pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10559 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Can magnetic reconnection power neutrino emission from AGN coronae?

Omar French , Gregory R. Werner , Mitchell C. Begelman
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetic reconnectionAGN coronaehigh-energy neutrinosproton accelerationNGC 1068IceCubetransrelativistic plasma
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reconnection in transrelativistic black hole coronae accelerates protons to tens of PeV, producing observed neutrinos from NGC 1068.

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

This paper tests whether small-scale magnetic reconnection in the corona around a supermassive black hole can generate the nonthermal protons that produce high-energy neutrinos. It uses NGC 1068 as the test case and combines the observed neutrino luminosity, X-ray luminosity, and Thomson optical depth to reduce the coronal size, field strength, density, and radiation field to a one-parameter family. In this family the ratio of magnetic energy to proton rest-mass energy is transrelativistic and near 0.3. At these conditions, repeated crossings of reconnecting current sheets can raise protons to tens of PeV before photomeson losses cap the energy. The resulting particle distribution, taken from turbulence simulations, yields a TeV neutrino spectrum that matches IceCube data for NGC 1068 without any adjustment to the spectral index.

Core claim

Across the one-parameter family of coronal conditions, the proton magnetization is transrelativistic with σ_p ∼ 0.3. In this regime, repeated encounters with intermittent reconnecting current sheets can energize suprathermal protons up to tens of PeV before photomeson cooling limits further acceleration. These injected particles may then be further processed by stochastic interactions with the turbulent cascade. Motivated by PIC simulations of strong turbulence at comparable magnetization, the adopted nonthermal proton spectrum produces a predicted TeV spectral shape that is broadly consistent with NGC 1068 without fitting the proton spectral slope.

What carries the argument

The one-parameter family of coronal conditions obtained by matching neutrino and X-ray luminosities plus Thomson depth, which fixes the proton magnetization (magnetic energy density over proton rest-mass energy density) near 0.3 and thereby permits repeated acceleration in reconnecting current sheets.

If this is right

  • Suprathermal protons reach energies of tens of PeV before photomeson cooling becomes dominant.
  • The injected particles undergo additional stochastic acceleration in the turbulent cascade.
  • The resulting neutrino emission in the TeV band matches the observed spectrum of NGC 1068.
  • Reconnection supplies the nonthermal protons needed for high-energy neutrino production in AGN coronae.
  • The mechanism operates across the entire one-parameter family of allowed coronal parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same modeling framework could be applied to other neutrino-bright AGN to test whether their coronae fall into the same magnetization range.
  • If the acceleration limit is general, reconnection in low-beta coronae may contribute to the diffuse astrophysical neutrino background.
  • Multi-messenger observations that independently constrain coronal magnetic field or density would provide a direct test of the derived one-parameter family.
  • Targeted turbulence simulations at exactly σ_p ∼ 0.3 and the inferred plasma beta would tighten the spectral prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The nonthermal proton spectrum shape is taken directly from particle-in-cell simulations of strong turbulence at comparable magnetization without further verification against the specific coronal conditions.

