Searching for quasar candidates with periodic variations from the Zwicky Transient Facility: results and implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We conduct a systematic search for quasars with periodic variations from the archival photometric data of the Zwicky Transient Facility by cross-matching with the quasar catalogues of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and Véron-Cetty and Véron. We first select out 184 primitive periodic candidates using the generalized Lomb–Scargle periodogram and autocorrelation function and then estimate their statistical significance of periodicity based on two red-noise models, i.e. damped random walk (DRW) and single power-law (SPL) models. As such, we finally identify 106 (DRW) and 86 (SPL) candidates with the most significant periodic variations out of 143 700 quasars. We further compare DRW and SPL models using Bayes factors, which indicate a relative preference of the SPL model for our primitive sample. We thus adopt the candidates identified with SPL as the final sample and summarize its basic properties. We extend the light curves of the selected candidates by supplying other archival survey data to verify their periodicity. However, only three candidates (with 6–8 cycles of periods) meet the selection criteria. This result clearly implies that, instead of being strictly periodic, the variability must be quasi-periodic or caused by stochastic red-noise. This exerts a challenge to the existing search approaches and calls for developing new effective methods.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".