pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15260 · v1 · pith:R3TOJE27new · submitted 2026-05-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Entity -- Hardware-agnostic Particle-in-Cell Code for Plasma Astrophysics. III: Higher-order shape functions & generalized field stencils

Ludwig M. B\"oss , Arno Vanthieghem , Hayk Hakobyan , Evgeny A. Gorbunov , Damiano Caprioli This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 16:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords particle-in-cellplasma astrophysicshigher-order shape functionscurrent depositionnumerical dispersioncharge conservationnumerical Cherenkovfield stencils
0
0 comments X

The pith

Entity PIC code adds up to 11th-order shape functions and tunable stencils to cut numerical artifacts in plasma simulations.

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

The paper updates the Entity particle-in-cell code with higher-order shape functions that reach 11th-order accuracy for current deposition and field interpolation. It also introduces generalized stencils in the field solver that can be adjusted to reduce numerical dispersion. These changes are tested to show better charge conservation, reduced numerical heating, improved energy conservation, and weaker numerical Cherenkov effects. A reader would care because plasma instabilities in astrophysics often begin at small scales, so cleaner numerics help separate real growth from code artifacts without simply running at finer resolution.

Core claim

By implementing higher-order shape functions for current deposit and field interpolation along with generalized stencils for the field solver, the code reaches up to 11th-order accurate interpolation while allowing stencil tuning to suppress dispersion; extensive tests confirm the schemes maintain charge conservation, stabilize against numerical heating, improve energy conservation, and reduce numerical Cherenkov effects, with performance scaling discussed relative to resolution and filtering.

What carries the argument

Higher-order shape functions for current deposition and generalized field stencils that can be tuned for dispersion control.

If this is right

  • Charge is conserved to higher accuracy across particle updates and field solves.
  • Numerical heating is suppressed, allowing longer stable runs before artificial temperature growth appears.
  • Energy conservation improves over many time steps compared with lower-order baselines.
  • Stencil tuning can be chosen to minimize numerical Cherenkov radiation in relativistic flows.
  • Performance cost grows with order but can be traded against coarser grids or added filtering.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same higher-order deposit and stencil approach could be ported to other PIC frameworks that currently rely on lower-order splines.
  • Tunable dispersion control might help separate physical wave propagation from grid effects in studies of collisionless shocks.
  • If the performance balance holds, these methods could enable larger-domain astrophysical runs without proportional increases in core count.

Load-bearing premise

The extra computational cost of higher-order operations can be offset by adjusting resolution and adding current filtering so that simulations of realistic multi-scale plasmas remain practical and stable.

