Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Inter-Plasmoid Compton Scattering and the Compton Dominance of BL Lacs

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that inter-plasmoid Compton scattering in reconnection layers raises BL Lac flare Compton ratios to the observed range without breaking particle-field equipartition.

desk verdict A genuine new radiative coupling between plasmoids, with clean kinematics and honest caveats; the 'roughly half' population claim is softer than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02764 v2 pith:WN5QYHBI submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.HE

I.M. Christie , M. Petropoulou , L. Sironi , D. Giannios This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magneticreconnectionplasmoidsBLLacertaeobjectsComptondominanceinversescatteringblazarjetsgamma-rayflaresparticle-in-cellsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Plasmoid-based models of BL Lac flares, built on particle-in-cell reconnection simulations, predict Compton ratios around or below 0.1 because radiating particles and magnetic fields sit near equipartition, while observations put BL Lac Compton ratios between about 0.2 and 2. This paper argues that the gap closes once plasmoids are not treated as isolated: synchrotron photons from a large, slow plasmoid, seen boosted in the frame of a small fast trailing plasmoid, supply an extra seed field for inverse Compton scattering. That inter-plasmoid process raises peak Compton ratios by a factor of 1.5\textendash 3, to 0.3\textendash 0.5, for roughly half of small plasmoids, and it broadens the gamma-ray component\textemdash all without abandoning equipartition.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a pair of Lorentz-transformation factors, $f'_s$ and $f''_l$, that convert one plasmoid's co-moving synchrotron photon energy density into the frame of a neighboring plasmoid. For a small plasmoid trailing a large one, the relevant quantity is $U'_l = f''_l\,U''_l$, the large plasmoid's photon energy density as seen by the small one, versus $U'_s$, the small plasmoid's own synchrotron field. Because reconnection simulations show roughly equal particle and magnetic energy densities across plasmoid sizes, the authors take $U'_s \sim U''_l$, so the comparison reduces to geometry and relative Lorentz factor: $f''_l$ grows as the small plasmoid accelerates toward the large one and as the large plasmoid's angular size as seen from the small one increases. When $f''_l$ exceeds a few, the external seed field dominates and IPCS boosts the Compton output. The radiative transfer is computed with a time-dependent radiative code that includes all relevant cooling and emission processes.

What would settle it

Run a three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulation of relativistic reconnection in pair plasma with $\sigma=10$ and no guide field, and measure, for all small plasmoids trailing larger ones, the quantity $f''_l$ (or directly $U'_l/U'_s$) over each plasmoid's lifetime. If fewer than roughly half of small plasmoids ever reach $U'_l \gtrsim U'_s$, the IPCS-boosted Compton ratios shown in the paper would not be representative of a reconnection layer, and the population-level increase in Compton ratios would be smaller than claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that inter-plasmoid Compton scattering (IPCS) is a naturally occurring, previously neglected radiation process in relativistic reconnection layers that can reconcile plasmoid-dominated emission models with observed BL Lac Compton ratios. In a reconnection layer, most small and mid-sized plasmoids trail behind and eventually merge into a larger slow-moving plasmoid, and their relative motion can be relativistic. The large plasmoid's synchrotron radiation, Doppler-boosted in the small plasmoid's rest frame, can exceed the small plasmoid's own synchrotron photon energy density, so it becomes the dominant seed photon field for Compton scattering. Using plasmoid trajectories from a $\sigma=10$ pair-plasma particle-in-cell simulation and a time-dependent radiative code, the authors show that including IPCS raises the Compton ratio of two representative small plasmoids to $A_{\rm C}\sim 0.3$\textendash $0.5$, increases the Fermi-LAT band flux by a factor of 2\textendash 4, and broadens the high-energy spectrum. They further find that for roughly half of the small plasmoids in the layer, the large plasmoid's photon field is strong enough ($f''_l$ of order 3\textendash 10) for IPCS to matter, so the effect should imprint itself as a general increase in flare Compton ratios across BL Lac sources while keeping particle and magnetic energy densities in equipartition.

