The colour of galaxies in distant groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present new optical and near-infrared imaging for a sample of 98 spectroscopically selected galaxy groups at 0.25 < z < 0.55, most of which have velocity dispersions σ < 500 km s−1. We use point spread function matched aperture photometry to measure accurate colours for group members and the surrounding field population. The sample is statistically complete above a stellar mass limit of approximately M= 1 × 1010 M⊙. The overall colour distribution is bimodal in both the field and group samples; but, at fixed luminosity the fraction of group galaxies populating the red peak is larger, by ∼20 ± 7 per cent, than that of the field. In particular, group members with early-type morphologies, as identified in Hubble Space Telescope imaging, exhibit a tight red sequence, similar to that seen for more massive clusters. Using optical and near-infrared colours, including data from the Spitzer Space Telescope, we show that approximately 20–30 per cent of galaxies on the red sequence may be dust-reddened galaxies with non-negligible star formation and early-spiral morphologies. This is true of both the field and group samples, and shows little dependence on near-infrared luminosity. Thus, the fraction of bright (0.4MK < −22) group members with no sign of star formation or active galactic nuclei activity, as identified by their colours or [O ii] emission, is 54 ± 6 per cent. Our field sample, which includes galaxies in all environments, contains 35 ± 3 per cent of such inactive galaxies, consistent with the amount expected if all such galaxies are located in groups and clusters. This reinforces our earlier conclusions that dense environments at z≲ 0.5 are associated with a premature cessation of star formation in some galaxies; in particular, we find no evidence for significantly enhanced star formation in these environments. Simple galaxy formation models predict a quenching of star formation in groups that is too efficient, overpopulating the red sequence. Attempts to fix this by increasing the time-scale of this quenching equally for all group members distort the colour distribution in a way that is inconsistent with observations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".