Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

A Brief Review on Particle Acceleration in Multi-island Magnetic Reconnection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Multi-island magnetic reconnection, as currently simulated, cannot produce the steep power-law spectra of solar energetic particles.

desk verdict A useful but thin review of the theory-simulation mismatch in multi-island reconnection; the negative conclusion in the abstract is stated more strongly than the cited PIC runs support. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09155 v1 pith:I66JNXXU submitted 2019-08-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEphysics.geo-phphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

H. Che , G. P. Zank This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEphysics.geo-phphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords magneticreconnectionmulti-islandFermiaccelerationpower-lawspectrumsolarflareswindparticle-in-cellsimulationenergeticparticles
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 review asks whether particle acceleration in multi-island magnetic reconnection can produce the power-law energy distributions observed in solar flares and the solar wind. It reports a sharp divide: analytical models show that repeated acceleration by contracting and merging magnetic islands should produce a power-law, but particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of mildly relativistic reconnection—the regime relevant to solar events—fail to produce one. Simulations of highly relativistic reconnection do produce a power-law, but with spectral indices around −1 to −2, which are much harder than the steep power-laws, with indices near −5, observed in the solar wind and flares. The paper concludes that the multi-island mechanism, as currently modeled, faces an injection problem and cannot alone explain the observed spectra.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is first-order Fermi acceleration driven by the contraction and merging of magnetic islands. The central object is the island perimeter: as an island contracts, its perimeter $l$ shrinks at rate $V_l$, and the parallel and perpendicular energies of trapped particles grow according to $dW/dt \propto (V_l/c)(1/\tau_c)W$, with $\tau_c = l/c$, so each contraction is a first-order Fermi step. Merging of two islands into one also shortens the perimeter and releases magnetic energy because the total flux is the larger of the two initial fluxes rather than their sum. The transport model in [53] expands the 6D Liouville equation and yields a power-law index controlled by the ratio of contraction time to diffusion time, so that longer particle diffusion produces a harder spectrum. The PIC simulations test this machinery, and the mismatch between simulated and observed spectra is the paper's central finding.

What would settle it

A particle-in-cell simulation of mildly relativistic multi-island reconnection with a domain large enough, or with transport enhanced, so that each electron interacts with many dozens of islands would settle the issue: if a power-law with an index near −5 emerges, the paper's central negative claim is wrong; if no power-law appears even with abundant island interactions, the injection problem is physical. Observationally, the claim would be contradicted by a solar flare electron spectrum above the break with an index near −1.3, matching the hard slopes seen in highly relativistic simulations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assessment is that the first-order Fermi mechanism in multi-island magnetic reconnection is theoretically capable of generating a power-law energy distribution, yet current particle-in-cell simulations do not confirm this in the mildly relativistic regime that matters for solar physics. In those simulations, electrons remain confined in a magnetic island for about $30\,\Omega_i^{-1}$ and interact with only about seven islands over the whole run, too few for the stochastic transport that the power-law requires. In highly relativistic simulations a power-law does form, but its index is about −1 to −2, far harder than the broken power-laws with indices around −3.9 ± 0.9 above the break observed in flare electrons, and harder than the steep superhalo spectra in the solar wind. The paper also notes that kinetic instabilities in 3D reconnection heat the plasma and can thermalize the accelerated particles, making the power-law even harder to produce. The overall conclusion is that multi-island reconnection, as it now stands, cannot reproduce the observed energetic particle spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The negative conclusion for mildly relativistic reconnection rests on the premise that current PIC simulations are representative; in particular, if the limited number of island interactions per electron is a numerical artifact of domain size or resolution, the missing power-law would be a numerical effect rather than a physical injection problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper's assessment is correct, multi-island reconnection alone cannot account for the steep electron power-laws observed in solar flares and the solar wind; some additional source of stochasticity or a separate injection mechanism is required.
  • The hard simulated power-laws in highly relativistic reconnection indicate long particle diffusion times, so matching the soft observed spectra would require fast transport and short diffusion times among islands.
  • Plasma heating from kinetic instabilities in 3D reconnection is a further obstacle; a successful model must either suppress those instabilities or show that the power-law is established before thermalization occurs.
  • The multi-island mechanism may still apply to highly relativistic environments such as pulsar nebulae and gamma-ray bursts, where the harder simulated spectra could be appropriate, even though it fails for the mildly relativistic solar context.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the roughly seven island interactions per electron are the bottleneck, then a larger simulation domain or longer run that gives each electron many more island encounters should restore a power-law in mildly relativistic reconnection; that is a numerical test the paper does not carry out.
  • The injection problem described here parallels the classic injection problem of diffusive shock acceleration, suggesting that multi-island reconnection may need a pre-existing seed population rather than acting on the thermal pool.
  • The review's analytical-versus-simulation gap could be closed by simulations that add explicit pitch-angle scattering or background turbulence, since the analytical power-law requires randomized motion; this is an extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • If 3D kinetic instabilities indeed thermalize the accelerated particles, then the observed steep superhalo spectra may require acceleration sites where instability growth is weak, such as very thin current sheets, which could be tested in high-resolution 3D runs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a brief review of the theory and PIC simulation literature on particle acceleration in multi-island magnetic reconnection. It introduces the mechanisms of island contraction and merging, presents the transport-theory solution of Zank et al. (2014) in Eq. (7), and then argues that PIC simulations of mildly relativistic reconnection do not produce power-law spectra, while highly relativistic reconnection simulations produce power-laws that are too hard (index ~ -1.3) to match observed solar wind and flare spectra (index ~ -3 to -5). It suggests that long diffusion times in the theoretical model explain hard spectra and that kinetic instabilities in 3D reconnection may further thermalize power-law particles.

