Reprocessing Models for the Optical Light Curves of Hypervariable Quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Reverberation Mapping Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We explore reprocessing models for a sample of 17 hypervariable quasars, taken from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Reverberation Mapping project, which all show coordinated optical luminosity hypervariability with amplitudes of factors ≳2 between 2014 and 2020. We develop and apply reprocessing models for quasar light curves in simple geometries that are likely to be representative of quasar inner environments. In addition to the commonly investigated thin-disk model, we include the thick-disk and hemisphere geometries. The thick-disk geometry could, for instance, represent a magnetically elevated disk, whereas the hemisphere model can be interpreted as a first-order approximation for any optically thick out-of-plane material caused by outflows/winds, warped/tilted disks, and so on. Of the 17 quasars in our sample, 11 are best-fitted by a hemisphere geometry, five are classified as thick disks, and both models fail for just one object. We highlight the successes and shortcomings of our thermal reprocessing models in case studies of four quasars that are representative of the sample. While reprocessing is unlikely to explain all of the variability that we observe in quasars, we present our classification scheme as a starting point for revealing the likely geometries of reprocessing for quasars in our sample and hypervariable quasars in general.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".