What would settle it

A direct comparison run at fixed resolution showing that the new 11th-order deposit and tuned stencils produce the same or worse energy drift and Cherenkov radiation as the prior second-order scheme would falsify the accuracy claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15260 by Arno Vanthieghem, Damiano Caprioli, Evgeny A. Gorbunov, Hayk Hakobyan, Ludwig M. B\"oss.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Shape functions SO implemented in Entity, nor￾malized to the grid-cell size ∆x. The subscripts refer to the leading order O of the polynomial. Hakobyan et al. 2025); here, instead, we focus on the new aspects — the current deposition, which satisfies (6), and the new discretization used to solve (1). Note that while the discussion in this paper focuses on Carte￾sian coordinates, high-order shape functions … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Decomposition of the implicit particle motion (from cyan cross to magenta cross) into segments in Zigzag and Esirkepov’s algorithm. zero in both Zigzag and Esirkepov’s algorithms, indi￾vidual values are different, resulting in slightly different deposited currents when comparing the 1st-order Esirke￾pov deposition with the Zigzag algorithm. In Entity, we implement shape functions up to 11th - order. We not… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Charge-conservation of an initially neutral plasma at rest. We show the mean value of the total charge density (dots) and its standard deviation (band) over an evo￾lution of t = 105 ω −1 p . The dashed line indicates the maxi￾mum over the course of the simulation. to the Esirkepov deposit scheme, using 1st-11th-order shape functions. This test was performed in double precision to include 10th- and 11th-ord… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy loss rate for an electron population traveling through a neutral background plasma in 2D. Each panel refers to runs with increasing electrons in a skin-depth volume. Colors show the results for the respective shape functions. Solid lines indicate the simulation results, while dashed lines indicate a fit to the data. The labels show the effective electrons in a skin-depth volume, according to Eq. 20.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical heating due to unresolved Debye length. The panels show the relative temperature increase over time. Each column shows the runs performed with the respective shape function order. Colors indicate the different resolution levels. Dashed lines indicate runs without current filtering, while solid lines refer to runs with 8 current filter passes. Time t [𝜔p − 1 ] 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectra of particle distributions in the numerical heating test. The plot titles refer to the deposit scheme used in the simulation and whether it employs current filtering. From top to bottom, the panels show increasing grid resolution by a factor of two. The line colors indicate the time at which the calculated spectrum was measured. The growth of Ey as a function of time is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Growth of the Ey component due to a diffuse CR beam propagating through a neutral background plasma. Different colors indicate runs with the different current de￾posit schemes with various shape function orders. Dashed lines indicate runs without additional current filtering, while solid lines indicate runs with 8 current filter passes. ered converged, as all of the higher orders lie in a band of order uni… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ey field component at t = 1500 ω −1 e of the high obliquity modes test with a dilute CR beam propagating through a background plasma. From left to right, we show runs with the deposit scheme and shape function order indicated in the column titles. The top row shows the runs without current filtering, while the bottom row shows runs with 8 current filter passes. t [104 𝜔p − 1 ] 0 5 10 15 lo g10⟨B y z⟩ �[ 4 … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Perpendicular magnetic field growth as a function of time in the Bell instability test. Colors correspond to the indicated deposit schemes and interpolation orders. The dashed line shows a reference run using the Zigzag deposit with an additional eight current filter passes. δB = i X k δBk k × B0 |k × B0| exp [i(k · x + ϕk)], (22) where δBk is an amplitude of a given Fourier mode with a wavevector k, B0 is… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Jz component in the final state of the decaying turbulence test after three Alfv´en crossing times. From left to right, we show the runs with Zigzag deposit, Esirkepov deposit with 2th, 3rd, 5th, and 9th order shape functions. The right-most panel shows the test using the Zigzag deposit, using 16 current filter passes. We find a clear convergence trend when moving from Zigzag to higher-order shape functio… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Convergence behavior of energy conservation in the decaying turbulence test. The color of the dots and the band corresponds to the indicated current deposition method. Each dot corresponds to a run with the number of current filter passes shown on the x-axis. Solid dots show the real value of the error, white circles the absolute value. able, higher-order shape functions provide less benefit than current … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Energy components in the decaying turbulence test as a function of time. The colors refer to Zigzag deposit (Z), Esirkepov deposit using 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 9th order shape functions (S2 − S9). Top panel: Individual energy components for total (Etot), magnetic (EB), electric (EE) and kinetic (Ekin) energy. The zoom-ins magnify the total energy at the beginning and the end of the simulation. The dashed line… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Magnetic power spectra for the decaying tur￾bulence test. Top panel: Spectra for the differen deposit schemes Zigzag , and Esirkepov 1 st-9th-order, compared with Zigzag using 16 current filter passes, and Zigzag at 2x-8x base resolution. Middle panel: Spectra for Zigzag us￾ing 0-16 filter passes. Bottom panel: 2 nd-order Esirkepov deposit using 0-8 filter passes. netic field. Rows show the different incl… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Bz induced by the motion of a single electron moving in vacuum with γ = 10. From top to bottom, rows correspond to an inclination of the particle’s propagation direction of 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ . The columns are titled according to the stencil used in the Faraday solver. The numerical Cherenkov effect manifests as additional waves ahead or behind the particle. cells to avoid any numerical heating due to an … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Final state at t = 104 ωpt of a warm plasma with E = 0.08mec 2 drifting with γ = 10 in a periodic setup. From left to right, we show the results for all field stencils tested in A. Blinne et al. (2018). Top panels: Absolute value of the out-of-plane magnetic field component (Bz). Middle panels: Bz-component, after applying a high-pass filter in Fourier space to filter out the modes containing less than 90… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Time evolution of the drifting plasma test shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Result of the relativistic pair-plasma shock setup. Top panels: Mass density. Middle panels: Temperature of the plasma. Bottom panels: Out-of-plane magnetic field component. For all grouped plots, the respective top panel shows the simulation employing the standard Yee stencil, while the bottom panel shows the min3 stencil. The simulations in the left column were performed with the standard Zigzag deposit… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Spectra of electrons in the shock shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Runtime increase as a function of interpolation method. Here Z refers to the standard Zigzag deposit, while S1 − S11 refers to Esirkepov deposit with 1st-11th order shape functions. For reference, we plot the performance impact on the deposit and pusher reported by M. Shalaby et al. (2017) in their 1D simulations. In general, the performance of the Esirkepov deposit scheme can be improved by reducing the … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Modern particle-in-cell (PIC) codes have become an integral tool in plasma astrophysics. As most plasma phenomena grow from initially small instabilities, it is important to ensure PIC codes can suppress noise and ensure that any growing instability is indeed physical. Therefore, we introduce our efforts to implement higher-order methods for the current deposit and field interpolation as well as generalized field stencils for the field solver in the PIC code \texttt{Entity}. Our updated current deposit scheme allows for up to $11^\mathrm{th}$-order accurate interpolation, while the generalized stencils for the field solver can be tuned to suppress numerical dispersion. We perform extensive tests to ensure high accuracy of the implemented schemes for charge conservation, stabilization against numerical heating, improved energy conservation, and suppression of numerical Cherenkov effects. To supply a benchmark on performance impact, we demonstrate the scaling of the higher-order current deposit and discuss the possible performance balance between higher-order interpolation, numerical resolution, and the inclusion of additional current filtering.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the implementation of higher-order (up to 11th-order) shape functions for current deposition and generalized stencils for the field solver within the Entity PIC code. It reports tests demonstrating improved charge conservation, reduced numerical heating, better energy conservation, and suppression of numerical Cherenkov radiation, together with scaling measurements for the deposit routine and a discussion of performance trade-offs against resolution and filtering.

