Electron energy distributions in the extended gas nebulae associated with high-z AGN: Maxwell–Boltzmann versus κ distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Emission line observations together with photoionization models provide important information about the ionization mechanisms, densities, temperatures, and metallicities in active galactic nuclei (AGN)-ionized gas. Photoionization models usually assume Maxwell–Boltzmann (M–B) electron energy distributions (EED), but it has been suggested that using κ distributions may be more appropriate and could potentially solve the discrepancies in temperatures and abundances found in HII regions and planetary nebulae. We consider the impact of the presence of κ distributions in photoionized nebulae associated with AGN and study how this might affect spectral modelling and abundance analyses for such regions. Using the photoionization code MAPPINGS 1e, we compute models adopting M–B and κ distributions of electron energies and compare the behaviour of emission line ratios for different values of κ, gas metallicity, density, ionization parameter, and SED slope. We find that the choice of EED can have a large impact on some UV and optical emission lines emitted by photoionized nebulae associated with AGN, and that the impact of adopting a κ distribution is strongly dependent on gas metallicity and ionization parameter. We compile a sample of line ratios for 143 type 2 AGN and compare our models against the observed line ratios. We find that for 98 objects, κ distributions provide a better fit to the observed line ratios than M–B distributions. In addition, we find that adopting κ-distributed electron energies results in significant changes in the inferred gas metallicity and ionization parameter in a significant fraction of objects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".