Significance. The review is useful as a concise entry point to an active debate and correctly identifies that the theoretical promise of first-order Fermi acceleration in multi-island reconnection has not been fully confirmed by simulations in the parameter regime relevant to flares and the solar wind. It gives explicit credit to key works and reproduces the main analytical formulas, and it draws attention to a real discrepancy between theoretical expectations and simulation outcomes. However, its central negative conclusion is stated more strongly than the evidence supports: the cited mildly relativistic PIC runs have only about seven island interactions per particle, and the comparison of spectral indices across different groups and setups is not controlled. If the conclusion is retained, it should be framed as an open numerical and physical question rather than as a demonstrated inability of the mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph on why mildly relativistic PIC simulations fail] The paper itself states that in the Drake et al. [47] simulation an electron is confined in an island for about 30 Ω_i^-1, the usable simulation time is about 200 Ω_i^-1, and the mean number of island interactions is only about 7, which the authors call 'too small to randomize the electron population.' This admission makes the non-power-law outcome in mildly relativistic runs as plausibly a finite-domain and statistics artifact as a genuine absence of first-order Fermi acceleration. The abstract's claim that simulations 'seem to suggest that the first-order Fermi acceleration mechanism is unable to produce a power-law particle energy distribution function in mildly relativistic multi-island magnetic reconnections' is therefore stronger than the cited evidence supports. The manuscript should either soften this conclusion or provide convergence tests showing that the result persists with larger domains and longer simulation durations.
  2. [Section 3, comparison of spectral indices] The conclusion that highly relativistic simulations produce 'too hard' spectra (index ~ -1.3) relative to observations (index ~ -3.9±0.9 above the break, and ~ -3 for superhalo electrons) is based on comparing simulations by different groups that differ in dimensionality (2D vs 3D), magnetization, domain size, and in the definition and energy range of the fitted index (e.g., p in Guo et al. [55] versus α used elsewhere in the paper). Because these are not controlled parameter scans, the apparent discrepancy may be partly a numerical selection effect. The paper would be considerably strengthened by a table listing the key parameters of each simulation (σ, domain size, dimensionality, index definition) so that the comparisons are transparent and restricted to runs that differ only in the physical parameter of interest.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (7)] The interpretation that a long diffusion time τ_diff produces hard power-laws, and that the observed soft spectra imply short τ_diff, relies entirely on the transport-theory solution of Zank et al. (2014), which is the authors' own framework, and this same framework is then used to explain the absence of power-laws in the PIC simulations. This is self-referential unless τ_diff/τ_c is directly measured in the simulations or the theory is validated against an independent simulation set. In addition, the index α in Eq. (7) is a velocity-distribution index, while the paper later compares it to observed energy spectral indices; the conversion between the two is not given, which can mislead the quantitative comparison with observations.
  4. [Section 3, citation [67]] Sironi and Spitkovsky (2014, ApJL 783, L21) is a study of particle acceleration at relativistic collisionless shocks, not a PIC simulation of magnetic reconnection. Listing it among simulations [67, 55, 68, 57, 69] 'that have successfully produced power-law energy spectra' in the context of multi-island reconnection is an accuracy error in a review article and should be corrected or removed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The text repeatedly says 'eclipse' where 'ellipse' is meant (e.g., 'the perimeter l of an eclipse approximately is l≈ π(a+b)...' and 'evolves from eclipse to round').
  2. [Figure 6] The right panel is reproduced from Dahlin et al. 2017 [46] but the caption does not identify the source per panel; please provide explicit citations for the left and right panels and state the relevant parameters (e.g., σ, domain size) in the caption.
  3. [Sections 2.3 and 3] The symbol α is used both for the velocity power-law index in the theoretical solution (Eq. (7) and the subsequent text) and for the energy spectral index in the abstract and Section 3; introducing distinct symbols (e.g., α_v and α_E) would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Section 3] In the sentence 'This index can not match the observed energy spectrum of superhalo electrons in the solar wind with a index ∼ −3', 'a index' should be 'an index', and the text should clarify whether the superhalo index is a phase-space density index or a flux index.
  5. [Figure 5] The middle panel compares 'theoretical (dashed) and observational (solid) particle flux' but the figure is low-resolution and the axes are not clearly labeled; please improve the reproduction and labeling of the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; central claim rests on independent PIC simulations, with only minor self-referential interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's main assessment—that mildly relativistic multi-island reconnection PIC simulations do not produce observed soft power-law spectra, while highly relativistic runs give harder spectra—is supported by external simulation results (Dahlin et al. 2014, 2016, 2017; Pritchett 2008; Oka 2010; Guo et al. 2014) and by observed spectral indices, not by fitting a parameter and renaming it a prediction. The theoretical section derives the contraction/merging acceleration from standard adiabatic invariants; Eq. (7) is presented as the steady-state solution of Zank et al. (2014), and it is used interpretively (e.g., 'the hard power-law is likely a result of long diffusion time') rather than as the source of the central negative result. The self-citations to Zank et al. [53] and Zhao et al. [65] provide the interpretive framework and are not machine-checked or externally falsified within this review, but they do not force the abstract's conclusion: the failure of mildly relativistic PIC runs to produce power laws is an external numerical observation, and the paper itself notes the caveat that only ~7 island interactions occur in the Drake et al. simulation, which may be a finite-domain artifact. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to a fitted input, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to exclude alternatives. Thus there is minor self-citation but no circular reduction; the central claim retains independent content.

