Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Unraveling the emission mechanism powering long period radio transients from interacting white dwarf binaries via kinetic plasma simulations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Kinetic plasma simulations show the cyclotron maser instability can efficiently produce the radio pulses observed from white dwarf–M dwarf binaries.

desk verdict First nonlinear kinetic test of ECMI for WD–MD ULPTs: mechanism viability holds, but the polarization match with the observed sources rests on pair-plasma symmetry that remains untested for real electron–ion plasmas. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09057 v1 pith:ZAGD6NPO submitted 2025-09-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph

Yici Zhong , Elias R. Most This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords longperiodradiotransientselectroncyclotronmaserinstabilitywhitedwarf–Mdwarfbinarieskineticparticle-in-cellsimulationspolarizationunipolarinductorcoherentemission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to establish that the radio pulses from long-period radio transients associated with white dwarf–M dwarf binaries are produced by the electron cyclotron maser instability (ECMI), the coherent plasma maser that also powers Jupiter's decametric emission. The authors run fully kinetic particle-in-cell simulations of the mildly relativistic plasma on the flux tube connecting the two stars, continuously reinjecting an unstable electron distribution, and measure how the instability saturates. In the nonlinear regime they find a conversion efficiency of 10^-3 to 10^-2 of the background magnetic energy into radiation, emission concentrated at the fundamental cyclotron frequency with a narrow bandwidth, and a polarization state that is substantially linear in the pair-plasma approximation they adopt. The authors conclude that the ECMI can efficiently operate in the white dwarf–M dwarf context and explain the observed radio luminosity, narrow pulses, and polarization, while cautioning that the polarization details depend on the plasma composition.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the electron cyclotron maser instability (ECMI): resonant amplification of electromagnetic waves near the electron cyclotron frequency by mildly relativistic electrons whose pitch-angle distribution has a loss-cone anisotropy. The paper models this with two-dimensional kinetic particle-in-cell simulations that initialize and continuously reinject a Dory–Guest–Harris loss-cone distribution along a uniform magnetic field, letting the maser evolve through linear and nonlinear growth to saturation. The efficiency, spectral width, and Stokes parameters of the saturated radiation are the quantities that connect the simulation to the observed pulses; the orbital-motion-driv

What would settle it

Run the same ECMI simulation with a realistic electron-ion mass ratio (mi/me = 1836) and an electron-proton Dory–Guest–Harris injection. If the saturated radiation becomes predominantly circular (|S3|/S0 ≳ 0.5) rather than the Π ≈ 0.6–0.8 reported here, the claim of consistency with the linearly polarized long-period radio transients is falsified, even though the energy conversion efficiency might remain at the same level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the electron cyclotron maser instability (ECMI) is a viable radio-emission mechanism for interacting white dwarf–M dwarf binaries, in the mildly relativistic regime relevant to these systems. Using two-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations that sustain a loss-cone anisotropy by continuous particle reinjection, the authors show that the instability saturates by converting roughly 10^-3 to 10^-2 of the background magnetic energy into coherent radiation, peaks at the fundamental electron cyclotron frequency, and has a narrow bandwidth Δω ≈ 0.2ωg. The simulated radiation is predominantly linearly polarized (Π ≈ 0.6–0.8, circular component C ≈ 0.2), which the authors

