The ALMaQUEST Survey. VII. Star Formation Scaling Relations of Green Valley Galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We utilize the ALMA-MaNGA QUEnch and STar formation (ALMaQUEST) survey to investigate the kpc-scale scaling relations, presented as the resolved star-forming MS (rSFMS: Σ SFR versus Σ * ), the resolved Schmidt–Kennicutt relation (rSK: Σ SFR versus Σ H 2 ), and the resolved molecular gas MS (rMGMS: Σ H 2 versus Σ * ), for 11,478 star-forming and 1414 retired spaxels (oversampled by a factor of ∼20) located in 22 GV and 12 MS galaxies. For a given galaxy type (MS or GV), the retired spaxels are found to be offset from the sequences formed by the star-forming spaxels on the rSFMS, rSK, and rMGMS planes, toward lower absolute values of sSFR, SFE, and f H 2 by ∼1.1, 0.6, and 0.5 dex. The scaling relations for GV galaxies are found to be distinct from that of the MS galaxies, even if the analyses are restricted to the star-forming spaxels only. It is found that, for star-forming spaxels, sSFR, SFE, and f H 2 in GV galaxies are reduced by ∼0.36, 0.14, and 0.21 dex, respectively, compared to those in MS galaxies. Therefore, the suppressed sSFR/SFE/ f gas in GV galaxies is associated with not only an increased proportion of retired regions in GV galaxies but also a depletion of these quantities in star-forming regions. Finally, the reduction of SFE and f H 2 in GV galaxies relative to MS galaxies is seen in both bulge and disk regions (albeit with larger uncertainties), suggesting that, statistically, quenching in the GV population may persist from the inner to the outer regions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".