Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Supersonic, collisionless plasma turbulence accelerates ions into a non-thermal tail with >10% efficiency and a power-law slope of about q=2.5, matching shock-like acceleration without a large-scale shock.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 15:43 UTC pith:OANQIPHB

load-bearing objection First hybrid-kinetic supersonic turbulence runs show a real non-thermal ion tail; the shock-like efficiency number is plausible but tethered to an unvalidated 5M^2 threshold. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.18374 v1 pith:OANQIPHB submitted 2025-09-22 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph

Efficient Particle Acceleration in 2.5-Dimensional, Hybrid-Kinetic Simulations of Decaying, Supersonic, Plasma Turbulence

Keyan Gootkin , Colby Haggerty , Damiano Caprioli , Zachary Davis This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph
keywords supersonic turbulencehybrid-kinetic simulationparticle accelerationnon-thermal spectracosmic raysdiffusive shock accelerationcompressible turbulenceshocklets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that decaying, supersonic, collisionless plasma turbulence—flows with Alfvénic Mach numbers from 4 to 16—accelerates ions into a non-thermal power-law tail that carries more than 10% of the total kinetic energy, an efficiency previously associated with collisionless shocks. This matters because supersonic turbulence is widespread in astrophysical settings such as star-forming clouds, superbubbles, and the circumgalactic medium, where no single large-scale shock may exist; if the result holds, these environments could be self-contained cosmic-ray accelerators. The paper also shows that the same simulations reproduce familiar turbulent scaling once compression is removed: density-weighted velocity spectra are Kolmogorov-like (−5/3) at low Mach numbers and steepen to about −2 at high Mach numbers, consistent with a Burgers-type cascade. The acceleration is attributed to the ensemble of small shocklets and compressive structures that develop in supersonic turbulence, bridging the gap between diffusive shock acceleration and stochastic acceleration.

Core claim

In hybrid-kinetic simulations of decaying supersonic turbulence, ions are accelerated to non-thermal energies with power-law energy slopes of q≈2.5 and efficiencies exceeding 10% of the total kinetic energy, comparable to the ~10% efficiency observed in collisionless shock simulations, even though the turbulent flow contains no large-scale, coherent shock. The paper demonstrates that this efficient acceleration occurs only when the Mach number is sufficiently high (M≳4) and is accompanied by strong density compression (clumping factors f_cl>2). After removing compressibility via the density-weighted velocity w=ρ^{1/3}u, the turbulent spectra show −5/3 inertial-range scaling for low Mach numb

What carries the argument

The central tool is a hybrid-kinetic particle-in-cell simulation in a 2.5D geometry: ions are tracked as macro-particles moving in three momentum dimensions, while electrons are treated as a massless fluid. The key analytical move is to compute power spectra of the density-weighted in-plane velocity, w=ρ^{1/3}u⊥, which removes the effect of compression and exposes the cascade scaling. The non-thermal ion population is defined by an injection threshold E_inj=5M^2, assumed to represent particles energized above the average shock speed; the fraction of kinetic energy above this threshold defines the efficiency ξ, and the slope of the energy distribution above it defines q. The simulations are i

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that particles above energy 5M^2 are the true non-thermal population, which assumes the typical shock speed in the turbulence equals the rms velocity M; this threshold is not validated by particle tracing, and changing it would alter both the measured efficiency and the spectral slope.

