Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW): VII. Intergalactic magnetic field models for multi-messenger applications

Benjamin Seidel; Francesca Capel; Jenny G. Sorce; Johannes Stoiber; Klaus Dolag; Ludwig M. B\"oss; Michael Kachelrie{\ss}

Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW): VII. Intergalactic magnetic field models for multi-messenger applications

T0 review · 2 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A constrained local-Universe simulation plus a new 'ideal position' algorithm supplies more accurate intergalactic magnetic-field maps for gamma-ray and cosmic-ray studies.

desk verdict Solid methods paper: ideal-position placement is new and measurably reduces cascade scatter, but the accuracy claim is shown for one toy source only. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06665 v1 pith:V7TYETM6 submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.HE

Johannes Stoiber , Klaus Dolag , Francesca Capel , Benjamin Seidel , Michael Kachelrie{ss} , Ludwig M. Böss , Jenny G. Sorce This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords intergalacticmagneticfieldconstrainedcosmologicalsimulationgamma-raycascadeUHECRpropagationidealpositionalgorithmfillingfactormulti-messengerastrophysics

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

Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays and TeV gamma rays are deflected or cascade-altered by the intergalactic magnetic field, so multi-messenger interpretation needs realistic field maps along real sightlines. This paper extracts those maps from the constrained cosmological simulation SLOW, which reproduces the observed local large-scale structure, and supplies several rescaled variants that sample different filling factors and filament strengths. Because many interesting sources sit in galaxy-mass halos below the simulation's linear constraining scale of a few megaparsecs, the authors introduce a 'fuzzy triangulation' algorithm that anchors an ideal position for each such source to the three nearest already-matched clusters, exploiting the large-scale drift between simulated and observed structure. When the resulting fields are fed into electromagnetic-cascade calculations, the raw simulated field best matches existing lower limits from gamma-ray observations, while sightlines drawn through ideal positions produce tighter cascade spectra than random sightlines. The same drift that the algorithm uses may later help improve the simulation's own initial conditions.

What carries the argument

The 'ideal position' algorithm (fuzzy triangulation on the three nearest cross-matched clusters, Eq. 6) that places unconstrained galaxies so that realistic line-of-sight magnetic-field profiles can be extracted from SLOW.

What would settle it

Extract the same ideal-position sightlines for a set of nearby blazars whose GeV cascade spectra are already measured; if the simulated cascade spectra systematically disagree with the observed GeV suppression while random or rescaled models do not, the placement method fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Magnetic-field models extracted along lines of sight to 'ideal positions' inside the constrained SLOW simulation reproduce the gamma-ray cascade better than rescaled alternatives and yield lower spectral uncertainty than random sightlines; the raw simulated field is the one that best matches current IGMF lower limits from electromagnetic cascades.

Load-bearing premise

That the large-scale positional drift of a few matched clusters, combined with fuzzy triangulation on the three nearest ones, correctly places galaxies below the linear threshold so the extracted field represents the true path to the observed source.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The new piece is the ideal-position algorithm (fuzzy triangulation on the three nearest clusters, exploiting the large-scale drift between observed and simulated clusters). Everything else is useful packaging of SLOW magnetic fields for multi-messenger work.

What they do well is concrete. They extract six models (Bsim plus five rescalings), show filling factors and ne–B phase space, and run ELMAG cascades. Bsim is the only one that both fills volume at low B and still leaves secondary GeV emission; the rescaled models over-magnetize voids and kill the cascade. The three uncertainty estimators (2D, 3D, subhalos) are sensible, and the subhalo sightlines give the tightest quartile distance. Ideal-position LOS beat random sightlines (⟨QD⟩/10^10 ≈ 4.5–5.3 vs 5.8). That is a real, quantitative result, not hand-waving. Citations to cascade limits and RM data are external; the placement method itself is geometric, not fitted to the cascade outcome. Self-citation of the SLOW series is heavy but expected for a methods paper that ships the models.

Soft spots are real but limited. The cascade improvement is demonstrated for one object (Mrk501) and one hard toy injection. Local LSS and the last few Mpc environment matter, so the scatter reduction could be source-dependent; they do not show another blazar or a softer spectrum. Data are “on request,” only uniform PMF seeding is used, and the rescalings remain phenomenological. None of that breaks the central claim for the case they actually ran.

