Filaments of the Slime Mold Cosmic Web and How They Affect Galaxy Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a novel approach for identifying cosmic web filaments within the DisPerSE structure identification framework, using cosmic density field estimates from the Monte Carlo Physarum Machine (MCPM), inspired by the slime mold organism. We apply our method to the IllustrisTNG (TNG100) cosmological simulations and investigate the impact of filaments on galaxies. The MCPM density field is superior to the Delaunay tessellation field estimator in tracing the true underlying matter distribution and allows filaments to be identified with higher fidelity, finding more low-prominence/diffuse filaments. Using our new filament catalogs, we find that ≳90% of galaxies are located within ∼1.5 Mpc of a filamentary spine, with little change in the median star formation activity with distance to the nearest filament. Instead, we uncover a differential effect of the local filament line density, Σfil (MCPM)—the total MCPM overdensity per unit length along a filament segment—on galaxy formation: most galaxies are quenched and gas-poor near high-line density filaments at z ≤ 1. At earlier times, the filamentary environment appears to have no effect on galactic gas supply and quenching. At z = 0, quenching in log ( M * / M ⊙ ) ≳ 10.5 galaxies is mainly driven by mass, while lower-mass galaxies are significantly affected by the filament line density. Satellites are far more susceptible to filaments than centrals. The local environments of massive halos are not sufficient to account for the effect of filament line density on gas removal and quenching. Our new approach holds great promise for observationally identifying filaments from galaxy surveys such as SDSS and DESI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".