Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Polarized Emission of Intrabinary Shocks in Spider Pulsars from Global 3D Kinetic Simulations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Global 3D kinetic simulations of spider pulsar intrabinary shocks predict that their X-ray emission should be polarized at a level of at least ~15% at flux maximum, with the polarization degree rising monotonically with the net (stripe-aver

desk verdict First 3D kinetic IBS simulations give plausible, useful polarization predictions, but the quantitative PD–α relations rest on an untested factor-of-100 scale-separation gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11625 v1 pith:2TMRTHY7 submitted 2025-08-15 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph

Andrew G. Sullivan , Jorge Cortés , Lorenzo Sironi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph
keywords spiderpulsarsintrabinaryshocksX-raypolarizationkineticparticle-in-cellsimulationsmagneticreconnectionsynchrotronemissionstripedpulsarwindmillisecond
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

This paper reports the first global three-dimensional kinetic (particle-in-cell) simulations of the intrabinary shock in spider pulsars, where the pulsar wind collides with the wind from a low-mass companion star. It aims to establish, from first principles, what the shock's synchrotron X-ray emission looks like: its spectrum, orbital light curve, and polarization. The central prediction is a polarization degree of at least ~15% at flux maximum that increases monotonically with the stripe-averaged magnetic field of the pulsar wind, with the electric-vector polarization angle staying constant for edge-on views but rotating for inclined views. If correct, X-ray polarimetry with IXPE or eXTP can turn measured polarization into constraints on the wind's magnetic structure and the system's inclination. The simulations also reproduce the double-peaked light curve observed in spider systems when viewed at 90 degrees inclination with a low net field.

What carries the argument

The central object is the global 3D particle-in-cell simulation of a striped relativistic electron-positron wind, initialized with a Harris-like field profile whose stripe-averaged component is set by the parameter $\alpha$, colliding with a spherical companion wind. Synchrotron cooling is included through a reduced Landau-Lifshitz radiation-reaction force. The load-bearing identity is $\mathrm{PD}_i = A_i \alpha^b + C_i$ (Eq. 10), which maps the predicted polarization degree at flux maximum to the stripe-averaged field and the inclination; Stokes $I$, $Q$, and $U$ are accumulated per particle (Eqs. 5-7) to produce PD and EVPA. The mechanism is shock-driven magnetic reconnection that acceler

What would settle it

Measure the X-ray polarization of a bright spider pulsar likely viewed near edge-on with a low inferred stripe-averaged field: if the polarization degree at flux maximum comes in well below $15\%$, or if the double-peaked light curve appears in a high-$\alpha$ system, the central prediction fails. More directly, phase-resolved polarimetry should show a constant EVPA at $i = 90^\circ$ and a monotonically increasing PD with $\alpha$; a rotating EVPA at exactly edge-on geometry, or a flat PD-$\alpha$ relation, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the polarized synchrotron emission of a spider-pulsar intrabinary shock is set by how much of the striped pulsar wind's ordered magnetic field survives into the shock downstream. Using global 3D PIC simulations with a spherical companion, they vary the stripe-averaged field parameter $\alpha$, the synchrotron cooling strength $\gamma_{\rm rad}$, and the observer inclination $i$. They find that downstream turbulence from field dissipation suppresses polarization at low $\alpha$, while a larger residual net field yields higher polarization, giving $\mathrm{PD}_i = A_i \alpha^b + C_i$ at flux maximum, with $\mathrm{PD} \gtrsim 15\%$ in all cases. At $i = 90^\circ$ and low

