Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Simulations of Electromagnetic Cascades in the Intergalactic Medium with Plasma Instabilities: the grplinst Code

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A plugin now models plasma-instability cooling in blazar gamma-ray cascades, letting observers bracket how much pair-beam energy loss quenches secondary emission.

desk verdict A genuinely useful, honestly scoped code paper: it adds a modular plasma-instability cooling plugin to CRPropa, but the default maximal-cooling examples are an extreme envelope, not a physical bracket, and the missing regression tests and unreproduced table need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01166 v1 pith:MCVAWDJP submitted 2026-08-02 astro-ph.HE

Rafael Alves Batista , Andrey Saveliev This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords electromagneticcascadesgamma-rayastronomyintergalacticmediumplasmainstabilitiespairbeamsblazarsmagneticfieldsMonteCarlosimulation
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

Blazar gamma rays create electron-positron pairs in intergalactic space, and those pair beams may lose energy to collective plasma processes before scattering to secondary gamma rays. How much energy is lost is unsettled, with some models predicting strong cascade quenching and others negligible losses. This paper presents grplinst, a plugin for the CRPropa simulation framework, which turns several published plasma-instability prescriptions into a continuous energy-loss term acting on electrons and positrons during propagation. The code separates beam, medium, and instability prescription, so users can vary assumptions independently and see how they change predicted gamma-ray spectra and inferred intergalactic magnetic-field constraints. The authors intend it as a phenomenological tool for bracketing theoretical uncertainty, not as a plasma-physics simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (17), the mapping of instability physics onto a continuous loss term, $-dE_e/dx = \eta E_e/(c\tau)$, evaluated at each propagation step. Its power is that every model in Section 2.1 reduces to a choice of $\tau(E_e,n_\mathrm{beam},n_\mathrm{IGM},T_\mathrm{IGM})$; the modular architecture (MediumDensity, MediumTemperature, Flow, PlasmaInstability) lets users vary these independently, including tabulated distance-dependent beam profiles. The implementation deliberately avoids self-consistent wave kinetics: it is a phenomenological layer that brackets what the unresolved plasma physics could do to cascade observables.

What would settle it

Run a PIC simulation for a dilute relativistic pair beam with density ratio $n_\mathrm{beam}/n_\mathrm{IGM}\sim10^{-24}$, resolving the nonlinear saturation of the oblique instability, and measure the fraction of initial beam energy transferred to plasma waves; if the fraction is below about 10% (as in Sironi & Giannios 2014), then the strong-quenching branches of Figures 2 and 4 should be discarded, and the bracket collapses to the no-instability case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

grplinst's central move is to convert each published plasma-instability model into a single local, continuous energy-loss term applied to cascade electrons and positrons while they propagate: $-dE_e/dx = \eta\,E_e/[c\,\tau(E_e,\vec{x},z)]$, where $\tau$ is the model's energy-loss timescale and $\eta$ an efficiency factor. The different prescriptions supply different functional forms for $\tau$ (Eqs. 5–16): from fast two-stream/filamentation and oblique modes to much slower non-linear Landau damping and inhomogeneity-stabilized longitudinal modes. The code separates beam, medium, and instability choice into independent modular classes inside CRPropa, and the authors demonstrate with spectra f

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is setting the energy-loss time equal to the linear instability growth time ($\tau_i = T_i$) at efficiency $\eta = 1$; if nonlinear saturation or inhomogeneity makes the true cooling time much longer, the strong-quenching predictions collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If grplinst does what it claims, the open plasma-instability question becomes a tunable systematic: observers can fold each cooling model into predicted GeV spectra and quote a range rather than a single flux.
  • IGMF constraints derived from GeV cascade emission can be re-derived under each instability assumption, so any inferred bound can be stated with the instability uncertainty attached.
  • Because the beam-density profile is now a free input, jet geometry and luminosity-dependent pair distributions can be tested; the Lorentzian-profile examples show the profile choice alone can move the flux by orders of magnitude.
  • The efficiency parameter $\eta$ gives a compact physical knob for saturation and incomplete dissipation, allowing the community to translate PIC results into spectral predictions without rerunning microscopic simulations.
  • The plugin's modularity makes it straightforward to add future improved cooling prescriptions as they appear, keeping the bracket current.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true $\tau_i$ is much longer than the linear growth time $T_i$, as quasilinear and several PIC studies suggest, then the strongly quenched branches in Figures 2 and 4 would not represent physical endpoints; the code's bracket would narrow toward the no-instability limit.
  • The same phenomenological loss-term mapping could be applied to pair beams from other sources (e.g., dark-matter annihilation or axion-photon conversion), where the density profile and medium conditions differ.
  • A natural, testable upgrade is to make $\eta$ (or $\tau$) depend on local magnetic-field strength and beam angular spread; the authors note that weak tangled fields can suppress the instability, so ignoring that dependence may overestimate quenching in magnetized regions.
  • If future PIC simulations measure the beam-energy fraction actually transferred to plasma, that number could be used to assign a probability distribution to $\eta$ rather than treating it as a free bracket, turning the hard bounds into a central expectation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes grplinst, an external plugin for CRPropa that adds a continuous energy-loss term for electrons and positrons due to plasma instabilities during electromagnetic cascade propagation. Seven literature prescriptions (Eqs. 5–16) are transcribed and coupled to the propagation code through Eq. (17), with an efficiency parameter eta and optional distance-dependent beam profiles (Eq. 18). Illustrative 1D cascade spectra for 1ES 0229+200 are shown in Figs. 2 and 4. The authors frame the code as a phenomenological tool for bracketing theoretical uncertainties in plasma-instability cooling, while explicitly disclaiming any self-consistent plasma evolution. The code is publicly available.