What would settle it

A measured neutrino spectrum from NGC 1068 whose TeV shape deviates significantly from the predicted distribution, or a direct constraint showing that coronal protons cannot reach tens of PeV because photomeson cooling is stronger than assumed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10559 by Gregory R. Werner, Mitchell C. Begelman, Omar French.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cartoon of a turbulent black hole corona hosting a neutrino source. Protons are steadily energized by parallel electric fields within the reconnection diffusion regions they encounter intermittently. Inelastic collisions with ambient photons (pγ) and protons (pp) produce charged pions whose decays yield neutrinos, and neutral pions whose decays yield γ-rays that are absorbed by γγ pair production and repro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phase diagram of energy-dependent acceleration and cooling timescales for NGC 1068-like SMBH corona parameters and uncertainties (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of our model neutrino SED (dashed black) with the neutrino excess detected by IceCube in the direction of NGC 1068 (green band indicates 95% confi￾dence). Contributions from pp (red) and pm (blue) chan￾nels are shown separately. Shaded bands show the variation across the full λ ∈ [1, λmax] family ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate whether reconnection of small-scale current sheets in transrelativistic supermassive black hole (SMBH) coronae can supply the nonthermal protons needed for high-energy neutrino emission, using NGC 1068 as a test case. We model the corona as a strongly turbulent, low-$\beta$, collisionless hydrogen plasma with characteristic size $r_{\rm co}$, magnetic field strength $B$, proton density $n_p$, and radiation energy density $u_{\rm rad}$. Combining the observed IceCube-band neutrino luminosity with the X-ray luminosity and Thomson optical depth reduces these coronal quantities to a one-parameter family. Across this family, the proton magnetization $\sigma_p \equiv B^2/(4\pi n_p m_p c^2)$ is transrelativistic with $\sigma_p \sim 0.3$. In this regime, we show that repeated encounters with intermittent reconnecting current sheets can energize suprathermal protons up to tens of PeV before photomeson cooling limits further acceleration. These injected particles may then be further processed by stochastic interactions with the turbulent cascade. Motivated by PIC simulations of strong turbulence at comparable magnetization, we adopt a nonthermal proton spectrum with an independently specified index and find that the predicted TeV spectral shape is broadly consistent with NGC~1068 without fitting the proton spectral slope.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether magnetic reconnection in transrelativistic, low-β AGN coronae can accelerate protons to produce the observed high-energy neutrinos, taking NGC 1068 as a test case. The corona is modeled with parameters r_co, B, n_p, and u_rad; combining the IceCube neutrino luminosity, X-ray luminosity, and Thomson optical depth reduces these to a one-parameter family in which σ_p ≡ B²/(4π n_p m_p c²) ≈ 0.3. In this regime, repeated encounters with reconnecting current sheets are shown to energize suprathermal protons to tens of PeV before photomeson cooling dominates; a nonthermal proton spectrum is then adopted from external PIC simulations of strong turbulence at comparable magnetization, yielding a predicted TeV neutrino spectral shape that is broadly consistent with NGC 1068 observations without fitting the spectral index.

Significance. If the central claims are robust, the work supplies a concrete, observationally constrained mechanism linking reconnection-driven acceleration in SMBH coronae to IceCube neutrinos. The reduction of four coronal quantities to a one-parameter family via multiple independent observables is a methodological strength that makes the model more falsifiable than fully free-parameter approaches. The result, if confirmed, would strengthen the case for AGN coronae as neutrino sources and motivate targeted PIC or hybrid simulations of transrelativistic reconnection under coronal radiation fields.

major comments (3)
  1. [Derivation of the one-parameter family (abstract and §3)] The one-parameter family is constructed using the observed IceCube-band neutrino luminosity as a constraint. The subsequent claim that the predicted TeV spectral shape is 'broadly consistent without fitting' therefore depends on the same luminosity datum that fixed the normalization; an explicit demonstration that the shape agreement survives when the neutrino luminosity is treated as a prediction (rather than an input) would remove the appearance of circularity.
  2. [Adoption of proton spectrum and comparison to NGC 1068 (abstract and §4)] The nonthermal proton spectrum (index and form) is imported directly from external PIC simulations of strong turbulence at σ_p ∼ 0.3 and described as 'independently specified.' The coronal conditions derived from the family include a specific u_rad and low-β plasma that may alter injection, reconnection rate, or stochastic processing relative to the cited PIC setups; without a dedicated comparison or additional simulation at the exact (r_co, B, n_p, u_rad) values of the family, this step remains load-bearing for the no-fitting claim.
  3. [Acceleration and cooling limits (abstract and §3.2)] The assertion that protons reach tens of PeV before photomeson cooling is central to the viability of the mechanism. The abstract and main text provide no error propagation on the remaining free parameter of the family, nor an explicit scan showing that the maximum energy stays above the photomeson threshold across the full allowed range; such a check is required to establish robustness.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would be clearer if it stated the numerical range spanned by the remaining free parameter after the luminosity and optical-depth constraints are applied.
  2. Provide the exact magnetization values and turbulence regimes of the referenced PIC runs so readers can judge the degree of overlap with the derived coronal family.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have prompted us to clarify key aspects of our analysis. We respond point by point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The one-parameter family is constructed using the observed IceCube-band neutrino luminosity as a constraint. The subsequent claim that the predicted TeV spectral shape is 'broadly consistent without fitting' therefore depends on the same luminosity datum that fixed the normalization; an explicit demonstration that the shape agreement survives when the neutrino luminosity is treated as a prediction (rather than an input) would remove the appearance of circularity.

