Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 131 references

Radio Observations as a Probe of Cosmic Web Magnetism

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-frequency radio observations of cosmic filaments favour a primordial origin for cosmic magnetism, and place the average filament field at 10–60 nG at z=0.

desk verdict Useful update with a genuinely new joint test, but the 43±7 nG headline is soft because it rests on an assumed γ=5 astrophysical shape that the LOFAR data do not constrain. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18619 v1 pith:4T5YPTFG submitted 2025-05-24 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Ettore Carretti , Franco Vazza This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords magneticfieldsintergalacticmediumlarge-scalestructureoftheUniversemethods:statisticalcosmicfilamentsprimordialFaradayrotationsynchrotronweb
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

The paper updates the comparison between radio observations of the cosmic web and recent cosmological MHD simulations to test which class of magnetogenesis scenarios is favoured: primordial fields seeded in the early Universe, astrophysical fields injected later by galaxy feedback, or a combination. It reports that two probes — the low-frequency rotation-measure scatter of filaments as a function of redshift and the stacked synchrotron emission of filaments — favour a dominant primordial magnetic field and disfavour a solely astrophysical origin, while a third probe, the rotation-measure radial profile around galaxy groups, does not yet give an unambiguous answer. If this is right, the magnetic fields filling the cosmic web preserve information from the early Universe, and low-frequency radio surveys can discriminate among primordial models more sensitively than CMB observations for inflationary-like spectra. The paper also gives an average filament field at $z=0$ of 10–60 nG independently of the model, and $43\pm7$ nG for the combined model that best matches the simulations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the residual rotation measure (RRM) that remains after subtracting the Milky Way contribution, treated as a redshift-dependent statistic: the observed rms is fit to $\langle RRM^2\rangle^{1/2}=A_{rrm}/(1+z)^\gamma+\langle RRM_f^2\rangle^{1/2}$, where the astrophysical term is a power law and the filament term is computed by integrating $0.812\, n_e B_\parallel/(1+z)^2$ along simulated lines of sight. The filament field itself is parametrized as $B_f=B_{f,0}(1+z)^\alpha$, with electron densities drawn from the cosmological MHD simulations. The second, independent probe is the stacked synchrotron surface brightness of massive simulated filaments at about 118 MHz, computed with the shock-acceleration formula (Equation (1)), which responds approximately as $B^2$ and therefore breaks degeneracies that the RM alone leaves open. The third probe, the median-absolute-deviation radial profile of RRM around group-mass halos, is simulated and compared but is not yet conclusive.

What would settle it

Measure the redshift dependence of the astrophysical RM contribution directly at gigahertz frequencies, where this component dominates over the cosmic web. If an independent survey finds the astrophysical rms to be roughly proportional to $(1+z)^{-1}$ instead of $(1+z)^{-5}$, the best-fit filament field at $z=0$ shifts from $43\pm7$ nG to roughly $11$–$14$ nG, and the RRM-vs-redshift argument for a dominant primordial seed loses its quantitative support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the low-frequency radio data already select a magnetogenesis scenario: a dominant primordial field, specifically a stochastic seed with spectral slope $n_B=-1$ and $\langle B\rangle_{\rm 1Mpc}=0.37$ nG combined with the most realistic astrophysical feedback model, while a purely astrophysical origin is disfavoured. In this combined model the average proper magnetic field in cosmic filaments is $B_{f,0}=43\pm7$ nG at $z=0$ with a redshift slope $\alpha=0.8\pm0.5$, and the astrophysical term in the rotation-measure budget declines quickly with redshift. The paper also claims a scenario-independent range of $10$–$60$ nG for the filament field at $z=0$, and argues that the same radio observables can discriminate among primordial models more sensitively than current CMB analyses for inflationary-like spectra. The third probe, the rotation-measure radial profile around group-mass halos, is still inconclusive because the simulations fall short of the observed amplitude by roughly a factor of two.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is an unmeasured assumption about the redshift evolution of the astrophysical part of the rotation-measure signal: the paper prefers the steep form $A_{rrm}/(1+z)^5$ because it matches the observed $21\%$ astrophysical fraction, but if the true astrophysical component evolves more mildly the inferred filament field drops from roughly $43$ nG to about $11$–$14$ nG and the preferred combined model is no longer forced by the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the preferred model is correct, the bulk of the magnetic field energy in cosmic filaments at $z \lesssim 3$ is a relic of an early-universe seed, and galaxy feedback contributes at most about a quarter of the observed low-frequency rotation-measure scatter.
  • Low-frequency radio surveys would then already constrain inflationary-like primordial field spectra roughly five times more tightly, in amplitude terms, than present CMB analyses.
  • The causal ($n_B=2$) phase-transition scenario would be excluded by the joint RM-plus-synchrotron test unless its seed amplitude exceeds CMB limits by about an order of magnitude, an exclusion that sharper CMB constraints can confirm.
  • The best-matching combined model predicts a rapidly decreasing astrophysical RM component, so high-redshift observations ($z>1$) should show almost purely primordial filament signal; this is a direct prediction of the model.
  • Pinpointing the redshift shape of the astrophysical RM component with gigahertz-frequency surveys is the single most informative next observation, because the current factor-of-four spread between the two shapes dominates the uncertainty in the filament field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the steep $\gamma=5$ astrophysical shape is right, astrophysical magnetization of the intergalactic medium is essentially a low-redshift phenomenon, which would imply that the magnetization of cosmic voids probed by gamma-ray pair-echo limits is also almost entirely primordial; the paper does not pursue this connection.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's exclusion of the causal $n_B=2$ model is weakened by finite numerical resolution at about $41.5$ kpc cells; a higher-resolution rerun could determine whether artificially damped small-scale field energy accounts for the required factor of $\sim100$–$200$ in magnetic energy, which would be a cleaner test than rescaling seed amplitudes.
  • Beyond the paper: the persistent factor-of-two shortfall near galaxy groups suggests the simulated feedback bubbles are too sparse or too weak, so observing the same group RM profiles with a full treatment of depolarization at low frequency could independently calibrate the astrophysical contribution and might shift the primordial/astrophysical balance at low redshift.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct cross-check would be to apply the same joint test to fast-radio-burst rotation and dispersion measures, whose simultaneous measurement maps $n_e B_\parallel$ along individual lines of sight through filaments rather than statistically.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares three radio observables of cosmic filaments—LOFAR RRM rms versus redshift, stacked synchrotron emission, and POSSUM MAD RRM radial profiles around galaxy groups—with predictions from cosmological MHD simulations of astrophysical and primordial magnetic seeding scenarios. Using an analytical fit with a power-law filament field and an ad hoc astrophysical RM component, the authors find that a combined primordial (nB = -1) plus astrophysical model best matches the first two probes, yielding B_f,0 = 43 ± 7 nG at z = 0 for a rapidly decreasing astrophysical component (γ = 5), while a solely astrophysical model fails at high redshift. The third probe is inconclusive, and the paper recommends independent measurement of the astrophysical RM shape.