This is for people who need constrained IGMF profiles for UHECR deflection or γ-ray cascade work in the local Universe. It is not a magnetogenesis paper and does not reorganize the field. The math and comparisons are clean enough that a serious editor should send it to referees; the single-source limitation is exactly the kind of thing referees will ask them to expand or qualify. I would cite the placement method and the Bsim ranking if I were doing cascade work on nearby blazars. Bring it to reading group if the group cares about practical IGMF models; otherwise it is optional.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents IGMF models extracted from the constrained SLOW cosmological MHD simulation (SLOW-CR3072³), together with five rescaled models (B_β, B_F, B_ff, B_dyn,↓, B_dyn,↑) previously introduced by Böss et al. (2024). It quantifies filling factors and the n_e–B phase space, showing that the models diverge in filaments but converge in cluster cores, and that only B_sim both fills the volume at low B and leaves secondary cascade emission. A novel geometric algorithm places galaxies below the ~3 Mpc linear threshold of the initial conditions by fuzzy triangulation on the three nearest cross-matched clusters (Eq. 6), yielding line-of-sight B profiles. Uncertainty is estimated with three offset methods (2D, 3D, subhalos) and compared to random sightlines. Using ELMAG 3.03 on a hard toy spectrum for Mrk 501, the authors find that ideal-position sightlines produce lower mean quartile distance in the cascade spectrum than random sightlines, and that B_sim best matches cascade-derived IGMF lower limits.

Significance. If the ideal-position method generalizes, the work supplies the multi-messenger community with constrained, high-resolution IGMF models that avoid unconstrained boxes and ad-hoc mirroring/concatenation, and that reduce cascade-spectrum scatter relative to random sightlines. The filling-factor and phase-space comparison cleanly ranks B_sim against rescaled models against external cascade and RM benchmarks. The geometric placement algorithm and the three uncertainty estimators are concrete, reusable tools; the large-scale drift observation also offers a potential route to refining constrained initial conditions. Strengths include quantitative quartile-distance metrics, external (non-circular) cascade/RM benchmarks, and public data-release plans via the Cosmological Web Portal.

major comments (2)

Abstract, §3.3, §4.1 and §5 claim that ideal-position models yield improved accuracy and may benefit multi-messenger studies more broadly. All quantitative support (Fig. 9) is for a single object (Mrk 501 at z=0.0412) and a single hard toy injection (F∝E^{-1.0}, E_max=20 TeV, Θ_jet=6°; §2.5). Because placement error λ_D and the last-few-Mpc environment both depend on local large-scale structure, the reduction in ⟨QD⟩ could be source-specific. At least one additional well-studied blazar (different sky position/redshift) and/or a softer injection spectrum is needed before the broader claim is supported; otherwise the abstract and conclusions should be narrowed to the demonstrated case.
§2.3, Eq. (6): the ideal-position algorithm rests on the untested axiom that relative angular distances to the three nearest observed clusters are preserved after large-scale drift correction, with an ad-hoc fuzzy width σ_i=10 imes(δx_o_i)^{-1/2}. No recovery test on already cross-matched clusters (or mock sources) is shown to quantify residual placement error relative to true constrained positions. Without such a validation, the claim that the extracted LOS is representative of the path to the observed source remains an assumption rather than a demonstrated result.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No reduction-by-construction of the cascade or ideal-position claims; only ordinary self-citation of the SLOW simulation products that supply the B fields.

self citation load bearing [Sect. 2.1–2.2 and Fig. 2 (references to Dolag et al. 2023, Böss et al. 2024, Hernández-Martínez et al. 2024, Seidel et al. 2025)]
"We analyze IGMF models derived from the constrained cosmological simulation SLOW alongside a set of rescaled magnetic field models. … The magnetic field predicted by SLOW was analyzed by Böss et al. (2024) …"

