THE EFFECTS OF THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT ON ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There continues to be significant controversy regarding the mechanism(s) responsible for the initiation and maintenance of activity in galactic nuclei. In this paper we will investigate possible environmental triggers of nuclear activity through a statistical analysis of a large sample of galaxy groups. The focus of this paper is to identify active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and other emission-line galaxies in these groups and to compare their frequency with a sample of over 260,000 isolated galaxies from the same catalog. The galaxy groups are taken from the catalog of Yang et al., in which over 20,000 virialized groups of galaxies (2 ⩽ N ⩽ 20) with redshifts between 0.01 and 0.20 are from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We first investigate the completeness of our data set and find, though biases are a concern particularly at higher redshift, that our data provide a fair representation of the local universe. After correcting emission-line equivalent widths for extinction and underlying Balmer stellar absorption, we classify galaxies in the sample using traditional emission-line ratios, while incorporating measurement uncertainties. We find a significantly higher fraction of AGNs in groups compared with the isolated sample. Likewise, a significantly higher fraction of absorption-line galaxies are found in groups, while a higher fraction of star-forming galaxies prefer isolated environments. Within grouped environments, AGNs and star-forming galaxies are found more frequently in small- to medium-richness groups, while absorption-line galaxies prefer groups with larger richnesses. Groups containing only emission-line galaxies have smaller virial radii, velocity dispersions, and masses compared with those containing only absorption-line galaxies. Furthermore, the AGN fraction increases with decreasing distance to the group centroid, independent of galaxy morphology. Using properties obtained from Galaxy Zoo, there is an increased fraction of AGNs within merging systems, unlike star-forming galaxies. These results provide some indication that the local environment does play a role in initiating activity in galactic nuclei, but it is by no means simple or straightforward.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".