Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 40 references

Polarization of synchrotron radiation from blazar jets

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In stationary axisymmetric blazar jets, the synchrotron polarization degree rises steeply with the electron spectral index, so the observed X-ray-to-optical polarization ratio can be explained by spectral softening alone, without invoking…

desk verdict A clean, self-contained analytical derivation showing that polarization degree in axisymmetric jets depends strongly on the electron index while EVPA does not; the astrophysical application leans on external spectral indices, but the core result holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16389 v1 pith:7LCPDE5P submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE

Filippo Bolis , Emanuele Sobacchi , Fabrizio Tavecchio This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarjetssynchrotronpolarizationX-raypolarimetryIXPEhigh-synchrotron-peakedblazarschromaticityaxisymmetricPoynting-dominated
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

Blazar jets aimed almost at Earth show an odd polarimetric pattern: X-ray light is two to seven times more polarized than optical light, while the polarization angle (EVPA) stays the same. The paper shows this chromaticity does not require the shock-plus-turbulent-field story currently used to explain it. For a stationary, axially symmetric jet viewed at small angle, the polarization degree Π is proportional to the uniform-field maximum Π_max=(p+1)/(p+7/3) times the square root of a fourth-degree polynomial in p, so Π climbs much faster than Π_max as the electron energy distribution softens, while the EVPA depends only on a ratio of quadratics in p and stays nearly fixed. With X-ray-emitting electrons softer (p≈4–6) than optical ones (p≈2), the observed Π_X/Π_O≈2–7 and Ψ_X≈Ψ_O follow naturally. If this is right, multifrequency polarization of blazars is primarily a probe of magnetic-field topology, not of the particle acceleration mechanism.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the small-viewing-angle expansion of the Stokes parameters of an unresolved stationary axisymmetric jet. Because the jet is axisymmetric, line-of-sight cancellation makes Q and U vanish at θ_obs=0, so the first surviving terms are of order $θ_obs^{2}$; this is what lets the polarization degree and EVPA be written in closed form as functions of p and of the field and velocity components (Eqs. 22–23). A second ingredient is the analytic model of Poynting-dominated jets of reference [35], in which the electromagnetic field components are determined by the jet-shape parameter q through R0∝z0^q; evaluating those fields in an annulus at the jet edge converts the general formulas into explicit predictions for nearly cylindrical and nearly parabolic shapes.

