Traces of the evolution of cosmic void galaxies: An integral field spectroscopy-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Galaxies in the most underdense regions of the Universe, known as cosmic voids, exhibit astrophysical properties that suggest a distinct evolutionary path compared to galaxies in denser environments. Numerical simulations indicate that the assembly of void galaxies occurs later, leading to galaxies with younger stellar populations, low metallicities, and high gas content in their halos, which provides the fuel to sustain elevated star formation activity. Aims. Our objective in this work is to test these numerical predictions using observational data by comparing galaxies in voids with galaxies in non-void environments. Methods. We used voids identified in the SDSS data and selected galaxies from the MaNGA survey, which offers integral field spectroscopy (IFS) for each galaxy. This IFS data allows for state-of-the-art modeling of their stellar populations. We separated the galaxies into void and non-void samples, mimicked the magnitude distribution, and compared their integrated astrophysical properties, as well as the metallicity and age profiles, through a stacking technique. We analyzed early-type galaxies (ETGs) and late-type galaxies (LTGs) separately. Results. We find that void galaxies tend to host younger and less metal-rich stellar populations. This trend is observed both as a function of mass and in samples with matched magnitude distributions. With respect to the gas mass, we do not find differences across environments. When dividing galaxies into ETGs and LTGs, we observe that ETGs show negative gradients in both age and metallicity, with void galaxies consistently appearing younger and less metal-rich. For LTGs, age gradients are also negative, indicating younger populations in void galaxies. However, we do not find statistically significant differences in the stellar metallicity gradients between void and non-void environments. Conclusions. Our results show how the astrophysical properties of galaxies in voids differ from those of galaxies in the rest of the Universe. This suggests that the void environment plays a role in the evolution of its galaxies, delaying their assembly and growth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".