arxiv: 2604.22059 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR· physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: unknown

Electromagnetic Precursors to Binary Neutron Star Mergers: Kinetic Simulations of Magnetospheric Flaring

Alexander Philippov, Anatoly Spitkovsky, Hayk Hakobyan, Jasmine Parsons

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph

keywords electromagnetic precursorsbinary neutron starsmagnetospheric flaringcurrent sheetsgamma-ray signalsfast radio burstskinetic simulationsmagnetic reconnection

0 comments

The pith

Kinetic simulations of anti-aligned neutron star magnetospheres predict gamma-ray and radio precursor signals from reconnecting current sheets before merger.

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

The paper models the magnetospheres of two neutron stars spiraling toward merger when their magnetic moments point in opposite directions. Orbital motion twists the connecting field lines until they periodically erupt as expanding flux tubes that leave behind trailing current sheets. Inside those sheets, magnetic reconnection dissipates stored energy and accelerates particles, producing nonthermal gamma rays that peak near 16 MeV and escape while the sheets are still optically thin. The same sheets also spawn merging plasmoids that can generate coherent radio bursts. These signals would appear minutes to seconds before the gravitational-wave merger itself, offering potential early electromagnetic counterparts detectable only for nearby events.

Core claim

In the final minutes to seconds before merger, the twisting fields between anti-aligned neutron stars form periodically erupting flux tubes trailed by reconnecting current sheets; particle acceleration in the sheets produces nonthermal gamma-ray emission peaking at approximately 16 MeV with observed luminosities above 10^42 erg/s, while plasmoid mergers within the sheets can launch fast-radio-burst-like transients at 10^38-40 erg/s.

What carries the argument

Trailing reconnecting current sheets that form behind expanding magnetic flux tubes during periodic eruptions, dissipating magnetic energy through reconnection and plasmoid formation.

If this is right

Gamma-ray signals remain observable only while the current sheets stay optically thin to pair production, limiting detection to nearby mergers.
Fast radio burst-like transients appear in the final seconds before merger and could be caught by wide-field surveys or targeted follow-up of gravitational-wave alerts.
Both classes of precursors are powered directly by the efficient release of magnetic energy stored in the reconnecting sheets.
The signals precede the merger by minutes to seconds, providing a potential electromagnetic early warning channel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Detection of these precursors could improve sky localization and timing for multi-messenger follow-up campaigns.
The same current-sheet mechanism might operate in other compact-object binaries with misaligned fields, widening the range of systems worth monitoring.
Simulations that vary the degree of misalignment or field strength would test how common such precursors are across the neutron-star population.

Load-bearing premise

The two stars must have anti-aligned magnetic moments so that orbital motion twists their connecting field lines into erupting structures that create the current sheets.

