Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 76 references

The classical turbulence–density PDF relation only holds for the log-normal part of molecular hydrogen, not for atomic gas or CO.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 04:27 UTC pith:M2RIOO5V

load-bearing objection Solid first multi-phase test of σ_s²–M in chemically evolving zoom-ins; WNM/CNM failure and CO over-prediction are robust, but the headline H2 unity-slope claim is overstated given correlated snapshots and post-hoc outlier cuts. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24977 v1 pith:M2RIOO5V submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.GA

The σ_s²-mathcal{M} relation in the multi-phase ISM: Exploring the density PDF with the Cloud Factory simulations

Mairi Nonhebel , Rowan J. Smith , Ralf S. Klessen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords density PDFsonic Mach numbermulti-phase ISMmolecular cloudsturbulent drivingH2COstar formation
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.

Analytical star-formation theories often assume that the width of a cloud’s density PDF is set by its sonic Mach number through a simple isothermal formula taken from idealised turbulence boxes. This paper asks whether that formula still works once the gas is split into the real thermochemical phases of a multi-phase interstellar medium. Using high-resolution zoom-in simulations that form molecular cloud complexes self-consistently, the authors measure the density PDF width and the local Mach number inside the hot and warm ionised media, the warm and cold neutral media, molecular hydrogen, and CO-traced gas. They find that the classical relation fails for both warm and cold atomic gas and systematically over-predicts the width of the CO distribution, while it tentatively recovers the width of the log-normal core of the H2 PDF once gravitational power-law tails are excluded. The result matters because observers and theorists routinely invert the same relation to infer turbulent driving or star-formation rates from CO or HI data; if the relation is phase-dependent, those inferences need to be restricted or revised.

Core claim

When density variance and Mach number are measured carefully inside each thermochemical phase of realistic multi-phase cloud simulations, the classical isothermal relation σ_s² = ln(1 + b² M²) holds only for the log-normal portion of the H2 density PDF (after early evolutionary outliers are removed). It fails for the WNM and CNM and systematically over-predicts the CO log-normal width because CO selectively traces the coldest, most shielded gas.

What carries the argument

The phase-by-phase comparison of measured density variance (both the full PDF width and a fitted log-normal core) against the theoretical variance computed from a Helmholtz-derived global driving parameter b and an HDBSCAN-based local Mach number M_local.

Load-bearing premise

That the local Mach number extracted by clustering cells of each phase, together with a single global turbulent driving parameter, truly represents the turbulence that the classical formula expects.

What would settle it

Repeat the same phase-resolved measurement in independent multi-phase simulations (or in observations that separately constrain volume density PDFs and internal velocity dispersions of H2 versus CO) and check whether the H2 log-normal core still lies on the classical line while WNM, CNM and CO do not.

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

If this is right

  • Inferences of the turbulent driving parameter b from CO linewidths and column-density PDFs will be biased high unless the selective nature of CO is corrected.
  • Star-formation rate models that feed a single cloud-scale Mach number into the classical σ_s²–M relation should restrict that step to the molecular-hydrogen log-normal core.
  • HI-based estimates of WNM or CNM Mach numbers cannot be converted to density PDF widths with the isothermal formula.
  • Future analytic theories need phase-dependent or non-isothermal extensions of the density-variance relation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same selective-tracer bias that breaks the relation for CO may affect other common dense-gas tracers (N2H+, HCN) whose effective sound speeds and density cut-offs differ from bulk H2.
  • If large-scale galactic flows systematically inflate atomic-gas Mach numbers, then the failure of the relation in the WNM/CNM is partly a resolution-of-scales problem rather than a pure equation-of-state problem.
  • A practical observational test would be to compare PDF widths derived from dust (tracing CNM+H2) against those derived from CO in the same clouds; the paper predicts a systematic offset.

