MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996347199 · doi:10.1086/312480

Statistics of Dark Matter Halos from Gravitational Lensing

2000· article· en· W1996347199 on OpenAlexaff
Bhuvnesh Jain, Ludovic Van Waerbeke

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDark matterWeak gravitational lensingGravitational lensHaloStrong gravitational lensingGravitational lensing formalismAstrophysicsGalaxyDark matter haloRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations123
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207