Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Large eddy simulations in astrophysics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that explicit subgrid-scale closures derived from spatial filtering of the compressible fluid equations are physically better motivated and more accurate than relying on numerical truncation error, with concrete payoffs i

desk verdict A competent, honest survey of one research program's LES methodology; useful as a reference and textbook-style overview, not a new result, with a load-bearing but openly acknowledged ILES-as-DNS calibration assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06801 v1 pith:QI3N4LGG submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.GA

Wolfram Schmidt-Brückner This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords largeeddysimulationsubgrid-scalemodelingastrophysicalturbulencecompressibleMHDimplicitstarformationefficiencyturbulentdynamoclosurecoefficients
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 is a review of large eddy simulation (LES) for astrophysical flows, where Reynolds numbers are so high that direct numerical simulation is infeasible. The paper's thesis is that unresolved turbulent eddies should be represented by subgrid-scale (SGS) closures derived from spatial filtering, rather than left to numerical truncation errors. It develops the filtered compressible Navier–Stokes and MHD equations, presents the standard closures (Smagorinsky, SGS turbulence energy, and nonlinear structural models), and explains how closure coefficients can be calibrated and validated. If the thesis is right, astrophysical simulations can extract reliable turbulent velocity dispersions, make star formation efficiency a predicted rather than prescribed quantity, and achieve numerical convergence for small-scale dynamo amplification of magnetic fields.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the spatial low-pass filter applied to the compressible Navier–Stokes and MHD equations. Filtering produces the SGS turbulence stress tensor and the SGS electromotive force, whose transport must be closed. The review's workhorse is the Germano identity, which relates stresses at two filter levels and underlies both dynamic coefficient determination and a priori validation; the main predictive instruments are the one-equation SGS turbulence energy model, its Smagorinsky equilibrium limit, and nonlinear structural closures obtained by approximate deconvolution of the filter kernel. The closure coefficients C1, C2, Cν, Cκ and the EMF coefficient are calibrated by hierarchical f

What would settle it

Take a high-resolution ILES of forced compressible turbulence, apply explicit Gaussian filters at several lengths, and calculate the true SGS energy flux from the filtered fields. If the calibrated generalized closure (C1≈0.02, C2≈0.7) does not reproduce the flux with high correlation in a new simulation, or if coefficients drift with filter length, the scale-separation claim is falsified. For the binary neutron star case, rerun the same setup with the a priori coefficient values instead of boosted ones; if field amplification no longer converges, the claim that scale-separated closures are be

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the turbulent stresses coupling resolved and unresolved scales can be computed from scale separation and testable closures, and that this is a physically better-motivated and more accurate approximation than the purely numerical dissipation inherent in implicit large eddy simulations. Concretely, the review reports that an SGS turbulence energy equation gives consistent turbulent velocity dispersions in cosmological simulations, that SGS-based turbulent star formation efficiencies reproduce observed Kennicutt–Schmidt relations without being imposed, and that a relativistic structural MHD SGS model, with coefficients tuned for the problem, produced the first converge

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that numerical discretization behaves like an implicit low-pass filter with diffusion-like truncation error, so implicit LES data can stand in for direct numerical simulation data when calibrating and validating SGS closures; if the filter-to-grid mapping is inaccurate, the fitted closure coefficients lose their grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Turbulent velocity dispersions can be read off the SGS turbulence energy variable, giving a resolution-aware observable for cosmological and galaxy simulations instead of ad-hoc estimates.
  • Star formation efficiency becomes a local function of turbulence (Mach number and virial parameter) rather than a constant, changing when disks form and how bursty star formation is.
  • AMR simulations can exchange energy between resolved and SGS energy reservoirs at refinement boundaries, avoiding spurious numerical heating and cooling.
  • With sufficient explicit filtering, structural MHD closures reproduce higher-order statistics of small-scale dynamo action, and in binary neutron star mergers the saturated magnetic field becomes converged at lower resolution.
  • In strongly diffusive low-order solvers explicit SGS terms remain secondary; their benefit grows with low-dissipation high-order and mesh-free methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer the SGS approach will matter most in the regime the review identifies as marginal: high-order, low-dissipation schemes and particle/mesh-free codes, where numerical diffusion no longer dominates; the binary neutron star result is a preview.
  • A testable extension is to re-run the binary neutron star merger LES with dynamically computed rather than boosted closure coefficients, checking whether the converged amplification survives; the review notes the generalized dynamic procedure for both C1 and C2 has not yet been applied.
  • The same structural EMF closure could be tried in other small-scale dynamo settings, such as protogalactic halos and the interstellar medium, using low-dissipation schemes; earlier attempts with diffusive solvers showed no clear trend, which the review attributes to competition with numerical diffusion.
  • If the implicit-filter-to-grid mapping is taken literally, fitted coefficients should be scale-invariant; repeating the least-squares calibration on much higher-resolution ILES would test whether C1≈0.02 and C2≈0.7 are universal or artifacts of that mapping.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review presents the filtering formalism for compressible Navier-Stokes, co-moving cosmological, and MHD equations; reviews the Smagorinsky, SGS turbulence-energy, and structural closures; and discusses coefficient calibration via hierarchical filtering, dynamic procedures, and global least squares. It surveys applications to type Ia supernova deflagration, galaxy star formation, cluster turbulence, metal mixing, and neutron-star merger dynamos. The author's central claim is that scale-separation-based SGS closures are physically better motivated and provide a more accurate approximation than purely numerical truncation errors, while also acknowledging that explicit SGS terms have small effects in diffusive finite-volume codes.

