pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22506 · v1 · pith:VHNTSIFInew · submitted 2026-06-21 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.IM· physics.flu-dyn

Characterization of Numerical Dissipation in Simulations of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence

Yuyang Hua , Zhonghai Zhao , Bin Qiao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 09:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMphysics.flu-dyn
keywords numerical dissipationMHD turbulencea posteriori frameworkanisotropyspectral propertiesAlfvénic turbulencesmall-scale dynamoMRI-driven turbulence
0
0 comments X

The pith

A framework estimates numerical dissipation in MHD turbulence simulations directly from data without prior assumptions on its form.

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

The paper develops a method to quantify numerical dissipation after completing MHD turbulence simulations. This avoids assuming any specific dissipation model beforehand. When applied to different turbulence types including Alfvénic, dynamo, and MRI cases, it shows numerical dissipation mainly affects small-scale energy from the cascade. Yet its spectrum differs from physical viscosity or resistivity, it matches the turbulence's anisotropy, and occasionally acts to increase energy. The method also flags when physical dissipation would take over.

Core claim

We present an a posteriori framework for directly estimating numerical dissipation in MHD turbulence from simulation data without invoking a priori assumptions. Implemented in the open-source Python package PyMHD, the framework is applied to simulations of Alfvénic turbulence, turbulent small-scale dynamos, and MRI-driven turbulence, yielding a systematic characterization of the anisotropy and spectral properties of numerical dissipation across these regimes. The results indicate that numerical dissipation primarily dissipates energy transferred by the turbulent cascade at small scales, consistent with the conventional interpretation. However, its spectral properties are distinct from those

What carries the argument

an a posteriori framework for directly estimating numerical dissipation from simulation data

If this is right

  • Numerical dissipation primarily dissipates energy transferred by the turbulent cascade at small scales.
  • Its spectral properties are distinct from physical viscosity and resistivity so it cannot be represented by effective dissipation coefficients.
  • Numerical dissipation inherits the anisotropy of the underlying turbulence.
  • Numerical dissipation can exhibit anomalous anti-dissipative behavior under certain circumstances.
  • The framework identifies conditions under which physical dissipation dominates numerical dissipation across all scales.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same data-driven separation approach could be tested on non-MHD fluid turbulence simulations to check generality.
  • If the framework succeeds, it supplies a practical test for whether a given grid resolution makes physical dissipation dominant in a target astrophysical regime.
  • Regime-specific anisotropy in numerical dissipation may require different resolution strategies depending on the type of MHD turbulence being modeled.

Load-bearing premise

That the post-simulation data alone contains sufficient information to separate numerical dissipation from physical effects and from the turbulent cascade without any modeling assumptions about the form of dissipation.