What would settle it

Particle tracing of the M=16 run that shows most ions above 5M^2 were energized gradually by large-scale convection rather than by discrete shocklet encounters would invalidate the shocklet-acceleration interpretation; alternatively, a 3D simulation of identical parameters that yields ξ below a few percent would show that the 2.5D geometry was responsible for the apparent efficiency.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If supersonic turbulence alone can convert >10% of kinetic energy into non-thermal ions, then environments such as superbubbles and star-forming clouds need no single strong shock to be viable cosmic-ray sources; their gamma-ray and neutrino emission could be powered by distributed turbulent acceleration.
  • Because the accelerated spectrum is steep (q≈2.5, steeper than DSA's q≈1.5), the energy density is concentrated at low non-thermal energies, so the highest-energy particles are limited by the system size via the Hillas criterion; the paper shows that doubling the simulation box raises the maximum energy and adds about 5% to the efficiency.
  • The recovery of Kolmogorov (−5/3) scaling at low Mach numbers and the steepening to −2 at high Mach numbers in the density-weighted spectra indicate that compressibility fundamentally alters the energy cascade in supersonic plasmas, with implications for how turbulent heating is distributed.
  • The subsonic control run develops only a weak, steep non-thermal tail, confirming that transition to supersonic, shocklet-bearing turbulence is the key requirement for efficient acceleration, not the presence of magnetic turbulence alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The injection threshold E_inj=5M^2 is an assumption; since the authors did not trace particle orbits to verify that ions above this energy are truly shock-accelerated, the absolute efficiency ξ could shift if the threshold is recalibrated. A particle-tracing follow-up would likely show that the Mach-number trend (higher M, higher ξ) is robust, but the 'shock-like' comparison to DSA may need to be
  • The 2.5D geometry removes one spatial dimension, allowing flows to accumulate density more than they would in 3D. If 3D shocks and shocklets are weaker and less coherent, the measured efficiency and slope could change; a direct 3D hybrid run at the same Mach numbers would test whether >10% acceleration survives.
  • The mechanism described—many small, distributed shocklets acting as first-order Fermi accelerators—sits between DSA and second-order Fermi acceleration. A plausible theoretical model would treat the turbulent medium as a collection of randomly oriented compressive discontinuities with a Mach-number-dependent distribution, yielding the observed power-law index and efficiency scalings; such a model
  • Extrapolating the box-size scaling to astrophysical turbulent scales suggests the maximum accelerated energy is set by the largest eddy, which for large superbubbles could reach the TeV-PeV range; this is a testable prediction for gamma-ray observations of such regions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents 2.5D hybrid-kinetic PIC simulations (dHybridR) of decaying, supersonic, non-relativistic turbulence in a collisionless plasma. The authors vary the Alfvénic Mach number M = 2, 4, 8, 16, with transonic and subsonic controls. They report compressibility (density clumping factor), omni-directional spectra of the density-weighted velocity w = ρ^{1/3} u_⊥, and ion energy distributions. The main claims are: (i) after density weighting, low-M runs show inertial-range spectra near k^{-5/3}, while high-M runs show spectra near k^{-2}; (ii) supersonic runs develop non-thermal power-law tails in ion energy with slope q ≈ -2.5 and efficiency ξ ≳ 10% at t_final = 5τ, comparable to diffusive shock acceleration; (iii) box-size scaling suggests higher maximum energy and efficiency with larger domains. The results are interpreted in the context of DSA and applied to superbubbles, molecular clouds, and stellar winds.