Significance. If the main inference holds, radio observations of the cosmic web would provide competitive constraints on primordial magnetic fields, potentially more sensitive than CMB studies for inflationary-like spectra, and would support a dominant primordial component in filament magnetization. The paper's strengths include the use of recent high-quality LOFAR data, an updated astrophysical simulation (B4) calibrated to multiple galaxy observables, careful treatment of line-of-sight selection and high-density flagging, and an honest discussion of the third probe's inconclusiveness. The data availability statement provides access to the simulated LOS data. However, the quantitative headline and the model-selection step are conditional on an unconstrained shape of the astrophysical RM component and on a seed normalization calibrated to the same LOFAR data, so the specific 43 ± 7 nG claim is currently not as robust as the abstract suggests.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (9), Tables 2–3; §6] The headline result B_f,0 = 43 ± 7 nG (abstract; §6) is obtained only for γ = 5, one of two arbitrarily chosen shapes for the astrophysical component. The data do not constrain γ: with γ = 1, the same fits give B_f,0 = 11–14 ± 4 nG (Table 2). The choice of γ = 5 is justified partly by matching the observed 21 ± 4% astrophysical fraction, but that integrated fraction does not fix the redshift dependence of the astrophysical term; since both terms in Eq. (9) are power laws in (1+z) added in quadrature, the RRM(z) data alone are degenerate in γ. Thus the abstract's 'best-matching combined model' and the 'rapidly decreasing astrophysical component' are not robust. The paper's own §6 calls independent knowledge of the astrophysical RM shape 'much-needed,' which correctly identifies the load-bearing uncertainty.
  2. [§3 (seed normalization) and §4.1/Figs. 4–5] The nB = -1 seed amplitude, <B>_1Mpc = 0.37 nG, is set from comparison with LOFAR RRMs (Section 3, citing Ref. [18]), not from CMB constraints. The same LOFAR RRM-z data are then used in Section 4.1 to fit Eq. (9) and in Figures 4–5 to identify this model as the unique match. This is a circular validation: the model is normalized to the very data set used to test it, so the statement in Section 5 that this model is 'the only scenario that is consistent with both the z ≤ 3 cosmic web and CMB limits' is true partly by construction. A non-circular test would require leaving the seed amplitude free (or using a CMB-only prior) and showing that the other models cannot be brought into agreement without violating CMB limits; the paper only performs this approximately for the stacked-emission test in Section 4.2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Reference list] The reference list contains duplicates that should be merged: [32] and [68] are the same Vernstrom et al. 2017 paper, [36] and [66] are the same Locatelli et al. 2021 paper, and [31] and [41] are the same Vernstrom et al. 2023 paper.
  2. [§4.3] The citation for the splashback radius is missing; the text contains a placeholder '[? ]' that should be replaced with the proper reference (likely Diemer et al. 2017, which appears in the bibliography).
  3. [§4.1] The criterion for flagging high-density points along the LOS is not specified; please state the quantitative threshold or give an explicit pointer to the exact procedure in Ref. [18] so that the analysis is reproducible.
  4. [§2.2 and Table 1] The text states an upper limit of 1.5 nG from Ref. [50] for the RM pair-difference experiment, while Table 1 lists ≤ 9 nG for the same entry; please reconcile this apparent inconsistency (e.g., proper versus comoving values or different filtering choices).
  5. [Abstract and §6] The phrase 'Independently of the scenario and the shape of the astrophysical component RM' overstates the support from the analysis, because only two shapes (γ = 1 and γ = 5) are tested; the range 10–60 nG should be qualified as covering the two adopted shapes.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The preferred nB=-1 model's seed amplitude is calibrated on the same LOFAR RRM data later used to declare it the unique match; the γ=5 astrophysical shape is selected to reproduce the observed 21% fraction and then described as predicting it.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Latest Simulations of Cosmic Magnetism) and Section 5 (Discussion)]
    "We notice that the last case is the only one where, based on our previous work [18], the normalization is not set by the CMB analysis, but from the comparison with LOFAR RRMs, which yields a normalization ∼ 5 times below CMB constraints. ... The amplitude of RRM rms of the scenario nB = −1 well matches the observed RRMs, provided that the normalization is set ≈ 5 times lower than the existing upper limit from CMB observations. The nB = −1 model is therefore the only scenario that is consistent with both the best constraints of cosmic magnetism from the z ≤ 3 cosmic web and the CMB limits."

    The seed-field normalization of the preferred nB=-1 model is explicitly fitted to the LOFAR RRM data in the authors' previous work [18], which is self-cited here. The same LOFAR RRM rms(z) relation is then used in Figures 4-5 and in the discussion to identify nB=-1 as the unique model matching the cosmic-web constraints. The RRM part of that agreement is therefore enforced by construction rather than predicted. Some independent support remains from the synchrotron stacking observable, which was not used in the calibration, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Eq. 9, Tables 2-3) and Section 5 (Discussion)]
    "The latter gives a decreasing term and a match with the observed fractional contribution of the astrophysical component of21 ± 4 percent better than the values obtained with the shapes used in our previous work, which are all larger than the observed value. ... This shape also has the relevant benefit of predicting a fractional contribution of the astrophysical component that is consistent with the observed 21 percent."

    The γ=5 shape of the astrophysical term is chosen partly because it reproduces the observed 21±4% astrophysical fraction from the LOFAR data, and the same fraction is then described as 'predicted'. The headline result B_f,0=43±7 nG and the claim that the astrophysical RRM component decreases rapidly with redshift are taken from the γ=5 fit (Table 3). Since γ=1 gives B_f,0≈11-14 nG, the quantitative conclusion is conditional on a functional form that was selected to match the target summary statistic, not independently constrained by the data. The paper acknowledges the need for independent knowledge of the astrophysical RRM shape in Section 6, but the 'predicted' fraction is circular by construction.

full rationale

The paper has genuine external anchors: the synchrotron stacking of filaments (Vernstrom et al. 2021) is an independent observable not used to set the nB=-1 normalization, and CMB limits plus gamma-ray void constraints provide outside benchmarks. However, the central model-selection claim that nB=-1 is the unique scenario consistent with the z≤3 cosmic-web constraints is partially circular, because the nB=-1 seed amplitude was itself calibrated on the LOFAR RRM data in the authors' previous work [18], and the same RRM-z relation is then used to show that this model matches. The γ=5 astrophysical shape is likewise selected to reproduce the observed 21±4% astrophysical fraction, and that fraction is then called 'predicted'; the headline 43±7 nG and the rapidly-decreasing astrophysical RM conclusion are conditional on this choice, while γ=1 gives roughly a factor-of-four lower filament field. These are not fully forced: the synchrotron-stacking test gives the nB=-1 model nontrivial independent support, and the paper is transparent about the need for independent knowledge of the astrophysical RRM shape. The overall circularity is therefore partial, not complete: one central 'prediction' reduces by construction to a fitted input, while another part of the evidence chain retains independent content. Score 6.

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

The quantitative results rest on four fitted or hand-chosen parameters in the RRM-z model plus the seed amplitude of the preferred primordial model, which was calibrated using the same LOFAR data that later select it. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • B_f,0 (filament field at z=0) = 43±7 nG (best combined model); 10-60 nG overall
    Least-squares fit of Eq. (9) to LOFAR RRM rms; the value depends strongly on the assumed astrophysical component shape.
  • alpha (redshift slope of proper filament field) = 0.8±0.5 (best); 0.1-2.6 depending on gamma
    Fitted simultaneously with B_f,0 in Eq. (11); wide systematic range from the choice of gamma shape.
  • A_rrm (astrophysical RM normalization) = 1.08-1.17 rad/m^2
    Normalization of the astrophysical component in Eq. (9), fitted to the same RRM rms data; its redshift shape is not independently known.
  • gamma (astrophysical component shape exponent) = 1 and 5 (hand-chosen)
    Two shapes tested; gamma=5 is preferred because it reproduces the observed 21±4% astrophysical fraction, making the choice data-informed and a source of systematic uncertainty.
  • Seed amplitude <B>_1Mpc for nB=-1 model = 0.37 nG
    Set from comparison with LOFAR RRMs in previous work (Section 3), not from CMB constraints; this calibration overlaps with the data used to favor the model.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Faraday rotation formula and the decomposition of observed RM into galactic, extragalactic, and noise components (Eqs. 3-5).
    Standard radio astronomy relations are used without derivation, and the decomposition is standard practice in the field.
  • domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration operates in cosmic filaments with the same efficiency as in clusters, so Eq. (1) predicts synchrotron emission.
    The paper explicitly flags this extrapolation in Section 2.1 and notes that PIC simulations provide only partial support, so this is a load-bearing domain assumption.
  • domain assumption Simulated electron density and magnetic fields from ENZO at 41.5 kpc resolution represent the real cosmic web along observed sight lines.
    The analysis draws ne and B from simulations and flags high-density pixels, but resolution limits and missing feedback physics are acknowledged in Sections 4.3 and 5.
  • ad hoc to paper The astrophysical RRM component has the smooth power-law form A_rrm/(1+z)^gamma added in quadrature, with gamma either 1 or 5.
    The shape is assumed rather than derived from a physical model of intervening galaxies or source environments; the choice of gamma affects B_f,0 by a factor of about four.
  • ad hoc to paper The nB=-1 primordial stochastic seed with <B>_1Mpc = 0.37 nG is an appropriate model of inflationary magnetogenesis.
    The spectral index is a model choice, and the amplitude is calibrated to LOFAR RRMs rather than CMB, so this input already encodes part of the result being tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio Observations as a Probe of Cosmic Web Magnetism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4T5YPTFG

