Power spectrum for the small-scale Universe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first objects to arise in a cold dark matter (CDM) universe present a daunting challenge for models of structure formation. In the ultra small-scale limit, CDM structures form nearly simultaneously across a wide range of scales. Hierarchical clustering no longer provides a guiding principle for theoretical analyses and the computation time required to carry out credible simulations becomes prohibitively high. To gain insight into this problem, we perform high-resolution (N= 7203–15843) simulations of an Einstein–de Sitter cosmology where the initial power spectrum is P(k) ∝kn, with −2.5 ≤n≤− 1. Self-similar scaling is established for n=−1 and −2 more convincingly than in previous, lower resolution simulations and for the first time, self-similar scaling is established for an n=−2.25 simulation. However, finite box-size effects induce departures from self-similar scaling in our n=−2.5 simulation. We compare our results with the predictions for the power spectrum from (one-loop) perturbation theory and demonstrate that the renormalization group approach suggested by McDonald improves perturbation theory's ability to predict the power spectrum in the quasi-linear regime. In the non-linear regime, our power spectra differ significantly from the widely used fitting formulae of Peacock & Dodds and Smith et al. and a new fitting formula is presented. Implications of our results for the stable clustering hypothesis versus halo model debate are discussed. Our power spectra are inconsistent with predictions of the stable clustering hypothesis in the high-k limit and lend credence to the halo model. Nevertheless, the fitting formula advocated in this paper is purely empirical and not derived from a specific formulation of the halo model.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".