Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This review argues that explicit subgrid-scale closures derived from spatial filtering of the compressible fluid equations are physically better motivated and more accurate than relying on numerical truncation error, with concrete payoffs i

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A revised review of large-eddy simulation methodology for astrophysics, concluding that explicit subgrid-scale models have small effects on resolved turbulence but are useful for sub-resolution physics and for convergence in special cases.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A competent, honest survey of one research program's LES methodology; useful as a reference and textbook-style overview, not a new result, with a load-bearing but openly acknowledged ILES-as-DNS calibration assumption. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06801 v1 pith:QI3N4LGG submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.GA

Large eddy simulations in astrophysics

Wolfram Schmidt-Br\"uckner This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords large eddy simulationsubgrid-scale modelingastrophysical turbulencecompressible MHDimplicit large eddy simulationstar formation efficiencyturbulent dynamoclosure coefficients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 is a review of large eddy simulation (LES) for astrophysical flows, where Reynolds numbers are so high that direct numerical simulation is infeasible. The paper's thesis is that unresolved turbulent eddies should be represented by subgrid-scale (SGS) closures derived from spatial filtering, rather than left to numerical truncation errors. It develops the filtered compressible Navier–Stokes and MHD equations, presents the standard closures (Smagorinsky, SGS turbulence energy, and nonlinear structural models), and explains how closure coefficients can be calibrated and validated. If the thesis is right, astrophysical simulations can extract reliable turbulent velocity dispersions, make star formation efficiency a predicted rather than prescribed quantity, and achieve numerical convergence for small-scale dynamo amplification of magnetic fields.

Core claim

The central claim is that the turbulent stresses coupling resolved and unresolved scales can be computed from scale separation and testable closures, and that this is a physically better-motivated and more accurate approximation than the purely numerical dissipation inherent in implicit large eddy simulations. Concretely, the review reports that an SGS turbulence energy equation gives consistent turbulent velocity dispersions in cosmological simulations, that SGS-based turbulent star formation efficiencies reproduce observed Kennicutt–Schmidt relations without being imposed, and that a relativistic structural MHD SGS model, with coefficients tuned for the problem, produced the first converge

What carries the argument

The machinery is the spatial low-pass filter applied to the compressible Navier–Stokes and MHD equations. Filtering produces the SGS turbulence stress tensor and the SGS electromotive force, whose transport must be closed. The review's workhorse is the Germano identity, which relates stresses at two filter levels and underlies both dynamic coefficient determination and a priori validation; the main predictive instruments are the one-equation SGS turbulence energy model, its Smagorinsky equilibrium limit, and nonlinear structural closures obtained by approximate deconvolution of the filter kernel. The closure coefficients C1, C2, Cν, Cκ and the EMF coefficient are calibrated by hierarchical f

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that numerical discretization behaves like an implicit low-pass filter with diffusion-like truncation error, so implicit LES data can stand in for direct numerical simulation data when calibrating and validating SGS closures; if the filter-to-grid mapping is inaccurate, the fitted closure coefficients lose their grounding.

What would settle it

Take a high-resolution ILES of forced compressible turbulence, apply explicit Gaussian filters at several lengths, and calculate the true SGS energy flux from the filtered fields. If the calibrated generalized closure (C1≈0.02, C2≈0.7) does not reproduce the flux with high correlation in a new simulation, or if coefficients drift with filter length, the scale-separation claim is falsified. For the binary neutron star case, rerun the same setup with the a priori coefficient values instead of boosted ones; if field amplification no longer converges, the claim that scale-separated closures are be

