Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 40 references

Effective resistivity in relativistic reconnection: a prescription based on fully kinetic simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that one local scalar resistivity formula, fitted to kinetic simulations, reproduces the nonideal electric field of relativistic pair-plasma reconnection across guide fields, so resistive MHD can mimic kinetic dissipation.

desk verdict A genuinely useful empirical resistivity fit that gets undermined by an ill-posed recommended high-p limit; referee the paper, but require a fix to Eq.14. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04800 v1 pith:YZHUTYSO submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.HE

Abigail Moran , Lorenzo Sironi , Aviad Levis , Bart Ripperda , Elias R. Most , Sebastiaan Selvi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords HighenergyastrophysicsPlasmaMagneticfieldsMagnetohydrodynamicsrelativisticreconnectioneffectiveresistivityparticle-in-cellsimulations
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 sets out to close the gap between kinetic and fluid descriptions of relativistic magnetic reconnection by turning the kinetic breakdown of flux freezing into a local, empirical resistivity. From a suite of 2D particle-in-cell simulations of pair-plasma reconnection at guide fields $B_g/B_0 = 0$, $0.3$, $0.6$, and $1.0$, it extracts a two-parameter formula $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}} = \alpha B_0 |\mathbf{J}|^p / (|\mathbf{J}|^{p+1} + (e n_t c)^{p+1})$ that depends only on the current density and the lab-frame number density. The claim is that this formula, with guide-field-dependent $\alpha$ and $p$, reproduces both the strength and the spatial structure of the nonideal electric field, and that for guide fields $B_g/B_0 \ge 0.3$ it is essentially equivalent to the parameter-free limit $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}} \simeq |\mathbf{E}^*|/(e n_t c)$. If true, single-fluid resistive-MHD simulations of astrophysical reconnection could run at kinetic-like dissipation rates without resolving kinetic scales.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scalar effective resistivity of Equation (9), $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}} = \alpha B_0 |\mathbf{J}|^p / (|\mathbf{J}|^{p+1} + (e n_t c)^{p+1})$, which can be rewritten in terms of the drift speed $|\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{dr}}| = |\mathbf{J}|/(e n_t c)$ as $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}} = (\alpha B_0/|\mathbf{J}|)\,[1 + (c/|\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{dr}}|)^{p+1}]^{-1}$. The scale $e n_t c$ is the current density at which all available charge carriers would have to move at the speed of light, and this charge-starvation scale sets the saturation of the resistivity. The mechanism it captures is that in the inner current sheet the drift speed approaches $c$, so $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}}$ behaves as $|\mathbf{J}|^{-1}$, producing the double-peaked nonideal field profile, while at small current the model switches the resistivity off. The parameters $\alpha$ and $p$ are fit by minimizing a $|E^*|$-weighted squared error, and the density dependence through $n_t$ is what lets one formula work across the sheet, in plasmoids, and for different guide fields.

