Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

A "Faux-Shock" Method for Hybrid Simulations of Astrophysical Shocks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A faux-shock boundary condition reproduces the upstream physics of real shock simulations at reduced cost.

desk verdict A genuinely useful hybrid-simulation trick—fixed shock frame, high CR statistics, cheaper oblique runs—but the validation is one notch short of the abstract's 'same fluid quantities and phase spaces' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14282 v1 pith:3DJHNGSE submitted 2025-07-18 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Emily R. Simon , Damiano Caprioli , Colby C. Haggerty , Brian Reville This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph PACS 52.65.Rr95.30.Qd
keywords faux-shockhybridparticle-in-cellsimulationdiffusiveshockaccelerationBellinstabilitycosmicraysprecursormagneticfieldamplificationquasi-perpendicularshocks
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 introduces a "faux-shock" boundary condition for hybrid particle-in-cell simulations of collisionless astrophysical shocks: one wall of the box partially reflects cosmic rays with a momentum kick that mimics downstream scattering, while the thermal plasma simply passes through. The authors show that this setup reproduces the momentum spectra, phase-space distributions, and magnetic-field amplification of conventional reflecting-wall shock simulations, for both parallel and quasi-perpendicular shocks. Because the simulation is fixed in the shock frame, the upstream region does not shrink over time, so instabilities such as the Bell instability can be followed over longer timescales and larger volumes with far fewer resources. The method also lets quasi-perpendicular shocks be studied in 2D with results resembling full 3D simulations, by prescribing particle injection instead of relying on 3D effects to generate it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the faux-shock boundary condition: a semi-permeable, semi-reflecting wall at the left edge of the box that acts as an open boundary for thermal particles and as a shock for a separately injected cosmic-ray population. Cosmic rays crossing the wall are returned with probability $P_{\rm return}=((1-u_2/v_{\rm cr})/(1+u_2/v_{\rm cr}))^2$ (Eq. 1), the probability that an isotropic downstream cosmic ray crosses back upstream, and each cycle imparts an average energy gain $\langle\Delta E/E\rangle\approx (4/3)(u_1/c)(1-1/r)$ (Eq. 2), whose spectral index is set by the shock compression ratio. This machinery isolates the upstream precursor, keeps it at constant length, and makes cosmic rays a separate species with roughly two orders of magnitude better phase-space statistics than a thermal run.