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Turbulent velocity dispersions can be read off the SGS turbulence energy variable, giving a resolution-aware observable for cosmological and galaxy simulations instead of ad-hoc estimates.
  • Star formation efficiency becomes a local function of turbulence (Mach number and virial parameter) rather than a constant, changing when disks form and how bursty star formation is.
  • AMR simulations can exchange energy between resolved and SGS energy reservoirs at refinement boundaries, avoiding spurious numerical heating and cooling.
  • With sufficient explicit filtering, structural MHD closures reproduce higher-order statistics of small-scale dynamo action, and in binary neutron star mergers the saturated magnetic field becomes converged at lower resolution.
  • In strongly diffusive low-order solvers explicit SGS terms remain secondary; their benefit grows with low-dissipation high-order and mesh-free methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • I infer the SGS approach will matter most in the regime the review identifies as marginal: high-order, low-dissipation schemes and particle/mesh-free codes, where numerical diffusion no longer dominates; the binary neutron star result is a preview.
  • A testable extension is to re-run the binary neutron star merger LES with dynamically computed rather than boosted closure coefficients, checking whether the converged amplification survives; the review notes the generalized dynamic procedure for both C1 and C2 has not yet been applied.
  • The same structural EMF closure could be tried in other small-scale dynamo settings, such as protogalactic halos and the interstellar medium, using low-dissipation schemes; earlier attempts with diffusive solvers showed no clear trend, which the review attributes to competition with numerical diffusion.
  • If the implicit-filter-to-grid mapping is taken literally, fitted coefficients should be scale-invariant; repeating the least-squares calibration on much higher-resolution ILES would test whether C1≈0.02 and C2≈0.7 are universal or artifacts of that mapping.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review presents the filtering formalism for compressible Navier-Stokes, co-moving cosmological, and MHD equations; reviews the Smagorinsky, SGS turbulence-energy, and structural closures; and discusses coefficient calibration via hierarchical filtering, dynamic procedures, and global least squares. It surveys applications to type Ia supernova deflagration, galaxy star formation, cluster turbulence, metal mixing, and neutron-star merger dynamos. The author's central claim is that scale-separation-based SGS closures are physically better motivated and provide a more accurate approximation than purely numerical truncation errors, while also acknowledging that explicit SGS terms have small effects in diffusive finite-volume codes.

Significance. As an updated review, the paper is useful: it collects the standard derivations in one place, is unusually candid about the negative result that explicit SGS models barely alter resolved statistics in diffusive codes, and it identifies cases where SGS modeling matters, namely mesh-free methods, high-order schemes, and sub-resolution star formation, mixing, and turbulent velocity dispersion. The exposition of the filter hierarchy, Germano identity, and least-squares calibration is detailed and generally correct; spot-checks such as Eq. (83) are numerically consistent. The main risk is that the review's advocacy claims go beyond what its own calibration and validation strategy supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1–§4.3, Eq. (124), and §5.6] The calibration of C1≈0.02, C2≈0.7, Cκ≈0.4 rests on identifying ILES output with a filter level m=I and using τ[n]≈τ[I,n] for filter lengths 16–64Δ. This is an assumption, not a test: footnote 2 concedes that small multiples of the grid are affected by truncation errors, and shock-capturing schemes produce nonlinear, solution-dependent diffusion. No resolution-dependence check is reported. Please add a test (e.g., vary ILES resolution at fixed Δn/L and show the fitted coefficients are stable) or explicitly qualify the concluding claim that these closures are 'testable' and more accurate than numerical truncation errors.
  2. [§5.5 and §5.6] The BNS merger result is presented as 'for the first time' converged magnetic-field amplification, but the text states that the SGS coefficients were 'boosted' and that convergence was achieved 'with some tuning of model parameters.' This is a proof of principle that SGS source terms can improve convergence, not a validation of the a priori derived closures of Sections 3–4. The review should separate these claims; as written, Figure 18 is cited in support of the concluding claim without acknowledging that the underlying coefficients were not those determined in Section 4.3.
  3. [§5.6] The concluding claim that scale-separation-based closures provide 'a more accurate approximation than purely numerical truncation errors' is broader than the evidence summarized in the same section. The review repeatedly states that resolved statistics, energy spectra, and structure functions are not sensitive to explicit SGS models in diffusive codes, while the successful applications are for sub-resolution diagnostics (K, σ_turb, metal mixing, star formation efficiency) or for tuned models (BNS). These diagnostics are not independently validated against DNS or observations. I recommend narrowing the conclusion to distinguish 'better motivated subgrid description' from 'more accurate resolved flow prediction.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and formatting errors: 'sale' for scale in §1, 'erros' in footnote 2, 'specfiy' after Eq. (24), 'the the denstrophy' in the Fig. 2 caption, and repeated 'Eqs..' double periods.
  2. [§3.5, after Eq. (107)] 'The first term on the left-hand side' should read 'the first term on the right-hand side.'
  3. [§3.5 vs. §5.6] The text says the structural model is 'the only subgrid-scale model applied to astrophysical flows with magnetic fields,' but §5.6 discusses the ad hoc alpha-dynamo SGS model of Liu et al. (2022). Please qualify or correct this statement.
  4. [§3.3] 'Rankine-Hugeniot' should be 'Rankine-Hugoniot.'
  5. [References] LaTeX accent artifacts (e.g., 'Vigan` o') and inconsistent arXiv/journal formatting should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the ILES-based calibration is disclosed as an assumption, not hidden as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central methodology is a review of LES closures; it does not present a derivation where a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. In Section 4.1, the ILES-as-filter mapping is stated explicitly: 'Let us further assume that the implicit filter of an ILES corresponds to the filter level m=I'. This is an assumption, and the paper itself notes its limits in footnote 2: 'small multiples of the grid can be significantly affected by numerical truncation errors'. The closure coefficients C1≈0.02 and C2≈0.7 are obtained by global least-squares fits to ILES data (Section 4.3), and the paper openly describes this as 'calibration' and 'determination of closure coefficients', not as an out-of-sample prediction. The a posteriori comparisons against ILES are consistency checks of the same modeling framework, not a hidden reuse of the fitted target. The structural MHD closures (Section 3.5) are derived from a Gaussian filter expansion (Eqs. 101–107) rather than from the fitted coefficients, providing independent content. The binary-neutron-star merger result is explicitly qualified: 'With some tuning of the model parameters, they achieved converged magnetic field amplification' (Section 5.6). Thus, while the ILES-as-DNS premise is a legitimate correctness/validity risk, no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review rests almost entirely on the author's own published models. The central closures depend on coefficients either fitted to the author's ILES data (C1, C2, Cnu, Ckappa) or chosen by hand (Ct, Cstar, boosted merger coefficients). The a priori calibration and a posteriori validation both use ILES data, whose filter interpretation is itself an assumption of the framework. No code or data accompanies the review.

