Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 103 references

Discovery of intergalactic bridges connecting two faint $z\sim3$ quasars

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read MUSE reveals Lyman-alpha bridges connecting two faint quasars at redshift 3, and photoionization models rule out a 2.9 Mpc separation.

desk verdict Credible detection of Lyα bridges between a faint z~3 quasar pair, with a bold but not fully airtight case that the structure spans at most ~600 kpc rather than ~2.9 Mpc. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00829 v1 pith:QJ5GGSOQ submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.GA

Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia (1 , 2) , Aura Obreja (3) , J. Xavier Prochaska (4) , Joseph F. Hennawi (5 , 6) , Hadi Rahmani (7) , Eduardo Bañados (6)
show 10 more authors
Emanuele P. Farina (6 1) Zheng Cai (4) Allison Man (8) ((1) Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics (2) ESO Garching (3) Universitäts-Sternwarte München (4) UCO Lick -- Observatory/UC Santa Cruz (5) UC Santa Barbara (6) Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (7) Observatoire de Paris (8) Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemissionquasarpairsintergalacticmediumcircumgalacticphotoionizationmodelingcosmicwebMUSEintegralfieldspectroscopyhigh-redshiftquasars
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the discovery of filamentary Lyman-alpha emission bridging two faint quasars at redshift ~3, separated by 89 projected kpc, and argues through photoionization modelling that this emission traces intergalactic gas physically connecting the pair. The key claim is that the emitting structure extends between roughly 89 and 600 kpc along the line of sight, and that the alternative reading, in which the quasars are 2.9 Mpc apart in the Hubble flow, is ruled out. If correct, this is a direct observation of cosmic-web gas illuminated by a quasar pair, obtained with only 45 minutes of MUSE/VLT time. It also demonstrates that faint quasar pairs can act as flashlights to reveal large-scale intergalactic structures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a set of Cloudy photoionization models, a standard photoionization code, applied to plane-parallel gas slabs with fixed volume density nH = 0.5 $cm^{-3}$, metallicity Z = 0.1 Zsun, and total hydrogen column NH = $10^{20}$.5 $cm^{-2}$, illuminated by the two quasar spectral energy distributions at three assumed separations: 89 kpc, 600 kpc, and 2.9 Mpc. By comparing the predicted Lyα surface brightness and the He II/Lyα and C IV/Lyα ratios against the observed emission and upper limits, the models discriminate between physically connected bridges and chance alignment. The 2.9 Mpc model underpredicts the surface brightness and predicts two distinct nebulae, which are not seen.

