Galaxy clustering in the CFHTLS-Wide: the changing relationship between galaxies and haloes since<i>z</i> ~ 1.2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has become increasingly apparent that studying how dark matter haloes are populated by galaxies can provide new insights into galaxy formation and evolution. In this paper, we present a detailed investigation of the changing relationship between galaxies and the dark matter haloes they inhabit from z ~ 1.2 to the present day. We do this by comparing precise galaxy clustering measurements over 133 deg2 of the “Wide” component of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) with predictions of an analytic halo occupation distribution (HOD) model where the number of galaxies in each halo depends only on the halo mass. Starting from a parent catalogue of ~3 × 106 galaxies at i′AB<22.5 we use accurate photometric redshifts calibrated using ~104 spectroscopic redshifts to create a series of type-selected volume-limited samples covering 0.2 < z < 1.2. Our principal result, based on clustering measurements in these samples, is a robust determination of the luminosity-to-halo mass ratio and its dependence on redshift and galaxy type. For the full sample, this reaches a peak at low redshifts of Mhpeak = 4.5×1011 h-1 M⊙ and moves towards higher halo masses at higher redshifts. For redder galaxies the peak is at higher halo masses and does not evolve significantly over the entire redshift range of our survey. We also consider the evolution of bias, average halo mass and the fraction of satellites as a function of redshift and luminosity. Our observed growth of a factor of ~2 in satellite fraction between z ~ 1 and z ~ 0 is testament to the limited role that galaxy merging plays in galaxy evolution for ~1012 h-1 M⊙ mass haloes at z < 1. Qualitatively, our observations are consistent with a picture in which red galaxies in massive haloes have already accumulated most of their stellar mass by z ~ 1 and subsequently undergo little evolution until the present day. The observed movement of the peak location for the full galaxy population is consistent with the bulk of star-formation activity migrating from higher mass haloes at high redshifts to lower mass haloes at lower redshifts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".