Load-bearing premise

The polarization comparison rests on the electron-positron symmetry of the simulated plasma; in a real white-dwarf magnetosphere, where no pair-production mechanism is identified at these field strengths, the circular components may not cancel and the claimed match to the observed linear polarization could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A conversion efficiency of 10^-3 to 10^-2 is enough for the unipolar-inductor model to account for the radio luminosity of systems like ILTJ1101+5521 with a white-dwarf magnetic moment consistent with the observed emission frequency.
  • ECMI-driven emission is intrinsically narrow (Δω ≈ 0.2ωg) and peaked at the fundamental cyclotron frequency, matching the narrowband pulses of long-period radio transients.
  • The maser can produce substantially linear polarization (Π ≈ 0.6–0.8) in the pair-plasma limit, consistent with the observed polarization of both sources, provided this polarization survives at realistic electron-ion mass ratios.
  • The emission geometry produces minute-long pulses with hour-long periods for mildly relativistic bulk velocities (γ ≲ 1.6), explaining the observed duty cycle without needing a spin-powered lighthouse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pair-plasma symmetry that yields linear polarization is untested at realistic electron-ion mass ratios; a simulation with mi/me = 1836 could show predominantly circular emission, which would invalidate the claimed polarization match even if the efficiency result stands.
  • The paper does not identify a mechanism that would populate a white-dwarf magnetosphere with electron-positron pairs at B* ≈ 10^6–10^8 G, far below the pair-creation threshold; if such pairs are absent, the linear-polarization result would not transfer directly to these systems.
  • A future measurement of strong circular polarization (|C| ≳ 0.5) from a WD–MD transient would discriminate against the pair-plasma ECMI and favour an electron-ion plasma or a different emission mechanism.
  • The same driven-ECMI framework could be applied to other interacting white-dwarf binaries and exoplanet systems, using the measured 10^-3 to 10^-2 efficiency as a calibration for the magnetic field and orbital parameters needed to produce detectable radio emission.
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 proposes that the long-period radio transients from white dwarf–M dwarf binaries (e.g., ILTJ1101+5521 and GLEAM-X J0704-37) are produced by the relativistic electron cyclotron maser instability (ECMI), driven by a unipolar-inductor interaction between the binary components. After deriving constraints on the WD magnetic moment, emission location, and plasma magnetization, the authors run 2D particle-in-cell simulations in a pair plasma with a continuously injected Dory–Guest–Harris loss-cone distribution. They report X-mode dominance, saturated efficiencies ξ ≈ 10^-3–10^-2, spectral peaking near the cyclotron frequency with bandwidth Δω ≈ 0.2ωg, and strong linear polarization (Π ≈ 0.6–0.8, C ≈ 0.2), which they claim is consistent with the observed polarization of the two sources. The paper concludes that the ECMI can efficiently operate in the WD-MD context and explain the observed radio emission properties.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would provide the first quantitative kinetic-plasma support for ECMI as the emission mechanism in the newly discovered class of ultra-long-period radio transients, analogous to planetary radio emission. The paper's strengths are its concrete parameter estimates from the unipolar-inductor model, the first nonlinear PIC study of ECMI in this astrophysical regime, and the explicit calculation of saturation efficiency and polarization. The simulations appear credible and are presented with enough detail to be reproduced. However, the observational comparison rests on a pair-plasma assumption that is not justified for WD magnetospheres, and there are internal inconsistencies in the spectral analysis and in the use of the efficiency parameter in the luminosity argument. These issues are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Section 5] The comparison of simulated polarization (Π≈0.6–0.8, C≈0.2) with observations is made for a pair plasma (mi/me=1, Section 3). The paper itself states that the strong linear polarization results from electron–positron symmetry in the cancellation of circular components, and that 'the details of the polarization will change with varying electron-ion mass ratio.' For WD magnetospheres with B*~10^6–10^8 G, no pair-production mechanism is identified, so the physical plasma is electron-ion. The planetary ECMI literature cited in the paper predominantly gives circular polarization. Thus the claimed agreement with the strongly linearly polarized observed pulses is not established. This is load-bearing because the polarization match is a central part of the claim to explain observed emission properties. Electron-ion simulations (mi/me≫1) or a quantitative argument for why the pair result carries