What would settle it

Measure the Lyα line profile at the bridge midpoint at spectral resolution better than about 175 km/s: the 600 kpc configuration predicts optically thick gas with double-peaked or strongly asymmetric Lyα profiles there, while the 89 kpc configuration predicts optically thin gas with no such doubling. Detecting extended He II or C IV emission at the levels expected for compact gas, or finding a galaxy population along the bridge, would further discriminate between the configurations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two z~3 quasars separated by 11.6 arcsec (89 projected kpc) are connected by filamentary Lyα-emitting bridges with an average surface brightness of 1.8e-18 erg $s^{-1}$ $cm^{-2}$ $arcsec^{-2}$ and an average projected width of about 35 kpc. Photoionization models matching the Lyα, He II, and C IV constraints reproduce the observed emission when the quasars are separated by roughly 89 to 600 kpc, but fail to do so when the separation is 2.9 Mpc as inferred from the systemic redshift difference interpreted as Hubble flow. The authors therefore conclude that the bridges are intergalactic gas physically connecting the pair, and that the 2.9 Mpc configuration is ruled out. Absorption-line data add that the foreground sightline sees cool, metal-enriched (Z > 0.3 Zsun), relatively ionized gas associated with the pair, plus two additional H I absorbers possibly tracing large-scale structures or expanding shells.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumed slab geometry and fixed gas parameters (nH = 0.5 $cm^{-3}$, Z = 0.1 Zsun, NH = $10^{20}$.5 $cm^{-2}$) used in every configuration; if the true gas is more diffuse, clumpy, or differently shaped, the inferred 89 to 600 kpc extent and the exclusion of the 2.9 Mpc scenario could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Short exposures with MUSE can reveal intergalactic bridges around faint quasar pairs, not only around the brightest quasars.
  • The combined illumination of two quasars boosts the Lyα signal, making close quasar pairs efficient flashlights for cosmic-web gas.
  • The inferred cool-gas properties (nH ~ 0.5 cm^-3, T ~ 10^4 K) on scales beyond individual halos give a concrete constraint for cosmological simulations of structure formation.
  • The two additional H I absorbers seen along both sightlines, with no detected galaxy counterparts, support the presence of large-scale coherent structures or expanding shells in front of the pair.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If confirmed, this technique could be turned into a survey: targeting many close quasar pairs would map the z ~ 3 cosmic web statistically rather than one bridge at a time.
  • Deeper observations of the same system could separate the 89 kpc and 600 kpc configurations by looking for the double-peaked Lyα profile that the 600 kpc model predicts at the bridge center.
  • The mass estimate treats nH = 0.5 cm^-3 gas as a tracer of the structure; the actual total gas mass could be much larger if the volume filling factor is low, or much smaller if the dense parcels belong to undetected satellite galaxies rather than the intergalactic medium.
  • Comparing these bridges with cosmological simulations of quasar-pair environments would test whether line-of-sight extents of a few hundred kpc are common or require fine-tuning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports MUSE/VLT observations of a faint z~3 quasar pair (SDSS J113502.03-022110.9 and SDSS J113502.50-022120.1) separated by 11.6 arcsec (89 projected kpc). The authors detect extended, filamentary Lyα emission between the two quasars with an average surface brightness of 1.8e-18 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2, and use photoionization models constrained by Lyα, He II, and C IV line measurements to argue the emission is produced by intergalactic bridges with an extent between ~89 and ~600 kpc. They further claim their models rule out a 2.9 Mpc Hubble-flow separation corresponding to the quasar systemic redshift difference. The paper also analyzes several H I, N V, and C IV absorption systems along both quasar sight-lines, interpreting them as cool, metal-enriched CGM/IGM structures associated with the pair.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a direct observation of cosmic-web gas illuminated by a quasar pair, demonstrating that short MUSE exposures of faint quasar pairs can reveal large-scale intergalactic structures. The paper has notable strengths: the detection is documented with S/N contours, a pseudo narrow-band image, smoothed chi maps, velocity-gradient maps, and candid caveats; the PSF subtraction is based on an in-field star; and the absorption-line modeling is careful. The central physical-extent claim, however, rests on two load-bearing simplifications: an approximate treatment of Lyα resonant scattering for the line-profile argument, and a Cloudy grid in which the gas density is chosen to match the observed surface brightness. These issues make the 'rule out 2.9 Mpc' statement stronger than the current model support, but the detection itself and the qualitative interpretation as intergalactic