Significance. If correct, this would be the first direct kinetic evidence that non-relativistic, supersonic turbulence can accelerate ions with efficiencies similar to collisionless shocks, despite the absence of a coherent large-scale shock. The study has clear strengths: a clean Mach-number parameter sweep, transonic and subsonic control runs, a box-size scaling test, and transparent simulation methods. The qualitative existence of non-thermal tails in the supersonic runs is well supported by the plotted energy distributions and the subsonic control. The comparison to DSA is external and not circular. However, the quantitative claims about efficiency and spectral slope rest on an unvalidated injection threshold and lack uncertainty quantification; those claims are not yet robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4.3, Eq. (6)] The efficiency ξ and the q-fit range are defined relative to the injection threshold E_inj = 5M^2, adopted by analogy to shock simulations under the assumption ⟨v_shock⟩ = M. This threshold is not validated for turbulence and is not tested for sensitivity; the authors themselves note in §4.1 that particle tracing is needed to establish the energization mechanism. Because both ξ and the power-law fit range (5M^2 ≤ E ≤ 10M^2) are tied to this choice, a factor-2 or -4 change in E_inj could materially change the reported ξ and q. I request a systematic sensitivity study (varying E_inj, or using an independent thermal + power-law decomposition) and explicit reporting of how ξ and q change, or the claims of shock-like efficiency must be tempered.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figs. 10–11] The acceleration efficiency ξ and the non-thermal slope q are reported as single values with no uncertainties. The slope is fitted over the narrow range 5M^2–10M^2 using a least-squares method, and the efficiency is a threshold integral over the same unvalidated boundary. No error bars, fit covariance, or fit-range stability test is provided. Since the central comparison is to DSA (q = -1.5, ξ ≈ 10%), quantitative confidence requires reporting uncertainties and the sensitivity of both quantities to the fit-range endpoints.
  3. [Section 2.1 / §4.3] The 2.5D geometry is a potential limitation for the generality of the acceleration claims. The only support cited for the 2.5D particle distribution being representative is Comisso & Sironi (2018), which concerns relativistic reconnection, while the authors themselves note in §2.1 that 'many other processes work differently in 2 vs. 3 dimensions.' The compressible shocklet interactions and density clumping central to this work may plausibly depend on dimensionality. Please either supply additional evidence that 2.5D captures the relevant acceleration physics, or explicitly restrict the conclusions to the 2.5D case.
  4. [Section 2.4.1 and Fig. 10] The reported efficiencies are measured at t_final = 5τ, chosen because evolution has 'slowed dramatically,' yet Fig. 10 shows ξ still increasing through that time, and the text states that 'particle acceleration continues well beyond τ = 1.' Thus the quoted ξ ≳ 10% is not shown to be an asymptotic or converged value. Please show the time dependence of ξ beyond 5τ, specify a convergence criterion, or explicitly report the efficiencies as lower limits at the simulated time.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract] Typo: 'T urbulence' should be 'Turbulence'; in the abstract, 'using the codedHybridR' should read 'using the code dHybridR.'
  2. [Throughout] The sign convention for q is inconsistent: the abstract and some text quote q ≈ 2.5, while §4.1 and Figs. 10–11 use q ≈ -2.5 for f_E ∝ E^q. Define f_E ∝ E^q once and use a consistent sign.
  3. [§3.1 vs. §5] The text in §3.1 says the M=16 simulation 'achieves peak densities more than 10 times greater' than the initial density, while §5 states 'density contrasts up to ~3 orders of magnitude form.' These numbers are inconsistent; please reconcile.
  4. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption says 'Efficiency drops slightly from M=1 to 2 and from 8 to 16,' which is hard to reconcile with the main text's statement that efficiency roughly scales with M. Rephrase to avoid apparent contradiction.
  5. [§4.1, §4.2] Minor typographical issues: 'smallshocklet' should be 'small shocklet'; 'T eV-P eV' has inconsistent formatting; 'clumping parameters off_cl>2' in §5 should be 'clumping factors of f_cl > 2.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results are direct simulation measurements with stated conventions; reported efficiency/slopes are not fitted inputs or self-citation artifacts.

