MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312069748 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.123517

Constraining the galaxy-halo connection of infrared-selected <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math> galaxies with galaxy clustering and galaxy-CMB lensing power spectra

2022· article· lv· W4312069748 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksandra Kusiak, Boris Bolliet, Alex Krolewski, J. Colin Hill

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2022
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceFlatiron HealthNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterSimons FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyAdvanced Machining Technology and Development AssociationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyAstrophysicsRedshiftSatellite galaxyHaloCosmic microwave backgroundDark matterGalaxy formation and evolutionAnisotropy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the first detailed analysis of the connection between galaxies and their dark matter halos for the unWISE galaxy catalog---a full-sky, infrared-selected sample built from WISE data, containing over 500 million galaxies. Using unWISE galaxy-galaxy autocorrelation and Planck CMB lensing-galaxy cross-correlation measurements down to 10 arcmin angular scales, we constrain the halo occupation distribution (HOD), a model describing how central and satellite galaxies are distributed within dark matter halos, for three unWISE galaxy samples at mean redshifts $\overline{z}\ensuremath{\approx}0.6$, 1.1, and 1.5, assuming a fixed cosmology at the best-fit Planck $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ values. We constrain the characteristic minimum halo mass to host a central galaxy, ${M}_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{HOD}}=1.8{3}_{\ensuremath{-}1.63}^{+0.41}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{12}{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}/h$, ${5.22}_{\ensuremath{-}4.80}^{+0.34}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{12}{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}/h$, ${6.60}_{\ensuremath{-}1.11}^{+0.30}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{13}{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}/h$ and the mass scale at which one satellite galaxy per halo is found, ${M}_{1}^{\ensuremath{'}}=1.1{3}_{\ensuremath{-}0.70}^{+0.32}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{13}{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}/h$, ${1.18}_{\ensuremath{-}1.11}^{+0.30}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{13}{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}/h$, ${1.23}_{\ensuremath{-}1.17}^{+0.14}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{14}{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}/h$ for the unWISE samples at $\overline{z}\ensuremath{\approx}0.6$, 1.1, and 1.5, respectively. We find that all three samples are dominated by central galaxies, rather than satellites. Using our constrained HOD models, we infer the effective linear galaxy bias for each unWISE sample, and find that it does not evolve as steeply with redshift as found in previous perturbation-theory-based analyses of these galaxies. We discuss possible sources of systematic uncertainty in our results, the most significant of which is the uncertainty on the galaxy redshift distribution. Our HOD constraints provide a detailed, quantitative understanding of how the unWISE galaxies populate the underlying dark matter halo distribution. These constraints will have a direct impact on future studies employing the unWISE galaxies as a cosmological and astrophysical probe, including measurements of ionized gas thermodynamics and dark matter profiles via Sunyaev-Zel'dovich and lensing cross-correlations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→