pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.12276 · v1 · pith:RVBADRFJnew · submitted 2019-06-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.IM

Resolving numerical star formation: A cautionary tale

James Wurster , Matthew R. Bate This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 13:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM
keywords resolution studynon-ideal MHDprotostar formationmagnetic fieldsnumerical star formationgravitational collapse
0
0 comments X

The pith

Non-ideal MHD protostar simulations produce stronger magnetic fields and resolve magnetic walls only at higher resolutions.

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

The paper runs a resolution study of gas collapsing through fourteen orders of magnitude in density to form a protostar, using ideal MHD and two non-ideal MHD models each at three different resolutions. Ideal MHD produces roughly the same overall structure across resolutions, although magnetic field strengths rise with resolution. Non-ideal MHD results depend more strongly on resolution: stronger fields appear at finer grids, detailed features such as magnetic walls are captured only in the highest-resolution run, and an offset between the peak magnetic field and the peak density is lost or hidden at coarser resolutions. A reader would care because these differences mean that many existing non-ideal MHD star-formation calculations may have missed or mis-placed key magnetic structures that regulate collapse.

Core claim

The structure of ideal MHD models of protostar formation is approximately independent of resolution, whereas non-ideal MHD models yield stronger magnetic fields, resolved magnetic walls, and an offset between the location of maximum magnetic field strength and maximum density only when resolution is increased; these features are often obscured or absent at lower resolutions.

What carries the argument

A three-resolution study of compressible radiative non-ideal MHD collapse simulations spanning fourteen orders of magnitude in density, comparing one ideal MHD case to two non-ideal MHD cases.

If this is right

  • Magnetic field strength increases with resolution in both ideal and non-ideal MHD models.
  • Magnetic walls and other detailed field structures appear only in the highest-resolution non-ideal runs.
  • The spatial offset between maximum magnetic field and maximum density is lost at lower resolutions in non-ideal models.
  • Lower-resolution non-ideal MHD calculations therefore risk missing or mis-locating the magnetic features that control collapse.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Standard resolutions used in many current non-ideal MHD star-formation runs may systematically under-estimate magnetic field amplification.
  • The observed resolution dependence implies that conclusions about magnetic braking or disk formation drawn from lower-resolution non-ideal runs could change with refinement.
  • Future work could test whether the offset between peak field and peak density persists or migrates as resolution continues to increase.

Load-bearing premise

That the three discrete resolutions tested are sufficient to determine the resolution dependence of the non-ideal MHD results across fourteen orders of magnitude in density.

What would settle it

A fourth simulation run at substantially higher resolution that shows no further increase in magnetic field strength and no additional magnetic-wall structure would indicate convergence has been reached.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.12276 by James Wurster, Matthew R. Bate.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the maximum density during the gravitat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of the maximum and central magnetic field str [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gas density (top panel) and magnetic field strength (b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cumulative CPU time used for each model. The verti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gas density (top panel) and magnetic field strength (b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Resolution studies of test problems set baselines and help define minimum resolution requirements, however, resolution studies must also be performed on scientific simulations to determine the effect of resolution on the specific scientific results. We perform a resolution study on the formation of a protostar by modelling the collapse of gas through 14 orders of magnitude in density. This is done using compressible radiative non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics. Our suite consists of an ideal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) model and two non-ideal MHD models, and we test three resolutions for each model. The resulting structure of the ideal MHD model is approximately independent of resolution, although higher magnetic field strengths are realised in higher resolution models. The non-ideal MHD models are more dependent on resolution, specifically the magnetic field strength and structure. Stronger magnetic fields are realised in higher resolution models, and the evolution of detailed structures such as magnetic walls are only resolved in our highest resolution simulation. In several of the non-ideal MHD models, there is an off-set between the location of the maximum magnetic field strength and the maximum density, which is often obscured or lost at lower resolutions. Thus, understanding the effects of resolution on numerical star formation is imperative for understanding the formation of a star.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper performs a resolution study of protostellar collapse over 14 orders of magnitude in density using compressible radiative MHD, comparing one ideal-MHD run and two non-ideal-MHD runs at each of three resolutions. It reports that ideal-MHD morphology is largely resolution-independent (though peak |B| increases with resolution), while non-ideal-MHD models exhibit stronger resolution sensitivity: higher resolution produces stronger |B|, resolves magnetic-wall substructure, and reveals an offset between the locations of maximum |B| and maximum density that is lost at lower resolution. The central conclusion is that resolution studies are essential for interpreting non-ideal-MHD star-formation simulations.

