Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Searching for the shadows of giants: characterising protoclusters with line of sight Lyman-{\alpha} absorption

T0 review · 3 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 Coherent strong Lyman-alpha absorption is not a reliable protocluster tracer: even with perfect cleaning, roughly half of such sightlines miss the clusters, and fewer than 0.1 per cent of protocluster sightlines pass the standard threshold.

desk verdict A careful hydro simulation study that credibly overturns the prior claim that CoSLAs are good protocluster tracers, though the quantitative fractions need more validation. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02513 v2 pith:L2QKQ6LL submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Joel S. A. Miller , James S. Bolton , Nina Hatch This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords protoclustersLyman-alphaforestintergalacticmediumquasarabsorptionlineshydrodynamicsimulationsdampedabsorberscoherentlystronggalaxyclusterformation
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 tests a proposed shortcut for finding protoclusters at $z\sim2.4$: look for coherent stretches of strong Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption in background quasar spectra, dubbed CoSLAs. Using three hydrodynamic simulations that follow gas and galaxies down to $z=0$, the authors check whether these absorption segments actually pass through the regions that will become $M_{\rm z=0}\gtrsim10^{14}\,M_\odot$ clusters. They find only a weak, highly scattered correlation between mass overdensity $\delta_{\rm m}$ and effective optical depth contrast $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}$ on $15\,h^{-1}\,\rm cMpc$ scales. Even assuming perfect removal of damped Ly-$\alpha$ systems, only about half of CoSLA sightlines trace protoclusters, and less than $0.1$ per cent of sightlines through protoclusters meet the standard $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}>3.5$ threshold. The same absorption signal, however, may be a useful geometric tracer of gas filaments aligned along the line of sight.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of mock Lyman-$\alpha$ spectra generated from three independently calibrated cosmological hydrodynamic simulations, with protoclusters defined by tracing $z=0$ friends-of-friends haloes of mass $M_{\rm z=0}\ge10^{14}\,M_\odot$ back to $z\simeq2.4$. Each sightline is divided into $15\,h^{-1}\,\rm cMpc$ segments; the mass overdensity $\delta_{\rm m}$ of the surrounding cubic volume is then compared with the effective optical depth contrast $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}$ of the spectrum. The CoSLA criterion ($\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}>3.5$ after removing segments containing SLLSs or DLAs) is the selection rule under test, and completeness and contamination are computed as functions of the $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}$ threshold.

