Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A new SPH implementation of Braginskii viscosity reproduces analytic wave damping and, in cluster-scale runs, microinstability limiters can clamp the pressure anisotropy so hard that the gas behaves nearly inviscid.

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

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

A new anisotropic (Braginskii) viscosity module for the SPH code OpenGadget3 passes standard analytic test suites and runs in a first cosmological galaxy-cluster zoom-in.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuine, well-validated SPH implementation of Braginskii viscosity; the real gaps are reproducibility (no code shipped, limiter clamping unspecified), and the stress-test's claimed scale-factor error doesn't survive a close reading of eq. (54). the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.25847 v2 pith:M3QK6GU4 submitted 2025-10-29 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAphysics.plasm-ph

Braginskii Viscosity in Cosmological Simulations of Galaxy Clusters: Implementation, Validation, and First Application

Tirso Marin-Gilabert , Ulrich P. Steinwandel , Milena Valentini , John A. ZuHone , Klaus Dolag This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAphysics.plasm-ph
keywords Braginskii viscosityanisotropic viscositygalaxy clustersintracluster mediumsmoothed particle hydrodynamicsMHDfirehose instabilitymirror instability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the first implementation of Braginskii (anisotropic) viscosity in a smoothed-particle magnetohydrodynamics code, together with a validation suite and a first cosmological application. The authors show that their discretized anisotropic stress tensor reproduces the analytical damping rates for sound waves and fast magnetosonic waves, leaves circularly polarized Alfvén waves undamped even at extremely high viscosity (where pressure anisotropy vanishes), and correctly interrupts linearly polarized Alfvén waves when the firehose threshold is crossed. In a cluster zoom-in, they find that the microinstability limiters can clamp the pressure anisotropy so strongly that the cluster behaves nearly like an inviscid one, making magnetic field amplification comparable to the inviscid case. The paper is trying to establish that this implementation is accurate, robust, and ready for production cosmological simulations of the intracluster medium.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the Braginskii viscous stress tensor, discretized in SPH form, reproduces the damping rates and wave-profile evolutions predicted by linear theory: γ∥ = 2/3 ν k² and γ⊥ = 1/6 ν k² for sound waves, the 5/6 ν k² rate for the misaligned sound wave, zero decay for circularly polarized Alfvén waves even at ν/(L c)=10, and the firehose-limited interruption of a linearly polarized Alfvén wave at Δp = −B²/4π. It further shows that when the mirror/firehose limiters are active in a cosmological cluster zoom-in, the limited run's magnetic field amplification resembles the inviscid case, because most of the gas has its pressure anisotropy clamped to the thres

What carries the argument

The central object is the Braginskii pressure-anisotropy term Δp = η(3 b̂ b̂:∇v − ∇·v), which feeds the anisotropic stress tensor Π = −Δp(b̂ b̂ − 1/3 I). The implementation determines Δp per particle from SPH estimates of the velocity gradient, then applies (when enabled) the mirror/firehose limit −B²/4π < Δp < B²/8π. All validation relies on this stress tensor and its entropy/velocity updates; the limiters are what make the cosmological run behave like the inviscid one.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the limited cosmological run behaves like an inviscid one rests on the unstated algorithm that clamps Δp to the mirror/firehose thresholds at each timestep, and on that clamping interacting correctly with adaptive timesteps – neither of which is validated by the test suite.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to histogram Δp in the limited cluster run: if a non-negligible fraction of the gas still has Δp beyond the mirror/firehose thresholds, the limiter is not enforcing the claimed bound and the inviscid-like result is not due to the clamping.

