Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Multi-messenger emission from magnetic reconnection in blazar jets: the case of TXS 0506+056

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Turbulent magnetic reconnection at 2–4 pc can power the 2017 TXS 0506+056 neutrino–gamma-ray flare.

desk verdict Plausible and transparent reconnection scenario for TXS 0506+056, but the proton cooling figure contradicts the blob positions and the headline numbers are fitted, not predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10210 v2 pith:2JU2PBDW submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.HE

E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino , J. C. Rodríguez-Ramírez , M. V. del Valle This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magneticreconnectionblazarjetsmulti-messengeremissionhigh-energyneutrinosTXS0506+056lepto-hadronicmodelsveryhighenergygammaraysparticleacceleration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a single emission blob, energized by turbulence-driven magnetic reconnection as it moves downstream in the blazar jet, can reproduce the 2017 multi-messenger flare of TXS 0506+056. The blob starts near the jet core, where magnetization is highest, producing the IceCube neutrino and the ~1 GeV gamma-ray state; as it moves from 2 to 4 pc, the calculated spectra develop the observed VHE gamma-ray signal while the neutrino flux drops below detectability. The model also yields a time delay of about 6.4 days between the neutrino and the VHE flare, matching the observed delay. If correct, this identifies both the acceleration mechanism and the location in the jet for at least one class of blazar neutrino events.

What carries the argument

The central object is the GU19 analytic model of magnetic dissipation by reconnection of alternating-polarity magnetic stripes, which gives the local dissipation power $P_{\rm diss}(s)$, bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma_j(s)$, and co-moving magnetic field $B'(s)$ as functions of distance from the black hole. Combined with a Fermi-type acceleration time for turbulence-induced reconnection layers, this sets the maximum proton and electron energies and fixes the blob radius through the variability time. The radiative machinery is a single-zone lepto-hadronic model in which synchrotron photons from primary electrons serve as the only target for SSC scattering, photo-pion production, Bethe-Heitler pair production, and gamma-ray absorption.

What would settle it

Measure the arrival order and delay between neutrinos and >100 GeV gamma rays in a second well-localized blazar flare: if the neutrino arrives after the TeV flare, or if the delay differs strongly from the roughly 6–26 day sequence, the model's central ordering fails. Alternatively, a VLBI core-shift or other geometric measurement placing the emission region beyond ~4 pc would contradict the model's location claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Adopting the stripe-reconnection jet model in which magnetic stripes reconnect in the magnetically dominated zone and turbulence drives fast reconnection, the authors derive a lepto-hadronic radiation model with no external soft-photon fields. For a black hole of $3\times10^8\,M_\odot$ and a jet power of $150L_{\rm Edd}$, the emitting blob constrained by the synchrotron and SSC peak energies sits in the range $\Delta s\sim[2,4]$ pc. At $s=2$ pc the model produces the strongest neutrino flux, consistent with the IceCube upper limits, while the SED matches the ~1 GeV high state; at $s=4$ pc the SED matches the full electromagnetic data including VHE gamma rays, but the neutrino flux has moved to higher energies and out of the detector band. The apparent delay between the two SED stages, corrected for superluminal motion, is $\Delta t_{\rm ap}\simeq 6.4$ days, consistent with the observed neutrino-to-TeV delay.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that magnetic dissipation in the TXS jet at 2–4 pc is exactly described by the stripe-reconnection model with a fixed reconnection efficiency of $\xi_{\rm rec}=0.05$; if shocks, a different turbulence profile, or external soft-photon fields actually control the jet, the derived blob positions, field strengths, and the 6.4-day delay are not pinned down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2017 flare's emission region lies at roughly 2–4 pc from the central black hole, in the jet's magnetic-to-kinetic transition zone, with jet power about $150L_{\rm Edd}$.
  • Neutrino production peaks where magnetization is highest (closest to the core), while VHE gamma-ray flux grows as the blob moves downstream, naturally producing the observed neutrino-then-TeV ordering.
  • The observed IceCube-to-VHE delay is reproduced as $\Delta t_{\rm ap}\simeq 6.4$ days, with the full sequence of spectra lasting about 26 days.
  • No external soft-photon fields such as a broad-line region are required: the synchrotron photons from the same accelerated electrons provide the target photons for both SSC and hadronic interactions.
  • In the Fermi acceleration regime, the acceleration time is essentially energy-independent, placing the maximum proton energy at tens of PeV, below the threshold for the slower drift acceleration regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same reconnection transition operates in other blazars, one would expect neutrino/GeV flares to precede TeV flares by roughly $(\Delta s/c)(1+z)/\bar\Gamma_j^2$; a multi-source timing survey of multi-messenger flares could test this ordering.
  • The 2014–2015 neutrino excess of TXS 0506+056, which has no obvious electromagnetic counterpart, could be produced by the same mechanism in denser, more compact regions closer to the black hole where high-energy photons are absorbed; the authors explicitly point to this as future work.
  • The predicted 2–4 pc emission zone is a geometric test: very-long-baseline interferometry core-shift measurements or high-resolution imaging during a future flare could confirm or exclude this radius range.
  • The derived magnetic fields, $B'\sim0.7$–$1.8$ G, could be cross-checked against independent constraints from gamma-ray opacity and radio core positions; the paper itself does not perform this comparison.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the 2017 multi-messenger flare of TXS 0506+056 is produced by a single emission blob moving downstream in a blazar jet whose magnetic dissipation follows the GU19 stripe-reconnection model. Using a one-zone lepto-hadronic radiative code that includes synchrotron, SSC, photo-pion, Bethe-Heitler, and electromagnetic cascade processes, the authors compute SEDs at three blob positions and tune parameters at each epoch to match the observed SED. They find the neutrino flux is strongest at the innermost position (~2 pc), the VHE gamma-ray flux grows downstream and matches the data near ~4 pc, and the apparent time delay between the neutrino/GeV state and the VHE state is about 6.4 days.

