Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Acceleration of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays in the kiloparsec-scale jets of nearby radio galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper argues that stochastic shear acceleration in the kiloparsec-scale turbulent sheaths of mildly relativistic jets can accelerate protons to EeV energies, potentially explaining the Centaurus A dipole and the UHECR spectrum.

desk verdict Solid simulation showing shear acceleration reaches ~0.1 Hillas limit in kpc-scale jets, but the Cen A dipole claim rests on an integration time longer than the physical jet lifetime. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16674 v1 pith:YBCBH2N7 submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Jieshuang Wang , Brian Reville , Frank M. Rieger , Felix A. Aharonian This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA PACS 98.70.Sa98.54.Gr95.30.Qd
keywords ultra-high-energycosmicraysshearaccelerationrelativisticjetsCentaurusAradiogalaxiesRMHDsimulationstest-particleKelvin-Helmholtzinstability
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

The paper argues that the turbulent sheath of a mildly relativistic kiloparsec-scale jet—the kind seen in Centaurus A—can stochastically accelerate protons to energies around $0.2$–$0.7$ EeV, with tails beyond $1$ EeV, close to the theoretical Hillas limit. If true, this gives a concrete physical mechanism for the observed dipole anisotropy in ultra-high-energy cosmic rays pointing toward Cen A, and, for faster Fanaroff-Riley II jets, a way to produce the observed spectrum with a rigidity cutoff at a few exavolts. The authors reach this conclusion by combining high-resolution relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations with test-particle tracking, without sub-grid physics, and show that the time-integrated spectra peak at roughly one tenth of the maximum energy across a range of magnetizations and velocities. The central claim is that stochastic shear acceleration, rather than shock acceleration, is the operative process in these mildly relativistic kpc-scale jets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the turbulent spine-sheath layer formed by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the interface between the fast jet spine and the surrounding cocoon. In this layer the flow speed drops smoothly from $\beta_0$ to zero, and magnetic turbulence is sustained by the instability. Charged particles gyrating in this layer experience repeated head-on and trailing collisions with magnetic fluctuations embedded in the sheared flow, gaining energy on average—a stochastic Fermi-II process that in a sheared velocity profile acts as shear acceleration. The simulations resolve this layer down to the Larmor radius scale of injected particles, then freeze the MHD snapshot at the saturated KHI stage and continue test-particle integration to $1000\,R_0/c$.

