abstract: Turbulence, interstellar medium, shocks, initial mass function. Supersonic turbulence is an essential element in understanding how structure within interstellar gas is created and shaped. In the context of star formation, many computational studies show that the mass spectrum of density and velocity fluctuations within dense clouds, as well as the distribution of their angular momenta, trace their origin to the statistical and physical properties of gas that is lashed with shock waves. In this article, we review the observations, simulations, and theories of how turbulent-like processes can account for structures we see in molecular clouds. We then compare traditional ideas of supersonic turbulence with a simpler physical model involving the effects of multiple shock waves and their interaction in the interstellar medium. Planar intersecting shock waves produce dense filaments, and generate vortex sheets that are essential to create the broad range of density and velocity structure in clouds. As an example, the lower mass behaviour of the stellar initial mass function can be traced to the tendency of a collection of shock waves to build-up a log-normal density distribution (or column density). Vorticity – which is essential to produce velocity structure over a very broad range of length scales in shocked clouds – can also be generated by the passage of curved shocks or intersecting planar shocks through such media. Two major additional physical forces affect the structure of star forming gas – gravity and feedback processes from young stars. Both of these can produce power-law tails at the high mass end of the IMF.
author: Ralph E. Pudritz & N.K.-R. Kevlahan
bibliography: bib_tmb.bib
title: Shock interactions, turbulence and the origin of the stellar mass spectrum

# Overview: from gas to stars

The origin of stars in galaxies is directly coupled to the dynamics and structure of their interstellar gas. What physical processes are responsible for converting gas that is, in its most diffuse form, non-self gravitating into a stellar mass spectrum (known as the initial mass function - IMF) with a well defined, possibly universal, simple form? Both the diffuse (atomic and ionized) and molecular gas components of the interstellar medium (ISM) have highly supersonic velocity dispersions indicating that shocks are ubiquitous. The propagation and collision of shock waves play an important role in the chain of events leading to star formation by compressing gas: pushing it into ever denser physical states that allows it to cool and fragment more efficiently. This process also sweeps material into a network of dense filaments. Both the compression and filamentary structure of over-dense regions help set up the conditions necessary for gravity to act. Molecular clouds are sufficiently cold and dense that gravitational forces are a major factor in the evolution of the densest regions. On small enough scales within such clouds (typically $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}1pc) in which star clusters are observed to form, gravity dominates and star formation occurs in the many dense gaseous "cores" which are evident in cluster forming regions. Filamentary structure has always been apparent in observations of the interstellar medium , but the high resolution capabilities of the Herschel Space Observatory show that it is ubiquitous. Most importantly, star formation takes place within these filaments . Figure  shows the column density map of a molecular cloud as well as the positions of young stellar objects. The stars are forming along the gravitationally unstable parts of the filaments – i.e. where the mass per unit length of the filament exceeds the critical value of $2c_s^2/G$  where $c_s$ is the sound speed of the gas and G is Newton's gravitational constant.

Several other physical processes also play important roles. While we will not examine magnetic fields in detail in this paper, they are observed within both the diffuse and molecular components and within star-forming gas. Magnetic fields in molecular gas have comparable, but somewhat, smaller energy densities than gravity . The strength of magnetic fields is measured by the ratio of the gravitational to magnetic energy densities, known as the "mass to flux" ratio $\mu$. Clouds and cores vary strongly in the value of $\mu$, but typically have values $\mu \le 5$, which has several important consequences. One of these concerns the radial structure of density filaments, which are observed to have a much shallower dependence on radius than models of purely hydrodynamic, self-gravitating filaments . Good fits to the data are obtained for models of filaments that are wrapped with a helical magnetic field . Such structures have been detected by sub-millimetre polarimetry observations . The formation of massive stars results in a copious outpouring of energy and momentum in the form of radiation fields and outflows which is pumped into the surrounding gas through the action of shocks. Such "feedback" effects play a profound role in shutting down star formation and in energizing the large scale ISM.

Although several physical processes play a role in structuring molecular gas — including turbulence, gravity, magnetic fields, and feedback due to stellar radiation and energetic protostellar outflows — the spectrum of stellar masses that results (known as the initial mass function, or IMF) is rather simple and appears to be universal. The IMF is established at the scale at which star clusters are formed (a few parsecs). It has been described by several different functional forms including a piece-wise power-law , a log-normal  and, more recently, as a log-normal with a high mass power-law tail . All the studies of the IMF show that stars more massive than $0.5 M_{\odot}$ follow the famous Salpeter power-law form $dN \propto m^{-2.3}$.

There have been many theoretical attempts to explain the particular form of the IMF. For example, the log-normal distribution for the IMF at low masses could be due to gas supported by thermal pressure, while the Salpeter tail could be generated by the higher mass cores which would be supported by turbulent pressure . An alternative explanation is that an initial log-normal distribution develops a power law tail as dense cores gradually accrete . Elmegreen  remarked that if all gas above a certain density threshold in a log-normal distribution can form stars, then it is possible to recover the well-known Schmidt law that governs the global star formation rate in galaxies .

The IMF must ultimately derive from the structure of the molecular gas. In this contribution we focus on the role that shocks and vorticity play in establishing the basic gas structure out of which the IMF ultimately arises. While turbulence has often been invoked as a theoretical framework, we show that the spatial, density, and velocity structure of flows is much better understood in terms of the action of interacting shock waves. This has several important ramifications for the general structure of the IMF.

# Understanding the observations of interstellar gas: supersonic turbulence vs. shocks

Observations of chaotic, supersonic motions in interstellar gas have often been interpreted as arising from "supersonic turbulence". A basic property of turbulence is that it re-distributes energy and density over many length scales. This process creates a strongly inhomogeneous flow which, in the context of molecular clouds, produces some regions that are much denser than others. Sufficiently massive cores (greater than the local Jean's mass) will then collapse under their own gravity. This local collapse of dense cores begins the process of star formation. In addition to transferring energy and density over a wide range of length scales (determined by the Reynolds number of the flow), turbulence also makes an initially uniform density very inhomogeneous in space. This is because turbulence is extremely intermittent in space: the small scale regions (and hence energy dissipation) is concentrated on a small subset of space.

The ISM, however, is more naturally pictured as a medium that is repeatedly lashed with shock waves that arise from a wide range of energetic astrophysical processes. Energy does not necessarily need to cascade from scale to scale: intersecting shocks and curved shocks can simultaneously excite energy over an enormous range of length scales. In addition, intersecting shocks and curved shocks efficiently generate vorticity. We investigate the observational constraints on these mechanisms below.

## Spatial structure and density fluctuations

On the largest galactic scales (several kpc) the overall structure of the shock-dominated, diffuse interstellar medium of the galaxy is seen in the neutral hydrogen (HI) gas observations such as the Canadian Galactic Plane survey . These 21 cm maps of radio emission show that the diffuse ISM is highly filamentary, and abounds in bubbles, cavities, and channels carved out by radiation, winds, and supernova explosions from massive stars,. Most stars form in star clusters, and it is the massive stars within them that heat and ionize the surrounding molecular and atomic gas through their intense radiation fields. The feedback from radiation fields produces HII regions (ionized hydrogen) . Towards the end of their short lives, massive stars produce stellar winds followed by supernova explosions. Recent estimates based on the properties of the largest GMCs in the galaxy, indicate that the star formation efficiency in the galaxy is very low; in the range $\epsilon_{GMC} \simeq 0.002 - 0.2$ with estimated star formation rates per free-fall time of the molecular cloud being near unity. The inference is that radiation pressure from massive stars in young, star clusters forming in these large GMCs very efficiently destroys most of the molecular gas that is collapsing and attempting to form stars. Taken together, feedback processes disperse significant amounts of molecular gas which probably accounts for the low star formation efficiency in galaxies. A similar structure of the ISM is also observed in our satellite dwarf galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) . A bird's eye view of the relation between diffuse and molecular gas on the one hand, and the pattern of star formation and global density waves in a face-on disk galaxy on the other, is seen clearly in the HST image of M51. In this image the filamentary distribution of dense dust lanes that are associated with the spiral pattern are obviously associated with the occurrence of young star clusters.

