Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 81 references

FPIC: a new Particle-In-Cell code for stationary and axisymmetric black-hole spacetimes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new general-relativistic particle-in-cell code, FPIC, tracks collisionless plasma near spinning black holes and reproduces the analytic Blandford-Znajek luminosity for the split-monopole magnetosphere.

desk verdict Serious code paper with a genuinely new hybrid pusher; the BZ validation is solid but not parameter-free, and the Penrose-process claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.07452 v2 pith:HTIPXDO2 submitted 2026-02-07 astro-ph.HE gr-qcphysics.plasm-ph

Claudio Meringolo , Luciano Rezzolla This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qcphysics.plasm-ph
keywords GRPICparticle-in-cellKerrblackholesBlandford-ZnajekprocessPenroseKerr-Schildcoordinatesblack-holemagnetosphereskineticplasma
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

FPIC is a new general-relativistic particle-in-cell code that models collisionless plasma around stationary, axisymmetric black holes. The paper argues that FPIC can reproduce fully nonlinear kinetic plasma dynamics near rotating black holes, supported by two astrophysical tests. In a plasma-filled Wald magnetosphere it finds electrons with negative energy at infinity inside the ergosphere, a signature that the Penrose process is active. In a split-monopole magnetosphere it measures the Blandford-Znajek power across black-hole spins and matches a high-order analytic expression using a single topology-dependent coefficient. The paper also introduces a hybrid particle pusher that switches between RK4 and an energy-conserving Hamiltonian integrator, improving energy conservation at lower computational cost.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a few components: spherical Kerr-Schild coordinates, which keep the metric regular at the event horizon and encode the spherical topology; a finite-difference time-domain Yee-grid Maxwell solver with divergence cleaning; a set of particle pushers, including a novel hybrid scheme that monitors the violation of the Hamiltonian energy and dynamically switches between the fast RK4 integrator and the energy-conserving Hamiltonian integrator, using adaptive timesteps; and a volume-weighted charge and current deposition that dominates the interpolation error. For the astrophysical tests, the key comparison is the measured Poynting flux through a sphere near the horizon against

What would settle it

Run the same split-monopole setup with a different plasma injection prescription—for example, a pair-cascade-based source rate, a different multiplicity, or a different temperature—and check whether the measured Blandford-Znajek power as a function of spin still collapses onto the analytic curve; alternatively, stop particle injection after a steady state and see whether the negative-energy electrons inside the ergosphere persist or decay away.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FPIC is capable of reproducing correctly and accurately fully nonlinear plasma dynamics near rotating black holes. The evidence is a series of validations: neutral and charged particle trajectories conserve Hamiltonian energy well; the vacuum Wald solution relaxes to the expected rotating configuration with the Meissner expulsion of magnetic-field lines; plasma-filled Wald simulations show negative-energy-at-infinity electrons inside the ergosphere, indicating an active Penrose process; and split-monopole simulations produce a Blandford-Znajek luminosity that agrees with analytic high-order predictions after fitting one spin-independent coefficient tied to the magne