gas are credible and of high scientific value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 / 5.2.2 / 5.2.5] The decisive argument against the 2.9 Mpc Hubble-flow configuration is the observed single-peaked Lyα profiles with smooth ~400-600 km/s gradients and the absence of a clear double-peaked nebula (Sec. 4.1, Figs. 3-4). However, the line-profile prediction used to interpret these data is computed with the approximate scattering estimate of Sec. 5.2.2 (Eq. 4), which fixes W(cosθ)=0.5, assumes a 200 km/s infall, and uses a simple P^2 escape probability; the authors themselves state that only a Monte Carlo Lyα radiative-transfer calculation can properly handle this problem. Because resonant scattering in optically thick CGM gas at impact parameters ~44 kpc can erase or shift double peaks and produce smooth gradients, the current data do not yet exclude a projection of two quasar halos along the line of sight. I recommend either adding a Monte Carlo radiative-transfer test for representative configurations or explicitly framing the 2.9 Mpc rejection as conditional on the adopted scattering model. Note that the Cloudy surface-brightness deficit in the 2.9 Mpc case (Sec. 5.2.5, Fig. 11) is not the main weakness, as it is computed in the optically thick R^-2 regime and is insensitive to the chosen nH (Eq. 1).
  2. [Secs. 5.2.4 and 5.2.6] The inferred maximum extent of ~600 kpc and the exclusion of the 2.9 Mpc configuration depend on the adopted Cloudy grid, which fixes nH=0.5 cm^-3, Z=0.1 Z_sun, NH=10^20.5 cm^-2, and a plane-parallel geometry. The authors state in Sec. 5.2.6 that nH 'is chosen large enough to allow for a match of the observed SBLyα', and in Sec. 5.2.6 that densities like 0.5 cm^-3 are 'quite unrealistic' for pure IGM unless tracing emission close to faint galaxies. Since the same grid is used to place an upper limit on the structure length, the paper should explore, or at least discuss quantitatively, the degeneracy between nH, covering/filling factor, and clumpiness. In particular, a lower-density, higher-covering-factor model with more diffuse gas could plausibly match the observed surface brightness and line-ratio upper limits while allowing a larger physical extent. Without such a sensitivity test, the claim that the emitting structures cannot extend to ~2.9 Mpc is not fully supported.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 and Appendix A] The PSF subtraction relies on a single in-field star, 2MASS J11350307-0220597, scaled and subtracted at each quasar position out to 5 arcsec (Appendix A). The extended Lyα bridge is detected at an average SB of 1.8e-18 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2, only about 2.6 times the quoted 2σ per-channel limit of 7e-19 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2, so the bridge morphology and connecting structure could be sensitive to PSF-subtraction systematics, for example field-position dependence of the PSF or the correction for the faint source near the PSF star. I request an estimate of these systematics, e.g., by repeating the subtraction with a Moffat profile with β varied over the plausible range, and by reporting how the bridge area, SB, and velocity gradient change.
  4. [Sec. 5.1 and Table 1] The 2.9 Mpc separation is inferred from a quasar systemic redshift difference of Δv = 896 ± 316 km/s, with an additional intrinsic uncertainty of ~233 km/s quoted in Table 1. The two quasars' Lyα peaks differ by only 598 ± 98 km/s, and the authors note that a strong absorber near QSO1's Lyα line may further bias the measurement. The phrase 'ruled out' is too strong given this uncertainty and the model dependence; at the 1σ lower end of the systemic redshift difference, the Hubble-flow distance would be significantly smaller than 2.9 Mpc. The paper should marginalize over the allowed redshift range, or alternatively soften the conclusion to state that the simplest 2.9 Mpc Hubble-flow interpretation is strongly disfavored but not strictly excluded by the current data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 1] In the first paragraph, the expected low IGM density is written as 'nH ≲ 0.01 cm−2'; the unit should be cm^-3.
  2. [Sec. 5.2.2] The sentence 'we use a fixed set of parameters for θ, the relative gas velocity, and P' is ambiguous because P is not a fixed input parameter but is computed via Eq. (4); please rephrase for clarity.
  3. [Appendix B] The interloper galaxy at z~0.457 lies in projection between the quasars and could in principle absorb part of the Lyα bridge emission, but the paper does not quantify this effect; even a rough estimate of the expected attenuation would be useful.
  4. [Sec. 2] The selection criterion 'Δz ≤ 0.03 (corresponding to ≤ 2000 km/s)' is used to define the pair as 'physical', yet later the paper argues the two quasars may not be at the same distance along the line of sight; consider using a less committal term such as 'candidate physical pair' in the selection description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the bridge detection and model discrimination rest on independent observables; the fitted density is a nuisance parameter, not a renamed prediction.

