Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The impact of resistivity on the variability of black hole accretion flows

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Finite resistivity reduces the variability of the mass accretion rate in multi-loop black hole accretion flows, a result the authors call unexpected.

desk verdict A genuinely new resistive-GRMHD result on multi-loop variability, but the headline claim rests on a single run pair and a uniform-resistivity prescription that the paper itself flags as unrealistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16684 v1 pith:252RVC2P submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Antonios Nathanail , Yosuke Mizuno , Ioannis Contopoulos , Christian M. Fromm , Alejandro Cruz-Osorio , Kotaro Moriyama , Luciano Rezzolla This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords blackholeaccretionresistivityGRMHDsimulationsmagneticallyarresteddiskmulti-loopmagneticfieldvariabilityreconnectionSgrA*
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

What happens to the flickering of matter falling into a black hole when the plasma has a finite electrical resistivity? Using three-dimensional resistive general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations, this paper finds different answers for different magnetic geometries. For disks seeded with a multi-loop magnetic field of alternating polarity, adding resistivity markedly lowers the variability of the mass accretion rate—a result the authors call unexpected. For magnetically arrested disks (MAD), where accumulated magnetic flux nearly halts accretion, resistivity barely changes the variability because violent magnetic flux eruptions dominate; only when resistivity is high does it dissipate the flux and prevent the MAD state altogether. The finding matters for interpreting Sgr A* observations, because simulated light-curve variability is tied to accretion-rate variability and ideal-MHD models have struggled to match the observed flickering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multi-loop initial magnetic field, a series of nested poloidal loops with alternating polarity whose vector potential is $A_{\phi} \propto \cos((N-1)\theta)\sin(2\pi(r-r_{\rm in})/\lambda_r)$, producing periodic current-sheet formation and reconnection above the black hole. The second ingredient is a global uniform resistivity $\eta$ in the resistive GRMHD solver, which dissipates magnetic field everywhere in the domain rather than only at reconnection sites. Variability is quantified by the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, $s/\langle \dot{M}\rangle$ and $s/\langle \phi_{\rm BH}\rangle$, in a sliding $\pm 270\,M$ window matched to roughly three hours of Sgr A* observing time.

What would settle it

Rerun the multi-loop model at the same resolution with resistivity applied only where the current density is large (for example, where $|J|/|B|$ exceeds a chosen threshold), leaving the rest of the domain ideal; if $s/\langle \dot{M}\rangle$ in that run stays close to the ideal value instead of dropping, the reported smoothing is an artifact of the uniform global resistivity. A complementary check is to extend the resistive multi-loop run past $5000\,M$ and verify that the variability reduction is not a transient of the initial relaxation phase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that finite resistivity acts as a genuine dynamical agent in black hole accretion: for a multi-loop initial magnetic configuration—nested poloidal loops of alternating polarity with no steady funnel—a uniform resistivity of $\eta=5\times 10^{-5}$ markedly lowers the variability of the mass accretion rate, $s/\langle \dot{M}\rangle$, relative to the ideal run, while the variability of the normalized horizon flux, $s/\langle \phi_{\rm BH}\rangle$, actually increases because reconnection events still occur. In the MAD models, the same low resistivities leave the variability almost unchanged, which the paper interprets as evidence that flux eruption events dominate MAD dynamics; only when resistivity is high enough ($\eta\gtrsim 5\times 10^{-4}$) does dissipation at the funnel boundary cause flaring and prevent the system from ever reaching the MAD flux-saturation limit.