What would settle it

If observed CoSLA-selected fields at $z\sim2.3$ are followed up and the fraction that turns out to be associated with massive $z=0$ cluster descendants differs substantially from the roughly 55 per cent predicted here, the simulated clustering of high-column-density absorbers along sightlines would be ruled out. A more direct test is to measure the line-of-sight clustering of LLSs, SLLSs, and DLAs at $z\simeq2.4$ toward quasar pairs and compare it with the simulations' predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that coherently strong intergalactic Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption (CoSLAs, defined as $15\,h^{-1}\,\rm cMpc$ spectral segments with $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}>3.5$ after removing damped systems) is neither a unique nor a complete signpost for $M_{\rm z=0}\ge10^{14}\,M_\odot$ protoclusters at $z\simeq2.4$. In the primary simulation, CoSLAs are rare, cover a broad $\delta_{\rm m}$ range including underdense volumes, and $55$ per cent are associated with a protocluster. Conversely, $84$ per cent of sightlines through protoclusters contain only low-column-density Ly-$\alpha$ forest absorption with $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}<1$, and fewer than $0.1$ per cent of protocluster sightlines reach the CoSLA threshold once damped systems are excluded. Raising the threshold to $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}>4.1$ yields a completely clean protocluster sample, but completeness drops to about $17$ per cent; the authors note this is likely a lower limit because their volumes contain no $10^{15}\,M_\odot$ progenitors.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the simulated incidence and line-of-sight clustering of high-column-density H I absorbers (LLSs, SLLSs, DLAs) at $z\sim2.4$ matches reality, since these systems dominate the high-$\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}$ tail; only the one-point column-density distribution is checked against observations, and the agreement at the highest columns is admitted to be possibly fortuitous.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surveys that use CoSLAs to find protoclusters at $z\sim2$--$3$ will be heavily incomplete even in the ideal case of perfect damped-system removal; their selection functions must be calibrated before statistical use.
  • Raising the threshold to $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}\sim4.1$ after cleaning damped systems gives a pure but low-completeness protocluster sample (roughly 17 per cent of clusters), useful for studying individual extreme systems rather than populations.
  • Coherent strong absorption is a better geometric tracer of matter aligned along the line of sight than of bound overdensity; it may be used to map intergalactic filaments at $z>2$.
  • Correctly modelling both high-column-density absorbers and the opacity of underdense gas is necessary to predict the incidence of coherent absorption; low-resolution simulations overpredict CoSLA counts.
  • Rare, very massive protoclusters ($M_{\rm z=0}>10^{15}\,M_\odot$) are absent from these volumes, so the relation could be more favourable for the most extreme structures; the quoted completeness is likely a lower limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If CoSLAs preferentially select line-of-sight-aligned filamentary structures, their galaxy associations should differ from randomly chosen overdense regions: one would expect coherent absorption to correlate with elongated galaxy distributions and velocity caustics, a testable prediction for tomographic surveys.
  • Real surveys cannot achieve perfect damped-system removal, so in practice contamination will be higher than the paper's roughly 45 per cent; the technique likely needs ancillary galaxy or metal-line information to be usable.
  • The strong resolution dependence of CoSLA incidence implies that forecasts from older low-resolution dark-matter-only simulations need revisiting; observed CoSLA counts could be used to calibrate small-scale intergalactic-medium opacity models.
  • The clean threshold at $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}>4.1$ is model-dependent; a robust estimator should be calibrated in each observed data set using the distribution of $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}$ itself.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses three hydrodynamical simulations (Sherwood, EAGLE, Illustris) at z ~ 2.4 to test whether coherently strong Ly-alpha absorption on 15 h^-1 cMpc scales (CoSLAs, defined by delta_tau_eff > 3.5 after removing damped systems) traces z = 0 M >= 10^14 Msun protoclusters. It finds a weak delta_m - delta_tau_eff correlation with large scatter and shows that most sightlines through protoclusters are indistinguishable from the low-column-density Ly-alpha forest. In Sherwood, 12 of 22 post-DLA CoSLAs are associated with protoclusters; a threshold delta_tau_eff > 4.1 produces zero contamination but only 17% completeness, and fewer than 0.1% of sightlines through protoclusters meet the CoSLA threshold. The paper concludes that CoSLAs are incomplete and non-unique protocluster tracers and may instead trace filamentary structure.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, this is an important correction to the Cai et al. (2016) picture and is directly relevant to upcoming DESI and WEAVE-QSO absorption surveys. Strengths of the paper include the use of three independent simulation codes with different feedback schemes, explicit tracking of z = 0 haloes back to z ~ 2.4, a CDDF validation, and resolution/box-size convergence tests. The paper is also careful to caveat its small box sizes and the absence of 10^15 Msun progenitors. The main quantitative claims, however, rest on small samples (22, 32 and 36 CoSLAs) and on the simulated line-of-sight clustering of LLSs/SLLSs, which is not validated; the central inference about non-uniqueness is therefore plausible but not yet fully pinned down.