Significance. Provided the implementation is faithful, grplinst v2 would be a useful community code for propagating plasma-instability assumptions into gamma-ray observables. Its strengths are the modular design (clear separation of medium, beam, and instability prescription), the explicit transcription of published cooling formulas, and the candid statement of what the code does not do (Sec. 5). The main caveat is that the default mapping tau_i = T_i, eta = 1 is a maximal-cooling scenario; unless users vary eta/tau, the resulting spectra are one-sided envelopes rather than a true bracket of theoretical uncertainty. This is fixable by adding sensitivity tests or reframing the claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1; Eq. (17); Figs. 2 and 4] The load-bearing assumption is setting tau_i = T_i and eta = 1. The paper itself notes in Sec. 2.1 that tau_i may exceed T_i by orders of magnitude (Grognard 1975; Pavan et al. 2011) and cites Sironi & Giannios (2014) for less than 10% energy transfer. Since Eq. (17) is linear in eta/tau, the quenched branches in Figs. 2 and 4 are an a priori maximal-cooling envelope. If users adopt eta = 0.1 or tau = 10 T_i, the plasma loss length exceeds the inverse-Compton length for most of the Fig. 1 curves and the spectra approach the no-instability limit. This affects the central claim in the abstract that the code 'brackets theoretical uncertainties.' Please add a sensitivity study or explicitly reframe the abstract and Sec. 5 as a conservative lower envelope rather than a physical bracket.
  2. [Sec. 2.1.1; Fig. 2] The Bret et al. (2010) expressions, Eqs. (5)–(6), are introduced as 'phenomenological linear-growth reference prescriptions' and 'not completely comparable with the other models,' yet Fig. 2 shows spectra from those expressions alongside bona fide cooling models. The use of linear growth times as cooling times in Eq. (17) is not justified for these cases. Please either remove them from the spectral comparison or mark them clearly as schematic reference cases with a dedicated symbol or caption note.
  3. [Sec. 3; code validation] The only validation statement is that the original implementation and validation were in Alves Batista et al. (2019). For a code paper presenting grplinst v2, this is insufficient: no regression tests, analytic benchmarks, or comparison with the previous version are reported. A reader cannot check from this paper that the energy loss in Eq. (17) is correctly discretized. I request a minimal test suite (e.g., mono-energetic beam with constant tau; verify that the energy-loss length is c tau/eta) in the repository, even if it is not printed in the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.3, Eq. (9)] T_B(D) is not defined beyond 'the exact values are given in table 2 of Alves Batista et al. (2019)'. Please include the table (or an ASCII data file) in the paper or repository to make this prescription reproducible.
  2. [Fig. 1] The y-axis label 'inverse energy loss length [Mpc^{-1}]' is ambiguous; it should be 'inverse energy-loss length' or 'energy-loss rate per Mpc' to match the dashed line for the inverse-Compton mean free path.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 2] Figure 2 does not include Miniati & Elyiv (2013), although the text says the spectra for 'the different models' are shown. Clarify that this model is distance-dependent and therefore deferred to Fig. 4, or add it with an assumed profile.
  4. [Sec. 2.1] The phrase 'we conservatively set tau_i = T_i' should define the direction of conservatism: it maximizes cascade suppression and therefore yields a minimal cascade flux. As written, 'conservatively' is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation in the Miniati-Elyiv tabulation; no substantive circularity in the central implementation or example spectra.

  1. other [Section 2.1.3, Eq. (9) and footnote 1]
    "The exact values are given in table 2 of Alves Batista et al. (2019)."