The prevalence of shock-driven processes extends down to the scales that characterize molecular clouds on tens of parsecs. One of the best studied regions is the Orion molecular cloud. The large scale structure of the Orion A and B clouds on 100 pc scales, mapped using an extinction technique is clearly filamentary. The typical density of such gas is a few hundred cm$^{-3}$ which, though self-gravitating, is still too diffuse for star formation to occur. We can follow the filamentary structure down to 10 pc scales wherein we see the famous integral filament, which was mapped at 850 microns by the JCMT sub-millimetre observatory . The dense, star forming gas in a molecular cloud occurs at 1 pc scales. The typical density for such a region is $10^5 cm^{-3}$ and it is here that clusters of stars form. Individual embedded infrared objects — young stars in the process of formation — are seen in dense fluctuations known as cores, within such cluster forming regions. Long standing studies of the structure and physics of such cores show that they have length scales on the order of 0.04 pc and smaller. Sufficiently low mass cores have subsonic velocity dispersion . The mass spectrum of cores has been analyzed for a number of different clouds and has been found to be very similar in form to that of the IMF. As an example, showed in their extinction map of the Pipe nebula that the core mass function could be overlaid on the IMF by shifting the curve down in mass by a factor of three.

The structure and scaling of turbulence intermittency is a major outstanding problem in turbulence theory , although its existence is well-established. Analysis of dust extinction maps  have shown that the probability density function (PDF) of column density for star-forming molecular cloud complexes is well-described by a log-normal distribution, except at high densities where the PDF follows a power law with slopes in the range from roughly -1.5 to -4.2. The density distribution can be converted to a mass distribution (called the initial mass function, IMF) if a length scale is associated to each density. This can be done, for example, by assuming that the density fluctuations follow the same Kolmogorov scaling as the velocity, which seems to be the case. The resulting PDF still has the form of a log-normal distribution with a power law tail at large masses. The peak of this IMF is a mass characteristic of gravitational collapse , while the power-law tail has a so-called Salpeter scaling exponent of about -1.35.

## Velocity structure and fluctuations

Let us now look at the velocity structure of gas over these many scales. The sparse gases and plasmas that fill interstellar space have velocity and mass density energy spectra characteristic of a neutral, incompressible fully-developed turbulent fluid . For example, radio observations of the diffuse ISM have found that density fluctuations follow a so-called "Big power law in the sky": Kolmogorov-like scaling $k^{-5/3}$ of the energy spectrum extends over 11 orders of magnitude, from $10^6$m to $10^{17}$ m ! Chepurnov and Lazarian  have recently performed a very careful analysis to show that the data are indeed consistent with a single Kolmogorov spectrum over the full range of length scales. The ratio of the largest to smallest length scales increases like $Re^{3/4}$, where $Re$ is the Reynolds number. Thus, these astrophysical flows must have an extremely high Reynolds number of about $10^{14}$ making them the most turbulent flows known. Other fluctuations have power-law spectra with exponent $\alpha\in[-1.5,-2.6]$ , also suggestive of (possibly two-dimensional) turbulence. This is surprising because the interstellar medium has a very large mean free path, is conducting, has an embedded magnetic field, and is strongly compressible. One would therefore expect the ISM to have very different dynamics from a simple Newtonian incompressible flow. The origin of the turbulence-like properties of the ISM over at least 11 orders of magnitude remains one of the central mysteries of astrophysical fluid dynamics.

Some attempts have been made to explain the observed Kolmogorov scaling in the context of a conducting compressible fluid. A more comprehensive approach to incompressible MHD turbulence has emphasized the anisotropy that is stamped on the turbulence by the magnetic fields . This gives an energy spectrum $k_{\perp}^{-5/3}$ in directions perpendicular to the mean magnetic field. However, the theory is not rigorous and it does not apply to the solar wind (which also exhibits a Kolmogorov scaling). Furthermore, other weak turbulence calculations find quite different scalings: $k_{\perp}^{-2}$ or $k_{\perp}^{-3/2}$. Stationary constant flux solutions exhibit exponents anywhere in the range from $-1$ to $-3$ depending on the asymmetry of the forcing . In addition, MHD turbulence is damped very quickly (in about one eddy turnover time). Therefore any strongly turbulent flow would need a constant source of energy, or would be unlikely to reach a stationary statistical state (characteristic of so-called fully developed turbulence). In summary, there is still no convincing explanation of why the ISM density and velocity fluctuations should follow a single Kolmogorov inertial range scale over such a wide range of scales. We also note that recent high-resolution simulations of strongly magnetized MHD turbulence find a $k_\perp^{-3/2}$ scaling, rather than Kolmogorov $k_\perp^{-5/3}$ scaling. As suggested by Boldyrev et al , this discrepancy could be due to scale-dependent dynamic alignment of the velocity and magnetic field vectors.

The Kolmogorov turbulence interpretation of the astrophysical data is also inconsistent with high resolution simulations. As Johnsen et al.  point out in their comprehensive review of high-resolution methods for numerical simulations of compressible turbulence with shock waves, compressible turbulence is characterized by weak shock waves (eddy shocklets) that develop spontaneously from the turbulent fluctuations. Shocklets were first observed in the numerical simulations performed by Kida & Orszag in 1990 . These shocklets develop when the turbulence Mach number (based on the r.m.s. velocity) $M_t>0.3$. Thus, even weakly compressible turbulence will be dominated by shocks and shock interactions. This suggests that compressible turbulence should have a energy exponent closer to $-2$, rather than the $-5/3$ predicted for incompressible turbulence. Indeed, this is what is seen in the high-resolution numerical simulations of Kritsuk et al. .

Both the velocity and magnetic fluctuations in solar winds also follow a Kolmogorov-like $-5/3$ turbulence scaling, despite the solar wind also being a conducting, compressible fluid . This observation has usually been explained using a variation of Sridhar & Goldreich's  theory, although Borovsky  has cautioned that the $-5/3$ scaling could simply be due to discontinuities in the data, and may not actually be a signature of turbulence. We will explore the possibility that discontinuities (or other singularities), produced by shocks, might be the origin of the observed velocity and density scalings.

In summary, astrophysical fluctuations of density and velocity appear to have some of the characteristics of fully-developed turbulence, although it is difficult to reconcile this interpretation with the actual physical properties of the ISM. In the following we review the results of computer simulations addressing these questions.

# Turbulence and fragmentation — simulations

Computer simulations have been the tool of choice in studies of turbulent flow and have provided some of the most important new insights into the link between shocks, supersonic turbulence, and star formation in molecular clouds (eg. . The role of "turbulence" is central in this picture since it drives the formation of filamentary structure, produces the spectrum of dense cores, and can even account for the wide range of spins associated with these cores. While many simulations of structure formation drive, or impose an initial velocity spectrum on the gas, the most basic question about astrophysical turbulence concerns the processes that actually drive it. In this section, we review the insights that simulations have given us on these processes over this wide range of scales.

On the scales of 10 kpc characterizing a disk galaxy, simulations of the effect of global spiral waves driven by a perturbing spiral potential have shown that the shock waves associated with these waves compress the gas into dense clouds with an internal "turbulent" velocity dispersion that can be associated with molecular clouds . The diffuse ISM is also strongly influenced by the shocks and the PDF of this component is well described by log-normal density PDF . The large scale shocks induce molecular cloud formation and create large velocity dispersion — i.e. turbulence. Simulations of the formation of GMCs have also idealized the process as the collision of supersonic streams of gas . This work shows that at that time when collision-induced turbulence is dominated by gravitational energy of the building clouds, clouds go into global gravitational collapse. As in combustion and pollution dispersion, turbulence is important in these processes for its extremely efficient mixing and large range of active length scales.

