pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10431 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-12 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.SR

3D Kinetic Simulations of Driven Reconnection in Merging Flux Tubes

Camille Granier , Fabio Bacchini , Daniel Groselj , Lorenzo Sironi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords magnetic reconnectionparticle accelerationflux tubespair plasma3D simulationsdriven reconnectionguide fieldparticle-in-cell
0
0 comments X

The pith

3D simulations of merging flux tubes show early delays but converge to a fast reconnection rate of 0.08-0.10 and particle cutoff near 50 sigma_in.

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

This paper examines driven collisionless magnetic reconnection during the compression and merger of two Lundquist-type force-free flux tubes using 2D and 3D particle-in-cell simulations in a strongly magnetized pair plasma. Three-dimensional geometry systematically delays the onset of reconnection relative to 2D cases through slower growth of oblique modes and phase decoherence, with a strong guide field amplifying the delay by suppressing coherent drift-kink activity while affecting tearing modes only mildly. External drive strength accelerates both tearing and drift-kink instabilities. Despite these early differences, every simulation reaches a fast-merging stage with a normalized reconnection rate of 0.08 to 0.10 that coincides with a temporary drop in the guide-to-reconnecting field ratio inside the current sheet. Particle acceleration produces similar nonthermal spectra with power-law indices of 1.6 to 2.0 and a high-energy cutoff at gamma_cut over sigma_in approximately 50 that depends only weakly on drive strength, consistent with an electric-field-limited process set by the reconnection field and energization duration.

Core claim

In driven reconnection of merging Lundquist-type force-free flux tubes, 3D effects delay the onset of tearing and kink instabilities relative to 2D, with guide fields further suppressing drift-kink modes. All configurations nonetheless transition to a fast-merging regime with reconnection rate 0.08-0.10 that coincides with a reduction in the local guide-to-reconnecting field ratio inside the current sheet. Particle acceleration yields a high-energy cutoff gamma_cut / sigma_in approximately 50 with weak drive dependence, consistent with electric-field-limited energization, producing similar power-law spectra across runs.

What carries the argument

The transient reduction of the guide-to-reconnecting field ratio inside the current sheet that enables the universal fast-merging phase and sets the duration of electric-field-limited particle acceleration.

If this is right

  • Reconnection proceeds at the same normalized rate 0.08-0.10 once the fast-merging phase begins, independent of dimensionality or early instability details.
  • The high-energy particle cutoff converges to gamma_cut/sigma_in approximately 50 with only weak dependence on external drive strength.
  • Nonthermal spectra remain similar with power-law indices between 1.6 and 2.0 across all 2D and 3D runs.
  • Strong guide fields mainly suppress drift-kink activity while leaving tearing-mode growth comparatively intact.
  • Increasing the external drive accelerates the linear growth of both tearing and drift-kink instabilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported convergence implies that particle spectra from astrophysical flux-tube mergers could be predictable even when full three-dimensional geometry is present.
  • Laboratory pair-plasma experiments could directly test the predicted onset delays and the universal cutoff value under controlled drive conditions.
  • Introducing ions would likely alter both the delay timescales and the achieved cutoff because the mass ratio and additional instabilities change the current-sheet dynamics.
  • The transient drop in guide-to-reconnecting field ratio inside the sheet offers a potential observable signature for spacecraft or remote-sensing measurements of merging events.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume a collisionless strongly magnetized pair plasma with Lundquist-type force-free initial conditions and an externally imposed drive whose strength and geometry represent astrophysical conditions.

