MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886825213 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a

COSMOS-DASH: The Evolution of the Galaxy Size–Mass Relation since z ∼ 3 from New Wide-field WFC3 Imaging Combined with CANDELS/3D-HST

2019· article· en· W2886825213 on OpenAlexaff
Lamiya Mowla, Pieter van Dokkum, Gabriel Brammer, Ivelina Momcheva, Arjen van der Wel, Katherine E. Whitaker, Erica J. Nelson, Rachel Bezanson, Adam Muzzin, Marijn Franx, John MacKenty, Joel Leja, Mariska Kriek, Danilo Marchesini

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Research FoundationDanmarks GrundforskningsfondCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyAstrophysicsStellar massAstronomyWide Field Camera 3Field (mathematics)Cosmos (plant)Star formationHubble space telescope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present COSMOS-Drift And SHift (DASH), a Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) imaging survey of the COSMOS field in the H 160 filter. The survey comprises 456 individual WFC3 pointings corresponding to an area of 0.49 deg 2 (0.66 deg 2 when including archival data) and reaches a 5 σ point-source limit of H 160 = 25.1 (0.″3 aperture). COSMOS-DASH is the widest HST /WFC3 imaging survey in the H 160 filter, tripling the extragalactic survey area in the near-infrared at HST resolution. We make the reduced H 160 mosaic available to the community. We use this data set to measure the sizes of 169 galaxies with at 1.5 < z < 3.0 and augment this sample with 749 galaxies at 0.1 < z < 1.5 using archival ACS imaging. We find that the median size of galaxies in this mass range changes with redshift as kpc. Separating the galaxies into star-forming and quiescent galaxies using their rest-frame U − V and V − J colors, we find no statistical difference between the median sizes of the most massive star-forming and quiescent galaxies at : they are 4.9 ± 0.9 kpc and 4.3 ± 0.3 kpc, respectively. However, we do find a significant difference in the Sèrsic index between the two samples, such that massive quiescent galaxies have higher central densities than star-forming galaxies. We extend the size−mass analysis to lower masses by combining it with the 3D- HST /CANDELS sample of van der Wel et al. and derive empirical relations between size, mass, and redshift. Fitting a relation of the form , with and r eff in kpc, we find log A = −0.25 log(1 + z ) + 0.80 and α = −0.13 log(1 + z ) + 0.27. We also provide relations for the subsamples of star-forming and quiescent galaxies. Our results confirm previous studies that were based on smaller samples or ground-based imaging.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations207
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207