Electromagnetic signatures of gradual magnetic dissipation in jets from supermassive black holes

Dimitrios Giannios; Maria Petropoulou; Stamatios I. Stathopoulos; Stavros Dimitrakoudis

REVIEW

Electromagnetic signatures of gradual magnetic dissipation in jets from supermassive black holes

Stavros Dimitrakoudis, Maria Petropoulou, Stamatios I. Stathopoulos, Dimitrios Giannios

High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena · Submitted 3 Nov 2026 · 36 references

Pith's verdict: Real new machinery for the striped-jet blazar scenario; the central synchrotron-dominated conclusion is inherited from an untested energy partition, but the direction is probably robust.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on November 4, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2611.05322 (version 1)

Pith IDADMCQWMS, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationDimitrios Giannios, Maria Petropoulou, Stamatios I. Stathopoulos, Stavros Dimitrakoudis. "Electromagnetic signatures of gradual magnetic dissipation in jets from supermassive black holes." arXiv:2611.05322 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ADMCQWMS

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Quick take: this is the first broadband SED computation for the continuous magnetic dissipation (striped-jet) scenario in blazars, with a genuinely new numerical ingredient — inter-segment photon exchange with relative-Doppler boosting, iterated to convergence. The central conclusion, that this scenario gives nearly universal synchrotron-dominated spectra and therefore is unlikely to power observed blazar SEDs (b9, b251), is a real computation, but its key number is inherited from an input. The paper reads the Compton ratio (~10^-3) straight off the assumed partition U'_e/U'_B (b154, b82), which is fixed by f_rec = 0.27 sigma/(sigma+2) (Eq. 9) with no scan over xi or f_rec. The circularity concern is fair, with one correction: the stress-test note scales it right. Pair loading (xi=0.55) or f_rec -> 1 moves the ratio by a factor of a few to ten, not orders of magnitude. Synchrotron dominance probably survives; what is overstated is the strength of the 'unlikely' conclusion, which is never shown to be independent of the partition.

What is solid: the spillage machinery is a real advance, the factor-of-three IC enhancement (b7) is documented across the parameter study, and convergence is quantified (95% at iteration 4, Fig. A.5). The external-field argument is clean: dissipation peaks at tens of parsecs, where BLR and torus fields are de-boosted (Eqs. 23-26). The most useful paragraph in the paper is the comparison explaining why Zhang & Giannios 2021 got Compton-dominated spectra — local versus accumulated dissipation — and the electron-retention test (Fig. B.1c) is a genuine, if partial, robustness check. Credit also for flagging the segment-width dependence in Fig. B.1(d), which the authors admit may indicate an R_avg implementation imperfection.

Soft spots, in proportion. First, the partition: no run varies xi or f_rec, and the PIC calibration is stated for sigma >= 1 while the segments dominating the output sit near z_rec/2 where sigma ~ 0.7 (from Eqs. 4-5), just outside the stated range; the authors extrapolate without comment. A referee should ask for that scan. Second, the average impact angle of 0 degrees for inter-segment photons has no error estimate and directly feeds the factor-of-three; that number needs an uncertainty. Third, the adapted code is announced but not released with a commit hash, which undercuts the 'readily adaptable' claim. None of this is fatal; the computation is internally consistent and the authors are plainly honest about their own limitations.

This paper is for blazar and jet modelers and for anyone using the striped-wind dissipation picture. It deserves a serious referee, with revision requests centered on the partition scan, the impact-angle error estimate, and code release details.

Referee report

Significance

The numerical framework is a substantial and reusable contribution: the segment geometry is defined carefully, the relative-motion treatment is explicit, the iterative scheme has a quantified convergence test (95% of the benchmark luminosity at iteration 4, 99.7% at iteration 8, Fig. A.5), and the code is provided openly. The quantification of inter-segment photon spillage is a useful and clean result that goes beyond one-zone or simply summed multi-zone treatments. If the synchrotron-dominance conclusion were robust, it would be an important constraint on the striped-jet scenario for blazars. However, as discussed below, the central conclusion is not tested independently of the assumed electron injection efficiency, and the calibration of that efficiency is extrapolated into a regime where its PIC motivation does not apply.