Load-bearing premise

The predicted polarization levels are computed for a companion radius only about equal to the pulsar-wind stripe wavelength, while real spider pulsars have a ratio about 100 times larger; the paper assumes the polarization signal is insensitive to that two-order-of-magnitude gap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the prediction holds, spider pulsars observed near flux maximum should show X-ray polarization degree $\gtrsim 15\%$, detectable in the brightest redbacks by IXPE in roughly a megasecond.
  • Observed polarization degree plugged into Eq. 10 constrains the stripe-averaged wind field $\alpha$ and the viewing inclination $i$, which are otherwise difficult to measure.
  • Light-curve morphology becomes a geometric diagnostic: double-peaked light curves indicate edge-on, low-$\alpha$ systems, while single-peaked light curves accompany higher $\alpha$ or smaller inclinations.
  • The EVPA pattern directly reveals the viewing geometry: constant EVPA over the orbit means edge-on viewing, while a rotating EVPA with rapid swings near superior conjunction means a tilted view.
  • Stronger cooling slightly raises the polarization degree and softens the spectrum above the cooling frequency, so combined spectral and polarimetric observations can separate cooling effects from field-structure effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the predicted polarization degree rises monotonically with the stripe-averaged field, X-ray polarimetry could become a direct probe of how much of the striped pulsar wind's ordered magnetic field survives to the intrabinary shock, effectively measuring pulsar-wind dissipation and obliquity.
  • The paper leaves the extrapolation from $R_c/\lambda = 1$ to realistic values near 100 untested; if the two-order-of-magnitude gap changes downstream field ordering, the PD level could shift even if the geometric EVPA patterns survive, so pushing 3D runs to $R_c/\lambda \sim 10$ would bracket the trend and test Eq. 10.
  • The finding that turbulence suppresses PD at low $\alpha$ implies that semi-analytic models assuming an ordered toroidal field may overpredict polarization; kinetic-calibrated corrections could be extended to other intrabinary shock systems, including gamma-ray binaries.
  • A simultaneous measurement of spectral slope and PD could break the degeneracy between cooling strength and field structure: cooled cases show a steeper post-cooling spectrum ($\Gamma \approx 2$) and slightly higher PD, so matching both observables may isolate the wind parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports the first global 3D particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of intrabinary shocks in spider pulsars, extending prior 2D work to a spherical companion. The authors inject a striped e± pulsar wind that collides with an ultra-relativistic companion wind, post-process the downstream particles, and synthesize synchrotron spectra, orbital light curves, polarization degree (PD), and electric vector polarization angle (EVPA) for different stripe-averaged fields α, cooling strengths γrad, companion radii Rc, and viewing inclinations i. The central claims are: at i = 90° and low α, the light curve is double-peaked; the PD is ≳15% and monotonically increases with α; the EVPA is constant at i = 90° and rotates at i = 60°; Eq. (10) provides a fitting formula for PD at flux maximum. The paper candidly lists caveats, including Rc/λ ≈ 1 instead of the realistic ≈100, a deliberately 'unrealistic' companion wind, and moderate γ0 and σ.