Significance. As an updated review, the paper is useful: it collects the standard derivations in one place, is unusually candid about the negative result that explicit SGS models barely alter resolved statistics in diffusive codes, and it identifies cases where SGS modeling matters, namely mesh-free methods, high-order schemes, and sub-resolution star formation, mixing, and turbulent velocity dispersion. The exposition of the filter hierarchy, Germano identity, and least-squares calibration is detailed and generally correct; spot-checks such as Eq. (83) are numerically consistent. The main risk is that the review's advocacy claims go beyond what its own calibration and validation strategy supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1–§4.3, Eq. (124), and §5.6] The calibration of C1≈0.02, C2≈0.7, Cκ≈0.4 rests on identifying ILES output with a filter level m=I and using τ[n]≈τ[I,n] for filter lengths 16–64Δ. This is an assumption, not a test: footnote 2 concedes that small multiples of the grid are affected by truncation errors, and shock-capturing schemes produce nonlinear, solution-dependent diffusion. No resolution-dependence check is reported. Please add a test (e.g., vary ILES resolution at fixed Δn/L and show the fitted coefficients are stable) or explicitly qualify the concluding claim that these closures are 'testable' and more accurate than numerical truncation errors.
  2. [§5.5 and §5.6] The BNS merger result is presented as 'for the first time' converged magnetic-field amplification, but the text states that the SGS coefficients were 'boosted' and that convergence was achieved 'with some tuning of model parameters.' This is a proof of principle that SGS source terms can improve convergence, not a validation of the a priori derived closures of Sections 3–4. The review should separate these claims; as written, Figure 18 is cited in support of the concluding claim without acknowledging that the underlying coefficients were not those determined in Section 4.3.
  3. [§5.6] The concluding claim that scale-separation-based closures provide 'a more accurate approximation than purely numerical truncation errors' is broader than the evidence summarized in the same section. The review repeatedly states that resolved statistics, energy spectra, and structure functions are not sensitive to explicit SGS models in diffusive codes, while the successful applications are for sub-resolution diagnostics (K, σ_turb, metal mixing, star formation efficiency) or for tuned models (BNS). These diagnostics are not independently validated against DNS or observations. I recommend narrowing the conclusion to distinguish 'better motivated subgrid description' from 'more accurate resolved flow prediction.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and formatting errors: 'sale' for scale in §1, 'erros' in footnote 2, 'specfiy' after Eq. (24), 'the the denstrophy' in the Fig. 2 caption, and repeated 'Eqs..' double periods.
  2. [§3.5, after Eq. (107)] 'The first term on the left-hand side' should read 'the first term on the right-hand side.'
  3. [§3.5 vs. §5.6] The text says the structural model is 'the only subgrid-scale model applied to astrophysical flows with magnetic fields,' but §5.6 discusses the ad hoc alpha-dynamo SGS model of Liu et al. (2022). Please qualify or correct this statement.
  4. [§3.3] 'Rankine-Hugeniot' should be 'Rankine-Hugoniot.'
  5. [References] LaTeX accent artifacts (e.g., 'Vigan` o') and inconsistent arXiv/journal formatting should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the ILES-based calibration is disclosed as an assumption, not hidden as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central methodology is a review of LES closures; it does not present a derivation where a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. In Section 4.1, the ILES-as-filter mapping is stated explicitly: 'Let us further assume that the implicit filter of an ILES corresponds to the filter level m=I'. This is an assumption, and the paper itself notes its limits in footnote 2: 'small multiples of the grid can be significantly affected by numerical truncation errors'. The closure coefficients C1≈0.02 and C2≈0.7 are obtained by global least-squares fits to ILES data (Section 4.3), and the paper openly describes this as 'calibration' and 'determination of closure coefficients', not as an out-of-sample prediction. The a posteriori comparisons against ILES are consistency checks of the same modeling framework, not a hidden reuse of the fitted target. The structural MHD closures (Section 3.5) are derived from a Gaussian filter expansion (Eqs. 101–107) rather than from the fitted coefficients, providing independent content. The binary-neutron-star merger result is explicitly qualified: 'With some tuning of the model parameters, they achieved converged magnetic field amplification' (Section 5.6). Thus, while the ILES-as-DNS premise is a legitimate correctness/validity risk, no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review rests almost entirely on the author's own published models. The central closures depend on coefficients either fitted to the author's ILES data (C1, C2, Cnu, Ckappa) or chosen by hand (Ct, Cstar, boosted merger coefficients). The a priori calibration and a posteriori validation both use ILES data, whose filter interpretation is itself an assumption of the framework. No code or data accompanies the review.

free parameters (6)
  • C1 and C2, generalized two-coefficient closure = C1 ~ 0.02, C2 ~ 0.7
    Fit by global least squares to the author's own supersonic ILES data (Sect. 4.3, Eqs. 138-141); presented as robust values for LES.
  • Cnu, eddy-viscosity coefficient = 0.05 from hierarchical filtering, 0.14 from least squares
    Calibrated on the author's ILES of forced compressible turbulence (Sects. 4.1, 4.3); the two methods disagree by a factor of roughly 3.
  • Ckappa, gradient-diffusion coefficient = 0.4
    From hierarchical filtering of the author's ILES data (Sect. 4.1); implies turbulent Prandtl number around 10.
  • Ct, turbulent flame speed coefficient = 4/3
    Chosen by hand to recover the expected flame speed in the strongly turbulent regime (Sect. 5.1, Eq. 142).
  • Cstar, supernova feedback coefficient = unspecified
    Controls the effective feedback time scale in Eq. (144); no calibrated value is reported (Sect. 5.2).
  • Boosted SGS dynamo coefficients in merger LES = unspecified
    In the neutron star merger application, coefficients for magnetic amplification were boosted while diffusive fluxes were reduced or neglected; the review describes this as tuning (Sect. 5.5).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov scaling holds locally down to the filter scale, so dissipation is epsilon = C_epsilon K^(3/2)/Delta
    Adopted for the dissipation closure (Sect. 3.2, Eq. 84); the review says it is 'commonly assumed'.
  • domain assumption Numerical discretization acts as an implicit low-pass filter and numerical viscosity approximates grid-scale turbulent viscosity
    Foundational for ILES and for calibrating closures against ILES data (Sect. 1, Sect. 4.1); footnote 2 concedes truncation errors distort small resolved scales.
  • domain assumption Gradient-diffusion hypothesis (Fick's law) applies to SGS transport of kinetic energy, heat, and metals
    Closure in Eqs. (89) and (109)-(110); the review notes Pope's critique that turbulent transport is not gradient-aligned (Sect. 3.6).
  • standard math Filter commutation with derivatives and the Germano identity
    Basis of the filtered equations and the dynamic procedures (Sect. 2, Sect. 4.2); standard LES theory.
  • domain assumption Scale locality of energy transfer in turbulence
    Used to argue ILES reproduces inertial-range statistics and SGS effects are small (Sect. 5.6); the review admits locality is limited for MHD with a small-scale dynamo.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large eddy simulations in astrophysics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QI3N4LGG