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3; Section 5.2, Figures 7 and 15] The central non-uniqueness result relies on the simulated population of LLSs and high-column Ly-alpha forest absorbers that remain after damped systems are removed, because these systems produce the CoSLA tail after DLA/SLLS removal. The only absorber validation, in Section 3 and Figure 1, is a one-point CDDF comparison with observational points displayed at N_HI < 10^17 cm^-2 and N_HI > 10^20 cm^-2, but not in the 10^17-10^20 cm^-2 interval that dominates the post-DLA CoSLA population; the authors themselves call the high-NHI agreement 'possibly fortuitous.' Because a 15 h^-1 cMpc segment is coherently strong only if these absorbers are aligned along the sightline, and no two-point or pair-sightline clustering test is provided, the 55/45 protocluster/field split in Figure 15 is not secure. I request either a quantitative clustering comparison (e.g., LLS/SLLS pair separations or quasar-pair statistics) or an explicit sensitivity test that varies LLS abundance and clustering while preserving the CDDF.
  2. [Section 5.3, Table 2, Figures 10-11] The resolution convergence test shows that the incidence of CoSLAs is not converged: N_CoSLA/V decreases from 4.9 x 10^-5 (80-512) to 3.1 x 10^-5 (80-1024) to 1.4 x 10^-5 (80-2048), and these tests use the QLy-alpha variant rather than the full-physics fiducial runs. Because the headline purity statement is based on only 22 CoSLAs in Sherwood, and the three full-physics simulations yield 22, 32 and 36 CoSLAs, the bootstrap uncertainties quoted in Section 5.2 understate the systematic uncertainty. The <0.1% completeness claim is more robust because it uses thousands of protocluster sightlines, but the quantitative 'approximately half' purity claim is not pinned down by the current tests.
  3. [Section 7, Figure 16] The zero-contamination threshold delta_tau_eff > 4.1 is selected post hoc from the same Sherwood sightlines used to evaluate it, and the evaluation sample contains only 22 CoSLAs. With such small numbers, the drop to zero contamination at delta_tau_eff = 4.1 may be a small-sample fluctuation rather than a stable prediction, and the threshold is explicitly model-dependent. I recommend presenting this as a proof-of-concept that a clean threshold exists in the simulations, with bootstrap or split-sample uncertainties, rather than as a predicted observable threshold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 8] The conclusions contain duplicated 'per cent per cent' and describe the CoSLA threshold as '4.5 times the average' while the body defines it as delta_tau_eff > 3.5; both should be cleaned up for consistency.
  2. [Section 4.1, footnote 8] The association criterion 'at least one third of the segment passes within R95' is plausible but arbitrary; a brief sensitivity test (e.g., varying the required fraction between 1/4 and 1/2) would make the protocluster/field classification less binary.
  3. [Section 2.4] Please specify the numerical value(s) of the optical-depth rescaling constant applied to each simulation, since the delta_tau_eff thresholds depend sensitively on the calibration to the Becker et al. (2013) tau_eff measurement.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption should state explicitly that no observational CDDF data are displayed in the LLS/SLLS range 10^17-10^20 cm^-2; this is currently only clear from the body text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are measured coincidences between simulated Ly-alpha absorption and z=0 descendant protoclusters, not reductions of outputs to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — a weak delta_m-delta_tau_eff correlation, roughly 55 per cent of CoSLAs associated with protoclusters, and high incompleteness of CoSLA-selected samples — are derived by measuring mock absorption along sight lines through hydrodynamical simulations and comparing those sight lines with z=0 friends-of-friends descendant masses. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the others: delta_tau_eff is computed from mock spectra after a constant rescaling to match the observed mean effective optical depth (a calibration, not a prediction), and protocluster association is defined by R95 volumes of z=0 descendants. The CoSLA threshold delta_tau_eff > 3.5 is adopted from Cai et al. (2016) as an external baseline rather than fitted here. The clean-sample threshold delta_tau_eff > 4.1 is selected in-sample from the Sherwood contamination curve and explicitly labelled 'model dependent'; the paper does not present it as an independent prediction, so it does not meet the fitted-input-called-prediction criterion. The CDDF comparison in Section 3 and the use of three independent simulations (Sherwood, EAGLE, Illustris) provide external validation for the absorber population, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The lack of a direct test of LLS/SLLS line-of-sight clustering is a validation gap and a correctness risk, but the manuscript itself flags the high-column-density CDDF agreement as 'possibly fortuitous'; this is an uncertainty, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on simulation fidelity, specifically absorber abundances, clustering, self-shielding, and on definitions of protocluster extent and association. The CDDF check is the main external benchmark; no code or data is released, and the pure-sample threshold is selected from the same simulations.

