Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Modeling Mg II resonance doublet spectra from galaxy haloes at z $\sim$ 1

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across 167 z~1 star-forming galaxies, the fitted Mg II column density rises with stellar mass while the fitted expansion velocity falls, leading the authors to conclude that massive galaxies hold abundant, slowly moving cold gas.

desk verdict A solid modeling application with a believable mass-dependent spectral trend, but the central N-v_exp anti-correlation is likely a population-mixing artifact and needs within-class analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08837 v1 pith:ZKMM3GTH submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.GA

Seok-Jun Chang , Rajeshwari Dutta , Max Gronke , Michele Fumagalli , Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia , Matteo Fossati This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MgIIresonancedoubletcircumgalacticmedium(CGM)radiativetransfermodelinggalaxyhaloescoldgasat10^4Kstellarmassdependencespectralstackingz~1star-forminggalaxies
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

The paper argues that at $z\sim 1$ the amount and kinematics of $10^4$ K gas around star-forming galaxies are set by stellar mass. Fitting a grid of 201,600 radiative-transfer models to Mg II doublet spectra of 167 galaxies and four mass-binned stacks from the MAGG and MUDF surveys, it finds that the fitted Mg II column density $N_{\rm MgII}$ rises with stellar mass (Pearson $r=0.25$) while the fitted expansion velocity $v_{\rm exp}$ falls ($r=-0.15$). The authors conclude that more massive galaxies are surrounded by abundant, slowly moving cold gas. A second claim is that the spherical best-fit model overproduces the extended halo emission of the most massive stack by roughly a factor of three, which the paper attributes to intrinsic Mg II absorption and anisotropic gas distribution. If correct, Mg II spectra can directly constrain the cold circumgalactic reservoir and its kinematics in the ground-observable redshift window $0.7 < z < 2.3$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 3D Monte-Carlo radiative-transfer code RT-scat, which generates the 201,600 simulated Mg II doublet spectra used for fitting. The base model is a spherical Mg II halo with inner radius 1 kpc and outer radius $R_{\rm H} = 100$ kpc, filled at constant number density $n_{\rm MgII} = N_{\rm MgII}/0.99R_{\rm H}$, with microturbulent random motion $\sigma_{\rm Ran}$ and a radial velocity field $v(r) = v_{\rm exp}\,r/R_{\rm H}$; because radiative transfer depends on intercepting column density and kinematics rather than physical distance, the solutions can be rescaled to any halo radius. The five free parameters are $N_{\rm MgII}$, $v_{\rm exp}$, $\sigma_{\rm Ran}$, the intrinsic emission width $\sigma_{\rm Src}$, and the intrinsic emission equivalent width ${\rm EW}_{\rm int}$. The fitting pipeline normalizes the observed spectra, convolves the simulated spectra with MUSE spatial and spectral resolution, applies a chi-square test over the velocity range $-800$ to $+1300$ km s$^{-1}$, and uses weighted averages of the five parameters to break degeneracies. A separate bipolar-wind model with an inner H I disk is used to show that asymmetric gas can suppress the azimuthally averaged Mg II surface brightness by the observed factor of about three.