Significance. If the reported trends are robust, the result supplies a concrete cautionary benchmark for the community: non-ideal MHD effects on magnetic-field amplification and small-scale structure during collapse are more resolution-sensitive than ideal MHD, implying that many existing lower-resolution non-ideal runs may systematically under-estimate |B| and miss key morphological features. The work is a direct numerical experiment with no free parameters or fitted predictions, which strengthens its value as an empirical warning.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and main results: the claim that non-ideal MHD models are “more dependent on resolution” and that magnetic walls and the max-B / max-density offset appear only at the highest resolution rests on exactly three discrete resolutions. No convergence diagnostics (Richardson extrapolation, invariant checks, or refinement-criterion variations) are described to test whether the observed monotonic increase in |B| and emergence of substructure would continue, saturate, or reverse beyond the highest resolution performed, over a 14-order dynamic range.
  2. [Results] Results (qualitative trends): the manuscript states that the offset between peak |B| and peak density “is often obscured or lost at lower resolutions,” yet provides neither quantitative values for the offset nor error estimates on the locations of the maxima, making it impossible to judge whether the reported resolution dependence is statistically significant or an artifact of visualization thresholds.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase “off-set” should be written as the single word “offset” for standard English usage.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and main results: the claim that non-ideal MHD models are “more dependent on resolution” and that magnetic walls and the max-B / max-density offset appear only at the highest resolution rests on exactly three discrete resolutions. No convergence diagnostics (Richardson extrapolation, invariant checks, or refinement-criterion variations) are described to test whether the observed monotonic increase in |B| and emergence of substructure would continue, saturate, or reverse beyond the highest resolution performed, over a 14-order dynamic range.

    Authors: We agree that the study rests on three resolutions and does not include formal convergence diagnostics. The manuscript is intended as an empirical demonstration that non-ideal MHD runs exhibit stronger resolution sensitivity than ideal MHD runs across the resolutions tested, rather than a claim of numerical convergence. We will revise the abstract and discussion sections to state explicitly that the reported trends are observed between the three resolutions performed and that further refinement could alter the quantitative values or substructure, thereby strengthening the cautionary message without overstating the results. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (qualitative trends): the manuscript states that the offset between peak |B| and peak density “is often obscured or lost at lower resolutions,” yet provides neither quantitative values for the offset nor error estimates on the locations of the maxima, making it impossible to judge whether the reported resolution dependence is statistically significant or an artifact of visualization thresholds.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative measures of the offset, together with a description of how the peak locations are identified, are needed to allow readers to assess the robustness of the reported resolution dependence. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit measurements of the spatial separation between the |B| and density maxima for each run, along with the method used to locate the maxima. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct numerical outputs with no fitted predictions or self-referential derivations.

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from a suite of compressible radiative non-ideal MHD simulations of protostellar collapse across three discrete resolutions. Claims about resolution dependence (stronger B-fields, resolved magnetic walls, offset between max-B and max-density) are direct comparisons of simulation outputs, not reductions of any derived quantity to its own inputs. No equations, ansatzes, or predictions are fitted and then re-presented as independent results. Self-citations are absent from the load-bearing scientific claims. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard numerical MHD methods and the assumption that the tested resolutions bracket the relevant physical scales; no free parameters are fitted to data in the reported results.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The compressible radiative non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics equations and chosen resistivity prescriptions accurately capture the dominant physics of the collapse.
    Invoked throughout the modeling of the 14-order density range.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5745 in / 1279 out tokens · 42636 ms · 2026-05-25T13:22:47.752610+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Inve stigating prescriptions for artificial resistivity in smoothed parti cle magnetohy- drodynamics,

    J. Wurster, M. R. Bate, D. J. Price, and T. S. Tricco, “Inve stigating prescriptions for artificial resistivity in smoothed parti cle magnetohy- drodynamics,” ArXiv e-prints , Jun. 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Resolution requirements for s moothed particle hydrodynamics calculations with self-gravity,

    M. R. Bate and A. Burkert, “Resolution requirements for s moothed particle hydrodynamics calculations with self-gravity,” MNRAS, vol. 288, pp. 1060–1072, Jul. 1997. 2019 international SPHERIC workshop Exeter, United Kingdom, June 25-27, 2019