Significance. If the accuracy improvements hold under realistic conditions, the methods could reduce numerical artifacts in plasma astrophysics simulations and support more efficient modeling of multi-scale instabilities by permitting coarser grids or lighter filtering.

major comments (1)
  1. [Performance section] Performance section (as referenced in the abstract): the scaling of the higher-order deposit is shown and isolated tests for conservation and Cherenkov suppression are reported, but no end-to-end demonstration exists in a long-running, multi-scale astrophysical plasma configuration showing that the 11th-order scheme plus tuned stencils actually permits reduced resolution or less filtering while preserving the same physical fidelity as a conventional second-order run.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of 'extensive tests' is not accompanied by quantitative error metrics, baseline comparisons, or specific test-problem details, which weakens the reader's ability to assess the accuracy claims from the summary alone.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We provide a point-by-point response to the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Performance section] Performance section (as referenced in the abstract): the scaling of the higher-order deposit is shown and isolated tests for conservation and Cherenkov suppression are reported, but no end-to-end demonstration exists in a long-running, multi-scale astrophysical plasma configuration showing that the 11th-order scheme plus tuned stencils actually permits reduced resolution or less filtering while preserving the same physical fidelity as a conventional second-order run.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the manuscript does not contain an end-to-end demonstration within a long-running, multi-scale astrophysical plasma configuration. This paper (Part III) is devoted to the implementation of higher-order shape functions up to 11th order and generalized field stencils, together with targeted validation tests that isolate improvements in charge conservation, numerical heating, energy conservation, and Cherenkov suppression. These tests are performed in standard configurations relevant to plasma astrophysics. Scaling data for the deposit routine and an explicit discussion of performance trade-offs with resolution and filtering are also included. We have revised the discussion section to more clearly articulate how the demonstrated improvements can support coarser grids or reduced filtering in future applications. A full end-to-end demonstration in a specific long-running multi-scale setup lies outside the scope of the present methods paper but is planned for subsequent work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; implementation and tests are self-contained

