Statistics of Dark Matter Halos from Gravitational Lensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new approach to measure the mass function of dark matter halos and to discriminate models with differing values of Omega through weak gravitational lensing. We measure the distribution of peaks from simulated lensing surveys and show that the lensing signal due to dark matter halos can be detected for a wide range of peak heights. Even when the signal-to-noise ratio is well below the limit for detection of individual halos, projected halo statistics can be constrained for halo masses spanning galactic to cluster halos. The use of peak statistics relies on an analytical model of the noise due to the intrinsic ellipticities of source galaxies. The noise model has been shown to accurately describe simulated data for a variety of input ellipticity distributions. We show that the measured peak distribution has distinct signatures of gravitational lensing, and its non-Gaussian shape can be used to distinguish models with different values of Omega. The use of peak statistics is complementary to the measurement of field statistics, such as the ellipticity correlation function, and is possibly not susceptible to the same systematic errors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".