Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Kinetic Simulations of Radiative Magnetic Reconnection in the Coronae of Accreting Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radiative magnetic reconnection can power the hard-state emission of accreting black holes.

desk verdict Strong simulation paper on radiative reconnection with a clean central result, but the abstract overclaims the Cyg X-1 MeV tail explanation without a spectral calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08138 v2 pith:DRTXJGMQ submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph

Lorenzo Sironi , Andrei M. Beloborodov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph
keywords magneticreconnectionradiativecoolingComptondragparticle-in-cellsimulationblackholecoronahardstateplasmoidinverse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that magnetic reconnection in strongly magnetized, pair-dominated plasmas—the conditions thought to hold in black hole coronae—can power the hard X-ray state of accreting black holes, including the MeV tail of Cyg X-1. Using particle-in-cell simulations with strong Compton cooling, it finds that most of the dissipated magnetic energy goes into the bulk motions of cooled plasmoids, which radiate a quasi-Maxwellian component with an effective temperature around 100 keV that mimics thermal Comptonization. Roughly 20% of the dissipated power instead goes into a high-energy particle tail, produced by impulsive acceleration at X-points and by the pick-up of particles in fast outflows. The simulations further show that Compton losses barely change the reconnection rate or plasmoid size distribution, so magnetic stresses, not thermal pressure, govern the layer.

