The dark matter halo masses of elliptical galaxies as a function of observationally robust quantities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The assembly history of the stellar component of a massive elliptical galaxy is closely related to that of its dark matter halo. Measuring how the properties of galaxies correlate with their halo mass can therefore help to understand their evolution. Aims. We investigate how the dark matter halo mass of elliptical galaxies varies as a function of their properties, using weak gravitational lensing observations. To minimise the chances of biases, we focus on the following galaxy properties that can be determined robustly: the surface brightness profile and the colour. Methods. We selected 2409 central massive elliptical galaxies (log M*/M⊙ ≳ 11.4) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey spectroscopic sample. We first measured their surface brightness profile and colours by fitting Sérsic models to photometric data from the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS). We fitted their halo mass distribution as a function of redshift, rest-frame r-band luminosity, half-light radius, and rest-frame u − g colour, using KiDS weak lensing measurements and a Bayesian hierarchical approach. For the sake of robustness with respect to assumptions on the large-radii behaviour of the surface brightness, we repeated the analysis replacing the total luminosity and half-light radius with the luminosity within a 10 kpc aperture, Lr, 10, and the light-weighted surface brightness slope, Γ10. Results. We did not detect any correlation between the halo mass and either the half-light radius or colour at fixed redshift and luminosity. Using the robust surface brightness parameterisation, we found that the halo mass correlates weakly with Lr, 10 and anti-correlates with Γ10. At fixed redshift, Lr, 10 and Γ10, the difference in the average halo mass between galaxies at the 84th percentile and 16th percentile of the colour distribution is 0.00 ± 0.11 dex. Conclusion. Our results indicate that the average star formation efficiency of massive elliptical galaxies has little dependence on their final size or colour. This suggests that the origin of the diversity in the size and colour distribution of these objects lies with properties other than the halo mass.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".