A Tale of Three Dwarfs: No Extreme Cluster Formation in Extreme Star-forming Galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nearly all current simulations predict that outcomes of the star formation process, such as the fraction of stars that form in bound clusters (Γ), depend on the intensity of star formation activity (ΣSFR) in the host galaxy. The exact shape and strength of the predicted correlations, however, vary from simulation to simulation. Observational results also remain unclear at this time, because most works have mixed estimates made from very young clusters for galaxies with higher ΣSFR with those from older clusters for galaxies with lower ΣSFR. The three blue compact dwarf (BCD) galaxies ESO 185-IG13, ESO 338-IG04, and Haro 11 have played a central role on the observational side because they have some of the highest known ΣSFR and published values of Γ. We present new estimates of Γ for these BCDs in three age intervals (1–10 Myr, 10–100 Myr, 100–400 Myr), based on age-dating, which includes Hα photometry to better discriminate between clusters younger and older than ≈10 Myr. We find significantly lower values for Γ(1–10 Myr) than published previously. The likely reason for the discrepancy is that previous estimates appear to be based on age–reddening results that underestimated ages and overestimated reddening for many clusters, artificially boosting Γ(1–10 Myr). We also find that fewer stars remain in clusters over time, with ≈15%–39% in 1–10 Myr clusters, ≈5%–7% in 10–100 Myr clusters, and ≈1%–2% in 100–400 Myr clusters. We find no evidence that Γ increases with ΣSFR. These results imply that cluster formation efficiency does not vary with star formation intensity in the host galaxy. If confirmed, our results will help guide future assumptions in galaxy-scale simulations of cluster formation and evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".