MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280554959 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1287

Detection of a quasi-periodic oscillation in the optical light curve of the remarkable blazar AO 0235+164

2022· article· en· W4280554959 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Abhradeep Roy, V. R. Chitnis, Alok C. Gupta, Paul J. Wiita, Gustavo E. Romero, S. A. Cellone, A. Chatterjee, J. A. Combi, C. M. Raiteri, Arkadipta Sarkar, M. Villata

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut sur la Nutrition et les Aliments FonctionnelsUniversidad Nacional de La PlataFederación Española de Enfermedades RarasAgencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y TecnológicaConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasDepartment of Atomic Energy, Government of IndiaConsejería de Economía, Innovación, Ciencia y Empleo, Junta de AndalucíaAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades
KeywordsBlazarPhysicsLight curveAstrophysicsSupermassive black holeBL Lac objectOscillation (cell signaling)AstronomyBinary numberGalaxyGamma ray

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present a long term optical R band light-curve analysis of the gravitationally lensed blazar AO 0235+164 in the time span 1982–2019. Several methods of analysis lead to the result that there is a periodicity of ∼8.13 yr present in these data. In addition, each of these five major flares are apparently double-peaked, with the secondary peak following the primary one by ∼2 yr. Along with the well-known system, OJ 287, our finding constitutes one of the most secure cases of long-term quasi-periodic optical behaviour in a blazar ever found. A binary supermassive black hole system appears to provide a good explanation for these results.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207