arxiv: 2604.06310 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A Unified Model for Shock Interaction and γ-Ray Emission in Classical Novae

Rebecca Diesing , Brian Metzger

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords classical novaegamma-ray emissionshock accelerationproton accelerationreverse shockFermi LATTeV telescopescalorimetric limit

0 comments

The pith

A toy model of novae outflows shows reverse shocks accelerate protons to explain Fermi gamma rays, with energies rising to TeV scales weeks later.

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

The paper builds a parameterized model in which a white dwarf ejects its envelope over a timescale tau into a slower preceding shell, driving a reverse shock that accelerates protons. These protons advect into the dense shell and radiate gamma rays in the calorimetric limit, naturally producing the observed correlation between optical and GeV emission near optical peak. The maximum proton energy follows a Hillas-type limit set by the thickness of the hot post-shock gas; turbulent mixing with cooler material is invoked to keep this layer thin enough to match low X-ray luminosities, yielding initial energies around 10 GeV that later grow above 10 TeV as the system expands. This framework matters because it unifies the timing of gamma-ray and optical peaks and supplies concrete predictions for when atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes could detect novae.

Core claim

We present a parameterized model in which an envelope of mass M_env is removed over timescale tau (proportional to the nova speed class) in an accelerating outflow that collides with a thin dense shell, forming a reverse shock. Protons accelerated at the shock are advected into the shell where, for typical parameters, they radiate gamma rays calorimetrically. The maximum energy is fixed by a Hillas-like criterion that scales with the thickness of the hot post-shock region; recent work on turbulent mixing is used to set this thickness at ≲10^{-4} of the shock radius, producing E_max ∼ 10 GeV near optical peak that can reach ≳10 TeV after a few tau.

What carries the argument

The reverse shock formed by the fast outflow overtaking the earlier thin dense shell, with proton maximum energy limited by the thickness of the hot post-shock layer set by turbulent mixing.

If this is right

Gamma-ray emission peaks near the optical maximum and tracks the same timescale tau.
Protons reach energies of order 10 GeV at the time of the GeV peak, consistent with Fermi spectra.
Maximum energies grow to at least 10 TeV within a few tau, opening a window for Cherenkov telescope detection.
X-ray luminosities remain low because the thin post-shock layer limits the volume of hot gas.
Follow-up observations of Fermi-detected novae weeks to months after peak are the most promising for TeV signals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If mixing is weaker than assumed, earlier and brighter TeV emission would appear, altering the optimal follow-up window.
The same thin-shell geometry and calorimetric radiation limit could be tested in other shock-powered transients that show correlated optical and high-energy emission.
The model implies that novae could contribute a transient component to the galactic cosmic-ray spectrum at energies between 10 GeV and 10 TeV.

Load-bearing premise

Turbulent mixing keeps the hot post-shock gas layer no thicker than about 10^{-4} of the shock radius.

