\section{How to submit to the \textbf{\textit{Journal of Fluid Mechanics}}}
Authors must submit using the online submission and peer review system, Scholar One Manuscripts (formerly Manuscript Central) at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jfm. If visiting the site for the first time, users must create a new account by clicking on `register here'. Once logged in, authors should click on the `Corresponding Author Centre', from which point a new manuscript can be submitted, with step-by-step instructions provided. Authors must at this stage specify whether the submission is a standard paper, or a {\it JFM Rapids} paper (see \S\ref{sec:filetypes} for more details). In addition, authors must specify an editor to whom the paper will be submitted from the drop-down list provided. Note that all editors exclusively deal with either standard papers or {\it JFM Rapids} (clearly indicated on the list), so please ensure that you choose an editor accordingly. Once your submission is completed you will receive an email confirmation.  Book reviews should not be submitted via the online submission site and should instead be submitted by email to c.p.caulfield@damtp.cam.ac.uk.

\section{Rules of submission}\label{sec:rules_submission}
Submission of a paper implies a declaration by the author that the work has not previously been published, that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and that it has not already been considered by a different editor of the Journal. Note that a report on a conference must be submitted within 3 months of the meeting.

\section{Types of paper}\label{sec:types_paper}
\subsection{Standard papers}
Regular submissions to JFM are termed `standard papers'. Note that such papers must contain original research, as review articles are not published in JFM. Papers should be written in a concise manner; though JFM has no page limit, each paper will be judged on its own merits, and those deemed excessive in length will be rejected or will require significant revision.
\subsection{JFM Rapids}
{\it JFM Rapids} is devoted to the rapid publication of short, high-impact papers across the full range of fluid mechanics. Manuscripts submitted as {\it Rapids}  must be strictly 10 or fewer printed pages, and must be submitted in {\LaTeX} using the jfm.cls class file, so as to ensure that they meet the page limit and to expedite their production.  The principal and over-riding objective is to publish papers of the highest scientific quality.

Once a paper is submitted, referees are asked to provide reports with a short turnaround.  In order to be accepted for publication in {\it JFM Rapids}, such papers must require only minor revisions to improve clarity, usually without recourse to a second round of refereeing. In this case, and at the discretion of the editor, some additional pages may be allowed to address specific points raised by the referees, such as the addition of an extra figure or some explanatory text.

In cases where the editor, guided by the referees, judges that a paper has merit but requires substantial revision that will require significant refereeing, a decision of `revise and resubmit' will be given. On re-submission, such papers will be handled as standard JFM papers and if accepted will not subsequently appear as {\it JFM Rapids}.

{\it Rapids} will be published online within one month of final acceptance.  They will appear within a designated section on the Journal of Fluid Mechanics website.  Each {\it Rapid} will be cited and indexed as a JFM article but with a distinctive {\it Rapids} identifier, and will be assigned to a JFM volume. {\it Rapids} will not be included in the regular print versions of JFM, and accordingly they incur no colour figure charges.

\section{File types}\label{sec:filetypes}
Authors are strongly encouraged to compose their papers in {\LaTeX}, using the jfm.cls style file and supporting files provided at\\ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displaySpecialPage?pageId=2860, with the jfm-instructions.tex file serving as a template (note that this is mandatory for {\it JFM Rapids}). A PDF of the {\LaTeX} file should then be generated and submitted via the submission site. Please note that PDFs larger than 10MB are not acceptable for review. There is no need to submit the {\LaTeX} source file alongside the PDF, but upon provisional acceptance of the paper, the {\LaTeX} source file, along with individual figure files and a PDF of the final version, will need to be submitted for typesetting purposes.
Authors may also compose standard papers in Word, though this will lead to the paper spending a longer period in production. If using Word, please note that equations must NOT be converted to picture format and the file must be saved with the option `make equation editable'.
\section{Preparing your manuscript}
Authors should write their papers clearly and concisely in English, adhering to JFM's established style for notation, as provided in \S\ref{notstyle}. We encourage the submission of online supplementary material alongside the manuscript where appropriate (see section \ref{online}). Metric units should be used throughout and all abbreviations must be defined at first use, even those deemed to be well known to the readership. British spelling must be used, and should follow the \textit{Shorter Oxford English Dictionary}.

\subsection{Figures}
Figures should be as small as possible while displaying clearly all the information required, and with all lettering readable. Every effort should be taken to avoid figures that run over more than one page. Figures submitted in colour will appear online in colour but, with the exception of {\it JFM Rapids}, all figures will be printed in black and white unless authors specify during submission that figures should be printed in colour, for which there is a charge of \pounds200 plus VAT per figure (i.e. \pounds240) with a cap of \pounds1000 plus VAT per article (i.e. \pounds1200) (colour is free for {\it JFM Rapids}).  Note that separate figures for online and print will {\bf not} be accepted and it is the author's responsibility to ensure that if a figure is to appear in colour online only, that same figure will still be meaningful when printed in black and white (for example, do not rely upon colours to distinguish lines if those colours will just appear as similar shades of grey when printed). If using colour, authors should also ensure that some consistency is applied within the manuscript. For review purposes figures should be embedded within the manuscript. Upon final acceptance, however, individual figure files will be required for production. These should be submitted in EPS or high-resolution TIFF format (1200 dpi for lines, 300 dpi for halftone and colour in CMYK format, and 600 dpi for a mixture of lines and halftone). The minimum acceptable width of any line is 0.5pt. Each figure should be accompanied by a single caption, to appear beneath, and must be cited in the text. Figures should appear in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text and figure files must be named accordingly (`Figure 1.eps', `Figure 2a.tiff', etc) to assist the production process (and numbering of figures should continue through any appendices). The word \textit {figure} is only capitalized at the start of a sentence. For example see figures \ref{fig:ka} and \ref{fig:kd}. Failure to follow figure guidelines may result in a request for resupply and a subsequent delay in the production process. Note that {\em all} figures are relabelled by the typesetter, so please ensure all figure labels are carefully checked against your originals when you receive your proofs.

\begin{figure}
  \centerline{\includegraphics{trapped}
  \caption{Trapped-mode wavenumbers, $kd$, plotted against $a/d$ for
    three ellipses:\protect\\
    ---$\!$---,
    $b/a=1$; $\cdots$\,$\cdots$, $b/a=1.5$.}
\label{fig:ka}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
  \centerline{\includegraphics{modes}}
  \caption{The features of the four possible modes corresponding to
  (\textit{a}) periodic\protect\\ and (\textit{b}) half-periodic solutions.}
\label{fig:kd}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Tables}
Tables, however small, must be numbered sequentially in the order in which they are mentioned in the text. The word \textit {table} is only capitalized at the start of a sentence. See table \ref{tab:kd} for an example.

\begin{table}
  \begin{center}
\def~{\hphantom{0}}
  \begin{tabular}{lccc}
      $a/d$  & $M=4$   &   $M=8$ & Callan \etal \\[3pt]
       0.1   & 1.56905 & ~~1.56~ & 1.56904\\
       0.3   & 1.50484 & ~~1.504 & 1.50484\\
       0.55  & 1.39128 & ~~1.391 & 1.39131\\
       0.7   & 1.32281 & ~10.322 & 1.32288\\
       0.913 & 1.34479 & 100.351 & 1.35185\\
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Values of $kd$ at which trapped modes occur when $\rho(\theta)=a$}
  \label{tab:kd}
  \end{center}
\end{table}

\subsection{Online supplementary material}\label{online}
Relevant material which is not suitable for print production, such as movies or numerical simulations/animations, can be uploaded as part of the initial submission. Movies should be designated as `Movie' and each individual file must be accompanied by a separate caption and a suitable title (eg Movie 1). Accepted formats are .mov, .mpg, .mp4, and .avi, though they should be archived as a .zip or .tar file before uploading. Each movie should be no more than 10MB. Upon publication these materials will then be hosted online alongside the final published article. Likewise, should there be detailed mathematical relations, tables or figures which are likely to be useful only to a few specialists or take up excessive space in the printed journal, these can also be published online as supplementary material [designated as `Other supplementary material']. Note that supplementary material is published `as is', with no further production performed.

\section{Editorial decisions}
\subsection{Revision}
If a revision is requested, you should upload revised files following the same procedure as for submitting a new paper. You begin by clicking on `Manuscripts with decision' in your Corresponding Author Center, and then on `Create a revision'. (Note that if you abandon the process before completing the submission, to continue the submission, you must click on `Revised manuscripts in draft'.) There is a new first page showing the decision letter and a space for your reply to the referee's/editor's comments. You also have the opportunity at this stage to upload your reply to the comments as a separate file. All the values filled in on original submission are displayed again. The ID number of the paper will be appended `.R1'. Also note that if a manuscript is submitted as a {\it JFM Rapid}, but requires substantial revision, it will be re-designated as a standard paper, and the ID and paper type will be amended to reflect this.

\subsection{Provisional acceptance}
If the paper is accepted as suitable for publication you will be sent a provisional acceptance decision. This enables you to upload the final files required for production:
(1) the final PDF or word version of the paper, designated as a `main document';
(2) any source files (see section \ref{sec:filetypes}) which must be designated as `production (not for review)' and uploaded as a single .zip or .tar file.

\subsection{Acceptance}
On receipt of the production files you will be sent an email indicating completion of the acceptance process.

\section{Publication process}
Once a paper has been accepted for publication and the source files have been uploaded, the manuscript will be sent to Cambridge University Press for copyediting and typesetting, and will be assigned a digital object identifier (doi). When the proof is ready, authors will receive an email alert containing a link to the PDF of the proof, and instructions for its correction and return. It is imperative that authors check their proofs closely, particularly the equations and figures, which should be checked against the accepted file, as the production schedule does not allow for corrections at a later stage. Once ready for printing, papers will be published online on Cambridge Journals Online in the current `open' volume. {\it JFM Rapids} will also be assigned to the current open volume, but will receive an article number in place of traditional pagination, as they will not appear in the print version of that volume. Each volume will be kept open for approximately two weeks, at which point it will be considered `closed', and then printed and distributed. The following volume will be immediately opened. Note that the PDF published online is the Version of Record, matching the print version, and no further alterations/corrections to this document will be allowed. The corresponding author is emailed a link to the published article when it is first published online.