Load-bearing premise

The central comparison assumes a single uniform resistivity value applied everywhere in the simulation at all times, whereas physically resistivity should be concentrated in current sheets and reconnection regions; if that simplification over-dissipates the field, the claimed smoothing of multi-loop variability could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For multi-loop accretion models of Sgr A*, ideal-MHD simulations overestimate the variability of the mass accretion rate; including resistivity lowers $s/\langle \dot{M}\rangle$ to a level set by the reconnection-limited flux dynamics.
  • In magnetically arrested disks, the variability of the mass accretion rate and jet power is set by magnetic flux eruption events, so low resistivity changes little and observations of MAD variability do not require fine-tuning of $\eta$.
  • High resistivity ($\eta\ge 5\times 10^{-4}$ in code units) suppresses the MAD state by dissipating magnetic flux at the funnel boundary, so simulations that aim to model MAD disks should keep resistivity below this range.
  • At the lowest resistivity studied, multi-loop models still show frequent reconnection and more variable magnetic flux accumulation, so the resistivity smoothing applies to $\dot{M}$ but not to $\phi_{\rm BH}$.
  • Because mass-accretion-rate variability is tied to 230 GHz light-curve variability, synthetic light curves from resistive multi-loop runs should appear less flickering than their ideal counterparts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to make resistivity local, switching it on only where the current density is large, which would test whether the smoothing seen here is caused by dissipating the field everywhere or specifically by reconnection at current sheets.
  • The result suggests a low-pass-filter picture: uniform resistivity damps the fastest reconnection-driven fluctuations in multi-loop flows while leaving slower flux accumulation changes intact; this interpretation could be checked by computing power spectra of $\dot{M}$ in the ideal and resistive runs.
  • If the effect survives localized-resistivity tests, observed 230 GHz variability of Sgr A* could be used to bound the effective anomalous resistivity (equivalently the Lundquist number) of the accretion flow, turning a microphysics parameter into an observable.
  • The MAD versus multi-loop contrast implies that whether resistivity matters depends on what generates the variability—eruptive flux events versus alternating-polarity reconnection—so simulations with intermediate field topologies should interpolate between the two behaviors.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the BHAC code to perform 3D resistive GRMHD simulations of two accretion configurations: standard MAD tori and multi-loop magnetic field tori, with a uniform, time-independent resistivity varied from η=5e-3 to 5e-6 plus ideal runs. It defines variability as the ratio s/μ of standard deviation to mean for the horizon mass accretion rate and the normalized horizon magnetic flux, evaluated in ±270 M windows. The main reported results are that low resistivity leaves MAD variability essentially unchanged, high resistivity suppresses magnetic flux accumulation and can prevent the MAD state, and, for the multi-loop model, resistivity reduces the variability of the mass accretion rate—a result the authors emphasize as key and unexpected. The central quantitative evidence for that claim is a comparison of one ideal and one resistive multi-loop run.

