Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 47 references

How do velocity structure functions trace gas dynamics in simulated molecular clouds?

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the density-weighted velocity structure function can distinguish whether a molecular cloud's observed size–velocity relation is produced by a turbulent energy cascade or by gravitational contraction.

desk verdict A transparent and useful VSF study of simulated clouds whose central collapse diagnostic needs one more convergence test before the exponent values can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03951 v1 pith:M2RP6GIV submitted 2019-08-11 astro-ph.GA

Roxana-Adela Chira , Juan~Camilo Ibáñez-Mejía , Mordecai-Mark Mac Low , Thomas Henning This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords velocitystructurefunctionsmolecularcloudsLarsonsize-velocityrelationsupersonicturbulencegravitationalcollapsesupernovablastwavesdensityweightingadaptivemeshrefinementsimulations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the familiar Larson size–velocity relation of molecular clouds is not one effect but two. In three clouds that form self-consistently in kiloparsec-scale simulations of the interstellar medium, the density-weighted velocity structure functions initially show the power-law scaling expected from a turbulent energy cascade, with first-order exponent $\zeta(1)\simeq 1/2$. Once self-gravity begins to dominate, the same global relation $\sigma\propto R^{1/2}$ persists—now reflecting virial equilibrium or free-fall collapse—while the density-weighted exponents $\zeta(p)$ become shallow or even negative as kinetic energy concentrates on small scales. The paper concludes that the velocity structure function, not the global size–velocity relation, is the diagnostic that tells these two regimes apart. It also finds that supernova blast waves temporarily steepen the exponents for about a crossing time, so shock-impacted clouds can briefly masquerade as more turbulent than they are.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the density-weighted velocity structure function, a two-point correlation of velocity differences $\Delta v$ between gas elements separated by lag $\ell$, with pairs weighted by the density product $\rho(\mathbf{x})\rho(\mathbf{x}+\boldsymbol{\ell})$. Fitting $S_p(\ell)\propto \ell^{\zeta(p)}$ over lags of 0.8–8 pc yields the scaling exponents $\zeta(1),\zeta(2),\zeta(3)$; the self-similarity ratio $Z(p)=\zeta(p)/\zeta(3)$ measures the shape independent of amplitude. The mechanism is that density weighting emphasizes the dense gas where collapse acts, so the decline and inversion of $\zeta(p)$ signal gravitational contraction, while $Z(p)$ continues to match compressible-turbulence predictions unless a shock or a zero-crossing of $\zeta(3)$ intervenes.

