MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206442464 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3717

The combined and respective roles of imaging and stellar kinematics in identifying galaxy merger remnants

2021· article· en· W4206442464 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor Bottrell, Maan H Hani, Hossen Teimoorinia, David R. Patton, Sara L. Ellison

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsMcMaster UniversityTrent UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyKinematicsStellar kinematicsPopulationGalaxy formation and evolutionAstronomyMilky WayMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT One of the central challenges to establishing the role of mergers in galaxy evolution is the selection of pure and complete merger samples in observations. In particular, while large and reasonably pure interacting galaxy pair samples can be obtained with relative ease via spectroscopic criteria, automated selection of post-coalescence merger remnants is restricted to the physical characteristics of remnants alone. Furthermore, such selection has predominantly focused on imaging data – whereas kinematic data may offer a complimentary basis for identifying merger remnants. Therefore, we examine the theoretical utility of both the morphological and kinematic features of merger remnants in distinguishing galaxy merger remnants from other galaxies. Deep classification models are calibrated and evaluated using idealized synthetic images and line-of-sight stellar velocity maps of a heterogeneous population of galaxies and merger remnants from the TNG100 cosmological hydrodynamical simulation. We show that even idealized stellar kinematic data have limited utility compared to imaging and underperforms by $2.1 \pm 0.5 {{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ in completeness and $4.7 \pm 0.4 {{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ in purity for our fiducial model architecture. Combining imaging and stellar kinematics offers a small boost in completeness (by $1.8 \pm 0.4 {{\ \rm per\ cent}}$, compared to $92.7 \pm 0.2 {{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ from imaging alone) but no change in purity ($0.1\pm 0.3 {{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ improvement compared to $92.7 \pm 0.2 {{\ \rm per\ cent}}$, evaluated with equal numbers of merger remnant and non-remnant control galaxies). Classification accuracy of all models is particularly sensitive to physical companions at separations ≲ 40 kpc and to time-since-coalescence. Taken together, our results show that the stellar kinematic data have little to offer in compliment to imaging for merger remnant identification in a heterogeneous galaxy population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→