z for the 5 epochs presented in view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Maps in the (x, z) coordinates of slices along the ϕ = 0, π plane for the time epoch t ≃ 8.2ktg corresponding to the middle panel of view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Maps in the θ ∈ [0 : 24◦] (polar) and ϕ ∈ [0 : 2π] (azimuthal) coordinates for several values of spherical radius r (increasing from bottom to top) of the axial magnetic field Bz (left panels) and of the Lorentz factor u t (right panels; log color scale). The black lines indicate the jet spine boundary (contour of cold magnetization σc = b 2/ρ = 1). The black stars mark the position of the jet axis view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Intrinsic profiles of the bulk Lorentz factor, scaled as u˜ t = u t ×(r/100rg)−1/3 , functions of the polar angle ζ normalized to the spine boundary ζσ=1 (gray dashed line), compared for many values of the spherical radius r. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 / = 1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 (S r = B E ) × r 3sin ; t = 8203 tg r = 695rg r = 488rg r = 343rg r = 241rg r = 169rg r =… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Intrinsic profiles of the Poynting flux density S r , functions of the polar angle ζ normalized to the spine boundary ζ(σ = 1) (gray dashed line), compared for many values of the spherical radius r. We have used distributions of the Lorentz factor u t in (θ, ϕ) to determine the physical jet axis, introduced shifted polar coordinates (ζ, ψ), and presented ψaveraged profiles of u t (ζ) and Poynting flux S … view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Magnetic flux Φ as fraction of the total torus flux Φ0 divided according to the magnetic connection of individual field lines, compared for several simulation times. Left panel: fluxes integrated over the line samples seeded along the equatorial plane for rH < r < rbr = 32rg where Bz > 0: Φeq,tot – total flux; Φeq,ret – flux returning to the inner equatorial plane; Φeq,net – net flux leaving the inner acc… view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Distribution of magnetic poloidality ⟨Bz/|B|⟩z vs. magnetization ⟨log10 σc⟩z averaged over line sections spanning ∆z = 100 rg for a complete sample of lines integrated from the BH horizon starting at different angular positions (θ0, ϕ0). The points are colored by θ0 view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: A complete sample of magnetic field lines with magnetic bypasses having at least one section with ⟨Bz/|B|⟩z > 3/4 and ⟨log10 σc⟩z < 0. The upper panel shows the line positions in the (x, z) space, and the contour of σc = 1 in the y = 0 plane (black). The middle panel shows the local magnetization log10(σc) along the lines vs z. The lower panel shows the local plasma temperature log10(T) along the lines vs… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Magnetized accretion onto spinning black holes can accumulate a large magnetic flux across the event horizon and launch a pair of relativistic jets via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism. In the magnetically saturated (arrested) state, excess magnetic flux is ejected from the black hole in episodic magnetic flux eruptions, which result in a significant yet temporary reduction of jet power. We analyze results of a high-resolution 3D general-relativistic magneto-hydro-dynamic numerical simulation of geometrically thick magnetically saturated accretion onto a high-spin Kerr black hole for a single cycle of magnetic flux eruption and accumulation. We show that following an eruption, a weakened jet develops a strong helical distortion with distinct structure of magnetic fields - the poloidal field along the jet core is unaffected by the eruption; while toroidal field lines, ejected from the black hole during the eruption and later re-advected onto it, form poloidal `bypasses' along the inner jet sheath. Such a distortion may appear in sources fed by geometrically thick accretion flows as an asymmetric superluminal knot, strongly interacting with the jet sheath along an oblique working surface. The jet section re-powered by magnetic flux re-accumulated on the black hole is tilted by a few degrees, implying significant variations in radiation boost towards observers of BL Lac blazars. The intrinsic structure of the jet spine is consistent with axisymmetric semi-analytical models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This 3D GRMHD simulation shows a helical jet distortion after a flux eruption with an unaffected poloidal core and toroidal bypasses, but rests on a single run.