Major objections (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (9), Eq. (15); Section 4.1, b153-b154] The central claim of synchrotron dominance is imposed by the assumed energy partition rather than being a prediction of the radiative-transfer calculation. The electron injection power in Eq. (15) is proportional to f_rec, and with f_rec = 0.27 sigma/(sigma+2) the model yields U'_e/U'_B below about 10^-3 (Fig. 2, b82); the text then explicitly uses U'_B/U'_e as a proxy for the inverse Compton ratio (b154). Since the Compton ratio therefore scales linearly with xi and with f_rec, the choice xi = 0.27 (b63) is load-bearing for the abstract conclusion (b9) and for the statement that gradual dissipation is unlikely to power observed blazar spectra (b251). The parameter scans in Figs. 6 and B.1 never vary xi or f_rec, so the phrase "in all our test cases" covers variations of other parameters only. I recommend either running additional models with xi = 0.55 (pair-loaded case) and with larger f_rec, including the constant f_rec = 0.27 case already shown as thin lines in Fig. 2, or explicitly reframing the conclusion as conditional on the adopted electron-proton PIC-based injection efficiency. The former is preferable because the pair-loading and f_rec sensitivities are directly relevant to the physical scenario the paper aims to constrain.
[Section 2, Eqs. (4), (5), (9), and (14)] The empirical relation f_rec = xi sigma/(sigma+2) is cited from Sironi et al. (2015) for the relativistic regime sigma >= 1 with zero guide field, yet the segments that dominate the bolometric output are located near z_rec/2, where Eq. (5) with a = 1.4 gives sigma about 0.7. Equation (9) is therefore applied outside its stated calibration range without comment. The same applies to the slope prescription in Eq. (14), which combines Werner et al. (2016) and Ball et al. (2018) results, and the sigma < 0.1 regime is capped at s = 4. The paper should state explicitly that f_rec and s are extrapolated to sub-relativistic magnetization in the emission-dominating region, or justify the extrapolation with a comparison to available simulations at sigma ~ 0.7. This is a correctness-risk issue because the dominant segment, the energy partition, and the spectral slope are all affected by the extrapolated quantities.
[Section 4.1 and Table 1] The "near-universal SED" conclusion is supported by varying M, L, theta_j, theta_obs, Gamma_inf, eta_acc, l_min, and numerical details, but the set of variations does not include the lepton composition parameter xi or the overall reconnection electron-loading fraction f_rec. Since the abstract states a universal property of the physical scenario rather than of the particular fiducial partition, the universality claim should either be demonstrated over the (xi, f_rec) plane or be qualified. This is a distinct but related limitation to the first major comment: it concerns the breadth of the claim, not only its input dependence.

Minor objections (5)

[Section 4.3] The text contains a typo, "frequences", which should read "frequencies".
[Table 2 and Figs. 1, 2] The stripe-width distribution index is written as a in the text and figures but as alpha in Table 2; the notation should be made consistent throughout.
[Caption of Fig. 3] The caption says "not in scale"; it should read "not to scale".
[Appendix A, Eq. (A.8)] The factor "agg" appears in Eq. (A.8) as a cumulative gamma-gamma absorption rate but is not defined in the surrounding text; please define it or remove it if it is not used.
[Section 3, Eq. (20)] The use of a single average impact angle of 0 degrees for all inter-segment photon paths is a strong simplification; the paper states this clearly, but it would help to comment on the expected error introduced by replacing the actual angular distribution with one representative Doppler factor, especially for nearby segments.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that gradual magnetic dissipation in blazar jets yields nearly universal, synchrotron-dominated spectra, making the scenario unlikely to power observed blazar emission.