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2) vs. Section 4, Eq. (19)] The luminosity check sets L_radio = ξ ˙E_diss, calling ξ the 'radio emission conversion efficiency.' The simulation defines ξ = ∫(δB^2+δE^2)/∫B0^2, i.e., wave energy normalized by the background magnetic energy. These are different quantities. The simulations do not measure the fraction of the dissipated orbital power that is converted into radiation; they measure a steady-state energy ratio in a driven box. Using the simulated ξ in Eq. (2) requires an additional, unstated assumption connecting B0^2 energy to ˙E_diss. Without this mapping (or a diagnostic of injected-power-to-radiation efficiency), the luminosity consistency claim is not directly supported by the simulations.
  3. [Section 4, Fig. 4] The text states that the authors compute the Fourier transform of ξ(t) and that 'the spectra peak at ω = ωg,' interpreting this as fundamental ECMI emission. However, ξ is quadratic in the field amplitude; for a monochromatic field at ωg, the Fourier transform of ξ(t) peaks at 2ωg. The figure caption itself acknowledges this: 'a component at ωg in the field spectrum appears at ω = 2ωg in ξ.' The text and caption are therefore internally inconsistent. The claimed peak at ωg and bandwidth Δω≈0.2ωg do not follow from the plotted quantity. The field power spectrum (e.g., Fourier transform of E_y(t) and E_z(t)) should be shown to support the spectral characterization, which is also used to infer the magnetic field via Eq. (5).
  4. [Section 2, Eqs. (2) and (5)] The luminosity consistency for ILTJ1101+5521 requires μ near the upper bound μ≲10^34 G cm^3 from Eq. (5), ξ near 10^-2, and ζ_φ(ΔΩ/Ω) near unity. The text does not discuss this near-maximal parameter combination. Since ζ_φ < 1 is required to avoid flux-tube expansion (Section 2), the combination may be in tension. A quantitative statement about the allowed parameter space for the observed sources (including distance uncertainties and orbital period) is needed to support the conclusion that the observed luminosity is naturally explained without fine-tuning.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The boundary treatment is underspecified: the simulations use periodic boundary conditions, but particles are re-sampled near the left boundary to maintain the anisotropy. Clarify how the injection is implemented and whether it creates a discontinuity with the periodic right boundary.
  2. [Section 4.1] The use of the Hilbert transform to define the time-averaged Stokes parameters should specify the averaging window and whether the results are stationary in time; the maps in Fig. 5 vary in space, so a description of how the volume-averaged values are obtained would help.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The notation for the Dory–Guest–Harris distribution is ambiguous: it appears as p⊥^2(α) exp(...). State explicitly the functional form of the loss-cone pitch-angle factor.
  4. [Section 4, Fig. 4 caption] The caption's explanation that the ξ spectrum has a peak at 2ωg for a field component at ωg contradicts the main text's claim of a peak at ωg; this should be corrected as part of the spectral analysis.
  5. [Abstract / Conclusion] The statement that the ECMI 'can explain the observed radio emission properties' is stronger than what the current pair-plasma simulations support, given the acknowledged mass-ratio dependence; consider softening the wording to 'can be consistent with' under the pair-plasma approximation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: simulation outputs are computed from specified PIC inputs; observed values are not used as inputs, and the acknowledged pair-plasma limitation is an external-validity gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The PIC simulation (Section 3) is initialized from the Dory-Guest-Harris distribution (Eq. 15) with explicitly listed parameters (Table 1); the efficiency ξ (Eq. 19), growth rate Γlin (Eq. 20), frequency spectrum (Fig. 4), and Stokes parameters (Eqs. 21–27) are all computed outputs. Observed luminosities and polarization fractions are compared after the fact (Section 4.1), not fed into any fit. The luminosity estimate in Section 2 is an order-of-magnitude consistency bound based on the unipolar-inductor model, not a parameter fit to the simulation. The paper explicitly flags the main limitation: Section 4.1 states "the details of the polarization will change with varying electron-ion mass ratio," and Section 5 states "In order to be fully predictive especially in terms of the radio polarization, several steps are necessary." These are external-validity caveats, not circular steps. The self-citations to Most & Philippov (2020, 2022, 2023a, 2023b) for flux-tube flaring and for excluding a synchrotron-maser route in WD contexts are used as motivation/bounds; the central claim of ECMI viability rests on the kinetic simulations themselves, so those citations are not load-bearing. The selection of favorable astrophysical values (µ, ξ, ζφ) is a parameter-choice/robustness concern, not a definitional tautology. No equation is shown to reduce by construction to its own input, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation is first-principles PIC given its inputs, but those inputs are a chain of estimates and choices: a standard circuit model, a hand-assembled velocity distribution, a pair composition with no physical justification for WDs, a 2D box, and favorable parameter values in the observational comparison. The ledger is dominated by domain assumptions and hand-chosen numbers rather than derived constants.