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Numerical requirements for simulations o f self-gravitating and non-self-gravitating discs,

    A. F. Nelson, “Numerical requirements for simulations o f self-gravitating and non-self-gravitating discs,” MNRAS, vol. 373, pp. 1039 –1073, Dec. 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    On the fragmentation criteria of s elf- gravitating protoplanetary discs,

    F. Meru and M. R. Bate, “On the fragmentation criteria of s elf- gravitating protoplanetary discs,” MNRAS, vol. 410, pp. 55 9–572, Jan. 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Non-convergence of the critical cooling time-scal e for fragmen- tation of self-gravitating discs,

    ——, “Non-convergence of the critical cooling time-scal e for fragmen- tation of self-gravitating discs,” MNRAS, vol. 411, pp. L1– L5, Feb. 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    On the convergence of the critical cooling time-sca le for the fragmentation of self-gravitating discs,

    ——, “On the convergence of the critical cooling time-sca le for the fragmentation of self-gravitating discs,” MNRAS, vol. 427 , pp. 2022– 2046, Dec. 2012

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Forming spectroscopic massive protobinaries by disc frag mentation,

    D. M.-A. Meyer, R. Kuiper, W. Kley, K. G. Johnston, and E. V orobyov, “Forming spectroscopic massive protobinaries by disc frag mentation,” MNRAS, vol. 473, pp. 3615–3637, Jan. 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Resolving high Reynolds numbers in smoothe d particle hydrodynamics simulations of subsonic turbulence,

    D. J. Price, “Resolving high Reynolds numbers in smoothe d particle hydrodynamics simulations of subsonic turbulence,” MNRAS , vol. 420, pp. L33–L37, Feb. 2012

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    A comparison between grid and particle methods on the small-scale dynamo in magne tized supersonic turbulence,

    T. S. Tricco, D. J. Price, and C. Federrath, “A comparison between grid and particle methods on the small-scale dynamo in magne tized supersonic turbulence,” MNRAS, vol. 461, pp. 1260–1275, Se p. 2016

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Characterizing gravito-t urbulence in 3D: turbulent properties and stability against fragmentation ,

    R. A. Booth and C. J. Clarke, “Characterizing gravito-t urbulence in 3D: turbulent properties and stability against fragmentation ,” MNRAS, vol. 483, pp. 3718–3729, Mar. 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Collapse of a mo lecular cloud core to stellar densities: stellar-core and outflow formati on in radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulations,

    M. R. Bate, T. S. Tricco, and D. J. Price, “Collapse of a mo lecular cloud core to stellar densities: stellar-core and outflow formati on in radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulations,” MNRAS, vol. 437, pp. 77 –95, Jan. 2014

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Can non-ideal ma gnetohydro- dynamics solve the magnetic braking catastrophe?

    J. Wurster, D. J. Price, and M. R. Bate, “Can non-ideal ma gnetohydro- dynamics solve the magnetic braking catastrophe?” MNRAS, v ol. 457, pp. 1037–1061, Mar. 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    On the origin of m agnetic fields in stars,

    J. Wurster, M. R. Bate, and D. J. Price, “On the origin of m agnetic fields in stars,” MNRAS, vol. 481, pp. 2450–2457, Dec. 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    An upwind differencing scheme for t he equations of ideal magnetohydrodynamics,

    M. Brio and C. C. Wu, “An upwind differencing scheme for t he equations of ideal magnetohydrodynamics,” J. Comp. Phys. , vol. 75, pp. 400–422, Apr. 1988

    work page 1988

  15. [15]

    Numerical magetohydrodynamics in astro- physics: Algorithm and tests for one-dimensional flow‘,

    D. Ryu and T. W. Jones, “Numerical magetohydrodynamics in astro- physics: Algorithm and tests for one-dimensional flow‘,” Ap J, vol. 442, pp. 228–258, Mar. 1995

    work page 1995

  16. [16]

    Small-scale structure of t wo-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,

    S. A. Orszag and C.-M. Tang, “Small-scale structure of t wo-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,” J. Fluid Mech., vol. 90, pp. 129–143, Jan. 1979

    work page 1979

  17. [17]

    Star formation in magnet ic dust clouds,

    L. Mestel and L. Spitzer, Jr., “Star formation in magnet ic dust clouds,” MNRAS, vol. 116, p. 503, 1956

    work page 1956

  18. [18]

