Host galaxy and orientation differences between different AGN types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. The main purpose of this study is to investigate aspects regarding the validity of the active galactic nucleus (AGN) unification paradigm (UP). In particular, we focus on the AGN host galaxies, which according to the UP should show no systematic differences depending on the AGN classification. Methods. For the purpose of this study, we used (a) the spectroscopic Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 14 catalogue, in order to select and classify AGNs using emission line diagnostics, up to a redshift of z = 0.2, and (b) the Galaxy Zoo Project catalogue, which classifies SDSS galaxies in two broad Hubble types: spirals and ellipticals. Results. We find that the fraction of type 1 Seyfert nuclei (Sy1) hosted in elliptical galaxies is significantly larger than the corresponding fraction of any other AGN type, while there is a gradient of increasing spiral-hosts from Sy1 to LINER, type 2 Seyferts (Sy2) and composite nuclei. These findings cannot be interpreted within the simple unified model, but possibly by a co-evolution scheme for supermassive black holes and galactic bulges. Furthermore, for the case of spiral host galaxies we find the Sy1 population to be strongly skewed towards face-on configurations, while the corresponding Sy2 population range in all host galaxy orientation configurations has a similar, but not identical, orientation distribution to star-forming galaxies. These results also cannot be interpreted by the standard unification paradigm, but point towards a significant contribution of the galactic disc to the obscuration of the nuclear region. This is also consistent with the observed preference of Sy1 nuclei to be hosted by ellipticals, that is, the dusty disc of spiral hosts contributes to the obscuration of the broad-line region, and thus relatively more ellipticals are expected to appear hosting Sy1 nuclei.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".