Physical Drivers of Emission-line Diversity of SDSS Seyfert 2s and LINERs after Removal of Contributions from Star Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ionization sources other than H ii regions give rise to the right-hand branch in the standard ([N ii]) BPT diagram, populated by Seyfert 2s and LINERs. However, because the majority of Seyfert/LINER hosts are star-forming (SF), H ii regions contaminate the observed lines to some extent, making it unclear if the position along the branch is merely due to various degrees of mixing between pure Seyferts/LINERs and SF, or whether it reflects the intrinsic diversity of Seyfert/LINER ionizing sources. In this study, we empirically remove SF contributions in ∼100,000 Seyferts/LINERs from SDSS using the doppelganger method. We find that mixing is not the principal cause of the extended morphology of the observed branch. Rather, Seyferts/LINERs intrinsically have a wide range of line ratios. Variations in ionization parameter and metallicity can account for much of the diversity of Seyfert/LINER line ratios, but the hardness of the ionization field also varies significantly. Furthermore, our k-means classification on seven decontaminated emission lines reveals that LINERs are made up of two populations, which we call soft and hard LINERs. The Seyfert 2s differ from both types of LINERs primarily by higher ionization parameter, whereas the two LINER types mainly differ from each other (and from star-forming regions) in the hardness of the radiation field. We confirm that the [N ii] BPT diagram more efficiently identifies LINERs than [S ii] and [O i] diagnostics, because in the latter many LINERs, especially soft ones, occupy the same location as pure starformers, even after the SF has been removed from LINER emission.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".