\section{Corrigenda}
The Journal will publish corrigenda that alter significant conclusions made in a paper.  Such corrigenda should be submitted to an associate editor, who will consider the submission similarly to a new paper and may consult referees if appropriate.  When published, corrigenda are clearly linked with the original articles to which they refer, and the articles to them.

The Journal does not normally publish corrigenda to amend typographical errors, so it is extremely important that authors make very careful checks of their manuscript at every stage, including the reading of proofs, prior to publication.

\section{Obtaining help}
Technical support for the online submission system is available by clicking on the `Get Help Now' link at the top-right corner of each page of the submission site. Any other questions relating to the submission or publication process should be directed to the JFM Editorial Assistant, Mrs Amanda Johns, at ajohns@cambridge.org.

\section{Notation and style}\label{notstyle}
Generally any queries concerning notation and journal style can be answered by viewing recent pages in the Journal. However, the following guide provides the key points to note. It is expected that Journal style will be followed, and authors should take care to define all variables or entities upon first use. Also note that footnotes are not normally accepted.

\subsection{Mathematical notation}
\subsubsection{Setting variables, functions, vectors, matrices etc}
{\bf Italic font} should be used for denoting variables, with multiple-letter symbols avoided except in the case of dimensionless numbers such as $\Rey$, $\Pran$ and $\Pen$ (Reynolds, Prandtl, and P\'eclet numbers respectively, which are defined as \verb}\Rey}, \verb}\Pran} and {\verb}\Pen} in the template).\\
{\bf Upright Roman font} (or upright Greek where appropriate) should be used for:\\
Operators: sin, log, d, $\Delta$, e etc.\\
Constants: i ($\sqrt{-1}$), $\upi$ (defined as \verb}\upi}), etc.\\
Functions: $\Ai$, $\Bi$ (Airy functions, defined as \verb}\Ai} and \verb}\Bi}), $\Real$ (real part, defined as \verb}\Real}), $\Imag$ (imaginary part, defined as \verb}\Imag}), etc.\\
Physical units: cm, s, etc\\
Abbreviations: c.c. (complex conjugate), h.o.t. (higher-order terms), DNS, etc.\\
{\bf Bold italic font} (or bold sloping Greek) should be used for:\\
Vectors (with the centred dot for a scalar product also in bold): $\boldsymbol{i \cdot j}$\\
{\bf Bold sloping sans serif font}, defined by the \verb}\mathsfbi} macro, should be used for:\\
Tensors and matrices: $\mathsfbi{D}$ \\
{\bf Script font} (for example $\mathcal{G}$, $\mathcal{R}$) can be used as an alternative to italic when the same letter denotes a different quantity (use \verb}\mathcal} in \LaTeX)\\
The product symbol ($\times$) should only be used to denote multiplication where an equation is broken over more than one line, to denote a cross product, or between numbers (the $\cdot$ symbol should not be used, except to denote a scalar product specifically).\\

\subsubsection{Other symbols}
A centred point should be used only for the scalar product of vectors.
Large numbers that are not scientific powers should not include commas, but have the
form 1600 or 16 000 or 160 000.
Use \textit{O} to denote `of the order of', not the \LaTeX\ $\mathcal{O}$.

\section{Citations and references}
All papers included in the References section must be cited in the article, and vice versa. Citations should be included as, for example ``It has been shown \citep{Rogallo81} that...'' (using the {\verb}\citep} command, part of the natbib package) ``recent work by \citet{Dennis85}...'' (using {\verb}\citet}).
The natbib package can be used to generate citation variations, as shown below.\\
\verb#\citet[pp. 2-4]{Hwang70}#:\\
\citet[pp. 2-4]{Hwang70} \\
\verb#\citep[p. 6]{Worster92}#:\\
\citep[p. 6]{Worster92}\\
\verb#\citep[see][]{Koch83, Lee71, Linton92}#:\\
\citep[see][]{Koch83, Lee71, Linton92}\\
\verb#\citep[see][p. 18]{Martin80}#:\\
\citep[see][p. 18]{Martin80}\\
\verb#\citep{Brownell04,Brownell07,Ursell50,Wijngaarden68,Miller91}#:\\
\citep{Brownell04,Brownell07,Ursell50,Wijngaarden68,Miller91}\\
The References section can either be built from individual \verb#\bibitem# commands, or can be built using BibTex. The BibTex files used to generate the references in this document can be found in the zip file at http://journals.cambridge.org/\linebreak[3]data/\linebreak[3]relatedlink/\linebreak[3]jfm-ifc.zip.\\
Where there are up to ten authors, all authors' names should be given in the reference list. Where there are more than ten authors, only the first name should appear, followed by et al.\\

Acknowledgements should be included at the end of the paper, before the References section or any appendicies, and should be a separate paragraph without a heading. Several anonymous individuals are thanked for contributions to these instructions.

\section{Introduction}
Large-scale coherent structures in the form of wavepackets play an important role in the dynamics and acoustics of turbulent jets. In particular, their spatial coherence makes wavepackets efficient sources of sound \citep{crighton1990shear,jordan2013wave}. They are most easily observed in forced experiments, where periodic exertion establishes a phase-reference. The measurements of a periodically forced turbulent jet by \citet{crow1971orderly} served as a reference case for wavepacket models. Early examples of such models include the studies by \citet{michalke1971instability} and \citet{crighton1976stability}, who established the idea that the coherent structures can be interpreted as linear instability waves evolving around the turbulent mean flow.

Wavepackets in unforced jets exhibit intermittent behavior \citep{cavalieri2011jittering} and as a result are best understood as statistical objects that emerge from the stochastic turbulent flow. We use spectral proper orthogonal decomposition \citep{Lumley:1970,TowneEtAt2017SPOD} to extract these structures from the turbulent flow. SPOD has been applied to a range of jets using data from both experimental \citep{glauser1987coherent,arndt1997proper,citriniti2000reconstruction,suzuki2006instability,gudmundsson2011instability}, and numerical studies \citep{sinha2014wavepacket,towne2015stochastic,SchmidtEtAl_2017_JFM}.

Wavepackets have been extensively studied, mainly because of their prominent role in the production of jet noise, and models based on the parabolized stability equations (PSE) have proven to be successful at modeling them \citep{gudmundsson2011instability,cavalieri2013wavepackets,sinha2014wavepacket}. This agreement between SPOD modes and PSE solution breaks down at low frequencies and for some azimuthal wavenumbers, and in general downstream of the potential core. In the present study, we show that the SPOD eigenspectra unveil low-rank dynamics, and we inspect the corresponding modes and compare them with predictions based on resolvent analysis. The results show that two different mechanisms are active in turbulent jets, and they explain the success and failure of linear and PSE models.

Resolvent analysis of the turbulent mean flow field seeks sets of forcing and response modes that are optimal with respect to the energetic gain between them. When applied to the mean of a fully turbulent flow, the resolvent forcing modes can be associated with nonlinear modal interactions \citep{McKeonSharma2010} as well as stochastic inputs to the flow, for example the turbulent boundary layer in the nozzle that feeds the jet. \citet{garnaud2013pref} interpreted the results of their resolvent analysis of a turbulent jet in the light of experimental studies of forced jets by \citet{moore1977role} and \citet{crow1971orderly}. They found that the frequency of the largest gain approximately corresponds to what the experimentalists referred to as the \emph{preferred frequency}, i.e.~the frequency where external harmonic forcing in the experiments triggered the largest response. In the context of jet aeroacoustics, \citet{jeun2016input} restricted the optimal forcing to vortical perturbations close to the jet axis, and the optimal responses to the far-field pressure. Their results show that suboptimal modes have to be considered in resolvent-based jet noise models.

In this paper, we use resolvent analysis to model and explain the low-rank behavior of turbulent jets revealed by SPOD.  Recent theoretical connections between SPOD and resolvent analysis \citep{towne2015stochastic,lesshafftmodeling,TowneEtAt2017SPOD} make the latter a natural tool for this endeavor and provide a framework for interpreting our results.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The three large-eddy simulation databases used to study different Mach number regimes are introduced in \S \ref{LES}. At first, the focus is on the lowest Mach number case in \S\S \ref{SPOD}-\ref{comparison}. We start by analyzing the data of this case using (mainly) SPOD in \S \ref{SPOD}, followed by the resolvent analysis in \S \ref{resolvent}. The results of the SPOD and the resolvent model are compared in \S \ref{comparison}. \S \ref{mach} addresses Mach number effects observed in the remaining two cases representing the transonic and the supersonic regime. Finally, the results are discussed in \S \ref{discussion}. For completeness, we report in appendix \ref{app:mach} all results for the higher Mach number cases that were omitted in \S \ref{mach} for brevity.