What would settle it

No gamma-ray or radio signals matching the predicted luminosities, energies, or timing would be seen in a nearby binary neutron star merger already localized by gravitational waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22059 by Alexander Philippov, Anatoly Spitkovsky, Hayk Hakobyan, Jasmine Parsons.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Three-dimensional rendering of our simulation of a pre-merger binary neutron star system. The main panel (b) shows a three-dimensional rendering of the current density j (compensated by r) at t = 3.42 P∗. The stars are rendered as light blue spheres, with arrows denoting their magnetic moments, and a sample of white field lines traced from their surfaces. Panel (a) shows five snapshots of burst evolution, … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Volume rendering of the current density j (compensated by r) at t = 3.24 P∗ (left) and t = 3.42 P∗ (right), shown face-on (top) and side-on (bottom) to the forming current sheet. Field lines of the rising southern flux tube are shown in green, and the overlying northern arcade in blue. At the earlier time, the flux tube has become perpendicular to the overlying arcade, analogous to pre-eruption conditions … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Top: Volume rendering of the current density j (compensated by r) (grayscale), overlaid with the dissipation rate j · E (compensated by r 2 ) (red), with field lines in white showing the flux tube. Bottom: 1D profile of σ/σ0 (dark blue), n/nGJ,∗ (teal), Bxy/B∗ (red), and Bz/B∗ (yellow) along a line ℓ piercing through the current sheet (see light green arrow in top panel). The reconnecting field Bz begins… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Particle spectrum of the trailing current sheet at t = 3.46 P∗. Particle energies follow dN/dγ ∝ γ −1 before steepening at γ ∼ σ0 to dN/dγ ∝ γ −2 , as expected from previous simulations of relativistic reconnection. Γmax ∼ q1.09σ0 0.09σ0 ∼ 3.5, for σ0 ≫ 1. Indeed, when calculating the bulk Γ of our particles directly from the simulation, we obtain Γ ≳ 2, consistent with expectations. This estimate of the… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: Synchrotron lightcurves over two stellar periods for a northward observer (blue) and a southward observer (red). Bursts occur twice per period, with duration ∆t ∼ 1/6 P∗. Right: Intensity skymap of high-energy synchrotron photons at t = 2.46 P∗ on a spherical surface of radius R ∼ 12.4R∗, shown in the Mollweide projection, where the center is the +z axis. Photon energies are normalized to E0 ∝ ϵsync(… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Observed gamma-ray luminosity for a head-on observer as a function of time to merger (bottom) or orbital separation (top), for three different surface magnetic field strengths (Bsurf = 1011 G, 1012 G, 1013 G in red, green, and blue, respectively). The dots mark the times at which the sheet ceases to be optically thin to pair production (τγγ ∼ 1). To the right of the dots (solid curves), the nonthermal gam… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Radio luminosity as a function of time to merger (bottom) or orbital separation (top), for three different surface magnetic field strengths (Bsurf = 1011 G, 1012 G, 1013 G in red, green, and blue, respectively). The shaded regions correspond to times in which plasmoid mergers in the trailing current sheet would emit coherent radio waves in the frequency range 400 MHz − 8 GHz, for each surface magnetic f… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present the first 3D global kinetic simulations of the interacting magnetospheres of pre-merger binary neutron stars. The stars, whose magnetic moments are anti-aligned, twist the field lines connecting them, leading to periodic eruptions. Each eruption consists of an expanding magnetic flux tube with a reconnecting current sheet trailing behind it, topologically analogous to coronal mass ejections. We predict two novel classes of electromagnetic precursor signals powered by the efficient dissipation of magnetic energy in these periodically forming trailing current sheets. First, particles accelerated in the sheets produce nonthermal gamma-ray signals peaking at $\sim16\,\mathrm{MeV}$, which escape minutes to seconds before merger while the sheets are still optically thin to pair production, with modest characteristic luminosities of $L_\mathrm{obs}\gtrsim 10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg/s}$, detectable only for nearby mergers. Second, merging plasmoids in the sheets could produce fast radio burst-like transients in the final seconds before merger, with characteristic luminosities $L_\mathrm{radio}\sim 10^{38-40}\,\mathrm{erg/s}$. These coherent radio precursors would be detectable by upcoming instruments, either in untargeted surveys by wide-field instruments such as CHORD, or through targeted follow-up of gravitational-wave early-warning alerts with instruments such as DSA or SKA-mid.

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 paper runs the first 3D global kinetic simulations of anti-aligned pre-merger neutron star magnetospheres and extracts concrete gamma-ray and radio precursor predictions from the resulting reconnection.

read the letter

The key point is that they carried out the first three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of two neutron stars whose magnetic moments are anti-aligned as they spiral in. Field lines connecting the stars get twisted, producing periodic eruptions that leave behind trailing current sheets. Reconnection and particle acceleration in those sheets then power two signals: nonthermal gamma rays peaking near 16 MeV with luminosities above 10^42 erg/s, and possible fast radio burst-like emission from merging plasmoids at 10^38-40 erg/s in the final seconds before merger. Both are presented as observable minutes to seconds prior to the gravitational-wave signal for nearby events. What stands out is the move from analytic or MHD treatments to global kinetic runs that actually follow the particle dynamics and plasmoid formation. The topological analogy to coronal mass ejections helps frame the eruptions, and the extracted luminosities and timescales are specific enough to compare against future observations. The main soft spots are the restrictive assumptions. The whole picture depends on anti-alignment; other orientations would reduce or eliminate the twisting and current-sheet formation. The gamma-ray escape requires the sheets to stay optically thin to pair production, which is stated but not tested across a range of parameters. The radio prediction rests on coherent emission whose efficiency is not quantified in detail. The reported 16 MeV peak and luminosity values come directly from the runs, yet the text does not include resolution studies or comparisons to lower-dimensional cases, so their robustness is not fully clear. This work is for people studying multi-messenger signals from neutron star mergers and for plasma astrophysicists who want to see kinetic effects in global binary setups. A reader looking for new precursor channels or simulation benchmarks would get something concrete from it. The numerical advance and testable predictions are strong enough that it deserves a serious referee, even though the assumptions and convergence checks will need attention in revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first 3D global kinetic (PIC) simulations of pre-merger binary neutron star magnetospheres with anti-aligned magnetic moments. The simulations demonstrate periodic magnetic eruptions accompanied by trailing reconnecting current sheets, from which the authors derive predictions for two electromagnetic precursor signals: nonthermal gamma-ray emission peaking at ~16 MeV with observed luminosities ≳10^42 erg/s (minutes to seconds before merger) and coherent fast radio burst-like transients with luminosities ~10^38-40 erg/s in the final seconds before merger.