What would settle it

An experiment or observation that finds the high-energy particle cutoff depends strongly on driving strength or that the reconnection rate differs markedly between equivalent 2D and 3D merging setups would contradict the reported convergence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10431 by Camille Granier, Daniel Groselj, Fabio Bacchini, Lorenzo Sironi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 3D visualization of the magnetic-field amplitude for the case with vpush = 0.02c and C = 10−4 at subsequent times (from left to right) during the merging. 1 2 3 t c=R 0 10 20 a ( z;t ) = d e 0 z=de0 = ¡3 2 R z=de0 = ¡1 2 R z=de0 = 1 2 R z=de0 = 3 2 R ¡10 0 10 y=de0 ¡0.04 ¡0.02 0.00 Jz ( y ) a t x ' 0 t c=R ' 0:80 t c=R ' 1:20 t c=R ' 1:60 t c=R ' 2:00 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Time evolution of the current-sheet half-thickness a/de0 measured at several z-planes. Right: transverse cuts Jz(y) at x ≃ 0. 3D profiles are averaged over all z-slices (solid). The corresponding 2D profiles are shown with dashed lines. For this run, vpush = 0.6c. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t c=R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a ( t ) = d e 0 vpush = 0:1c; ' ­Bg=Bup ® = 1:3 vpush = 0:1c; ' ­Bg=Bup ® = 0:7 vpush = 0:6c; ' ­Bg=Bup … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time evolution of the current-sheet half-thickness a/de0, for both 2D (dashed lines) and 3D (solid lines) simu￾lations with different driving velocities vpush and guide-field strengths. Later times, when the thickness starts increasing due to magnetic islands growing, are not shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2D power spectrum |Bcy(kx, kz)| 2 of the recon￾necting magnetic field for weak (⟨Bg/Bup⟩ ≃ 0.7, top) and strong (⟨Bg/Bup⟩ ≃ 1.3, bottom) guide-field cases at subse￾quent times (from left to right). Increasing the guide field suppresses oblique power (large kz), concentrating energy at small kz and yielding a more anisotropic, quasi-two-dimen￾sional spectrum. however, the drift-kink instability starts growi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3D visualization of the current sheet for vpush = 0.02c and C = 10−4 at subsequent times. The volume rendering shows the spatial distribution of Jz in the sheet, with highlighted magnetic-field lines. Between tc/R = 4.5 and tc/R = 6.0, localized reconnection is already visible: small flux-rope precursors form and remain coherent prior to the development of the drift-kink instability at tc/R = 6.0. average … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Growth of tearing (left panels) and drift-kink (right panels) instabilities. The fitted modes are emphasized with thicker lines, and black dashed curves show exponential fits of the growth rates γtear and γkink [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time evolution of the reconnection rate (top) and the guide-field strength (bottom) for different driving veloci￾ties vpush and guide-field ratios ⟨Bg/Bup⟩. Bup is measured upstream and Bg is measured at the center of the current sheet. grows approximately linearly in time, γcut ≃ a (ct/R)+b, with a ≃ 13.2, 10.8, 9.8 for vpush = 0.02c, 0.1c, 0.6c, respectively. This linear behavior indicates a nearly con￾s… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spectra for the low–guide-field runs (⟨Bg/Bup⟩ ≃ 0.7) with vpush = 0.02c (green) and 0.6c (pur￾ple), comparing 3D (solid) and 2D (dashed) simulations. Vertical lines mark σin and 4σin, and the dotted line indicates a γ −1 reference slope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temporal evolution of the perpendicular mag￾netic energy depletion, εB⊥ = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Particle energization statistics for the 3D run with vpush = 0.02c and ⟨Bg/Bup⟩ = 0.7. As described in the text, particles are grouped according to the three dynamical stages: entries during Phase I (purple points), during Phase II (orange points), and during Phase III (green points). Top left: energy gain ∆γ = γout − γin as a function of injection energy γin − 1. Top right: residence time in the current … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same diagnostics as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time evolution of the six fastest-growing Fourier mode pairs (mx, mz) for slow (vpush = 0.02c, left) and fast (vpush = 0.6c, right) driving during their linear phase. over time intervals where the amplitudes display approx￾imately exponential growth. For the slow drive, the fastest modes span a wide range of growth rates (γ ≃ 0.3–1.1 c/R) and wavenumbers, with no single mode clearly separated from the res… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Temporal evolution of the maximum particle Lorentz factor, γcut, normalized to the injected magnetization σin, for four 2D simulations with different system sizes. C. SYSTEM-SIZE DEPENDENCE OF THE HIGH-ENERGY CUTOFF To assess the system-size dependence of the high￾energy extent, we compare 2D simulations with identical plasma parameters and different values of R/de. At fixed σin = 6.4, the maximum Lorentz… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present 2D and 3D Particle-in-Cell simulations of driven collisionless magnetic reconnection triggered by the compression and merger of two Lundquist-type force-free flux tubes in a strongly magnetized pair plasma, with a focus on magnetic energy dissipation and particle acceleration. We show that 3D effects systematically delay the onset of reconnection in comparison with equivalent 2D runs, an effect further enhanced by a strong guide field, due to reduced linear growth rates and phase decoherence of oblique modes. Increasing the external drive accelerates both tearing and drift-kink instabilities, while a strong guide field suppresses coherent drift-kink activity and has a comparatively mild impact on tearing. Despite these differences in early-time dynamics, all simulations enter a fast-merging phase characterized by a normalized reconnection rate 0.08--0.10, coinciding with a transient reduction of the guide-to-reconnecting field ratio inside the current sheet. The high-energy cutoff of accelerated particles converges to a common asymptotic value, gamma_cut/sigma_in ~ 50, with only a weak dependence on the driving strength. This behavior is consistent with an electric-field-limited acceleration process, in which the maximum energy is set by the reconnection electric field and the duration of the energization phase. The resulting nonthermal particle spectra are similar across all runs, with power-law indices p ~ 1.6--2.0.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents 2D and 3D particle-in-cell simulations of driven collisionless magnetic reconnection triggered by the merger of two Lundquist-type force-free flux tubes in a strongly magnetized pair plasma. It reports that 3D effects and strong guide fields delay reconnection onset relative to 2D cases due to reduced growth rates and phase decoherence of oblique modes, while external drive accelerates tearing and drift-kink instabilities. Despite these early-time differences, all runs converge to a fast-merging regime with normalized reconnection rate 0.08--0.10 coinciding with a transient drop in the guide-to-reconnecting field ratio inside the current sheet. The high-energy particle cutoff converges to gamma_cut/sigma_in ~50 with weak drive dependence, interpreted as electric-field-limited acceleration, yielding similar nonthermal spectra with indices p~1.6--2.0.

