Revisiting the Size–Luminosity Relation in the Era of Ultra Diffuse Galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Galaxies are generally found to follow a relation between their size and luminosity, such that luminous galaxies typically have large sizes. The recent identification of a significant population of galaxies with large sizes but low luminosities (“ultra diffuse galaxies,” or UDGs) raises the question of whether the inverse is also true—that is, whether large galaxies typically have high luminosities. Here we address this question by studying a size-limited sample of galaxies in the Coma cluster. We select red cluster galaxies with sizes of r eff > 2 kpc down to M g ∼ −13 mag in an area of 9 deg2, using carefully filtered Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope images. The sample is complete to a central surface brightness of μ g,0 ≈ 25.0 mag arcsec−2 and includes 90% of Dragonfly-discovered UDGs brighter than this limit. Unexpectedly, we find that red, large galaxies have a fairly uniform distribution in the size–luminosity plane: there is no peak at the absolute magnitude implied by the canonical size–luminosity relation. The number of galaxies within ±0.5 mag of the canonical peak (M g = −19.69 for 2 < r eff < 3 kpc) is a factor of ∼9 smaller than the number of fainter galaxies with −19 < M g < −13. Large, faint galaxies, such as UDGs, are far more common than large galaxies that are on the size–luminosity relation. An implication is that, for large galaxies, size is not an indicator of the halo mass. Finally, we show that the structure of faint large galaxies is different from that of bright large galaxies: at a fixed large size, the Sérsic index decreases with the magnitude following the relation .
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".