free parameters (2)
  • Optical depth rescaling constant = Normalized so mean effective optical depth tau_eff = 0.20 at z = 2.4
    Applied to all mock pixels to match the observed mean flux (Section 2.4), accounting for uncertainty in the H I photoionization rate; a single global constant, not fitted to the mass opacity relation.
  • Clean sample delta_tau_eff threshold = 4.1
    Chosen post hoc in Section 7 (Figure 16) as the lowest threshold at which contamination from non-protocluster segments drops to zero in Sherwood; the paper labels it model dependent, so it is a data-fitted parameter rather than an independently predicted cutoff.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Photo-ionization equilibrium with a spatially uniform UV background describes the IGM at z about 2.4.
    Used in all three simulations to compute H I fractions, with self-shielding added; stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Post-processing self-shielding from Rahmati et al. (2013) applied to Sherwood and EAGLE correctly captures LLS and DLA abundances.
    The CDDF comparison in Section 3 and Figure 1 is the only validation; clustering of these absorbers along sightlines is not independently tested.
  • domain assumption z = 0 friends-of-friends groups with M >= 10^14 M_sun define the protocluster population, and their particle members at z about 2.4 mark the protocluster region.
    Section 4.1; this is a standard but model-dependent choice that affects which CoSLAs are counted as associated with protoclusters.
  • ad hoc to paper A 15 h^-1 cMpc segment is associated with a protocluster if at least one third of it passes within R95 of the protocluster.
    Definition in Section 6 used to compute association fractions; changing this threshold changes completeness and contamination numbers.
  • standard math Voigt profile approximation and SPH or mesh interpolation schemes produce realistic mock Ly-alpha spectra.
    Section 2.4, following Theuns et al. (1998) and Tepper-Garcia (2006).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for the shadows of giants: characterising protoclusters with line of sight Lyman-{\alpha} absorption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L2QKQ6LL