\section{Large eddy simulation}\label{LES}

The unstructured flow solver ``Charles" \citep{bres2017unstructured} is used to perform large-eddy simulations of three turbulent jets at Mach numbers $M_j=U_j/a_j$ of 0.4, 0.9, and 1.5. All jets are isothermal and the supersonic jet is ideally expanded. The nozzle geometry is included in the computational domain, and synthetic turbulence combined with a wall model is applied inside the nozzle to obtain a fully turbulent boundary layer inside the nozzle. The jets are further characterized by their Reynolds numbers $\Rey=\rho_jU_jD/\mu_j$, which correspond approximately to the laboratory values in a set of companion experiments. The reader is referred to \citet{bres2017unstructured} for further details on the numerical method, meshing strategy and subgrid-scale model. A detailed validation of the $M_j=0.9$ jet including the nozzle-interior turbulence modeling (i.e., synthetic turbulence, wall model) can be found in \citet{bres2017jets}. The subscripts $j$ and $\infty$ refer to jet and free-stream  conditions, $a$ is the speed of sound, $\rho$ density, $D$ nozzle diameter, $\mu$ dynamic viscosity, $T$ temperature, and $U_j$ to the axial jet velocity on the centerline of the nozzle exit, respectively. Throughout this paper, the flow is non-dimensionalized by its nozzle exit values, pressure by $\rho_j U_j^2$, lengths by $D$, and time by $D/U_j$. Frequencies are reported in terms of the Strouhal number $\St=\omega/(2\pi M_j)$, where $\omega$ is the non-dimensional angular frequency.
\begin{table}
  \begin{center}
\def~{\hphantom{0}}
  \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}

      case  & $M_j$ & $\Rey$ & $\frac{p_0}{p_\infty}$ & $\frac{T_0}{T_\infty}$ & $n_{\text{cells}}$ & $\frac{\dd t c_\infty}{D}$ & $\frac{t_{\text{sim}} c_\infty}{D}$ \\[3pt]
      {subsonic} & 0.4 &  $0.45\cdot10^6$ & 1.117 & 1.03 & $15.9\cdot10^6$  & $1\cdot10^{-3}$ & 2000\\
      {transsonic} & 0.9 & $1.01\cdot10^6$ & 1.7 & 1.15 & $15.9\cdot10^6$  & $1\cdot10^{-3}$ & 2000\\
      {supersonic} & 1.5 & $1.76\cdot10^6$ & 3.67 & 1.45 & $31\cdot10^6$  & $2.5\cdot10^{-4}$ & 500
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Parameters of the large-eddy simulations.}
  \label{tab:LES}
  \end{center}
\end{table}
The parameters of the three simulations are listed in table \ref{tab:LES}: ${p_0}/{p_\infty}$ is the nozzle pressure ratio, ${T_0}/{T_\infty}$ the nozzle temperature ratio, $n_{\text{cells}}$ the number of control volumes, ${\dd t c_\infty}/{D}$ the computational time step, and ${t_{\text{sim}}/c_\infty}{D}$ the total simulation time after the flow became stationary, i.e.~without initial transients.
\begin{figure}
\centering
	\includegraphics[trim=0 2.3cm 0 3mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_LESinst}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Instantaneous flow field of the subsonic jet: (a) streamwise cross-section along the jet axis; (b-e) transverse planes at different streamwise locations $x$. The streamwise velocity fluctuation ${u}'_x$ is shown. The potential core and the jet width are indicated as lines of constant $\bar{u}_x$ at 99\% and 5\% of the jet velocity $U_j$, respectively.}
	\label{fig:M04_LESinst}
\end{figure}
The unstructured LES data is first interpolated onto a $n_x\times n_r \times n_\theta$ structured cylindrical grid spanning $x,r,\theta\in[0,\,30]\times[0,\,6]\times[0,\,2\pi]$. Snapshots are saved with a temporal separation ${\Delta t c_\infty}/{D}$ (in acoustical units). For both the spectral analysis in \S \ref{SPOD}, and the resolvent model in \S \ref{resolvent}, we Reynolds decompose a flow quantity $q$ into the long-time mean denoted by $\overline{(\cdot)}$ and the fluctuating part ${(\cdot)'}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:reynbolds}
q(x,r,\theta,t)=\overline{q}(x,r,\theta) + q'(x,r,\theta,t).
\end{equation}
A visualization of the subsonic jet is shown in figure \ref{fig:M04_LESinst}. Only the domain of interest for this study is shown  (the full LES domain is much larger and includes flow within the nozzle as well as far-field sponge regions).

\begin{figure}
\centering
	\includegraphics[trim=0 0.6cm 0 3mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/baseFlow_ucl_r12}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Mean flow characteristics for the three jets: (a) centerline velocity $u_{c}=\overline{u}_x(x,r=0)$; (b) momentum thickness $\delta_{\theta}=\int_0^{r_{1}} \frac{\bar{\rho}\bar{u}_x}{\rho_c u_c} \left( 1-\frac{\bar{u}_x}{u_c} \right) \dd r$, where the integral is taken from the centerline to $r_{1}$ defined as $\bar{u}_x(r_{1})=\bar{u}_\infty+0.01\bar{u}_{j}$  (the $\bar{u}_{\infty}$ term is included to account for a small coflow included in the simulations). The centerline velocity becomes inversely proportional to the axial distance shortly after the potential core, and the momentum thickness increases approximately linearly.}
	\label{fig:baseFlow_ucl_r12}
\end{figure}
The mean centerline velocity of the three jets is compared in figure \ref{fig:baseFlow_ucl_r12}(a). The plateau close to the nozzle characterizes the potential core, whose length increases with Mach number. A weak residual shock pattern is observed for $x\lesssim10$ in the supersonic case. The streamwise development of turbulent jets is usually described in terms of an \emph{initial development region} ($0\lesssim x/D \lesssim 25$), and a \emph{self-similar region} ($x/D \gtrsim 25$), see e.g.~\cite{Pope2000}. In the latter, the jet is fully described by a self-similar velocity profile, and a constant spreading and velocity-decay rate. For a dynamical description of the flow, we further divide the initial development region into two parts. The \emph{initial shear-layer region} extends up to the end of the potential core ($0\lesssim x/D \lesssim 5$ for $M=0.4$) and is characterized by a constant velocity jump over the shear-layer, and a linearly increasing shear-layer thickness. The \emph{developing jet region} lies between the end of the potential core and the start of the self-similar region ($5\lesssim x/D \lesssim 25$). In this region, the centerline velocity transitions rapidly to its asymptotic decaying behavior. The mean radial velocity profile, on the other hand, has not yet converged to its self-similar downstream solution. The $1/x$-scaling of the centerline velocity with streamwise distance \citep{Pope2000} is indicated for the subsonic case. The momentum thickness shown in figure \ref{fig:baseFlow_ucl_r12}(b) increases approximately linear in all three regions in all cases. These characteristic velocities and length scales in each region imply different frequency scalings that will become important later.

\begin{table}
  \begin{center}
\def~{\hphantom{0}}
  \begin{tabular}{lccccccc|ccc}
  \multicolumn{8}{ c }{Interpolated database}  & \multicolumn{3}{ c }{SPOD}\\
      case & $\frac{\Delta t c_\infty}{D}$ & $n_x$ & $n_r$ & $n_\theta$ & $x_1$ & $r_1$ & $n_{t}$ & $n_{\text{freq}}$& $n_{\text{ovlp}}$& $n_{\text{blk}}$\\[3pt]
      {subsonic} & 0.2 & 656 & 138 & 128 & 30 & 6 & 10,000 & 256 & 128 & 78 \\
      {transsonic} & 0.2 & 656 & 138 & 128 & 30 & 6 & 10,000 & 256 & 128 & 78  \\
      {supersonic} & 0.1 & 698 & 136 & 128 & 30 & 6 & 5,000 & 256 & 128 & 39
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Parameters of the structured cylindrical grid of the interpolated database (left), and the SPOD parameters (right).}
  \label{tab:SPOD}
  \end{center}
\end{table}

In \S\S \ref{SPOD}-\ref{comparison}, we will focus on the $M=0.4$ jet as the main conclusions are similar for all three Mach number regimes, and we address Mach number effects in detail in \S \ref{mach}.

\section{Spectral analysis of the LES data}\label{SPOD}
In this section, we use spectral proper orthogonal decomposition (SPOD) to identify coherent structures within the three turbulent jets. This form of proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) identifies energy-ranked modes that each oscillate at a single frequency, are orthogonal to other modes at the same frequency, and, as a set, optimally represent the space-time flow statistics. SPOD was introduced by \citet{Lumley:1967,Lumley:1970} but has been used sparingly compared to the common spatial form of POD \citep{sirovich1987turbulence,aubry1991hidden} and dynamic mode decomposition \citep{schmid2010dmd}.  However, recent work by \cite{TowneEtAt2017SPOD} showed that SPOD combines the advantages of these other two methods--SPOD modes represent coherent structures that are dynamically significant and optimally account for the random nature of turbulent flows.  This makes SPOD an ideal tool for identifying coherent structures within the turbulent jets considered in this paper.

