MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403208844 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451028

The redshift evolution of galactic bar pattern speed in TNG50

2024· article· en· W4403208844 on OpenAlexaff
Asiyeh Habibi, Mahmood Roshan, Mohammad Hosseinirad, Habib G. Khosroshahi, J. A. L. Aguerri, Virginia Cuomo, Shahram Abbassi

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloFerdowsi University of Mashhad
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsRedshiftBar (unit)RADIUSGalaxyAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the redshift evolution of the galactic bar properties, like the bar length, pattern speed, and bar fraction, has been investigated for simulated galaxies at stellar masses of M* > 1010 M⊙ in the cosmological magnetohydrodynamical simulation TNG50. We focus on the redshift evolution of the bar pattern speeds and the fast bar tension. We show that the median value of the pattern speed of the bars increases as the redshift grows. On the other hand, although the median value of the bar length increases with time, the ratio between the corotation radius and the bar radius - namely, the 𝓡 = RCR/Rbar parameter - increases as well. In other words, the corotation radius increases with a higher rate than the bar length. This directly means that galactic bars slow down with time, or equivalently as the redshift declines. We discuss the possible mechanisms that reduce the pattern speeds in TNG50. We demonstrate that while mergers can have a significant impact on a galaxy’s pattern speed, they do not play a crucial role in the overall evolution of mean pattern speed within the redshift range ɀ ≤ 1.0. Furthermore, we show that the 𝓡 parameter does not correlate with the gas fraction. Consequently, the existence of gas in TNG50 does not alleviate the fast bar tension. We show that the mean value of the pattern speed, computed for all the galaxies irrespective of their mass, at ɀ = 1.0 is Ωp = 70.98 ± 2.34 km s−1 kpc−1 and reduces to Ωp = 33.65 ± 1.07 km s−1 kpc−1 at ɀ = 0.0. This is a direct prediction by TNG50 that bars at ɀ = 1.0 rotate faster by a factor of ~2 compared to bars at ɀ = 0.0.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→