Significance. If the headline multi-loop result is robust, it is a potentially important contribution to modeling Sgr A* variability, because it identifies a physical mechanism that can smooth the accretion rate without being tuned to any observed light curve. The study has real strengths: it scans a range of resistivities rather than fitting a target observable, calibrates the MAD state against the Tchekhovskoy et al. (2011) saturation value, reports MRI quality factors for resolution assessment, and uses the EHT variability statistic as an external benchmark. The result is, however, conditional on a very small number of runs and on the physical realism of the global uniform-resistivity prescription; the current evidence is not yet sufficient to establish the claim with confidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Fig. 4] The central claim that resistivity reduces variability in multi-loop models is supported by exactly two runs, ML.S.26.E.00 and ML.S.26.E.-5, both ending at 5000 M, and by a single variability window (3000-5000 M). The ±1s error bars in Fig. 4 do not account for the strong autocorrelation and burstiness of the Mdot time series, so the visual separation between the two points does not by itself establish statistical significance. Longer runs, additional resistive values, or multiple realizations are needed before this can be stated as a key, unexpected result.
  2. [Section 2.1, Table 1] For the MAD comparison the ideal baseline is not matched to the resistive runs: MAD.S.100.E.00 uses 2p/B^2=100, while the η=5e-5 runs and the S.26 runs at η=5e-6 use 2p/B^2=26 (MAD.S.100.E.-6 is the exception). The conclusion in Section 3 that low resistivity has minimal impact on MAD variability therefore does not fully isolate resistivity from initial field strength; the same-field-strength pair (MAD.S.100.E.00 vs MAD.S.100.E.-6) should be the primary basis, or the confounding should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 2.1] The simulations adopt a global, time-independent uniform resistivity, yet the text cites Selvi et al. (2023) as the motivation that resistivity should act only at local X-points and current sheets. Under the uniform prescription, Ohmic dissipation is active wherever currents are finite, including the turbulent disk body, so the smoother Mdot in ML.S.26.E.-5 could be a generic damping of MRI fluctuations rather than a consequence of the multi-loop reconnection physics emphasized in Section 1. The paper reports no diagnostic that separates Ohmic dissipation in current sheets from dissipation in the diffuse disk; a localized-resistivity run, or at least such a decomposition, is required to support the physical interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The sentence 'Longer simulations could highlight' at the end of Appendix A is incomplete; the intended continuation is missing.
  2. [Section 2.1, after Eq. (2)] The passage 'presented and analysed in 2D and 3D (Parfrey et al. 2015; Yuan et al. 2019a,b; Mahlmann et al. 2020)' lacks a grammatical subject and should be joined to the preceding sentence.
  3. [Table 1] The table header '5× < 4000 M > 4000 M' is unclear; the caption should specify which columns refer to the two averaging windows and what '5×' denotes.
  4. [Eq. (8)] The quantity b^μ in Eq. (8) is not defined in the text before its use; please define the magnetic-field four-vector and its projection in the θ direction.
  5. [Fig. 4] The legend text 'SgrA* 230 GHz variability (EHT) from 3000−5000 M from 8000−10000 M' is ambiguous; clarify whether the EHT variability reference is a single value or is window-dependent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the resistive variability comparison is a direct simulation outcome, not a fit or self-referential construction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed result, that finite resistivity lowers the mass-accretion-rate variability in the multi-loop model, is obtained by direct numerical comparison rather than by construction. The variability measure s/μ is defined independently in Eq. (5) and applied equally to ideal and resistive runs; the resistivity values are scanned a priori on physical grounds (Lundquist number and plasmoid threshold), not tuned to reproduce any observed variability. The outcome is not encoded in the setup: in MAD models resistivity leaves variability essentially unchanged, so the multi-loop reduction is a contingent dynamical result, not a tautology. Prior self-citations (Nathanail et al. 2020a, 2022b) are used only to motivate and initialize the multi-loop configuration and its reconnection phenomenology; they do not themselves state that resistivity reduces variability. Citations to BHAC (Porth et al. 2017) and to the resistive module (Ripperda et al. 2019a) are code/method references, not load-bearing evidence for the central claim. The manuscript openly flags its own assumptions and limitations, including that resistivity is prescribed as a global uniform value (Section 2.1), that an ideally local resistivity model is needed (Section 1), and that longer simulations are required to check the robustness of the results (Appendix A). These are physical-representativeness caveats, not circular reasoning. The comparison also engages external benchmarks, such as the MAD saturation flux of Tchekhovskoy et al. (2011) and the EHT Sgr A* variability window, rather than fitting the paper's own outputs. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Score 0 reflects an honest non-finding.

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

The ledger contains four chosen simulation settings: the uniform resistivity values, the initial field-strength parameter, the multi-loop field parameters, and the variability window. No ad hoc physical entities are introduced. The key assumption is that global uniform resistivity captures the dissipation physics; this is a domain assumption rather than a fitted parameter.

free parameters (4)
  • Uniform resistivity eta = 5e-3 to 1e-6
    Global constant resistivity values chosen by hand to span ideal to dissipative regimes; no independent constraint from observations.
  • Initial plasma beta parameter 2 pmax/(B^2)max = 100 (ideal MAD) or 26 (all resistive MAD and multi-loop)
    Sets initial magnetic field strength; differs between the ideal baseline and resistive MAD runs, confounding some comparisons.
  • Multi-loop field parameters N and lambda_r = N=3, lambda_r=2
    Number and characteristic length-scale of alternating magnetic loops, adopted from prior work, not varied here.
  • Variability window half-width n = n=270 (Delta = +/-270 M)
    Chosen to cover about 3 hours of Sgr A* data per EHT; variability measures depend on this window.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Single-fluid resistive GRMHD with a uniform scalar resistivity and Ohm's law
    Section 2.1; the entire study rests on this dissipation model.
  • domain assumption Kerr spacetime with spin a=0.937 for MAD and a=0.5 for multi-loop models
    Specified in Section 2.1; bounds the explored solution space.
  • domain assumption Initial equilibrium torus plus poloidal or multi-loop magnetic field seeds MRI turbulence
    Section 2.1; standard setup but turbulence is not resolved independently.
  • domain assumption Numerical diffusion is subdominant to physical resistivity in low-resistivity runs
    Appendix A admits resolution affects results; the low-eta runs are assumed to approach the ideal limit for the claimed conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The impact of resistivity on the variability of black hole accretion flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/252RVC2P

