Asymmetry between galaxies with different spin patterns: A comparison between COSMOS, SDSS, and Pan-STARRS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous observations of a large number of galaxies show differences between the photometry of spiral galaxies with clockwise spin patterns and spiral galaxies with counterclockwise spin patterns. In this study the mean magnitude of a large number of clockwise galaxies is compared to the mean magnitude of a large number of counterclockwise galaxies. The observed difference between clockwise and counterclockwise spiral galaxies imaged by the space-based COSMOS survey is compared to the differences between clockwise and counterclockwise galaxies imaged by the Earth-based SDSS and Pan-STARRS around the same field. The annotation of clockwise and counterclockwise galaxies is a fully automatic process that does not involve human intervention, and in all experiments both clockwise and counterclockwise galaxies are separated from the same fields. The comparison shows that the same asymmetry was identified by all three telescopes, providing strong evidence that the rotation direction of a spiral galaxy is linked to its luminosity as measured from Earth. Analysis of the luminosity difference using a large number of galaxies from different parts of the sky shows that the difference between clockwise and counterclockwise galaxies changes with the direction of observation, and oriented around an axis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".