What would settle it

A decisive test is simultaneous optical and X-ray polarimetry of a quiescent HSP blazar with SED-measured slopes: if Π(p) rises only as slowly as Π_max(p) (giving Π_X/Π_O≈1.2 for p_X=5, p_O=2) rather than as fast as Eq. (22), the predicted polynomial growth is absent. Equally, an HSP blazar with significant EVPA difference Ψ_X−Ψ_O while preserving the large Π_X/Π_O ratio would violate the shared-geometry assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the polarization of synchrotron radiation from an unresolved axisymmetric jet has a much stronger dependence on the slope p of the electron energy spectrum than the standard uniform-field result. Expanding the Stokes parameters around θ_obs=0, intensity is nonzero at zeroth order while Q and U are first nonzero at order $θ_obs^{2}$; the resulting closed forms (Eqs. 22–23) give Π=(p+1)/(p+7/3) times a factor containing the square root of a fourth-degree polynomial in p, and tan 2Ψ equal to a ratio of quadratics. Consequently Π increases far more rapidly than Π_max=(p+1)/(p+7/3) as the spectrum softens, while Ψ is almost p-independent. When the general formulas are specialized to the analytic Poynting-dominated jet model of reference [35], with electrons filling an annulus at the jet edge, nearly parabolic jets (1/2<q<1) produce Π<Π_max and Ψ≈0 at blazar viewing angles, matching IXPE observations of HSP blazars; nearly cylindrical jets (0<q<1/2) produce Π≈Π_max and Ψ≈π/2 and are practically ruled out.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the optical and X-ray emitting populations sit in the same axisymmetric field geometry but have different spectral slopes (soft X-ray electrons with p≈4–6, harder optical electrons with p≈2), and that the jet is stationary and axisymmetric with the emitting electrons concentrated in a thin annulus near its edge; if the field geometry differs between the bands, or the spectrum does not soften with photon energy, the predicted polarization ratio does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quiescent HSP blazars do not need shock-ordered or turbulent magnetic fields to explain Π_X/Π_O≈2–7: a spectral softening from p≈2 at optical to p≈4–6 at X-rays in a nearly parabolic axisymmetric jet reproduces the ratio with a nearly constant EVPA.
  • Multifrequency polarimetry becomes primarily a diagnostic of jet field topology rather than of the acceleration process, since shocks and magnetic reconnection are not distinguished by the observed pattern.
  • Nearly cylindrical Poynting-dominated jets are practically excluded by existing IXPE data, because they would give Π near Π_max and an EVPA perpendicular to the jet-axis projection.
  • The analytic formulas apply to any stationary axisymmetric jet at small viewing angles, so the rapid rise of Π with p is generic and should appear also in matter-dominated jet models, not only in Poynting-dominated ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not explored in the paper is a flare test: if the electron distribution hardens during a flare, Π should drop on the same timescale even with fixed field geometry; simultaneous IXPE and optical polarimetry across a spectral transition could separate the spectral effect from geometry changes.
  • Across sources, the mechanism implies a correlation between Π_X/Π_O and the SED-inferred difference p_X−p_O; a source with nearly equal slopes yet strong X-ray/optical polarization chromaticity would require a different explanation.
  • Because the explanation relies on the same axisymmetric geometry in both bands, it also predicts that large EVPA rotations between optical and X-ray (for instance from a bent jet) should be accompanied by a breakdown of the simple Π ratio, giving observers a way to map jet curvature.
  • The thin-annulus assumption could be relaxed in radiative-transfer simulations; a radially extended electron population would likely dilute the polynomial growth of Π and soften the predicted chromaticity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper derives approximate analytic expressions for the polarization degree Π and the EVPA Ψ of synchrotron radiation from a stationary axisymmetric relativistic jet viewed at a small angle. The central result, Eq. (22), expresses Π as the uniform-field maximum Π_max=(p+1)/(p+7/3) times θ_obs^2 times a p-dependent factor built from a quartic polynomial, so Π grows faster with the electron power-law index p than in a uniform magnetic field; Eq. (23) gives a leading-order EVPA that depends on p only through a ratio of quadratics. The authors apply the expansion to Lyubarsky's Poynting-dominated jet model: nearly cylindrical shapes give Π≈Π_max with EVPA perpendicular to the jet (disfavored by IXPE observations), while nearly parabolic shapes give Π<Π_max with EVPA nearly parallel, and the softening from p≈2 (optical) to p≈4–6 (X-ray) can reproduce Π_X/Π_O≈2–7 with nearly constant EVPA. Numerical integrations in Figs. 1–2 support the analytic approximations for both branches.