We seek modes that are orthogonal in the inner product
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:norm}
\left<\qvec_1,\qvec_2\right>_E= \iiint \qvec_1^* \mathrm{diag} \left(
\frac{\overline{T}}{\gamma\overline{\rho}M^2},
\overline{\rho},
\overline{\rho},
\overline{\rho},
\frac{\overline{\rho}}{\gamma(\gamma-1)\overline{T}M^2}
\right) \qvec_2 r \dd x \dd r \dd\theta,
\end{equation}
which are optimal in an induced compressible energy norm $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>_E$ \citep{chu1965energy}. The energy weights are defined for the state vector $\qvec=[\rho, u_x, u_r, u_\theta, T]^T(x,r,\theta,t)$ of primitive variables density $\rho$, cylindrical velocity components $u_x$, $u_r$ and $u_\theta$, and temperature $T$. The notation $(\cdot)^*$ indicates the Hermitian transpose. We discretize the inner product defined by equation (\ref{eqn:norm}) as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:discnorm}
\left<\qvec_1,\qvec_2\right>_E=\qvec_1^*\mathsfbi{W}\qvec_2,
\end{equation}
where the weight matrix $\mathsfbi{W}$ accounts for both numerical quadrature weights and the energy weights. Since the jet is stationary and symmetric with respect to rotation about the jet axis, it can be decomposed into azimuthal Fourier modes $\hat{(\cdot)}_m$ of azimuthal wavenumber $m$, temporal Fourier modes $\hat{(\cdot)}_\omega$ of angular frequency $\omega$, or combined spatio-temporal Fourier modes  Fourier modes $\hat{(\cdot)}_{m\omega}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:fft}
\qvec(x,r,\theta,t) = \sum_{m} \hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{m}(x,r,t)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}m\theta} = \sum_{\omega} \hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{\omega}(x,r,\theta)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega t} = \sum_{m}\sum_{\omega} \qffthat(x,r)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}m\theta}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}.
\end{equation}
To calculate the SPOD, the data is first segmented into sequences $\boldsymbol{Q}=\left[\qvec^{(1)}\;\qvec^{(2)}\cdots\qvec^{(n_\text{freq})} \right]$ each containing $n_{\text{freq}}$ instantaneous snapshots of $\qvec$ which are considered to be statistically independent realizations of the flow under the ergodic hypothesis. Details on the interpolated databases and spectral estimation parameters are listed in table \ref{tab:SPOD}. The spatio-temporal Fourier transform of the $l$-th block yields $\hat{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{m\omega_k}^{(l)}=\left[\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{m\omega_{1}}^{(l)}\;\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{m\omega_{2}}^{(l)}\cdots\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{m\omega_{n_{\text{freq}}}}^{(l)} \right]$, where $\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{m\omega_{k}}^{(l)}$ is the $l$-th realization of the Fourier transform at the $k$-th discrete frequency. A periodic Hann window is used to minimize spectral leakage. The ensemble of $n_{\text{blk}}$ Fourier realizations of the flow at a given frequency $\omega_k$ and azimuthal wavenumber $m$ are now collected into a data matrix $\hat{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{m\omega_{k}}=\left[\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{m\omega_{k}}^{(1)}\;\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{m\omega_{k}}^{(2)}\cdots\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{m\omega_{k}}^{(n_{\text{blk}})} \right]$. For a particular $m$ and $\omega_k$, the SPOD modes are found as the eigenvectors $\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{m\omega_{k}}=\left[{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{m\omega_{k}}^{(1)}\;{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{m\omega_{k}}^{(2)}\cdots{\boldsymbol{\psi}}_{m\omega_{l}}^{(n_{\text{blk}})} \right]$, and the modal energy as the corresponding eigenvalues $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{m\omega_k}=\text{diag}\left(\lambda_{m\omega_k}^{(1)},\lambda_{m\omega_k}^{(2)},\cdots,\lambda_{m\omega_k}^{(n_{\text{blk}})}\right)$ of the weighted cross-spectral density matrix $\hat{\boldsymbol{S}}_{m\omega_{k}}=\hat{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{m\omega_{k}}\hat{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{m\omega_{k}}^*$ as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\boldsymbol{S}}_{m\omega_{k}}\boldsymbol{W}\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{m\omega_{k}}=\boldsymbol{\Psi}_{m\omega_{k}} \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{m\omega_{k}}.
\end{equation}
The modes are sorted by decreasing energy, i.e.~$\lambda_{m\omega_k}^{(1)}\geq\lambda_{m\omega_k}^{(2)}\geq\cdots\geq\lambda_{m\omega_k}^{(n_{\text{blk}})}$.
This formulation guarantees that the SPOD modes have the desired orthonormality property $\left<\boldsymbol{\psi}_{m\omega_{k}}^{(i)},\boldsymbol{\psi}_{m\omega_{k}}^{(j)}\right>_E=\delta_{ij}$, where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function, and are optimal in terms of modal energy in the norm induced by equation (\ref{eqn:discnorm}). For brevity, we denote the $l$-th eigenvalue and the pressure component of the corresponding eigenmode as $\lambda_{l}$ and $\psi_{p}^{(l)}$, respectively. The dependence on a specific azimuthal wavenumber and frequency is implied and given in the description. Since the SPOD modes are optimal in terms of energy, we sometimes refer to the first SPOD mode as the \emph{leading} or \emph{optimal} mode and to the subsequent lower-energy modes as \emph{suboptimal} modes.

Since we wish to express the data in terms of modes that oscillate at real and positive frequencies, we take the temporal Fourier transform in equation (\ref{eqn:fft}) first. Statistical homogeneity in $\theta$ implies that averaged quantities are the same for any $\pm m$.  After verifying statistical convergence, we add the contributions of positive and negative $m$.

The distribution of power into the frequency components a signal is comprised of is referred to as its power spectrum. Power spectra are commonly expressed in terms of the power spectral density (PSD), which we will introduce later in equation (\ref{eqn:psd}). In the context of SPOD, we are interested in finding a graphical representation that can be interpreted in a similar way. In each frequency bin, the discrete SPOD spectrum is represented by the decreasing energy levels of the corresponding set of eigenfunctions. There is no obvious continuity in the modal structure of the most energetic mode (or any other) from one frequency bin to the next. Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine how the modal energy changes as a function of frequency, so that in what follows we plot the SPOD eigenvalues for each mode $l$ as functions $\lambda_{l}(\St)$ of frequency and refer to the resulting set of curves as the \emph{SPOD eigenvalue spectrum}.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 1mm 0 6mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_POD_spectrum_m0123}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{SPOD eigenvalue spectra ($\blacksquare\!{\color{Gray}\blacksquare}\!\square$, $\lambda_1\!>\!\lambda_2\!>\!\cdots\!>\!\lambda_{N}$) for the subsonic jet: (a) $m=0$; (b) $m=1$; (c) $m=2$; (d) $m=3$. For, $m>0$, the positive and negative azimuthal wavenumber components are summed. Red shaded areas (${\color{Red}\blacksquare}$) highlight the separation between the first and second modes.}
	\label{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}
\end{figure}
The SPOD eigenvalue spectrum of the axisymmetric component of the subsonic jet is shown in figure \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}(a). The red shaded area highlights the separation between the first and second modes. A large separation indicates that the leading mode is significantly more energetic than the others. When this occurs, the physical mechanism associated with the first mode is prevalent, and we say that the flow exhibits \emph{low-rank behavior}.

The low-rank behavior is apparent over the frequency band $0.2\lesssim\St\lesssim2$, and peaks at $\St\approx0.6$. It is most pronounced for $m=0$ and $m=1$, shown in panel \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}(a) and \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}(b), respectively. With increasing azimuthal wavenumber, the low-rank behaviour becomes less and less pronounced. For $m=1$, the dominance of the optimal gain persists to low frequencies, whereas it cuts off below $\St\approx0.2$ for $m=0$. For $m=2$ in figure \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}(c), even though the eigenvalue separation is not very large, it is clear that the first resolvent mode at $St=0.2$ is a continuation of the same mode at higher frequencies. In contrast, the leading $m=0$ mode at $St=0.2$ appears to be a continuation of underlying band of the subpotimal SPOD modes. Since a global integral energy norm is used, it is important to note that the structure of the modes and their truncation by the domain unavoidably factor into the form of the energy spectra. These results should be compared with the optimal gain spectra shown in figure \ref{fig:M04_gainVsSt_m0123}. The corresponding spectra for the transsonic and supersonic cases are reported in appendix \ref{app:mach} (figures \ref{fig:M09_POD_spectrum_m0123} and \ref{fig:B118_POD_spectrum_m0123}).

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 6.2cm 0 3mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_SPODmodes_m013}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Comparison between SPOD mode 1 (left) and SPOD mode 2 (right) at two representative frequencies for the subsonic jet: (a-d) $m=0$; (e-h) $m=1$; (i-l) $m=2$; (m-p) $m=3$. The normalized pressure component (${\color{Red}\blacksquare}\!{\color{Black}\blacksquare}\!{\color{Blue}\blacksquare}$, $-1<\psi_p/\|\psi_p\|_\infty<1$) is shown in $x,r\in[0\;20]\times[0\;3]$.}
	\label{fig:M04_SPODmodes_m013}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:M04_SPODmodes_m013} shows the first (left column) and the second (right column) SPOD modes  at two representative frequencies and for $m=0,\dots,3$. The most energetic mode at $m=0$ and $\St=0.6$ is shown in figure \ref{fig:M04_SPODmodes_m013}(a). These parameters correspond approximately to the point of maximum separation between the first and second mode in figure \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}(a). The pressure field takes the form of a compact wavepacket in the initial shear-layer region of the jet (see figure \ref{fig:baseFlow_ucl_r12}). Its structure is reminiscent of the Kelvin-Helmholtz shear-layer instability of the mean flow \citep{suzuki2006instability,gudmundsson2011instability,jordan2013wave}. \citet{crighton1976stability} argued that the mean flow can be regarded as an equivalent laminar flow, and found that it is convectively unstable (in the local weakly non-parallel sense) in the initial shear-layer region. Following their interpretation of this structure as a modal spatial instability wave, we refer to it as a \emph{KH-type wavepacket}. The suboptimal SPOD mode shown in \ref{fig:M04_SPODmodes_m013}(b) has a double-wavepacket structure with an upstream wavepacket similar to the KH-type and a second wavepacket further downstream. This double-wavepacket structure is similarly observed at other frequencies and azimuthal wavenumbers, most prominently in figure \ref{fig:M04_SPODmodes_m013}(b,f,h,j,n). The turbulent mean flow in this region is convectively stable--it does not support spatial modal growth. \citet{tissot2017} argue that the presence of large-scale structures in this region can be explained in terms of non-modal growth through the Orr mechanism. Our resolvent model presented in \S \ref{resolvent} supports this idea, and we therefore term these \emph{downstream} or \emph{Orr-type} wavepackets. Large parts of this paper are dedicated to establish a clear separation and explanation of these two distinct mechanisms.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 3.6cm 0 5mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Frequency-wavenumber diagrams ($\square\!{\color{Cyan}\blacksquare}\!{\color{Red}\blacksquare}$, $\log_{10}(\bar{P}_{pp})$) of the subsonic simulation along the lip-line ($r=0.5$) over axial sections representative of the potential core (left column), downstream of the potential core (center column), and the entire jet (right column). The behaviors for $m=0$ (top row) and $m=1$ (bottom row) are similar. Two lines of constant phase speed ({\solidrule}, $c_{cp}=0.8$) and ({\dashedrule}, $c_{cp}=0.4$) are shown as a reference. Rows share the same contour levels.}
	\label{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}
\end{figure}

In order to further isolate mechanisms associated with different regions of the jet, we construct empirical frequency-wavenumber diagrams by taking the Fourier transform in the streamwise direction of the LES pressure along the lip line ($r=0.5$). We compute the spatio-temporal PSD as
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:psd}
\bar{P}_{qq} = \frac{1}{n_{\text{blk}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{\text{blk}}} \left|\hat{q}^{(l)}_{m\omega\alpha}\right|^2,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{(\cdot)}_\alpha$ is the Fourier transform in the axial direction and $\alpha$ the axial wavenumber. In figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}, the PSD is plotted, and compared to the PSD computed with different window functions constraining the signal to specific regions along the streamwise axis, specifically $0 \le x \le 5$, representing the annular shear layer, and $10 \le x < 30$, the developing jet.