What would settle it

A decisive calculation would refit the same MAGG and MUDF stacks with a clumpy or multiphase Mg II medium plus an intrinsic absorbing disk and random outflow orientations while keeping the same goodness-of-fit; if the $N_{\rm MgII}$–stellar-mass correlation weakens or the $v_{\rm exp}$–stellar-mass anti-correlation disappears, the spherical single-phase geometry was the load-bearing cause of the claimed trends. Observationally, deep MUSE maps of individual $M_*/M_\odot > 10^{10}$ galaxies at $z\sim1$ can discriminate between the models: the spherical halo predicts roughly circular, centrally concentrated Mg II halo emission, whereas the anisotropic model concentrates emission along outflow axes, so the axial ratio and position-angle coherence of the Mg II halo would settle which geometry describes massive galaxies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the 3D Monte-Carlo radiative-transfer code RT-scat, the paper models the Mg II $\lambda\lambda2796,2803$ doublet as scattering in a spherical, constant-density, dust-free halo of Mg II, with microturbulent random motions $\sigma_{\rm Ran}$ and a purely radial velocity field $v(r) = v_{\rm exp}\,r/R_{\rm H}$, plus a central point source supplying a flat continuum and intrinsic Gaussian Mg II emission. Fitting this five-parameter model to the core spectra ($R_{\rm p}<10$ kpc) reproduces most observed profiles, with only 5 of 167 individual fits reaching $\chi^2_{\min} > 10$. The fitted parameters separate cleanly by spectral type: absorbers have high $N_{\rm MgII}$ and low $v_{\rm exp}$, while P-Cygni and emission spectra have lower $N_{\rm MgII}$ and higher $v_{\rm exp}$. Across stellar mass, $N_{\rm MgII}$ increases ($r=0.25$) and $v_{\rm exp}$ decreases ($r=-0.15$), so the paper states that 'higher stellar mass galaxies exhibited higher $N_{\rm MgII}$ and lower $v_{\rm exp}$ values, indicating an abundance of slowly moving cold gas in massive galaxies.' When the best-fit core model is projected into the halo aperture (10–30 kpc), the highest-mass stack ($M_*/M_\odot > 10^{10}$) is overproduced by a factor of about three; the paper interprets this as evidence for intrinsic Mg II absorption and strong anisotropy in the cold gas around massive haloes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scattering gas around each galaxy is a single smooth spherical shell with no dust, no clumps, and motion only along the line from the galaxy center; if the real gas is clumpy, dusty, or moves sideways, the fitted column density, outflow speed, and random speed are all biased, and the paper itself says in Sections 5.3 and 6 that asymmetric gas, dust, and multiphase structure are not captured by the fitting pipeline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the fitted trends are physical, stellar mass, not environment, controls the cold CGM at $z\sim 1$: massive galaxies hold a larger reservoir of $10^4$ K gas and that gas moves more slowly.
  • The spectral-type separation (absorbers: high $N_{\rm MgII}$, low $v_{\rm exp}$; emitters and P-Cygni: low $N_{\rm MgII}$, high $v_{\rm exp}$) means the Mg II profile shape itself is a quick diagnostic of whether a galaxy is dominated by static cold gas or by outflowing gas.
  • Because only 5 of 167 individual fits have $\chi^2_{\min} > 10$, a five-parameter spherical model captures the dominant physics of most Mg II profiles, making Mg II a practical probe of the cold CGM at redshifts where Ly$\alpha$ requires space-based telescopes ($0.7 < z < 2.3$).
  • The factor-of-three overproduction of the highest-mass halo spectrum implies that extended Mg II halos of massive galaxies cannot be interpreted as isotropic scattering alone; intrinsic absorption, anisotropy, or dust must be included in any future CGM census from emission.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not spell this out, but the negative $N_{\rm MgII}$–$v_{\rm exp}$ correlation suggests a two-phase reading of the same haloes: outflowing gas is diffuse and fast, while deposited or infalling gas is dense and slow, so the mass trend may trace the buildup of a static cold reservoir in massive haloes.
  • The factor-of-three overproduction of the most massive halo stack can be translated into an effective clumping or covering-factor constraint: a clumpy medium lowers the fraction of scattered photons that reach the halo aperture, so matching the observed halo flux would require either less total Mg II or a narrower outflow geometry than the spherical fit assumes, which could flatten the fitted mass
  • The paper's own error discussion implies that $\sigma_{\rm Ran}$ and $\sigma_{\rm Src}$ are often poorly constrained when the MUSE resolution approaches the line width, so the reported random motions and intrinsic widths should be read as order-of-magnitude estimates rather than precise values.
  • Since the fit depends on column density and kinematics rather than physical radius, the same simulated grid can be rescaled to other halo radii and applied to future Mg II surveys; coupling the code with a hydrogen ionization model would extend the same machinery to joint Mg II and Ly$\alpha$ predictions.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript models Mg II resonance doublet spectra of 624 z~0.7-2.3 star-forming galaxies from the MAGG and MUDF MUSE programs, fitting 167 individual detections and stacked spectra in four stellar-mass bins with a five-parameter spherical, expanding, single-phase halo model in the RT-scat Monte Carlo radiative transfer code. The paper reports that fitted Mg II column density increases with stellar mass (Pearson r=0.25), fitted expansion velocity decreases with mass (r=-0.15), and random velocity increases with mass (r=0.38). It further reports a negative N_MgII-v_exp correlation and interprets these trends as evidence that more massive galaxies host an abundance of slowly moving cold gas. For the highest-mass stack, the best spherical model overproduces the 10-30 kpc halo spectrum and surface-brightness profile by a factor of about 3; the authors argue that intrinsic absorption, dust, and anisotropic gas (illustrated with a 30-degree bipolar wind plus static H I disk) can account for this suppression.

