MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392600117 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063513

Statistics of thermal gas pressure as a probe of cosmology and galaxy formation

2024· article· en· W4392600117 on OpenAlexaff
Ziyang Chen, Drew Jamieson, Eiichiro Komatsu, Sownak Bose, Klaus Dolag, Boryana Hadzhiyska, César Hernández‐Aguayo, Lars Hernquist, Rahul Kannan, Rüdiger Pakmor, Volker Springel

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaH2020 European Research CouncilLeibniz-GemeinschaftNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUK Research and InnovationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean CommissionNatural Science Foundation of ShanghaiNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCosmologyPhysicsGalaxyThermalAstrophysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The statistics of thermal gas pressure are a new and promising probe of cosmology and astrophysics. The large-scale cross-correlation between galaxies and the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect gives the bias-weighted mean electron pressure, ⟨bhPe⟩ . In this paper, we show that ⟨bhPe⟩ is sensitive to the amplitude of fluctuations in matter density, for example ⟨bhPe⟩∝(σ8Ωm0.81h0.67)3.14 at redshift z=0 . We find that at z<0.5 the observed ⟨bhPe⟩ is smaller than that predicted by the state-of-the-art hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation, MillenniumTNG, by a factor of 0.93. This can be explained by a lower value of σ8 and Ωm , similar to the so-called “ S8 tension” seen in the gravitational lensing effect, although the influence of astrophysics cannot be completely excluded. The difference between and MillenniumTNG at z<2 is small, indicating that the difference in the galaxy formation models used by these simulations has little impact on ⟨bhPe⟩ at this redshift range. At higher z , we find that both simulations are in a modest tension with the existing upper bounds on ⟨bhPe⟩ . We also find a significant difference between these simulations there, which we attribute to a larger sensitivity to the galaxy formation models in the high redshift regime. Therefore, more precise measurements of ⟨bhPe⟩ at all redshifts will provide a new test of our understanding of cosmology and galaxy formation. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.350
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→