The B fields and cluster positions that enter every subsequent LOS and cascade calculation are taken from the authors’ own prior SLOW papers. This is ordinary self-citation of simulation products rather than a uniqueness theorem or a fit re-labeled as prediction; the cascade ranking and ideal-position improvement are still demonstrated inside the present work against external benchmarks. Hence only a minor, non-load-bearing contribution to circularity.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing results are (i) geometric placement of an “ideal position” via fuzzy triangulation on three nearest cross-matched clusters (Eq. 6, free parameter σ_i chosen by hand, not fitted to cascade data) and (ii) ELMAG cascade spectra run on the resulting LOS B profiles, compared to external lower limits (Neronov & Vovk, Tjemsland et al., Webar et al., Blunier et al.) and to random sightlines. Neither step is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to improve: the placement algorithm does not use the cascade spectrum, and the ranking of B_sim versus the rescaled models is an a-posteriori comparison against independent observational bounds, not a fit that is then re-labeled a prediction. Rescaling formulae (B_β, B_F, B_ff, B_dyn,↓/↑) are taken from the authors’ prior SLOW paper and are presented as alternative models whose void over-prediction is openly shown; they are not smuggled in as uniqueness theorems. Heavy self-citation of the SLOW series is present but supplies only the underlying constrained MHD volume and cluster cross-matches—standard simulation products that remain externally falsifiable by RM and X-ray data. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on the SLOW constrained MHD run (uniform PMF seed, non-radiative CR physics), phenomenological rescalings tuned to Coma/filament data, and a geometric placement rule whose free width parameter is chosen by hand. No new physical entity is postulated; the main inventions are algorithmic and model-choice.

free parameters (6)

primordial seed field strength and direction = 10^-14 G
Uniform B = (10^-14, 0, 0) G at z = 120; sets the floor of B_sim and is not varied.
plasma-β for B_β model = 50
Fixed β = 50 to rescale thermal pressure to magnetic field.
turbulent-pressure fraction F for B_F = 1
Set to F = 1 (equipartition) by hand.
polynomial coefficients p_i in B_dyn,↓ = [-16.38, -16.0, -8.07, -1.71, -0.13]
Five coefficients fitted/extrapolated to match Carretti et al. filament data and void lower limits.
fuzzy-shell width σ_i = 10 × (δx)^(-1/2)
σ_i = 10 × (δx_o_i)^(-1/2) chosen to weight nearer clusters less and avoid local minima; not derived from data.
toy cascade injection spectrum = index -1.0, 20 TeV
F ∝ E^-1, E_max = 20 TeV, Θ_jet = 6° used for all ELMAG runs; not a measured SED.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Cosmicflows-2 peculiar-velocity constraints produce a sufficiently accurate local large-scale structure for IGMF LOS work out to ~200 Mpc/h.
Invoked throughout Sect. 2.1; linear threshold ~3 Mpc acknowledged but assumed not fatal for the ideal-position method.
domain assumption SPH MHD with divergence cleaning and the chosen resolution adequately capture B amplification in clusters and the volume-filling low-B component in voids.
Sect. 2.1–2.2; authors note under-resolution of turbulent dynamo in filaments, motivating rescalings.
ad hoc to paper Relative angular distances to the three nearest observed clusters are preserved in the simulation after large-scale drift correction (Eq. 6).
Core of the ideal-position algorithm, Sect. 2.3; not independently validated against known galaxy positions.
domain assumption ELMAG 3.03 with 1D gridded B profiles correctly maps B uncertainty into cascade spectral scatter.
Sect. 2.5; standard tool but assumes the 1D reduction of 3D B is sufficient.

invented entities (1)

ideal position (fuzzy triangulation placement)
purpose: Assign a simulation coordinate to observed galaxies below the linear constraining scale so that LOS magnetic fields can be extracted.
Defined operationally in Sect. 2.3 via minimization of R; no independent observational test that the placed galaxies match true environments beyond the cascade scatter reduction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW): VII. Intergalactic magnetic field models for multi-messenger applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7TYETM6

@misc{pith2026260706665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW): VII. Intergalactic magnetic field models for multi-messenger applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7TYETM6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06665}
}

