Power spectrum estimation from peculiar velocity catalogues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The peculiar velocities of galaxies are an inherently valuable cosmological probe, providing an unbiased estimate of the distribution of matter on scales much larger than the depth of the survey. Much research interest has been motivated by the high dipole moment of our local peculiar velocity field, which suggests a large-scale excess in the matter power spectrum and can appear to be in some tension with the Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model. We use a composite catalogue of 4537 peculiar velocity measurements with a characteristic depth of 33 h−1 Mpc to estimate the matter power spectrum. We compare the constraints with this method, directly studying the full peculiar velocity catalogue, to results by Macaulay et al., studying minimum variance moments of the velocity field, as calculated by Feldman, Watkins & Hudson. We find good agreement with the ΛCDM model on scales of k > 0.01 h Mpc−1. We find an excess of power on scales of k < 0.01 h Mpc−1 with a 1σ uncertainty which includes the ΛCDM model. We find that the uncertainty in excess at these scales is larger than an alternative result studying only moments of the velocity field, which is due to the minimum variance weights used to calculate the moments. At small scales, we are able to clearly discriminate between linear and non-linear clustering in simulated peculiar velocity catalogues and find some evidence (although less clear) for linear clustering in the real peculiar velocity data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".