OzDES reverberation mapping program: Lag recovery reliability for 6-yr C <scp>iv</scp> analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We present the statistical methods that have been developed to analyse the OzDES reverberation mapping sample. To perform this statistical analysis we have created a suite of customizable simulations that mimic the characteristics of each source in the OzDES sample. These characteristics include: the variability in the photometric and spectroscopic light curves, the measurement uncertainties, and the observational cadence. By simulating the sources in the OzDES sample that contain the C iv emission line, we developed a set of criteria that rank the reliability of a recovered time-lag depending on the agreement between different recovery methods, the magnitude of the uncertainties, and the rate at which false positives were found in the simulations. These criteria were applied to simulated light curves and these results used to estimate the quality of the resulting Radius–Luminosity relation. We grade the results using three quality levels (gold, silver, and bronze). The input slope of the R–L relation was recovered within 1σ for each of the three quality samples, with the gold standard having the lowest dispersion with a recovered a R–L relation slope of 0.454 ± 0.016 with an input slope of 0.47. Future work will apply these methods to the entire OzDES sample of 771 AGN.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".