Machine Learning the Fates of Dark Matter Subhalos: A Fuzzy Crystal Ball
Authors:
Abigail Petulante,
Andreas A. Berlind,
J. Kelly Holley-Bockelmann,
Manodeep Sinha
Abstract:
The evolution of a dark matter halo in a dark matter only simulation is governed purely byNewtonian gravity, making a clean testbed to determine what halo properties drive its fate.Using machine learning, we predict the survival, mass loss, final position, and merging time of subhalos within a cosmological N-body simulation, focusing on what instantaneous initial features of the halo, interaction,…
▽ More
The evolution of a dark matter halo in a dark matter only simulation is governed purely byNewtonian gravity, making a clean testbed to determine what halo properties drive its fate.Using machine learning, we predict the survival, mass loss, final position, and merging time of subhalos within a cosmological N-body simulation, focusing on what instantaneous initial features of the halo, interaction, and environment matter most. Survival is well predicted, with our model achieving 96.5% accuracy using only 3 model inputs from the initial interaction.However, the mass loss, final location, and merging times are much more stochastic processes, with significant margins of error between the true and predicted quantities for much of our sample. The redshift, impact angle, relative velocity, and the masses of the host and subhalo are the only relevant initial inputs for determining subhalo evolution. In general, subhalos that enter their hosts at a mid-range of redshifts (typically z = 0.67-0.43) are the most challenging to make predictions for, across all of our final outcomes. Subhalo orbits that come in more perpendicular to the host are also easier to predict, except for in the case of predicting disruption, where the opposite appears to be true. We conclude that the detailed evolution of individual subhalos within N-body simulations is quite difficult to predict, pointing to a stochasticity in the merging process. We discuss implications for both simulations and observations
△ Less
Submitted 11 August, 2020;
originally announced August 2020.
The 105 month Swift-BAT all-sky hard X-ray survey
Authors:
Kyuseok Oh,
Michael Koss,
Craig B. Markwardt,
Kevin Schawinski,
Wayne H. Baumgartner,
Scott D. Barthelmy,
S. Bradley Cenko,
Neil Gehrels,
Richard Mushotzky,
Abigail Petulante,
Claudio Ricci,
Amy Lien,
Benny Trakhtenbrot
Abstract:
We present a catalog of hard X-ray sources detected in the first 105 months of observations with the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) coded mask imager on board the Swift observatory. The 105 month Swift-BAT survey is a uniform hard X-ray all-sky survey with a sensitivity of $8.40\times 10^{-12}\ {\rm erg\ s^{-1}\ cm^{-2}}$ over 90% of the sky and $7.24\times 10^{-12}\ {\rm erg\ s^{-1}\ cm^{-2}}$ over…
▽ More
We present a catalog of hard X-ray sources detected in the first 105 months of observations with the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) coded mask imager on board the Swift observatory. The 105 month Swift-BAT survey is a uniform hard X-ray all-sky survey with a sensitivity of $8.40\times 10^{-12}\ {\rm erg\ s^{-1}\ cm^{-2}}$ over 90% of the sky and $7.24\times 10^{-12}\ {\rm erg\ s^{-1}\ cm^{-2}}$ over 50% of the sky in the 14-195 keV band. The Swift-BAT 105 month catalog provides 1632 (422 new detections) hard X-ray sources in the 14-195 keV band above the 4.8σ significance level. Adding to the previously known hard X-ray sources, 34% (144/422) of the new detections are identified as Seyfert AGN in nearby galaxies (z<0.2). The majority of the remaining identified sources are X-ray binaries (7%, 31) and blazars/BL Lac objects (10%, 43). As part of this new edition of the Swift-BAT catalog, we release eight-channel spectra and monthly sampled light curves for each object in the online journal and at the Swift-BAT 105 month Web site.
△ Less
Submitted 5 January, 2018;
originally announced January 2018.