read the original abstract

Context. The propagation of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) and ultra-high-energy gamma-rays remains an open question in astroparticle physics, with the intergalactic magnetic field (IGMF) playing a crucial role in deflecting charged particles and shaping electromagnetic cascade spectra. Characterizing the IGMF across cosmic large-scale structure is therefore essential for interpreting multi-messenger observations and constraining the magnetogenesis scenarios that seeded it. Aims. We aim to provide accurate IGMF models to the astroparticle physics community and test their properties and robustness. Methods. We analyze IGMF models derived from the constrained cosmological simulation SLOW alongside a set of rescaled magnetic field models. We further introduce a novel algorithm to determine an "ideal position" for galaxies lying below the constraining power of the initial conditions, enabling accurate line-of-sight magnetic field extraction toward relevant sources. Results. The models span a wide range of filling factors and sample distinct regions of the electron density-magnetic field strength phase space in filaments, while converging in the cores of galaxy clusters; the simulated field from SLOW best reproduces the IGMF derived from the electromagnetic gamma-ray cascade. Models extracted using the introduced "ideal position" yield improved accuracy and may benefit multi-messenger studies more broadly. The large-scale structure drift of simulated clusters exploited by the algorithm also offers a potential route to refining the simulation's constrained initial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06665 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Cutout around a filament and the Coma cluster (top left corner) with a side-length of d ≈ 34 cMpc/ℎ, showing the magnetic field strength for the six magnetic field models: Top row, left to right: 𝐵sim, 𝐵𝛽, and 𝐵F. Bottom row, left to right: 𝐵ff, 𝐵dyn,↓, and 𝐵dyn,↑. Subsequent work used magnetic field models from constrained cosmological simulations (Coruscant, Dolag et al. 2005) to study deflections of ultrahigh-en… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Volume-weighted cumulative filling factors as a function of the corresponding threshold magnetic field strength for the six magnetic field models: 𝐵sim (blue), 𝐵ff (orange), 𝐵𝛽 (green), 𝐵F (red), 𝐵dyn,↓ (cyan), and 𝐵dyn,↑ (magenta). The dashed black line represents the Coruscant Simulation (Dolag et al. 2005), and the dashed gray line its iteration including magnetic field seeding from galactic outflows instead of … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Full-sky projection of the simulated (blue) and observed (orange) positions of prominent cross-matched galaxy clusters in SLOW (Hernández-Martínez et al. 2024; Seidel et al. 2025). The corresponding clusters are connected by lines colored by their 3D distance that follow sections of unit great circles. The background shows the X-ray surface brightness from sources out to a distance of 350 Mpc (Dolag et al. 2023). Th… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Illustration of the grid search algorithm to minimize the differences between the observed distances (orange lines) and the distances expected from the simulation (red lines). The orange dots are the observed positions of the nearest three galaxy clusters to the obse…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The intergalactic magnetic field along the line-of-sight to the ideal position within the simulation (red, in panels one, two, and three). The bluish-to-white lines represent different methods to estimate the uncertainty of the magnetic field model (first to third pane…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The rescaled magnetic field 𝐵model along the line-of-sight to the ideal position within the simulation. From top to bottom they are 𝐵dyn,↑ (magenta), 𝐵F (red), 𝐵ff (orange), 𝐵𝛽 (green), 𝐵sim (blue), and 𝐵dyn,↓ (cyan). Also included are various observations of the magne…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Cascade spectrum for the different magnetic field models. Colors are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Cascade spectrum for the different methods to estimate the uncertainty of the magnetic field as simulated with the Monte-Carlo Code ELMAG 3.03. First to third panel: “2D shifting”, “3D shifting”, “suitable subhalos”. Fourth panel: Cascade Spectrum for completely random…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[1]

Alonso-López,D.,O’Sullivan,S.P.,Bonafede,A.,etal.2026,A&A,705,A143

work page 2026
[2]

M., Dolag, K., Lesch, H., & Kronberg, P

Beck, A. M., Dolag, K., Lesch, H., & Kronberg, P. P. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 3575

work page 2013
[3]

2006, MNRAS, 370, 319

Bertone, S., Vogt, C., & Enßlin, T. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 319

work page 2006
[4]

Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1411.1607

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[5]

Revision of conservative lower bound on the intergalactic magnetic field from Fermi and Cherenkov telescope observations of extreme blazars

Bister, T. & Farrar, G. R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 71 Blunier,J.,Neronov,A.,&Semikoz,D.2025,arXive-prints,arXiv:2506.22285

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[6]

2020, Computer Physics Commu- nications, 252, 107163 Bonafede,A.,Dolag,K.,Stasyszyn,F.,Murante,G.,&Borgani,S.2011,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2234

Blytt, M., Kachelrieß, M., & Ostapchenko, S. 2020, Computer Physics Commu- nications, 252, 107163 Bonafede,A.,Dolag,K.,Stasyszyn,F.,Murante,G.,&Borgani,S.2011,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2234

work page 2020
[7]

2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 513, A30 Böss,L.M.,Dolag,K.,Steinwandel,U.P.,etal.2024,Astronomy&Astrophysics, 692, A232 Böss, L

Bonafede, A., Feretti, L., Murgia, M., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 513, A30 Böss,L.M.,Dolag,K.,Steinwandel,U.P.,etal.2024,Astronomy&Astrophysics, 692, A232 Böss, L. M., Khabibullin, I., Karner, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.15634 Böss, L. M., Steinwandel, U. P., Dolag, K., & Lesch, H. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi...

