Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Relativistic Magnetic Reconnection in Astrophysical Plasmas: A Powerful Mechanism of Nonthermal Emission

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Relativistic magnetic reconnection, not shocks, is the dissipation mechanism behind the fastest, brightest high-energy flares in astrophysics.

desk verdict A competent, honest review of relativistic reconnection whose Section 7 oversells weak-guide-field results as generic advantages. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02101 v2 pith:GRJF4G25 submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Lorenzo Sironi , Dmitri A. Uzdensky , Dimitrios Giannios This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords magneticreconnectionrelativisticplasmasparticleaccelerationnonthermalradiationhigh-energyastrophysicsplasmoidskineticbeamingPICsimulations
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

This review argues that relativistic magnetic reconnection—the violent rearrangement of magnetic field lines in plasmas where the magnetic energy per particle exceeds the rest-mass energy—is the missing dissipation mechanism behind fast, bright high-energy flares. It claims that kinetic simulations of collisionless current sheets show reconnection converts magnetic energy into nonthermal particles with hard broken power-law spectra, and that these spectra match observations from blazars, the Crab Nebula, pulsars, magnetars, and black-hole coronae better than shock acceleration does. The authors organize reconnection's signatures as a list of advantages: high radiative efficiency, flare timescales set by plasmoids rather than the light-crossing time, kinetic beaming, rapid polarization swings, emission beyond the synchrotron burnoff limit, coherent radio emission, and fast cosmic-ray acceleration. If the review is right, reconnection, not shocks, dominates energy release in magnetically dominated astrophysical flows.

What carries the argument

The central object is the collisionless relativistic current sheet, an idealized flat layer in which anti-parallel magnetic field lines annihilate. Its dynamics are controlled by four coupled instabilities: the tearing (plasmoid) instability, plasmoid coalescence, the relativistic drift-kink instability, and the flux-rope kink instability. The load-bearing quantitative anchor is the fast reconnection rate $v_{\rm in} \approx 0.1\, v_A$, with the closure identity $E_{\rm rec} = (v_{\rm in}/c) B_0$ that sets the electric field, the acceleration rate, and the flare timescale. The spectral machinery is a broken power law: low-energy particles are injected by X-point electric fields or Fermi reflection in snapping field lines, giving a slope that approaches $p\approx 1$, while high-energy particles in 3D gain energy by meandering between the two upstream sides of the layer at a rate proportional to the reconnection electric field, yielding a universal $p\approx 2$ slope; kinetic beaming and pitch-angle anisotropy then convert these spectra into the observed radiative signatures.

What would settle it

A sensitive MeV-band observation of a Crab-like flare whose synchrotron spectrum cuts off at or below about 16 MeV, with no hard tail from particles accelerated along the local field, would contradict the paper's burnoff-violation claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that relativistic magnetic reconnection is a reliable, widespread dissipation and particle-acceleration mechanism in magnetically dominated astrophysical plasmas. Starting from kinetic particle-in-cell simulations of collisionless current sheets, the review concludes that reconnection proceeds at a nearly unchanged inflow speed of about 0.1 times the Alfvén speed, which approaches 0.1c in the relativistic regime; this fast rate sets both the flare duration and the rate of particle energy gain. The simulations produce broken power-law particle spectra, with a hard low-energy index $p \approx \sqrt{(1+\sigma_h)/\sigma_h}$ that approaches $p\approx 1$ at high magnetization, and a universal high-energy slope $p\approx 2$ in 3D from particles that escape flux ropes and accelerate in the upstream motional electric field. From these spectra and the angular structure of the accelerated particles, the review derives radiative signatures—sub-light-crossing variability, polarization swings, super-burnoff synchrotron emission, coherent radio emission—that it says solve long-standing puzzles about GeV and TeV flares in blazars, the Crab Nebula, pulsars, magnetars, and black-hole coronae.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions assume that computer simulations of idealized, flat current sheets in small periodic boxes faithfully represent real astrophysical reconnection layers, which are far larger and shaped by global inflow, guide fields, and radiation feedback.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If reconnection is the main dissipator in magnetically dominated outflows, the shock paradigm no longer explains internal dissipation in Poynting-flux-dominated jets and winds.
  • Flare durations in blazars and the Crab Nebula are set by plasmoid sizes and sweeping kinetic beams, naturally producing variability shorter than the central engine's light-crossing time.
  • Synchrotron emission can extend above the nominal burnoff limit near $16\eta_{\rm rec}$ MeV because particles accelerated nearly along the local field suppress radiative losses, matching Crab and pulsar gamma-ray flares.
  • Reconnection in pulsar magnetospheres and black-hole coronae dissipates a few to ten percent of the available spin-down or jet power into pairs and gamma rays, powering pulsed emission and TeV flares.
  • Reconnection accelerates protons to very high energies in GRB jets, AGN jets, and Seyfert coronae, making it a candidate source of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays and the TeV neutrinos observed from Seyfert galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fast reconnection rate is as universal as claimed, global magnetohydrodynamic simulations could adopt it as a subgrid prescription and predict reconnection-powered flare statistics without resolving kinetic scales.
  • The predicted hard low-energy spectra imply that many hard X-ray tails in accreting compact objects, now often modeled as Comptonized thermal coronae, could be reconnection signatures; simultaneous X-ray timing and polarization would test this.
  • The 3D acceleration mechanism predicts a nearly energy-independent $p\approx 2$ slope above the break; varying guide-field strength and system size in simulations could map where that universality fails.
  • Kinetic beaming implies orphan gamma-ray flares without lower-energy counterparts should exist; searching existing light-curve archives for such events would test the geometry the review invokes.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This invited review synthesizes the current kinetic-physics understanding of relativistic magnetic reconnection (RR) and argues that RR is a robust, ubiquitous dissipation mechanism in magnetically dominated high-energy astrophysical plasmas. It covers the governing equations and layer geometry, the classification of reconnection layers as macroscopic case-(A) and mesoscopic case-(B), fluid- and kinetic-level descriptions of collisionless reconnection, radiative RR including QED pair production, kinetic RR embedded in MHD-scale dynamics, and global kinetic models of pulsar and black-hole magnetospheres. Section 7 then presents a list of 'unfair advantages' of RR over shocks: high radiative efficiency, hard broken power-law spectra with p approaching 1, fast variability from plasmoids and kinetic beaming, rapid polarization swings, emission above the synchrotron burnoff limit, coherent radio emission, and fast cosmic-ray acceleration. The paper closes with outstanding questions and future observational, laboratory, and computational prospects.