What would settle it

Run a resistive-MHD simulation of a relativistic current sheet with this prescription but with the sheet rotated relative to the grid or embedded in a curved global geometry, and compare the reconnection inflow rate and the map of the nonideal electric field against a kinetic particle-in-cell run with the same magnetization and guide field. If the inflow rate remains close to the uniform-resistivity value, or the reconstructed nonideal field differs from the kinetic one by more than the fitting scatter, the claim that the formula is coordinate-agnostic and transferable fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is an empirical prescription for the effective resistivity that captures the nonideal electric field in relativistic pair-plasma reconnection. For each guide field, the authors fit the two parameters $\alpha$ and $p$ by minimizing a weighted squared error between $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}} J_z$ and the directly measured $E^*_z$, and show that the same scalar resistivity also captures $E^*_x$ when a guide field is present. The fitted $p$ rises from near zero at zero guide field to roughly $18$ at $B_g/B_0 = 1$, and $\alpha/2$ tracks the measured reconnection rate. The reconstruction works not only in the main current layer but in the anti-reconnection layers between merging plasmoids, and it remains accurate in higher-resolution runs and in runs with strong synchrotron cooling. In the high-$p$ limit the formula reduces to $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}} \simeq |\mathbf{E}^*|/(e n_t c)$, which the paper argues is the most promising form to implement in resistive MHD because it has no free parameters and no guide-field dependence.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the electric field breaking magnetic flux freezing can be captured locally by a single number multiplying the electric current, where that number depends only on the current's strength, the plasma density, and constants fit for the guide field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Resistive MHD codes can replace uniform resistivity with this local, coordinate-agnostic formula, potentially raising reconnection rates from the uniform-resistivity value toward the kinetic value.
  • Because the formula uses only the current density and the plasma number density, no spatial derivatives or species information are required, so it can be dropped into existing relativistic MHD codes regardless of grid orientation.
  • For guide fields $B_g/B_0 \ge 0.3$, the high-$p$ limit $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}} \simeq |\mathbf{E}^*|/(e n_t c)$ removes both fitted parameters, making the prescription guide-field independent.
  • The same scalar resistivity reproduces both the $z$ and $x$ components of the nonideal field, not just the component used for fitting.
  • The fitted parameters carry over to higher-resolution runs and to runs with strong synchrotron cooling, indicating the prescription is not an artifact of the reference resolution or of radiative losses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The parameter-free high-$p$ limit suggests a deeper interpretation the paper only gestures at: the reconnection electric field is self-regulated by charge starvation, so any fluid model may effectively need to cap the current at roughly $e n_t c$. A useful test would be to see whether resistive-MHD runs with this prescription automatically keep $|\mathbf{J}| \lesssim e n_t c$.
  • The success of an isotropic scalar resistivity implies that the pressure-tensor and inertial terms that actually mediate collisionless reconnection can be integrated out for global dissipation purposes. If that holds, simpler single-fluid simulations may capture flare energetics without two-fluid closures, at least for pair plasmas.
  • The guide-field dependence of $p$ suggests that $p$ measures how much of the layer is charge-starved; extending the fits to lower magnetization and to electron-ion composition would reveal whether the $e n_t c$ normalization should be replaced by a species-weighted density.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an empirical effective resistivity for relativistic pair-plasma reconnection, based on 2D PIC simulations with guide fields Bg/B0 = 0, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.0 at magnetization sigma = 50. The proposed form, Eq. (9)/(10), is local, coordinate-agnostic, and written in single-fluid MHD variables, with two fitted parameters alpha and p whose guide-field dependence is characterized. The authors show that the reconstruction eta_eff J reproduces the spatial structure of E*_z and E*_x in their PIC runs, and they recommend the high-p limit eta_eff = |E*|/(e n_t c), Eq. (14), as the most promising form for implementation in resistive MHD. The paper also reports robustness checks with higher resolution and synchrotron cooling, and it states caveats about 2D geometry, pair-plasma composition, and magnetization.

