Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Neutrinos from stochastic acceleration in black hole environments

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A turbulent black hole corona whose accelerated protons damp the turbulence itself can account for the neutrino spectrum IceCube observes from NGC 1068 without fine-tuned proton injection.

desk verdict Honest and useful phenomenology; the self-regulated damping scenario is the genuine new idea, but the extrapolated Fermi kernel makes the central fit plausible rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01457 v2 pith:6XZ64KM3 submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.HE

M. Lemoine (APC) , F. Rieger (IPP , U. Heidelberg) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords stochasticparticleaccelerationturbulencedampingblackholecoronaeSeyfertgalaxiesneutrinoastrophysicsNGC1068Alfvéniccosmicray
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 asks whether the proton population that IceCube infers from the neutrino emission of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 can be produced by stochastic acceleration in the magnetically turbulent corona of a supermassive black hole. Its answer is yes, with a caveat: the test-particle versions of turbulent acceleration (with or without a second stage of shear acceleration) reproduce the 30–300 TeV proton spectrum only if the number of injected protons is tuned so that their final energy density approaches the turbulent energy density. The paper's central case is the self-regulated version, in which protons drain enough energy from the turbulence to damp it, so that the acceleration rate stalls and the suprathermal pressure settles naturally near the magnetic pressure. In that version the flux level and shape come out as required without an ad hoc normalization, and the output is controlled by the rate at which turbulent energy is injected on the outer scale (about 10 gravitational radii). This matters because it turns an energy-budget coincidence into a physical prediction and suggests that different Seyfert galaxies will show different neutrino spectra.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing piece is the generalized Fermi transport kernel, the probability per interaction time that a proton of energy $\epsilon'$ jumps to energy $\epsilon$, which was calibrated in magnetohydrodynamic simulations and is assumed to rescale in width with the square of the Alfvén velocity when applied to other conditions. It replaces the purely diffusive Fokker–Planck operator, and the resulting transport equation is integrated with advection implemented as a time limit $\tau_{\rm adv} = r_{\rm co}/v_{\rm adv}$ on the Green function rather than as an extra escape term. The second key element is the backreaction prescription: once the rate at which particles drain energy from the turbulence exceeds the cascade replenishment rate, the turbulence is damped and the acceleration rate becomes time-dependent, so the system self-regulates; this feedback law, combined with the radiation-loss and escape rates for the fiducial NGC 1068 environment, yields spectra whose slope and normalization emerge from the energy injection rate on the outer coherence scale.

What would settle it

Run MHD or particle-in-cell simulations of the energy-jump kernel at an Alfvén velocity near 0.2 of the speed of light for durations up to 150 coherence lengths: if the kernel width does not scale as the assumed velocity-squared law, or if a higher-significance measurement of the NGC 1068 neutrino flux does not track the magnetic energy budget, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a self-regulating version of stochastic acceleration is a natural and sufficient mechanism for the 30–300 TeV proton population inferred from IceCube's detection of NGC 1068. In this scenario, accelerated protons extract energy from the turbulent cascade at a rate proportional to the acceleration rate times their energy density; once this exceeds the rate at which the cascade is replenished from the outer scale, the turbulence is damped, the acceleration rate stalls, and the process reaches a stationary state in which the suprathermal proton energy density settles near the magnetic energy density multiplied by the ratio of light speed to the Alfvén velocity. Solving the time-dependent transport equation, with the generalized Fermi kernel as the acceleration law and advection implemented as a strict time cutoff, the authors reproduce the inferred proton spectrum in the 30–300 TeV band with characteristic parameters of an Alfvén velocity near 0.2 of the speed of light, a coherence length of about 10 gravitational radii, a corona of 30 gravitational radii, and an advection speed of 0.02 of the speed of light. In the test-particle and shear-reacceleration alternatives the same fit is possible, but the normalization must be placed by hand at an energy density comparable to that of the turbulence, which the authors argue is itself an indication that the self-regulated regime is the physically relevant one.