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

This review introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. Its conclusions inherit the assumptions of the prior theoretical models it surveys.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The magnetic flux ψ is approximately conserved during island contraction (B_{x,a} a ≈ B_{x,b} r).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to derive the energy loss Δε and the first-order Fermi scaling. This assumes ideal flux freezing even in the particle acceleration region.
  • domain assumption The plasma is incompressible during island contraction (πab = πr²).
    Used in Section 2.1 to relate the island's semi-axes to its final radius. The paper itself notes that volume is generally not conserved and magnetic energy can accumulate.
  • domain assumption The first and second adiabatic invariants and the magnetic flux are approximately conserved during island merging.
    Section 2.2: this is the basis for the parallel acceleration from merging; the localized reconnection electric field is neglected initially and included later as a correction.
  • domain assumption The pitch-angle scattering operator has the simplest form, ∂/∂μ [(1/τ_s)(1-μ²) ∂f/∂μ].
    Section 2.3: a standard, but restrictive, Fokker-Planck form; the closed-form solution Eq. (7) depends on this choice.
  • domain assumption The convective flow velocity dominates the advective Alfvénic velocity in the transport equation.
    Section 2.3: stated as valid in a super-Alfvénic flow such as the solar wind, allowing the advective term to be dropped.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Brief Review on Particle Acceleration in Multi-island Magnetic Reconnection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I66JNXXU

@misc{pith2026190809155,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Brief Review on Particle Acceleration in Multi-island Magnetic Reconnection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I66JNXXU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09155}
}
abstract

