Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Density fluctuation-Mach number scaling in compressible, high plasma beta turbulence: in-situ space observations and high-Reynolds number simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that normalized density fluctuations in turbulent plasma scale linearly with the turbulent Mach number across a wide range of compressibility and plasma beta, in both spacecraft data and a record-size simulation.

desk verdict Good empirical case for linear δρ/ρ0–Mt scaling in high-beta plasma, but the scale-by-scale statistics need reworking before the b-transition claim stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08883 v1 pith:CAEXQ6N5 submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Riddhi Bandyopadhyay , James R. Beattie , Amitava Bhattacharjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords plasmaturbulencedensityfluctuationsMachnumberbetamagnetosheathMHDsimulationMMSmissiondrivingparameter
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

This paper sets out to test whether density fluctuations in a turbulent plasma grow in lockstep with the turbulent Mach number, not just in the gentle, low-compressibility conditions where the theory was born, but in strongly compressive, high-plasma-beta plasma. Using roughly 1,200 intervals from the Magnetospheric Multiscale spacecraft in Earth's magnetosheath, where plasma beta is about 10, and a single 10,080-cubed MHD simulation at beta about 1, the authors find that the normalized density fluctuation scales linearly with the turbulent Mach number across orders of magnitude, with proportionality constants statistically consistent between data and simulation. If correct, this makes the linear scaling a robust general relation of compressible turbulence, and it implies that the measured driving parameter depends on the scale at which you measure it, not just on how the turbulence is driven.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the scale-by-scale construction of Mt(ℓ/L) and δρ(ℓ/L)/ρ0 from cumulative integrals of the velocity and density power spectra (Equations 14 and 16), which lets a single high-resolution simulation generate many (Mt, δρ/ρ0) pairs spanning both the weakly and strongly compressible regimes. The named object is the driving parameter b from the shock-jump relation δρ/ρ0 = bMt, with b = 1/3 for incompressible (solenoidal) driving and b = 1 for compressible driving; the paper's scale-resolved measurement of b is what reveals the cascade transition.

What would settle it

Recompute the simulation curve using non-overlapping spatial sub-domains at each scale instead of cumulative spectral integrals, so that consecutive points are independent; if the fitted exponent moves significantly away from unity, the claimed universal linear scaling is an artifact of the cumulative construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the normalized density fluctuation δρ/ρ0 grows linearly with the turbulent Mach number Mt across a wide dynamic range and at both β ≈ 10 (MMS magnetosheath data) and β ≈ 1 (simulation). The maximum-likelihood fits give δρ/ρ0 = (0.$83^{{+0.54}}$_{-0.58}) $M_t^{{0.92^{+0.30}}$_{-0.29}} for the spacecraft data and δρ/ρ0 = (0.$97^{{+0.23}}$_{-0.23}) $M_t^{{0.94^{+0.15}}$_{-0.15}} for the simulation; both are within 1σ of δρ/ρ0 = Mt, the prediction of weakly compressible MHD theory with an inhomogeneous background field. The authors also find that the proportionality constant b in δρ/ρ0 = bMt changes from b ≈ 1/3 at the outer driving scale to b ≈ 1 deep inside the cascade, meaning that small-scale measurements of b do not directly reveal the driving mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The fit treats the scale-by-scale simulation points as independent measurements even though each point is a cumulative integral of the same density and velocity spectra, so the quoted uncertainties likely understate the true scatter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The δρ/ρ0 ∝ Mt relation is not limited to the weakly compressible, low-β solar wind; it holds in high-β, strongly compressive plasmas, so it can be applied to environments like the intracluster medium and warm interstellar phases.
  • A single very-high-resolution simulation can substitute for many simulations at different Mach numbers, because the cascade provides a continuous range of effective Mt and δρ/ρ0.
  • The driving parameter b measured from small-scale fluctuations is scale-dependent: deep in the cascade it saturates at b ≈ 1 even when the large-scale driving is mixed or incompressible, so observational measurements of b must be interpreted with the measurement scale in mind.
  • The magnetosheath data and the simulation agree not only in slope but in proportionality constant, suggesting a common inhomogeneity-dominated mechanism in both systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scale-dependence of b is generic, then galaxy-scale or cluster-scale estimates of the turbulent driving parameter that are based on unresolved or small-scale density fluctuations may systematically overestimate the compressive fraction of the driving.
  • A direct test would be to apply the same cumulative-spectrum analysis to a direct numerical simulation with explicit viscosity; if the b-transition survives, it is a property of the cascade, not of the implicit large-eddy closure.
  • The same machinery could be applied to near-Sun solar wind data, where beta varies and compressibility is stronger than in the classic solar wind, to see whether the linear scaling persists at still different beta values.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper tests the linear scaling δρ/ρ0 ∝ M_t predicted by weakly compressible MHD theory with an inhomogeneous background field (Bhattacharjee et al. 1998) against two independent datasets: MMS observations of Earth's magnetosheath (β ~ 10) and a 10,080^3 compressible MHD simulation (reported as β ~ 1/8 in §2.2, but as β ~ 1 in the abstract). The authors construct scale-dependent M_t and δρ/ρ0 from the simulation power spectra via Eqs. (14) and (16), then fit a power law to the resulting cumulative curve, obtaining δρ/ρ0 = (0.97 ± 0.23) M_t^{0.94 ± 0.15}; the MMS fit yields δρ/ρ0 = (0.83^{+0.54}_{-0.58}) M_t^{0.92^{+0.30}_{-0.29}}. They conclude that the linear scaling is robust across β and that the driving parameter b transitions from ~1/3 at the outer scale to ~1 at small scales.