Load-bearing premise

The entire fit rests on the assumption that the energy-jump kernel measured at one Alfvén speed over short simulation times keeps its shape and scales in width as the square of the Alfvén velocity when applied to slower turbulence and to times up to about 150 coherence lengths; the paper flags this extrapolation as nontrivial.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the self-regulated scenario is right, the neutrino luminosity of a Seyfert corona is set by the magnetic energy content and the turbulent energy injection rate, not solely by the X-ray luminosity that supplies the photon targets.
  • Sources with different Alfvén velocities or advection times will show different neutrino spectra, and the paper points to NGC 4151 as a likely example of such variation.
  • Below the cutoff the self-regulated proton spectra approach a shape close to $d n/d\epsilon \propto \epsilon^{-2}$ per number, so a spectrum steeper than that in the observed band signals that the IceCube window lies near the high-energy cutoff.
  • The condition for self-regulation, $\chi_0 \gtrsim (v_{\rm A}/c)^{-1}\beta_p^{-1}(\epsilon_{\max}/\epsilon_{\rm th})^{-1}$, implies that any source that pushes protons to very high energies should generically operate in the self-regulated regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One can test the extrapolation at the heart of the model by measuring the energy-jump kernel in MHD or PIC simulations at an Alfvén velocity near 0.2 of the speed of light and for runtimes of order 150 coherence lengths; a width that grows more slowly than the assumed velocity-squared scaling would shift the predicted cutoff and break the claimed fit.
  • The same self-regulation mechanism should apply to other turbulence-dominated cosmic accelerators such as galaxy clusters, radio lobes, and X-ray binary coronae, predicting a near-universal relation between nonthermal particle pressure and magnetic pressure that future multi-messenger observations could test.
  • The paper's logic implies that the spectral slope seen by IceCube in a single source measures the distribution of acceleration rates across the coronal volume rather than an intrinsic power-law index of the accelerator, so comparing neutrino spectra from several Seyfert galaxies could map coronal inhomogeneity.
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. Taking the IceCube detection of TeV neutrinos from NGC 1068 at face value, the paper asks whether stochastic acceleration in a magnetized, turbulent accretion-disk corona can produce the inferred parent proton spectrum (roughly E^{-3} between 30 and 300 TeV, with a pressure ratio of order 0.1). It reformulates the transport problem using a generalized Fermi kernel in addition to the standard Fokker-Planck operator, models advective escape as a hard integration-time limit, and includes turbulent transport in the escape time. It then compares three scenarios: (i) test-particle turbulent acceleration, (ii) turbulent pre-acceleration followed by jet-shear acceleration, and (iii) turbulent acceleration self-regulated by the damping of turbulence by the accelerated protons. The authors conclude that all three can reproduce the inferred spectrum for reasonable parameters, but that only the self-regulated scenario fixes the flux normalization without ad hoc choices, since backreaction forces the suprathermal energy density to saturate near u_p/u_B ~ c/v_A.