What would settle it

A clear detection of TeV gamma rays from a well-observed Fermi nova several weeks after its optical peak, or the absence of such emission in multiple events despite sufficient sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06310 by Brian Metzger, Rebecca Diesing.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Illustration of the toy model for shock interaction in classical novae. A fast, spherical wind collides with slower material released earlier in the eruption, mediated by a reverse shock. The slow early ejecta is concentrated in the binary equatorial plane, subtending a fractional solid angle fΩ ≳ 0.1. The swept up gas resides in a dense, highly corrugated radiative shell, which reprocesses most of the sho… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (top) shows the hydrodynamic evolution for our fiducial model with Menv = 10−4M⊙, τ = 20 days, vf = 6000 km s−1 , ∆s/Rs = 10−2 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Predicted maximum γ-ray luminosity (color scale) as a function of final wind velocity (vf) and characteristic timescale (τ ), assuming the maximum γ-ray energy, Emax,γ, exceeds 1 GeV (left panel) or 1 TeV (right panel). For the right (TeV) panel, we also require that the nova be optically thin (τγγ < 1). Note that τ and vf are related to the speed class, t2, and the maximum inferred ejecta velocity, v2, as… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: Time after eruption in delays when a nova is first expected to produce unabsorbed TeV γ-rays (tTeV,γ, color scale) as a function of final wind velocity (vf) and characteristic timescale (τ ). All other parameters are set according to our fiducial nova. The approximate H.E.S.S. detection threshold (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Predicted γ-ray light curves of the classical novae detected by Fermi LAT as compiled by (Craig et al. 2025). To assign the parameters of our model to each nova, we (1) relate the final wind speed (vf) to the “fast” ejecta component observed spectroscopically (v2) according to vf = 2v2; (2) relate the envelope removal timescale (τ ) to the nova speed class according to t2 ≈ 2τ ; (3) chose an ejecta mass M… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Left: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a parameterized ("toy") model for shock interaction and $\gamma$-ray emission in classical novae, in which a white dwarf envelope of mass $M_{\rm env}$ is removed over a timescale $\tau$ (proportional to the nova speed class, $t_{2}$) in an outflow that accelerates on the same timescale to a terminal speed $v_{\rm f}$. Particle acceleration occurs at the reverse shock generated when the outflow collides with a thin, dense shell of slower material released earlier. Accelerated protons are then advected into the shell, where for typical ${ M_{\rm env}, \tau, \text{and } v_{\rm f}}$ they radiate in the calorimetric limit, consistent with correlated optical and $\gamma$-ray emission seen in well-sampled novae. The maximum proton energy, set by a Hillas-like argument, scales with the thickness of the hot post-shock region. Recent work shows turbulent mixing of hot post-shock gas with cooler dense gas may limit this thickness to $\lesssim 10^{-4}$ of the shock radius, explaining low X-ray luminosities. Using this empirically motivated thickness, and assuming efficient magnetic amplification, we predict maximum proton energies $E_{\rm max} \sim 10$ GeV, consistent with $\gamma$-ray spectra of Fermi-detected novae near optical peak ($\sim \tau$). However, as the shock and post-shock layer expand, $E_{\rm max}$ can grow to $\gtrsim 10$ TeV on timescales of a few $\tau$, enabling potential detection by atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes. We encourage TeV follow-up of Fermi-detected novae weeks to months after the optical/GeV peak and quantify the most promising events.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This toy model links reverse shocks in novae to time-dependent proton energies that start at GeV and grow to TeV scales using an external thickness estimate.

read the letter

The punchline is that this toy model for nova shocks uses a reverse shock and an adopted thin post-shock layer to explain GeV emission at optical peak while predicting that maximum energies could climb to TeV levels a few weeks later as the layer expands. The new piece is the explicit scaling of E_max with the growing post-shock thickness in this outflow setup, leading to late-time high-energy predictions that weren't in earlier work. It does a good job connecting the gamma-ray production to the optical light curve through calorimetric losses in the dense shell and gives quantitative guidance on which novae to follow up with TeV instruments. The parameterization of the outflow accelerating to v_f over tau is a reasonable way to capture the speed class dependence, and the model is transparent about pulling the thickness fraction from mixing studies that also explain the low X-ray output. The soft spots are around the inputs: the thickness fraction of 10^{-4} is pulled from external turbulent mixing studies without recalculating its impact on the acceleration region or field amplification inside the model. The assumption of efficient magnetic amplification is stated but not derived from the shock conditions here. With free parameters for the envelope mass, timescale, and speed, the model has flexibility to fit observations, but that also means the predictions aren't fully independent of those choices. The math is basic Hillas criterion applied to the time-dependent geometry, which is fine for a toy model but leaves gaps if the mixing isn't uniform. This paper is for high-energy astrophysicists working on transients and shock acceleration. A reader looking for ideas on TeV follow-up of novae would get value from the specific timescales and event suggestions. I recommend sending it to peer review. The claims are grounded enough in observations to warrant referee input on the assumptions and how they affect the results.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a parameterized toy model for shock interaction and γ-ray emission in classical novae. A white dwarf envelope of mass M_env is ejected over timescale τ (tied to nova speed class t2) accelerating to terminal velocity v_f. This outflow collides with a thin dense shell of slower material released earlier, forming a reverse shock at which protons are accelerated. The protons are advected into the shell and radiate in the calorimetric limit for typical parameters, explaining correlated optical and γ-ray emission. The maximum proton energy E_max follows a Hillas-like criterion that scales with the thickness of the hot post-shock region. Adopting an empirically motivated thickness ≲10^{-4} of the shock radius (from turbulent mixing studies that also suppress X-ray luminosity) and assuming efficient magnetic amplification, the model predicts E_max ∼10 GeV near optical peak (∼τ), consistent with Fermi spectra, with growth to ≳10 TeV over a few τ, motivating TeV follow-up observations.

