Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Compressible turbulence flips to Burgers-like statistics at Mach 1

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 05:23 UTC pith:PSYQVH2S

load-bearing objection A well-organized 56-run DNS sweep reporting a plausible Mach-number transition in dissipation moments, but the high-Mach exponents are at risk of measuring the numerical scheme rather than the physics. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.02299 v2 pith:PSYQVH2S submitted 2026-02-02 physics.flu-dyn

Transition to dilatation-dominated isothermal compressible turbulence

Shadab Alam , Christoph Federrath , J\"org Schumacher This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords compressible turbulenceenergy dissipation rateintermittencyMach number transitionBurgers turbulencedirect numerical simulationdilatational dissipationReynolds number scaling
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 paper reports a transition in how the moments of kinetic energy dissipation scale with Reynolds number as the turbulent Mach number crosses unity. For subsonic turbulence the dissipation moments follow the same anomalous scaling as incompressible turbulence, but for supersonic conditions they become independent of Mach number and match the shock-dominated Burgers turbulence scaling. This transition is detected by computing normalized dissipation moments up to fourth order across 56 direct numerical simulations spanning Mach numbers 0.1 to 10 and Reynolds numbers 100 to 2400. The authors interpret the crossover as statistical evidence that shocks and dilatational motions dominate small-scale intermittency once the flow becomes supersonic.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Reynolds-number scaling exponents β_n of the kinetic-energy dissipation moments M_n show a relatively sharp crossover at Mt ≈ 1: for Mt ≲ 0.33 they agree with incompressible turbulence predictions (β_2 ≈ 0.157, β_3 ≈ 0.489, β_4 ≈ 0.944), while for Mt > 1 they saturate to plateau values below the Burgers scaling exponents (β_2 = 1, β_3 = 2, β_4 = 3), indicating that shocks bound the anomalous scaling from above. The same crossover is found for the solenoidal and dilatational components, and density moments, which remain Gaussian for Mt < 1 but become intermittent for Mt > 1. The transition is attributed to the emergence of pre-shocks and shocks that dominate the

What carries the argument

The key object is the normalized kinetic energy dissipation rate moment M_n = ⟨ε^n⟩/⟨ε⟩^n, whose scaling M_n ∝ Re^{β_n} is connected to structure-function exponents via fusion rules. The paper decomposes dissipation into solenoidal, dilatational, and inhomogeneous parts, and compares the measured β_n to two reference limits: incompressible turbulence and 1D Burgers turbulence, whose dissipation moments scale as M_n ∝ Re^{n−1} in the limit Re ≫ 1.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative claim that the transition is sharp at Mt ~ 1 depends on the Mt = 0.55 data series, which the authors themselves report as not statistically converged, and on scaling exponents fitted from only about 1.4 decades of Reynolds number

What would settle it

A well-resolved direct numerical simulation at Mt = 0.55 with a time series long enough to fully converge the fourth-order moment; if the converged exponents at Mt = 0.55 sit close to the low-Mach incompressible values rather than rising toward the Burgers plateau, the sharp-transition claim fails, leaving only a gradual crossover between Mt = 0.33 and 0.77.