full rationale

The extended Ly-alpha emission is a direct observational product of PSF subtraction and 3D masking (Section 3.1), independent of the photoionization modeling. The Cloudy grids do fix nH = 0.5 cm^-3, Z = 0.1 Zsun, and NH = 10^20.5 cm^-2, and Section 5.2.6 states that 'the nH is chosen large enough to allow for a match of the observed SBLy-alpha.' This is an explicit parameter choice, but the paper does not use that same single number to fabricate the central claim: the 89 kpc configuration is tested against independent HeII/Ly-alpha and CIV/Ly-alpha upper limits (Figures 10), and the 600 kpc and 2.9 Mpc configurations are additionally assessed against the observed line kinematics and the absence of a two-nebula double-peaked signature (Section 5.2.5). The exclusion of the 2.9 Mpc Hubble-flow configuration does not reduce to the fitted density because in the optically thick regime the predicted surface brightness follows SB ~ L/R^2, independent of nH (Eq. 1; Section 5.2.5), and the analytical estimate in Section 5.1 already places the 2.9 Mpc prediction roughly 30x below the observed value. Self-citations (Arrigoni Battaia et al. 2015a; Hennawi & Prochaska 2013) supply standard SED assumptions and analytic formulas that are also re-derived or reproduced with Cloudy in this paper; they are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem. The acknowledged lack of a Monte Carlo Ly-alpha radiative-transfer treatment (Section 5.2.2) is a modeling caveat and correctness risk, not a circular step. No claimed prediction is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard photoionization modeling whose density, metallicity, column density, and covering factors are taken from prior absorber studies or chosen to match the observed brightness, plus instrument, redshift, and SED assumptions. No new physical particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • nH (gas volume density) = 0.5 cm^-3
    Chosen for the Cloudy bridge models; Section 5.2.6 states it is selected to match the observed SBLy-alpha. It drives the predicted Lyman-alpha brightness and the inferred bridge length.
  • Z (gas metallicity) = 0.1 Zsun
    Assumed fixed for the bridge models; affects the predicted HeII/Ly-alpha and CIV/Ly-alpha ratios used to test the three configurations.
  • NH (total hydrogen column) = 10^20.5 cm^-2
    Assumed from the median absorber column around z~2 quasars (Lau et al. 2016) and used as the Cloudy stopping column for all bridge slabs and for mass estimates.
  • Doppler b parameter for HI absorbers = 50, 100, or 200 km/s, degenerate with NHI
    Fixed during Voigt-profile fits because of MUSE spectral resolution; the reported absorber column densities (log NHI 15-17) and their interpretation depend on this assumption.
  • Covering/filling factor fC or fV = 1.0
    Used in the analytic surface-brightness estimates and in the cool-gas mass upper limits; no direct observational constraint is available for these factors.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The empirical PSF from star 2MASS J11350307-0220597 represents the quasar PSF after layer-by-layer scaling.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A; residual PSF mismatch could mimic or distort the bridge emission.
  • domain assumption SDSS systemic redshifts, with an intrinsic uncertainty near 233 km/s, and the Ly-alpha peak redshifts bracket the line-of-sight separation of the pair.
    Section 2 and Table 1; the 2.9 Mpc alternative is built on this uncertain velocity difference.
  • domain assumption Plane-parallel Cloudy slabs with uniform density, metallicity, and total column adequately represent the emitting gas.
    Sections 5.2.4 to 5.2.6; the inferred 89 to 600 kpc extent is derived from these models.
  • domain assumption Composite quasar SED templates from Vanden Berk, Lusso, and Richards describe the ionizing continua of these faint quasars.
    Section 5.2.1; MUSE spectra cover only a limited wavelength range of the full SED.
  • domain assumption The Haardt and Madau (2012) ultraviolet background at z=3 is an appropriate additional ionizing background.
    Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.5; included in the models at large distances from the quasars.
  • ad hoc to paper The approximate Ly-alpha resonant-scattering estimate is adequate at the radii that matter for the conclusions.
    Section 5.2.2; the authors call the treatment crude and use fixed phase function, 200 km/s infall, and equal optical depths for the two sight-line segments.
  • domain assumption The interloper galaxy G at tentative z=0.457 is not significantly absorbing or emitting the Lyman-alpha bridge.
    Appendix B; the galaxy is masked, but if its dust lies in front of the system, it could absorb Lyman-alpha photons.
  • domain assumption The MUSE pipeline v2.2 reduction, layer-by-layer variance rescaling, and ZAP sky subtraction provide a trustworthy noise model.
    Section 3; the variance correction accounts for correlated noise but is not independently validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of intergalactic bridges connecting two faint $z\sim3$ quasars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJ5GGSOQ

@misc{pith2026190900829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of intergalactic bridges connecting two faint $z\sim3$ quasars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJ5GGSOQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00829}
}
abstract