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

If this is right

  • If the implementation is accepted, simulations of galaxy clusters can now include anisotropic viscosity and microinstability limiters at little extra cost, since the scheme needs no subcycling in adaptive timesteps.
  • The suite of analytic tests (sound waves, Alfvén waves, fast magnetosonic waves, Kelvin–Helmholtz instability) provides a template for verifying other SPH codes.
  • The clamped run's inviscid-like magnetic field amplification implies that when mirror/firehose limiters are active, Braginskii viscosity may not strongly suppress turbulent dynamo action – a direct prediction for cluster magnetic fields.
  • The absence of decay for circularly polarized Alfvén waves at high ν confirms that the implementation does not introduce spurious numerical viscosity in the zero-Δp state, which is necessary for trustworthy dissipation studies.
  • Future higher-resolution runs with stronger magnetic fields could resolve the ion mean free path and test whether the limiters are still as restrictive.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's cosmological conclusion depends on the unstated numerical clamping of Δp; if that clamping differs from the physical marginal-stability condition, the inviscid-like behavior could be a numerical artifact rather than plasma physics.
  • Because the cluster run is low resolution and produces weak magnetic fields, the limiters are triggered almost everywhere; at higher resolution with stronger dynamo fields, the pressure anisotropy range widens and Braginskii viscosity may become more effective, potentially reversing the 'inviscid' conclusion.
  • A direct consequence for observations: if real cluster plasmas operate near marginal stability, turbulence damping by anisotropic viscosity is minimal, which would support the relatively high velocity dispersions measured by X-ray spectrometers; this connection is not made explicitly in the paper.
  • The validation omits a cross-code comparison for the cosmological run; a grid-code comparison at matched resolution would separate SPH numerical dissipation from physical anisotropic transport.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an implementation of Braginskii (anisotropic) viscosity with mirror/firehose instability limiters in the SPH-MHD code OpenGadget3. The authors validate the implementation on the benchmark suite of Berlok et al. (2019): two sound-wave tests, circularly and linearly polarized Alfvén waves, a fast magnetosonic wave, and the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability. The numerical results are compared with analytic damping rates and wave profiles, with the analytic solutions derived in the appendices from the same discretized equations. A first cosmological application is presented: zoom-in simulations of a massive galaxy cluster without radiative physics, comparing inviscid, isotropic-viscosity, Braginskii-viscosity, and Braginskii-viscosity-with-limiters runs at z=0. The central claim is that the implementation is accurate, robust, and stable in a cosmological context, with the limited run behaving nearly like the inviscid run because the weak seed magnetic fields trigger the microinstability limiters.

Significance. If the implementation is correct and reproducible, this is the first cosmological SPH code with Braginskii viscosity and plasma-instability limiters, and it is likely to be a widely used community tool. The validation strategy is appropriate: the wave tests are analytically solvable within the same theoretical framework, and the paper honestly discloses the ~5% viscous-heating excess in the hydro-on sound-wave test. Particularly valuable are the circularly polarized Alfvén wave test, which confirms zero damping from anisotropic viscosity even at very high ν, and the linearly polarized Alfvén wave test, which reproduces the expected firehose-limited interruption. The cosmological run, although low-resolution and non-radiative, demonstrates that the implementation remains stable in a realistic setting. The main weakness is that the algorithmic details of the limiter clamping are not specified, which currently prevents true reproducibility of the 'Lim' runs.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (19)-(23) and (54); used in §3.6 and §4] The numerical algorithm that enforces the mirror/firehose limiter is never specified. The paper defines the stability window in Eq. (19), states that it is 'evaluated in comoving coordinates' in Eq. (54), and gives the anisotropic stress tensor and its SPH discretization in Eqs. (20)-(23), but it does not state how Δp is projected onto the allowable interval when it violates the bounds. Is a hard clamp applied per particle each timestep? Is the clamping applied to Δp before computing Π_Aniso in Eq. (21)? Does the clamping conserve momentum and energy in the SPH formulation? The KHI results with limiters (Figs. 12-13) and the cosmological conclusion that the 'Aniso+Lim' run behaves like the inviscid run (Fig. 14) depend directly on this undocumented operation. Without this information, the implementation is not reproducible.
  2. [§4, Eqs. (54)-(56)] All benchmark tests in §3 are performed at a=1. The comoving implementation, including the scale-factor-dependent limiter thresholds in Eq. (54), is exercised only in the cosmological proof-of-concept run. There is no validation at a≠1 of the comoving formulation, such as a sound wave or Alfvén wave in an expanding box, or a direct check that the transformed threshold equals the physical condition. Since the first application relies on the comoving code path, and since the limiter thresholds change with redshift, a simple comoving test would materially strengthen the claim that the cosmological implementation is correct.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (54)] The scale factor 'a' in the numerator is correct for γ=5/3: substituting Eqs. (55)-(56) into the physical stability condition (19) gives -a^{3γ-4} B_c^2/(4π) < Δp_c < a^{3γ-4} B_c^2/(8π), and with γ=5/3 this is exactly -a B_c^2/(4π) < Δp_c < a B_c^2/(8π). The paper could state this explicitly to avoid the misreading that a scale factor is missing.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract claims 'excellent agreement with the AREPO implementation of a similar anisotropic viscosity model.' Since no direct AREPO data are shown, the agreement is actually with the common analytic solutions (which AREPO also matches). Consider rephrasing to 'agreement with the analytic solutions and with the results reported in Berlok et al. (2019)'.
  3. [§3.6, Fig. 13] The dashed lines indicating the mirror/firehose limits are not labelled in the figure. The text should state the values of Δp/P_th corresponding to β=10^3 and β=10^2 so the reader can verify the limiting behavior.
  4. [§3.3 and §4] The paper states that the formulation 'avoids the need for subcycling' and is 'stable' for high viscosities, but no timestep criterion for the anisotropic viscous term is reported. A diffusive CFL condition of the form Δt < C h^2/ν, or a statement that the standard CFL condition suffices, would clarify the stability properties, especially for the cosmological adaptive-timestep integration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the benchmark validation is self-contained and anchored to external theory; flagged issues are correctness/reproducibility, not circularity.

