Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

First Measurements of the 4-Point Correlation Function of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence as a Novel Probe of the Interstellar Medium

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The connected four-point correlation function of simulated interstellar turbulence is measurable at high signal-to-noise and reveals parity-odd signatures of coherent magnetic fields.

desk verdict First 4PCF on MHD turbulence is real, but the parity-odd magnetic-field claim is uncontrolled and overreaches the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03967 v1 pith:EEICALHY submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.GA

Victoria Williamson , James Sunseri , Zachary Slepian , Jiamin Hou , Alessandro Greco This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords 4-pointcorrelationfunctionMHDturbulenceinterstellarmediumnon-Gaussianinformationconnected4PCFparity-oddmodesmagneticfieldcoherence
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 reports the first measurement of the four-point correlation function (4PCF) on simulations of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence meant to resemble the interstellar medium. It uses an extension of the sarabande code that subtracts the disconnected part, built from products of two-point functions, to isolate the connected 4PCF and with it the purely non-Gaussian correlations. Across ten combinations of sonic and Alfvénic Mach numbers, the connected 4PCF shows systematic excesses and deficits whose strength and localization depend on the turbulence parameters, with 23 even-parity and 11 odd-parity angular modes measured. The paper argues that the presence of parity-odd modes is a clean signature of a large-scale coherent magnetic field. If correct, the connected 4PCF becomes a new diagnostic of ISM conditions and magnetic-field coherence that lower-order statistics cannot supply.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the expansion of the 4PCF in an isotropic basis: $$\zeta = \sum_{\Lambda} \hat{\zeta}_{\Lambda}(R)\,P_{\Lambda}(\hat{R})$$ with $\Lambda = \{\ell_1, \ell_2, \ell_3\}$, where $P_{\Lambda}$ is a sum over products of three spherical harmonics weighted by Wigner 3-$j$ symbols. The sarabande code computes the radial coefficients via binned convolution coefficients $a^b_{\ell m}(\vec{x})$ obtained with fast Fourier transforms, giving $O(N_{\rm gm}\log N_{\rm gm})$ runtime. The new element added for this work is the subtraction of the disconnected 4PCF, formed from products of three 2PCFs, so that only the connected (non-Gaussian) part remains. Parity enters through $E(\Lambda) = +1$ for even $\ell_1 + \ell_2 + \ell_3$ and $-1$ for odd, which defines the even- and odd-parity mode sets (23 and 11 modes) whose contrasting behavior carries the magnetic-field interpretation.