@misc{pith2026250518619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio Observations as a Probe of Cosmic Web Magnetism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4T5YPTFG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18619}
}
abstract

The Universe's magnetogenesis can be investigated with radio observations of cosmic filaments, where the information on the initial magnetic field seeds is expected to be preserved in time. In this work, we update the comparison between recent observational results in filaments with the predictions from recent cosmological simulations to check whether one of them is favoured. The radio probes we use are the rotation measure (RM) of filaments as a function of the redshift ($z$), stacking of synchrotron emission from filaments, and the RM radial profile away from galaxy groups. The first two probes favour the presence of a dominant primordial magnetic field component and disfavour a sole astrophysical scenario, the third probe does not yet give an unambiguous outcome. We also estimate the average field strength in filaments. Independently of the scenario and the shape of the astrophysical component RM, it is in the range 10--60 nG at $z=0$, while, when restricted to the model that gives the best match to the simulations, it gives $43\pm 7$ nG, with an astrophysical component RM rapidly decreasing with the redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18619 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A visual impression of the different amplitude and filling factors of extragalactic magnetic field strength at z = 0.0 if the same simulated cosmic volume (with side 85 Mpc) is simulated either starting from a primordial uniform seed field (central panel) or only using astrophysical sources of magnetic seeding (right panel), taken from Ref. [15]. The left panel shows the dark matter density projected along the line … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Predicted synchrotron radio power at 100 MHz emitted by shock-accelerated relativistic electrons in the cosmic web, for resimulations of the same 1003Mpc3 volume (here at z = 0), starting from six different models of primordial magnetic fields compatible with CMB constraints, as detailed in Vazza et al. [7]. The present-day magnetic fields in cosmic voids are crucial complementary information to further constraints,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Predicted Faraday Rotation at z = 0 (in absolute value and only integrated for 100 Mpc along the line of sight) for the same simulated volume of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: RRM rms as a function of the redshift obtained with our MHD simulations of magnetogene￾sis scenarios. The labels are as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Residual RM at z = 2.5 versus synchrotron radio surface brightness of sample of filaments stacked at z = 0.14, for five primordial models and for one astrophysical model (colored circles), compared with the result of observations (yellow square, based on Ref. [16,18]) …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profile of the mean absolute deviation for RRM values around ≥ 3 × 1012M⊙ groups of galaxies in two simulated magnetogenesis scenarios (the preferred astrophysical model of Ref. [13] with or without and addition primordial fields with a nB = −1 spectrum, as in …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    The nature of LOFAR rotation measures and new constraints on magnetic fields in cosmic filaments and on magnetogenesis scenarios

    Carretti, E.; Vazza, F.; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Vacca, V .; Bonafede, A.; Heald, G.; Horellou, C.; Mtchedlidze, S.; Vernstrom, T. The nature of LOFAR rotation measures and new constraints on magnetic fields in cosmic filaments and on magnetogenesis scenarios. A&A 2025, 693, A208. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451333

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451333 2025

  2. [1]

    The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields

    Subramanian, K. The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2016, 79, 076901. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/7/076901

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/7/076901 2016

  3. [2]

    Constraints on primordial magnetic fields from magnetically-induced perturbations: Current status and future perspectives with LiteBIRD and future ground based experiments

    Paoletti, D.; Finelli, F. Constraints on primordial magnetic fields from magnetically-induced perturbations: Current status and future perspectives with LiteBIRD and future ground based experiments. JCAP 2019, 2019, 028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7 516/2019/11/028

    doi:10.1088/1475-7 2019

  4. [3]

    Stringent Limit on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

    Jedamzik, K.; Saveliev, A. Stringent Limit on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. PRL 2019, 123, 021301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.021301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.021301 2019

  5. [4]

    The Gamma-Ray Window to Intergalactic Magnetism

    Alves Batista, R.; Saveliev, A. The Gamma-Ray Window to Intergalactic Magnetism. Universe 2021, 7, 223. https://doi.org/10.3 390/universe7070223

    2021

  6. [5]

    Progress on cosmological magnetic fields

    Vachaspati, T. Progress on cosmological magnetic fields. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2021, 84, 074901. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ ac03a9

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ 2021

  7. [6]

    Magnetization of the intergalactic medium in the IllustrisTNG simulations: The importance of extended, outflow-driven bubbles

    Arámburo-García, A.; Bondarenko, K.; Boyarsky, A.; Nelson, D.; Pillepich, A.; Sokolenko, A. Magnetization of the intergalactic medium in the IllustrisTNG simulations: The importance of extended, outflow-driven bubbles. MNRAS 2021, 505, 5038–5057. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1632

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1632 2021

  8. [7]

    Simulations and observational tests of primordial magnetic fields from Cosmic Microwave Background constraintsok

    Vazza, F.; Paoletti, D.; Banfi, S.; Finelli, F.; Gheller, C.; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Brüggen, M. Simulations and observational tests of primordial magnetic fields from Cosmic Microwave Background constraintsok. MNRAS 2021, 500, 5350–5368. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3532

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3532 2021

Show all 131 references
  1. [8]

    Constraints on the intergalactic magnetic field from Fermi/LAT observations of the ‘pair echo’ of GRB 221009A

    Vovk, I.; Korochkin, A.; Neronov, A.; Semikoz, D. Constraints on the intergalactic magnetic field from Fermi/LAT observations of the ‘pair echo’ of GRB 221009A. A&A 2024, 683, A25. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347310

    2024 doi

  2. [9]

    Inflation-produced, large-scale magnetic fields

    Turner, M.S.; Widrow, L.M. Inflation-produced, large-scale magnetic fields. PRD 1988, 37, 2743–2754. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.37.2743

    1988

  3. [10]

    Extragalactic magnetic fields

    Kronberg, P .P . Extragalactic magnetic fields. Rep. Prog. Phys. 1994, 57, 325–382. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/57/4/001

    1994 doi

  4. [13]

    The evolution of cosmic ray electrons in the cosmic web: Seeding by AGN, star formation and shocks

    Vazza, F.; Gheller, C.; Zanetti, F.; Tsizh, M.; Carretti, E.; Mtchedlidze, S.; Brueggen, M. The evolution of cosmic ray electrons in the cosmic web: Seeding by AGN, star formation and shocks. A&A 2025, 696, A58. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A... 696A..58V

    2025

  5. [14]

    Origin of Magnetic Field in the Intracluster Medium: Primordial or Astrophysical? ApJ 2014, 797, 133

    Cho, J. Origin of Magnetic Field in the Intracluster Medium: Primordial or Astrophysical? ApJ 2014, 797, 133. https: //doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/133

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    Simulations of extragalactic magnetic fields and of their observables

    Vazza, F.; Brüggen, M.; Gheller, C.; Hackstein, S.; Wittor, D.; Hinz, P .M. Simulations of extragalactic magnetic fields and of their observables. Class. Quantum Gravity 2017, 34, 234001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aa8e60

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    Discovery of magnetic fields along stacked cosmic filaments as revealed by radio and X-ray emission

    Vernstrom, T.; Heald, G.; Vazza, F.; Galvin, T.J.; West, J.L.; Locatelli, N.; Fornengo, N.; Pinetti, E. Discovery of magnetic fields along stacked cosmic filaments as revealed by radio and X-ray emission. MNRAS 2021, 505, 4178–4196. https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stab1301

    2021

  8. [17]

    Magnetic field evolution in cosmic filaments with LOFAR data

    Carretti, E.; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Vacca, V .; Vazza, F.; Gheller, C.; Vernstrom, T.; Bonafede, A. Magnetic field evolution in cosmic filaments with LOFAR data. MNRAS 2023, 518, 2273–2286. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2966

    2023 doi

  9. [19]

    Evidence for Strong Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars

    Neronov, A.; Vovk, I. Evidence for Strong Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars. Science 2010, 328, 73–, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1184192

    2010 doi

  10. [20]