What would settle it

Run a full 3D reflecting-wall simulation of an oblique shock long enough for the Bell instability to saturate, measure the downstream cosmic-ray angular distribution and the actual return fraction across the shock, and compare with the isotropic $P_{\rm return}$ formula; a clear mismatch that also changes the particle spectrum would falsify the boundary condition as a faithful shock surrogate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the essential physics of the shock precursor, namely the cosmic-ray-driven current, the Bell instability it excites, and the resulting magnetic-field amplification and particle acceleration, does not require simulating the shock itself. A static boundary that transmits thermal particles and returns cosmic rays with the isotropic-return probability of Eq. (1), combined with the average energy gain per cycle of Eq. (2), produces the same upstream evolution as a self-consistently propagating shock. The authors verify this against reflecting-wall runs: the non-thermal spectra agree in normalization and slope, and the amplified-field profiles and wave power spectra match after accounting for a constant time offset. For oblique shocks, the faux-shock reproduces the non-thermal spectra of a full 3D reflecting-wall simulation while running in 2D, at a fraction of the computational cost.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes cosmic rays are isotropically scattered in the downstream, so that a single return probability and a single average energy gain per cycle fully describe the shock; if downstream scattering is anisotropic, especially at oblique shocks, the faux-shock results will drift from full shock simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-term evolution of the Bell instability in shock precursors becomes accessible in large boxes and at high Mach numbers, because the upstream region never shrinks.
  • Quasi-perpendicular shock acceleration can be studied in 2D with results resembling full 3D reflecting-wall runs, drastically cutting the cost of such studies.
  • Separating cosmic rays from the thermal plasma improves their statistics by about a factor of 100, enabling detailed studies of cosmic-ray diffusion coefficients and phase-space structure.
  • The faux-shock setup can be calibrated against global simulations and customized for any shock speed, obliquity, or compression ratio, and the boundary can be made time-dependent if the shock evolves.
  • Small differences in magnetic turbulence at small scales remain between the faux-shock and full 3D runs, and the paper leaves open whether these are due to the boundary condition or to reduced dimensionality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If downstream cosmic-ray scattering is not isotropic at oblique shocks, the single-parameter return probability of Eq. (1) will need an anisotropic correction; the spectral-anisotropy deviations the paper reports at quasi-perpendicular shocks are a first hint of this.
  • The method's success suggests that upstream precursor dynamics are largely insensitive to the detailed structure of the downstream flow, which, if true, supports using the faux-shock to isolate precursor physics in other contexts such as re-acceleration of pre-existing cosmic rays.
  • A direct extension would be to scan the prescribed return probability and measure the resulting spectral index, effectively mapping the boundary condition to an effective compression ratio and probing the limits of the isotropic-return assumption.
  • Because the boundary condition can be prescribed rather than emergent, the faux-shock could be used to test analytic theories of cosmic-ray-driven instability saturation in regimes where full shock simulations are computationally prohibitive.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 'faux-shock' (FS) boundary condition for hybrid particle-in-cell simulations of non-relativistic shocks. Instead of forming a shock with a reflecting wall, the method fixes the simulation in the shock frame and treats the left boundary as a semi-permeable wall: thermal plasma passes through, while a separately injected cosmic-ray (CR) population is either transmitted or reflected with a momentum kick drawn from standard DSA cycle results (Eqs. 1-2). The authors compare two FS runs against reflecting-wall (RW) simulations: a parallel 2D benchmark (Run A vs. Run C) and a quasi-perpendicular 2D FS run compared to a 3D RW simulation (Run B vs. Run 3D). They report agreement in non-thermal spectra, magnetic field amplitude, and precursor structure, and argue the method reproduces the essential Bell-instability physics at lower computational cost and with higher CR phase-space resolution.