Significance. The paper's strength is that it treats the transport equation more carefully than most phenomenological studies: advection is imposed as an acceleration-time limit rather than a leakage term, and the comparison between a Fokker-Planck and a generalized Fermi kernel makes the theoretical uncertainty visible. The authors are also explicit that scenarios (i) and (ii) require an ad hoc proton energy content. If the self-regulated scenario is robust, it is significant because it converts the otherwise surprising neutrino luminosity of NGC 1068 into a consequence of turbulence damping and yields a concrete prediction for how the high-energy cutoff depends on v_A, l_c, and tau_adv. However, the claim is not yet backed by a quantitative fit and rests on an extrapolation of the acceleration kernel that the paper itself flags as non-trivial, so the significance is conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (5)] The generalized Fermi kernel phi(epsilon|epsilon') entering Eq. (5) was calibrated in an MHD simulation at v_A = 0.4c over about 10 l_c/c, and is applied here at v_A approximately 0.2c with its width rescaled as (v_A/0.4c)^2, integrated up to tau_adv approximately 150 l_c/c. The authors explicitly acknowledge in Sect. 2.2 that this extrapolation is non-trivial, but it is load-bearing: in the self-regulated scenario of Sect. 3 (bottom panel of Fig. 3) this kernel sets nu_acc, the cutoff energy, and the balance condition u_p/u_B approximately c/v_A that fixes the flux normalization. If the kernel shape or its v_A scaling changes at coronal conditions, the predicted 30-300 TeV slope and cutoff, and hence the claimed fit, change significantly. Please add a robustness test, e.g., vary the kernel width over the uncertainty of the simulation calibration, benchmark the kernel at v_A approximately 0.2c in a PIC/MHD run longer than 10 l_c/c, or provide an analytic argument for the (v_A/0.4c)^2 rescaling.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 3 bottom panel; Appendix A] The bottom-panel caption of Fig. 3 states beta_p = 0.5, while the text and Appendix A state that beta_p = 1 is used everywhere. This matters because the damping threshold u_p/u_B approximately c/v_A and the quoted energy densities in units of p_gas (3.4 for model (a), 4.1 for model (b)) depend on the magnetic energy density. The inconsistency should be resolved and the reported values recomputed for the intended beta_p. In addition, model (a) uses v_A = 0.21c and model (b) v_A = 0.28c, so the location of the cutoff is partly set by these choices; the claim that the self-regulated scenario reproduces the flux 'without additional fine-tuning' would be strengthened by showing the dependence of the bottom-panel spectrum on v_A and on the injected energy density (one quarter of u_B).
  3. [Section 3 and Fig. 3] All three 'satisfactory fits' are established by visual comparison with the butterfly diagram, whose normalization is itself uncertain by a factor of a few (Sect. 2.1). Given the exponential sensitivity of the peak energy to nu_acc tau_adv, the manuscript should provide a quantitative fit statistic over the 30-300 TeV band, or at least a table of trial parameters with the resulting chi-squared or likelihood. It should also specify how the butterfly was represented in the figures and which part of the band drives the comparison.
  4. [Section 3, self-regulated model] The bottom-panel spectra are obtained with models (a) and (b) 'described by Lemoine et al. (2024)', but the equations for the damped turbulence evolution and for the particle acceleration in the self-regulated regime are not reproduced in this manuscript. Since this is the main new physical ingredient, the reader cannot verify the claimed normalization without going to the earlier paper. Please include the model equations, or a substantial summary in an appendix, so that the calculation is self-contained.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The first paragraph reads 'recent announcement the arrival directions'; it should be 'recent announcement that the arrival directions'.
  2. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'we payed particular attention' should be 'we paid particular attention'.
  3. [Appendix A] The expression 'v_add = alpha_d v_k(r_co)' appears to be a typo for 'v_adv = alpha_d v_k(r_co)'.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The butterfly diagram's vertical normalization (a pressure ratio of 0.3 corresponding to 0.1, as stated in Sect. 2.1) should be repeated in the caption, since the figure is otherwise hard to interpret.
  5. [Section 3] The phrase 'injected particles at gamma_0 about 1 ... with an energy density lower by a factor of four than contained in the magnetized turbulence' should be rephrased as 'a factor of four lower than the magnetic energy density' for clarity.
  6. [References] The reference to Waxman (2024) as 'Talk given at RICAP 24' is not a conventional archival citation; either give a published version or cite it as a private communication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the self-regulated flux normalization follows from an explicit energy-balance argument, and the cited acceleration-kernel and backreaction inputs come from simulation-benchmarked prior work rather than from the IceCube NGC 1068 target.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined here. The generalized Fermi kernel in Eq. (5) was measured in an MHD simulation at vA = 0.4c and is rescaled to other Alfvén speeds by width proportional to (vA/0.4c)^2; this is an explicit, acknowledged extrapolation ('This is not a trivial issue... PIC simulations typically run over ≃ 10 lc/c'), not a quantity fitted to the IceCube-inferred proton spectrum. The self-regulated scenario's normalization is not imported from the target: the condition u_p/u_B ~ c/vA follows from equating the particle energy-extraction rate ν_acc u_p with the cascade replenishment rate (vA/lc) u_B, an algebraic balance using parameters fixed on physical grounds (vA ~ 0.2c, lc = 10 rg, vadv = 0.02c, cascade rate 0.5 vA/lc). The cited works Lemoine (2021, 2022) and Lemoine et al. (2024) are simulation-benchmarked transport/physics inputs, not calibrations to NGC 1068, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular way. The first two scenarios are explicitly labeled as having ad hoc flux normalization; the third scenario still involves parameter choices, notably vA, that set the cutoff location, but the paper openly identifies this dependence as the key parameter and does not disguise it as a parameter-free prediction. The main weakness, extrapolation of the kernel and damping prescription to coronal conditions over much longer timescales, is a correctness/robustness risk rather than a circularity, and the paper itself flags it as nontrivial.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result relies on chosen corona parameters (vA, lc, vadv, rco), an extrapolated acceleration kernel, and a self-cited damping model. The main independent inputs are the IceCube-inferred proton spectrum and standard energy-loss rates.