@misc{pith2026241116684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The impact of resistivity on the variability of black hole accretion flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/252RVC2P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16684}
}
read the original abstract

Context. The accretion of magnetized plasma onto black holes is a complex and dynamic process, where the magnetic field plays a crucial role. The amount of magnetic flux accumulated near the event horizon significantly impacts the accretion flow behavior. Resistivity, a measure of how easily magnetic fields can dissipate, is thought to be a key factor influencing this process. This work explores the influence of resistivity on accretion flow variability. We investigate simulations reaching the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) limit and those with an initial multi-loop magnetic field configuration. Methods. We employ 3D resistive general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations to model the accretion process under various regimes, where resistivity has a global uniform value. Results. Our findings reveal distinct flow behaviors depending on resistivity. High resistivity simulations never achieve the MAD state, indicating a disturbed magnetic flux accumulation process. Conversely, low resistivity simulations converge towards the ideal MHD limit. The key results are: i) For the standard MAD model, resistivity plays a minimal role in flow variability, suggesting that flux eruption events dominate the dynamics. ii) High resistivity simulations exhibit strong magnetic field diffusion into the disk, rearranging efficient magnetic flux accumulation from the accretion flow. iii) In multi-loop simulations, resistivity significantly reduces flow variability, which was not expected. However, magnetic flux accumulation becomes more variable due to frequent reconnection events at very low resistivity values. Conclusions. This study shows that resistivity affects how much the flow is distorted due to magnetic field dissipation. Our findings provide new insights into the interplay between magnetic field accumulation, resistivity, variability and the dynamics of black hole accretion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panels: mass accretion rate, M˙ , through the black-hole horizon, Middle panels: the magnetic flux accumulated on the black-hole horizon, ΦBH, Lower panels: the normalized magnetic flux accumulated on the black-hole horizon, ϕBH. Left panels: MAD models. Right panels: multi-loop models in both panels ideal and resistive (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panels: the measure of variability for the mass accretion rate s/⟨m˙ ⟩, Lower panels: the measure of variability for the normalized magnetic flux accumulated on the black-hole horizon s/⟨ϕBH⟩, both for a time window of ±270 M (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al. 2022b) . Left panels: All MAD models ideal and with different resistivity, Right panels: multi-loop models ideal and resistive (see [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The measure of variability for the mass accretion rate s/⟨m˙ ⟩, (error bars ±1s) for all MAD and multi-loop models in time windows 3000 − 5000 M (dashed error bars) and 8000 − 10000 M (solid error bars) respectively. the horizon. The former is measured as: M˙ := Z 2π 0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mean normalized magnetic flux accumulated on the black￾hole horizon (error bars indicate ±1s) for all MAD models in time win￾dows 3000 − 5000 M (dashed error bars) and 3000 − 10000 M (solid error bars) respectively. The dashed horizontal line depicts the MAD satura…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panels: the measure of variability for the mass accretion rate s/⟨m˙ ⟩, Lower panels: the measure of variability for the normal￾ized magnetic flux accumulated on the black-hole horizon s/⟨ϕBH⟩, both for a time window of ±270 M (Event Horizon Telescope Collaborati…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Global resistive MHD accretion flows around spinning AGNs: impact of resistivity on MAD state

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Resistive MHD simulations of accretion onto a spinning black hole find a magnetically arrested disk for all resistivities tested, with a proposed average plasma-beta below one as the MAD indicator.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    K., Bautz , M