Significance. If the mass-dependent trends were robust, the paper would establish a z~1 connection between stellar mass and the cold CGM reservoir and kinematics, and it would demonstrate that spatially resolved Mg II spectra can be interpreted through full radiative-transfer forward modeling. The paper has notable strengths: a large and homogeneous sample, a transparent five-parameter grid of 201,600 simulated spectra, a small reported fraction of poor fits (5/167), and a first attempt to model core and halo spectra plus surface-brightness profiles together. However, the central mass-kinematics claim is currently vulnerable to the demographic composition of the sample, to spectral-resolution limits, and to the assumed model geometry; the halo-anisotropy interpretation is post hoc rather than fitted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 6; §5.1, Fig. 5; Table 2] The central mass-kinematics claim is not established by the reported aggregate correlations. Figure 5 shows that absorbers occupy the high-N_MgII/low-v_exp region while emitters and P-Cygni sources occupy lower-N_MgII/higher-v_exp regions, and Table 2 and Figure 1 show that the absorber fraction rises steeply with stellar mass. Mixing these two populations therefore produces a positive N_MgII-M* correlation and a negative v_exp-M* correlation even if no such trend exists within either class. The paper should report Pearson or Spearman coefficients separately for absorbers and for emitters/P-Cygni, partial correlations controlling for spectral class, and p-values or confidence intervals. Without this, the Section 6 statement that higher stellar mass galaxies exhibit 'higher N_MgII and lower v_exp' conflates a demographic shift with a physical mass dependence.
  2. [§5.2, Fig. 6; Table 3; Appendix A] The decrease of v_exp with stellar mass is not resolution-safe. The grid step in v_exp is 50 km/s (Table 3) and the MUSE Gaussian resolution is 35-85 km/s (Appendix A, Eq. A1), so the fitted v_exp values below ~100 km/s for the high-mass absorbers are effectively upper limits. The weak r=-0.15 correlation may therefore reflect censoring rather than a physical trend. I request a resolution-aware test: for example, restricting the correlation to objects with v_exp well above the local resolution, using upper-limit statistics, or demonstrating that the per-mass stacked fits are inconsistent with v_exp=0 at the same confidence.
  3. [§3.1, §5.3, §5.4, Fig. 9] The halo-overproduction interpretation is more an existence proof than a constraint. The spherical model fixes a constant-density, single-phase, dust-free medium with a radial velocity field (§3.1), and the anisotropic model in §5.4 is not fitted to the observed stacked spectra: the 30-degree opening angle, the fixed H I disk column density, and the disk geometry are chosen by hand, and the demonstration that this geometry suppresses the azimuthally averaged SB by a factor of about 3 is not accompanied by a goodness-of-fit comparison with the spherical model or any exploration of the opening-angle/column-density parameter space. The abstract and Section 6 statements that the fits 'indicate the presence of intrinsic Mg II absorption and strong anisotropy' therefore go beyond what the current post hoc comparison can establish.
  4. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A3)-(A4), Fig. A3] The correlation statistics are computed from the weighted-average parameter values without propagating the weighted standard deviations, despite the known N_MgII-EW_int degeneracy shown in Figure A3. The paper should at least quote uncertainties on the regression slopes and demonstrate that the N_MgII-M* and v_exp-M* trends survive when only fits with small weighted standard deviations are used. This is particularly important because Figure 6 reports Pearson coefficients with no p-values and no error bars on the correlation itself.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A heading] The heading reads 'DEATILS' and should be corrected to 'DETAILS'.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] The convolution description is dimensionally unclear: as written, 'width ~ 2.355 R_obs' is not a velocity or wavelength width, whereas the stated 35-85 km/s Gaussian widths imply the intended convolution kernel is sigma = c/(2.355 R) (or the analogous wavelength expression). Please clarify the formula and the units.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption and text] The symbol p is used for Pearson's correlation coefficient, which can be confused with a p-value. Use r throughout and report p-values separately.
  4. [§5.2.1, Fig. 6 (right panel)] The text acknowledges that sigma_R measurements are inaccurate when the spectral resolution exceeds sigma_R, yet sigma_R is still presented as a mass-dependent result with r=0.38. This caveat should be carried into the conclusions or the claim should be restricted to the resolution-supported regime.
  5. [§5.4] The notation 'H i disk' should be rendered as 'H I disk' for consistency with standard usage.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Mass-dependent N_MgII and v_exp trends are independent empirical fits; the halo factor-of-3 explanation is circular because the wind opening angle is tuned to reproduce that factor.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.4 (Figure 9, right panel), with the discrepancy defined in Section 5.3]
    "Specifically, as demonstrated, the choice of θ0,wind = 30° yields a suppression by a factor of ∼ 3 – just as observed (cf.§5.3)."