What would settle it

Run the same particle injection without freezing the RMHD fields, stopping the integration at the physical jet crossing time $t_{\rm jet,min} \simeq (110{-}360)\,R_0/c$ for Cen A; if the resulting proton spectra no longer peak in the $0.2$–$0.7$ EeV range or extend beyond $1$ EeV, the claimed explanation of the UHECR dipole by Cen A's kpc-scale jet would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stochastic Fermi-type acceleration in the Kelvin-Helmholtz-driven turbulent sheath of a jet with bulk speed $\beta_0 = 0.6$ and magnetization $\sigma = 0.02$–$0.2$ produces proton spectra peaking at $\sim 0.2$–$0.7$ EeV and extending beyond $1$ EeV, consistent with the energies required for Cen A to be the source of the UHECR dipole anisotropy. For a more powerful FR II-type jet ($\beta_0 = 0.9$, radius $R_0 = 1$ kpc), the rigidity spectrum reaches peak energies around $2$ EV on timescales of $120$–$400\,R_0/c$, suggesting such sources could account for the isotropic UHECR component with a cutoff at a few EV. The paper also finds that the spectral peak satisfies $E_{\rm peak} \approx 0.1 E_{\max}$, where $E_{\max} = q\,\beta\,B\,R_j$ is the Hillas limit evaluated with the simulated jet radius.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that accelerating test particles for up to $1000\,R_0/c$ in static, frozen turbulence faithfully represents what happens in a real jet, whose turbulence keeps evolving and whose finite length limits Cen A to roughly $110$–$360\,R_0/c$ of propagation time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cen A's kiloparsec jet becomes a quantitatively viable UHECR source: the simulated proton peak at $0.2$–$0.7$ EeV and the hard spectrum below it are compatible with the observed dipole amplitude rising from $1.7\%$ at $4$–$8$ EeV to $17\%$ at $\geq 32$ EeV.
  • More powerful FR II galaxies, with faster jets and larger radii, can provide the isotropic component: rigidity peak energies around $2$ EV on timescales of a few hundred $R_0/c$ correspond to the few-EV rigidity cutoff favored by spectrum and composition data.
  • Mixed composition arises naturally: if heavy elements are entrained into the jet, the same acceleration mechanism pushes them to higher rigidities, so events at $\sim 100$ EV would be heavy nuclei from FR II jets with high magnetization or large radius.
  • The empirical scaling $E_{\rm peak} \approx 0.1 E_{\max}$ gives a simple prediction: the peak energy of the cosmic-ray spectrum from a jet is set by one tenth of its Hillas energy, so jet magnetic field and radius measurements directly predict the spectral peak.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to run the same test particles in a live, non-frozen MHD turbulence with a physical jet length limit; the paper's FR Ib run ($t_{\rm frozen}=60R_0/c$) suggests some acceleration on this timescale, but whether the peak stays near $0.5$ EeV for Cen A's actual $110$–$360\,R_0/c$ crossing time is not yet demonstrated.
  • The same stochastic-shear mechanism has been proposed for electron acceleration in kpc-scale jets; if protons and electrons share the same turbulent sheath, the simulated cosmic-ray spectra could be combined with multi-wavelength jet models to predict the neutrino and TeV gamma-ray output from pion production in the jet.
  • One observable implication is that if Cen A's jet magnetic field is at the lower end of the $10$–$60\,\mu$G range simulated, the Hillas energy drops, pushing the predicted proton peak below $0.2$ EeV and weakening the dipole connection; future Faraday rotation or spectral ageing measurements of the sheath field can directly narrow this.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter reports 3D RMHD simulations of mildly relativistic jets (FR I-like beta0=0.6 and FR II-like beta0=0.9) with test-particle tracking of protons in the turbulent spine-sheath, aiming to show that stochastic shear acceleration can produce ultra-high-energy cosmic rays in kiloparsec-scale jets. With parameters guided by Centaurus A (R0 ~ 0.1 kpc, B ~ 27-87 microG, sigma = 0.02-0.2), the time-integrated proton spectra peak at ~0.2-0.7 EeV and extend beyond 1 EeV; for FR II parameters the rigidity spectra peak around ~2 EV. The authors conclude that Cen A's kpc-scale jet could account for the observed UHECR dipole anisotropy and that FR II jets could account for the observed spectrum with a rigidity cutoff at a few EV. The paper includes robustness checks for injection radius (Appendix A), injection energy (Appendix C), and MHD freeze time (FR Ia vs FR Ib), and the central quantitative claim is that the spectral peak is approximately 0.1 times the Hillas energy Emax = q beta B R_j computed from simulated quantities.

