What drives galaxy quenching? A deep connection between galaxy kinematics and quenching in the local Universe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We develop a 2D inclined rotating disc model, which we apply to the stellar velocity maps of 1862 galaxies taken from the MaNGA survey (SDSS public Data Release 15) . We use a random forest classifier to identify the kinematic parameters that are most connected to galaxy quenching. We find that kinematic parameters that relate predominantly to the disc (such as the mean rotational velocity) and parameters that characterize whether a galaxy is rotation- or dispersion-dominated (such as the ratio of rotational velocity to velocity dispersion) are not fundamentally linked to the quenching of star formation. Instead, we find overwhelmingly that it is the absolute level of velocity dispersion (a property that relates primarily to a galaxy’s bulge/spheroidal component) that is most important for separating star-forming and quenched galaxies. Furthermore, a partial correlation analysis shows that many commonly discussed correlations between galaxy properties and quenching are spurious, and that the fundamental correlation is between quenching and velocity dispersion. In particular, we find that at fixed velocity dispersion, there is only a very weak dependence of quenching on the disc properties, whereby more discy galaxies are slightly more likely to be forming stars. By invoking the tight relationship between black hole mass and velocity dispersion, and noting that black hole mass traces the total energy released by active galactic nuclei (AGNs), we argue that these data support a scenario in which quenching occurs by preventive feedback from AGNs. The kinematic measurements from this work are publicly available.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".