    Equation (9) defines the Miniati-Elyiv cooling time using the distance-dependent factor T_B(D), and the paper's sole source for these values is the authors' own previous paper rather than the original Miniati & Elyiv (2013). The implementation of this one prescription therefore relies on a self-citation for its numerical parameters. This is not central circularity: the values are auxiliary inputs, the other prescriptions are independently cited, the spectra are explicitly illustrative, and Eq. (17) is a transparent phenomenological mapping rather than a hidden equivalence.

full rationale

The paper is a software/implementation paper. Its derivation chain is: take published plasma-instability cooling-time prescriptions (Eqs. 5-16) -> convert them to a continuous energy-loss term (Eq. 17) -> run Monte Carlo cascades -> show spectra. None of these steps redefines a prediction as an input. Eq. (17) is explicitly a phenomenological layer, and the authors state it does not solve the kinetic plasma problem self-consistently. Figures 2 and 4 are labeled illustrative and are not compared to observations, so there is no fitted parameter being called a prediction. The choice tau_i = T_i and eta = 1 is a disclosed physical assumption, not a hidden circular input; the paper even cites Grognard (1975) and Pavan et al. (2011) for tau_i potentially exceeding T_i and Sironi & Giannios (2014) for low transfer efficiencies, so the bracketing role is an honest conditional statement. The only self-referential element is the Miniati-Elyiv T_B(D) tabulation, sourced from the authors' own Alves Batista et al. (2019) table instead of the primary reference. That is a minor provenance/self-citation issue and does not make the central claim circular, because the model itself remains an external prescription and the paper's main contribution is the modular implementation. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained against external literature prescriptions, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; eta is a scaling parameter, not a new physics ingredient. The numerical constants in Eqs. (5)-(16) and the critical densities in Eqs. (7), (12), and (14) are inherited from the cited literature, not fitted in this work. The genuinely new modeling inputs are the beam density profile (including the hand-chosen Lorentzian scales and the rescaling of the Miniati-Elyiv profile) and the efficiency factor eta. The most consequential assumption is the equality tau_i = T_i, which sets the maximum-cooling envelope for all implemented models.

free parameters (5)
  • efficiency factor eta = 1 (default; adjustable)
    Rescales the coupling in Eq. (17); eta = 1 is the maximum-cooling extreme, chosen by hand as the bracketing envelope.
  • beam density normalization n_beam,0 = 1e-16 m^-3 (fiducial); Miniati-Elyiv profile rescaled to L = 1e37 W
    The beam density is the dominant input to all prescriptions; its value and spatial profile are assumed, not derived. The Miniati and Elyiv (2013) profile is interpolated and rescaled to the adopted luminosity.
  • Lorentzian profile scale r0 = 0.5 Mpc and 100 Mpc
    Two illustrative characteristic distances chosen by hand for the beam-density profiles in Eq. (18) and Figure 3.
  • source luminosity L = 1e37 W
    Fiducial isotropic-equivalent luminosity for 1ES 0229+200 adopted in the example simulations (Figures 2 and 4).
  • T_B(D) distance tabulation = 3.5 to 0.75
    Values for the Miniati-Elyiv model are taken from table 2 of the self-cited Alves Batista et al. (2019) and not reproduced in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Energy-loss time equals instability growth time (tau_i = T_i)
    Stated in Section 2.1: 'we conservatively set tau_i = T_i'; this is the key modeling choice that makes all prescriptions maximally quenching.
  • domain assumption The literature cooling timescales (Eqs. 5-16) apply to blazar pair beams in the IGM
    The prescriptions are adopted from linear theory and PIC studies; the paper itself notes the Bret et al. expressions are for idealized configurations and that linear instability does not imply efficient cooling (Section 5).
  • ad hoc to paper Cooling can be represented as a local continuous loss term -dE/dx = eta E/(c tau) (Eq. 17)
    This phenomenological mapping is the core of the plugin; it neglects feedback of the instabilities on the beam distribution, which the paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 5.
  • domain assumption IGM density and temperature take fiducial values n_IGM,0 = 0.1 m^-3, T_IGM,0 = 10^4 K with n_IGM = n_IGM,0 (1+z)^3
    Adopted in Section 2 from Meiksin (2009) and McQuinn (2016); results are sensitive to these values.
  • domain assumption CRPropa reliably simulates EM cascades
    The plugin runs inside CRPropa (Alves Batista et al. 2016, 2022); cascade physics (EBL absorption, inverse Compton) is inherited from that framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulations of Electromagnetic Cascades in the Intergalactic Medium with Plasma Instabilities: the grplinst Code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MCVAWDJP