@misc{pith2026250906801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large eddy simulations in astrophysics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QI3N4LGG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06801}
}
read the original abstract

In this review, the methodology of large eddy simulations (LES) is introduced and applications in astrophysics are discussed. As theoretical framework, the scale decomposition of the dynamical equations for compressible neutral fluids by means of spatial filtering is explained. For cosmological applications, the filtered equations in co-moving coordinates are formulated. Moreover, the decomposition is extended to magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). While energy is dissipated through numerical diffusivities in implicit large eddy simulations (ILES), explicit subgrid-scale (SGS) models are applied in LES to compute energy dissipation, mixing, and dynamo action due to numerically unresolved turbulent eddies. The most commonly used models in astrophysics are the Smagorinsky model, the hydrodynamical SGS turbulence energy equation model, and the non-linear structural model for both non-relativistic and relativistic MHD. Model validation is carried out a priori by testing correlations between model and data for specific terms or a posteriori by comparing turbulence statistics in LES and ILES. Since most solvers in astrophysical simulation codes have significant numerical diffusion, the additional effect of SGS models is generally small. However, convergence with resolution increases in some cases. A recent example is magnetic field amplification in binary neutron star mergers. For mesh-free codes, it has been shown that explicit modelling of turbulent diffusion of metals has a significant impact. Moreover, SGS models can help to compute the turbulent velocity dispersion consistently and to parameterize sub-resolution processes that are influenced by turbulence, such as the star formation efficiency in galaxy simulations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SPH methods in the modelling of compact objects

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    An updated expert review of Newtonian and general-relativistic SPH for compact-object mergers, arguing that modern SPH variants with better kernels, steered dissipation and reproducing gradients match grid-based codes...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

157 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Phys Rev D 102(10):103006

    Aguilera-Miret R, Vigan \`o D, Carrasco F, et al (2020) Turbulent magnetic-field amplification in the first 10 milliseconds after a binary neutron star merger: Comparing high-resolution and large-eddy simulations. Phys Rev D 102(10):103006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103006

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.103006 2020

  2. [2]

    926(2):L31

    Aguilera-Miret R, Vigan \`o D, Palenzuela C (2022) Universality of the turbulent magnetic field in hypermassive neutron stars produced by binary mergers . 926(2):L31. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a7 2022

  3. [3]

    Phys Rev D 108(10):103001

    Aguilera-Miret R, Palenzuela C, Carrasco F, et al (2023) Role of turbulence and winding in the development of large-scale, strong magnetic fields in long-lived remnants of binary neutron star mergers. Phys Rev D 108(10):103001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.103001 2023

  4. [4]

    Almgren AS, Bell JB, Lijewski MJ, et al (2013) Nyx: A massively parallel AMR code for computational cosmology. 765:39. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/39

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/39 2013

  5. [5]

    Phys Rev Lett 106:174502

    Aluie H (2011) Compressible turbulence: The cascade and its locality. Phys Rev Lett 106:174502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.174502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.174502 2011

  6. [6]

    Physica D 247:54--65

    Aluie H (2013) Scale decomposition in compressible turbulence. Physica D 247:54--65. doi:10.1016/j.physd.2012.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physd.2012.12.009 2013

  7. [7]

    Phys Fluids p 075107

    Balarac G, Le Sommer J, Meunier X, et al (2013) A dynamic regularized gradient model of the subgrid-scale scalar flux for large eddy simulations. Phys Fluids p 075107. doi:10.1063/1.4813812

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4813812 2013

  8. [8]

    arXiv e-prints https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16626 2405.16626 [astro-ph]

    Beattie JR, Federrath C, Klessen RS, et al (2024) Magnetized compressible turbulence with a fluctuation dynamo and Reynolds numbers over a million. arXiv e-prints https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16626 2405.16626 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 157 references
  1. [9]

    J Chem Phys 82:64--84

    Berger MJ, Colella P (1989) Local adaptive mesh refinement for shock hydrodynamics. J Chem Phys 82:64--84. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(89)90035-1

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    J Chem Phys 53:484--512

    Berger MJ, Oliger J (1984) Adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic partial differential equations. J Chem Phys 53:484--512. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90073-1

    1984 doi

  3. [11]

    395:140--157

    Bertoldi F, McKee CF (1992) Pressure-confined clumps in magnetized molecular clouds. 395:140--157. doi:10.1086/171638

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    968(2):86

    Bland-Hawthorn J, Tepper-Garcia T, Agertz O, et al (2024) Turbulent gas-rich disks at high redshift: B ars & bulges in a radial shear flow. 968(2):86. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Adv Sci Lett 4:204--227

    Borgani S, Kravtsov A (2011) Cosmological simulations of galaxy clusters. Adv Sci Lett 4:204--227. doi:10.1166/asl.2011.1209

    2011

  6. [14]

    Pr\'esent\'es par divers savants Acad

    Boussinesq J (1877) Essai sur la th \'e orie des eaux courantes, M\'em. Pr\'esent\'es par divers savants Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr., vol 23. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris

  7. [15]

    61(Volume 61, 2023):561--606

    Brandenburg A, Ntormousi E (2023) Galactic dynamos. 61(Volume 61, 2023):561--606. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Phys Rep 417:1--209

    Brandenburg A, Subramanian K (2005) Astrophysical magnetic fields and nonlinear dynamo theory. Phys Rep 417:1--209. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405052 astro-ph/0405052

    2005 arXiv

  9. [18]

    454(2):1545--1555

    Braun H, Schmidt W (2015) The small and the beautiful: how the star formation law affects galactic disc structure . 454(2):1545--1555. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1856 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    442(4):3407--3426

    Braun H, Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC, et al (2014) Large-eddy simulations of isolated disc galaxies with thermal and turbulent feedback . 442(4):3407--3426. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1119

    2014 doi

  11. [20]

    Astron Nachr 334:543

    Br \"u ggen M (2013) Magnetic fields in galaxy clusters. Astron Nachr 334:543. doi:10.1002/asna.201311895

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    In: Lazarian A, de Gouveia Dal Pino EM, Melioli C (eds) Magnetic Fields in Diffuse Media

