AVOIDING PROGENITOR BIAS: THE STRUCTURAL AND MASS EVOLUTION OF BRIGHTEST GROUP AND CLUSTER GALAXIES IN HIERARCHICAL MODELS SINCE<i>z</i>≲ 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mass and structural evolution of massive galaxies is one of the hottest topics in galaxy formation. This is because it may reveal invaluable insights into the still debated evolutionary processes governing the growth and assembly of spheroids. However, direct comparison between models and observations is usually prevented by the so-called progenitor bias, i.e., new galaxies entering the observational selection at later epochs, thus eluding a precise study of how pre-existing galaxies actually evolve in size. To limit this effect, we here gather data on high-redshift brightest group and cluster galaxies, evolve their (mean) host halo masses down to z = 0 along their main progenitors, and assign as their "descendants" local Sloan Digital Sky Survey central galaxies matched in host halo mass. At face value, the comparison between high redshift and local data suggests a noticeable increase in stellar mass of a factor of ≳ 2 since z ∼ 1, and of ≳ 2.5 in mean effective radius. We then compare the inferred stellar mass and size growth with those predicted by hierarchical models for central galaxies, selected at high redshifts to closely match the halo and stellar mass bins as in the data. Only hierarchical models characterized by very limited satellite stellar stripping and parabolic orbits are capable of broadly reproducing the stellar mass and size increase of a factor of ∼2–4 observed in cluster galaxies since z ∼ 1. The predicted, average (major) merger rate since z ∼ 1 is in good agreement with the latest observational estimates.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".