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

If this is right

  • If the transition is real, small-scale statistics of compressible turbulence can be classified by Mach number alone, independent of Reynolds number for Re ≳ 100.
  • The plateau exponents being consistently below Burgers values provides a quantitative bound for modelling dissipation intermittency in supersonic flows.
  • The onset of density intermittency for Mt > 1 means density-weighted statistics must account for shock-generated density fronts in supersonic turbulence.
  • The finding gives a concrete target for theorising: a predictive theory of the crossover location and sharpness in terms of shock formation rates.
  • For applications to the interstellar medium, the result supports that solenoidal forcing alone produces significant dilatational dissipation once Mt exceeds about 1, affecting star formation models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the sharpness of the transition by performing simulations with mixed (partially compressive) forcing, since the paper notes the transition may shift when forcing injects dilatational energy even at Mt < 1.
  • The plateau exponents below Burgers values hint that three-dimensional compressible turbulence retains some solenoidal intermittency even in the shock-dominated regime, a feature a model would need to capture.
  • The non-converged Mt = 0.55 series suggests the apparent sharpness may be an artifact of rare, pre-shock events; a longer time average at that Mach number could reveal a smoother crossover.
  • The same analysis could be extended to higher-order moments (n > 4) to see whether the crossover shifts with order, which would inform multifractal models of compressible turbulence.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a systematic DNS study of solenoidally forced isothermal compressible homogeneous isotropic turbulence at Mach numbers Mt=0.1–10 and Reynolds numbers Re≈100–2400, using up to 2048^3 grid points and the FLASH finite-volume code with the MUSCL–Hancock HLL5R scheme. The authors compute normalized dissipation-rate moments M_n = ⟨ε^n⟩/⟨ε⟩^n, for the total dissipation and for its solenoidal, dilatational, and incompressible components, up to fourth order, and fit their Reynolds-number scaling exponents β_n. They find a crossover from incompressible-like exponents at low Mt to a Mt-independent plateau below the Burgers-turbulence exponents for Mt>1, and interpret this as a relatively sharp transition to dilatation- and shock-dominated statistics. Density moments are additionally shown to acquire Reynolds-number scaling for Mt>1.