Significance. The question of where and how TXS 0506+056 accelerated the 2017 neutrino is important, and the reconnection-based scenario is physically motivated and timely. The paper provides a self-contained analytic jet model and a fairly detailed radiative machinery (cooling rates, cascade equations, EBL attenuation) that could in principle be applied to other blazars. The main limitation is that the central comparison is a fit rather than an independent prediction: six parameters are freely tuned at each epoch, the blob positions are selected by hand within a derived range, and the GU19 stripe-dissipation profile is assumed rather than tested. With that caveat, the qualitative sequence (neutrino/GeV first, VHE later) is an interesting illustration of what a reconnection-powered multi-messenger flare could look like.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Fig. 5, Table 1] There is an internal inconsistency in the positions used to compute the proton maximum energies. Section 4.2 states that the three panels of Fig. 5 correspond to the positions at which the SED is calculated in Fig. 7, but the Fig. 5 caption lists s = 5, 8, and 10 pc, whereas Table 1 and Fig. 7 use s = 2.0, 2.5, and 4.0 pc. This is not a harmless typo: E'_p,max is obtained from the balance t'_acc = t'_cool, and the cooling rates depend on B'(s), r_b(s), and the target synchrotron photon density through eqs. (8)-(9), (20), and (33), all of which change with s. If the acceleration-cooling balance was evaluated at 5-10 pc rather than at the actual emission positions, the E'_p,max values in Table 1 (19.8, 31.4, and 55.8 PeV) and hence the neutrino spectra in Fig. 7 are not supported by the calculation as shown. The authors must recompute the time scales at the Table 1 positions or, if the caption is wrong, correct it; the two cannot both be right.
  2. [Section 4.3, eq. (25)] The headline neutrino-to-VHE time delay is not consistently derived from the model. The text computes Δt_ap ≈ 6.4-6.6 days using Δs = 0.5 pc between the first (s = 2.0 pc) and second (s = 2.5 pc) SEDs. However, according to the text and Fig. 7, the SED at s = 2.5 pc does not yet reproduce the VHE (>100 GeV) emission; the VHE-matching SED is at s = 4.0 pc. The interval between s = 2.0 and s = 4.0 would give Δt_ap ≈ 26.4 days. The authors need to specify which observed delay they are matching and why 0.5 pc is the relevant separation. As written, the 6.4-day delay is a consequence of a hand-picked pair of positions, not a prediction of the model.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Table 1] The qualitative sequence is partly imposed by per-epoch fitting rather than emerging from the model. The text states that each SED is obtained by freely tuning f_v, η_e, η_p, α_p, E'_e,0, and E'_e,max, and Table 1 shows η_p decreasing from 0.75 to 0.65 to 0.50 as the blob moves downstream. Because the proton luminosity normalization is chosen in this way, the claim that 'the most intense observable flux of HE neutrinos is produced at the position closest to the jet core' is not an independent prediction; the decline in neutrino flux is at least partly built into the chosen η_p values. The authors should quantify how much of the neutrino suppression is due to the assumed η_p sequence (for example, by repeating the calculation with fixed η_p) and should clearly distinguish fitted parameters from predicted quantities.
  4. [Section 2 and Fig. 2] The derived emission region, the SED sequence, and the time delay all rest on the GU19 stripe-reconnection scalings in eqs. (1)-(9), with ξ_rec fixed to 0.05, a = 3.5, and l_min = 1000 R_g. These are structural assumptions that are not tested in the paper. I would like to see a concrete robustness check, such as recomputing the allowed s_em range and the time delay for ξ_rec = 0.03 and 0.1 (the range cited in the text) and for a few values of a. Without this, it is unclear whether the 2-4 pc localization and the 6.4-day delay are robust predictions of the reconnection scenario or artifacts of the chosen parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.3] The abstract quotes 6.4 days while Section 4.3 gives 6.6 days for the same quantity; please harmonize the numbers.
  2. [Fig. 5 and Fig. 6] The captions of Figs. 5 and 6 should list the exact blob positions used, and those positions should match Table 1. In addition, the Fig. 5 caption says 'source frame' while Section 4.2 says 'plasma frame'; please clarify the frame used for the time scales.
  3. [Eq. (50) and Eq. (17)] The observed flux in eq. (50) is transformed with Γ_j^4, but for a viewing angle θ_b < 1/Γ_j the Doppler factor is approximately 2Γ_j. The same issue affects the frequency transformations in eq. (17). Please specify the beaming convention and use a single Doppler factor consistently.
  4. [Section 2, Table 1] The text constrains the jet power with 10 < λ < 100, but Table 1 and the abstract use λ = 150 L_Edd. This is a direct contradiction; please either correct the constraint or justify the adopted value.
  5. [Section 4.3, eq. (25)] Equation (25) uses the approximation θ_j ≈ 1/Γbar_j, but the emitting blob may not move exactly at the jet boundary; please state whether θ_j or θ_b is meant and whether this affects the numerical value of the delay.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Two headline quantitative claims reduce to inputs chosen in the fitting: the 6.4-day neutrino–VHE delay is the selected Δs=0.5 pc converted by eq. (25), and the 'most intense neutrino flux at the innermost position' is a restatement of the per-epoch fitted ηp values.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, time-delay paragraph after eq. (25); Abstract and Section 5 summarize the 6.4-day claim]
    "Using Δs = 0.5pc, ¯Γj∼ 11, and z≃ 0.34, eq. 25 gives an observed time interval of Δt_ap ∼ 6.6 days between the first and the second SEDs of Figure 7 (bottom). This is consistent with the observed time elapsed between the neutrino and the VHE energy flare (> 100 GeV) of TXS 0506+056 2017 (IceCube Collaboration et al. 2018b)."