Significance. If the prescription held as an MHD closure, it would be a practically useful subgrid model: unlike the kinetically motivated forms of Selvi et al. (2023) and Bugli et al. (2024), it has no spatial derivatives, is independent of coordinate orientation, and is proposed for arbitrary guide-field strength. The paper is honest about its limitations and includes resolution and cooling checks. However, the recommended implementation in Eq. (14) is internally inconsistent as an Ohm's-law closure, and the fitted parameter p is only weakly constrained, so the guide-field dependence and the central promise of enhancing resistive-MHD reconnection rates are not yet established by the material presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (14)] Equation (14), recommended as 'the most promising form of effective resistivity to implement in resistive MHD simulations', is not a usable Ohm's-law closure. In a resistive MHD code the nonideal field is defined by E* = eta_eff J (Eq. 2). Inserting eta_eff = |E*|/(e n_t c) and taking the norm gives |E*| = |E*| |J|/(e n_t c). For any |J| != e n_t c the only solution is E* = 0, and at |J| = e n_t c any vector parallel to J satisfies the equation, so E* is undetermined. The finite-p model of Eq. (9) has a unique nonzero solution for |J| > 0, so the p -> infinity limit does not commute with the Ohm's-law solve. Equation (13) makes the difficulty explicit: eta_eff is expressed in terms of |E*|, an unknown that must be solved for. The recommended implementation therefore cannot be evaluated from single-fluid MHD variables, and no resistive-MHD run is provided to show that Eq. (14) enhances the reconnection rate. The authors should either recommend the explicit finite-p form (Eq. 9) and demonstrate it in a resistive MHD simulation, or present an implicit treatment of Eq. (14) that is shown to be well-posed.
  2. [Section 4, Tables 1 and 4; Appendix C] The loss function does not strongly constrain p. For Bg/B0 = 0 the best fit is p = 0 with an acceptable range [0.00, 1.73], yet Appendix C reports that p = 4, 8, and 10 give excellent reconstructions, and Section 5 recommends p >> 1; for Bg/B0 = 0.3 the acceptable interval is [4.22, 18.2]. Table 4 shows that changing p from pbest to phigh changes the L2 loss by less than about 10% for every guide field. Consequently the trend of pbest versus guide field in Fig. 6 is not robustly determined, and the claim that the guide-field dependence is encoded in alpha and p is not supported by the fits. This also undermines the physical interpretation that p distinguishes the zero-guide-field regime from higher guide fields.
  3. [Section 4 (fitting) and Section 5 (application)] All quantitative validation is in-sample. The parameters alpha and p are fit on the composite domain of the same PIC runs that are used for the spatial reconstructions in Figs. 7 and 8 and for the loss values in Table 4. The independent checks in Appendix A concern only zero guide field and are evaluated visually, without the loss metric. Since the abstract promises a strategy for enhancing the reconnection rate in resistive MHD simulations, the absence of any resistive-MHD run using the proposed prescription leaves the central application untested. I request at least one demonstration in a resistive MHD code, or a clear statement that the paper proposes but does not test the strategy.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (11)] The summation in the loss function is written without an explicit index set; please specify that it runs over all cells in the composite domain and over all snapshots, and state the total number of cells and snapshots used for each guide-field case.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (10)] The equivalence between Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) is stated without derivation; a one-line derivation would help readers verify that eta_eff = (alpha B0/|J|) / [1 + (c/|v_dr|)^(p+1)].
  3. [Figure captions] Figure 1 defines x = 0 as the edge of the simulation domain, while Figs. 3 and 7 measure x with respect to the center of the displayed portion; please standardize the coordinate description across captions to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The recommended high-p closure (Eq. 14) is self-referential and degenerate, and the α/2–reconnection-rate agreement is built into the ansatz rather than independently predicted.

  1. self definitional [Section 5, Equations 13–14]
    "Our prescription in Equation 9 can be equivalently written as ηeff = (|E∗|/entc) [ (αB0 − |E∗|)/|E∗| ]^{1/(p+1)}. (13) In the limit of very high p, the square bracket is elevated to a very small power, yielding a contribution of order unity... ηeff ≃ |E∗|/entc (14)... We therefore regard Equation 14 as the most promising form of effective resistivity to implement in resistive MHD simulations of relativistic reconnection."

    Equation 13 is not an approximation: combined with the defining Ohm law E∗ = ηeff J, the bracket equals (entc/|J|)^{p+1}, whose 1/(p+1) power is exactly entc/|J|, so Equation 13 merely restates ηeff = |E∗|/|J|. Inserting the recommended Equation 14 back into E∗ = ηeff J gives |E∗| = |E∗| |J|/(entc). For |J| ≠ entc the only solution is E∗ = 0; at |J| = entc the magnitude of E∗ is arbitrary. The finite-p model instead has a unique solution (E∗ → αB0 J/|J| for |J| > entc and E∗ → 0 below). The recommended parameter-free closure therefore does not predict the nonideal field; it reimposes the charge-starvation condition |J| = entc and leaves E∗ undetermined. This is a self-referential closure, not a derived limit of the model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Equations 8–9 and Figure 4]
    "we expect that in regions of strong current... the nonideal electric field should approach |E∗| → (vin/c)B0 ... which implies that the effective resistivity should be ηeff → (vin/c) B0/|J|. (8)... We will determine free parameters α and p from PIC simulations. This scales as ηeff ∝ |J|p/(entc)p+1 at small currents and approaches ηeff = αB0/(2|J|) for |J| ≃ entc. We therefore expect α/2 ≃ vin/c, as we indeed find below (see also Figure 4)."

