The clustering of critical points in the evolving cosmic web
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Focusing on both small separations and baryonic acoustic oscillation scales, the cosmic evolution of the clustering properties of peak, void, wall, and filament-type critical points is measured using two-point correlation functions in ΛCDM dark matter simulations as a function of their relative rarity. A qualitative comparison to the corresponding theory for Gaussian random fields allows us to understand the following observed features: (i) the appearance of an exclusion zone at small separation, whose size depends both on rarity and signature (i.e. the number of negative eigenvalues) of the critical points involved; (ii) the amplification of the baryonic acoustic oscillation bump with rarity and its reversal for cross-correlations involving negatively biased critical points; (iii) the orientation-dependent small-separation divergence of the cross-correlations of peaks and filaments (respectively voids and walls) that reflects the relative loci of such points in the filament’s (respectively wall’s) eigenframe. The (cross-) correlations involving the most non-linear critical points (peaks, voids) display significant variation with redshift, while those involving less non-linear critical points seem mostly insensitive to redshift evolution, which should prove advantageous to model. The ratios of distances to the maxima of the peak-to-wall and peak-to-void over that of the peak-to-filament cross-correlation are ${\sim} \sqrt{2}$ and ${\sim} \sqrt{3}$, respectively, which could be interpreted as the cosmic crystal being on average close to a cubic lattice. The insensitivity to redshift evolution suggests that the absolute and relative clustering of critical points could become a topologically robust alternative to standard clustering techniques when analysing upcoming surveys such as Euclid or Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".