    The delay is not derived from the reconnection model; it is computed from eq. (25), which is a kinematic conversion of a chosen spatial separation Δs into an observed time. The value Δs=0.5 pc is simply the difference between the first two blob positions (s=2.0 and 2.5 pc) selected in Table 1. Those positions are free inputs, chosen within the allowed range to produce the SED sequence, not outputs of the model. Therefore the 'predicted' Δt_ap∼6.4 days is the input Δs restated in time units, and the agreement with the observed 6.4-day delay is built into the choice of the second blob position rather than being an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3 and Table 1; Section 5 summary claim]
    "Each SED of the sequence shares the same values for the parameters L_j, Γ∞, and lmin. Then, each SED is obtained by freely tuning the other parameters f_v, η_e, η_p, α_p, E'_e,0, and E'_e,max to match the TXS 0506+056 SED data set. [...] The most intense observable flux of HE neutrinos is produced at the position, within the range Δs, which is closest to the jet core."

    The neutrino luminosity is set by eq. (10), L_p = η_p P_diss(s), and Table 1 lists η_p = 0.75, 0.65, and 0.50 at s = 2.0, 2.5, and 4.0 pc, respectively. Since the IceCube neutrino upper limits are part of the 'TXS 0506+056 SED data set' that the paper says is matched by 'freely tuning' these parameters, the neutrino flux normalization at each position is adjusted to the data. The conclusion that the neutrino flux is most intense at the innermost position is therefore a direct consequence of the fitted η_p sequence (together with the adopted P_diss(s) profile), not an independent prediction of the magnetic-reconnection model. A different permitted choice of η_p(s) could move the 'most intense' position, so the claim reduces to the fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's jet-dissipation framework (the GU19 stripe model), the SSC-peak location constraint (eqs. 17-19), and the acceleration/cooling balance for E'_p,max and E'_e,max provide substantial independent content, and the adopted self-citations to the authors' MHD simulations are used as external support for the acceleration mechanism rather than as a uniqueness argument. The SED curves themselves are openly fitted, not predicted, since the text states the parameters are 'freely tuning ... to match the TXS 0506+056 SED data set.' The circularity is concentrated in the two places where fitted or hand-selected inputs are presented as outcomes: (1) the headline 6.4-day neutrino-VHE delay is the chosen Δs=0.5 pc converted by eq. (25), with the position of the second blob selected a priori, and (2) the claim that the neutrino flux is highest at the innermost position is controlled by the per-epoch fitted parameter η_p through eq. (10), with the IceCube limits included in the matched data set. These are genuine 'fitted input called prediction' steps affecting central quantitative claims, so the score is 6 rather than a lower value. Additionally, there is an internal inconsistency between the Fig. 5 caption (s=5, 8, 10 pc) and Table 1 / Fig. 7 (s=2.0, 2.5, 4.0 pc) for the same E'_p,max calculation; this is a serious correctness risk that compounds the concern, but it is not itself a circularity and is not what drives the score.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a standard single-zone lepto-hadronic shell plus the GU19 analytic jet. Thirteen numerical inputs are chosen or tuned, six of them per SED epoch, and the blob positions are hand-picked. No new particles or forces are introduced; the 'magnetic stripes' are taken from prior work. The free-parameter count is the main cost of the paper's flexibility.

free parameters (13)
  • Jet total power factor λ = L_j/L_Edd = 150
    Fixed to 150 L_Edd in Table 1 and abstract, although Section 2 states the adopted range is 10 < λ < 100. High power needed for hadronic emission.
  • Minimum stripe width f_l = l_min/R_g = 1000
