MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415986095 · doi:10.33232/001c.146824

Measuring the splashback feature: Dependence on halo properties and history

2025· article· en· W4415986095 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie O’Neil, Xuejian Shen, Mark Vogelsberger, Sownak Bose, Boryana Hadzhyska, Lars Hernquist, Rahul Kannan, M. Wu, Zhimin Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Journal of Astrophysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaloHalo effectDark matterPower lawMeasure (data warehouse)LogarithmLogarithmic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we define the novel splashback depth 𝒟 and width 𝒲 to examine how the splashback features of dark matter haloes are affected by the physical properties of haloes themselves. We use the largest simulation run in the hydrodynamic MillenniumTNG project. By stacking haloes in bins of halo mass, redshift, mass-dependent properties such as peak height and concentration, and halo formation history, we measure the shape of the logarithmic slope of the density profile of dark matter haloes. Our results show that the splashback depth has a strong dependence on the halo mass which follows a power law 𝒟 ∝ ( log 10 M ) 2.8 . Properties with strong correlation with halo mass demonstrate similar dependence. The splashback width has the strongest dependence on halo peak height and follows a power law 𝒲 ∝ ν − 0.87 . We provide the fitting functions of the splashback depth and width in terms of halo mass, redshift, peak height, concentrations and halo formation time. The depth and width are therefore considered to be a long term memory tracker of haloes since they depend more on accumulative physical properties, e.g., halo mass, peak height and halo formation time. They are shaped primarily by the halo’s assembly history, which exerts a stronger influence on the inner density profile than short-term dynamical processes. In contrast, the splashback features have little dependence on the short term factors such as halo mass accretion rate and most recent major merger time. The splashback depth and width can therefore be used to complement information gained from quantities like the point of steepest slope or truncation radius to characterise the halo’s history and inner structure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Journal of AstrophysicsSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207