Significance. If the measured exponents reflect the continuum isothermal Navier–Stokes equations, the paper provides a useful quantitative characterization of small-scale intermittency across Mach number, with the attractive conclusion that shock-dominated derivative statistics become Mach-number independent above Mt≈1. The strengths are the wide parameter coverage, the high spatial resolution (kmaxη≥11), the careful decomposition into solenoidal/dilatational/incompressible dissipation, and the explicit statistical-convergence documentation for most cases. The qualitative scenario is plausible and worth publishing, but two load-bearing points—the physical vs. numerical nature of the high-Mt dissipation exponents and the statistical support for the sharpness of the transition—need substantially more evidence before the quantitative claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulations / Fig. 3; Supplemental Tables I–II] The high-Mach-number exponents are extracted from moments dominated by the most intense dissipation events—at Mt>1, these are shocks. The FLASH code is a finite-volume shock-capturing scheme, so the dissipation measured from resolved gradients inside a captured shock is a mixture of physical and numerical diffusion. Although the explicit viscosity at these moderate Reynolds numbers may give a shock thickness of several grid cells for Mt≥3, no grid-refinement test at fixed Mt and Re is reported, and kmaxη≥11 alone does not guarantee that shock cores are grid-converged. The low-Mt branch is validated against spectral incompressible DNS, but no independent or grid-converged anchor is provided for the high-Mt branch. Please add a resolution study at fixed (Mt,Re) and, if possible, compare the fitted exponents with those obtained from a different shock-capturing scheme or from an estimate of
  2. [Supplemental Fig. 1(c); Fig. 3] The claim that the transition is 'relatively sharp at Mt∼1' rests on the Mt=0.55 series, which the Supplemental Material itself reports as not converged. Supplemental Fig. 1(c) shows a non-stationary PDF, and Table I documents M4 fluctuations of orders of magnitude across snapshots for this series (e.g., Run 18: M4=3.94×10^2 with max 6.16×10^4; Run 20: M4=1.71×10^4 with max 1.12×10^6). In addition, the exponents in Fig. 3 are fitted over only about 1.4 decades of Reynolds number, no uncertainties are reported, and the tanh connecting curve is introduced without a functional form or fit parameters. Excluding or properly converging the 0.55 point, and providing bootstrap or other confidence intervals for β_n, is necessary before the sharpness and location of the transition can be considered quantitatively supported. The broad crossover between Mt=0.33 and 0.77 may survive, but that is a we
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The notation in Eq. (7) is confusing: M̃_n is defined with ⟨(∂u)^n⟩/⟨(∂u)^2⟩^{n/2}, while M_n in the main text is ⟨ε^n⟩/⟨ε⟩^n. The implication M̃_n∼Re^{n/2−1} ⇒ M_n∼Re^{n−1} follows only after substituting n→2n in M̃. Please state this explicitly to avoid an apparent order mismatch.
  2. [Fig. 3(a)] The tanh fitting curve is not described. Provide its functional form and the fitted parameter values, or state that it is only a guide to the eye. This is important because the 'sharpness' of the transition is read from this curve.
  3. [Supplemental Table III] The conversion β_{ens,n}=nβ̃_{ens,n}/C uses the fitted coefficient C=1.8 without uncertainty. Since this conversion underlies the claim of close agreement with Elsinga et al., please report the uncertainty in C and test sensitivity of the comparison to it.
  4. [Introduction/Fig. 1] There is a typo: 'We now investigate how this these structures manifest' should read 'how these structures manifest.'
  5. [Fig. 3 caption / main text] The phrase 'in close agreement with Elsinga et al. [49] after necessary adjustment' is vague. The adjustment (the Re–Re_λ conversion and the 1/n power convention) should be summarized in the main text, not only in the Supplemental Material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the dissipation-moment exponents are measured DNS outputs compared with independent incompressible and Burgers benchmarks; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical crossover in Reynolds-number scaling exponents of dissipation moments as a function of Mach number. The exponents β_k,n are obtained by fitting the DNS-computed moments M_k,n(Re) over Re≈100–2400, and the resulting values are compared against external predictions: incompressible turbulence predictions from Yakhot/Sreenivasan and Schumacher et al., enstrophy-moment scaling from Elsinga et al., and Burgers-turbulence scaling from Friedrich et al. None of these comparisons is built from the paper's own fitted values. The dissipation decomposition (ϵ = ϵ_s + ϵ_d + ϵ_I) is derived algebraically in the Supplemental Material and cited to Alam et al. only as a convenience; the derivation does not depend on that citation. Citations to the FLASH code and to Federrath et al. are tool attributions and consistency checks, not load-bearing arguments that force the conclusion. The non-converged Mt=0.55 series (Supplemental Fig. 1c) weakens the quantitative support for a 'relatively sharp' transition, but this is a statistical-convergence/uncertainty issue, not a case of a prediction reducing to its input by construction. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or author-imported uniqueness theorem was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a measured scaling-law transition from the DNS; the only fitted auxiliary parameter is a conversion exponent C=1.8 taken from prior DNS to map Elsinga et al.'s Re_lambda exponents to Re exponents. The reported moment exponents β_{k,n} are fitted outputs, not preset parameters. No extra invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • C (Re–Re_lambda conversion exponent) = 1.8
    Used in the Supplemental Material to convert enstrophy-moment scaling exponents from Elsinga et al. (2023) from Re_lambda to Re. Taken from a fit to Schumacher et al. (2007) DNS; not derived in this paper.
axioms (6)
  • standard math The decomposition ϵ=ϵ_s+ϵ_d+ϵ_I (Eq. 4) is an identity for periodic boundary conditions.
    Derived in the Supplemental Material via integration by parts; for periodic domains the inhomogeneous term integrates to zero and the decomposition is exact.
  • domain assumption Isothermal equation of state p = ρ c_s^2 with constant c_s=1.
    Adopted in the governing equations (Eq. 2–3); restricts results to isothermal regime.
  • domain assumption The FLASH finite-volume MUSCL-Hancock HLL5R scheme with kmaxη ≥ 11 resolves dissipation statistics without significant numerical dissipation contamination.
    Invoked in the Simulations section via resolution metric; not directly validated against spectral solvers or a convergence study of moments.
  • domain assumption Purely solenoidal stochastic forcing at large scales (1 < k L/2π < 3) represents the intended homogeneous isotropic compressible turbulence state.
    Forcing is described in the Simulations section; the Conclusion limits the claim to this forcing type.
  • domain assumption The Burgers-turbulence moment scaling M_n ∼ Re^{n-1} (Friedrich et al. 2018) is the correct upper reference for shock-dominated statistics.
    Cited from [32] and used to interpret the plateaus; the assertion that compressible exponents lie below Burgers values is an interpretation of the data.
  • domain assumption 100–200 snapshots spaced by Te/4 are sufficient for estimating M_n for n≤4, except at Mt=0.55.
    Supplemental Fig. 1 shows convergence for all but Mt=0.55; the main text still includes the non-converged series in the scaling analysis.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14522 in / 17713 out tokens · 156045 ms · 2026-08-03T05:23:07.522360+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The kinetic energy dissipation rate is of central importance for small-scale statistics in turbulent flows. Here, we report a transition to the dilatation-dominated regime of three-dimensional isothermal fully compressible, homogeneous, isotropic turbulence by moments of energy dissipation and its components up to order~4 for root-mean-square (rms) Mach numbers $0.1\le M_{\rm rms}\le 10$ and for Reynolds numbers $100\le Re\le 2400$. Our high-resolution numerical simulations show a crossover from incompressible to $M_{\rm rms}$--independent, Burgers turbulence-like scaling of energy dissipation rate moments with respect to Reynolds number $Re$. This confirms the statistical dominance of shocks for rms Mach numbers $M_{\rm rms}\gtrsim 1$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.02299 by Christoph Federrath, J\"org Schumacher, Shadab Alam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Structure of the kinetic energy dissipation rate field. Is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Operating points of the solenoidally forced com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Reynolds number-scaling exponents of the 2nd-, 3rd- an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scaling exponents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Statistical convergence test of the normalized 4th-ord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. 4th-order moments of the total dissipation rate at turbu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    0 β ρ n n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 Mt = 10 FIG. 4. Scaling exponents βρ n of the density moments M ρ n versus Mt. The inset shows a density contour plot in a two- dimensional plane at Mt = 10 and Re = 2400, plotted as log10 (ρ/⟨ρ⟩V,t ) ∈ (−3, 1). This transition is relatively sharp for all moment orders at Mt ∼ 1. Both components of dissipation, ϵs and ϵd, scale s...