Load-bearing premise

The plasma-filled results assume that injecting electron-positron pairs according to the local Goldreich-Julian density, with a fixed multiplicity and temperature, faithfully represents the physical particle supply near the black hole; if this injection is not realistic, the negative-energy Penrose particles and the Blandford-Znajek power could be artifacts of the injection rather than genuine magnetospheric physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, FPIC provides a validated path to kinetic, first-principles modeling of black-hole magnetospheres, capturing microphysics that GRMHD cannot.
  • The hybrid integrator offers a practical way to improve energy conservation in particle pushers without paying the full cost of an implicit Hamiltonian scheme.
  • The measured Blandford-Znajek power for the split monopole, matching analytics over a range of spins, provides a strong benchmark for future GRPIC codes.
  • The plasma-filled Wald simulations indicate that Penrose-process negative-energy particles can be produced self-consistently in an ergospheric current sheet.
  • The detailed method description supports reproducibility and enables others to build or verify similar codes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The simplified plasma injection scheme, based on the local Goldreich-Julian density with chosen multiplicity and temperature, is the main uncertainty; varying the injection prescription could test whether the reported Penrose particles and Blandford-Znajek power are robust or artifacts of injection.
  • Because the code is axisymmetric (2.5D), three-dimensional instabilities and non-axisymmetric modes are excluded; extending to 3D could change plasmoid dynamics and the quantitative Blandford-Znajek agreement.
  • The hybrid-integrator principle, selecting a scheme based on a monitored Hamiltonian error, could be applied to other Hamiltonian systems, including those with radiation reaction or pair-production terms.
  • The successful one-parameter match to the perturbative Blandford-Znajek formula suggests that PBZ versus spin could serve as a standard quantitative cross-code benchmark in GRPIC.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents FPIC, a new general-relativistic particle-in-cell (GRPIC) code for stationary, axisymmetric black-hole spacetimes. The code solves Maxwell's equations on a spherical Kerr-Schild grid with a Yee/FDTD scheme, deposits charges/currents with metric-weighted volume interpolation, and evolves particles with RK4, implicit midpoint, Hamiltonian, and a new hybrid integrator. The numerical methods are described in detail and validated on neutral and charged particle orbits, the vacuum Wald solution, the plasma-filled Wald configuration, and a split-monopole magnetosphere. The central claims are that the hybrid pusher improves energy conservation at reduced cost, that the plasma-filled Wald simulation shows evidence for the Penrose process through negative-energy-at-infinity particles, and that the split-monopole simulations reproduce the Blandford-Znajek luminosity in agreement with analytic predictions.