What would settle it

Re-run the same three clouds with the Jeans length resolved by 32 grid cells for the full evolution, and watch the density-weighted exponents through the contraction phase; if $\zeta(3)$ no longer drops toward zero or negative, the collapse signature in the fiducial runs is an artifact of under-resolved turbulence. Observationally, a high-resolution study of an actively star-forming cloud with an optically thin dense-gas tracer should find density-weighted $\zeta(1)$ approaching zero or going negative if the inversion is a real property of collapsing gas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single power-law fit to the density-weighted velocity structure function $S_p(\ell)=\langle\rho(\mathbf{x})\rho(\mathbf{x}+\boldsymbol{\ell})|\Delta v|^p\rangle/\langle\rho(\mathbf{x})\rho(\mathbf{x}+\boldsymbol{\ell})\rangle$ tracks which physical process dominates a molecular cloud's internal motions. Early in the simulated evolution, uniform turbulence dominates and the fitted exponents sit near the compressible-turbulence predictions, with $\zeta(1)\simeq 0.5$; later, gravitational contraction transfers velocity power to small scales and the density-weighted $\zeta(p)$ drop, in some cases below zero. Remarkably, the cloud's global linewidth-radius relation remains $\sigma\propto R^{1/2}$ throughout, because free-fall and virial equilibrium produce the same functional form. The authors therefore claim that two different mechanisms coincidentally generate Larson's relation, and that only the two-point statistics of the velocity field reveal which mechanism is at work.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption that resolving each Jeans length with only four grid cells still captures the turbulent cascade in dense gas well enough that the reported exponents, especially $\zeta(2)$ and $\zeta(3)$, reflect real physics; the paper's own convergence test shows $\zeta(3)$ running 40–100 percent higher when the Jeans length is resolved with 32 cells, so the higher-order exponents are not numerically settled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measured VSF slope can be read as an evolutionary stage: $\zeta(1)\simeq 1/2$ points to turbulence-dominated gas, while shallow or negative density-weighted slopes signal ongoing gravitational contraction.
  • The global $\sigma\propto R^{1/2}$ relation alone is degenerate, so observers who rely on it cannot determine whether turbulent support or collapse dominates a cloud.
  • Supernova shock impacts imitate extra turbulence for roughly a crossing time, so surveys that catch post-impact clouds may overestimate turbulent driving.
  • One-dimensional line-of-sight VSFs reproduce the three-dimensional behaviour in most cases, supporting the use of CO-based VSFs as dynamical diagnostics in bound, contracting clouds.
  • Analysis choices such as density thresholds and density weighting systematically change the fitted exponents, so observational comparisons must match those choices to the tracer's density coverage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the collapse signature survives at higher resolution, the density-weighted VSF exponent could serve as an observational 'collapse meter' that ranks clouds by evolutionary stage in large surveys without full radiative-transfer modeling.
  • The paper's logic implies that scatter around Larson's relation is not pure noise: clouds in the turbulence-dominated stage and clouds in the collapse stage both sit on the relation, so residuals may encode which regime dominates.
  • Because CO becomes optically thick in the densest gas, existing observed VSF exponents may be biased toward the turbulent-envelope values; optically thin high-density tracers should reveal flatter exponents in actively star-forming regions.
  • The persistence of extended self-similarity during collapse suggests that $Z(p)$ decouples from gravity and measures the turbulent cascade alone, a separation that future analyses could exploit to isolate turbulence from collapse in observations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes velocity structure functions (VSFs) of three molecular clouds formed in the magnetohydrodynamic simulations of Paper I/II, using density-weighted and unweighted VSFs, with and without density thresholds, in 3D and projected 1D, and at different Jeans refinement levels. The authors measure the scaling exponents ζ(p) for p = 1–3 from power-law fits over 0.8–8 pc (with an additional weighting function beyond 8 pc), as well as the extended self-similarity ratio Z(p) = ζ(p)/ζ(3). They report that at early times the density-weighted VSFs are consistent with supersonic turbulence and Larson's size–velocity relation; SN blast waves produce transient increases in ζ; and during gravitational contraction the density-weighted ζ(p) drops and can become negative as small-scale motions dominate, while the unweighted VSF and the global velocity–radius relation remain positive and Larson-like. They conclude that the turbulent-cascade and gravitational-collapse explanations of Larson's relation coincide by accident at different evolutionary stages, and that VSF flattening/inversion is a potential diagnostic of collapse.