Load-bearing premise

The largest assumption is that the reconnection layer used for the statistics\textemdash a single two-dimensional particle-in-cell simulation of pair plasma with magnetization $\sigma=10$ and no guide field\textemdash represents real BL Lac reconnection, and that synchrotron photon energy densities are roughly equal across plasmoids of all sizes in their own frames; if three-dimensional effects or different magnetizations change relative speeds or photon densities, the fraction of plasmoids with strong IPCS could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If IPCS is as widespread as the paper argues, reconnection-based BL Lac flare models no longer need particle-dominated regions to match observed Compton ratios around 0.2\textendash 2.
  • Flares powered by small trailing plasmoids should show gamma-ray fluxes a factor of 2\textendash 4 higher, and a broader high-energy component, than isolated-plasmoid models predict.
  • Compton ratios should vary from flare to flare in a single source, since only about half of small plasmoids have strong enough external seed fields; some flares remain essentially synchrotron-self-Compton dominated.
  • IPCS will be visible mainly in the BL Lac class; in flat-spectrum radio quasars the external radiation fields from the broad-line region overwhelm plasmoid photons, so plasmoids there can still be treated as isolated.
  • The process also provides an additional, non-thermal source of particle cooling for small plasmoids, which affects their electron energy distributions and therefore their synchrotron spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test: in a single BL Lac object, compare the gamma-ray and synchrotron light curves during repeated flares; IPCS predicts flares whose gamma-ray component is both brighter and spectrally broader relative to the synchrotron hump than in isolated-plasmoid flares.
  • If three-dimensional or higher-magnetization reconnection simulations produce similar plasmoid velocity and size statistics, IPCS should be included as a standard ingredient in reconnection-based blazar spectral models; the factor-of-few boost matters for population-level Compton ratio distributions.
  • The same inter-plasmoid seed-photon geometry may operate in any relativistic reconnection layer containing a hierarchy of moving magnetized blobs, for example in stripped pulsar wind nebulae or magnetar flares, wherever a fast small blob overtakes a slow large one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a new radiative process, inter-plasmoid Compton scattering (IPCS), in which synchrotron photons emitted by a large, slow-moving plasmoid serve as seed photons for inverse Compton scattering by particles in smaller, faster trailing plasmoids within the same relativistic reconnection layer. The authors derive Lorentz-transformed photon energy densities (Section 2.2), apply them to tracks from a σ=10 2D PIC simulation (Fig. 1), and compute SEDs and Compton ratios for two representative plasmoids using the radiative code of C19 (Fig. 5). They find that IPCS can increase the Compton ratio by a factor of ~1.5–3, bringing AC into the 0.2–2 range observed for BL Lacs, and argue in Section 4 that roughly half of small plasmoids in the layer may be affected. The paper concludes that IPCS can alleviate the discrepancy between equipartition-based plasmoid models and observed BL Lac Compton dominance without requiring particle-dominated emission regions.

