NuSTAR Observations of Intrinsically X-Ray Weak Quasar Candidates: An Obscuration-only Scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We utilize recent NuSTAR observations (co-added depth ≈55–120 ks) of PG 1001+054, PG 1254+047, and PHL 1811 to constrain their hard X-ray (≳5 keV) weakness and spectral shapes and thus to investigate the nature of their extreme X-ray weakness. These quasars showed very weak soft X-ray emission, and they were proposed to be intrinsically X-ray weak, with the X-ray coronae producing weak continuum emission relative to their optical/UV emission. However, the new observations suggest an alternative explanation. The NuSTAR 3–24 keV spectral shapes for PG 1001+054 and PHL 1811 are likely flat (effective power-law photon indices Γ eff = 1.0 − 0.6 + 0.5 and Γ eff = 1.4 − 0.7 + 0.8 , respectively), while the shape is nominal for PG 1254+047 (Γeff = 1.8 ± 0.3). PG 1001+054 and PHL 1811 are significantly weak at hard X-ray energies (by factors of ≈26–74 at rest-frame 8 keV) compared to the expectations from their optical/UV emission, while PG 1254+047 is only hard X-ray weak by a factor of ≈3. We suggest that X-ray obscuration is present in all three quasars. We propose that, as an alternative to the intrinsic X-ray weakness + X-ray obscuration scenario, the soft and hard X-ray weakness of these quasars can be uniformly explained under an obscuration-only scenario. This model provides adequate descriptions of the multiepoch soft and hard X-ray data of these quasars, with variable column density and leaked fraction of the partial covering absorber. We suggest that the absorber is the clumpy dust-free wind launched from the accretion disk. These quasars probably have super-Eddington accretion rates that drive powerful and high-density winds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".