Compact Groups analysis using weak gravitational lensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a weak lensing analysis of a sample of Sloan Digital Sky Survey compact groups (CGs). Using the measured radial density contrast profile, we derive the average masses under the assumption of spherical symmetry, obtaining a velocity dispersion for the singular isothermal spherical model, σV = 270 ± 40 km s−1, and for the NFW model, |$R_{200}=0.53\pm 0.10\,h_{70}^{-1}\,$|Mpc. We test three different definitions of CG centres to identify which best traces the true dark matter halo centre, concluding that a luminosity-weighted centre is the most suitable choice. We also study the lensing signal dependence on CG physical radius, group surface brightness and morphological mixing. We find that groups with more concentrated galaxy members show steeper mass profiles and larger velocity dispersions. We argue that both, a possible lower fraction of interloper and a true steeper profile, could be playing a role in this effect. Straightforward velocity dispersion estimates from member spectroscopy yield σV ≈ 230 km s−1 in agreement with our lensing results.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".