Significance. If the synthesis holds, this review is a valuable and timely reference for a broad community. Its strengths are the systematic assembly of PIC-based results on energy partition, particle spectra, kinetic beaming, and radiative regimes; the construction of a radiative parameter space (Fig. 7, Table 1); and the explicit mapping of reconnection scenarios to specific sources. The authors are also honest about several speculative points: the γ^-1 ion spectrum in §4.2.2.2 is labeled a conjecture, the dynamic-range explanation in §6.1 is labeled a hypothesis, and §8.1 lists unexplored regimes such as large optical depth, direction-dependent IC seed fields, and hadronic losses. The review is a synthesis rather than a derivation, so the usual circularity concern about a normalized result being forced by its own definition does not apply. The main fragility is the extrapolation from weak-guide-field Harris-sheet PIC results to astrophysical environments that are likely in the strong-guide-field case-(B) regime; this is a scope-of-evidence issue rather than an internal inconsistency.

major comments (2)
  1. [§7 and §4.2.2.1] The 'unfair advantages' list in Section 7 is asserted for RR in general, but the supporting results for hard p≈1 spectra and for high-energy acceleration to γ_max∼η_rec(ω_c L/c) are mostly obtained in the weak- or vanishing-guide-field regime, as stated in the caveat in §4.2.2.1. Section 3.2 classifies case-(B) layers—kink, Kelvin-Helmholtz, Rayleigh-Taylor, and turbulence-generated layers—as having B_g ≳ B_0, and §4.2.2.1 explicitly states that stronger guide fields steepen the power-law slopes and that a comprehensive understanding of power-law formation in strong guide fields is still lacking. Section 7 then applies the hard p<2 spectra and multi-TeV/PeV acceleration claims to blazar zones, X-ray binary coronae, Seyfert coronae, and turbulent PWNe, all plausibly in the strong-guide-field regime. This is a mismatch between the scoped evidence and the scope of the central claim. A concrete remedy would be to give the p and γ_max dependences on B_g/B_0 and to locate the source environments in that plane, or to explicitly restrict the 'unfair advantages' to case-(A) weak-guide-field layers.
  2. [§6.1 and §7] The claim in Section 7 that large-scale RR layers can accelerate protons to 10^20 eV and produce TeV neutrinos relies on the 3D weak-guide-field acceleration physics of §4.2.2.1. However, §6.1 states that PIC studies of reconnection layers produced by MHD-scale dynamics, which operate in the moderate-to-strong guide-field regime, do not yet achieve Lorentz factors much greater than σ_c,s, and it attributes this shortfall only conjecturally to limited dynamic range. The phrase 'we hypothesize that larger boxes will demonstrate...' in §6.1 shows that this is not an established result. As written, the fast cosmic-ray acceleration bullet of Section 7 presents an unproven extrapolation as a settled advantage. The review should either clearly label the cosmic-ray claim as contingent on the weak-guide-field, larger-box conjecture or provide supporting evidence for strong-guide-field high-energy ion acceleration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5] The caption and axis labels of Figure 5 contain garbled LaTeX fragments (e.g., '300d_iX194d_i' and '/uni03B5th') that need to be cleaned before publication.
  2. [§4.1] The assertion that the normalized reconnection rate of about 0.1 is 'universal' should be paired with an explicit statement that this is the normalized rate v_in/v_A, while the absolute rate in strongly magnetized layers is reduced by the guide-field dependence of the Alfvén speed in Eq. (10); otherwise the text can be read as claiming a universal absolute rate.
  3. [§7] The 'High efficiency' bullet uses 'radiative efficiency' and 'dissipative efficiency' interchangeably; these are different quantities, and the sentence 'The dissipative efficiency of case-(A) reconnection layers... can approach unity' should be distinguished from the 3–50% radiative efficiencies quoted for GRB jets.
  4. [Figure 7 and Table 1] The small boxes in Figure 7 for individual sources are difficult to distinguish visually, and Table 1 does not list the assumed guide-field strength for each source; adding B_g/B_0 as a column would directly connect the radiative parameter space to the guide-field caveat raised in §4.2.2.1.
  5. [§3.2] The sentence describing the 'ballerina skirt'-wobbling sheet is slightly repetitive in the cases of the oblique-pulsar current sheet and the striped wind; a single collected description would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: a synthesis supported by independently reproduced PIC results and parameter-free analytical models, with guide-field and dynamic-range scope limits explicitly disclosed.

full rationale

This is an Annual Reviews synthesis, not a derivation paper, so the core circularity patterns (result forced by its own normalization, fitted parameter renamed as prediction) do not arise. The central quantitative claims are (i) the universal reconnection rate v_in ~ 0.1 v_A, presented in Section 4.1 as a survey of simulations and observations rather than derived from review inputs; (ii) spectral slopes p< ~ 1 and p> ~ 2, attributed respectively to the parameter-free analytical model of Uzdensky (2022) and to the quasi-steady-state trapping model of Zhang et al. (2023a), whose ingredients (t_esc ~ t_acc and the gamma^-1 free-particle spectrum) are particle-tracking diagnostics measured independently of the target spectral slope; and (iii) radiative scales (burnoff limit, gamma_max) that legitimately inherit the empirical input eta_rec = 0.1. The Section 7 estimates therefore fold in measured inputs, which is standard physics rather than circularity. Self-citation is frequent but not load-bearing in the circular sense: the watershed 2014-2015 claim that RR is an efficient accelerator is explicitly credited to 'three independent groups' including the non-author group of Guo et al. (2014, 2015), and the analytical models are parameter-free with stated assumptions. The paper also discloses its scope limits: Section 4.2.2.1 states 'most of the findings discussed in this subsection apply to cases with vanishing or weak guide fields' and 'a comprehensive understanding of the physics of power-law formation in the presence of strong guide fields is still lacking'; Section 6.1 labels the gamma much greater than sigma_c,s extrapolation for MHD-driven layers a 'hypothesis' pending larger dynamic range; Section 8.2 admits the theoretical interpretation is 'often not unique'. Section 7's 'unfair advantages' do generalize weak-guide-field findings to strong-guide-field environments without restating these caveats, but that is a scoping/overgeneralization risk for a correctness review, not a circular reduction. No equation in the review reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review introduces no new fitted quantities or entities; it imports η_rec and the quoted power-law slopes from the simulation literature. Its axioms are the modeling assumptions that make the cited simulations relevant to astrophysical sources.