    Evolution of Primordial Magnetic Fields during Large-scale Structure Formation

    Mtchedlidze, S.; Domínguez-Fernández, P .; Du, X.; Brandenburg, A.; Kahniashvili, T.; O’Sullivan, S.; Schmidt, W.; Brüggen, M. Evolution of Primordial Magnetic Fields during Large-scale Structure Formation. ApJ 2022, 929, 127. https://doi.org/10.3847/15 38-4357/ac5960

    2022 doi

  11. [21]

    Revision of upper bound on volume-filling intergalactic magnetic fields with LOFAR

    Neronov, A.; Vazza, F.; Mtchedlidze, S.; Carretti, E. Revision of upper bound on volume-filling intergalactic magnetic fields with LOFAR. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2412.14825

    2024 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Radio signature of cosmological structure formation shocks

    Hoeft, M.; Brüggen, M. Radio signature of cosmological structure formation shocks. MNRAS 2007, 375, 77–91. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11111.x

    2007

  13. [23]

    The acceleration of cosmic rays in shock fronts

    Bell, A.R. The acceleration of cosmic rays in shock fronts. I. MNRAS 1978, 182, 147–156

    1978

  14. [24]

    Hydromagnetic shock structure in the presence of cosmic rays

    Drury, L.O.; Voelk, J.H. Hydromagnetic shock structure in the presence of cosmic rays. ApJ 1981, 248, 344–351. https: //doi.org/10.1086/159159

    1981 doi

  15. [25]

    Self-similar evolution of cosmic-ray-modified quasi-parallel plane shocks

    Kang, H.; Jones, T.W. Self-similar evolution of cosmic-ray-modified quasi-parallel plane shocks. Astropart. Phys. 2007, 28, 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.05.007

    2007 doi

  16. [26]

    Cosmological Shock Waves in the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe: Nongravitational Effects

    Kang, H.; Ryu, D.; Cen, R.; Ostriker, J.P . Cosmological Shock Waves in the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe: Nongravitational Effects. ApJ 2007, 669, 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1086/521717

    2007 doi

  17. [27]

    Non-thermal Electron Acceleration in Low Mach Number Collisionless Shocks

    Guo, X.; Sironi, L.; Narayan, R. Non-thermal Electron Acceleration in Low Mach Number Collisionless Shocks. I. Particle Energy SpectrAAcceleration Mechanism. ApJ 2014, 794, 153. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/153

    2014 doi

  18. [28]

    Shocks and Non-thermal Particles in Clusters of Galaxies

    Bykov, A.M.; Vazza, F.; Kropotina, J.A.; Levenfish, K.P .; Paerels, F.B.S. Shocks and Non-thermal Particles in Clusters of Galaxies. SSRv 2019, 215, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-019-0585-y

    2019 doi

  19. [29]

    Electron Acceleration at Quasi-parallel Nonrelativistic Shocks: A 1D Kinetic Survey

    Gupta, S.; Caprioli, D.; Spitkovsky, A. Electron Acceleration at Quasi-parallel Nonrelativistic Shocks: A 1D Kinetic Survey. ApJ 2024, 976, 10. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4c

    2024 doi

  20. [30]

    Simulations of Ion Acceleration at Non-relativistic Shocks

    Caprioli, D.; Spitkovsky, A. Simulations of Ion Acceleration at Non-relativistic Shocks. I. Acceleration Efficiency. ApJ 2014, 783, 91. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    2014 doi

  21. [33]

    The Murchison Widefield Array: The Square Kilometre Array Precursor at Low Radio Frequencies

    Tingay, S.J.; Goeke, R.; Bowman, J.D.; Emrich, D.; Ord, S.M.; Mitchell, D.A.; Morales, M.F.; Booler, T.; Crosse, B.; Wayth, R.B.; et al. The Murchison Widefield Array: The Square Kilometre Array Precursor at Low Radio Frequencies. Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 2013, 30, 7. https://...

    2013 doi

  22. [35]

    S-band Polarization All-Sky Survey (S-PASS): survey description and maps

    Carretti, E.; Haverkorn, M.; Staveley-Smith, L.; Bernardi, G.; Gaensler, B.M.; Kesteven, M.J.; Poppi, S.; Brown, S.; Crocker, R.M.; Purcell, C.; et al. S-band Polarization All-Sky Survey (S-PASS): survey description and maps. MNRAS 2019, 489, 2330–2354. https://doi.org/10.1093...

    2019 doi

  23. [37]

    A search for intercluster filaments with LOFAR and eROSITA

    Hoang, D.N.; Brüggen, M.; Zhang, X.; Bonafede, A.; Liu, A.; Liu, T.; Shimwell, T.W.; Botteon, A.; Brunetti, G.; Bulbul, E.; et al. A search for intercluster filaments with LOFAR and eROSITA. MNRAS 2023, 523, 6320–6335. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1702. Universe 2024, 1, ...

    2023 doi

  24. [38]

    The Radio Sky at Meter Wavelengths: m-mode Analysis Imaging with the OVRO-LWA

    Eastwood, M.W.; Anderson, M.M.; Monroe, R.M.; Hallinan, G.; Barsdell, B.R.; Bourke, S.A.; Clark, M.A.; Ellingson, S.W.; Dowell, J.; Garsden, H.; et al. The Radio Sky at Meter Wavelengths: m-mode Analysis Imaging with the OVRO-LWA. AJ 2018, 156, 32. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538...

    2018 doi

  25. [39]

    GaLactic and Extragalactic All-sky Murchison Widefield Array (GLEAM) survey - I

    Hurley-Walker, N.; Callingham, J.R.; Hancock, P .J.; Franzen, T.M.O.; Hindson, L.; Kapi ´ nska, A.D.; Morgan, J.; Offringa, A.R.; Wayth, R.B.; Wu, C.; et al. GaLactic and Extragalactic All-sky Murchison Widefield Array (GLEAM) survey - I. A low-frequency extragalactic catalogu...

    2017 doi

  26. [40]

    ROSAT: A New Look at the X-ray Sky

    Truemper, J. ROSAT: A New Look at the X-ray Sky. QJRAS 1992, 33, 165

    1992

  27. [41]

    Polarized accretion shocks from the cosmic web.Sci

    Vernstrom, T.; West, J.; Vazza, F.; Wittor, D.; Riseley, C.J.; Heald, G. Polarized accretion shocks from the cosmic web.Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eade7233. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade7233

    2023 doi

  28. [42]

    The Global Magneto-ionic Medium Survey: A Faraday Depth Survey of the Northern Sky Covering 1280–1750 MHz

    Wolleben, M.; Landecker, T.L.; Douglas, K.A.; Gray, A.D.; Ordog, A.; Dickey, J.M.; Hill, A.S.; Carretti, E.; Brown, J.C.; Gaensler, B.M.; et al. The Global Magneto-ionic Medium Survey: A Faraday Depth Survey of the Northern Sky Covering 1280–1750 MHz. AJ 2021, 162, 35

    2021

  29. [43]

    Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results

    Bennett, C.L.; Larson, D.; Weiland, J.L.; Jarosik, N.; Hinshaw, G.; Odegard, N.; Smith, K.M.; Hill, R.S.; Gold, B.; Halpern, M.; et al. Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results. ApJS 2013, 208, 20. https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-...

    2013 doi

  30. [44]

    On the depolarization of discrete radio sources by Faraday dispersion

    Burn, B.J. On the depolarization of discrete radio sources by Faraday dispersion. MNRAS 1966, 133, 67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/133.1.67

    1966

  31. [45]

    Planck intermediate results

    Planck Collaboration.; Adam, R.; Ade, P .A.R.; Alves, M.I.R.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Banday, A.J.; Barreiro, R.B.; Bartolo, N.; et al. Planck intermediate results. XLII. Large-scale Galactic magnetic fields. A&A 2016, 596, A103. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-...

    2016 doi

  32. [46]

    Structure in the Magnetic Field of the Milky Way Disk and Halo Traced by Faraday Rotation

    Dickey, J.M.; West, J.; Thomson, A.J.M.; Landecker, T.L.; Bracco, A.; Carretti, E.; Han, J.L.; Hill, A.S.; Ma, Y.K.; Mao, S.A.; et al. Structure in the Magnetic Field of the Milky Way Disk and Halo Traced by Faraday Rotation. ApJ 2022, 940, 75. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac94ce

    2022 doi

  33. [47]

    Detection of magnetic fields in the circumgalactic medium of nearby galaxies using Faraday rotation

    Heesen, V .; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Brüggen, M.; Basu, A.; Beck, R.; Seta, A.; Carretti, E.; Krause, M.G.H.; Haverkorn, M.; Hutschenreuter, S.; et al. Detection of magnetic fields in the circumgalactic medium of nearby galaxies using Faraday rotation. A&A 2023, 670, L23. https://d...

