Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 42 references

This paper claims that a charge-neutral electron-positron beam streaming through a magnetized electron-proton plasma spontaneously produces a net current: beam electrons become trapped in self-generated magnetic cavities while beam positron

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:42 UTC pith:7WTUBSSB

load-bearing objection New, credible simulation result showing how charge-neutral pair beams can spontaneously generate a net current; the pulsar application is plausible but under-quantified on absolute timescales. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.15847 v2 pith:7WTUBSSB submitted 2025-12-17 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph

Self-confinement of relativistic pair beams in magnetized interstellar plasmas: the case of pulsar X-ray filaments

Luca Orusa , Lorenzo Sironi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph
keywords cavitation instabilityWeibel instabilityBell instabilitypair beamcharge separationmagnetic field amplificationpulsar wind nebulaX-ray filaments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that the electric current needed to drive the Bell instability — the leading mechanism proposed for amplifying magnetic fields and suppressing particle diffusion near pulsar wind nebulae — can arise spontaneously from an initially neutral pair beam. Using 2D and 3D particle-in-cell simulations with realistic ion-to-electron mass ratio, the authors show that the nonlinear evolution of the Weibel instability traps beam electrons in expanding magnetic cavities, while beam positrons continue to stream past them. This separation produces a net positron current, which in 3D drives the non-resonant Bell instability and further amplifies the magnetic field. If correct, this removes a long-standing obstacle — the lack of a net current in pulsar pair beams — and identifies the ratio of beam energy density to background magnetic energy density as the key control parameter governing field amplification and pair self-confinement.

Core claim

The central discovery is that an initially charge- and current-neutral relativistic pair beam propagating along a background magnetic field does not remain neutral once the Weibel instability saturates. The beam electrons are collected into magnetic filaments whose pressure expands them into cavities; because the background ions are too massive to screen the electron current promptly, the electrons remain trapped inside these cavities. The beam positrons, however, are not confined and continue to stream, so outside the cavities there is a net positron current. In 3D simulations, this current drives the non-resonant Bell instability, generating right-hand circularly polarized waves along the

What carries the argument

The cavitation instability — the nonlinear, post-Weibel phase in which magnetic filaments inflated by beam electrons expand into cavities and confine those electrons — is the mechanism that produces the charge asymmetry. It requires the beam energy density γ_b α to exceed the background magnetic energy density σ/2 (plus thermal energy), and its growth rate scales linearly with α. Its saturation level is described by ε_B ~ (1/8) min(1, m_i/γ_b m_e). The resulting net positron current then feeds the non-resonant Bell instability, whose maximum growth rate is Γ_max/ω_pe = (S α/2) sqrt(m_e/m_i), with S ≈ 0.8 the charge-separation fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism hinges on the assumption that the ratio of beam energy density to background magnetic energy density — not the absolute beam density — is what matters, so the very dilute pair beams in real pulsar filaments still undergo the instability fast enough to act before the cavities decay or the pairs escape.