free parameters (6)
  • C1 and C2, generalized two-coefficient closure = C1 ~ 0.02, C2 ~ 0.7
    Fit by global least squares to the author's own supersonic ILES data (Sect. 4.3, Eqs. 138-141); presented as robust values for LES.
  • Cnu, eddy-viscosity coefficient = 0.05 from hierarchical filtering, 0.14 from least squares
    Calibrated on the author's ILES of forced compressible turbulence (Sects. 4.1, 4.3); the two methods disagree by a factor of roughly 3.
  • Ckappa, gradient-diffusion coefficient = 0.4
    From hierarchical filtering of the author's ILES data (Sect. 4.1); implies turbulent Prandtl number around 10.
  • Ct, turbulent flame speed coefficient = 4/3
    Chosen by hand to recover the expected flame speed in the strongly turbulent regime (Sect. 5.1, Eq. 142).
  • Cstar, supernova feedback coefficient = unspecified
    Controls the effective feedback time scale in Eq. (144); no calibrated value is reported (Sect. 5.2).
  • Boosted SGS dynamo coefficients in merger LES = unspecified
    In the neutron star merger application, coefficients for magnetic amplification were boosted while diffusive fluxes were reduced or neglected; the review describes this as tuning (Sect. 5.5).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov scaling holds locally down to the filter scale, so dissipation is epsilon = C_epsilon K^(3/2)/Delta
    Adopted for the dissipation closure (Sect. 3.2, Eq. 84); the review says it is 'commonly assumed'.
  • domain assumption Numerical discretization acts as an implicit low-pass filter and numerical viscosity approximates grid-scale turbulent viscosity
    Foundational for ILES and for calibrating closures against ILES data (Sect. 1, Sect. 4.1); footnote 2 concedes truncation errors distort small resolved scales.
  • domain assumption Gradient-diffusion hypothesis (Fick's law) applies to SGS transport of kinetic energy, heat, and metals
    Closure in Eqs. (89) and (109)-(110); the review notes Pope's critique that turbulent transport is not gradient-aligned (Sect. 3.6).
  • standard math Filter commutation with derivatives and the Germano identity
    Basis of the filtered equations and the dynamic procedures (Sect. 2, Sect. 4.2); standard LES theory.
  • domain assumption Scale locality of energy transfer in turbulence
    Used to argue ILES reproduces inertial-range statistics and SGS effects are small (Sect. 5.6); the review admits locality is limited for MHD with a small-scale dynamo.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large eddy simulations in astrophysics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QI3N4LGG