  2. [2]

    0 β s,n (b) 10− 1 100 101 Mt

  3. [3]

    0 β d,n (c) n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 10− 1 100 101 Mt

  4. [4]

    0 β inc,n (d) FIG. 3. Reynolds number-scaling exponents of the 2nd-, 3rd- an d 4th-order moments of the total dissipation rate (a), solenoi dal component (b), dilatational component (c), and incompressi ble component (d), as functions of the turbulent Mach numbers Mt. In the incompressible limit Mt ≪ 1, βinc,n = βn and are consistent with those reported f...

  5. [5]

    0 β n (a) 10− 1 100 101 Mt

  6. [6]

    D. A. Donzis and S. Jagannathan, Fluctuations of ther- modynamic variables in stationary compressible turbu- lence, J. Fluid Mech. 733, 221 (2013)

    2013

  7. [8]

    Aluie, Compressible turbulence: the cascade and its locality, Phys

    H. Aluie, Compressible turbulence: the cascade and its locality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 174502 (2011)

    2011

  8. [9]

    Galtier and S

    S. Galtier and S. Banerjee, Exact relation for correlation functions in compressible isothermal turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 134501 (2011)

    2011

  9. [10]

    J. Wang, Y. Yang, Y. Shi, Z. Xiao, X. He, and S. Chen, Cascade of kinetic energy in three-dimensional compress- ible turbulence, Phy. Rev. Lett 110, 214505 (2013)

    2013

  10. [11]

    Federrath, On the universality of supersonic turbu- lence, Mon

    C. Federrath, On the universality of supersonic turbu- lence, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 436, 1245 (2013)

    2013

  11. [12]

    A. G. Kritsuk, R. Wagner, and M. L. Norman, Energy cascade and scaling in supersonic isothermal turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 729, R1 (2013)

    2013

  12. [13]

    G. L. Eyink and T. Drivas, Cascades and Dissipative Anomalies in Compressible Fluid Turbulence, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011022 (2018)

    2018

  13. [14]

    L. Pan, P. Padoan, and A. G. Kritsuk, Dissipative struc- tures in supersonic turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009)

    2009

  14. [15]

    Panickacheril John, D

    J. Panickacheril John, D. A. Donzis, and K. R. Sreeni- vasan, Does dissipative anomaly hold for compressible turbulence?, J. Fluid. Mech. 920, A20 (2021)