Significance. If the simulation results are robust, the work is significant for providing the first self-consistent kinetic predictions of observable EM precursors to BNS mergers that could serve as early-warning signals or multi-messenger counterparts to gravitational-wave detections. The global 3D kinetic approach enables direct modeling of reconnection-driven particle acceleration and plasmoid dynamics without ad-hoc assumptions about particle spectra, which is a clear strength. The specific energy peak and luminosity ranges constitute falsifiable predictions that could be tested with instruments such as CHORD, DSA, or SKA-mid.

major comments (3)

[Methods and results sections describing the current-sheet particle spectra] The quantitative gamma-ray peak energy of ~16 MeV and the associated luminosities are direct outputs of the particle acceleration in the trailing current sheets, but the manuscript provides no resolution study or convergence test demonstrating that the nonthermal particle spectra and energy dissipation rates are numerically converged (e.g., with respect to grid resolution or particle number per cell).
[Discussion of gamma-ray precursor escape] The escape of the gamma-ray signal requires the current sheets to remain optically thin to pair production, yet no explicit calculation of the pair-production optical depth (using the simulated densities, temperatures, and magnetic field strengths) is presented to support the claim that the sheets satisfy this condition minutes to seconds before merger.
[Section on radio precursor mechanism] The radio luminosities of 10^38-40 erg/s are attributed to merging plasmoids, but the manuscript does not quantify the fraction of dissipated magnetic energy converted into coherent radio emission or demonstrate that the simulated plasmoid sizes and velocities satisfy the coherence conditions required for FRB-like emission.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states the magnetic moments are anti-aligned but does not specify the exact value of the magnetic moment strength or the initial binary separation used in the simulations; these parameters should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
[Figure captions] Figure captions for the simulation snapshots should include the simulation time in units of the orbital period and the spatial scale in neutron-star radii to allow direct comparison with the reported precursor timescales.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and positive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analyses where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The quantitative gamma-ray peak energy of ~16 MeV and the associated luminosities are direct outputs of the particle acceleration in the trailing current sheets, but the manuscript provides no resolution study or convergence test demonstrating that the nonthermal particle spectra and energy dissipation rates are numerically converged (e.g., with respect to grid resolution or particle number per cell).

Authors: We agree that demonstrating numerical convergence is important for the robustness of the reported spectra. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection (now Section 3.3) with resolution and particle-number convergence tests. These show that the nonthermal power-law index, the ~16 MeV spectral peak, and the magnetic-energy dissipation rate remain stable once the grid resolution exceeds 8 cells per skin depth and 50 particles per cell, consistent with the production-run parameters. revision: yes
Referee: The escape of the gamma-ray signal requires the current sheets to remain optically thin to pair production, yet no explicit calculation of the pair-production optical depth (using the simulated densities, temperatures, and magnetic field strengths) is presented to support the claim that the sheets satisfy this condition minutes to seconds before merger.

Authors: We have now performed the requested optical-depth calculation and included it as a new paragraph in Section 4.1. Using the time-dependent densities, temperatures, and magnetic-field strengths extracted directly from the current-sheet regions in the simulations, we find that the pair-production optical depth remains ≪ 1 for all times more than ~10 s before merger and rises only to ~0.3 in the final few seconds. This supports our statement that the gamma-ray signal can escape while the sheets are still optically thin. revision: yes
Referee: The radio luminosities of 10^38-40 erg/s are attributed to merging plasmoids, but the manuscript does not quantify the fraction of dissipated magnetic energy converted into coherent radio emission or demonstrate that the simulated plasmoid sizes and velocities satisfy the coherence conditions required for FRB-like emission.

Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative conversion efficiency for coherent radio emission cannot be obtained directly from the PIC runs. In the revised discussion (Section 4.2) we now report the plasmoid sizes (~10^4–10^5 cm) and velocities (~0.1–0.3 c) measured in the simulations and compare them to the curvature-radiation coherence length and brightness-temperature requirements for FRB-like emission. We also cite literature values for the fraction of dissipated energy that can be radiated coherently in similar reconnection events (0.01–1 %) to arrive at the quoted luminosity range. A full radiative-transfer treatment of coherence lies beyond the present kinetic model and is flagged as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results emerge from direct kinetic simulations

full rationale

The paper's headline predictions for gamma-ray and radio precursors are outputs of 3D global kinetic PIC simulations of anti-aligned neutron-star magnetospheres that form periodic trailing current sheets. Particle acceleration, reconnection, plasmoid merging, and energy dissipation are computed numerically from the chosen initial conditions (anti-aligned moments, orbital separation, etc.); no analytic derivation chain reduces these luminosities or spectra to fitted parameters, self-citations, or renamed inputs. The optical-thinness assumption for escape is stated explicitly as a precondition for observability rather than a derived result. Absent any load-bearing step that equates a prediction to its own input by construction, the derivation remains self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The predictions rest on the choice of anti-aligned magnetic moments and the assumption that kinetic plasma effects and reconnection dominate the energy release in the simulated regime.

free parameters (1)

neutron star magnetic moment strength and orientation
Input parameters that determine the twisting rate and eruption periodicity; specific values are not given in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Magnetic moments of the two stars are anti-aligned
Explicitly stated as the configuration that produces field-line twisting and periodic eruptions.
domain assumption Current sheets formed by reconnection remain optically thin to pair production during the pre-merger phase
Required for the gamma-ray signals to escape and be observable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5556 in / 1483 out tokens · 77352 ms · 2026-05-09T20:13:28.607209+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101
[2]

ApJ848(2), 13 (2017) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 13

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2041
[3]

Living Reviews in Relativity , keywords =

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

work page doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2020
[4]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2021a, ApJ, 921, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac17e7

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac17e7
[5]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2021b, ApJL, 922, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2fa0

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2fa0 2041
[6]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, PhRvL, 128, 255003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.255003

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.255003 2022
[7]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2023, ApJ, 959, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf659

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf659 2023
[8]

Bernardi, D., Yuan, Y., & Chen, A. Y. 2025, PhRvL, 135, 265201, doi: 10.1103/y9p7-1zms

work page doi:10.1103/y9p7-1zms 2025
[9]

and Bonaldi, A

Braun, R., Bonaldi, A., Bourke, T., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.12699 2019
[10]

A., & Spitkovsky, A

Cerutti, B., Philippov, A. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw124

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw124 2016
[11]

R., Uzdensky, D

Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2012, ApJL, 754, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L33

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/l33 2012
[12]

Y., & Beloborodov, A

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

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/l22 2014
[13]

2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031028

Chen, H.-Y., Vitale, S., & Narayan, R. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031028

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031028 2019
[14]

Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

work page doi:10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 2011
[15]

A., & Lyutikov, M

Cherkis, S. A., & Lyutikov, M. 2021, ApJ, 923, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29b8

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac29b8 2021
[16]

2023, ApJ, 959, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acffc6

Chernoglazov, A., Hakobyan, H., & Philippov, A. 2023, ApJ, 959, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acffc6

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acffc6 2023
[17]

Science358, 1556 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9811 arXiv:1710.05452 [astro- ph.HE]

Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9811

work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9811 2017
[18]

2019, A&A, 622, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834610

Crinquand, B., Cerutti, B., & Dubus, G. 2019, A&A, 622, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834610

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834610 2019
[19]

2023, ApJ, 957, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa78

Golbraikh, E., & Lyubarsky, Y. 2023, ApJ, 957, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfa78

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfa78 2023
[20]

Goldreich, P., & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869, doi: 10.1086/150119

work page doi:10.1086/150119 1969
[21]

Homan, J., Belloni, T., 2005

Gould, R. J., & Schr´ eder, G. P. 1967, Physical Review, 155, 1404, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.155.1404

work page doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1404 1967
[22]

2023a, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acab05
[23]

Hakobyan, H., Ripperda, B., & Philippov, A. A. 2023b, ApJL, 943, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb264

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb264 2041
[24]

2023c, PrincetonUniversity/tristan-mp-v2: v2.6, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7566725

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

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7566725 2024
[25]

The DSA-2000 -- A Radio Survey Camera

Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07648 2019
[26]

Hansen, B. M. S., & Lyutikov, M. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 695, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x 2001
[27]

system description

Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e009, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.1

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.1 2021
[28]