The basic physics and recent progresses in theoretical and particle-in-cell (PIC) simulation studies of particle acceleration in multi-island magnetic reconnection are briefly reviewed. Particle acceleration in multi-island magnetic reconnection is considered a plausible mechanism for the acceleration of energetic particles in solar flares and the solar wind. Theoretical studies have demonstrated that such a mechanism can produce the observed power-law energy distribution of energetic particles if the particle motion is sufficiently randomized in the reconnection event. However, PIC simulations seem to suggest that the first-order Fermi acceleration mechanism is unable to produce a power-law particle energy distribution function in mildly relativistic multi-island magnetic reconnections. On the other hand, while simulations of highly relativistic reconnections appear to be able to produce a power-law energy spectrum, the spectral indices obtained are generally harder than the soft power-law spectra with indices $\sim -5$ commonly observed in the solar wind and solar flare events. In addition, the plasma heating due to kinetic instabilities in 3D magnetic reconnection may "thermalize" the power-law particles, making it even more difficult for multi-island reconnections to generate a power-law spectrum. We discuss the possible reasons that may lead to these problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09155 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of 2nd and 1st order Fermi-acceleration in astrophysical media and shock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Illustration of magnetic reconnection x-line. The shaded blue area is the diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left Panel: a) Diagram showing volume-filing islands driven by a tearing instability around the magnetic field reversal region. b) PIC simulation of island formation during magnetic reconnection. jez is the out-of-plane current sheet. (From Drake, Swisdak, Che & Shay, Nature, 2006 [47].) Right Panel: c) a cartoon of a locally oppositely directed magnetic field (lines with arrows) in neighbouring islands experiencing… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left Panel: a 2D simulation of a squashed magnetic flux bubble. Right Panel: Test particle orbit and the sudden energy gain of electrons at the ends of island due to the curvature drift. (From Drake, Swisdak, Che & Shay, Nature, 2006 [47]). second adiabatic invariant J…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left Ulysses observations. The vertical gray lines show the regions where we have observed (using a Grad-Sharafnov reconstruction technique) the presence of magnetic islands. Middle: The comparison of theoretical (dashed) and observational (solid) particle flux. Right:…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Results for configuration SL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Results for configuration SL: 3D (left) and 2D (right) at Xcit ¼ 100 in the p space and astrophysics [47, 4, 53]. In the past decade extensive analytical and numerical studies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a) The quiet-time electron velocity distribution function f(v) at 1AU; b) the flux spectrum. a) and b) are obtained from the solar wind observation of Wang et. al.[75]. The electron energy ranges from ∼ 9 eV to ∼ 200 eV as measured by WIND (black) and STEREO (green) A …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Drake J F, Swisdak M, Che H and Shay M A 2006 Nature 443 553–556

    work page 2006

  2. [55]

    Guo F, Li H, Daughton W and Liu Y H 2014 Physical Review Letters 113 155005

    work page 2014

  3. [1]

    Dungey J W 1961 Physical Review Letters 6 47–48

    work page 1961

  4. [2]

    Baker D N, Pulkkinen T I, Angelopoulos V, Baumjohann W and McPherron R L 1996 Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 101 12975–13010 URL https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/95JA03753

    doi:10.1029/95ja03753 1996

  5. [3]

    Zelenyi L M, Artemyev A V, Malova K V, Petrukovich A A and Nakamura R 2010 Physics Uspekhi 53 933–941

    work page 2010

  6. [4]

    Lin R P 2011 Space Sci. Rev. 159 421–445 (Preprint 1110.1805)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  7. [5]

    Khabarova O V, Zank G P, Malandraki O E, Li G, le Roux J A and Webb G M 2017 Sun and Geosphere 12 23–30

    work page 2017

  8. [6]

    Priest E and Forbes T 2000 Magnetic Reconnection (Magnetic Reconnection, by Eric Priest and Terry Forbes, pp. 612. ISBN 0521481791. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, June 2000.)

    work page 2000

Show all 75 references
  1. [7]

    Dennis B R, Emslie A G and Hudson H S 2011 Space Sci. Rev. 159 3–17

    2011

  2. [8]

    Benz A O 2017 Living Reviews in Solar Physics 14 2

    2017

  3. [9]

    Gloeckler G, Zurbuchen T H and Geiss J 2003 J. Geophys. Res. 108 1158

    2003

  4. [10]

    Fisk L A 2003 J. Geophys. Res. 108 1157

    2003

  5. [11]

    B¨ uhler R and Blandford R 2014 Reports on Progress in Physics 77 066901

    2014

  6. [12]

    Blandford R, Yuan Y, Hoshino M and Sironi L 2017 Space Sci. Rev. 207 291–317

    2017

  7. [13]

    Kouveliotou C, Wijers R A M J and Woosley S 2012 Gamma-ray Bursts

    2012

  8. [14]