    2021

  15. [16]

    Z.-S. She, E. Jackson, and S. A. Orszag, Intermittent vortex structures in homogeneous isotropic turbulence, Nature 344, 226 (1991)

    1991

  16. [17]

    Schumacher, B

    J. Schumacher, B. Eckhardt, and C. R. Doering, Extreme vorticity growth in Navier-Stokes turbulence, Phys. Lett. A 374, 861 (2010)

    2010

  17. [18]

    K. Iyer, J. Schumacher, K. R. Sreenivasan, and P. K. Yeung, Steep cliffs and saturated exponents in three- dimensional turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 264501 (2018)

    2018

  18. [19]

    Buaria, A

    D. Buaria, A. Pumir, E. Bodenschatz, and P. K. Yeung, Extreme velocity gradients in turbulent flows, New J. Phys. 21, 043004 (2019)

    2019

  19. [20]

    Buaria, J

    D. Buaria, J. M. Lawson, and M. Wilczek, Extreme veloc- ity gradients in turbulent flows, Sci. Adv. 10, eado1969 (2024)

    2024

  20. [21]

    K. R. Sreenivasan and J. Schumacher, What is the tur- bulence problem, and when may we regard it as solved?, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 15, 121 (2025)

    2025

  21. [22]

    J. Wang, Y. Shi, L.-P. Wang, Z. Xiao, X. T. He, and S. Chen, Scaling and statistics in three-dimensional compressible turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 214505 (2012)

    2012

  22. [23]

    J. Wang, T. Gotoh, and T. Watanabe, Scaling and in- termittency in compressible isotropic turbulence, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 053401 (2017)

    2017

  23. [24]

    Benzi, L

    R. Benzi, L. Bifferale, R. Fisher, D. Q. Lamb, and F. Toschi, Inertial range Eulerian and Lagrangian statis- 6 tics from numerical simulations of isotropic turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 653, 221–244 (2010)

    2010

  24. [25]

    Y. Yang, J. Wang, Y. Shi, Z. Xiao, X. T. He, and S. Chen, Intermittency caused by compressibility: a Lagrangian study, J. Fluid Mech. 786, R6 (2016)

    2016

  25. [26]

    Konstandin, C

    L. Konstandin, C. Federrath, R. S. Klessen, and W. Schmidt, Statistical properties of supersonic turbu- lence in the Lagrangian and Eulerian frameworks, J. Fluid Mech. 692, 183 (2012)

    2012

  26. [27]

    A. G. Kritsuk, M. L. Norman, P. Padoan, and R. Wag- ner, The statistics of supersonic isothermal turbulence, Astroph. J. 665, 416 (2007)

    2007

  27. [28]

    Schmidt, C

    W. Schmidt, C. Federrath, and R. Klessen, Is the scal- ing of supersonic turbulence universal?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 194505 (2008)

    2008

  28. [29]

    Yakhot, Probability densities in strong turbulence, Physica D 215, 166 (2006)

    V. Yakhot, Probability densities in strong turbulence, Physica D 215, 166 (2006)

    2006

  29. [30]

    Schumacher, Sub-Kolmogorov-scale fluctuations in fluid turbulence, Europhys

    J. Schumacher, Sub-Kolmogorov-scale fluctuations in fluid turbulence, Europhys. Lett. 80, 54001 (2007)

    2007

  30. [31]

    Schumacher, K

    J. Schumacher, K. R. Sreenivasan, and V. Yakhot, Asymptotic exponents from low-Reynolds-number flows, New. J. Phys. 9, 89 (2007)

    2007

  31. [32]

    Schumacher, J

    J. Schumacher, J. D. Scheel, D. Krasnov, D. A. Donzis, V. Yakhot, and K. R. Sreenivasan, Small-scale universal- ity in fluid turbulence, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 10961 (2014)

    2014

  32. [34]

    Schumacher, A

    J. Schumacher, A. Pandey, V. Yakhot, and K. R. Sreeni- vasan, Transition to turbulence scaling in Rayleigh- B´ enard convection, Phys. Rev. E 98, 033120 (2018)

