MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963359709 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0911.0414

Hierarchy in the Phase Space and Dark Matter Astronomy

2009· article· en· W2963359709 on OpenAlexaff
Niayesh Afshordi, Roya Mohayaee, Edmund Bertschinger

Bibliographic record

VenueDSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDark matterDark matter haloAstrophysicsHaloWarm dark matterScalar field dark matterCold dark matterGalactic haloCuspy halo problemHot dark matterAstronomyGalaxyDark energyCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a theoretical framework for describing the hierarchical structure of the phase space of cold dark matter haloes, due to gravitationally bound substructures. Because it includes the full hierarchy of the cold dark matter initial conditions and is hence complementary to the halo model, the stable clustering hypothesis is applied for the first time here to the small-scale phase space structure. As an application, we show that the particle dark matter annihilation signal could be up to two orders of magnitude larger than that of the smooth halo within the Galactic virial radius. The local boost is inversely proportional to the smooth halo density, and thus is O(1) within the solar radius, which could translate into interesting signatures for dark matter direct detection experiments: The temporal correlation of dark matter detection can change by a factor of 2 in the span of 10 years, while there will be significant correlations in the velocity space of dark matter particles. This can introduce O(1) uncertainty in the direction of local dark matter wind, which was believed to be a benchmark of directional dark matter searches or the annual modulation signal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)Same topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207