full rationale

The Braginskii implementation is validated against the external benchmark suite of Berlok et al. (2019) and against analytic damping solutions (eqs. 25-29, 32-41, 47-48, 51-52) that follow from the same continuum Braginskii equations (11)-(14) being discretized; matching those solutions tests the discretization and is not a circular definition. The limiter thresholds in eq. (19) are taken from linear Vlasov theory (Kunz et al. 2012, 2014), external to this paper, and no parameter is fitted to make the tests pass. Self-citations (Marin-Gilabert et al. 2022, 2024; Groth et al. 2023) supply the isotropic-viscosity baseline, KHI setup, and code infrastructure but are not load-bearing for the claim that the Braginskii module reproduces the benchmarks. The cosmological section reports new simulation output rather than a prediction derived from the model by construction. Two non-circular weaknesses are worth flagging: (i) the SPH clamping operation that enforces eq. (19) in the 'Lim' runs is never specified, so the microinstability-limited results are not reproducible from the paper; (ii) eqs. (54)-(56) are inconsistent with the physical stability window eq. (19): substituting Δp_c = a^5 Δp_phys and B_c = a^2 B_phys (γ=5/3) into -B_c^2/4π < Δp_c < B_c^2/8π yields -a B_c^2/4π < Δp_c < a B_c^2/8π, so at z>0 the comoving limiter is more permissive by a factor 1/a. These are correctness and reproducibility issues, not circularity, and do not change the assessment that the validation logic is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central validation claim rests on standard Braginskii transport theory and MHD, with no new entities or fitted constants. The main unstated ingredient is the numerical limiter algorithm; all free parameters are test or run inputs, not fitted to make the validation pass.

