Critical assessment of the recent report on the gigaparsec-scale correlation of the orientations of large quasar groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recently, it was reported that large quasar groups (LQGs) identified from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data release seven catalogue are not randomly oriented but preferentially aligned or orthogonal over scales 1–2 Gpc. To confirm this claim, I reproduced the same LQG sample and performed Sobolev tests of uniformity on the LQG orientation axes in the redshift space. Contrary to the original report based on the bimodal distribution of the LQG position angles in the sky, I found no departure from uniformity in the distribution of the LQG orientation axes. I also examined whether the LQGs are physical structures using a statistically more reliable data set constructed from the SDSS data release 16 (DR16) large-scale structure (LSS) quasar catalogue. Considering the Gaussian primordial density fluctuations and shot noise, I estimated the mass density contrasts of the LQGs from the number counts of the DR16 LSS quasars and found that most of the LQGs do not trace statistically significant high-density regions. I conclude that the LQG sample is a collection of unphysical chance associations and should not be used for any cosmological studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".