The formation of cores in galaxies across cosmic time – the existence of cores is not in tension with the ΛCDM paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The ‘core-cusp’ problem is considered a key challenge to the ΛCDM paradigm. Haloes in dark matter only simulations exhibit ‘cuspy’ profiles, where density continuously increases towards the centre. However, the dark matter profiles of many observed galaxies (particularly in the dwarf regime) deviate strongly from this prediction, with much flatter central regions (‘cores’). We use NewHorizon (NH), a hydrodynamical cosmological simulation, to investigate core formation, using a statistically significant number of galaxies in a cosmological volume. Haloes containing galaxies in the upper (M⋆ ≥ 1010.2 M⊙) and lower (M⋆ ≤ 108 M⊙) ends of the stellar mass distribution contain cusps. However, Haloes containing galaxies with intermediate (108 M⊙ ≤ M⋆ ≤ 1010.2 M⊙) stellar masses are generally cored, with typical halo masses between 1010.2 M⊙ and 1011.5 M⊙. Cores form through supernova-driven gas removal from halo centres, which alters the central gravitational potential, inducing dark matter to migrate to larger radii. While all massive (M⋆ ≥ 109.5 M⊙) galaxies undergo a cored-phase, in some cases cores can be removed and cusps reformed. This happens if a galaxy undergoes sustained star formation at high redshift, which results in stars (which, unlike the gas, cannot be removed by baryonic feedback) dominating the central gravitational potential. After cosmic star formation peaks, the number of cores, and the mass of the Haloes they are formed in, remain constant, indicating that cores are being routinely formed over cosmic time after a threshold halo mass is reached. The existence of cores is, therefore, not in tension with the standard paradigm.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".