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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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