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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The authors test the classical isothermal σ_s² = ln(1+b²M²) relation separately within six thermochemically defined ISM phases (HIM, WIM, WNM, CNM, H2, CO) using five molecular-cloud-complex zoom-ins from the Cloud Factory suite, each followed over 7–8 snapshots. Density variance is measured two ways (direct variance σ_s,dir² and an MCMC log-normal fit σ_s,fit²); the driving parameter b is measured independently of the relation under test via Helmholtz decomposition of the velocity field (Pan et al. 2016 method), and the Mach number is defined locally via HDBSCAN clustering to avoid contamination by inter-structure bulk motions. They find the relation fails for the WNM and CNM (not fully explained by non-isothermality or large-scale coherent flows), tentatively holds for the log-normal component of the H2 PDF after removal of three early-snapshot outliers (ODR slope 1.08±0.18), and systematically overpredicts the CO log-normal width, which they attribute to CO's low sound speed and photodissociative truncation of the low-density PDF.

Significance. If the central results hold, this is the first phase-resolved test of the σ_s²–M relation in a self-consistently generated multi-phase ISM, and it speaks directly to a widely used observational procedure (inferring b or M from CO and dust PDFs; e.g. Brunt 2010; Kainulainen & Federrath 2017; Meidt et al. 2025). Several methodological strengths deserve explicit credit: b is measured independently of the relation via Helmholtz decomposition rather than by inversion, so the comparison is genuinely external; the scale dependence of b(k) is checked explicitly; the interpolation/windowing systematics of the Fourier decomposition are quantified in Appendix A (including the useful negative result that the high-k spectral downturn is a windowing artefact, not a dissipation scale); and the CO failure mode is given a concrete, falsifiable physical explanation. The authors are also commendably candid about simulation limitations (no early-stage feedback, poor resolution in diffuse gas). The main weaknesses are statistical rather than conceptual: the headline H2 result rests on strongly time-correlated data points and a post-hoc outlier excision, and the per-point error bars entering the χ²_y=x/