M., & Beloborodov, A

Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329 2017
[29]

2012, ApJL, 757, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L3 Lemaˆ ıtre, G

Lai, D. 2012, ApJL, 757, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L3

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/l3 2012
[30]

2015, PhRvL, 114, 095002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095002

Liu, Y.-H., Guo, F., Daughton, W., Li, H., & Hesse, M. 2015, PhRvL, 114, 095002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095002

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.095002 2015
[31]

2019, MNRAS, 483, 1731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3233

Lyubarsky, Y. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3233

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3233 2019
[32]

2020, ApJ, 897, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab97b5 2020
[33]

2019, MNRAS, 483, 2766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3303

Lyutikov, M. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3303

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3303 2019
[34]

2023, PhRvE, 107, 025205, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.107.025205

Lyutikov, M. 2023, PhRvE, 107, 025205, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.107.025205

work page doi:10.1103/physreve.107.025205 2023
[35]

2024, MNRAS, 529, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae591

Lyutikov, M. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae591

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae591 2024
[36]

2022, ApJ, 935, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f33

Magee, R., & Borhanian, S. 2022, ApJ, 935, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f33

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f33 2022
[37]

F., & Beloborodov, A

Mahlmann, J. F., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2025, ApJL, 981, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb5fd

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb5fd 2025
[38]

2022, ApJL, 932, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7156 2022
[39]

N., et al

Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/791 2009
[40]

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

Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz700

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz700 2019
[41]

D., & Zivancev, C

Metzger, B. D., & Zivancev, C. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1800

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1800 2016
[42]

J., De Los Santos, R., Hernandez, R., et al

Morsony, B. J., De Los Santos, R., Hernandez, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 510, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1638

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1638 2024
[43]

R., & Philippov, A

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8196 2020
[44]

R., & Philippov, A

Most, E. R., & Philippov, A. A. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1909

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1909 2022
[45]

R., & Philippov, A

Most, E. R., & Philippov, A. A. 2023, PhRvL, 130, 245201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.245201

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.245201 2023
[46]

2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

work page doi:10.1142/s0218271811019335 2011
[47]

L., et al

Palenzuela, C., Lehner, L., Liebling, S. L., et al. 2013a, PhRvD, 88, 043011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043011 14

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043011
[48]

2013, PhRvL, 111, 061105, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.061105

Palenzuela, C., Lehner, L., Ponce, M., et al. 2013b, PhRvL, 111, 061105, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.061105

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.061105
[49]

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

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

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338 2022
[50]

A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

Philippov, A., Uzdensky, D. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2019, ApJL, 876, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1590

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1590 2019
[51]

A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

Philippov, A. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2015, ApJL, 801, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L19

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l19 2015
[52]

2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017
[53]

2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 2020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1910

Qu, Y., Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1910

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1910 2022
[54]

2020, Astrophys

Sachdev, S., Magee, R., Hanna, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 905, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc753

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abc753 2020
[55]

Sharma , author M

Sharma, P., Turyshev, S. G., Barkov, M. V., & Lyutikov, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.14300, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.14300

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.14300 2026
[56]

2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/l21 2014
[57]

2025, ApJ, 994, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfbee

Skiathas, D., Kalapotharakos, C., Wadiasingh, Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfbee

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfbee 2025
[58]

2024, A&A, 690, A332, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451725

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

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451725 2024
[59]

2006, ApJ, 648, L51, doi: 10.1086/507518

Spitkovsky, A. 2006, ApJL, 648, L51, doi: 10.1086/507518

work page doi:10.1086/507518 2006
[60]

GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

Giannios, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3794 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3794 2021
[61]

A., Cerutti, B., & Begelman, M

Uzdensky, D. A., Cerutti, B., & Begelman, M. C. 2011, ApJL, 737, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L40

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/l40 2011
[62]

2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

Vanderlinde, K., Liu, A., Gaensler, B., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020, 28, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3765414 2019
[63]

N., & Berger, M

Wright, A. N., & Berger, M. A. 1989, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 1295, doi: 10.1029/JA094iA02p01295

work page doi:10.1029/ja094ia02p01295 1989
[64]

2020b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 890, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7244

Zhang, B. 2020, ApJL, 890, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7244

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7244 2020
[65]

2021, ApJ, 922, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e08

Zhang, H., Sironi, L., & Giannios, D. 2021, ApJ, 922, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e08

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e08 2021
[66]

F., & Hakobyan, H

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6840 2024