The dark side of galaxy stellar populations – II. The dependence of star-formation histories on halo mass and on the scatter of the main sequence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Nearby galaxies are the end result of their cosmological evolution, which is predicted to be influenced by the growth of their host dark matter haloes. This co-evolution potentially leaves signatures in present-day observed galaxy properties, which might be essential to further understand how the growth and properties of galaxies are connected to those of their host haloes. In this work, we study the evolutionary histories of nearby galaxies both in terms of their host haloes and the scatter of the star-forming main sequence by investigating their time-resolved stellar populations using absorption optical spectra drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We find that galaxy star-formation histories depend on the masses of their host haloes, and hence they shape the evolution of the star-forming main sequence over cosmic time. Additionally, we also find that the scatter around the z = 0 star-forming main sequence is not (entirely) stochastic, as galaxies with currently different star-formation rates have experienced, on average, different star-formation histories. Our findings suggest that dark matter haloes might play a key role in modulating the evolution of star formation in galaxies, and thus of the main sequence, and further demonstrate that galaxies at different evolutionary stages contribute to the observed scatter of this relation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".