@misc{pith2026250906801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large eddy simulations in astrophysics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QI3N4LGG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06801}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this review, the methodology of large eddy simulations (LES) is introduced and applications in astrophysics are discussed. As theoretical framework, the scale decomposition of the dynamical equations for compressible neutral fluids by means of spatial filtering is explained. For cosmological applications, the filtered equations in co-moving coordinates are formulated. Moreover, the decomposition is extended to magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). While energy is dissipated through numerical diffusivities in implicit large eddy simulations (ILES), explicit subgrid-scale (SGS) models are applied in LES to compute energy dissipation, mixing, and dynamo action due to numerically unresolved turbulent eddies. The most commonly used models in astrophysics are the Smagorinsky model, the hydrodynamical SGS turbulence energy equation model, and the non-linear structural model for both non-relativistic and relativistic MHD. Model validation is carried out a priori by testing correlations between model and data for specific terms or a posteriori by comparing turbulence statistics in LES and ILES. Since most solvers in astrophysical simulation codes have significant numerical diffusion, the additional effect of SGS models is generally small. However, convergence with resolution increases in some cases. A recent example is magnetic field amplification in binary neutron star mergers. For mesh-free codes, it has been shown that explicit modelling of turbulent diffusion of metals has a significant impact. Moreover, SGS models can help to compute the turbulent velocity dispersion consistently and to parameterize sub-resolution processes that are influenced by turbulence, such as the star formation efficiency in galaxy simulations.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SPH methods in the modelling of compact objects

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 1.0

    An updated expert review of Newtonian and general-relativistic SPH for compact-object mergers, arguing that modern SPH variants with better kernels, steered dissipation and reproducing gradients match grid-based codes...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

157 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Phys Rev D 102(10):103006

    Aguilera-Miret R, Vigan \`o D, Carrasco F, et al (2020) Turbulent magnetic-field amplification in the first 10 milliseconds after a binary neutron star merger: Comparing high-resolution and large-eddy simulations. Phys Rev D 102(10):103006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103006

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.103006 2020

  2. [2]

    926(2):L31

    Aguilera-Miret R, Vigan \`o D, Palenzuela C (2022) Universality of the turbulent magnetic field in hypermassive neutron stars produced by binary mergers . 926(2):L31. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a7 2022

  3. [3]

    Phys Rev D 108(10):103001

    Aguilera-Miret R, Palenzuela C, Carrasco F, et al (2023) Role of turbulence and winding in the development of large-scale, strong magnetic fields in long-lived remnants of binary neutron star mergers. Phys Rev D 108(10):103001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.103001 2023

  4. [4]

    Almgren AS, Bell JB, Lijewski MJ, et al (2013) Nyx: A massively parallel AMR code for computational cosmology. 765:39. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/39

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/39 2013

  5. [5]

    Phys Rev Lett 106:174502

    Aluie H (2011) Compressible turbulence: The cascade and its locality. Phys Rev Lett 106:174502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.174502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.174502 2011

  6. [6]

    Physica D 247:54--65

    Aluie H (2013) Scale decomposition in compressible turbulence. Physica D 247:54--65. doi:10.1016/j.physd.2012.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physd.2012.12.009 2013

  7. [7]

    Phys Fluids p 075107

    Balarac G, Le Sommer J, Meunier X, et al (2013) A dynamic regularized gradient model of the subgrid-scale scalar flux for large eddy simulations. Phys Fluids p 075107. doi:10.1063/1.4813812

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4813812 2013

  8. [8]

    arXiv e-prints https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16626 2405.16626 [astro-ph]

    Beattie JR, Federrath C, Klessen RS, et al (2024) Magnetized compressible turbulence with a fluctuation dynamo and Reynolds numbers over a million. arXiv e-prints https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16626 2405.16626 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    J Chem Phys 82:64--84

    Berger MJ, Colella P (1989) Local adaptive mesh refinement for shock hydrodynamics. J Chem Phys 82:64--84. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(89)90035-1

    doi:10.1016/0021-9991(89)90035-1 1989

  10. [10]