full rationale

The paper describes the implementation of higher-order current deposition (up to 11th order) and tunable field stencils in the Entity PIC code, followed by standard benchmark tests for charge conservation, energy conservation, numerical heating, and Cherenkov suppression, plus scaling measurements. These steps rely on established numerical techniques rather than deriving new results from fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. No equations reduce to their own inputs by construction, no load-bearing claims rest solely on unverified self-citations, and the performance discussion is presented as an empirical trade-off analysis rather than a tautological prediction. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and standard diagnostics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract provides limited technical detail; the central claims rest on standard PIC numerical assumptions plus the unstated premise that higher-order methods remain stable across the relevant astrophysical parameter regimes. No invented entities are introduced. Tunable stencil coefficients and the choice of interpolation order function as free parameters whose optimal values must be determined by the user.

free parameters (2)
  • Interpolation order
    Chosen up to 11th order; higher orders increase accuracy but also computational cost and must be selected by the user.
  • Generalized stencil coefficients
    Tunable parameters in the field solver used to suppress numerical dispersion; their values are not fixed by the paper.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Higher-order current deposit and generalized stencils preserve charge conservation and improve energy conservation without introducing new instabilities in the tested regimes
    Invoked when claiming stabilization against numerical heating and suppression of Cherenkov effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5733 in / 1309 out tokens · 63391 ms · 2026-05-19T16:21:37.706991+00:00 · methodology

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

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    C., Werner, G

    Adams, L. C., Werner, G. R., & Cary, J. R. 2025, Physics of Plasmas, 32, 093905, doi: 10.1063/5.0271598

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0271598 2025

  2. [2]

    D., Bennett, K., Brady, C

    Arber, T. D., Bennett, K., Brady, C. S., et al. 2015, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 57, 113001, doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/57/11/113001

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/57/11/113001 2015

  3. [3]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a94

    Bacchini, F., Arzamasskiy, L., Zhdankin, V., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a94 2022

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Bacchini, F., Zhdankin, V., Gorbunov, E. A., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 133, 045202, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.045202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.045202 2024

  5. [5]

    Bell, A. R. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x 2004

  6. [6]

    K., & Maron, N

    Birdsall, C. K., & Maron, N. 1980, Journal of Computational Physics, 36, 1, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(80)90171-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(80)90171-0 1980

  7. [7]

    2018, Computer Physics Communications, 224, 273, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.10.010

    Blinne, A., Schinkel, D., Kuschel, S., et al. 2018, Computer Physics Communications, 224, 273, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.10.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.10.010 2018

  8. [8]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa872a

    Bohdan, A., Niemiec, J., Kobzar, O., & Pohl, M. 2017, ApJ, 847, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa872a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa872a 2017

  9. [9]

    P., & Lee, R

    Boris, J. P., & Lee, R. 1973, Journal of Computational Physics, 12, 131, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(73)90174-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(73)90174-5 1973

  10. [10]

    M., & Levin, Y

    Bransgrove, A., Beloborodov, A. M., & Levin, Y. 2023, ApJL, 958, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0556 Bruce Langdon, A. 1992, Computer Physics Communications, 70, 447, doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(92)90105-8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0556 2023

  11. [11]

    1993 in Computer Space Plasma Physics: Simulation Techniques and Software, ed

    Buneman, O. 1993 in Computer Space Plasma Physics: Simulation Techniques and Software, ed. H. Matsumoto & Y. Omura (Terra Scientific Publishing Company), 67

    work page 1993

  12. [12]

    2023, A&A, 676, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346481

    Cerutti, B., & Giacinti, G. 2023, A&A, 676, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346481

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346481 2023

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Cerutti, B., Philippov, A. A., & Dubus, G. 2020, A&A, 642, A204, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038618