What would settle it

A calculation showing that the framework's estimated numerical dissipation rate does not match the observed total energy loss rate in a high-resolution simulation where physical dissipation is set to zero would falsify the separation claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22506 by Bin Qiao, Yuyang Hua, Zhonghai Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Five-point stencils for (a) the WENO5-Z and TENO5-Na schemes and (b) the multi-stencil discontinuity detector (MSDD). The three red substencils in Figure (b), S (3,2) i−1 , S (3,1) i , and S (3,0) i+1 , represent the same three-point set {xi−1, xi, xi+1}, and should in principle yield consistent δ values. In TENO-N, however, the dis￾continuity indicators associated with these substencils are evaluated inde… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Approximate dispersion relation (ADR) analysis for the proposed (a) TENO5-M and (b) TCS7-M schemes against selected con￾ventional schemes: dispersion (left) and dissipationa (right) properties. κ = 2πkL/N ∈ [0, π] represents the reduced wavenumber, with κ = π corresponding to the Nyquist wavenumber of the numerical grid, and K denotes the modified wavenumber associated with the numerical schemes. Gray dash… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two-dimensional slices of physical and numerical dissipation terms in a simulation of Alfvenic MHD turbulence. The top rows ´ show the y–z slices of x-components at the x = 0 plane, and the bottom rows show the x–y slices of z-components at the z = 0 plane. The background magnetic field leads to the formation of anisotropic structures elongated along the x-direction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top row: joint probability density functions (JPDFs) of the component-wise numerical resistive dissipation rate D num res,i and Bi∇2Bi in a simulation of Alfvenic MHD turbulence with the background magnetic field in the ´ x-direction. Note that Bi∇2Bi is the component-wise physical resistive dissipation rate D phy res,i = ηBi∇2Bi without the factor η. Bottom row: conditional means of D num res,i at fixed B… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-dimensional slices of physical and numerical resistive terms in a shearing-box simulation of a turbulent MRI-driven dynamo with Re = 104 and Pm = 10. The top-left panels show the x–y slices in the z = 0 plane, the bottom-left panels the y–z slices in the x = 0 plane, and the top-right panels the x–z slices in the y = 0 plane. The filamentary structures elongated primarily along the y direction indicate… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Shell-integrated dissipation spectra in 2563 simulations of the small-scale dynamo with Pm = 1 using PPM reconstruction. From top to bottom, the physical viscosity and resistivity were set to ν = η = 10−5 , 6.5 × 10−5 , and 2 × 10−4 , respectively. The left column shows the viscous dissipation spectra εvis(k) with the k 5/3 -compensated kinetic energy spectra Ekin(k), whereas the right column shows the res… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Shell-integrated numerical dissipation spectra and k 5/3 -compensated energy spectra in ideal MHD simulations of the small-scale dynamo with PLM and PPM reconstructions. The top and bottom rows correspond to the PLM and PPM reconstructions, respectively, while the left and right columns show the 2563 and 5123 resolution runs. The solid black and red curves correspond to the numerical viscous and resistive … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Shell-integrated component-wise dissipation spectra and k 5/3 -compensated energy spectra in a 2563 simulation of Alfvenic MHD ´ turbulence with ν = η = 10−4 , an isothermal EoS, PPM reconstruction, and the HLLD Riemann solver. The top row shows the spectra perpendicular to the background magnetic field, while the bottom row shows the parallel spectra. The left column presents viscous dissipation spectra t… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Shell-integrated parallel resistive spectra Dres,∥(k) and k 5/3 -compensated magnetic energy spectra Emag,∥(k) in 2563 simulations of Alfvenic MHD turbulence with ´ ν = η = 10−4 and: an isothermal EoS, PLM reconstruction, and HLLD Riemann solver (left); an adiabatic EoS, PPM reconstruction, and HLLD Riemann solver (middle); an isothermal EoS, PPM reconstruction, and HLLE Riemann solver (right). The curves… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Shell-integrated component-wise resistive dissipation spectra and k 3/2 -compensated energy spectra in a shearing-box simulation of an MRI-driven dynamo with Re = 104 , Pm = 20, and PPM reconstruction. The left, middle, and right panels correspond to the x-, y-, and z-components, respectively. In each panel, the blue and red solid curves show the numerical and physical resistive dissipation spectra, D num… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Scaling laws of the dimensionless component-wise up￾per bound ξi = η num i /η with respect to physical resistivity η in 256 × 256 × 128 simulations of MRI-driven dynamo at Re = 104 . The top and bottom panels correspond to the PLM and WENO5-Z reconstruction schemes, respectively. The red, blue, and black sym￾bols represent ξx, ξy, and ξz, while the dashed lines indicate the corresponding power-law fits, y… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Comprehensive characterization of numerical dissipation is essential for high-fidelity simulations of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence. In this work, we present an a posteriori framework for directly estimating numerical dissipation in MHD turbulence from simulation data without invoking a priori assumptions. Implemented in the open-source Python package PyMHD, the framework is applied to simulations of Alfv\'enic turbulence, turbulent small-scale dynamos, and MRI-driven turbulence, yielding a systematic characterization of the anisotropy and spectral properties of numerical dissipation across these regimes. The results indicate that numerical dissipation primarily dissipates energy transferred by the turbulent cascade at small scales, consistent with the conventional interpretation. However, its spectral properties are distinct from those of physical viscosity and resistivity, such that it cannot simply be represented by effective dissipation coefficients. In addition, numerical dissipation inherits the anisotropy of the underlying turbulence, and can even exhibit anomalous anti-dissipative behavior under certain circumstances. Moreover, this framework enables identification of the conditions under which physical dissipation dominates numerical dissipation across all scales, thereby providing practical guidance for achieving high-fidelity simulations of astrophysical MHD turbulence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an a posteriori framework, implemented in the open-source PyMHD package, for directly estimating numerical dissipation in MHD turbulence simulations from post-simulation data without a priori assumptions. The framework is applied to Alfvénic turbulence, turbulent small-scale dynamos, and MRI-driven turbulence to characterize the anisotropy and spectral properties of numerical dissipation, with findings that it primarily acts on energy transferred by the turbulent cascade at small scales, exhibits distinct spectral properties from physical viscosity/resistivity, inherits turbulence anisotropy, and can display anomalous anti-dissipative behavior; it also identifies regimes where physical dissipation dominates.

