The dark matter of galaxy voids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do observed voids relate to the underlying dark matter distribution? To examine the spatial distribution of dark matter contained within voids identified in galaxy surveys, we apply Halo Occupation Distribution models representing sparsely and densely sampled galaxy surveys to a high-resolution N-body simulation. We compare these galaxy voids to voids found in the halo distribution, low-resolution dark matter and high-resolution dark matter. We find that voids at all scales in densely sampled surveys – and medium- to large-scale voids in sparse surveys – trace the same underdensities as dark matter, but they are larger in radius by ∼20 per cent, they have somewhat shallower density profiles and they have centres offset by ∼ 0.4Rv rms. However, in void-to-void comparison we find that shape estimators are less robust to sampling, and the largest voids in sparsely sampled surveys suffer fragmentation at their edges. We find that voids in galaxy surveys always correspond to underdensities in the dark matter, though the centres may be offset. When this offset is taken into account, we recover almost identical radial density profiles between galaxies and dark matter. All mock catalogues used in this work are available at http://www.cosmicvoids.net.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".