Significance. If the acceleration result holds, this is a valuable contribution: it provides a concrete, parameter-based demonstration that shear acceleration in the turbulent sheath of a mildly relativistic jet can approach the Hillas limit, with a clean relation between the spectral peak and the Hillas energy. The simulations are internally consistent, use no sub-grid physics, and include checks on injection radius and injection energy; the Hillas limit is an external benchmark rather than a fitted quantity, so the central acceleration claim is not circular. The main weaknesses are in the astrophysical extrapolation: the quoted Cen A spectra are integrated to 1000 R0/c although the jet crossing time is only 110-360 R0/c, and the step from source spectra to the observed UHECR dipole and rigidity cutoff lacks a propagation and deflection model. These issues affect the astrophysical conclusions while leaving the basic acceleration mechanism supported by the simulation evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 3/Figure 6] The Cen A conclusions rely on spectra integrated to t = 1000 R0/c, but the physical jet crossing time quoted in Section 2 is only tjet,min ~ 110-360 R0/c. In the frozen-field setup with periodic y-boundaries, test particles remain in the same shear layer for the full 1000 R0/c and are counted at every snapshot, so the time-integrated spectra over-weight long-lived, high-energy particles. The authors should either cap the integration at 110-360 R0/c or demonstrate that the truncated spectra still peak at ~0.2-0.7 EeV and retain a >1 EeV tail. Without this, the abstract's claim that Cen A's kpc-scale jet could account for the UHECR dipole is not supported by the presented simulations.
  2. [Section 4] The step from the simulated proton spectra to the observed UHECR dipole and rigidity cutoff is made without a propagation and deflection model. The observed dipole amplitude at 4-8 EeV and >=32 EeV depends on the source location relative to the observer, Galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields, energy losses, and composition; a source spectrum peaking at 0.2-0.7 EeV does not by itself imply a dipole at those energies. The authors should either add quantitative transport estimates (even a simplified deflected-propagation calculation) or soften the claims from 'could account for' to 'is consistent with'. This is a gap in the astrophysical interpretation, not in the acceleration simulation itself.
  3. [Section 2, frozen snapshot paragraph] The justification for freezing the RMHD fields at t = tfrozen and continuing test-particle evolution to 1000 R0/c is not fully established. The paper states that this choice 'reflects the acceleration of particles at various locations along the jet,' but all particles in fact see the same frozen turbulent fields for the entire post-freeze time. A more faithful treatment would advect particles downstream or through a time-evolving flow so that their residence time in the acceleration region is limited by the jet length. At minimum, the authors should show that the spectral results are insensitive to replacing the frozen snapshot with a time-evolving sequence up to t ~ 360 R0/c for the FR I runs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] Typo: 'Futher studies' should be 'Further studies'.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The phrase 'The vertical lines denotes' should be 'The vertical lines denote'.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The paper uses 'EV', 'EeV', and 'Exavolts' for rigidity/energy units; please define these clearly at first use to avoid confusion between rigidity (volts) and particle energy (eV).
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The normalization factors are said to be chosen differently for visualization, but the relative normalization across runs is not shown; please state explicitly how the spectra are normalized.
  5. [Section 3] The sentence 'the results are found to be consistent when injecting at higher energies, as discussed in Appendix C' would be clearer if it explicitly noted that the comparison is between FR Ib at late times and FR Ib-hi at earlier times.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulated spectra and peak energies are genuine outputs, and the Hillas-limit comparison is an external reference scale rather than a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: new RMHD and test-particle simulations are run, and the reported spectral peaks, maximum energies, and the E_peak ~ 0.1 E_max scaling are measured outputs rather than inputs. The Hillas reference limit E_max = q beta B R_j is evaluated from the simulated jet radius and magnetic field after the simulation, and is not used to set or fit any parameter; the fact that particles reach a fraction of this scale is a non-trivial result. The self-citations to Wang et al. (2021, 2023) motivate the setup and the shear-acceleration framework, but the present paper re-derives the sheath turbulence and acceleration in its own simulations, including an injection-energy robustness test in Appendix C. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no prediction is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict. The only substantive concern is the possible overestimate from integrating particle spectra to t = 1000 R0/c while the estimated Cen A jet propagation time is only 110-360 R0/c; this is a physical timescale/correctness issue, not a circularity, because it does not make any result equal to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a resolved numerical simulation with several input parameters inherited from observations and prior modeling. The main modeling assumptions are the frozen-time approximation, the absence of sub-grid physics, and the identification of the simulated turbulent sheath with the real kpc-scale jet environment. No new particles, forces, or unknown entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Initial jet spine velocity beta0 = 0.6 (FR I), 0.9 (FR II)
    Chosen from radio observations of Cen A and FR II jets; sets the shear gradient and the Hillas energy scale.
  • Initial mean magnetic field B0 = 27.4 microGauss (FR Ia/b, FR II), 86.9 microGauss (FR Ic)
    Guided by multi-wavelength emission modeling of the Cen A sheath around 20 microGauss, with variation; controls Larmor radii and maximum energy.
  • Initial jet radius R0 = 0.1 kpc (FR I), 1 kpc (FR II)
    From X-ray and radio observations of the Cen A jet and typical FR II kpc-scale jets; sets the Hillas length scale.
  • Magnetization sigma = 0.02, 0.2
    Two values chosen to bracket uncertainties in the magnetic field strength; affects magnetic turbulence and acceleration behavior.
  • Initial temperature parameter Theta0 = 0.05 (FR I), 0.09 (FR II)
    Set by pressure balance with the cocoon and the Taub-Mathews equation of state.
  • Injection Lorentz factor gamma_inj = 5e7 to 3e8
    Chosen so the Larmor radius is a few grid cells; the seed population is assumed to be pre-accelerated by other processes.
  • MHD freeze time tfrozen = 60, 120, 160 R0/c
    Selected at the saturated Kelvin-Helmholtz stage; the paper shows spectra are not very sensitive to the tested values.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math PLUTO solves the relativistic MHD equations with a Taub-Mathews equation of state, and no sub-grid particle acceleration is prescribed.
    Section 2. This is the basis of the simulation; particle acceleration emerges from resolved electromagnetic fields.
  • domain assumption Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the jet spine and cocoon interface produces a turbulent sheath with a Kolmogorov-like velocity spectrum over about two decades.
    Section 3 and Appendix B. The acceleration picture depends on resolved turbulence; if numerical diffusivity dominates, the acceleration rates would not be physical.
  • ad hoc to paper A frozen MHD snapshot at the saturated KHI stage is a valid quasi-steady representation of the jet environment for subsequent test-particle tracking up to 1000 R0/c.
    Section 2: 'the RMHD simulation is frozen while the test-particle simulation continues to run in the static magnetic and electric fields.' This is a specific modeling choice, and real jets evolve over the acceleration time.
  • domain assumption Test particles are protons, and results for UHECR composition are obtained by scaling to rigidity for heavier nuclei.
    Section 4: heavy elements could enter by entrainment, but the simulation itself only tracks protons.
  • standard math The Hillas limit Emax = q beta B R_j is the relevant maximum energy for confinement in the simulated jet.
    Section 3, used as a reference; this is a standard theoretical bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Acceleration of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays in the kiloparsec-scale jets of nearby radio galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YBCBH2N7