full rationale

This paper's central claims are simulation measurements, not derivations from a theory that contains them. The acceleration efficiency ξ and slope q are computed from the ion energy distribution produced by dHybridR; the threshold E_inj=5M^2 in Eq. 6 is a stated convention borrowed from shock studies ('assuming that the average shock will have ⟨v_shock⟩=M'), not a parameter tuned to match the measured spectra. The power-law tail and its steepness emerge from the simulation, so changing the threshold would change the quantitative values but does not make the measurement equivalent to the input. The turbulent-spectrum results are likewise direct Fourier measurements of the density-weighted velocity; the comparison to Kolmogorov, Burgers, and Galtier & Banerjee (2011) is external. Self-citations (Haggerty & Caprioli 2019 for dHybridR; Caprioli & Spitkovsky 2014 for shock efficiency) support the numerical tool and provide external benchmarks; they do not carry the derivation. Acknowledged limitations—no particle tracing to confirm the mechanism (§4.1), 2.5D geometry (§2.1, §4.3), and the assumption on shock speed in Eq. 6—affect robustness but do not constitute circular reasoning. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central measurement of acceleration efficiency is sensitive to the chosen energy threshold and fit ranges, which are set by hand. The 2.5D geometry and the hybrid approximation are domain assumptions carried from the simulation setup. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • non-thermal energy threshold E_inj = 5M^2 = 5 M^2
    Set by analogy with shock studies, assuming the average shock speed equals the rms velocity M; directly sets the reported efficiency ξ and slope q, but no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • spectral fit ranges (inertial range and ion range) = inertial: 0.5 di^-1 to the break; ion: around di to about 5 di^-1
    Chosen by inspection of the subsonic steepening and dissipation range (Sec 3.2); different ranges change the fitted slopes in Fig 8.
  • final simulation time t_final = 5τ = 5 eddy-turnover times
    Simulations are stopped when evolution has slowed; longer runs might produce harder tails and different q.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Hybrid-kinetic approximation: protons as macro-particles, electrons as massless charge-neutralizing fluid with polytropic index γ=5/3
    Adopted in Sec 2.1; removes electron kinetic physics and may affect damping and acceleration at electron scales, though ion gyroradii are resolved.
  • domain assumption The 2.5D domain (two spatial dimensions perpendicular to mean B, three momenta) captures the particle acceleration properties of 3D turbulence
    Invoked in Sec 2.1 via Comisso & Sironi 2018; the authors note other 3D effects (e.g., reconnection) differ, so transfer to 3D is uncertain.
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions model an isolated patch of astrophysical turbulence despite the domain being of order the injection scale
    Sec 2.1 asserts adjacent patches are similar; this suppresses boundary effects but does not allow energy input after decay.
  • domain assumption The density-weighted velocity w=ρ^(1/3) u⊥ is the correct variable for the inertial-range cascade in compressible turbulence
    Sec 2.4 and Sec 3.2, motivated by Lighthill 1955 and Galtier & Banerjee 2011; if wrong, the α≈-5/3 and -2 slopes may not represent the energy cascade.
  • domain assumption DSA theory (compression-ratio power-law with q=-1.5) and the shock efficiency ~10% from PIC shock simulations are the correct external baselines for comparison
    Used in Sec 4.1; this assumes the turbulent shocklets accelerate particles via the same physics as isolated planar shocks.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18048 in / 15282 out tokens · 108445 ms · 2026-08-04T15:43:16.160411+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Particle Acceleration in 2.5-Dimensional, Hybrid-Kinetic Simulations of Decaying, Supersonic, Plasma Turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OANQIPHB