    2023 doi

  34. [48]

    Probing magnetic fields in the circumgalactic medium using polarization data from MIGHTEE

    Böckmann, K.; Brüggen, M.; Heesen, V .; Basu, A.; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Heywood, I.; Jarvis, M.; Scaife, A.; Stil, J.; Taylor, R.; et al. Probing magnetic fields in the circumgalactic medium using polarization data from MIGHTEE. A&A 2023, 678, A56. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-63...

    2023 doi

  35. [49]

    Structures of the magnetoionic media around the Fanaroff-Riley Class I radio galaxies 3C31 and Hydra A

    Laing, R.A.; Bridle, A.H.; Parma, P .; Murgia, M. Structures of the magnetoionic media around the Fanaroff-Riley Class I radio galaxies 3C31 and Hydra A. MNRAS 2008, 391, 521–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13895.x

    2008

  36. [50]

    The redshift evolution of extragalactic magnetic fields

    Pomakov, V .P .; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Brüggen, M.; Vazza, F.; Carretti, E.; Heald, G.H.; Horellou, C.; Shimwell, T.; Shulevski, A.; Vernstrom, T. The redshift evolution of extragalactic magnetic fields. MNRAS 2022, 515, 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stac1805

    2022

  37. [51]

    Covariant polarized radiative transfer on cosmological scales for investigating large-scale magnetic field structures.MNRAS 2019, 484, 1427–1455

    Chan, J.Y .H.; Wu, K.; On, A.Y .L.; Barnes, D.J.; McEwen, J.D.; Kitching, T.D. Covariant polarized radiative transfer on cosmological scales for investigating large-scale magnetic field structures.MNRAS 2019, 484, 1427–1455. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty3498

    2019 doi

  38. [52]

    Polarized radiative transfer, rotation measure fluctuations, and large-scale magnetic fields

    On, A.Y.L.; Chan, J.Y.H.; Wu, K.; Saxton, C.J.; van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. Polarized radiative transfer, rotation measure fluctuations, and large-scale magnetic fields. MNRAS 2019, 490, 1697–1713. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2683

    2019 doi

  39. [53]

    Simulating cosmic rays in clusters of galaxies—I

    Pfrommer, C.; Enßlin, T.A.; Springel, V .; Jubelgas, M.; Dolag, K. Simulating cosmic rays in clusters of galaxies—I. Effects on the Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect and the X-ray emission. MNRAS 2007, 378, 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11732.x

    2007

  40. [55]

    Constraining the efficiency of cosmic ray acceleration by cluster shocks

    Vazza, F.; Brüggen, M.; Wittor, D.; Gheller, C.; Eckert, D.; Stubbe, M. Constraining the efficiency of cosmic ray acceleration by cluster shocks. MNRAS 2016, 459, 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw584

    2016 doi

  41. [56]

    Energetic Particles and High-Energy Processes in Cosmological Filaments and Their Astronomical Implications

    Wu, K.; Owen, E.R.; Han, Q.; Inoue, Y.; Luo, L. Energetic Particles and High-Energy Processes in Cosmological Filaments and Their Astronomical Implications. Universe 2024, 10, 287. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe10070287

    2024 doi

  42. [57]

    Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW): III

    Böss, L.M.; Dolag, K.; Steinwandel, U.P .; Hernández-Martínez, E.; Khabibullin, I.; Seidel, B.; Sorce, J.G. Simulating the LOcal Web (SLOW): III. Synchrotron emission from the local cosmic web.A&A 2024, 692, A232. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348339

    2024 doi

  43. [58]

    Cosmic Rays Masquerading as Hot CGM Gas: An Inverse-Compton Origin for Diffuse X-ray Emission in the Circumgalactic Medium

    Hopkins, P .F.; Quataert, E.; Ponnada, S.B.; Silich, E. Cosmic Rays Masquerading as Hot CGM Gas: An Inverse-Compton Origin for Diffuse X-ray Emission in the Circumgalactic Medium. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2501.18696

    2025

  44. [59]

    Search for Cosmic-Ray-induced Gamma-Ray Emission in Galaxy Clusters

    Ackermann, M.; Ajello, M.; Albert, A.; Allafort, A.; Atwood, W.B.; Baldini, L.; Ballet, J.; Barbiellini, G.; Bastieri, D.; Bechtol, K.; et al. Search for Cosmic-Ray-induced Gamma-Ray Emission in Galaxy Clusters. ApJ 2014, 787, 18. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004 -637X/787/1/18

    2014 doi

  45. [60]

    New Limits on Gamma-Ray Emission from Galaxy Clusters

    Griffin, R.D.; Dai, X.; Kochanek, C.S. New Limits on Gamma-Ray Emission from Galaxy Clusters. ApJL 2014, 795, L21. https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L21

    2014 doi

  46. [61]

    Filaments of galaxies as a clue to the origin of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays

    Kim, J.; Ryu, D.; Kang, H.; Kim, S.; Rey, S.C. Filaments of galaxies as a clue to the origin of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaau8227. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau8227. Universe 2024, 1, 0 21 of 23

    2019 doi

  47. [62]

    Magnetic field strength in cosmic web filaments.MNRAS 2022, 512, 945–959

    Carretti, E.; Vacca, V .; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Heald, G.H.; Horellou, C.; Röttgering, H.J.A.; Scaife, A.M.M.; Shimwell, T.W.; Shulevski, A.; Stuardi, C.; et al. Magnetic field strength in cosmic web filaments.MNRAS 2022, 512, 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stac384

    2022 doi

  48. [63]

    Probing the magnetized gas distribution in galaxy groups and the cosmic web with POSSUM Faraday rotation measures

    Anderson, C.S.; McClure-Griffiths, N.M.; Rudnick, L.; Gaensler, B.M.; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Bradbury, S.; Akahori, T.; Baidoo, L.; Bruggen, M.; Carretti, E.; et al. Probing the magnetized gas distribution in galaxy groups and the cosmic web with POSSUM Faraday rotation measures. ...

    2024 doi

  49. [64]

    Survey Science with ASKAP: Polarization Sky Survey of the Universe’s Magnetism (POSSUM)

    Gaensler, B.M.; Landecker, T.L.; Taylor, A.R.; POSSUM Collaboration. Survey Science with ASKAP: Polarization Sky Survey of the Universe’s Magnetism (POSSUM). Am. Astron. Soc. Meet. Abstr. 2010, 215, 470.13

    2010

  50. [65]

    A radio ridge connecting two galaxy clusters in a filament of the cosmic web

    Govoni, F.; Orrù, E.; Bonafede, A.; Iacobelli, M.; Paladino, R.; Vazza, F.; Murgia, M.; Vacca, V .; Giovannini, G.; Feretti, L.; et al. A radio ridge connecting two galaxy clusters in a filament of the cosmic web. Science 2019, 364, 981–984. https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7500

    2019 doi

  51. [66]

    New constraints on the magnetic field in cosmic web filaments⋆

    Locatelli, N.; Vazza, F.; Bonafede, A.; Banfi, S.; Bernardi, G.; Gheller, C.; Botteon, A.; Shimwell, T. New constraints on the magnetic field in cosmic web filaments⋆. A&A 2021, 652, A80. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140526

    2021 doi

  52. [67]

    Constraints on the magnetic field in the intercluster bridge A399–A401

    Balboni, M.; Bonafede, A.; Bernardi, G.; Wittor, D.; Vazza, F.; Botteon, A.; Carretti, E.; Shimwell, T.; Vacca, V .; van Weeren, R.J. Constraints on the magnetic field in the intercluster bridge A399–A401. A&A 2023, 679, A107. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-636 1/202346303

    2023 doi

  53. [68]