Significance. If the validation were conclusive, the FS method would be a useful tool for studying CR-driven precursor instabilities in regimes that are currently inaccessible to full 3D RW simulations. The paper's idea of replacing the shock with a calibrated boundary condition is sensible, and the explicit comparison to a 3D oblique-shock simulation is valuable and goes beyond most method papers. The reported computational savings and improved CR statistics are credible. However, the current validation is partly circular: the CR injection parameters are calibrated from earlier hybrid simulations and then compared to the same class of simulations, and the spectral index is prescribed through the compression ratio. Moreover, in the quasi-perpendicular case, which is the paper's headline application, visible deviations in the CR momentum components and an unexplained deficit of small-scale magnetic modes remain. These issues do not invalidate the method, but they require the central claims to be qualified and the discrepancies to be characterized quantitatively.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.1] The quasi-perpendicular validation, which is the paper's headline case, reports visible deviations in n(p_x), n(p_y), and n(p_z) between Run B and Run 3D and attributes them to the isotropic-downstream assumption behind Eqs. (1)-(2). Because that assumption is the FS boundary condition itself, the deviations are not a minor blemish: they mean the injected CR current, the Bell growth, and the phase-space anisotropies are not reproduced in the regime the method is claimed to enable. Please quantify the deviations (e.g., spectral slopes or anisotropy ratios with uncertainties) and show explicitly why they do not affect the conclusions about total spectra and maximum energy.
  2. [§3.2.2] The small-scale mode deficit in the FS run is left unexplained ('we do not have a clear explanation'), yet magnetic turbulence at these scales is part of the precursor physics the method is designed to capture. Since Run B has finer grid spacing than Run 3D (Table 1), the deficit is not a resolution artifact; it needs a physical or numerical explanation, and its effect on CR scattering should be assessed. At minimum, show the perpendicular magnetic power spectra quantitatively overlapped and identify which k range is underpowered.
  3. [§3] The comparison relies on a fitted time offset (Δt=150ω_c^{-1} parallel, Δt=43ω_c^{-1} oblique) that is asserted to be a constant linear shift; no derivation or sensitivity study is given. Also, the CR injection normalization is calibrated on earlier hybrid simulations and then validated against the same class (Sections 2 and 3.1.1), making part of the agreement circular. Please provide an independent test of the normalization (e.g., vary n_cr/n_g and show the expected linear response of the precursor current) and justify the time offset or show that the results are insensitive to it.
  4. [§2, Eq. (4)] The spectral index q_p = 3r/(r-1) is prescribed by the chosen compression ratio, so agreement of the FS spectrum with p^{-4} is not an independent validation of DSA physics. The more meaningful outcomes are the normalization, the maximum energy, and the phase-space morphology; the paper should state this explicitly and avoid presenting the spectral index as an emergent prediction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1.1] The sentence 'with RunC (the FS) resolving finer features' should refer to Run A, since Run C is the reflecting-wall run.
  2. [§3.2.2] The phrase 'Runs B and D' should be 'Runs B and 3D'; no Run D appears in Table 1.
  3. [§3.2.1] The text 'the FW and R W setups' contains a typo: it should be 'FS and R W setups'.
  4. [Title and abstract] The spacing artifact in 'F aux-Shock' and 'f aux-shock' should be corrected to 'Faux-Shock' throughout.
  5. [§3.2.2] The punctuation in 'the in-plane quasi-perpendicular component, Bx.B y' should be corrected (likely 'B_x; B_y').
  6. [§3.1.2] The comparison of magnetic-field lineouts would be more informative if the FS field were shown with the same shock-position alignment method described for Figure 2(a), rather than only stating that the FS curve has been shifted.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The FS normalization and spectral slope are injected inputs, calibrated on the same group's earlier hybrid runs and then 'validated' against those runs, so the spectral-level agreement is partly a consistency check; the nontrivial content is the self-consistent magnetic-field and phase-space structure, which the paper itself shows deviates.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 (FS setup bullet 1) and Section 3 / §3.1.1 (CR injection efficiency, momentum spectra)]
    "we inject an initial population of CRs at a fixed momentum and number density, calibrated on global shock simulations (e.g. Orusa & Caprioli 2023), effectively jump-starting the Bell instability. ... We prescribe our CR normalization for the FS setup based on previous hybrid runs, and validate our choice by comparing the normalization of the FS and R W's non-thermal particles."

    Orusa & Caprioli 2023 is a same-group simulation (Caprioli is an author), and its run E is the very 3D benchmark used below. The FS CR density (ncr/ng=0.01) and injection momentum (piso=100mv_A) are taken from these prior hybrid runs, so §3.1.1's conclusion that the FS 'indeed reach[es] the same n(p)' in the non-thermal tail is an input-output consistency check. What is tested is only that the code evolves the prescribed population as intended; the normalization agreement is not an independent confirmation of the method.

  2. self definitional [Section 2, Eqs. (2)-(4); Section 3.2 (quasi-perpendicular run)]
    "Following Bell (1978), the average energy gain per cycle is: <ΔE/E> ≈ 4/3 u1/c (1 - 1/r) (2) ... with spectral index q_p = 3r/(r-1) (4) ... Importantly, q_p depends on the compression ratio, and this quantity is fully customizable within our simulation setup. ... use the same CR injection as in Run A to produce a p^-4 spectrum (Run B) to be compared with its R W homologous (run E in Orusa & Caprioli 2023)."