Significance. If the population-level claim holds, IPCS would be a genuinely new and natural ingredient in reconnection-based blazar flare models, with implications for the Compton dominance of BL Lacs and for flare-to-flare variability. The analytic transformations in Section 2.2 are transparent and correct in the point-source limit, the two radiative calculations are self-consistent, and no parameter is fitted to observed Compton ratios; these are clear strengths. The mechanism also makes falsifiable predictions, namely increased γ-ray flux in the Fermi-LAT band and broader high-energy spectra during plasmoid-coalescence flares, as well as variability of AC between flares. The main limitation is that the quantitative extrapolation to the BL Lac population rests on a single 2D PIC simulation and a small hand-picked sample, so the result is currently at proof-of-concept level.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Fig. 1] The claim that 'roughly half' of small plasmoids have sufficiently large f''_l is not supported by any quantitative analysis shown in the paper. The eight plasmoids in Figs. 3 and 4 are hand-picked from the right panel of Fig. 1, and the extrapolation to 100 plasmoids in the left panel is presented without a histogram, a distribution of f''_l, or an uncertainty estimate. Because this fraction is what connects the two worked examples to the BL Lac Compton-dominance discrepancy, this is a load-bearing point. Please either provide a systematic census from the simulation (e.g., a distribution of f''_l over all small plasmoids) or soften the claim to a statement about a non-negligible fraction.
  2. [Section 4 vs. Section 3.1] The mapping U'_s ~ U''_l via U_syn ~ U_e is used to convert the geometric factor f''_l into the ratio U'_l/U'_s, but Section 3.1 states that small plasmoids are typically slow-cooling. For slow-cooling plasmoids, U'_s < U_e, so the equality U'_s ~ U''_l is not self-evident, and Fig. 4 indeed shows U'_s varying among plasmoids and with time. The paper does not estimate the size of the resulting bias. This matters because the direction is two-sided: slower cooling in small plasmoids would make IPCS relevant for a larger fraction, whereas geometric dilution in a 3D layer or a different magnetization would make it smaller. Please quantify or explicitly condition the population claim on this assumption.
  3. [Section 2, Fig. 1] All dynamical inputs come from a single 2D PIC run at σ=10, pair plasma, and no guide field. The paper does not discuss how the relative velocities, separation distances, and plasmoid size distribution—and hence the IPCS fraction—depend on σ, guide field strength, or three-dimensionality. Since the claimed BL Lac resolution depends on the fraction of affected plasmoids, a statement about the expected range of validity (or an explicit caveat that this is one realization) is needed before the result can be taken as general.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'see see times c t/L < 7.75' contains a duplicated 'see'; it should read 'see times c t/L < 7.75'.
  2. [Section 3.1] The symbol '&' in 't & 2 hr' appears to be a LaTeX rendering issue; it should be typeset as 't ≳ 2 hr'.
  3. [Section 3.2] There is a typo in 'their own synchrotron phootn energy density'; 'phootn' should be 'photon'.
  4. [Section 2.1] The footnote marker '2' appears inline as 'exceeding 2 the Alfvén velocity'; it should be formatted as a superscript footnote to avoid confusing the reader.
  5. [Fig. 4] The color coding of thick versus thin lines is described only in the text; consider stating explicitly in the caption that thick lines denote P1 and P2.
  6. [Section 3.1] The treatment of the anisotropic seed photon field from the large plasmoid in the radiative code is not described; a brief statement would help the reader assess the approximation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IPCS boost is a direct radiative consequence of an independently simulated seed-photon field, and no parameter is fitted to the target Compton ratios.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Section 2.2 computes the geometric boost factors f'_s and f''_l from standard Lorentz transformations of photon energy densities, using plasmoid positions, sizes, and velocities taken from a fixed sigma=10 PIC simulation (Sironi et al. 2016). The radiative-transfer calculations of Section 3 use the code described in C19 with the same model parameters; no parameter is adjusted to match observed BL Lac Compton ratios. The increase in A_C upon adding the large plasmoid's synchrotron field is a direct physical consequence of introducing an extra seed-photon population, not an identity with the inputs. The mapping U'_s ~ U''_l in Section 4 is an explicitly stated approximation based on equipartition and on the near-constancy of U_e in the cited PIC simulations; it is an input assumption with stated conditions, not a restatement of the conclusion. The 'about half' population statement is an extrapolation from eight tracked plasmoids to a larger sample, which is a statistical/sampling limitation, not a circular reduction; no observed Compton ratio is used to define f''_l or U'_l. Self-citations are frequent (Sironi et al. 2016; PGS16; C19), but the cited results are parameter-fixed simulations and radiative codes whose assumptions do not include the target A_C range, so they constitute independent evidence under the review rules. No step was found in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted value or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on the assumed plasmoid hierarchy and kinematics from one PIC simulation and on the equipartition-based equality of synchrotron energy densities across plasmoid sizes. These are domain assumptions carried over from the authors' prior work. No parameter is fitted to observed Compton ratios; the model parameters (B, electron distribution) are from the C19 BL10 setup. The geometric boosts are derived analytically. The main burden is the representativeness of the PIC simulation and the homogeneity approximation.

free parameters (2)
  • Magnetic field strength B in plasmoids = 0.6 G (adopted from C19 BL10 model)
    The radiative calculations in Section 3.1 use B ~ 0.6 G; the resulting A_C values and their timing depend on this choice. The paper does not fit B to IPCS data; it is carried over from the earlier C19 model.
  • Radiative model inputs (electron distribution index, minimum Lorentz factor, injection luminosity) = As in C19 BL10 model
    These parameters define the baseline synchrotron and SSC emission; the IPCS boost is computed on top of them. They are not fitted to observed Compton ratios here.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Invariance of U(epsilon, mu)/epsilon^3 under Lorentz transformations
    Used in equations (1) and (3) to transform photon energy densities between plasmoid rest frames; follows from Rybicki & Lightman and Dermer & Schlickeiser.
  • domain assumption Plasmoids emit isotropically in their co-moving frame and are homogeneous
    Needed for the angle integrations in Section 2.2; the paper later acknowledges inhomogeneity as a simplification in Section 4.
  • domain assumption A single 2D PIC simulation with sigma=10 and no guide field is representative of reconnection layers
    All plasmoid trajectories and sizes come from Sironi et al. 2016; extrapolation to blazar conditions assumes this run captures typical plasmoid hierarchy and relative velocities.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron photon energy density is roughly equal across large and small plasmoids in their rest frames (U'_s ~ U''_l)
    Invoked in Section 4 to map IPCS importance to f'_s and f''_l and to conclude about half of plasmoids are affected; based on equipartition arguments in PGS16 and C19.
  • domain assumption Only synchrotron photons from the large plasmoid serve as seed photons; SSC photons are neglected
    Stated in Section 2.2, justified by Klein-Nishina suppression of up-scattered higher-energy photons.
  • domain assumption Rigid-body motion of plasmoids, including during mergers
    Stated in Section 4; likely a rough approximation that could affect the geometry of the photon field.
  • domain assumption Finite light travel time between plasmoids and Compton drag are negligible
    Both stated in Section 4; light travel time correction is minor because the large plasmoid properties change slowly, and Compton drag is secondary per Beloborodov 2017.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inter-Plasmoid Compton Scattering and the Compton Dominance of BL Lacs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WN5QYHBI

