Black Hole–Halo Mass Relation from UNIONS Weak Lensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This Letter presents, for the first time, direct constraints on the black hole–halo mass relation using weak gravitational-lensing measurements. We construct type I and type II active galactic nucleus (AGN) samples from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, with a mean redshift of 0.4 (0.1) for type I (type II) AGNs. This sample is cross correlated with weak-lensing shear from the Ultraviolet Near Infrared Optical Northern Survey. We compute the excess surface mass density of the halos associated with 36,181 AGNs from 94,308,561 lensed galaxies and fit the halo mass in bins of black hole mass. We find that more massive AGNs reside in more massive halos. The relation between halo mass and black hole mass is well described by a power law of slope 0.6 for both type I and type II samples, in agreement with models that link black hole growth to baryon feedback. We see no dependence on AGN type or redshift in the black hole–halo mass relation below a black hole mass of 108.5 M ⊙. Above that mass, we find more massive halos for the low-z type II sample compared to the high-z type I sample, but this difference may be interpreted as systematic error in the black hole mass measurements. Our results are consistent with previous measurements for non-AGN galaxies. At a fixed black hole mass, our weak-lensing halo masses are consistent with galaxy rotation curves but significantly lower than galaxy-clustering measurements. Finally, our results are broadly consistent with state-of-the-art hydrodynamical cosmological simulations, providing a new constraint for black hole masses in simulations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".