free parameters (3)
  • KHI viscosity multiplier = η = 25 ηCrit
    Chosen by hand in §3.6 to highlight differences between isotropic and anisotropic viscosity; not fitted to match the KHI growth outcome.
  • isotropic thermal conduction fraction = 5% of Spitzer
    Input choice for the cosmological runs (§4); affects thermodynamics but is not part of the viscosity validation.
  • initial magnetic seed field = B_ini = 10^-12 G (comoving)
    Standard seeding for cosmological MHD (§4); chosen from prior work, not fitted.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Braginskii closure Δp = (0.960 p_i/ν_ii) d/dt ln(B³/ρ²) for |∇v| ≪ ν_ii
    Used to define pressure anisotropy in the weakly collisional regime, from linearized Boltzmann with Fokker-Planck collisions (Spitzer 1962; Braginskii 1965); invoked in §2.1.
  • domain assumption Mirror/firehose instability thresholds bound pressure anisotropy: -B²/(4π) < Δp < B²/(8π)
    Assumes microinstabilities act effectively instantaneously to clamp Δp at marginal stability; used for the limiters in §2.2 and §4.
  • domain assumption Ion gyroradius ≪ mean free path, so perpendicular viscosity is negligible
    Justifies the form Π = -Δp (b̂b̂ - I/3) in eq. (14); standard for the high-β ICM.
  • domain assumption Ideal single-fluid MHD equations are adequate for the ICM
    The code evolves compressible single-fluid MHD (eqs. 1-4) with a scalar pressure; no kinetic closure beyond the viscosity stress.
  • ad hoc to paper SPH kernel interpolation with Wendland C6 and 295 neighbors accurately approximates the velocity gradients in eq. (20)
    Numerical method choice specific to this implementation's accuracy; relies on the SPH discretization being convergent for the anisotropic stress.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Braginskii Viscosity in Cosmological Simulations of Galaxy Clusters: Implementation, Validation, and First Application." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M3QK6GU4