@misc{pith2026190902513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for the shadows of giants: characterising protoclusters with line of sight Lyman-\alpha absorption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L2QKQ6LL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02513}
}
abstract

We use state of the art hydrodyamical simulations from the Sherwood, EAGLE and Illustris projects to examine the signature of $M_{\rm z=0}\simeq 10^{14}M_{\odot}$ protoclusters observed in Ly-$\alpha$ absorption at $z\simeq 2.4$. We find there is a weak correlation between the mass overdensity, $\delta_{\rm m}$, and the Ly-$\alpha$ effective optical depth relative to the mean, $\delta_{\tau_\textrm{eff}}$, averaged over $15~h^{-1}\rm\,cMpc$ scales, although scatter in the $\delta_{\rm m}$--$\delta_{\tau_\textrm{eff}}$ plane means it is not possible to uniquely identify large scale overdensities with strong Ly-$\alpha$ absorption. Although all protoclusters are associated with large scale mass overdensities, most sight lines through protoclusters in a $\sim 10^{6}$ $\rm cMpc^{3}$ volume probe the low column density Ly-$\alpha$ forest. A small subset of sight lines that pass through protoclusters exhibit coherent, strong Ly-$\alpha$ absorption on $15h^{-1}\rm\,cMpc$ scales, although these correspond to a wide range in mass overdensity. Assuming perfect removal of contamination by Ly-$\alpha$ absorbers with damping wings, more than half of the remaining sight lines with $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}>3.5$ trace protoclusters. It is furthermore possible to identify a model dependent $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}$ threshold that selects only protoclusters. However, such regions are rare: excluding absorption caused by damped systems, less than 0.1 per cent of sight lines that pass through a protocluster have $\delta_{\tau_{\rm eff}}>3.5$, meaning that any protocluster sample selected in this manner will also be highly incomplete. On the other hand, coherent regions of Ly-$\alpha$ absorption also provide a promising route for identifying and studying filamentary environments at high redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The H I column density distribution function (CDDF) at z ' 2.4 obtained from Sherwood (solid blue curve), EAGLE (orange curve) and Illustris (brown curve). For comparison, the dotted blue line represents the CDDF from the QLy-α simulation. Observational data from Kim et al. (2013) at hz i = 2.7 and hz i = 2.13 have been added at NHI < 1017 cm−2 , while data points from Noterdaeme et al. (2012) at hz i = 2.5 and Proc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Distribution of R95 for the protoclusters (blue) and large and small protogroups (orange and brown) in Sherwood (left), EAGLE (centre) and Illustris (right) at z ∼ 2.4. Bottom: Scatter plots showing the triaxiality (where T = 1 and T = 0 are prolate and oblate spheroids, respectively) against the sphericity (where s = 1 and s = 0 are spherical and aspherical, respectively) of the protoclusters and protogroups, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Projected maps of the normalised gas density, temperature and H I fraction for protoclusters at z ∼ 2.4 with masses Mz=0 = 1014.3 M , Mz=0 = 1014.4 M and Mz=0 = 1014.3 M in Sherwood (top row), eagle (middle row) and Illustris (bottom row). The projection depth along the z-axis is 15h −1 cMpc, and is centred on the centre of mass of each protocluster. The dashed circles show R95, and the star symbols correspond to th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Volume weighted distributions of the normalised gas density, temperature and H i fraction in all protoclusters (line histograms) compared to the field (filled histograms) in Sherwood (blue), EAGLE (orange) and Illustris (brown). 0 2 4 6 δτeff −0.50 −0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relationship between δm and δτeff on 15 h −1 cMpc scales (following Cai et al. 2016). Left to right, the panels show the results from Sherwood, EAGLE and Illustris. The contours represent the number density of data points relative to the central contour, with the n…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The fraction of 15h −1 cMpc segments in bins of ∆δm = 0.2 whose largest constituent H I column density measured on 50 km s−1 scales corresponds to either Ly-α forest, LLSs, SLLSs or DLAs in Sherwood (left), EAGLE (centre) and Illustris (right). The upper panels display…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability distribution of δm for 15h −1 cMpc vol￾umes with an associated δτeff > 3.5 (i.e. CoSLAs) after removing all sight lines containing damped systems in Sherwood (blue), EAGLE (orange) and Illustris (brown). The corresponding dis￾tribution from the analysis of …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of two 15h −1 cMpc volumes with an associ￾ated δτeff > 3.5 (i.e. CoSLAs) in Sherwood, one of which is drawn from an underdense volume with δm = −0.09 (left), with the other corresponding to an overdense volume with δm = 0.98 (right). In each case, the upper pa…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The probability distribution of CoSLAs as a function of δm (upper panel) and δτeff (lower panel) for the QLy-α model (80-1024) compared to a simulation with the same mass resolution but a volume eight times larger (160-2048). The δm distribution from C16 is displayed …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The probability distribution of CoSLAs as a function of δm (upper panel) and δτeff (lower panel) for the QLy-α model (80-1024) compared to a simulations with the same box size but a particle mass that is eight times larger (80-512) or smaller (80- 2048). The δm distri…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Simulated CoSLAs from the same segment drawn from the 80-512 (blue) and 80-2048 (dark red) models. This seg￾ment corresponds to δτeff = 3.90 in 80-512 but only δτeff = 3.67 in 80-2048, due to the increased transmission from the better re￾solved underdense gas in the h…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top: Total number of 15h −1 cMpc segments in bins of ∆δτeff = 0.3. Middle: The fraction of 15h −1 cMpc segments in bins of ∆δτeff = 0.3 associated with protoclusters or protogroups. The colour of each stacked bar indicates the mass of the protocluster or protogroup as…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example of four different 15h −1 cMpc segments that pass through protoclusters in Sherwood. The top panels show projected maps of the normalised gas density in a 15h −2 cMpc2 slice with a projection depth of 1h −1 cMpc. The white dashed line shows the direction in whi…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The probability distribution of CoSLAS identified in Sherwood as a function of δm, coloured by whether the CoSLA is associated with a protocluster (12; blue) or associated with the field (10; orange). either the overdensity δm (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Contamination (dashed) and “completeness” (solid) for protoclusters (with Mz=0 ≥ 1014M ) when selecting all seg￾ments above a fixed threshold of δτeff on 15h −1 cMpc scales (see text for details). The blue curves correspond to the case where all absorption is consider…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Reverse cumulative distribution functions, P(> δτeff ), for all 15h −1 cMpc segments that are associated with each of the 29 protoclusters in Sherwood. Each line is coloured according to the mass of the cluster at z = 0. The grey shaded region indicates the area above…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Example of four different CoSLAs that pass through protoclusters in Sherwood. The top panels show projected maps of the normalised gas density in a 15h −2 cMpc2 slice with a projection depth of 1h −1 cMpc. The white dashed line shows the direction in which the Ly-α ab…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    M., Martini P., Croxall K