Significance. If the result holds, it offers a substantive alternative to the shock-acceleration interpretation of the strong chromatic polarization of HSP blazars, attributing the effect to axisymmetric field topology combined with spectral softening. The paper's analytic treatment is a genuine strength: Eqs. (12)–(14) are standard synchrotron Stokes integrals, the small-angle expansion is transparent, and the key p-scaling follows algebraically. The analytic approximations are explicitly cross-checked against numerical integration for both the cylindrical and parabolic branches, and the application to IXPE observables is concrete. The main limitation, clearly stated implicitly by the authors, is the reliance on external SED-derived values p_O≈2 and p_X≈4–6 and on the assumption that optical and X-ray emission sample the same axisymmetric field geometry; this residual uncertainty is not a flaw in the derivation but should be emphasized when the result is quoted.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (26)] The exponent in the expression for the local opening angle appears to have the wrong sign: consistency with the subsequent scalings in Eqs. (30)–(32) requires Θ ∝ (ΩR0)^{1-1/q}, i.e., (ΩR0)^{-(1-q)/q}, rather than (ΩR0)^{(1-q)/q} as printed. As written, Eq. (26) would give Θ growing with ΩR0 for q<1, which contradicts both the parabolic-branch field scalings and the numerical comparisons shown in Figs. 1–2.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (22)–(23)] The derivation is performed for the Stokes parameters per unit jet length and per unit transverse radius, i.e., for a fixed cylindrical shell. The polarization of a radially extended jet involves √[(∫Q)^2+(∫U)^2]/∫I, which does not reduce to Eq. (22) unless the emission is radially concentrated. Please state explicitly in Sec. III that the generic formulas apply to a thin annulus, and note that the application relies on the boundary-peaked emissivity discussed in ref. [22].
  3. [Sec. V] The sentence 'results discussed so far are independent of the specific jet model and particle acceleration mechanism' is stronger than what has been demonstrated: Eqs. (22)–(23) are generic for a thin annulus, but the quantitative claims (e.g., Π_X/Π_O≈2–7) use the Lyubarsky model and the external p_O and p_X values. A more qualified statement would avoid overgeneralization.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a duplicated article: 'for a a nearly cylindrical jet' should read 'for a nearly cylindrical jet'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the p-dependence of the polarization degree follows from an analytic expansion cross-checked numerically, and the chromaticity application uses externally sourced electron indices rather than fitted polarization data.

full rationale

The central claim, that Eq. (22) gives a polarization degree proportional to Pi_max = (p+1)/(p+7/3) times the square root of a polynomial of degree four in p, is obtained by expanding the Stokes integrals (12)-(14) to first non-vanishing order in the viewing angle theta_obs. This is a direct algebraic consequence of the stated axisymmetric field geometry and standard synchrotron emissivity, not a fit to the observed polarization. The analytic result is cross-checked against numerical integration of the same Stokes formulas in Figs. 1-2 and Appendix B, so the derivation is self-contained. No observed values of Pi_X or Pi_O are used to set constants: the predicted chromaticity is obtained by evaluating Eq. (22) at p = 2 for optical and p = 4-6 for X-rays, with those indices taken from external SED modeling [37-39]. The application does rely on external assumptions, including axisymmetry, stationarity, an annulus of emitting electrons at R = R0, and the same field geometry in both bands; if those assumptions fail, the predicted ratio does not follow. That is a stated limitation of the physical model, not a circular step. The annulus approximation cites the authors' previous paper [22] together with Lyubarsky [35], and the field-geometry relation in Eq. (26) is also attributed to [22]; these self-citations support the specific jet application but do not define or force the p-dependence that is the paper's main result. No self-definitional, fitted-input, uniqueness-importing, or ansatz-smuggling step was found in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the polarization data; the paper makes illustrative choices of q, Gamma0, and theta_obs and uses externally determined p values. The analysis rests on standard synchrotron theory plus the axisymmetric, stationary, annulus jet model.

free parameters (4)
  • p_O and p_X (electron power-law indices at optical and X-ray energies) = p_O about 2, p_X about 4 to 6
    Taken from prior SED modeling of HSP blazars (refs. [37-39]); not fitted in this paper. The central chromaticity prediction uses the difference between these values.
  • q (jet shape index) = 0.3 (cylindrical) and 0.7 (parabolic) in examples
    Shape parameter of Lyubarsky's jet model; chosen by hand to illustrate nearly cylindrical (0 < q < 1/2) and nearly parabolic (1/2 < q < 1) cases.
  • Gamma0 (bulk Lorentz factor) = 10 in examples
    Typical blazar Lorentz factor; used to evaluate Eqs. (39)-(40).
  • theta_obs (viewing angle) = up to 1/Gamma0
    Blazar viewing angle; the small-angle expansion is valid for theta_obs less than about 1/Gamma0.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Stokes parameter formulas for synchrotron radiation from a power-law electron distribution (Eqs. 12-14, based on ref. [27])
    The starting point of the derivation; standard relativistic synchrotron theory.
  • domain assumption Jet is stationary, axisymmetric, with isotropic electron distribution in the fluid frame (Sec. II)
    The model geometry; real jets are time-dependent and may bend, as noted in footnote 1.
  • domain assumption Electrons fill an annulus near the jet edge, R = R0 (Sec. IV)
    Justified by the electron density peaking near the boundary in constant-magnetization jets, citing refs. [22,35].
  • domain assumption Poynting-dominated jet described by Lyubarsky's model with external pressure P_ext proportional to z^{-kappa} (Sec. IV)
    The specific jet model used to produce quantitative predictions; the generic result in Sec. III does not require it.
  • domain assumption X-ray emitting electrons have a softer spectrum (p = 4 to 6) than optical emitting electrons (p = 2) (Sec. V)
    Taken from SED modeling (refs. [37-39]); this links the p-dependence to frequency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization of synchrotron radiation from blazar jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LCPDE5P

