Resolved properties of classical bulge and pseudo-bulge galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We compare properties of classical and pseudo-bulges and properties of their hosting galaxies selected from the MaNGA survey. Bulge types are identified based on the Sérsic index n of bulge component and the position of bulges on the Kormendy diagram. For the 393 classical bulges and 422 pseudo-bulges selected and their hosting galaxies, we study their kinematic properties including a proxy for specific angular momentum and central velocity dispersion, their stellar population properties including stellar age, metallicity, and specific star formation rate, as well as H i fractions of the galaxies. Our results show that at given stellar mass, disc components of pseudo-bulge galaxies are younger, have more active star formation, rotate more, and may contain more H i content compared with those of classical bulge galaxies, and the differences are larger than those between bulges themselves. The correlations between bulge types and disc properties indicate that different types of bulges are shaped by different processes that may regulate both growth of central components and evolution of outer discs in galaxies. In addition, we propose a stellar mass dependent divider of central velocity dispersion to separate galaxies with classical bulges from those with pseudo-bulges in galaxy mass range of $10.4\lt \mathrm{log}(M_*/\rm M_\odot)\lt 11.4$: $\mathrm{log}(\sigma _0) = 0.23 \times \mathrm{log}(M_*/\rm M_\odot)-0.46$. Galaxies with larger/smaller σ0 can be classified as hosts of classical/pseudo-bulges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".