    Adams S. M., Martini P., Croxall K. V., Overzier R. A., Silverman J. D., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv065 , 448, 1335

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv065 2015

  4. [4]

    L., Steidel C

    Adelberger K. L., Steidel C. C., Shapley A. E., Pettini M., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/345660 , 584, 45

    doi:10.1086/345660 2003

  5. [5]

    H., Dalla Vecchia C., 2011, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L37 , 737, 37

    Altay G., Theuns T., Schaye J., Crighton N. H., Dalla Vecchia C., 2011, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L37 , 737, 37

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/l37 2011

  6. [6]

    M., Vecchia C

    Altay G., Theuns T., Schaye J., Booth C. M., Vecchia C. D., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1765 , 436, 2689

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1765 2013

  7. [7]

    B a descu T., Yang Y., Bertoldi F., Zabludoff A., Karim A., Magnelli B., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8220 , 845, 172

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8220 2017

  8. [9]

    D., Hewett P

    Becker G. D., Hewett P. C., Worseck G., Prochaska J. X., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt031 , 430, 2067

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt031 2013

Show all 86 references
  1. [10]

    Bird S., Vogelsberger M., Haehnelt M., Sijacki D., Genel S., Torrey P., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1923 , 445, 2313

    2014 doi

  2. [11]

    S., Becker G

    Bolton J. S., Becker G. D., 2009, Resolving the high redshift Ly forest in smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations , @doi 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00700.x , https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article-abstract/398/1/L26/1039975

    2009

  3. [13]

    S., Puchwein E., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M

    Bolton J. S., Puchwein E., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M. G., Kim T. S., Meiksin A., Regan J. A., Viel M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2397 , 464, 897

    2017 doi

  4. [15]

    Cai Z., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/135 , 833, 135

    2016 doi

  5. [16]

    Cai Z., et al., 2017a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14 , 837, 71

    doi

  6. [17]

    Cai Z., et al., 2017b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a1a , 839, 131

    doi

  7. [18]

    L., et al., 2011, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature09681 , 470, 233

    Capak P. L., et al., 2011, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature09681 , 470, 233

    2011 doi

  8. [19]

    Chabrier G., 2003, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/376392 , 115, 763

    2003 doi

  9. [20]

    K., Overzier R., Gebhardt K., 2013, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127 , 779, 127

    Chiang Y. K., Overzier R., Gebhardt K., 2013, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127 , 779, 127

    2013 doi

  10. [21]

    K., Overzier R., Gebhardt K., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/L3 , 782

    Chiang Y. K., Overzier R., Gebhardt K., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/L3 , 782

    2014 doi

  11. [22]

    K., et al., 2015, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/37 , 808

    Chiang Y. K., et al., 2015, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/37 , 808

    2015 doi

  12. [23]

    A., Hatch N

    Cooke E. A., Hatch N. A., Muldrew S. I., Rigby E. E., Kurk J. D., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu522 , 440, 3262

    2014 doi

  13. [24]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , 450, 1937

    Crain R. A., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , 450, 1937

    2015 doi

  14. [25]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2586 , 464, 4204

    Crain R. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2586 , 464, 4204

    2017 doi

  15. [26]

    Cucciati O., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423811 , 570, A16

    2014 doi

  16. [27]