Significance. If the adopted post-shock thickness and amplification assumptions hold, the model supplies a unified dynamical framework linking the suppression of X-ray emission to the production of GeV γ-rays and the potential for later TeV emission in novae. It yields concrete, observationally testable predictions for the time evolution of E_max and identifies promising targets for atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, thereby connecting recent hydrodynamic insights on turbulent mixing to multi-wavelength nova phenomenology.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract (E_max prediction paragraph): The central claim that E_max ∼10 GeV near peak (growing to ≳10 TeV) rests on adopting a fixed post-shock thickness fraction δ/R ≲10^{-4} directly from external turbulent-mixing studies without deriving δ(t) or its effect on the acceleration zone inside the toy model. Because the Hillas criterion E_max ∝ B δ scales linearly with this fraction (and B is assumed amplified), the numerical values and consistency with Fermi data are not independent derivations but follow from the external input choice.
[Abstract] Abstract (model description): The model is parameterized by at least five quantities (M_env, τ, v_f, post-shock thickness fraction, magnetic amplification efficiency), yet the text provides no sensitivity study showing how variations in the thickness fraction or amplification efficiency propagate into the claimed E_max evolution or the calorimetric radiation assumption.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that τ is 'proportional to the nova speed class, t2' but does not supply the explicit scaling relation or reference used to connect these timescales.
The phrase 'thin, dense shell of slower material released earlier' is introduced without a dedicated justification or citation for its formation mechanism within the parameterized outflow.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments and indicate the revisions made to address them.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (E_max prediction paragraph): The central claim that E_max ∼10 GeV near peak (growing to ≳10 TeV) rests on adopting a fixed post-shock thickness fraction δ/R ≲10^{-4} directly from external turbulent-mixing studies without deriving δ(t) or its effect on the acceleration zone inside the toy model. Because the Hillas criterion E_max ∝ B δ scales linearly with this fraction (and B is assumed amplified), the numerical values and consistency with Fermi data are not independent derivations but follow from the external input choice.

Authors: We agree that the quoted E_max values are obtained by adopting the post-shock thickness fraction δ/R ≲ 10^{-4} as an input from external hydrodynamic studies on turbulent mixing, rather than deriving δ(t) self-consistently within the toy model. The model is intentionally parameterized to incorporate such empirical constraints and thereby link shock dynamics to γ-ray emission. We have revised the abstract to state explicitly that the E_max predictions assume this thickness and efficient magnetic amplification, framing the Fermi consistency as a check on the adopted parameters. We have also added a clarifying sentence in Section 2 noting that a full time-dependent derivation of δ would require multidimensional hydrodynamical simulations outside the scope of this work. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (model description): The model is parameterized by at least five quantities (M_env, τ, v_f, post-shock thickness fraction, magnetic amplification efficiency), yet the text provides no sensitivity study showing how variations in the thickness fraction or amplification efficiency propagate into the claimed E_max evolution or the calorimetric radiation assumption.

Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit sensitivity study would improve the robustness of the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection (Section 4.3) and accompanying figure that varies the post-shock thickness fraction over 10^{-5}–10^{-3} and the magnetic amplification efficiency over 0.01–1.0 while holding other parameters fixed. The results show that the qualitative time evolution of E_max (GeV-scale near peak, growth toward TeV at later times) and the validity of the calorimetric limit remain unchanged across this range for fiducial nova parameters. We have also updated the abstract to reference this analysis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper presents a parameterized toy model that adopts an empirically motivated post-shock thickness δ ≲ 10^{-4} R_shock from recent external work on turbulent mixing (to explain low X-ray luminosities) and assumes efficient magnetic amplification. It then applies a Hillas-like criterion to compute E_max, obtaining ∼10 GeV near optical peak with later growth to ≳10 TeV. This is a standard forward calculation from stated inputs and assumptions, checked for consistency against independent Fermi γ-ray spectra; it does not reduce by construction to the same inputs via self-definition, renaming, or load-bearing self-citation. The calorimetric radiation assumption for typical parameters is likewise an input choice, not a tautology. No load-bearing steps equate outputs to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model depends on several free parameters describing the nova outflow and an empirically selected post-shock thickness; it invokes standard assumptions from shock acceleration theory without new derivations.

free parameters (5)

M_env
Envelope mass ejected by the white dwarf, a core input parameter of the toy model.
tau
Timescale over which the envelope is removed, tied to the nova speed class t2.
v_f
Terminal velocity of the accelerating outflow.
post_shock_thickness_fraction = ~10^{-4}
Empirically motivated upper limit of ~10^{-4} on the hot post-shock region thickness relative to shock radius.
magnetic_amplification_efficiency
Assumed high efficiency of magnetic field amplification at the shock.

