Pushing the limits of detectability: mixed dark matter from strong gravitational lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the frontiers for advancing what is known about dark matter lies in using strong gravitational lenses to characterize the population of the smallest dark matter haloes. There is a large volume of information in strong gravitational lens images - the question we seek to answer is to what extent we can refine this information. To this end, we forecast the detectability of a mixed warm and cold dark matter scenario using the anomalous flux ratio method from strong gravitational lensed images. The halo mass function of the mixed dark matter scenario is suppressed relative to cold dark matter but still predicts numerous low-mass dark matter haloes relative to warm dark matter. Since the strong lensing signal receives a contribution from a range of dark matter halo masses and since the signal is sensitive to the specific configuration of dark matter haloes, not just the halo mass function, degeneracies between different forms of suppression in the halo mass function, relative to cold dark matter, can arise. We find that, with a set of lenses with different configurations of the main deflector and hence different sensitivities to different mass ranges of the halo mass function, the different forms of suppression of the halo mass function between the warm dark matter model and the mixed dark matter model can be distinguished with 40 lenses with Bayesian odds of 30:1.
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 | 0.011 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".