We have already noted that massive stars produced within sufficiently massive star clusters in GMCs provide strong feedback on their natal clouds and galactic environments. One mechanism that has been extensively simulated is the effect of multiple supernova explosions on interstellar gas. Massive stars drive three highly energetic phenomena into the surrounding gas: ionization fronts originating from the intense radiation fields of massive stars, a strong stellar wind, and in the end-phase of their evolution, a supernova explosion. Simulations of supernova explosions in the galactic disk show the highly textured medium and extreme density contrasts over six orders of magnitude in volume density ($10^{-4} < n < 10^2$ cm$^{-3}$) that arise from supernovae going off in a galactic disk .

As we descend to the scale of a molecular cloud, many studies have imposed driven or initial "turbulent" velocity fields on gas within a periodic box setup and for which the source of the turbulence is not specified. The earliest results of such experiments (eg. ) showed that log-normal density distributions were produced independent of whether the turbulence was driven at some wavenumber $k$ or allowed to damp away (eg. review ). As an example, Tilley & Pudritz studied the combined effects of turbulence and self-gravity in a periodic box simulation in which an initial velocity field (initially set to match a Kolomogorov or Burger's spectrum) was allowed to decay in a hydrodynamic simulation. By identifying regions that could be thought of as "cloud cores", it was found that the mass function for such cores obeyed a log-normal distribution with a power-law tail at high masses. It is important to note that a wide variety of density fluctuations with core-like properties were identified in these simulations. Applying the virial theorem to these density fluctuations, it was found that a wide range of objects exist, a few of which are in equilibrium, but the bulk being either states that were bound or unbound. The surface pressure upon density fluctuations is an important contribution towards creating gravitationally bound cores. A large fraction of the lower mass fluctuations tended to be gravitationally unbound so that turbulence, rather than gravity, appears to dominate the dynamics of the lower mass fluctuations.

Recent simulation show that turbulence plus gravity can reproduce the observation of power-law tails in the column density PDFs of molecular clouds . The initial conditions in this periodic box simulation were prepared by applying an initial large scale random force to the gas which, after $4.8t_{\textrm{ff}}$ free-fall times, was switched off while gravity and adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) of the grid was turned on. The adaptive refinement of the grid is necessary to follow the evolution of gravitating gas, because it is essential to sufficiently resolve (by at least 4 grid cells) the local gravitational instability scale (the so-called Jeans length) sufficiently so that spurious mesh-induced fragmentation of the gas does not occur . The experiments showed that an initial log-normal state was produced and that, with the onset of gravity, this log-normal distribution developed a power-law tail that extended over more than three orders of magnitude. The power-law slope for the tail of the column density was in the range $[-2.8, 2]$.

Figure  shows a snap shot of a simulation of the formation of a small cluster within an initial 100 $M_{\odot}$ mass, star forming clump of gas within a molecular cloud, containing about 100 initial Jeans masses, a gas temperature of 10K and size of simulated region is 0.4 pc. Collapsing regions that give rise to stars are traced by sink particles. The simulation clearly shows that star formation is tightly associated with the filaments. This evidence suggests that it is gravitational instability along the filament that initiates the formation of the dense collapsing regions.

The formation of filaments in many of these simulations involves the oblique collisions of planar shock fronts that arise from the initial velocity field. The collision of two sheets (shock wave-fronts) is a line. Thus filaments represent the densest structures that supersonic turbulence, or, in our view, a collection of shock waves, can produce. It is therefore not surprising that dense cores would appear to form along filaments, as many simulations have shown. The formation of a filament by such a collision process is clearly seen in work by Banerjee et al  where the collision of two quasi-planar shocks is seen to give rise to a density filament.

Another key aspect of the "turbulent fragmentation" picture of structure formation is that it provides a natural explanation for the origin of angular momentum for cores, and hence for the origin of protostellar disks. Rotational energies are generally a small fraction of the gravitational energy of the system: the average value of the ratio of the rotational to gravitational energy is $\beta_{rot} \simeq 0.01$, but its value spans several orders of magnitude: for both low mass with a range $2\times 10^{-3} - 1.4$ as well as high mass cores in the range $4 \times 10^{-4} - 7 \times 10^{-2}$. While rotational energy is thus too low to play a significant role in the dynamics of the cores, it is significant in establishing the initial conditions for the formation of protostellar disks on much smaller scales (a few to several hundred AU) Angular momentum can arise as a consequence of the oblique collision of shock waves . The range of spins of such cores can be quite broad, extending over several orders of magnitude. In simulations by Banerjee et al  the angular momentum of this gas arises from the fact that the filament is clearly associated with the intersection of two sheets, which are presumably the shock fronts that generated from the initial supersonic velocity field set up for the cloud. The large scale flow along the filament has sufficient angular momentum that an accretion disk is built up.

We now turn to discuss recent results  in which we showed that Kolmogorov scaling over many length scales and the observed skewed log-normal density PDF could arise from repeated shock interactions, without the need for fully-developed turbulence. In addition, we discuss the physical origin of the angular momentum (i.e. vorticity) that is generated in interacting shocks, as well as in curved shocks.

# Shock forcing of turbulence

We have noted that the collision of shock waves generates filaments, and that the simulations typically and rapidly produce lognormal structure in the gas. In this section, we show that compressible turbulence fluctuations produce lognormal part of the distribution through interaction of eddy shocklets. Thus, lognormal structure which is evident in the IMF, has its roots in the basic dynamics of interacting shock waves. While gravity certainly can produce power-law tails observed in molecular cloud density PDFs - we show that feedback processes produce spherical shocks which also give rise to the power law tails. The role of spherical shocks (or spherical expansion waves) has been confirmed in a recent numerical study .

## Regular intersection of planar shocks

The simplest type of shock interaction is the regular intersection of two plane shocks of unequal strength . Figure (a) shows the basic features of such an interaction: both shocks are bent slightly, the flow is rotated and a vortex sheet (or slip stream) is generated downstream of the shock. As sketched in Figure (b), the vortex sheet is unstable and produces a sequence of vortices via the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability. These vortices in turn become unstable and generate three-dimensional turbulence via a secondary instability (note that the intersection of two plane shocks of equal strength will not generate a vortex sheet). As seen in the simulations described in the previous section, a dense filament is observed just behind the shock intersection point. One expects that the density further downstream of the shock should be much more homogeneous due to the efficient turbulent mixing produced by the unstable vortex sheet. Note that two shocks generically intersect in a line, and this explains the fact that the most over dense regions have a filamentary structure.

It is important to note that, as discussed below, a vortex sheet instantaneously distributes kinetic energy over all length scales and has a power law energy spectrum $E(k)\sim k^{-2}$. This initial spectrum becomes shallower as the vortex sheet becomes unstable.

In summary, the regular intersection of two unequal planar shocks generates both a dense filamentary structure and turbulence (via the destabilization of the vortex sheet produced behind the shock intersection line). In the following section, we review how multiple shock passages may build up the lognormal density distribution and $k^{-5/3}$ energy spectrum observed in the ISM. These multiple shock passages may involve the intersecting plane shocks just discussed, or individual self-focusing shocks.

## A shock mechanism for the density PDF and energy spectrum

In this section we review the shock-based mechanisms proposed in recent work by Kevlahan & Pudritz  to explain the lognormal PDF of density and turbulence-like $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum of kinetic energy observed in the ISM. We focus here on the role of individual curved shocks, but the intersecting plane shocks discussed in the previous section play a similar role.

