Testing the Large-scale Environments of Cool-core and Non-cool-core Clusters with Clustering Bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are well-observed differences between cool-core (CC) and non-cool-core (NCC) clusters, but the origin of this distinction is still largely unknown. Competing theories can be divided into internal (inside-out), in which internal physical processes transform or maintain the NCC phase, and external (outside-in), in which the cluster type is determined by its initial conditions, which in turn leads to different formation histories (i.e., assembly bias). We propose a new method that uses the relative assembly bias of CC to NCC clusters, as determined via the two-point cluster-galaxy cross-correlation function (CCF), to test whether formation history plays a role in determining their nature. We apply our method to 48 ACCEPT clusters, which have well resolved central entropies, and cross-correlate with the SDSS-III/BOSS LOWZ galaxy catalog. We find that the relative bias of NCC over CC clusters is b = 1.42 ± 0.35 (1.6σ different from unity). Our measurement is limited by the small number of clusters with core entropy information within the BOSS footprint, 14 CC and 34 NCC clusters. Future compilations of X-ray cluster samples, combined with deep all-sky redshift surveys, will be able to better constrain the relative assembly bias of CC and NCC clusters and determine the origin of the bimodality.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".