@misc{pith2026241116389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization of synchrotron radiation from blazar jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LCPDE5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16389}
}
abstract

Supermassive black holes in active galactic nuclei (AGNs) launch relativistic jets that shine through the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Blazars are a subclass of AGN where non-thermal radiation from the jet is strongly beamed, as the jet is directed nearly toward the observer. Multifrequency polarimetry is emerging as a powerful probe of blazar jets, especially with the advent of the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) space observatory. IXPE mostly targeted high synchrotron peaked (HSP) blazars, where both optical and X-ray emission can be attributed to synchrotron radiation from a population of non-thermal electrons. Observations of HSP blazars show that the polarization degree is strongly chromatic ($\Pi_{\rm X}/\Pi_{\rm O} \sim 2-7$), whereas the electric vector position angle (EVPA) is nearly independent of the observed frequency ($\Psi_{\rm X}\simeq\Psi_{\rm O}$). The strong chromaticity of the polarization degree was interpreted as an evidence that non-thermal electrons are accelerated by shocks. We present an alternative scenario that naturally explains IXPE observations. We study the polarization of synchrotron radiation from stationary axisymmetric jets viewed nearly on-axis. We show that the polarization degree increases significantly at high photon frequencies, as the distribution of the emitting electrons becomes softer, whereas the EVPA is nearly constant. The chromaticity of the polarization degree is much stronger in axisymmetric jets than in the case of a uniform magnetic field. Our results show that the topology of the electromagnetic fields is key to interpret multifrequency polarimetric observations of blazar jets. On the other hand, these observations may be less sensitive than previously thought to the specific particle acceleration process (e.g., shocks or magnetic reconnection).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16389 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Polarization degree, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Sironi, M

    L. Sironi, M. Petropoulou, and D. Giannios, MNRAS 450, 183 (2015), arXiv:1502.01021 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    For κ = 2, the value of q depends on the ratio of the magnetic and external pressure near the light cylinder

    For 0 < κ < 2 one has q = κ/4, whereas for a wind-like medium with κ = 2 one has 1 /2 < q < 1. For κ = 2, the value of q depends on the ratio of the magnetic and external pressure near the light cylinder. The jet electromagnetic fields can be presented as ER = ΩRBp cos Θ , Ez = −ΩRBp sin Θ (24) BR = Bp sin Θ , Bz = Bp cos Θ . (25) 2 The degree of the poly...

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Blandford, D

    R. Blandford, D. Meier, and A. Readhead, ARA&A 57, 467 (2019), arXiv:1812.06025 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [3]

    G. E. Romero, M. Boettcher, S. Markoff, and F. Tavec- chio, Space Sci. Rev. 207, 5 (2017), arXiv:1611.09507 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [4]

    Böttcher, Galaxies 7, 20 (2019), arXiv:1901.04178 [astro- ph.HE]

    M. Böttcher, Galaxies 7, 20 (2019), arXiv:1901.04178 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Polarized Blazar X-rays imply particle acceleration in shocks

