On the evolution of the velocity-mass-size relations of disc-dominated galaxies over the past 10 billion years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the evolution of the scaling relations between the maximum circular velocity, stellar mass and optical half-light radius of star-forming disc-dominated galaxies in the context of Λ cold dark matter-based galaxy formation models. Using data from the literature combined with new data from the Deep Extragalactic Evolutionary Probe 2 (DEEP2) and All-wavelength Extended Groth Strip International Survey (AEGIS) surveys, we show that there is a consistent picture for the evolution of these scaling relations from z∼ 2 to z= 0, both observationally and theoretically. The evolution of the observed stellar scaling relations is weaker than that of the virial scaling relations of dark matter haloes, which can be reproduced, both qualitatively and quantitatively, with a simple, cosmologically motivated model for disc evolution inside growing Navarro–Frenk–White dark matter haloes. In this model optical half-light radii are smaller, both at fixed stellar mass and at maximum circular velocity, at higher redshifts. This model also predicts that the scaling relations between baryonic quantities (baryonic mass, baryonic half-mass radii and maximum circular velocity) evolve even more weakly than the corresponding stellar relations. We emphasize, though, that this weak evolution does not imply that individual galaxies evolve weakly. On the contrary, individual galaxies grow strongly in mass, size and velocity but in such a way that they move largely along the scaling relations. Finally, recent observations have claimed surprisingly large sizes for a number of star-forming disc galaxies at z≃ 2, which has caused some authors to suggest that high-redshift disc galaxies have abnormally high spin parameters. However, we argue that the disc scalelengths in question have been systematically overestimated by a factor of ∼2 and that there is an offset of a factor of ∼1.4 between Hα sizes and optical sizes. Taking these effects into account, there is no indication that star-forming galaxies at high redshifts (z≃ 2) have abnormally high spin parameters.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".