Significance. If the framework reliably isolates numerical dissipation without implicit modeling assumptions, the work would be significant for guiding high-fidelity astrophysical MHD simulations by clarifying when numerical effects can be neglected versus when they contaminate results. The open-source implementation and systematic application across three distinct regimes are positive features that could aid reproducibility and practical use.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and framework description (likely §2–3)] Abstract and framework description (likely §2–3): the load-bearing claim that the estimator operates 'without invoking a priori assumptions' and separates numerical dissipation from the turbulent cascade and physical dissipation is not secured by the presented evidence. Any concrete implementation via filtered energy budgets or scale-local balances requires operational choices (filtering scale, stationarity criteria, or expected cascade shape) that encode modeling assumptions; the reported anomalous anti-dissipative behavior indicates the estimator can produce results outside conventional models, yet no explicit validation is described that varies physical viscosity/resistivity independently while holding the numerical scheme fixed to demonstrate unbiased recovery of numerical dissipation.
  2. [Results sections on spectral properties (likely §4–5)] Results sections on spectral properties (likely §4–5): the claim that numerical dissipation 'cannot simply be represented by effective dissipation coefficients' because its spectral properties are distinct rests on the estimator definition, but without quantitative comparison to controlled cases (e.g., varying grid resolution or explicit physical coefficients) or derivation showing the estimator remains unbiased, it is unclear whether the distinction arises from true numerical behavior or from the method's construction. An equation-level derivation of the estimator (e.g., the precise form of the numerical dissipation term extracted from the energy budget) is needed to assess this.
  3. [Application to MRI-driven turbulence and anti-dissipative regimes (likely §5.3)] Application to MRI-driven turbulence and anti-dissipative regimes (likely §5.3): the observation of anomalous anti-dissipative behavior is a striking result that challenges conventional expectations, but it is load-bearing for the framework's reliability; without additional tests (e.g., convergence with resolution or cross-check against known analytic limits), this risks indicating an artifact of the separation procedure rather than a physical/numerical feature.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a one-sentence summary of the precise operational definition used for the numerical dissipation estimator to allow readers to assess the 'no a priori assumptions' claim immediately.
  2. [Figures (throughout results)] Figure captions and axis labels in the spectral and anisotropy plots should explicitly state the normalization and any filtering parameters employed, to improve clarity for readers reproducing the results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to improve the presentation and rigor of the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and framework description (likely §2–3): the load-bearing claim that the estimator operates 'without invoking a priori assumptions' and separates numerical dissipation from the turbulent cascade and physical dissipation is not secured by the presented evidence. Any concrete implementation via filtered energy budgets or scale-local balances requires operational choices (filtering scale, stationarity criteria, or expected cascade shape) that encode modeling assumptions; the reported anomalous anti-dissipative behavior indicates the estimator can produce results outside conventional models, yet no explicit validation is described that varies physical viscosity/resistivity independently while holding the numerical scheme fixed to demonstrate unbiased recovery of numerical dissipation.