    I. Liodakis, A. P. Marscher, I. Agudo, A. V . Berdyugin, M. I. Bernardos, G. Bonnoli, G. A. Borman, C. Casadio, V . Casanova, E. Cavazzuti, N. Rodriguez Cavero, L. Di Gesu, N. Di Lalla, I. Donnarumma, S. R. Ehlert, M. Errando, J. Es- cudero, M. García-Comas, B. Agís-González, C. Husillos, J. Jormanainen, S. G. Jorstad, M. Kagitani, E. N. Kopatskaya, V . K...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    The X-ray Polarization View of Mrk~421 in an Average Flux State as Observed by the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer

    L. Di Gesu, I. Donnarumma, F. Tavecchio, I. Agudo, T. Barnounin, N. Cibrario, N. Di Lalla, A. Di Marco, J. Escud- ero, M. Errando, S. G. Jorstad, D. E. Kim, P. M. Kouch, I. Lio- dakis, E. Lindfors, G. Madejski, H. L. Marshall, A. P. Marscher, R. Middei, F. Muleri, I. Myserlis, M. Negro, N. Omodei, L. Pac- ciani, A. Paggi, M. Perri, S. Puccetti, L. A. Anto...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Di Gesu, H

    L. Di Gesu, H. L. Marshall, S. R. Ehlert, D. E. Kim, I. Don- narumma, F. Tavecchio, I. Liodakis, S. Kiehlmann, I. Agudo, S. G. Jorstad, F. Muleri, A. P. Marscher, S. Puccetti, R. Middei, M. Perri, L. Pacciani, M. Negro, R. W. Romani, A. Di Marco, D. Blinov, I. G. Bourbah, E. Kontopodis, N. Mandarakas, S. Ro- manopoulos, R. Skalidis, A. Vervelaki, C. Casad...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    S. R. Ehlert, I. Liodakis, R. Middei, A. P. Marscher, F. Tavec- chio, I. Agudo, P. M. Kouch, E. Lindfors, K. Nilsson, I. My- serlis, M. Gurwell, R. Rao, F. J. Aceituno, G. Bonnoli, V . Casanova, B. Agís-González, J. Escudero, C. Husillos, J. Otero Santos, A. Sota, E. Angelakis...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    H. L. Marshall, I. Liodakis, A. P. Marscher, N. Di Lalla, S. G. Jorstad, D. E. Kim, R. Middei, M. Negro, N. Omodei, A. L. Peirson, M. Perri, S. Puccetti, I. Agudo, G. Bon- noli, A. V . Berdyugin, E. Cavazzuti, N. Rodriguez Cavero, I. Donnarumma, L. Di Gesu, J. Jormanainen, H. ...

    2023

  3. [10]

    Middei, I

    R. Middei, I. Liodakis, M. Perri, S. Puccetti, E. Cavazzuti, L. Di Gesu, S. R. Ehlert, G. Madejski, A. P. Marscher, H. L. Marshall, F. Muleri, M. Negro, S. G. Jorstad, B. Agís-González, I. Agudo, G. Bonnoli, M. I. Bernardos, V . Casanova, M. García-Comas, C. Husillos, A. March...

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. L. Peirson, M. Negro, I. Liodakis, R. Middei, D. E. Kim, A. P. Marscher, H. L. Marshall, L. Pacciani, R. W. Romani, K. Wu, A. Di Marco, N. Di Lalla, N. Omodei, S. G. Jorstad, I. Agudo, P. M. Kouch, E. Lindfors, F. J. Aceituno, M. I. Bernar- dos, G. Bonnoli, V . Casanova, M....

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Errando, I

    M. Errando, I. Liodakis, A. P. Marscher, H. L. Marshall, R. Middei, M. Negro, A. L. Peirson, M. Perri, S. Puccetti, P. L. Rabinowitz, I. Agudo, S. G. Jorstad, S. S. Savchenko, D. Blinov, I. G. Bourbah, S. Kiehlmann, E. Kontopodis, N. Mandarakas, S. Romanopoulos, R. Skalidis, A...