    J Chem Phys 53:484--512

    Berger MJ, Oliger J (1984) Adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic partial differential equations. J Chem Phys 53:484--512. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90073-1

    doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90073-1 1984

  11. [11]

    395:140--157

    Bertoldi F, McKee CF (1992) Pressure-confined clumps in magnetized molecular clouds. 395:140--157. doi:10.1086/171638

    doi:10.1086/171638 1992

  12. [12]

    968(2):86

    Bland-Hawthorn J, Tepper-Garcia T, Agertz O, et al (2024) Turbulent gas-rich disks at high redshift: B ars & bulges in a radial shear flow. 968(2):86. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118 2024

  13. [13]

    Adv Sci Lett 4:204--227

    Borgani S, Kravtsov A (2011) Cosmological simulations of galaxy clusters. Adv Sci Lett 4:204--227. doi:10.1166/asl.2011.1209

    arXiv 2011

  14. [14]

    Pr\'esent\'es par divers savants Acad

    Boussinesq J (1877) Essai sur la th \'e orie des eaux courantes, M\'em. Pr\'esent\'es par divers savants Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr., vol 23. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris

  15. [15]

    61(Volume 61, 2023):561--606

    Brandenburg A, Ntormousi E (2023) Galactic dynamos. 61(Volume 61, 2023):561--606. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807 2023

  16. [16]

    Phys Rep 417:1--209

    Brandenburg A, Subramanian K (2005) Astrophysical magnetic fields and nonlinear dynamo theory. Phys Rep 417:1--209. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405052 astro-ph/0405052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  17. [18]

    454(2):1545--1555

    Braun H, Schmidt W (2015) The small and the beautiful: how the star formation law affects galactic disc structure . 454(2):1545--1555. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1856 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1856 2015

  18. [19]

    442(4):3407--3426

    Braun H, Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC, et al (2014) Large-eddy simulations of isolated disc galaxies with thermal and turbulent feedback . 442(4):3407--3426. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1119

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1119 2014

  19. [20]

    Astron Nachr 334:543

    Br \"u ggen M (2013) Magnetic fields in galaxy clusters. Astron Nachr 334:543. doi:10.1002/asna.201311895

    doi:10.1002/asna.201311895 2013

  20. [21]

    In: Lazarian A, de Gouveia Dal Pino EM, Melioli C (eds) Magnetic Fields in Diffuse Media

    Br \"u ggen M, Vazza F (2015) Turbulence in the intracluster medium. In: Lazarian A, de Gouveia Dal Pino EM, Melioli C (eds) Magnetic Fields in Diffuse Media. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 599--614, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44625-6_21

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44625-6_21 2015

  21. [22]

    Plasma Phys Control Fusion 49:325

    B \"u chner J (2007) Astrophysical reconnection and collisionless dissipation. Plasma Phys Control Fusion 49:325. doi:10.1088/0741-3335/49/12B/S30

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/49/12b/s30 2007

  22. [23]

    Phys Fluids 22:125104

    Cahuzac A, Boudet J, Borgnat P, et al (2010) Smoothing algorithms for mean-flow extraction in large-eddy simulation of complex turbulent flows. Phys Fluids 22:125104. doi:10.1063/1.3490063

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3490063 2010

  23. [24]

    J Phys: Conf Ser 318:042047

    Cahuzac A, Boudet J, Borgnat P, et al (2011) Dynamic Kalman filtering to separate low-frequency instabilities from turbulent fluctuations: Application to the large-eddy simulation of unsteady turbulent flows. J Phys: Conf Ser 318:042047. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/318/4/042047

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/318/4/042047 2011

  24. [25]

    428:729--752

    Canuto VM (1994) Large eddy simulation of turbulence: A subgrid scale model including shear, vorticity, rotation, and buoyancy. 428:729--752. doi:10.1086/174281

    work page doi:10.1086/174281 1994

  25. [26]

    Canuto VM (1997) Compressible turbulence. 482:827. doi:10.1086/304175

    work page doi:10.1086/304175 1997

  26. [27]

    Phys Rev D 101(6):063003

    Carrasco F, Vigan \`o D, Palenzuela C (2020) Gradient subgrid-scale model for relativistic MHD large-eddy simulations. Phys Rev D 101(6):063003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063003 2020

  27. [28]