Significance. The main value is the first 3D kinetic treatment of the intrabinary shock, producing predictions that are, in principle, directly testable with X-ray polarimetry (IXPE/eXTP): PD ≳ 15% at flux maximum, a monotonic increase of PD with stripe-averaged field strength, and EVPA behavior as a function of inclination. The emission-synthesis pipeline is coherent, the parameter study spans relevant cooling regimes, and the paper is transparent about its limitations. These are genuine strengths. However, the quantitative predictions currently rest on parameter-regime choices (Rc/λ, companion wind model, γ0) that have not been shown to be representative of real spider systems, which limits the paper's current astrophysical reach.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Eq. (11); §4] The central predictions (PD ≳ 15%, monotonic PD–α, double-peaked morphology) are computed at Rc/λ = 0.5–1, while Eq. (11) gives Rc/λ ≈ 100 for realistic spiders. The robustness argument in §5 is based on a factor-of-two range in Rc/λ and on 2D studies, and the paper explicitly defers a 3D test at realistic ratios. Because shock curvature relative to the stripe wavelength controls reconnection geometry, downstream field ordering, and beaming, the extrapolation over two orders of magnitude is a load-bearing untested assumption. This should be either remedied with a larger-Rc/λ simulation or reflected by reframing the predictions as applying to the simulated regime only.
  2. [§2, companion wind model; §4] The companion wind is an ultra-relativistic flow (γw = 60, nw = n0) that the authors themselves call 'unrealistic'; a real companion wind is dense and non-relativistic. The shock standoff, curvature, and downstream flow—all of which drive the synthesized light curves and PD—depend on the companion wind's momentum flux and structure. The paper does not map its companion wind parameters to observed spider systems or test sensitivity to them. As presented, the shock geometry and the resulting observables may be tied to this modeling choice rather than to the physics of real spider pulsars.
  3. [§2.1, §3] All emission synthesis uses only particles that started in the cold wind; current-sheet particles are excluded. The authors state an interest in cold-wind particles but do not demonstrate that hot current-sheet particles contribute negligibly to I, Q, or U. Since the current sheets are the sites of reconnection and have relativistic temperatures (kTh/mec² = σ/2η ≈ 1.7), their exclusion could bias the spectra and polarization, especially at higher α where the striped structure persists downstream (Fig. 1). A quantitative test of the contribution of current-sheet particles is needed to support this choice.
  4. [§2 (γ0, σ); §4] The simulated wind has γ0 = 3 and σ = 10, whereas realistic pulsar winds are ultra-relativistic. The paper cites Cortés & Sironi (2024) to argue that γ0 only shifts energy scales and σ ≫ 1 suffices, but the synthesized light curves and PD depend on the particle angular distribution through Doppler beaming. For γ0 = 3 the beaming cone is much broader than for a realistic ultra-relativistic wind, yet no test of the γ0 dependence of the light-curve morphology or PD is provided. Since the double-peaked light curve is a centerpiece claim, this gap needs at least a dedicated discussion or a single high-γ0 run.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4] The explanation for the absence of double peaks at i = 60° ('companion radius is too small compared to the width of the post-shock flow') is presented as an argument but is not demonstrated with a test or quantitative criterion.
  2. [§2.1] The particle-selection cone θ < π/NLOS ≈ 2.8° is broader than the typical 1/γ beaming cone for γ ≈ γσ = 30 (≈1.9°). A convergence check with larger NLOS would strengthen the phase-resolved light curves and PD curves.
  3. [§2, Eq. (1)] The relation between the stated current-sheet width (5 c/ωp) and the parameter Δ is not explicitly shown; a one-line derivation would improve reproducibility.
  4. [§3] The statement that spectra for α ≤ 0.3 are 'nearly the same' is based on visual inspection of Fig. 2; a quantitative measure (e.g., a fit residual) would be more rigorous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PD and light-curve predictions are emergent outputs of 3D PIC simulations, not fits to the quantities they predict.