EXPLORING THE DIVERSITY OF GROUPS AT 0.1 <<i>z</i>< 0.8 WITH X-RAY AND OPTICALLY SELECTED SAMPLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the global group properties of two samples of galaxy groups containing 39 high-quality X-ray-selected systems and 38 optically (spectroscopically) selected systems in coincident spatial regions at 0.12 < z < 0.79. The total mass range of the combined sample is ∼(10 12 –5) × 10 14 M ☉ . Only nine optical systems are associable with X-ray systems. We discuss the confusion inherent in the matching of both galaxies to extended X-ray emission and of X-ray emission to already identified optical systems. Extensive spectroscopy has been obtained and the resultant redshift catalog and group membership are provided here. X-ray, dynamical, and total stellar masses of the groups are also derived and presented. We explore the effects of utilizing different centers and applying three different kinds of radial cut to our systems: a constant cut of 1 Mpc and two r 200 cuts, one based on the velocity dispersion of the system and the other on the X-ray emission. We find that an X-ray-based r 200 results in less scatter in scaling relations and less dynamical complexity as evidenced by results of the Anderson–Darling and Dressler–Schectman tests, indicating that this radius tends to isolate the virialized part of the system. The constant and velocity dispersion based cuts can overestimate membership and can work to inflate velocity dispersion and dynamical and stellar mass. We find L X –σ and M stellar – L X scaling relations for X-ray and optically selected systems are not dissimilar. The mean fraction of mass found in stars, excluding intracluster light, for our systems is ∼0.014 with a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.398 dex. We also define and investigate a sample of groups which are X-ray underluminous given the total group stellar mass. For these systems the fraction of stellar mass contributed by the most massive galaxy is typically lower than that found for the total population of groups implying that there may be less intragroup medium contributed from the most massive member in these systems. Eighty percent of 15 underluminous groups have less than 40% of their stellar mass in the most massive galaxy which happens in less than 1% of cases with samples matched in stellar mass, taken from the combined group catalog.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".