    Chosen at the upper end of the GU19-constrained range 100-1000 R_g; affects P_diss(s) and B'(s).
  • Terminal Lorentz factor Γ_inf = 45
    Chosen within 30-60; sets the jet speed profile and the apparent time delay.
  • Blob positions s_em = 2.0, 2.5, 4.0 pc
    Chosen by hand within the constrained 1.5-6 pc band; the separation Δs=0.5 pc between the first two positions directly sets the 6.4 day delay.
  • Variability filling factor f_v = 0.672, 0.753, 0.948
    Freely tuned at each epoch; sets blob radius via rb = f_v c Δt_v Γ/(1+z).
  • Proton spectral index α_p = 1.7
    Tuned power-law index of injected protons; also fixes electron index n_e = α_p+1.
  • Proton luminosity fraction η_p = 0.75, 0.65, 0.50
    Per-epoch fraction of P_diss given to protons; directly normalizes the neutrino flux in the fit.
  • Electron luminosity fraction η_e = 2.2E-4, 2.5E-4, 3.2E-4
    Per-epoch tuning; sets the electron energy density and the synchrotron/SSC normalization.
  • Electron minimum energy E'_e,0 = 432, 485, 622 MeV
    Tuned per epoch; sets the low-energy end of the electron distribution and the synchrotron spectrum.
  • Electron maximum energy E'_e,max = 12.5, 14.0, 18.0 GeV
    Tuned per epoch so the synchrotron peak matches the observed low-energy SED bump; compared with the acceleration/cooling balance.
  • Reconnection rate ξ_rec = 0.05
    Adopted from the 0.03-0.1 range of 3D MHD simulations; enters the location scaling eq. (18) and acceleration time.
  • Stripe width power-law index a = 3.5
    Chosen because solutions of eq. (5) are insensitive for a ≥ 3.5.
  • Initial Lorentz factor fraction χ0 = 0.1
    Initial condition for eq. (5); solutions insensitive for ζ > 0.1.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption GU19 magnetic stripe jet model: the jet contains magnetic stripes with power-law size distribution; reconnection dissipates magnetic energy and yields P_diss(s), Γ(s), B'(s) via eqs. (1)-(9).
    Section 2; this is the backbone of the model. If the real jet does not follow this dissipation profile, the predicted location and SED sequence change.
  • domain assumption Turbulence-driven fast reconnection accelerates particles in a Fermi process with the energy-independent time t_acc ≈ 4Δ/(c d_ur) (eq. 21).
    Section 4.2; used to set E'_p,max and to claim the Fermi regime dominates. The expression is taken from prior simulations and is not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Stationary power-law particle distributions hold: protons with power-law and squared exponential cutoff (eq. 15), electrons with index n_e = α_p+1 (eq. 16).
    Section 3; the functional forms and index relation are motivated by a common acceleration process but the index α_p=1.7 is chosen to match the data.
  • domain assumption No external soft photon fields contribute; the only target photons for SSC, photopion, Bethe-Heitler, and γγ absorption are synchrotron photons from primary electrons.
    Section 4 (item iii) and Section 7; if a BLR or disk radiation field is present, neutrino production could shift to different parameters, weakening the location constraint.
  • domain assumption Blob radius is set by the causality/minimum-variability condition rb = f_v c Δt_v Γ/(1+z) with Δt_v ≈ 1 day.
    Section 4.1 eq. (20); the 1 day variability is taken from X-ray observations; f_v is fitted.
  • domain assumption The jet is observed nearly along the axis (θ_b < 1/Γ), so the flux transformation uses roughly Γ^4 beaming (eq. 50).
    Section 7.4; standard for blazar one-zone models.
  • standard math EBL attenuation is computed with gammapy using the Domínguez et al. (2011) model.
    Section 7.4; a standard tool, affects only the TeV band.
  • domain assumption SMBH mass M_BH = 3e8 Msun (Padovani et al. 2019).
    Sets the Eddington luminosity L_Edd used for the jet power; adopted from previous literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-messenger emission from magnetic reconnection in blazar jets: the case of TXS 0506+056." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JU2PBDW