Significance. If the reported convergence holds, the work establishes the robustness of fast reconnection rates and an electric-field-limited particle cutoff across dimensionality and parameters in kinetic pair-plasma reconnection. This is significant for astrophysical applications involving merging flux tubes, as it suggests that early-time 3D and guide-field variations do not alter the late-time dissipation and acceleration properties. The consistency across multiple simulation setups strengthens the case for universal features in such systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section (reconnection rate discussion)] Results section (reconnection rate discussion): The central claim of a common fast-merging phase rests on the normalized rate being 0.08--0.10 across all runs; the manuscript must explicitly define the normalization (e.g., relative to which upstream Alfvén speed or inflow velocity) and include time histories or a table with quantitative values and uncertainties for each 2D/3D and guide-field case to substantiate the quoted range.
  2. [Particle spectra section] Particle spectra section: The claim that gamma_cut/sigma_in converges to ~50 with only weak dependence on driving strength is load-bearing for the electric-field-limited interpretation; the text should specify the precise definition of sigma_in (magnetization parameter) and the operational definition of the cutoff (e.g., spectral break location or exponential fit parameter) together with supporting spectra plots for varying drive amplitudes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and introduction] Abstract and introduction: The term 'Lundquist-type force-free flux tubes' is used without a brief inline definition or citation; adding one sentence would improve accessibility for readers outside the immediate subfield.
  2. [Methods] Methods: The 3D simulation parameters (grid resolution, particles per cell, box size) are not summarized in a table; including such a table would facilitate assessment of numerical convergence and reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and the positive recommendation for minor revision. The comments highlight opportunities to improve clarity on key quantitative claims. We address each point below and will incorporate the requested definitions, data, and figures in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results section (reconnection rate discussion): The central claim of a common fast-merging phase rests on the normalized rate being 0.08--0.10 across all runs; the manuscript must explicitly define the normalization (e.g., relative to which upstream Alfvén speed or inflow velocity) and include time histories or a table with quantitative values and uncertainties for each 2D/3D and guide-field case to substantiate the quoted range.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit definition and supporting quantitative data are needed. The normalized reconnection rate is defined as E_rec / (v_A,in * B_rec / c), where v_A,in is the upstream Alfvén speed computed from the reconnecting field component and the upstream density. We will add this definition to the Results section. In addition, we will include a new table listing the time-averaged rate (with standard deviation as uncertainty) for each run during the fast-merging phase, together with a brief reference to the time histories already shown in the figures. These additions will substantiate the quoted 0.08--0.10 range without altering the scientific conclusions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Particle spectra section: The claim that gamma_cut/sigma_in converges to ~50 with only weak dependence on driving strength is load-bearing for the electric-field-limited interpretation; the text should specify the precise definition of sigma_in (magnetization parameter) and the operational definition of the cutoff (e.g., spectral break location or exponential fit parameter) together with supporting spectra plots for varying drive amplitudes.

