MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213339925 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3608

Hierarchical generative models for star clusters from hydrodynamical simulations

2021· preprint· en· W3213339925 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Torniamenti, Mario Pasquato, Pierfrancesco Di Cintio, Alessandro Ballone, Giuliano Iorio, M. Celeste Artale, Michela Mapelli

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaH2020 European Research CouncilAustrian Science FundEuropean CommissionNew York University
KeywordsStatistical physicsStar clusterPhysicsStarsMass segregationStar (game theory)Star formationChaoticRepresentation (politics)FractalPhase spaceDynamical systems theoryAstrophysicsComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Star formation in molecular clouds is clumpy, hierarchically subclustered. Fractal structure also emerges in hydrodynamical simulations of star-forming clouds. Simulating the formation of realistic star clusters with hydrodynamical simulations is a computational challenge, considering that only the statistically averaged results of large batches of simulations are reliable, due to the chaotic nature of the gravitational N-body problem. While large sets of initial conditions for N-body runs can be produced by hydrodynamical simulations of star formation, this is prohibitively expensive in terms of computational time. Here, we address this issue by introducing a new technique for generating many sets of new initial conditions from a given set of star masses, positions, and velocities from a hydrodynamical simulation. We use hierarchical clustering in phase space to inform a tree representation of the spatial and kinematic relations between stars. This constitutes the basis for the random generation of new sets of stars which share the clustering structure of the original ones but have individually different masses, positions, and velocities. We apply this method to the output of a number of hydrodynamical star-formation simulations, comparing the generated initial conditions to the original ones through a series of quantitative tests, including comparing mass and velocity distributions and fractal dimension. Finally, we evolve both the original and the generated star clusters using a direct N-body code, obtaining a qualitatively similar evolution.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207