    Authors: The observed neutrino luminosity is used solely to set the overall normalization (amplitude) of the predicted spectrum. The TeV spectral shape, however, is fixed by the independently adopted nonthermal proton distribution (whose index and form are taken from PIC simulations at matching magnetization) together with the energy-dependent photomeson cooling. These shape-determining ingredients are independent of the luminosity constraint. Across the one-parameter family, σ_p remains ≈0.3 while the remaining parameter (e.g., coronal size) varies; the resulting neutrino spectral shape stays consistent with NGC 1068 data. We will revise the text to explicitly separate normalization from shape and to state that the proton spectral index was not adjusted to fit the neutrino observations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The nonthermal proton spectrum (index and form) is imported directly from external PIC simulations of strong turbulence at σ_p ∼ 0.3 and described as 'independently specified.' The coronal conditions derived from the family include a specific u_rad and low-β plasma that may alter injection, reconnection rate, or stochastic processing relative to the cited PIC setups; without a dedicated comparison or additional simulation at the exact (r_co, B, n_p, u_rad) values of the family, this step remains load-bearing for the no-fitting claim.

    Authors: The magnetization σ_p ≈ 0.3 is the dominant parameter controlling the nonthermal spectrum in the referenced turbulence simulations, and this value is reproduced throughout our one-parameter family. The low-β, transrelativistic regime is also consistent with those setups. While a dedicated simulation at the precise (r_co, B, n_p, u_rad) values would be desirable, it lies outside the scope of the present study. We will expand the discussion in the revised manuscript to compare the physical conditions more explicitly with the cited PIC works and to justify the applicability of the adopted spectrum. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The assertion that protons reach tens of PeV before photomeson cooling is central to the viability of the mechanism. The abstract and main text provide no error propagation on the remaining free parameter of the family, nor an explicit scan showing that the maximum energy stays above the photomeson threshold across the full allowed range; such a check is required to establish robustness.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative robustness check is needed. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit scan over the allowed range of the remaining free parameter, together with error propagation, demonstrating that the maximum proton energy remains above the photomeson threshold for the entire family. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; spectrum index externally adopted and consistency check is independent of fitted normalization

full rationale

The derivation reduces four coronal quantities to a one-parameter family via observed neutrino luminosity, X-ray luminosity, and Thomson depth, then computes σ_p ≈ 0.3 across the family. The nonthermal proton spectrum index is explicitly adopted from external PIC simulations of strong turbulence at comparable magnetization and is described as independently specified without fitting to the NGC 1068 data. The TeV spectral shape is then checked for broad consistency. Because the index and functional form originate outside the present observational constraints and are not adjusted to match the target spectrum, the consistency statement does not reduce to the input luminosities by construction. No self-citations, self-definitional steps, or renamings of known results appear in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on reducing four coronal quantities to a one-parameter family using three observational constraints, adopting a nonthermal spectrum shape from external PIC simulations, and assuming that photomeson cooling sets the upper energy limit before further stochastic processing occurs.

free parameters (2)
  • remaining coronal parameter after luminosity constraints
    The abstract states that observed neutrino luminosity, X-ray luminosity, and Thomson optical depth reduce the four quantities (r_co, B, n_p, u_rad) to a one-parameter family whose value is not further constrained by the model.
  • proton spectral index
    The index is described as independently specified from PIC simulations rather than fitted to the neutrino data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The corona is a strongly turbulent, low-β, collisionless hydrogen plasma.
    Invoked at the start of the modeling section to justify the use of reconnection and turbulence scalings.
  • domain assumption Photomeson cooling limits proton energy before further acceleration or escape.
    Used to set the maximum energy at tens of PeV.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5538 in / 1671 out tokens · 31064 ms · 2026-05-12T04:41:27.120954+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020a, Physical Review Letters, 124, 10.1103/physrevlett.124.051103

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 051103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.051103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.051103 2020

  2. [2]

    1978, MHD instabilities (MIT Press)

    Bateman, G. 1978, MHD instabilities (MIT Press)

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    E., Ar´ evalo, P., Walton, D

    Bauer, F. E., Ar´ evalo, P., Walton, D. J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/116 2015

  4. [4]

    C., Rudak, B., & Sikora, M

    Begelman, M. C., Rudak, B., & Sikora, M. 1990, ApJ, 362, 38, doi: 10.1086/169241

    work page doi:10.1086/169241 1990

  5. [5]

    1934, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 146, 83, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1934.0140

    Bethe, H., & Heitler, W. 1934, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 146, 83, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1934.0140

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1934.0140 1934

  6. [6]

    A., & Maximon, L

    Bethe, H. A., & Maximon, L. C. 1954, Phys. Rev., 93, 768, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.93.768

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.93.768 1954

  7. [7]