    The ansatz in Equation 9 was deliberately constructed so that at |J| ≈ entc the resistivity becomes αB0/(2|J|). Since E∗z at the X-point equals (vin/c)B0 by the definition of the reconnection rate, fitting α to E∗z almost forces α/2 ≈ vin/c. The agreement shown in Figure 4 is therefore a built-in consistency check of the ansatz, not an independent confirmation that the prescription predicts the kinetic reconnection rate. The same E∗z data are used both to fit α,p and to infer vin, so the match is statistically and structurally forced.

full rationale

The paper's core empirical construction is an honest fit: α and p are fitted to E∗z with a weighted L2 loss (Equation 11), and the reconstruction ηeffJz is compared back to the same measured field. That in-sample reproduction is not by itself a circular prediction, and the paper does provide some out-of-sample checks (higher resolution, synchrotron cooling, the x-component of E∗, Appendices A and Figure 8). The comparison with Selvi et al. (2023) is a baseline model, not a load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness argument. The genuine circularity is in the recommended implementation. Equation 13 is an algebraic identity that reduces to ηeff = |E∗|/|J|; the claim that the bracket is of order unity holds only around |J| ≈ entc. Substituting the recommended Equation 14 into the defining Ohm law E∗ = ηeff J yields a degenerate equation whose only nonzero solutions sit at |J| = entc, with E∗ otherwise undetermined, so the parameter-free closure cannot be evaluated from single-fluid MHD variables as claimed. Relatedly, the α/2 ≈ vin/c agreement in Figure 4 is engineered by the ansatz in Equation 8 and the fit to E∗z, so it is a self-consistency check rather than evidence that the resistivity prescription independently predicts the reconnection rate. No resistive-MHD run is provided to demonstrate the claimed enhancement, and the stated caveats (2D geometry, pair composition, σ = 50) are honest but do not repair the self-referential character of Equation 14.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model uses two fitted parameters, alpha and p, plus the ad hoc interpolation form. The paper relies on the domain assumption that a scalar, local resistivity depending only on |J| and n_t can represent the kinetic nonideal field, and on the transferability of 2D pair-plasma results to 3D and to other regimes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha = 0.3268, 0.1736, 0.1264, 0.0884 for Bg/B0 = 0.0, 0.3, 0.6, 1.0 (from alpha = m p + b in Table 2 at p = pbest)
    Normalization of the effective resistivity, fit by minimizing L(alpha,p) on PIC data (Eq. 11). It absorbs the reconnection rate and field strength.
  • p = 0.00, 9.59, 15.4, 18.2 for Bg/B0 = 0.0, 0.3, 0.6, 1.0
    Exponent controlling the current dependence; fit per guide field with wide acceptable ranges (e.g., 0 to 1.73 for Bg=0).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The nonideal electric field in collisionless reconnection can be written as a scalar resistivity times the current, eta_eff J, within single-fluid relativistic MHD (Eq. 2).
    Stated in Section 3 after Eq. 1: replacing eta by eta_eff 'can be regarded as the definition of an effective resistivity that incorporates kinetic effects'. The paper then reduces the full Ohm's law to E* = eta_eff J by assuming |rho_e v| << |J| and Gamma ~ 1.
  • ad hoc to paper The functional form eta = alpha B0 |J|^p / (|J|^(p+1) + (e n_t c)^(p+1)) is an adequate ansatz for the effective resistivity.
    Section 3.2: the form is 'motivated' by the expected eta ~ |J|^-1 at charge starvation and eta -> 0 as J -> 0, but it is not derived from the kinetic mechanisms (pressure tensor, inertial effects) discussed in the introduction.
  • domain assumption The z-component of the nonideal field is sufficient to calibrate eta, and the same scalar eta applies to the other components.
    Section 3: E*_z is the only significant component for zero guide field, and for non-zero guide fields the fit is done on E*_z = eta J_z, with the claim that the same eta describes E*_x (Figure 8).
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional PIC simulations of pair-plasma reconnection capture the nonideal-field physics relevant for three-dimensional systems.
    Section 5 caveat: 'our results are based on 2D simulations... the nonideal physics of field dissipation... is roughly the same', citing Sironi & Spitkovsky 2014 and Werner & Uzdensky 2017.
  • ad hoc to paper The loss function L = sum |E*_z - eta J_z|^2 |E*_z| and the patch-selection rule (Eq. 12) lead to reliable parameter estimates.
    Section 4: the weighting by |E*_z| is chosen 'to ensure that the large regions with negligible nonideal fields do not skew our findings'; patch sizes and threshold percentiles are hand-chosen and shown to weakly affect results in Table 3.
  • domain assumption The fitted alpha and p transfer without adjustment to runs with higher resolution and with synchrotron cooling.
    Appendix A validates Eq. 10 with the fiducial alpha and p on c/omega_p = 20 cells and on runs with gamma_rad = 100 and 25, without re-fitting; the agreement is visual.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effective resistivity in relativistic reconnection: a prescription based on fully kinetic simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZHUTYSO

@misc{pith2026250104800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effective resistivity in relativistic reconnection: a prescription based on fully kinetic simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZHUTYSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04800}
}
abstract

A variety of high-energy astrophysical phenomena are powered by the release -- via magnetic reconnection -- of the energy stored in oppositely directed fields. Single-fluid resistive magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations with uniform resistivity yield dissipation rates that are much lower (by nearly one order of magnitude) than equivalent kinetic calculations. Reconnection-driven phenomena could be accordingly modeled in resistive MHD employing a non-uniform, ``effective'' resistivity informed by kinetic calculations. In this work, we analyze a suite of fully kinetic particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of relativistic pair-plasma reconnection -- where the magnetic energy is greater than the rest mass energy -- for different strengths of the guide field orthogonal to the alternating component. We extract an empirical prescription for the effective resistivity, $\eta_{\mathrm{eff}} = \alpha B_0 \mathbf{|J|}^p / \left(|\mathbf{J}|^{p+1}+\left(e n_t c\right)^{p+1}\right)$, where $B_0$ is the reconnecting magnetic field strength, $\bf J$ is the current density, $n_t$ the lab-frame total number density, $e$ the elementary charge, and $c$ the speed of light. The guide field dependence is encoded in $\alpha$ and $p$, which we fit to PIC data. This resistivity formulation -- which relies only on single-fluid MHD quantities -- successfully reproduces the spatial structure and strength of nonideal electric fields, and thus provides a promising strategy for enhancing the reconnection rate in resistive MHD simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04800 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of the particle number density nt (top row; in units of n0), of the magnetic energy density (middle row; in units of B 2 0 /8π), and of the z-component of the nonideal electric field as defined in Equation 2 (bottom row; in units of B0), for simulations with Bg/B0 = 0 (left) and Bg/B0 = 1 (right). The snapshots are taken at a representative time to show the nonideal electric field and plasmoid s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1D slice of the domain along y through an X￾point, for the simulation with zero guide field. The top panel shows the z component of the nonideal electric field in units of B0, the second panel the resistivity, and the bottom panel the electric current Jz (in blue), the number density nt (in orange) and the drift speed vdr,z/c ≃ Jz/entc (in green). In the top and middle panels, we present in blue the ground truth obt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A comparison between the measured nonideal electric field E ∗ z (top left) and its reconstruction ηeff Jz based on different choices of ηeff : ηS23,kin (Equation 3) in top right, ηB24 (Equation 7) in bottom left, and ηS23,MHD (Equation 5) in bottom right. All panels are normalized to B0. Within each panel, horizontal black lines separate different time snapshots: the first one is taken when the reconnection rate sho… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconnection rate (i.e., the plasma inflow velocity normalized by c) over time for each guide field case, as in￾dicated in the legend. The reconnection rate is measured as the mean inflow velocity in the region y = [−672, 672]c/ωp. In the same color we show with the sh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Best fit (pbest) and upper bound (phigh) as a function of guide field strength. To determine the optimal values of α and p in Equa￾tion 10 we consider the z component of the nonideal field and define a loss, or data-fit metric L(α, p) = X x,y |E ∗ z − ηeff(α, p)Jz| 2 |…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison between the measured nonideal electric field E ∗ z (left column) and its reconstruction ηeff Jz based on our prescription in Equation 10, for the whole range of guide fields we explored. The middle column shows ηeff (α, pbest)Jz (here, α is the value corre…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A comparison of the measured E ∗ z and various reconstructions ηeff Jz using different forms of the resistivity. Top row, from left to right: ground truth, Equation 3, and Equation 5. Bottom row, from left to right: Equation 7 and Equation 10 for both pbest and phigh (…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A comparison of the measured E ∗ z and the reconstruction ηeff Jz using Equation 10. We vary p beyond the range given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1943, Arkiv for Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik, 29B, 1