free parameters (4)
  • Electron thermal temperature Tth = Fiducial 52 keV; 12 to 341 keV scanned
    The temperature range is chosen to cover the estimated mildly relativistic WD-MD regime, and the fiducial 52 keV sits at the measured linear-growth-rate maximum. No direct derivation from binary parameters is provided; the circuit model gives only order-of-magnitude conditions.
  • Pitch-angle cutoff αc (loss-cone anisotropy) = Fiducial 0.5 rad; 0.1, 0.5, 0.9 scanned
    Sets the perpendicular anisotropy that drives the maser. The loss-cone angle is not computed from the flux-tube mirror ratio; it is scanned by hand.
  • Plasma magnetization σ0 = B0²/(4π n0 me c²) = 8
    Chosen so the Larmor radius is resolved (c/(Δx ωg) = 7) while the domain fits several gyrations. Roughly consistent with the analytic emission-zone estimate σ ≈ 30 (Eq. 13), but selected for numerical reasons.
  • Magnetic moment μ and conversion efficiency ξ in the luminosity consistency check = μ ≈ 10^34 G cm³, ξ ≈ 10^-2, ζφ(ΔΩ/Ω) ≈ 1
    The claimed consistency with the observed luminosity (Eq. 2) uses the most favorable values within the derived bounds: μ at the top of the Eq. (5) range, ξ at the top of the simulated range, and unit circuit efficiency. This is best-case stacking, not a self-consistent inference.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The electron distribution in the flux tube is a Dory-Guest-Harris loss cone (Eq. 15), sustained by continuous particle injection.
    Standard input for ECMI studies, but the paper does not model how the orbital current system creates or maintains this anisotropy; the simulation is initialized and driven with it.
  • ad hoc to paper The plasma is electron-positron (mi/me = 1, Sec. 3 Methods).
    No pair-production mechanism exists at WD field strengths (B* ≈ 10^6 to 10^8 G, far below the 4.4 × 10^13 G threshold), and the linear-polarization result depends on particle-antiparticle symmetry (Sec. 4.1).
  • domain assumption The unipolar inductor circuit model applies: the WD dipole field threads the M dwarf and dissipates orbital energy with ζφ < 1 (Eq. 1, after Goldreich and Lynden-Bell 1969; Lai 2012; Willes and Wu 2004).
    The density, magnetization, and luminosity estimates (Eqs. 2, 10 to 13) all inherit this circuit model; if the flux tube does not close efficiently, the parameter mapping to the simulations fails.
  • domain assumption Resistance is dominated by Spitzer conductivity of the WD atmosphere in an arc-like dissipation region (Eqs. 7 to 9, Willes and Wu 2004).
    Converts the dissipated power into a current and hence into the density n_WD ≈ 4 × 10^12 cm^-3 (Eq. 10) that sets the plasma frequency and magnetization.
  • domain assumption A uniform background field in a 2D periodic box captures the ECMI adequately for the claims made.
    The paper itself notes that 3D effects may alter O-mode growth and therefore polarization (Sec. 5, citing Sironi et al. 2021). The polarization claim is 2D-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unraveling the emission mechanism powering long period radio transients from interacting white dwarf binaries via kinetic plasma simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZAGD6NPO

