A Tale of Two Clump Masses: A new way to study clump formation in simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new method to study the characteristic scales of collapse and fragmentation in galactic discs. Clump formation is seeded in simulations via controlled perturbations with a specified wavelength and velocity. These are applied to otherwise quiet gas discs ranging from analogues of present day spirals to gas-rich, high-redshift galaxies. The results are compared to linear theory, turbulently perturbed discs and observations. The results reflect the expectations of linear, non-axisymmetric theory with a finite window for growth into a bound clump. We identify two new modes of clump formation: rotation-driven fission and fragmentation of tidal tails, though both are expected to rarely contribute to clump formation in observed discs. We find that bound clumps are generally much smaller than the commonly used Toomre mass. The preferred scale for fragmentation increases with the disc gas mass but cannot produce bound objects larger than ∼109 M⊙. The most likely bound clump mass increases from 3 × 106 in low-mass discs up to 5 × 108 M⊙. We conclude that observed massive stellar and gaseous clumps on 1 kpc scales at high redshift are most likely aggregates of many initially distinct bound clumps.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".