We use MUSE/VLT to conduct a survey of $z\sim3$ physical quasar pairs at close separation with a fast observation strategy. Our aim is twofold: (i) explore the Ly$\alpha$ glow around the faint-end of the quasar population; (ii) take advantage of the combined illumination of a quasar pair to unveil large-scale intergalactic structures extending between the two quasars. Here, we report the results for a quasar pair ($z=3.020,3.008$; $i=21.84,22.15$), separated by 11.6 arcsec (or 89 projected kpc). MUSE reveals filamentary Ly$\alpha$ structures extending between the two quasars with an average surface brightness of SB$_{\rm Ly\alpha}=1.8\times10^{-18}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ arcsec$^{-2}$. Photoionization models of the constraints in the Ly$\alpha$, HeII, and CIV line emissions show that the emitting structures are intergalactic bridges with an extent between $\sim89$ and up to $\sim600$ kpc. Our models rule out the possibility that the structure extends for $\sim 2.9$ Mpc, i.e., the separation inferred from the uncertain systemic redshift difference of the quasars if the difference was only due to the Hubble flow. At the current spatial resolution and surface brightness limit, the average projected width of an individual bridge is about 35 kpc. We also detect a strong absorption in HI, NV, and CIV along the background sight-line at higher $z$, which we interpret as due to at least two components of cool, metal enriched, and relatively ionized CGM or IGM surrounding the quasar pair. Two additional HI absorbers are detected along both quasar sight-lines at $\sim -900$ and $-2800$ km s$^{-1}$ from the system, with the latter having associated CIV absorption only along the foreground quasar sight-line. The absence of galaxies in the MUSE field of view at the redshifts of these two absorbers suggests that they trace large-scale structures or expanding shells in front of the quasar pair.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 1D spectra (black) for the two quasars of the pair, QSO1 (top) and QSO2 (bottom), as extracted from the MUSE data, using a circular aperture with radius 200 . The red spectra indicate the error vectors. The vertical dashed blue (magenta) lines indicate the position of important line emissions at the systemic redshift of QSO1 (QSO2). For both objects, we show in the inset plots a zoomed version of the spectrum at the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. White-light image of the observed 5700 × 5700field of view. We indicate the position of QSO1, QSO2, the star 2MASS J11350307- 0220597 used to compute the point spread function of our data (Ap￾pendix A), and an interloper galaxy “G” (tentatively at z = 0.457 ± 0.001; Appendix B). Additionally, we indicate the 2σ isophote for the extended Lyα emission discovered around the quasar pair ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Lyα emission around the quasar pair in a field of view of about 200 kpc × 200 kpc (or 2600 × 2600). Left: “optimally extracted” Lyα surface brightness map obtained after subtraction of the quasars point-spread-function (PSF) and continuum in the MUSE datacube (details in Section 3.1). To highlight the significance of the detected emission, we indicate the contours for S/N = 3 and 4. This image reveals Lyα bridge… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: “optimally extracted” Lyα surface brightness map as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The flux-weighted velocity-dispersion map obtained as the sec￾ond order moment of the flux distribution within the 3D mask described in Section 3.1. The map shows the same field-of-view and uses the same symbols and nomenclature as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The profiles of the absorbers along the QSO1 sight-line at the H i Lyα, N v, Si ii, Cii, and Civ lines. The black histograms show the continuum normalized data, while the orange lines are the sum of all the Gaussian components of the best fit. The locations of the abso…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The spectral energy distribution (SED) of QSO1 (blue) and QSO2 (orange), used as incident radiation in the Cloudy calculations. We compare the models with the available MUSE data (lighter color for each quasar). In the left panel, the vertical lines indicate the ener￾g…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the results of this calculation for the NHI (top panel) and the SBLyα (lower panel) as a function of dis￾tance from QSO1. The two regimes described in Section 5.1, optically thin and optically thick to the ionizing radiation, are readily evident (the dotted gray …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cloudy predictions for plane parallel slabs with total log(NH/cm−2 ) = 20.5 and nH = 0.5 cm−3 , illuminated by the quasar pair QSO1 and QSO2 placed at a separation equal to their observed projected distance (89 kpc). Top left: column density of H i, NH i , as a functi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cloudy prediction for plane parallel slabs with total log(NH/cm−2 ) = 20.5 and nH = 0.5 cm−3 , illuminated by the quasar pair QSO1 and QSO2, placed at a separation of 2.9 Mpc, as derived from their systemic redshifts. Top left: column density of H i, NH i , as a funct…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: As expected from the analytical modeling and from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cloudy prediction for plane parallel slabs with total log(NH/cm−2 ) = 20.5 and nH = 0.5 cm−3 , illuminated by the quasar pair QSO1 and QSO2, placed at an intermediate separation of 600 kpc. Top left: column density of H i, NH i , as a function of distance, color-coded…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dashed (dotted-dashed) vertical lines show the systemic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    S., Aguilar , G., et al

    Abolfathi , B., Aguado , D. S., Aguilar , G., et al. 2018, , 235, 42

    2018

  4. [4]

    1993, , 31, 473

    Antonucci , R. 1993, , 31, 473

    1993

  5. [5]

    F., Cantalupo , S., & Prochaska , J

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Hennawi , J. F., Cantalupo , S., & Prochaska , J. X. 2016, , 829, 3

    2016

  6. [6]

    F., Prochaska , J

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Hennawi , J. F., Prochaska , J. X., & Cantalupo , S. 2015 a , , 809, 163

