MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3011994192 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa760

Mass-loss in tidally stripped systems: the energy-based truncation method

2020· article· en· W3011994192 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole E. Drakos, James E. Taylor, Andrew Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsTruncation (statistics)Truncation errorAstrophysicsEnergy (signal processing)AstronomyApplied mathematicsStatisticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The ability to accurately predict the evolution of tidally stripped haloes is important for understanding galaxy formation and testing the properties of dark matter. Most studies of substructure evolution make predictions based on empirical models of tidal mass-loss that are calibrated using numerical simulations. This approach can be accurate in the cases considered, but lacks generality and does not provide a physical understanding of the processes involved. Recently, we demonstrated that truncating NFW distribution functions sharply in energy results in density profiles that resemble those of tidally stripped systems, offering a path to constructing physically motivated models of tidal mass-loss. In this work, we review calculations of mass-loss based on energy truncation alone, and then consider what secondary effects may modulate mass-loss beyond this. We find that a combination of dependence on additional orbital parameters and variations in individual particle energies over an orbit results in a less abrupt truncation in energy space as a subhalo loses mass. Combining the energy truncation approach with a simple prediction for the mass-loss rate, we construct a full model of mass-loss that can accurately predict the evolution of a subhalo in terms of a single parameter ηeff. This parameter can be fully determined from the initial orbital and halo properties, and does not require calibration with numerical simulations.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→