@misc{pith2026241116674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Acceleration of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays in the kiloparsec-scale jets of nearby radio galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YBCBH2N7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16674}
}
read the original abstract

Radio galaxies have long been considered as potential sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs). Recent analyses of the UHECR spectrum, composition, and arrival directions indicate that the nearest radio galaxy, Centaurus A, could be linked to the reported dipole anisotropy, though the mechanism underlying the acceleration remains elusive. In this Letter, we explore UHECR acceleration in the kiloparsec-scale jets of radio galaxies, exemplified by Centaurus A. Using high-resolution relativistic magneto-hydrodynamic and test-particle simulations without sub-grid physics, we investigate the acceleration of the highest-energy particles in the turbulent sheath of a fast-moving jet. Our findings demonstrate that acceleration close to the maximum theoretical expectation is possible. When extrapolated to nearby radio galaxies, our results suggest that the kiloparsec-scale jets of Centaurus A could account for the dipole anisotropy in UHECRs, while more potent Fanaroff-Riley type II radio galaxies may account for the observed UHECR spectrum with a rigidity cutoff at a few Exavolts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of simulation run FR II at t = tfrozen. The box size is 6R0 × 3R0 × 6R0. The distribution of the axial velocity βy is shown in order to illustrate the spine-sheath jet and cocoon structure. Magnetic field lines are shown with color coding of their magnitude. The black arrows represent test particles with larger arrow sizes for higher-energy particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The velocity (left panel) and magnetic field (right panel) profiles in the radial direction are averaged over the axial and azimuthal directions for the simulated jets at the frozen time t = tfrozen. particles are injected at low energies with Larmor radii close to the grid scale. While numerical diffusion results in deviation from Kolmogorov-scaling at the grid-scale, as shown in Figure B2, the results are found to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exemplary trajectories of four test particles are shown with different colors for the FR Ib simulation run. The trajectories are projected in the radial direction of the jet. The left y-axis is the Lorentz factor (γ) of test particles. The blue lines are the velocity profiles of the jet at different simulation times, with the values shown at the right y-axis. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The normalized particle spectra of test particles as obtained at different simulation times t = 120R0/c, t = 400R0/c and t = 1000R0/c for the simulation runs FR Ia, Ib (left panel), Ic and FR II (right panel). The normalization factors are chosen differently for the pu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The time evolution of mean energy (left panel) and mean radial position (right panel) for the FR I simulations. The right panel has the same figure legend as the left panel. The solid lines, labeled with ‘all’ are for the all-particle sample. The dashed-dotted lines, l…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The spectra are integrated over time to mimic continuous particle injections for our simulation runs. The vertical lines denotes the Hillas reference limit for the jet. The spectra are normalized such that the first data points are equal to unity. The spikes in the spe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, JCAP, 2017, 038, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/038 —

    Aab, A., Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., et al. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 038, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/038 —. 2018, ApJ, 868, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae689 —. 2020a, PhRvD, 102, 062005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.062005 —. 2020b, PhRvL, 125, 121106, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.121106

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/038 2017

  2. [2]

    U., Abe, Y., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al

    Abbasi, R. U., Abe, Y., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al. 2023, Astroparticle Physics, 151, 102864, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102864