    2025, Phys

    Blanco, C., Hooper, D., Linden, T., & Pinetti, E. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 123016, doi: 10.1103/wnjh-7nwp

    work page doi:10.1103/wnjh-7nwp 2025

  8. [8]

    2006, PhRvL, 96, 115002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.115002

    Boldyrev, S. 2006, PhRvL, 96, 115002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.115002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.115002 2006

  9. [9]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c33 —

    Comisso, L., & Sironi, L. 2019, ApJ, 886, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c33 —. 2022, ApJL, 936, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8422

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c33 2019

  10. [10]

    T., Drake, J

    Dahlin, J. T., Drake, J. F., & Swisdak, M. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 092110, doi: 10.1063/1.4986211

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4986211 2017

  11. [11]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 999, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3d94

    Davis, Z., Comisso, L., Haggerty, C., & N¨ attil¨ a, J. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 999, 261, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3d94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3d94 2026

  12. [12]

    2020, Physical Review D, 102, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.102.023003

    Demidem, C., Lemoine, M., & Casse, F. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.102.023003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.023003 2020

  13. [13]

    1979, ApJ, 232, 106, doi: 10.1086/157269

    Eichler, D. 1979, ApJ, 232, 106, doi: 10.1086/157269

    work page doi:10.1086/157269 1979

  14. [14]

    Fiorillo, D. F. G., Comisso, L., Peretti, E., Petropoulou, M., & Sironi, L. 2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7021

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7021

  15. [15]

    Fiorillo, D. F. G., Petropoulou, M., Comisso, L., Peretti, E., & Sironi, L. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad192b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad192b 2041

  16. [16]

    French, O., Guo, F., Zhang, Q., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2023, ApJ, 948, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7dd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb7dd 2023

  17. [17]

    R., & Uzdensky, D

    French, O., Werner, G. R., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2026, Journal of Plasma Physics, 92, E10, doi: 10.1017/S0022377825101189

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377825101189 2026

  18. [18]

    K., Engel, R., & Resconi, E

    Gaisser, T. K., Engel, R., & Resconi, E. 2016, Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics (Cambridge University Press)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    2022, Physical Review Letters, 129, 265101, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.129.265101

    Goodbred, M., & Liu, Y.-H. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 129, 265101, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.129.265101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.265101 2022

  20. [20]

    J., Gwinn, C

    Greenhill, L. J., Gwinn, C. R., Antonucci, R., & Barvainis, R. 1996, ApJL, 472, L21, doi: 10.1086/310346 Groˇ selj, D., Philippov, A., Beloborodov, A. M., &

    work page doi:10.1086/310346 1996

  21. [21]

    2026, ApJ, 1001, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae50fc

    Mushotzky, R. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae50fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae50fc 2026

  22. [22]

    2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.113.155005

    Guo, F., Li, H., Daughton, W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.113.155005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.155005 2014

  23. [23]

    2020, Physics of Plasmas, 27, 080501, doi: 10.1063/5.0012094

    Guo, F., Liu, Y.-H., Li, X., et al. 2020, Physics of Plasmas, 27, 080501, doi: 10.1063/5.0012094

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0012094 2020

  24. [24]

    1954, Quantum theory of radiation (Oxford University (Clarendon Press)) IceCube Collaboration, Abbasi, R., et al

    Heitler, W. 1954, Quantum theory of radiation (Oxford University (Clarendon Press)) IceCube Collaboration, Abbasi, R., et al. 2026a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1000, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4aad —. 2026b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1000, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4aac IceCube Collaboration, Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., et al. 2...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4aad 1954

  25. [25]

    2020, ApJL, 891, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7661

    Inoue, Y., Khangulyan, D., & Doi, A. 2020, ApJL, 891, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7661

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7661 2020

  26. [26]

    2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 075, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/075

    Sironi, L. 2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 075, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/075

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/075 2025

  27. [27]

    R., & Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., & Aharonian, F. A. 2008, Physical Review D, 78, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.78.034013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.034013 2008

  28. [28]

    2021, Physical Review D, 104, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.104.063020

    Lemoine, M. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.104.063020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.063020 2021

  29. [29]

    Lemoine, M., & Malkov, M. A. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3131 2020

  30. [30]

    2024, Phys

    Lemoine, M., Murase, K., & Rieger, F. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063006 2024

  31. [31]

    2025, A&A, 697, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453296

    Lemoine, M., & Rieger, F. 2025, A&A, 697, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453296

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453296 2025

  32. [32]

    2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, 16, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01142-0