@misc{pith2026260801166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulations of Electromagnetic Cascades in the Intergalactic Medium with Plasma Instabilities: the grplinst Code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MCVAWDJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01166}
}
read the original abstract

Electromagnetic cascades initiated by TeV gamma rays from distant blazars provide one of the cleanest indirect probes of the intergalactic medium and, in particular, of intergalactic magnetic fields. However, their interpretation is not completely clear because of an open theoretical question: the extent to which the electron-positron beams generated in the cascade can lose energy through collective plasma processes. If this occurs before inverse Compton scattering produces secondary gamma rays, then the cascade is quenched. Here we present grplinst, a plugin for the CRPropa framework that models plasma-instability cooling acting on electrons and positrons during propagation. We describe the implementation of several prescriptions proposed in the literature, and present illustrative examples. The code is suitable both for bracketing theoretical uncertainties and for performing systematic studies of how plasma-instability assumptions propagate into gamma-ray observables and inferred intergalactic magnetic-field constraints, which is essential for interpreting current and forthcoming observations by high-energy gamma-ray observatories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cooling rates for the different plasma instability models considered here, compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulated gamma-ray fluxes from the blazar 1ES 0229+200 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Beam number density as a function of distance from the source. The dashed line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated gamma-ray fluxes from the blazar 1ES 0229+200 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Pohl, M

    Alawashra, M. and Pohl, M. (2022). Suppression of the TeV pair-beam-plasma instability by a tangled weak intergalactic magnetic field. The Astrophysical Journal 929,

    work page 2022

  2. [10]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab017b Vafin, S., Rafighi, I., Pohl, M., and Niemiec, J. (2018). The electrostatic instability for realistic pair distributions in blazar/ebl cascades. The Astrophysical Journal 857,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab017b 2018

  3. [12]

    RelativisticpairbeamsfromTeVblazars: Asourceofreprocessed GeV emission rather than intergalactic heating

    doi:10.3390/ galaxies4030012 Frontiers 16 Alves Batista & Saveliev Simulations of Electromagnetic Cascades with Plasma Instabilities Sironi, L.andGiannios, D.(2014). RelativisticpairbeamsfromTeVblazars: Asourceofreprocessed GeV emission rather than intergalactic heating. The Astrophysical Journal 787,

    work page 2014

  4. [19]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/19 McQuinn, M. (2016). The evolution of the intergalactic medium. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 54, 313–362. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355 Meiksin, A. A. (2009). The physics of the intergalactic medium. Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 1405–1469. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1405 Miniati, F. and Elyiv, A. (201...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/1/19 2016

  5. [21]

    and Zech, A

    doi:10.1088/ 0004-637X/787/1/49 Sol, H. and Zech, A. (2022). Blazars at very high energies: Emission modelling. Galaxies 10,

    work page 2022

  6. [22]

    E., Pfrommer, C., Puchwein, E., and Chang, P

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/22 Broderick, A. E., Pfrommer, C., Puchwein, E., and Chang, P. (2014). Implications of plasma beam instabilities for the statistics of the fermi hard gamma-ray blazars and the origin of the extragalactic gamma-ray background. The Astrophysical Journal 790,

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/22 2014

  7. [23]

    E., Pfrommer, C., Puchwein, E., Lamberts, A., and Shalaby, M

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/23 Chang, P., Broderick, A. E., Pfrommer, C., Puchwein, E., Lamberts, A., and Shalaby, M. (2014). The effect of nonlinear landau damping on ultrarelativistic beam plasma instabilities. The Astrophysical Journal 797,

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/23 2014

  8. [35]

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2022/09/035 Alves Batista, R., Dundovic, A., Erdmann, M., Kampert, K.-H., Kuempel, D., Müller, G., et al. (2016). CRPropa 3 - a public astrophysical simulation framework for propagating extraterrestrial ultra-high energy particles. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 5,

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2022

Show all 25 references
  1. [37]

    doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/adec9e Alves Batista, R., Becker Tjus, J., Dörner, J., Dundovic, A., Eichmann, B., Frie, A., et al. (2022). CRPropa 3.2 – an advanced framework for high-energy particle propagation in extragalactic and galactic spaces. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti...

    2022

  2. [38]

    and Saveliev, A

    doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2016/05/038 Alves Batista, R. and Saveliev, A. (2021). The gamma-ray window to intergalactic magnetism. Universe 7,

    2016

  3. [43]

    C., and Varoquaux, G

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ aab552 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., and Varoquaux, G. (2011). The numpy array: A structure for efficient numerical computation. Computing in Science and Engineering 13, 22–30. doi:10.1109/ MCSE.2011.37 Frontiers 17

    2011 doi

  4. [45]

    E., Chang, P., Pfrommer, C., Puchwein, E., and Lamberts, A

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabe92 Shalaby, M., Broderick, A. E., Chang, P., Pfrommer, C., Puchwein, E., and Lamberts, A. (2020). The growth of the longitudinal beam-plasma instability in the presence of an inhomogeneous background. Journal of Plasma Physics 86, 535860201. doi:10.10...

