Reassessment of the dipole in the distribution of quasars on the sky
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate recent claims by Secrest et al. of an anomalously large amplitude of the dipole in the distribution of CatWISE-selected quasars on the sky. Two main issues indicate that the systematic uncertainties in the derived quasar-density dipole are underestimated. Firstly, the spatial distribution of the quasars is not a pure dipole, possessing low-order multipoles of comparable size to the dipole. These multipoles are unexpected and presumably caused by unknown systematic effects; we cannot be confident that the dipole amplitude is not also affected by the same systematics until the origin of these fluctuations is understood. Secondly, the 50 percent sky cut associated with the quasar catalogue strongly couples the multipoles, meaning that the power estimate at ℓ = 1 contains significant contributions from ℓ > 1. In particular, the dominant quadrupole mode in the Galactic mask strongly couples the dipole with the octupole, leading to a large uncertainty in the dipole amplitude. Together these issues mean that the dipole in the quasar catalogue has an uncertainty large enough that consistency with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole cannot be ruled out. More generally, current data sets are insufficiently clean to robustly measure the quasar dipole and future studies will require samples that are larger (preferably covering more of the sky) and free of systematic effects to make strong claims regarding their consistency with the CMB dipole.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".