The reading

This paper asks whether the broadband emission of blazars — jets from supermassive black holes pointed nearly at us — can be powered by magnetic reconnection that dissipates the jet's magnetic energy gradually, over distances from sub-parsec to kiloparsec scales. To answer it, the authors build a numerical framework that treats the jet as a chain of emitting segments that exchange and reprocess each other's photons, and they survey how the emerging spectrum depends on black hole mass, jet power, opening angle, and Lorentz factor. The central result is that the photon spectra are nearly universal and synchrotron-dominated in every case: the inverse-Compton component stays about a thousand times weaker than the synchrotron component, even after inter-segment photon spillage boosts it by a factor of three, and even when external radiation fields are added. The authors conclude that this gradual-dissipation scenario is unlikely to account for the variety of observed blazar spectra, whose Compton components are often prominent. The numerical framework itself is left as a tool that can be re-pointed at other dissipation scenarios.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a semi-analytical striped-jet dynamics model combined with an iterative multi-segment radiative-transfer calculation. The jet is launched Poynting-flux-dominated with alternating magnetic polarity ('striped'), and reconnection at the current sheets between stripes dissipates magnetic energy and accelerates the bulk flow; the model prescribes how magnetization $\sigma(z)$ and bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma(z)$ evolve with distance ($\sigma\propto z^{-1/3}$ and $\Gamma\propto z^{1/3}$ over a wide range), giving the dissipated power per segment through the differential dissipation rate $dL_{\rm diss}/dz$. A fraction $f_{\rm rec}=\xi\,\sigma/(\sigma+2)$ with $\xi=0.27$ (taken from particle-in-cell simulations of electron-proton reconnection) of that power is injected into a power-law population of non-thermal electrons, whose spectral slope $s(\sigma)$ is also taken from simulation results. The jet is discretized into segments that inscribe spheres in the observer's frame; the radiation of every segment is converted into an external photon field for every other segment, de-boosted by the relative Doppler factor between the two, and the coupled kinetic equations are iterated up- and down-stream until the spectra converge, with four iterations capturing 95 percent of the converged inverse-Compton luminosity. This machinery is what makes the paper's quantitative statements about inter-segment photon spillage and the Compton ratio possible.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that gradual magnetic dissipation in jets from supermassive black holes leads to nearly universal, synchrotron-dominated photon spectra: in all test cases the inverse-Compton component is far less luminous than the synchrotron component, with a Compton ratio of about $10^{-3}$, so this physical scenario is unlikely to power the variety of observed blazar spectra. Two mechanisms that might rescue the inverse-Compton component are shown to be insufficient. Radiation spillage between jet segments, treated self-consistently through iterative radiative transfer, raises the inverse-Compton luminosity by roughly a factor of three compared with the optically-thin sum of independent segments. External photon fields from the broad-line region, dusty torus, and cosmic microwave background remain subdominant at the distances where dissipation peaks, because their energy densities stay below the magnetic energy density there. The emergent spectrum is mostly fixed by local jet conditions at $z_{\rm rec}/2$ (tens of parsecs in the baseline model), with only the low-frequency radio tail arising further downstream. If the paper is right, observed blazar emission must come from dissipation that is more localized or differently configured than continuous reconnection distributed over parsec scales.

Load-bearing premise

The whole synchrotron-dominance conclusion rests on the input that only about 27 percent of the dissipated magnetic power, scaled by $\sigma/(\sigma+2)$, is transferred to the radiating electrons; if the dissipation regions are pair-loaded or electrons capture a larger share of the dissipated energy, the inverse-Compton component rises and the central claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Observed blazar spectra with prominent inverse-Compton components cannot be explained by continuous magnetic reconnection dissipating energy gradually across parsec scales; the dissipation must be more localized or must partition energy into electrons differently.
One-zone and optically-thin multi-zone models of extended jets that neglect photon exchange between emitting regions underestimate the inverse-Compton luminosity by a factor of about three, so radiative coupling between jet segments is a sizable effect that should be included in extended-jet modeling.
External radiation fields from the broad-line region, dusty torus, and cosmic microwave background do not rescue the inverse-Compton component under gradual dissipation, because they are geometrically diluted or de-boosted where the dissipation peaks.
The predicted spectra are nearly universal — mostly fixed by local conditions at the dissipation peak — so the model makes a specific prediction for the characteristic SED shape that can be compared with the observed diversity of blazar spectra.
The iterative multi-segment framework can be re-targeted at other dissipation scenarios such as shocks or localized reconnection, making the spatial distribution of energy release the key diagnostic for how blazar jets emit.