Significance. This paper addresses an important question: whether the linear density-fluctuation/Mach-number scaling extends beyond the weakly compressible regime. The combination of a large MMS sample and an extremely high-resolution simulation is a notable strength, and the paper's explicit comparison to theory is commendable. If the statistical issues with the cumulative scale-by-scale points are resolved, the result would be a significant confirmation of the inhomogeneous-background theory and a useful warning that b measured at small scales does not directly reveal the turbulent driving. The fitting details in Appendix A are helpful, and the authors are transparent about their methodology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §2.2] The plasma beta of the simulation is stated inconsistently. The abstract says the simulation is 'β ∼ 1 highly-compressible', but §2.2 states 'On volume-average, this provides β ∼ 1/8 ∼ 1', which is internally contradictory because 1/8 is not approximately 1. If the actual value is β ≈ 1/8, the simulation is low-beta, and the title's 'high plasma beta' descriptor and the abstract's framing must be revised. This matters because the paper's universality claim rests on comparing the magnetosheath (β ~ 10) with a simulation whose β must be accurately reported.
  2. [§3 and Appendix A (Eqs. 14, 16)] The scale-by-scale simulation points are cumulative integrals of the same velocity and density power spectra: each point contains all contributions at smaller scales, so consecutive points are strongly positively correlated. The maximum-likelihood fit in Appendix A treats these points as independent measurements, so the reported uncertainties in Eq. (17) (exponent 0.94 ± 0.15, prefactor 0.97 ± 0.23) are likely understated. Please provide a covariance-aware fit, for example using the full covariance matrix of the cumulative spectral integrals, or fit to independent (non-overlapping) wavenumber bands, and report updated parameter uncertainties.
  3. [§4] The claim that b transitions from ≈ 1/3 at the outer scale to ≈ 1 at small scales is inferred from the trajectory of the same cumulative points, with no pointwise uncertainties or covariance model. This b-transition is a central conclusion about the driving parameter, so it needs a more rigorous statistical foundation. Please compute the local slope of log(δρ/ρ0) versus log(M_t) in independent scale bands with proper uncertainties, and test whether the transition persists when the cumulative correlation is removed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (14)] The integration limits in Eq. (14) are written as 'Z ku k' and should be expressed as ∫_k^{ku} (or the lower and upper limits should be clearly defined) to avoid ambiguity about the direction of integration.
  2. [§3] The number of simulation points and the range of ℓ/L used in the fit are not stated; please give this information so that the reader can assess the fit's dynamic range.
  3. [§4] The phrase 'weakly incompressible theory' appears in the discussion; this should be 'weakly compressible theory' to match the terminology used throughout the paper.