@misc{pith2026241110210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-messenger emission from magnetic reconnection in blazar jets: the case of TXS 0506+056},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JU2PBDW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10210}
}
abstract

Measurements from astroparticle experiments, such as the 2017 flare associated with the source TXS 0506+056, indicate that blazars act as multi-messenger (MM; radiation and neutrinos) factories. Theoretically, the particle acceleration mechanisms responsible for blazar emissions and the precise location within the jet where this occurs remain undetermined. This paper explores MM emission driven by magnetic reconnection in a blazar jet. Previous studies have shown that reconnection in the magnetically dominated regions of these relativistic jets can efficiently accelerate particles to very high energies (VHE). Assuming that turbulent-driven magnetic reconnection accelerates cosmic-ray protons and electrons by a Fermi process, we developed a lepto-hadronic radiation model without the influence of external soft-photons to explain the 2017 MM flare from TXS 0506+056. In the proposed scenario, the emission blob moves downstream in the jet from $\sim$2 to 4 pc from the central engine, which is a supermassive black hole (SMBH) of $3 \times 10^{8}$ M$_\odot$ launching a jet with $150L_\mathrm{Edd}$ power. As the blob moves, we observe a sequence of spectral energy distribution (SED) profiles that match the observed arrival of the high energy neutrino and electromagnetic emission from TXS 0506+056. This arrival coincides with the high state of intermediate energy $\gamma$-rays ($E \sim 1 $ GeV) detection, followed by the subsequent appearance of the VHE $\gamma$-ray signal and then no further significant neutrino detection. We obtain a time delay between the neutrino and VHE events $\simeq 6.4$ days, which is consistent with that observed in the 2017 MM flare.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10210 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Solutions to eq. (5) giving 𝜒 = Γj/Γ∞ (jet bulk Lorentz factor in units of the its terminal value) as a function of the dimensionless distance to the BH 𝜁 (defined in eq. 3). Top: Curve solutions corresponding to different values of the power-law index 𝑎 for the distribution of the stripes (see the text), and for different initial values of 𝜒0 at 𝜁0 = 0. Bottom: The family curve solution corresponding to 𝑎 = 3.5 is … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Constraining the location of the emission region along the jet. We display the solutions to equations 18-19, for the possible location 𝑠em. Curves plotted with different colours and line styles correspond to different values of minimum length of the stripes 𝑙min and of the terminal Lorentz factor Γ∞ of the jet flow, as indicated. The lower, middle, and upper groups of curves correspond to total jet powers of 𝐿j = 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Jet properties given by the stripe jet model (Section 2) as functions of the distance from the SMBH. All curves in this plot are calculated assuming an SMBH of 𝑀𝐵𝐻 = 3 × 108 M⊙, and a jet total power of 𝐿j = 150𝐿Edd (𝑀BH ). The pink shaded regions indicate the location interval compatible with the constraint obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sketch of the emitting blob as it moves downstream the expanding jet. The three different positions indicate the regions at which the SED of TXS 0506+056 is evaluated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cooling time of the CR protons (source frame) which produce the hadronic emission components of the SED spectrum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Blazar MM spectrum profiles computed based on lepto-hadronic emission powered by magnetic reconnection in the jet. The curves in this Figure are calculated by the jet model described in Section 2 together with the lepto-hadronic radiation model detailed in Section 3. T…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    Author A. N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    2013