Reading between the lines

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

The synchrotron-dominance verdict is carried by the assumed injection efficiency $\xi=0.27$: because the Compton ratio tracks $U'_e/U'_B$ directly, any parameter set — a pair-loaded dissipation region with $\xi\simeq0.55$, a larger electron energy share, or a scale-dependent $f_{\rm rec}$ — that raises that ratio would weaken or reverse the paper's conclusion; this is my reading, not a result the
The factor-of-three enhancement of inverse-Compton emission from photon spillage suggests the synchrotron-versus-Compton hierarchy in any extended jet model depends sensitively on how photons are recycled between comoving regions; applying the same iterative treatment to gamma-ray-burst jets, where photon densities are far higher, is an untried extension that would test the mechanism harder.
The 'nearly universal SED' claim could be turned into a falsifiable census: if a large sample of blazars shows spectral shapes incompatible with the predicted universal form — for instance X-ray-to-gamma-ray ratios that the predicted soft electron spectra at tens of parsecs cannot produce — the gradual-dissipation scenario would be ruled out observationally even without resolving the energy-partit

Original abstract

Context. Blazar jets -- collimated and relativistic plasma outflows viewed at small angles -- are prolific sources of non-thermal radiation. Aims. We develop a numerical framework for calculating the emission from an extended blazar jet where gradual energy dissipation, mediated through magnetic reconnection, takes place across a wide range of distances from the supermassive black hole. Methods. We adapt the open-source radiative transfer code LeHaMoC that self-consistently calculates photon spectra from relativistic charged particles that occupy a spherical blob to treat the emission from an extended jet. The jet is treated as a series of segments that interact with each other through radiative transfer. The effects of radiation spillage are calculated iteratively throughout the jet, accounting for relativistic effects arising from the relative motion between jet segments, until a steady state is reached. Results. We find that this approach produces some distinct differences in the total spectral energy distribution compared to the results obtained by adding the emission escaping from each constituent segment of the jet (optical thin regime), increasing the part of the spectrum affected by inverse Compton scattering by a factor of three. However, the latter is always far less luminous than the synchrotron component, even when enhanced by external radiation fields. Conclusions. Gradual magnetic dissipation in jets from supermassive black holes leads to nearly universal, synchrotron-dominated photon spectra. The numerical framework developed here is readily adaptable to a broad range of jet dissipation scenarios and applications to extended jet emission.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-11-04: 1 request, 7,636 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.47 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.43 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.96 · compares with prior results 0.92 · mentions code or data availability 0.13.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Context. Blazar jets -- collimated and relativistic plasma outflows viewed at small angles -- are prolific sources of non-thermal radiation. Aims. We develop a numerical framework for calculating the emission from an extended blazar jet where gradual energy dissipation, mediated through magnetic reconnection, takes place across a wide range of distances from the supermassive black hole. Methods. We adapt the open-source radiative transfer code LeHaMoC that self-consistently calculates photon spectra from relativistic charged particles that occupy a spherical blob to treat the emission from an extended jet. The jet is treated as a series of segments that interact with each other through radiative transfer. The effects of radiation spillage are calculated iteratively throughout the jet, accounting for relativistic effects arising from the relative motion between jet segments, until a steady state is reached. Results. We find that this approach produces some distinct differences in the total spectral energy distribution compared to the results obtained by adding the emission escaping from each constituent segment of the jet (optical thin regime), increasing the part of the spectrum affected by inverse Compton scattering by a factor of three. However, the latter is always far less luminous than the synchrotron component, even when enhanced by external radiation fields. Conclusions. Gradual magnetic dissipation in jets from supermassive black holes leads to nearly universal, synchrotron-dominated photon spectra. The numerical framework developed here is readily adaptable to a broad range of jet dissipation scenarios and applications to extended jet emission.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Context.	background 1.00	0.02	0.01	unclear 1.00
s1	Blazar jets -- collimated and relativistic plasma outflows viewed at small angles -- are prolific sources of non-thermal radiation. Aims.	background 0.97	0.04	0.01	asserted 0.96
s2	We develop a numerical framework for calculating the emission from an extended blazar jet where gradual energy dissipation, mediated through magnetic reconnection, takes place across a wide range of distances from the supermassive black hole. Methods.	contribution 0.95	0.93	0.02	asserted 0.93
s3	We adapt the open-source radiative transfer code LeHaMoC that self-consistently calculates photon spectra from relativistic charged particles that occupy a spherical blob to treat the emission from an extended jet.	method 0.99	0.89	0.02	asserted 1.00
s4	The jet is treated as a series of segments that interact with each other through radiative transfer.	method 1.00	0.67	0.02	asserted 1.00
s5	The effects of radiation spillage are calculated iteratively throughout the jet, accounting for relativistic effects arising from the relative motion between jet segments, until a steady state is reached. Results.	method 1.00	0.82	0.02	asserted 0.91
s6	We find that this approach produces some distinct differences in the total spectral energy distribution compared to the results obtained by adding the emission escaping from each constituent segment of the jet (optical thin regime), increasing the part of the spectrum affected by inverse Compton scattering by a factor of three.	result 1.00	0.96	0.08	asserted 0.99
s7	However, the latter is always far less luminous than the synchrotron component, even when enhanced by external radiation fields. Conclusions.	result 0.95	0.84	0.05	asserted 1.00
s8	Gradual magnetic dissipation in jets from supermassive black holes leads to nearly universal, synchrotron-dominated photon spectra.	interpretation 0.62	0.87	0.93	asserted 1.00
s9	The numerical framework developed here is readily adaptable to a broad range of jet dissipation scenarios and applications to extended jet emission.	contribution 0.55	0.74	0.06	asserted 0.98