free parameters (7)
  • Alfvén velocity vA = 0.2c fiducial; 0.21c and 0.28c in damping models
    Sets the acceleration rate nu_acc proportional to vA^2 / lc and turbulent escape; chosen to put the spectral cutoff in the 30 to 300 TeV band.
  • Turbulence coherence length lc = 10 rg fiducial; 3 to 30 rg explored
    Sets both acceleration rate and escape time; chosen for the visual fit to the inferred spectrum.
  • Advection velocity vadv = 0.02c fiducial; 0.05 to 0.49c explored
    Sets the effective acceleration duration tau_adv = rco / vadv; key for the location of the high-energy cutoff.
  • Corona size rco = 30 rg
    Sets escape, advection, and radiation target density; adopted from corona modeling.
  • Injected proton energy content or normalization = Ad hoc in scenarios 1 and 2; one quarter of magnetic energy density in scenario 3
    Flux normalization is a free parameter in the first two scenarios; in scenario 3 the injection density is chosen and the output is set by damping.
  • Turbulent cascade replenishment coefficient = 0.5 vA / lc
    Assumed on general grounds; controls the damping threshold and the self-regulated energy density.
  • Shear flow parameters for scenario 2 = gamma_j = 3, B = 50 G, r_sh = 2, z_tilde = 2
    Defines the shear acceleration region; acknowledged as exploratory parameters for the jet base.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Corona is quasi-spherical and compact with rco up to 100 rg, beta_p around 1, B around 1e3 G, and strong turbulence with delta B over B greater than about 1.
    Invoked in Sects. 2.1 and 2.2; sets the acceleration rate and the energy budget.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized Fermi kernel from Lemoine (2022), measured in an MHD simulation at vA = 0.4c, can be rescaled in width by (vA / 0.4c)^2 and extrapolated to vA near 0.2c and long advection times.
    Sect. 2.2; load-bearing for model (2) and for the spectra in Figs. 1 and 3.
  • domain assumption Escape is governed by kappa = kappa_turb + lambda_scatt c / 3, with lambda_scatt roughly rL^(1/3) lc^(2/3).
    Appendix A; controls tau_esc and therefore the shape and normalization of the spectra.
  • ad hoc to paper Turbulent cascade replenishment rate on the outer scale equals 0.5 vA / lc, and the damping prescription of Lemoine et al. (2024) applies.
    Sect. 3; the self-regulated normalization and equipartition result depend on this rate.
  • domain assumption The proton spectrum inferred from IceCube for NGC 1068, with spectral index near -3 in the 30 to 300 TeV range and pressure fraction between 0.01 and 0.3 at 30 TeV, is taken at face value.
    Sect. 2.1; defines the target the models are required to reproduce.
  • domain assumption Energy-loss rates for Bethe-Heitler, p-p, and p-gamma interactions, computed from assumed disk and X-ray photon fields, are representative for NGC 1068.
    Appendix A and Fig. A.1; determines the high-energy cutoff when hadronic losses dominate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrinos from stochastic acceleration in black hole environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XZ64KM3