    Low-frequency radio constraints on the synchrotron cosmic web

    Vernstrom, T.; Gaensler, B.M.; Brown, S.; Lenc, E.; Norris, R.P . Low-frequency radio constraints on the synchrotron cosmic web. MNRAS 2017, 467, 4914–4936. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx424

    2017 doi

  54. [69]

    Limiting magnetic fields in the cosmic web with diffuse radio emission

    Brown, S.; Vernstrom, T.; Carretti, E.; Dolag, K.; Gaensler, B.M.; Staveley-Smith, L.; Bernardi, G.; Haverkorn, M.; Kesteven, M.; Poppi, S. Limiting magnetic fields in the cosmic web with diffuse radio emission. MNRAS 2017, 468, 4246–4253. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx746

    2017 doi

  55. [70]

    Detection of magnetic fields in superclusters of galaxies

    Pignataro, G.V .; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Bonafede, A.; Bernardi, G.; Vazza, F.; Carretti, E. Detection of magnetic fields in superclusters of galaxies. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2503.08765

    2025 arXiv

  56. [71]

    Differences in Faraday Rotation between Adjacent Extragalactic Radio Sources as a Probe of Cosmic Magnetic Fields

    Vernstrom, T.; Gaensler, B.M.; Rudnick, L.; Andernach, H. Differences in Faraday Rotation between Adjacent Extragalactic Radio Sources as a Probe of Cosmic Magnetic Fields. ApJ 2019, 878, 92. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f83

    2019 doi

  57. [72]

    New constraints on the magnetization of the cosmic web using LOFAR Faraday rotation observations

    O’Sullivan, S.P .; Brüggen, M.; Vazza, F.; Carretti, E.; Locatelli, N.T.; Stuardi, C.; Vacca, V .; Vernstrom, T.; Heald, G.; Horellou, C.; et al. New constraints on the magnetization of the cosmic web using LOFAR Faraday rotation observations. MNRAS 2020, 495, 2607–2619. https...

    2020 doi

  58. [73]

    Constraints on large-scale magnetic fields in the intergalactic medium using cross-correlation methods

    Amaral, A.D.; Vernstrom, T.; Gaensler, B.M. Constraints on large-scale magnetic fields in the intergalactic medium using cross-correlation methods. MNRAS 2021, 503, 2913–2926. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab564

    2021 doi

  59. [74]

    Constraint on primordial magnetic fields in the light of ARCADE 2 and EDGES observations.Eur

    Natwariya, P .K. Constraint on primordial magnetic fields in the light of ARCADE 2 and EDGES observations.Eur. Phys. J. C 2021, 81, 394. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09155-z

    2021 doi

  60. [75]

    The Protogalactic Origin for Cosmic Magnetic Fields

    Kulsrud, R.M.; Cen, R.; Ostriker, J.P .; Ryu, D. The Protogalactic Origin for Cosmic Magnetic Fields. ApJ 1997, 480, 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1086/303987

    1997 doi

  61. [76]

    Magnetic Field Evolution in Merging Clusters of Galaxies

    Roettiger, K.; Stone, J.M.; Burns, J.O. Magnetic Field Evolution in Merging Clusters of Galaxies. ApJ 1999, 518, 594–602

    1999

  62. [77]

    SPH simulations of magnetic fields in galaxy clusters

    Dolag, K.; Bartelmann, M.; Lesch, H. SPH simulations of magnetic fields in galaxy clusters. A&A 1999, 348, 351–363

    1999

  63. [78]

    Correlation of the magnetic field and the intra-cluster gas density in galaxy clusters

    Dolag, K.; Schindler, S.; Govoni, F.; Feretti, L. Correlation of the magnetic field and the intra-cluster gas density in galaxy clusters. A&A 2001, 378, 777–786. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20011219

    2001 doi

  64. [79]

    Simulations of Magnetic Fields in Filaments

    Brüggen, M.; Ruszkowski, M.; Simionescu, A.; Hoeft, M.; Dalla Vecchia, C. Simulations of Magnetic Fields in Filaments. ApJL 2005, 631, L21–L24. https://doi.org/10.1086/497004

    2005 doi

  65. [80]

    A non-ideal magnetohydrodynamic GADGET: simulating massive galaxy clusters

    Bonafede, A.; Dolag, K.; Stasyszyn, F.; Murante, G.; Borgani, S. A non-ideal magnetohydrodynamic GADGET: simulating massive galaxy clusters. MNRAS 2011, 418, 2234–2250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19523.x

    2011

  66. [81]

    Cosmological Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Cluster Formation with Anisotropic Thermal Conduction

    Ruszkowski, M.; Lee, D.; Brüggen, M.; Parrish, I.; Oh, S.P . Cosmological Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations of Cluster Formation with Anisotropic Thermal Conduction. ApJ 2011, 740, 81. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/81

    2011 doi

  67. [82]

    On the amplification of magnetic fields in cosmic filaments and galaxy clusters

    Vazza, F.; Brüggen, M.; Gheller, C.; Wang, P . On the amplification of magnetic fields in cosmic filaments and galaxy clusters. MNRAS 2014, 445, 3706–3722. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1896

    2014 doi

  68. [83]

    Simulations of the Small-Scale Turbulent Dynamo

    Schekochihin, A.A.; Cowley, S.C.; Taylor, S.F.; Maron, J.L.; McWilliams, J.C. Simulations of the Small-Scale Turbulent Dynamo. ApJ 2004, 612, 276–307. https://doi.org/10.1086/422547

    2004 doi

  69. [84]

    The Turbulent Dynamo in Highly Compressible Supersonic Plasmas

    Federrath, C.; Schober, J.; Bovino, S.; Schleicher, D.R.G. The Turbulent Dynamo in Highly Compressible Supersonic Plasmas. ApJL 2014, 797, L19. https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L19

    2014 doi

  70. [85]

    Magnetic field amplification during a turbulent collapse

    Brandenburg, A.; Ntormousi, E. Magnetic field amplification during a turbulent collapse. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2505.02885

    2025 arXiv

  71. [86]

    Turbulent Amplification and Structure of the Intracluster Magnetic Field

    Beresnyak, A.; Miniati, F. Turbulent Amplification and Structure of the Intracluster Magnetic Field. ApJ 2016, 817, 127. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/127

    2016 doi

  72. [87]

    Magnetic Field Amplification in Galaxy Clusters and Its Simulation

    Donnert, J.; Vazza, F.; Brüggen, M.; ZuHone, J. Magnetic Field Amplification in Galaxy Clusters and Its Simulation. SSRv 2018, 214, 122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-018-0556-8

    2018 doi

  73. [88]

    Resolved magnetic dynamo action in the simulated intracluster medium

    Vazza, F.; Brunetti, G.; Brüggen, M.; Bonafede, A. Resolved magnetic dynamo action in the simulated intracluster medium. MNRAS 2018, 474, 1672–1687. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2830

    2018 doi

  74. [89]

    Cosmic magnetic fields with masclet: An application to galaxy clusters

    Quilis, V .; Martí, J.M.; Planelles, S. Cosmic magnetic fields with masclet: An application to galaxy clusters. MNRAS 2020, 494, 2706–2717. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa877. Universe 2024, 1, 0 22 of 23

    2020 doi

  75. [90]

    On the Small-scale Turbulent Dynamo in the Intracluster Medium: A Comparison to Dynamo Theory

    Steinwandel, U.P .; Böss, L.M.; Dolag, K.; Lesch, H. On the Small-scale Turbulent Dynamo in the Intracluster Medium: A Comparison to Dynamo Theory. ApJ 2022, 933, 131. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac715c

    2022 doi

  76. [91]

    Magnetic fields and Faraday rotation in clusters of galaxies

    Murgia, M.; Govoni, F.; Feretti, L.; Giovannini, G.; Dallacasa, D.; Fanti, R.; Taylor, G.B.; Dolag, K. Magnetic fields and Faraday rotation in clusters of galaxies. A&A 2004, 424, 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20040191

    2004 doi

  77. [92]

    The Coma cluster magnetic field from Faraday rotation measures

    Bonafede, A.; Feretti, L.; Murgia, M.; Govoni, F.; Giovannini, G.; Dallacasa, D.; Dolag, K.; Taylor, G.B. The Coma cluster magnetic field from Faraday rotation measures. A&A 2010, 513, A30+, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/200913696

