Testing for X-Ray–SZ Differences and Redshift Evolution in the X-Ray Morphology of Galaxy Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a quantitative study of the X-ray morphology of galaxy clusters, as a function of their detection method and redshift. We analyze two separate samples of galaxy clusters: a sample of 36 clusters at selected in the X-ray with the ROSAT PSPC 400 deg2 survey, and a sample of 90 clusters at selected via the Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (SZ) effect with the South Pole Telescope. Clusters from both samples have similar-quality Chandra observations, which allow us to quantify their X-ray morphologies via two distinct methods: centroid shifts (w) and photon asymmetry ( ). The latter technique provides nearly unbiased morphology estimates for clusters spanning a broad range of redshift and data quality. We further compare the X-ray morphologies of X-ray- and SZ-selected clusters with those of simulated clusters. We do not find a statistically significant difference in the measured X-ray morphology of X-ray and SZ-selected clusters over the redshift range probed by these samples, suggesting that the two are probing similar populations of clusters. We find that the X-ray morphologies of simulated clusters are statistically indistinguishable from those of X-ray- or SZ-selected clusters, implying that the most important physics for dictating the large-scale gas morphology (outside of the core) is well-approximated in these simulations. Finally, we find no statistically significant redshift evolution in the X-ray morphology (both for observed and simulated clusters), over the range of to , seemingly in contradiction with the redshift-dependent halo merger rate predicted by simulations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".