A Systematic Analysis of Star Cluster Disruption by Tidal Shocks. II. Predicting Star Cluster Dissolution Rates from a Time-series Analysis of Their Tidal Histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most of the dynamical mass loss from star clusters is thought to be caused by the time variability of the tidal field (“tidal shocks”). Systematic studies of tidal shocks have been hampered by the fact that each tidal history is unique, implying both a reproducibility and a generalization problem. Here we address these issues by investigating how star cluster evolution depends on the statistical properties of its tidal history. We run a large suite of direct N-body simulations of clusters with tidal histories generated from power spectra of a given slope and with different normalizations, which determine the timescales and amplitudes of the shocks, respectively. At fixed normalization (i.e., the same median tidal field strength), the dissolution timescale is nearly independent of the power spectrum slope. However, the dispersion in dissolution timescales, obtained by repeating simulations for different realizations of statistically identical tidal histories, increases with the power spectrum slope. This result means that clusters experiencing high-frequency shocks have more similar mass-loss histories than clusters experiencing low-frequency shocks. The density–mass relationship of the simulated clusters follows a power law with slope between 1.08 and 1.45, except for the lowest normalizations (for which clusters effectively evolve in a static tidal field). Our findings suggest that star cluster evolution can be described statistically from a time-series analysis of its tidal history, which is an important simplification for describing the evolution of the star cluster population during galaxy formation and evolution.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".