    2010 doi

  78. [93]

    Measurements and simulation of Faraday rotation across the Coma radio relic

    Bonafede, A.; Vazza, F.; Brüggen, M.; Murgia, M.; Govoni, F.; Feretti, L.; Giovannini, G.; Ogrean, G. Measurements and simulation of Faraday rotation across the Coma radio relic. MNRAS 2013, 433, 3208–3226. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt960

    2013 doi

  79. [94]

    Diffuse Radio Emission from Galaxy Clusters

    van Weeren, R.J.; de Gasperin, F.; Akamatsu, H.; Brüggen, M.; Feretti, L.; Kang, H.; Stroe, A.; Zandanel, F. Diffuse Radio Emission from Galaxy Clusters. SSRv 2019, 215, 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-019-0584-z

    2019 doi

  80. [95]

    Turbulent dynamo in a collisionless plasma.Proc

    Rincon, F.; Califano, F.; Schekochihin, A.A.; Valentini, F. Turbulent dynamo in a collisionless plasma.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 3950–3953. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525194113

    2016 doi

  81. [96]

    Generation of Near-Equipartition Magnetic Fields in Turbulent Collisionless Plasmas

    Sironi, L.; Comisso, L.; Golant, R. Generation of Near-Equipartition Magnetic Fields in Turbulent Collisionless Plasmas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2023, 131, 055201. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.055201

    2023 doi

  82. [97]

    Magnetogenesis in a collisionless plasma: From Weibel instability to turbulent dynamo

    Zhou, M.; Zhdankin, V .; Kunz, M.W.; Loureiro, N.F.; Uzdensky, D.A. Magnetogenesis in a collisionless plasma: From Weibel instability to turbulent dynamo. arXiv

  83. [98]

    Fluctuation Dynamo in a Collisionless, Weakly Magnetized Plasma

    St-Onge, D.A.; Kunz, M.W. Fluctuation Dynamo in a Collisionless, Weakly Magnetized Plasma. ApJL 2018, 863, L25. https: //doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aad638

    2018 doi

  84. [99]

    The effect of pressure-anisotropy-driven kinetic instabilities on magnetic field amplification in galaxy clusters

    Rappaz, Y.; Schober, J. The effect of pressure-anisotropy-driven kinetic instabilities on magnetic field amplification in galaxy clusters. A&A 2024, 683, A35. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347497

    2024 doi

  85. [100]

    Evolution of cosmic filaments and of their galaxy population from MHD cosmological simulations.MNRAS 2016, 462, 448–463

    Gheller, C.; Vazza, F.; Brüggen, M.; Alpaslan, M.; Holwerda, B.W.; Hopkins, A.M.; Liske, J. Evolution of cosmic filaments and of their galaxy population from MHD cosmological simulations.MNRAS 2016, 462, 448–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1595

    2016 doi

  86. [101]

    Turbulence and Magnetic Fields in the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe

    Ryu, D.; Kang, H.; Cho, J.; Das, S. Turbulence and Magnetic Fields in the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe. Science 2008, 320, 909. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154923

    2008 doi

  87. [102]

    Statistical Techniques for Detecting the Intergalactic Magnetic Field from Large Samples of Extragalactic Faraday Rotation Data

    Akahori, T.; Gaensler, B.M.; Ryu, D. Statistical Techniques for Detecting the Intergalactic Magnetic Field from Large Samples of Extragalactic Faraday Rotation Data. ApJ 2014, 790, 123. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/123

    2014 doi

  88. [103]

    The large-scale properties of simulated cosmological magnetic fields

    Marinacci, F.; Vogelsberger, M.; Mocz, P .; Pakmor, R. The large-scale properties of simulated cosmological magnetic fields. MNRAS 2015, 453, 3999–4019. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1692

    2015 doi

  89. [104]

    The Challenge of Detecting Intracluster Filaments with Faraday Rotation

    Locatelli, N.; Vazza, F.; Domínguez-Fernández, P . The Challenge of Detecting Intracluster Filaments with Faraday Rotation. Galaxies 2018, 6, 128. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies6040128

    2018 doi

  90. [105]

    Intercluster filaments in a ΛCDM Universe

    Colberg, J.M.; Krughoff, K.S.; Connolly, A.J. Intercluster filaments in a ΛCDM Universe. MNRAS 2005, 359, 272–282. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08897.x

    2005

  91. [106]

    Proprieties of clumps and filaments around galaxy clusters

    Angelinelli, M.; Ettori, S.; Vazza, F.; Jones, T.W. Proprieties of clumps and filaments around galaxy clusters. A&A 2021, 653, A171. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140471

    2021 doi

  92. [107]

    Origin of strong magnetic fields in Milky Way-like galactic haloes

    Beck, A.M.; Lesch, H.; Dolag, K.; Kotarba, H.; Geng, A.; Stasyszyn, F.A. Origin of strong magnetic fields in Milky Way-like galactic haloes. MNRAS 2012, 422, 2152–2163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20759.x

    2012

  93. [108]

    Magnetogenesis at Cosmic Dawn: Tracing the origins of cosmic magnetic fields

    Katz, H.; Martin-Alvarez, S.; Devriendt, J.; Slyz, A.; Kimm, T. Magnetogenesis at Cosmic Dawn: Tracing the origins of cosmic magnetic fields. MNRAS 2019, 484, 2620–2631. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz055

    2019 doi

  94. [109]

    Locatelli, N.; Rajpurohit, K.; Banfi, S.; Domínguez-Fernández, P .; Wittor, D.; Angelinelli, M.; Inchingolo, G.; Brienza, M.; Hackstein, S.; et al

    Vazza, F. ; Locatelli, N.; Rajpurohit, K.; Banfi, S.; Domínguez-Fernández, P .; Wittor, D.; Angelinelli, M.; Inchingolo, G.; Brienza, M.; Hackstein, S.; et al. Magnetogenesis and the Cosmic Web: A Joint Challenge for Radio Observations and Numerical Simulations. Galaxies 2021,...

    2021 doi

  95. [110]

    Intergalactic medium rotation measure of primordial magnetic fields

    Mtchedlidze, S.; Domínguez-Fernández, P .; Du, X.; Carretti, E.; Vazza, F.; O’Sullivan, S.P .; Brandenburg, A.; Kahniashvili, T. Intergalactic medium rotation measure of primordial magnetic fields. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2406.16230

    2024 arXiv

  96. [111]

    How primordial magnetic fields shrink galaxies

    Martin-Alvarez, S.; Slyz, A.; Devriendt, J.; Gómez-Guijarro, C. How primordial magnetic fields shrink galaxies. MNRAS 2020, 495, 4475–4495. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1438

    2020 doi

  97. [112]

    Dwarf galaxies as a probe of a primordially magnetized Universe

    Sanati, M.; Martin-Alvarez, S.; Schober, J.; Revaz, Y.; Slyz, A.; Devriendt, J. Dwarf galaxies as a probe of a primordially magnetized Universe. A&A 2024, 690, A59. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202449822

    2024 doi

  98. [113]

    Matter power spectrum induced by primordial magnetic fields: from the linear to the non-linear regime

    Ralegankar, P .; Garaldi, E.; Viel, M. Matter power spectrum induced by primordial magnetic fields: from the linear to the non-linear regime. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2410.02676

    2024

  99. [114]

    Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Lyman-α forest

    Paviˇ cevi´ c, M.; Iršiˇ c, V .; Viel, M.; Bolton, J.; Haehnelt, M.G.; Martin-Alvarez, S.; Puchwein, E.; Ralegankar, P . Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Lyman-α forest. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2501.06299

    2025 arXiv

  100. [115]

    Revision of Faraday rotation measure constraints on the primordial magnetic field using the IllustrisTNG simulation

    Arámburo-García, A.; Bondarenko, K.; Boyarsky, A.; Neronov, A.; Scaife, A.; Sokolenko, A. Revision of Faraday rotation measure constraints on the primordial magnetic field using the IllustrisTNG simulation. MNRAS 2022, 515, 5673–5681. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2058

    2022 doi

  101. [116]