@misc{pith2026251025847,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Braginskii Viscosity in Cosmological Simulations of Galaxy Clusters: Implementation, Validation, and First Application},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M3QK6GU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.25847}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present the implementation of an anisotropic viscosity solver within the magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) framework of the TreeSPH code OpenGadget3. The solver models anisotropic viscous transport along magnetic field lines following the Braginskii formulation and includes physically motivated limiters based on the mirror and firehose instability thresholds, which constrain the viscous stress in weakly collisional plasmas. To validate the implementation, we performed a suite of standard test problems -- including two variants of the sound wave test, circularly and linearly polarized Alfven waves, fast magnetosonic wave, and the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability -- both with and without the plasma-instability limiters. The results show excellent agreement with the AREPO implementation of a similar anisotropic viscosity model, confirming the accuracy and robustness of our method. Our formulation integrates seamlessly within the individual adaptive timestepping framework of OpenGadget3, avoiding the need for subcycling. This provides efficient and stable time integration while maintaining physical consistency. Finally, we applied the new solver to a cosmological zoom-in simulation of a galaxy cluster as a proof-of-concept application, demonstrating its capability to model anisotropic transport and plasma microphysics in realistic large-scale environments. Our implementation offers a versatile and computationally efficient tool for studying anisotropic viscosity in magnetized astrophysical systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.25847 by John A. ZuHone, Klaus Dolag, Milena Valentini, Tirso Marin-Gilabert, Ulrich P. Steinwandel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the velocity (top panel) and cumulative viscous heating (bottom panel) for the inviscid (green), isotropic (red), and anisotropic (blue) runs, compared with the analytical solution (dashed lines) after 𝑐𝑡/𝐿 = 1. In this case, the magnetic field is ini￾tialized only in the 𝑥ˆ direction, i.e., parallel to the velocity gradient; therefore, the damping rate of both the isotropic and anisotropic cases is … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Velocity profile of the soundwave described by eq. (24) after 𝑐𝑡/𝐿 = 1 with the hydro solver on. The data points show the velocity profile for the different numerical simulations (green for the inviscid case, red for the isotropic viscosity case, and blue for the anisotropic case), while the dashed lines indicate the analytical solutions following the same color code as the data points. Top panel: Magnetic… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows that the evolution ofΔ𝑝 in our simulations after 𝑐𝑡/𝐿 = 1 matches exactly the evolution predicted theoretically. In the process of converting kinetic energy from 𝑣𝑦 to 𝑣𝑥, a fraction is dissipated into heat following the expression derived by Berlok et al. (2019): Δ𝑢(𝑡) = 𝑢0 + 9𝜌𝑐2 10 ∑︁∞ 𝑛=1 ∑︁∞ 𝑚=1 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑚 √ 𝛾𝑛𝛾𝑚 𝛾𝑛 + 𝛾𝑚 sin(𝑘𝑛𝑥) sin(𝑘𝑚𝑥) ×  1 − e − (𝛾𝑛+𝛾𝑚)𝑡  , (41) where 𝑢0 is the initial internal … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative viscous heating profile due to Braginskii viscosity of the soundwave described by eq. (30) and (31) after 𝑐𝑡/𝐿 = 1. The blue dots show the results for the anisotropic case, and the blue-dashed line shows the analytical solution. The black-dashed line shows the initial conditions and the solid line the evolution after 𝑡 ≫ 1. MNRAS 000, 1–18 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 𝐵⊥ profile of the circularly polarized Alfvén wave described by eq. (42) and (43) for the inviscid case (green dots), isotropic case (red dots), and different amounts of anisotropic viscosity (blue markers). The different markers indicate different levels of anisotropic viscosity. The black-dashed lines show the initial amplitude. Top panel: Result after one period (𝜔𝑡/2𝜋 = 1.0). Bottom panel: Result after… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Decay of the fast magnetosonic wave initialized by eq. (50) for the inviscid (green), isotropic (red), and anisotropic (blue) cases. The dashed lines show the theoretical decay of the amplitude for each case. Top panel: Evolution of 𝛿𝐵𝑧 . Bottom panel: Evolution of 𝛿𝜌 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Linearly polarized Alfvén wave (eq. (46)) after 𝜔𝑡 = 0.2 for the inviscid (green), isotropic (red), and anisotropic (blue) cases. The color-dash lines show the inviscid and isotropic analytical solutions, while the black￾dashed lines show the initial conditions. Top panel: 𝛿𝑣𝑦 profile. Middle panel: 𝛿𝐵𝑦 profile. Bottom panel: Δ𝑝 profile normalized to 𝐵 2 /4𝜋 to highlight the firehose instability limit at 4… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Profiles of the fast magnetosonic wave after 𝑐𝑡/𝐿 = 1. The data points show the results of our simulations, and the dashed lines show the analytical solutions: inviscid case in green, isotropic in red, and anisotropic in blue. Top panel: Profile of the 𝑣𝑥. Middle panel: Profile of the 𝛿𝐵𝑧 . Bottom panel: Profile of the 𝛿𝜌. Therefore, we use a 𝛽 = 103 to be able to study the growth of the in￾stability depe… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Colormaps of the KHI with anisotropic viscosity. Top row: Magnetic field in the 𝑧ˆ direction. Bottom row: Magnetic field in the 𝑥ˆ direction. Left column: Density colormap, normalized to the hot gas density. Middle column: Magnetic field strength colormap, normalized to the initial magnetic field. Right column: Pressure anisotropy, normalized to 𝐵 2 0 /8𝜋, where the white regions indicate the areas where … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Growth rate of the KHI of a setup with B = 𝐵𝑥ˆ for different viscosity treatments: inviscid (green), isotropic (red), anisotropic (blue), and anisotropic with plasma microinstabilities limits (purple). Top panel: Initial magnetic field strength of 𝛽 = 103 . Bottom panel: Initial magnetic field strength of 𝛽 = 102 . in detail via key features like turbulence spectrum, velocity structure function, or densit… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Histogram of the pressure anisotropy of all the particles of the KHI simulation, normalized to the thermal pressure. Top row: Runs where Δ𝑝 can evolve without setting the plasma microinstabilities limits. Bottom row: Runs where Δ𝑝 is limited to the mirror and firehose instabilities limits, for 𝛽 = 103 (red-dashed line) and 𝛽 = 102 (green-dashed line). Left column: Results with 𝛽 = 103 . Right column: Resu… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Projected magnetic field strength of the galaxy cluster cosmological simulation at 𝑧 = 0. The white circles indicate the 𝑅200 of the cluster. From left to right: MHD only; MHD with Spitzer viscosity; MHD with Braginskii viscosity; and MHD with Braginskii viscosity and plasma microinstability limiters. MNRAS 000, 1–18 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_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.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Learning the Universe: Constrained simulations of the Coma galaxy cluster -- I. Radial X-ray and Compton-y signatures

