MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972170141 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa854

The formation of ultradiffuse galaxies in clusters

2020· article· en· W2972170141 on OpenAlexaff
Laura V. Sales, Julio F. Navarro, Louis Peñafiel, Eric W. Peng, Sungsoon Lim, Lars Hernquist

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyAstrophysicsVelocity dispersionSurface brightnessCluster (spacecraft)PopulationStellar massDark matterStar formationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We use the IllustrisTNG cosmological hydrodynamical simulation to study the formation of ultradiffuse galaxies (UDGs) in galaxy clusters. We supplement the simulations with a realistic mass–size relation for galaxies at the time of infall into the cluster, as well as an analytical model to describe the tidally induced evolution of their stellar mass, velocity dispersion, and size. The model assumes ‘cuspy’ NFW haloes and, contrary to recent claims, has no difficulty reproducing the observed number of UDGs in clusters. Our results further suggest that the UDG population consists of a mixture of ‘normal’ low surface brightness galaxies such as those found in the field (‘born’ UDGs, or B-UDGs), as well as a distinct population that owe their large size and low surface brightness to the effects of cluster tides (‘tidal’, or T-UDGs). The simulations indicate that T-UDGs entered the cluster earlier and should be more prevalent than B-UDGs near the cluster centres. T-UDGs should also have, at given stellar mass, lower velocity dispersion, higher metallicities, and lower dark matter content than B-UDGs. Our results suggest that systems like DF-44 are consistent with having been born as UDGs, while others such as DF2, DF4, and VLSB-D are possibly extreme T-UDG examples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations127
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207