Reconsidering the dynamical states of galaxy clusters using PCA and UMAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Numerous metrics exist to quantify the dynamical state of galaxy clusters, both observationally and within simulations. Many of these correlate strongly with one another, but it is not clear whether all of these measures probe the same intrinsic properties. In this work, we use two different statistical approaches – principal component analysis (PCA) and uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) – to investigate which dynamical properties of a cluster are in fact the best descriptors of its dynamical state. We use measurements taken directly from The Three Hundred suite of galaxy cluster simulations, as well as morphological properties calculated using mock X-ray and SZ maps of the same simulated clusters. We find that four descriptions of dynamical state naturally arise, and although correlations exist between these, a given cluster can be ‘dynamically relaxed’ according to all, none, or some of these four descriptions. These results demonstrate that it is highly important for future observational and theoretical studies to consider in which sense clusters are dynamically relaxed. Cluster dynamical states are complex and multidimensional, and so it is not meaningful to classify them simply as ‘relaxed’ and ‘unrelaxed’ based on a single linear scale.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".