@misc{pith2026241201457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrinos from stochastic acceleration in black hole environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XZ64KM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01457}
}
abstract

Recent experimental results from the IceCube detector and their phenomenological interpretation suggest that the magnetized turbulent corona of nearby X-ray luminous Seyfert galaxies can produce $\sim 1-10\,$TeV neutrinos via photo-hadronic interactions. We investigate the physics of stochastic acceleration in these environments in detail and examine the conditions under which the inferred proton spectrum can be explained. To this end, we used recent findings on particle acceleration in turbulence and paid particular attention to the transport equation, notably for transport in momentum space, turbulent transport outside of the corona, and advection through the corona. We first remark that the spectra we obtained are highly sensitive to the value of the acceleration rate, for instance, to the Alfv\'enic velocity. Then, we examined three prototype scenarios, one scenario of turbulent acceleration in the test-particle picture, another scenario in which particles were preaccelerated by turbulence and further energized by shear acceleration, and a final scenario in which we considered the effect of particle backreaction on the turbulence (damping), which self-regulates the acceleration process. We show that it is possible to obtain satisfactory fits to the inferred proton spectrum in all three cases, but we stress that in the first two scenarios, the energy content in suprathermal protons has to be fixed in an ad hoc manner to match the inferred spectrum at an energy density close to that contained in the turbulence. Interestingly, self-regulated acceleration by turbulence damping naturally brings the suprathermal particle energy content close to that of the turbulence and allowed us to reproduce the inferred flux level without additional fine-tuning. [Abridged version]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01457 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proton energy spectra 𝜖 2 d𝑛cor/d𝜖 (per log-interval of energy) vs. proton energy 𝜖 predicted by stochastic acceleration in a turbulent corona, starting from mono-energetic protons with a Lorentz factor of 𝛾0 ∼ 1. In each panel, the solid line corresponds to a solution obtained by integrating the Fokker-Planck equation up to time 𝜏adv = 𝑟co/𝑣adv [model (1) including energy losses, advection, and escape as described … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Exemplary time-dependent proton energy distribution obtained from jet-shear acceleration with a Fokker-Planck model assuming con￾tinuous injection of seed protons with 𝛾0 = 104 . As a result of advective escape, the predicted particle spectrum will appear somewhat softer (red, 𝑡 = 𝜏adv,z ) compared to the otherwise quasi steady-state distribution (yellow). The gray shaded region illustrates the spectral characterist… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proton energy spectra d𝑢p/d ln 𝜖 ≡ 𝜖 2 d𝑛/d𝜖 vs. proton energy 𝜖 for three characteristic scenarios described in the text. For each panel, the energy density distribution is shown in units of the background plasma pressure. Top panel: Stochastic acceleration in the turbulent corona, with a characteristic Alfvénic velocity 𝑣A ≃ 0.2 𝑐 (see text for details), for model (1) and (2), corresponding to the solid and dashed… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Can the neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 have a coronal origin?

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Even with extreme assumptions, the corona of TXS 0506+056 cannot produce enough neutrinos to match IceCube, leaving the jet as the preferred neutrino origin.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 131

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 131

    2025

  2. [2]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.07601

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.07601

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    & Neronov, A

    Aharonian, F. & Neronov, A. 2005, ApJ, 619, 306

    2005

  4. [4]

    Kocharovsky, V. V. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 023005

    2002

  5. [5]

    Ambrosone, A. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 075

    2024

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 181

    1999

  7. [7]

    S., Bulanov, S

    Berezinskii, V. S., Bulanov, S. V., Dogiel, V. A., & Ptuskin, V. S. 1990, Astro- physicsofcosmicrays(Amsterdam:North-Holland,1990,editedbyGinzburg, V.L.)