What carries the argument

The central object is the plasmoid chain of relativistic reconnection: magnetic islands that carry most of the layer's inertia in the magnetic field and are pulled along the layer by magnetic tension. Compton cooling is modeled as a continuous drag force $F_{\rm IC}=-(4/3)\sigma_T\gamma_e^2 U_{\rm rad}\boldsymbol{\beta}_e$, controlled by the parameter $\gamma_{\rm cr}$, the Lorentz factor at which the reconnection electric field balances the drag. The argument is carried by balancing the magnetic tension force $f_B\sim B_0^2 u/(2\pi c t'_{\rm age})$ against the drag $f_{\rm drag}\sim(4/3)\gamma^2 U_{\rm rad}\sigma_T n'_{\rm pl}$, which predicts an 'avoidance zone' in the plasmoid size\u2013velocity plane and a cooling size $w_c\sim(\gamma_{\rm cr}^2/\sigma^{3/2})c/\omega_p$; plasmoids larger than $w_c$ are cold and radiate through their bulk motion. The non-radiative empirical relation $u/\sqrt{\sigma}=\tanh(\eta_{\rm rec}c t'_{\rm age}/w)$ serves as the baseline against which the radiative dynamics are tested.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to compute the expected spectrum from the simulated particle and bulk-velocity distributions and compare it with broad-band hard-state data of Cyg X-1; if the 100 keV peak requires a genuinely thermal electron population, or the MeV tail requires an additional non-inverse-Compton component, the central claim fails. A numerical test would rerun the simulations with a self-consistent, anisotropic, time-dependent radiation field to see whether the bulk-dominated peak and the $\sim20\%$ nonthermal tail survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that radiative reconnection in a magnetically dominated $e^\pm$ plasma with $\sigma=10$ reproduces the two observed spectral components of black hole hard states. The bulk of the power emerges as mildly relativistic bulk motions of cold, magnetically dominated plasmoids; their inverse Compton emission forms a quasi-Maxwellian peak with effective temperature $kT_b\sim100$ keV. A smaller but significant fraction, $f_{\rm HE}\sim20\%$, is emitted by nonthermal particles with $\gamma_e\gtrsim2$, injected nearly impulsively at X-points ($E_\parallel$ acceleration) and in unstructured outflows from X-points (pick-up), and this component accounts for the MeV tail of Cyg X-1. The radiative runs also show that the reconnection rate ($\eta_{\rm rec}\sim0.12$\u2013$0.14$) and the plasmoid size distribution are nearly unchanged from the non-radiative case, even though the internal energy of the layer drops by about two orders of magnitude, confirming that magnetic forces set the dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on treating Compton cooling as a steady, angle-averaged friction force from a fixed bath of soft photons, while in a real corona the radiation is generated by the reconnection itself, is anisotropic, and contains photons energetic enough for Klein\u2013Nishina corrections; the simulated cooling hierarchy ($\gamma_{\rm cr}$ comparable to $\sigma$) is also far less extreme than the $\gamma_{\rm cr}\sim10^4$ inferred for real coronae.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hard-state X-ray peak of accreting black holes can be produced without a genuinely thermal 100 keV electron population; bulk motions of cooled plasmoids mimic Comptonization.
  • The MeV tail of Cyg X-1 can be explained by inverse Compton emission from the nonthermal tail that carries about 20% of dissipated reconnection power.
  • Because cooling barely changes the reconnection rate and plasmoid size distribution, reconnection layers in coronae can be described by magnetic-stress-dominated (nearly force-free) dynamics.
  • Radiative losses strongly suppress the nonthermal efficiency of reconnection compared with non-radiative simulations, so coronal models should not use non-radiative particle spectra.
  • The 2D conclusions carry over to 3D flux-rope reconnection, so the bulk-motion-dominated peak and nonthermal tail are robust to dimensionality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fixed, isotropic, soft photon bath were replaced by a self-consistent radiation field produced by the reconnection layer itself, the values $kT_b\sim100$ keV and $f_{\rm HE}\sim20\%$ could shift; the qualitative bulk-dominated picture may survive, but the quantitative fit to Cyg X-1 is not guaranteed.
  • The same mechanism suggests a sharp prediction: hard-state spectra should show a quasi-thermal component whose width tracks the plasmoid bulk velocity distribution rather than a single electron temperature, which spectropolarimetric or reverberation measurements could distinguish.
  • The pick-up acceleration process identified here is likely generic to radiative reconnection and may operate in other magnetically dominated, radiation-drenched environments, where Klein\u2013Nishina corrections and anisotropy would modify the effective drag.
  • Synthetic spectra computed from the simulated particle distributions, rather than from the analytic model that motivates the simulations, would give a direct, testable prediction for the coronal compactness and magnetization of individual sources.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents 2D and 3D particle-in-cell simulations of relativistic magnetic reconnection in electron-positron plasmas with strong inverse-Compton cooling, motivated by the coronae of accreting black holes. Compton losses are modeled as a continuous Thomson drag from a fixed, isotropic, low-energy radiation field, with the strength parameterized by gamma_cr. Comparing radiative runs (gamma_cr=16 and 11.3) with an otherwise identical non-radiative run (gamma_cr=infinity), the authors find that the reconnection rate, plasmoid size distribution, and magnetic structure are weakly affected by cooling; plasmoids become cold, magnetically dominated, and develop density cavities. Most dissipated power goes into bulk motions of cooled plasmoids, producing a quasi-Maxwellian particle-energy peak with effective temperature kT_b about 100 keV, while about 20% goes into a high-energy tail (gamma_e>2) generated by X-point acceleration and particle pick-up by outflows. The abstract and conclusions assert that the inverse Compton emission of this tail explains the MeV tail of Cyg X-1 and that radiative reconnection powers the hard state.