    In §5.3 the factor-3 is first defined as the failure of the spherical model: the best-fit core model overproduces the M*/Msun > 1e10 halo spectrum 'by a factor ∼ 3'. In §5.4 the asymmetric wind model's opening angle is then set to 30° because, as computed in Figure 9, it produces a suppression factor of ~3. The parameter is therefore fit to the exact discrepancy it is then claimed to explain; the subsequent 'just as observed' match is a re-statement of the fit, not an independent validation. The conclusion that anisotropic gas/intrinsic absorption suppress the halo SB is not independently supported by this step.

full rationale

The central results — N_MgII increasing with stellar mass (r=0.25), v_exp decreasing (r=-0.15), and the negative N_MgII-v_exp relation — are empirical correlations between parameters obtained by forward-model fitting of 201,600 RT-scat spectra to observed MUSE spectra. These are not derived from the model inputs by construction; they are data-driven fits, and the paper reports fit quality and degeneracy handling (Appendix A). The spherical-halo/constant-density/radial-outflow assumptions are model limitations but not circular reductions. Possible statistical confounding of the N-v correlation by the absorber/emitter dichotomy (Section 5.1, Figure 5) is a real validity concern but belongs to correctness risk, not circularity, since the paper does not define N or v in terms of spectral type or stellar mass. The one clear circular step is localized to the halo interpretation: the factor-of-3 overproduction in the spherical fit is turned into evidence for anisotropy after the wind opening angle is chosen specifically to yield a factor-of-3 suppression. Because the central mass-trend claims remain independent empirical fits, the overall score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

All five spectral parameters are fitted to the same spectra whose interpretation they support; the derived mass trends inherit the spherical, uniform, dust-free geometry assumed in Section 3.1. The halo suppression explanation is added post hoc: a 30-degree wind opening angle and a static disk with hand-chosen column are introduced in Section 5.4 to match the factor-of-three overproduction, and the best-fit halo is scaled by 1/3.

