Photometry and kinematics of dwarf galaxies from the Apertif H I survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Understanding the dwarf galaxy population in low density environments (in the field) is crucial for testing the current Λ Cold Dark Matter cosmological model. The increase in diversity toward low-mass galaxies is seen as an increase in the scatter of scaling relations, such as the stellar mass–size and the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation (BTFR), and is also demonstrated by recent in-depth studies of an extreme sub-class of dwarf galaxies with low surface brightnesses but large physical sizes called ultra-diffuse galaxies (UDGs). Aims. We aim to select dwarf galaxies independent of their stellar content and to make a detailed study of their gas and stellar properties. We selected galaxies from the APERture Tile In Focus (Apertif) H I survey and applied a constraint on their i -band absolute magnitude in order to exclude high-mass systems. The sample consists of 24 galaxies, 22 of which are resolved in H I by at least three beams, and they span H I mass ranges of 8.6 ≲ log( M H I / M ⊙ ) ≲ 9.7 and a stellar mass range of 8.0 ≲ log( M ⋆ / M ⊙ )≲9.7 (with only three galaxies having log ( M ⋆ / M ⊙ ) > 9). Methods. We determined the geometrical parameters of the H I and stellar disks, built kinematic models from the H I data using 3D Barolo, and extracted surface brightness profiles in the g -, r -, and i -bands from the Pan-STARRS 1 photometric survey. We used these measurements to place our galaxies on the stellar mass–size relation and the BTFR, and we compared them with other samples from the literature. Results. We find that at a fixed stellar mass, our H I -selected dwarfs have larger optical effective radii than isolated optically selected dwarfs from the literature, and we found misalignments between the optical and H I morphologies for some of our sample. For most of our galaxies, we used the H I morphology to determine their kinematics, and we stress that deep optical observations are needed to trace the underlying stellar disks. Standard dwarfs in our sample follow the same BTFR of high-mass galaxies, whereas UDGs are slightly offset toward lower rotational velocities, in qualitative agreement with results from previous studies. Finally, our sample features a fraction (25%) of dwarf galaxies in pairs that is significantly larger with respect to previous estimates based on optical spectroscopic data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".