Stellar population analysis of MaNGA early-type galaxies: IMF dependence and systematic effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We study systematics associated with estimating simple stellar population (SSP) parameters – age, metallicity [M/H], α-enhancement [α/Fe], and initial mass function (IMF) shape – and associated M*/L gradients, of elliptical slow rotators (E-SRs), fast rotators (E-FRs), and S0s from stacked spectra of galaxies in the MaNGA survey. These systematics arise from (i) how one normalizes the spectra when stacking; (ii) having to subtract emission before estimating absorption line strengths; (iii) the decision to fit the whole spectrum or just a few absorption lines; (iv) SSP model differences (e.g. isochrones, enrichment, IMF). The MILES+Padova SSP models, fit to the Hβ, 〈Fe〉, TiO2SDSS, and [MgFe] Lick indices in the stacks, indicate that out to the half-light radius Re: (a) ages are younger and [α/Fe] values are lower in the central regions but the opposite is true of [M/H]; (b) the IMF is more bottom-heavy in the center, but is close to Kroupa beyond about Re/2; (c) this makes M*/L about 2 × larger in the central regions than beyond Re/2. While the models of Conroy et al. return similar [M/H] and [α/Fe] profiles, the age and (hence) M*/L profiles can differ significantly even for solar abundances and a Kroupa IMF; different responses to non-solar abundances and IMF parametrization further compound these differences. There are clear (model independent) differences between E-SRs, E-FRs, and S0s: younger ages and less enhanced [α/Fe] values suggest that E-FRs and S0s are not SSPs, but relaxing this assumption is unlikely to change their inferred M*/L gradients significantly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".