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038618 2020

  14. [14]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/147 2013

  15. [15]

    Y., & Beloborodov, A

    Chen, A. Y., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, ApJL, 795, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L22

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/l22 2014

  16. [16]

    Cole, J. B. 1997, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 45, 991, doi: 10.1109/22.588615

    work page doi:10.1109/22.588615 1997

  17. [17]

    Cole, J. B. 2002, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 50, 1185, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2002.801268

    work page doi:10.1109/tap.2002.801268 2002

  18. [18]

    2018, Phys

    Comisso, L., & Sironi, L. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 255101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.255101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.255101 2018

  19. [19]

    2019 , month =

    Comisso, L., & Sironi, L. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c33 2019

  20. [20]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 936, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8422

    Comisso, L., & Sironi, L. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 936, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8422

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8422 2022

  21. [21]

    A., Geddes, C

    Cormier-Michel, E., Shadwick, B. A., Geddes, C. G. R., et al. 2008, Phys. Rev. E, 78, 016404, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.78.016404

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.78.016404 2008

  22. [22]

    Cormier-Michel, E., & Geddes, C. G. R. 2013, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, 16, 041303, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.16.041303

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevstab.16.041303 2013

  23. [23]

    2018, Computer Physics Communications, 222, 351, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.09.024

    Derouillat, J., Beck, A., P´ erez, F., et al. 2018, Computer Physics Communications, 222, 351, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.09.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.09.024 2018

  24. [24]

    Esirkepov, T. Z. 2001, Computer Physics Communications, 135, 144, doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(00)00228-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(00)00228-9 2001

  25. [25]

    2022, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, 25, 054405, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.25.054405 26

    Filipovic, M., Baumann, C., & Pukhov, A. 2022, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, 25, 054405, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.25.054405 26

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.25.054405 2022

  26. [26]

    2018, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Fonseca, R., Dalichaouch, T., Davidson, A., et al. 2018, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2018, APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, PP11.023

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    A., Silva, L

    Fonseca, R. A., Silva, L. O., Tsung, F. S., et al. 2002, in Computational Science — ICCS 2002, ed. P. M. A. Sloot, A. G. Hoekstra, C. J. K. Tan, & J. J. Dongarra (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 342–351

    work page 2002

  28. [28]

    Galishnikova, H

    Crinquand, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.17701, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.17701

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17701 2025

  29. [29]

    2023, PhRvL, 130, 115201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.115201 Gargat´ e, L., Fonseca, R

    Galishnikova, A., Philippov, A., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, PhRvL, 130, 115201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.115201 Gargat´ e, L., Fonseca, R. A., Niemiec, J., et al. 2010, ApJL, 711, L127, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/711/2/L127

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.115201 2023

  30. [30]

    Godfrey, B. B. 1974, Journal of Computational Physics, 15, 504, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(74)90076-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(74)90076-x 1974

  31. [31]

    A., Bacchini, F., Zhdankin, V., et al

    Gorbunov, E. A., Bacchini, F., Zhdankin, V., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbca4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbca4 2025

  32. [32]

    A., Groˇ selj, D., & Bacchini, F

    Gorbunov, E. A., Groˇ selj, D., & Bacchini, F. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 065201, doi: 10.1103/3777-z37m

    work page doi:10.1103/3777-z37m 2025

  33. [33]

    Baca, E. A. 2004, Journal of Computational Physics, 201, 665, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.06.021 Groˇ selj, D., Hakobyan, H., Beloborodov, A. M., Sironi, L., & Philippov, A. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 085202, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.085202 Groˇ selj, D., Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, ApJ, 933, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac713e ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2004.06.021 2004

  34. [34]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1001, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae50fc

    Mushotzky, R. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1001, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae50fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae50fc 2026

  35. [35]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/153

    Guo, X., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R. 2014, ApJ, 794, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/153

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/153 2014

  36. [36]