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Fig. 11, Eq. (20)] §5.3, Fig. 11 (H2 panel), Eq. (20): the unity-slope claim (m = 1.08±0.18) comes from an ODR over ~35 points that are 7–8 snapshots of only 5 complexes. Snapshots are spaced 0.1 Myr apart (Table 1), far shorter than any turbulent correlation time at the scales entering M_local (even cluster-scale δv_local of a few km/s gives crossing times ≫ 0.1 Myr, and σ_s,fit of a given complex changes slowly — visible in the shaded bands of Figs. 2–3). Successive snapshots are therefore not independent draws of (σ_s,fit, σ_s,theory); the effective sample size is closer to 5 than to 35. Both the ODR parameter errors and the χ²_ODR ≤ 3 linearity criterion assume independent errors, so the ±0.18 uncertainty is very likely underestimated, possibly by a factor of several, and 'consistent with unity' may partly reflect the fitting procedure. This is load-bearing for the paper's headline positive result. A d
  2. [§5.3] §5.3: the three early-snapshot outliers are removed after visual inspection, justified by 'insufficient H2 may have formed', but no quantitative, pre-specified exclusion criterion is given (e.g. a threshold on H2 mass fraction or on the number of H2 cells). The same points are also outliers in M_local (Fig. 8), so excising them removes points discrepant on both axes simultaneously, which preferentially straightens the fitted relation. Given that the unity-slope result appears only after this excision, the authors should (i) state the criterion quantitatively and show it was not tuned to the fit, and (ii) report the slope and χ²_ODR for the full sample alongside the cleaned sample so the reader can assess sensitivity.
  3. [§4.1] §4.1: bootstrap errors on σ_s,dir and on PDF bins resample 1% of ~10^6 Voronoi cells with replacement as if cells were independent. Cells in a turbulent, clustered density field are strongly spatially correlated on scales up to tens of pc (thousands of cells), so the effective number of independent samples is far smaller than 10^4 per draw and the bootstrap standard deviation underestimates the true error on σ_s,dir and on the bin heights that feed the MCMC likelihood. These underestimated per-point errors propagate into both χ²_y=x and χ²_ODR (and hence into the χ²_ODR ≤ 3 significance decisions in Figs. 10–11 and the claimed detections of linear relations for the WNM and CO). The 10% range-uncertainty added in quadrature for σ_s,fit mitigates but does not address this. Please quantify the spatial correlation length of s (e.g. via a two-point statistic or block bootstrap over spatial su
  4. [§4.1, §5.2] §4.1 and §5.2: the log-normal fitting range is chosen 'where the distribution appears approximately log-normal' — a subjective, per-phase and per-snapshot decision — and the associated uncertainty is represented by a blanket 10% fractional error. This choice controls which part of the WNM low-density excess and the H2/CO power-law tails are excluded, and therefore directly sets σ_s,fit, the quantity on which both the WNM failure (Eq. 16, slope 0.66±0.09) and the H2 success rest. Please document the actual ranges used (per phase at minimum, ideally in a table or figure appendix), and demonstrate with a sensitivity test (e.g. varying the range boundaries systematically) that 10% is an adequate characterisation rather than an underestimate for phases like the WNM where the excess is substantial (Fig. 5 shows σ_s,fit ≲ σ_s,dir by a large factor there).
minor comments (8)
  1. [§4.3] Eq. (14): the weighted mean sound speed is written ⟨cs⟩ without the w subscript used consistently elsewhere (Eqs. 4–5, 12–13); please align notation.
  2. [§4.2] Eq. (8): the quantity defined is b(k) but is typeset bχ(k); the χ subscript is presumably a typo.
  3. [Fig. 4] Fig. 4 caption: 'Note that it is now not the temporal variation in the density PDF' is garbled — presumably 'now not' should read 'not'.
  4. [§4.2] The mapping b = sqrt(χ/(χ+1)) (Eq. 6) is an empirical calibration from driven-box simulations (Pan et al. 2016); a sentence noting that b here denotes the compressive-ratio proxy rather than the driving parameter of Eq. (2) strictly defined would help the reader, since b in the Cloud Factory is not set by an imposed driving field at all.
  5. [Various] Typos/style: 'at each evolutionary snapshots' (Figs. 5, 8 captions); 'Focussing' (Conclusion); 'V oronoi' (pp. 2, 7) appears to be a ligature extraction artefact but worth checking in proofs; 'Hdbscan' vs 'HDBSCAN' capitalisation is inconsistent between §4.3 and §5.2.
  6. [Fig. 13] Fig. 13: the Γ = 1.4 and Γ = 2 reference lines are drawn over a P–ρ distribution whose normalisation is arbitrary; please state how the constant in P ∝ ρ^Γ was anchored, since the visual claim that Γ=2 is 'clearly inconsistent' depends on it.
  7. [§3] §3: the coincidence of the HI-to-H2 transition density with the onset of the power-law tail is noted; it would be worth one sentence on whether this could alternatively indicate that the tail threshold is partially a chemistry/shielding effect rather than purely gravitational, given that ρ_crit = 10^6 cm^-3 caps the dynamic range.
  8. [§4.3] The HDBSCAN 99%-of-PDF abundance threshold and minimum cluster size (8 cells) are free choices; while the text states insensitivity to cluster size, a brief quantitative statement (or figure) of how M_local changes across the tested values would strengthen §4.3, since M_local enters σ_s,theory directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: independent measurements of σ_s and M/b are compared to an external literature formula

full rationale

The paper’s central test is whether the classical isothermal relation σ_s² = ln(1 + b² M²) (Padoan et al. 1997; Nordlund & Padoan 1998; Passot & Vázquez-Semadeni 1998) holds phase-by-phase in the Cloud Factory runs. σ_s is measured from the density field (direct variance and log-normal MCMC fit); b is measured from the velocity field via Helmholtz decomposition (Pan et al. 2016), not by inverting the relation; M_local is measured from HDBSCAN cluster velocity dispersions and sound speeds. σ_s,theory is then computed from the external formula and compared to the measured widths. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the others, no parameter is fitted to density-PDF data and then re-presented as a prediction of the same data, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz from the authors’ prior work forces the outcome. Self-citations (Smith et al. 2020; Feng et al. 2024; Tress et al. 2021) document the simulation methodology only and are not load-bearing for the σ_s–M claim. Post-hoc outlier removal and correlated snapshots affect statistical robustness, not circularity. The derivation chain is a genuine external comparison.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the classical isothermal relation as an external benchmark, on thermochemical phase cuts, on operational definitions of local Mach number and global b, and on the fidelity of the Cloud Factory physics suite. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are analysis choices (cluster size, fit-range error floor, temperature thresholds) rather than fitted physical constants.