    Br \"u ggen M, Vazza F (2015) Turbulence in the intracluster medium. In: Lazarian A, de Gouveia Dal Pino EM, Melioli C (eds) Magnetic Fields in Diffuse Media. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 599--614, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44625-6_21

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    Plasma Phys Control Fusion 49:325

    B \"u chner J (2007) Astrophysical reconnection and collisionless dissipation. Plasma Phys Control Fusion 49:325. doi:10.1088/0741-3335/49/12B/S30

    2007 doi

  14. [23]

    Phys Fluids 22:125104

    Cahuzac A, Boudet J, Borgnat P, et al (2010) Smoothing algorithms for mean-flow extraction in large-eddy simulation of complex turbulent flows. Phys Fluids 22:125104. doi:10.1063/1.3490063

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    J Phys: Conf Ser 318:042047

    Cahuzac A, Boudet J, Borgnat P, et al (2011) Dynamic Kalman filtering to separate low-frequency instabilities from turbulent fluctuations: Application to the large-eddy simulation of unsteady turbulent flows. J Phys: Conf Ser 318:042047. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/318/4/042047

    2011 doi

  16. [25]

    428:729--752

    Canuto VM (1994) Large eddy simulation of turbulence: A subgrid scale model including shear, vorticity, rotation, and buoyancy. 428:729--752. doi:10.1086/174281

    1994 doi

  17. [26]

    Canuto VM (1997) Compressible turbulence. 482:827. doi:10.1086/304175

    1997 doi

  18. [27]

    Phys Rev D 101(6):063003

    Carrasco F, Vigan \`o D, Palenzuela C (2020) Gradient subgrid-scale model for relativistic MHD large-eddy simulations. Phys Rev D 101(6):063003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063003

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    Ciaraldi-Schoolmann F, Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC, et al (2009) Turbulence in a three-dimensional deflagration model for type Ia supernovae. I . S caling properties. 696:1491--1497. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1491

    2009 doi

  20. [29]

    numerical implementation

    Ciaraldi-Schoolmann F, Seitenzahl IR, R \"o pke FK (2013) A subgrid-scale model for deflagration-to-detonation transitions in type Ia supernova explosion simulations. numerical implementation. 559:A117. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321480

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    J Chem Phys 54:174--201

    Colella P, Woodward PR (1984) The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) for gas-dynamical simulations. J Chem Phys 54:174--201. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

    1984 doi

  22. [31]

    Phys Rev E 68:26304

    Dobler W, Haugen NE, Yousef TA, et al (2003) Bottleneck effect in three-dimensional turbulence simulations. Phys Rev E 68:26304. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.026304

    2003 doi

  23. [32]

    Space Sci Rev 134:311--335

    Dolag K, Bykov AM, Diaferio A (2008) Non-thermal processes in cosmological simulations. Space Sci Rev 134:311--335. doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9319-2

    2008 doi

  24. [33]

    482(4):4654--4672

    Engels JF, Schmidt W, Niemeyer J (2019) Modelling turbulent effects of stellar feedback in cosmological simulations. 482(4):4654--4672. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3037

    2019 doi

  25. [35]

    Phys Fluids 6:1411--1414

    Falkovich G (1994) Bottleneck phenomenon in developed turbulence. Phys Fluids 6:1411--1414. doi:10.1063/1.868255

    1994 doi

  26. [36]

    436(2):1245--1257

    Federrath C (2013) On the universality of supersonic turbulence. 436(2):1245--1257. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1644

    2013 doi

  27. [37]

    450(4):4035--4042

    Federrath C (2015) Inefficient star formation through turbulence, magnetic fields and feedback . 450(4):4035--4042. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv941

    2015 doi

  28. [38]

    Federrath C, Klessen RS (2012) The star formation rate of turbulent magnetized clouds: Comparing theory, simulations, and observations. 761:156. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    2012 doi

  29. [39]

    S olenoidal versus compressive turbulence forcing

    Federrath C, Roman-Duval J, Klessen RS, et al (2010) Comparing the statistics of interstellar turbulence in simulations and observations. S olenoidal versus compressive turbulence forcing. 512:A81. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    2010 doi

  30. [40]

    Nature Astronomy 5:365--371

    Federrath C, Klessen RS, Iapichino L, et al (2021) The sonic scale of interstellar turbulence . Nature Astronomy 5:365--371. doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01282-z

    2021 doi

  31. [41]

    Space Sci Rev 134:93--118

    Ferrari C, Govoni F, Schindler S, et al (2008) Observations of extended radio emission in clusters. Space Sci Rev 134:93--118. doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9311-x

    2008 doi

  32. [42]

    Frisch U (1995) Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York

    1995

  33. [43]

    Phys Rev Lett 107:134501

    Galtier S, Banerjee S (2011) Exact relation for correlation functions in compressible isothermal turbulence. Phys Rev Lett 107:134501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.134501

    2011 doi

  34. [44]

    Scientific Computation, Springer, Berlin; New York, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8

    Garnier E, Adams N, Sagaut P (2009) Large Eddy Simulation for Compressible Flows. Scientific Computation, Springer, Berlin; New York, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8

    2009 doi

  35. [45]

    J Fluid Mech 238:325--336

    Germano M (1992) Turbulence: the filtering approach. J Fluid Mech 238:325--336. doi:10.1017/S0022112092001733

    1992 doi

  36. [46]

    Phys Fluids 3:1760--1765

    Germano M, Piomelli U, Moin P, et al (1991) A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model. Phys Fluids 3:1760--1765. doi:10.1063/1.857955

    1991 doi

  37. [47]

    J Fluid Mech 286:229--255

    Ghosal S, Lund TS, Moin P, et al (1995) A dynamic localization model for large-eddy simulation of turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 286:229--255. doi:10.1017/S0022112095000711

    1995 doi

  38. [48]

    697:55--67

    Gnedin NY, Tassis K, Kravtsov AV (2009) Modeling molecular hydrogen and star formation in cosmological simulations. 697:55--67. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/55

    2009 doi

  39. [49]

    Grete P, Vlaykov DG, Schmidt W, et al (2016) A nonlinear structural subgrid-scale closure for compressible MHD . II . A priori comparison on turbulence simulation data. Phys Plasmas 23(6):062317. doi:10.1063/1.4954304