  4. [§2.1] The selection criteria for the ~1200 MMS intervals are described only through density cuts; please specify the full selection procedure and the total duration or number of orbits represented by the sample.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the δρ/ρ0–Mt scaling is tested against independent MMS data and a high-resolution simulation; the scale-by-scale construction compares two separate cumulative spectra and does not force the claimed relation, and the sole self-citation supplies a prediction rather than an input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, δρ/ρ0 ∝ Mt, is an empirical test of a theoretical prediction. The MMS magnetosheath data (Eq. 11) and the simulation data (Eq. 17) are independent of the theory and of each other. The scale-by-scale simulation points are constructed from Eq. 14, Mt(ℓ/L) = (1/cs)(∫_{ku}^{k} Pu(k') dk')^{1/2}, and Eq. 16, δρ/ρ0 = (∫_{ku}^{k} P_{ρ/ρ0−1}(k') dk')^{1/2}. These are cumulative integrals of two distinct power spectra, so no algebraic identity forces the fitted relation δρ/ρ0 = θ1 Mt^{θ0}; a linear scaling is instead a substantive spectral-shape result. No fitted parameter is recycled into the definition of the scaling, and the theory cited (Bhattacharjee et al. 1998) is co-authored by one of the present authors but is used only as the predicted relation to be compared with data, not as an input that guarantees the outcome. The known concern that the cumulative spectral points are strongly correlated and hence the quoted uncertainties may be underestimated is a statistical accuracy issue, not a circularity of the derivation. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the appropriate circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main fitted quantities are the power-law exponent and prefactor for the two datasets. The theory being tested is cited from prior work by one of the authors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • θ0 (exponent), MMS fit = 0.92 +0.30/-0.29
    Maximum likelihood power-law fit to ~1200 magnetosheath intervals, testing consistency with the predicted exponent of 1.
  • θ1 (prefactor), MMS fit = 0.83 +0.54/-0.58
    Proportionality constant from the same fit, claimed to be near 1 but also consistent with 1/3 within 1 sigma.
  • θ0 (exponent), simulation fit = 0.94 +/- 0.15
    Fit to scale-dependent cumulative spectral points from the 10,080^3 simulation.
  • θ1 (prefactor), simulation fit = 0.97 +/- 0.23
    Proportionality constant from the simulation fit, consistent with unity.
  • forcing mode mix = 50% compressible / 50% incompressible
    Choice of turbulent forcing decomposition affects the outer-scale b value (b=1/3) but is not fit to the target relation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Weakly compressible MHD theory (Bhattacharjee et al. 1998) predicts δρ/ρ0 ∝ Mt for inhomogeneous background fields.
    The paper uses this theory as the benchmark for the scaling; it is cited, not derived here.
  • domain assumption Taylor's frozen-in hypothesis maps temporal MMS measurements to spatial fluctuations.
    Invoked in the Figure 1 caption to interpret time series as spatial sampling.
  • domain assumption The ILES solver's numerical dissipation approximates high-Reynolds-number MHD turbulence.
    Relies on Malvadi Shivakumar and Federrath (2023) calibration to claim Re up to 5.3e6; no direct verification in this paper.
  • domain assumption The magnetosheath intervals are statistically stationary and homogeneous for defining background density and velocity.
    The computation of δρ/ρ0 and Mt uses time averages over intervals; ergodicity is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Density fluctuation-Mach number scaling in compressible, high plasma beta turbulence: in-situ space observations and high-Reynolds number simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CAEXQ6N5

