Cosmological radiative transfer codes comparison project ��� I. The static density field tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiative transfer (RT) simulations are now at the forefront of numerical astrophysics. They are becoming crucial for an increasing number of astrophysical and cosmological problems; at the same time their computational cost has come within reach of currently available computational power. Further progress is retarded by the considerable number of different algorithms (including various flavours of ray tracing and moment schemes) developed, which makes the selection of the most suitable technique for a given problem a non-trivial task. Assessing the validity ranges, accuracy and performances of these schemes is the main aim of this paper, for which we have compared 11 independent RT codes on five test problems: (0) basic physics; (1) isothermal H ii region expansion; (2) H ii region expansion with evolving temperature; (3) I-front trapping and shadowing by a dense clump and (4) multiple sources in a cosmological density field. The outputs of these tests have been compared and differences analysed. The agreement between the various codes is satisfactory although not perfect. The main source of discrepancy appears to reside in the multifrequency treatment approach, resulting in different thicknesses of the ionized-neutral transition regions and the temperature structure. The present results and tests represent the most complete benchmark available for the development of new codes and improvement of existing ones. To further this aim all test inputs and outputs are made publicly available in digital form.
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) | 0.000 | 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".