free parameters (9)
  • N_MgII = 10^12.5 to 10^17 cm^-2 in 0.5 dex bins
    Mg II column density, the main absorption-strength parameter, fitted to observed spectra via chi-square grid search.
  • v_exp = -200 to 500 km/s in 50 km/s bins
    Radial outflow velocity at halo edge; fitted from the position of the absorption dip.
  • sigma_Ran = 25 to 200 km/s in 25 km/s bins
    Microturbulent random velocity of Mg II gas; fitted from the width of absorption features.
  • sigma_Src = 25 to 200 km/s in 25 km/s bins
    Width of intrinsic Mg II emission from the point source; fitted from emission peaks.
  • EW_int = 0 to 20 A in 1 A bins
    Equivalent width of intrinsic Mg II emission; fitted from the emission and K/H absorption line ratio.
  • Bipolar wind opening angle = 30 degrees
    Chosen in Section 5.4 to reproduce the factor ~3 suppression of halo surface brightness in the most massive bin.
  • HI disk Mg II column and geometry = 10^15 cm^-2, height 1 kpc, radius 5 kpc
    Static equatorial disk introduced in Section 5.4 to produce intrinsic absorption; values fixed by hand.
  • Halo scaling factor = 1/3
    Best-fit halo model divided by 3 to match the M*>10^10 M_sun stacked halo spectrum and SB profile (Section 5.3).
  • Effective spectral resolution for stacks = R=1000
    Adopted in Appendix A to account for stacking-induced line broadening; this choice affects fitted sigma values.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math RT-scat Monte Carlo radiative transfer code correctly computes Mg II emergent spectra for the assumed geometry
    Code validated in Chang et al. 2023 and Chang & Gronke 2024; no independent benchmark is shown in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Mg II number density is constant from 0.01 R_H to R_H, so N_MgII = n_MgII * 0.99 R_H
    Section 3.1; uniform spherical halo assumption, rescaling is valid only if the intercepting column geometry is the same.
  • ad hoc to paper Intrinsic source emission is a flat continuum plus Gaussian Mg II doublet with K/H flux ratio 2
    Section 3.1; no stellar or nebular model, no dust attenuation of the intrinsic emission.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-phase, dust-free microturbulent gas with T_eff = 3000 sigma_Ran^2 + 10^4 K
    Section 3.1; dust and multi-phase clumping are invoked only post hoc in Sections 5.3-5.4 to explain residuals.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses and redshifts from SPS fitting with MC-SPF are accurate enough for mass-bin stacking
    Section 2.1; typical mass uncertainty 0.1-0.2 dex and redshift uncertainty ~60 km/s.
  • domain assumption The 167 individual detections and four mass-bin stacks are representative of z~1 star-forming galaxies
    Section 2; selection by continuum S/N>=2 and visual classification may bias toward bright, non-AGN systems.
invented entities (2)
  • Static equatorial HI/Mg II disk (height 1 kpc, radius 5 kpc, N_MgII=10^15 cm^-2)
    purpose: Generate intrinsic Mg II absorption at the galaxy center in the asymmetric wind model (Section 5.4)
    Introduced ad hoc to reproduce the observed central absorption and halo suppression; no independent constraint from galaxy inclinations or HI observations.
  • Bipolar outflow with opening angle 30 degrees
    purpose: Produce anisotropic Mg II scattering that reduces azimuthally averaged surface brightness by factor ~3
    Opening angle chosen to match the observed suppression factor; no independent evidence of such geometry for these galaxies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Mg II resonance doublet spectra from galaxy haloes at z $\sim$ 1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZKMM3GTH

@misc{pith2026241208837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Mg II resonance doublet spectra from galaxy haloes at z $\sim$ 1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZKMM3GTH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08837}
}
abstract