    2016 doi

  40. [50]

    Phys Plasmas 24(9):092311

    Grete P, O'Shea BW, Beckwith K, et al (2017) Energy transfer in compressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence . Phys Plasmas 24(9):092311. doi:10.1063/1.4990613

    2017 doi

  41. [51]

    Phys Rev E 95(3):033206

    Grete P, Vlaykov DG, Schmidt W, et al (2017) Comparative statistics of selected subgrid-scale models in large-eddy simulations of decaying, supersonic magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. Phys Rev E 95(3):033206. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.95.033206

    2017 doi

  42. [52]

    487(4):4525--4535

    Grete P, Latif MA, Schleicher DRG, et al (2019) Intermittent fragmentation and statistical variations during gas collapse in magnetized atomic cooling haloes. 487(4):4525--4535. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1568

    2019 doi

  43. [53]

    942(2):L34

    Grete P, O'Shea BW, Beckwith K (2023) As a matter of dynamical range - scale dependent energy dynamics in MHD turbulence . 942(2):L34. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaea7

    2023 doi

  44. [54]

    Phys Fluids 18:075106

    Haugen NEL, Brandenburg A (2006) Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic energy spectra from large eddy simulations. Phys Fluids 18:075106. doi:10.1063/1.2222399

    2006 doi

  45. [55]

    Heitmann K, Ricker PM, Warren MS, et al (2005) Robustness of cosmological simulations. I . L arge-scale structure. 160:28--58. doi:10.1086/432646

    2005 doi

  46. [56]

    Hennebelle P, Chabrier G (2011) Analytical star formation rate from gravoturbulent fragmentation. 743:L29. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29

    2011 doi

  47. [57]

    Hennebelle P, Falgarone E (2012) Turbulent molecular clouds. 20:55. doi:10.1007/s00159-012-0055-y

    2012 doi

  48. [58]

    Springer, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78961-1

    Hillebrandt W, Kupka F (2009) Interdisciplinary Aspects of Turbulence , Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 756. Springer, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78961-1

    2009 doi

  49. [59]

    Front Phys 8:116--143

    Hillebrandt W, Kromer M, R \"o pke FK, et al (2013) Towards an understanding of type Ia supernovae from a synthesis of theory and observations. Front Phys 8:116--143. doi:10.1007/s11467-013-0303-2

    2013 doi

  50. [60]

    445(1):581--603

    Hopkins PF, Kere s D, O \ n orbe J, et al (2014) Galaxies on FIRE (Feedback In Realistic Environments): stellar feedback explains cosmologically inefficient star formation . 445(1):581--603. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    2014 doi

  51. [61]

    414:2297--2308

    Iapichino L, Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC, et al (2011) Turbulence production and turbulent pressure support in the intergalactic medium. 414:2297--2308. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18550.x

    2011

  52. [62]

    432:2529--2540

    Iapichino L, Viel M, Borgani S (2013) Turbulence driven by structure formation in the circumgalactic medium. 432:2529--2540. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt611

    2013 doi

  53. [63]

    In: Alsabti AW, Murdin P (eds) Handbook of Supernovae

    Jha SW (2017) Type Iax supernovae. In: Alsabti AW, Murdin P (eds) Handbook of Supernovae. Springer, Cham, p 375--401, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_42

    2017 doi

  54. [64]

    704:137--149

    Joung MR, Mac Low MM, Bryan GL (2009) Dependence of interstellar turbulent pressure on supernova rate. 704:137--149. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/137

    2009 doi

  55. [65]

    Khokhlov AM, Oran ES, Wheeler JC (1997) Deflagration-to-detonation transition in thermonuclear supernovae. 478:678. doi:10.1086/303815

    1997 doi

  56. [66]

    Kim Jh, Agertz O, Teyssier R, et al (2016) The AGORA high-resolution galaxy simulations comparison project. II . Isolated disk test. 833:202. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202

    2016 doi

  57. [67]

    Int J Numer Meth Fluids 31:983--1017

    Kim WW, Menon S (1999) An unsteady incompressible navier-stokes solver for large eddy simulation of turbulent flows. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 31:983--1017. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0363(19991130)31:6<983::AID-FLD908>3.0.CO;2-Q

    1999 doi

  58. [68]

    J Atmos Sci 33:1521--1536

    Kraichnan RH (1976) Eddy viscosity in two and three dimensions. J Atmos Sci 33:1521--1536. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033<1521:EVITAT>2.0.CO;2

    1976 doi

  59. [69]

    50:353--409

    Kravtsov AV, Borgani S (2012) Formation of galaxy clusters. 50:353--409. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    2012 doi

  60. [70]

    665:416--431

    Kritsuk AG, Norman ML, Padoan P, et al (2007) The statistics of supersonic isothermal turbulence. 665:416--431. doi:10.1086/519443

    2007 doi

  61. [71]

    J Fluid Mech 729:R1

    Kritsuk AG, Wagner R, Norman ML (2013) Energy cascade and scaling in supersonic isothermal turbulence. J Fluid Mech 729:R1. doi:10.1017/jfm.2013.342

    2013 doi

  62. [72]

    630:250--268

    Krumholz MR, McKee CF (2005) A general theory of turbulence-regulated star formation, from spirals to ultraluminous infrared galaxies. 630:250--268. doi:10.1086/431734

    2005 doi

  63. [73]

    699:850--856

    Krumholz MR, McKee CF, Tumlinson J (2009) The star formation law in atomic and molecular gas. 699:850--856. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/850, https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0009 arXiv:0904.0009

    2009 arXiv

  64. [74]

    433(2):1607--1618

    Latif MA, Schleicher DRG, Schmidt W, et al (2013 a ) Black hole formation in the early Universe . 433(2):1607--1618. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt834

    2013 doi

  65. [75]

    432(1):668--678

    Latif MA, Schleicher DRG, Schmidt W, et al (2013 b ) The small-scale dynamo and the amplification of magnetic fields in massive primordial haloes . 432(1):668--678. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt503

    2013 doi

  66. [76]

    J Fluid Mech 570:491--502

    L \'e v \^e que E, Toschi F, Shao L, et al (2007) Shear-improved Smagorinsky model for large-eddy simulation of wall-bounded turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 570:491--502. doi:10.1017/S0022112006003429