@misc{pith2026250909057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unraveling the emission mechanism powering long period radio transients from interacting white dwarf binaries via kinetic plasma simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZAGD6NPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09057}
}
read the original abstract

Recent observations of long period radio transients, such as GLEAM-X J0704-37 and ILTJ1101 + 5521, have revealed a previously unrecognized population of galactic radio transient sources associated with white dwarf - M dwarf binaries. It is an open question how to produce coherent radio emission in these systems, though a model driven by binary interaction seems likely given the nature and correlation of the emission with the binaries' orbital period. Using kinetic plasma simulations, we demonstrate that the relativistic electron cyclotron maser instability (ECMI) is a viable mechanism for generating radio pulses in white dwarf - M dwarf systems, akin to planetary radio emission, such as that from the Jupiter-Io system. We quantify the relativistic ECMI in the nonlinear regime under conditions relevant for white dwarf radio emission for the first time. Our simulations demonstrate that the ECMI can intrinsically produce partially linearly polarized emission relevant to explaining the observed emission spectrum of the two galactic sources, though the precise details will depend on the plasma composition. Our work paves the way for a systematic and fully nonlinear computational modeling of radio emission from interacting white dwarf sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , showing that γe,∥ ≲ 1.6, consistent with a mildly relativistic plasma, which we assume in the following. We leave a more detailed investigation and parameter inference from the two observed events to future work. Finally, we need to place a constraint on the elec￾tron number density in the radio emitting region. This is important for studying the emission properties, and whether or not the ECMI can operate in the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Steady state of the electron cyclotron maser instability (ECMI) at the end of the nonlinear growth stage for the fiducial set of parameters βth = 0.42 and αc = 0.5. From top left to bottom right, the panels show: (a) positron density normalized to the initial number density, n0, per cell, n+/n0; (b) normalized electron density, n−/n0; fluctuation of the parallel magnetic field; (c) plasma magnetization, σ ≡ B 2 /4π(… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Energy conversion efficiency of the relativistic electron cyclotron maser instability, ξ, and linear growth rate Γlin. The saturation value, ξsat, of the energy conversion efficiency in the nonlinear stead state is also shown. Times, t, are given relative to the cyclotron period, ωg/2π, and plasma temperatures, Tth, are shown in the range of 12 keV to 341 keV. Different colors denote different pitch angle cutoffs αc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency spectrum of the energy efficiency ξ(t). Top Panel: The plasma thermal velocity is fixed at the fiducial value βth = 0.42. To examine the dependence of the emission bandwidth ∆ω on the velocity pitch angle, we compare the fiducial case with αc = 0.5 (red solid…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Polarization properties of the ECMI for a plasma thermal velocity βth = 0.42 (corresponding to kBTth = 52 keV) and a velocity pitch angle αc = 0.5. From the top left to the bottom right panels, we show the three Stokes parameters normalized by the total intensity, the …

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Pulsar electrodynamics inferred from frequency-dependent circular polarization diversity

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Wave mode coupling reproduces diverse frequency evolutions of circular polarization in pulsar single pulses, constraining multiplicity to 1-100 and Lorentz factor to 3-100, though the model fails to quantitatively fit...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2020, Mon

    Babul, A.-N., & Sironi, L. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 2884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2612

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2612 2020

  2. [2]

    V., & Lyutikov, M

    Barkov, M. V., & Lyutikov, M. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20515

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2020, Astrophys. J., 896, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb 2020

  4. [4]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16054

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Bigg, E. K. 1964, Nature, 203, 1008, doi: 10.1038/2031008a0

    doi:10.1038/2031008a0 1964

  6. [6]

    Bilbao, P., Silva, T., & Silva, L. O. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eadt8912, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adt8912

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adt8912 2025

  7. [7]

    J., & Silva, L

    Bilbao, P. J., & Silva, L. O. 2023, PhRvL, 130, 165101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.165101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.165101 2023

  8. [8]

    K., & Langdon, A

    Birdsall, C. K., & Langdon, A. B. 1991, Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation

    1991

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    K., Bassa, C

    Bloot, S., Vedantham, H. K., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.05078