free parameters (4)
  • HDBSCAN minimum cluster size = 8 cells
    Set to 8 cells after testing 4/8/16/32; used to define structures whose internal velocity dispersion enters M_local.
  • 10% fractional error on σ_s,fit = 10%
    Added in quadrature to MCMC posterior uncertainty to cover subjective choice of log-normal fitting density range.
  • Phase abundance threshold for clustering = 99% of PDF
    Chosen so that 99% of the phase-specific density PDF lies above it before HDBSCAN is run.
  • Temperature cuts defining HIM/WIM/WNM/CNM = 10^4.5 K / 500 K
    HIM/WIM split at 10^4.5 K; WNM/CNM split at 500 K. Paper states results are largely insensitive, but cuts remain analysis choices.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Classical isothermal relation σ_s² = ln(1 + b² M²) is the correct external benchmark for turbulence-driven density variance when the medium is isothermal and the driving is captured by a single b.
    Invoked throughout Sections 1 and 5 as the formula being tested; taken from Padoan et al. 1997 / Nordlund & Padoan 1998 / Passot & Vazquez-Semadeni 1998.
  • domain assumption Thermochemical phase definitions (species abundance imes temperature cuts) cleanly isolate distinct ISM phases whose internal turbulence can be compared to the isothermal relation.
    Table 2 and Section 3; paper notes most gas lies well above/below cuts but phase mixing is acknowledged for WNM/CNM.
  • domain assumption A single global Helmholtz-derived b is representative of driving inside each phase because b(k) is roughly scale-independent.
    Section 4.2 and Figure 7; justified by supernova/galactic driving scales ≳100 pc but remains an assumption for small-scale phases.
  • domain assumption Cloud Factory physics (NL97 chemistry, no early stellar feedback, sink threshold 10^6 cm^{-3}, McMillan potential + spiral perturbation) produces a sufficiently realistic multi-phase ISM for the test.
    Section 2; authors themselves flag missing photoionisation/winds and low diffuse-gas resolution as limiting HIM/WIM.
  • ad hoc to paper Log-normal fitting to a subjectively chosen density range isolates the turbulence-driven variance from gravitational tails and low-density excess.
    Section 4.1; the 10% extra error is an explicit acknowledgement that the range choice is not unique.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 25643 in / 3471 out tokens · 54267 ms · 2026-07-31T04:27:38.124746+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The density probability distribution (PDF) of molecular clouds is a crucial component of analytical theories of star formation. In idealised simulations of isothermal turbulence, the width of the density PDF, $\sigma_s^2$, is dependent on the sonic Mach number of the medium, $\mathcal{M}$. The $\sigma_s^2-\mathcal{M}$ relation is widely used to connect cloud-scale turbulence to the density PDF, and further to star formation activity, yet its validity within individual phases of the multi-phase interstellar medium (ISM) remains untested. In this study, we evaluate whether the $\sigma_s^2-\mathcal{M}$ relation is applicable to individual phases of the ISM. We study the density PDFs of molecular cloud complexes in the Cloud Factory simulations; a suite of detailed zoom-in simulations that self-consistently generate a turbulent, multi-phase ISM. We test whether the $\sigma_s^2-\mathcal{M}$ relation holds in the hot ionised medium (HIM), warm ionised medium (WIM), warm neutral medium (WNM), cold neutral medium (CNM), the molecular phase, and the highly-shielded molecular phase traced by CO. We find the applicability of the classical $\sigma_s^2-\mathcal{M}$ relation to vary between phases and depend strongly on how $\sigma_s^2$ and $\mathcal{M}$ are measured. The relation fails to capture the widths of the WNM and CNM density distributions, with possible contributing factors including non-isothermality and large-scale coherent motions. In contrast, we find the $\sigma_s^2-\mathcal{M}$ relation to tentatively hold for the log-normal portion of the H$_2$ distribution. The width of the CO density PDF is systematically overpredicted by the classical relation, resulting from the selective nature of CO as a molecular gas tracer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24977 by Mairi Nonhebel, Ralf S. Klessen, Rowan J. Smith.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Total gas column density maps of the five molecular cloud complexes extracted from the Cloud Factory simulations. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Density PDFs of the molecular cloud complexes from the Cloud Factory simulations. The solid lines delineate the time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The molecular gas density PDFs shown in Figure 2, with the weights of CO now scaled by a constant factor of 4000, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The density PDF of H2 for Complex C at the middle evo￾lutionary snapshot. The purple line is the density PDF, while the purple shaded area is the bootstrapped error on each PDF bin. Note that it is now not the temporal variation in the density PDF. The best-fitting log-normal model is overlaid as a black dashed line. The two arrows illustrate the difference in the pa￾rameters σ 2 s,fit and σ 2 s,dir, with … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The width of the phase-specific density PDFs measured via fitting a log-normal function to the density PDF ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The turbulent driving parameter as a function of time, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: presents the time-averaged 1D power spectra of the compressive and solenoidal velocity fields, as well as the result￾ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The local Mach number (Mlocal) versus the global Mach number (Mglobal) for each phase. The black dashed line delineates Mlocal = Mglobal. The coloured markers show the calculated values for each molecular cloud complex at each evolutionary snapshots over which they are studied. the simulations included turbulent driving mechanisms with smaller injection scales, e.g. protostellar jets and outflows, b(k) may… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scatter plot of the local sound speed (cs, local) versus the local velocity dispersion (δvlocal) for each phase. Accompany￾ing histograms show the distribution of cs, local (right) and δvlocal (above). capturing their internal turbulence. As a result, the Mach number is artificially inflated. To obtain a Mach number more representative of the tur￾bulent motions of each phase, we first identify spatially di… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The width of the density PDF measured directly, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The width of the density PDF measured via log-normal fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The width of the WNM density PDF measured via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Pressure versus density of the WNM, for Complex C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The width of the density PDF measured via log-normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.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