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 0.64 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Jet parameters as a function of distance (normalized to zrec/2) for three values of α indicated by different colors. Top panel: magnetization (solid lines) and bulk Lorentz factor (dashed lines). Middle panel: dissipated power per logarithmic interval dz. Bottom panel: kinetic and Poynting jet power. A jet with total power L = 5 · 1045 erg s−1 and Γ∞ = 50 was assumed. A fraction frec of the dissipated energy at distance z is transferred to a population of non-thermal electrons accelerated by magnetic reconnection. Particle-in-cell simulations (PIC) of magnetic reconnection in the…

**Figure 2.** Parameters of the model as a function of distance z along the jet for three values of α (slope of the power-law distribution of width stripes). Vertical dotted lines indicate the distance zrec/2 for stripes with minimum width lmin = 400 Rg for M = 108M⊙. A jet with total power L = 5 · 1045 erg s−1 and Γ∞ = 50 was assumed. Thin lines in the lower left panel show results for constant frec = 0.27. Primed quantities are measured in the respective segment’s rest frame

**Figure 3.** Schematics of the adopted numerical framework. Left panel: Sketch of a jet (not in scale) modeled as a series of segments inscribed within a cone, with an initial pseudo-parabolic bulk flow acceleration region represented by the border of the first segment (shown at z0). The black hole, fed by an accretion disk, is located at z = 0. The total luminosity we calculate at each point in the jet needs to account for the radiation from and between previous segments. Right panel: Schematic of our calculations from segment to segment, in repeated iterations going from the upstream end of…

**Figure 4.** Cumulative profiles of observer-frame photon luminosity in specific energy bands (solid lines), bolometric photon luminosity (dashed line), and dissipated power (dotted line) for the baseline model. Cumulative profiles are normalized to their respective maximum values. The vertical line indicates the distance zrec/2

**Figure 5.** Spectral energy distribution (SED) of various segments within a blazar jet with continuous magnetic dissipation, at different distances from the black hole. For each segment we plot the SED emitted from it (dotted lines) as well as the cumulative emission from all segments up to and including that one (solid lines). distances through synchrotron radiation, where the magnetic field is stronger, GeV γ-ray photons are produced through synchrotron self-Compton, requiring the build up of sufficient number density of low-energy photons in the jet. The emission at low-frequencies, e.g.…

**Figure 6.** Spectral energy distribution (SED) of a blazar jet with continuous magnetic dissipation for various model parameters. Starting from the baseline model in panel (a), where the zrec/2 distance corresponds to segment No. 102, the other panels show models calculated by changing one parameter at a time: b) M = 107M⊙, c) L = 5 · 1043 erg s−1 , d) θj = 10◦ , e) θobs = 15◦ , and f) Γ∞ = 10. In each panel, spectra from emission up to each each segment along the jet are plotted with different colors. The dashed orange line indicates the spectrum arising from the distance where the dissipation…

**Figure 7.** Energy densities of magnetic field and external radiation fields plotted as a function of distance along the jet for the baseline model. All energy densities are measured in the local rest frame of a segment located at distance z. 4.2. External radiation fields In this section, we discuss if external radiation fields could enhance the ICS emission of our jet models. We consider first the radiation field from the broad line region (BLR). Its energy density in a segment’s rest frame can be written as (Ghisellini & Tavecchio 2009) U ′ BLR(z) = ξBLRLd 4πR 2 BLRc f(Γ) (23) where

**Figure 8.** SEDs from five specific segments (located at distances of 0.1 pc to 1000 pc) for (a) the baseline case where a = 1.4 and for (b) a = ∞. We have focused on the low energy part of the spectrum and specifically in the range from 1 GHz to 10 GHz (shaded region)

**Figure 9.** SEDs from four specific segments (located at distances of 1 pc, 10 pc, 100 pc, and 1000 pc) for the baseline case where a = 1.4 (solid lines) and for the addition of electron escape (dashed line) and the removal of SSA losses (dotted lines). In

Showing 9 of the paper's 10 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:2611.05322 by the authors.