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Meintjes, P. J., Potter, S. B., Marsh, T. R., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0029, doi: 10.1038/s41550-016-0029

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    R., et al

    Callingham, J. R., et al. 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 1359, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02405-6

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Chanmugam, G., & Dulk, G. A. 1982, ApJL, 255, L107, doi: 10.1086/183779

    1982 doi

  5. [13]

    Chu, K. R. 2004, Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 489, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.489

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    Connerney, J. E. P., Baron, R., Satoh, T., & Owen, T. 1993, Science, 262, 1035, doi: 10.1126/science.262.5136.1035 Dall’Osso, S., Israel, G. L., & Stella, L. 2006, Astron. Astrophys., 447, 785, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052843 de Ruiter, I., et al. 2025, Nature Astron., 9, 672,...

    1993

  7. [15]

    A., Shin, K., Law, C., et al

    Dong, F. A., Shin, K., Law, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adeaab

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Guest, G

    Dory, R. A., Guest, G. E., & Harris, E. G. 1965, PhRvL, 14, 131, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.131

    1965 doi

  9. [17]

    Dulk, G. A. 1985, ARA&A, 23, 169, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001125

    1985

  10. [18]

    Ferrario, L., de Martino, D., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2015, SSRv, 191, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    1969, ApJ, 156, 59, doi: 10.1086/149947

    Goldreich, P., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, ApJ, 156, 59, doi: 10.1086/149947

    1969 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.1, v1.13.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11255513

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.1, v1.13.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11255513

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 12 Horv´ ath, C., Rea, N., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15352

    2020

  14. [22]

    J., Bahramian, A., et al

    Hurley-Walker, N., McSweeney, S. J., Bahramian, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad890e

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d6f

    Iwamoto, M., Amano, T., Hoshino, M., & Matsumoto, Y. 2017, ApJ, 840, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d6f

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, Phys

    Hoshino, M. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 035201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.035201

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    D., & Vedantham, H

    Kavanagh, R. D., & Vedantham, H. K. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2035

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Kuznetsov, A. A. 2011, A&A, 526, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015760

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    A., & Vlasov, V

    Kuznetsov, A. A., & Vlasov, V. G. 2012, A&A, 539, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118716

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, A&A, 681, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346600

    Labaj, M., Ben´ aˇ cek, J., & Karlick´ y, M. 2024, A&A, 681, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346600

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, Astrophys

    Lai, D. 2012, Astrophys. J. Lett., 757, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L3

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    H., Omura, Y., & Lee, L

    Lee, K. H., Omura, Y., & Lee, L. C. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 092110, doi: 10.1063/1.3626562

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, ApJL, 909, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe708

    Li, C., Chen, Y., Ni, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe708

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Lysak, R. L. 2023, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 7, 6, doi: 10.1007/s41614-022-00111-2

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2006, ApJ, 652, 1297, doi: 10.1086/508606

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1297, doi: 10.1086/508606

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, Astrophys

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2020, Astrophys. J., 897, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2022, Astrophys

    Spitkovsky, A., & Hakobyan, H. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    B., & Dulk, G

    Melrose, D. B., & Dulk, G. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 844, doi: 10.1086/160219

    1982 doi

  29. [37]

    B., Hewitt, R

    Melrose, D. B., Hewitt, R. G., & Dulk, G. A. 1984, J. Geophys. Res., 89, 897, doi: 10.1029/JA089iA02p00897

    1984 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 4091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz700

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 129, e2023JE008130, doi: 10.1029/2023JE00813010.22541/essoar.168394732

    Moirano, A., Mura, A., Hue, V., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 129, e2023JE008130, doi: 10.1029/2023JE00813010.22541/essoar.168394732. 26574509/v1

    2024

  32. [40]

    R., & Philippov, A

    Most, E. R., & Philippov, A. A. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 893, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8196

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Philippov, A

    Most, E. R., & Philippov, A. A. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 515, 2710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1909