    Magnetic Fields in Diffuse H I and Molecular Clouds,

    C. Heiles and R. Crutcher, “Magnetic Fields in Diffuse H I and Molecular Clouds,” in Cosmic Magnetic Fields , ser. Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer V erlag, R. Wielebinski and R. Beck, Eds., vo l. 664, 2005, p. 137

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    Combining radiative transfer and diffuse interstellar medium physics to model star formation,

    M. R. Bate and E. R. Keto, “Combining radiative transfer and diffuse interstellar medium physics to model star formation,” MNRA S, vol. 449, pp. 2643–2667, May 2015

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Smoothed particle hydrodynamics and magn etohydrody- namics,

    D. J. Price, “Smoothed particle hydrodynamics and magn etohydrody- namics,” Journal of Computational Physics , vol. 231, pp. 759–794, Feb. 2012

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    The conductivity of dense molecula r gas,

    M. Wardle and C. Ng, “The conductivity of dense molecula r gas,” MNRAS, vol. 303, pp. 239–246, Feb. 1999

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    The Hall effect in accreti on flows,

    C. R. Braiding and M. Wardle, “The Hall effect in accreti on flows,” MNRAS, vol. 427, pp. 3188–3195, Dec. 2012

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    The Hall effect in star formation,

    ——, “ The Hall effect in star formation,” MNRAS, vol. 422 , pp. 261– 281, May 2012

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Phanto m: A Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics and Magnetohydrodynamic s Code for Astrophysics,

    D. J. Price, J. Wurster, T. S. Tricco, C. Nixon, S. Toupin , A. Pettitt, C. Chan, D. Mentiplay, G. Laibe, S. Glover, C. Dobbs, R. Nealo n, D. Liptai, H. Worpel, C. Bonnerot, G. Dipierro, G. Ballabio, E. Ra- gusa, C. Federrath, R. Iaconi, T. Reichardt, D. Forgan, M. Hu tchison, T. Constantino, B. Ayliffe, K. Hirsh, and G. Lodato, “Phanto m: A Smoothed Part...

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Smoothed Particle Magne tohydrody- namics - II. V ariational principles and variable smoothing -length terms,

    D. J. Price and J. J. Monaghan, “Smoothed Particle Magne tohydrody- namics - II. V ariational principles and variable smoothing -length terms,” MNRAS, vol. 348, pp. 139–152, Feb. 2004

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics - a Review,

    W. Benz, “Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics - a Review,” in Numerical Modelling of Nonlinear Stellar Pulsations Problems and Pro spects, J. R. Buchler, Ed., 1990, p. 269

    work page 1990

  27. [27]

    Modelling acc retion in protobinary systems,

    M. R. Bate, I. A. Bonnell, and N. M. Price, “Modelling acc retion in protobinary systems,” MNRAS, vol. 277, pp. 362–376, Nov. 19 95

    work page

  28. [28]

    An energy-conserving fo rmalism for adaptive gravitational force softening in smoothed partic le hydrodynam- ics and N-body codes,

    D. J. Price and J. J. Monaghan, “An energy-conserving fo rmalism for adaptive gravitational force softening in smoothed partic le hydrodynam- ics and N-body codes,” MNRAS, vol. 374, pp. 1347–1358, Feb. 2 007

    work page

  29. [29]

    Ambipolar diff usion in smoothed particle magnetohydrodynamics,

    J. Wurster, D. J. Price, and B. Ayliffe, “Ambipolar diff usion in smoothed particle magnetohydrodynamics,” MNRAS, vol. 444, pp. 1104 –1112, Oct. 2014

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    NICIL: A Stand Alone Library to Self-Consi stently Calcu- late Non-Ideal Magnetohydrodynamic Coefficients in Molecu lar Cloud Cores,

    J. Wurster, “NICIL: A Stand Alone Library to Self-Consi stently Calcu- late Non-Ideal Magnetohydrodynamic Coefficients in Molecu lar Cloud Cores,” PASA, vol. 33, p. e041, Sep. 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Smoothed Particle Magne tohydrody- namics - I. Algorithm and tests in one dimension,

    D. J. Price and J. J. Monaghan, “Smoothed Particle Magne tohydrody- namics - I. Algorithm and tests in one dimension,” MNRAS, vol . 348, pp. 123–138, Feb. 2004

    work page 2004

  32. [32]