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    U., Allen, M

    Abbasi, R. U., Allen, M. G., Arimura, R., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 903, doi: 10.1126/science.abo5095 Abdul Halim, A., Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., et al. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 024, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/024 Abdul Halim, A., Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., et al. 2023a, in Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023), Vol. 444, 252, ...

    doi:10.1126/science.abo5095 2023

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., Albury, J. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d4e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d4e 2022

  5. [5]

    V., & Kocharovsky, V

    Kocharovsky, V. V., & Kocharovsky, V. V. 2002, PhRvD, 66, 023005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.023005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.023005 2002

  6. [6]

    2005, in Visualization Handbook (Elsevier)

    Ahrens, J., Geveci, B., & Law, C. 2005, in Visualization Handbook (Elsevier)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    G., & Longair, M

    Arshakian, T. G., & Longair, M. S. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 727, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07823.x

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    R., Matthews, J

    Bell, A. R., Matthews, J. H., Blundell, K. M., & Araudo, A. T. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4571, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1604 10 W ang et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1604 2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    J., Corbato, S

    Bird, D. J., Corbato, S. C., Dai, H. Y., et al. 1995, ApJ, 441, 144, doi: 10.1086/175344

    1995 doi

  2. [10]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Blandford, R. D. 2000, PhST, 85, 191, doi: 10.1238/Physica.Topical.085a00191

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, A&A, 677, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347554

    Bosch-Ramon, V. 2023, A&A, 677, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347554

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, ApJL, 811, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L38

    Caprioli, D. 2015, ApJL, 811, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L38

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, A&A, 676, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346481

    Cerutti, B., & Giacinti, G. 2023, A&A, 676, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346481

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, APh, 147, 102794, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2022.102794

    Coleman, A., Eser, J., Mayotte, E., et al. 2023, APh, 147, 102794, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2022.102794

    2023

  8. [16]

    2023, PhRvD, 107, 103045, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103045

    Ehlert, D., Oikonomou, F., & Unger, M. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 103045, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103045

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, JCAP, 2022, 006, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/006

    Eichmann, B., Kachelrieß, M., & Oikonomou, F. 2022, JCAP, 2022, 006, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/006

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Merten, L., van Vliet, A., & Becker Tjus, J

    Eichmann, B., Rachen, J. P., Merten, L., van Vliet, A., & Becker Tjus, J. 2018, JCAP, 2018, 036, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/02/036 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Adam, R., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 356, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2354-1

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Alexander, P., Pooley, G

    Hardcastle, M. J., Alexander, P., Pooley, G. G., & Riley, J. M. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 135, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02298.x

    1999

  12. [20]

    J., Cheung, C

    Hardcastle, M. J., Cheung, C. C., Feain, I. J., & Stawarz, L. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1041, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14265.x

    2009

  13. [21]

    J., & Croston, J

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Croston, J. H. 2020, NewAR, 88, 101539, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539

    2020

  14. [22]

    J., Kraft, R

    Hardcastle, M. J., Kraft, R. P., & Worrall, D. M. 2006, MNRAS, 368, L15, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00146.x

    2006

  15. [23]

    J., Worrall, D

    Hardcastle, M. J., Worrall, D. M., Kraft, R. P., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 169, doi: 10.1086/376519

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & Krawczynski, H

    Harris, D. E., & Krawczynski, H. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 463, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092446

    2006

  18. [26]

    Harris, G. L. H., Rejkuba, M., & Harris, W. E. 2010, PASA, 27, 457, doi: 10.1071/AS09061

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2542

    He, J.-C., Sun, X.-N., Wang, J.-S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2542

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Hillas, A. M. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233

    1984

  21. [29]

    G., & Giacinti, G

    Huang, Z.-Q., Reville, B., Kirk, J. G., & Giacinti, G. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4955, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1356

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    Israel, F. P. 1998, A&AR, 8, 237, doi: 10.1007/s001590050011

    1998 doi

  24. [32]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01417-w

    Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01417-w

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Perlman, E

    Jester, S., Meisenheimer, K., Martel, A. R., Perlman, E. S., & Sparks, W. B. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 828, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12120.x

    2007

  26. [34]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 158, doi: 10.1086/500407

    Kataoka, J., Stawarz, L., Aharonian, F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 158, doi: 10.1086/500407

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Murase, K., & Zhang, B

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & Zhang, B. T. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 023026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023026