axioms (3)

standard math Protons are accelerated at the reverse shock via standard diffusive shock acceleration.
Invoked to set the particle spectrum and maximum energy via Hillas criterion.
domain assumption Accelerated protons radiate in the calorimetric limit once advected into the dense shell.
Stated to hold for typical values of M_env, tau, and v_f.
standard math Maximum proton energy is limited by the physical size of the hot post-shock region.
Hillas-like argument used to derive E_max scaling.

invented entities (1)

Thin dense shell of slower material released earlier no independent evidence
purpose: Generates the reverse shock and serves as the dense target for proton interactions and gamma-ray production.
Postulated component of the outflow history required for the shock interaction geometry.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5622 in / 1929 out tokens · 61147 ms · 2026-05-10T18:44:15.621304+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We present a parameterized (toy) model... parameters... summarized in Table 1

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

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

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...
[3]

2Fb @Ϟ=s 9soG y VZ8lٲ ? | ?>

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

2017
[4]

A., Ackermann , M., et al

Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 817, 10.1126/science.1192537

work page doi:10.1126/science.1192537 2010
[5]

A., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L

Acciari , V. A., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 689, 10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z 2022
[6]

2014, Science, 345, 554, 10.1126/science.1253947

Ackermann , M., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 554, 10.1126/science.1253947

work page doi:10.1126/science.1253947 2014
[7]

2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193, 10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0

Actis , M., Agnetta , G., Aharonian , F., et al. 2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193, 10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0

work page doi:10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0 2011
[8]

2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 457, 899, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065351

Aharonian , F., Akhperjanian , A. G., Bazer-Bachi , A. R., et al. 2006, , 457, 899, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065351

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065351 2006
[9]

L., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L

Ahnen , M. L., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2015, , 582, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526478

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526478 2015
[10]

2022, , 940, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac966a

Albert , A., Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., et al. 2022, , 940, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac966a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac966a 2022
[11]

B., Abdo, A

Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009
[12]

I., Leer , E., & Skadron , G

Axford , W. I., Leer , E., & Skadron , G. 1977, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 2, Acceleration of Cosmic Rays at Shock Fronts, 273--+. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ICRC....2..273A

1977
[13]

V., Chomiuk , L., et al

Aydi , E., Sokolovsky , K. V., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2020 a , Nature Astronomy, 4, 776, 10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y 2020
[14]

2020 b , , 905, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

Aydi , E., Chomiuk , L., Izzo , L., et al. 2020 b , , 905, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb 2020
[15]

D., M \'e rand , A., et al

Aydi , E., Monnier , J. D., M \'e rand , A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-025-02725-1

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02725-1 2025
[16]

T., & Shaviv , G

Bath , G. T., & Shaviv , G. 1976, , 175, 305, 10.1093/mnras/175.2.305

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/175.2.305 1976
[17]

Bell , A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.182..147B/abstract

1978
[18]

J., Zwaan , M

---. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 550, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x 2004
[19]

W., & Lazarian , A

Beresnyak , A., Jones , T. W., & Lazarian , A. 2009, , 707, 1541, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1541

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/1541 2009
[20]

1982, in Quantum Electrodynamics, 2nd edn., ed

Berestetskii, V., Lifshitz, E., & Pitaevskii, L. 1982, in Quantum Electrodynamics, 2nd edn., ed. V. Berestetskii, E. Lifshitz, & L. Pitaevskii (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann), 354--455, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-050346-2.50016-7

work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-050346-2.50016-7 1982
[21]

D., & Ostriker , J

Blandford , R. D., & Ostriker , J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, 10.1086/182658

work page doi:10.1086/182658 1978
[22]

C., Jean , P., Shore , S

Cheung , C. C., Jean , P., Shore , S. N., et al. 2016, , 826, 142, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/142

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/142 2016
[23]

C., Johnson , T

Cheung , C. C., Johnson , T. J., Jean , P., et al. 2022, , 935, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb7

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7eb7 2022
[24]

A., & Fransson, C

Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 1994, , 420, 268, 10.1086/173557

work page doi:10.1086/173557 1994
[25]

A., & Imamura , J

Chevalier , R. A., & Imamura , J. N. 1982, , 261, 543, 10.1086/160364

work page doi:10.1086/160364 1982
[26]

