MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385749864 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2346

The formation of supermassive black holes from Population III.1 seeds. II. Evolution to the local universe

2023· article· en· W4385749864 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jasbir Singh, Pierluigi Monaco, Jonathan C. Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Research CouncilInstitut sur la Nutrition et les Aliments Fonctionnels
KeywordsPhysicsSupermassive black holeAstrophysicsGalaxyHaloDark matterPopulationGalaxy formation and evolutionStructure formationUniverseCold dark matterReionizationAstronomyRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present predictions for cosmic evolution of populations of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) forming from Population III.1 seeds, i.e. early, metal-free dark matter minihaloes forming far from other sources, parametrized by isolation distance, diso. Extending previous work that explored this scenario to z = 10, we follow evolution of a $(60\, {\rm {Mpc}})^3$ volume to z = 0. We focus on evolution of SMBH comoving number densities, halo occupation fractions, angular clustering, and 3D clustering, exploring a range of diso constrained by observed local number densities of SMBHs. We also compute synthetic projected observational fields, in particular, a case comparable to the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. We compare Pop III.1 seeding to a simple halo mass threshold model, commonly adopted in cosmological simulations of galaxy formation. Major predictions of the Pop III.1 model include that all SMBHs form by z ∼ 25, after which their comoving number densities are near-constant, with low merger rates. Occupation fractions evolve to concentrate SMBHs in the most massive haloes by z = 0, but with rare cases of SMBHs in haloes down to $\sim 10^8\, M_\odot$. The diso scale at epoch of formation, e.g. $100\,$kpc-proper at z ∼ 30, i.e. $\sim 3\,$Mpc-comoving, is imprinted in the SMBH two-point angular correlation function, remaining discernible as a low-amplitude feature to z ∼ 1. The SMBH 3D two-point correlation function at z = 0 also shows lower amplitude compared to equivalently massive haloes. We discuss prospects for testing these predictions with observational surveys of SMBH populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.189
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→