MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297183619 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac109

Galaxy mergers can rapidly shut down star formation

2022· article· en· W4297183619 on OpenAlexaff
Sara L. Ellison, Scott Wilkinson, Joanna Woo, Ho-Hin Leung, Vivienne Wild, Robert W. Bickley, David R. Patton, S Quai, Stephen Gwyn

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsTrent UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxy mergerAstrophysicsPhysicsGalaxyStar formationSupermassive black holeAstronomyIntergalactic starCoalescence (physics)Accretion (finance)Control sampleGalaxy formation and evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Galaxy mergers trigger both star formation and accretion on to the central supermassive black hole. As a result of subsequent energetic feedback processes, it has long been proposed that star formation may be promptly extinguished in galaxy merger remnants. However, this prediction of widespread, rapid quenching in late stage mergers has been recently called into question with modern simulations and has never been tested observationally. Here we perform the first empirical assessment of the long-predicted end phase in the merger sequence. Based on a sample of ∼500 post-mergers identified from the Ultraviolet Near Infrared Optical Northern Survey (UNIONS), we show that the frequency of post-merger galaxies that have rapidly shutdown their star formation following a previous starburst is 30–60 times higher than expected from a control sample of non-merging galaxies. No such excess is found in a sample of close galaxy pairs, demonstrating that mergers can indeed lead to a rapid halt to star formation, but that this process only manifests after coalescence.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207