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper is a significant step: it gives first-principle, kinetic support to the Beloborodov (2017) radiative-reconnection scenario and quantifies the energy partition between bulk plasmoid motions and nonthermal particles. The numerical work is careful: box half-lengths up to 6720 c/omega_p (full length 13440 c/omega_p), convergence checks in particle number, box size, and 3D effects, and detailed particle-history diagnostics for the acceleration mechanisms. The analytic avoidance-zone prediction (Eq. 18) is tested against the simulations, and f_HE about 20% with kT_b about 100 keV are falsifiable predictions. The main weakness is that no photon spectrum is computed, so the claimed explanation of the Cyg X-1 MeV tail is not established by the evidence in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 6] The abstract's statement that the inverse Compton emission of the high-energy tail 'explains the MeV spectral tail detected in the hard state of Cyg X-1' is not supported by any spectral calculation in the paper. Section 6's final paragraph explicitly leaves 'detailed calculations of the X-ray spectrum' to future work, and Section 2.1 implements only the drag force (Eq. 2), not an emission model. A radiated power fraction f_HE about 20% for gamma_e>2 particles does not by itself determine the emergent IC spectrum, which also depends on the photon energy distribution, scattering angles, Klein-Nishina corrections, and optical depth and escape geometry. I recommend rewording the abstract and conclusions to state that the simulations provide the particle distributions needed for future spectral modeling, or including a model spectrum.
  2. [Section 3; Section 4.4] The parameter mapping to black-hole coronae is extrapolated beyond the simulated range. The runs use gamma_cr=11.3-16 with sigma=10, while Eqs. (6) and (8) estimate gamma_cr~10^4 and sigma~400 for coronae. The hierarchy gamma_cr >> gamma_X with gamma_X~sigma/4 is only marginal in the simulations (gamma_cr/gamma_X is about 4.5-6.4), far from the astrophysical ratio ~100; Eq. (11) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the quantitative results to carry over. Since Section 6 defers the dependence on sigma to future work and Fig. 13 does not reach gamma_cr >> sigma, the quoted values kT_b=100 keV and f_HE about 20% should be presented as regime-dependent results, or additional runs (or an analytic scaling argument) should be provided.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2); Section 6] The radiation field is fixed in time, isotropic, and has zero Compton temperature. In a real corona the radiation field is anisotropic, is at least partially produced by the reconnection layer itself, and has a nonzero Compton temperature, which changes both the cooling rate and the net drag on particles (hot photons can heat rather than cool mildly relativistic electrons). The headline numbers, namely the 100 keV bulk-temperature peak and f_HE about 20%, are measured under this idealized drag law. The simplification is acknowledged, but its quantitative impact on the results is not assessed; I ask for an explicit estimate of the corrections (e.g., finite Compton temperature, anisotropy, or Klein-Nishina effects) or a correspondingly careful qualification of the applicable regime.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The text 'eta_rec/c is about 0.135' appears to have a dimensional error; it should read 'eta_rec is about 0.135' or 'v_rec/c is about 0.135'.
  2. [Section 2.1] The spelling 'Thompson' should be 'Thomson' in the discussion of the scattering regime.
  3. [Section 4.4] The sentence beginning 'Th results' contains a typo and should read 'The results'.
  4. [Section 2] The phrase 'four particles per cell (including both species)' is ambiguous; it should specify whether this is per species or per cell, since the convergence test with 16 particles per cell is described in the same way.
  5. [Section 4.3] The reporting of f_HE is confusing: the fiducial model gives 35%, the larger box gives 27%, and the summary states f_HE about 20%. A small table of f_HE as a function of gamma_cr and box size would clarify the convergence trend.
  6. [Section 5] The 3D conclusion rests on a single parameter set (gamma_cr=11.3, L=806c/omega_p, 2.5 cells per skin depth, one particle per cell); the statement that the main conclusions 'will hold in 3D models' is stronger than the evidence presented and could be softened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims are direct simulation comparisons; the Eq. (18) check is a consistency test, and the deferred MeV-spectrum calculation is a completeness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at every load-bearing step. The main dynamical claims (reconnection rate, plasmoid size distribution, plasma internal energy) are established by direct comparison of a radiative run (gamma_cr = 16) with a non-radiative run (gamma_cr = infinity) that has otherwise identical parameters (Figs. 1, 2, 12, 13), so no fitted input is being renamed as a prediction. The 100 keV bulk-motion peak and f_HE ~ 20% are measurements from the PIC output, not outputs of a fitted model. The analytic 'avoidance zone' (Eq. 18) uses the prior empirical plasmoid-speed relation of Sironi et al. (2016) and the separately measured compression factor n'_pl/n0 ~ 6 from the same radiative run; because the predicted quantity u(w_max) is not used to set that normalization, the comparison is a consistency test rather than a circular prediction, and in any case it is secondary to the direct radiative-versus-non-radiative comparison. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors (B17; Sironi et al. 2016), but those citations supply the model framework and an empirical relation, not the validation of the central claim. The abstract's statement that the high-energy tail 'explains' the Cyg X-1 MeV bump goes beyond what is computed, since Section 6 defers detailed spectral calculations to future work, but that is an overclaim or completeness gap, not a reduction of a result to its input.