    Daddi E., et al., 2009, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1517 , 694, 1517

    2009 doi

  17. [28]

    Dalla Vecchia C., Schaye J., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21704.x , 426, 140

    2012

  18. [29]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , 145, 10

    Dawson K. S., et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , 145, 10

    2013 doi

  19. [30]

    A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 , 703, 1416

    Faucher-Gigu \` e re C. A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416 , 703, 1416

    2009 doi

  20. [31]

    Finley H., Petitjean P., Noterdaeme P., P \^ a ris I., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423961 , 572, 31

    2014 doi

  21. [32]

    J., Hewett P

    Francis P. J., Hewett P. C., 1993, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/116542 , 105, 1633

    1993 doi

  22. [33]

    Francis P., et al., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/176747 , 457, 490

    1996 doi

  23. [34]

    Franx M., Illingworth G., de Zeeuw T., 1991, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/170769 , 383, 112

    1991 doi

  24. [35]

    D., Yee H

    Gladders M. D., Yee H. K. C., 2000, Technical report, A New Method For Galaxy Cluster Detection I: The Algorithm , http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004092 @doi 10.1086/301557. , http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004092

    2000 arXiv

  25. [36]

    Gurvich A., Burkhart B., Bird S., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/175 , 835, 175

    2017 doi

  26. [37]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2001, ] 10.1038/nmat2978

    2001 doi

  27. [38]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125 , 746

    2012 doi

  28. [39]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17538.x , 410, 1537

    Hatch N. A., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17538.x , 410, 1537

    2011

  29. [40]

    Hinshaw G., et al., 2013, @doi [Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , 208, 19

    2013 doi

  30. [41]

    M., Carswell R

    Kim T.-S., Partl A. M., Carswell R. F., M \" u ller V., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220042 , 552, 77

    2013 doi

  31. [42]

    Kravtsov A., Borgani S., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502 , 50, 353

    2012 doi

  32. [43]

    Krolewski A., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac829 , 861, 60

    2018 doi

  33. [44]

    M., Crampton D., Dickinson M., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/310319 , 471, L11

    Le F \` e vre O., Deltorn J. M., Crampton D., Dickinson M., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/310319 , 471, L11

    1996 doi

  34. [45]

    G., Hennawi J

    Lee K. G., Hennawi J. F., White M., Croft R. A., Ozbek M., 2014, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/49 , 788, 49

    2014 doi

  35. [46]

    Lee K.-G., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/160 , 817, 160

    2016 doi

  36. [47]

    Lee K.-G., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aace58 , 238

    2018 doi

  37. [48]

    C., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423828 , 572, A41

    Lemaux B. C., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423828 , 572, A41

    2014 doi

  38. [49]

    C., et al., 2017, @doi [Astrophysics A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730870 , 615, 77

    Lemaux B. C., et al., 2017, @doi [Astrophysics A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730870 , 615, 77

    2017 doi

  39. [50]

    C., Thomas P

    Lovell C. C., Thomas P. A., Wilkins S. M., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx3090 , 474, 4612

    2018 doi

  40. [51]

    W., Nugent P., White M., Meiksin A

    Luki \' c Z., Stark C. W., Nugent P., White M., Meiksin A. A., Almgren A., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2377 , 446, 3697

    2014 doi

  41. [52]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , 52, 415

    2014 doi

  42. [53]

    McAlpine S., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004 , 15, 72

    2016 doi

  43. [54]

    J., Lattanzio J

    Monaghan J. J., Lattanzio J. C., 1985, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 , 149, 135

    1985 doi

  44. [55]

    Morselli L., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423853 , 568, A1

    2014 doi

  45. [56]

    Mukae S., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/281 , 835, 281

    2017 doi

  46. [57]

    I., Hatch N

    Muldrew S. I., Hatch N. A., Cooke E. A., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1449 , 452, 2528

    2015 doi

  47. [58]

    Nelson D., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003 , 13, 12

    2015 doi

  48. [59]

    Noterdaeme P., et al., 2012, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220259 , 547, L1