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    Berezinsky, V. S. & Ginzburg, V. L. 1981, in International Cosmic Ray Confer- ence, Vol. 1, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 238

    work page 1981

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    2022, Phys

    Bresci, V., Lemoine, M., Gremillet, L., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 023028

    2022

  2. [10]

    & Lazarian, A

    Brunetti, G. & Lazarian, A. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 458, 2584

    2016

  3. [11]

    & Sironi, L

    Comisso, L. & Sironi, L. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 255101

    2018

  4. [12]

    & Sironi, L

    Comisso, L. & Sironi, L. 2019, Astrophys. J., 886, 122

    2019

  5. [13]

    & Sironi, L

    Comisso, L. & Sironi, L. 2022, ApJ, 936, L27

    2022

  6. [14]

    T., & Murase, K

    Das, A., Zhang, B. T., & Murase, K. 2024, ApJ, 972, 44 De Villiers, J.-P., Hawley, J. F., & Krolik, J. H. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1238 De Villiers, J.-P., Hawley, J. F., Krolik, J. H., & Hirose, S. 2005, ApJ, 620, 878 Article number, page 9 of 11 A&A proofs: manuscript no. LR24_corr

    2024

  7. [15]

    2020, Phys

    Demidem, C., Lemoine, M., & Casse, F. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023003

    2020

  8. [16]

    D., Miller, J

    Dermer, C. D., Miller, J. A., & Li, H. 1996, ApJ, 456, 106

    1996

  9. [17]

    & Begelman, M

    Dexter, J. & Begelman, M. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, L157 Di Matteo, T., Blackman, E. G., & Fabian, A. C. 1997, MNRAS, 291, L23

    2024

  10. [18]

    Eichmann, B., Oikonomou, F., Salvatore, S., Dettmar, R.-J., & Tjus, J. B. 2022, ApJ, 939, 43

    2022

  11. [19]

    Eilek, J. A. 1979, Astrophys. J., 230, 373

    1979

  12. [20]

    C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al

    Fabian, A. C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4375

    2015

  13. [21]

    Fang, K., Lopez Rodriguez, E., Halzen, F., & Gallagher, J. S. 2023, ApJ, 956, 8

    2023

  14. [22]

    Farrar, G. R. & Piran, T. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1411.0704

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    F., Baum, S

    Gallimore, J. F., Baum, S. A., O’Dea, C. P., & Pedlar, A. 1996, ApJ, 458, 136 Guépin, C., Kotera, K., Barausse, E., Fang, K., & Murase, K. 2018, A&A, 616, A179

    1996

  16. [24]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.07086 IceCube Collaboration, Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al

    Halzen, F. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.07086 IceCube Collaboration, Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 538

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    & Doi, A

    Inoue, Y. & Doi, A. 2018, ApJ, 869, 114

    2018

  18. [26]

    2020, ApJ, 891, L33

    Inoue, Y., Khangulyan, D., & Doi, A. 2020, ApJ, 891, L33

    2020

  19. [27]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 996 Isliker,H.,Vlahos,L.,&Constantinescu,D.2017,Phys.Rev.Lett.,119,045101

    Inoue, Y., Takasao, S., & Khangulyan, D. 2024, PASJ, 76, 996 Isliker,H.,Vlahos,L.,&Constantinescu,D.2017,Phys.Rev.Lett.,119,045101

    2024

  20. [28]

    2016, Astrophys

    Kakuwa, J. 2016, Astrophys. J., 816, 24 Kammoun,E.,Lohfink,A.M.,Masterson,M.,etal.2024,FrontiersinAstronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1308056

    2016

  21. [29]

    A., et al

    Kamraj, N., Brightman, M., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 42 Kamraj,N.,Harrison,F.A.,Baloković,M.,Lohfink,A.,&Brightman,M.2018, ApJ, 866, 124

    2022

  22. [30]

    A., Lohfink, A., et al

    Kara, E., García, J. A., Lohfink, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3489