J., Zdziarski , A

Chodorowski , M. J., Zdziarski , A. A., & Sikora , M. 1992, , 400, 181, 10.1086/171984

work page doi:10.1086/171984 1992
[27]

D., & Shen , K

Chomiuk , L., Metzger , B. D., & Shen , K. J. 2021 a , , 59, 391, 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502 2021
[28]

D., Yang , J., et al

Chomiuk , L., Linford , J. D., Yang , J., et al. 2014, , 514, 339, 10.1038/nature13773

work page doi:10.1038/nature13773 2014
[29]

D., Aydi, E., et al

Chomiuk , L., Linford , J. D., Aydi , E., et al. 2021 b , , 257, 49, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac24ab

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac24ab 2021
[30]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04098, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04098

Chong , A., Aydi , E., Craig , P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04098, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04098

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.04098 2025
[31]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.15900, 10.48550/arXiv.2508.15900

Craig , P., Aydi , E., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.15900, 10.48550/arXiv.2508.15900

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.15900 2025
[32]

M., & Bildsten , L

Cunningham , T., Wolf , W. M., & Bildsten , L. 2015, , 803, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/76

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/2/76 2015
[33]

M., Metzger , B

Derdzinski , A. M., Metzger , B. D., & Lazzati , D. 2017, , 469, 1314, 10.1093/mnras/stx829

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx829 2017
[34]

D., Aydi, E., et al

Diesing, R., Metzger, B. D., Aydi, E., et al. 2023, , 947, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc105

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc105 2023
[35]

Drury , L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002 1983
[36]

M., Foley , R

Drury , L. O., & Downes , T. P. 2012, , 427, 2308, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22106.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22106.x 2012
[37]

2006, , 459, 875, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065741

Ederoclite , A., Mason , E., Della Valle , M., et al. 2006, , 459, 875, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065741

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065741 2006
[38]

Evans , A., & Gehrz , R. D. 2012, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 40, 213. 1209.3193

work page arXiv 2012
[39]

D., Vurm , I., Aydi , E., & Chomiuk , L

Fang , K., Metzger , B. D., Vurm , I., Aydi , E., & Chomiuk , L. 2020, , 904, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6e

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6e 2020
[40]

1954, Ap

Fermi , E. 1954, Ap. J., 119, 1, 10.1086/145789

work page doi:10.1086/145789 1954
[41]

Ferrario , L., de Martino , D., & G \"a nsicke , B. T. 2015, , 191, 111, 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 2015
[42]

D., et al

Finzell , T., Chomiuk , L., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2018, , 852, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa12a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa12a 2018
[43]

C., & Buson , S

Franckowiak , A., Jean , P., Wood , M., Cheung , C. C., & Buson , S. 2018, , 609, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731516

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731516 2018
[44]

1987, , 180, 155

Friedjung , M. 1987, , 180, 155

1987
[45]

S., & Starrfield , S

Gallagher , J. S., & Starrfield , S. 1978, , 16, 171, 10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.001131

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.001131 1978
[46]

2022, , 939, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9475

Hachisu , I., & Kato , M. 2022, , 939, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9475

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9475 2022
[47]

H., Starrfield , S., Shore , S

Hauschildt , P. H., Starrfield , S., Shore , S. N., et al. 1994, , 108, 1008, 10.1086/117131

work page doi:10.1086/117131 1994
[48]

Hillas , A. M. 1984, Ann. Rev. of A&A, 22, 425, 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233 1984
[49]

2005, , 633, L117, 10.1086/498300

Kato , M., & Hachisu , I. 2005, , 633, L117, 10.1086/498300

work page doi:10.1086/498300 2005
[50]

2007, , 657, 1004, 10.1086/511058

---. 2007, , 657, 1004, 10.1086/511058

work page doi:10.1086/511058 2007
[51]

Krymskii , G. F. 1977, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 234, 1306. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977DoSSR.234R1306K

1977
[52]

D., Chomiuk , L., et al

Li , K.-L., Metzger , B. D., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 697, 10.1038/s41550-017-0222-1

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0222-1 2017
[53]

2024, , 692, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451364

Lico , R., Giroletti , M., Munari , U., et al. 2024, , 692, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451364

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451364 2024
[54]

Livio , M., Shankar , A., Burkert , A., & Truran , J. W. 1990, , 356, 250, 10.1086/168836

work page doi:10.1086/168836 1990
[55]