    The FS boundary condition imposes the test-particle DSA energy gain per cycle (Eq. 2). Combined with the return probability for r=4, this analytically produces q_p=4. Therefore the 'p^-4 spectrum' is an input of the FS construction, not an emergent prediction. The later comparison showing that the FS reproduces the flat non-thermal spectrum of Run 3D is thus circular for the slope: the run was explicitly set up to produce p^-4. The independent content is limited to the phase-space anisotropies, where the paper reports deviations.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 3 (time-offset paragraph) and §3.2.1 (quasi-perpendicular spectra)]
    "This creates a time offset Δt = 150ω_c^{-1} ... Therefore, we compare the FS and R W output at the same evolutionary stage where the FS is shown at Δt earlier than the R W. ... The spectra (bottom panels in Figure 4), even when compared using the best matching Δt time offset, show minor but interesting deviations."

    The time offset used in the headline spectral overlays is not predicted from first principles; for the oblique run it is explicitly the 'best matching' offset. Choosing the offset to maximize spectral overlap means the reported agreement at the offset time is partly produced by the comparison procedure, not solely by the physics. This is less severe than the normalization and slope issues but contributes to the partial circularity of the validation.

full rationale

The paper honestly labels the FS as an assumed boundary condition and reports deviations, so this is not 10-level circularity. The nontrivial physics—Bell-instability growth, magnetic-field amplification, and the phase-space morphology of the precursor—are self-consistent outputs of the simulation and are not fixed by the boundary-condition formulas. However, two of the three quantities used to claim 'reproduces the same phase spaces' are inputs by construction: the spectral slope (Eqs. 2-4, with p^-4 explicitly selected in Run B) and the CR normalization (calibrated on the same group's earlier hybrid runs, then 'validated' by comparing to those runs). The fitted time offset further weakens the independence of the spectral comparison. The quasi-perpendicular comparison, the paper's headline regime, shows exactly the deviations one would expect if the isotropic-downstream assumption that defines Eqs. (1)-(2) is inaccurate, and the paper attributes them to that assumption. Thus the central validation is partially circular: the method is confirmed against benchmarks whose outputs were used to set its free parameters, while the genuinely emergent magnetic-field agreement is encouraging but does not erase the definitional circularity in slope and normalization.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a calibration-plus-validation loop with the authors' earlier simulations, a hand-set CR injection recipe, and a comparison offset fitted to make spectra overlap. The genuinely emergent content is the self-consistent evolution of magnetic fields and particle feedback upstream. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • injected CR number density n_cr/n_g = 0.01
    Set to 1% of thermal density, calibrated on previous hybrid simulations (e.g., Orusa & Caprioli 2023) and then used to validate the FS normalization against RW injection. This makes the normalization comparison partly circular.
  • CR injection momentum p_iso = 100 m v_A (Run A), 200 m v_A (Run B)
    Chosen to anticipate the injection momentum p_inj found in RW simulations and to keep CRs non-relativistic for the oblique comparison.
  • time offset for comparison = 150 omega_c^-1 (parallel), 43 omega_c^-1 (oblique)
    A constant shift applied to align FS and RW simulations at the same evolutionary stage; the paper says 'best matching Δt', indicating it is fitted to make spectra overlap.
  • shock compression ratio r = 4 (implied p^-4)
    Spectral index q_p = 3r/(r-1) is prescribed via customization of the FS; using r=4 gives the canonical p^-4 spectrum, so the spectral shape is an input rather than a prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CRs are isotropic in the downstream, giving return probability Eq. (1) from Peacock (1981).
    Invoked in §2 to set the fraction of CRs reflected at the FS; if downstream isotropization fails (e.g., at oblique shocks), return probability and energy gain change.
  • standard math Average energy gain per cycle from Bell (1978), Eq. (2), and test-particle DSA spectral index Eq. (4).
    Background kinetic theory used to justify the FS reflection/kick prescription; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption CR injection recipe (momentum, density, isotropy) calibrated on global hybrid simulations transfers to the FS setup.
    Stated in §2 and §4; the calibration comes from the authors' prior work (Orusa & Caprioli 2023) and is not independently verified.
  • ad hoc to paper The FS-RW comparison is valid after a constant time offset; the offset is linear for the duration of the runs.
    Introduced in §3 'Time offset' and checked only for the two runs considered; assumed to persist for longer times.
  • domain assumption 2D FS simulations can represent physics that requires 3D in RW simulations, modulo small-scale turbulence differences.
    Used in §3.2 for the oblique case; the paper notes small-scale modes present in 3D are absent in 2D FS, and the cause is unexplained.
  • ad hoc to paper The early CR transient is unphysical and can be discarded; the system relaxes to self-consistent DSA afterward.
    §2 'Early CR transient' argues the first injected CRs carry an unphysically high current and are waited out before comparison; this excludes early-time data from validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A "Faux-Shock" Method for Hybrid Simulations of Astrophysical Shocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DJHNGSE

