Double-peak emission line galaxies in the SDSS catalogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Double-peak narrow emission line galaxies have been studied extensively in the past years, in the hope of discovering late stages of mergers. It is difficult to disentangle this phenomenon from disc rotations and gas outflows with the sole spectroscopic measurement of the central 3″. We aim to properly detect such galaxies and distinguish the underlying mechanisms with a detailed analysis of the host-galaxy properties and their kinematics. Relying on the Reference Catalogue of Spectral Energy Distribution, we developed an automated selection procedure and found 5663 double-peak emission line galaxies at z < 0.34 corresponding to 0.8% of the parent database. To characterise these galaxies, we built a single-peak no-bias control sample (NBCS) with the same redshift and stellar mass distributions as the double-peak sample (DPS). These two samples are indeed very similar in terms of absolute magnitude, [OIII] luminosity, colour-colour diagrams, age and specific star formation rate, metallicity, and environment. We find an important excess of S0 galaxies in the DPS, not observed in the NBCS, which cannot be accounted for by the environment, as most of these galaxies are isolated or in poor groups. Similarly, we find a relative deficit of pure discs in the DPS late-type galaxies, which are preferentially of Sa type. In parallel, we observe a systematic central excess of star formation and extinction for double peak (DP) galaxies. Finally, there are noticeable differences in the kinematics: The gas velocity dispersion is correlated with the galaxy inclination in the NBCS, whereas this relation does not hold for the DPS. Furthermore, the DP galaxies show larger stellar velocity dispersions and they deviate from the Tully-Fisher relation for both late-type and S0 galaxies. These discrepancies can be reconciled if one considers the two peaks as two different components. Considering the morphological biases in favour of bulge-dominated galaxies and the star formation central enhancement, we suggest a scenario of multiple, sequential minor mergers driving the increase of the bulge size, leading to larger fractions of S0 galaxies and a deficit of pure disc 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
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".