MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005282026 · doi:10.1007/s10714-020-02715-w

Cosmic structures from a mathematical perspective 1: dark matter halo mass density profiles

2020· article· en· W3005282026 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeneral Relativity and Gravitation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftYork UniversityNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsPhysicsHaloAstrophysicsDark matterDark matter haloCuspy halo problemGalaxyGalaxy clusterPower lawStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The shapes of individual self-gravitating structures of an ensemble of identical, collisionless particles have remained elusive for decades. In particular, a reason why mass density profiles like the Navarro–Frenk–White or the Einasto profile are good fits to simulation- and observation-based dark matter halos has not been found. Given the class of three dimensional, spherically symmetric power-law probability density distributions to locate individual particles in the ensemble mentioned above, we derive the constraining equation for the power-law index for the most and least likely joint ensemble configurations. We find that any dark matter halo can be partitioned into three regions: a core, an intermediate part, and an outskirts part up to boundary radius $$r_\mathrm {max}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>r</mml:mi> <mml:mi>max</mml:mi> </mml:msub> </mml:math> . The power-law index of the core is determined by the mean radius of the particle distribution within the core. The intermediate region becomes isothermal in the limit of infinitely many particles. The slope of the mass density profile far from the centre is determined by the choice of $$r_\mathrm {max}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>r</mml:mi> <mml:mi>max</mml:mi> </mml:msub> </mml:math> with respect to the outmost halo particle, such that two typical limiting cases arise that explain the $$r^{-3}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>r</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> -slope for galaxy-cluster outskirts and the $$r^{-4}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>r</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> -slope for galactic outskirts. Hence, we succeed in deriving the mass density profiles of common fitting functions from a general viewpoint. These results also allow to find a simple explanation for the cusp-core-problem and to separate the halo description from its dynamics.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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