Kevlahan  derived an expression for the vorticity jump across a shock wave that includes the effect of the upstream turbulence. If we assume that the turbulence is isentropic and quasi-steady (with respect to the passage time of the shock), then the vorticity jump in the binormal direction $\bm{b}$ $$\delta\bm{\omega}\cdot\bm{b} = \frac{\mu^2}{1+\mu} \frac{\partial M_s}{\partial S}
+ \frac{1}{M_s}\left(\frac{\mu}{1+\mu} M_s^2-1\right) \left[\frac{\partial\frac{1}{2}M_t^2}{\partial S}
+ \bm{\omega}\times\bm{u}\cdot\bm{s}\right] + \mu\bm{\omega}\cdot\bm{b},
\label{eq:voder7}$$ where $\mu$ is the normalized density jump (i.e. the shock strength), $M_s$ is the Mach number of the shock, $\partial/\partial S$ is the tangential part of the directional derivative, $M_t$ is the turbulent Mach number of the upstream flow and $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{\omega}$ are the velocity and vorticity of the upstream turbulence normalized by sound speed. Equation () may be simplified for strong shocks by using the approximation $\mu\approx 2/(\gamma-1)$. The density jump is given by $${\delta\rho \over\rho} \equiv \mu = \frac{M_s^2-1}{1+1/2(\gamma-1)M_s^2}.
\label{eq:density}$$

The first term on the right hand side of () represents vorticity generation due to the variation of the shock speed $M_s$ along the shock – e.g. due to shock curvature – by symmetry it is exactly zero for spherical and cylindrical shocks. The second term is baroclinic generation of vorticity due to misalignment of pressure and density gradients across the shock and the final term the jump in vorticity due to the conservation of angular momentum across the shock.

Because shocks are nonlinear waves (unlike acoustic waves), $M_s$ is larger in regions of concave curvature and smaller in regions of convex curvature (with respect to the propagation direction of the shock). This difference in shock strength increases over time and eventually causes curved shocks to *focus* at regions of minimum curvature, developing a flat shock disk bounded by regions of very high curvature (often called kinks) . This structure is called a Mach disk, and generates vortex sheets downstream of the shock as in the case of intersecting plane shocks. The discontinuous shock strength at the kinks is called a shock–shock , and is essentially the same as the intersection line of a pair of intersecting plane shocks.

In the ISM focusing of individual shocks could arise due to reflection off density gradients (e.g. vertically stratified structure in disks), density inhomogeneities, or small variations in shock curvature in blast waves.

Since the first term on the right hand side of () is approximately singular at the location of a kink, vortex sheets develop in the flow downstream of the kinks. These vortex sheets themselves have an energy spectrum $E(k)\sim k^{-2}$, and generate turbulence exponentially fast via the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability. Note that this produces a $-2$ spectrum in the downstream flow, even when the shock is no longer present. In other words, the $-2$ energy spectrum scaling could be the *trace* of a shock, rather than requiring the presence of a shock.

Kevlahan & Pudritz  showed for the first time how multiple passages of focused shocks could produce an energy spectrum shallower than $-2$. Previously, the relevance of multiple shock passages for astrophysical flows was established by , who found that the average time between shock passages in the ISM is "small enough that the shock pump is capable of sustaining supersonic motions against readjustment and dissipation."

The energy spectrum of the three-dimensional flow after one, two and three passages of a focused shock with principal wavenumbers $k_1=k_2=1$, $M_s=6$ and zero velocity initial condition was analyzed by . The key result is that the initial $k^{-2}$ scaling of the energy spectrum (due to the velocity discontinuity associated with the vortex sheet downstream of the shock–shocks) becomes gradually shallower with each shock passage. This redistribution of energy to smaller scales is due to the quadratic baroclinic terms depending on the (inhomogeneous) upstream flow in the vorticity jump equation (). Although the effect is entirely kinematic, these quadratic terms redistribute energy amongst scales in a way analogous to the quadratic nonlinearity in the Navier–Stokes equations. After three shock passages the energy spectrum has a scaling similar to $k^{-5/3}$. More shock passages would produce an even shallower power-law. Moreover, the form of the energy spectrum is relatively insensitive to the choice of initial condition.

Simulations have suggested previously that the structure observed in the interstellar medium and molecular clouds probably derives from shock-driven processes. The results presented above from Kevlahan & Pudritz  give an alternative explanation of the energy spectrum scalings close to $-5/3$ observed in astrophysical fluctuations. They also suggest why the spectrum is shallower than the scaling $-2$ expected for compressible turbulence (due to the eddy shocklets generated spontaneously in strongly compressible flows). The observed $E(k)\approx k^{-5/3}$ "big power-law in the sky" may be due to primarily to kinematic effects associated with repeated shock passages, and may not in fact require fully-developed turbulence. This could also explain why the power-law extends over such a huge range of length scales (spanning several different physical regimes, from the diffuse ISM to molecular gas), since the power-law of a shock-driven flow is due to a singularity, and so extends over all scales (until the viscous cut-off).

We have shown that interacting shocks generate a log-normal distribution of density. As mentioned above, compressible turbulent flows with $M_t>0.3$ spontaneously generate small, relatively weak and highly curved shocks, called 'eddy shocklets' . It is therefore likely that a particular region of space is hit multiple times by eddy shocklets of varying strengths. If we now assume that the density doesn't change significantly between shock passages (i.e. that the density changes are primarily due to shock compression), then from equation () the density after $n$ shock passages is $$\rho^{(n)}(x) = \prod_{j=0}^n (1+\mu^{(j)}(x))$$ where the density is normalized in terms of the initial uniform density $\rho_0$. We now treat the shock strengths $\mu^{(j)}(x)$ as identically distributed random variables. Then, since $(1+\mu^{(j)}(x))>0$ we can take the logarithm of both sides and apply the central limit theorem to the resulting sum. This shows that the logarithm of density is normally distributed, i.e. the density PDF follows a log-normal distribution, $$P(\rho) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma\rho}\exp\left(-\frac{(\log(\rho)-\overline{\log\rho})^2}{2\sigma^2}\right).
\label{eq:lognormal}$$ Note that application of the central limit theorem to derive () requires only that the random variables $\log(1+\mu^{(j)}(x))$ have finite mean and variance .

Kevlahan & Pudritz  pointed out that the convergence to the lognormal distribution very rapid. Figure  (reproduced from ) shows that as few as three or four shock passages generates a very good approximation to the log-normal distribution.

This explanation is consistent with observations from experiments that the lognormal distribution of density develops very quickly, and seems to be associated with the first shock interactions . Thus, the log-normal distribution should develop well before self-gravity becomes important. In fact, as proposed below, the denser cores associated with the log-normal distribution are likely the catalysts for the self-gravity driven collapse that produces the power-law tail at high densities.

## Feedback effects and power-law tails

As first suggested in  , a power-law tail of the density distribution can be produced by spherical shock waves which interact with a pre-existing lognormal distribution. These shocks could be due to blast waves or stellar wind (once the first stars have formed), or could take the form of an expansion wave generated by a rapidly collapsing core (as suggested by Kritsuk et al ). The origin of the shock wave will change the power law scaling, but it is the spherical symmetry of the shock that produces a power-law scaling at large densities.

Following , we assume a blast wave solution for strong spherical shocks. Dokuchaev  generalized the Sedov–Taylor self-similar blast wave solution to the sustained energy injection case $E(t)\propto t^p$. $p=0$ corresponds to an instant shock (e.g. such as a super nova), while $p=1$ corresponds to continuous energy input (i.e. a stellar wind).

As in the previous case, we take a probabilistic view and assume that the PDF of finding a particular value of gas density $\rho_1$ is proportional to the the space–time volume where the density exceeds $\rho_1$, $$P(\rho>\rho_1) \propto \int_0^{t(\rho_1)} R^3(t) \,{\rm d}{t}$$ where $R(t)\propto t^{(2+p)/5}$ is the radius of the spherical shock at time $t$ and $t(\rho_1)$ is the time at which the density behind the shock is equal to $\rho_1$. Using the relation $M_s(t)\propto
R(t)/t$, equation () can be inverted to find $t(\rho_1)\propto \rho^{5/(2(-3+p))}$.