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, it offers a practical discriminator between turbulence-dominated and collapse-dominated molecular cloud kinematics, addressing a long-standing ambiguity in the interpretation of Larson's relation. The paper also provides useful methodological comparisons of 1D versus 3D VSFs, density thresholds, and density weighting, and it ships the simulation data and scripts in a public repository. The analysis is clearly described, the statistical fits are characterized with error estimates, and the observational comparison is reasonable. However, the headline conclusion is conditional on numerical convergence of the density-weighted ζ(p) during the contraction phase, which the manuscript does not currently establish.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sect. 3.6, Fig. 4] The late-time flattening/inversion of the density-weighted ζ(p), which is the paper's proposed collapse diagnostic (Sect. 3.2, Fig. 2a), is measured only in the fiducial λJ = 4Δx runs. The only higher-refinement runs for M3 extend only to t = 1.2 Myr (λJ = 32Δx) and t ≈ 3 Myr (λJ = 8Δx). At t = 0.8 Myr, ζ(2) and ζ(3) are 40% and 100% higher at λJ = 32Δx than at λJ = 4Δx (Fig. 4, bottom). Even if this excursion is attributed to an SN blast wave that only the high-refinement run captures, the comparison demonstrates that ζ(p) is strongly resolution-dependent in the early phase used to establish the 'uniform turbulence' part of the argument, and there is no higher-refinement coverage of the t ≳ 2–3 Myr contraction phase in which ζ(3) approaches zero or becomes negative. Since Paper II reports that λJ = 4Δx misses 13–33% of the kinetic energy, the headline claim that VSF drop/inversion is a diagnostic of gravitational contraction is not numerically converged. The authors should either extend a high-refinement run through the contraction phase or explicitly present the collapse diagnostic as tentative and resolution-dependent.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.1)] The fitted exponents ζ(p) depend on the ad hoc weighting function w(ℓ) = 1 for 0.8 ≤ ℓ ≤ 8 pc and w(ℓ) = 1 pc/ℓ beyond 8 pc. No sensitivity test is reported, although Sect. B.1 emphasizes that the VSFs are often not single power laws but superpositions of several driving processes. The quantitative values, including the sign crossovers that drive the collapse interpretation, may therefore depend on the chosen break scale and on the 8–30 pc weighting. Please provide fits with alternative weighting schemes (e.g., uniform weighting over the full fitting range, or different break scales) or demonstrate directly from the unweighted S_p(ℓ) curves that the flattening/inversion conclusion is robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix B.3, Fig. B.4 caption] The caption lists the three panels as '(left to right) λ = 4 Δx, λ = 8 Δx, and λ = 8 Δx'; the third should read λ = 32 Δx.
  2. [Sect. 5, item 8] The sentence 'our findings are generally consistent with with observations' contains a duplicated 'with'.
  3. [Sect. 4.3] The word 'proibitively' should be 'prohibitively'.
  4. [Sect. 3.2] The phrase 'Paper II discuss' should be 'Paper II discusses'.
  5. [Sect. 3.4] The sentence 'the values of ζ are about four times steeper than the values that are predicted by (Boldyrev 2002) for incompressible flows' should presumably say 'for compressible/supersonic flows', since Boldyrev (2002) treats supersonic turbulence.
  6. [Sect. 4.1] The statement that extended self-similarity 'removes the effects of hierarchical gravitational collapse' should be restricted to epochs where ζ(3) is not close to zero, as the authors themselves note that the procedure fails at zero crossings; this caveat should appear in the summary as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: VSF exponents are new statistics; Paper I's Larson-relation result is an external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, the VSF scaling exponents ζ(p) and Z(p), are newly computed two-point statistics from the simulation data cubes, not quantities fitted to the conclusions. The analytic predictions of She & Lévêque and Boldyrev are external benchmarks; the observed linewidth-size data in Table 1 are external observations. Papers I and II are cited as the source of the simulation data and of the independent global velocity-dispersion measurement, but the late-time Larson relation from Paper I is an external result with stated assumptions and does not include the VSF exponents as an input. The flattening/inversion of the density-weighted ζ(p) during contraction is read off the simulation's velocity field and is not imposed by the density-weighting formula, since the weighting is normalized by ⟨ρ(x)ρ(x+l)⟩; removing the weighting changes the result, which is an empirical finding rather than a tautology. The resolution caveats (λJ=4Δx, 13%-33% missing kinetic energy, higher ζ(3) at λJ=32Δx) are numerical-convergence concerns, not circularity. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