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

The central simulation results (rate, plasmoid sizes, spectrum) are direct measurements, but the analytic support Eq. (18) uses a compression factor measured from the same radiative run, and the simulation parameters (sigma=10, gamma_cr=11.3-16) are chosen to preserve the hierarchy of the real corona, not fitted to observations. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma_cr (radiation density parameter) = 11.3, 16, infinity
    Controls Compton drag strength (Eq. 3). Varied across a grid of runs; not fitted to observations, but a model parameter of the problem.
  • magnetization sigma = 10
    Fiducial magnetization for pair plasma; motivated by B17 for pair-dominated coronae but chosen, not measured from data.
  • compression factor n'_pl/n0 = ~6
    Used in Eq. (18) to predict the avoidance zone; measured from the same radiative run, so the prediction is partly normalized by the simulation.
  • bulk temperature kTb = 100 keV
    Obtained by fitting a Maxwellian to the simulated bulk-motion distribution (Fig. 8); a descriptive fit, not a parameter-free prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Compton drag is a continuous isotropic force with Thomson scattering (Eq. 2)
    Assumes radiation field is fixed, isotropic, zero-temperature, and composed of low-energy photons; Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The pair plasma is cold before reconnection (zero Compton temperature)
    Idealization adopted in Section 3; real coronal plasma may be preheated.
  • domain assumption Harris equilibrium and moving-injector boundary conditions sustain a quasi-steady reconnection layer
    Section 2; the results depend on the out-of-plane invariance in 2D, but 3D runs are used as a check.
  • domain assumption The hot current-sheet particles initialized for pressure balance can be excluded from diagnostics
    Section 2 states these particles are artificial and ejected after one light-crossing time; if they lingered, the thermodynamic measurements would be affected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic Simulations of Radiative Magnetic Reconnection in the Coronae of Accreting Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRTXJGMQ

@misc{pith2026190808138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic Simulations of Radiative Magnetic Reconnection in the Coronae of Accreting Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRTXJGMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08138}
}
read the original abstract

