MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809792641 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833572

The stellar mass function of galaxies in <i>Planck</i>-selected clusters at 0.5 &lt; <i>z</i> &lt; 0.7: new constraints on the timescale and location of satellite quenching

2018· article· en· W2809792641 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaNational Astronomical Observatory of JapanInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationChina Scholarship CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilTekesJet Propulsion LaboratoryCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesPartnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBLCalifornia Institute of TechnologyEuropean CommissionMax-Planck-GesellschaftNorges ForskningsrådUK Space AgencyScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsGalaxyCluster (spacecraft)Photometry (optics)Galaxy clusterStar formationStellar massRedshiftPopulationSatellite galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the abundance of star-forming and quiescent galaxies in a sample of 21 clusters at 0.5 < z < 0.7, detected with the Planck satellite. Thanks to the large volume probed by Planck, these systems are extremely massive, and provide an excellent laboratory to study any environmental effects on their galaxies’ properties. We measure the cluster galaxy stellar mass function (SMF), which is a fundamental observable to study and constrain the formation and evolution of galaxies. Our measurements are based on homogeneous and deep multi-band photometry spanning from the u- to the Ks-band for each cluster and are supported by spectroscopic data from different programs. The galaxy population is separated into quiescent and star-forming galaxies based on their rest-frame U−V and V−J colours. The SMF is compared to that of field galaxies at the same redshifts using data from the COSMOS/UltraVISTA survey. We find that the shape of the SMF of star-forming galaxies does not depend on environment, while the SMF of quiescent galaxies has a significantly steeper low-mass slope in the clusters compared to the field. This indicates that a different quenching mechanism is at play in clusters compared to the field, accentuated by a quenched fraction that is much higher in the clusters. We estimate the environmental quenching efficiency (fEQ), that is, the probability for a galaxy that would normally be star forming in the field to be quenched due to its environment. The fEQ shows no stellar-mass dependence in any environment, but it increases from 40% in the cluster outskirts to ∼90% in the cluster centres. The radial signature of fEQ provides constraints on where the dominant quenching mechanism operates in these clusters and on what timescale. Exploring these using a simple model based on galaxy orbits obtained from an N-body simulation, we find a clear degeneracy between both parameters. For example, the quenching process may either be triggered on a long (∼3 Gyr) timescale at large radii (r ∼ 8 R500), or happen well within 1 Gyr at r < R500. The radius where quenching is triggered is at least rquench > 0.67 R500 (95%CL). The ICM density at this location (as probed with XMM-Newton) suggests that ram-pressure stripping of the cold gas is a likely cause of quenching. In addition to this cluster-quenching mechanism, we find that 20–32%, depending on the cluster-specific quenching process, of accreted galaxies were already pre-processed (i.e. quenched by the surrounding overdensities) before they fell into the clusters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207