    ApJ , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4c 2024

  37. [37]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfb68

    Ha, J.-H., Kim, S., Ryu, D., & Kang, H. 2021, ApJ, 915, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfb68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfb68 2021

  38. [38]

    Ha, J.-H., Ryu, D., Kang, H., & van Marle, A. J. 2018, ApJ, 864, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad634

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad634 2018

  39. [39]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    Hakobyan, H., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acab05 2023

  40. [40]

    2024, in Zenodo, Vol

    Hakobyan, H., Spitkovsky, A., Chernoglazov, A., et al. 2024, in Zenodo, Vol. 75 (Zenodo), 7566725, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7566725

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7566725 2024

  41. [41]

    M., Cai, Y., et al

    Hakobyan, H., B¨ oss, L. M., Cai, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.17710, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.17710

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17710 2025

  42. [42]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab328a

    Holcomb, C., & Spitkovsky, A. 2019, ApJ, 882, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab328a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab328a 2019

  43. [43]

    2015, Phys

    Hoshino, M. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 061101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.061101 2015

  44. [44]

    2025, PhRvE, 111, 035308, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.111.035308

    Dromey, B., & Yeung, M. 2025, PhRvE, 111, 035308, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.111.035308

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.111.035308 2025

  45. [45]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adced6 K¨ arkk¨ ainen, M., Gjonaj, E., Lau, T., & Weiland, T

    Kamiido, K., & Ohira, Y. 2025, ApJ, 985, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adced6 K¨ arkk¨ ainen, M., Gjonaj, E., Lau, T., & Weiland, T. 2006, in Proceedings of ICAP 2006: International Computational Accelerator Physics Conference (Chamonix, France: JACoW), 35–40

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adced6 2025

  46. [46]

    Kato, T. N. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1312.5507, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1312.5507

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1312.5507 2013

  47. [47]

    S., Ryu, D., & Yi, S

    Kim, S., Choe, G. S., Ryu, D., & Yi, S. 2026, Computer Physics Communications, 321, 110021, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2026.110021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2026.110021 2026

  48. [48]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1107

    Kobzar, O., Niemiec, J., Amano, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1107

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1107 2021

  49. [49]

    2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840305, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000399

    Spitkovsky, A. 2018, Journal of Plasma Physics, 84, 905840305, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000399

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377818000399 2018

  50. [50]

    2013, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, 16, 021301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.16.021301

    Lehe, R., Lifschitz, A., Thaury, C., Malka, V., & Davoine, X. 2013, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, 16, 021301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.16.021301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevstab.16.021301 2013

  51. [51]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8eb3

    Lemmerz, R., Shalaby, M., Pfrommer, C., & Thomas, T. 2025, ApJ, 979, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8eb3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8eb3 2025

  52. [52]

    2019, PhRvL, 123, 035101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.035101

    Lemoine, M., Gremillet, L., Pelletier, G., & Vanthieghem, A. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 035101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.035101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.035101 2019

  53. [53]

    2017, Computer Physics Communications, 214, 6, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.01.001

    Li, F., Yu, P., Xu, X., et al. 2017, Computer Physics Communications, 214, 6, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.01.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.01.001 2017

  54. [54]

    2020, Journal of Computational Physics, 413, 109388, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109388

    Lu, Y., Kilian, P., Guo, F., Li, H., & Liang, E. 2020, Journal of Computational Physics, 413, 109388, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109388

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109388 2020

  55. [55]

    2020, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41115-020-0007-6

    Marcowith, A., Ferrand, G., Grech, M., et al. 2020, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41115-020-0007-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s41115-020-0007-6 2020

  56. [56]

    A Method for Incorporating Gauss' Law into Electromagnetic PIC Codes

    Marder, B. 1987, Journal of Computational Physics, 68, 48, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(87)90043-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(87)90043-x 1987

  57. [57]

    2000, Journal of Computational Physics, 161, 484, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2000.6507 N¨ attil¨ a, J

    Munz, C.-D., Omnes, P., Schneider, R., Sonnendr¨ ucker, E., & Voß, U. 2000, Journal of Computational Physics, 161, 484, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2000.6507 N¨ attil¨ a, J. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 7026, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-51257-1

