The performance of photometric reverberation mapping at high redshift and the reliability of damped random walk models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Accurate methods for reverberation mapping using photometry are highly sought after since they are inherently less resource intensive than spectroscopic techniques. However, the effectiveness of photometric reverberation mapping for estimating black hole masses is sparsely investigated at redshifts higher than z ≈ 0.04. Furthermore, photometric methods frequently assume a damped random walk (DRW) model, which may not be universally applicable. We perform photometric reverberation mapping using the javelin photometric DRW model for the QSO SDSS-J144645.44+625304.0 at z = 0.351 and estimate the Hβ lag of $65^{+6}_{-1}$ d and black hole mass of $10^{8.22^{+0.13}_{-0.15}}\, \mathrm{M_{\odot }}$. An analysis of the reliability of photometric reverberation mapping, conducted using many thousands of simulated CARMA process light curves, shows that we can recover the input lag to within 6 per cent on average given our target’s observed signal-to-noise of >20 and average cadence of 14 d (even when DRW is not applicable). Furthermore, we use our suite of simulated light curves to deconvolve aliases and artefacts from our QSO’s posterior probability distribution, increasing the signal-to-noise on the lag by a factor of ∼2.2. We exceed the signal-to-noise of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Reverberation Mapping Project (SDSS-RM) campaign with a quarter of the observing time per object, resulting in a ∼200 per cent increase in signal-to-noise efficiency over SDSS-RM.
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".