MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121694496 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf9a3

Dark Matter Constraints from a Unified Analysis of Strong Gravitational Lenses and Milky Way Satellite Galaxies

2021· article· en· W3121694496 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDark matterGravitational lensSatellite galaxyHaloWeak gravitational lensingGalaxyMilky WayPopulationStrong gravitational lensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Joint analyses of small-scale cosmological structure probes are relatively unexplored and promise to advance measurements of microphysical dark matter properties using heterogeneous data. Here, we present a multidimensional analysis of dark matter substructure using strong gravitational lenses and the Milky Way (MW) satellite galaxy population, accounting for degeneracies in model predictions and using covariances in the constraining power of these individual probes for the first time. We simultaneously infer the projected subhalo number density and the half-mode mass describing the suppression of the subhalo mass function in thermal relic warm dark matter (WDM), M hm , using the semianalytic model Galacticus to connect the subhalo population inferred from MW satellite observations to the strong lensing host halo mass and redshift regime. Combining MW satellite and strong lensing posteriors in this parameter space yields M hm < 10 7.0 M ⊙ (WDM particle mass m WDM > 9.7 keV) at 95% confidence and disfavors M hm = 10 7.4 M ⊙ ( m WDM = 7.4 keV) with a 20:1 marginal likelihood ratio, improving limits on m WDM set by the two methods independently by ∼30%. These results are marginalized over the line-of-sight contribution to the strong lensing signal, the mass of the MW host halo, and the efficiency of subhalo disruption due to baryons and are robust to differences in the disruption efficiency between the MW and strong lensing regimes at the ∼10% level. This work paves the way for unified analyses of next-generation small-scale structure measurements covering a wide range of scales and redshifts.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations108
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207