    2015

  7. [7]

    F., Prochaska , J

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Hennawi , J. F., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2019, , 482, 3162

    2019

  8. [8]

    X., Hennawi , J

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2018, , 473, 3907

    2018

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    F., et al

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Yang , Y., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2015 b , , 804, 26

    2015

  2. [10]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bacon , R., Accardo , M., Adjali , L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series

    2010

  3. [11]

    2017, , 608, A1

    Bacon , R., Conseil , S., Mary , D., et al. 2017, , 608, A1

    2017

  4. [12]

    C., & McMahon , R

    Banerji , M., Alaghband-Zadeh , S., Hewett , P. C., & McMahon , R. G. 2015, , 447, 3368

    2015

  5. [13]

    2014, , 438, 604

    Baskin , A., Laor , A., & Stern , J. 2014, , 438, 604

    2014

  6. [14]

    H., White , R

    Becker , R. H., White , R. L., & Helfand , D. J. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 61, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems III, ed. D. R. Crabtree , R. J. Hanisch , & J. Barnes , 165

    1994

  7. [15]

    A., Chisholm , J., Erb , D

    Berg , D. A., Chisholm , J., Erb , D. K., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.06434

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    & Schaye , J

    Bertone , S. & Schaye , J. 2012, , 419, 780

    2012

  9. [17]

    R., Kofman , L., & Pogosyan , D

    Bond , J. R., Kofman , L., & Pogosyan , D. 1996, , 380, 603

    1996

  10. [18]

    J., et al

    Borisova , E., Cantalupo , S., Lilly , S. J., et al. 2016, , 831, 39

    2016

  11. [19]

    2017, , 837, 71

    Cai , Z., Fan , X., Yang , Y., et al. 2017, , 837, 71

    2017

  12. [20]

    2018, , 861, L3

    Cai , Z., Hamden , E., Matuszewski , M., et al. 2018, , 861, L3

    2018

  13. [21]

    X., Hennawi , J

    Cantalupo , S., Arrigoni-Battaia , F., Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., & Madau , P. 2014, , 506, 63

    2014

  14. [22]

    J., et al

    Cantalupo , S., Pezzulli , G., Lilly , S. J., et al. 2019, , 483, 5188

    2019

  15. [23]

    J., & Miniati , F

    Cantalupo , S., Porciani , C., Lilly , S. J., & Miniati , F. 2005, , 628, 61

    2005

  16. [24]

    Christensen , L., Jahnke , K., Wisotzki , L., & S \'a nchez , S. F. 2006, , 459, 717

    2006

  17. [25]

    2012, , 744, 110

    Ciardullo , R., Gronwall , C., Wolf , C., et al. 2012, , 744, 110

    2012

  18. [26]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  19. [27]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1704.03416 ]

    Dijkstra , M. 2017, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1704.03416 ]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2006, , 649, 37

    Dijkstra , M., Haiman , Z., & Spaans , M. 2006, , 649, 37

    2006

  21. [29]

    & Loeb , A

    Dijkstra , M. & Loeb , A. 2008, , 386, 492

    2008

  22. [30]

    Draine , B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  23. [31]

    B., Hennawi , J

    Eilers , A.-C., Davies , F. B., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2017, , 840, 24

    2017

  24. [32]

    P., Venemans , B

    Farina , E. P., Venemans , B. P., Decarli , R., et al. 2017, , 848, 78

    2017

  25. [33]

    J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al

    Ferland , G. J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al. 2017, , 53, 385

    2017

  26. [34]

    R., Prochaska , J

    Findlay , J. R., Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2018, , 236, 44

    2018

  27. [35]

    E., et al

    Fukugita , M., Ichikawa , T., Gunn , J. E., et al. 1996, , 111, 1748

    1996

  28. [36]

    G., Cantalupo , S., Lilly , S., et al

    Gallego , S. G., Cantalupo , S., Lilly , S., et al. 2018, , 475, 3854

    2018

  29. [37]

    F., Baum , S

    Gallimore , J. F., Baum , S. A., O'Dea , C. P., Pedlar , A., & Brinks , E. 1999, , 524, 684

    1999

  30. [38]

    2016, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Gil de Paz , A., Gallego , J., Carrasco , E., et al. 2016, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 507, Multi-Object Spectroscopy in the Next Decade: Big Questions, Large Surveys, and Wide Fields, ed. I. Skillen , M. Balcells , & S. Trager , 103

