MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105949757

The Power Spectrum Dependence of Dark Matter Halo Concentrations

2000· article· en· W3105949757 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsDark matter haloDark matterHaloCold dark matterGalaxyMilky WayCuspy halo problemVirial massAstronomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-resolution N-body simulations are used to examine the power spectrum dependence of the concentration of galaxy-sized dark matter halos. It is found that dark halo concentrations depend on the amplitude of mass fluctuations as well as on the ratio of power between small and virial mass scales. This finding is consistent with the original results of Navarro, Frenk & White (NFW), and allows their model to be extended to include power spectra substantially different from Cold Dark Matter (CDM). In particular, the single-parameter model presented here fits the concentration dependence on halo mass for truncated power spectra, such as those expected in the warm dark matter scenario, and predicts a stronger redshift dependence for the concentration of CDM halos than proposed by NFW. The latter conclusion confirms recent suggestions by Bullock et al., although this new modeling differs from theirs in detail. These findings imply that observational limits on the concentration, such as those provided by estimates of the dark matter content within individual galaxies, may be used to constrain the amplitude of mass fluctuations on galactic and subgalactic scales. The constraints on $\\Lambda$CDM models posed by the dark mass within the solar circle in the Milky Way and by the zero-point of the Tully-Fisher relation are revisited, with the result that neither dataset is clearly incompatible with the `concordance' ($\\Omega_0=0.3$, $\\Lambda_0=0.7$, $\\sigma_8=0.9$) $\\Lambda$CDM cosmogony. This conclusion differs from that reached recently by Navarro & Steinmetz, a disagreement that can be traced to inconsistencies in the normalization of the $\\Lambda$CDM power spectrum used in that work.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations307
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207