CODEX: Role of velocity substructure in the scaling relations of galaxy clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The use of galaxy clusters as cosmological probes relies on a detailed understanding of their properties. They define cluster selection and ranking linked to a cosmologically significant cluster mass function. Previous studies have employed small samples of clusters, concentrating on achieving the first calibrations of cluster properties with mass, while the diversity of cluster properties has been revealed via detailed studies. Aims. The large spectroscopic follow-up on the CODEX cluster sample with SDSS and NOT enables a detailed study of hundreds of clusters, lifting the limitations of previous samples. We aim to update the spectroscopic cluster identification of CODEX by running the spectroscopic group finder on the follow-up spectroscopy results and connecting the dynamical state of clusters to their scaling relations. Methods. We implemented a reproducible spectroscopic membership determination and cleaning procedures, based on the redMaPPer membership, running the spectroscopic group finder on the follow-up spectroscopy results and cleaning the membership for spectroscopic outliers. We applied the Anderson-Darling test for velocity substructure and analysed its influence on the scaling relations. We also tested the effect of the X-ray-to-optical centre offset on the scaling relations. Results. We report on the scaling relations between richness, X-ray luminosity, and velocity dispersion for a complete sample of clusters with at least 15 members. Clusters with velocity substructure exhibit enhanced velocity dispersion for a given richness and are characterized by 2.5 times larger scatter. Clusters that have a strong offset in X-ray-to-optical centres have comparable scaling relations as clusters with substructure. We demonstrate that there is a consistency in the parameters of the scaling relations for the low- and high-richness galaxy clusters. Splitting the clusters by redshift, we note a decrease in scatter with redshift in all scaling relations. We localize the redshift range where a high scatter is observed to z < 0.15, which is in agreement with the literature results on the scatter. We note that the increase in scatter for both high- and low-luminosity clusters is z < 0.15, suggesting that both cooling and the resulting active galactic nucleus feedback are at the root of this scatter.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".