MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2048501582 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/1/552

PREDICTIONS OF QUASAR CLUSTERING: REDSHIFT, LUMINOSITY, AND SELECTION DEPENDENCE

2009· article· en· W2048501582 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Thacker, Evan Scannapieco, H. M. P. Couchman, Mark L. A. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsRedshiftQuasarLuminositySkyCorrelation function (quantum field theory)Cluster analysisHaloAmplitudeCorrelationRange (aeronautics)Luminosity functionGalaxyOpticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that current clustering observations of quasars and luminous active galactic nuclei (AGNs) can be explained by a merger model augmented by feedback from outflows. Using numerical simulations large enough to study clustering out to 25 comoving h −1 Mpc, we calculate correlation functions, biases, and correlation lengths as a function of AGN redshift and optical and X-ray luminosity. At optical wavelengths, our results match a wide range of current observations and generate predictions for future data sets. We reproduce the weak luminosity dependence of clustering over the currently well-measured range and predict a much stronger dependence at higher luminosities. The increase in the amplitude of binary quasar clustering observed in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is also reproduced and is predicted to occur at higher redshift, an effect that is due to the one-halo term in the correlation function. On the other hand, our results do not match the rapid evolution of the correlation length observed in the SDSS at z ≃ 3, a discrepancy that is at least partially due to differences in the scales probed by our simulation versus this survey. In fact, we show that changing the distances sampled from our simulations can produce changes as large as 40% in the fitted correlation lengths. Finally, in the X-ray, our simulations produce correlation lengths similar to that observed in the Chandra Deep Field (CDF) North, but not the significantly larger correlation length observed in the CDF-South.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→