Significance. If fully substantiated, FPIC would be a valuable new GRPIC tool for axisymmetric black-hole magnetospheres. The paper contains genuine strengths: independent test-particle benchmarks against known geodesics and Wald-field orbits, a converged vacuum Wald comparison, a resolution study for the split-monopole Poynting flux, and a very detailed description of the numerical algorithms that will help reproducibility. The hybrid integrator idea is interesting and appears to give useful speedups in the neutral-particle tests. However, the headline BZ and Penrose claims are currently supported by weaker evidence than the abstract suggests: the BZ comparison uses a fitted normalization, the pair-plasma injection is an ad hoc prescription with no demonstrated insensitivity, and the Penrose claim is based on negative-energy particles rather than a measured energy flux. These are load-bearing issues for the manuscript's central validation narrative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eqs. (50)-(51), Fig. 10] The abstract and Sec. 4 state that FPIC 'successfully reproduce[s] the Blandford-Znajek luminosity.' The comparison is made after a one-parameter fit of κ=0.041 in Eq. (50) to the simulation data. A fitted normalization validates the spin dependence F(Ω_h) but cannot independently validate the absolute luminosity; any overall multiplicative error in the computed Poynting flux is absorbed by κ. Please either constrain κ from the magnetic topology, report the fit uncertainty and explicitly limit the claim to shape agreement, or provide an independent normalization test. As it stands, the 'very good agreement with analytical predictions' is overstated.
  2. [Secs. 3.3-3.4, injection scheme] The plasma-filled simulations use an ad hoc pair-injection prescription: particles are added where n < M n_GJ, with M=10 (split monopole) or M=3 (Wald), a Maxwell-Jüttner temperature Θ=0.5, and a fixed injection cadence Δt_inj=0.01M. No parameter sweep is presented, and Sec. 4 itself concedes that 'more accurate particle-injection strategies need to be developed and tested.' Because the BZ power and current-sheet structure depend on the plasma supply, an injection rate that is too high or too low could change the toroidal field and hence P_BZ in Eq. (49). The asserted consistency with more detailed injection models (Parfrey et al. 2019; El Mellah et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2025) is not demonstrated in this paper. A sensitivity study over M, Θ, and injection cadence, or a direct comparison with a more physical injection model, is needed before the BZ agreement can be attributed to the magne
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Penrose process claim] The presence of electrons with negative energy at infinity, ⟨e_∞⟩<0, inside the ergosphere is necessary but not sufficient to establish that the Penrose process is active. The paper does not show that these negative-energy particles actually cross the event horizon, nor does it measure a net outward energy flux associated with their absorption. A flux diagnostic, e.g., the horizon-integrated energy flux carried by particles with e_∞<0, should be provided before claiming that 'the Penrose process is active' in the plasma-filled Wald simulation. Without this, the statement remains suggestive rather than demonstrated.
  4. [Sec. 3.1.2, Figs. 4-5] The hybrid integrator is validated only for neutral test particles in pure geodesic motion. In a full PIC code, interpolation of electromagnetic fields is expected to dominate the energy error, as the charged-particle tests in Sec. 3.1.3 indicate. To support the claim that the hybrid approach 'guarantees high precision at comparatively small computational costs' in the intended application, it should be demonstrated on charged-particle trajectories with the same field-interpolation scheme used in the PIC runs, or at least on a representative GRPIC configuration. Without such a test, the practical benefit of the hybrid method for FPIC is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4] Grammar: 'a code built in this way, i.e., FPIC is to reproduce' appears to be missing 'able'; please revise to 'is able to reproduce.'
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'iθ in the radial direction'; this should be the polar/angular direction.
  3. [Sec. 2.4] The divergence-cleaning procedure is described as 'periodically' solving the Poisson equation every 25 timesteps with 500 Jacobi iterations. Please state the convergence criterion used for the Jacobi solver, or clarify why a fixed iteration count is sufficient.
  4. [Table C.2 and Sec. 3.1.2] The text says adaptive timesteps are employed in the hybrid schemes, but Table C.2 lists fixed values of Δt for RK4 and Hamiltonian steps. Please clarify how the adaptive step is determined and whether the listed values are upper bounds.
  5. [Sec. 1] Reference 'Pierre Jacques et al. 2025' appears incomplete (missing journal/page data). Please check the reference list entries for consistency.
  6. [General] Given the stated goal of reproducibility, consider adding a statement on code availability or a link to a public repository, even if only a limited distribution is planned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the BZ comparison is a calibrated shape test and self-citations are ancillary.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The particle-pusher tests compare FPIC against known geodesic trajectories (Levin & Perez-Giz 2008; Bacchini et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2025), and the charged-particle runs check Hamiltonian/angular-momentum conservation as a function of resolution, so the hybrid integrator's energy gain is measured rather than assumed. The vacuum Wald test initializes the a*=0 (Schwarzschild) Wald field and relaxes to the Kerr Wald solution, an external analytic benchmark. For the split monopole, the initial condition is the a*=0 limit of the perturbative force-free family (Eqs. B.7-B.15), while the final BZ power must be produced dynamically by the PIC evolution. The comparison against Eq. (51) is primarily a shape test: the spin-dependent function F(Ωh) comes from independent perturbation theory (Armas et al. 2020; Camilloni et al. 2022), and only the amplitude κ=0.041 is fitted (§3.4). This is a calibration, not a derivation from the target result; the absolute luminosity is not independently predicted, but the spin dependence is not forced by construction. The paper explicitly acknowledges the simplified Goldreich-Julian injection scheme and the need for better injection strategies (§4), which is a physical caveat rather than a circular step. Self-citations (Meringolo et al. 2025) provide campaign details and normalization, but the plotted comparison data appear in this paper, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work by the same authors to force the reported agreement.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The code relies on standard GRPIC numerical machinery and known analytic solutions. The main free parameters are the fitted BZ normalization κ and hand-chosen hybrid thresholds; the plasma injection is an acknowledged simplification. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • κ = 0.041
    Scaling factor in Eq. (50) for the BZ power, fitted to the GRPIC simulation data for split-monopole topology (§3.4).
  • hybrid error thresholds (∂_t eH)_max = 1.5, 0.5, 0.5 (per case)
    Hand-chosen trigger thresholds for switching from RK4 to Hamiltonian integrator in Table C.2.
  • eH_max = 1e-15, 1e-12, 1e-12
    Hand-chosen absolute Hamiltonian-violation trigger for Hyb2 in Table C.2.
  • ζ0 = 1e3
    Smoothing parameter for the equatorial current sheet in the split-monopole initial data (Appendix B.2).
  • multiplicity M = 3 (Wald), 10 (split monopole)
    Pair-plasma injection multiplicity in the Goldreich-Julian criterion (§3.3, §3.4).
  • absorbing boundary parameters (χ0, λ, r_abs) = 1e4, 5, 0.9 r_max
    EM damping layer parameters in Eq. (43).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption 3+1 decomposition and Kerr-Schild coordinates describe the spacetime (lapse α, shift βi, 3-metric γij)
    Section 2 and Appendix A.
  • standard math Maxwell equations in a stationary spacetime written via FIDO variables (Eqs. 5-10)
    Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Yee-grid leapfrog preserves ∇·B=0 to machine precision
    Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Wald and split-monopole analytical solutions are correct initial data
    Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Bacchini et al. (2018) Hamiltonian integrator is exactly energy-preserving in the continuous limit
    Section 2.2.3.
  • domain assumption The perturbation-theory expression Eq. (51) for the BZ power is exact to O(Ω_h^8)
    Section 3.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Goldreich–Julian density injection with Maxwell–Jüttner temperature models the pair-plasma supply
    Section 3.3 and §4 limitation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FPIC: a new Particle-In-Cell code for stationary and axisymmetric black-hole spacetimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTIPXDO2

