Advanced morphological galaxy classification: a comparison of observed and simulated galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Encoded within the morphological structure of galaxies are clues related to their formation and evolutionary history. Recent advances pertaining to the statistics of galaxy morphology include sophisticated measures of concentration (C), asymmetry (A) and clumpiness (S). In this study, these three parameters (CAS) have been applied to a suite of simulated galaxies and compared with observational results inferred from a sample of nearby galaxies. The simulations span a range of late-type systems, with masses between ∼1010 and ∼1012 M⊙, and employ star formation density thresholds between 0.1 and 100 cm−3. We have found that the simulated galaxies possess comparable concentrations to their observed counterparts. However, the results of the CAS analysis revealed that the simulated galaxies are generally more asymmetric, and that the range of clumpiness values extends beyond the range of those observed. Strong correlations were obtained between the three CAS parameters and colour (B − V), consistent with observed galaxies. Furthermore, the simulated galaxies possess strong links between their CAS parameters and Hubble type, mostly in-line with their observed counterparts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".