    Constraining the Astrophysical Origin of Intergalactic Magnetic Fields

    Tjemsland, J.; Meyer, M.; Vazza, F. Constraining the Astrophysical Origin of Intergalactic Magnetic Fields. ApJ 2024, 963, 135. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad22dd

    2024 doi

  102. [117]

    Hydrodynamic methods and sub-resolution models for cosmological simulations

    Valentini, M.; Dolag, K. Hydrodynamic methods and sub-resolution models for cosmological simulations. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2502.06954. Universe 2024, 1, 0 23 of 23

    2025 arXiv

  103. [118]

    Quantifying Baryonic Feedback on the Warm–Hot Circumgalactic Medium in CAMELS Simulations

    Medlock, I.; Neufeld, C.; Nagai, D.; Anglés-Alcázar, D.; Genel, S.; Oppenheimer, B.D.; Sims, X.; Singh, P .; Villaescusa-Navarro, F. Quantifying Baryonic Feedback on the Warm–Hot Circumgalactic Medium in CAMELS Simulations. ApJ 2025, 980, 61. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ada442

    2025 doi

  104. [119]

    The Faraday Rotation Measure Grid of the LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey: Data Release 2

    O’Sullivan, S.P .; Shimwell, T.W.; Hardcastle, M.J.; Tasse, C.; Heald, G.; Carretti, E.; Brüggen, M.; Vacca, V .; Sobey, C.; Van Eck, C.L.; et al. The Faraday Rotation Measure Grid of the LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey: Data Release 2. MNRAS 2023, 519, 5723–5742. https://doi.org/1...

    2023 doi

  105. [120]

    Properties of cosmological filaments extracted from Eulerian simulations

    Gheller, C.; Vazza, F.; Favre, J.; Brüggen, M. Properties of cosmological filaments extracted from Eulerian simulations. MNRAS 2015, 453, 1164–1185. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1646

    2015 doi

  106. [121]

    The evolution of primordial magnetic fields since their generation

    Kahniashvili, T.; Brandenburg, A.; Tevzadze, A.G. The evolution of primordial magnetic fields since their generation. Phys. Scr. 2016, 91, 104008. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/91/10/104008. More]2017ApJ...843..140D Diemer, B.; Mansfield, P .; Kravtsov, A.V .; More, S. The...

    2016 doi

  107. [122]

    Cosmological simulations of galaxy formation.Nat

    Vogelsberger, M.; Marinacci, F.; Torrey, P .; Puchwein, E. Cosmological simulations of galaxy formation.Nat. Rev. Phys. 2020, 2, 42–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2

    2020 doi

  108. [123]

    Co-evolution of massive black holes and their host galaxies at high redshift: Discrepancies from six cosmological simulations and the key role of JWST

    Habouzit, M.; Onoue, M.; Bañados, E.; Neeleman, M.; Anglés-Alcázar, D.; Walter, F.; Pillepich, A.; Davé, R.; Jahnke, K.; Dubois, Y. Co-evolution of massive black holes and their host galaxies at high redshift: Discrepancies from six cosmological simulations and the key role of...

    2022 doi

  109. [124]

    Recent Progress in Modeling the Macro- and Micro-Physics of Radio Jet Feedback in Galaxy Clusters

    Bourne, M.A.; Yang, H.Y.K. Recent Progress in Modeling the Macro- and Micro-Physics of Radio Jet Feedback in Galaxy Clusters. Galaxies 2023, 11, 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies11030073

    2023 doi

  110. [125]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array

    EPTA Collaboration; InPTA Collaboration; Antoniadis, J.; Arumugam, P .; Arumugam, S.; Babak, S.; Bagchi, M.; Bak Nielsen, A.S.; Bassa, C.G.; Bathula, A.; et al. The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array. III. Search for gravitational wave signals. A&A 2023,...

    2023 doi

  111. [126]

    Magnetic Fields from QCD Phase Transitions

    Tevzadze, A.G.; Kisslinger, L.; Brandenburg, A.; Kahniashvili, T. Magnetic Fields from QCD Phase Transitions. ApJ 2012, 759, 54. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/54

    2012 doi

  112. [127]

    NANOGrav signal from magnetohydrodynamic turbulence at the QCD phase transition in the early Universe

    Neronov, A.; Pol, A.R.; Caprini, C.; Semikoz, D. NANOGrav signal from magnetohydrodynamic turbulence at the QCD phase transition in the early Universe. PRD 2021, 103, L041302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L041302

    2021 doi

  113. [128]

    Cosmic-void observations reconciled with primordial magnetogenesis

    Hosking, D.N.; Schekochihin, A.A. Cosmic-void observations reconciled with primordial magnetogenesis. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 7523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43258-3

    2023 doi

  114. [129]

    Resistively controlled primordial magnetic turbulence decay

    Brandenburg, A.; Neronov, A.; Vazza, F. Resistively controlled primordial magnetic turbulence decay. A&A 2024, 687, A186. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202449267

    2024 doi

  115. [130]

    Filaments of the radio cosmic web: Opportunities and challenges for SKA

    Vazza, F.; Ferrari, C.; Bonafede, A.; Brüggen, M.; Gheller, C.; Braun, R.; Brown, S. Filaments of the radio cosmic web: Opportunities and challenges for SKA. arXiv 2015, arXiv:1501.00315

    2015 arXiv

  116. [131]

    Forecasts for the detection of the magnetised cosmic web from cosmological simulations

    Vazza, F.; Ferrari, C.; Brüggen, M.; Bonafede, A.; Gheller, C.; Wang, P . Forecasts for the detection of the magnetised cosmic web from cosmological simulations. A&A 2015, 580, A119. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526228

    2015 doi

  117. [132]

    Filaments in and between galaxy clusters at low and mid-frequency with the SKA

    Vacca, V .; Govoni, F.; Murgia, M.; Loi, F.; Feretti, L.; Li, H.; Battistelli, E.; Enßlin, T.A.; Marchegiani, P . Filaments in and between galaxy clusters at low and mid-frequency with the SKA. A&A 2024, 691, A334. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202349095

    2024 doi

  118. [133]

    Observing Interstellar and Intergalactic Magnetic Fields

    Han, J.L. Observing Interstellar and Intergalactic Magnetic Fields. ARAA 2017, 55, 111–157. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- astro-091916-055221

    2017 doi

  119. [134]

    Fast Radio Bursts as Probes of Magnetic Fields in the Intergalactic Medium

    Akahori, T.; Ryu, D.; Gaensler, B.M. Fast Radio Bursts as Probes of Magnetic Fields in the Intergalactic Medium. ApJ 2016, 824, 105. https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/105

    2016 doi

  120. [135]

    Fast radio burst dispersion measures and rotation measures and the origin of intergalactic magnetic fields

    Hackstein, S.; Brüggen, M.; Vazza, F.; Gaensler, B.M.; Heesen, V . Fast radio burst dispersion measures and rotation measures and the origin of intergalactic magnetic fields. MNRAS 2019, 488, 4220–4238. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2033

    2019 doi

  121. [136]

    Fast Radio Bursts as Probes of Magnetic Fields in Galaxies at z < 0.5

    Mannings, A.G.; Pakmor, R.; Prochaska, J.X.; van de Voort, F.; Simha, S.; Shannon, R.M.; Tejos, N.; Deller, A.; Rafelski, M. Fast Radio Bursts as Probes of Magnetic Fields in Galaxies at z < 0.5. ApJ 2023, 954, 179. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ace7bb

    2023 doi

  122. [137]

    Design concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array CTA: An advanced facility for ground-based high-energy gamma-ray astronomy

    Actis, M.; Agnetta, G.; Aharonian, F.; Akhperjanian, A.; Aleksi´ c, J.; Aliu, E.; Allan, D.; Allekotte, I.; Antico, F.; Antonelli, L.A.; et al. Design concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array CTA: An advanced facility for ground-based high-energy gamma-ray astronomy. Exp. As...

    2011 doi

  123. [138]

    https://doi.org/10.1142/10986

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium; Acharya, B.S.; Agudo, I.; Al Samarai, I.; Alfaro, R.; Alfaro, J.; Alispach, C.; Alves Batista, R.; Amans, J.P .; Amato, E.; et al.Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array; The CTA Consortium: Island of La Palma, Spain, 2019. https://doi....

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.