    Alfv´ en, H. 1943, Arkiv for Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik, 29B, 1

    work page 1943

  2. [2]

    2005, PhRvL, 95, 245001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.245001 —

    Bessho, N., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2005, PhRvL, 95, 245001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.245001 —. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 056503, doi: 10.1063/1.2714020 —. 2010, Physics of Plasmas, 17, 102104, doi: 10.1063/1.3488963 —. 2012, ApJ, 750, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/129

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.245001 2005

  3. [3]

    F., Shay, M

    Birn, J., Drake, J. F., Shay, M. A., et al. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 3715, doi: 10.1029/1999JA900449

    doi:10.1029/1999ja900449 2001

  4. [4]

    2001, Physics of Plasmas, 8, 3282, doi: 10.1063/1.1377611

    Biskamp, D., & Schwarz, E. 2001, Physics of Plasmas, 8, 3282, doi: 10.1063/1.1377611

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1377611 2001

  5. [5]

    2021, PhRvL, 127, 055101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.055101

    Bransgrove, A., Ripperda, B., & Philippov, A. 2021, PhRvL, 127, 055101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.055101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.055101 2021

  6. [6]

    Relativistic reconnection with effective resistivity: I. Dynamics and reconnection rate

    Bugli, M., Lopresti, E. F., Figueiredo, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.20924, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20924

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.20924 2024

  7. [7]

    J., & Lee, L

    Cai, H. J., & Lee, L. C. 1997, Physics of Plasmas, 4, 509, doi: 10.1063/1.872178

    work page doi:10.1063/1.872178 1997

  8. [8]

    A., Liu, Y

    Cassak, P. A., Liu, Y. H., & Shay, M. A. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 715830501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377817000666

    doi:10.1017/s0022377817000666 2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acffc6

    Chernoglazov, A., Hakobyan, H., & Philippov, A. 2023, ApJ, 959, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acffc6

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 595820601, doi: 10.1017/S002237781600101X Del Zanna, L., Zanotti, O., Bucciantini, N., & Londrillo, P

    Comisso, L., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 595820601, doi: 10.1017/S002237781600101X Del Zanna, L., Zanotti, O., Bucciantini, N., & Londrillo, P. 2007, A&A, 473, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077093

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, PhRvL, 123, 225101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.225101

    Egedal, J., Ng, J., Le, A., et al. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 225101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.225101

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, PhRvL, 130, 115201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.115201

    Galishnikova, A., Philippov, A., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, PhRvL, 130, 115201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.115201

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, PhRvL, 129, 265101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.265101

    Goodbred, M., & Liu, Y.-H. 2022, PhRvL, 129, 265101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.265101

