The diversity of the circumgalactic medium around z = 0 Milky Way-mass galaxies from the Auriga simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Galaxies are surrounded by massive gas reservoirs (i.e. the circumgalactic medium; CGM) which play a key role in their evolution. The properties of the CGM, which are dependent on a variety of internal and environmental factors, are often inferred from absorption line surveys which rely on a limited number of single lines-of-sight. In this work we present an analysis of 28 galaxy haloes selected from the Auriga project, a cosmological magneto-hydrodynamical zoom-in simulation suite of isolated Milky Way-mass galaxies, to understand the impact of CGM diversity on observational studies. Although the Auriga haloes are selected to populate a narrow range in halo mass, our work demonstrates that the CGM of L⋆ galaxies is extremely diverse: column densities of commonly observed species span ∼3 − 4 dex and their covering fractions range from ${\sim } 5$ to $90{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$. Despite this diversity, we identify the following correlations: 1) the covering fractions (CF) of hydrogen and metals of the Auriga haloes positively correlate with stellar mass, 2) the CF of H i, C iv, and Si ii anticorrelate with active galactic nucleus luminosity due to ionization effects, and 3) the CF of H i, C iv, and Si ii positively correlate with galaxy disc fraction due to outflows populating the CGM with cool and dense gas. The Auriga sample demonstrates striking diversity within the CGM of L⋆ galaxies, which poses a challenge for observations reconstructing CGM characteristics from limited samples, and also indicates that long-term merger assembly history and recent star formation are not the dominant sculptors of the CGM.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".