The size of star clusters accreted by the Milky Way
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform N-body simulations of a cluster that forms in a dwarf galaxy and is then accreted by the Milky Way to investigate how a cluster's structure is affected by a galaxy merger. We find that the cluster's half-mass radius will respond quickly to this change in potential. When the cluster is placed on an orbit in the Milky Way with a stronger tidal field the cluster experiences a sharp decrease in size in response to increased tidal forces. Conversely, when placed on an orbit with a weaker tidal field, the cluster expands since tidal forces decrease and no longer limit the expansion due to internal effects. In all cases, we find that the cluster's half-mass radius will eventually be indistinguishable from a cluster that has always lived in the Milky Way on that orbit. These adjustments occur within 1–2 half-mass relaxation times of the cluster in the dwarf galaxy. We also find this effect to be qualitatively independent of the time that the cluster is taken from the dwarf galaxy. In contrast to the half-mass radius, we show the core radius of the cluster is not affected by the potential the cluster lives in. Our work suggests that structural properties of accreted clusters are not distinct from clusters born in the Milky Way. Other cluster properties, such as metallicity and horizontal branch morphology, may be the only way to identify accreted star clusters in the Milky Way.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".