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    50 constrained simulations of Coma cluster analogues reproduce the observed radial X-ray surface brightness and Compton-y profiles within the scatter expected from environment and assembly history.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    W., Evrard A

    Allen S. W., Evrard A. E., Mantz A. B., 2011, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 , 49, 409–470

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102514 2011

  2. [2]

    W., Squire J., Quataert E., Schekochihin A

    Arzamasskiy L., Kunz M. W., Squire J., Quataert E., Schekochihin A. A., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.021014 , 13, 021014

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.021014 2023

  3. [3]

    D., Kasper J

    Bale S. D., Kasper J. C., Howes G. G., Quataert E., Salem C., Sundkvist D., 2009, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.211101 , 103, 211101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.211101 2009

  4. [4]

    S., 1995, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9991(95)90221-X , 121, 357

    Balsara D. S., 1995, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9991(95)90221-X , 121, 357

    doi:10.1016/s0021-9991(95)90221-x 1995

  5. [5]

    R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J

    Battaglia N., Bond J. R., Pfrommer C., Sievers J. L., Sijacki D., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/91 , 725, 91–99

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/91 2010

  6. [6]

    Berlok T., Pakmor R., Pfrommer C., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3115 , 491, 2919–2938

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3115 2019

  7. [8]

    Bott A. F. A., Arzamasskiy L., Kunz M. W., Quataert E., Squire J., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac37c2 , 922, L35

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac37c2 2021

  8. [9]

    I., 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RvPP....1..205B 1, 205

    Braginskii S. I., 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RvPP....1..205B 1, 205

    1965

  9. [10]

    Brandenburg A., Lazarian A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-013-0009-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013SSRv..178..163B 178, 163

    doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0009-3 2013

  10. [11]

    L., Taylor G

    Carilli C. L., Taylor G. B., 2002, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093852 , 40, 319–348

    arXiv 2002

  11. [12]

    F., Goldberger M

    Chew G. F., Goldberger M. L., Low F. E., 1956, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rspa.1956.0116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956RSPSA.236..112C 236, 112

    arXiv 1956

  12. [14]

    K., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , 527, 991

    Das H. K., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , 527, 991

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3125 2023

  13. [16]

    Dolag K., Stasyszyn F., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15181.x , 398, 1678–1697

    arXiv 2009

  14. [18]

    M., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1309 , 704, 1309–1320

    Dong R., Stone J. M., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1309 , 704, 1309–1320

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1309 2009

  15. [19]

    Fujita Y., Fukushima K., Sato K., Fukazawa Y., Kondo M., 2025, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan] 10.1093/pasj/psaf089 , 77, S270–S275

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf089 2025

  16. [20]

    Gaspari M., Melioli C., Brighenti F., D'Ercole A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17688.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411..349G 411, 349

    arXiv 2011

  17. [21]

    P., Valentini M., Dolag K., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2717 , 526, 616

    Groth F., Steinwandel U. P., Valentini M., Dolag K., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2717 , 526, 616

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2717 2023

  18. [22]

    P., Vallés-Pérez D., Dolag K., 2025, @doi [Astronomy &; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451803 , 693, A263

    Groth F., Valentini M., Steinwandel U. P., Vallés-Pérez D., Dolag K., 2025, @doi [Astronomy &; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451803 , 693, A263

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451803 2025

  19. [23]

    Hellinger P., Matsumoto H., 2000, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA000297 , 105, 10519

    doi:10.1029/1999ja000297 2000

  20. [24]

    Hitomi et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature18627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.535..117H 535, 117

    doi:10.1038/nature18627 2016

  21. [25]

    Hitomi et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70....9H 70, 9

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx138 2018

  22. [26]

    F., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw3306 , 466, 3387

    Hopkins P. F., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw3306 , 466, 3387

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3306 2016

  23. [27]

    C., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13137.x , 388, 1079

    Iapichino L., Adamek J., Schmidt W., Niemeyer J. C., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13137.x , 388, 1079

    arXiv 2008

  24. [28]

    S., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx882 , 469, 3641–3655

    Iapichino L., Federrath C., Klessen R. S., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx882 , 469, 3641–3655