    Ciaraldi-Schoolmann F, Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC, et al (2009) Turbulence in a three-dimensional deflagration model for type Ia supernovae. I . S caling properties. 696:1491--1497. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1491

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/2/1491 2009

  28. [29]

    numerical implementation

    Ciaraldi-Schoolmann F, Seitenzahl IR, R \"o pke FK (2013) A subgrid-scale model for deflagration-to-detonation transitions in type Ia supernova explosion simulations. numerical implementation. 559:A117. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321480

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321480 2013

  29. [30]

    J Chem Phys 54:174--201

    Colella P, Woodward PR (1984) The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) for gas-dynamical simulations. J Chem Phys 54:174--201. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

    doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8 1984

  30. [31]

    Phys Rev E 68:26304

    Dobler W, Haugen NE, Yousef TA, et al (2003) Bottleneck effect in three-dimensional turbulence simulations. Phys Rev E 68:26304. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.026304

    doi:10.1103/physreve.68.026304 2003

  31. [32]

    Space Sci Rev 134:311--335

    Dolag K, Bykov AM, Diaferio A (2008) Non-thermal processes in cosmological simulations. Space Sci Rev 134:311--335. doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9319-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9319-2 2008

  32. [33]

    482(4):4654--4672

    Engels JF, Schmidt W, Niemeyer J (2019) Modelling turbulent effects of stellar feedback in cosmological simulations. 482(4):4654--4672. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3037

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3037 2019

  33. [35]

    Phys Fluids 6:1411--1414

    Falkovich G (1994) Bottleneck phenomenon in developed turbulence. Phys Fluids 6:1411--1414. doi:10.1063/1.868255

    doi:10.1063/1.868255 1994

  34. [36]

    436(2):1245--1257

    Federrath C (2013) On the universality of supersonic turbulence. 436(2):1245--1257. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1644

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1644 2013

  35. [37]

    450(4):4035--4042

    Federrath C (2015) Inefficient star formation through turbulence, magnetic fields and feedback . 450(4):4035--4042. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv941

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv941 2015

  36. [38]

    Federrath C, Klessen RS (2012) The star formation rate of turbulent magnetized clouds: Comparing theory, simulations, and observations. 761:156. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 2012

  37. [39]

    S olenoidal versus compressive turbulence forcing

    Federrath C, Roman-Duval J, Klessen RS, et al (2010) Comparing the statistics of interstellar turbulence in simulations and observations. S olenoidal versus compressive turbulence forcing. 512:A81. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 2010

  38. [40]

    Nature Astronomy 5:365--371

    Federrath C, Klessen RS, Iapichino L, et al (2021) The sonic scale of interstellar turbulence . Nature Astronomy 5:365--371. doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01282-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01282-z 2021

  39. [41]

    Space Sci Rev 134:93--118

    Ferrari C, Govoni F, Schindler S, et al (2008) Observations of extended radio emission in clusters. Space Sci Rev 134:93--118. doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9311-x

    doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9311-x 2008

  40. [42]

    Frisch U (1995) Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York

    1995

  41. [43]

    Phys Rev Lett 107:134501

    Galtier S, Banerjee S (2011) Exact relation for correlation functions in compressible isothermal turbulence. Phys Rev Lett 107:134501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.134501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.134501 2011

  42. [44]

    Scientific Computation, Springer, Berlin; New York, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8

    Garnier E, Adams N, Sagaut P (2009) Large Eddy Simulation for Compressible Flows. Scientific Computation, Springer, Berlin; New York, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8 2009

  43. [45]

    J Fluid Mech 238:325--336

    Germano M (1992) Turbulence: the filtering approach. J Fluid Mech 238:325--336. doi:10.1017/S0022112092001733

    doi:10.1017/s0022112092001733 1992

  44. [46]

    Phys Fluids 3:1760--1765

    Germano M, Piomelli U, Moin P, et al (1991) A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model. Phys Fluids 3:1760--1765. doi:10.1063/1.857955

    doi:10.1063/1.857955 1991

  45. [47]

    J Fluid Mech 286:229--255

    Ghosal S, Lund TS, Moin P, et al (1995) A dynamic localization model for large-eddy simulation of turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 286:229--255. doi:10.1017/S0022112095000711

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112095000711 1995

  46. [48]

