The galaxy mass-size relation in CARLA clusters and proto-clusters at 1.4 <
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the galaxy mass-size relation in 15 spectroscopically confirmed clusters at 1.4 < z < 2.8 from the CARLA survey. Our clusters span a total stellar mass in the range $ 11.3 < \log(M^c_*/M_{\odot}) < 12.6 $ (with an approximate halo mass in the range $ 13.5 \lesssim \log(M^c_h/M_{\odot}) \lesssim 14.5 $ ). Our main finding is that cluster passive early-type galaxies (ETGs) at z ≳ 1.5 with a mass log(M/M⊙) > 10.5 are systematically ≳0.2 − 0.3dex larger (≳3σ) than field ETGs at a similar redshift and mass from the CANDELS survey. The passive ETG average size evolution with redshift is slower at 1 < z < 2 when compared to the field. This could be explained by early-epoch differences in the formation and early evolution of galaxies in haloes of a different mass, as predicted by models. It does not exclude that other physical mechanisms, such as strong compaction and gas dissipation in field galaxies, followed by a sequence of mergers may have also played a significant role in the field ETG evolution, but not necessarily in the evolution of cluster galaxies. Our passive ETG mass-size relation shows a tendency to flatten at 9.6 < log(M/M⊙) < 10.5, where the average size is log(Re/kpc) = 0.05 ± 0.22, which is broadly consistent with galaxy sizes in the field and in the local Universe. This implies that galaxies in the low end of the mass-size relation do not evolve much from z ∼ 2 to the present, and that their sizes evolve in a similar way in clusters and in the field. Brightest cluster galaxies lie on the same mass-size relation as satellites, suggesting that their size evolution is not different from satellites at redshift z ≳ 2. Half of the active early-type galaxies, which are 30% of our ETG sample, follow the field passive galaxy mass-size relation, and the other half follow the field active galaxy mass-size relation. These galaxies likely went through a recent merger or neighbor galaxy interaction, and would most probably quench at a later epoch and increase the fraction of passive ETGs in clusters. We do not observe a large population of compact galaxies (only one), as is observed in the field at these redshifts, implying that the galaxies in our clusters are not observed in an epoch close to their compaction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".