  3. [3]

    D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    Jones C. D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    2015

  4. [4]

    B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    Smith A. B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Abbasi R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8de4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938...38A 938, 38

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8de4 2022

  6. [6]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824L..20A 824, L20

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/l20 2016

  7. [7]

    A., Atoyan A

    Agaronyan F. A., Atoyan A. M., Nagapetyan A. M., 1983, @doi [Astrophysics] 10.1007/BF01005624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap.....19..187A 19, 187

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01005624 1983

  8. [8]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664L..71A 664, L71

    doi:10.1086/520635 2007

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    A., Kelner S

    Aharonian F. A., Kelner S. R., Prosekin A. Y., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.043002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvD..82d3002A 82, 043002

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Kririllov-Ugriumov V

    Akharonian F. A., Kririllov-Ugriumov V. G., Vardanian V. V., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00653800 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Ap&SS.115..201A 115, 201

    1985 doi

  3. [11]

    Ansoldi S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863L..10A 863, L10

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Dermer C

    Atoyan A. M., Dermer C. D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586...79A 586, 79

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    Banik P., Bhadra A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99j3006B 99, 103006

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Bellenghi C., Padovani P., Resconi E., Giommi P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..32B 955, L32

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Beresnyak A., Li H., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...90B 819, 90

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Znajek R

    Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.179..433B 179, 433

    1977 doi

  9. [17]

    R., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970PhRvD...1.1596B 1, 1596

    Blumenthal G. R., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970PhRvD...1.1596B 1, 1596

    1970 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Gould R

    Blumenthal G. R., Gould R. J., 1970, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970RvMP...42..237B 42, 237

    1970 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Bottacini E., Lott B., Razzaque S., Buson S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..162B 830, 162

    Britto R. J., Bottacini E., Lott B., Razzaque S., Buson S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830..162B 830, 162

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Britzen S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935422 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A.103B 630, A103

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Buson S., Tramacere A., Pfeiffer L., Oswald L., de Menezes R., Azzollini A., Ajello M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7d5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933L..43B 933, L43

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Cerruti M., 2020, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. p. 012094 ( @eprint arXiv 1912.03666 ), @doi 10.1088/1742-6596/1468/1/012094

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483L..12C 483, L12

    Cerruti M., Zech A., Boisson C., Emery G., Inoue S., Lenain J. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483L..12C 483, L12

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Comisso L., Sironi L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.255101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.121y5101C 121, 255101

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Bromberg O., Singh C

    Davelaar J., Philippov A. A., Bromberg O., Singh C. B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab95a2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896L..31D 896, L31

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Dom \' nguez A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17631.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410.2556D 410, 2556

    2011

  19. [27]

    Donath A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.157D 678, A157

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Gao S., Fedynitch A., Winter W., Pohl M., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0610-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3...88G 3, 88

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    arXiv:2406.08951

    Garc \' a-Morillo M., Alexakis Alexandros J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240608951M p. arXiv:2406.08951

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gasparyan S., B \'e gu \'e D., Sahakyan N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2102G 509, 2102

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Lecture Notes in Physics Vol

    Ghisellini G., 2013, Radiative Processes in High Energy Astrophysics . Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 873, Springer, Berlin, Germany, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-00612-3

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    Giannios D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00925.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408L..46G 408, L46

    2010

  25. [33]

    A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1378G 484, 1378

    Giannios D., Uzdensky D. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1378G 484, 1378

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Begelman M

    Giannios D., Uzdensky D. A., Begelman M. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00635.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395L..29G 395, L29

    2009

  27. [35]

    L., Syrovatskii S

    Ginzburg V. L., Syrovatskii S. I., 1964, The Origin of Cosmic Rays

    1964

  28. [36]

    Guo F., Li X., Daughton W., Kilian P., Li H., Liu Y.-H., Yan W., Ma D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879L..23G 879, L23

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Guo F., Liu Y.-H., Li X., Li H., Daughton W., Kilian P., 2020, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/5.0012094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhPl...27h0501G 27, 080501

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    arXiv:2208.03435

    Guo F., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2208.03435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220803435G p. arXiv:2208.03435