    697:55--67

    Gnedin NY, Tassis K, Kravtsov AV (2009) Modeling molecular hydrogen and star formation in cosmological simulations. 697:55--67. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/55

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/55 2009

  47. [49]

    Grete P, Vlaykov DG, Schmidt W, et al (2016) A nonlinear structural subgrid-scale closure for compressible MHD . II . A priori comparison on turbulence simulation data. Phys Plasmas 23(6):062317. doi:10.1063/1.4954304

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4954304 2016

  48. [50]

    Phys Plasmas 24(9):092311

    Grete P, O'Shea BW, Beckwith K, et al (2017) Energy transfer in compressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence . Phys Plasmas 24(9):092311. doi:10.1063/1.4990613

    doi:10.1063/1.4990613 2017

  49. [51]

    Phys Rev E 95(3):033206

    Grete P, Vlaykov DG, Schmidt W, et al (2017) Comparative statistics of selected subgrid-scale models in large-eddy simulations of decaying, supersonic magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. Phys Rev E 95(3):033206. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.95.033206

    doi:10.1103/physreve.95.033206 2017

  50. [52]

    487(4):4525--4535

    Grete P, Latif MA, Schleicher DRG, et al (2019) Intermittent fragmentation and statistical variations during gas collapse in magnetized atomic cooling haloes. 487(4):4525--4535. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1568

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1568 2019

  51. [53]

    942(2):L34

    Grete P, O'Shea BW, Beckwith K (2023) As a matter of dynamical range - scale dependent energy dynamics in MHD turbulence . 942(2):L34. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaea7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaea7 2023

  52. [54]

    Phys Fluids 18:075106

    Haugen NEL, Brandenburg A (2006) Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic energy spectra from large eddy simulations. Phys Fluids 18:075106. doi:10.1063/1.2222399

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2222399 2006

  53. [55]

    Heitmann K, Ricker PM, Warren MS, et al (2005) Robustness of cosmological simulations. I . L arge-scale structure. 160:28--58. doi:10.1086/432646

    work page doi:10.1086/432646 2005

  54. [56]

    Hennebelle P, Chabrier G (2011) Analytical star formation rate from gravoturbulent fragmentation. 743:L29. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/l29 2011

  55. [57]

    Hennebelle P, Falgarone E (2012) Turbulent molecular clouds. 20:55. doi:10.1007/s00159-012-0055-y

    doi:10.1007/s00159-012-0055-y 2012

  56. [58]

    Springer, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78961-1

    Hillebrandt W, Kupka F (2009) Interdisciplinary Aspects of Turbulence , Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 756. Springer, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78961-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78961-1 2009

  57. [59]

    Front Phys 8:116--143

    Hillebrandt W, Kromer M, R \"o pke FK, et al (2013) Towards an understanding of type Ia supernovae from a synthesis of theory and observations. Front Phys 8:116--143. doi:10.1007/s11467-013-0303-2

    doi:10.1007/s11467-013-0303-2 2013

  58. [60]

    445(1):581--603

    Hopkins PF, Kere s D, O \ n orbe J, et al (2014) Galaxies on FIRE (Feedback In Realistic Environments): stellar feedback explains cosmologically inefficient star formation . 445(1):581--603. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  59. [61]

    414:2297--2308

    Iapichino L, Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC, et al (2011) Turbulence production and turbulent pressure support in the intergalactic medium. 414:2297--2308. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18550.x

    arXiv 2011

  60. [62]

    432:2529--2540

    Iapichino L, Viel M, Borgani S (2013) Turbulence driven by structure formation in the circumgalactic medium. 432:2529--2540. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt611

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt611 2013

  61. [63]

    In: Alsabti AW, Murdin P (eds) Handbook of Supernovae

    Jha SW (2017) Type Iax supernovae. In: Alsabti AW, Murdin P (eds) Handbook of Supernovae. Springer, Cham, p 375--401, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_42

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_42 2017

  62. [64]

    704:137--149

    Joung MR, Mac Low MM, Bryan GL (2009) Dependence of interstellar turbulent pressure on supernova rate. 704:137--149. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/137

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/1/137 2009

  63. [65]

    Khokhlov AM, Oran ES, Wheeler JC (1997) Deflagration-to-detonation transition in thermonuclear supernovae. 478:678. doi:10.1086/303815

    doi:10.1086/303815 1997

  64. [66]