Using the definition of the PDF, we find that the PDF of density due to the interaction of a homogeneous gas with a spherical blast wave has the form $$P(\rho) = \frac{d}{d \rho}\int_0^{t(\rho)} R^3(t) \,{\rm d}{t}
\propto \rho^{-(17+p)/(6-2p)}
\label{eq:pdf_sphere}$$ (where we have re-labelled $\rho_1$ as $\rho$). Therefore, the density PDF is a power-law with exponent $-17/6\approx -2.8$ for an instant shock and $-9/2 = -4.5$ for an injection shock. These slopes are significantly steeper than the Salpeter value for the mass PDF of $-1.35$. However, the actual relation between the density PDF and the mass PDF depends on the precise assumptions made about the scaling of clumps (i.e. mass equals density times a lengthscale cubed). Thus, one should not necessarily expect the same index for both the density and mass PDFs (although the power-law form should be robust). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, analysis of dust extinction maps  gave scalings for the power-law tail of the density PDF of -1.5 to -4.2, roughly consistent with the spherical shock model.

It is important to note that observations measure PDFs of *column density* (i.e. density integrated along a line of sight), rather the PDFs of density itself. If there are many randomly distributed spherical shocks these two measures should be similar. However, if there is only one infinitely large spherical shock the resulting density would have to be integrated to give a column density as in . If the density is given by $\rho\sim r^{-n}$ then the column density is $$2\int_0^\infty \rho(\sqrt{R^2+x^2}) dx \propto R^{1-n},$$ which also has a power-law PDF, but with slope $-2/(n-1)$. In the blast wave model $\rho\sim r^{-2(3-p)/(2+p)}$ and thus $n=3$ for a blast wave and $n=4/3$ for an injection shock. Thus, if we assume a single blast wave the column density would scale like $-1$, while for the injection shock the column density would scale like $-6$. Kritsuk eta al.  found column density scalings for self-similar gravitational collapse of $-2,-2.8, and -4$, depending on the model. It therefore seems more likely that the observed power-law is due either to expansion shock waves produced by self-gravitational collapse, or to a collection of spherical blast waves. However, as noted below, the probabilistic interpretation helps explain the hybrid form of the PDF (both log-normal and power-law).

Finally, we can find the PDF of density resulting from the interaction of a spherical shock with a log-normally distributed density field as the convolution of the PDF () with the log-normal distribution of density (). This produces a PDF which is log-normal for small densities, and has a power-law $\rho^{-(17+p)/(6-2p)}$ for high densities up to a maximum density proportional to $1/(\gamma-1)$. Figure , reproduced from shows the resulting hybrid PDF. If no more spherical shocks are generated the distribution will slowly revert to a simple log-normal form. Thus, one expects that a power-law tail is a signature of a star-producing region, where shocks are produced either by intense stellar winds or by spherical expansion waves associated with self-gravitational collapse. The remaining question is whether such shock waves are able to account for so many decades of gas compression as can gravity.

# Conclusions

The structure of interstellar gas in general, and star-forming molecular clouds in particular, is shaped to a very important degree by interacting shock waves. Using two basic shock models (intersecting plane shocks and self-focusing curved shocks) we have shown that this provides a more self-consistent picture of the ISM and the conditions leading to star formation than traditional ideas of "supersonic turbulence". The log-normal aspect of the gas density is imprinted on the structure of the IMF of stars. The power-law tail at high masses can be produced by several mechanisms — certainly by gravity — but also by the shock waves resulting from radiative feedback processes during star formation. The generality of this behaviour of shock waves gives considerable support for the idea that, despite the complexity in the detailed physics, the structure and possible universality of the form of the kinetic energy spectrum and IMF are an expression of the physics of shock waves in gravitating media.


abstract: We argue that, in many situations, fits to elastic scattering data that were historically, and frequently still are, considered 'good', are not justifiably so describable. Information about the dynamics of nucleon-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus scattering is lost when elastic scattering phenomenology is insufficiently ambitious. It is argued that in many situations, an alternative approach is appropriate for the phenomenology of nuclear elastic scattering of nucleons and other light nuclei. The approach affords an appropriate means of evaluating folding models, one that fully exploits available empirical data. It is particularly applicable for nucleons and other light ions.
author: R. S. Mackintosh
date: 2024-10-01
title: Elastic scattering phenomenology.

# Introduction

In this note we argue that if elastic scattering phenomenology is worth doing, it is worth doing well; moreover, it *is* worth doing. When phenomenology is not done well, according to reasonable criteria, opportunities to extract information from elastic scattering data will be lost. However, rigorous phenomenology can uncover the information about nuclear interactions which is contained in high quality elastic scattering data, but which is often unexploited. The appropriate fitting procedures are by no means new. A key point is that the undulatory (wavy) potentials, that have sometimes been found as a result of model independent fitting, are not aberrations, but have a natural interpretation. For reasons that will be explained, the approach to phenomenology advocated here supports what is arguably the most appropriate means of evaluating folding models and other theories for optical model potentials.

The present discussion applies particularly to the elastic scattering of nucleons and other light nuclei and not in situations where elastic scattering is sensitive only to the potential in the far surface region.

# An example from alpha particle scattering

Ref.  presents a thorough study of elastic alpha particle scattering from \^40${}^{40}$Ca, \^44${}^{44}$Ca and \^48${}^{48}$Ca using two very different models. One model is a fairly standard deep potential (Woods-Saxon squared) and the other is a non-monotonic potential based on an energy density functional (EDF) approach. A third model has a deep potential parameterised following the non-monotonic form of the EDF potential.

The exhaustive calculations yielded potentials that were, simultaneously, (i) profoundly different, and, (ii) fitted reasonably well according to the standards which are customarily styled 'good fits'.

It would indeed be interesting if it could be established that the EDF model is a sound basis for explaining nucleus-nucleus scattering, but since quite different potentials fit the data as well (or as badly) as EDF models, nothing definite can be deduced from this work. We do not criticise the highly professional study of Ref.  which is up to the generally expected standards for such work. In fact, the fits for wide angular range data tended to have huge values of $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom ($\chi^2/{\rm DF}$), and for cases with a small angular range $\chi^2/{\rm DF}$ was often not much lower. As usual in such studies, the large number of fits were presented in the published figures in such a way that 'by-eye' judgment of quality of fit was impossible, the size of the experimental points typically corresponding to a factor of two on the logarithmic differential cross section scale. That last comment applies to many publications in this field, and we shall not raise the point again.

In short, after much work, two contradictory potentials were presented, neither of which was justified by the quality of fit. We note here the similar work for alpha elastic scattering from Ni isotopes\| Ref. . For balance, note that the analysis of alpha-alpha elastic scattering in Ref.  appears to be exceptional. In this case the EDF model is applied in a case in which, at the lowest energies, the absence of absorption increases the sensitivity to the non-monotonic character of the model. The analysis does indeed appear to support the existence of a repulsive term in the strong overlap radial region.

# Appropriate phenomenology

We quote from a very interesting article  the following: "Therefore, in order to avoid too much phenomenology in the description of these data, numerous attempts have been made to replace the phenomenological real potential of Woods-Saxon (WS) type by a more microscopic $\alpha$-nucleus potential using an effective interaction. The double-folding (DF) model has become widely used with an effective nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction folded with the mass distributions of both the target nucleus and the projectile." So, how do we apply phenomenology to simultaneously (i) do justice to high quality elastic scattering data, and, (ii) evaluate an elaborate folding model? Here we propose an answer.

Although Woods-Saxon potentials (and variants such as Woods-Saxon squared) still have a legitimate role to play in reaction calculations, they do not do justice to good quality elastic scattering data, and do not begin to extract all the physical information from such data. Model independent fitting with sums of gaussians etc. leading to $\chi^2/{\rm DF} \sim 1$, more or less unprejudiced by theory, is much better. However, not knowing how to interpret the results discourages such fitting; what do the resulting undulations mean? The contrast with analyses of electron scattering, which have become of great sophistication, see e.g. Ref. , is conspicuous. This may be because the nuclear optical model potential, OMP, is seen as much more a *model* concept than the nuclear or nucleon charge density.