We perform two- and three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of reconnection in magnetically-dominated pair plasmas subject to strong Compton cooling. Reconnection under such conditions operates in accretion disk coronae around black holes, which produce hard X-rays through Comptonization. Our simulations show that most of the plasma in the reconnection layer is kept cold by Compton losses and locked in magnetically-dominated plasmoids with small thermal pressure. Compton drag clears cavities inside plasmoids and affects their bulk motions. These effects, however, weakly change the reconnection rate and the plasmoid size distribution from those in non-radiative reconnection. This demonstrates that the reconnection dynamics is governed by similar magnetic stresses in both cases and weakly affected by thermal pressure. We examine the energy distribution of particles energized by radiative reconnection and observe two components. (1) A mildly-relativistic peak, which results from bulk motions of cooled plasmoids. This component receives most of the dissipated reconnection power and dominates the output X-ray emission. The peak has a quasi-Maxwellian shape with an effective temperature of 100 keV. Thus, it mimics thermal Comptonization used previously to fit hard-state spectra of accreting black holes. (2) A high-energy tail, which receives 20% of dissipated reconnection power. It is populated by particles accelerated impulsively at X-points or "picked up" by fast outflows from X-points. The high-energy particles immediately cool, and their inverse Compton emission explains the MeV spectral tail detected in the hard state of Cyg X-1. Our first-principle simulations support reconnection as a mechanism powering hard X-ray emission from accreting black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2D structure of the reconnection layer at time t = 3.4 (L/c) in our fiducial run with strong IC losses (γcr = 16). We show the region |y|/L < 0.125 where reconnection occurs (the actual extent of the computational box along y grows with time as described in Sect. 2). (a) Magnetic energy density B2/8π normalized by the initial plasma rest-mass energy, B = B2/8πn0mec 2 , with overplotted magnetic field lines. The ini… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Density-weighted distribution of positron bulk momenta, from the same simulations as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scatter of positron bulk motions in the x-direction (the direction of the reconnection outflow) from the same simulations as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The outcome of plasmoid acceleration as a function of its size. Plasmoid four-velocities u were measured when the plasmoid reached its maximum size wmax, i.e. typically at the end of its life in the simulation — either at a merger or when the plasmoid exits the computa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean internal energy per particle (in units of mec 2 ) in plasmoids, as a function of the plasmoid transverse size w, in the radiative (blue) and non-radiative (red) simulations. The filled circles connected by the lines show the median values, whereas the error bars s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The figure compares the particle distributions over the bulk motion energy (γ − 1)mec 2 and the ac￾tual particle energy (γe − 1)mec 2 . One can see that the distribution dN/d log(γe − 1) is strongly shifted to￾ward high energies compared with dN/d log(γ −1). This [PIT…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Particle distribution in the radiative simulation (γcr = 16), time-averaged in the interval 1.5 . ct/L . 5. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagnostics of particle acceleration in the radiative simulation (γcr = 16). The top and middle panels show 2D his￾tograms of the tracked particles, time-averaged in the interval 1.5 . ct/L . 5. In the top panel, the vertical axis represents the median acceleration rat…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative distribution of plasmoid width w, for dif￾ferent values of γcr as indicated in the figure. The histogram (with Poissonian error bars) is normalized to the overall number of plas￾moids Npl. The corresponding differential distribution is given by f(w) = dN(w)…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: shows that the reconnection rate is nearly in￾dependent of the degree of IC losses. Furthermore, the plasma compression in the reconnection layer is only moderately increased by cooling: from hn 0 i/n0 ∼ 4 in the non-radiative case to hn 0 i/n0 ∼ 7 in the case of γcr …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: 3D structure of the reconnection layer at time t = 4.6 (L/c) in our largest 3D run (Lz = L = 806 c/ωp) with very strong IC losses (γcr = 11.3). We show the region |y|/L < 0.45 where reconnection occurs (the actual extent of the computational box along y grows with tim…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Particle distribution dN/d log(γe − 1) in the 3D and 2D simulations with γcr = 11.3, time-averaged in the interval 1.5 . ct/L . 5.8. For each simulation, the distribution was cal￾culated in the reconnection region (solid curves) and in the entire computational box (do…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The emergence of X-ray emission lines during relativistic radio-jet formation in the changing-look active galactic nucleus 1ES 1927+654

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    X-ray emission lines and a broad iron feature emerged in changing-look AGN 1ES 1927+654 concurrently with radio-jet formation and declining ionized outflows from 2022 to 2025.

  2. Probing the Strong Gravity Region of Black Holes with eXTP

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    eXTP's large collecting area and combined spectral, timing, and polarimetric instruments are simulated to improve black hole spin and mass measurements and to tighten tests of the Kerr metric.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 80 B´ egu´ e, D., Pe’er, A., & Lyubarsky, Y

    Ball, D., Sironi, L., & ¨Ozel, F. 2018, ApJ, 862, 80 B´ egu´ e, D., Pe’er, A., & Lyubarsky, Y. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2594

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJ, 850, 141

    2017

  3. [3]

    Belyaev, M. A. 2015, New Astronomy, 36, 37

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Computer Space Plasma Physics

    Buneman, O. 1993, in “Computer Space Plasma Physics”, Terra Scientific, Tokyo, 67

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 606

    Cerutti, B., Philippov, A., Parfrey, K., & Spitkovsky, A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 606

    2015

  6. [6]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 147 —. 2014, ApJ, 782, 104

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Chatterjee, K., Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Markoff, S. B. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2200

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 072101

    Daughton, W., Scudder, J., & Karimabadi, H. 2006, Physics of Plasmas, 13, 072101

    work page 2006

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 155005

    Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 155005

    2014

  2. [10]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, L23

    Guo, F., Li, X., Daughton, W., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, L23

