Velocity dispersion of brightest cluster galaxies in cosmological simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Using the DIANOGA hydrodynamical zoom-in simulation set of galaxy clusters, we analyse the dynamics traced by stars belonging to the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) and their surrounding diffuse component, forming the intracluster light (ICL), and compare it to the dynamics traced by dark matter and galaxies identified in the simulations. We compute scaling relations between the BCG and cluster velocity dispersions and their corresponding masses (i.e. $M_\mathrm{BCG}^{\star }$–$\sigma _\mathrm{BCG}^{\star }$, M200–σ200, $M_\mathrm{BCG}^{\star }$–M200, and $\sigma _\mathrm{BCG}^{\star }$–σ200), we find in general a good agreement with observational results. Our simulations also predict $\sigma _\mathrm{BCG}^{\star }$–σ200 relation to not change significantly up to redshift z = 1, in line with a relatively slow accretion of the BCG stellar mass at late times. We analyse the main features of the velocity dispersion profiles, as traced by stars, dark matter, and galaxies. As a result, we discuss that observed stellar velocity dispersion profiles in the inner cluster regions are in excellent agreement with simulations. We also report that the slopes of the BCG velocity dispersion profile from simulations agree with what is measured in observations, confirming the existence of a robust correlation between the stellar velocity dispersion slope and the cluster velocity dispersion (thus, cluster mass) when the former is computed within 0.1R500. Our results demonstrate that simulations can correctly describe the dynamics of BCGs and their surrounding stellar envelope, as determined by the past star formation and assembly histories of the most massive galaxies of the Universe.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".