read the letter

The one or two things to know are that this paper uses a high-resolution 3D GRMHD simulation to show that a relativistic jet develops a strong helical distortion after a magnetic flux eruption, with the poloidal field in the core staying unaffected while toroidal lines form poloidal bypasses along the inner sheath. What is new here is the specific 3D structure of that distortion and the bypasses, which is not present in the axisymmetric models referenced. The simulation captures how the jet weakens temporarily and then the re-powered part tilts slightly, which could lead to asymmetric superluminal knots and changes in observed beaming for blazars. The paper does well in providing a concrete mechanism from the simulation for these effects in geometrically thick flows. It follows one full cycle of flux eruption and accumulation, and confirms that the jet spine structure aligns with prior semi-analytical expectations. The soft spot is that the central claims come from a single simulation run. There are no resolution or convergence tests reported for the helical distortion or the magnetic bypass topology. This leaves open the possibility that numerical effects play a role in the field line reorganization described. This paper is for specialists in relativistic jet simulations and those modeling blazar emission or analyzing VLBI data. Readers looking for detailed simulation results on post-eruption jet behavior will get value from it. It deserves a serious referee. The work shows clear engagement with the literature through the simulation and its comparison to models, even if additional numerical validation would strengthen it.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a single high-resolution 3D GRMHD simulation of geometrically thick, magnetically arrested accretion onto a high-spin Kerr black hole. It claims that after an episodic magnetic flux eruption, the temporarily weakened relativistic jet develops a strong helical distortion in which the poloidal magnetic field along the jet core remains unaffected while toroidal field lines ejected during the eruption and subsequently re-advected form poloidal 'bypasses' along the inner jet sheath. The re-powered jet section is tilted by a few degrees, and the overall spine structure is stated to be consistent with axisymmetric semi-analytical models, with possible observational signatures as asymmetric superluminal knots or variable beaming in BL Lac blazars.

Significance. If the reported post-eruption magnetic reorganization is physical, the work supplies a concrete 3D picture of how flux eruptions temporarily alter jet structure and power in MAD flows, extending axisymmetric models with a specific helical distortion and bypass topology. This could help interpret superluminal features and intra-jet working surfaces in sources fed by thick disks, as well as modest changes in Doppler boosting. The explicit linkage to prior axisymmetric results is a positive grounding.

major comments (1)

[Abstract and simulation description] Abstract and simulation description: The central claims about the helical distortion, unaffected poloidal core field, and toroidal bypasses rest on output from one high-resolution 3D GRMHD run. No cell counts across the jet, effective resolution in the sheath, artificial resistivity value, or convergence tests at varied resolutions/grid geometries are reported, leaving open the possibility that the reported field-line topology is sensitive to numerical dissipation or grid alignment (directly addressing the weakest assumption identified in the stress-test note).

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states the jet section is 'tilted by a few degrees' without quoting the measured angle or the time window over which it is evaluated; adding this quantitative detail would strengthen the observational implication for BL Lac variability.
[Abstract] The phrase 'distinct structure of magnetic fields' is used without an accompanying definition or diagnostic (e.g., field-line tracing method or integrated flux ratios); a brief clarification would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments on our paper. We address the major comment point by point below and plan to make revisions to improve the clarity and completeness of the numerical description.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and simulation description] Abstract and simulation description: The central claims about the helical distortion, unaffected poloidal core field, and toroidal bypasses rest on output from one high-resolution 3D GRMHD run. No cell counts across the jet, effective resolution in the sheath, artificial resistivity value, or convergence tests at varied resolutions/grid geometries are reported, leaving open the possibility that the reported field-line topology is sensitive to numerical dissipation or grid alignment (directly addressing the weakest assumption identified in the stress-test note).