Qualitatively  similar results are found for $m=0$ (top row) and $m=1$ (bottom row). In the initial shear layer region investigated in figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}a and \ref{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}d, the pressure PSD follows the line of constant phase speed $c_{ph}=0.8$ and peaks at $\St\approx0.5$ for $m=0$, and a slightly lower frequency for $m=1$. This phase speed is typical for KH-type shear-layer instability waves, and the peak frequencies are close to the ones where the low-rank behavior is most pronounced in figure \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}a and \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}b, respectively. In the developing jet region in figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}b and \ref{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}e, waves propagate with about half of the phase speed observed in the initial shear-layer, and the PSD peaks at the lowest resolved frequency. The PSD for the entire domain shown in figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}c and \ref{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}f, by construction, combines these effects.

\section{Resolvent model}\label{resolvent}
A key concept that emerged from the early studies of transient growth \citep{farrell1993stochastic,trefethen1993hydrodynamic,reddy1993pseudospectra,reddy1993energy} is that of the resolvent operator. The resolvent operator is derived from the forced linearized equations of motion and constitutes a transfer function between body forces and corresponding responses. It has been used to study the linear response to external forcing of a range of laminar flows including channel flow \citep{jovanovic2005componentwise,moarref2012model}, boundary layers \citep{monokrousos2010global,sipp2012characterization} and the flow over a backward-facing step \citep{dergham2013stochastic}.

When the resolvent is computed for the turbulent mean flow, the forcing can be identified with the nonlinear effects, namely the triadic interactions that conspire to force a response at a given frequency and azimuthal wavenumber \citep{McKeonSharma2010}. Previous resolvent analyses of turbulent jets include those of jets \citet{garnaud2013pref}, \citet{jeun2016input} and \citet{lesshafftmodeling}.

The use of a resolvent model is motivated by recent findings that connect SPOD and resolvent analysis \citep{towne2015stochastic,lesshafftmodeling,TowneEtAt2017SPOD}. Specifically, SPOD and resolvent modes are identical when the SPOD expansion coefficients are uncorrelated, which is typically associated with white-noise forcing.

\subsection{Methodology}
We start by writing the forced linear governing equations, here the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, as an input-output system in the frequency domain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:inout}
\left (-\mathrm{i}\omega\mathsfbi{I}-\mathsfbi{A}_m\right )\qfft &=& \mathsfbi{B}\ffft, \\ \label{eqn:observable}
\yfft &=& \mathsfbi{C}\qfft,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathsfbi{A}_m$ is the linearized compressible Navier-Stokes operator, $\qfft$ is the state vector as before, and $\ffft$ the (for now unspecified) forcing. Equation (\ref{eqn:observable}) defines the output, or response, $\yfft$ as the product of an output matrix $\mathsfbi{C}$ with the state. Analogously, a input matrix $\mathsfbi{B}$ is introduced in (\ref{eqn:inout}). Without forcing, the right hand side of equation (\ref{eqn:inout}) is zero, and the global linear stability eigenvalue problem for $\qfft$ and $\omega$ is recovered. We use the same discretization scheme as in \citet{SchmidtEtAl_2017_JFM} and refer to that paper for details on the numerical method.

Equations (\ref{eqn:inout}) allow us to express a direct relation between inputs and outputs,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:yHf}
\yfft  = \simpleresolvent\ffft,
\end{equation}
by defining the resolvent operator
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:H}
\simpleresolvent=\mathsfbi{C}\left (-\mathrm{i}\omega\mathsfbi{I}-\mathsfbi{A}_m\right )^{-1}\mathsfbi{B}
\end{equation}
as the transfer function between them. We further define the modified, or weighted, resolvent operator
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:resolventoperator} \resolvent = \mathsfbi{W_y}^{\frac{1}{2}}\simpleresolvent\mathsfbi{W_f}^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\tilde{\mathsfbi{Y}}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}\tilde{\mathsfbi{F}}^*
\end{equation}
that account for arbitrary inner products on the input and output spaces that are defined shortly. In the last equality of equation (\ref{eqn:resolventoperator}), we anticipated the result that the optimal responses $\tilde{\mathsfbi{Y}}=[\yffthat^{(1)}\;\yffthat^{(2)}\cdots\yffthat^{(N)}]$, forcings $\tilde{\mathsfbi{F}}=[\fffthat^{(1)}\;\fffthat^{(2)}\cdots\fffthat^{(N)}]$, and amplidude gains $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}=\text{diag}\left(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\cdots,\sigma_N\right)$ can be found from the singular value decomposition (SVD) of the modified resolvent operator. By $\tilde{(\cdot)}$ we denote singular or eigenvectors. The modified resolvent operator in equation (\ref{eqn:resolventoperator}) is weighted such that the orthonormality properties
\begin{eqnarray}
\left<\yffthat\ith,\yffthat\jth\right>_y&=&\yffthat\ithH\mathsfbi{W_y}\yffthat\jth = \delta_{ij}\text{ and}\\
\left<\fffthat\ith,\fffthat\jth\right>_f&=&\fffthat\ithH\mathsfbi{W_f}\fffthat\jth  = \delta_{ij}
\end{eqnarray}
hold for the optimal responses in the output norm $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>_y$, and the forcings in the input norm $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>_f$, respectively. The optimal forcings and responses are found from the definition of the optimal energetic gain
\begin{equation}
G^2_{max}(\ffft) = \max_{\|\ffft\|^2_f=1}\frac{\big<\yfft,\yfft\big>_y}{\big<\ffft,\ffft\big>_f} = \frac{\big<\yffthat,\yffthat\big>_y}{\big<\fffthat,\fffthat\big>_f} = G^2(\fffthat^{(1)}) = \sigma_1^{2}
\end{equation}
between inputs and outputs \citep[see \eg][]{schmid2001stability}. By writing the energetic gain in form of a generalized Rayleigh quotient and inserting equations (\ref{eqn:yHf}) and (\ref{eqn:H}), it is found that the orthogonal basis of forcings optimally ranked by energetic gain can be found from the eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}\label{evp2}
\mathsfbi{W_f}^{-1}    \mathsfbi{B}^H\left (-\mathrm{i}\omega\mathsfbi{I}-\mathsfbi{A}_m\right )^{-H}\mathsfbi{C}^H      \mathsfbi{W_y}\mathsfbi{C}\left (-\mathrm{i}\omega\mathsfbi{I}-\mathsfbi{A}_m\right )^{-1}\mathsfbi{B}\fffthat\ith = \sigma^2_i\fffthat\ith.
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{evp2}) is solved by first factoring $\left(-\mathrm{i}\omega\mathsfbi{I}-\mathsfbi{A}_m\right )=\mathsfbi{L}\mathsfbi{U}$ \citep{sipp2012characterization} and then solving the eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}\label{evp2}
\mathsfbi{W_f}^{-1}    \mathsfbi{B}^H \mathsfbi{U}^{-H}\mathsfbi{L}^{-H}\mathsfbi{C}^H      \mathsfbi{W_y}\mathsfbi{C}  \mathsfbi{U}^{-1}\mathsfbi{L}^{-1}  \mathsfbi{B}\tilde{\mathsfbi{F}} = \tilde{\mathsfbi{F}}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^2
\end{equation}
for the largest eigenvalues using a standard Arnoldi method. The corresponding responses are readily obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{evp2}
\tilde{\mathsfbi{Y}} = \resolvent \tilde{\mathsfbi{F}} =\mathsfbi{W_y}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathsfbi{C}\mathsfbi{U}^{-1}\mathsfbi{L}^{-1}\mathsfbi{B}\mathsfbi{W_f}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{\mathsfbi{F}}.
\end{equation}
In this study, we quantify both the energy of the input and the output in the compressible energy norm, as defined in equation (\ref{eqn:discnorm}), by setting $\mathsfbi{W_y}=\mathsfbi{W_f}=\mathsfbi{W}$. The matrices $\mathsfbi{B}$ and $\mathsfbi{C}$ we use for the sole purpose of restricting the analysis to the physical part of the computational domain by assigning zero weights to the sponge region. The physical domain corresponds to the domain of the LES data detailed in table \ref{tab:SPOD}. It is surrounded by a sponge region of width $D$, and discretized using $950\times195$ points in the streamwise and radial direction, respectively. The streamwise extent of the domain sets a limit of $\St\gtrsim0.2$ on the lowest possible frequency. For lower frequencies, the response structures become so elongated that domain truncation affects the gain. An upper limit on $\St$ is imposed by the numerical discretization, i.e.~the capability of the differentiation scheme to resolve the smallest structures in the response and forcing fields for the given resolution. This limit is $\St\lesssim2.5$ for the subsonic, $\St\lesssim1.5$ for the transsonic, and $\St\lesssim1$ for the supersonic case, respectively. A molecular Reynolds number of $\Rey=3\cdot10^4$ is used for this study. We return to this issue later and discuss our rationale in \S \ref{subsec:Re}.