76 extracted references · 34 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    & Hennebelle, P

    Audit, E. & Hennebelle, P. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 433, 1, arXiv:astro-ph/0410062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362

    1995

  3. [3]

    & Khanin, K

    Bec, J. & Khanin, K. 2007, Physics Reports, 447, 1–66

    2007

  4. [4]

    Berkhuijsen, E. M. & Fletcher, A. 2008, MNRAS, 390, L19

    2008

  5. [5]

    Brunt, C. M. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 513, A67

    2010

  6. [6]

    Burgers, J. M. 1984, Advances in Applied Mechanics, 1, 171

    1984

  7. [7]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 118, arXiv:1801.05428 [astro-ph]

    Burkhart, B. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 118, arXiv:1801.05428 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    2015, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 811, L28, arXiv:1509.02889 [astro-ph]

    Burkhart, B., Lee, M.-Y ., Murray, C., & Stanimirovic, S. 2015, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 811, L28, arXiv:1509.02889 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    & Mocz, P

    Burkhart, B. & Mocz, P. 2019, ApJ, 879, 129

    2019

  10. [10]

    J., Moulavi, D., & Sander, J

    Campello, R. J., Moulavi, D., & Sander, J. 2013, in Pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Springer, 160–172

    2013

  11. [11]

    & Shukurov, A

    Chamandy, L. & Shukurov, A. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 56

    2020

  12. [12]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 745

    2012

  13. [13]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., Ragan, S. E., & Duarte-Cabral, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 4622 de Avillez, M. A. & Breitschwerdt, D. 2007, ApJ, 665, L35

