Spin alignments within the cosmic web: a theory of constrained tidal torques near filaments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geometry of the cosmic web drives in part the spin acquisition of galaxies. This can be explained in a Lagrangian framework, by identifying the specific long-wavelength correlations within the primordial Gaussian random field (GRF), which are relevant to spin acquisition. Tidal torque theory is revisited in the context of such anisotropic environments, biased by the presence of a filament within a wall. The point process of filament-type saddles represents it most efficiently. The constrained misalignment between the tidal and the inertia tensors in the vicinity of filament-type saddles simply explains the distribution of spin directions. This misalignment implies in particular an azimuthal orientation for the spins of more massive galaxies and a spin alignment with the filament for less massive galaxies. This prediction is found to be in qualitative agreement with measurements in GRFs and N-body simulations. It relates the transition mass to the geometry of the saddle, and accordingly predicts its measured scaling with the mass of non-linearity. Implications for galaxy formation and weak lensing are briefly discussed, as is the dual theory of spin alignments in walls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".