@misc{pith2026250208883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Density fluctuation-Mach number scaling in compressible, high plasma beta turbulence: in-situ space observations and high-Reynolds number simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CAEXQ6N5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08883}
}
abstract

Understanding the nature of compressible fluctuations in a broad range of turbulent plasmas, from the intracluster medium to the solar wind, has been an active field of research in the past decades. Theoretical frameworks for weakly compressible MHD turbulence in an inhomogeneous background magnetic field predict a linear scaling of the normalized mass density fluctuation ($\delta \rho / \rho_0$), as a function of the turbulent Mach number ($\mathcal{M}_t$), $\delta \rho / \rho_0 \propto \mathcal{M}_t$. However, so far the scaling relation has been tested only using moderate to low plasma beta ($\beta \lesssim 1$) solar wind observational data where the compressibility is weak $\delta \rho / \rho_0 \sim 0.1$. Here, we combine NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission data in Earth's magnetosheath, where $\beta \sim 10$ is high, and $\beta \sim 1$ highly-compressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence simulations at unprecedented resolutions. Both show that $\delta \rho / \rho_0 \propto \mathcal{M}_t$ holds across a broad range of $\delta \rho / \rho_0$, $\mathcal{M}_t$ and $\beta$, demonstrating that $\delta \rho / \rho_0 \propto \mathcal{M}_t$ is a robust compressible turbulence relation, going beyond the asymptotics of the weakly compressible theory. We discuss the findings in the context of understanding the nature of strongly compressible turbulent fluctuations and the driving parameter in astrophysical and space plasmas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of the MMS data in Earth’s turbulent magnetosheath. The data shown are from the FGM and FPI instruments on-board the MMS1 spacecraft. The top panel shows the magnetic field measurements in GSE coordinates; the second panel shows the electron density; third panel shows the ion temperature; and the bottom panel shows the ion velocity in GSE coordinates. Each panel shows significant temporal turbulent fluctu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A two-dimensional slice of the logarithmic mass density fluctuations, ln(ρ/ρ0), where ρ0 is the volume-average, overlaid with in-plane magnetic field streamlines shown in white. The mean density ρ = ρ0 is shown in black, over-densities ρ > ρ0 in yellow and under-densities ρ < ρ0 in green. Due to the strong ρ/ρ0 contrasts and the coherent, over-dense filamentary structures and deep under-dense voids the mass-density … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The variation of relative density fluctuations, δρ/ρ0, with turbulent Mach number, Mt, in Earth’s mag￾netosheath, measured by MMS (blue contours of the joint probability distribution function between, Mt and δρ/ρ0, p(Mt, δρ/ρ0)) and from a 10,0803 , highly-compressible MHD simulation (red dots; by combining Equation 14 and Equa￾tion 16). A best fit to the MMS data gives δρ/ρ0 = (0.83+0.54 −0.58)M 0.92+0.30 −0.29 t a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The corner plots for the two log10 δρ/ρ0 = θ0 log10 Mt + log10 θ1 fits (shown in Equation 11 and Equation 17) to the MMS (a) and simulation data (b), showing that (1) within 1σ, δρ/ρ0 = Mt, as predicted from weakly compressible turbulence theory (Bhattacharjee et al. 1…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 4 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Compressible Navier-Stokes Flow in Schr\"odinger-Type Variables

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Isothermal compressible Navier–Stokes flow is rewritten exactly as coupled imaginary-time Schrödinger-type amplitude equations, with a mixed density-compressive amplitude closing the density sector.

  2. The Treble Clef radio phoenix and its old nonthermal filaments

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    VLSS J0318.9+5755 (the Treble Clef) is a radio phoenix with ultra-steep spectrum in a massive merging cluster at z≈0.117 in the Zone of Avoidance, shaped by ICM gas motions that may also power a candidate radio halo.

