Weak lensing reveals a tight connection between dark matter halo mass and the distribution of stellar mass in massive galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Using deep images from the Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) survey and taking advantage of its unprecedented weak lensing capabilities, we reveal a remarkably tight connection between the stellar mass distribution of massive central galaxies and their host dark matter halo mass. Massive galaxies with more extended stellar mass distributions tend to live in more massive dark matter haloes. We explain this connection with a phenomenological model that assumes, (1) a tight relation between the halo mass and the total stellar content in the halo, (2) that the fraction of in situ and ex situ mass at r <10 kpc depends on halo mass. This model provides an excellent description of the stellar mass functions (SMFs) of total stellar mass ($M_{\star }^{\mathrm{max}}$) and stellar mass within inner 10 kpc ($M_{\star }^{10}$) and also reproduces the HSC weak lensing signals of massive galaxies with different stellar mass distributions. The best-fitting model shows that halo mass varies significantly at fixed total stellar mass (as much as 0.4 dex) with a clear dependence on $M_{\star }^{10}$. Our two-parameter $M_{\star }^{\mathrm{max}}$–$M_{\star }^{10}$ description provides a more accurate picture of the galaxy–halo connection at the high-mass end than the simple stellar–halo mass relation (SHMR) and opens a new window to connect the assembly history of haloes with those of central galaxies. The model also predicts that the ex situ component dominates the mass profiles of galaxies at r < 10 kpc for log M⋆ ≥ 11.7. The code used for this paper is available online https://github.com/dr-guangtou/asap
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".