When to interfere with dark matter? The impact of wave dynamics on statistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultralight candidates for dark matter can present wavelike features on astrophysical scales. Full wave based simulations of such candidates are currently limited to box sizes of 1--10 Mpc/$h$ on a side, limiting our understanding of the impact of wave dynamics on the scale of the cosmic web. We present a statistical analysis of density fields produced by perturbative forward models in boxes of 128 Mpc/$h$ side length. Our wave-based perturbation theory maintains interference on all scales, and is compared to fluid dynamics of Lagrangian perturbation theory. The impact of suppressed power in the initial conditions and interference effects caused by wave dynamics can then be disentangled. We find that changing the initial conditions captures most of the change in one-point statistics such as the skewness of the density field. However, different environments of the cosmic web, quantified by critical points of the smoothed density, appear to be more sensitive to interference effects sourced by the quantum potential. This suggests that certain large-scale summary statistics may need additional care when studying cosmologies with wavelike dark matter.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".