  3. The topology of the magnetic field in Abell 2255 out to its virial radius. Results from the LOFAR Galaxy Cluster Ultra-Deep Field

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The magnetic field in Abell 2255 shows ordered, region-dependent orientations inferred from synchrotron intensity gradients, with radial fields in bridges and tangential fields in relics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

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

    2021

  2. [2]

    P., Wang, B., et al

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Wang, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/acde57

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acde57 2023

  3. [3]

    1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 9475, 10.1029/94JA03048

    Bavassano, B., & Bruno, R. 1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 9475, 10.1029/94JA03048

    doi:10.1029/94ja03048 1995

  4. [4]

    R., & Federrath , C

    Beattie , J. R., & Federrath , C. 2020, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 668, 10.1093/mnras/stz3377

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3377 2020

  5. [5]

    R., Federrath , C., Klessen , R

    Beattie , J. R., Federrath , C., Klessen , R. S., Cielo , S., & Bhattacharjee , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.16626, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.16626

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.16626 2024

  6. [6]

    R., Federrath , C., & Seta , A

    Beattie , J. R., Federrath , C., & Seta , A. 2020, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 1593, 10.1093/mnras/staa2257

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2257 2020

  7. [7]

    R., Mocz , P., Federrath , C., & Klessen , R

    Beattie , J. R., Mocz , P., Federrath , C., & Klessen , R. S. 2021, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4354, 10.1093/mnras/stab1037

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1037 2021

  8. [8]

    2022, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 5003, 10.1093/mnras/stac3005

    ---. 2022, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 5003, 10.1093/mnras/stac3005

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3005 2022

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 31

    Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., et al. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 31

    2011

  2. [10]

    S., Ghosh, S., & Goldstein, M

    Bhattacharjee, A., Ng, C. S., Ghosh, S., & Goldstein, M. L. 1999, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 104, 24835, 10.1029/1999JA900327

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    S., & Spangler , S

    Bhattacharjee , A., Ng , C. S., & Spangler , S. R. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 494, 409, 10.1086/305184

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    2010, Numerische Mathematik, 115, 647, 10.1007/s00211-010-0289-4

    Bouchut, F., Klingenberg, C., & Waagan, K. 2010, Numerische Mathematik, 115, 647, 10.1007/s00211-010-0289-4

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 163, 10.1007/s11214-013-0009-3

    Brandenburg , A., & Lazarian , A. 2013, Space Science Reviews, 178, 163, 10.1007/s11214-013-0009-3

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Moore, T

    Burch, J. L., Moore, T. E., Torbert, R. B., & Giles, B. L. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 5, 10.1007/s11214-015-0164-9

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Torbert , R

    Burch , J. L., Torbert , R. B., Phan , T. D., et al. 2016, Science, 352, aaf2939, 10.1126/science.aaf2939

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/755/1/l19

    Burkhart, B., & Lazarian, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/755/1/l19

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    2012, in High Performance Visualization--Enabling Extreme-Scale Scientific Insight (Taylor & Francis), 357--372

    Childs, H., Brugger, E., Whitlock, B., et al. 2012, in High Performance Visualization--Enabling Extreme-Scale Scientific Insight (Taylor & Francis), 357--372

    2012

  10. [18]

    E., Chhiber, R., Fu, X., et al

    Cuesta, M. E., Chhiber, R., Fu, X., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd4c2

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, , 514, 1782, 10.1093/mnras/stac1480

    Dhawalikar , S., Federrath , C., Davidovits , S., et al. 2022, , 514, 1782, 10.1093/mnras/stac1480

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc10b

    Du, S., Li, H., Gan, Z., & Fu, X. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc10b

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Dubey , A., Fisher , R., Graziani , C., et al. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 385, Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows, ed. N. V. Pogorelov , E. Audit , & G. P. Zank , 145

    2008

  14. [22]

    G., & Scalo , J

    Elmegreen , B. G., & Scalo , J. 2004, , 42, 211, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859

    2004 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Eswaran , V., & Pope , S. B. 1988, Computers and Fluids, 16, 257

    1988

  16. [24]

    2013, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 1245, 10.1093/mnras/stt1644

    Federrath, C. 2013, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 1245, 10.1093/mnras/stt1644

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Iapichino, L., & Beattie, J

    Federrath, C., Klessen, R. S., Iapichino, L., & Beattie, J. R. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-020-01282-z

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low , M. M. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 512, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Schmidt , W., & Mac Low , M

    Federrath , C., Roman-Duval , J., Klessen , R. S., Schmidt , W., & Mac Low , M. M. 2022, TG: Turbulence Generator , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2204.001. 2204.001