References

Works cited (36)

[1]

Agudo, I., Marscher, A. P ., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 735, L10

View on Pith 2011
[2]

Ball, D., Sironi, L., & Özel, F. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 80

View on Pith 2018
[3]

Beniamini, P . & Giannios, D. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3202

View on Pith 2017
[4]

Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

View on Pith 1977
[5]

Blundell, K. M., MIODUSZEwSkI, A. J., Muxlow, T. W., Podsiadlowski, P ., & Rupen, M. P . 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 562, L79

View on Pith 2001
[6]

Christie, I. M., Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4811

View on Pith 2019
[7]

Das, P . & Porth, O. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 960, L12 de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Rodríguez-Ramírez, J. C., & del Valle, M. V . 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3895

View on Pith 2024
[8]

Dermer, C. D. & Schlickeiser, R. 1994, in International Astronomical Union Colloquium, Vol. 142, Cambridge University Press, 945–948

View on Pith 1994
[9]

Drenkhahn, G. 2002, A&A, 387, 714

View on Pith 2002
[10]

Georganopoulos, M. & Kazanas, D. 2003, ApJ, 594, L27

View on Pith 2003
[11]

Ghisellini, G. & Tavecchio, F. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 387, 1669

View on Pith 2008
[12]

Ghisellini, G. & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985

View on Pith 2009
[13]

Giannios, D. & Uzdensky, D. A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1378

View on Pith 2019
[14]

Giannios, D., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 395, L29

View on Pith 2009
[15]

Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113, 155005 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2024, Sci- ence, 383, 402

View on Pith 2014
[16]

Kadowaki, L. H. S., De Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, 864, 52

View on Pith 2018
[17]

Kantzas, D., Markoff, S., Beuchert, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2112

View on Pith 2021
[18]

Kaufman, E., Christie, I., Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Giannios, D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 40 LHAASO Collaboration. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08988

View on Pith arXiv 2023
[19]

Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., Hovatta, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 43

View on Pith 2019
[20]

Lucchini, M., Markoff, S., Crumley, P ., Krauß, F., & Connors, R. M. T. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4798

View on Pith 2019
[21]

Matthews, J. H., Bell, A. R., & Blundell, K. M. 2020, New A Rev., 89, 101543

View on Pith 2020
[22]

Meyer, E. T., Georganopoulos, M., Sparks, W. B., et al. 2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 805, 154

View on Pith 2015
[23]

Parfrey, K., Giannios, D., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, L61

View on Pith 2015
[24]

Petropoulou, M., Psarras, F., & Giannios, D. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2719

View on Pith 2023
[25]

Potter, W. J. & Cotter, G. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 1840

View on Pith 2013
[26]

Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y. Y., Lister, M. L., & Savolainen, T. 2017, mn- ras, 468, 4992

View on Pith 2017
[27]

Rueda-Becerril, J. M., Harrison, A. O., & Giannios, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4092

View on Pith 2021
[28]

Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 421, 153

View on Pith 1994
[29]

Sironi, L., Petropoulou, M., & Giannios, D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 183

View on Pith 2015
[30]

Sironi, L. & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 783, L21

View on Pith 2014
[31]

Spruit, H. C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G. 2001, A&A, 369, 694

View on Pith 2001
[32]

Stathopoulos, S. I. & Petropoulou, M. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, staf2083

View on Pith 2026
[33]

Stathopoulos, S. I., Petropoulou, M., Vasilopoulos, G., & Mastichiadis, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.06174

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[34]

Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79

View on Pith 2011
[35]

Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., Cerutti, B., Nalewajko, K., & Begelman, M. C. 2016, ApJ, 816, L8

View on Pith 2016
[36]

Zhang, H. & Giannios, D. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1145 Article number, page 11 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. paper Appendix A: Numerical aspects In this section we discuss in more detail some numerical aspects of our continuous jet model. A.1. Derivation of segment sizes For the purposes of denoting the segment locations and dimensions we can initially assume ...