What would settle it

A particle-in-cell run that keeps the ratio γ_b α/σ fixed but lowers α by several orders of magnitude relative to the simulations would settle whether the cavitation and Bell instabilities grow before the cavities decay; observationally, detecting (or failing to detect) the predicted right-handed circularly polarized waves along the background field in an X-ray filament would test the mechanism.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In any region where γ_b α ≫ σ, the cavitation instability will grow and seed the Bell instability, producing strong magnetic-field amplification and efficient scattering of the beam pairs.
  • If γ_b α/σ ≪ 1, neither instability grows, so field amplification is negligible; the high X-ray polarization observed in some filaments is consistent with this regime.
  • The mechanism provides a kinetic pathway for charge asymmetry in initially neutral pair beams, eliminating the need for an externally imposed net current for the Bell instability in pulsar wind nebulae.
  • Because the Bell instability driven by the positron current grows on timescales comparable to the cavitation instability and much faster than the cavity decay time, the asymmetry persists long enough to be effective.
  • Continuous injection of fresh pairs (the 'refreshed beam' setup) allows the cavitation instability to develop even at beam-to-background energy ratios an order of magnitude lower than in the non-refreshed case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A key implication the paper leaves implicit is that although the threshold depends only on the ratio γ_b α/σ, the growth rate scales with α; at the extremely low absolute densities expected in real filaments (α ~ 1e-13), the instabilities may be too slow to act before the cavities decay or the pairs escape — a condition the paper does not quantitatively establish.
  • One could observationally test the mechanism by searching for the predicted Bell-instability signature — right-hand circularly polarized waves aligned with the background magnetic field on sub-Larmor scales — inside X-ray filaments, which would distinguish this self-generated turbulence from other sources.
  • The 2D-versus-3D contrast suggests a geometric test: because the Bell instability requires wavevectors along the field, only a 3D filament environment would show the current-driven waves; a purely 2D structure would exhibit only the cavity fields.
  • The refreshed-beam result hints that pulsars with intermittent pair injection might be especially prone to the instability, so brighter or more turbulent X-ray filaments could be expected around pulsars with higher pair-injection rates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports 2D and 3D PIC simulations of a relativistic, initially charge- and current-neutral e± pair beam propagating along a uniform magnetic field through an electron-proton plasma. In the nonlinear Weibel stage, beam electrons become trapped in expanding magnetic cavities while positrons continue to stream, creating a net positron current. The authors show that this current can drive the non-resonant Bell instability, further amplifying transverse magnetic fields. They apply this to pulsar X-ray filaments and TeV halos, arguing that the ratio γ_b α/σ, not the absolute density, controls the instability and that the required net current can therefore be generated in real pulsar environments.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine and important problem: the non-resonant streaming instability, a leading candidate for field amplification around PWNe, requires a net current, while pair beams are nominally neutral. The 2D results are obtained at realistic mass ratio, with convergence checks in the Supplemental Material, and the saturation values are compared to externally published formulas rather than fitted to the simulations. The 3D run exhibits right-hand circularly polarized modes along the background field, a clear NRI signature. If the application to real pulsar filaments were quantitatively supported, this would be a substantial advance. As it stands, however, the astrophysical extrapolation rests on a timescale argument that is not established, and the sole 3D NRI simulation uses parameters far from the pulsar regime.

major comments (2)
  1. [Application to X-ray filaments (Eqs. 2–3)] The statement that 'the only difference being the rate Γ_max∝α' is insufficient. With γ_b α ~ 1e-6 and γ_b ~ 5e6, α ~ 2e-13. Eq. (3) with S=0.8 gives Γ_max/ω_pe ~ 1.9e-15; for n_e=0.03 cm^-3 this is Γ_max ~ 1.8e-11 s^-1, an e-folding time ~1.6e3 yr. Saturation needs tens of e-folds (~3e4 yr), whereas a 1 pc filament is traversed in ~3 yr (Γt~5e-4; spatial growth length c/Γ~500 pc). The refreshed runs in the Supplemental Material use α down to ~1e-3, not 2e-13, so they do not address this. The application requires either a quantitative timescale comparison showing growth before advection/cooling/injection, or a much more conditional claim.
  2. [3D simulation and Fig. 3] The only direct demonstration of the NRI is a single 3D run with m_i/m_e=25 and Δγ_b=5. Both choices are far from the pulsar parameters (α~2e-13, γ_b~5e6, likely cold beam). The reduced mass ratio raises Γ_max by sqrt(1836/25)≈8.6 relative to the physical value, and the hot beam is specifically chosen because it makes the NRI more efficient. Since the NRI is three-dimensional, the realistic-mass-ratio 2D runs cannot validate the NRI step. The extrapolation to real pulsars therefore rests on the scalings (2)–(4), not on a direct simulation. A 3D run with a colder beam and/or an explicit demonstration that Eq. (4) remains valid at realistic Δγ_b and mass ratio is required.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 1 and 2] The reference run is quoted only by γ_b α and σ; γ_b itself is not stated. This matters for evaluating Eq. (1), whose prediction depends on m_i/(γ_b m_e). Please list all run parameters (γ_b, α, σ, Δγ_b) in a table or in the captions.
  2. [Fig. 2b and S definition] The cavity threshold (B⊥/B0)^2<0.04 used to define S is introduced without a sensitivity test. Since S is a proxy for the net current, a direct measurement of the total parallel current J_z would be a more robust and easily quantifiable check on the central mechanism.
  3. [Results, paragraph after Eq. (3)] The sentence 'The NRI growth time is much shorter than the decay time of the magnetized cavities' is not backed by a quantitative comparison. This is important because the net current must persist long enough for the NRI to saturate; please give the relevant times in units of ω_pe^-1.
  4. [General] Typos and minor formatting: author footnote has 'princedon.edu' (should be 'princeton.edu'); 'HA WC' appears with an unwanted space in the introduction. The formula for the cavitation growth rate quoted in the sentence before Eq. (3) is not explicitly written; please include it for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central charge-separation result is a simulation finding checked against external analytic formulas; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an initially charge- and current-neutral e± beam spontaneously develops a net current through the nonlinear evolution of the Weibel/cavitation instability. This is presented as a simulation result from PIC runs in which the beam is initialized charge- and current-neutral, so the net current is not encoded in the input by construction. The comparison quantities are external analytic formulas, not fitted parameters: the cavitation saturation efficiency is checked against Eq. 1 from Peterson et al. (2021), and the NRI saturation level is compared with Eq. 4 from Zacharegkas et al. (2024). The charge-separation fraction S is measured directly from particle counts outside cavities, not fitted to the magnetic-field outcome, so the subsequent use of S in the NRI growth-rate and saturation estimates is a standard consistency check rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction. The paper's self-citations (Orusa et al. 2021, 2025) are used for the TeV-halo context and the assumed pulsar spectrum; they are not invoked as an authority for the instability derivation, and they are externally falsifiable against HAWC/LHAASO-type data. The scaling statement that only the rate Γ_max ∝ α differs between simulations and pulsar filaments is an extrapolation that may be physically under-supported at realistic α, but that is a correctness or applicability concern, not a circularity: no equation in the paper reduces the predicted outcome to the assumed ratio. The supplement similarly reports refreshed runs and convergence tests rather than renaming a known result. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to observational data, and no new physical entity is invented. The ledger records hand-chosen simulation thresholds and external theory formulas the paper borrows. The central simulation claim does not require new particles or forces, but the astrophysical conclusion depends on several domain assumptions: the flux-tube box model, σ/2 = Δγ, the mass-ratio value in 3D, and the extrapolation from ratio-only scaling.