    2022

  20. [28]

    M., Longmore , S

    Federrath , C., Rathborne , J. M., Longmore , S. N., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 143, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/143

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 62, 014014, 10.1088/1361-6587/ab49eb

    Ferri \`e re , K. 2020, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 62, 014014, 10.1088/1361-6587/ab49eb

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7, 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 131, 273, 10.1086/317361

    Fryxell , B., Olson , K., Ricker , P., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 131, 273, 10.1086/317361

    2000 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Federrath , C., Pingel , N

    Gerrard , I. A., Federrath , C., Pingel , N. M., et al. 2023, , 526, 982, 10.1093/mnras/stad2718

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Vinas, A

    Gershman, D. J., Vinas, A. F., Dorelli, J. C., et al. 2018, Phys. Plasmas, 25, 022303, 10.1063/1.5009158

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2013, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1880, 10.1093/mnras/stt010

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Hunana, P., & Zank, G. P. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/148

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, Joblib: running Python functions as pipeline jobs

    Joblib Development Team . 2020, Joblib: running Python functions as pipeline jobs. https://joblib.readthedocs.io/

    2020

  33. [41]

    1981, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 34, 481, 10.1002/cpa.3160340405

    Klainerman, S., & Majda, A. 1981, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 34, 481, 10.1002/cpa.3160340405

    1981 doi

  34. [42]

    1982, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 35, 629, 10.1002/cpa.3160350503

    ---. 1982, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 35, 629, 10.1002/cpa.3160350503

    1982 doi

  35. [43]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 658, 423, 10.1086/511515

    Kowal, G., Lazarian, A., & Beresnyak, A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 658, 423, 10.1086/511515

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Seta , A., & Federrath , C

    Kriel , N., Beattie , J. R., Seta , A., & Federrath , C. 2022, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 2457, 10.1093/mnras/stac969

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Krumholz , M. R. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.03457. 1511.03457

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    W., Jones , T

    Kunz , M. W., Jones , T. W., & Zhuravleva , I. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo , 56, 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_125-1

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    K., Pitrou , A., & Seibert , S

    Lam , S. K., Pitrou , A., & Seibert , S. 2015, in Proc. Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, 1--6, 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015

  40. [48]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.10350, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.10350

    Malvadi Shivakumar , L., & Federrath , C. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.10350, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.10350

    2023 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    H., & Brown, M

    Matthaeus, W. H., & Brown, M. R. 1988, The Physics of Fluids, 31, 3634, 10.1063/1.866880

    1988 doi

  42. [50]

    H., Klein, L

    Matthaeus, W. H., Klein, L. W., Ghosh, S., & Brown, M. R. 1991, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 96, 5421, 10.1029/90JA02609

    1991 doi

  43. [51]

    H., & Velli , M

    Matthaeus , W. H., & Velli , M. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 160, 145, 10.1007/s11214-011-9793-9

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    H., Federrath , C., Klaassen , P., Kuiper , R., & Reiter , M

    Menon , S. H., Federrath , C., Klaassen , P., Kuiper , R., & Reiter , M. 2021, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 1721, 10.1093/mnras/staa3271

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    H., Federrath , C., & Kuiper , R

    Menon , S. H., Federrath , C., & Kuiper , R. 2020, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 4643, 10.1093/mnras/staa580

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 5072, 10.1093/mnras/staa3564

    Mohapatra , R., Federrath , C., & Sharma , P. 2021, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 5072, 10.1093/mnras/staa3564

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2019, , 484, 4881, 10.1093/mnras/stz328

    Mohapatra , R., & Sharma , P. 2019, , 484, 4881, 10.1093/mnras/stz328

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    Z., Glover, S

    Molina, F. Z., Glover, S. C. O., Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 2680, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21075.x

    2012

  49. [57]

    A., Federrath , C., & Sutherland , R

    Nolan , C. A., Federrath , C., & Sutherland , R. S. 2015, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 1380, 10.1093/mnras/stv1030