We investigate the properties of cold gas at $10^4~\rm K$ around star-forming galaxies at $z~\sim~1$ using Mg II spectra through radiative transfer modeling. We utilize a comprehensive dataset of 624 galaxies from the MAGG and MUDF programs. We focus on Mg II emission from galaxies and their outskirts to explore the cold gas within galaxies and the circumgalactic medium (CGM). We model Mg II spectra for 167 individual galaxies and stacked data for different stellar mass bins. The Mg II spectrum and surface brightness vary significantly with stellar mass. In low-mass galaxies ($M_*/M_\odot<10^9$), Mg II emission is observed in both core ($R_{\rm p}<$ 10 kpc) and halo regions (10 kpc $<R_{\rm p}<$ 30 kpc), while in higher mass galaxies ($M_*/M_\odot>10^{10}$), strong core absorption and more extended halo emission are prominent. This indicates that more massive galaxies have more cold gas. Radiative transfer modeling allows us to investigate key parameters such as the Mg II column density $N_{\rm MgII}$ and the outflow velocity $v_{\rm exp}$. We identify a negative correlation between $N_{\rm MgII}$ and $v_{\rm exp}$. Since higher stellar mass galaxies exhibit a higher $N_{\rm MgII}$ and lower $v_{\rm exp}$, this suggests an abundance of slowly moving cold gas in massive galaxies. In addition, the fitting results of halo spectra indicate the presence of intrinsic Mg II absorption and strong anisotropy of the cold gas distribution around massive galaxies. This study is not only a proof-of-concept of modeling spatially varying Mg II spectra but also enhances our understanding of the CGM and provides insights into the mass-dependent properties of cold gas in and around galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08837 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The stellar mass as a function of redshift for all the galaxies (open black circle) in MAGG and MUDF with Mg ii coverage in the redshift range, 0.7 ≤ 𝑧 ≤ 2.3. The galaxies with Mg ii detection in the 1D spectra are marked by upward blue triangles for Emitters, downward red triangles for Absorbers, and green squares for P Cygni profiles. The histograms of the stellar mass and redshift distributions are shown in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulated Mg ii doublet spectra as a function of the Doppler factor ΔV from the line center of the Mg ii K line using the 3D Monte-Carlo radiative transfer simulation RT-scat. The black dashed, dotted line is the fiducial spectrum at 𝑁MgII = 1014 cm−2 , 𝑣exp = 200 km s−1 , 𝜎Ran = 100 km s−1 , 𝜎Src = 100 km s−1 , EWint = 10 Å and 𝑧obs = 1. Each panel showcases the spectral behavior varying six parameters, 𝑁MgII, 𝑣exp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Azimuthally averaged surface brightness of the stacked Mg ii emis￾sion as a function of projected radius 𝑅p. The line colors represent the range of stellar mass bin of the stacked data, log 𝑀∗/𝑀⊙ = 7 − 8 (green), 8 − 9 (blue), 9 − 10 (red), and 10 − 12 (orange). The grey zone is the 3𝜎 detection limit of the surface brightness as a function of 𝑅p. 4.1 Mg ii Spectra in Core and Halo Regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stacked core spectrum in 𝑅p < 10 kpc (red), and stacked halo spectrum in 𝑅p from 10 kpc to 30 kpc (blue), as a function Doppler factor Δ𝑉 of the Mg ii K line. Each panel represents different stellar mass bins, log 𝑀∗/𝑀⊙ = 7 − 8, 8 − 9, 9 − 10, and 10 − 12. The stacking…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fitting parameters characterizing the cold gas as a function of stellar mass 𝑀∗: Mg ii column density 𝑁MgII (left), expansion velocity 𝑣exp (center), and the random motion of cold gas 𝜎R (right). The circle colors indicate the minimum 𝜒 2 value, with error bars showing…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The equivalent width of intrinsic Mg ii emission EWint (left), the continuum flux near Mg ii emission 𝐹con (center), and the flux of intrinsic Mg ii emission 𝐹MgII (right) as functions of 𝑀∗. The blue triangles, orange nablas, and green diamonds represent individual sp…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: This figure presents the fitting of stacked spectra (top) and surface brightness (bottom) for four distinct stellar mass bins: log 𝑀∗/𝑀⊙ = 7 − 8 (first), 8-9 (second), 9-10 (third), and 10-12 (fourth). In the top panels, gray dashed and dot-dashed lines denote the stac…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mg ii surface brightness (SB) map and profiles for the bipolar wind model. Left: Schematic illustration of the bipolar wind model, including a central point source (orange), bipolar outflows (red), and a static H i disk (blue). The line of sight is perpendicular to the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Prochaska J

    Arrigoni Battaia F., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., Cantalupo S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809..163A 809, 163

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/163 2015

  2. [2]

    F., Prochaska J

    Arrigoni Battaia F., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., O \ n orbe J., Farina E. P., Cantalupo S., Lusso E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2827 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3162A 482, 3162

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2827 2019

  3. [3]

    S., Ramsay S

    Bacon R., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 773508, @doi 10.1117/12.856027

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  4. [4]

    Bouch \'e N., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820..121B 820, 121

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/121 2016

  5. [5]

    N., Rubin K

    Burchett J. N., Rubin K. H. R., Prochaska J. X., Coil A. L., Vaught R. R., Hennawi J. F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909..151B 909, 151

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd4e0 2021

  6. [6]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240905180C p

    Carr C. A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240905180C p. arXiv:2409.05180

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.05180 2024

  7. [7]

    Chang S.-J., Gronke M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3526C 532, 3526

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1664 2024

  8. [8]

    Chang S.-J., Yang Y., Seon K.-I., Zabludoff A., Lee H.-W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945..100C 945, 100

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac98 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Chen Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2808 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.1721C 499, 1721

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    X., Schaerer D., Gazagnes S., Henry A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.2554C 498, 2554

    Chisholm J., Prochaska J. X., Schaerer D., Gazagnes S., Henry A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.2554C 498, 2554

