Optical and radio variability of the BL Lacertae object AO 0235+16: A possible 5-6 year periodicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The BL Lacertae object AO 0235+16 is well known for its extreme optical and radio variability. New optical and radio data have been collected in the last four years by a wide international collaboration, which confirm the intense activity of this source: on the long term, overall variations of in the R band and up to a factor 18 in the radio fluxes were detected, while short-term variability up to in a few hours and in one day was observed in the optical band. The optical data also include the results of the Whole Earth Blazar Telescope (WEBT) first-light campaign organized in November 1997, involving a dozen optical observatories. The optical spectrum is observed to basically steepen when the source gets fainter. We have investigated the existence of typical variability time scales and of possible correlations between the optical and radio emissions by means of visual inspection and Discrete Correlation Function (DCF) analysis. On the long term, the autocorrelation function of the optical data shows a double-peaked maximum at 4100-4200 days (11.2-11.5 years), while a double-peaked maximum at 3900-4200 days (10.7-11.5 years) is visible in the radio autocorrelation functions. The existence of this similar characteristic time scale of variability in the two bands is by itself an indication of optical-radio correlation. A further analysis by means of Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) technique and folded light curves reveals that the major radio outbursts repeat quasi-regularly with a periodicity of ~5.7 years, i.e. half the above time scale. This period is also in agreement with the occurrence of some of the major optical outbursts, but not all of them. Visual inspection and DCF analysis of the optical and radio light curves then reveal that in some cases optical outbursts seem to be simultaneous with radio ones, but in other cases they lead the radio events. Moreover, a deep inspection of the radio light curves suggests that in at least two occasions (the 1992-1993 and 1998 outbursts) flux variations at the higher frequencies may have led those at the lower ones.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".