While scales below the resolution (0.2-1kpc) remain unresolved, the approach outlined above gives a simple, but physically motivated description of star formation and feedback with no fudge factors at the resolved scales that can be tested and ultimately falsiﬁed.
Cosmological Simulations of Galaxy Formation I: Star Formation, Feedback, Resolution and Matching the Tully--Fisher Relation (among other things)
The dominant uncertainty in obtaining accurate Cℓ s comes from details in the physics of recombination, for example, the ‘fudge factor’ in the recfast routine (Seager, Sasselov & Scott 1999, 2000).
The effect of forbidden transitions on cosmological hydrogen and helium recombination
Seager, Sasselov & Scott (2000) presented the most detailed multi-level calculation and introduced a fudge factor to reproduce the results within an effective three-level model.
The effect of forbidden transitions on cosmological hydrogen and helium recombination
The fudge factor αloss & 1 incorporates the effect of energy losses; it is discussed in more detail in the following.
Anisotropy vs chemical composition at ultra-high energies
The proportionality is given by a fudge factor f, which we adjust to make m exactly into the passive gravitational mass10 .
Newtonian gravity in loop quantum gravity
We note that the need for a fudge factor is not surprising because the Compton wavelength gives us only a rough value for how high we must translate the particle above the surface S to be considered securely in the exterior.
Newtonian gravity in loop quantum gravity
Last but not least to this point I would like to emphasize that contrary to Johanna Stachel’s remark fugacity is not a “fudge factor”.
Strange Quark Matter Theory
Alternatively the so-called ‘fudge-factor’ scheme [216] is employed whereby the total squared matrix element, neglecting ﬁnite width effects, is multiplied by the product of the Breit-Wigner function and the zero-width propagator, p2 − m2, squared for each resonant particle in the process.
THE TOOLS AND MONTE CARLO WORKING GROUP Summary Report from the Les Houches 2009 Workshop on TeV Colliders
Then, they multiplied their MF by a “fudge factor” 2.
The Cosmological Mass Function
As a consequence, an MF calculated by means of a PS-like approach, i.e. by determining the fraction of mass which is predicted to collapse at a given scale, will be nearly normalized: the “fudge factor” would be only, 1/0.92 ≃ 1.09, or even more similar to 1 in the 3RD case.
The Cosmological Mass Function
The ionization fraction xe as a function of redshift z calculated with different values of the hydrogen fudge factor FH .
How well do we understand cosmological recombination?
In this paper, we employ the fudge factor FH for H (which is the extra factor multiplying αH ) and the He i parameter bHe in our model to represent the remaining uncertainties in recombination.
How well do we understand cosmological recombination?
Therefore, we think it is suﬃcient to represent this uncertainty with the usual fudge factor FH, which basically controls the speed of the end of hydrogen recombination (see Fig. 3).
How well do we understand cosmological recombination?
For recombination, we calculate the ionization history using the original Recfast with the fudge factor for hydrogen recombination FH set to 1.14 and the helium abundance equal to 0.24.
How well do we understand cosmological recombination?
In this study, we only vary the basic six standard cosmological parameters stated above, together with the hydrogen fudge factor FH and also the helium bHe factor for the recombination process.
How well do we understand cosmological recombination?
***