MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The 2df SDSS LRG and QSO survey: evolution of the luminosity function of luminous red galaxies to<i>z</i>= 0.6

2006· article· en· W2060794086 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Wake, R. C. Nichol, Daniel J. Eisenstein, J. Loveday, A. C. Edge, Russell Cannon, Ian Smail, Donald P. Schneider, Ryan Scranton, D. Carson, Nicholas P. Ross, Robert J. Brunner, Matthew Colless, W. Couch, S. M. Croom, Simon P. Driver, J. da Ângela, Sebastian Jester, M. J. Drinkwater, Joss Bland‐Hawthorn, Kevin A. Pimbblet, Isaac Roseboom, T. Shanks, R. Sharp, J. Brinkmann

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyRedshiftLuminosityLuminosity functionSkyPopulationGalaxy formation and evolutionQuasarAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new measurements of the luminosity function (LF) of luminous red galaxies (LRGs) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the 2dF SDSS LRG and Quasar (2SLAQ) survey. We have carefully quantified, and corrected for, uncertainties in the K and evolutionary corrections, differences in the colour selection methods, and the effects of photometric errors, thus ensuring we are studying the same galaxy population in both surveys. Using a limited subset of 6326 SDSS LRGs (with 0.17 &lt; z &lt; 0.24) and 1725 2SLAQ LRGs (with 0.5 &lt; z &lt; 0.6), for which the matching colour selection is most reliable, we find no evidence for any additional evolution in the LRG LF, over this redshift range, beyond that expected from a simple passive evolution model. This lack of additional evolution is quantified using the comoving luminosity density of SDSS and 2SLAQ LRGs, brighter than M0.2r- 5 log h0.7 = -22.5, which are 2.51 ± 0.03 × 10-7L⊙ Mpc-3 and 2.44 ± 0.15 × 10-7L⊙ Mpc-3, respectively (&lt; 10 per cent uncertainty). We compare our LFs to the COMBO-17 data and find excellent agreement over the same redshift range. Together, these surveys show no evidence for additional evolution (beyond passive) in the LF of LRGs brighter than M0.2r - 5 log h0.7 = -21 (or brighter than ∼L*). We test our SDSS and 2SLAQ LFs against a simple 'dry merger' model for the evolution of massive red galaxies and find that at least half of the LRGs at z ≃ 0.2 must already have been well assembled (with more than half their stellar mass) by z ≃ 0.6. This limit is barely consistent with recent results from semi-analytical models of galaxy evolution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations163
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207