What would settle it

Run the same connected-4PCF measurement on an MHD simulation with identical sonic Mach number, driving, resolution, and box size but with the mean magnetic field set to zero; if parity-odd mode amplitudes comparable to the $B \neq 0$ runs appear, the claim that a coherent magnetic field produces the parity-odd signal is falsified. A second check would compare solenoidal versus compressive driving at fixed $M_{\rm A}$ to test whether driving geometry alone can generate odd-parity coefficients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the connected 4PCF of the logarithmic density field in isothermal, non-self-gravitating MHD turbulence is detectable at high signal-to-noise and carries physical information beyond the 2PCF and 3PCF. The 34 measured angular modes respond systematically to the sonic Mach number $M_{\rm S}$, the Alfvénic Mach number $M_{\rm A}$, and the radial bin scales: parity-even modes dominate and are increasingly suppressed as $M_{\rm A}$ grows, while parity-odd modes are fainter but persist, retaining structure at high parameter values. The key physical claim is that these parity-odd modes are generated by a large-scale coherent magnetic field, making the 4PCF a potential test of magnetic-field coherence that does not require measuring polarization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two Alfvénic Mach numbers used (0.7 and 2.0) and the absence of a simulation with the magnetic field turned off are enough to attribute the parity-odd 4PCF modes specifically to a coherent magnetic field; if anisotropic driving, grid resolution, or box-scale effects can also generate them, the central interpretation is not isolated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The connected 4PCF joins the 2PCF and 3PCF as a summary statistic for ISM turbulence, capturing correlations among tetrahedra of density points that lower-order statistics miss.
  • Parity-odd 4PCF modes give an observable route to testing whether a magnetic field is coherent over large scales, independent of dust polarization measurements.
  • The measured trends with $M_{\rm A}$, $M_{\rm S}$, and radial bins can be used in reverse: given a 4PCF measurement, one could constrain the sonic and Alfvénic Mach numbers of an observed turbulent region.
  • Making all 10 Mach-number combinations, 9 time slices, and 34 modes public lets the community test other diagnostics without re-running the simulations.
  • Extending the pipeline to projected CO emission maps would yield the first 4PCF study of real ISM data with feedback.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If parity-odd 4PCF amplitudes really track field coherence, then a stacked measurement across many molecular clouds could constrain the coherence scale of galactic magnetic fields without needing to resolve polarization angles.
  • Because the simulations use only solenoidal large-scale driving, the parity-odd signal could partly reflect driving symmetry; a test with compressive driving at the same $M_{\rm A}$ would separate driving effects from magnetic-field effects.
  • The strong survival of squeezed and scalene parity-odd modes at high $M_{\rm A}$ suggests these configurations are the best targets for noisy observational data, where equilateral modes may be undetectable.
  • A Fourier-space analog, the connected trispectrum, should show the same parity-odd signature; comparing the two estimators would cross-check systematics such as binning and the FFT grid.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first application of the connected 4-point correlation function (4PCF) to magnetohydrodynamic turbulence simulations of the interstellar medium. Using the sarabande code, the authors decompose the 4PCF in an isotropic basis, isolate the connected non-Gaussian component, and measure 34 multipole configurations on 256^3 isothermal, non-self-gravitating CATS simulations with varying sonic and Alfvénic Mach numbers. The main scientific claims are that the connected 4PCF shows rich, parameter-dependent structure that can serve as a future ISM diagnostic, and that a large-scale coherent magnetic field produces parity-odd 4PCF modes. All measured 4PCF coefficients are promised to be made public.