\subsection{Resolvent spectra and modes}

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 9.3cm 0 5mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_Resolvent_St06}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Optimal and suboptimal resolvent forcings (left) and corresponding responses (right) of the subsonic jet for $St=0.6$ and $m=0$. The pressure field (${\color{Red}\blacksquare}\!{\color{Black}\blacksquare}\!{\color{Blue}\blacksquare}$) is normalized with respect to its maximum absolute value. The optimal response mode in (a) is of KH type, whereas all suboptimal modes combine the KH and Orr-type waves. The inset in panel (a) shows the forcing structure close to the nozzle. The shear-layer and the potential core are outlined as in figure \ref{fig:M04_LESinst}.
}
	\label{fig:M04_Resolvent_St06}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:M04_Resolvent_St06} shows the optimal and the five leading suboptimal forcings and responses for $St=0.6$ and $m=0$. The leading mode in figure \ref{fig:M04_Resolvent_St06}(b) resembles a KH-type instability wavepacket that is confined to the initial shear-layer region. The corresponding optimal forcing in figure \ref{fig:M04_Resolvent_St06}(a) is confined close to the nozzle. The insert in figure \ref{fig:M04_Resolvent_St06}(a) reveals that the KH-type wavepacket is most efficiently forced by a structure that is oriented against the mean-shear in the vicinity of the lip-line. This is a typical manifestation of the Orr-mechanism and has similarly been observed in resolvent models of other flows \citep[\eg in][]{garnaud2013pref,dergham2013stochastic,jeun2016input,lesshafftmodeling,tissot2017}. The suboptimal modes in figure \ref{fig:M04_Resolvent_St06}(d,f,h,j,l) contain two wavepackets: one in the initial shear layer region that is similar to the KH wavepackets in the optimal mode and a second further downstream in the developing jet region. With increasing mode number, the downstream wavepacket moves upstream and becomes more spatially confined. It is optimally forced downstream of the inlet and over an axial distance comparable to the length of the response. Following the same arguments as for the suboptimal SPOD modes presented in figure \ref{fig:M04_SPODmodes_m013}, we term the downstream wavepackets Orr-type wavepackets. Both the KH-type and the Orr-type wavepackets are optimally exerted via the Orr-mechanism. From a local stability theory point of view, the two mechanisms are distinguished by their modal and non-modal nature, see \citet{jordan2017modal} and \citet{tissot2017}).

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 3.9cm 0 24mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_resolvent_phaseSpeed_St06}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{The critical layer effect in the subsonic jet for $St=0.6$ and $m=0$:
	(a) estimated phase velocity (${\color{Red}\solidrule}$ first mode; ${\color{blue}\solidrule}$ second mode);
	(b,c) normalized pressure of the first and second mode ($\blacksquare\!{\color{Gray}\blacksquare}\!\square$), and critical layer location where $c_{ph}=\bar{u}_x$. The KH and Orr wavepackets clearly follow the critical layer.
}
	\label{fig:M04_resolvent_phaseSpeed_St06}
\end{figure}
\citet{tissot2017} found that the critical layer, defined where the phase speed of the wavepacket is equal to the local mean velocity, plays an important role in the forced linear dynamics of jets. In accordance with our interpretation, their results suggests that the Orr-mechanism is active downstream of the potential core. Figure \ref{fig:M04_resolvent_phaseSpeed_St06}(a) shows the phase velocity of the leading and first suboptimal resolvent response for $m=0$ and $\St=0.6$. The phase velocity is approximated as $c_{ph}\approx \omega/\frac{\partial \theta_p}{\partial x}$, where $\theta_p=\arg(\phi_p)$ is the local phase of the pressure along $r=0.5$. The phase velocity is plotted for the regions where the pressure exceeds 25\% of its global absolute maximum value. The phase velocity of the upstream wavepacket in the initial shear-layer is almost identical for the first and second response mode. Besides their similar structure, this also suggests that the primary wavepacket of the suboptimal mode is of KH-type. The phase velocity of the downstream wavepacket decreases with axial distance in accordance with the jet's velocity-decay rate. Panels \ref{fig:M04_resolvent_phaseSpeed_St06}(b,c) show that the first and second wavepackets closely follow the critical layer. The variation of the phase speed with axial distance explains why the KH and Orr wavepackets are characterized by broad bands in frequency-wavenumber space, see figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsAlpha_SPOD}.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 0cm 0 0mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_gainVsSt_m0123}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Optimal energetic gain spectra ($\blacksquare\!{\color{Gray}\blacksquare}\!\square$, $\sigma_1\!>\!\sigma_2\!>\!\cdots\!>\!\sigma_{N}$) for the subsonic jet: (a) $m=0$; (b) $m=1$; (c) $m=2$; (d) $m=3$. The difference between the optimal and the first suboptimal mode (${\color{Red}\blacksquare}$) highlights the low-rank behavior. The thirty largest singular values were computed for $m=0$, and the three largest for $m>0$. In the inset in panel (a), the KH-type mode is tracked (${\color{blue}\solidrule}$) into the frequency range where it becomes suboptimal. The leading mode at $\St=0.33$ (${\color{blue}\boldsymbol{+}}$) serves reference and the scalar projection $\langle\qvec^{(i)},\qvec^{(1)}_{\text{ref}}\rangle_E$ onto that mode is used for the tracking.}
	\label{fig:M04_gainVsSt_m0123}
\end{figure}
Resolvent gain spectra for the first four azimuthal wavenumbers are shown figure \ref{fig:M04_gainVsSt_m0123}. As in figure \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}, we highlight the difference between the leading and the first suboptimal gain to emphasize low-rank behavior. A pronounced low-rank behavior is evident for $0.3\lesssim\St\lesssim2$ for $m=0$ as can be seen in panel \ref{fig:M04_gainVsSt_m0123}(a). The 20 leading modes were calculated for $m=0$, and the the three leading modes for $m>0$. The inset in panel \ref{fig:M04_gainVsSt_m0123}(a) shows that the KH mechanism persists into lower frequencies as a suboptimal mode (${\color{blue}\solidrule}$). The reference mode is of pure KH-type, and it was confirmed by visual inspection of the mode shapes (not shown) that the KH signature indeed prevails in the suboptimal modes. The vertical line segments indicate where transitions to the next lower singular suboptimal. At high frequencies, the continuation is more obvious. For all four azimuthal wavenumbers, the curve associated with the KH wavepacket crosses the suboptimal gain curves at $\St\approx2$. This marks the end of the low-rank frequency band. For $m>0$, the low-rank band extends to lower frequencies. Panel \ref{fig:M04_gainVsSt_m0123}(b) shows that a strong low-rank behavior is predicted for frequencies even lower that the minimum frequency $\St<0.2$ for $m=1$. With increasing azimuthal wavenumber, the low-rank behavior becomes less and less pronounced. All these qualitative trends are reflected in the empirical SPOD energy spectra in figure \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}. The direct comparison of the SOPD analysis with the resolvent model is the subject of \S \ref{mach}.

\subsection{Reynolds number effects}\label{subsec:Re}
\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 0.5cm 0 0mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_resolvent_ReStudy}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Reynolds number effect on the energetic gain of the subsonic jet: (a,b) optimal gain spectra for $m=0$ and $m=1$; (c,d) energetic gain at $\St=0.6$ for $m=0$ and $m=1$. The blue dotted line (${\color{blue}\cdots}$) marks the Reynolds number $\Rey=3\cdot10^4$ used for the present study.}
	\label{fig:M04_resolvent_ReStudy}
\end{figure}
The effect of the Reynolds number on the spectrum of the discretized linearized Navier-Stokes operator $\mathsfbi{A}_m$ is studied in \citet[appendix D]{SchmidtEtAl_2017_JFM}. In figure \ref{fig:M04_resolvent_ReStudy}, the effect of the Reynolds number on the resolvent gain is investigated. The optimal gain $\sigma_1^2$ for $m=0$ and $m=1$ shown in panels \ref{fig:M04_resolvent_ReStudy}(a) and \ref{fig:M04_resolvent_ReStudy}(b), respectively, increases with increasing Reynolds number over the entire frequency range. Above $\Rey\geq3\cdot10^4$, the gain does not show a pronounced dependency on the Reynolds number for all but the lowest frequencies for $m=0$. The gain of the leading ten modes at a fixed frequency of $\St=0.6$ is shown below in \ref{fig:M04_resolvent_ReStudy}(c,d). At this particular frequency, the optimal gain is significantly higher that the suboptimal gains, which are all of comparable magnitude. Similar to the modal energy gap in the SPOD analysis, this reflects the low-rank behavior of the jet in the resolvent model. The suboptimal gains follow an approximate power law behavior over the range of Reynolds number studied. The different behavior of the optimal and the suboptimal gains highlights the disparate physical nature of the two mechanisms. Their different scalings highlight the importance of a proper choice of Reynolds number for mean-flow-based resolvent models. In particular, the model Reynolds number determines which of the two mechanisms dominates at a certain frequency. This becomes apparent, for example, for $m=0$ at low frequencies: the kink in the gain curves in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolvent_ReStudy}(a), which marks the transition from one scaling to another, shifts to higher frequencies with increasing Reynolds number. For $\Rey=7.5\cdot10^4$, the exchange of optimal mechanisms occurs at $\St\approx0.35$, whereas it occurs at $\St\approx0.25$ for $\Rey=7.5\cdot10^4$. We chose a Reynolds number of $\Rey=3\cdot10^4$ for the present study. This choice is motivated by the good correspondence with the LES, as discussed in the next section. For now, and in absence of a proper model for the effective Reynolds number, the Reynolds number has to be understood as a free model parameter. \citet{mettot2014quasi}, for example, demonstrate that resolvent analyses based on the linearized Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations with modeled turbulence do not necessarily give superior results to our ad-hoc approach.

\section{Comparison of the SPOD and resolvent models}\label{comparison}
In this section, we make comparisons between the high-energy SPOD modes and the high-gain resolvent modes.  This comparison is facilitated by recently established theoretical connections between the two methods \citep{towne2015stochastic,lesshafftmodeling,TowneEtAt2017SPOD}.  Specifically, the resolvent operator relates the cross-spectral density of the nonlinear forcing to the cross-spectral density of the response.  IF the forcing were uncorrelated in space and time with equal amplitude everywhere, i.e., unit-variance white noise, then the SPOD and resolvent modes would be identical.  This result is conceptually intuitive--when there is no bias in the forcing, the modes with highest gain are also the most energetic.

