RMS asymmetry: a robust metric of galaxy shapes in images with varied depth and resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural disturbances, such as galaxy mergers or instabilities, are key candidates for driving galaxy evolution, so it is important to detect and quantify galaxies hosting these disturbances spanning a range of masses, environments, and cosmic times. Traditionally, this is done by quantifying the asymmetry of a galaxy as part of the concentration-asymmetry-smoothness system, , and selecting galaxies above a certain threshold as merger candidates. However, in this work, we show that , is extremely dependent on imaging properties – both resolution and depth – and thus defining a single threshold is impossible. We analyze an alternative root-mean-squared asymmetry, , and show that it is independent of noise down to the average SNR per pixel of 1. However, both metrics depend on the resolution. We argue that asymmetry is, by design, always a scale-dependent measurement, and it is essential to define an asymmetry at a given physical resolution, where the limit should be defined by the size of the smallest features one wishes to detect. We measure asymmetry of a set of z ≈ 0.1 galaxies observed with HST, HSC, and SDSS, and show that after matching the resolution of all images to 200 pc, we are able to obtain consistent measurements with all three instruments despite the vast differences in the original resolution or depth. We recommend that future studies use measurement when evaluating asymmetry, where x is defined by the physical size of the features of interest, and is kept consistent across the dataset, especially when the redshift or image properties of galaxies in the dataset vary.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".