Authors: We thank the referee for this comment. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from additional details on the numerical setup. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the simulation description to include the grid resolution (cell counts across the jet), effective resolution in the sheath, the value of artificial resistivity used, and a discussion of resolution tests performed. These details will help demonstrate that the reported field-line topology is not an artifact of numerical dissipation or grid alignment. We maintain that the analysis of this single high-resolution run provides valuable insight into the 3D structure following a flux eruption, consistent with our axisymmetric comparisons, but we will clarify the numerical robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Simulation outputs are self-contained numerical results with no algebraic circularity

full rationale

The paper presents claims about post-eruption jet distortion and magnetic field reorganization (poloidal core unaffected while toroidal lines form sheath bypasses) as direct outputs from analyzing one high-resolution 3D GRMHD simulation of magnetically arrested accretion. No derivation chain reduces these structures to fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the results follow from evolving the GRMHD equations on the chosen grid and initial conditions. The abstract's consistency note with semi-analytical models is observational rather than a foundational assumption. This is a standard numerical experiment whose validity hinges on resolution and convergence (unreported here) but not on logical circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard GRMHD equations in the Kerr metric and the Blandford-Znajek jet-launching process; no new physical entities are introduced and the only free parameters are the chosen black-hole spin and initial magnetic flux configuration needed to reach the magnetically arrested state.

free parameters (2)

Black hole spin a
Chosen high to enable strong Blandford-Znajek jets; value not specified in abstract.
Initial magnetic flux normalization
Set to produce a magnetically saturated (arrested) accretion state.

axioms (2)

standard math General-relativistic magneto-hydrodynamics in Kerr spacetime
The simulation evolves the GRMHD equations on a Kerr background.
domain assumption Blandford-Znajek mechanism launches the jets
Invoked to explain jet power and its reduction during flux eruption.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5552 in / 1387 out tokens · 63986 ms · 2026-05-07T15:12:48.539408+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Ackermann, M., Anantua, R., Asano, K., et al.\ 2016, , 824, 2, L20

2016
[2]

C., Balokovi \'c , M., Chandra, S., et al.\ 2024, , 692, A140

Algaba, J. C., Balokovi \'c , M., Chandra, S., et al.\ 2024, , 692, A140

2024
[3]

Appl, S., Lery, T., & Baty, H.\ 2000, , 355, 818

2000
[4]

Asada, K., Inoue, M., Uchida, Y., et al.\ 2002, , 54, L39

2002
[5]

C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J.\ 2022, , 511, 2, 2040

Begelman, M. C., Scepi, N., & Dexter, J.\ 2022, , 511, 2, 2040

2022
[6]

Beskin, V. S. & Nokhrina, E. E.\ 2009, , 397, 3, 1486

2009
[7]

D.\ 1976, , 176, 465

Blandford, R. D.\ 1976, , 176, 465

1976
[8]

Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L.\ 1977, , 179, 433

1977
[9]

Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A.\ 2019, , 57, 467

2019
[10]

H., Hough, D

Bridle, A. H., Hough, D. H., Lonsdale, C. J., et al.\ 1994, , 108, 766

1994
[11]

Broderick, A. E. & McKinney, J. C.\ 2010, , 725, 1, 750

2010
[12]

B., Davelaar, J., et al.\ 2019, , 884, 1, 39

Bromberg, O., Singh, C. B., Davelaar, J., et al.\ 2019, , 884, 1, 39

2019
[13]

Camenzind, M.\ 1989, Accretion Disks and Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics, 156, 129

1989
[14]

Chashkina, A., Bromberg, O., & Levinson, A.\ 2021, , 508, 1241

2021
[15]

Chatterjee, K., Kaaz, N., Liska, M., et al.\ 2025, , 112, 6, 063013

2025
[16]

& Narayan, R.\ 2025, , 991, 1, 89

Cho, H. & Narayan, R.\ 2025, , 991, 1, 89

2025
[17]

Davelaar, J., Mo \'s cibrodzka, M., Bronzwaer, T., et al.\ 2018, , 612, A34

2018
[18]

Davelaar, J., Ripperda, B., Sironi, L., et al.\ 2023, , 959, 1, L3

2023
[19]