    2024

  6. [13]

    D. E. Kim, L. Di Gesu, I. Liodakis, A. P. Marscher, S. G. Jorstad, R. Middei, H. L. Marshall, L. Pacciani, I. Agudo, F. Tavecchio, N. Cibrario, S. Tugliani, R. Bonino, M. Negro, S. Puccetti, F. Tombesi, E. Costa, I. Donnarumma, P. Soffitta, T. Mizuno, Y . Fukazawa, K. S. Kawab...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Kostrichkin, A

    I. Kostrichkin, A. Plavin, A. Pushkarev, and M. Butuzova, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.12309 (2024), arXiv:2409.12309 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Tavecchio, M

    F. Tavecchio, M. Landoni, L. Sironi, and P. Coppi, MNRAS 498, 599 (2020), arXiv:2007.08353 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    A. P. Marscher and S. G. Jorstad, Galaxies 9, 27 (2021), arXiv:2105.00094 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Tavecchio, Galaxies 9, 37 (2021), arXiv:2105.08401 [astro- ph.HE]

    F. Tavecchio, Galaxies 9, 37 (2021), arXiv:2105.08401 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, MNRAS 179, 433 (1977)

    1977

  12. [19]

    R. D. Blandford and D. G. Payne, MNRAS 199, 883 (1982)

    1982

  13. [20]

    Tchekhovskoy, R

    A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney, MNRAS 418, L79 (2011), arXiv:1108.0412 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Lyubarsky, MNRAS 402, 353 (2010), arXiv:0909.4819 [astro-ph.HE]

    Y . Lyubarsky, MNRAS 402, 353 (2010), arXiv:0909.4819 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bolis, E

    F. Bolis, E. Sobacchi, and F. Tavecchio, A&A690, A14 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    R. D. Blandford and A. Königl, Astrophys. J. 232, 34 (1979)

    1979

  17. [25]

    V . I. Pariev, Y . N. Istomin, and A. R. Beresnyak, A&A403, 805 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0303361 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lyutikov, V

    M. Lyutikov, V . I. Pariev, and R. D. Blandford, Astrophys. J. 597, 998 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305410 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lyutikov, V

    M. Lyutikov, V . I. Pariev, and D. C. Gabuzda, MNRAS 360, 869 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0406144 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Del Zanna, D

    L. Del Zanna, D. V olpi, E. Amato, and N. Bucciantini, A&A 453, 621 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603080 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. S. Komissarov, M. V . Barkov, N. Vlahakis, and A. Königl, MNRAS 380, 51 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0703146 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. S. Komissarov, N. Vlahakis, A. Königl, and M. V . Barkov, MNRAS 394, 1182 (2009), arXiv:0811.1467 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Tchekhovskoy, J

    A. Tchekhovskoy, J. C. McKinney, and R. Narayan, MNRAS 388, 551 (2008), arXiv:0803.3807 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tchekhovskoy, J

    A. Tchekhovskoy, J. C. McKinney, and R. Narayan, Astrophys. J. 699, 1789 (2009), arXiv:0901.4776 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V . S. Beskin, I. V . Kuznetsova, and R. R. Rafikov, MNRAS299, 341 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    V . S. Beskin, N. L. Zakamska, and H. Sol, MNRAS 347, 587 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0209572 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Vlahakis, Astrophys

    N. Vlahakis, Astrophys. J. 600, 324 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0309292 [astro-ph]

    2004

  28. [36]

    Lyubarsky, Astrophys

    Y . Lyubarsky, Astrophys. J.698, 1570 (2009), arXiv:0902.3357 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lyubarsky, Phys

    Y . Lyubarsky, Phys. Rev. E 83, 016302 (2011), arXiv:1012.2517 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fossati, L

    G. Fossati, L. Maraschi, A. Celotti, A. Comastri, and G. Ghis- ellini, MNRAS 299, 433 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9804103 [astro-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, L. Baldini, J. Bal- let, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, E. Bonamente, A. W. Borgland, A. Bouvier, J. Bregeon, A. Brez, M. Brigida, P. Bruel, R. Buehler, S. Buson, G. A. Cali...

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ghisellini, C

    G. Ghisellini, C. Righi, L. Costamante, and F. Tavecchio, MN- RAS 469, 255 (2017), arXiv:1702.02571 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.