free parameters (1)
  • η_rec ≈ v_in/c (normalized collisionless reconnection rate) = ≈0.1
    Imported from PIC simulations as a universal constant; it sets flare durations, maximum particle energies, and the burnoff limit ϵ_rad ≈ 16η_rec MeV used throughout Sections 5 and 7.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ideal condition E + <v_s>/c × B = 0 must be violated at the reconnection site, and the generalized Ohm's law describes the collisionless breaking of flux freezing.
    Foundational setup of Section 2.1; the review assumes kinetic (Vlasov-Maxwell) physics rather than resistive MHD applies in dilute astrophysical plasmas.
  • domain assumption Local Harris-sheet PIC simulations in 2D or 3D periodic boxes represent the quasi-steady state of astrophysical relativistic reconnection layers.
    Section 4.2 reports results 'in the symmetric case' and Section 6.1 concedes limited dynamic range; the quantitative power-law slopes and reconnection rate inherit this premise.
  • domain assumption The normalized collisionless reconnection rate is approximately universal, v_in ≈ 0.1 v_A.
    Section 4.1 states this universality across kinetic simulations; it sets flare timescales, maximum particle energies, and radiative limits in Sections 5 and 7.
  • domain assumption Published PIC simulations cited here are correctly implemented and mutually consistent.
    The review provides no code, convergence data, or independent re-analysis; it treats the cited simulation literature as ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic Magnetic Reconnection in Astrophysical Plasmas: A Powerful Mechanism of Nonthermal Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRJF4G25

@misc{pith2026250602101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic Magnetic Reconnection in Astrophysical Plasmas: A Powerful Mechanism of Nonthermal Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRJF4G25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02101}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic reconnection -- a fundamental plasma physics process, where magnetic field lines of opposite polarity annihilate -- is invoked in astrophysical plasmas as a powerful mechanism of nonthermal particle acceleration, able to explain fast-evolving, bright high-energy flares. Near black holes and neutron stars, reconnection occurs in the ``relativistic'' regime, in which the mean magnetic energy per particle exceeds the rest mass energy. This review reports recent advances in our understanding of the kinetic physics of relativistic reconnection: (1) Kinetic simulations have elucidated the physics of plasma heating and nonthermal particle acceleration in relativistic reconnection; (2) The physics of radiative relativistic reconnection, with its self-consistent interplay between photons and reconnection-accelerated particles -- a peculiarity of luminous, high-energy astrophysical sources -- is the new frontier of research; (3) Relativistic reconnection plays a key role in global models of high-energy sources, both in terms of global-scale layers, as well as of reconnection sites generated as a byproduct of local magnetohydrodynamic instabilities. We summarize themes of active investigation and future directions, emphasizing the role of upcoming observational capabilities, laboratory experiments, and new computational tools.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Reconnection-Driven Turbulent Fluctuations in the Magnetically Dominated Collisionless Regime

    astro-ph.GA 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In 3D kinetic simulations, reconnection-driven velocity fluctuations scale as separation^(1/3), while magnetic fluctuations scale as separation^(0.6–0.8) and show strong outflow-directed intermittency.

  2. The role of dissipation distance on reconnection-driven multi-messenger signals from blazar jets

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In blazars, the location where magnetic reconnection dissipates jet energy determines the observed spectrum and neutrino output, bridging BL Lacs and FSRQs in a single model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abdo AA, Ackermann M, Ajello M, Allafort A, Baldini L, et al. 2011. Science 331:739

    2011

  2. [2]

    Abdo AA, Ackermann M, Ajello M, Atwood WB, Axelsson M, et al. 2010. 187:460--494

    2010

  3. [3]

    Abdo AA, Ajello M, Allafort A, Baldini L, Ballet J, et al. 2013. 208:17

    2013

  4. [4]

    Abramowski A, Acero F, Aharonian F, Akhperjanian AG, Anton G, et al. 2012. 746:151

    2012

  5. [5]

    Ackermann M, Anantua R, Asano K, Baldini L, Barbiellini G, et al. 2016. 824:L20

    2016

  6. [6]

    Aharonian F, Akhperjanian AG, Bazer-Bachi AR, Behera B, Beilicke M, et al. 2007. 664:L71--L74

    2007

  7. [7]

    Aharonian F, Akhperjanian AG, Bazer-Bachi AR, Beilicke M, Benbow W, et al. 2006. Science 314:1424--1427

    2006

  8. [8]

    Albert J, Aliu E, Anderhub H, Antoranz P, Armada A, et al. 2007. 669:862--883

    2007

Show all 300 references
  1. [9]

    Alfv \'e n H. 1943. Arkiv for Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik 29B:1--7

    1943

  2. [10]

    Alves EP, Zrake J, Fiuza F. 2018. 121:245101

    2018

  3. [11]

    Appl S, Lery T, Baty H. 2000. 355:818--828

    2000

  4. [12]

    Asenjo FA, Comisso L. 2017. Phys. Rev. D 96:123004

    2017

  5. [13]

    Babcock HW. 1961. 133:572

    1961

  6. [14]

    Bacchini F, Arzamasskiy L, Zhdankin V, Werner GR, Begelman MC, Uzdensky DA. 2022. 938:86

    2022

  7. [15]

    Bacchini F, Ripperda B, Philippov AA, Parfrey K. 2020. 251:10

    2020

  8. [16]

    Baganoff FK, Bautz MW, Brandt WN, Chartas G, Feigelson ED, et al. 2001. 413:45--48

    2001

  9. [17]

    Bai XN, Spitkovsky A. 2010. 715:1282--1301

    2010

  10. [18]

    Ball D, Sironi L, \"O zel F. 2018. 862:80

    2018

  11. [19]

    Ball D, Sironi L, \"O zel F. 2019. 884:57

    2019

  12. [20]

    Barniol Duran R, Tchekhovskoy A, Giannios D. 2017. 469:4957--4978

    2017

  13. [21]

    Bateman G. 1978. MHD instabilities

    1978

  14. [22]

    Begelman MC. 1998. 493:291--300

    1998

  15. [23]

    B \'e gu \'e D, Pe'er A, Lyubarsky Y. 2017. 467:2594--2611

    2017

  16. [24]

    Bell AR. 1978. 182:147--156

    1978

  17. [25]