    Treumann R A and Baumjohann W 2015 The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 23 4

    2015

  9. [15]

    Oka M, Birn J, Battaglia M, Chaston C C, Hatch S M, Livadiotis G, Imada S, Miyoshi Y, Kuhar M, Effenberger F, Eriksson E, Khotyaintsev Y V and Retin` o A 2018 Space Sci. Rev. 214 82 ( Preprint 1805.09278)

    2018 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Fermi E 1949 Physical Review 75 1169–1174

    1949

  11. [17]

    Axford W I 1977 The three-dimensional structure of the interplanetary medium Study of Travelling Interplanetary Phenomena (Astrophysics and Space Science Library vol 71) ed Shea M A, Smart D F and Wu S T pp 145–163

    1977

  12. [18]

    Bell A R 1978 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 182 147–156

    1978

  13. [19]

    Bell A R 1978 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 182 443–455

    1978

  14. [20]

    Blandford R D and Ostriker J P 1978 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 221 L29–L32

    1978

  15. [21]

    Krymskii G F 1977 Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady 234 1306–1308

    1977

  16. [22]

    Øieroset M, Lin R P, Phan T D, Larson D E and Bale S D 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 195001–+

    2002

  17. [23]

    Biskamp D 1993 Nonlinear magnetohydrodynamics (Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, Cambridge [England]; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, —c1993)

    1993

  18. [24]

    Aschwanden M J 2002 Space Sci. Rev. 101 1–227

    2002

  19. [25]

    Goldman M V, Newman D L and Lapenta G 2016 Space Sci. Rev. 199 651–688

    2016

  20. [26]

    Plasma 23 102109

    Le A, Egedal J and Daughton W 2016 Phys. Plasma 23 102109

    2016

  21. [27]

    Speiser T W 1965 J. Geophys. Res. 70 4219–+

    1965

  22. [28]

    Birn J and Hesse M 2009 Annales Geophysicae 27 1067–1078 URL https://www.ann-geophys.net/27/1067/2009/

    2009

  23. [29]

    Egedal J, Daughton W and Le A 2012 Nature Physics 8 321–324

    2012

  24. [30]

    Khotyaintsev Y V, Graham D B, Norgren C, Eriksson E, Li W, Johlander A, Vaivads A, Andr´ e M, Pritchett P L, Retin` o A, Phan T D, Ergun R E, Goodrich K, Lindqvist P A, Marklund G T, Le Contel O, Plaschke F, Magnes W, Strangeway R J, Russell C T, Vaith H, Argall M R, Kletzing ...

    2016

  25. [31]

    Pritchett P L 2008 Physics of Plasmas 15 102105

    2008

  26. [32]

    Li X, Guo F, Li H and Li G 2017 The Astrophysical Journal 843 21

    2017

  27. [33]

    Mu˜ noz P A and B¨ uchner J 2018 The Astrophysical Journal864 92 (Preprint 1705.01066)

    2018 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Che H, Drake J F, Swisdak M and Yoon P H 2010 Geophys. Res. Lett. 37 11105–+

    2010

  29. [35]

    Che H, Drake J F and Swisdak M 2011 Nature 474 184

    2011

  30. [36]

    Daughton W, Roytershteyn V, Karimabadi H, Yin L, Albright B J, Bergen B and Bowers K J 2011 Nature Physics 7 539–542

    2011

  31. [37]

    Moser A L and Bellan P M 2012 Nature 482 379–381

    2012

  32. [38]

    Eyink G, Vishniac E, Lalescu C, Aluie H, Kanov K, B¨ urger K, Burns R, Meneveau C and Szalay A 2013 Nature 497 466–469

    2013

  33. [39]

    Phan T D, Eastwood J P, Cassak P A, Øieroset M, Gosling J T, Gershman D J, Mozer F S, Shay M A, Fujimoto M, Daughton W, Drake J F, Burch J L, Torbert R B, Ergun R E, Chen L J, Wang S, Pollock C, Dorelli J C, Lavraud B, Giles B L, Moore T E, Saito Y, Avanov L A, Paterson W, Str...