    Authors: We accept this request for precision. Sigma_in is the upstream magnetization parameter sigma_in = B_up^2 / (4 pi n_up m c^2) evaluated far from the current sheet. The cutoff gamma_cut is operationally defined as the Lorentz factor at which the spectrum falls one e-folding below the extrapolated power-law fit. We will state both definitions explicitly in the revised text. We will also add a supplementary figure (or panel) displaying the particle energy spectra for the different drive amplitudes, confirming the weak dependence of the cutoff and supporting the electric-field-limited interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from 2D and 3D Particle-in-Cell simulations of driven reconnection in merging flux tubes. Key results—the normalized reconnection rate of 0.08-0.10 and particle cutoff gamma_cut/sigma_in ~50—are measured directly from the simulation data across parameter variations. These are not derived via equations that reduce to self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains. The observed convergence in the fast-merging phase and spectral similarity are empirical findings from the runs, not forced by construction from the initial setup or ansatzes. The electric-field-limited interpretation is post-hoc commentary and does not alter the reported numerical values. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or renamings of known results appear in the provided text that would create circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The results rest on standard assumptions of collisionless pair-plasma kinetics and numerical PIC methods; no new free parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Collisionless plasma approximation holds throughout the simulation domain
    Invoked by the choice of PIC method and pair-plasma setup in the abstract
  • domain assumption Initial Lundquist-type force-free flux tubes remain valid until external drive is applied
    Stated in the description of the initial conditions

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5561 in / 1294 out tokens · 37987 ms · 2026-05-10T16:33:14.387345+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Bhattacharjee, A., & Daughton, W

    Baalrud, S. D., Bhattacharjee, A., & Daughton, W. 2018, Physics of Plasmas, 25, 022115, doi: 10.1063/1.5020777

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5020777 2018

  2. [2]

    and Granier, Camille and Vos, Jesse , title =

    Bacchini, F., Werner, G. R., Granier, C., & Vos, J. 2025, ApJL, 991, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0197

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0197 2025

  3. [3]

    V., & Komissarov, S

    Barkov, M. V., & Komissarov, S. S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw384

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw384 2016

  4. [4]

    2012, ApJ, 750, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/129

    Bessho, N., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2012, ApJ, 750, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/129

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/129 2012

  5. [5]

    2005, Physics of Plasmas, 12, 032309, doi: 10.1063/1.1857912

    Borgogno, D., Grasso, D., Porcelli, F., et al. 2005, Physics of Plasmas, 12, 032309, doi: 10.1063/1.1857912

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1857912 2005

  6. [6]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/147 2013

  7. [7]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 782, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/104 2014

  8. [8]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 595820601, doi: 10.1017/S002237781600101X

    Comisso, L., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 595820601, doi: 10.1017/S002237781600101X

    work page doi:10.1017/s002237781600101x 2016

  9. [9]

    T., Drake, J., & Swisdak, M

    Dahlin, J. T., Drake, J., & Swisdak, M. 2015, in Solar Heliospheric and INterplanetary Environment (SHINE 2015), 17

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    2011, Nature Physics, 7, 539, doi: 10.1038/nphys1965

    Daughton, W., Roytershteyn, V., Karimabadi, H., et al. 2011, Nature Physics, 7, 539, doi: 10.1038/nphys1965

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys1965 2011

  11. [11]

    2022, Phys

    Granier, C., Borgogno, D., Comisso, L., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. E, 106, L043201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.106.L043201

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.106.l043201 2022

  12. [12]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 992, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0738

    Granier, C., Grošelj, D., Comisso, L., & Bacchini, F. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 992, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0738

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0738 2025

  13. [13]

    Granier, C., Tassi, E., Laveder, D., Passot, T., & Sulem, P. L. 2024, Physics of Plasmas, 31, 032115, doi: 10.1063/5.0185897

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0185897 2024

  14. [14]

    2014, PhRvL, 113, 155005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.155005 13

    Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2014, PhRvL, 113, 155005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.155005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.155005 2014

  15. [15]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0918

    Guo, F., Li, X., Daughton, W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0918

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0918 2021

  16. [16]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/167

    Guo, F., Liu, Y. H., Daughton, W., & Li, H. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal (Online), 806, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/167

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/167 2015

  17. [17]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abedac

    Hakobyan, H., Petropoulou, M., Spitkovsky, A., & Sironi, L. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abedac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abedac 2021

  18. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    Hakobyan, H., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2023a, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