    Beloborodov AM. 2017. 850:141

    2017

  18. [26]

    Beloborodov AM. 2021. 921:92

    2021

  19. [27]

    Belyaev MA. 2015. 36:37--49

    2015

  20. [28]

    Bessho N, Bhattacharjee A. 2005. 95:245001

    2005

  21. [29]

    Bessho N, Bhattacharjee A. 2007. Physics of Plasmas 14:056503

    2007

  22. [30]

    Bessho N, Bhattacharjee A. 2012. 750:129

    2012

  23. [31]

    Bhattacharjee A, Huang YM, Yang H, Rogers B. 2009. Physics of Plasmas 16:112102

    2009

  24. [32]

    Birdsall CK, Langdon AB. 1991. Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation

    1991

  25. [33]

    Birn J, Drake JF, Shay MA, Rogers BN, Denton RE, et al. 2001. 106:3715--3720

    2001

  26. [34]

    Blackman EG, Field GB. 1994. 72:494--497

    1994

  27. [35]

    Blandford R, Eichler D. 1987. 154:1--+

    1987

  28. [36]

    Blandford RD, Ostriker JP. 1978. 221:L29--L32

    1978

  29. [37]

    Blandford RD, Payne DG. 1982. 199:883--903

    1982

  30. [38]

    Blandford RD, Znajek RL. 1977. MNRAS 179:433--456

    1977

  31. [39]

    Blinov D, Pavlidou V, Papadakis I, Kiehlmann S, Panopoulou G, et al. 2015. 453:1669--1683

    2015

  32. [40]

    Bobrova NA, Bulanov SV, Sakai JI, Sugiyama D. 2001. Physics of Plasmas 8:759--768

    2001

  33. [41]

    Bogovalov SV. 1999. 349:1017--1026

    1999

  34. [42]

    Bozzo E, Amati L, Baumgartner W, Chang TC, Cordier B, et al. 2024. Universe 10:187

    2024

  35. [43]

    Bransgrove A, Beloborodov AM, Levin Y. 2023. 958:L9

    2023

  36. [44]

    Bransgrove A, Ripperda B, Philippov A. 2021. 127:055101

    2021

  37. [45]

    Bromberg O, Tchekhovskoy A. 2016. 456:1739--1760

    2016

  38. [46]

    Bucciantini N, Del Zanna L. 2013. 428:71--85

    2013

  39. [47]

    Buehler R, Scargle JD, Blandford RD, Baldini L, Baring MG, et al. 2012. 749:26

    2012

  40. [48]

    Cai HJ, Lee LC. 1997. Physics of Plasmas 4:509--520

    1997

  41. [49]

    Caprioli D. 2015. Cosmic-ray acceleration and propagation . In 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), vol. 34 of International Cosmic Ray Conference

    2015

  42. [50]

    Carrasco FL, Reula OA. 2017. 96:063006

    2017

  43. [51]

    Cassak PA, Liu YH, Shay MA. 2017. Journal of Plasma Physics 83:715830501

    2017

  44. [52]

    Celotti A, Ghisellini G. 2008. 385:283--300

    2008

  45. [53]

    Cerutti B, Philippov A, Parfrey K, Spitkovsky A. 2015. 448:606--619

    2015

  46. [54]

    Cerutti B, Philippov AA. 2017. 607:A134

    2017

  47. [55]

    Cerutti B, Philippov AA, Dubus G. 2020. 642:A204

    2020

  48. [56]

    Cerutti B, Philippov AA, Spitkovsky A. 2016. 457:2401--2414

    2016

  49. [57]

    Cerutti B, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC. 2012 a . 746:148

    2012

  50. [58]

    Cerutti B, Werner GR, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC. 2012 b . 754:L33

    2012

  51. [59]

    Cerutti B, Werner GR, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC. 2013. 770:147

    2013

  52. [60]

    Cerutti B, Werner GR, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC. 2014 a . Physics of Plasmas 21:056501

    2014

  53. [61]

    Cerutti B, Werner GR, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC. 2014 b . 782:104

    2014

  54. [62]

    Chael A, Rowan M, Narayan R, Johnson M, Sironi L. 2018. 478:5209--5229

    2018

  55. [63]

    Chashkina A, Bromberg O, Levinson A. 2021. 508:1241--1252

    2021

  56. [64]

    Chen AY, Beloborodov AM. 2014. 795:L22

    2014

  57. [65]

    Chen AY, Uzdensky D, Dexter J. 2023. 944:173

    2023

  58. [66]

    Chernoglazov A, Hakobyan H, Philippov A. 2023. 959:122

    2023

  59. [67]

    Chien A, Gao L, Ji H, Yuan X, Blackman EG, et al. 2019. Physics of Plasmas 26:062113

    2019

  60. [68]

    Chien A, Gao L, Zhang S, Ji H, Blackman EG, et al. 2023. Nature Physics 19:254--262

    2023

  61. [69]

    Christie IM, Lalakos A, Tchekhovskoy A, Fern \'a ndez R, Foucart F, et al. 2019 a . 490:4811--4825

    2019

  62. [70]

    Christie IM, Petropoulou M, Sironi L, Giannios D. 2019 b . 482:65--82

    2019

  63. [71]

    Comisso L. 2024. 972:9

    2024

  64. [72]

    Comisso L, Asenjo FA. 2014. 113:045001

    2014

  65. [73]

    Comisso L, Asenjo FA. 2020. Phys. Rev. D 102:023032

    2020

  66. [74]

    Comisso L, Asenjo FA. 2021. 103:023014

    2021

  67. [75]

    Comisso L, Bhattacharjee A. 2016. Journal of Plasma Physics 82:595820601

    2016

  68. [76]

    Comisso L, Huang YM, Lingam M, Hirvijoki E, Bhattacharjee A. 2018. 854:103

    2018

  69. [77]

    Comisso L, Jiang B. 2023. 959:137

    2023

  70. [78]

    Comisso L, Lingam M, Huang YM, Bhattacharjee A. 2016. Physics of Plasmas 23:100702

    2016

  71. [79]

    Comisso L, Sironi L. 2018. 121:255101

    2018

  72. [80]

    Comisso L, Sironi L. 2019. 886:122

    2019

  73. [81]

    Comisso L, Sironi L. 2021. 127:255102

    2021

  74. [82]

    Comisso L, Sobacchi E, Sironi L. 2020. 895:L40

    2020

  75. [83]

