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 OpenAlexfundno aff
Jenny Wagner

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 $$r_\mathrm {max}$$ r max . 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 $$r_\mathrm {max}$$ r max with respect to the outmost halo particle, such that two typical limiting cases arise that explain the $$r^{-3}$$ r - 3 -slope for galaxy-cluster outskirts and the $$r^{-4}$$ r - 4 -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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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

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 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneral Relativity and GravitationSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207