The Distribution of Ultra-diffuse and Ultra-compact Galaxies in the Frontier Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large low-surface-brightness galaxies have recently been found to be abundant in nearby galaxy clusters. In this paper, we investigate these ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs) in the six Hubble Frontier Fields galaxy clusters: A2744, MACS J0416.1−2403, MACS J0717.5+3745, MACS J1149.5+2223, AS1063, and A370. These are the most massive (1–3 × 1015 M ⊙) and distant (0.308 < z < 0.545) systems in which this class of galaxy has yet been discovered. We estimate that the clusters host of the order of ∼200–1400 UDGs inside the virial radius (R 200), consistent with the UDG abundance–halo-mass relation found in the local universe, and suggest that UDGs may be formed in clusters. Within each cluster, however, we find that UDGs are not evenly distributed. Instead their projected spatial distributions are lopsided, and they are deficient in the regions of highest mass density as traced by gravitational lensing. While the deficiency of UDGs in central regions is not surprising, the lopsidedness is puzzling. The UDGs, and their lopsided spatial distributions, may be associated with known substructures late in their infall into the clusters, meaning that we find evidence both for formation of UDGs in clusters and for UDGs falling into clusters. We also investigate the ultra-compact dwarfs (UCDs) residing in the clusters, and find that the spatial distributions of UDGs and UCDs appear anticorrelated. Around 15% of UDGs exhibit either compact nuclei or nearby point sources. Taken together, these observations provide additional evidence for a picture in which at least some UDGs are destroyed in dense cluster environments and leave behind a residue of UCDs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".