    2016

  34. [40]

    Galeev A A, Kuznetsova M M and Zelenyi L M 1986 Space Sci. Rev. 44 1–41

    1986

  35. [41]

    Drake J F, Shay M A, Thongthai W and Swisdak M 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 095001–+

    2005

  36. [42]

    Plasma 18 052109

    Che H, Goldman M V and Newman D L 2011 Phys. Plasma 18 052109

    2011

  37. [43]

    Plasma 21 062305

    Che H 2014 Phys. Plasma 21 062305

    2014

  38. [44]

    Dahlin J T, Drake J F and Swisdak M 2014 Physics of Plasmas 21 092304 (Preprint 1406.0831)

    2014 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Dahlin J T, Drake J F and Swisdak M 2016 Physics of Plasmas 23 120704

    2016

  40. [46]

    Dahlin J T, Drake J F and Swisdak M 2017 Physics of Plasmas 24 092110

    2017

  41. [48]

    Coppi B, Laval G and Pellat R 1966 Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 1207–1210

    1966

  42. [49]

    Kaw P K, Valeo E J and Rutherford P H 1979 Phys. Rev. Lett. 43(19) 1398–1401 URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1398

    1979 doi

  43. [50]

    Pritchett P L and Wu C C 1979 Physics of Fluids 22 2140–2146

    1979

  44. [51]

    Tajima T and Sakai J I 1986 IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 14 929–933

    1986

  45. [52]

    Schumacher J and Kliem B 1997 Physics of Plasmas 4 3533–3543

    1997

  46. [53]

    Zank G P, le Roux J A, Webb G M, Dosch A and Khabarova O 2014 The Astrophysical Journal 797 28

    2014

  47. [54]

    le Roux J A, Zank G P and Khabarova O V 2018 The Astrophysical Journal 864 158

    2018

  48. [56]

    Guo F, Li H, Daughton W, Li X and Liu Y H 2016 Physics of Plasmas 23 055708 (Preprint 1604.02924)

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Guo F, Li X, Li H, Daughton W, Zhang B, Lloyd-Ronning N, Liu Y H, Zhang H and Deng W 2016 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 818 L9 (Preprint 1511.01434)

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Borovikov D, Tenishev V, Gombosi T I, Guidoni S E, DeVore C R, Karpen J T and Antiochos S K 2017 The Astrophysical Journal 835 48

    2017

  51. [59]

    Oka M, Phan T D, Krucker S, Fujimoto M and Shinohara I 2010 The Astrophysical Journal 714 915–926 (Preprint 1004.1154)

    2010 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bian N H and Kontar E P 2013 Physical Review Letters 110 151101 (Preprint 1302.6090)

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zank G P, Hunana P, Mostafavi P, Le Roux J A, Li G, Webb G M, Khabarova O, Cummings A, Stone E and Decker R 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 814 137

    2015

  54. [62]

    le Roux J A, Zank G P, Webb G M and Khabarova O 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 801 112

    2015

  55. [63]

    le Roux J A, Zank G P, Webb G M and Khabarova O V 2016 The Astrophysical Journal 827 47

    2016

  56. [64]

    Fermo R L, Drake J F and Swisdak M 2010 Physics of Plasmas 17 010702

    2010

  57. [65]

    Zhao L L, Zank G P, Khabarova O, Du S, Chen Y, Adhikari L and Hu Q 2018 The Astrophysical Journal 864 L34

    2018

  58. [66]

    Drake J F, Swisdak M and Fermo R 2013 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 763 L5

    2013

  59. [67]

    Sironi L and Spitkovsky A 2014 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 783 L21 URL http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/783/i=1/a=L21

    2014

  60. [68]

    Li X, Guo F, Li H and Li G 2015 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 811 L24

    2015

  61. [69]

    Werner G R, Uzdensky D A, Cerutti B, Nalewajko K and Begelman M C 2016 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 816 L8 URL http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/816/i=1/a=L8

    2016

  62. [70]

    Holman G D, Sui L, Schwartz R A and Emslie A G 2003 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 595 L97–L101

    2003

  63. [71]

    Krucker S, Kontar E P, Christe S and Lin R P 2007 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 663 L109–L112

    2007

  64. [72]

    Krucker S, Oakley P H and Lin R P 2009 The Astrophysical Journal 691 806–810

    2009

  65. [73]

    James T, Subramanian P and Kontar E P 2017 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 471 89–99 URL + http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1460

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    Mu˜ noz P A, B¨ uchner J and Kilian P 2017Physics of Plasmas 24 022104

  67. [75]

    Wang L, Lin R P, Salem C, Pulupa M, Larson D E, Yoon P H and Luhmann J G 2012 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 753 L23

    2012

Pith tools

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