MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2058588831 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt875

Nurturing Lyman break galaxies: observed link between environment and spectroscopic features

2013· article· en· W2058588831 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeff Cooke, Y. Omori, Emma Ryan‐Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsHaloGalaxyAutocorrelationAmplitudeDark matterVirial theoremPopulationCorrelation function (quantum field theory)AstronomyStatisticsOpticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the effects of magnitude, colour and Lyα equivalent width (EW) on the spatial distribution of z ∼ 3 Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) and report significant differences in the two-point autocorrelation functions. The results are obtained using samples of ∼10 000–55 000 LBGs from the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey Deep Fields. We find that magnitude has a larger effect on the autocorrelation function amplitude on small scales (≲1 |$h^{-1}_{70}$| Mpc, the one-halo term) and that colour is more influential on large scales (≳1 |$h^{-1}_{70}$| Mpc, the two-halo term). We find the most significant differences between autocorrelation functions for LBGs with dominant net Lyα EW in absorption (aLBGs) and dominant net Lyα EW in emission (eLBGs) determined from ≳95 per cent pure samples of each population using a photometric technique calibrated from ∼1000 spectra. The aLBG autocorrelation function has a higher two-halo amplitude than the full LBG sample and has a one-halo term departure from a power-law fit near ∼1 |$h^{-1}_{70}$| Mpc, corresponding to the virial radii of MDM ∼ 1013 M⊙ dark matter haloes. In contrast, the eLBG autocorrelation function has a one-halo term departure at ∼0.12 |$h^{-1}_{70}$| Mpc, suggesting parent haloes of MDM ∼ 1011 M⊙ and a two-halo term that exhibits a curious ‘hump’ on intermediate scales that we localize to the faintest, bluest members. The aLBG–eLBG cross-correlation function exhibits an anticorrelation component that reinforces different physical locations for a significant fraction of aLBGs and eLBGs. We introduce a ‘shell’ model for the eLBG autocorrelation function and find that the form can be reproduced assuming that a significant fraction of eLBGs have a shell-like spatial distribution. Based on the analysis of all LBG subsamples, and considering the natural asymmetric distribution of LBGs on the colour–magnitude diagram, we conclude that aLBGs are more likely to reside in group-like environments hosting multiple luminous (i′ < 26.4) LBGs whereas eLBGs are more likely to be found on group outskirts and in the field. Because Lyα is a tracer of several intrinsic properties, including morphology, the results presented here imply that the mechanisms behind the morphology–density relation at low redshift are in place at z ∼ 3 and that Lyα EW may be a key environment diagnostic. Finally, our results show that the LBG autocorrelation function amplitude is lower than the true average as a result of the spatial anticorrelation of the spectral types. This result holds broad consequences for all autocorrelation functions measured for any population that contains members residing in different environments as the average amplitude, and hence the inferred average dark matter mass, will always be underestimated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→