The MillenniumTNG Project: an improved two-halo model for the galaxy–halo connection of red and blue galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Approximate methods to populate dark-matter haloes with galaxies are of great utility to galaxy surveys. However, the limitations of simple halo occupation models (HODs) preclude a full use of small-scale galaxy clustering data and call for more sophisticated models. We study two galaxy populations, luminous red galaxies (LRGs) and star-forming emission-line galaxies (ELGs), at two epochs, z = 1 and z = 0, in the large-volume, high-resolution hydrodynamical simulation of the MillenniumTNG project. In a partner study we concentrated on the small-scale, one-halo regime down to r ∼ 0.1 h−1 Mpc, while here we focus on modelling galaxy assembly bias in the two-halo regime, r ≳ 1 h−1 Mpc. Interestingly, the ELG signal exhibits scale dependence out to relatively large scales (r ∼ 20 h−1 Mpc), implying that the linear bias approximation for this tracer is invalid on these scales, contrary to common assumptions. The 10–15 per cent discrepancy is only reconciled when we augment our halo occupation model with a dependence on extrinsic halo properties (‘shear’ being the best-performing one) rather than intrinsic ones (e.g. concentration, peak mass). We argue that this fact constitutes evidence for two-halo galaxy conformity. Including tertiary assembly bias (i.e. a property beyond mass and ‘shear’) is not an essential requirement for reconciling the galaxy assembly bias signal of LRGs, but the combination of external and internal properties is beneficial for recovering ELG the clustering. We find that centrals in low-mass haloes dominate the assembly bias signal of both populations. Finally, we explore the predictions of our model for higher order statistics such as nearest neighbour counts. The latter supplies additional information about galaxy assembly bias and can be used to break degeneracies between halo model parameters.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".