    2019

  14. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 1978, ApJS, 36, 595 Falceta-Gonçalves, D., Bonnell, I., Kowal, G., Lépine, J. R. D., & Braga, C. A. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 973

    1978

  15. [15]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 1245, arXiv:1306.3989 [astro-ph]

    Federrath, C. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 1245, arXiv:1306.3989 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    C., & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Clark, P. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, ApJ, 713, 269

    2010

  17. [17]

    & Banerjee, S

    Federrath, C. & Banerjee, S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 3297, arXiv:1412.2756 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C. & Klessen, R. S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 156, arXiv:1209.2856 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    S., & Schmidt, W

    Federrath, C., Klessen, R. S., & Schmidt, W. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 688, L79, arXiv:0808.0605 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  20. [20]

    M., Longmore, S

    Federrath, C., Rathborne, J. M., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 143

    2016

  21. [21]

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

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 512, A81

    2010

  22. [22]

    J., Hacar, A., Clark, S

    Feng, J., Smith, R. J., Hacar, A., Clark, S. E., & Seifried, D. 2024, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 6370, arXiv:2402.05186 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Field, G. B. 1965, ApJ, 142, 531

    1965

  24. [24]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  25. [25]

    Gerrard, I. A. & Federrath, C. 2025, MNRAS[arXiv:2601.01427]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    A., Federrath, C., Pingel, N

    Gerrard, I. A., Federrath, C., Pingel, N. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 982

    2023

  27. [27]

    P., & Klessen, R

    Girichidis, P., Konstandin, L., Whitworth, A. P., & Klessen, R. S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 91, arXiv:1310.4346 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Glover, S. C. O. & Clark, P. C. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, no

    2012

  29. [29]

    & Audit, E

    Hennebelle, P. & Audit, E. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 465, 431, arXiv:astro-ph/0612778

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  30. [30]

    & Chabrier, G

    Hennebelle, P. & Chabrier, G. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, L29, arXiv:1110.0033 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1880, arXiv:1211.3119 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    F., Smith, R

    Izquierdo, A. F., Smith, R. J., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 5268, arXiv:2011.02582 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    & Chabrier, G

    Jaupart, E. & Chabrier, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 903, L2, arXiv:2010.00603 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    2009, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 508, L35, arXiv:0911.5648 [astro-ph]

    Kainulainen, J., Beuther, H., Henning, T., & Plume, R. 2009, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 508, L35, arXiv:0911.5648 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    & Federrath, C

    Kainulainen, J. & Federrath, C. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, L3, arXiv:1711.01602 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    2014, Science, 344, 183

    Kainulainen, J., Federrath, C., & Henning, T. 2014, Science, 344, 183

    2014

  37. [37]

    & Tan, J

    Kainulainen, J. & Tan, J. C. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 549, A53, arXiv:1210.8130 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    R., & Matzner, C

    Khullar, S., Federrath, C., Krumholz, M. R., & Matzner, C. D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 4335, arXiv:2107.00725 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Kobayashi, M. I. N., Inoue, T., Tomida, K., Iwasaki, K., & Nakatsugawa, H. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, 76, arXiv:2203.00699 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    G., Norman, M

    Kritsuk, A. G., Norman, M. L., & Wagner, R. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, L20, arXiv:1007.2950 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Krumholz, M. R. & McKee, C. F. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 630, 250, arXiv:astro-ph/0505177 Körtgen, B. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 1263, arXiv:2007.02626 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  42. [42]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 16, arXiv:2206.03963 [astro-ph]

    Ma, Y ., Wang, H., Zhang, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 16, arXiv:2206.03963 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    & Miville-Deschênes, M.-A

    Marchal, A. & Miville-Deschênes, M.-A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 186, arXiv:2012.03160 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Matzner, C. D. & McKee, C. F. 2000, ApJ, 545, 364

    2000

  45. [45]

    McKee, C. F. & Ostriker, J. P. 1977, ApJ, 218, 148

    1977

  46. [46]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76

    2017

  47. [47]

    E., Glover, S

    Meidt, S. E., Glover, S. C. O., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 700, A123

