The morphological mix of dwarf galaxies in the nearby Universe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We use a complete, unbiased sample of 257 dwarf (10$^{8}\, {\rm M}_{\odot } \lt M_{\rm {\star }} \lt 10^{9.5}\, {\rm M}_{\odot }$) galaxies at z < 0.08, in the COSMOS field, to study the morphological mix of the dwarf population in low-density environments. Visual inspection of extremely deep optical images and their unsharp-masked counterparts reveals three principal dwarf morphological classes. 43 per cent and 45 per cent of dwarfs exhibit the traditional ‘early-type’ (elliptical/S0) and ‘late-type’ (spiral) morphologies, respectively. However, 10 per cent populate a ‘featureless’ class, that lacks both the central light concentration seen in early-types and any spiral structure – this class is missing in the massive-galaxy regime. 14 per cent, 27 per cent, and 19 per cent of early-type, late-type, and featureless dwarfs respectively show evidence for interactions, which drive around 20 per cent of the overall star formation activity in the dwarf population. Compared to their massive counterparts, dwarf early-types show a much lower incidence of interactions, are significantly less concentrated and share similar rest-frame colours as dwarf late-types. This suggests that the formation histories of dwarf and massive early-types are different, with dwarf early-types being shaped less by interactions and more by secular processes. The lack of large groups or clusters in COSMOS at z < 0.08, and the fact that our dwarf morphological classes show similar local density, suggests that featureless dwarfs in low-density environments are created via internal baryonic feedback, rather than by environmental processes. Finally, while interacting dwarfs can be identified using the asymmetry parameter, it is challenging to cleanly separate early and late-type dwarfs using traditional morphological parameters, such as ‘CAS’, M20, and the Gini coefficient (unlike in the massive-galaxy regime).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".