The Velocity Field Olympics: assessing velocity field reconstructions with direct distance tracers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The peculiar velocity field of the local Universe provides direct insights into its matter distribution and the underlying theory of gravity, and is essential in cosmological analyses for modelling deviations from the Hubble flow. Numerous methods have been developed to reconstruct the density and velocity fields at $z \lesssim 0.05$, typically constrained by redshift-space galaxy positions or by direct distance tracers such as the Tully–Fisher relation, the Fundamental Plane, or Type Ia supernovae. We introduce a validation framework to evaluate the accuracy of these reconstructions against catalogues of direct distance tracers. Our framework assesses the goodness-of-fit of each reconstruction using Bayesian evidence, residual redshift discrepancies, velocity scaling, and the need for external bulk flows. Applying this framework to a suite of reconstructions – including those derived from the Bayesian Origin Reconstruction from Galaxies (BORG) algorithm and from linear theory – we find that the non-linear BORG reconstruction consistently outperforms others. We highlight the utility of such a comparative approach for supernova or gravitational wave cosmological studies, where selecting an optimal peculiar velocity model is essential. Additionally, we present calibrated bulk flow curves predicted by the reconstructions and perform a density–velocity cross-correlation using a linear theory reconstruction to constrain the growth factor, yielding $S_8 = 0.793 \pm 0.035$. The result is in good agreement with both weak lensing and Planck, but is in strong disagreement with some peculiar velocity studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".