    2025

  48. [48]

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

    Menon, S. H., Federrath, C., & Kuiper, R. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 4643, arXiv:2002.08707 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Z., Glover, S

    Molina, F. Z., Glover, S. C. O., Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 2680

    2012

  50. [50]

    W., Chang, P., Murray, N

    Murray, D. W., Chang, P., Murray, N. W., & Pittman, J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1316

    2017

  51. [51]

    Nelson, R. P. & Langer, W. D. 1997, ApJ, 482, 796

    1997

  52. [52]

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

    Nolan, C. A., Federrath, C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2015, The density variance - Mach number relation in isothermal and non-isothermal adiabatic turbulence, arXiv:1504.04370 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    & Padoan, P

    Nordlund, A. & Padoan, P. 1998, Density PDFs of Super-Sonic Turbulence, arXiv:astro-ph/9810074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  54. [54]

    H., Pety, J., Gerin, M., et al

    Orkisz, J. H., Pety, J., Gerin, M., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 599, A99

    2017

  55. [55]

    & Nordlund, A

    Padoan, P. & Nordlund, A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 40, arXiv:0907.0248 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [56]

    Padoan, P., Nordlund, A., & Jones, B. J. T. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 145

    1997

  57. [57]

    2016, ApJ, 822, 11

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, Å. 2016, ApJ, 822, 11

    2016

  58. [58]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 30, arXiv:1510.04742 [astro-ph]

    Pan, L., Padoan, P., Haugbolle, T., & Nordlund, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 30, arXiv:1510.04742 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    & Vazquez-Semadeni, E

    Passot, T. & Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 1998, Physical Review E, 58, 4501, arXiv:physics/9802019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  60. [60]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 22

    Pokhrel, R., Gutermuth, R., Ali, B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 22

    2016

  61. [61]

    1998, The Astro- physical Journal, 504, 835, arXiv:astro-ph/9710075

    Scalo, J., Vazquez-Semadeni, E., Chappell, D., & Passot, T. 1998, The Astro- physical Journal, 504, 835, arXiv:astro-ph/9710075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  62. [62]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, L41

    Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., Girichidis, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, L41

    2015

  63. [63]

    S., et al

    Schneider, N., Csengeri, T., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 578, A29

    2015

  64. [64]

    2022, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 666, A165, arXiv:2207.14604 [astro-ph]

    Schneider, N., Ossenkopf-Okada, V ., Clarke, S., et al. 2022, Astronomy & As- trophysics, 666, A165, arXiv:2207.14604 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    H., Federrath, C., et al

    Sharda, P., Menon, S. H., Federrath, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2180

    2022

  66. [66]

    J., Glover, S

    Smith, R. J., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2900

    2014

  67. [67]

    J., Treß, R

    Smith, R. J., Treß, R. G., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 1594, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2020MNRAS.492.1594S

    2020

  68. [68]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  69. [69]

    V ., Kauffmann, J., et al

    Stanchev, O., Veltchev, T. V ., Kauffmann, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1056

    2015

  70. [70]

    G., Sormani, M

    Tress, R. G., Sormani, M. C., Smith, R. J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 5438, arXiv:2012.05919 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 945

    Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Yoshii, Y ., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 945

    1995

  72. [72]

    Turk, M. J. & Smith, B. D. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1112.4482

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  73. [73]

    1994, ApJ, 423, 681

    Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 1994, ApJ, 423, 681

    1994

  74. [74]

    2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0902.0820

    Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0902.0820

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  75. [75]

    V ., Girichidis, P., Donkov, S., et al

    Veltchev, T. V ., Girichidis, P., Donkov, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 788, arXiv:1908.00489 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Wada, K., Meurer, G., & Norman, C. A. 2002, ApJ, 577, 197 Article number, page 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa_example Appendix A: Impact of interpolation resolution and windowing on Helmholtz decomposition Here we examine the impact of the interpolation resolution and windowing on the turbulent driving parameter,b, inferred from the velocity fields via H...

    2002