Significance. If the measurement is robust, this is the first 4PCF estimate on MHD turbulence and a genuinely new non-Gaussian summary statistic for ISM studies. The work extends an established 3PCF pipeline, clearly explains the connected-piece subtraction, and releases a large set of measured coefficients, which is a useful community resource. The parity-odd claim, however, is the paper's most novel physical result and is also its least controlled: no null control is presented, the significance normalization is based on only nine time slices, and the symmetry argument for why a uniform magnetic field should produce odd-parity modes is not made. The exploratory and qualitative parts of the paper are sound in spirit, but the central attribution of parity-odd modes to magnetic-field coherence needs substantially stronger support before the abstract-level claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, §2.4, §4.6.2, Abstract] The claim that a large-scale coherent magnetic field leads to parity-odd 4PCF modes is not supported by the present analysis. The ideal MHD equations, Eqs. (13)-(15), together with the solenoidal forcing described in §2.4 and no stated helicity injection, are invariant under the parity transformation (v → −v, B → B, ρ unchanged); a uniform background magnetic field is a pseudovector and does not break this invariance. The ensemble-averaged density 4PCF should therefore satisfy ⟨ζ(r1,r2,r3)⟩ = ⟨ζ(−r1,−r2,−r3)⟩, so coefficients with ℓ1+ℓ2+ℓ3 odd should vanish. The manuscript includes no B=0 hydrodynamic run, no phase-randomized Gaussian null, and no test for helical forcing, so the nonzero parity-odd signal in Figs. 7-26 and A1-A10 cannot be attributed to magnetic-field coherence rather than to finite-sample fluctuations or numerical asymmetries. A null test is essential before the abstract statement can stand.
  2. [§3, Figs. 7-26 and A1-A10] The 'signal-to-noise ratio' is computed by normalizing with the standard deviation across only nine time slices, which are not independent realizations and for which no covariance matrix, jackknife, or bootstrap is provided. With 34 multipole configurations and many radial bins, the appearance of values approaching ±8 under the null is expected purely from multiple testing, and no correction for this is given. The text itself concedes in §5 that covariance testing is needed to 'determine an above null detection', confirming that the detection significance is not yet established. The authors should provide a proper null or covariance treatment, or explicitly relabel the figures as raw fluctuation maps rather than S/N detections.
  3. [§2.4, §4.2, Abstract] The simulation set is not defined consistently. Section 2.4 lists M_S ≃ 0.7, 1.2, 7.0 and M_A ≃ 0.7, 2.0, which gives six Mach-number combinations, while the Abstract states ten M_S, M_A combinations. Section 4.2 additionally refers to a highest value of M_S = 4.0 that does not appear in §2.4. A table listing each simulation, its exact Mach numbers, and the nine time slices used should be provided; without it, the ten-combination claim and the parameter trends in Section 4 are not reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5 and Fig. 4] The text says that Fig. 4 depicts 'the power spectra and power law fit of the connected 4PCF data', but Fig. 4 shows the density power spectra. The cross-reference and description should be corrected.
  2. [§2.6] The computing-cost statement reports 45,000+ CPU hours for a single 256^3 cube in about 24 wall hours on a 28-CPU node; 28 × 24 = 672 CPU hours, so the reported CPU-hour figure appears to be an error or requires clarification.
  3. [Fig. 24 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'parity-odd modes reatin more structure' should read 'retain'.
  4. [Notation throughout] The Alfvénic Mach number is written as M_A in most of the text but as 'M_a' in the caption of Fig. 10; please standardize the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the 4PCF measurements are self-contained statistical measurements, with self-citations serving as ordinary tool dependencies rather than load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is a measurement pipeline, not a derivation in which an output is forced by a fitted input. The connected 4PCF estimator (Eqs. 1-12) follows from standard Gaussian decomposition of the four-point function; the parity classification (E(Λ)=+1/-1 for even/odd ℓ1+ℓ2+ℓ3) is a definitional labeling of the expansion, not a fit. The measurements on CATS MHD simulations (Sec. 2.4) are external inputs, and the 4PCF coefficients are computed rather than tuned to any target. The central interpretive claim—that a coherent magnetic field leads to parity-odd modes—is an empirical attribution from the simulation suite, not an equation-level identity: no parameter was fitted to the parity-odd amplitudes and no model output was constructed from them. The many citations to the authors' own code (sarabande; Sunseri et al. 2022) and basis (Cahn & Slepian 2023) are normal tool dependencies; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or import an ansatz from those works to force its conclusion. The manuscript itself flags that the covariance/null determination remains to be done ('when tested for covariance can determine an above null detection by eliminating the possibility of noise detection in the data'), and the absence of a B=0 control weakens the statistical support for the magnetic-field attribution, but this is a correctness risk, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are that time slices are independent, that the simulations represent ISM conditions, and that the standard cumulant subtraction yields the connected 4PCF. The main chosen parameters are the multipole truncation, radial bin count, and inertial-range cutoff.

free parameters (3)
  • Inertial range cutoff k_cut = 1.2e-1
    Chosen from a power-law fit to the density power spectrum; scales left of this cutoff are excluded from the analysis, which changes the radial bins probed.
  • Multipole truncation lmax = 3
    Chosen for computational efficiency; no convergence test is shown to demonstrate that higher-l modes are negligible.
  • Number of radial bins = 20
    Chosen for the analysis with no sensitivity study; the binning scheme affects the measured 4PCF coefficients.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nine time slices of each simulation are treated as independent realizations when computing the signal-to-noise ratio.
    The S/N is defined as the mean over time slices divided by their standard deviation, but time slices from a single evolving simulation are correlated.
  • domain assumption The simulations represent ISM conditions despite having no self-gravity, being isothermal, and being driven at a single scale k=2.5.
    The authors state that the simulations mirror ISM conditions 'as well as currently possible', but the absence of self-gravity and the idealized driving limit the connection to real star-forming regions.
  • standard math Subtracting products of 2PCFs yields the connected, purely non-Gaussian 4PCF.
    This is a standard cumulant decomposition as derived in Philcox et al. 2021, and is not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The log-density normalization in Eq. (16) removes the mean and sets unit variance without biasing the 4PCF.
    This transformation is a processing choice that standardizes comparisons across simulations, but its effect on the higher-order statistic is not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First Measurements of the 4-Point Correlation Function of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence as a Novel Probe of the Interstellar Medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEICALHY

@misc{pith2026241203967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First Measurements of the 4-Point Correlation Function of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence as a Novel Probe of the Interstellar Medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEICALHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03967}
}
abstract

In the Interstellar Medium (ISM), gas and dust evolve under magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence. This produces dense, non-linear structures that then seed star formation. Observationally and theoretically, turbulence is quantified by summary statistics such as the 2-Point Correlation Function (2PCF) or its Fourier-space analog the power spectrum. These cannot capture the non-Gaussian correlations coming from turbulence's highly non-linear nature. We here for the first time apply the 4-Point Correlation Function (4PCF) to turbulence, measuring it on a large suite of MHD simulations that mirror, as well as currently possible, the conditions expected in the ISM. The 4PCF captures the dependence of correlations between quadruplets of density points on the geometry of the tetrahedron they form. Using a novel functionality added to the \textsc{sarabande} code specifically for this work, we isolate the purely non-Gaussian piece of the 4PCF. We then explore simulations with a range of pressures, $P$, and magnetic fields, $B$ (but without self-gravity); these are quantified by different sonic $(M_{\rm S})$ and Alfv\'enic $(M_{\rm A})$ Mach numbers. We show that the 4PCF has rich behavior that can in future be used as a diagnostic of ISM conditions. We also show that a large-scale coherent magnetic field leads to parity-odd modes of the 4PCF, a clean test of magnetic field coherence with observational ramifications. All our measurements of the 4PCF (10 $M_{\rm S}, M_{\rm A}$ combinations, 9 time-slices for each, 34 4PCF modes for each) are made public for the community to explore.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This depicts how we compute the “connected” 4PCF. The updated version of the sarabande python package, created specifically for this work, is able to separate the 4PCF into “connected” and “disconnected” pieces, allowing us to isolate the non-Gaussian information. The x- and y-axes correspond to bin indices in the configuration space, with the binning scheme described fully in Section 2.2. Each plot shows a 2D slice… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This table depicts the breakdown of unique ℓ combinations studied in this work. Of the 34 total combinations, 23 are parity even, while 11 are parity odd (see Sec. 2.3). There are four equilateral ℓ combinations, which occur when all ℓs are the same. There are nine squeezed ℓ combinations, which is when only one ℓ = 0; due to the 3-𝑗 symbol, this causes the triangle formed by the three angular momentum vectors to be… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. These are sample slices of density fields from the MHD simulation sets used in this work, with a logarithmic color map, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (25 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Here we show the power spectra of our simulations’ density fields. The solid blue line represents the power spectrum averaged over all time slices (9, at each 𝑀A, 𝑀S set), while the orange dot-dashed line represents our power-law fit. The slope of each power-law fit is…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This is the computing cost summary and configuration of the Della cluster used for the main 4PCF measurements in this work. Specifications include node architecture, parallelization methods, and resource usage for a 2563 data cube with ℓmax = 3 and 20 radial bins. more…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This table summarizes the observed trends for different 4PCF configurations (equilateral, squeezed, isosceles, scalene, and parity-odd) as the independent variables 𝑀𝐴, 𝑀𝑆, 𝑏1, 𝑏2 and 𝑏3 are increased. While parity-odd modes are treated separately here, they can also b…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the equilateral multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = 0, 1, 2, and 3. The plot showcases results from simulations with varying Mach and Alfvénic numbers, highli…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the equilateral multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = 0, 1, 2, and 3. The top panel represents when 𝑏1 = 10 and the bottom panel corresponds to when 𝑏1 = 15. Th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the squeezed multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (0, 1, 1), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (0, 2, 2), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (0, 3, 3), and ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 0, 1). The top panel represen…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the squeezed multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (0, 1, 1), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (0, 2, 2), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (0, 3, 3), and ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 0, 1). The top panel represe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the squeezed multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 3, 0). The top panel represents when 𝑏1 = 0 and the bottom panel corresponds to when 𝑏1 = 5. These plots…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the squeezed multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 3, 0). The top panel represents when 𝑏1 = 10 and the bottom panel corresponds to when 𝑏1 = 15. These plo…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the isosceles multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 1, 2), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 2, 1), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 2, 2), and ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 3, 3). The top panel repres…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the isosceles multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 1, 2), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 2, 1), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 2, 2), and ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 3, 3). The top panel repres…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the isosceles and scalene multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 2, 3), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 3, 1), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 3, 2), and ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 2, 3). The top …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the isosceles and scalene multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 2, 3), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 3, 1), ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 3, 2), and ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (1, 2, 3). The top …
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the scalene multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 2, 1). The top panel represents when 𝑏1 = 0 and the bottom panel corresponds to when 𝑏1 = 5. These plots …
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The 3D connected 4PCF signal-to-noise ratio, normalized by the standard deviation across time slices, computed in the scalene multipole basis for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = (3, 2, 1). The top panel represents when 𝑏1 = 10 and the bottom panel corresponds to when 𝑏1 = 15. These plot…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: This plot shows the 4PCF coefficients for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = 0 (top) and ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = 1(bottom), mapped to 1D by bin combinations. The ℓ = 0 coefficients exhibit smooth, periodic oscillations with a slight decay at higher bin indices, indicating dominant isotropic correlati…
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: This plot shows the 4PCF coefficients for ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = 2 (top) and ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3 = 3 (bottom), mapped to 1D by bin combinations. The ℓ = 2 plot shows a rapid decay with smoother oscillations, while the ℓ = 3 plot exhibits slower decay and more persistent, higher-amplitud…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Analytic Model for Covariance Matrices of the 2-, 3-, and 4-Point Correlation Functions in the Gaussian Random Field Approximation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Closed-form analytic covariance templates for the 2, 3, and 4 point galaxy correlation functions, built from a 1/k power-law power spectrum, reproduce Boltzmann-code results at percent level and trace sparsity to clos...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    Bialy S., Burkhart B., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a82 , 890, 155