The nonlinear forcing terms in real turbulent flows are, of course, not white. \cite{ZareEtAl_2017_JFM} showed that it is necessary to account for correlated forcing in order to reconstruct the flow statistics of a turbulent channel flow using a linear model.  Of particular relevance to our study, \cite{TowneEtAl_2017_AIAA} investigated the statistical properties of the nonlinear forcing terms in a turbulent jet.  They found limited correlation in the near-nozzle shear-layer but significant correlation further downstream, especially near and beyond the end of the potential core.

Correlated nonlinear forcing leads to differences between SPOD and resolvent modes.  Precisely, the correlation causes a bias in the forcing that preferentially excites certain resolvent modes and mixes them together via correlations between different modes \citep{TowneEtAt2017SPOD}.  As a result, multiple resolvent modes are required to reconstruct each SPOD mode.  Accordingly, we do not expect a one-to-one correspondence between the SPOD and resolvent modes of the jet.  Rather, we are looking for the signatures of the high-gain resolvent modes within the high-energy SPOD modes.  That is, we seek evidence that the mechanisms identified in the resolvent modes are active in the real flow and responsible for the most energetic coherent structures.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 0cm 0 1mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_resolventVsSPODe1_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{First SPOD mode energy spectra (a) and optimal resolvent gain (b) for $0\leq m \leq 3$ for the subsonic jet. A five-point moving average filter was used to increase the clarity of the SPOD spectrum.}
	\label{fig:M04_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}
\end{figure}
The leading mode SPOD energy spectra (see figure \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01}) and optimal resolvent gain curves (see figure \ref{fig:M04_gainVsSt_m0123}) for $m=0,\cdots,3$ are compared in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}. In panel \ref{fig:M04_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}(a), we show the relative energy of the leading mode in percentages of the total energy at each frequency. We choose this quantity as a qualitative surrogate for the gain, which is not defined for the LES data. The resolvent gain curves capture the trends of the SPOD eigen-spectra remarkably well. The peak in relative energy of the leading $m=0$ SPOD mode in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}(a) clearly indicates low-rank behavior. At low frequencies, the ordering of the resolvent gains is directly reflected in the relative importance of the corresponding SPOD modes.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 9.1cm 0 4mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_SPODvsResolvent_St06}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Empirical SPOD modes (left) and optimal resolvent response modes (right) for $St=0.6$ and $m=0$ for the subsonic jet. The normalized pressure is shown. The leading resolvent response in (b) accurately models leading SPOD mode in (a).}
	\label{fig:M04_SPODvsResolvent_St06}
\end{figure}
A comparison of the six leading resolvent and SPOD modes for $m=0$ and $\St=0.6$ is shown in figure \ref{fig:M04_SPODvsResolvent_St06}. The KH-type wavepacket of the first SPOD mode in \ref{fig:M04_SPODvsResolvent_St06}(a) closely resembles the optimal resolvent mode in figure \ref{fig:M04_SPODvsResolvent_St06}(b). Unlike the resolvent responses (as discussed in the context of figure \ref{fig:M04_Resolvent_St06}), the subdominant SPOD modes do not follow an immediately obvious hierarchy. Similar to the resolvent modes, they exhibit a multi-lobe structure and peak downstream or at the end of the potential core. Close to the nozzle, their structure resembles the KH-type waveform of the first mode. Their highly distorted structure suggests that their statistics may not be as well converged as the leading mode. The first three modes are characterized by an increasing integer number of lobes or successive wavepackets (this becomes much more evident in figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent} below).

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 5.5cm 0 3mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Comparison between leading empirical SPOD modes (left) and optimal resolvent response modes (right) at three representative frequencies for the subsonic jet: (a-f) $m=0$; (g-l) $m=1$; (m-r) $m=3$. The normalized pressure is shown. The leading modes compare favorably with the exception of the low frequency case for $m=0$ shown in (e,f), where the SPOD mode is of KH type, whereas the optimal response mode is of Orr type. Only part of the computational domain is shown for clarity.}
	\label{fig:M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013} makes direct comparisons between the leading SPOD and resolvent modes for different frequencies ($\St=1.0,0.6,0.2$) and azimuthal wavenumbers ($m=0,1,3$). In general, the modes compare well for frequency-azimuthal wavenumber combinations that exhibit low-rank behavior according to the SPOD and resolvent gain spectra in figures \ref{fig:SPODvsSPODforcing_spectrum_m01} and \ref{fig:M04_gainVsSt_m0123}, respectively. For example, good agreement is obtained for $\St=0.6$ and $\St=1.0$ for $m=0$ and $m=1$, i.e.~figure \ref{fig:M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013}(a-d,g-j). In figure \ref{fig:M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013}(e,f), the leading resolvent mode is an Orr-type wavepacket far downstream of the potential core, whereas the SPOD mode peaks further upstream and has a larger axial wavelength. For $m=3$ in figure \ref{fig:M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013}(m-q) and higher azimuthal wavenumbers, the SPOD modes appear to be less well converged as compared to their low $m$ counterparts. This is, again, explained by the observation that the low-rank behavior decreases as $m$ increases.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 9.4cm 0 10mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_resolventAndSPOD_spectra_fLeftRightGlobal_m0_fields_black}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Isolation of the mechanisms for spatial modal growth in the initial shear layer, and non-modal spatial growth further downstream for the subsonic jet: (a) SPOD spectra; (b) optimal resolvent gain spectra; (c-f) normalized pressure field for $St=0.6$. For the SPOD, the restriction is realized via the weight matrix and the non-zero weighted regions are shown. For the resolvent analysis, the forcing and response are restricted via the input and output matrices.}
	\label{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_spectra_fLeftRightGlobal_m0}
\end{figure}

Both the SPOD and resolvent methodologies allow us to isolate the characteristics of the KH-type wavepackets near the nozzle and the downstream Orr-type wavepackets through their different spatial support. In the SPOD analysis, we utilize the weight matrix $\mathsfbi{W}$ to assign zero weight to the region we wish to exclude, e.g. $x>10$, to focus on the initial shear-layer region and vice versa for the developing jet region. The resulting energy spectra and modes are depicted in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_spectra_fLeftRightGlobal_m0}(a,c,e). For the resolvent analysis, we restrict both the forcing and the response to the region of interest through the input and output matrices $\mathsfbi{B}$ and $\mathsfbi{C}$. The resulting gain spectra and modes are shown in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_spectra_fLeftRightGlobal_m0}(b,d,f). The SPOD and gain spectra consistently separate the two mechanisms. In both cases, the spectra obtained without spatial restriction are a superposition of the spectra of the two isolated physical mechanisms. The different spatial support of the restricted SPOD (panel \ref{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_spectra_fLeftRightGlobal_m0}(e)) and resolvent (panel \ref{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_spectra_fLeftRightGlobal_m0}(f)) modes emphasizes that the forcing of the subdominant mode is clearly not white, though there are obvious similarities in the wavepacket shape indicating a similar mechanism.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 0.3cm 0 4mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Frequency-axial distance diagrams ($\blacksquare\!{\color{Gray}\blacksquare}\!\square$,$\tilde{P}_{pp}$) along the lip-line ($r_0=0.5$) for $m=0$ (top half) and $m=1$ (bottom half) for the subsonic jet. The three leading SPOD and resolvent modes are compared. The estimated pressure PSD, $\bar{P}_{pp}$, is normalized by its maximum value at each frequency. The end of the potential core ({\color{red} {\dashedrule}}, $x=5.3$), and a Strouhal number of $\St=0.3$ ({\color{blue} {\solidrule}}) differentiate \emph{shear-layer} from \emph{developing jet} behavior. The different frequency scalings of shear-layer ({\color{Magenta} {\solidrule}}, $\St\sim\frac{1}{x}$) and jet wavepackets ({\color{Green} {\solidrule}}, $\St\sim\frac{1}{x^2}$) are indicated.}
	\label{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent}
\end{figure}
Plotting the temporal and azimuthal PSD
\begin{equation}
\tilde{P}_{qq} = \frac{1}{n_{\text{blk}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{\text{blk}}} \left|\hat{q}^{(l)}_{m\omega}(x,r=r_0)\right|^2
\end{equation}
as a function of $x$ along a line of constant distance $r_0$ from the axis allows us to locate the wavepackets in space. The resulting frequency-axial distance diagrams are shown in figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent} for $m=0$ and $m=1$. The results for the SPOD and the resolvent response modes are directly compared. This form of visualization of the SPOD modes brings to light the hierarchal structure of the SPOD modes more clearly. From figure \ref{fig:M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013}a-c for $m=0$, and \ref{fig:M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013}g-i  for $m=1$, respectively, it becomes apparent that the higher order modes are characterized by an increasing number of subsequent wavepackets in the streamwise direction.

The change from KH-type shear-layer instability to Orr-type wavepackets in the developing jet is apparent from the change of the slope of the PSD at $(x,\St)\approx(6,0.3)$. Different frequency scalings in the two regions explain this sudden change. They can be directly deduced from the varying characteristic velocity and length scales of each region as shown in figure \ref{fig:baseFlow_ucl_r12}. The initial shear-layer grows linearly while the characteristic velocity stays constant. The frequency of the high-frequency wavepackets therefore scales with $1/x$. In the developing and self-similar jet regions, the jet width increases linearly, but the centerline velocity decays inversely proportional to the axial distance. The frequency in that region consequentl y scales with $1/x^2$. The different frequency-scalings in the two regions of the jet are apparent in other studies on wavepacket modeling \citep{CavalieriSasakiJordanEtAl2016,SasakiEtAl2017}, and on acoustic-source localization \citep{bishop1971noise,SchlinkerEtAl_2009_AIAA}.