free parameters (4)
  • cavity threshold for charge separation S = (B⊥/B0)^2 < 0.04
    S, the metric used in the NRI trigger condition Sαγ_b >> σ, classifies cells as 'outside cavities' only when the transverse magnetic field squared is below 0.04. This hand-chosen threshold directly affects the reported S ~ 80%.
  • ion-to-electron mass ratio in the 3D run = m_i/m_e = 25
    The 3D demonstration of the Bell instability uses m_i/m_e = 25 instead of the realistic 1836. The paper argues this places it in the expected low-current NRI regime, but the NRI growth rate depends on sqrt(m_e/m_i).
  • beam temperature in the 3D run = Δγ_b = 5
    A hot beam is chosen because prior work indicates hot beams drive the NRI more efficiently; the 2D reference uses Δγ_b = 1e-4. The growth and saturation of both instabilities depend on this choice.
  • reference beam-to-background energy ratio = γ_b α / σ ≈ 10 (γ_b α = 0.1, σ = 2e-2)
    The reference run and the pulsar application assume the pair-beam energy density exceeds the background magnetic plus thermal energy density by an order of magnitude. If the actual flux-tube radius is larger than 1 pc, this ratio drops and the instability shuts off.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption A periodic simulation box represents a local patch of a PWN magnetic flux tube, and continuous pair injection can be mimicked by stochastic momentum refreshing without changing positions.
    The pulsar application relies on this local-box reduction and on the refreshed-beam model in the Supplemental Material; boundary effects and spatial inhomogeneities of the real system are not included.
  • domain assumption Background magnetic energy equals background thermal energy (σ/2 = Δγ) in all simulations.
    Stated as 'consistent with the conditions expected in the ISM,' this assumption restricts the parameter space and is load-bearing for the ratio argument.
  • domain assumption The cavitation saturation efficiency is ϵ_B ~ (1/8) min(1, m_i/(γ_b m_e)), taken from Peterson et al.
    Eq. (1) is used to validate the simulated magnetic energy saturation; if this externally derived law fails in the magnetized regime, the interpretation of the observed saturation changes.
  • domain assumption The NRI growth rate and saturation formulas (Eqs. 2–4) from Gupta et al. and Zacharegkas et al. apply to the dilute relativistic pair beam.
    These prior numerical/theoretical results are assumed valid for the beam parameters here and are used to connect S and γ_bα/σ to the final field amplitude.
  • domain assumption Background protons are effectively immobile on the electron Weibel/cavitation timescale, so electron filaments cannot be efficiently current-neutralized while positron filaments can.
    The charge-asymmetry mechanism depends on ion inertia: the contrast between heavy-proton and light-electron screening is what makes electron cavities grow while positron filaments dissipate.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10005 in / 13701 out tokens · 143557 ms · 2026-08-03T15:42:39.537582+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The observation of filamentary X-ray structures near bow-shock pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) -- such as the Guitar, Lighthouse, and PSR J2030$+$4415 nebulae -- and of slow-diffusion regions around pulsars like Geminga, Monogem, and PSR J0622$+$3749, challenges the standard picture of cosmic-ray transport in the interstellar medium, implying a diffusion coefficient two orders of magnitude smaller than the Galactic average. The suppressed diffusion can be attributed to self-generated magnetic turbulence, driven -- via the non-resonant streaming instability -- by electron-positron pairs escaping the PWNe. This instability requires a net current, yet the beam of escaping pairs is expected to be charge-neutral. We show that a charge-neutral pair beam propagating through an electron-proton plasma can spontaneously generate a net current. Using fully kinetic two-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations with realistic mass ratio, we find that beam electrons get focused into self-generated magnetic filaments produced by the nonlinear evolution of the Weibel instability, while beam positrons remain unconfined. We show that in three-dimensional simulations the resulting net (positron) current drives the non-resonant streaming instability, further amplifying the magnetic field. This mechanism provides a pathway for the onset of charge asymmetries in initially charge-neutral pair beams and for the growth of magnetic fluctuations that efficiently scatter the beam particles, with implications for the formation of X-ray filaments and, potentially, for particle self-confinement in TeV halos around PWNe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15847 by Lorenzo Sironi, Luca Orusa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evolution of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Fraction of beam energy converted into magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution of a slice in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Y. Hui and W. Becker, A&A467, 1209 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0610505 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Pavan, P

