An artificial neural network approach for ranking quenching parameters in central galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a novel technique for ranking the relative importance of galaxy properties in the process of quenching star formation. Specifically, we develop an artificial neural network (ANN) approach for pattern recognition and apply it to a population of over 400 000 central galaxies taken from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7. We utilize a variety of physical galaxy properties for training the pattern recognition algorithm to recognize star-forming and passive systems, for a ‘training set’ of ∼100 000 galaxies. We then apply the ANN model to a ‘verification set’ of ∼100 000 different galaxies, randomly chosen from the remaining sample. The success rate of each parameter singly, and in conjunction with other parameters, is taken as an indication of how important the parameters are to the process(es) of central galaxy quenching. We find that central velocity dispersion, bulge mass and bulge-to-total stellar mass ratio are excellent predictors of the passive state of the system, indicating that properties related to the central mass of the galaxy are most closely linked to the cessation of star formation. Larger scale galaxy properties (total or disc stellar masses), or those linked to environment (halo masses or δ5), perform significantly less well. Our results are plausibly explained by AGN feedback driving the quenching of central galaxies, although we discuss other possibilities as well.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".