The M31 Globular Cluster Luminosity Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We combine our compilation of photometry of M31 globular clusters and probable cluster candidates with new near-infrared photometry for 30 objects. Using these data we determine the globular cluster luminosity function (GCLF) in multiple filters for the M31 halo clusters. We find a GCLF peak and dispersion V00 = 16.84 ± 0.11, ?t, = 0.93 ± 0.13 (Gaussian ? = 1.20 ± 0.14), consistent with previous results. The halo GCLF peak colors (e.g., B00 - V00) are consistent with the average cluster colors. We also measure V-band GCLF parameters for several other subsamples of the M31 globular cluster population. The inner third of the clusters have a GCLF peak significantly brighter than that of the outer clusters (?V0 ? 0.5 mag). Dividing the sample by both galactocentric distance and metallicity, we find that the GCLF also varies with metallicity, as the metal-poor clusters are on average 0.36 mag fainter than the metal-rich clusters. Our modeling of the catalog selection effects suggests that they are not the cause of the measured GCLF differences, but a more complete, less contaminated M31 cluster catalog is required for confirmation. Our results imply that dynamical destruction is not the only factor causing variation in the M31 GCLF: metallicity, age, and cluster initial mass function may also be important.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".