@misc{pith2026260207452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FPIC: a new Particle-In-Cell code for stationary and axisymmetric black-hole spacetimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTIPXDO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.07452}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we present a newly developed GRPIC code framework called FPIC, providing a detailed description of the Maxwell-equations solver, of the particle ``pushers'', and of the other algorithms that are needed in this approach. We describe in detail the code, which is written in Fortran and exploits parallel architectures using MPI directives both for the fields and particles. FPIC adopts spherical Kerr-Schild coordinates, which encode the overall spherical topology of the problem while remaining regular at the event horizon. The Maxwell equations are evolved using a finite-difference time-domain solver with a leapfrog scheme, while multiple particle ``pushers'' are implemented for the evolution of the particles. In addition to well-known algorithms, we introduce a novel hybrid method that dynamically switches between the most appropriate scheme based on the violation of the Hamiltonian energy. We first present results for neutral particles orbiting around black holes, both in the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, monitoring the evolution of the Hamiltonian error across different integration schemes. We apply our hybrid approach, showing that it is capable of achieving improved energy conservation at reduced computational cost. We apply FPIC to investigate the Wald solution, first in electrovacuum and subsequently in plasma-filled configurations. In the latter case, particles with negative energy at infinity are present inside the ergosphere, indicating that the Penrose process is active. Finally, we present the split-monopole solution in a plasma-filled environment and successfully reproduce the Blandford-Znajek luminosity, finding very good agreement with analytical predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.07452 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. One of the major benefits of employing the Yee grid is that Eq. (6) is automatically satisfied to machine round-off preci￾sion, provided the simulation is initialised with a divergence-less magnetic field, i.e., ∂t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Volume weighting procedure utilised in FPIC. Reported in the diagram is the geometry of a single cell in a 2D axisym￾metric spherical mesh, with a particle located in the cell at posi￾tion P(r, θ) (blue point). The volumes V involved in the interpo￾lation scheme are also reported, accordingly. and will in principle satisfy ∆H/∆t = 0 under certain conditions. Since the Hamiltonian is a function of six variables, we m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MPI-domain decomposition scheme employed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top row: orbits in the (r, φ) plane for neutral particles around black holes. The black disk at the center of each panel represents the horizon; Bottom row: deviation of energy from its original value, |H − H0|/H0, vs time for each case. From left to right: a few prece…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same trajectories for neutral particles as reported in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: 3D charged particle trajectories around Kerr black holes, for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vacuum Wald solution for a rotating black hole with spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plasma-filled Wald solution for black hole spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Overview of a representative simulation with spin parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: Normalized BZ luminosity, as a function of the black-hole angular velocity (see the top horizontal axis for a mapping in terms of the dimensionless spin of the black hole) for all of our GRPIC simulations (black filled circles) and with the associated nume…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Alic , D., Moesta , P., Rezzolla , L., Zanotti , O., & Jaramillo , J. L. 2012, Astrophys. J., 754, 36