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

The analysis introduces no new physical entities or parameters fitted to match the conclusions. The controllable analysis settings (density threshold, weighting break, fitting range, subsample fraction) strongly affect the measured VSF exponents and are chosen by hand; the resolution of the underlying simulations is an inherited assumption that the convergence tests only partially validate.

free parameters (4)
  • ncloud = 100 cm^-3
    Fiducial density threshold for defining molecular cloud gas, chosen as the density where CO becomes detectable; Sect 3.4 shows the VSF slopes change drastically if this threshold is removed, making it a controlling parameter of the measurement.
  • power-law weighting break l_break = 8 pc
    Appendix A Eq. A.1: weights lags beyond 8 pc by 1 pc/l because large-scale VSFs deviate from power-law behavior; the break is selected post hoc from the data, and no sensitivity study is performed.
  • fitting range = 0.8 to 8 pc
    Smallest lag fixed at eight zones to avoid numerical dissipation; upper bound 8 pc dictated by the weighting break. The reported exponents ζ(p) are measured over this range and depend on its choice.
  • random start-point fraction = 5%
    Appendix A: for the no-threshold analysis, 5% of zones are randomly chosen as reference points for computational tractability; a free sampling parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FLASH simulations with self-gravity, SN feedback, MHD, and heating/cooling produce molecular clouds representative of real galactic MCs.
    Sect 2.1: The three clouds M3, M4, M8 are selected from a kpc-scale simulation; their realism is assumed based on prior papers (Paper I/II).
  • domain assumption The lag range 0.8-8 pc samples a turbulent inertial range free of numerical dissipation in dense gas.
    Sect 3.1 and Appendix B: The authors exclude lags below eight zones but do not demonstrate a true inertial range; the non-power-law behavior at large scales limits the fitted range.
  • ad hoc to paper Jeans refinement of lambda_J = 4 Delta x resolves the velocity field well enough for VSF scaling exponents up to third order.
    Sect 3.6: convergence tests on M3 with lambda_J = 8 and 32 Delta x show differences up to 100% for ζ(3); the fiducial runs use minimal refinement despite missing 13-33% of kinetic energy (Paper II).
  • domain assumption The density-weighted VSF of Padoan et al. (2016b), Eq. 7, is the appropriate statistic for compressible turbulent cascades.
    Sect 2.2: adopted from the literature; alternatives by Kritsuk et al. are cited but not tested.
  • domain assumption Extended self-similarity Z = ζ(p)/ζ(3) remains a valid diagnostic even when ζ(3) approaches zero.
    Sect 4.1: the paper states ESS 'fails as ζ(3) passes through zero', yet Z is still reported at those times; the interpretation must be made with raw ζ values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How do velocity structure functions trace gas dynamics in simulated molecular clouds?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2RP6GIV

@misc{pith2026190803951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How do velocity structure functions trace gas dynamics in simulated molecular clouds?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2RP6GIV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03951}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Supersonic disordered flows accompany the formation and evolution of MCs. It has been argued that turbulence can support against gravitational collapse and form hierarchical sub-structures. Aims. We study the time evolution of simulated MCs to investigate: What physical process dominates the driving of turbulent flows? How can these flows be characterised? Do the simulated flows agree with observations? Methods. We analyse three MCs that have formed self-consistently within kpc-scale numerical simulations of the ISM. The simulated ISM evolves under the influence of physical processes including self-gravity, stratification, magnetic fields, supernova-driven turbulence, and radiative heating and cooling. We characterise the flows using VSFs with/out density weighting or a density cutoff, and computed in one or three dimensions. Results. In regions with sufficient resolution, the density-weighted VSFs initially appear to follow the expectations for uniform turbulence consistent with Larson's size-velocity relationship. SN blast wave impacts produce short-lived coherent motions at large scales, increasing the scaling exponents for a crossing time. Gravitational contraction drives small-scale motions, producing scaling coefficients that drop or even turn negative as small scales become dominant. Conclusions. We conclude that two different effects coincidentally reproduce Larson's size velocity relationship. Initially, uniform turbulence dominates, so the energy cascade produces VSFs consistent with Larson's relationship. Later, contraction dominates, the density-weighted VSFs become much shallower or even inverted, but the relationship of the global average velocity dispersion of the MCs to their radius follows Larson's relationship, reflecting virial equilibrium or free-fall collapse. The injection of energy by shocks is visible in the VSFs, but decays within a crossing time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of VSFs from models (left to right) M3, M4, and M8 as function of lag scale ` and order p, based on data with density threshold. The examples are given for times (top to bottom) t = 1.0 Myr, 3.0 Myr, and 4.2 Myr. The dots (connected by dashed lines) show the values computed from the simulations. The solid lines represent the power-law relation fitted to the respective structure functions. The examples demon… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of scaling exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Like Fig. 2, but for the measured self-similarity parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of VSF scaling exponents, ζ (left), and self-similarity parameters, Z (right), depending on the Jeans refinement of the simulation runs the data are based on. The abscissas give values from λJ = 4∆x, while the ordinates give values from λJ = 8∆x (top) and λJ…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of ζ (top) and Z (bottom) measured based on density-weighted VSFs (abscissas) and non-weighted VSFs (ordinates). We note that the given values are based on M3 only. We conclude that deriving the VSF from smooth density dis￾tributions without considering dens…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time evolution of scaling exponent ζ(p) of the p th order VSF. The panels show the measured scaling exponents for the first to third order (left to right) for M3 (red), M4 (green), M8 (blue). The shaded area within all panels marks the range of observed values at the r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Galtier, S