    2022 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hovatta T., Lindfors E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NewAR..8701541H 87, 101541

    2019

  32. [40]

    a hteenm \

    Hovatta T., Valtaoja E., Tornikoski M., L \"a hteenm \"a ki A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200811150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...494..527H 494, 527

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Hovatta T., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A..83H 650, A83

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Dolag K., 2023, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-023-38226-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatCo..14.2486H 14, 2486

    Hussain S., Alves Batista R., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Dolag K., 2023, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-023-38226-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatCo..14.2486H 14, 2486

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Pagliaroli G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad10a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960..124H 960, 124

    Hussain S., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Pagliaroli G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad10a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960..124H 960, 124

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    IceCube Collaboration et al., 2018a, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aat2890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Sci...361..147I 361, 147

    doi

  37. [45]

    IceCube Collaboration et al., 2018b, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aat1378 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Sci...361.1378I 361, eaat1378

    doi

  38. [46]

    Kadowaki L. H. S., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Stone J. M., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4ff , 864, 52

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Kadowaki L. H. S., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Medina-Torrej \'o n T. E., Mizuno Y., Kushwaha P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abee7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912..109K 912, 109

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Keivani A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...84K 864, 84

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Aharonian F

    Kelner S. R., Aharonian F. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.034013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvD..78c4013K 78, 034013

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..838K 455, 838

    Khiali B., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..838K 455, 838

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    M., del Valle M

    Khiali B., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., del Valle M. V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv248 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449...34K 449, 34

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    Kilian P., Li X., Guo F., Li H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba1e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899..151K 899, 151

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    T., Otmianowska-Mazur K., 2009, ApJ, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700...63K 700, 63

    Kowal G., Lazarian A., Vishniac E. T., Otmianowska-Mazur K., 2009, ApJ, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700...63K 700, 63

    2009

  46. [54]

    M., Lazarian A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735..102K 735, 102

    Kowal G., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Lazarian A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735..102K 735, 102

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Lazarian A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvL.108x1102K 108, 241102

    Kowal G., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Lazarian A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvL.108x1102K 108, 241102

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Lazarian A., Vishniac E

    Kowal G., Falceta-Gon c alves D. A., Lazarian A., Vishniac E. T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892...50K 892, 50

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..700L 517, 700

    Lazarian A., Vishniac E. T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..700L 517, 700

    1999 doi

  50. [58]

    Li X., Guo F., Li H., Li G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/L24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811L..24L 811, L24

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    Liodakis I., Petropoulou M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab830a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L..20L 893, L20

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08ee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...43L 874, 43

    Lister M. L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08ee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...43L 874, 43

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Shay M

    Liu Y.-H., Hesse M., Guo F., Daughton W., Li H., Cassak P. A., Shay M. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.085101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.118h5101L 118, 085101

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Wang X.-Y., Li Z., Yan H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99f3008L 99, 063008

    Liu R.-Y., Wang K., Xue R., Taylor A. M., Wang X.-Y., Li Z., Yan H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99f3008L 99, 063008

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    S., 2011, High Energy Astrophysics

    Longair M. S., 2011, High Energy Astrophysics

    2011

  56. [64]

    Lyubarsky Y., Liverts M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682.1436L 682, 1436

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    S., Porth O., 2017, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S002237781700071X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83f6302L 83, 635830602

    Lyutikov M., Sironi L., Komissarov S. S., Porth O., 2017, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S002237781700071X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83f6302L 83, 635830602

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    C., 1968, @doi [J

    Maximon L. C., 1968, @doi [J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand.,] https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.072B.011 , https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.072B.011

    1968 doi

  59. [67]

    C., Tchekhovskoy A., Blandford R

    McKinney J. C., Tchekhovskoy A., Blandford R. D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.3083M 423, 3083

    2012

  60. [68]

    E., de Gouveia Dal Pino E

    Medina-Torrej \'o n T. E., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Kadowaki L. H. S., Kowal G., Singh C. B., Mizuno Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908..193M 908, 193

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    E., de Gouveia Dal Pino E

    Medina-Torrej \'o n T. E., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Kowal G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952..168M 952, 168

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    P., Protheroe R

    M \"u cke A., Engel R., Rachen J. P., Protheroe R. J., Stanev T., 2000, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] 10.1016/S0010-4655(99)00446-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000CoPhC.124..290M 124, 290

    2000 doi

  63. [71]

    Murase K., Oikonomou F., Petropoulou M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada00 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865..124M 865, 124

