Galaxy pairs in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey - IV. Interactions trigger active galactic nuclei
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Galaxy–galaxy interactions are predicted to cause gas inflows leading to enhanced nuclear star formation. This prediction is borne out observationally, and is also supported by the gas-phase metallicity dilution in the inner regions of galaxies in close pairs. In this paper we test the further prediction that the gas inflows lead to enhanced accretion on to the central supermassive black hole, triggering activity in the nucleus. Based on a sample of 11 060 Sloan Digital Sky Survey galaxies with a close companion (rp < 80 h−170 kpc, ΔV < 200 km s−1), we classify active galactic nuclei (AGN) based either on emission line ratios or on spectral classification as a quasar. The AGN fraction in the close pairs sample is compared to a control sample of 110 600 mass- and redshift-matched control galaxies with no nearby companion. We find a clear increase in the AGN fraction in close pairs of galaxies with projected separations < 40 h−170 kpc by up to a factor of 2.5 relative to the control sample [although the enhancement depends on the chosen signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) cut of the sample]. The increase in AGN fraction is strongest in equal-mass galaxy pairings, and weakest in the lower mass component of an unequal-mass pairing. The increased AGN fraction at small separations is accompanied by an enhancement in the number of ‘composite’ galaxies whose spectra are the result of photoionization by both AGN and stars. Our results indicate that AGN activity occurs (at least in some cases) well before final coalescence and concurrently with ongoing star formation. Finally, we find a marked increase at small projected separations of the fraction of pairs in which both galaxies harbour AGN. We demonstrate that the fraction of double AGN exceeds the expected random fraction, indicating that some pairs undergo correlated nuclear activity. We discuss some of the factors that have led to conflicting results in previous studies of AGN in close pairs. Taken together with complementary studies, we favour an interpretation where interactions trigger AGN, but are not the only cause of nuclear activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".