A deep learning approach to test the small-scale galaxy morphology and its relationship with star formation activity in hydrodynamical simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation and evolution attempt to fully model the physics that shapes galaxies. The agreement between the morphology of simulated and real galaxies, and the way the morphological types are distributed across galaxy scaling relations are important probes of our knowledge of galaxy formation physics. Here, we propose an unsupervised deep learning approach to perform a stringent test of the fine morphological structure of galaxies coming from the Illustris and IllustrisTNG (TNG100 and TNG50) simulations against observations from a subsample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Our framework is based on PixelCNN, an autoregressive model for image generation with an explicit likelihood. We adopt a strategy that combines the output of two PixelCNN networks in a metric that isolates the small-scale morphological details of galaxies from the sky background. We are able to quantitatively identify the improvements of IllustrisTNG, particularly in the high-resolution TNG50 run, over the original Illustris. However, we find that the fine details of galaxy structure are still different between observed and simulated galaxies. This difference is mostly driven by small, more spheroidal, and quenched galaxies that are globally less accurate regardless of resolution and which have experienced little improvement between the three simulations explored. We speculate that this disagreement, that is less severe for quenched discy galaxies, may stem from a still too coarse numerical resolution, which struggles to properly capture the inner, dense regions of quenched spheroidal galaxies.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".