    Authors: We agree that operational choices such as the filtering scale are necessary in any practical implementation. However, the core of the framework is to compute the numerical dissipation as the residual in the energy budget after subtracting all explicitly resolved terms (including physical dissipation where present), without assuming a functional form for the numerical term itself. This is distinct from a priori modeling. We did not perform the suggested validation test of varying physical coefficients while fixing the numerical scheme, as our focus was on characterizing numerical effects in typical simulation setups. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly discuss these operational choices and their potential impact, and add a derivation of the estimator from the filtered MHD equations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results sections on spectral properties (likely §4–5): the claim that numerical dissipation 'cannot simply be represented by effective dissipation coefficients' because its spectral properties are distinct rests on the estimator definition, but without quantitative comparison to controlled cases (e.g., varying grid resolution or explicit physical coefficients) or derivation showing the estimator remains unbiased, it is unclear whether the distinction arises from true numerical behavior or from the method's construction. An equation-level derivation of the estimator (e.g., the precise form of the numerical dissipation term extracted from the energy budget) is needed to assess this.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for an equation-level derivation to make the estimator transparent. The numerical dissipation term is obtained by rearranging the filtered energy equation: the time derivative and advection terms are computed from the data, physical dissipation is subtracted if known, and the residual is attributed to numerical effects. This will be added to §2 or §3. Regarding quantitative comparisons, our applications across different resolutions in the Alfvénic and dynamo cases show consistent spectral shapes distinct from physical dissipation. We will include additional discussion comparing to cases with explicit dissipation to support the claim. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Application to MRI-driven turbulence and anti-dissipative regimes (likely §5.3): the observation of anomalous anti-dissipative behavior is a striking result that challenges conventional expectations, but it is load-bearing for the framework's reliability; without additional tests (e.g., convergence with resolution or cross-check against known analytic limits), this risks indicating an artifact of the separation procedure rather than a physical/numerical feature.

    Authors: This is an important point. The anti-dissipative behavior appears in specific parameter regimes of the MRI simulations where the turbulent cascade is strong. We have checked that it persists across the available resolutions, but agree that more explicit convergence tests would be beneficial. We will add a subsection discussing the resolution dependence for the MRI cases and note that this behavior may indicate backscatter or inverse cascade effects captured by the estimator. If this is an artifact, it would be valuable to identify, but our current data supports it as a feature in those regimes. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework presented as data-driven without shown self-referential reductions

full rationale

The provided abstract and context describe an a posteriori framework that estimates numerical dissipation directly from simulation data without a priori assumptions. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are quoted that would reduce the central claim to its inputs by construction. The derivation is presented as self-contained, relying on post-simulation fields to characterize dissipation properties across regimes. This matches the default expectation of no circularity when no explicit reduction is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central contribution is a data-driven estimation method whose internal assumptions are not detailed here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5733 in / 897 out tokens · 14710 ms · 2026-06-26T09:45:03.690752+00:00 · methodology

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

102 extracted references · 100 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2021, Physical Review Letters, 126, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.126.091103 Anthropic

    Achikanath Chirakkara, R., Federrath, C., Trivedi, P., & Banerjee, R. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 126, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.126.091103 Anthropic. 2026, Claude Opus 4.8 System Card, Tech. rep., Anthropic. https://www.anthropic.com/claude-opus-4-8-system-card

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.091103 2021

  2. [2]

    I - Linear analysis

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    work page doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  3. [3]

    title Instability, turbulence, and enhanced transport in accretion disks

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1, doi: 10.1103/revmodphys.70.1

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 1998

  4. [4]

    S., & Shu, C.-W

    Balsara, D. S., & Shu, C.-W. 2000, Journal of Computational Physics, 160, 405, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2000.6443

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2000.6443 2000

  5. [5]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1195, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02551-5

    Bhattacharjee, A. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1195, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02551-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02551-5 2025

  6. [6]

    2012, Physical Review Letters, 108, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.108.035002

    Beresnyak, A. 2012, Physical Review Letters, 108, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.108.035002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.035002 2012

  7. [7]

    2003, Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511535222

    Biskamp, D. 2003, Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511535222

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511535222 2003

  8. [8]

    Borges, R., Carmona, M., Costa, B., & Don, W. S. 2008, Journal of Computational Physics, 227, 3191, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.11.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.11.038 2008

  9. [9]

    P., Grinstein, F

    Boris, J. P., Grinstein, F. F., Oran, E. S., & Kolbe, R. L. 1992, Fluid Dynamics Research, 10, 199, doi: 10.1016/0169-5983(92)90023-p

    work page doi:10.1016/0169-5983(92)90023-p 1992

  10. [10]

    Bott, A. F. A., Chen, L., Boutoux, G., et al. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 127, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.127.175002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.175002 2021

  11. [11]

    Bott, A. F. A., Chen, L., Tzeferacos, P., et al. 2022, Matter and Radiation at Extremes, 7, doi: 10.1063/5.0084345

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0084345 2022

  12. [12]

    2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.9.2 http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.9.2 http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    2018

  13. [13]