    L. Pavan, P. Bordas, G. P¨ uhlhofer, M. D. Filipovi´ c, A. De Horta, A. O’Brien, M. Balbo, R. Walter, E. Bozzo, C. Ferrigno, E. Crawford, and L. Stella, A&A562, A122 (2014), arXiv:1309.6792 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Temim, P

    T. Temim, P. Slane, C. Kolb, J. Blondin, J. P. Hughes, and N. Bucciantini, ApJ808, 100 (2015), arXiv:1506.03069 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Klingler, O

    N. Klingler, O. Kargaltsev, B. Rangelov, G. G. Pavlov, B. Posselt, and C. Y. Ng, ApJ828, 70 (2016), arXiv:1601.07174 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Klingler, O

    N. Klingler, O. Kargaltsev, G. G. Pavlov, and B. Posselt, ApJ868, 119 (2018), arXiv:1809.04664 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    O. D. Medvedev, A. V. Karpova, Y. A. Shibanov, D. A. Zyuzin, and G. G. Pavlov, inJournal of Physics Con- ference Series, Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1400 (2019) p. 022018, arXiv:2002.11958 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Marelli, A

    M. Marelli, A. Tiengo, A. De Luca, R. P. Mignani, D. Sal- vetti, P. M. Saz Parkinson, and G. Lisini, A&A624, A53 (2019), arXiv:1808.06966 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Bordas and X

    P. Bordas and X. Zhang, A&A644, L4 (2020), arXiv:2011.08593 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Zhang, Z

    S. Zhang, Z. Zhu, H. Li, D. Pasham, Z. Li, M. Clavel, F. K. Baganoff, K. Perez, K. Mori, and C. J. Hailey, ApJ893, 3 (2020), arXiv:2003.03453 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Klingler, H

    N. Klingler, H. Yang, J. Hare, O. Kargaltsev, G. G. Pavlov, and B. Posselt, ApJ901, 157 (2020), arXiv:2008.09200 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    de Vries and R

    M. de Vries and R. W. Romani, ApJ928, 39 (2022), arXiv:2202.03506 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    J. T. Dinsmore and R. W. Romani, The Astrophysical Journal976, 4 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    de Vries, R

    M. de Vries, R. W. Romani, O. Kargaltsev, G. Pavlov, B. Posselt, P. Slane, N. Bucciantini, C. Y. Ng, and N. Klingler, ApJ939, 70 (2022), arXiv:2210.01228 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    J. T. Dinsmore, R. W. Romani, N. Mandarakas, D. Bli- nov, and I. Liodakis, The Astrophysical Journal980, 229 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Pavan, G

    L. Pavan, G. P¨ uhlhofer, P. Bordas, M. Audard, M. Balbo, E. Bozzo, D. Eckert, C. Ferrigno, M. D. Filipovi´ c, M. Verdugo, and R. Walter, A&A591, A91 (2016), arXiv:1511.01944 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Klingler, J

    N. Klingler, J. Hare, O. Kargaltsev, G. G. Pavlov, and J. Tomsick, ApJ950, 177 (2023), arXiv:2212.03952 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    B. Olmi, E. Amato, R. Bandiera, and P. Blasi, A&A 684, L1 (2024), arXiv:2403.03616 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    A. R. Bell, MNRAS353, 550 (2004)

    2004

  19. [19]