    Contopoulos I, Kazanas D, Fendt C. 1999. 511:351--358

    1999

  76. [84]

    Cort \'e s J, Sironi L. 2022. 933:140

    2022

  77. [85]

    Cort \'e s J, Sironi L. 2024. 534:2551--2565

    2024

  78. [86]

    Crinquand B, Cerutti B, Dubus G, Parfrey K, Philippov A. 2021. 650:A163

    2021

  79. [87]

    Crinquand B, Cerutti B, Dubus G, Parfrey K, Philippov A. 2022. 129:205101

    2022

  80. [88]

    Crinquand B, Cerutti B, Philippov A, Parfrey K, Dubus G. 2020. 124:145101

    2020

  81. [89]

    Das U, Begelman MC. 2019. 482:2107--2131

    2019

  82. [90]

    Datta R, Chandler K, Myers CE, Chittenden JP, Crilly AJ, et al. 2024. 132:155102

    2024

  83. [91]

    Davelaar J, Philippov AA, Bromberg O, Singh CB. 2020. 896:L31

    2020

  84. [92]

    Davelaar J, Ripperda B, Sironi L, Philippov AA, Olivares H, et al. 2023. 959:L3

    2023

  85. [93]

    de Jager OC, Harding AK. 1992. ApJ 396:161--172

    1992

  86. [94]

    Del Zanna L, Zanotti O, Bucciantini N, Londrillo P. 2007. 473:11--30

    2007

  87. [95]

    Di Matteo T. 1998. 299:L15--l20

    1998

  88. [96]

    Dorman VL, Kulsrud RM. 1995. 449:777

    1995

  89. [97]

    Drenkhahn G. 2002. 387:714--724

    2002

  90. [98]

    Drenkhahn G, Spruit HC. 2002. 391:1141--1153

    2002

  91. [99]

    Drury LO. 1983. Reports on Progress in Physics 46:973--1027

    1983

  92. [100]

    Egedal J, Ng J, Le A, Daughton W, Wetherton B, et al. 2019. 123:225101

    2019

  93. [101]

    Eichler D. 1993. 419:111

    1993

  94. [102]

    El Mellah I, Cerutti B, Crinquand B. 2023. 677:A67

    2023

  95. [103]

    El Mellah I, Cerutti B, Crinquand B, Parfrey K. 2022. 663:A169

    2022

  96. [104]

    Figueiredo E, Cerutti B, Mehlhaff J, Scepi N. 2024. 690:A389

    2024

  97. [105]

    Fiksel G, Fox W, Bhattacharjee A, Barnak DH, Chang PY, et al. 2014. 113:105003

    2014

  98. [106]

    Fiksel G, Fox W, Rosenberg MJ, Schaeffer DB, Matteucci J, Bhattacharjee A. 2021. Journal of Plasma Physics 87:905870411

    2021

  99. [107]

    Fiorillo DFG, Petropoulou M, Comisso L, Peretti E, Sironi L. 2024. 961:L14

    2024

  100. [108]

    Fox W, Fiksel G, Schaeffer DB, Haberberger D, Matteucci J, et al. 2021. arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2112.03316

    2021 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Fox W, Schaeffer DB, Rosenberg MJ, Fiksel G, Matteucci J, et al. 2020. arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2003.06351

    2020 arXiv

  102. [110]

    French O, Guo F, Zhang Q, Uzdensky DA. 2023. 948:19

    2023

  103. [111]

    Fujimoto K, Sydora RD. 2008. Computer Physics Communications 178:915--923

    2008

  104. [112]

    Galeev AA, Rosner R, Vaiana GS. 1979. 229:318--326

    1979

  105. [113]

    Galishnikova A, Philippov A, Quataert E, Bacchini F, Parfrey K, Ripperda B. 2023. 130:115201

    2023

  106. [114]

    Genzel R, Sch \"o del R, Ott T, Eckart A, Alexander T, et al. 2003. 425:934--937

    2003

  107. [115]

    Giannios D. 2006. 457:763--770

    2006

  108. [116]

    Giannios D. 2008. A&A 480:305--312

    2008

  109. [117]

    Giannios D. 2010. 408:L46--L50

    2010

  110. [118]

    Giannios D. 2012. 422:3092--3098

    2012

  111. [119]

    Giannios D. 2013. 431:355--363

    2013

  112. [120]

    Giannios D, Spruit HC. 2006. 450:887--898

    2006

  113. [121]

    Giannios D, Uzdensky DA. 2019. 484:1378--1389

    2019

  114. [122]

    Giannios D, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC. 2009. 395:L29--L33

    2009

  115. [123]

    Gill R, Granot J, Beniamini P. 2020. 499:1356--1372

    2020

  116. [124]

    Goldreich P, Sridhar S. 1995. 438:763

    1995

  117. [125]

    Goodbred M, Liu YH. 2022. 129:265101

    2022

  118. [126]

    Goodman J, Uzdensky D. 2008. 688:555--558

    2008

  119. [127]

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter R, Amorim A, Baub \"o ck M, Berger JP, et al. 2018. 618:L10

    2018

  120. [128]

    Groger W, Hakobyan H, Sironi L. 2024. arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2412.09541

    2024 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Gro s elj D, Hakobyan H, Beloborodov AM, Sironi L, Philippov A. 2024. 132:085202

    2024

  122. [130]

    Gro s elj D, Sironi L, Beloborodov AM. 2022. 933:74

    2022

  123. [131]

    Gu YJ, Pegoraro F, Sasorov V P, Golovin D, Yogo A, et al. 2019. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS 9

    2019

  124. [132]

    Guo F, Li H, Daughton W, Liu YH. 2014. 113:155005

    2014

  125. [133]

    Guo F, Li X, Daughton W, Kilian P, Li H, et al. 2019. 879:L23

    2019

  126. [134]

    Guo F, Li X, Daughton W, Li H, Kilian P, et al. 2021. 919:111

    2021

  127. [135]

    Guo F, Li X, Li H, Daughton W, Zhang B, et al. 2016. 818:L9

    2016

  128. [136]

    Guo F, Liu YH, Daughton W, Li H. 2015. 806:167

    2015

  129. [137]

    Guo F, Liu YH, Li X, Li H, Daughton W, Kilian P. 2020. Physics of Plasmas 27:080501

    2020

  130. [138]

    Guo F, Liu YH, Zenitani S, Hoshino M. 2024. 220:43

    2024

  131. [139]