    2018

  33. [35]

    K. R. Sreenivasan and V. Yakhot, Dynamics of three- dimensional turbulence from Navier-Stokes equations, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 104604 (2021)

    2021

  34. [36]

    Gotoh and J

    T. Gotoh and J. Yang, Transition of fluctuations from Gaussian state to turbulent state, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 380, 20210097 (2022)

    2022

  35. [37]

    Friedrich, G

    J. Friedrich, G. Margazoglou, L. Biferale, and R. Grauer, Multiscale velocity correlations in turbulence and Burg- ers turbulence: Fusion rules, Markov processes in scale, and multifractal predictions, Phys. Rev. E 98, 023104 (2018)

    2018

  36. [38]

    Federrath, J

    C. Federrath, J. Roman-Duval, R. S. Klessen, W. Schmidt, and M. Mac Low, Comparing the statis- tics of interstellar turbulence in simulations and observa- tions. Solenoidal versus compressive turbulence forcing, A&A 512, A81 (2010)

    2010

  37. [39]

    Federrath, J

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

    2022

  38. [40]

    Fryxell, K

    B. Fryxell, K. Olson, P. Ricker, F. X. Timmes, M. Zin- gale, D. Q. Lamb, P. MacNeice, R. Rosner, J. W. Truran, and H. Tufo, Flash: An adaptive mesh hydrodynamics code for modeling astrophysical thermonuclear flashes, ApJS 131, 273 (2000)

    2000

  39. [41]

    Dubey, R

    A. Dubey, R. Fisher, C. Graziani, G. C. Jordan, IV, D. Q. Lamb, L. B. Reid, P. Rich, D. Sheeler, D. Townsley, and K. Weide, Challenges of Extreme Computing using the FLASH code, in Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 385, edited by N. V. Pogorelov, E. Audit, and G. P. Zank (2008) p. 145

    2008

  40. [42]

    L. M. Shivakumar and C. Federrath, Numerical viscos- ity and resistivity in MHD turbulence simulations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 537, 2961 (2025)

    2025

  41. [43]

    Yakhot and D

    V. Yakhot and D. A. Donzis, Emergence of multiscaling in a random-force stirred fluid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 044501 (2017)

    2017

  42. [44]

    P. G. Huang, G. N. Coleman, and P. Bradshaw, Com- pressible turbulent channel flows: DNS results and mod- elling, J. Fluid Mech. 305, 185–218 (1995)

    1995

  43. [45]

    J. P. John, D. A. Donzis, and K. R. Sreenivasan, Solenoidal scaling laws for compressible mixing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 224501 (2019)

    2019

  44. [46]

    S. Alam, D. Krasnov, A. Pandey, J. P. John, R. J. Samuel, P. P. Vieweg, and J. Schumacher, Turbulent mesoscale convection in the Boussinesq limit and beyond, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 115, 109856 (2025)

    2025

  45. [47]

    P. E. Hamlington, J. Schumacher, and W. J. A. Dahm, Local and non-local strain rate fields and vorticity align- ment in turbulent flows, Phys. Rev. E 77, 026303 (2008)

    2008

  46. [48]

    D. A. Donzis and J. Panickacheril John, Universality and scaling in homogeneous compressible turbulence, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 084609 (2020)

    2020

  47. [49]

    Federrath, G

    C. Federrath, G. Chabrier, J. Schober, R. Banerjee, R. S. Klessen, and D. R. G. Schleicher, Mach num- ber dependence of turbulent magnetic field amplification: Solenoidal versus compressive Flows, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 114504 (2011)

    2011

  48. [50]

    Staroselsky, V

    I. Staroselsky, V. Yakhot, S. Kida, and S. A. Orszag, Long-time, large-scale properties of a randomly stirred compressible fluid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 171 (1990)

    1990

  49. [51]

    J. Wang, T. Gotoh, and T. Watanabe, Spectra and statis- tics in compressible isotropic turbulence, Phys. Rev. Flu- ids 2, 013403 (2017)

    2017

  50. [52]