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. It evolves the pulsar wind and IBS with first-principles PIC (TRISTAN-MP), computes synchrotron Stokes I/Q/U from the simulated particle trajectories (Eqs. 4-7), and forms PD and EVPA. The headline PD≳15% and the monotonic PD–alpha trend are simulation outputs, not inputs: Eq. 10 is a best-fit summary of the simulated PD(alpha) data with nonzero intercepts C_i, so it is not an algebraic identity forced by the definition of alpha. No observed PD values are fitted and then re-issued as predictions. The self-citations (Cortés & Sironi 2022, 2024, 2025; Sullivan & Romani 2023) provide methodology, 2D precedents, and semi-analytic benchmarks, but the central 3D polarization result is new and the simulation disagrees with the semi-analytic benchmark at low alpha (turbulent suppression of PD), which is a non-trivial, non-circular finding. The explicit caveat in Sec. 5—that Rc/lambda=1 in the runs versus Rc/lambda≈100 in real spiders, with 'Future work will need to test whether the same applies in 3D up to realistic ratios Rc/lambda >> 1'—is a limitation on extrapolation to astrophysical systems, not a circularity: the predictions are conditional, not self-referential. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claims rest on beyond the simulation method: eight hand-chosen or fitted numerical inputs (η, Δ, γ0, σ, βrec, and the three Eq. 10 fit parameters) plus seven modeling axioms. The two scanned physical parameters α and γrad are inputs, not fitted, but the predictive relation built on them (Eq. 10) is a fit. The largest unstated cost is the Rc/λ extrapolation (axiom 5) and reliance on self-cited 2D results for the γ0-σ robustness claims. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • PD-α fit slope A_i (Eq. 10) = A_90 = 30% (b=1); A_90 = 22% (b=1/2); A_60 = 25% (b=1); A_60 = 20% (b=1/2)
    Coefficient of the PD_i = A_i α^b + C_i relation, fit to simulation outputs at flux maximum (Table 1).
  • PD-α fit offset C_i (Eq. 10) = C_90 = 21% (b=1); C_90 = 19% (b=1/2); C_60 = 15% (b=1); C_60 = 13% (b=1/2)
    Offset of the same fit; the intercept is the predicted PD at α = 0, a headline-level number (≥ 15%).
  • Power index b in Eq. 10 = 1 and 1/2 (both reported)
    Chosen by hand; the paper fits with both values and does not state a selection criterion between them.
  • Sheet-to-stripe density ratio η = 3
    Paper's words: 'The arbitrary choice of η'; sets hot-sheet temperature kTh = σ/2η. Authors assert cold-wind spectra are nearly insensitive; the value is not observationally anchored.
  • Current-sheet width parameter Δ = Δ × λ = 10π c/ωp (sheet width 5 c/ωp)
    Raised relative to the 2D runs 'to prevent the onset of reconnection ahead of the termination shock in 3D', a numerical-stability choice that changes the injected field profile.
  • Bulk Lorentz factor of pulsar wind γ0 = 3
    Orders of magnitude below realistic values (γσ ≳ 10^5); robustness rests on 2D scaling arguments from Cortés & Sironi 2024.
  • Wind magnetization σ = 10
    Below the realistic σ ≫ 1 regime; authors argue results are not substantially affected as long as σ ≫ 1, based on prior 2D runs.
  • Relativistic reconnection rate βrec = 0.1
    Assumed to set Eacc and hence γrad (Eq. 2) and the cooling break (Eq. 9); taken from Sironi et al. 2025, not measured in these runs.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The pulsar wind terminates in a strong shock in which stripe-field dissipation and shock-driven reconnection energize the pairs (Sironi & Spitkovsky 2011; Cortés & Sironi 2022).
    Foundational interpretation; introduced in Sec. 1 and used throughout Sec. 3 for the spectral predictions.
  • ad hoc to paper The real companion wind can be replaced by an ultra-relativistic wind that halts the pulsar wind without changing the physics of interest.
    Sec. 2 states the companion wind model is 'unrealistic' and 'meant only to halt and shock the pulsar wind'; if the dense slow wind changes the shock standoff or field draping, the polarization geometry could differ.
  • ad hoc to paper Emission from cold-wind particles alone determines the observable synchrotron flux.
    Sec. 2.1 computes emission only from particles 'that started in the cold wind'; current-sheet particles would also radiate in reality and are dropped because their energies depend on the arbitrary η.
  • domain assumption The stripe-averaged field parameter α is constant over the shock surface and over the orbit.
    Sec. 2: 'we keep α the same at all latitudes in each run.' Real systems have α varying with latitude, and with orbital phase if spin and orbit are misaligned; discussed in Sec. 5.
  • ad hoc to paper Polarization results obtained at Rc/λ between 0.5 and 1 carry over to realistic Rc/λ ≈ 100.
    Eq. 11 gives realistic Rc/λ ~ 100; only 0.5 ≤ Rc/λ ≤ 1 is simulated, and Sec. 5 defers the 3D test at realistic ratios to future work.
  • domain assumption The cooling-break scaling in Eq. 9 (γcool/γσ ∝ (γrad/γσ)^2) is valid.
    Stated in Sec. 3 without derivation; inherited from the 2D program (Cortés & Sironi 2025) and used to locate the spectral break frequency.
  • standard math The reduced Landau-Lifshitz radiation reaction force correctly captures synchrotron cooling in this regime.
    Sec. 2, citing Vranic et al. 2016; standard PIC treatment, not revalidated here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarized Emission of Intrabinary Shocks in Spider Pulsars from Global 3D Kinetic Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TMRTHY7

