MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001897756 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab6d78

An Extreme X-Ray Variability Event of a Weak-line Quasar

2020· article· en· W3001897756 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuasarSkyFlux (metallurgy)Line-of-sightActive galactic nucleusEmission spectrumAccretion (finance)Accretion discLine (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report the discovery of an extreme X-ray flux rise (by a factor of ≳20) of the weak-line quasar Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) J153913.47+395423.4 (hereafter SDSS J1539+3954) at z = 1.935. SDSS J1539+3954 is the most-luminous object among radio-quiet type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs) where such dramatic X-ray variability has been observed. Before the X-ray flux rise, SDSS J1539+3954 appeared X-ray weak compared with the expectation from its ultraviolet (UV) flux; after the rise, the ratio of its X-ray flux and UV flux is consistent with the majority of the AGN population. We also present a contemporaneous HET spectrum of SDSS J1539+3954, which demonstrates that its UV continuum level remains generally unchanged despite the dramatic increase in the X-ray flux, and its C iv emission line remains weak. The dramatic change only observed in the X-ray flux is consistent with a shielding model, where a thick inner accretion disk can block our line of sight to the central X-ray source. This thick inner accretion disk can also block the nuclear ionizing photons from reaching the high-ionization broad emission-line region, so that weak high-ionization emission lines are observed. Under this scenario, the extreme X-ray variability event may be caused by slight variations in the thickness of the disk. This event might also be explained by gravitational light-bending effects in a reflection model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207