@misc{pith2026190802764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inter-Plasmoid Compton Scattering and the Compton Dominance of BL Lacs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WN5QYHBI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02764}
}
read the original abstract

Blazar emission models based on magnetic reconnection succeed in reproducing many observed spectral and temporal features, including the short-duration luminous flaring events. Plasmoids, a self-consistent by-product of the tearing instability in the reconnection layer, can be the main source of blazar emission. Kinetic simulations of relativistic reconnection have demonstrated that plasmoids are characterized by rough energy equipartition between their radiating particles and magnetic fields. This is the main reason behind the apparent shortcoming of plasmoid-dominated emission models to explain the observed Compton ratios of BL Lac objects. Here, we demonstrate that the radiative interactions among plasmoids, which have been neglected so far, can assist in alleviating this contradiction. We show that photons emitted by large, slow-moving plasmoids can be a potentially important source of soft photons to be then up-scattered, via inverse Compton, by small fast-moving, neighboring plasmoids. This inter-plasmoid Compton scattering process can naturally occur throughout the reconnection layer, imprinting itself as an increase in the observed Compton ratios from those short and luminous plasmoid-powered flares within BL Lac sources, while maintaining energy equipartition between radiating particles and magnetic fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02764 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Position-time diagram of the reconnection layer adopted from a σ = 10 PIC simulation of reconnection in pair plasma (Sironi et al. 2016). Each track shows the location of a plasmoid center (in units of the layer’s half-length L) at different times (in units of L/c) measured in the layer’s rest frame. The left panel highlights several subsets of plasmoids in which smaller plasmoids (sizes ∼ 0.008 − 0.05 L) trail behi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sketch illustrating the two reference frames used in the compu￾tation of the photon fields relevant for the IPCS process (see Sec. 2.2). The top panel displays the setup used to determine the photon energy of the small plasmoid as measured in the co-moving frame of the larger one (see eqn. 1), while the bottom panel displays the geometry used to calculate the large plasmoid’s energy density as measured in the smalle… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. for a small subset of plasmoids within the reconnection layer (see right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of synchrotron photon energy densities for the same subset of small plasmoids as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral energy distributions (SEDs; left column) and Compton ratios AC (right column) as seen by an observer, for two representative plasmoids (denoted by P1 and P2 in Figs. 1, 3, and 4). The final plasmoid sizes (normalized to L) are displayed in each panel of the ri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Anisotropic electron populations in BL Lac jets: consequences for the observed emission

    astro-ph.HE 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Anisotropic electron pitch-angle distributions allow one-zone SSC fits of the Mkn 421 blazar spectrum under magnetic field/electron equipartition, and predict harder TeV spectra.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738...25A 738, 25

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738...25A 738, 25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/25 2011

  3. [3]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...14A 810, 14

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/14 2015

  4. [4]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664L..71A 664, L71

    doi:10.1086/520635 2007

  5. [5]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A..91A 593, A91

    Ahnen M. L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A..91A 593, A91

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628447 2016

  6. [6]

    L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A..31A 603, A31

    Ahnen M. L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A..31A 603, A31

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629540 2017

  7. [7]

    Albert J., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669..862A 669, 862

    doi:10.1086/521382 2007

  8. [8]

    M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..141B 850, 141

    Beloborodov A. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..141B 850, 141

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    D., Rees M

    Blandford R. D., Rees M. J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0031-8949/17/3/020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978PhyS...17..265B 17, 265

    1978 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Znajek R

    Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.179..433B 179, 433

    1977 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Marscher A

    Bloom S. D., Marscher A. P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...461..657B 461, 657

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    Celotti A., Ghisellini G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385..283C 385, 283

    2008

  5. [13]

    Chiaberge M., Ghisellini G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02538.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.306..551C 306, 551

    1999

  6. [14]

