Joint galaxy–galaxy lensing and clustering constraints on galaxy formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We compare predictions for galaxy–galaxy lensing profiles and clustering from the Henriques et al. public version of the Munich semi-analytical model (SAM) of galaxy formation and the IllustrisTNG suite, primarily TNG300, with observations from KiDS + GAMA and SDSS-DR7 using four different selection functions for the lenses (stellar mass, stellar mass and group membership, stellar mass and isolation criteria, and stellar mass and colour). We find that this version of the SAM does not agree well with the current data for stellar mass-only lenses with $M_\ast \gt 10^{11}\, \mathrm{ M}_\odot$. By decreasing the merger time for satellite galaxies as well as reducing the radio-mode active galactic nucleus accretion efficiency in the SAM, we obtain better agreement, both for the lensing and the clustering, at the high-mass end. We show that the new model is consistent with the signals for central galaxies presented in Velliscig et al. Turning to the hydrodynamical simulation, TNG300 produces good lensing predictions, both for stellar mass-only (χ2 = 1.81 compared to χ2 = 7.79 for the SAM) and locally brightest galaxy samples (χ2 = 3.80 compared to χ2 = 5.01). With added dust corrections to the colours it matches the SDSS clustering signal well for red low-mass galaxies. We find that both the SAMs and TNG300 predict $\sim 50\, {{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ excessive lensing signals for intermediate-mass red galaxies with 10.2 < log10M*[M⊙] < 11.2 at $r \approx 0.6\, h^{-1}\, \text{Mpc}$, which require further theoretical development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".