MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073986801 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2013

CFHTLenS: the relation between galaxy dark matter haloes and baryons from weak gravitational lensing

2013· article· en· W2073986801 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Velander, Edo van Uitert, Henk Hoekstra, Jean Coupon, T. Erben, Catherine Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, Thomas Kitching, Y. Mellier, L. Miller, Ludovic Van Waerbeke, Christopher Bonnett, Liping Fu, Stefania Giodini, Michael J. Hudson, Konrad Kuijken, Barnaby Rowe, T. Schrabback, E. Semboloni

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
FundersInstitut national des sciences de l'UniversScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCanadian Space AgencyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsHaloDark matterGalaxySatellite galaxyAstronomyStellar massDark matter haloLuminosityWeak gravitational lensingGalactic haloRedshiftStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a study of the relation between dark matter halo mass and the baryonic content of their host galaxies, quantified through galaxy luminosity and stellar mass. Our investigation uses 154 deg2 of Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) lensing and photometric data, obtained from the CFHT Legacy Survey. To interpret the weak lensing signal around our galaxies, we employ a galaxy–galaxy lensing halo model which allows us to constrain the halo mass and the satellite fraction. Our analysis is limited to lenses at redshifts between 0.2 and 0.4, split into a red and a blue sample. We express the relationship between dark matter halo mass and baryonic observable as a power law with pivot points of |$10^{11}\,h_{70}^{-2}\,\mathrm{L}_{{\odot }}$| and |$2\times 10^{11}\,h_{70}^{-2}\,\mathrm{M}_{{\odot }}$| for luminosity and stellar mass, respectively. For the luminosity–halo mass relation, we find a slope of 1.32 ± 0.06 and a normalization of |$1.19^{+0.06}_{-0.07}\times 10^{13}\,h_{70}^{-1}\,\mathrm{M}_{{\odot }}$| for red galaxies, while for blue galaxies the best-fitting slope is |$1.09^{+0.20}_{-0.13}$| and the normalization is |$0.18^{+0.04}_{-0.05}\times 10^{13}\,h_{70}^{-1}\,\mathrm{M}_{{\odot }}$|⁠. Similarly, we find a best-fitting slope of |$1.36^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$| and a normalization of |$1.43^{+0.11}_{-0.08}\times 10^{13}\,h_{70}^{-1}\,\mathrm{M}_{{\odot }}$| for the stellar mass–halo mass relation of red galaxies, while for blue galaxies the corresponding values are |$0.98^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$| and |$0.84^{+0.20}_{-0.16}\times 10^{13}\,h_{70}^{-1}\,\mathrm{M}_{{\odot }}$|⁠. All numbers convey the 68 per cent confidence limit. For red lenses, the fraction which are satellites inside a larger halo tends to decrease with luminosity and stellar mass, with the sample being nearly all satellites for a stellar mass of |$2\times 10^{9}\,h_{70}^{-2}\,\mathrm{M}_{{\odot }}$|⁠. The satellite fractions are generally close to zero for blue lenses, irrespective of luminosity or stellar mass. This, together with the shallower relation between halo mass and baryonic tracer, is a direct confirmation from galaxy–galaxy lensing that blue galaxies reside in less clustered environments than red galaxies. We also find that the halo model, while matching the lensing signal around red lenses well, is prone to overpredicting the large-scale signal for faint and less massive blue lenses. This could be a further indication that these galaxies tend to be more isolated than assumed.

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations193
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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