    2019

  3. [11]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 167

    Guo, F., Liu, Y.-H., Daughton, W., & Li, H. 2015, ApJ, 806, 167

    2015

  4. [12]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 53

    Hakobyan, H., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 53

    2019

  5. [13]

    2012, Physical Review Letters, 109, 265002

    Huang, Y.-M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2012, Physical Review Letters, 109, 265002

    2012

  6. [14]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 880, 67

    2019

  7. [15]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 41

    Kagan, D., Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Spitkovsky, A. 2013, ApJ, 774, 41

    2013

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 155 —

    Kagan, D., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2016, ApJ, 833, 155 —. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3902

    2016

  9. [17]

    2015, Space Science Reviews, 191, 545

    Kagan, D., Sironi, L., Cerutti, B., & Giannios, D. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 191, 545

    2015

  10. [18]

    F., Samtaney, R., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Samtaney, R., Schekochihin, A. A., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2012, Physics of Plasmas, 19, 042303

    2012

  11. [19]

    2008, ApJ, 682, 1436

    Lyubarsky, Y., & Liverts, M. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1436

    2008

  12. [20]

    Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 113

    2005

  13. [21]

    2003, ApJ, 589, 893

    Lyutikov, M., & Uzdensky, D. 2003, ApJ, 589, 893

    2003

  14. [22]

    L., Zdziarski, A

    McConnell, M. L., Zdziarski, A. A., Bennett, K., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 984

    2002

  15. [23]

    Begelman, M. C. 2015, ApJ, 815, 101

    2015

  16. [24]

    2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 755840301

    Nalewajko, K., Yuan, Y., & Chru´ sli´ nska, M. 2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 755840301

    2018

  17. [25]

    Parfrey, K., Giannios, D., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, L61

    2015

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 5687

    Petropoulou, M., & Sironi, L. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5687

    2018

  19. [27]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 37

    Petropoulou, M., Sironi, L., Spitkovsky, A., & Giannios, D. 2019, ApJ, 880, 37

    2019

  20. [28]

    E., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R

    Rowan, M. E., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R. 2017, ApJ, 850, 29 —. 2019, ApJ, 873, 2

    2017

  21. [29]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 48

    Sironi, L., Giannios, D., & Petropoulou, M. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 48

    2016

  22. [30]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 183

    Sironi, L., Petropoulou, M., & Giannios, D. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 183

    2015

  23. [31]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 1523 —

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1523 —. 2011, ApJ, 726, 75 —. 2014, ApJ, 783, L21

    2009

  24. [32]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 54

    Sironi, L., Spitkovsky, A., & Arons, J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 54

    2013

  25. [33]

    2005, in AIP Conf

    Spitkovsky, A. 2005, in AIP Conf. Ser., Vol. 801, Astrophysical Sources of High Energy Particles and Radiation, ed. T. Bulik, B. Rudak, & G. Madejski, 345

    2005

  26. [34]

    A., Loureiro, N

    Uzdensky, D. A., Loureiro, N. F., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2010, Physical Review Letters, 105, 235002

    2010

  27. [35]

    A., & McKinney, J

    Uzdensky, D. A., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 042105 18

    2011

  28. [36]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Uzdensky, D. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 780, 3

    2014

  29. [37]

    R., Philippov, A

    Werner, G. R., Philippov, A. A., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L60

    2019

  30. [38]

    R., & Uzdensky, D

    Werner, G. R., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2017, ApJ, 843, L27

    2017

  31. [39]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4840

    Nalewajko, K. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4840

    2018

  32. [40]

    Begelman, M. C. 2016, ApJ, 816, L8

    2016

  33. [41]

    A., & Gierli´ nski, M

    Zdziarski, A. A., & Gierli´ nski, M. 2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 155, 99

    2004

  34. [42]

    2001, ApJ, 562, L63 —

    Zenitani, S., & Hoshino, M. 2001, ApJ, 562, L63 —. 2007, ApJ, 670, 702

    2001

  35. [43]

    A., Werner, G

    Zhdankin, V., Uzdensky, D. A., Werner, G. R., & Begelman, M. C. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2514

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.