C., Markoff, S., et al.\ 2014, , 440, 3, 2185

Dexter, J., McKinney, J. C., Markoff, S., et al.\ 2014, , 440, 3, 2185

2014
[20]

L., Mart \' , J

Fuentes, A., G \'o mez, J. L., Mart \' , J. M., et al.\ 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1359

2023
[21]

Galishnikova, A., Philippov, A., Quataert, E., et al.\ 2025, , 978, 2, 148

2025
[22]

A., & Begelman, M

Giannios, D., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C.\ 2009, , 395, 1, L29

2009
[23]

& Uzdensky, D

Giannios, D. & Uzdensky, D. A.\ 2019, , 484, 1, 1378

2019
[24]

L., Marscher, A

G \'o mez, J. L., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., et al.\ 2008, , 681, 2, L69

2008
[25]

Goyal, A., Soida, M., Stawarz, ., et al.\ 2022, , 927, 2, 214

2022
[26]

A.\ 2023, , 943, 2, L29

Hakobyan, H., Ripperda, B., & Philippov, A. A.\ 2023, , 943, 2, L29

2023
[27]

E., Cheung, C

Harris, D. E., Cheung, C. C., Stawarz, ., et al.\ 2009, , 699, 1, 305

2009
[28]

C., Lowell, B., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2510.25842

Jacquemin-Ide, J., Begelman, M. C., Lowell, B., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2510.25842

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

Jia, H., Ripperda, B., Quataert, E., et al.\ 2023, , 526, 2, 2924

2023
[30]

G., Marscher, A

Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Mattox, J. R., et al.\ 2001, , 134, 2, 181

2001
[31]

G., Marscher, A

Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Morozova, D. A., et al.\ 2017, , 846, 2, 98

2017
[32]

P., Broderick, A

Kim, J.-Y., Krichbaum, T. P., Broderick, A. E., et al.\ 2020, , 640, A69

2020
[33]

Liska, M. T. P., Musoke, G., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al.\ 2022, , 935, 1, L1

2022
[34]

Liska, M. T. P., Chatterjee, K., Issa, D., et al.\ 2022, , 263, 2, 26

2022
[35]

L., Aller, H

Lister, M. L., Aller, H. D., Aller, M. F., et al.\ 2009, , 137, 3, 3718

2009
[36]

L., Aller, M

Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al.\ 2016, , 152, 1, 12

2016
[37]

Lovelace, R. V. E., Newman, W. I., & Romanova, M. M.\ 1997, , 484, 2, 628

1997
[38]

E.\ 1999, , 308, 4, 1006

Lyubarskii, Y. E.\ 1999, , 308, 4, 1006

1999
[39]

Lyubarsky, Y.\ 2009, , 698, 2, 1570

2009
[40]

& Sikora, M.\ 2016, , 54, 725

Madejski, G. & Sikora, M.\ 2016, , 54, 725

2016
[41]

F., Levinson, A., & Aloy, M

Mahlmann, J. F., Levinson, A., & Aloy, M. A.\ 2020, , 494, 3, 4203

2020
[42]

P., Jorstad, S

Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., G \'o mez, J.-L., et al.\ 2002, , 417, 6889, 625

2002
[43]

McKinney, J. C. & Uzdensky, D. A.\ 2012, , 419, 1, 573

2012
[44]

F., Dhawan, V., Chaty, S., et al.\ 1998, , 330, L9

Mirabel, I. F., Dhawan, V., Chaty, S., et al.\ 1998, , 330, L9

1998
[45]

Mirabel, I. F. & Rodr \' guez, L. F.\ 1999, , 37, 409

1999
[46]

C., & Obergaulinger, M.\ 2008, , 492, 3, 621

Moll, R., Spruit, H. C., & Obergaulinger, M.\ 2008, , 492, 3, 621

2008
[47]

Musoke, G., Porth, O., & Liska, M.\ 2022, 44th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 44, 1769

2022
[48]

Naethe Motta, P., Jacquemin-Ide, J., Nemmen, R., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2505.08855

work page arXiv 2025
[49]

