A Comparison of Void-Finding Algorithms using Crossing Numbers
Dahlia Veyrat, Kelly A. Douglass, Segev BenZvi

TL;DR
This study compares void-finding algorithms in cosmology, revealing that VoidFinder more reliably identifies dynamically distinct low-crossing regions than V2, especially beyond 0.25 times the effective radius.
Contribution
It introduces a method to compare voids identified by different algorithms using crossing numbers and assesses their effectiveness in capturing dynamical properties.
Findings
VoidFinder better identifies low-crossing, dynamically distinct regions.
Beyond 0.25 effective radius, VoidFinder's voids show fewer high-crossing particles.
Using distance from void edge partially improves V2's performance.
Abstract
We study how well void-finding algorithms identify cosmic void regions and whether we can quantitatively and qualitatively compare the voids they find with dynamical information from the underlying matter distribution. Using the ORIGAMI algorithm to determine the number of dimensions along which dark matter particles have undergone shell-crossing (crossing number) in N-body simulations from the AbacusSummit simulation suite, we identify dark matter particles that have undergone no shell crossing as belonging to voids. We then find voids in the corresponding halo distribution using two different void-finding algorithms: VoidFinder and Voronoi Voids (V2), a ZOBOV-based algorithm. The resulting void catalogs are compared to the distribution of dark matter particles to examine how their crossing numbers depend on void proximity. While both algorithms' voids have a similar distribution of…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsData Visualization and Analytics
