How do central and satellite galaxies quench? – Insights from spatially resolved spectroscopy in the MaNGA survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We investigate how star formation quenching proceeds within central and satellite galaxies using spatially resolved spectroscopy from the SDSS-IV MaNGA DR15. We adopt a complete sample of star formation rate surface densities (ΣSFR), derived in Bluck et al. (2020), to compute the distance at which each spaxel resides from the resolved star forming main sequence (ΣSFR − Σ* relation): ΔΣSFR. We study galaxy radial profiles in ΔΣSFR, and luminosity weighted stellar age (AgeL), split by a variety of intrinsic and environmental parameters. Via several statistical analyses, we establish that the quenching of central galaxies is governed by intrinsic parameters, with central velocity dispersion (σc) being the most important single parameter. High mass satellites quench in a very similar manner to centrals. Conversely, low mass satellite quenching is governed primarily by environmental parameters, with local galaxy overdensity (δ5) being the most important single parameter. Utilizing the empirical MBH − σc relation, we estimate that quenching via AGN feedback must occur at $M_{\rm BH} \ge 10^{6.5-7.5} \, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$, and is marked by steeply rising ΔΣSFR radial profiles in the green valley, indicating ‘inside-out’ quenching. On the other hand, environmental quenching occurs at overdensities of 10–30 times the average galaxy density at z∼ 0.1, and is marked by steeply declining ΔΣSFR profiles, indicating ‘outside-in’ quenching. Finally, through an analysis of stellar metallicities, we conclude that both intrinsic and environmental quenching must incorporate significant starvation of gas supply.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".