    2016

  31. [39]

    & Ceverino , D

    Goerdt , T. & Ceverino , D. 2015, , 450, 3359

    2015

  32. [40]

    & Weinberg , D

    Gould , A. & Weinberg , D. H. 1996, , 468, 462

    1996

  33. [41]

    & Bird , S

    Gronke , M. & Bird , S. 2017, , 835, 207

    2017

  34. [42]

    & Madau , P

    Haardt , F. & Madau , P. 2012, , 746, 125

    2012

  35. [43]

    & Rees , M

    Haiman , Z. & Rees , M. J. 2001, , 556, 87

    2001

  36. [44]

    M., Alexander , D

    Harrison , C. M., Alexander , D. M., Mullaney , J. R., & Swinbank , A. M. 2014, , 441, 3306

    2014

  37. [45]

    M., Miley , G

    Heckman , T. M., Miley , G. K., Lehnert , M. D., & van Breugel , W. 1991, , 370, 78

    1991

  38. [46]

    Hennawi , J. F. & Prochaska , J. X. 2007, , 655, 735

    2007

  39. [47]

    Hennawi , J. F. & Prochaska , J. X. 2013, , 766, 58 (QPQ4)

    2013

  40. [48]

    F., Prochaska , J

    Hennawi , J. F., Prochaska , J. X., Burles , S., et al. 2006 a , , 651, 61

    2006

  41. [49]

    F., Prochaska , J

    Hennawi , J. F., Prochaska , J. X., Cantalupo , S., & Arrigoni-Battaia , F. 2015, Science, 348, 779

    2015

  42. [50]

    F., Prochaska , J

    Hennawi , J. F., Prochaska , J. X., Kollmeier , J., & Zheng , Z. 2009, , 693, L49

    2009

  43. [51]

    F., Strauss , M

    Hennawi , J. F., Strauss , M. A., Oguri , M., et al. 2006 b , , 131, 1

    2006

  44. [52]

    Hu , E. M. & Cowie , L. L. 1987, , 317, L7

    1987

  45. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  46. [54]

    F., et al

    Husemann , B., Jahnke , K., S \'a nchez , S. F., et al. 2014, , 443, 755

    2014

  47. [55]

    S., Hennawi , J

    Khrykin , I. S., Hennawi , J. F., & Worseck , G. 2019, , 484, 3897

    2019

  48. [56]

    Klessen , R. S. & Glover , S. C. O. 2016, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 43, 85

    2016

  49. [57]

    A., Zheng , Z., Dav \'e , R., et al

    Kollmeier , J. A., Zheng , Z., Dav \'e , R., et al. 2010, , 708, 1048

    2010

  50. [58]

    W., Prochaska , J

    Lau , M. W., Prochaska , J. X., & Hennawi , J. F. 2016, , 226, 25

    2016

  51. [59]

    O., & Sommer-Larsen , J

    Laursen , P., Razoumov , A. O., & Sommer-Larsen , J. 2009, , 696, 853

    2009

  52. [60]

    2019, , 485, L62

    Lusso , E., Fumagalli , M., Fossati , M., et al. 2019, , 485, L62

    2019

  53. [61]

    F., et al

    Lusso , E., Worseck , G., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2015, , 449, 4204

    2015

  54. [62]

    C., Springel , V., & van de Voort , F

    Mandelker , N., van den Bosch , F. C., Springel , V., & van de Voort , F. 2019, , 881, L20

    2019

  55. [63]

    C., Chang , D., Matuszewski , M., et al

    Martin , D. C., Chang , D., Matuszewski , M., et al. 2014, , 786, 106

    2014

  56. [64]

    C., O'Sullivan , D., Matuszweski , M., et al

    Martin , D. C., O'Sullivan , D., Matuszweski , M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1904.11465 ]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    2004, Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, 169

    Martini , P. 2004, Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, 169

    2004

  58. [66]

    Meiksin , A. A. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 1405

    2009

  59. [67]

    2000, The Messenger, 99, 31

    M ller , P. 2000, The Messenger, 99, 31

    2000

  60. [68]

    J., Fall , S

    M ller , P., Warren , S. J., Fall , S. M., Jakobsen , P., & Fynbo , J. U. 2000, The Messenger, 99, 33

    2000

  61. [69]

    2012, in , Vol

    Morrissey , P., Matuszewski , M., Martin , C., et al. 2012, in , Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, 844613