    2012 doi

  49. [60]

    A., 2016, @doi [The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3 , 24, 14

    Overzier R. A., 2016, @doi [The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3 , 24, 14

    2016 doi

  50. [61]

    H., Colombi S., Blaizot J., Dubois Y., Pichon C., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/11 , 784, 11

    Peirani S., Weinberg D. H., Colombi S., Blaizot J., Dubois Y., Pichon C., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/11 , 784, 11

    2014 doi

  51. [62]

    M., et al., 2016, Technical report, WEAVE-QSO: A Massive Intergalactic Medium Survey for the William Herschel Telescope , https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.09388.pdf

    Pieri M. M., et al., 2016, Technical report, WEAVE-QSO: A Massive Intergalactic Medium Survey for the William Herschel Telescope , https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.09388.pdf . https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.09388.pdf

    2016 arXiv

  52. [63]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , 571, A16

    2014 doi

  53. [64]

    X., Wolfe A

    Prochaska J. X., Wolfe A. M., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1543 , 696, 1543

    2009 doi

  54. [65]

    Puchwein E., Springel V., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sts243 , 428, 2966

    2013 doi

  55. [66]

    H., Rai c evic̀ M., Schaye J., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , 430, 2427

    Rahmati A., Pawlik A. H., Rai c evic̀ M., Schaye J., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , 430, 2427

    2013 doi

  56. [67]

    Schaye J., Dalla Vecchia C., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12639.x , 383, 1210

    2008

  57. [68]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , 446, 521

    2015 doi

  58. [69]

    Scoville N., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/516585 , 172, 1

    2007 doi

  59. [70]

    Springel V., 2005, The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2 , @doi 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/364/4/1105/1042826

    2005

  60. [71]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , 401, 791

    2010

  61. [72]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x , 339, 289

    2003

  62. [73]

    Springel V., et al., 2005, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature03597 , 435, 629

    2005 doi

  63. [74]

    W., White M., Lee K

    Stark C. W., White M., Lee K. G., Hennawi J. F., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1620 , 453, 311

    2015 doi

  64. [75]

    C., Adelberger K

    Steidel C. C., Adelberger K. L., Shapley A. E., Erb D. K., Reddy N. A., Pettini M., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/429989 , 626, 44

    2005 doi

  65. [76]

    Tepper-Garc \' i a T., 2006, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10450.x , 369, 2025

    2006

  66. [77]

    R., Thomas P

    Theuns T., Leonard A., Efstathiou G., Pearce F. R., Thomas P. A., 1998, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02040.x , 301, 478

    1998

  67. [78]

    Toshikawa J., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan] 10.1093/pasj/psx102 , 70, 12

    2018 doi

  68. [79]

    D., Levi M

    Vargas-Magana M., Brooks D. D., Levi M. M., Tarle G. G., 2019

    2019

  69. [80]

    P., et al., 2007, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053941 , 461, 823

    Venemans B. P., et al., 2007, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053941 , 461, 823

    2007 doi

  70. [81]

    G., Springel V., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08224.x , 354, 684

    Viel M., Haehnelt M. G., Springel V., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08224.x , 354, 684

    2004

  71. [82]

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba0 , 866, 135

    2018 doi

  72. [83]

    Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Sijacki D., Torrey P., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1789 , 436, 3031

    2013 doi

  73. [84]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1536 , 444, 1518

    2014 doi

  74. [85]

    Wendland H., 1995, @doi [Advances in Computational Mathematics] 10.1007/BF02123482 , 4, 389

    1995 doi

  75. [86]

    White M., 2000, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000357 , 367, 27

    2000 doi

  76. [87]

    H., Lehnert M

    Wold M., Armus L., Neugebauer G., Jarrett T. H., Lehnert M. D., 2003, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/378362 , 126, 1776

    2003 doi

  77. [88]

    Wylezalek D., et al., 2013, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/79 , 769, 79

    2013 doi

  78. [89]

    Zheng W., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/500167 , 640, 574

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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