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    Nishikawa K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.2652N 493, 2652

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    Padovani P., Oikonomou F., Petropoulou M., Giommi P., Resconi E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484L.104P 484, L104

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Paiano S., Falomo R., Treves A., Scarpa R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaad5e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854L..32P 854, L32

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    Petropoulou M., Giannios D., Sironi L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3325P 462, 3325

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    Petropoulou M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891..115P 891, 115

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    Y., Kovalev Y

    Plavin A., Kovalev Y. Y., Kovalev Y. A., Troitsky S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86bd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894..101P 894, 101

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    V., Kovalev Y

    Plavin A. V., Kovalev Y. Y., Kovalev Y. A., Troitsky S. V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abceb8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908..157P 908, 157

    2021 doi

  71. [79]

    J., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1038/211468a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966Natur.211..468R 211, 468

    Rees M. J., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1038/211468a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966Natur.211..468R 211, 468

    1966 doi

  72. [80]

    Reimer A., B \"o ttcher M., Buson S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...46R 881, 46

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    Ripperda B., Porth O., Xia C., Keppens R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.3465R 471, 3465

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    Rodrigues X., Gao S., Fedynitch A., Palladino A., Winter W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874L..29R 874, L29

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    C., de Gouveia Dal Pino E

    Rodriguez-Ramirez J. C., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Alves Batista R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab212e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879....6R 879, 6

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    E., Vieyro F

    Romero G. E., Vieyro F. L., Vila G. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...519A.109R 519, A109

    2010 doi

  77. [85]

    Sahakyan N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadade , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866..109S 866, 109

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    B., Mizuno Y., de Gouveia Dal Pino E

    Singh C. B., Mizuno Y., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/48 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824...48S 824, 48

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783L..21S 783, L21

    2014 doi

  80. [88]

    Takamoto M., Inoue T., Lazarian A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815...16T 815, 16

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    H., Kowal G., de Gouveia Dal Pino E

    Vicentin G. H., Kowal G., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Lazarian A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240515909V p. arXiv:2405.15909

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    R., Philippov A

    Werner G. R., Philippov A. A., Uzdensky D. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L..60W 482, L60

    2019 doi

  83. [91]

    Xu S., Lazarian A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca32c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...21X 942, 21

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    Xue R., Liu R.-Y., Petropoulou M., Oikonomou F., Wang Z.-R., Wang K., Wang X.-Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...23X 886, 23

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    A., Bottcher M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450L..21Z 450, L21

    Zdziarski A. A., Bottcher M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450L..21Z 450, L21

    2015 doi

  86. [94]

    Zhang H., Li X., Guo F., Giannios D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad54f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862L..25Z 862, L25

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    T., Petropoulou M., Murase K., Oikonomou F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab659a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889..118Z 889, 118

    Zhang B. T., Petropoulou M., Murase K., Oikonomou F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab659a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889..118Z 889, 118

    2020 doi

  88. [96]

    Zhang J.-F., Xu S., Lazarian A., Kowal G., 2023a, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.jheap.2023.08.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JHEAp..40....1Z 40, 1

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    Zhang H., Sironi L., Giannios D., Petropoulou M., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956L..36Z 956, L36

    doi

  90. [98]

    M., Kowal G., 2015, Particle Acceleration by Magnetic Reconnection

    de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Kowal G., 2015, Particle Acceleration by Magnetic Reconnection . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p. 373, @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-44625-6_13

    2015 doi

  91. [99]

    M., Lazarian A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...441..845D 441, 845

    de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Lazarian A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...441..845D 441, 845

    2005 doi

  92. [100]

    M., Medina-Torrejon T

    de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Medina-Torrejon T. E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241013071D p. arXiv:2410.13071

    2024 doi arXiv

  93. [101]

    M., Kowal G., Kadowaki L., Medina-Torrej \'o n T

    de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Kowal G., Kadowaki L., Medina-Torrej \'o n T. E., Mizuno Y., Singh C., 2020, in Asada K., de Gouveia Dal Pino E., Giroletti M., Nagai H., Nemmen R., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 342, IAU Symposium. pp 13--18, @doi 10.1017/S1743921318007688

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    M., Opher R., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...242..319D 242, 319

    de Gouveia dal Pino E. M., Opher R., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...242..319D 242, 319

    1991

  95. [103]

    V., de Gouveia Dal Pino E

    del Valle M. V., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Kowal G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2276 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.4331D 463, 4331

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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