    2012

  62. [70]

    P., Naab , T., & White , S

    Moster , B. P., Naab , T., & White , S. D. M. 2018, , 477, 1822

    2018

  63. [71]

    R., Alexander , D

    Mullaney , J. R., Alexander , D. M., Fine , S., et al. 2013, , 433, 622

    2013

  64. [72]

    Neufeld , D. A. 1990, , 350, 216

    1990

  65. [73]

    Oke , J. B. 1974, , 27, 21

    1974

  66. [74]

    P., et al

    P \^a ris , I., Petitjean , P., Ross , N. P., et al. 2017, , 597, A79

    2017

  67. [75]

    Pei , Y. C. 1992, , 395, 130

    1992

  68. [76]

    Prescott , M. K. M., Dey , A., & Jannuzi , B. T. 2009, , 702, 554

    2009

  69. [77]

    Prescott , M. K. M., Dey , A., & Jannuzi , B. T. 2013, , 762, 38

    2013

  70. [78]

    X., Hennawi , J

    Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., Lee , K.-G., et al. 2013, , 776, 136

    2013

  71. [79]

    C., Cox , D

    Raymond , J. C., Cox , D. P., & Smith , B. W. 1976, , 204, 290

    1976

  72. [80]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 231, 91p

    1988

  73. [81]

    T., Lacy , M., Storrie-Lombardi , L

    Richards , G. T., Lacy , M., Storrie-Lombardi , L. J., et al. 2006, , 166, 470

    2006

  74. [82]

    & Blaizot , J

    Rosdahl , J. & Blaizot , J. 2012, , 423, 344

    2012

  75. [83]

    Schlafly , E. F. & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  76. [84]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525

    1998

  77. [85]

    M., Hennawi , J

    Schmidt , T. M., Hennawi , J. F., Worseck , G., et al. 2018, , 861, 122

    2018

  78. [86]

    N., Richards , G

    Shen , Y., Brandt , W. N., Richards , G. T., et al. 2016, , 831, 7

    2016

  79. [87]

    T., Lilly , S

    Soto , K. T., Lilly , S. J., Bacon , R., Richard , J., & Conseil , S. 2016, , 458, 3210

    2016

  80. [88]

    Stenflo , J. O. 1980, , 84, 68

    1980

  81. [89]

    Storey , P. J. & Hummer , D. G. 1995, , 272, 41

    1995

  82. [90]

    V., Brandt , W

    Strateva , I. V., Brandt , W. N., Schneider , D. P., Vanden Berk , D. G., & Vignali , C. 2005, , 130, 387

    2005

  83. [91]

    S., & Werk , J

    Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M. S., & Werk , J. K. 2017, , 55, 389

    2017

  84. [92]

    E., Richards , G

    Vanden Berk , D. E., Richards , G. T., Bauer , A., et al. 2001, , 122, 549

    2001

  85. [93]

    P., Walter , F., Decarli , R., et al

    Venemans , B. P., Walter , F., Decarli , R., et al. 2017, , 851, L8

    2017

  86. [94]

    2006, , 460, 397

    Verhamme , A., Schaerer , D., & Maselli , A. 2006, , 460, 397

    2006

  87. [95]

    Weidinger , M., M ller , P., & Fynbo , J. P. U. 2004, , 430, 999

    2004

  88. [96]

    Weidinger , M., M ller , P., Fynbo , J. P. U., & Thomsen , B. 2005, , 436, 825

    2005

  89. [97]

    M., Streicher , O., Urrutia , T., et al

    Weilbacher , P. M., Streicher , O., Urrutia , T., et al. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ed. N. Manset & P. Forshay , 451

    2014

  90. [98]

    D., Ross , N

    White , M., Myers , A. D., Ross , N. P., et al. 2012, , 424, 933

    2012

  91. [99]

    White , S. D. M., Frenk , C. S., Davis , M., & Efstathiou , G. 1987, , 313, 505

    1987

  92. [100]

    Wiersma , R. P. C., Schaye , J., & Smith , B. D. 2009, , 393, 99

    2009

  93. [101]

    2018, , 562, 229

    Wisotzki , L., Bacon , R., Brinchmann , J., et al. 2018, , 562, 229

    2018

  94. [102]

    Witstok , J., Puchwein , E., Kulkarni , G., Smit , R., & Haehnelt , M. G. 2019, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1905.06954 ]

    2019 arXiv

  95. [103]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.