    2017

  23. [31]

    Kardashev, N. S. 1962, Soviet Ast., 6, 317

    1962

  24. [32]

    B., Quataert, E., et al

    Kempski, P., Fielding, D. B., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4985

    2023

  25. [33]

    Kheirandish, A., Murase, K., & Kimura, S. S. 2021, ApJ, 922, 45

    2021

  26. [34]

    S., Murase, K., & Zhang, B

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & Zhang, B. T. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 023026

    2018

  27. [35]

    L., Lohfink, A., & Kara, E

    King, A. L., Lohfink, A., & Kara, E. 2017, ApJ, 835, 226

    2017

  28. [36]

    2019, Phys

    Lemoine, M. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 083006

    2019

  29. [37]

    2021, Phys

    Lemoine, M. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 063020

    2021

  30. [38]

    2022, Phys

    Lemoine, M. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 215101

    2022

  31. [39]

    2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 175890501

    Lemoine, M. 2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 175890501

    2023

  32. [40]

    & Malkov, M

    Lemoine, M. & Malkov, M. A. 2020, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 499, 4972

    2020

  33. [41]

    2024, Phys

    Lemoine, M., Murase, K., & Rieger, F. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063006

    2024

  34. [42]

    P., Ricci, C., Türler, M., Dorner, D., & Walter, R

    Lenain, J. P., Ricci, C., Türler, M., Dorner, D., & Walter, R. 2010, A&A, 524, A72

    2010

  35. [43]

    & Boldt, E

    Levinson, A. & Boldt, E. 2002, Astroparticle Physics, 16, 265 Liska,M.T.P.,Musoke,G.,Tchekhovskoy,A.,Porth,O.,&Beloborodov,A.M. 2022, ApJ, 935, L1

    2002

  36. [44]

    Litvinenko, Y. E. 2012, Astron. Astrophys., 544, A94

    2012

  37. [45]

    F., Mineshige, S., & Shibata, K

    Liu, B. F., Mineshige, S., & Shibata, K. 2002, ApJ, 572, L173

    2002

  38. [46]

    W., Quataert, E., Chandran, B

    Lynn, J. W., Quataert, E., Chandran, B. D. G., & Parrish, I. J. 2014, Astrophys. J., 791, 71

    2014

  39. [47]

    M., & Poutanen, J

    Malzac, J., Beloborodov, A. M., & Poutanen, J. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 417

    2001

  40. [48]

    & Steiner, J

    May, D. & Steiner, J. E. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 994

    2017

  41. [49]

    2024, Phys

    Mbarek, R., Philippov, A., Chernoglazov, A., Levinson, A., & Mushotzky, R. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, L101306

    2024

  42. [50]

    & Fabian, A

    Merloni, A. & Fabian, A. C. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 549

    2001

  43. [51]

    & Fabian, A

    Merloni, A. & Fabian, A. C. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 165

    2002

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 941, L17

    Murase, K. 2022, ApJ, 941, L17

    2022

  45. [53]

    M., Kimura, S

    Murase, K., Karwin, C. M., Kimura, S. S., Ajello, M., & Buson, S. 2024, ApJ, 961, L34

    2024

  46. [54]

    S., Zhang, B

    Murase, K., Kimura, S. S., Zhang, B. T., Oikonomou, F., & Petropoulou, M. 2020b, ApJ, 902, 108 Nättilä, J. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 7026

    2024

  47. [55]

    Neronov, A., Savchenko, D., & Semikoz, D. V. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 101002

    2024

  48. [56]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1077

    Padovani, P., Resconi, E., Ajello, M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1077

    2024

  49. [57]

    Pecora, F., Servidio, S., Greco, A., et al. 2018, J. Plasma Phys., 84, 725840601

    2018

  50. [58]

    Pezzi, O., Blasi, P., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2022, ApJ, 928, 25

    2022

  51. [59]

    Poutanen, J., Veledina, A., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2023, ApJ, 949, L10

    2023

  52. [60]