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2000.6507 2000

  58. [58]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 1174, doi: 10.1086/590054 27

    Niemiec, J., Pohl, M., Stroman, T., & Nishikawa, K.-I. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1174, doi: 10.1086/590054 27

    work page doi:10.1086/590054 2008

  59. [59]

    2021, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 7, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41115-021-00012-0

    Nishikawa, K., Dut ¸an, I., K¨ ohn, C., & Mizuno, Y. 2021, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 7, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41115-021-00012-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s41115-021-00012-0 2021

  60. [60]

    G., & Takahara, F

    Ohira, Y., Reville, B., Kirk, J. G., & Takahara, F. 2009, ApJ, 698, 445, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/445

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/1/445 2009

  61. [61]

    2019, Phys

    Parfrey, K., Philippov, A., & Cerutti, B. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 035101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.035101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.035101 2019

  62. [62]

    2015, PhRvL, 114, 085003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    Park, J., Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2015, PhRvL, 114, 085003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.085003 2015

  63. [63]

    2015, Journal of Computational Physics, 294, 547, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2015.04.001

    Pfeiffer, M., Munz, C.-D., & Fasoulas, S. 2015, Journal of Computational Physics, 294, 547, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2015.04.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.04.001 2015

  64. [64]

    2022, ARA&A, 60, 495, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

    Philippov, A., & Kramer, M. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 495, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338 2022

  65. [65]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Philippov, A. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJL, 785, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/l33 2014

  66. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 5238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty979

    Plotnikov, I., Grassi, A., & Grech, M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty979

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty979 2018

  67. [67]

    2020, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 111, 103751, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103751

    Pohl, M., Hoshino, M., & Niemiec, J. 2020, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 111, 103751, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103751

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103751 2020

  68. [68]

    1999, Journal of Plasma Physics, 61, 425, doi: 10.1017/S0022377899007515

    Pukhov, A. 1999, Journal of Plasma Physics, 61, 425, doi: 10.1017/S0022377899007515

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377899007515 1999

  69. [69]

    A., Quataert, E., Sharma, P., & Spitkovsky, A

    Riquelme, M. A., Quataert, E., Sharma, P., & Spitkovsky, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/50 2012

  70. [70]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Riquelme, M. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2009, ApJ, 694, 626, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/626

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/1/626 2009

  71. [71]

    2018, PhRvL, 120, 035101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.035101

    Swisdak, M. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 035101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.035101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.035101 2018

  72. [72]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 1866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae959

    Sandoval, A., Riquelme, M., Spitkovsky, A., & Bacchini, F. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 1866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae959

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae959 2024

  73. [73]

    E., Chang, P., et al

    Shalaby, M., Broderick, A. E., Chang, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d13 2017

  74. [74]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd02d

    Shalaby, M., Thomas, T., & Pfrommer, C. 2021, ApJ, 908, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd02d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd02d 2021

  75. [75]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/75 2011

  76. [76]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

    Sironi, L., Spitkovsky, A., & Arons, J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/54 2013

  77. [77]

    , keywords =

    Sironi, L., Uzdensky, D. A., & Giannios, D. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 127, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-020325-115713

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-020325-115713 2025

  78. [78]

    2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Spitkovsky, A. 2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 801, Astrophysical Sources of High Energy Particles and Radiation, ed. T. Bulik, B. Rudak, & G. Madejski (AIP), 345–350, doi: 10.1063/1.2141897

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2141897 2005

  79. [79]

    2008a, ApJL, 682, L5, doi: 10.1086/590248

    Spitkovsky, A. 2008a, ApJL, 682, L5, doi: 10.1086/590248

    work page doi:10.1086/590248

  80. [80]

    2008b, ApJL, 673, L39, doi: 10.1086/527374

    Spitkovsky, A. 2008b, ApJL, 673, L39, doi: 10.1086/527374

    work page doi:10.1086/527374

Showing first 80 references.