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx882 2017

  25. [29]

    Kingsland M., Yang H. Y. K., Reynolds C. S., Zuhone J. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883L..23K 883, L23

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab40be 2019

  26. [30]

    V., Borgani S., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502 , 50, 353

    Kravtsov A. V., Borgani S., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502 , 50, 353

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

  27. [32]

    W., Bogdanović T., Reynolds C

    Kunz M. W., Bogdanović T., Reynolds C. S., Stone J. M., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/122 , 754, 122

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/2/122 2012

  28. [33]

    Kunz M., Schekochihin A., Stone J., 2014, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.205003 , 112

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.205003 2014

  29. [34]

    T., Kravtsov A

    Lau E. T., Kravtsov A. V., Nagai D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705.1129L 705, 1129

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/1129 2009

  30. [35]

    P., Dolag K., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3042 , 517, 5971–5991

    Marin-Gilabert T., Valentini M., Steinwandel U. P., Dolag K., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3042 , 517, 5971–5991

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3042 2022

  31. [36]

    P., Valentini M., Vallés-Pérez D., Dolag K., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8127 , 976, 67

    Marin-Gilabert T., Steinwandel U. P., Valentini M., Vallés-Pérez D., Dolag K., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8127 , 976, 67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8127 2024

  32. [37]

    P., 2025, The (Limited) Effect of Viscosity in Multiphase Turbulent Mixing ( @eprint arXiv 2504.15345 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15345

    Marin-Gilabert T., Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2025, The (Limited) Effect of Viscosity in Multiphase Turbulent Mixing ( @eprint arXiv 2504.15345 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15345

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [38]

    J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19972.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.3319M 419, 3319

    McCourt M., Sharma P., Quataert E., Parrish I. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19972.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.3319M 419, 3319

    arXiv 2012

  34. [39]

    Miniati F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800...60M 800, 60

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/60 2015

  35. [40]

    T., Nagai D., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/25 , 792, 25

    Nelson K., Lau E. T., Nagai D., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/25 , 792, 25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/25 2014

  36. [41]

    J., McCourt M., Quataert E., Sharma P., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20650.x , 422, 704–718

    Parrish I. J., McCourt M., Quataert E., Sharma P., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20650.x , 422, 704–718

    arXiv 2012

  37. [42]

    J., 2008, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2008.08.011 , 227, 10040

    Price D. J., 2008, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2008.08.011 , 227, 10040

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2008.08.011 2008

  38. [43]

    Quataert E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/525248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673..758Q 673, 758

    doi:10.1086/525248 2008

  39. [44]

    Rappaz Y., Schober J., 2024, @doi [Astronomy &; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347497 , 683, A35

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347497 2024

  40. [45]

    A., Cowley S

    Rincon F., Schekochihin A. A., Cowley S. C., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu179 , 447, L45–L49

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu179 2014

  41. [46]

    L., 1986, @doi [Rev

    Sarazin C. L., 1986, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.58.1 , 58, 1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.58.1 1986

  42. [47]

    A., Cowley S

    Schekochihin A. A., Cowley S. C., 2006, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.2179053 , 13

    doi:10.1063/1.2179053 2006

  43. [48]

    A., Cowley S

    Schekochihin A. A., Cowley S. C., Kulsrud R. M., Hammett G. W., Sharma P., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/431202 , 629, 139

    doi:10.1086/431202 2005

  44. [49]

    A., Cowley S

    Schekochihin A. A., Cowley S. C., Kulsrud R. M., Rosin M. S., Heinemann T., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.081301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvL.100h1301S 100, 081301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.081301 2008

  45. [50]

    Schmidt W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.3051S 440, 3051

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu501 2014

  46. [51]

    F., Niemeyer J

    Schmidt W., Engels J. F., Niemeyer J. C., Almgren A. S., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw632 , 459, 701–719

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw632 2016

  47. [52]

    Sijacki D., Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12153.x , 380, 877–900

    arXiv 2007

  48. [53]

    Spitzer L., 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    1962

  49. [54]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , 364, 1105

    arXiv 2005

  50. [55]