View on Pith 2021

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

Agudo, I., Marscher, A. P ., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 735, L10

View on Pith 2011

[2] [2]

Ball, D., Sironi, L., & Özel, F. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 80

View on Pith 2018

[3] [3]

Beniamini, P . & Giannios, D. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3202

View on Pith 2017

[4] [4]

Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

View on Pith 1977

[5] [5]

Blundell, K. M., MIODUSZEwSkI, A. J., Muxlow, T. W., Podsiadlowski, P ., & Rupen, M. P . 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 562, L79

View on Pith 2001

[6] [6]

Christie, I. M., Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4811

View on Pith 2019

[7] [7]

Das, P . & Porth, O. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 960, L12 de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Rodríguez-Ramírez, J. C., & del Valle, M. V . 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3895

View on Pith 2024

[8] [8]

Dermer, C. D. & Schlickeiser, R. 1994, in International Astronomical Union Colloquium, Vol. 142, Cambridge University Press, 945–948

View on Pith 1994

[9] [9]

Drenkhahn, G. 2002, A&A, 387, 714

View on Pith 2002

[10] [10]

Georganopoulos, M. & Kazanas, D. 2003, ApJ, 594, L27

View on Pith 2003

[11] [11]

Ghisellini, G. & Tavecchio, F. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 387, 1669

View on Pith 2008

[12] [12]

Ghisellini, G. & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985

View on Pith 2009

[13] [13]

Giannios, D. & Uzdensky, D. A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1378

View on Pith 2019

[14] [14]

Giannios, D., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 395, L29

View on Pith 2009

[15] [15]

Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113, 155005 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2024, Sci- ence, 383, 402

View on Pith 2014

[16] [16]

Kadowaki, L. H. S., De Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, 864, 52

View on Pith 2018

[17] [17]

Kantzas, D., Markoff, S., Beuchert, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2112

View on Pith 2021

[18] [18]

Kaufman, E., Christie, I., Lalakos, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Giannios, D. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 40 LHAASO Collaboration. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08988

View on Pith arXiv 2023

[19] [19]

Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., Hovatta, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 43

View on Pith 2019

[20] [20]

Lucchini, M., Markoff, S., Crumley, P ., Krauß, F., & Connors, R. M. T. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4798

View on Pith 2019

[21] [21]

Matthews, J. H., Bell, A. R., & Blundell, K. M. 2020, New A Rev., 89, 101543

View on Pith 2020

[22] [22]

Meyer, E. T., Georganopoulos, M., Sparks, W. B., et al. 2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 805, 154

View on Pith 2015

[23] [23]

Parfrey, K., Giannios, D., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, L61

View on Pith 2015

[24] [24]

Petropoulou, M., Psarras, F., & Giannios, D. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2719

View on Pith 2023

[25] [25]

Potter, W. J. & Cotter, G. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 1840

View on Pith 2013

[26] [26]

Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y. Y., Lister, M. L., & Savolainen, T. 2017, mn- ras, 468, 4992

View on Pith 2017

[27] [27]

Rueda-Becerril, J. M., Harrison, A. O., & Giannios, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4092

View on Pith 2021

[28] [28]

Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 421, 153

View on Pith 1994

[29] [29]

Sironi, L., Petropoulou, M., & Giannios, D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 183

View on Pith 2015

[30] [30]

Sironi, L. & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 783, L21

View on Pith 2014

[31] [31]

Spruit, H. C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G. 2001, A&A, 369, 694

View on Pith 2001

[32] [32]

Stathopoulos, S. I. & Petropoulou, M. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, staf2083

View on Pith 2026

[33] [33]

Stathopoulos, S. I., Petropoulou, M., Vasilopoulos, G., & Mastichiadis, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.06174

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[34] [34]

Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79

View on Pith 2011

[35] [35]

Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., Cerutti, B., Nalewajko, K., & Begelman, M. C. 2016, ApJ, 816, L8

View on Pith 2016

[36] [36]

Zhang, H. & Giannios, D. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1145 Article number, page 11 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. paper Appendix A: Numerical aspects In this section we discuss in more detail some numerical aspects of our continuous jet model. A.1. Derivation of segment sizes For the purposes of denoting the segment locations and dimensions we can initially assume ...

View on Pith 2021