Structure of cosmic web in non-linear regime: the nearest neighbour and spherical contact distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In non-linear scales, the matter density distribution is not Gaussian. Consequently, the widely used two-point correlation function is not adequate anymore to capture the matter density field’s entire behaviour. Among all statistics beyond correlation functions, the spherical contact (or equivalently void function), and nearest neighbour distribution function seem promising tools to probe matter distribution in non-linear regime. In this work, we use haloes from cosmological N-body simulations, galaxy groups from the volume-limited galaxy group and central galaxies from mock galaxy catalogues, to compare the spherical contact with the nearest neighbour distribution functions. We also calculate the J-function (or equivalently the first conditional correlation function), for different samples. Moreover, we consider the redshift evolution and mass-scale dependence of statistics in the simulations and dependence on the magnitude of volume-limited samples in group catalogues as well as the mock central galaxies. The shape of the spherical contact probability distribution function is nearly skew-normal, with skewness and kurtosis being approximately 0.5 and 3, respectively. On the other hand, the nearest neighbour probability distribution function is nearly lognormal, with logarithmic skewness and kurtosis being approximately 0.1 and 2.5, respectively. Accordingly, the spherical contact distribution function probes larger scales compared to the nearest neighbour distribution function, which is influenced by details of structures. We also find a linear relation between the mean and variance of the spherical contact probability distribution function in simulations and mock galaxies, which could be used as a distinguishing probe of cosmological models.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".