    2012

  2. [2]

    Armas, J., Cai, Y., Comp\`ere, G., Garfinkle, D., & Gralla, S. E. 2020, JCAP, 04, 009

    2020

  3. [3]

    Asenjo, F. A. & Comisso, L. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 055101

    2017

  4. [4]

    Y., & Sironi , L

    Bacchini , F., Ripperda , B., Chen , A. Y., & Sironi , L. 2018, Astrophys. J., Supp., 237, 6

    2018

  5. [5]

    2019, Astrophys

    Bacchini , F., Ripperda , B., Porth , O., & Sironi , L. 2019, Astrophys. J., Supp., 240, 40

    2019

  6. [6]

    Baumgarte , T. W. & Shapiro , S. L. 2010, Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein's Equations on the Computer (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Beskin , V. S. 1997, Soviet Physics Uspekhi, 40, 659

    1997

  8. [8]

    & Janis, V

    Bicak, J. & Janis, V. 1985, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 212, 899

    1985

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Birdsall , C. K. & Langdon , A. B. 2005, Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation (Reprinted)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Blandford , R. D. & Znajek , R. L. 1977, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 179, 433

    1977

  3. [11]

    2021, Phys

    Bransgrove , A., Ripperda , B., & Philippov , A. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 055101

    2021

  4. [12]

    Camilloni , F., Dias , O. J. C., Grignani , G., et al. 2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 58

    2022

  5. [13]

    Camilloni , F., Harmark , T., Orselli , M., & Rodriguez , M. J. 2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 047

    2024

  6. [14]

    & Rezzolla , L

    Camilloni , F. & Rezzolla , L. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 982, 10

    2025

  7. [15]

    2015, Mon

    Cerutti , B., Philippov , A., Parfrey , K., & Spitkovsky , A. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 448, 606

    2015

  8. [16]

    Y., Luepker , M., & Yuan , Y

    Chen , A. Y., Luepker , M., & Yuan , Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04558

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    & Asenjo, F

    Comisso, L. & Asenjo, F. A. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 023014

    2021

  10. [18]

    2021, Theses, Universit \'e Grenoble Alpes [2020-....]

    Crinquand, B. 2021, Theses, Universit \'e Grenoble Alpes [2020-....]

    2021

  11. [19]

    2021, Astron

    Crinquand , B., Cerutti , B., Dubus , G., Parfrey , K., & Philippov , A. 2021, Astron. Astrophys., 650, A163

    2021

  12. [20]

    2022, Phys

    Crinquand , B., Cerutti , B., Dubus , G., Parfrey , K., & Philippov , A. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 205101

    2022

  13. [21]

    2020, Phys

    Crinquand , B., Cerutti , B., Philippov , A., Parfrey , K., & Dubus , G. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 145101

    2020

  14. [22]

    M., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Cruz-Osorio , A., Fromm , C. M., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103

    2022

  15. [23]

    M., et al

    Cruz-Osorio , A., Meringolo , C., Fromm , C. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.14835

