Extreme-velocity quasar outflows and the role of X-ray shielding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quasar accretion disc winds observed via broad absorption lines (BALs) in the UV produce strong continuous absorption in X-rays. The X-ray absorber is believed to serve critically as a radiative shield to keep the outflow ionizations low enough for radiative driving. However, previous studies have shown that ‘mini-BAL’ and narrow absorption line (NAL) outflows have dramatically less X-ray absorption than BALs. Here, we examine X-ray and rest-frame UV spectra of eight mini-BAL quasars with outflow speeds in the range 0.1–0.2c to test the hypothesis that these extreme speeds require a strong shield. We find that the X-ray absorption is weak or moderate, with neutral-equivalent column densities NH < few × 1022 cm−2, consistent with mini-BALs at lower speeds. We use photoionization models to show that the amount of shielding consistent with our data is too weak to control the outflow ionizations and, therefore, it is not important for the acceleration. Shielding in complex geometries also seems unlikely because the alleged shield would need to extinguish the ionizing far-UV flux while avoiding detection in X-rays and the near-UV. We argue that the outflow ionizations are kept moderate, instead, by high gas densities in small clouds. If the mini-BALs form at radial distances of the order of R ∼ 2 pc from the central quasar (broadly consistent with theoretical models and with the mini-BAL variabilities observed here and in previous work), and the total column densities in the mini-BAL gas are NH ≲ 1021 cm−2, then the total radial extent of outflow clouds is only ΔRclouds ≲ 3 × 1013 cm in cases of no/weak shielding or ΔRclouds ≲ 3 × 1014 cm behind the maximum shield allowed by our data. This implies radial filling factors ΔRclouds/R ≲ 5 × 10− 6 or ≲ 5 × 10− 5 for the unshielded or maximally shielded cases, respectively. Compared to the transverse sizes ≳ 8 × 1015 cm (based on measured line depths), the outflows have shapes like thin ‘pancakes’ viewed face-on, or they occupy larger volumes like a spray of many dense clouds with a small volume filling factor. These results favour models with magnetic confinement in magnetic disc winds. To the extent that BALs, mini-BALs and NALs probe the same general outflow phenomenon, our result for dense substructures should apply to all three outflow types.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".