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, Physics of Plasmas, 27, 080501, doi: 10.1063/5.0012094

    Guo, F., Liu, Y.-H., Li, X., et al. 2020, Physics of Plasmas, 27, 080501, doi: 10.1063/5.0012094

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, SSRv, 220, 43, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01073-2

    Guo, F., Liu, Y.-H., Zenitani, S., & Hoshino, M. 2024, SSRv, 220, 43, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01073-2

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Harris, E. G. 1962, Il Nuovo Cimento, 23, 115, doi: 10.1007/BF02733547 12

    1962 doi

  9. [17]

    2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 112102, doi: 10.1063/1.2801482

    Hesse, M., & Zenitani, S. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 112102, doi: 10.1063/1.2801482

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 080701, doi: 10.1063/1.4960669

    Hirvijoki, E., Lingam, M., Pfefferl´ e, D., et al. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 080701, doi: 10.1063/1.4960669

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    1994, Physics of Plasmas, 1, 3587, doi: 10.1063/1.870894

    Horiuchi, R., & Sato, T. 1994, Physics of Plasmas, 1, 3587, doi: 10.1063/1.870894

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    2012, SSRv, 173, 521, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9931-z

    Hoshino, M., & Lyubarsky, Y. 2012, SSRv, 173, 521, doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9931-z

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, Space Science Reviews, 191, 545, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0132-9

    Kagan, D., Sironi, L., Cerutti, B., & Giannios, D. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 191, 545, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0132-9

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Komissarov, S. S. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 995, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12448.x

    2007

  15. [23]

    Kulsrud, R. M. 1998, Physics of Plasmas, 5, 1599, doi: 10.1063/1.872827 —. 2001, Earth, Planets and Space, 53, 417, doi: 10.1186/BF03353251

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Hesse, M., & Winske, D

    Kuznetsova, M. M., Hesse, M., & Winske, D. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 199, doi: 10.1029/97JA02699

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 042120, doi: 10.1063/1.4980838

    Bhattacharjee, A. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 042120, doi: 10.1063/1.4980838

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Loureiro, N. F. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.06945, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.06945

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    R., & Pridmore-Brown, D

    Lyons, L. R., & Pridmore-Brown, D. C. 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 20903, doi: 10.1029/JA095iA12p20903

    1990 doi

  20. [28]

    Favre, J. M. 2014, A&A, 570, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424083

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz387

    Ripperda, B., Porth, O., Sironi, L., & Keppens, R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz387

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd0b0

    Selvi, S., Porth, O., Ripperda, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd0b0

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, PhRvL, 128, 145102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.145102

    Sironi, L. 2022, PhRvL, 128, 145102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.145102

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Spitkovsky, A. 2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 801, Astrophysical Sources of High Energy Particles and Radiation, ed. T. Bulik, B. Rudak, & G. Madejski (AIP), 345–350, doi: 10.1063/1.2141897

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Zenitani, S., Matsukiyo, S., et al

    Totorica, S. R., Zenitani, S., Matsukiyo, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdb60

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2003, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Uzdensky, D. 2003, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 45, APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, BO2.003

    2003

  28. [36]

    A., Loureiro, N

    Uzdensky, D. A., Loureiro, N. F., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2010, PhRvL, 105, 235002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.235002

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    R., & Uzdensky, D

    Werner, G. R., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2017, ApJL, 843, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7892

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    2010, ApJL, 716, L214, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L214

    Zenitani, S., Hesse, M., & Klimas, A. 2010, ApJL, 716, L214, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L214

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e08

    Zhang, H., Sironi, L., & Giannios, D. 2021, ApJ, 922, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e08

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Zhang, H., Sironi, L., Giannios, D., & Petropoulou, M. 2023, ApJL, 956, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c 13 -2.0 2.0 -2.0 2.0 -2.0 2.0 -2.0 2.0 y [c/ωp] E ∗ z ηS23, kin Jz ηS23, MHD Jz 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 x [c/ωp] -2.0 2.0 -2.0 2.0 -2.0 2.0 -2.0 2.0...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.