@misc{pith2026250918374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Particle Acceleration in 2.5-Dimensional, Hybrid-Kinetic Simulations of Decaying, Supersonic, Plasma Turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OANQIPHB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.18374}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Collisionless, turbulent plasmas surround the Earth, from the magnetosphere to the intergalactic medium, and the fluctuations within them affect nearly every field in the space sciences, from space weather forecasts to theories of galaxy formation. Where turbulent motions become supersonic, their interactions can lead to the formation of shocks, which are known to efficiently energize ions to cosmic-ray energies. We present 2.5-dimensional, hybrid-kinetic simulations of decaying, supersonic, non-relativistic turbulence in a collisionless plasma using the code dHybridR. Turbulence within these simulations is highly compressible; after accounting for this compression by taking the omni-directional power-spectrum of the density weighted velocity field, we find turbulent spectra with power-law slopes of $\alpha \approx -\frac{5}{3}$ for low Mach numbers, in the inertial range, and $\alpha \approx -2$ for high Mach numbers. Ions embedded in the highly supersonic simulations are accelerated to non-thermal energies at efficiencies similar to those seen in shocks, despite being in a non-relativistic regime and lacking the large scale structure of a shock. We observe that particles are accelerated into a power-law spectrum, with a slope of $q \approx 2.5$ in (non-relativistic) energy. We compare these results to those obtained from the theory and simulations of diffusive shock acceleration, and discuss the astrophysical implications of this theoretical work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.18374 by Colby Haggerty, Damiano Caprioli, Keyan Gootkin, Zachary Davis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Initial conditions for the benchmark M = 16 simulations, showing the initial large scale structure of u⊥ and B⊥ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An illustrative example of how spatial spectra are computed in this work. Top: A 2D Fourier transform of the benchmark M = 16 simulation’s initial u⊥ field (the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Times of interest over a plot of the standard deviation of the out-of-plane current σJz for the M = 16 benchmark simulation, in units of τ = Lbox/M. The B⊥ and u⊥ fields at the initial time, tinit = 0, are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The time of peak variance in Jz, as a function of M, in units of ion cyclotron periods plotted with a purple, solid line and circular dots. The dashed black line is of the form tpeak ∝ M−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Clumping factor (Eq. 7) as a function of time, measured in eddy-turnover times, for each simulation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Slices of simulation snapshots of log10 ρ at tpeak, spanning the x-domain and approximately one quarter of the y-domain, for each simulation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the power spectrum of u⊥ for M = 16 at each time described in §2.4.1, with the first time plot￾ted in the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: The omni-directional spectrum of densi￾ty-weighted velocity, w = ρ 1/3u⊥ as a function of k for each simulation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The distribution of particle energies within each simulation, normalized such that the area beneath each curve in log-scaling represents total energy (R E1 E0 E 2 fEd log E = Etot, where Etot is the total energy contained in particles with energies between E0 and E1). Dotted lines show the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution associated with the simulation’s initial conditions. Solid lines display the final ener… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Efficiency of particle acceleration, ξ (§2.4.3), as a function of turbulent Mach number, M, and simulation time, t ∈ {tpeak, teddy = τ, tfinal = 5τ}. Efficiency roughly scales with both time and M, with two exceptions. Efficiency drops slightly from M = 1 to 2 and from 8 to 16. The acceleration efficiency ξ introduced in §2.4.3 steadily increases over time across all simulations, ex￾ceeding 10% for high M… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: High-energy power-law slope, q (§2.4.3), as a function of turbulent Mach number, M, and simulation time, t ∈ {tpeak, teddy = τ, tfinal = 5τ}. Slopes become more shal￾low with both time and M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The distribution of particle energies within each simulation, normalized such that the area beneath each curve represents total energy (R E1 E0 E 2 fEd log E = Etot, where Etot is the total energy contained in particles with energies be￾tween E0 and E1), for M = 8 simulations of different sizes. Solid lines display the final energy spectrum reached by each simulation. see that increasing the size of the s… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. InferenceEvolve: Towards Automated Causal Effect Estimators through Self-Evolving AI

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    InferenceEvolve uses language-model-guided evolution to discover causal estimators that reportedly outperform baselines and 58 human competition entries on two metrics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv:2502.05235

    Achikanath Chirakkara, R., Federrath, C., & Seta, A. 2025, arXiv:2502.05235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    2009, A&A, 508, 409 15

    Aerts, C., Puls, J., Godart, M., & Dupret, M.-A. 2009, A&A, 508, 409 15

    2009

  3. [3]

    A., Aschersleben, J., et al

    Aharonian, F., Benkhali, F. A., Aschersleben, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L21

    2024

  4. [4]

    S., & Bale, S

    Horbury, T. S., & Bale, S. D. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 101

    2013

  5. [5]

    J., Chen, D., et al

    Amenomori, M., Bi, X. J., Chen, D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 460

    2021

  6. [6]

    N., Guillard, P., Emonts, B., et al

    Appleton, P. N., Guillard, P., Emonts, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 104

    2023

  7. [7]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 69

    Araya, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 69

    2018

  8. [8]

    I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G

    Axford, W. I., Leer, E., & Skadron, G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 11, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 132

    1977

  9. [9]

    1934, Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A., 20, 259

    Baade, W., & Zwicky, F. 1934, Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A., 20, 259

    1934

  10. [10]

    Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 769, 76

    2013

  11. [11]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 527, L4

    Balbo, M., Walter, R., Ferrigno, C., & Bordas, P. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 527, L4

    2011

  12. [12]

    2001, Physics Reports, 349, 125

    Barkana, R., & Loeb, A. 2001, Physics Reports, 349, 125

    2001

  13. [13]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 2558

    Bauer, A., & Springel, V. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 2558

    2012

  14. [14]

    2007, Physics Reports, 447, 1

    Bec, J., & Khanin, K. 2007, Physics Reports, 447, 1

    2007

  15. [15]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 182, 443

    1978

  16. [16]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, Astrophysical Journal, 221, L29