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Forman, W

    Kraft, R. P., Forman, W. R., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 2036, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/2036

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    2019, PhRvD, 99, 083006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083006

    Lemoine, M. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 083006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083006

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Liu, R.-Y., Rieger, F. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 2017, ApJ, 842, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7410

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Mathews, W. G. 1971, ApJ, 165, 147, doi: 10.1086/150883

    1971 doi

  32. [40]

    H., Bell, A

    Matthews, J. H., Bell, A. R., Blundell, K. M., & Araudo, A. T. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L76, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly099 —. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2936

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1da8 Medina-Torrej´ on, T

    Mbarek, R., & Caprioli, D. 2021, ApJ, 921, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1da8 Medina-Torrej´ on, T. E., de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., &

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd699

    Kowal, G. 2023, ApJ, 952, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd699

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabccd

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Vaidya, B., & Mattia, G. 2018, ApJ, 859, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabccd

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2005, ApJS, 160, 199, doi: 10.1086/430905

    Mignone, A., Plewa, T., & Bodo, G. 2005, ApJS, 160, 199, doi: 10.1086/430905

    2005 doi

  38. [46]

    M., & Hardcastle, M

    Mullin, L. M., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1989, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15232.x

    2009

  39. [47]

    1998, A&A, 335, 134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803299 O’Sullivan, S., Reville, B., & Taylor, A

    Ostrowski, M. 1998, A&A, 335, 134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803299 O’Sullivan, S., Reville, B., & Taylor, A. M. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 248, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15442.x

    1998 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    2019, Galax, 7, 70, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7030070 Pierre Auger Collaboration, Aab, A., Abreu, P., et al

    Perucho, M. 2019, Galax, 7, 70, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7030070 Pierre Auger Collaboration, Aab, A., Abreu, P., et al. 2017, Science, 357, 1266, doi: 10.1126/science.aan4338

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    P., & Biermann, P

    Rachen, J. P., & Biermann, P. L. 1993, A&A, 272, 161, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9301010

    1993 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Rieger, F. M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 78, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7030078

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Bosch-Ramon, V., & Duffy, P

    Rieger, F. M., Bosch-Ramon, V., & Duffy, P. 2007, Ap&SS, 309, 119, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9466-z UHECR acceleration in kpc-scale jets 11

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & Duffy, P

    Rieger, F. M., & Duffy, P. 2004, ApJ, 617, 155, doi: 10.1086/425167 —. 2019, ApJL, 886, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab563f —. 2022, ApJ, 933, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac729c

    2004 doi

  45. [53]

    2008, A&A, 488, 795, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809687

    Rossi, P., Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., & Ferrari, A. 2008, A&A, 488, 795, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809687

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Marshall, H

    Schwartz, D. A., Marshall, H. L., Worrall, D. M., et al. 2015, in Extragalactic Jets from Every Angle, ed. F. Massaro, C. C. Cheung, E. Lopez, & A. Siemiginowska, Vol. 313, 219–224, doi: 10.1017/S1743921315002215

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3ba

    Seo, J., Ryu, D., & Kang, H. 2023, ApJ, 944, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3ba

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Snios, B., Wykes, S., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafaf3

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    2021, in Proceedings of 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2021), Vol

    Tsunesada, Y., Abbasi, R., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al. 2021, in Proceedings of 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2021), Vol. 395, 337, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0337

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    Aharonian, F. A. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1458

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Aharonian, F. A. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3616

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Wardle, J. F. C., & Aaron, S. E. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/286.2.425

    1997 doi

  53. [61]

    M., Al-Nussirat, S., Mostafavi, P., et al

    Webb, G. M., Al-Nussirat, S., Mostafavi, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fca

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Barghouty, A

    Webb, G. M., Barghouty, A. F., Hu, Q., & le Roux, J. A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6c

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    M., Mostafavi, P., Al-Nussirat, S., et al

    Webb, G. M., Mostafavi, P., Al-Nussirat, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8635

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Young, A

    Wilson, A. S., Young, A. J., & Shopbell, P. L. 2001, ApJ, 547, 740, doi: 10.1086/318412

    2001 doi

  57. [65]

    J., Karakas, A

    Wykes, S., Hardcastle, M. J., Karakas, A. I., & Vink, J. S. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2440

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    Zensus, J. A. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 607, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.607

    1997 doi

Pith tools

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