@misc{pith2026250811625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarized Emission of Intrabinary Shocks in Spider Pulsars from Global 3D Kinetic Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TMRTHY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11625}
}
abstract

In spider pulsar systems, a relativistic intrabinary shock forms when the pulsar wind collides with the massive outflow driven off the pulsar's low-mass stellar companion. The shock is a site of non-thermal particle acceleration, likely via shock-driven magnetic reconnection, and produces synchrotron emission. These shocks are among the few systems in which global scales can be reasonably captured with kinetic simulations, enabling first-principles particle acceleration and emission studies. We perform the first global 3D kinetic simulations of spider pulsar intrabinary shocks and predict their polarized emission properties. We report emission spectra, light curves, and polarization patterns as a function of the stripe-averaged magnetic field, cooling strength, and viewing inclination. At $90^\circ$ inclination and for a low stripe-averaged magnetic field, we reproduce the double peaked light curve observed in spider systems. We predict a significant polarization degree $\gtrsim15\%$, which monotonically increases with the stripe-averaged field strength. Our results can be applied to and tested by forthcoming X-ray polarization observations of spider pulsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.11625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2D slices of the pulsar wind particle number density in units of n0 at t = 3375 ω −1 p for the R = 100 c/ωp cases without cooling, as a function of α. The IBS downstream region is left of the dashed white curves. (Top) The x-y plane at z = 1020 c/ωp. (Bottom) The x-z plane at y = 1020 c/ωp (i.e. the two slices are taken at the center of the companion). and γrad we explore. As in 2D, very hard spectra are ob￾tained f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Particle energy spectra (Left) and isotropic synchrotron spectra (Right) for different α (Top) and different γrad (Bottom). Colors denote α while line styles denote γrad, as illustrated in the legends. The top row refers to uncooled cases. In the bottom row, we show α = 0.0 (blue) and α = 0.5 (red) for different values of γrad. fore, the efficiency of magnetic field dissipation (and so, of particle energization) dec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Orbital phase modulated flux, PD, and EVPA curves at ν = νσ. Phase ΦB = 0.25 corresponds to the time when the observer is behind the shock along −xˆ (i.e. pulsar superior conjunction). Color denotes different α while line style denotes different γrad (same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PD at/near flux maximum (ΦB = 0.25) as a function of α for i = 60◦ (left) and i = 90◦ (right). Top panels show different companion sizes Rc and bottom panels show different γrad. Eq. 10 with the parameters in table 1 is plotted using dashed lines and dot-dashed lines f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LoRAtorio: An intrinsic approach to LoRA Skill Composition

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A training-free, spatially aware weighting of LoRA outputs plus a modified classifier-free guidance improves multi-LoRA composition in text-to-image diffusion models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R., & Gould, R

    Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould, R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.42.237 1970

  2. [2]

    Bogovalov, S. V. 1999, A&A, 349, 1017

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    V., Khangulyan, D., Koldoba, A., Ustyugova, G

    Bogovalov, S. V., Khangulyan, D., Koldoba, A., Ustyugova, G. V., & Aharonian, F. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2815

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2815 2019

  4. [4]

    V., & Aharonian, F

    Ustyugova, G. V., & Aharonian, F. A. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3426, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19983.x

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    V., & Aharonian, F

    Ustyugova, G. V., & Aharonian, F. A. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 63, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13226.x

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    V., & Perucho, M

    Bosch-Ramon, V., Barkov, M. V., & Perucho, M. 2015, A&A, 577, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425228

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425228 2015

  7. [7]