    Gupta S, Sridhar N, Sironi L. 2024. 527:6065--6075

    2024

  132. [140]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Aharonian F, Ait Benkhali F, Aschersleben J, Ashkar H, et al. 2023. Nature Astronomy 7:1341--1350

    2023

  133. [141]

    Hakobyan H, Petropoulou M, Spitkovsky A, Sironi L. 2021. 912:48

    2021

  134. [142]

    Hakobyan H, Philippov A, Spitkovsky A. 2019. 877:53

    2019

  135. [143]

    Hakobyan H, Philippov A, Spitkovsky A. 2023 a . 943:105

    2023

  136. [144]

    Hakobyan H, Ripperda B, Philippov AA. 2023 b . 943:L29

    2023

  137. [145]

    Harris EG. 1962. Il Nuovo Cimento 23:115--121

    1962

  138. [146]

    Hartman RC, Bertsch DL, Bloom SD, Chen AW, Deines-Jones P, et al. 1999. 123:79--202

    1999

  139. [147]

    Hesse M, Cassak PA. 2020. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 125:e25935

    2020

  140. [148]

    Hesse M, Zenitani S. 2007. Physics of Plasmas 14:112102

    2007

  141. [149]

    Horiuchi R, Sato T. 1994. Physics of Plasmas 1:3587--3597

    1994

  142. [150]

    Hoshino M, Lyubarsky Y. 2012. SSRv 173:521--533

    2012

  143. [151]

    Hosking DN, Sironi L. 2020. 900:L23

    2020

  144. [152]

    Hu R, Beloborodov AM. 2022. 939:42

    2022

  145. [153]

    Hurley K, Boggs SE, Smith DM, Duncan RC, Lin R, et al. 2005. 434:1098--1103

    2005

  146. [154]

    IceCube Collaboration , Abbasi R, Ackermann M, Adams J, Aguilar JA, et al. 2022. Science 378:538--543

    2022

  147. [155]

    Igumenshchev IV. 2008. 677:317--326

    2008

  148. [156]

    Igumenshchev IV, Narayan R, Abramowicz MA. 2003. 592:1042--1059

    2003

  149. [157]

    Israel W. 1967. Physical Review 164:1776--1779

    1967

  150. [158]

    Jaroschek CH, Hoshino M. 2009. 103:075002

    2009

  151. [159]

    Jaroschek CH, Lesch H, Treumann RA. 2004. 605:L9--L12

    2004

  152. [160]

    Ji H, Daughton W, Jara-Almonte J, Le A, Stanier A, Yoo J. 2022. Nature Reviews Physics 4:263--282

    2022

  153. [161]

    Ji H, Gao L, Pomraning G, Sakai K, Guo F, et al. 2024. Physics of Plasmas 31:102112

    2024

  154. [162]

    J \"u ttner F. 1911. Annalen der Physik 339:856--882

    1911

  155. [163]

    Kagan D, Milosavljevi \'c M, Spitkovsky A. 2013. 774:41

    2013

  156. [164]

    Kagan D, Nakar E, Piran T. 2016. 826:221

    2016

  157. [165]

    Kagan D, Sironi L, Cerutti B, Giannios D. 2015. Space Science Reviews 191:545--573

    2015

  158. [166]

    Kalapotharakos C, Brambilla G, Timokhin A, Harding AK, Kazanas D. 2018. 857:44

    2018

  159. [167]

    Kaufman E, Christie IM, Lalakos A, Tchekhovskoy A, Giannios D. 2023. 954:40

    2023

  160. [168]

    Kennel CF, Coroniti FV. 1984 a . ApJ 283:710--730

    1984

  161. [169]

    Kennel CF, Coroniti FV. 1984 b . 283:694--709

    1984

  162. [170]

    Kilian P, Li X, Guo F, Li H. 2020. 899:151

    2020

  163. [171]

    Kirk JG. 2004. 92:181101

    2004

  164. [172]

    Kirk JG, Skj raasen O. 2003. 591:366--379

    2003

  165. [173]

    Komissarov SS. 2004. 350:427--448

    2004

  166. [174]

    Komissarov SS. 2006. 367:19--31

    2006

  167. [175]

    Komissarov SS. 2007. 382:995--1004

    2007

  168. [176]

    Komissarov SS, McKinney JC. 2007. 377:L49--L53

    2007

  169. [177]

    Kostenko A, Thompson C. 2018. 869:44

    2018

  170. [178]

    Kumar P, Zhang B. 2015. 561:1--109

    2015

  171. [179]

    Kuznetsova MM, Hesse M, Winske D. 1998. 103:199--214

    1998

  172. [180]

    Larrabee DA, Lovelace RVE, Romanova MM. 2003. 586:72--78

    2003

  173. [181]

    Law KFF, Bailly-Grandvaux M, Morace A, Sakata S, Matsuo K, et al. 2016. Applied Physics Letters 108:091104

    2016

  174. [182]

    Li CK, S \'e guin FH, Frenje JA, Rygg JR, Petrasso RD, et al. 2007. 99:055001

    2007

  175. [183]

    Liu YH, Cassak P, Li X, Hesse M, Lin SC, Genestreti K. 2022. Communications Physics 5:97

    2022

  176. [184]

    Loureiro NF, Boldyrev S. 2017. 118:245101

    2017

  177. [185]

    Loureiro NF, Schekochihin AA, Cowley SC. 2007. Physics of Plasmas 14:100703--100703

    2007

  178. [186]

    Lovelace RVE, Romanova MM, Bisnovatyi-Kogan GS. 1995. 275:244--254

    1995

  179. [187]

    Lu RS, Asada K, Krichbaum TP, Park J, Tazaki F, et al. 2023. 616:686--690

    2023

  180. [188]

    Lu Y, Guo F, Kilian P, Li H, Huang C, Liang E. 2021. 908:147

    2021

  181. [189]

    Lyons LR, Pridmore-Brown DC. 1990. 95:20903--20909

    1990

  182. [190]

    Lyubarskii YE. 1996. 311:172--178

    1996

  183. [191]

    Lyubarsky Y. 2019. 483:1731--1736

    2019

  184. [192]

    Lyubarsky Y. 2020. 897:1

    2020

  185. [193]

    Lyubarsky Y, Kirk JG. 2001. 547:437--448

    2001

  186. [194]

    Lyubarsky Y, Liverts M. 2008. 682:1436--1442

    2008

  187. [195]