    Banerjee, S. & Galtier, S. 2013, Phys. Rev. E., 87, 013019

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    & Kritsuk, A

    Banerjee, S. & Kritsuk, A. G. 2017, Phys. Rev. E., 96, 053116

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    & Kritsuk, A

    Banerjee, S. & Kritsuk, A. G. 2018, Phys. Rev. E., 97, 023107

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Q., & Toschi, F

    Benzi, R., Biferale, L., Fisher, R., Lamb, D. Q., & Toschi, F. 2010, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 653, 221

    2010

  5. [5]

    1993, PhysRevE, 48, R29

    Benzi, R., Ciliberto, S., Tripiccione, R., et al. 1993, PhysRevE, 48, R29

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    2002, Astrophys

    Boldyrev, S. 2002, Astrophys. J. , 569, 841

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    M., Dale, J

    Boneberg, D. M., Dale, J. E., Girichidis, P., & Ercolano, B. 2015, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. , 447, 1341

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Brunt, C. M. & Heyer, M. H. 2013, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. , 433, 117

    work page 2013

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    M., Heyer, M

    Brunt, C. M., Heyer, M. H., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2009, Astron. Astrophys. , 504, 883

    2009

  2. [10]

    C., & Lazarian, A

    Burkhart, B., Collins, D. C., & Lazarian, A. 2015, Astrophys. J. , 808, 48

    2015

  3. [11]

    C., Mac Low, M.-M., & Henning, T

    Chira, R.-A., Ib ´a˜nez-Mej´ıa, J. C., Mac Low, M.-M., & Henning, T. 2018a, How do velocity structure functions trace gas dynamics in simulated molec- ular clouds?, Digital Repository (New York: American Museum of Natural History), doi:10.5531/sd.astro.3

    doi

  4. [12]

    & Krumholz, M

    Dekel, A. & Krumholz, M. R. 2013, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. , 432, 455

    2013

  5. [13]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E. H. Levy & J. I. Lunine, 97–124

    1993

  6. [14]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 2007, Astrophys. J. , 668, 1064

    2007

  7. [15]

    2009, Astron

    Falgarone, E., Pety, J., & Hily-Blant, P. 2009, Astron. Astrophys. , 507, 355

    2009

  8. [16]

    Federrath, C., Sur, S., Schleicher, D. R. G., Banerjee, R., & Klessen, R. S. 2011, Astrophys. J. , 731, 62

    2011

  9. [17]

    Fleck, Jr., R. C. 1980, Astrophys. J. , 242, 1019

    1980

  10. [18]

    2000, Astrophys

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 131, 273

    2000

  11. [19]

    & Banerjee, S

    Galtier, S. & Banerjee, S. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 134501

    2011

  12. [20]

    2015, IAU General Assembly, 22, 2256326

    Gnedin, O. 2015, IAU General Assembly, 22, 2256326

    2015

  13. [21]

    A., Barranco, J

    Goodman, A. A., Barranco, J. A., Wilner, D. J., & Heyer, M. H. 1998, Astrophys. J. , 504, 223

    1998

  14. [22]

    2002, Physics of Fluids, 14, 1065

    Gotoh, T., Fukayama, D., & Nakano, T. 2002, Physics of Fluids, 14, 1065

    2002

  15. [23]

    2012, Monthly Notices Roy

    Hartmann, L., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Heitsch, F. 2012, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. , 420, 1457

    2012

  16. [24]

    & Dame, T

    Heyer, M. & Dame, T. M. 2015, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. , 53, 583

    2015

  17. [25]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., & Jackson, J. M. 2009, Astrophys. J. , 699, 1092

    2009

  18. [26]