    1978

  17. [17]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 4015

    Blasi, P., & Morlino, G. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 4015

    2023

  18. [18]

    Boffetta, G., & Ecke, R. E. 2012, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 44, 427

    2012

  19. [19]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 127

    Brunetti, G., & Lazarian, A. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 127

    2011

  20. [20]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 793, L15

    Bruno, R., Trenchi, L., & Telloni, D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 793, L15

    2014

  21. [21]

    Burgers, J. M. 1948, in Advances in Applied Mechanics, ed. R. V. Mises & T. V. K´ arm´ an, Vol. 1, 171–199

    1948

  22. [22]

    2014, Astrophysical Journal, 783, 91

    Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, Astrophysical Journal, 783, 91

    2014

  23. [23]

    S., Kunz, M

    Cerri, S. S., Kunz, M. W., & Califano, F. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 856, L13

    2018

  24. [24]

    Chen, C. H. K. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820602

    2016

  25. [25]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 255101 —

    Comisso, L., & Sironi, L. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 255101 —. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 936, L27

    2018

  26. [26]

    O., Moens, N., et al

    Debnath, D., Sundqvist, J. O., Moens, N., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A177

    2024

  27. [27]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 3

    Diesing, R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 3

    2023

  28. [28]

    2001, Rev

    Falkovich, G., Gawedzki, K., & Vergassola, M. 2001, Rev. Mod. Phys., 73, 913

    2001

  29. [29]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 1245

    Federrath, C. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 1245

    2013

  30. [30]

    1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169

    Fermi, E. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169

    1949

  31. [31]

    Fiorillo, D. F. G., Comisso, L., Peretti, E., Petropoulou, M., & Sironi, L. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 75 Fjørtoft, R. 1953, Tellus, 5, 225

    2024

  32. [32]

    Fleck, Jr., R. C. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 458, 739

    1996

  33. [33]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 21

    Franci, L., Landi, S., Matteini, L., Verdini, A., & Hellinger, P. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 21

    2015

  34. [34]

    1975, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 68, 769

    Frisch, U., Pouquet, A., Leorat, J., & Mazure, A. 1975, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 68, 769

    1975

  35. [35]

    2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 134501 Gargat´ e, L., Bingham, R., Fonseca, R

    Galtier, S., & Banerjee, S. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 134501 Gargat´ e, L., Bingham, R., Fonseca, R. A., & Silva, L. O. 2007, Computer Physics Communications, 176, 419

    2011

  36. [36]

    1995, Astrophysical Journal, 438, 763

    Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1995, Astrophysical Journal, 438, 763

    1995

  37. [37]

    2021, Theses, Universit´ e Grenoble Alpes Gu´ epin, C., Rinchiuso, L., Kotera, K., et al

    Gorbunova, A. 2021, Theses, Universit´ e Grenoble Alpes Gu´ epin, C., Rinchiuso, L., Kotera, K., et al. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 042

    2021

  38. [38]

    C., & Caprioli, D

    Haggerty, C. C., & Caprioli, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 165

    2019

  39. [39]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 621, A85

    Hainich, R., Ramachandran, V., Shenar, T., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 621, A85

    2019

  40. [40]

    Henriksen, R. N. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 377, 500 Hern´ andez-Padilla, D., Esquivel, A., Lazarian, A., Vel´ azquez, P. F., & Cho, J. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 93

    1991

  41. [41]

    S., Benjamin, R

    Hill, A. S., Benjamin, R. A., Kowal, G., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 363

    2008

  42. [42]

    Hillas, A. M. 1984, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 425

    1984

  43. [43]

    Honda, M., & Honda, Y. S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 654, 885

    2007

  44. [44]

    D., Siebert, K

    Howarth, I. D., Siebert, K. W., Hussain, G. A. J., & Prinja, R. K. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 284, 265 H¨ arer, L., Vieu, T., & Reville, B. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 698, A6

    1997

  45. [45]

    Iroshnikov, P. S. 1963, Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, 40, 742

    1963

  46. [46]

