The far-infrared/radio correlation as probed by<i>Herschel</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We set out to determine the ratio, <i>q<i/><sub>IR<sub/>, of rest-frame 8–1000-<i>μ<i/>m flux, <i>S<i/><sub>IR<sub/>, to monochromatic radio flux, <i>S<i/><sub>1.4 GHz<sub/>, for galaxies selected at far-infrared (IR) and radio wavelengths, to search for signs that the ratio evolves with redshift, luminosity or dust temperature, <i>T<i/><sub>d<sub/>, and to identify any far-IR-bright outliers – useful laboratories for exploring why the far-IR/radio correlation (FIRRC) is generally so tight when the prevailing theory suggests variations are almost inevitable. We use flux-limited 250-<i>μ<i/>m and 1.4-GHz samples, obtained using <i>Herschel<i/> and the Very Large Array (VLA) in GOODS-North (-N). We determine bolometric IR output using ten bands spanning λ<sub>obs<sub/> = 24–1250 <i>μ<i/>m, exploiting data from PACS and SPIRE (PEP; HerMES), as well as <i>Spitzer<i/>, SCUBA, AzTEC and MAMBO. We also explore the properties of an <i>L<i/><sub>IR<sub/>-matched sample, designed to reveal evolution of <i>q<i/><sub>IR<sub/> with redshift, spanning log <i>L<i/><sub>IR<sub/> = 11–12 and <i>z<i/> = 0–2, by stacking into the radio and far-IR images. For 1.4-GHz-selected galaxies in GOODS-N, we see tentative evidence of a break in the flux ratio, <i>q<i/><sub>IR<sub/>, at <i>L<i/><sub>1.4 GHz<sub/> ~ 10<sup>22.7<sup/> W Hz<sup>-1<sup/>, where active galactic nuclei (AGN) are starting to dominate the radio power density, and of weaker correlations with redshift and <i>T<i/><sub>d<sub/>. From our 250-<i>μ<i/>m-selected sample we identify a small number of far-IR-bright outliers, and see trends of <i>q<i/><sub>IR<sub/> with <i>L<i/><sub>1.4 GHz<sub/>, <i>L<i/><sub>IR<sub/>, <i>T<i/><sub>d<sub/> and redshift, noting that some of these are inter-related. For our <i>L<i/><sub>IR<sub/>-matched sample, there is no evidence that <i>q<i/><sub>IR<sub/> changes significantly as we move back into the epoch of galaxy formation: we find <i>q<i/><sub>IR<sub/> (1+z)<sup><i>γ<i/><sup/>, where <i>γ<i/> = -0.04<i>±<i/>0.03 at <i>z<i/> = 0–2; however, discounting the least reliable data at <i>z<i/> < 0.5 we find <i>γ<i/> = -0.26<i>±<i/>0.07, modest evolution which may be related to the radio background seen by ARCADE 2, perhaps driven by <10-<i>μ<i/>Jy radio activity amongst ordinary star-forming galaxies at <i>z<i/>>1.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".