The outer stellar mass of massive galaxies: a simple tracer of halo mass with scatter comparable to richness and reduced projection effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Using the weak gravitational lensing data from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program (HSC survey), we study the potential of different stellar mass estimates in tracing halo mass. We consider galaxies with log10(M⋆/M⊙) > 11.5 at 0.2 < z < 0.5 with carefully measured light profiles, and clusters from the redMaPPer and CAMIRA richness-based algorithms. We devise a method (the ‘Top-N test’) to evaluate the scatter in the halo mass–observable relation for different tracers, and to inter-compare halo mass proxies in four number density bins using stacked galaxy–galaxy lensing profiles. This test reveals three key findings. Stellar masses based on CModel photometry and aperture luminosity within R <30 kpc are poor proxies of halo mass. In contrast, the stellar mass of the outer envelope is an excellent halo mass proxy. The stellar mass within R = [50, 100] kpc, M⋆, [50, 100], has performance comparable to the state-of-the-art richness-based cluster finders at log10Mvir ≳ 14.0 and could be a better halo mass tracer at lower halo masses. Finally, using N-body simulations, we find that the lensing profiles of massive haloes selected by M⋆, [50, 100] are consistent with the expectation for a sample without projection or mis-centring effects. Richness-selected clusters, on the other hand, display an excess at R ∼ 1 Mpc in their lensing profiles, which may suggest a more significant impact from selection biases. These results suggest that M⋆-based tracers have distinct advantages in identifying massive haloes, which could open up new avenues for cluster cosmology. The codes and data used in this work can be found here:
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".