    2025

  16. [24]

    Das , P., Porth , O., & Watts , A. L. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 3144

    2022

  17. [25]

    2020, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Del Zanna , L., Tomei , N., Bugli , M., & Bucciantini , N. 2020, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1623, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012004

    2020

  18. [26]

    N., & Gammie , C

    Dhruv , V., Prather , B., Wong , G. N., & Gammie , C. F. 2025, Astrophys. J., Supp., 277, 16

    2025

  19. [27]

    K., Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C

    Dihingia , I. K., Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C. M., & Rezzolla , L. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.13184

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2023, Astron

    El Mellah , I., Cerutti , B., & Crinquand , B. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 677, A67

    2023

  21. [29]

    2022, Astron

    El Mellah , I., Cerutti , B., Crinquand , B., & Parfrey , K. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 663, A169

    2022

  22. [30]

    2022, Astrophys

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L12

    2022

  23. [31]

    2019, Astrophys

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L1

    2019

  24. [32]

    1986, Journal of Computational mathematics, 4, 279

    Feng, K. 1986, Journal of Computational mathematics, 4, 279

    1986

  25. [33]

    2025, Astron

    Figueiredo , E., Cerutti , B., & Parfrey , K. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 700, L19

    2025

  26. [34]

    2020, Phys

    Fujibayashi, S., Shibata, M., Wanajo, S., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 083029

    2020

  27. [35]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.17701

    Galishnikova , A., Hakobyan , H., Philippov , A., & Crinquand , B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.17701

    2025

  28. [36]

    2023, Phys

    Galishnikova , A., Philippov , A., Quataert , E., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 115201

    2023

  29. [37]

    & Julian , W

    Goldreich , P. & Julian , W. H. 1969, Astrophys. J., 157, 869

    1969

  30. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26019

    Gorard , J., Juno , J., & Hakim , A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26019

    2025

  31. [39]

    Gralla , S. E. & Jacobson , T. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 445, 2500

    2014

  32. [40]

    2002, Geometric numerical integration

    Hairer, E., Lubich, C., & Wanner, G. 2002, Geometric numerical integration. Structure-preserving algorithms for ordinary differential equations, 2nd edn. (Springer)

    2002

  33. [41]

    2021, Astrophys

    Hirotani , K., Krasnopolsky , R., Shang , H., Nishikawa , K.-i., & Watson , M. 2021, Astrophys. J., 908, 88

    2021

  34. [42]

    2025, Astrophys

    Imbrogno , M., Meringolo , C., Cruz-Osorio , A., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 990, L33

    2025

  35. [43]

    2024, Astrophys

    Imbrogno , M., Meringolo , C., Servidio , S., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 972, L5

    2024

  36. [44]

    1986, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 6, 381

    Iserles, A. 1986, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 6, 381

    1986

  37. [45]

    Kerr, R. P. 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett., 11, 237

    1963

  38. [46]

    & Arai , K

    Koide , S. & Arai , K. 2008, Astrophys. J., 682, 1124

    2008

  39. [47]

    Komissarov , S. S. 2004, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 350, 427

    2004

  40. [48]

    & Perez-Giz , G

    Levin , J. & Perez-Giz , G. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 103005

    2008

  41. [49]

    & Cerutti , B

    Levinson , A. & Cerutti , B. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 616, A184

    2018

  42. [50]

    Luepker , M., Yuan , Y., & Chen , A. Y. 2026, Astrophys. J., 996, 75

    2026

  43. [51]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R. D. 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 423, 3083

    2012

  44. [52]

    2025, Mon

    Megale , R., Cruz-Osorio , A., Ficarra , G., et al. 2025, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 544, 2011

    2025

  45. [53]

    2025, Astrophys

    Meringolo , C., Camilloni , F., & Rezzolla , L. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 992, L8

    2025

  46. [54]

