An Explanation for the Observed Weak Size Evolution of Disk Galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveys of distant galaxies with the Hubble Space Telescope and from the ground have shown that there is only mild evolution in the relationship between radial size and stellar mass for galactic disks from z ∼ 1 to the present day. Using a sample of nearby disk-dominated galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and high-redshift data from the GEMS (Galaxy Evolution from Morphology and SEDs) survey, we investigate whether this result is consistent with theoretical expectations within the hierarchical paradigm of structure formation. The relationship between virial radius and mass for dark matter halos in the ΛCDM model evolves by about a factor of 2 over this interval. However, N -body simulations have shown that halos of a given mass have less centrally concentrated mass profiles at high redshift. When we compute the expected disk size-stellar mass distribution, accounting for this evolution in the internal structure of dark matter halos and the adiabatic contraction of the dark matter by the self-gravity of the collapsing baryons, we find that the predicted evolution in the mean size at fixed stellar mass since z ∼ 1 is about 15%-20%, in good agreement with the observational constraints from GEMS. At redshift z ∼ 2, the model predicts that disks at fixed stellar mass were on average only 60% as large as they are today. Similarly, we predict that the rotation velocity at a given stellar mass (essentially the zero point of the Tully-Fisher relation) is only about 10% larger at z ∼ 1 (20% at z ∼ 2) than at the present day.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".