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    R., & Philippov, A

    Most, E. R., & Philippov, A. A. 2023a, Astrophys. J. Lett., 956, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfdae

    doi

  35. [43]

    R., & Philippov, A

    Most, E. R., & Philippov, A. A. 2023b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 245201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.245201

    doi

  36. [44]

    2020, ApJL, 891, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7750

    Ni, S., Chen, Y., Li, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7750

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Piro, A. L. 2012, Astrophys. J., 755, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/80

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, Mon

    Plotnikov, I., & Sironi, L. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 3816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz640

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2025, Astrophys

    Qu, Y., & Zhang, B. 2025, Astrophys. J., 981, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1b5

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Reid, H. A. S., & Ratcliffe, H. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 773, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/7/003

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    Rodriguez, A. C. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 695, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553684

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 123, 9560, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025948

    Saur, J., Janser, S., Schreiner, A., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 123, 9560, doi: 10.1029/2018JA025948

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Belloni, D., G¨ ansicke, B

    Schreiber, M. R., Belloni, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Parsons, S. G., & Zorotovic, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 648, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01346-8

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    Sironi, L., Plotnikov, I., N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 035101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.035101

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19884

    Skiathas, D., Kalapotharakos, C., Wadiasingh, Z., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19884

    2025

  46. [54]

    B., Haynes, R

    Slee, O. B., Haynes, R. F., & Wright, A. E. 1984, MNRAS, 208, 865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/208.4.865

    1984 doi

  47. [55]

    2024a, Phys

    Sobacchi, E., Iwamoto, M., Sironi, L., & Piran, T. 2024a, Phys. Rev. Res., 6, 043213, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043213

    doi

  48. [56]

    2024b, Astron

    Sobacchi, E., Iwamoto, M., Sironi, L., & Piran, T. 2024b, Astron. Astrophys., 690, A332, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451725

    doi

  49. [57]

    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, 345–350, doi: 10.1063/1.2141897

    2005 doi

  50. [58]

    1953, Physical Review, 89, 977, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.89.977

    Spitzer, L., & H¨ arm, R. 1953, Physical Review, 89, 977, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.89.977

    1953 doi

  51. [59]

    H., Hospodarsky, G

    Sulaiman, A. H., Hospodarsky, G. B., Elliott, S. S., et al. 2020, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e88432, doi: 10.1029/2020GL088432 The Matplotlib Development Team. 2024, Matplotlib: Visualization with Python, v3.9.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13308876

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Treumann, R. A. 2006, A&A Rv, 13, 229, doi: 10.1007/s00159-006-0001-y

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    Twiss, R. Q. 1958, Australian Journal of Physics, 11, 564, doi: 10.1071/PH580564 13

    1958 doi

  54. [62]

    2025, Phys

    Vanthieghem, A., & Levinson, A. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 134, 035201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.035201

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    2025, Nature, 642, 583, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09077-w

    Wang, Z., Rea, N., Bao, T., et al. 2025, Nature, 642, 583, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09077-w

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    Warwick, J. W. 1964, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 2, p. 1, 2, 1

    1964

  57. [65]

    J., & Wu, K

    Willes, A. J., & Wu, K. 2004, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 348, 285, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07363.x

    2004

  58. [66]

    M., & Dulk, G

    Winglee, R. M., & Dulk, G. A. 1986, ApJ, 307, 808, doi: 10.1086/164467

    1986 doi

  59. [67]

    S., & Lee, L

    Wu, C. S., & Lee, L. C. 1979, ApJ, 230, 621, doi: 10.1086/157120

    1979 doi

  60. [68]

    2002, MNRAS, 331, 221, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05190.x

    Wu, K., Cropper, M., Ramsay, G., & Sekiguchi, K. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 221, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05190.x

    2002

  61. [69]

    F., & Hakobyan, H

    Zhong, Y., Spitkovsky, A., Mahlmann, J. F., & Hakobyan, H. 2024, Astrophys. J., 973, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6840

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.