& Sikora, M.\ 2009, , 392, 1205

Nalewajko, K. & Sikora, M.\ 2009, , 392, 1205

2009
[50]

C., et al.\ 2011, , 413, 1, 333

Nalewajko, K., Giannios, D., Begelman, M. C., et al.\ 2011, , 413, 1, 333

2011
[51]

C., & Sikora, M.\ 2014, , 789, 2, 161

Nalewajko, K., Begelman, M. C., & Sikora, M.\ 2014, , 789, 2, 161

2014
[52]

Nalewajko, K.\ 2017, Galaxies, 5, 4, 64

2017
[53]

Nalewajko, K., Kapusta, M., & Janiuk, A.\ 2024, , 692, A37

2024
[54]

V., & Abramowicz, M

Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A.\ 2003, , 55, L69

2003
[55]

Narayan, R., Chael, A., Chatterjee, K., et al.\ 2022, , 511, 3, 3795

2022
[56]

O'Connor, B., Troja, E., Ryan, G., et al.\ 2023, Science Advances, 9, 23, eadi1405

2023
[57]

A., et al.\ 2022, , 931, 2, 137

Ortu \ n o-Mac \' as, J., Nalewajko, K., Uzdensky, D. A., et al.\ 2022, , 931, 2, 137

2022
[58]

M.\ 2015, , 446, L61

Parfrey, K., Giannios, D., & Beloborodov, A. M.\ 2015, , 446, L61

2015
[59]

L., et al.\ 2021, , 923, 1, L5

Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez, C., G \'o mez, J. L., et al.\ 2021, , 923, 1, L5

2021
[60]

Piran, T.\ 2004, RvMP, 76, 1143

2004
[61]

Rees, M. J. & Meszaros, P.\ 1994, , 430, L93

1994
[62]

A.\ 2020, , 900, 2, 100

Ripperda, B., Bacchini, F., & Philippov, A. A.\ 2020, , 900, 2, 100

2020
[63]

Ripperda, B., Liska, M., Chatterjee, K., et al.\ 2022, , 924, L32

2022
[64]

Ro, H., Kino, M., Hada, K., et al.\ 2026, , 999, 2, 169

2026
[65]

Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P.\ 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics, pp. 400. ISBN 0-471-82759-2. Wiley-VCH

1986
[66]

Salas, L. D. S., Musoke, G., Chatterjee, K., et al.\ 2024, , 533, 254

2024
[67]

M.\ 2020, , 499, 3, 3749

Sikora, M., Nalewajko, K., & Madejski, G. M.\ 2020, , 499, 3, 3749

2020
[68]

Sironi, L., Petropoulou, M., & Giannios, D.\ 2015, , 450, 183

2015
[69]

E., & Sormani, M

Sobacchi, E., Lyubarsky, Y. E., & Sormani, M. C.\ 2017, , 468, 4, 4635

2017
[70]

Spada, M., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., et al.\ 2001, , 325, 1559

2001
[71]

Sridhar, N., Ripperda, B., Sironi, L., et al.\ 2025, , 979, 2, 199

2025
[72]

C.\ 2011, , 418, L79

Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C.\ 2011, , 418, L79

2011
[73]

Tsunetoe, Y., Narayan, R., & Ricarte, A.\ 2025, , 983, 1, 77

2025
[74]

R., Jorstad, S

Weaver, Z. R., Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., et al.\ 2022, , 260, 1, 12

2022
[75]

& Yan, H.\ 2011, , 726, 2, 90

Zhang, B. & Yan, H.\ 2011, , 726, 2, 90

2011
[76]

M., White, C

Zhang, L., Stone, J. M., White, C. J., et al.\ 2026, , 1001, 2, 138

2026
[77]

A.\ 2023, Physical Review Research, 5, 4, 043023

Zhdankin, V., Ripperda, B., & Philippov, A. A.\ 2023, Physical Review Research, 5, 4, 043023

2023