The shape of convection in 2D and 3D global simulations of stellar interiors

Context. Theoretical descriptions of convective overshooting in stellar interiors often rely on a basic one-dimensional parameterization of the flow called the filling factor for convection. Several different definitions of the filling factor have been developed for this purpose, based on: (1) the percentage of the volume, (2) the mass flux, and (3) the convective flux that moves through the boundary. Aims. We examine these definitions of the filling factor with the goal of establishing their ability to explain differences between 2D and 3D global simulations of stellar interiors that include fully compressible hydrodynamics and realistic microphysics for stars. Methods. We study convection and overshooting in pairs of identical two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) global simulations of stars produced with MUSIC, a fully compressible, time-implicit hydrodynamics code. We examine pairs of simulations for (1) a 3 M-circle dot red giant star near the first dredge-up point, (2) a 1 M-circle dot pre-main-sequence star with a large convection zone, (3) the current sun, and (4) a 20 M-circle dot main-sequence star with a large convective core. Results. Our calculations of the filling factor based on the volume percentage and the mass flux indicate asymmetrical convection near the surface for each star with an outer convection zone. However, near the convective boundary, convective flows achieve inward-outward symmetry for each star that we study; for 2D and 3D simulations, these filling factors are indistinguishable. A filling factor based on the convective flux is contaminated by boundary-layer-like flows, making a theoretical interpretation difficult. We present two possible new alternatives to these frequently used definitions of a filling factor, which instead compare flows at two different radial points. The first alternative is the penetration parameter of Anders et al. (2022, ApJ, 926, 169). The second alternative is a new statistic that we call the plume interaction parameter. We demonstrate that both of these parameters captures systematic differences between 2D and 3D simulations around the convective boundary.