    C., Donato, D., Gehrels, N., Sokolovsky, K

    Cheung, C. C., Donato, D., Gehrels, N., Sokolovsky, K. V., & Giroletti, M. 2012, ApJ, 756, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/33 Cort´ es, J., & Sironi, L. 2022, ApJ, 933, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74b2 —. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2278 —. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf284

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/1/33 2012

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 581, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425394

    Dubus, G., Lamberts, A., & Fromang, S. 2015, A&A, 581, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425394

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425394 2015

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    2024, A&A, 690, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450638

    Guerra, C., Meliani, Z., & Voisin, G. 2024, A&A, 690, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450638

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Harris, E. G. 1962, Il Nuovo Cimento, 23, 115, doi: 10.1007/BF02733547

    1962 doi

  3. [11]

    Y., & Li, K

    Hui, C. Y., & Li, K. L. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 93, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7040093

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    W., & An, H

    Kandel, D., Romani, R. W., & An, H. 2019, ApJ, 879, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24d9 —. 2021, ApJL, 917, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac15f7

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    1988, Nature, 334, 225, doi: 10.1038/334225a0

    Kluzniak, W., Ruderman, M., Shaham, J., & Tavani, M. 1988, Nature, 334, 225, doi: 10.1038/334225a0

    1988 doi

  6. [14]

    2012, A&A, 546, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219006 9

    Lamberts, A., Dubus, G., Lesur, G., & Fromang, S. 2012, A&A, 546, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219006 9

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/72

    Linares, M. 2014, ApJ, 795, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/72

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd406

    Lu, Y., Guo, F., Kilian, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd406

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, A&A, 689, A251, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450605

    Richard-Romei, V., & Cerutti, B. 2024, A&A, 689, A251, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450605

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Roberts, M. S. E. 2013, in Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years, ed. J. van

    2013

  11. [19]

    291, 127–132, doi: 10.1017/S174392131202337X

    Leeuwen, Vol. 291, 127–132, doi: 10.1017/S174392131202337X

    doi

  12. [20]

    W., Filippenko, A

    Romani, R. W., Filippenko, A. V., & Cenko, S. B. 2014, ApJL, 793, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L20

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    W., & Sanchez, N

    Romani, R. W., & Sanchez, N. 2016, ApJ, 828, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/7

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  15. [23]

    2011, ApJ, 741, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/39

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 741, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/39

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    A., & Giannios, D

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

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Spitkovsky, A. 2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 801, Astrophysical Sources of High Energy Particles and Radiation, ed. T. Bulik, B. Rudak, & G. Madejski (AIP), 345–350, doi: 10.1063/1.2141897

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    G., & Romani, R

    Sullivan, A. G., & Romani, R. W. 2023, ApJ, 959, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09ae —. 2024, ApJ, 974, 315, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d85 —. 2025, ApJ, 984, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc720 van der Merwe, C. J. T., Wadiasingh, Z., Venter, C.,

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    K., & Baring, M

    Harding, A. K., & Baring, M. G. 2020, ApJ, 904, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdfb van Paradijs, J., Allington-Smith, J., Callanan, P., et al. 1988, Nature, 334, 684, doi: 10.1038/334684a0

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Vay, J. L. 2008, Physics of Plasmas, 15, 056701, doi: 10.1063/1.2837054

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Fonseca, R

    Vranic, M., Martins, J. L., Fonseca, R. A., & Silva, L. O. 2016, Computer Physics Communications, 204, 141, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2016.04.002

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    K., Venter, C., B¨ ottcher, M., & Baring, M

    Wadiasingh, Z., Harding, A. K., Venter, C., B¨ ottcher, M., & Baring, M. G. 2017, ApJ, 839, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa69bf

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08101, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08101

    Zhang, S.-N., Santangelo, A., Xu, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08101, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08101

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    F., & Hakobyan, H

    Zhong, Y., Spitkovsky, A., Mahlmann, J. F., & Hakobyan, H. 2024, ApJ, 973, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6840

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.