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a82 2020

  6. [6]

    Burkhart B., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1071 , 694, 1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/2/1071 2009

  7. [7]

    Burkhart B., Lazarian A., 2011, Statistical Tools of Interstellar Turbulence: Bridging the Gap Between Numerics and Observations ( @eprint arXiv 1105.0929 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0929

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    M., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/26 , 719, 116

    Burkhart B., Lazarian A., Kulsrud R. M., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/26 , 719, 116

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/1/26 2016

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Burkhart B., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd77 , 905, 14

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    N., Slepian Z., 2023, @doi [Journal of Physics A Mathematical General] 10.1088/1751-8121/acdfc4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JPhA...56F5204C 56, 325204

    Cahn R. N., Slepian Z., 2023, @doi [Journal of Physics A Mathematical General] 10.1088/1751-8121/acdfc4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JPhA...56F5204C 56, 325204

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    N., Slepian Z., Hou J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.201002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvL.130t1002C 130, 201002

    Cahn R. N., Slepian Z., Hou J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.201002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvL.130t1002C 130, 201002

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Ceverino D., Klypin A., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/292 , 695, 292

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Cho J., Lazarian A., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/377106 , 595, 812

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Elmegreen D

    Elmegreen B. G., Elmegreen D. M., 1987, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/165536 , 320, 182

    1987 doi

  7. [15]

    G., Elmegreen D

    Elmegreen B. G., Elmegreen D. M., 2001, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/319392 , 121, 1507

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    G., Scalo J., 2004, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/425652 , 155, 109

    Elmegreen B. G., Scalo J., 2004, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/425652 , 155, 109

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    C.-L., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L26 , 24, e044005

    Falceta-Gonçalves D., Kowal G., Falgarone E., Chian A. C.-L., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L26 , 24, e044005

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Schmidt W., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/592084 , 688, 1022

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/592084 , 688, 1022

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Schmidt W., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/364 , 692, 364

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/364 , 692, 364

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    M., 2001, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.1031 , 73, 1031

    Ferrière K. M., 2001, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.1031 , 73, 1031

    2001 doi

  13. [21]

    Friesen M., Slepian Z., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4eb0 , 261, 45

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Garcia F., Slepian Z., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf528 , 914, 123

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Klessen R

    Girichidis P., Konstandin L., Whitworth A. P., Klessen R. S., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/91 , 781, 91