    2023, Astrophys

    Meringolo , C., Cruz-Osorio , A., Rezzolla , L., & Servidio , S. 2023, Astrophys. J., 944, 122

    2023

  47. [55]

    & Rezzolla , L

    Mizuno , Y. & Rezzolla , L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13824

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    R., Noronha , J., & Philippov , A

    Most , E. R., Noronha , J., & Philippov , A. A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 4989

    2022

  49. [57]

    2010, Phys

    M \"o sta , P., Palenzuela , C., Rezzolla , L., et al. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 064017

    2010

  50. [58]

    Nathanail , A., Dhang , P., & Fromm , C. M. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 513, 5204

    2022

  51. [59]

    2023, Mon

    Niv , I., Bromberg , O., Levinson , A., Cerutti , B., & Crinquand , B. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 526, 2709

    2023

  52. [60]

    2019, Phys

    Parfrey , K., Philippov , A., & Cerutti , B. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 035101

    2019

  53. [61]

    Penna , R. F. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 084044

    2015

  54. [62]

    1969, Riv

    Penrose , R. 1969, Riv. Nuovo Cimento, 1, 252

    1969

  55. [63]

    R., et al

    Pierre Jacques , T., Cupp , S., Werneck , L. R., et al. 2025, 0, 112, 084044

    2025

  56. [64]

    Press, W., Teukolsky, S., Vetterling, W., & Flannery, B. 1992

    1992

  57. [65]

    & Zanotti , O

    Rezzolla , L. & Zanotti , O. 2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics (Oxford University Press)

    2013

  58. [66]

    E., & Narayan , R

    Sironi , L., Rowan , M. E., & Narayan , R. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 907, L44

    2021

  59. [67]

    & Spitkovsky , A

    Sironi , L. & Spitkovsky , A. 2014, Astrophys. J.l, 783, L21

    2014

  60. [68]

    & Nagataki, S

    Tanabe, K. & Nagataki, S. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 024004

    2008

  61. [69]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 418, L79

    2011

  62. [70]

    Thorne, K. S. & Macdonald, D. 1982, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc., 198, 339

    1982

  63. [71]

    A., & Silva , L

    Torres , R., Grismayer , T., Cruz , F., Fonseca , R. A., & Silva , L. O. 2024, New Astronomy, 112, 102261

    2024

  64. [72]

    Tu , C. Y. & Marsch , E. 1997, Solar Physics, 171, 363

    1997

  65. [73]

    K., Mizuno, Y., & Rezzolla, L

    Uniyal, A., Dihingia, I. K., Mizuno, Y., & Rezzolla, L. 2025, Nature Astron., 1, 8

    2025

  66. [74]

    B., I., Frazin , R

    van der Holst , B., Manchester , W. B., I., Frazin , R. A., et al. 2010, Astrophys. J., 725, 1373

    2010

  67. [75]

    2025, Phys

    Vos , J., Cerutti , B., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., & Parfrey , K. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 015201

    2025

  68. [76]

    Wald , R. M. 1974, Phys. Rev. D, 10, 1680

    1974

  69. [77]

    R., Uzdensky , D

    Werner , G. R., Uzdensky , D. A., Begelman , M. C., Cerutti , B., & Nalewajko , K. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 473, 4840

    2018

  70. [78]

    A., Werner , G

    Wong , K., Zhdankin , V., Uzdensky , D. A., Werner , G. R., & Begelman , M. C. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 893, L7

    2020

  71. [79]

    1966, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 14, 302

    Yee, K. 1966, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 14, 302

    1966

  72. [80]

    Y., & Luepker , M

    Yuan , Y., Chen , A. Y., & Luepker , M. 2025, Astrophys. J., 985, 159

    2025

  73. [81]

    A., Werner, G

    Zhdankin, V., Uzdensky, D. A., Werner, G. R., & Begelman, M. C. 2019, Physical review letters, 122, 055101

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.