MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793680462 · doi:10.22323/1.007.0202

Constraints on warm dark matter models from the high redshift Universe

2001· article· en· W2793680462 on OpenAlexaff
Zoltán Haiman, Rennan Barkana, Jeremiah P. Ostriker

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics — PoS(hep2001) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsReionizationAstrophysicsSupermassive black holeRedshiftDark matterQuasarCold dark matterHaloGalaxyWarm dark matterUniverseAstronomyCosmologyDark energyHot dark matter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Warm Dark Matter (WDM) models have recently been resurrected to resolve apparent conflicts of Cold Dark Matter (DM) models with observations.Endowing the DM particles with non-negligible velocities causes free-streaming, which suppresses the primordial power spectrum on small scales.The choice of a root-mean-square velocity dispersion v rms,0 ∼ 0.05 km/s at redshift z = 0 (corresponding to a particle mass m X ∼ 1 keV if the WDM particles are fermions decoupling while relativistic) helps alleviate most, but probably not all, of the small-scale problems faced by CDM.An important side-effect of the particle velocities is the severe decrease in the number of collapsed halos at high redshift.This is caused both by the loss of small-scale power, and by the delay in the collapse of the smallest individual halos (with masses near the effective Jeans mass of the DM).The presence of early halos is required in order (1) to host either early quasars or galaxies that can reionize the universe by redshift z = 5.8, and (2) to allow the growth of the supermassive black hole believed to power the recently discovered quasar SDSS 1044-1215 at this redshift.We quantify these constraints using a modified Press-Schechter formalism, and find v rms,0 ∼ < 0.04 km/s (or m X ∼ > 1 keV).If future observations uncover massive black holes at z ∼ > 10, or reveal that reionization occurred at z ∼ > 10, this could conclusively rule out WDM models as the solution to the small-scale crisis of the CDM paradigm.

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)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics — PoS(hep2001)Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207