Massive central galaxies of galaxy groups in the <scp>Romulus</scp> simulations: an overview of galaxy properties at <i>z</i> = 0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Contrary to many stereotypes about massive galaxies, observed brightest group galaxies (BGGs) are diverse in their star formation rates, kinematic properties, and morphologies. Studying how they evolve into and express such diverse characteristics is an important piece of the galaxy formation puzzle. We use a high-resolution cosmological suite of simulations Romulus and compare simulated central galaxies in group-scale haloes at z = 0 to observed BGGs. The comparison encompasses the stellar mass–halo mass relation, various kinematic properties and scaling relations, morphologies, and the star formation rates. Generally, we find that Romulus reproduces the full spectrum of diversity in the properties of the BGGs very well, albeit with a tendency toward lower than the observed fraction of quenched BGGs. We find both early-type S0 and elliptical galaxies as well as late-type disc galaxies; we find Romulus galaxies that are fast-rotators as well as slow-rotators; and we observe galaxies transforming from late-type to early-type following strong dynamical interactions with satellites. We also carry out case studies of selected Romulus galaxies to explore the link between their properties, and the recent evolution of the stellar system as well as the surrounding intragroup/circumgalactic medium. In general, mergers/strong interactions quench star-forming activity and disrupt the stellar disc structure. Sometimes, however, such interactions can also trigger star formation and galaxy rejuvenation. Black hole feedback can also lead to a decline of the star formation rate but by itself, it does not typically lead to complete quenching of the star formation activity in the BGGs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".