The star formation properties of the observed and simulated AGN Universe: BAT versus EAGLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this paper, we present data from 72 low-redshift, hard X-ray selected active galactic nucleus (AGN) taken from the Swift–BAT 58 month catalogue. We utilize spectral energy distribution fitting to the optical to infrared photometry in order to estimate host galaxy properties. We compare this observational sample to a volume- and flux-matched sample of AGN from the Evolution and Assembly of GaLaxies and their Environments (EAGLE) hydrodynamical simulations in order to verify how accurately the simulations can reproduce observed AGN host galaxy properties. After correcting for the known +0.2 dex offset in the SFRs between EAGLE and previous observations, we find agreement in the star formation rate (SFR) and X-ray luminosity distributions; however, we find that the stellar masses in EAGLE are 0.2–0.4 dex greater than the observational sample, which consequently leads to lower specific star formation rates (sSFRs). We compare these results to our previous study at high redshift, finding agreement in both the observations and simulations, whereby the widths of sSFR distributions are similar (∼0.4–0.6 dex) and the median of the SFR distributions lie below the star-forming main sequence by ∼0.3–0.5 dex across all samples. We also use EAGLE to select a sample of AGN host galaxies at high and low redshift and follow their characteristic evolution from z = 8 to z = 0. We find similar behaviour between these two samples, whereby star formation is quenched when the black hole goes through its phase of most rapid growth. Utilizing EAGLE we find that 23 per cent of AGN selected at z ∼ 0 are also AGN at high redshift, and that their host galaxies are among the most massive objects in the simulation. Overall, we find EAGLE reproduces the observations well, with some minor inconsistencies (∼0.2 dex in stellar masses and ∼0.4 dex in sSFRs).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".