Off-centering of the disk in the halo potential and the kinematic lopsidedness in the dwarf irregular galaxy WLM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, to investigate the dynamical nature of the kinematic asymmetry in the isolated gas-rich dwarf irregular galaxy W LM in the Local Group, we consider that the dark matter halo and the disk do not have the same center of mass (i.e., the disk lies off-center in the potential of the extended dark matter halo), which is one of the possible physical explanations for the kinematic lopsidedness. To do so, we generate a lopsided halo potential by considering two dark matter mass density models, ISO and Burkert, and we add up the contribution to the rotation curve of a perturbation term [Formula: see text] in the gravitational potential, which arises from the offset between the disk and the dark matter halo. We show that such an m = 1 perturbation improves the rotation curve modeling when compared to a non-perturbed potential and the shape of the HI gas rotation curves is fitted better in the approaching side if the perturbation term in the halo potential is taken into account for this galaxy dynamics. In fact, displacing the disk center by 0.1 kpc from the halo center is sufficient to provide such an improvement in modeling the rotation curve.
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 | 0.000 | 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".