Cusp or core? Revisiting the globular cluster timing problem in Fornax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We use N-body simulations to revisit the globular cluster (GC) ‘timing problem’ in the Fornax dwarf spheroidal (dSph). In agreement with earlier work, we find that, due to dynamical friction, GCs sink to the centre of dark matter haloes with a cuspy inner density profile but ‘stall’ at roughly 1/3 of the core radius (rcore) in haloes with constant-density cores. The time-scales to sink or stall depend strongly on the mass of the GC and on the initial orbital radius, but are essentially the same for either cuspy (Navarro–Frenk–White) or cored haloes normalized to have the same total mass within rcore. Arguing against a cusp on the basis that GCs have not sunk to the centre is thus no different from arguing against a core, unless all clusters are today at $\sim(1/3)\,r_{\rm core}$. This would imply a core radius exceeding ∼3 kpc, much larger than seems plausible in any core-formation scenario. (The average projected distance of Fornax GCs is 〈RGC, Fnx〉 ∼ 1 kpc and its effective radius is ∼700 pc.) A simpler explanation is that Fornax GCs have only been modestly affected by dynamical friction, as expected if clusters started orbiting at initial radii of the order of ∼1–2 kpc, just outside Fornax’s present-day half-light radius but well within the tidal radius imprinted by Galactic tides. This is not entirely unexpected. Fornax GCs are significantly older and more metal-poor than most Fornax stars, and such populations in dSphs tend to be more spatially extended than their younger and more metal-rich counterparts. Contrary to some earlier claims, our simulations further suggest that GCs do not truly ‘stall’ at $\sim 0.3\, r_{\rm core}$, but rather continue decaying towards the centre, albeit at reduced rates. We conclude that dismissing the presence of a cusp in Fornax based on the spatial distribution of its GC population is unwarranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".