Pith. Sign in

RECORD

A complete census of AGN and their hosts from optical surveys?

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Vivienne Wild, Timothy Heckman, Paule Sonnentrucker, Brent Groves, Lee Armus, David Schiminovich, Benjamin Johnson, Lucimara Martins
show 1 more author
Stephanie LaMassa

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 27 Jan 2010

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim To what extent do optical surveys allow us to include extreme, dusty, morphologically disturbed galaxies in our "complete" census of black hole-galaxy co-evolution?

how it is stated · unclear 0.97 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1001.5039 (version 1)
Pith IDV5N75AYQ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationBenjamin Johnson, Brent Groves, David Schiminovich, Lee Armus, Lucimara Martins, Paule Sonnentrucker, Stephanie LaMassa, Timothy Heckman, Vivienne Wild. "A complete census of AGN and their hosts from optical surveys?." arXiv:1001.5039 (2010). https://pith.science/paper/V5N75AYQ
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,360 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.71 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.91 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.85 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Large optical surveys provide an unprecedented census of galaxies in the local Universe, forming an invaluable framework into which more detailed studies of objects can be placed. But how useful are optical surveys for understanding the co-evolution of black holes and galaxies, given their limited wavelength coverage, selection criteria, and depth? In this conference paper I present work-in-progress comparing optical and mid-IR diagnostics of three "unusual" low redshift populations (luminous Seyferts, dusty Balmer-strong AGN, ULIRGs) with a set of ordinary star-forming galaxies from the SDSS. I address the questions: How well do the mid-infrared and optical diagnostics of star formation and AGN strength agree? To what extent do optical surveys allow us to include extreme, dusty, morphologically disturbed galaxies in our "complete" census of black hole-galaxy co-evolution?

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Large optical surveys provide an unprecedented census of galaxies in the local Universe, forming an invaluable framework into which more detailed studies of objects can be placed. background 1.00 0.05 0.02 asserted 1.00
s1 But how useful are optical surveys for understanding the co-evolution of black holes and galaxies, given their limited wavelength coverage, selection criteria, and depth? gap 0.55 0.04 0.02 unclear 0.79
s2 In this conference paper I present work-in-progress comparing optical and mid-IR diagnostics of three "unusual" low redshift populations (luminous Seyferts, dusty Balmer-strong AGN, ULIRGs) with a set of ordinary star-forming galaxies from the SDSS. contribution 0.99 0.85 0.06 asserted 0.91
s3 I address the questions: How well do the mid-infrared and optical diagnostics of star formation and AGN strength agree? contribution 0.77 0.17 0.03 unclear 0.99
s4 To what extent do optical surveys allow us to include extreme, dusty, morphologically disturbed galaxies in our "complete" census of black hole-galaxy co-evolution? gap 0.76 0.09 0.05 unclear 0.97

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.83 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Large optical surveys provide an unprecedented census of galaxies in the local Universe, forming an invaluable framework into which more detailed studies of objects can be placed. But how useful are optical surveys for understanding the co-evolution of black holes and galaxies, given their limited wavelength coverage, selection criteria, and depth? In this conference paper I present work-in-progress comparing optical and mid-IR diagnostics of three "unusual" low redshift populations (luminous Seyferts, dusty Balmer-strong AGN, ULIRGs) with a set of ordinary star-forming galaxies from the SDSS. I address the questions: How well do the mid-infrared and optical diagnostics of star formation and AGN strength agree? To what extent do optical surveys allow us to include extreme, dusty, morphologically disturbed galaxies in our "complete" census of black hole-galaxy co-evolution?

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.