    Cadieux, F., Sun, G., & Domaradzki, J. A. 2017, Computers & Fluids, 154, 256, doi: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2017.06.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2017.06.009 2017

  14. [14]

    2015, Computers & Fluids, 119, 37, doi: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.07.004

    Castiglioni, G., & Domaradzki, J. 2015, Computers & Fluids, 119, 37, doi: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.07.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.07.004 2015

  15. [15]

    Castiglioni, G., Sun, G., & Domaradzki, J. A. 2019, Journal of Computational Physics, 397, 108843, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.07.041

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.07.041 2019

  16. [16]

    2026, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 10, doi: 10.1007/s41614-026-00214-0

    Cho, J. 2026, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics, 10, doi: 10.1007/s41614-026-00214-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s41614-026-00214-0 2026

  17. [17]

    Cho, J., & Vishniac, E. T. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, 273, doi: 10.1086/309213

    work page doi:10.1086/309213 2000

  18. [18]

    K., & Moin, P

    Chow, F. K., & Moin, P. 2003, Journal of Computational Physics, 184, 366, doi: 10.1016/s0021-9991(02)00020-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0021-9991(02)00020-7 2003

  19. [19]

    Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54, 174, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

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

  20. [20]

    Dairay, T., Lamballais, E., Laizet, S., & Vassilicos, J. C. 2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 337, 252, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.02.035

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2017.02.035 2017

  21. [21]

    A., Xiao, Z., & Smolarkiewicz, P

    Domaradzki, J. A., Xiao, Z., & Smolarkiewicz, P. K. 2003, Physics of Fluids, 15, 3890, doi: 10.1063/1.1624610

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1624610 2003

  22. [22]

    2013, Journal of Computational Physics, 250, 347, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.05.018

    Don, W.-S., & Borges, R. 2013, Journal of Computational Physics, 250, 347, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.05.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.05.018 2013

  23. [23]

    2022, Science Advances, 8, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abn7627

    Dong, C., Wang, L., Huang, Y .-M., et al. 2022, Science Advances, 8, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abn7627

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn7627 2022

  24. [24]

    A., & Sreenivasan, K

    Donzis, D. A., & Sreenivasan, K. R. 2010, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 657, 171, doi: 10.1017/s0022112010001400

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112010001400 2010

  25. [25]

    1988, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 25, 294, doi: 10.1137/0725021

    Einfeldt, B. 1988, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 25, 294, doi: 10.1137/0725021

    work page doi:10.1137/0725021 1988

  26. [26]

    1991, Journal of Computational Physics, 92, 273, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(91)90211-3

    Einfeldt, B., Munz, C., Roe, P., & Sj¨ogreen, B. 1991, Journal of Computational Physics, 92, 273, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(91)90211-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(91)90211-3 1991

  27. [27]

    Thermodynamics and dynamics of two-dimensional systems with dipole-like repulsive interactions

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 42, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859 2004

  28. [28]

    1994, Physics of Fluids, 6, 1411, doi: 10.1063/1.868255

    Falkovich, G. 1994, Physics of Fluids, 6, 1411, doi: 10.1063/1.868255

    work page doi:10.1063/1.868255 1994

  29. [29]

    2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 4488, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.02.025

    Fauconnier, D., & Dick, E. 2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 4488, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.02.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.02.025 2011

  30. [30]

    G., & Stone, J

    Felker, K. G., & Stone, J. M. 2018, Journal of Computational Physics, 375, 1365, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.08.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.08.025 2018

  31. [31]

    1988, Mathematics of Computation, 51, 699, doi: 10.1090/s0025-5718-1988-0935077-0

    Fornberg, B. 1988, Mathematics of Computation, 51, 699, doi: 10.1090/s0025-5718-1988-0935077-0

    work page doi:10.1090/s0025-5718-1988-0935077-0 1988

  32. [32]

    1995, Turbulence: The Legacy of A.N

    Frisch, U. 1995, Turbulence: The Legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139170666

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139170666 1995

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/317361 2000

  34. [34]

    2023, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 30, 2493, doi: 10.1007/s11831-022-09877-7

    Fu, L. 2023, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 30, 2493, doi: 10.1007/s11831-022-09877-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-022-09877-7 2023

  35. [35]

    Y ., & Adams, N

    Fu, L., Hu, X. Y ., & Adams, N. A. 2016, Journal of Computational Physics, 305, 333, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2015.10.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.10.037 2016

