ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF NUCLEAR STAR CLUSTERS AROUND MASSIVE BLACK HOLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The centers of stellar spheroids are often marked by the presence of nucleated central regions, called nuclear star clusters (NSCs). The origin of NSCs is still unclear. Here we investigate the possibility that NSCs originate from the migration and merger of stellar clusters at the center of galaxies where a massive black hole (MBH) may sit. We show that the observed relation between NSC masses and the velocity dispersion of their host spheroids cannot be reconciled with a purely in-situ formation scenario. On the other hand, the observed relation appears to be in agreement with the predictions of the cluster merger model which also reproduces the observed relation between the size of NSCs and their total luminosity. We evolve through dynamical friction a population of stellar clusters in a model of a galactic bulge taking into account dynamical dissolution, starting from a power-law cluster initial mass function and a total mass in stellar clusters consistent with the cluster formation efficiency of the Milky Way (MW). The most massive clusters reach the center of the galaxy and merge to form a compact nucleus; after 10 Gyr, the resulting NSC has properties that are consistent with the observed distribution of stars in the MW NSC. When a MBH is included at the center of a galaxy, globular clusters are tidally disrupted during inspiral, resulting in NSCs with lower densities than those of NSCs forming in galaxies with no MBHs. We suggest this as a possible explanation for the lack of NSCs in galaxies containing MBHs more massive than ~10^8M_Sun. Finally, we investigate the orbital evolution of globular clusters in giant elliptical galaxies which are believed to always host a MBH at their center rather than a NSC. In these systems an additional mechanism can prevent a NSC from forming: the time for globular clusters to reach the center of the galaxy is much longer than the Hubble time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".