    2007 doi

  67. [77]

    J Fluid Mech 275:83--119

    Liu S, Meneveau C, Katz J (1994) On the properties of similarity subgrid-scale models as deduced from measurements in a turbulent jet. J Fluid Mech 275:83--119. doi:10.1017/S0022112094002296

    1994 doi

  68. [78]

    513(4):6028--6041

    Liu Y, Kretschmer M, Teyssier R (2022) A subgrid turbulent mean-field dynamo model for cosmological galaxy formation simulations. 513(4):6028--6041. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1266

    2022 doi

  69. [79]

    707:40--54

    Maier A, Iapichino L, Schmidt W, et al (2009) Adaptively refined large eddy simulations of a galaxy cluster: Turbulence modeling and the physics of the intracluster medium. 707:40--54. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/40

    2009 doi

  70. [80]

    Malone CM, Nonaka A, Woosley SE, et al (2014) The deflagration stage of chandrasekhar mass models for type ia supernovae. I . E arly evolution. 782:11. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/11, https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4042 arXiv:1309.4042

    2014 arXiv

  71. [81]

    523(7558):59--62

    Miniati F, Beresnyak A (2015) Self-similar energetics in large clusters of galaxies . 523(7558):59--62. doi:10.1038/nature14552

    2015 doi

  72. [82]

    Phys Fluids 3:2746--2757

    Moin P, Squires K, Cabot W, et al (1991) A dynamic subgrid-scale model for compressible turbulence and scalar transport. Phys Fluids 3:2746--2757. doi:10.1063/1.858164

    1991 doi

  73. [83]

    447(1):178--201

    Murante G, Monaco P, Borgani S, et al (2014) Simulating realistic disc galaxies with a novel sub-resolution ISM model . 447(1):178--201. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2400

    2014 doi

  74. [84]

    490(3):3234--3261

    Nelson D, Pillepich A, Springel V, et al (2019) First results from the TNG50 simulation: galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback. 490(3):3234--3261. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2019 doi

  75. [85]

    Niemeyer JC, Hillebrandt W (1995) Turbulent nuclear flames in type Ia supernovae. 452:769. doi:10.1086/176345

    1995 doi

  76. [86]

    New Astron 2:239--244

    Niemeyer JC, Kerstein AR (1997) Burning regimes of nuclear flames in SN Ia explosions. New Astron 2:239--244. doi:10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00017-1

    1997 doi

  77. [87]

    Nonaka A, Aspden AJ, Zingale M, et al (2012) High-resolution simulations of convection preceding ignition in type Ia supernovae using adaptive mesh refinement. 745:73. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/73

    2012 doi

  78. [88]

    J Chem Phys 79:12--49

    Osher S, Sethian JA (1988) Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: Algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulations. J Chem Phys 79:12--49. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(88)90002-2

    1988 doi

  79. [89]

    576(2):870

    Padoan P, Nordlund (2002) The stellar initial mass function from turbulent fragmentation. 576(2):870. doi:10.1086/341790

    2002 doi

  80. [90]

    730(1):40

    Padoan P, Nordlund (2011) The star formation rate of supersonic magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. 730(1):40. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40

    2011 doi

  81. [91]

    Padoan P, Haugb lle T, Nordlund (2012) A simple law of star formation. 759:L27. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L27

    2012 doi

  82. [92]

    Phys Rev D 106(2):023013

    Palenzuela C, Aguilera-Miret R, Carrasco F, et al (2022 a ) Turbulent magnetic field amplification in binary neutron star mergers. Phys Rev D 106(2):023013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023013

    2022 doi

  83. [93]

    Phys Rev D 105(10):103020

    Palenzuela C, Liebling S, Mi \ n ano B (2022 b ) Large eddy simulations of magnetized mergers of neutron stars with neutrinos. Phys Rev D 105(10):103020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103020

    2022 doi

  84. [94]

    Phys Rev Lett 102:034501

    Pan L, Padoan P, Kritsuk AG (2009) Dissipative structures in supersonic turbulence. Phys Rev Lett 102:034501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.034501

    2009 doi

  85. [95]

    422(1):704--718

    Parrish IJ, McCourt M, Quataert E, et al (2012) The effects of anisotropic viscosity on turbulence and heat transport in the intracluster medium . 422(1):704--718. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20650.x

    2012

  86. [96]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York

    Peacock JA (1999) Cosmological Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York

    1999

  87. [97]

    J Fluid Mech 384:107--132

    Peters N (1999) The turbulent burning velocity for large-scale and small-scale turbulence. J Fluid Mech 384:107--132. doi:10.1017/S0022112098004212

    1999 doi

  88. [98]

    Phys Fluids 5:1484--1490

    Piomelli U (1993) High Reynolds number calculations using the dynamic subgrid-scale stress model. Phys Fluids 5:1484--1490. doi:10.1063/1.858586

    1993 doi

  89. [99]

    Phys Fluids 7:839--848

    Piomelli U, Liu J (1995) Large-eddy simulation of rotating channel flows using a localized dynamic model. Phys Fluids 7:839--848. doi:10.1063/1.868607

    1995 doi

  90. [100]

    Phys Rev E 49:1109--1122

    Pocheau A (1994) Scale invariance in turbulent front propagation. Phys Rev E 49:1109--1122. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.49.1109

    1994 doi

  91. [101]

    Science 366(6465):eaau7365

    Poludnenko AY, Chambers J, Ahmed K, et al (2019) A unified mechanism for unconfined deflagration-to-detonation transition in terrestrial chemical systems and type Ia supernovae. Science 366(6465):eaau7365. doi:10.1126/science.aau7365

    2019 doi

  92. [102]

    Open J Astrophys 7:114

    Polzin A, Kravtsov AV, Semenov VA, et al (2024) On the universality of star formation efficiency in galaxies . Open J Astrophys 7:114. doi:10.33232/001c.127042

    2024 doi

  93. [103]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York

    Pope SB (2000) Turbulent flows. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York

    2000

  94. [104]

    347:724--733

    Reinecke M, Hillebrandt W, Niemeyer JC, et al (1999) A new model for deflagration fronts in reactive fluids. 347:724--733

    1999

  95. [105]