    Heyer, M. H. & Brunt, C. 2007, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 237, Triggered Star Formation in a Turbulent ISM, ed. B. G. Elmegreen & J. Palous, 9–16

    2007

  19. [27]

    Heyer, M. H. & Brunt, C. M. 2004, Astrophys. J. Lett. , 615, L45 Ib´a˜nez-Mej´ıa, J. C., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., & Baczynski, C. 2016, Astrophys. J. , 824, 41 Ib´a˜nez-Mej´ıa, J. C., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., & Baczynski, C. 2017, Astrophys. J. , 850, 62

    2004

  20. [28]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov, A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  21. [29]

    G., Lee, C

    Kritsuk, A. G., Lee, C. T., & Norman, M. L. 2013, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. , 436, 3247

    2013

  22. [30]

    G., Wagner, R., & Norman, M

    Kritsuk, A. G., Wagner, R., & Norman, M. L. 2013, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 729, R1

    2013

  23. [31]

    G., Wagner, R., & Norman, M

    Kritsuk, A. G., Wagner, R., & Norman, M. L. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 498, Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows ASTRONUM-2014, ed. N. V . Pogorelov, E. Audit, & G. P. Zank, 16

    2015

  24. [32]

    R., Bate, M

    Krumholz, M. R., Bate, M. R., Arce, H. G., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 243

    2014

  25. [33]

    Larson, R. B. 1981, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. , 194, 809 Mac Low, M.-M. 2003, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, V ol. 614, Turbulence and Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics, ed. E. Falgarone & T. Passot, 182–212 Mac Low, M.-M. & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Rev...

    1981

  26. [34]

    McKee, C. F. & Zweibel, E. G. 1992, Astrophys. J. , 399, 551

    1992

  27. [35]

    Miesch, M. S. & Bally, J. 1994, Astrophys. J. , 429, 645

    1994

  28. [36]

    2014, PASJ, 66, 36

    Miyamoto, Y ., Nakai, N., & Kuno, N. 2014, PASJ, 66, 36

    2014

  29. [37]

    2003, Astrophys

    Padoan, P., Boldyrev, S., Langer, W., & Nordlund, Å. 2003, Astrophys. J. , 583, 308

    2003

  30. [38]

    Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Kritsuk, A., & Norman, M. L. 2006, Astrophys. J. Lett. , 653, L125

    2006

  31. [39]

    2011, Astrophys

    Roman-Duval, J., Federrath, C., Brunt, C., et al. 2011, Astrophys. J. , 740, 120

    2011

  32. [40]

    2008, Physical Review Letters, 101, 194505

    Schmidt, W., Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 101, 194505

    2008

  33. [41]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints

    Seifried, D., Walch, S., Girichidis, P., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints

    2017

  34. [42]

    & L´evˆeque, E

    She, Z.-S. & L´evˆeque, E. 1994, Physical Review Letters, 72, 336

    1994

  35. [43]

    M., Rivolo, A

    Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., & Yahil, A. 1987, Astrophys. J. , 319, 730

    1987

  36. [44]

    C., Shaske, S

    Tan, J. C., Shaske, S. N., & Van Loo, S. 2013, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 292, Molecular Gas, Dust, and Star Formation in Galaxies, ed. T. Wong & J. Ott, 19–28

    2013

  37. [45]

    K., Klein, R

    Truelove, J. K., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., et al. 1998, Astrophys. J. , 495, 821

    1998

  38. [46]

    J., Oishi, J

    Turk, M. J., Oishi, J. S., Abel, T., & Bryan, G. L. 2012, Astrophys. J. , 745, 154 V´azquez-Semadeni, E., Ryu, D., Passot, T., Gonz´alez, R. F., & Gazol, A. 2006, Astrophys. J. , 643, 245 14 R.-A. Chira et al.: How do velocity structure functions trace gas dynamics in simulate...

    2012

  39. [47]

    2015, PhD thesis, I

    Zernickel, A. 2015, PhD thesis, I. Physikalisches Institut der Universit¨at zu K¨oln, Z¨ulpicher Straße 77, 50937, K¨oln, Germany Appendix A: Computation and Fitting Procedures In this section we provide more details on how we compute the VSFs and their scaling parameters. As ...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.