    Plotnikov, A

    I. Plotnikov, A. J. van Marle, C. Gu´ epin, A. Marcowith, and P. Martin, Astronomy & Astrophysics688, A134 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Bandiera, A&A490, L3 (2008), arXiv:0809.2159 [astro-ph]

    R. Bandiera, A&A490, L3 (2008), arXiv:0809.2159 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    Olmi and N

    B. Olmi and N. Bucciantini, MNRAS484, 5755 (2019), arXiv:1902.00442 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    A. U. Abeysekaraet al., Science358, 911 (2017), arXiv:1711.06223 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Albertet al., ApJL944, L29 (2023), arXiv:2301.04646 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Albertet al., ApJL944, L29 (2023), arXiv:2301.04646 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    A. A. Abdo, B. T. Allen, T. Aune,et al., ApJL700, L127 (2009), arXiv:0904.1018 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  25. [25]

    Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S.), Astron

    F. Aharonianet al.(H.E.S.S.), Astron. Astrophys.673, A148 (2023), arXiv:2304.02631 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Aharonianet al., PRL126, 241103 (2021), arXiv:2106.09396 [astro-ph.HE]

    F. Aharonianet al., PRL126, 241103 (2021), arXiv:2106.09396 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Caoet al., (2024), arXiv:2410.04425 [astro-ph.HE]

    Z. Caoet al., (2024), arXiv:2410.04425 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Di Mauro, S

    M. Di Mauro, S. Manconi, and F. Donato, Phys. Rev. D100, 123015 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    Orusa, S

    L. Orusa, S. Manconi, F. Donato, and M. Di Mauro, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 014 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Orusa, S

    L. Orusa, S. Manconi, F. Donato, and M. D. Mauro, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 029 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Peterson, S

    J. Peterson, S. Glenzer, and F. Fiuza, Physical Review Letters126(2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.126.215101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.215101 2021

  32. [32]

    J. R. Peterson, S. Glenzer, and F. Fiuza, The Astro- physical Journal Letters924, L12 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Generation of large-scale magnetic fields up- stream of gamma-ray burst afterglow shocks,

    R. Golant, A. Vanthieghem, D. Groselj, and L. Sironi, “Generation of large-scale magnetic fields up- stream of gamma-ray burst afterglow shocks,” (2024), arXiv:2410.05388 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    re- fresh

    D. Groˇ selj, L. Sironi, and A. Spitkovsky, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters963, L44 (2024). 6 a) b) FIG. 4. Same as Figure 2 but for the case in which we “re- fresh” the beam particles. We use ∆γ b = 10−4

    2024

  35. [35]

    Bresci, L

    V. Bresci, L. Gremillet, and M. Lemoine, Physical Re- view E105(2022), 10.1103/physreve.105.035202

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.105.035202 2022

  36. [36]

    Cavita- tion instability in unmagnetized relativistic pair shocks,

    I. Demidov, Y. Lyubarsky, and U. Keshet, “Cavita- tion instability in unmagnetized relativistic pair shocks,” (2025), arXiv:2511.00742 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    E. S. Weibel, PRL2, 83 (1959)

    1959

  38. [38]

    Spitkovsky, inAstrophysical Sources of High En- ergy Particles and Radiation, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    A. Spitkovsky, inAstrophysical Sources of High En- ergy Particles and Radiation, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 801, edited by T. Bulik, B. Rudak, and G. Madejski (2005) pp. 345–350, astro- ph/0603211

    arXiv 2005

  39. [39]

    Gupta, D

    S. Gupta, D. Caprioli, and C. C. Haggerty, ApJ923, 208 (2021), arXiv:2106.07672 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Modeling the saturation of the bell instabil- ity using hybrid simulations,

    G. Zacharegkas, D. Caprioli, C. Haggerty, S. Gupta, and B. Schroer, “Modeling the saturation of the bell instabil- ity using hybrid simulations,” (2024), arXiv:2210.08072 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Un- derstanding streaming instabilities in the limit of high cosmic ray current density,

    E. Lichko, D. Caprioli, B. Schroer, and S. Gupta, “Un- derstanding streaming instabilities in the limit of high cosmic ray current density,” (2025), arXiv:2411.05704 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Time-dependent modeling of tev-detected, young pulsar wind nebulae,

    D. F. Torres, A. Cillis, J. Mart ´ ın, and E. de O˜ na Wil- helmi, “Time-dependent modeling of tev-detected, young pulsar wind nebulae,” (2014), arXiv:1402.5485 [astro- ph.HE]. Appendix A: Supplemental Material Refreshed cases.—We test a different setup with respect to the case reported in the Letter, in which beam particles are stochastically reset to th...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014