The DiskMass Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present dynamically-determined rotation-curve mass decompositions of 30 spiral galaxies, which were carried out to test the maximum-disk hypothesis and to quantify properties of their dark-matter halos. We used measured vertical velocity dispersions of the disk stars to calculate dynamical mass surface densities (Σdyn). By subtracting our observed atomic and inferred molecular gas mass surface densities from Σdyn, we derived the stellar mass surface densities (Σ∗), and thus have absolute measurements of all dominant baryonic components of the galaxies. Using K-band surface brightness profiles (IK), we calculated the K-band mass-to-light ratio of the stellar disks (Υ∗ = Σ∗/IK) and adopted the radial mean () for each galaxy to extrapolate Σ∗ beyond the outermost kinematic measurement. The derived of individual galaxies are consistent with all galaxies in the sample having equal Υ∗. We find a sample average and scatter of ⟨⟩ = 0.31 ± 0.07. Rotation curves of the baryonic components were calculated from their deprojected mass surface densities. These were used with circular-speed measurements to derive the structural parameters of the dark-matter halos, modeled as either a pseudo-isothermal sphere (pISO) or a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) halo. In addition to our dynamically determined mass decompositions, we also performed alternative rotation-curve decompositions by adopting the traditional maximum-disk hypothesis. However, the galaxies in our sample are submaximal, such that at 2.2 disk scale lengths (hR) the ratios between the baryonic and total rotation curves (Fb2.2hR) are less than 0.75. We find this ratio to be nearly constant between 1–6hR within individual galaxies. We find a sample average and scatter of ⟨Fb2.2hR⟩ = 0.57 ± 0.07, with trends of larger Fb2.2hR for more luminous and higher-surface-brightness galaxies. To enforce these being maximal, we need to scale Υ∗ by a factor 3.6 on average. In general, the dark-matter rotation curves are marginally better fit by a pISO than by an NFW halo. For the nominal-Υ∗ (submaximal) case, we find that the derived NFW-halo parameters have values consistent with ΛCDM N-body simulations, suggesting that the baryonic matter in our sample of galaxies has only had a minor effect on the dark-matter distribution. In contrast, maximum-Υ∗ decompositions yield halo-concentration parameters that are too low compared to the ΛCDM simulations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".