    391:1167--1172

    Reinecke M, Hillebrandt W, Niemeyer JC (2002) Three-dimensional simulations of type Ia supernovae. 391:1167--1172. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020885

    2002 doi

  96. [106]

    436(2):1836--1851

    Renaud F, Bournaud F, Emsellem E, et al (2013) A sub-parsec resolution simulation of the Milky Way: global structure of the interstellar medium and properties of molecular clouds . 436(2):1836--1851. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1698

    2013 doi

  97. [107]

    506(2):2836--2852

    Rennehan D (2021) Mixing matters. 506(2):2836--2852. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1813

    2021 doi

  98. [108]

    483(3):3810--3831

    Rennehan D, Babul A, Hopkins PF, et al (2019) Dynamic localized turbulent diffusion and its impact on the galactic ecosystem. 483(3):3810--3831. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3376

    2019 doi

  99. [109]

    764(1):60

    Roediger E, Kraft RP, Forman WR, et al (2013) Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities at the sloshing cold fronts in the Virgo cluster as a measure for the effective intracluster medium viscosity. 764(1):60. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/60

    2013 doi

  100. [110]

    doi:10.1086/520830

    R \"o pke FK (2007) Flame-driven deflagration-to-detonation transitions in type Ia supernovae? 668:1103--1108. doi:10.1086/520830

    2007 doi

  101. [111]

    429:L29--L32

    R \"o pke FK, Hillebrandt W (2005) The distributed burning regime in type Ia supernova models. 429:L29--L32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200400100

    2005 doi

  102. [112]

    In: Hillebrandt W, Kupka F (eds) Interdisciplinary Aspects of Turbulence, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 756

    R\"opke FK, Schmidt W (2009) Turbulent combustion in thermonuclear supernoave. In: Hillebrandt W, Kupka F (eds) Interdisciplinary Aspects of Turbulence, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 756. Springer, Berlin; New York, pp 255--289, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78961-1_7

    2009 doi

  103. [113]

    214(4):72

    R \"o pke FK, Sim SA (2018) Models for type Ia supernovae and related astrophysical transients. 214(4):72. doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0503-8

    2018 doi

  104. [114]

    668:1132--1139

    R \"o pke FK, Hillebrandt W, Schmidt W, et al (2007) A three-dimensional deflagration model for type Ia supernovae compared with observations. 668:1132--1139. doi:10.1086/521347

    2007 doi

  105. [115]

    Springer, Berlin; New York, doi:10.1007/b137536

    Sagaut P (2006) Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin; New York, doi:10.1007/b137536

    2006 doi

  106. [117]

    PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics and Department of Physics / Technical University Munich, Garching; Munich

    Schmidt W (2004) Turbulent thermonuclear combustion in degenerate stars. PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics and Department of Physics / Technical University Munich, Garching; Munich

    2004

  107. [118]

    465:263--269

    Schmidt W (2007) On the applicability of the level set method beyond the flamelet regime in thermonuclear supernova simulations. 465:263--269. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066510

    2007 doi

  108. [119]

    528:A106

    Schmidt W, Federrath C (2011) A fluid-dynamical subgrid scale model for highly compressible astrophysical turbulence. 528:A106. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015630

    2011 doi

  109. [120]

    100(4):043116

    Schmidt W, Grete P (2019) Kinetic and internal energy transfer in implicit large-eddy simulations of forced compressible turbulence . 100(4):043116. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.100.043116

    2019 doi

  110. [121]

    446:627--633

    Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC (2006) Thermonuclear supernova simulations with stochastic ignition. 446:627--633. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054145

    2006 doi

  111. [122]

    Comput Fluids 35:353--371

    Schmidt W, Hillebrandt W, Niemeyer JC (2006 a ) Numerical dissipation and the bottleneck effect in simulations of compressible isotropic turbulence. Comput Fluids 35:353--371. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.03.002

    2006 doi

  112. [123]

    Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC, Hillebrandt W (2006 b ) A localised subgrid scale model for fluid dynamical simulations in astrophysics. I . T heory and numerical tests. 450:265--281. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053617

    2006 doi

  113. [124]

    Schmidt W, Niemeyer JC, Hillebrandt W, et al (2006 c ) A localised subgrid scale model for fluid dynamical simulations in astrophysics. II . A pplication to type Ia supernovae. 450:283--294. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053618

    2006 doi

  114. [125]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.194505

    Schmidt W, Federrath C, Klessen R (2008) Is the scaling of supersonic turbulence universal? Phys Rev Lett 101:194505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.194505

    2008 doi

  115. [126]

    Schmidt W, Federrath C, Hupp M, et al (2009) Numerical simulations of compressively driven interstellar turbulence. I . I sothermal gas. 494:127--145. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809967

    2009 doi

  116. [127]

    440:3051--3077

    Schmidt W, Almgren AS, Braun H, et al (2014) Cosmological fluid mechanics with adaptively refined large eddy simulations. 440:3051--3077. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu501

    2014 doi

  117. [128]

    459(1):701--719

    Schmidt W, Engels JF, Niemeyer JC, et al (2016) Hot and turbulent gas in clusters. 459(1):701--719. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw632

    2016 doi

  118. [129]

    470(1):142--156

    Schmidt W, Byrohl C, Engels JF, et al (2017) Viscosity, pressure and support of the gas in simulations of merging cool-core clusters. 470(1):142--156. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1274

    2017 doi

  119. [130]

    654:A115

    Schmidt W, Schmidt JP, Grete P (2021) Turbulence in the intragroup and circumgalactic medium. 654:A115. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140920

    2021 doi

  120. [131]

    Schober J, Schleicher DRG, Klessen RS (2013) Magnetic field amplification in young galaxies. 560:A87. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322185

    2013 doi

  121. [132]

    J Comput Phys 18:376--404

    Schumann U (1975) Subgrid scale model for finite difference simulations of turbulent flows in plane channels and annuli. J Comput Phys 18:376--404. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(75)90093-5

    1975 doi

  122. [133]

    429(2):1156--1172

    Seitenzahl IR, Ciaraldi-Schoolmann F, R \"o pke FK, et al (2012) Three-dimensional delayed-detonation models with nucleosynthesis for type Ia supernovae. 429(2):1156--1172. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts402

    2012 doi

  123. [134]

    arXiv e-prints doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.23339, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23339 2410.23339