    Kim Jh, Agertz O, Teyssier R, et al (2016) The AGORA high-resolution galaxy simulations comparison project. II . Isolated disk test. 833:202. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202 2016

  65. [67]

    Int J Numer Meth Fluids 31:983--1017

    Kim WW, Menon S (1999) An unsteady incompressible navier-stokes solver for large eddy simulation of turbulent flows. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 31:983--1017. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0363(19991130)31:6<983::AID-FLD908>3.0.CO;2-Q

    work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0363(19991130)31:6 1999

  66. [68]

    J Atmos Sci 33:1521--1536

    Kraichnan RH (1976) Eddy viscosity in two and three dimensions. J Atmos Sci 33:1521--1536. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033<1521:EVITAT>2.0.CO;2

    doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033 1976

  67. [69]

    50:353--409

    Kravtsov AV, Borgani S (2012) Formation of galaxy clusters. 50:353--409. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502 2012

  68. [70]

    665:416--431

    Kritsuk AG, Norman ML, Padoan P, et al (2007) The statistics of supersonic isothermal turbulence. 665:416--431. doi:10.1086/519443

    doi:10.1086/519443 2007

  69. [71]

    J Fluid Mech 729:R1

    Kritsuk AG, Wagner R, Norman ML (2013) Energy cascade and scaling in supersonic isothermal turbulence. J Fluid Mech 729:R1. doi:10.1017/jfm.2013.342

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2013.342 2013

  70. [72]

    630:250--268

    Krumholz MR, McKee CF (2005) A general theory of turbulence-regulated star formation, from spirals to ultraluminous infrared galaxies. 630:250--268. doi:10.1086/431734

    doi:10.1086/431734 2005

  71. [73]

    699:850--856

    Krumholz MR, McKee CF, Tumlinson J (2009) The star formation law in atomic and molecular gas. 699:850--856. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/850, https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0009 arXiv:0904.0009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [74]

    433(2):1607--1618

    Latif MA, Schleicher DRG, Schmidt W, et al (2013 a ) Black hole formation in the early Universe . 433(2):1607--1618. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt834

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt834 2013

  73. [75]

    432(1):668--678

    Latif MA, Schleicher DRG, Schmidt W, et al (2013 b ) The small-scale dynamo and the amplification of magnetic fields in massive primordial haloes . 432(1):668--678. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt503

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt503 2013

  74. [76]

    J Fluid Mech 570:491--502

    L \'e v \^e que E, Toschi F, Shao L, et al (2007) Shear-improved Smagorinsky model for large-eddy simulation of wall-bounded turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 570:491--502. doi:10.1017/S0022112006003429

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112006003429 2007

  75. [77]

    J Fluid Mech 275:83--119

    Liu S, Meneveau C, Katz J (1994) On the properties of similarity subgrid-scale models as deduced from measurements in a turbulent jet. J Fluid Mech 275:83--119. doi:10.1017/S0022112094002296

    doi:10.1017/s0022112094002296 1994

  76. [78]

    513(4):6028--6041

    Liu Y, Kretschmer M, Teyssier R (2022) A subgrid turbulent mean-field dynamo model for cosmological galaxy formation simulations. 513(4):6028--6041. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1266

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1266 2022

  77. [79]

    707:40--54

    Maier A, Iapichino L, Schmidt W, et al (2009) Adaptively refined large eddy simulations of a galaxy cluster: Turbulence modeling and the physics of the intracluster medium. 707:40--54. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/40

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/40 2009

  78. [80]

    Malone CM, Nonaka A, Woosley SE, et al (2014) The deflagration stage of chandrasekhar mass models for type ia supernovae. I . E arly evolution. 782:11. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/11, https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4042 arXiv:1309.4042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  79. [81]

    523(7558):59--62

    Miniati F, Beresnyak A (2015) Self-similar energetics in large clusters of galaxies . 523(7558):59--62. doi:10.1038/nature14552

    doi:10.1038/nature14552 2015

  80. [82]

    Phys Fluids 3:2746--2757

    Moin P, Squires K, Cabot W, et al (1991) A dynamic subgrid-scale model for compressible turbulence and scalar transport. Phys Fluids 3:2746--2757. doi:10.1063/1.858164

    doi:10.1063/1.858164 1991

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.