@misc{pith2026250714282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A "Faux-Shock" Method for Hybrid Simulations of Astrophysical Shocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DJHNGSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14282}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate a novel setup for hybrid particle-in-cell simulations designed to isolate the physics of the shock precursor over long time periods for significantly lower computational cost than previous methods. This is achieved using a "faux-shock" or shock-like boundary condition on one edge of our simulation domain such that particles that interact with the boundary either pass through it or are reflected off of it with a change in momentum that mimics scattering in the downstream. We show that our faux-shock setup reproduces the same fluid quantities and phase spaces as traditional shock simulations, including those which could otherwise only be done in 3D, with higher particle resolution and for reduced computational cost. While the method involves an assumed boundary condition, it nonetheless captures the essential physics of interest, establishing it as a reliable and efficient tool for future self-consistent studies of instabilities driven by cosmic rays in a shock upstream medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Momentum phase space in units of mvA of the benchmark FS simulation, Run A (top panels), compared to a RW shock simulation, Run C (middle panels) at t = 450 ω −1 c . The bottom panels show a comparison of the momentum spectra between both runs at the same simulation timestep (solid lines) and the FS at the same relative time in the shock’s evolution (dotted lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Comparison of the total amplified magnetic field strength of the benchmark FS simulation (top panel) versus the RW shock simulation (middle panel) at the same simulation timestep, together with lineouts (taken from y = 25 di, dashed white lines) of the magnetic field strength (bottom panel). (b) Lineout comparisons of each component of the magnetic field (Bx, By, and Bz) for the benchmark FS simulation (red) ver… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Momentum phase space of the 80 degree FS simulation (Run B) compared to a 3D RW shock simulation (Run 3D) at t = 115.5 ω −1 c . (a) The total momentum phase space of the FS (top panel), the 3D RW shock (middle panel), and the spectrum of each compared at the same simul…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Magnetic field strength for the 80 degree perpendicular FS, Run B, (top panel) and the 80 degree 3D RW shock, Run 3D, (middle panel) together with lineouts (taken from y = 150 di, dashed white lines) of the magnetic field strength (bottom panel) at t = 115.5 ω −1 c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    I., Leer , E., & Skadron , G

    Axford , W. I., Leer , E., & Skadron , G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 2, Acceleration of Cosmic Rays at Shock Fronts, 273--+. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ICRC....2..273A

    1977

  3. [3]

    Bell , A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B/abstract

    1978

  4. [4]

    2004, MNRAS, 353, 550, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    ---. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    arXiv 2004

  5. [6]

    R., Schure , K

    Bell , A. R., Schure , K. M., Reville , B., & Giacinti , G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 415, 10.1093/mnras/stt179

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt179 2013

  6. [7]

    D., & Ostriker , J

    Blandford , R. D., & Ostriker , J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, 10.1086/182658

    doi:10.1086/182658 1978

  7. [8]

    M., Dolag , K., Steinwandel , U

    B \"o ss , L. M., Dolag , K., Steinwandel , U. P., et al. 2024, , 692, A232, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348339

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348339 2024

  8. [9]

    S., Niemiec , J., Amano , T., & Kobzar , O

    Boula , S. S., Niemiec , J., Amano , T., & Kobzar , O. 2024, , 684, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349091

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349091 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [10]

    Brunetti, G., & Jones, T. W. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430007, 10.1142/S0218271814300079