    Baganoff , F. K., Bautz , M. W., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 45

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102

    Bhattacharjee , A., Huang , Y.-M., Yang , H., & Rogers , B. 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan , G. S. & Ruzmaikin , A. A. 1974, Astrophysics and Space Science, 28, 45

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    E., Gold , R., Georgiev , B., et al

    Broderick , A. E., Gold , R., Georgiev , B., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L21

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    J., Shen , Y., Blaes , O., et al

    Burke , C. J., Shen , Y., Blaes , O., et al. 2021, Science, 373, 789

    2021

  8. [8]

    GRMHD simulations of BH activation by small scale magnetic loops: Formation of striped jets and active coronae

    Chashkina , A., Bromberg , O., & Levinson , A. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.15738

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Mon

    Chatterjee , K., Markoff , S., Neilsen , J., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 507, 5281

    2021

  2. [10]

    M., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Cruz-Osorio , A., Fromm , C. M., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103

    2022

  3. [11]

    2016, Mon

    Del Zanna , L., Papini , E., Landi , S., Bugli , M., & Bucciantini , N. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 460, 3753

    2016

  4. [12]

    2007, Astron

    Del Zanna , L., Zanotti , O., Bucciantini , N., & Londrillo , P. 2007, Astron. Astrophys., 473, 11

    2007

  5. [13]

    S., Weintroub , J., Rogers , A

    Doeleman , S. S., Weintroub , J., Rogers , A. E. E., et al. 2008, Nature, 455, 78

    2008

  6. [14]

    2022 a , Astrophys

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L12

    2022

  7. [15]

    2019 a , Astrophys

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L1

    2019

  8. [16]

    2022 b , Astrophys

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 b , Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L16

    2022

  9. [17]

    C., et al

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Algaba , J. C., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 910, L13

    2021

  10. [18]

    2024, Astrophys

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 964, L26

    2024

  11. [19]

    2019 b , Astrophys

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Porth , O., et al. 2019 b , Astrophys. J. Supp., 243, 26

    2019

  12. [20]

    M., Matsuo , H., et al

    Falcke , H., Goss , W. M., Matsuo , H., et al. 1998, Astrophys. J., 499, 731

    1998

  13. [21]

    Fishbone , L. G. & Moncrief , V. 1976, Astrophys. J., 207, 962

    1976

  14. [22]

    M., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Fromm , C. M., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 660, A107

    2022

  15. [23]

    2003, Nature, 425, 934

    Genzel , R., Sch \"o del , R., Ott , T., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 934

    2003

  16. [24]

    W., Broderick , A

    Georgiev , B., Pesce , D. W., Broderick , A. E., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L20

    2022

  17. [25]

    2015, Astrophys

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

    2015

  18. [26]

    2013, Astrophys

    Hada , K., Kino , M., Doi , A., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 775, 70

    2013

  19. [27]

    Igumenshchev , I. V. 2008, Astrophys. J., 677, 317

    2008

  20. [28]

    V., Narayan , R., & Abramowicz , M

    Igumenshchev , I. V., Narayan , R., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, Astrophys. J., 592, 1042

    2003

  21. [29]

    K., et al

    Jiang , H.-X., Mizuno , Y., Dihingia , I. K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03237

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    M., & Nathanail , A

    Jiang , H.-X., Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C. M., & Nathanail , A. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 522, 2307

    2023

  23. [31]

    K., Kazanas , D., & Contopoulos , I

    Kalapotharakos , C., Harding , A. K., Kazanas , D., & Contopoulos , I. 2012, Astrophys. J. Lett., 754, L1

    2012

  24. [32]

    P., Roy, A

    Kim, J., Marrone, D. P., Roy, A. L., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 129

    2018

  25. [33]

    2012, Astrophys

    Li , J., Spitkovsky , A., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2012, Astrophys. J., 746, 60

    2012

  26. [34]

    F., Levinson , A., & Aloy , M

    Mahlmann , J. F., Levinson , A., & Aloy , M. A. 2020, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 494, 4203