    2020 doi

  5. [49]

    E., Chang, P., Pfrommer, C., Lamberts, A., and Puchwein, E

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/49 Shalaby, M., Broderick, A. E., Chang, P., Pfrommer, C., Lamberts, A., and Puchwein, E. (2018). Growth of beam-plasma instabilities in the presence of background inhomogeneity. The Astrophysical Journal 859,

    2018 doi

  6. [54]

    and Semikoz, D

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/54 Neronov, A. and Semikoz, D. V. (2009). Sensitivity ofγ-ray telescopes for detection of magnetic fields in the intergalactic medium. Physical Review D 80, 123012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80. 123012 Neronov, A. and Vovk, I. (2010). Evidence for strong...

    2009 doi

  7. [67]

    and Pohl, M

    doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac5a4b Alawashra, M. and Pohl, M. (2024). Nonlinear feedback of the electrostatic instability on the blazar-induced pair beam and GeV cascade. The Astrophysical Journal 964,

    2024

  8. [73]

    H., and Umeda, T

    doi:10.1126/science.1184192 Pavan, J., Yoon, P. H., and Umeda, T. (2011). Quasilinear theory and simulation of buneman instability. Physics of Plasmas 18, 042307. doi:10.1063/1.3574359 Perry, R. and Lyubarsky, Y. (2021). The role of resonant plasma instabilities in the evoluti...

    2011

  9. [82]

    M., Long, H., and Pohl, M

    doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ad24ea Alawashra, M., Yang, Y., Hirata, C. M., Long, H., and Pohl, M. (2025). MeV cosmic-ray electrons modify the TeC pair-beam plasma instability. The Astrophysical Journal 989,

    2025

  10. [96]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/96 Tavecchio, F., Ghisellini, G., Foschini, L., Bonnoli, G., Ghirlanda, G., and Coppi, P. (2010). The intergalactic magnetic field constrained by fermi/large area telescope observations of the TeV blazar 1ES0229+200. Monthly Notices of the Royal Ast...

    2010

  11. [102]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/102 Schlickeiser, R., Krakau, S., and Supsar, M. (2013). Plasma effects on fast pair beams. ii. reactive versus kinetic instability of parallel electrostatic waves. The Astrophysical Journal 777,

    2013 doi

  12. [105]

    and Schlickeiser, R

    doi:10.3390/galaxies10060105 Supsar, M. and Schlickeiser, R. (2014). Plasma effects on fast pair beams. iii. oblique electrostatic growth rates for perpendicular maxwellian pair beams. The Astrophysical Journal 783,

    2014 doi

  13. [110]

    E., Pfrommer, C., Puchwein, E., Lamberts, A., Shalaby, M., et al

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/110 Chang, P., Broderick, A. E., Pfrommer, C., Puchwein, E., Lamberts, A., Shalaby, M., et al. (2016). The linear instability of dilute ultrarelativistice± pair beams. The Astrophysical Journal 833,

    2016 doi

  14. [118]

    L., Arsioli, B., Giommi, P., Padovani, P., and Brandt, C

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/118 Chang, Y. L., Arsioli, B., Giommi, P., Padovani, P., and Brandt, C. H. (2019). The 3HSP catalogue of extreme and high-synchrotron peaked blazars. Astronomy and Astrophysics 632, A77. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834526 Chen, W., Errando, M., and Buc...

    2019 doi arXiv

  15. [137]

    and Ghisellini, G

    doi:10.1088/ 0004-637X/790/2/137 Celotti, A. and Ghisellini, G. (2008). The power of blazar jets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 385, 283–300. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x Chang, P., Broderick, A. E., and Pfrommer, C. (2012). The cosmological impact ...

    2008

  16. [223]

    doi:10.3390/universe7070223 Alves Batista, R., Saveliev, A., and de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M. (2019). The impact of plasma instabilities on the spectra of TeV blazars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 489, arXiv:1904.13345. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2389 Beazley, D. ...

    2019 arXiv

  17. [731]

    R., Millman, K

    doi:10.1071/PH750731 Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., et al. (2020). Array programming with numpy. Nature 585, 357–362. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 Kempf, A., Kilian, P., and Spanier, F. (2016). Energy loss in int...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.