    Smoothed Particle Magnetohydrodynamics - III. Mu ltidimen- sional tests and the ∇ · B = 0 constraint,

    ——, “Smoothed Particle Magnetohydrodynamics - III. Mu ltidimen- sional tests and the ∇ · B = 0 constraint,” MNRAS, vol. 364, pp. 384–406, Dec. 2005

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    The collapse of a molecular cloud core to stellar densities using radiation non-ideal m agnetohydro- dynamics,

    J. Wurster, M. R. Bate, and D. J. Price, “ The collapse of a molecular cloud core to stellar densities using radiation non-ideal m agnetohydro- dynamics,” MNRAS, vol. 475, pp. 1859–1880, Apr. 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Hall effect-driven formation of gravitationally unstable discs in magnetized molecular cloud cores,

    ——, “Hall effect-driven formation of gravitationally unstable discs in magnetized molecular cloud cores,” MNRAS, vol. 480, pp. 443 4–4442, Nov. 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Bimodality of Circumstellar Disk Evolution Induced by the Hall Current,

    Y . Tsukamoto, K. Iwasaki, S. Okuzumi, M. N. Machida, and S. Inutsuka, “Bimodality of Circumstellar Disk Evolution Induced by the Hall Current,” ApJ, vol. 810, p. L26, Sep. 2015

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Effects of Ohmic and ambipolar diffusion on format ion and evolution of first cores, protostars, and circumstellar dis cs,

    ——, “Effects of Ohmic and ambipolar diffusion on format ion and evolution of first cores, protostars, and circumstellar dis cs,” MNRAS, vol. 452, pp. 278–288, Sep. 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    The impact of the Hall effect during cloud core co llapse: Implications for circumstellar disk evolution,

    Y . Tsukamoto, S. Okuzumi, K. Iwasaki, M. N. Machida, and S.-i. Inutsuka, “The impact of the Hall effect during cloud core co llapse: Implications for circumstellar disk evolution,” PASJ, vol . 69, p. 95, Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Collapse of Magnetize d Singular Isothermal Toroids. II. Rotation and Magnetic Braking,

    A. Allen, Z.-Y . Li, and F. H. Shu, “Collapse of Magnetize d Singular Isothermal Toroids. II. Rotation and Magnetic Braking,” Ap J, vol. 599, pp. 363–379, Dec. 2003

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    Numerical calculations of the dynamics o f collapsing proto-star,

    R. B. Larson, “Numerical calculations of the dynamics o f collapsing proto-star,” MNRAS, vol. 145, p. 271, 1969

    work page 1969

  40. [40]

    Hydromagnetic Accretion Shoc ks around Low-Mass Protostars,

    Z.-Y . Li and C. F. McKee, “Hydromagnetic Accretion Shoc ks around Low-Mass Protostars,” ApJ, vol. 464, p. 373, Jun. 1996

    work page 1996

  41. [41]

    Magnetically Control led Spasmodic Accretion during Star Formation. II. Results,

    K. Tassis and T. C. Mouschovias, “Magnetically Control led Spasmodic Accretion during Star Formation. II. Results,” ApJ, vol. 61 8, pp. 783– 794, Jan. 2005

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    In cor- poration of ambipolar diffusion into the ZEUS magnetohydro dynamics code,

    M.-M. Mac Low, M. L. Norman, A. Konigl, and M. Wardle, “In cor- poration of ambipolar diffusion into the ZEUS magnetohydro dynamics code,” ApJ, vol. 442, pp. 726–735, Apr. 1995

    work page 1995

  43. [43]

    An Explicit Scheme for I ncorporating Ambipolar Diffusion in a Magnetohydrodynamics Code,

    E. Choi, J. Kim, and P . J. Wiita, “An Explicit Scheme for I ncorporating Ambipolar Diffusion in a Magnetohydrodynamics Code,” ApJS , vol. 181, pp. 413–420, Apr. 2009

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Impact of the Hall effect in star formation and the issue of angular momentum conserva tion,

    P . Marchand, B. Commerc ¸on, and G. Chabrier, “Impact of the Hall effect in star formation and the issue of angular momentum conserva tion,” A&A, vol. 619, p. A37, Oct. 2018

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    splash: An Interactive Visualisation Too l for Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Simulations,

    D. J. Price, “splash: An Interactive Visualisation Too l for Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Simulations,” PASA, vol. 24, pp. 15 9–173, Oct. 2007

    work page 2007