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[8]

& Capel, F

Bourriche, N. & Capel, F. 2026, ApJ, 997, 264

work page 2026

Show all 49 references

[9]

L., Norman, M

Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19

2014
[10]

P., Vacca, V., et al

Carretti, E., O’Sullivan, S. P., Vacca, V., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2273

2023
[11]

& Vazza, F

Carretti, E. & Vazza, F. 2025, Universe, 11, 164 D’Avezac, P., Dubus, G., & Giebels, B. 2007, A&A, 469, 857 Davis,M.,Efstathiou,G.,Frenk,C.S.,&White,S.D.M.1985,TheAstrophysical Journal, 292, 371, publisher: IOP ADS Bibcode: 1985ApJ...292..371D

2025
[12]

H., et al

Dietl, J., Pacaud, F., Reiprich, T. H., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A286

2024
[13]

2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 497

Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 497

2009
[14]

Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Schindler, S., Diaferio, A., & Bykov, A. M. 2008, Space Sci. Rev., 134, 229

2008
[15]

Dolag, K., Grasso, D., Springel, V., & Tkachev, I. 2005, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2005, 009 Dolag,K.,Kachelriess,M.,Ostapchenko,S.,&Tomas,R.2009,TheAstrophys- ical Journal, 703, 1078 Dolag,K.,Kachelriess,M.,Ostapchenko,S.,&Tomàs,R.2011,TheAstrophys- ical...

2005
[16]

M., et al

Dolag, K., Remus, R.-S., Valenzuela, L. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01061

2025
[17]

G., Pilipenko, S., et al

Dolag, K., Sorce, J. G., Pilipenko, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A169

2023
[18]

& Stasyszyn, F

Dolag, K. & Stasyszyn, F. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 1678

2009
[19]

2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 392, 1008

Donnert, J., Dolag, K., Lesch, H., & Müller, E. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 392, 1008

2009
[20]

& Teyssier, R

Dubois, Y. & Teyssier, R. 2008, A&A, 482, L13

2008
[21]

& Neronov, A

Durrer, R. & Neronov, A. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 62

2013
[22]

Fang, K., Fujii, T., Linden, T., & Olinto, A. V. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 126

2014
[23]

2025, arXiv e-prints [2505.14774]

Garg, D., Durrer, R., & Schober, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints [2505.14774]

2025
[24]

2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 497

Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Foschini, L., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 497

2010
[25]

P., Valentini, M., & Dolag, K

Groth, F., Steinwandel, U. P., Valentini, M., & Dolag, K. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 616

2023
[26]

A., et al

Groth, F., Valentini, M., Seidel, B. A., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 75 Hackstein,S.,Vazza,F.,Brüggen,M.,Sorce,J.G.,&Gottlöber,S.2018,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2519 Hernández-Martínez, E., Dolag, K., Seidel, B., et al. 2024, Astronomy and As- trophysi...

2026
[27]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

2007
[28]

2025, in 39th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 688 Kachelrieß,M.,Ostapchenko,S.,&Tomàs,R.2012,ComputerPhysicsCommu- nications, 183, 1036

Hussain, S., Zaharijas, G., & Dolag, K. 2025, in 39th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 688 Kachelrieß,M.,Ostapchenko,S.,&Tomàs,R.2012,ComputerPhysicsCommu- nications, 183, 1036

2025
[29]

E., & Tsagas, C

Kandus, A., Kunze, K. E., & Tsagas, C. G. 2011, Phys. Rep., 505, 1 Lehle,K.,Ruszkowski,M.,Nelson,D.,Prunier,M.,&Pillepich,A.2026,A&A, 705, A41

2011
[30]

I., Carlesi, E., Grand, R

Libeskind, N. I., Carlesi, E., Grand, R. J. J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 2968

2020
[31]

2015, MNRAS, 453, 3999

Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Mocz, P., & Pakmor, R. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3999

2015
[32]

2022, ApJ, 929, 127

Mtchedlidze, S., Domínguez-Fernández, P., Du, X., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 127

2022
[33]

2016, Phys

Mukohyama, S. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 121302

2016
[34]

& Semikoz, D

Neronov, A. & Semikoz, D. V. 2009, Physical Review D, 80, 123012

2009
[35]

& Vovk, I

Neronov, A. & Vovk, I. 2010, Science, 328, 73 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 571, A16 Reiprich,T.H.,Veronica,A.,Pacaud,F.,etal.2025,AstronomyandAstrophysics, 703, A9 Schober,J.,Abramson,M.,Mandal,S.,Mtchedlidze,S.,&Ka...