    Lyubarsky YE. 2005. MNRAS 358:113--119

    2005

  188. [196]

    Lyubarsky YE. 2010. MNRAS 402:353--361

    2010

  189. [197]

    Lyutikov M. 2019. 483:2766--2777

    2019

  190. [198]

    Lyutikov M, Blandford R. 2003. arXiv e-prints :astro--ph/0312347

    2003

  191. [199]

    Lyutikov M, Komissarov S, Sironi L, Porth O. 2018. Journal of Plasma Physics 84:635840201

    2018

  192. [200]

    Lyutikov M, McKinney JC. 2011. 84:084019

    2011

  193. [201]

    Lyutikov M, Sironi L, Komissarov SS, Porth O. 2017 a . Journal of Plasma Physics 83:635830601

    2017

  194. [202]

    Lyutikov M, Sironi L, Komissarov SS, Porth O. 2017 b . Journal of Plasma Physics 83:635830602

    2017

  195. [203]

    Lyutikov M, Temim T, Komissarov S, Slane P, Sironi L, Comisso L. 2019. 489:2403--2416

    2019

  196. [204]

    Lyutikov M, Uzdensky D. 2003. ApJ 589:893--901

    2003

  197. [205]

    Mahlmann JF, Levinson A, Aloy MA. 2020. 494:4203--4225

    2020

  198. [206]

    Mahlmann JF, Philippov AA, Levinson A, Spitkovsky A, Hakobyan H. 2022. 932:L20

    2022

  199. [207]

    Mahlmann JF, Philippov AA, Mewes V, Ripperda B, Most ER, Sironi L. 2023. 947:L34

    2023

  200. [208]

    Mallet A, Schekochihin AA, Chandran BDG. 2017. 468:4862--4871

    2017

  201. [209]

    Marcowith A, Bret A, Bykov A, Dieckman ME, O'C Drury L, et al. 2016. Reports on Progress in Physics 79:046901

    2016

  202. [210]

    Mbarek R, Haggerty C, Sironi L, Shay M, Caprioli D. 2022. 128:145101

    2022

  203. [211]

    Mbarek R, Philippov A, Chernoglazov A, Levinson A, Mushotzky R. 2024. 109:L101306

    2024

  204. [212]

    McKinney JC. 2006. 368:L30--L34

    2006

  205. [213]

    McKinney JC, Blandford RD. 2009. 394:L126--L130

    2009

  206. [214]

    McKinney JC, Uzdensky DA. 2012. 419:573--607

    2012

  207. [215]

    Mehlhaff J, Werner G, Cerutti B, Uzdensky D, Begelman M. 2024. 527:11587--11626

    2024

  208. [216]

    Mehlhaff JM, Werner GR, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC. 2020. 498:799--820

    2020

  209. [217]

    Mehlhaff JM, Werner GR, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC. 2021. 508:4532--4572

    2021

  210. [218]

    Meier DL, Koide S, Uchida Y. 2001. Science 291:84--92

    2001

  211. [219]

    Melzani M, Walder R, Folini D, Winisdoerffer C, Favre JM. 2014 a . 570:A111

    2014

  212. [220]

    Melzani M, Walder R, Folini D, Winisdoerffer C, Favre JM. 2014 b . 570:A112

    2014

  213. [221]

    Metzger BD, Giannios D, Thompson TA, Bucciantini N, Quataert E. 2011. 413:2031--2056

    2011

  214. [222]

    Mignone A, Rossi P, Bodo G, Ferrari A, Massaglia S. 2010. 402:7--12

    2010

  215. [223]

    Miller KA, Stone JM. 2000. 534:398--419

    2000

  216. [224]

    Mizuno Y, Lyubarsky Y, Nishikawa KI, Hardee PE. 2009. 700:684--693

    2009

  217. [225]

    Mizuno Y, Lyubarsky Y, Nishikawa KI, Hardee PE. 2011. 728:90

    2011

  218. [226]

    Mizuno Y, Lyubarsky Y, Nishikawa KI, Hardee PE. 2012. 757:16

    2012

  219. [227]

    Moll R, Spruit HC, Obergaulinger M. 2008. 492:621--630

    2008

  220. [228]

    Moran A, Sironi L, Levis A, Ripperda B, Most ER, Selvi S. 2025. 978:L45

    2025

  221. [229]

    Most ER, Noronha J, Philippov AA. 2022. 514:4989--5003

    2022

  222. [230]

    Most ER, Philippov AA. 2020. 893:L6

    2020

  223. [231]

    Most ER, Philippov AA. 2022. 515:2710--2724

    2022

  224. [232]

    Most ER, Philippov AA. 2023 a . 956:L33

    2023

  225. [233]

    Most ER, Philippov AA. 2023 b . 130:245201

    2023

  226. [234]

    Nakar E, Piran T. 2002. 572:L139--L142

    2002

  227. [235]

    Nalewajko K, Begelman MC. 2012. 427:2480--2486

    2012

  228. [236]

    Nalewajko K, Begelman MC, Cerutti B, Uzdensky DA, Sikora M. 2012. 425:2519--2529

    2012

  229. [237]

    Nalewajko K, Giannios D, Begelman MC, Uzdensky DA, Sikora M. 2011. 413:333--346

    2011

  230. [238]

    Nalewajko K, Uzdensky DA, Cerutti B, Werner GR, Begelman MC. 2015. 815:101

    2015

  231. [239]

    Nalewajko K, Yuan Y, Chru \'s li \'n ska M. 2018. Journal of Plasma Physics 84:755840301

    2018

  232. [240]

    Narayan R, Igumenshchev IV, Abramowicz MA. 2003. 55:L69--L72

    2003

  233. [241]

    Narayan R, Kumar P, Tchekhovskoy A. 2011. MNRAS 416:2193--2201

    2011

  234. [242]

    a ttil \

    N \"a ttil \"a J. 2024. Nature Communications 15:7026

    2024

  235. [243]

    Neilsen J, Nowak MA, Gammie C, Dexter J, Markoff S, et al. 2013. 774:42

    2013

  236. [244]

    Nilson PM, Willingale L, Kaluza MC, Kamperidis C, Minardi S, et al. 2006. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 97

    2006

  237. [245]

    Niv I, Bromberg O, Levinson A, Cerutti B, Crinquand B. 2023. 526:2709--2716

    2023

  238. [246]

