MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972913944 · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab9d82

The Quijote Simulations

2020· article· en· W2972913944 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEuropean CommissionInstitut de Ciències del CosmosFlatiron HealthPrinceton UniversityAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHaloPetabyteObservableDark matterVoid (composites)COSMIC cancer databaseCore (optical fiber)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Q uijote simulations are a set of 44,100 full N -body simulations spanning more than 7000 cosmological models in the hyperplane. At a single redshift, the simulations contain more than 8.5 trillion particles over a combined volume of 44,100 each simulation follows the evolution of 256 3 , 512 3 , or 1024 3 particles in a box of 1 h −1 Gpc length. Billions of dark matter halos and cosmic voids have been identified in the simulations, whose runs required more than 35 million core hours. The Q uijote simulations have been designed for two main purposes: (1) to quantify the information content on cosmological observables and (2) to provide enough data to train machine-learning algorithms. In this paper, we describe the simulations and show a few of their applications. We also release the petabyte of data generated, comprising hundreds of thousands of simulation snapshots at multiple redshifts; halo and void catalogs; and millions of summary statistics, such as power spectra, bispectra, correlation functions, marked power spectra, and estimated probability density functions.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations325
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement SeriesSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207