2010 arXiv
[36]

R., et al

Sembolini, F., Yepes, G., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4063

2016
[37]

Sigl, G., Miniati, F., & Enßlin, T. A. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 043007 Sorce,J.G.2018,MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety,478,5199

2004
[38]

G., Dubois, Y., Blaizot, J., et al

Sorce, J. G., Dubois, Y., Blaizot, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2998

2021
[39]

G., Mohayaee, R., Aghanim, N., Dolag, K., & Malavasi, N

Sorce, J. G., Mohayaee, R., Aghanim, N., Dolag, K., & Malavasi, N. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, A85

2024
[40]

2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

2005
[41]

Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328, 726 Steinwandel,U.P.,Böss,L.M.,Dolag,K.,&Lesch,H.2022,TheAstrophysical Journal, 933, 131 Steinwandel,U.P.,Dolag,K.,Böss,L.M.,&Marin-Gilabert,T.2024,ApJ,967, 125

2001
[42]

Steinwandel, U. P. & Price, D. J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.19615

2025 arXiv
[43]

Tavecchio, F., Ghisellini, G., Foschini, L., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, L70 Tjemsland,J.,Meyer,M.,&Vazza,F.2024,TheAstrophysicalJournal,963,135 Tricco,T.S.,Price,D.J.,&Bate,M.R.2016,JournalofComputationalPhysics, 322, 326

2010
[44]

B., Courtois, H

Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 86

2013
[45]

& Farrar, G

Unger, M. & Farrar, G. R. 2024, ApJ, 970, 95

2024
[46]

2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A58

Vazza, F., Gheller, C., Zanetti, F., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A58

2025
[47]

2021, Galaxies, 9, 109

Vazza, F., Locatelli, N., Rajpurohit, K., et al. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 109

2021
[48]

S., Abed, Y., & Horns, D

Webar, M. S., Abed, Y., & Horns, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.11996

2025
[49]

Weisstein, E. W. 1999-2026a, Great Circle. From MathWorld–A Wolfram Re- source. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatCircle.html Weisstein,E.W.1999-2026b,InterquartileRange.FromMathWorld–AWolfram Resource. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatCircle.html Article number, page 12 of 12

1999

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Alonso-López,D.,O’Sullivan,S.P.,Bonafede,A.,etal.2026,A&A,705,A143

work page 2026

[2] [2]

M., Dolag, K., Lesch, H., & Kronberg, P

Beck, A. M., Dolag, K., Lesch, H., & Kronberg, P. P. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 3575

work page 2013

[3] [3]

2006, MNRAS, 370, 319

Bertone, S., Vogt, C., & Enßlin, T. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 319

work page 2006

[4] [4]

Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1411.1607

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

Revision of conservative lower bound on the intergalactic magnetic field from Fermi and Cherenkov telescope observations of extreme blazars

Bister, T. & Farrar, G. R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 71 Blunier,J.,Neronov,A.,&Semikoz,D.2025,arXive-prints,arXiv:2506.22285

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

2020, Computer Physics Commu- nications, 252, 107163 Bonafede,A.,Dolag,K.,Stasyszyn,F.,Murante,G.,&Borgani,S.2011,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2234

Blytt, M., Kachelrieß, M., & Ostapchenko, S. 2020, Computer Physics Commu- nications, 252, 107163 Bonafede,A.,Dolag,K.,Stasyszyn,F.,Murante,G.,&Borgani,S.2011,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2234

work page 2020

[7] [7]

2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 513, A30 Böss,L.M.,Dolag,K.,Steinwandel,U.P.,etal.2024,Astronomy&Astrophysics, 692, A232 Böss, L

Bonafede, A., Feretti, L., Murgia, M., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 513, A30 Böss,L.M.,Dolag,K.,Steinwandel,U.P.,etal.2024,Astronomy&Astrophysics, 692, A232 Böss, L. M., Khabibullin, I., Karner, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.15634 Böss, L. M., Steinwandel, U. P., Dolag, K., & Lesch, H. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi...

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[8] [8]

& Capel, F

Bourriche, N. & Capel, F. 2026, ApJ, 997, 264

work page 2026