MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stable clustering, the halo model and non-linear cosmological power spectra

2003· article· en· W2117363750 on OpenAlexaff
R. C. Smith, J. A. Peacock, Adrian Jenkins, Simon D. M. White, Carlos S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, H. M. P. Couchman

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsScalingNonlinear systemCluster analysisMatter power spectrumHaloSpectral lineDark matterStatistical physicsCold dark matterAstrophysicsCosmologyPower lawTheoretical physicsComputational physicsGalaxyQuantum mechanicsDark energyStatisticsGeometryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the results of a large library of cosmological N-body simulations, using power-law initial spectra. The non-linear evolution of the matter power spectra is compared with the predictions of existing analytic scaling formulae based on the work of Hamilton et al. The scaling approach has assumed that highly non-linear structures obey ‘stable clustering’ and are frozen in proper coordinates. Our results show that, when transformed under the self-similarity scaling, the scale-free spectra define a non-linear locus that is clearly shallower than would be required under stable clustering. Furthermore, the small-scale non-linear power increases as both the power spectrum index n and the density parameter Ω decrease, and this evolution is not well accounted for by the previous scaling formulae. This breakdown of stable clustering can be understood as resulting from the modification of dark matter haloes by continuing mergers. These effects are naturally included in the analytic ‘halo model’ for non-linear structure; we use this approach to fit both our scale-free results and also our previous cold dark matter data. This method is more accurate than the commonly used Peacock–Dodds formula and should be applicable to more general power spectra. Code to evaluate non-linear power spectra using this method is available from http://as1.chem.nottingham.ac.uk/~res/software.html. Following publication, we will make the power-law simulation data publically available through the Virgo website http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/Virgo/.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations2,079
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207