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Crighton N. H. M., Hennawi J. F., Simcoe R. A., Cooksey K. L., Murphy M. T., Fumagalli M., Prochaska J. X., Shanks T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446...18C 446, 18

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    X., Ouchi M., Hayes M., eds, 2019, Lyman-alpha as an Astrophysical and Cosmological Tool Saas-Fee Advanced Course Vol

    Dijkstra M., Prochaska J. X., Ouchi M., Hayes M., eds, 2019, Lyman-alpha as an Astrophysical and Cosmological Tool Saas-Fee Advanced Course Vol. 46, @doi 10.1007/978-3-662-59623-4_1

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Dutta R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.5022D 499, 5022

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Dutta R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4573D 508, 4573

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Dutta R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522..535D 522, 535

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    arXiv:2409.02182

    Dutta R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240902182D p. arXiv:2409.02182

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..131F 61, 131

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Oh S. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..131F 61, 131

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Feltre A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A..62F 617, A62

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Fossati M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..57F 614, A57

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Fossati M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2693 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.1451F 490, 1451

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Fossati M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.3044F 503, 3044

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    K., Dutta R., Prochaska J

    Galbiati M., Fumagalli M., Fossati M., Lofthouse E. K., Dutta R., Prochaska J. X., Murphy M. T., Cantalupo S., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230200021G p. arXiv:2302.00021

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gonz \'a lez Lobos V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A..41G 679, A41

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Gronke M., Bull P., Dijkstra M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812..123G 812, 123

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Guo Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06718-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.624...53G 624, 53

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Guo Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A..66G 691, A66

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Prochaska J

    Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...58H 766, 58

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Scarlata C., Verhamme A., Erb D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...96H 855, 96

    Henry A., Berg D. A., Scarlata C., Verhamme A., Erb D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...96H 855, 96

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    I., Chisholm J., Worseck G., Guseva N

    Izotov Y. I., Chisholm J., Worseck G., Guseva N. G., Schaerer D., Prochaska J. X., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.2864I 515, 2864

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Katz H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.4265K 515, 4265

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Leclercq F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...663A..11L 663, A11

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2410.11152

    Li Z., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241011152L p. arXiv:2410.11152

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2057L 491, 2057

    Lofthouse E. K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2057L 491, 2057

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..305L 518, 305

    Lofthouse E. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..305L 518, 305

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Lusso E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485L..62L 485, L62

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Ouchi M., Ono Y., Shibuya T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..617O 58, 617

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Pessa I., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A...5P 691, A5

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    X., Kasen D., Rubin K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...24P 734, 24

    Prochaska J. X., Kasen D., Rubin K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...24P 734, 24

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    X., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..136P 776, 136

    Prochaska J. X., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..136P 776, 136

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Revalski M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acb8ae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...40R 265, 40

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Rubin K

    Rickards Vaught R. J., Rubin K. H. R., Arrigoni Battaia F., Prochaska J. X., Hennawi J. F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab211f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879....7R 879, 7

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Rubin K. H. R., Prochaska J. X., M \'e nard B., Murray N., Kasen D., Koo D. C., Phillips A. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728...55R 728, 55

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    Seive T., Chisholm J., Leclercq F., Zeimann G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.5556S 515, 5556

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Seon K.-i., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58bd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971..184S 971, 184

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Seon K.-i., Kim C.-G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aba2d6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..250....9S 250, 9

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    C., Erb D

    Steidel C. C., Erb D. K., Shapley A. E., Pettini M., Reddy N., Bogosavljevi \'c M., Rudie G. C., Rakic O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...717..289S 717, 289

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    C., Bogosavljevi \'c M., Shapley A

    Steidel C. C., Bogosavljevi \'c M., Shapley A. E., Kollmeier J. A., Reddy N. A., Erb D. K., Pettini M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..160S 736, 160

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    arXiv:2406.17035

    Tornotti D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.17035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240617035T p. arXiv:2406.17035

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..389T 55, 389

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Verhamme A., Schaerer D., Maselli A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...460..397V 460, 397

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A..28W 641, A28

    Weilbacher P. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A..28W 641, A28

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Weng S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1462 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..676W 523, 676

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Wisotzki L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...587A..98W 587, A98

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Xu X., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca89a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943...94X 943, 94

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Zabl J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.4294Z 507, 4294

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.