  36. [36]

    Y ., & Adams, N

    Fu, L., Hu, X. Y ., & Adams, N. A. 2018, Journal of Computational Physics, 374, 724, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.07.043

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.07.043 2018

  37. [37]

    1996, Journal of Computational Physics, 125, 187, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1996.0088

    Ghosal, S. 1996, Journal of Computational Physics, 125, 187, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1996.0088

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.1996.0088 1996

  38. [38]

    2021, Numerical Approximation of Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws (Springer New York), doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1344-3

    Godlewski, E., & Raviart, P.-A. 2021, Numerical Approximation of Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws (Springer New York), doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1344-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-1344-3 2021

  39. [39]

    1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 432, 213, doi: 10.1086/174562

    Goodman, J., & Xu, G. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 432, 213, doi: 10.1086/174562

    work page doi:10.1086/174562 1994

  40. [40]

    Gottlieb, C.-W

    Gottlieb, S., Shu, C.-W., & Tadmor, E. 2001, SIAM Review, 43, 89, doi: 10.1137/s003614450036757x

    work page doi:10.1137/s003614450036757x 2001

  41. [41]

    W., & O’Shea, B

    Grete, P., Glines, F. W., & O’Shea, B. W. 2021, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 32, 85, doi: 10.1109/tpds.2020.3010016 31

    work page doi:10.1109/tpds.2020.3010016 2021

  42. [42]

    W., & Beckwith, K

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., & Beckwith, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 858, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac0f5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac0f5 2018

  43. [43]

    W., & Beckwith, K

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., & Beckwith, K. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 942, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaea7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaea7 2023

  44. [44]

    W., Beckwith, K., Schmidt, W., & Christlieb, A

    Grete, P., O’Shea, B. W., Beckwith, K., Schmidt, W., & Christlieb, A. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, doi: 10.1063/1.4990613

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4990613 2017

  45. [45]

    F., & Sanz-Serna, J

    Griffiths, D. F., & Sanz-Serna, J. M. 1986, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7, 994, doi: 10.1137/0907067

    work page doi:10.1137/0907067 1986

  46. [46]

    F., Margolin, L

    Grinstein, F. F., Margolin, L. G., & Rider, W. J. 2007, Implicit Large Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Fluid Dynamics (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511618604

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511618604 2007

  47. [47]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 4346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2499

    Guilet, J., Reboul-Salze, A., Raynaud, R., Bugli, M., & Gallet, B. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 4346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2499

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2499 2022

  48. [48]

    Array programming with NumPy,

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  49. [49]

    F., Gammie, C

    Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 440, 742, doi: 10.1086/175311

    work page doi:10.1086/175311 1995

  50. [50]

    E., & Mamatsashvili, G

    Held, L. E., & Mamatsashvili, G. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 2309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2656

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2656 2022

  51. [51]

    1968, Journal of Computational Physics, 2, 339, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(68)90041-7

    Hirt, C. 1968, Journal of Computational Physics, 2, 339, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(68)90041-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(68)90041-7 1968

  52. [52]

    K., Grete, P., & Melesse Vergara, V

    Holmen, J. K., Grete, P., & Melesse Vergara, V . G. 2024, Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 36, doi: 10.1002/cpe.8069

    work page doi:10.1002/cpe.8069 2024

  53. [53]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Hu, Y ., Yuen, K. H., Lazarian, V ., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 776, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0769-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0769-0 2019

  54. [54]

    2026, PyMHD: Python package for post-processing MHD turbulence simulations, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20749062

    Hua, Y . 2026, PyMHD: Python package for post-processing MHD turbulence simulations, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20749062

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20749062 2026

  55. [55]

    1996, PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London

    Jasak, H. 1996, PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London. http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/8335

    1996

  56. [56]

    Jiang, C.-W

    Jiang, G.-S., & Shu, C.-W. 1996, Journal of Computational Physics, 126, 202, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1996.0130

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.1996.0130 1996

  57. [57]

    2001, International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 15, 147, doi: 10.1080/10618560108970024

    Jiang, L., Shan, H., & Liu, C. 2001, International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 15, 147, doi: 10.1080/10618560108970024

    work page doi:10.1080/10618560108970024 2001

  58. [58]