M., O'Brien , T

Lloyd , H. M., O'Brien , T. J., & Bode , M. F. 1997, , 284, 137, 10.1093/mnras/284.1.137

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/284.1.137 1997
[56]

2013, , 551, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220289

Martin , P., & Dubus , G. 2013, , 551, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220289

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220289 2013
[57]

2018, , 612, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731692

Martin , P., Dubus , G., Jean , P., Tatischeff , V., & Dosne , C. 2018, , 612, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731692

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731692 2018
[58]

N., De Gennaro Aquino , I., et al

Mason , E., Shore , S. N., De Gennaro Aquino , I., et al. 2018, , 853, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa247

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa247 2018
[59]

McLaughlin , D. B. 1960, The Spectra of Novae , 585

1960
[60]

D., Caprioli, D., Vurm, I., et al

Metzger, B. D., Caprioli, D., Vurm, I., et al. 2016, , 457, 1786, 10.1093/mnras/stw123

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw123 2016
[61]

D., Finzell , T., Vurm , I., et al

Metzger , B. D., Finzell , T., Vurm , I., et al. 2015, , 450, 2739, 10.1093/mnras/stv742

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv742 2015
[62]

D., Hasco \"e t , R., Vurm , I., et al

Metzger , B. D., Hasco \"e t , R., Vurm , I., et al. 2014, , 442, 713, 10.1093/mnras/stu844

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu844 2014
[63]

D., Lancaster , L., & Diesing , R

Metzger , B. D., Lancaster , L., & Diesing , R. 2025, , 988, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/ade711

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade711 2025
[64]

J., et al

Mitrani , S., Behar , E., Drake , J. J., et al. 2024, , 970, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a64

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a64 2024
[65]

2025, , 989, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/adf1a3

Mitrani , S., Behar , E., Orio , M., & Worley , J. 2025, , 989, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/adf1a3

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf1a3 2025
[66]

2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 88, 10.1515/astro-2017-0362

Mohamed , S., & Podsiadlowski , P. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 88, 10.1515/astro-2017-0362

work page doi:10.1515/astro-2017-0362 2012
[67]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.15480

Molina , I., Craig , P., Diesing , R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.15480. 2603.15480

work page arXiv 2026
[68]

2008, , 677, 1248, 10.1086/529362

Mukai , K., Orio , M., & Della Valle , M. 2008, , 677, 1248, 10.1086/529362

work page doi:10.1086/529362 2008
[69]

L., Osborne , J

Mukai , K., Page , K. L., Osborne , J. P., & Nelson , T. 2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, 5862, 1

2014
[70]

2022, , 666, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244821

Munari , U., Giroletti , M., Marcote , B., et al. 2022, , 666, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244821

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244821 2022
[71]

2019, , 872, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6d

Nelson , T., Mukai , K., Li , K.-L., et al. 2019, , 872, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6d 2019
[72]

L., Sokoloski , J., & Harrison , F

Orio , M., Rana , V., Page , K. L., Sokoloski , J., & Harrison , F. 2015, , 448, L35, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu195

work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu195 2015
[73]

J., Livio, M., & Pringle, J

Orio , M., Parmar , A., Benjamin , R., et al. 2001, , 326, L13, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04448.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04448.x 2001
[74]

J., & Miceli , M

Orlando , S., Drake , J. J., & Miceli , M. 2017, , 464, 5003, 10.1093/mnras/stw2718

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2718 2017
[75]

The role of three-dimensional effects on ion injection and acceleration in perpendicular shocks

Orusa , L., Caprioli , D., Sironi , L., & Spitkovsky , A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13436, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.13436

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.13436 2025
[76]

L., Osborne , J

Page , K. L., Osborne , J. P., Kuin , N. P. M., et al. 2015, , 454, 3108, 10.1093/mnras/stv2144

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2144 2015
[77]

D., & Tomida , K

Pejcha , O., Metzger , B. D., & Tomida , K. 2016 a , , 461, 2527, 10.1093/mnras/stw1481

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1481 2016
[78]

2016 b , , 455, 4351, 10.1093/mnras/stv2592

---. 2016 b , , 455, 4351, 10.1093/mnras/stv2592

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2592 2016
[79]

Ribeiro , V. A. R. M., Munari , U., & Valisa , P. 2013, , 768, 49, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/49

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/49 2013
[80]

B., & Lightman , A

Rybicki , G. B., & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

1979

Showing first 80 references.