    Liu, Y.-H., Hesse, M., Genestreti, K., et al. 2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, 16, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01142-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01142-0 2025

  33. [33]

    F., & Boldyrev, S

    Loureiro, N. F., & Boldyrev, S. 2017a, PhRvL, 118, 245101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.245101 —. 2017b, ApJ, 850, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9754

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.245101

  34. [34]

    N., Inoue, Y., Sentoku, Y., & Sano, T

    Ly, M. N., Inoue, Y., Sentoku, Y., & Sano, T. 2026, Proton Acceleration by Collisionless Shocks in Supermassive Black Hole Coronae: Implications for High-Energy Neutrinos. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.01999 MAGIC Collaboration, Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a51

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a51 2026

  35. [35]

    A., & Chandran, B

    Mallet, A., Schekochihin, A. A., & Chandran, B. D. G. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx670 2017

  36. [36]

    1958, Phys

    Mandelstam, S. 1958, Phys. Rev., 112, 1344, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.112.1344

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.112.1344 1958

  37. [37]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 456, L94, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv178

    Marinucci, A., Bianchi, S., Matt, G., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 456, L94, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv178

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv178 2016

  38. [38]

    2024, Phys

    Mbarek, R., Philippov, A., Chernoglazov, A., Levinson, A., & Mushotzky, R. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, L101306, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L101306

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.l101306 2024

  39. [39]

    Favre, J. M. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 570, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424083

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424083 2014

  40. [40]

    S., & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Murase, K., Kimura, S. S., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.011101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.011101 2020

  41. [41]

    Murase, K., & Stecker, F. W. 2023, High-Energy Neutrinos from Active Galactic Nuclei (WORLD SCIENTIFIC), 483–540, doi: 10.1142/9789811282645 0010

    work page doi:10.1142/9789811282645 2023

  42. [42]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343 OpenAI

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710, doi: 10.1086/176343

    work page doi:10.1086/176343 1995

  43. [43]

    C., Fabian, A

    Ricci, C., Ho, L. C., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 1819, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1879

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1879 2018

  44. [44]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Rowan, M. E., Sironi, L., & Narayan, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9380

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9380 2017

  45. [45]

    F., N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Zhdankin, V

    Serrano, R. F., N¨ attil¨ a, J., & Zhdankin, V. 2025, Journal of Plasma Physics, 91, E50, doi: 10.1017/S002237782500011X

    work page doi:10.1017/s002237782500011x 2025

  46. [46]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    work page 1973

  47. [47]

    G., Begelman, M

    Sikora, M., Kirk, J. G., Begelman, M. C., & Schneider, P. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal, 320, L81, doi: 10.1086/184980

    work page doi:10.1086/184980 1987

  48. [48]

    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

  49. [49]

    Stecker, F. W. 1968, Phys. Rev. Lett., 21, 1016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.21.1016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.21.1016 1968

  50. [50]

    A., & Titarchuk, L

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1980, A&A, 86, 121

    work page 1980

  51. [51]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., Cerutti, B., Nalewajko, K., & Begelman, M. C. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 816, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/l8 2016

  52. [52]

    A., Werner, G

    Wong, K., Zhdankin, V., Uzdensky, D. A., Werner, G. R., & Begelman, M. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8122

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8122 2020

  53. [53]

    W., Zhdankin, V., Uzdensky, D

    Wong, K. W., Zhdankin, V., Uzdensky, D. A., Werner, G. R., & Begelman, M. C. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 543, 1842, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1589

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1589 2025

  54. [54]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 562, L63–L66, doi: 10.1086/337972

    Zenitani, S., & Hoshino, M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 562, L63–L66, doi: 10.1086/337972

    work page doi:10.1086/337972 2001

  55. [55]

    Zhdankin, V., Boldyrev, S., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2016, Physics of Plasmas, 23, 055705, doi: 10.1063/1.4944820

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4944820 2016

  56. [56]

    Begelman, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 867, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae88c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aae88c 2018

  57. [57]

    Begelman, M. C. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 122, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.122.055101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.055101 2019

  58. [58]

    2024, A New Particle Pusher with Hadronic Interactions for Modeling Multimessenger Emission from Compact Objects

    Zou, M., Hakobyan, H., Mbarek, R., et al. 2024, A New Particle Pusher with Hadronic Interactions for Modeling Multimessenger Emission from Compact Objects. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22781

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    A., et al

    Zyla, P. A., et al. 2020, PTEP, 2020, 083C01, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa104 2020