  19. [19]

    Hakobyan, H., Ripperda, B., & Philippov, A. A. 2023b, ApJL, 943, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb264

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb264 2041

  20. [20]

    2024, in Zenodo, Vol

    Hakobyan, H., Spitkovsky, A., Chernoglazov, A., et al. 2023c, PrincetonUniversity/tristan-mp-v2: v2.6, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7566725

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7566725

  21. [21]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15662

    Hoshino, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15662

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.15662 2024

  22. [22]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa906d

    Huang, Y.-M., Comisso, L., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa906d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa906d 2017

  23. [23]

    2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 111207, doi: 10.1063/1.3647505

    Ji, H., & Daughton, W. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 111207, doi: 10.1063/1.3647505

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3647505 2011

  24. [24]

    M., & Zeleny, L

    Kuznetsova, M. M., & Zeleny, L. M. 1985, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 27, 363, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/27/4/001 Granier et al.11

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/27/4/001 1985

  25. [25]

    2008, Phys

    Lapenta, G. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 235001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.235001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.235001 2008

  26. [27]

    2015, PhRvL, 114, 095002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095002

    Liu, Y.-H., Guo, F., Daughton, W., Li, H., & Hesse, M. 2015, PhRvL, 114, 095002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.095002 2015

  27. [28]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703, doi: 10.1063/1.2783986

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2783986 2007

  28. [29]

    S., & Porth, O

    Lyutikov, M., Sironi, L., Komissarov, S. S., & Porth, O. 2017, Journal of Plasma Physics, 83, 635830602, doi: 10.1017/S002237781700071X

    work page doi:10.1017/s002237781700071x 2017

  29. [30]

    Begelman, M. C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2346

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2346 2020

  30. [31]

    Parker, E. N. 1963, ApJS, 8, 177, doi: 10.1086/190087

    work page doi:10.1086/190087 1963

  31. [32]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 5687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2702

    Petropoulou, M., & Sironi, L. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 5687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2702

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2702 2018

  32. [33]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx379

    Ripperda, B., Porth, O., Xia, C., & Keppens, R. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx379 2017

  33. [34]

    Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba622

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba622 2020

  34. [35]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/l21 2014

  35. [36]

    , keywords =

    Sironi, L., Uzdensky, D. A., & Giannios, D. 2025, ARA&A, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-020325-115713

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-020325-115713 2025

  36. [37]

    N., Chacón, L., & Daughton, W

    Stanier, A., Simakov, A. N., Chacón, L., & Daughton, W. 2015, Physics of Plasmas, 22, 101203, doi: 10.1063/1.4932330

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4932330 2015

  37. [38]

    T., & Drake, J

    Swisdak, M., Dahlin, J. T., & Drake, J. F. 2017, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2017, AGU Fall Meeting

    work page 2017

  38. [39]

    M., & Howes, G

    TenBarge, J. M., & Howes, G. G. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 771, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/l27 2013

  39. [40]

    A., Cerutti, B., & Begelman, M

    Uzdensky, D. A., Cerutti, B., & Begelman, M. C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 737, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L40

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/l40 2011

  40. [41]

    R., & Uzdensky, D

    Werner, G. R., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 843, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7892 —. 2021, Journal of Plasma Physics, 87, 905870613, doi: 10.1017/S0022377821001185

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7892 2017

  41. [42]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., Cerutti, B., Nalewajko, K., & Begelman, M. C. 2016, ApJL, 816, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/l8 2016

  42. [43]

    Magnetic reconnection , volume =

    Yamada, M., Kulsrud, R., & Ji, H. 2010, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82, 603, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.603

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.603 2010

  43. [44]

    2005, Phys

    Zenitani, S., & Hoshino, M. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 095001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.095001 —. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 670, 702, doi: 10.1086/522226 —. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 530, doi: 10.1086/528708

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.095001 2005

  44. [45]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c

    Zhang, H., Sironi, L., Giannios, D., & Petropoulou, M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c 2023

  45. [46]

    Efficient Nonthermal Ion and Electron Acceleration Enabled by the Flux-Rope Kink Instability in 3D Nonrelativistic Magnetic Reconnection

    Zhang, Q., Guo, F., Daughton, W., Li, H., & Li, X. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 185101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.185101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.185101 2021

  46. [47]

    and Yamada, Masaaki , month = sep, year =

    Zweibel, E. G., & Yamada, M. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 291, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101726

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101726 2009