    M., Petropoulou M., Sironi L., Giannios D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2636 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482...65C 482, 65

    Christie I. M., Petropoulou M., Sironi L., Giannios D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2636 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482...65C 482, 65

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Schlickeiser R., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...90..945D 90, 945

    Dermer C. D., Schlickeiser R., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...90..945D 90, 945

    1994 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Schlickeiser R., Mastichiadis A., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...256L..27D 256, L27

    Dermer C. D., Schlickeiser R., Mastichiadis A., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...256L..27D 256, L27

    1992

  9. [17]

    D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763..134F 763, 134

    Finke J. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763..134F 763, 134

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Fossati G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677..906F 677, 906

    2008 doi

  11. [20]

    Giannios D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431..355G 431, 355

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    Giannios D., Spruit H. C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006 doi

  13. [22]

    A., Begelman M

    Giannios D., Uzdensky D. A., Begelman M. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00635.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395L..29G 395, L29

    2009

  14. [23]

    Guo F., Li H., Daughton W., Liu Y.-H., 2014, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.155005 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvL.113o5005G 113, 155005

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    Guo F., Liu Y.-H., Daughton W., Li H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/167 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..167G 806, 167

    2015 doi

  16. [25]

    Maraschi L., et al., 1999, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/S0927-6505(99)00046-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999APh....11..189M 11, 189

    1999 doi

  17. [26]

    G., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...295..613M 295, 613

    Mastichiadis A., Kirk J. G., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...295..613M 295, 613

    1995

  18. [27]

    J., Potter W

    Morris P. J., Potter W. J., Cotter G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1548M 486, 1548

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    Nalewajko K., Gupta M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...606A..44N 606, A44

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    C., Uzdensky D

    Nalewajko K., Giannios D., Begelman M. C., Uzdensky D. A., Sikora M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18140.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413..333N 413, 333

    2011

  21. [30]

    Nalewajko K., Yuan Y., Chru \'s li \'n ska M., 2018, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377818000624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPlPh..84c7501N 84, 755840301

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    Padovani P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....2P 25, 2

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    Petropoulou M., Giannios D., Sironi L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1832 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3325P 462, 3325

    2016 doi

  24. [33]

    M., Sironi L., Giannios D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty033 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3797P 475, 3797

    Petropoulou M., Christie I. M., Sironi L., Giannios D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty033 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3797P 475, 3797

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    arXiv:1906.03297

    Petropoulou M., Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., Giannios D., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190603297P p. arXiv:1906.03297

    2019 arXiv

  26. [35]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  27. [36]

    C., Rees M

    Sikora M., Begelman M. C., Rees M. J., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...421..153S 421, 153

    1994 doi

  28. [37]

    Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783L..21S 783, L21

    2014 doi

  29. [38]

    Sironi L., Petropoulou M., Giannios D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..183S 450, 183

    2015 doi

  30. [39]

    Sironi L., Giannios D., Petropoulou M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1620 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462...48S 462, 48

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1192S 484, 1192

    Sobacchi E., Lyubarsky Y. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1192S 484, 1192

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    C., Daigne F., Drenkhahn G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A..369..694S 369, 694

    Spruit H. C., Daigne F., Drenkhahn G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A..369..694S 369, 694

    2001 doi

  33. [42]

    Tavecchio F., Ghisellini G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2374T 456, 2374

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    arXiv:1908.02183

    Tavecchio F., Sobacchi E., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190802183T p. arXiv:1908.02183

    2019 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Tavecchio F., Ghisellini G., Ghirlanda G., Foschini L., Maraschi L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15784.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.1570T 401, 1570

    2010

  36. [45]

    C., Narayan R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699.1789T 699, 1789

    Tchekhovskoy A., McKinney J. C., Narayan R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699.1789T 699, 1789

    2009 doi

  37. [46]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418L..79T 418, L79

    Tchekhovskoy A., Narayan R., McKinney J. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418L..79T 418, L79

    2011

  38. [47]

    M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    1995 doi

  39. [48]

    A., Loureiro N

    Uzdensky D. A., Loureiro N. F., Schekochihin A. A., 2010, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.235002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvL.105w5002U 105, 235002

    2010 doi

  40. [49]

    R., Uzdensky D

    Werner G. R., Uzdensky D. A., Cerutti B., Nalewajko K., Begelman M. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...816L...8W 816, L8

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    R., Uzdensky D

    Werner G. R., Uzdensky D. A., Begelman M. C., Cerutti B., Nalewajko K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2530 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4840W 473, 4840

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.