    Ortu \ n o-Mac \' as J, Nalewajko K, Uzdensky DA, Begelman MC, Werner GR, et al. 2022. 931:137

    2022

  239. [247]

    Parfrey K, Beloborodov AM, Hui L. 2012. 754:L12

    2012

  240. [248]

    Parfrey K, Beloborodov AM, Hui L. 2013. 774:92

    2013

  241. [249]

    Parfrey K, Giannios D, Beloborodov AM. 2015. 446:L61--L65

    2015

  242. [250]

    Parfrey K, Philippov A, Cerutti B. 2019. 122:035101

    2019

  243. [251]

    Parfrey K, Tchekhovskoy A. 2017. 851:L34

    2017

  244. [252]

    Parfrey K, Tchekhovskoy A. 2024. 975:57

    2024

  245. [253]

    Parker EN. 1957. 62:509--520

    1957

  246. [254]

    Pegoraro F. 2012. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 99:35001

    2012

  247. [255]

    Pei XX, Zhong JY, Sakawa Y, Zhang Z, Zhang K, et al. 2016. Physics of Plasmas 23:032125

    2016

  248. [256]

    P \'e tri J, Kirk JG. 2005. 627:L37--L40

    2005

  249. [257]

    Petropoulou M, Giannios D, Sironi L. 2016. 462:3325--3343

    2016

  250. [258]

    Petropoulou M, Sironi L. 2018. 481:5687--5701

    2018

  251. [259]

    Petropoulou M, Sironi L, Spitkovsky A, Giannios D. 2019. 880:37

    2019

  252. [260]

    Petschek HE. 1964. Magnetic Field Annihilation . In NASA Special Publication, ed. WN Hess , vol. 50. 425

    1964

  253. [261]

    Philippov A, Uzdensky DA, Spitkovsky A, Cerutti B. 2019. 876:L6

    2019

  254. [262]

    Philippov AA, Spitkovsky A. 2014. 785:L33

    2014

  255. [263]

    Philippov AA, Spitkovsky A. 2018. 855:94

    2018

  256. [264]

    Philippov AA, Spitkovsky A, Cerutti B. 2015. 801:L19

    2015

  257. [265]

    Ping Y, Zhong J, Wang X, Han B, Sun W, et al. 2023. Nature Physics 19:263--270

    2023

  258. [266]

    Porth O, Komissarov SS. 2015. 452:1089--1104

    2015

  259. [267]

    Porth O, Mizuno Y, Younsi Z, Fromm CM. 2021. 502:2023--2032

    2021

  260. [268]

    Pritchett PL, Coroniti FV, Decyk VK. 1996. 101:27413--27430

    1996

  261. [269]

    Raymond AE, Dong CF, McKelvey A, Zulick C, Alexander N, et al. 2018. 98:043207

    2018

  262. [270]

    Rees MJ, Gunn JE. 1974. 167:1--12

    1974

  263. [271]

    Rieger FM. 2019. Galaxies 7:78

    2019

  264. [272]

    Ripperda B, Bacchini F, Philippov AA. 2020. 900:100

    2020

  265. [273]

    Ripperda B, Bacchini F, Porth O, Most ER, Olivares H, et al. 2019. 244:10

    2019

  266. [274]

    Ripperda B, Liska M, Chatterjee K, Musoke G, Philippov AA, et al. 2022. 924:L32

    2022

  267. [275]

    Romanova MM, Koldoba AV, Ustyugova GV, Kulkarni AK, Long M, Lovelace RVE. 2009. 3D MHD Simulations of Disk Accretion onto Magnetized Stars: Numerical Approach and Sample Simulations . In Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows: ASTRONUM-2008, eds. NV Pogorelov , E Audit , P C...

    2009

  268. [276]

    Rowan ME, Sironi L, Narayan R. 2017. 850:29

    2017

  269. [277]

    Rowan ME, Sironi L, Narayan R. 2019. 873:2

    2019

  270. [278]

    Schoeffler KM, Grismayer T, Uzdensky D, Fonseca RA, Silva LO. 2019. 870:49

    2019

  271. [279]

    Schoeffler KM, Grismayer T, Uzdensky D, Silva LO. 2023. 523:3812--3839

    2023

  272. [280]

    Selvi S, Porth O, Ripperda B, Bacchini F, Sironi L, Keppens R. 2023. 950:169

    2023

  273. [281]

    Sikora M, Stawarz , Moderski R, Nalewajko K, Madejski GM. 2009. 704:38--50

    2009

  274. [282]

    Sironi L. 2022. 128:145102

    2022

  275. [283]

    Sironi L, Beloborodov AM. 2020. 899:52

    2020

  276. [284]

    Sironi L, Giannios D, Petropoulou M. 2016. 462:48--74

    2016

  277. [285]

    Sironi L, Keshet U, Lemoine M. 2015 a . 191:519--544

    2015

  278. [286]

    Sironi L, Petropoulou M, Giannios D. 2015 b . 450:183--191

    2015

  279. [287]

    Sironi L, Rowan ME, Narayan R. 2021. 907:L44

    2021

  280. [288]

    Sironi L, Spitkovsky A. 2009. 698:1523--1549

    2009

  281. [289]

    Sironi L, Spitkovsky A. 2011 a . 741:39

    2011

  282. [290]

    Sironi L, Spitkovsky A. 2011 b . 726:75

    2011

  283. [291]

    Sironi L, Spitkovsky A. 2014. 783:L21

    2014

  284. [292]

    Sironi L, Spitkovsky A, Arons J. 2013. 771:54

    2013

  285. [293]

    a ttil \

    Sobacchi E, N \"a ttil \"a J, Sironi L. 2021. 503:688--693

    2021

  286. [294]

    Sobacchi E, Piran T, Comisso L. 2023. 946:L51

    2023

  287. [295]

    Soudais A, Cerutti B, Contopoulos I. 2024. 690:A170

    2024

  288. [296]

    Speiser TW. 1965. 70:4219--4226

    1965

  289. [297]

    Spitkovsky A. 2006. 648:L51--L54

    2006

  290. [298]

    Sridhar N, Ripperda B, Sironi L, Davelaar J, Beloborodov AM. 2025. 979:199

    2025

  291. [299]

    Sridhar N, Sironi L, Beloborodov AM. 2021 a . 507:5625--5640

    2021

  292. [300]

    Sridhar N, Sironi L, Beloborodov AM. 2023. 518:1301--1315

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.