Paper detail

Filament and Shape Statistics: A Quantitative Comparison of Cold + Hot and Cold Dark Matter Cosmologies vs. CfA1 Data

A new class of geometric statistics for analyzing galaxy catalogs is presented. Filament statistics quantify filamentarity and planarity in large scale structure in a manner consistent with catalog visualizations. These statistics are based on sequences of spatial links which follow local high-density structures. From these link sequences we compute the discrete curvature, planarity, and torsion. Filament statistics are applied to CDM and CHDM ($Ω_ν= 0.3$) simulations of Klypin \etal (1996), the CfA1-like mock redshift catalogs of Nolthenius, Klypin and Primack (1994, 1996), and the CfA1 catalog. We also apply the moment-based shape statistics developed by Babul \& Starkman (1992), Luo \& Vishniac (1995), and Robinson \& Albrecht (1996) to these same catalogs, and compare their robustness and discriminatory power versus filament statistics. For 100 Mpc periodic simulation boxes ($H_0 = 50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$), we find discrimination of $\sim 4σ$ (where $σ$ represents resampling errors) between CHDM and CDM for selected filament statistics and shape statistics, including variations in the galaxy identification scheme. Comparing the CfA1 data versus the models does not yield a conclusively favored model; no model is excluded at more than a $\sim 2σ$ level for any statistic, not including cosmic variance which could further degrade the discriminatory power. We find that CfA1 discriminates between models poorly mainly due to its sparseness and small number of galaxies, not due to redshift distortion, magnitude limiting, or geometrical effects. We anticipate that the proliferation of large redshift surveys and simulations will enable the statistics presented here to provide robust discrimination between large-scale structure in various cosmological models.

preprint1996arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.