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    M., 2018, PhD thesis, University of Surrey, https://researchportal.surrey.ac.uk/en/publications

    Grisdale K. M., 2018, PhD thesis, University of Surrey, https://researchportal.surrey.ac.uk/en/publications

    2018

  17. [25]

    C., Hopkins P

    Hayward C. C., Hopkins P. F., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2793 , 465, 1682

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    N., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2206.03625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220603625H p

    Hou J., Slepian Z., Cahn R. N., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2206.03625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220603625H p. arXiv:2206.03625

    2022 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    C., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d96 , 849, 48

    Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d96 , 849, 48

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    S., 2004, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.125 , 76, 125

    Mac Low M.-M., Klessen R. S., 2004, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.125 , 76, 125

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    M., 2007, Introductory Lectures on Turbulence: Physics, Mathematics and Modeling

    McDonough J. M., 2007, Introductory Lectures on Turbulence: Physics, Mathematics and Modeling. University of Kentucky, https://uknowledge.uky.edu/me_textbooks/2/

    2007

  22. [30]

    F., Ostriker E

    McKee C. F., Ostriker E. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..565M 45, 565

    2007 arXiv

  23. [31]

    E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1196M 512, 1196

    Miller A. E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1196M 512, 1196

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Motte F., Bontemps S., Louvet F., 2021, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021945 , 59, 143

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Burkhart B., Shelley M

    O'Brien M. J., Burkhart B., Shelley M. J., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6502 , 930, 149

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    arXiv:2402.15510

    Ortol \'a Leonard W., Slepian Z., Hou J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.15510 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240215510O p. arXiv:2402.15510

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    C., Stone J

    Ostriker E. C., Stone J. M., Gammie C. F., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/318290 , 546, 980

    2001 doi

  28. [36]

    Padoan P., Nordlund A., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/307984 , 526, 279

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    Philcox O. H. E., Slepian Z., 2022, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063514 , 106, 063514

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Philcox O. H. E., Hou J., Slepian Z., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2108.01670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210801670P p. arXiv:2108.01670

    2021 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Philcox O. H. E., Cahn A., Slepian Z., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac366 , 511, 5347

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Portillo S. K. N., Slepian Z., Burkhart B., Kahraman S., Finkbeiner D. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862..119P 862, 119

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Riaz R., Schleicher D. R. G., Vanaverbeke S., Klessen R. S., Saavedra-Bastidas J., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1451 , 532, 763

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Slepian Z., 2024, @doi [RAS Techniques and Instruments] 10.1093/rasti/rzae028 , 3, 584

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.4142S 454, 4142

    Slepian Z., Eisenstein D. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.4142S 454, 4142

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455L..31S 455, L31

    Slepian Z., Eisenstein D. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455L..31S 455, L31

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.2059S 469, 2059

    Slepian Z., Eisenstein D. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.2059S 469, 2059

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    J., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7d58 , 892, 116

    Slepian Z., Eisenstein D. J., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7d58 , 892, 116

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Slepian Z., et al., 2017a, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083520 , 95, 083520

    doi

  40. [48]

    Slepian Z., et al., 2017b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/71 , 835, 71

    doi

  41. [49]

    Slepian Z., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad1a9 , 864, 128

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    arXiv:2406.15385

    Slepian Z., Chellino J., Hou J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.15385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240615385S p. arXiv:2406.15385

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    P., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2210.10206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221010206S p

    Sunseri J., Slepian Z., Portillo S., Hou J., Kahraman S., Finkbeiner D. P., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2210.10206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221010206S p. arXiv:2210.10206

    2022 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    Vázquez-Semadeni E., 1994, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/173652 , 423, 681

    1994 doi

  45. [53]

    327, The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later

    Vázquez-Semadeni E., 2005, in Corbelli E., Palla F., Zinnecker H., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 327, The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later. Springer, pp 371--378, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4020-3407-7_70 , https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409553

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A., 2005, @doi [Journal of Physics: Conference Series] 10.1088/1742-6596/6/1/001 , 6, 1

    Williams D. A., 2005, @doi [Journal of Physics: Conference Series] 10.1088/1742-6596/6/1/001 , 6, 1

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.