    2001, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python, , Katarzy´ nski, K., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Gracia, J., &

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., & and others. 2001, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python, , Katarzy´ nski, K., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Gracia, J., &

    2001

  47. [47]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 368, L52

    Maraschi, L. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 368, L52

    2006

  48. [48]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov, A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  49. [49]

    Kraichnan, R. H. 1965, Physics of Fluids, 8, 1385 16 Krtiˇ cka, J., Kub´ at, J., & Krtiˇ ckov´ a, I. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A28 —. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A29

    1965

  50. [50]

    Krymskii, G. F. 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306

    1977

  51. [51]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 463, 1093

    Lefever, K., Puls, J., & Aerts, C. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 463, 1093

    2007

  52. [52]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 063006

    Lemoine, M., Murase, K., & Rieger, F. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 063006

    2024

  53. [53]

    1944, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 2, 164 LHAASO Collaboration

    Levenberg, K. 1944, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 2, 164 LHAASO Collaboration. 2024, Science Bulletin, 69, 449

    1944

  54. [54]

    Lighthill, M. J. 1955, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 2, Gas Dynamics of Cosmic Clouds, 121

    1955

  55. [55]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 4173

    Lin, Y.-H., Scarlata, C., Williams, H., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 4173

    2024

  56. [56]

    Lingenfelter, R. E. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 2750 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125

    2018

  57. [57]

    2015, Physics of Plasmas, 22, 042902

    Cattaneo, F. 2015, Physics of Plasmas, 22, 042902

    2015

  58. [58]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 478, 823

    Markova, N., & Puls, J. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 478, 823

    2008

  59. [59]

    Marquardt, D. W. 1963, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 11, 431

    1963

  60. [60]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A10

    Melia, F. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A10

    2024

  61. [61]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A175

    Menchiari, S., Morlino, G., Amato, E., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A175

    2025

  62. [62]

    2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 091101

    Mertsch, P., & Sarkar, S. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 091101

    2011

  63. [63]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 6096

    Morlino, G., Blasi, P., Peretti, E., & Cristofari, P. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 6096

    2021

  64. [64]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 49

    Blandford, R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 49

    2023

  65. [65]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A22

    Neronov, Andrii, Malyshev, Denys, & Semikoz, Dmitri V. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A22

    2017

  66. [66]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 599, A99

    Orkisz, Jan H., Pety, J´ erˆ ome, Gerin, Maryvonne, et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 599, A99

    2017

  67. [67]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 164

    Osmanov, Z., Mahajan, S., & Machabeli, G. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 164

    2017

  68. [68]

    2011, Astrophysical Journal, 730, 40

    Padoan, P., & Nordlund, A. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 730, 40

    2011

  69. [69]

    V., Galli, D., et al

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V., Galli, D., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 29

    2020

  70. [70]

    2019, A&A, 621, A70

    Peng, F.-K., Xi, S.-Q., Wang, X.-Y., Zhi, Q.-J., & Li, D. 2019, A&A, 621, A70

    2019

  71. [71]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1336

    Peretti, E., Morlino, G., Blasi, P., & Cristofari, P. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1336

    2022

  72. [72]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 972, L22

    Peron, G., Morlino, G., Gabici, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 972, L22

    2024

  73. [73]

    2012, Space Science Reviews, 173, 535

    Petrosian, V. 2012, Space Science Reviews, 173, 535

    2012

  74. [74]

    Petrosian, V., & Donaghy, T. Q. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 527, 945

    1999

  75. [75]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077

    2018

  76. [76]

    M., & Petrosian, V

    Pryadko, J. M., & Petrosian, V. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 482, 774

    1997

  77. [77]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Riquelme, M. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 717, 1054

    2010

  78. [78]

    Ryans, R. S. I., Dufton, P. L., Rolleston, W. R. J., et al. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 577

    2002

  79. [79]

    Y., Belmont, G., et al

    Sahraoui, F., Huang, S. Y., Belmont, G., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 15

    2013

  80. [80]

    Sander, A. A. C., Bouret, J. C., Bernini-Peron, M., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A30

    2024

Showing first 80 references.