Theories of the OMP are well-developed, for recent folding models see Refs. , but they are not easy to evaluate. They are generally based on a local density approximation, usually with no representation of shell effects, varying collectivity or reaction channel coupling. Current folding models yield potentials that are local and $l$-independent, with a smooth radial form. Yet there is a strong case that collective and other reaction processes lead to an $l$-dependent and dynamically non-local potential (exchange non-locality is reasonably well represented), see Ref. . It is reasonable to expect phenomenology to allow for the contribution of such processes but this is seldom the case when folding models are tested by fitting data. Generally, in such tests, the potential is 'corrected' either with uniform renormalisation (bad), or by adding a model independent correction (better). There may also be a Woods-Saxon  imaginary part with fitted parameters.

The uniform renormalisation of folding models is bad because it is intended to correct for inelastic processes, etc. But the contributions (dynamic polarization potentials, DPPs) from such processes are never smooth and the DPP is never uniformly proportional to the unrenormalized folding model potential. Therefore, renormalization will never provide a perfect fit to high quality elastic scattering data; it simply disguises the shortcomings of the folding model. It is, of course, just where the best models fail that we have a chance to increase understanding. To clarify: there are certainly situations where Woods-Saxon potentials, and similar forms, are appropriate; but there are also many situations where they are not.

# Suggested approach

Phenomenology must recognize theoretical restrictions on what is possible; for example, the unitarity limit $|S_L|  \leq1$ must be respected. However, respecting this limit does not exclude the existence of local radial regions where the potential is emissive; such regions appear in DPPs arising from channel coupling. Phenomenology should only respect *necessary* restrictions and the first step is to determine a suitable global potential if one does not exist. The second step involves scattering from the specific nucleus of interest.

1.  Employ a reasonable parameterized form to fit as wide a range of elastic scattering data as is reasonable to define a global potential. Such potentials exist, see Ref.  for nucleons, but usually do not have an unrestricted energy range. At this stage, do not introduce 'local' fits for specific ranges (e.g. around closed shells) as done, for good reasons, in Refs.  for mass three.

2.  Fit data for the specific nucleus with an additive correction to the global potential: search on the parameters of a model-independent additive term, e.g. sum of Bessel functions, spline functions, gaussians, etc. The search should *not* be restricted to smooth (non-wavy) potentials, and the lowest $\chi^2$ should be sought. This, and the essential error analyses, will be most meaningful where there exist data that are precise and which have a wide angular range.

It is the resulting purely phenomenological potential for a specific target nucleus against which folding model theoretical potentials for the same nucleus should be compared. This means of evaluating the folding model potentials should replace the direct fitting of experimental data by renormalizing or with additive potentials. The procedure is not restricted to the evaluation of folding models, see for example the first two of the following points:

1.  The dependence of the OMP upon shell structure, upon the varying strength of reaction channels and upon the varying collectivity, will be revealed naturally. For an early example of a link between collectivity and OMP parameters, see Ref. .

2.  The model independent fitting should *not* avoid the possibility of some undularity (waviness) in the potential. Such undularity is known to arise from channel coupling (for references, see Section III of Ref. ), and therefore constitutes a source of information concerning reaction dynamics. Of course, some undularity might be due to erroneous data, but the error analysis should help identify this. For an example of where information was missed when model independent fitting was halted just where undulations would have appeared, see Ref. .

3.  Regarding the evaluation of folding models: fitting data by renormalizing the real potential while also fitting the parameters of a purely phenomenological imaginary potential is susceptible to interplay between the effects of changes in the real and imaginary potentials, particularly where the data are less than optimal.

4.  The suggested approach avoids the problem that can arise when evaluating certain folding models in which there is a consistency problem: certain corrections depend on the potential itself, requiring iterations as the potential is renormalised. That problem is absent with the method suggested here.

5.  The inadequacy and incompleteness of a data-set will be revealed by the error analysis of the first step. In fact, nucleon scattering data is virtually always incomplete owing to the absence of spin rotation (Wolfenstein's parameter) measurements, see Refs..

6.  The phenomenological potential, found as above, will be the local and $l$-independent equivalent to a non-local and $l$-dependent potential (non-locality due to both exchange and dynamical processes). It can be compared with any theoretical local potential which should ultimately contain representations of all contributing processes. Comparison is possible since all $l$-dependent and non-local potentials have local equivalents with the same $S_l$ or $S_{lj}$.

7.  Potentials with local emissive regions should not be avoided as long as $|S_L|  \leq1$; regions of emissivity can occur in $l$-independent equivalents of $l$-dependent potentials that closely fit data and also in potentials representing reaction or collective coupling.

None of the above de-values global potentials such as those of Refs . Their properties, such as energy dependence, provide information concerning reaction dynamics, and they are essential for reaction calculations when there is a lack of relevant elastic scattering data. However, global potentials do not represent all the information concerning nuclear interactions for specific targets and projectiles; that information remains untapped in the best existing elastic scattering data. Potentials derived from precise and comprehensive data, in the manner described above, not only enable a rigorous test of folding models but also reveal aspects of nuclear reaction physics that would otherwise not be noticed.

Point 2 above referred to undulations arising from channel coupling. There are many examples of undularity generated by coupling to reaction or collective channels; for recent light ion examples see Refs.  and for heavier ions Ref. . The $l$-independent potential that has the same $S$-matrix, $S_l$ or $S_{lj}$, as an $l$-dependent potential will have undulations and Ref.  includes an example for $^{16}$O scattering from $^{12}$C. Although theory implies the $l$-dependence of OMPs, see Ref. , there is currently no 'dictionary' relating specific forms of undulations, such as might be found by model-independent data fitting, to specific forms due to reaction coupling or due to phenomenological $l$-dependence. Even without such a dictionary, it would clearly be of great interest if radial forms similar to those found in Refs.  were found in precision fits.

We have discussed two methods of evaluating folding models (or any theoretical OMP): (i) fit elastic scattering data with a model-independent function added to the folding model potential, and, (ii) compare the folding model potential with the optimum model-independent potential determined in the way we have proposed. While method (i) is clearly superior to fitting by applying a uniform normalisation, method (ii) has several advantages. Firstly, many variant folding model potentials can be evaluated against the same empirical potential and can also be mutually compared; there is no need for new searches as the folding model undergoes development. Furthermore, different folding model calculations will have a uniform comparison. Secondly, the real part can be evaluated independently of the imaginary part so there is no possibility of changes to the imaginary part confusing comparisons of real folding model potentials. Finally, the prior step, the determination of the local phenomenological potential, will reveal trends related to shell effects and variations in channel coupling contributions, etc.

# General discussion

Why is it necessary to make a case for the extraction of all the information contained in hard-won experimental elastic scattering data? Historically, when the liquid drop and compound nucleus models dominated nuclear physics, it was surprising that a potential model could even approximately fit data for nucleon scattering from complex nuclei. Very simple models, with parameters that varied in a regular way, gave good enough fits to show that they had some validity. It soon became possible to get 'reasonable' fits with systematically varying parameters for a wide range of target nuclei and energies . Subsequently, various folding models also gave what, in some contexts, would be considered 'reasonable' fits to elastic scattering data. Now, many years later, the belief that approximate fits to elastic scattering are sufficient has lingered on. It was natural in an earlier era not to require $\chi^2/{\rm DF} \sim 1$ as a criterion for a satisfactory fit. As we have argued, in many contexts this is no longer the case. It is now possible to interpret, qualitatively at least, the undulatory properties of potentials found with precise data fitting.