    A., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L25 , 830, L25

    Squire J., Quataert E., Schekochihin A. A., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/L25 , 830, L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/830/2/l25 2016

  51. [56]

    A., Quataert E., 2017a, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/aa6bb1 , 19, 055005

    Squire J., Schekochihin A. A., Quataert E., 2017a, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/aa6bb1 , 19, 055005

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa6bb1

  52. [57]

    Squire J., Kunz M., Quataert E., Schekochihin A., 2017b, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/physrevlett.119.155101 , 119

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.155101

  53. [58]

    Squire J., Kunz M., Arzamasskiy L., Johnston Z., Quataert E., Schekochihin A., 2023, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377823000727 , 89, 905890417

    doi:10.1017/s0022377823000727 2023

  54. [59]

    A., Dolag K., Beck A

    Stasyszyn F. A., Dolag K., Beck A. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428...13S 428, 13

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts018 2013

  55. [60]

    P., Böss L

    Steinwandel U. P., Böss L. M., Dolag K., Lesch H., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac715c , 933, 131

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac715c 2022

  56. [61]

    P., Dolag K., Böss L

    Steinwandel U. P., Dolag K., Böss L. M., Marin-Gilabert T., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39ee , 967, 125

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad39ee 2024

  57. [62]

    Subramanian K., Shukurov A., Haugen N. E. L., 2006, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09918.x , 366, 1437

    arXiv 2006

  58. [63]

    Suzuki K., Ogawa T., Matsumoto Y., Matsumoto R., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/175 , 768, 175

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/175 2013

  59. [64]

    Tevlin L., et al., 2025, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452823 , 701, A114

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452823 2025

  60. [65]

    arXiv:2507.04727

    Vazza F., Brunetti G., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.04727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250704727V p. arXiv:2507.04727

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.04727 2025

  61. [66]

    Vazza F., Roediger E., Brüggen M., 2012, @doi [Astronomy &; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118688 , 544, A103

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118688 2012

  62. [67]

    Vazza F., Brunetti G., Br \"u ggen M., Bonafede A., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.1672V 474, 1672

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2830

  63. [68]

    W., Eckert D., Brüggen M., Brunetti G., Gheller C., 2018b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly172 , 481, L120–L124

    Vazza F., Angelinelli M., Jones T. W., Eckert D., Brüggen M., Brunetti G., Gheller C., 2018b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly172 , 481, L120–L124

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly172

  64. [69]

    S., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/319126 , 549, L47–L50

    Vikhlinin A., Markevitch M., Murray S. S., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/319126 , 549, L47–L50

    work page doi:10.1086/319126 2001

  65. [70]

    Wendland H., 1995, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 4, 389

    1995

  66. [71]

    XRISM Collaboration et al., 2025b, Disentangling Multiple Gas Kinematic Drivers in the Perseus Galaxy Cluster ( @eprint arXiv 2509.04421 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.04421

    arXiv

  67. [72]

    XRISM Collaboration et al., 2025a, XRISM forecast for the Coma cluster: stormy, with a steep power spectrum ( @eprint arXiv 2504.20928 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20928

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  68. [73]

    XRISM Collaboration et al., 2025c, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan] 10.1093/pasj/psaf055 , 77, S242

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf055

  69. [74]

    XRISM Collaboration et al., 2025d, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-024-08561-z , 638, 365–369

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08561-z

  70. [75]

    XRISM Collaboration et al., 2025e, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ada7cd , 982, L5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada7cd 2041

  71. [76]

    XRISM Collaboration et al., 2025f, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae100c , 993, L11

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae100c 2041

  72. [77]

    A., Roediger E., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/s0022377816000544 , 82

    ZuHone J. A., Roediger E., 2016, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/s0022377816000544 , 82

    doi:10.1017/s0022377816000544 2016

  73. [78]

    A., Kunz M

    ZuHone J. A., Kunz M. W., Markevitch M., Stone J. M., Biffi V., 2015, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...90Z 798, 90

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/2/90 2015

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