    2014 doi

  2. [11]

    C., & Blasi , P

    Caprioli , D., Haggerty , C. C., & Blasi , P. 2020, , 905, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe05

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    2015, , 798, 28

    Caprioli , D., Pop , A., & Spitkovsky , A. 2015, , 798, 28. 1409.8291

    2015 arXiv

  4. [13]

    2013, , 765, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L20

    Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2013, , 765, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L20

    2013 doi

  5. [14]

    2014 a , , 794, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/46

    ---. 2014 a , , 794, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/46

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    2014 b , , 783, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    ---. 2014 b , , 783, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    2014 doi

  7. [16]

    2022, , 930, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6182

    Cristofari , P., Blasi , P., & Caprioli , D. 2022, , 930, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6182

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    Drury , L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    1983 doi

  9. [18]

    A., & Silva , L

    Gargat \'e , L., Bingham , R., Fonseca , R. A., & Silva , L. O. 2007, Computer Physics Communications, 176, 419, 10.1016/j.cpc.2006.11.013

    2007 doi

  10. [19]

    2013, , 773, 158, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/158

    Guo , F., & Giacalone , J. 2013, , 773, 158, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/158

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    2024, , 976, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4c

    Gupta , S., Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2024, , 976, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4c

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    C., & Caprioli , D

    Haggerty , C. C., & Caprioli , D. 2019, , 887, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab58c8

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    2020, , 905, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe06

    ---. 2020, , 905, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe06

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    C., Caprioli , D., Cassak , P

    Haggerty , C. C., Caprioli , D., Cassak , P. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12423, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12423

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    Hillas , A. M. 2005, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 31, 95, 10.1088/0954-3899/31/5/R02

    2005 doi

  16. [25]

    V., Retin \`o , A., & Dandouras, I

    Johlander, A., Vaivads, A., Khotyaintsev, Y. V., Retin \`o , A., & Dandouras, I. 2016, , 817, L4, 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L4

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    C., Jokipii , J

    Jones , F. C., Jokipii , J. R., & Baring , M. G. 1998, , 509, 238, 10.1086/306480

    1998 doi

  18. [27]

    Krymskii , G. F. 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977DoSSR.234R1306K

    1977

  19. [28]

    O., & Cesarsky , C

    Lagage , P. O., & Cesarsky , C. J. 1983a , A&A, 118, 223. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A26A...118..223L

  20. [29]

    2012, A&A, 538, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117855

    Morlino , G., & Caprioli , D. 2012, A&A, 538, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117855

    2012 doi

  21. [30]

    2023, , 131, 095201, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.095201

    Orusa , L., & Caprioli , D. 2023, , 131, 095201, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.095201

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    Peacock , J. A. 1981, , 196, 135, 10.1093/mnras/196.2.135

    1981 doi

  23. [32]

    Reville , B., & Bell , A. R. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2433, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19892.x

    2012

  24. [33]

    2019, , 2440, 10.1093/mnras/stz2760

    Trotta , D., Burgess , D., Prete , G., Perri , S., & Zimbardo , G. 2019, , 2440, 10.1093/mnras/stz2760

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    L., Wilson , L

    Turner , D. L., Wilson , L. B., Liu , T. Z., et al. 2018, , 561, 206, 10.1038/s41586-018-0472-9

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    W., Br \"u ggen, M., et al

    Vazza, F., Jones, T. W., Br \"u ggen, M., et al. 2017, , 464, 210, 10.1093/mnras/stw2351

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    2022, , 515, 2256, 10.1093/mnras/stac1901

    Vieu , T., Reville , B., & Aharonian , F. 2022, , 515, 2256, 10.1093/mnras/stac1901

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    Winske , D., & Quest , K. B. 1988, , 93, 9681, 10.1029/JA093iA09p09681

    1988 doi

  29. [38]

    2024, , 967, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3960

    Zacharegkas , G., Caprioli , D., Haggerty , C., Gupta , S., & Schroer , B. 2024, , 967, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3960

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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