The arguments of this paper apply most strongly to the elastic scattering of nucleons and other light ions. However, they apply in certain cases of the scattering of heavier ions for which elastic scattering is sensitive over a considerable radial range. The sensitive range can be determined on a case by case basis, perhaps using a notch test. For examples of where potentials for heavier ions have been established over a meaningful radial range see Ref. . That work presents cases involving \^16${}^{16}$O on \^28${}^{28}$Si and \^40${}^{40}$Ca as well as elastic \^6${}^{6}$Li scattering on a range of nuclei. In all of these cases wavy potentials emerge, indicative of strong channel coupling implying that corrections to relevant folding models will also be undulatory, ruling out uniform renormalization.

Precise data-fitting sometimes has a bad name, but without Kepler's, Newton could not have verified his theory from Tycho Brahe's data. Moreover Newton's theory was eventually replaced by Einstein's theory, supported by precise data-fitting revealing the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. We conclude that there are scientific contexts in which precise data-fitting is worthwhile. In a situation where the latest folding models, such as Ref. , are $l$-independent it would surely be interesting if it could be shown by fitting data that the nucleon OMP is, in fact, $l$-dependent . Although elastic scattering can give only indirect evidence for nuclear collectivity etc. , elastic scattering data does typically have precision and angular range greater than that for inelastic and reaction channels.

Precise fitting of wide angular range elastic scattering data would enable, for the first time, detailed evaluations of DPP calculations. Since the couplings responsible for the DPP actually lead to a non-local and $l$-dependent potential, the evaluation of the local equivalent would be a necessary step in determining how these processes affect reaction calculations based on the use of local OMPs. The evaluation of DPP calculations should make it possible to relate elastic scattering to those properties of nuclei which do not vary smoothly with $N$ and $Z$. It should also enable a more rigorous evaluation of that part of the folding model that is expected to vary more smoothly with $N$ and $Z$. Methods involving a uniform renormalisation do not do this reliably. As an example for heavier ions: \^6${}^{6}$Li DPPs have been calculated extending well inside the strong absorption region ; the measurement and precision fitting of elastic scattering for this case would enable a study of breakup dynamics.

# Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Nicholas Keeley for helpful comments on the manuscript and for many discussions over the years.


abstract: Despite the significant amount of time undergraduate students spend in introductory physics labs, there is little consensus on instructional goals and accepted diagnostic assessments for these labs. In response to these issues, we have developed the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking (PLIC) to assess students' proficiency with critical thinking in a physics lab context. Specifically, the PLIC aims to evaluate students' skills in making sense of data, variability, models, and experimental methods and to assess the effectiveness of lab courses at developing these skills. Here, we discuss the statistical and expert validation of this instrument using 2681 valid student responses collected from 12 institutions during the 2017-2018 academic year. As a part of our validation, we address the impact of lab design on student performance on the instrument.
author: Cole Walsh; Katherine N. Quinn; N. G. Holmes
title: Assessment of critical thinking in physics labs

# Introduction

The goals of instruction in undergraduate physics labs typically involve reinforcing student conceptual knowledge of topics introduced in lecture and, to a lesser extent, teaching students how to work with experimental equipment . Though research has shown that the instructional goals of labs are highly debated and vary across disciplines and institutions , it has been shown that traditional labs do not measurably affect student learning of physics content . There are, however, many important skills that a lab setting uniquely allows students to learn . Particularly, proficiency in making sense of data, variability, models, and experimental methods are all skills that are best developed in physics labs . These skills make up a recently endorsed set of recommended learning goals for undergraduate physics lab courses by the American Association of Physics Teachers .

With ongoing laboratory course transformations now occurring at multiple institutions in an effort to meet these new instructional goals, there is an increasing need for validated ways to measure student acquisition of these skills and few validated assessments exist. In response to this, we have developed the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking (PLIC). Here, we demonstrate the concurrent validity —that is, how consistent performance is with certain expected results—of the PLIC. We expect that either from instruction or selection effects, performance on the PLIC should be higher with greater physics maturity of the respondent. We define physics maturity by the level of the lab course that students were enrolled in when they took the PLIC. We also address the impact of lab courses that have undergone specific transformations to meet the goals outlined above, which we refer to as Structured Quantitative Inquiry labs or SQIlabs , on PLIC performance. This work is part of the ongoing validation and reliability assessment of the PLIC following steps laid out in Refs.  and . Other validation studies of the PLIC have been published here  and here .

# The PLIC

The PLIC is a 4-page online survey that uses a combination of Likert-style and 'select all that apply' questions. The Likert-style questions ask respondents to evaluate how well data agrees with a model or how well a particular group tested the model. The 'select all that apply' questions ask respondents to elaborate on their reasoning to the Likert-style questions and to suggest what the group should do next. For each of these 'reasoning' and 'what to do next' questions, there are between 5-10 options to choose from, and students are limited to selecting no more than three options.

The PLIC presents respondents with a hypothetical scenario where two groups of physicists are completing a mass-on-a-spring experiment to test a model where the period of oscillation of the bouncing mass is $T = 2\pi\sqrt{\frac{m}{k}}$. The first group conducts 10 repeated trials for the period of oscillation for two different masses and uses the given equation to find *k* in each case. Group 2 conducts two repeated trials for the period of oscillation for 10 different masses, plots $T^{2}$ versus *m* and fits to a straight line with the intercept fixed at the origin (one-parameter fit). Finally, Group 2 attempts to fit a straight line with a free intercept (two-parameter fit). In addition to the 'select all that apply' questions outlined above, respondents are also asked which fit Group 2 should use and why, as well as which group they think did a better job at testing the model and why.

In scoring the PLIC, we focus on the 'select all that apply' questions. That is, we do not score based on which group a student thinks did better or how well they think the group tested the model, only those ideas that they used to make their decisions. Based on responses from 24 physics post-docs, lecturers, and faculty, 1-2 responses per question that were selected by at least $50\%$ of respondents were identified as expert (E). Respondents who select *at least one* of these E responses on a question receive 1 point. Further, 1-2 responses per question that were selected by more than $30\%$, but less than $50\%$ of experts, were identified as partially-expert (P). Respondents who failed to select any E responses, but selected *at least one* P response, are awarded 0.5 points. Finally, 2-3 responses per question that were picked by less than $10\%$ of experts were identified as being particularly novice (N). Respondents selecting *at least one* N response have 0.25 points deducted from their score. All other responses to a question have no impact on a respondent's score on that question. All scores are floored at zero, so even if a respondent selects only neutral and novice responses to a question, they still receive a score of 0 on that question.

This scoring scheme allows students to obtain a maximum possible score on a question regardless of how many responses they select; we allow students to select up to three responses, but do not penalize for picking fewer. This scheme also provides credit for partial displays of critical thinking and differentiates students who answer in correct and partially correct ways from students who still have novice ideas about physics experimentation. On any question a student can receive a score between 0 and 1 in increments of 0.25. The PLIC's current format of 10 questions then allows for a maximum possible total score of 10 points.

The original 24 experts (upon whom the scoring scheme was based) obtained an average overall score on the PLIC of $8.61\pm0.17$. We subsequently received 24 additional responses from physics experts who scored $7.9\pm0.3$. Since neither of these data are normally distributed and sample sizes are small, we used a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test to compare the two sample distributions. They are statistically indistinguishable ($p = 0.13$), hence we combine these data for later comparisons.

Over the course of the 2017-2018 academic year, we collected PLIC responses before and after course instruction from 25 courses across 12 institutions. A total of 2681 valid responses were collected from students who completed the survey, consented to participate in the study, and indicated they were at least 18 years of age. Of these valid responses, pre- and post-responses were matched for individual students from the student ID or full name they provided at the end of the survey. In 2017-2018, we collected matched pre- and post-surveys from 726 students. The lab level and type (traditional or SQI) for each class were inferred from information provided by instructors about their course via a course information survey (CIS). The CIS is part of an automated system associated with the PLIC, which was adapted from Ref. .