    A., & Nelson, R

    Joseph, J., Ziampras, A., Jordan, L., Turpin, G. A., & Nelson, R. P. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245601

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245601 2023

  59. [59]

    Kawazura, Y ., & Kimura, S. S. 2024, Science Advances, 10, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adp4965

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adp4965 2024

  60. [60]

    B., Quataert, E., et al

    Kempski, P., Fielding, D. B., Quataert, E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 994, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1ca3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1ca3 2025

  61. [61]

    Kida, S., & Orszag, S. A. 1990, Journal of Scientific Computing, 5, 85, doi: 10.1007/bf01065580

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01065580 1990

  62. [62]

    2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 345, 565, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.05.030

    Komen, E., Camilo, L., Shams, A., Geurts, B., & Koren, B. 2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 345, 565, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.05.030

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2017.05.030 2017

  63. [63]

    R., Federrath, C., Krumholz, M

    Kriel, N., Beattie, J. R., Federrath, C., Krumholz, M. R., & Hew, J. K. J. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 2602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf188

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf188 2025

  64. [64]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac969 2022

  65. [65]

    Lele, S. K. 1992, Journal of Computational Physics, 103, 16, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(92)90324-r

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(92)90324-r 1992

  66. [66]

    1995, Physical Review Letters, 74, 1747, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.74.1747

    Lohse, D., & M¨uller-Groeling, A. 1995, Physical Review Letters, 74, 1747, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.74.1747

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.1747 1995

  67. [67]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 141, 165, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000116

    Masset, F. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 141, 165, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000116

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000116 2000

  68. [68]

    2015, Space Science Reviews, 194, 97, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0190-7

    Miesch, M., Matthaeus, W., Brandenburg, A., et al. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 194, 97, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0190-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0190-7 2015

  69. [69]

    2007, Journal of Computational Physics, 225, 1427, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.033

    Mignone, A. 2007, Journal of Computational Physics, 225, 1427, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.033 2007

  70. [70]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    work page doi:10.1086/513316 2007

  71. [71]

    A multi-state HLL approximate Riemann solver for ideal magnetohydrodynamics , journal =

    Miyoshi, T., & Kusano, K. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics, 208, 315, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2005.02.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2005.02.017 2005

  72. [72]

    1998, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 30, 539, doi: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.30.1.539

    Moin, P., & Mahesh, K. 1998, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 30, 539, doi: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.30.1.539

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.30.1.539 1998

  73. [73]

    C., & Pessah, M

    Murphy, G. C., & Pessah, M. E. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/139

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/139 2015

  74. [74]

    2018, tommyod/KDEpy: Kernel Density Estimation in Python, v0.9.10 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2392268 OpenAI

    Odland, T. 2018, tommyod/KDEpy: Kernel Density Estimation in Python, v0.9.10 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2392268 OpenAI. 2026, GPT-5.5 System Card, Tech. rep., OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-5-system-card/

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2392268 2018

  75. [75]

    2023, Nature Physics, doi: 10.1038/s41567-022-01855-x

    Ping, Y ., Zhong, J., Wang, X., et al. 2023, Nature Physics, doi: 10.1038/s41567-022-01855-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01855-x 2023

  76. [76]

    Pirozzoli, On the spectral properties of shock-capturing schemes, Journal of Computational Physics 219 (2) (2006) 489–497.doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.07.009

    Pirozzoli, S. 2006, Journal of Computational Physics, 219, 489, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.07.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2006.07.009 2006

  77. [77]

    1910, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 30, 289, doi: 10.1007/bf03014877

    Plancherel, M., & Leffler, M. 1910, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 30, 289, doi: 10.1007/bf03014877

    work page doi:10.1007/bf03014877 1910

  78. [78]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6254

    Rembiasz, T., Obergaulinger, M., Cerd´a-Dur´an, P., Aloy, M.-´A., & M¨uller, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6254

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6254 2017

  79. [79]

    2006, Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows: An Introduction (Berlin: Springer), doi: 10.1007/b137536

    Sagaut, P. 2006, Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows: An Introduction (Berlin: Springer), doi: 10.1007/b137536

    work page doi:10.1007/b137536 2006

  80. [80]

    Schekochihin, A. A. 2022, Journal of Plasma Physics, 88, doi: 10.1017/s0022377822000721

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377822000721 2022

Showing first 80 references.