    Jagannathan and D

    S. Jagannathan and D. A. Donzis, Reynolds and Mach number scaling in solenoidally-forced compressible turbu- lence using high-resolution direct numerical simulations, J. Fluid Mech. 789, 669 (2016)

    2016

  51. [53]

    Yakhot and K

    V. Yakhot and K. R. Sreenivasan, Towards a dynamical theory of multifractals in turbulence, Physica A 343, 147 (2004)

    2004

  52. [54]

    Elsinga, T

    G. Elsinga, T. Ishihara, and J. Hunt, Intermittency across reynolds numbers – the influence of large-scale shear layers on the scaling of the enstrophy and dissipa- tion in homogenous isotropic turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 974, A17 (2023)

    2023

  53. [55]

    D. A. Donzis, P. K. Yeung, and K. R. Sreenivasan, Dissi- pation and enstrophy in isotropic turbulence: Resolution effects and scaling in direct numerical simulations, Phys. Fluids 20, 045108 (2008)

    2008

  54. [56]

    P. K. Yeung, D. A. Donzis, and K. R. Sreenivasan, Dis- sipation, enstrophy and pressure statistics in turbulence simulations at high Reynolds numbers, J. Fluid Mech. 700, 5 (2012). Transition to dilatation-dominated compressible turbulence (Supplemental Material) Shadab Alam 1, Christoph Federrath 2, and J¨ org Schumacher1 1Institut f¨ ur Thermo- und Flui...

    2012

  55. [57]

    6 ˜ϵ4 pdf(˜ϵ) × 104 (e) Mt = 1 0 5000 10000 15000 0 2 4˜ϵ4 pdf(˜ϵ) × 104 (f) Mt = 3 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 ˜ϵ = ϵ/ ⟨ϵ⟩V,t 0 2 4 6˜ϵ4 pdf(˜ϵ) × 105 (g) Mt = 10 FIG. 1. Statistical convergence test of the normalized 4th-ord er moments of the total energy dissipation rate field for the highest Reynolds number runs ( Re ≈ 2400) at turbulent Mach numbers Mt ...

    2048

  56. [58]

    Fryxell, K

    B. Fryxell, K. Olson, P. Ricker, F. X. Timmes, M. Zingale, D. Q . Lamb, P. MacNeice, R. Rosner, J. W. Truran, and H. Tufo, ApJS 131, 273 (2000)

    2000

  57. [59]

    Dubey, R

    A. Dubey, R. Fisher, C. Graziani, G. C. Jordan, IV, D. Q. Lamb, L . B. Reid, P. Rich, D. Sheeler, D. Townsley, and K. Weide, in Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows , Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 385 , edited by N. V. Pogorelov, E. Audit, and G. P. Zank (2008) p. 145

    2008

  58. [60]

    Bouchut, C

    F. Bouchut, C. Klingenberg, and K. Waagan, Numer. Math. 115, 647–679 (2010)

    2010

  59. [61]

    Waagan, C

    K. Waagan, C. Federrath, and C. Klingenberg, J. Comput. Phys . 230, 3331 (2011)

    2011

  60. [62]

    Cielo, L

    S. Cielo, L. Iapichino, J. G¨ unther, C. Federrath, E. Mayer, a nd M. Wiedemann, Parallel Comput. 102, 102758 (2021)

    2021

  61. [63]

    Federrath, R

    C. Federrath, R. S. Klessen, L. Iapichino, and J. R. Beattie , Nat. Astron. 5, 365 (2021)

    2021

  62. [64]

    Federrath and S

    C. Federrath and S. Offner, Living Rev. Comput. Astrophys. , arX iv:2510.12203 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [65]

    S. Alam, D. Krasnov, A. Pandey, J. P. John, R. J. Samuel, P. P. Vieweg, and J. Schumacher, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 115, 109856 (2025)

    2025

  64. [66]

    Elsinga, T

    G. Elsinga, T. Ishihara, and J. Hunt, J. Fluid Mech. 974, A17 (2023)

    2023

  65. [67]

    Schumacher, K

    J. Schumacher, K. R. Sreenivasan, and V. Yakhot, New. J. Ph ys. 9, 89 (2007)

    2007