Observations of the initial formation and evolution of spiral galaxies at 1 &lt; <i>z</i> &lt; 3 in the CANDELS fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Many aspects concerning the formation of spiral and disc galaxies remain unresolved, despite their discovery and detailed study over the past 150 yr. As such, we present the results of an observational search for proto-spiral galaxies and their earliest formation, including the discovery of a significant population of spiral-like and clumpy galaxies at z > 1 in deep Hubble Space Telescope CANDELS imaging. We carry out a detailed analysis of this population, characterizing their number density evolution, masses, star formation rates (SFR), and sizes. Overall, we find a surprisingly high overall number density of massive $M_{*} \gt 10^{10}\, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$ spiral-like galaxies (including clumpy spirals) at z > 1 of $0.18\, {\rm per}\, \mathrm{arcmin}^{-2}$. We measure and characterize the decline in the number of these systems at higher redshift using simulations to correct for redshift effects in identifications, finding that the true fraction of spiral-like galaxies grows at lower redshifts as ∼ (1 + z)−1.1. This is such that the absolute numbers of spirals increases by a factor of ∼10 between z = 2.5 and z = 0.5. We also demonstrate that these spiral-like systems have large sizes at z > 2, and high SFRs, above the main-sequence, These galaxies represent a major mode of galaxy formation in the early Universe, perhaps driven by the spiral structure itself. We finally discuss the origin of these systems, including their likely formation through gas accretion and minor mergers, but conclude that major mergers are an unlikely cause.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".