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    2006, NumPy : A guide to NumPy , USA: Trelgol Publishing

    Oliphant, T. 2006, NumPy : A guide to NumPy , USA: Trelgol Publishing. http://www.numpy.org/

    2006

  51. [59]

    Padoan , P., Nordlund , P., & Jones , B. J. T. 1997, Commmunications of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, 100, 341

    1997

  52. [60]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 155, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ed6

    Pan , L., Padoan , P., & Nordlund , A . 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 155, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ed6

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    1998, , 58, 4501, 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.4501

    Passot , T., & V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E. 1998, , 58, 4501, 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.4501

    1998 doi

  55. [63]

    2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 331, 10.1007/s11214-016-0245-4

    Pollock, C., Moore, T., Jacques, A., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 331, 10.1007/s11214-016-0245-4

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    J., Federrath, C., & Brunt, C

    Price, D. J., Federrath, C., & Brunt, C. M. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 727, 1380, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/1/L21

    2011 doi

  57. [65]

    2019, Journal of Plasma Physics, 85, 205850401, 10.1017/S0022377819000539

    Rincon , F. 2019, Journal of Plasma Physics, 85, 205850401, 10.1017/S0022377819000539

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    T., Anderson, B

    Russell, C. T., Anderson, B. J., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 189, 10.1007/s11214-014-0057-3

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2020, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 4, 4, 10.1007/s41614-020-0040-2

    Sahraoui , F., Hadid , L., & Huang , S. 2020, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 4, 4, 10.1007/s41614-020-0040-2

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Cowley, S

    Schekochihin, A. A., Cowley, S. C., Taylor, S. F., Maron, J. L., & McWilliams, J. C. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 612, 276, 10.1086/422547

    2004 doi

  61. [69]

    Schmidt , W., Federrath , C., Hupp , M., Kern , S., & Niemeyer , J. C. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 494, 127, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809967

    2009 doi

  62. [70]

    H., Federrath , C., et al

    Sharda , P., Menon , S. H., Federrath , C., et al. 2021, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 10.1093/mnras/stab3048

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    V., & Montgomery, D

    Shebalin, J. V., & Montgomery, D. 1988, Journal of Plasma Physics, 39, 339–367, 10.1017/S0022377800013076

    1988 doi

  64. [72]

    Squire , J., & Hopkins , P. F. 2017, The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 3753, 10.1093/mnras/stx1817

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    E., Eastwood, J

    Stawarz, J. E., Eastwood, J. P., Phan, T. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 877, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab21c8

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    2013, The C++ Programming Language, 4th edn

    Stroustrup, B. 2013, The C++ Programming Language, 4th edn. (Addison-Wesley Professional)

    2013

  67. [75]

    B., Russell, C

    Torbert, R. B., Russell, C. T., Magnes, W., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 199, 105, 10.1007/s11214-014-0109-8

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    Y., & Marsch, E

    Tu, C. Y., & Marsch, E. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 21481, 10.1029/94JA00843

    1994 doi

  69. [77]

    V., Goldstein, M

    Usmanov, A. V., Goldstein, M. L., & Matthaeus, W. H. 2014, Astrophys. J., 788, 43. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/788/i=1/a=43

    2014

  70. [78]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004, 10.21105/joss.02004

    van der Velden , E. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004, 10.21105/joss.02004

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    L., Nunez-Iglesias , J., et al

    van der Walt, S., S ch\"onberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias , J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453, 10.7717/peerj.453

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    G., & Maruca , B

    Verscharen , D., Klein , K. G., & Maruca , B. A. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 5, 10.1007/s41116-019-0021-0

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 3331, 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.026

    Waagan , K., Federrath , C., & Klingenberg , C. 2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 3331, 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.026

    2011 doi

  75. [83]

    P., & Matthaeus, W

    Zank, G. P., & Matthaeus, W. H. 1993, Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics, 5, 257, 10.1063/1.858780

    1993 doi

  76. [84]

    Zhao, L.-L., Silwal, A., Zhu, X., Li, H., & Zank, G. P. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 979, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ada3d8

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.