    2020

  27. [35]

    2023, Astron

    Mattia , G., Del Zanna , L., Bugli , M., et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 679, A49

    2023

  28. [36]

    M., et al

    Mizuno , Y., Younsi , Z., Fromm , C. M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 585

    2018

  29. [37]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, Publications of the ASJ, 55, L69

    2003

  30. [38]

    Nathanail , A., Dhang , P., & Fromm , C. M. 2022 a , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 513, 5204

    2022

  31. [39]

    M., Porth , O., et al

    Nathanail , A., Fromm , C. M., Porth , O., et al. 2020 a , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 495, 1549

    2020

  32. [40]

    M., & Rezzolla , L

    Nathanail , A., Gill , R., Porth , O., Fromm , C. M., & Rezzolla , L. 2020 b , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 495, 3780

    2020

  33. [41]

    M., & Rezzolla , L

    Nathanail , A., Mpisketzis , V., Porth , O., Fromm , C. M., & Rezzolla , L. 2022 b , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 513, 4267

    2022

  34. [42]

    2019, Astrophys

    Nathanail , A., Porth , O., & Rezzolla , L. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett, 870, L20

    2019

  35. [43]

    & Aloy , M

    Obergaulinger , M. & Aloy , M. \'A . 2020, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1623, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012018

    2020

  36. [44]

    Obergaulinger , M., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n , P., M \"u ller , E., & Aloy , M. A. 2009, Astron. Astrophys., 498, 241

    2009

  37. [45]

    2019, Astron

    Olivares, H., Porth, O., Davelaar, J., et al. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 629, A61

    2019

  38. [46]

    Pandey, B. P. & Wardle, M. 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 423, 222

    2012

  39. [47]

    Papadopoulos , D. B. & Contopoulos , I. 2019, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 483, 2325

    2019

  40. [48]

    Parfrey , K., Giannios , D., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 446, L61

    2015

  41. [49]

    2019, Astrophys

    Porth , O., Chatterjee , K., Narayan , R., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Supp., 243, 26

    2019

  42. [50]

    2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1

    Porth , O., Olivares , H., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1

    2017

  43. [51]

    2017, Astrophys

    Rembiasz , T., Obergaulinger , M., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n , P., Aloy , M.- \'A ., & M \"u ller , E. 2017, Astrophys. J., Supp., 230, 18

    2017

  44. [52]

    Ripperda , B., Bacchini , F., & Philippov , A. A. 2020, Astrophys. J., 900, 100

    2020

  45. [53]

    2019 a , Astrophys

    Ripperda , B., Bacchini , F., Porth , O., et al. 2019 a , Astrophys. J., Supp., 244, 10

    2019

  46. [54]

    2019 b , Mon

    Ripperda , B., Porth , O., Sironi , L., & Keppens , R. 2019 b , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 485, 299

    2019

  47. [55]

    2022, Astrophys

    Satapathy , K., Psaltis , D., \"O zel , F., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 925, 13

    2022

  48. [56]

    2023, Astrophys

    Selvi , S., Porth , O., Ripperda , B., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 950, 169

    2023

  49. [57]

    M., Ciolfi , R., Harte , A

    Siegel , D. M., Ciolfi , R., Harte , A. I., & Rezzolla , L. 2013, Phys. Rev. D R, 87, 121302

    2013

  50. [58]

    2008, Mon

    Takahashi, R. 2008, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 383, 1155

    2008

  51. [59]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 418, L79

    2011

  52. [60]

    A., Loureiro , N

    Uzdensky , D. A., Loureiro , N. F., & Schekochihin , A. A. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 235002

    2010

  53. [61]

    D., & Wilkins , D

    Yuan , Y., Blandford , R. D., & Wilkins , D. R. 2019 a , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 484, 4920

    2019

  54. [62]

    D., & Wilkins , D

    Yuan , Y., Spitkovsky , A., Blandford , R. D., & Wilkins , D. R. 2019 b , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 487, 4114

    2019

Pith tools

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