The optimal response modes in figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent}(d) and \ref{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent}(j) accurately predict the wavepacket location in the initial shear-layer region in the leading SPOD modes. For $m=1$ in figure \ref{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent}(j), the low-rank behavior of the jet permits accurate predictions at low frequencies. For $m=0$ (panel \ref{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent}(d)), on the contrary, the non-low-rank behavior at low frequencies hinders a rank-one resolvent-mode representation of the leading SPOD mode. Similarly, the subdominant SPOD modes shown in panels \ref{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent}(b,c) and \ref{fig:M04_StvsX_SPODvsResolvent}(h,i) cannot be represented by a single suboptimal resolvent mode.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 6.4cm 0 2mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M04_resolventAndSPOD_vs_m_percent}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Azimuthal wavenumber dependence of the relative modal energy of the SPOD (a), and the optimal resolvent gain (b) for three representative frequencies fir the subsonic jet.}
	\label{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_vs_m_percent}
\end{figure}

The azimuthal wavenumber dependence of the SPOD energy and the resolvent gain is investigated in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_vs_m_percent}. As in figure, \ref{fig:M04_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}, we show the percentage of the energy of the first SPOD mode to highlight low-rank behavior. The falloff of the SPOD energy spectra seen in panel \ref{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_vs_m_percent}(a) implies that the low-rank behavior is more pronounced at low azimuthal wavenumbers and lower frequencies. For higher frequencies such as $\St=1$, the relative energy of the first SPOD mode is not a strong function of the azimuthal wavenumber. At higher azimuthal wavenumbers $m\gtrsim10$, its relative energy content stays at $\approx5\%$, which is above the levels of the two lower frequency cases. Similar trends are observed for the resolvent gain shown in panel \ref{fig:M04_resolventAndSPOD_vs_m_percent}(b). The maximum gain, for example, is attained for $m=1$, and the gain curve for the highest frequency is a much weaker function of the azimuthal wavenumber than in the case of two lower frequencies. For higher azimuthal wavenumbers, the gain falls off almost monotonically.

\section{Effect of the Mach number}\label{mach}
In the following, we addresses the effect of compressibility on the low-rank behavior. SPOD and resolvent analyses are conducted for the other two LES cases with $M_j=0.9$ and $M_j=1.5$, respectively (see table \ref{tab:LES}). The main conclusions drawn from the analysis of the subsonic case in \S\S \ref{SPOD}-\ref{resolvent} regarding the behavior of the KH- and Orr-type wavepackets apply to the other regimes as well. We therefore catalogue the complete results for the two additional higher Mach number cases in appendix \ref{app:mach}, and focus on specific Mach number dependent physical effects in this section.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 7.5cm 0 2mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1}
	\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{Comparison between leading empirical SPOD modes and optimal resolvent response modes at three representative frequencies for $m=1$ for the transsonic (a-f) and the supersonic jet (g-l). Panels (m) and (n) zoom in on a trapped acoustic mode \citep{TowneEtAl_2017_JFM,SchmidtEtAl_2017_JFM} in the transonic jet, and an upstream-propagating subsonic mode \citep{tam1989three} in the supersonic jet, respectively. The normalized pressure is shown.}
	\label{fig:M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1} shows a side-by-side comparison of SPOD and resolvent modes for the transsonic and the supersonic jet. The leading modes are shown for three frequencies.
Similar to the subsonic case in figure \ref{fig:M04_ResolventVsSPOD_m013}, favorable agreement between the empirical modes and the model is found. Significant discrepancies in terms of the length of the wavepackets and their radial structure is only observed for the transsonic jet at the lowest frequency, as shown in panels \ref{fig:M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1}(e,f). In panels \ref{fig:M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1}(g-j), it can be seen that the resolvent model accurately predicts the super-directive Mach wave radiation of the supersonic jet.
\citet{sinha2014wavepacket} found similarly good agreement with their PSE model.

Besides the KH and Orr-type wavepackets, which are vortical, jets also support different types of frequency-dependent acoustic waves. The transsonic jet, for example, supports trapped acoustic waves within the potential core \citep{TowneEtAl_2017_JFM,SchmidtEtAl_2017_JFM}. Such a trapped acoustic wave can be seen close to the nozzle in the detail shown in panel \ref{fig:M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1}(m). In the supersonic jet, a closely related mechanism \citep{tam1989three,TowneEtAl_2017_JFM} is visible further downstream in panel \ref{fig:M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1}(n). The reader is referred to \citep{TowneEtAl_2017_JFM} for details. In the present context, it suffices to recapitulate that the trapped waves are the result of an acoustic resonance in the transsonic jet regime $0.82<M_j<1$. More important than their physical nature for the present study is the observation that the resolvent analysis emphasized this type of intrinsic mechanism. This becomes clear from a closer inspection of figure \ref{fig:M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1}(c,d) and \ref{fig:M09vsB118_ResolventVsSPOD_m1}(k,l), respectively. The acoustic wave phenomena are evident in the SPOD modes, but are more pronounced in the resolvent modes. Two factors contribute to this fact. First, the frequency and Reynolds number scaling of the  various physical effects is different, which leads to the same modeling challenges as for the KH and Orr-type modes discussed in the context of figure \ref{fig:M04_resolvent_ReStudy} (see also appendix \ref{app:mach}, figure \ref{fig:B118_gainVsSt_m0123}). Second, efficient means of forcing, such as resonances, are optimally exploited by the resolvent model, whereas they might not be forced as efficiently in the real flow. A method to single out the trapped acoustic wave components in the transonic jet is presented in \citet{SchmidtEtAl_2017_JFM}.

\begin{figure}
	\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 0cm 0 5mm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{figures/M09andB118_resolventVsSPODe1_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}
\captionsetup{singlelinecheck=off}
	\caption[]{SPOD energy spectra (a,c) and optimal resolvent gains (b,d) as in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}, but for the transsonic (a,b) and the supersonic (c,d) jet.}
	\label{fig:M09_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:M09_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing} shows the leading SPOD mode energy and the optimal resolvent gain for the transsonic (top) and supersonic (bottom) cases. As in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}, spectra for the first four azimuthal wavenumbers are reported. Like in the
subsonic case, favorable agreement of the qualitative trends is found between the SPOD analysis and the resolvent model. The presence of the acoustic resonance mechanism associated with the trapped modes is apparent in the gains. The peaks seen in figure \ref{fig:M04_resolventVsSPOD_spectrum_mStudy_globalForcing}(a), for example at $(\St,m)\approx(0.4,0)$ and $(\St,m)\approx(0.7,1)$, coincide with the frequencies of branches of trapped acoustic modes. The associated eigenvalues are only marginally damped in the global spectra of the same operator \citep{SchmidtEtAl_2017_JFM}. This proximity of the eigenvalues to the real axis explains the peaks in the gain curves as a pseudo-resonance. The acoustic branch locations are marked in the resolvent gain spectra shown in figure \ref{fig:M09_resolventGainVsSt_m01} (appendix \ref{app:mach}).

\section{Summary and conclusions}\label{discussion}
Large-scale structures taking the form of spatially modulated wavepackets have long been observed in turbulent jets and past attempts to model them using linear theory have met partial success \citep{jordan2013wave}. In this paper, we use SPOD to distill these wavepackets from a high-fidelity numerical simulation and demonstrate that a resolvent mean flow model predicts them in great detail. Both approaches paint a consistent picture of two coexisting mechanisms. The KH-type instability is active, over a range of frequencies and azimuthal wavenumbers, in the initial shear-layer whereas the region downstream of the close of the potential core is dominated by Orr-type waves. Moreover, in the initial shear layer region, Orr-type waves are also present but not readily observed as they are swamped by the high-gain KH waves. We quantified both types of structures over a range of frequencies and azimuthal wavenumbers. In addition to their differing spatial regions of dominance, they are distinguished by their spatial support, phase speed and frequency scaling. KH-type wavepackets can be regarded as local spatial instabilities. They convect with a phase velocity of $c_{ph}\approx 0.8U_j$ and are triggered by fluctuations close to the nozzle. This spatial separation between optimal forcing and response characterizes a convective non-normality \citep{marquet2009direct} in the presence of a spatial instability mechanism \citep{alizard2009sensitivity,dergham2013stochastic,beneddine2016conditions}. By contrast, Orr-type waves convect at a lower speed in accordance with the jet's velocity-decay rate, and are most effectively sustained by distributed forcing. Both the KH and Orr waves peak at the hight of the critical layer in the radial directions and are optimally forced by the Orr-mechanism.

In the LES data analysis, frequencies at which the KH-mechanism dominates are identified by a separation between the first and second eigenvalues in the SPOD spectrum, and the resolvent gain reliably predicts this low-rank behavior. Although this low-rank behavior can in principal be inferred from the success of past studies based on spatial linear stability theory \citep[e.g.][]{michalke1971instability}, it is most compellingly revealed in the SPOD and resolvent spectra. Equally important to its presence is its absence. For $m=0$ at very low frequencies, for example, the KH-mechanism is absent as the initial shear-layer becomes short as compared to the perturbation wavelength. Here, the jet exhibits non-low-rank behavior and both the SPOD and the resolvent model predict the coexistence of Orr-type waves of similar energy. For $m=1$, on the contrary, the KH-mechanism persists to very low frequencies.

The non-low-rank behavior explains why wavepacket models based on PSE such as the ones by \citet{gudmundsson2011instability}, \citet{cavalieri2013wavepackets} and \citet{sinha2014wavepacket} fail at these the very low frequencies for $m=0$. For example, the PSE method is initialized with the locally most unstable spatial wave, which is then propagated downstream by space-marching. In the non-low-rank regime, this mode does not optimally trigger transient growth and appears as a sub-dominant resolvent mode. Furthermore, as volumetric forcing by the turbulence is not accounted for, PSE cannot support the dominant Orr-type waves. With the goal in mind to further improve its predictive capabilities, in particular at low frequencies, we plan to model the second-order statistics of the forcing and incorporate them into a resolvent-based jet noise model in future work.