# Methods

To assess concurrent validity, we split our matched dataset by physics maturity and compared performance on the PLIC. This split dataset includes 584 students in first-year (FY) labs, 108 students in beyond-first-year (BFY) labs, and 34 students in graduate level labs. To assess the impact of SQIlab instruction on students' PLIC performance we grouped FY students according to the type of lab their instructor indicated they were running as part of the CIS. The data includes 383 students who participated in traditional FY physics labs and 201 who participated in FY SQIlabs. We also examined students' responses to individual questions in detail to illuminate the differences in overall performance.

```latex
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cl c c c c}
& \textit{\textbf{N}} & \textbf{Pre Avg.} & \textbf{Post Avg.} & \textit{\textbf{p}} & \textit{\textbf{d}}\\
\hline
FY & 584 & $5.61\pm0.07$ & $5.79\pm0.07$ & 0.064 & 0.10\\
BFY & 108 & $6.34\pm0.17$ & $6.34\pm0.15$ & 0.994 & $\ll 0.01$\\
Grad & 34 & $6.9\pm0.2$ & $6.8\pm0.3$ & 0.823 & 0.05\\
Experts & 48 & $8.2\pm0.2$ & & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
```

Our data follows an approximately normal distribution with roughly equal variances in pre- and post-scores (see Fig. ). For this reason, we used parametric statistical tests to compare paired (paired t-test) and unpaired sample means (unpaired t-test), and a one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to evaluate the effect of lab treatment on post-scores with pre-scores as a covariate. We used Cohen's *d* to calculate effect sizes between two sample means and Cohen's *f* to calculate effect sizes of the independent variable and covariate on the dependent variable in ANCOVA.

# Results and Discussion

## Concurrent Validity

We begin by comparing respondents' performance on the PLIC by physics maturity. In Table , we report the average scores for students enrolled in different level physics lab courses, as well as for our 48 experts who only took the PLIC once. The significance level and effect sizes between pre- and post-mean scores within each group are also included.

For all three groups of students, the differences between the pre- and post-instruction means are not statistically significant and the effect sizes are small or very small (Cohen's $d \leq 0.1$). Conversely, the pre-instruction means are statistically different between all groups (unpaired t-test, $p \ll 0.01$) other than between students in BFY and graduate level labs ($p = 0.12$). The effect sizes ranged from small (Cohen's $d = 0.31$) between the students in BFY and graduate labs to very large ($d = 1.6$) between students in FY labs and experts. The clear differences in means between groups of differing physics maturity, coupled with the lack of measurable increase in mean scores following instruction at any level, may imply that these differences arise from selection effects rather than cumulative instruction. This has been seen in other evaluations of students' lab sophistication as well .

We illustrate in Fig.  how the differences in physics maturity play out on one question from the pre-instruction PLIC. We use the pre-survey here since it allows us to examine students thinking before instruction, and eliminates concern about students seeing the PLIC for a second time. We chose the question presented here because it clearly demonstrates the inherent differences in item selections by respondents from these different groups. In this question, respondents were asked: 'How similar or different do you think Group 1's spring constant (k) values are?' (Likert-style, not scored) and 'what features were most important in comparing the two k values?' ('select all that apply', scored) The answers to the 'select all that apply' question that will affect a respondent's score, as well as their classifications, are:

-   R1 (Expert) - the difference in the k-values compared to their uncertainties,

-   R2 (Partial-Expert) - the size of the uncertainties (or the variability in the data),

-   R3 (Novice) - the difference between the oscillation periods of the masses,

-   R4 (Novice) - how they accounted for human error.

As expected, the expert answer to this question is picked increasingly more often with the physics maturity of the respondent. Additionally, the two novice answers to this question are picked less frequently with additional physics maturity of the respondent. The partial-expert response, however, is picked almost equally as often by all students. The fact that students equally value a partially correct answer

```latex
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cl c c c c}
& \textbf{Effect} & \textit{\textbf{F}} & \textbf{Effect Size} & \textit{\textbf{p}} \\
\hline
Post-scores & Pre-scores & 18.39 & 0.18 & $\ll 0.01$ \\
& Lab Treatment & 18.61 & 0.18 & $\ll 0.01$ \\
% & Pre-scores * Lab & $\mathit{0.004}$ & $\mathit{0.003}$ & $\mathit{0.95}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
```

at all levels could indicate that most intro to advanced physics lab courses have some focus on uncertainty. Though we have described just one question in detail here, the performance differences are present across all of the questions on the PLIC. Experts score higher than students in BFY labs who, in turn, score higher than students in FY labs. As seen here, these performance differences are manifest in the expertness of responses.

## Performance by Lab Type

We now examine how students participating in labs designed to meet the instructional goals of the PLIC performed in comparison to their counterparts in traditional lab settings. We limit our analysis to FY labs where we had three labs that were best described as being of the SQI format, while the rest were of the traditional format. The overall performance of these two groups of students is illustrated in Fig. .

We performed an ANCOVA comparing PLIC post-scores across lab treatments using pre-scores as a covariate (Table ). We see that, controlling for pre-instruction scores, lab treatment does have a statistically significant impact on post-instruction scores with a medium effect.

To see how these differences in overall scores arise, we looked at how students in the two lab types compare in their responses to one question. Fig.  shows the fraction of students who selected particular responses to one of the questions on the PLIC post-survey grouped by lab type. We show only the post-instruction data since there was no statistically significant difference in pre-instruction scores on this question between the two groups. Again, we chose this question because it most clearly illustrates key differences in student thinking by respondents from the two lab types.

In this question, students are asked: 'How similar or different do you think Group 2's data are from the new best-fit line?' (Likert-style, not scored) and 'what features were most important in comparing the fit to the data?' ('select all that apply', scored) The responses that will affect a respondent's score are:

-   R1 (Expert) - the way points are scattered above and below the line,

-   R2 (Expert) - how close the points are to the line compared to their uncertainties,

-   R3 (Partial-Expert) - number of points with uncertainties crossing the line,

-   R4 (Novice) - the number of outliers,

-   R5 (Novice) - number of points above the line compared to the number below.

One of the expert responses, R2, is a common response by students in both lab types and is mostly unaffected by instruction. However, students in SQIlabs favored the other expert response, R1, much more than students in traditional labs following instruction. Both R1 and R5 are concerned with the overall distribution of points about the best fit line. Thus, students taught in SQIlabs appear to become more engaged with the importance of the distribution of residuals, albeit some students may oversimplify this to the sheer number of points above and below the line. Nonetheless, traditionally taught students maintain their interest in the closeness of the points to the best fit line and do not acknowledge the importance of the distribution of residuals any more than they did prior to instruction. Interestingly, students in both labs become less interested in the presence of outliers following instruction. Again, though we have included only one question here for illustration purposes, students in SQIlabs see, on average, increases in performance on all but one question, whereas the average scores for students in traditional labs increase on only 4 out of 10 questions.

# Conclusions

With the need for large-scale instructional reform in physics lab instruction, there will be an equally important need for a method to evaluate these new instructional goals. Here, we have introduced one such method for measuring these goals, the PLIC. By comparing the performance of physics experts to students in FY and BFY undergraduate labs, and those in graduate-level labs, we have demonstrated the concurrent validity of the assessment. Though likely due to selection effects rather than instruction, respondents with a greater level of physics maturity perform consistently better on the PLIC.

Further, though we have seen no statistically significant shifts in performance following instruction for large cohorts of students, this is not the case for students enrolled in SQIlabs designed to teach the skills that the PLIC is designed to measure. Using ANCOVA, we have shown that SQIlabs have a statistically significant and medium effect on PLIC performance. Despite there being no measurable difference in PLIC performance before instruction, students in SQIlabs had created separation from their counterparts in traditional labs, in terms of PLIC performance, following instruction. These studies establish one measure of validity of the PLIC and its importance in measuring the skills that we aim to teach in meeting the new guidelines for physics labs in the future.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1611482. We would like to acknowledge Carl Wieman, members of CPERL for their useful feedback, and Heather Lewandowski and Bethany Wilcox for their support developing the administration system.