    Semenov VA (2024) Capturing turbulence with numerical dissipation: a simple dynamical model for unresolved turbulence in hydrodynamic simulations. arXiv e-prints doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.23339, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23339 2410.23339

    2024 doi

  124. [135]

    826(2):200

    Semenov VA, Kravtsov AV, Gnedin NY (2016) Nonuniversal star formation efficiency in turbulent ISM . 826(2):200. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/200

    2016 doi

  125. [136]

    989(2):219

    Semenov VA, Conroy C, Hernquist L (2025 a ) From UV-bright Galaxies to Early Disks: The Importance of Turbulent Star Formation in the Early Universe . 989(2):219. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade22d

    2025 doi

  126. [137]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addf48

    Semenov VA, Conroy C, Smith A, et al (2025 b ) How Early Could the Milky Way's Disk Form? 990(1):7. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addf48

    2025 doi

  127. [138]

    Cambridge Astrophysics, doi:10.1017/9781139046657.003

    Shukurov A, Subramanian K (2021) Elements of Magnetohydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, pp 5--67. Cambridge Astrophysics, doi:10.1017/9781139046657.003

    2021 doi

  128. [139]

    Mon Wea Rev 91:99--164

    Smagorinsky J (1963) General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. Mon Wea Rev 91:99--164. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2

    1963 doi

  129. [140]

    Phys Fluids 31(4):940--942

    Speziale CG, Hussaini MY, Erlebacher G, et al (1988) The subgrid-scale modeling of compressible turbulence . Phys Fluids 31(4):940--942. doi:10.1063/1.866778

    1988 doi

  130. [141]

    339:289--311

    Springel V, Hernquist L (2003) Cosmological smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations: a hybrid multiphase model for star formation. 339:289--311. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    2003

  131. [142]

    arXiv e-prints arXiv:1301.5572

    Spruit HC (2016) Essential magnetohydrodynamics for astrophysics. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1301.5572. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1301.5572, https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5572 arXiv:1301.5572 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 doi arXiv

  132. [143]

    arXiv e-prints doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.14599

    Steinwandel UP, Rennehan D, Orr ME, et al (2024) Pumping iron: How turbulent metal diffusion impacts multiphase galactic outflows. arXiv e-prints doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.14599

    2024 doi arXiv

  133. [144]

    471(1):144--166

    Su KY, Hopkins PF, Hayward CC, et al (2017) Feedback first: the surprisingly weak effects of magnetic fields, viscosity, conduction and metal diffusion on sub-L* galaxy formation . 471(1):144--166. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1463

    2017 doi

  134. [145]

    J Comput Phys 158:225--238

    Sytine IV, Porter DH, Woodward PR, et al (2000) Convergence tests for the piecewise parabolic method and Navier-Stokes solutions for homogeneous compressible turbulence. J Comput Phys 158:225--238. doi:10.1006/jcph.1999.6416

    2000

  135. [146]

    In: Alsabti AW, Murdin P (eds) Handbook of Supernovae

    Taubenberger S (2017) The extremes of thermonuclear supernovae. In: Alsabti AW, Murdin P (eds) Handbook of Supernovae. Springer, Cham, p 317--373, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_37

    2017 doi

  136. [147]

    J Comput Phys 146:82--104

    Vasilyev OV, Lund TS, Moin P (1998) A general class of commutative filters for les in complex geometries. J Comput Phys 146:82--104. doi:10.1006/jcph.1998.6060

    1998

  137. [148]

    Vazza F, Brunetti G, Gheller C, et al (2011) Massive and refined. II. The statistical properties of turbulent motions in massive galaxy clusters with high spatial resolution . 529:A17. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016015

    2011 doi

  138. [149]

    Phys Rev D 101(12):123019

    Vigan \`o D, Aguilera-Miret R, Carrasco F, et al (2020) General relativistic MHD large eddy simulations with gradient subgrid-scale model. Phys Rev D 101(12):123019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123019

    2020 doi

  139. [150]

    Vlaykov DG, Grete P, Schmidt W, et al (2016) A nonlinear structural subgrid-scale closure for compressible MHD . I . Derivation and energy dissipation properties. Phys Plasmas 23(6):062316. doi:10.1063/1.4954303

    2016 doi

  140. [151]

    Phys Fluids 28(2):025114

    Vollant A, Balarac G, Corre C (2016) A dynamic regularized gradient model of the subgrid-scale stress tensor for large-eddy simulation. Phys Fluids 28(2):025114. doi:10.1063/1.4941781

    2016 doi

  141. [152]

    J Fluid Mech 713:482--490

    Wagner R, Falkovich G, Kritsuk AG, et al (2012) Flux correlations in supersonic isothermal turbulence. J Fluid Mech 713:482--490. doi:10.1017/jfm.2012.470

    2012 doi

  142. [153]

    407(2):705--720

    Wang HH, Klessen RS, Dullemond CP, et al (2010) Equilibrium initialization and stability of three-dimensional gas discs. 407(2):705--720. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16942.x

    2010

  143. [154]

    534(1):L14--L20

    Wang Y, He P (2024) Turbulence, thermal pressure, and their dynamical effects on cosmic baryonic fluid. 534(1):L14--L20. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae073

    2024 doi

  144. [155]

    465(3):3291--3308

    Weinberger R, Springel V, Hernquist L, et al (2016) Simulating galaxy formation with black hole driven thermal and kinetic feedback. 465(3):3291--3308. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2016 doi

  145. [156]

    J Phys: Conf Ser 46:370--384

    Woodward PR, Porter DH, Anderson S, et al (2006) Large-scale simulations of turbulent stellar convection flows and the outlook for petascale computation. J Phys: Conf Ser 46:370--384. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/46/1/052

    2006 doi

  146. [157]

    Phys Fluids A 3:714

    Yoshizawa A (1991) Subgrid-scale modeling of compressible turbulent flows. Phys Fluids A 3:714. doi:10.1063/1.858078

    1991 doi

  147. [158]

    47:291--332

    Zweibel EG, Yamada M (2009) Magnetic reconnection in astrophysical and laboratory plasmas. 47:291--332. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101726

    2009 doi

  148. [159]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label extra.labe...

  149. [160]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap dupl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.