MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163364480 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab047

The EDGE–CALIFA survey: central molecular gas depletion in AGN host galaxies – a smoking gun for quenching?

2021· article· en· W3163364480 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara L. Ellison, Tony Wong, S. F. Sánchez, Dario Colombo, Alberto D. Bolatto, J. K. Barrera-Ballesteros, R. García-Benito, V. Kalinova, Yufeng Luo, M. Rubio, S. N. Vogel

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsActive galactic nucleusAstrophysicsGalaxyStar formationQuenching (fluorescence)SigmaStellar massSupermassive black holeAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Feedback from an active galactic nucleus (AGN) is often implicated as a mechanism that leads to the quenching of galactic star formation. However, AGN-driven quenching is challenging to reconcile with observations that AGN hosts tend to harbour equal (or even excess) amounts of gas compared with inactive galaxies of similar stellar mass. In this paper, we investigate whether AGN feedback happens on sub-galactic (kpc) scales, an effect that might be difficult to detect with global gas measurements. Using kpc-scale measurements of molecular gas ($\Sigma _{\rm H_2}$) and stellar mass (Σ⋆) surface densities, taken from the Extragalactic Data base for Galaxy Evolution–Calar Alto Legacy Integral Field Area survey, we show that the gas fractions of central AGN regions are typically a factor of ∼ 2 lower than those in star-forming regions. Based on four galaxies with the best spaxel statistics, the difference between AGN and star-forming gas fractions is seen even within a given galaxy, indicating that AGN feedback is able to deplete the molecular gas reservoir in the central few kpc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207