    Protheroe, R. J. & Szabo, A. P. 1992, Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2885

    1992

  53. [61]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 28

    Pugliese, F., Brodiano, M., Andrés, N., & Dmitruk, P. 2023, ApJ, 959, 28

    2023

  54. [62]

    Rieger, F. M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 78

    2019

  55. [63]

    Rieger, F. M. & Aharonian, F. A. 2009, A&A, 506, L41

    2009

  56. [64]

    Rieger, F. M. & Duffy, P. 2019, ApJ, 886, L26

    2019

  57. [65]

    Rieger, F. M. & Duffy, P. 2022, ApJ, 933, 149

    2022

  58. [66]

    Rieger, F. M. & Mannheim, K. 2000, A&A, 353, 473

    2000

  59. [67]

    Rieger, F. M. & Mannheim, K. 2002, A&A, 396, 833 Roy,A.L.,Wilson,A.S.,Ulvestad,J.S.,&Colbert,J.M.2000,inEVNSympo- sium 2000, Proceedings of the 5th european VLBI Network Symposium, ed. J. E. Conway, A. G. Polatidis, R. S. Booth, & Y. M. Pihlström, 7

    2002

  60. [68]

    J., & Becker Tjus, J

    Salvatore, S., Eichmann, B., Rodrigues, X., Dettmar, R. J., & Becker Tjus, J. 2024, A&A, 687, A139

    2024

  61. [69]

    1984, Astron

    Schlickeiser, R. 1984, Astron. Astrophys., 136, 227

    1984

  62. [70]

    1989, ApJ, 336, 243

    Schlickeiser, R. 1989, ApJ, 336, 243

    1989

  63. [71]

    & Beloborodov, A

    Sironi, L. & Beloborodov, A. M. 2020, ApJ, 899, 52

    2020

  64. [72]

    Sridhar, N., Ripperda, B., Sironi, L., Davelaar, J., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2025, ApJ, 979, 199

    2025

  65. [73]

    E., Poutanen, J., Svensson, R., Sikora, M., & Begelman, M

    Stern, B. E., Poutanen, J., Svensson, R., Sikora, M., & Begelman, M. C. 1995, ApJ, 449, L13

    1995

  66. [74]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 136

    Trotta, D., Franci, L., Burgess, D., & Hellinger, P. 2020, ApJ, 894, 136

    2020

  67. [75]

    M., & Mizuno, Y

    Wang, J., Rieger, F. M., & Mizuno, Y. 2024, ApJ, 967, 36

    2024

  68. [76]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Wang, J.-S., Reville, B., Mizuno, Y., Rieger, F. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1872

    2023

  69. [77]

    2024, Talk given at RICAP 24

    Waxman, E. 2024, Talk given at RICAP 24

    2024

  70. [78]

    M., Xu, Y., Biermann, P

    Webb, G. M., Xu, Y., Biermann, P. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 169

    2023

  71. [79]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., Begelman, M. C., Cerutti, B., & Nalewajko, K. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4840

    2018

  72. [80]

    & Lunardini, C

    Winter, W. & Lunardini, C. 2023, ApJ, 948, 42

    2023

  73. [81]

    A., Werner, G

    Wong, K., Zhdankin, V., Uzdensky, D. A., Werner, G. R., & Begelman, M. C. 2020, Astrophys. J., 893, L7

    2020

  74. [82]

    & Lazarian, A

    Xu, S. & Lazarian, A. 2023, ApJ, 942, 21

    2023

  75. [83]

    Zdziarski, A. A. 1985, ApJ, 289, 514

    1985

  76. [84]

    A., Werner, G

    Zhdankin, V., Uzdensky, D. A., Werner, G. R., & Begelman, M. C. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 055101

    2019

  77. [85]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Zhdankin, V., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118, 055103 Article number, page 10 of 11 Martin Lemoine and Frank Rieger : Neutrinos from stochastic acceleration in black hole environments Appendix A: Modelling the loss and escape rates...

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.