Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Upper Limits on the Mass of Cool Gas in the Circumgalactic Medium of Dwarf Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By modeling HI absorption around 40 dwarf galaxies, this paper proves volume-filling gas maximizes the inferred cool-gas mass and places upper limits of $5\times10^8$–$2\times10^9\,M_\odot$ on that mass.

desk verdict A useful first empirical constraint on cool CGM mass in dwarf halos, with an honest but informal handling of censored data that should be tightened in review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02056 v2 pith:YU7KVFGS submitted 2025-01-03 astro-ph.GA

Yakov Faerman , Yong Zheng , Benjamin D. Oppenheimer This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalacticmediumdwarfgalaxiesneutralhydrogenabsorptioncoolgasmassphotoionizationequilibriumbaryonbudgetvolumefillingfractionHIcolumndensity
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 asks how much cool ($\approx10^4$ K), photoionized gas surrounds dwarf galaxies, a phase that is hard to observe and has been poorly measured. Using archival HI absorption measurements toward 40 dwarf galaxies, the authors model the gas as a single power-law density profile in photoionization equilibrium with the metagalactic UV background. They show analytically that, for a fixed observed HI column, smooth volume-filling gas requires the largest total mass, so their mass estimates are conservative upper limits. For halo masses $M_{200m}=10^{10}$–$3\times10^{11}\,M_\odot$ they infer $M_{\rm cCGM}=5\times10^8$–$2\times10^9\,M_\odot$, less than 10% of each halo's baryon budget, and they argue that stars plus cool gas account for less than 15% of the baryons in dwarfs. This matters because it limits the fuel available for star formation and sharpens the question of where the missing baryons reside.

What carries the argument

The central object is a phenomenological density profile $n_H(r)=n_{H,0}(r/R_{\rm CGM})^{-a_n}$ for gas between 0.1 and 1 $R_{200m}$, with a constant volume filling fraction $f_V$ and the gas in heating, cooling, and ionization equilibrium with the metagalactic UV background. The argument is carried by the analytic identity $M_{\rm cCGM}\propto N_{\rm HI}^{1/2}f_V^{1/2}$, derived from $N_{\rm HI}\approx10\,L\,n_H^2 f_V$: at the low densities of this gas the neutral fraction is roughly proportional to density, so the column depends quadratically on density, and since $f_V\le1$ the mass is maximized when the gas fills the volume. A standard photoionization code supplies the equilibrium temperature and neutral fractions, and the model converts observed HI columns into a spherical cool-gas mass and its scaling with clumpiness.

What would settle it

A measurement of $N_{\rm HI}>10^{16}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$ at $r_\perp/R_{200m}>0.9$ in a dwarf halo would exceed what the volume-filling power-law model can produce, forcing either a steeper density profile, higher clumpiness, or a substantial contribution from gas phases outside the cool CGM.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a given HI column density, the mass of cool photoionized gas needed to reproduce it grows with the volume filling fraction as $M_{\rm cCGM}\propto f_V^{1/2}$, so $f_V=1$ gives an upper limit on the mass. The authors fit power-law density profiles $n_H(r)=n_{H,0}(r/R_{200m})^{-a_n}$ with constant $f_V$ to observed HI columns in three halo-mass bins and find $M_{\rm cCGM}=5\times10^8$–$2\times10^9\,M_\odot$, corresponding to 5–10% of the cosmological baryon budget. Clumpy models with $f_V=0.01$ reproduce the same columns with about 11 times less mass, matching the analytic scaling. The paper concludes that dwarf galaxies hold at most $\lesssim15\%$ of their baryons in stars and cool CGM, with the remainder in a warm/hot phase or ejected into the intergalactic medium.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the observed HI column densities come entirely from cool gas that fills space with a constant volume filling fraction and follows a single power-law density profile in photoionization and thermal equilibrium with a uniform UV background; if the gas is clumpy, multi-phase, or out of equilibrium, the quoted mass limits shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the three halo-mass bins, the inferred cool CGM mass rises with halo mass from about $5\times10^8$ to $2\times10^9\,M_\odot$ while staying below 10% of each halo's cosmological baryon budget.
  • Stars plus cool CGM together make up less than 15% of the baryon budget in dwarf halos, so the majority of baryons must be warm/hot or already ejected.
  • If the cool gas is clumpy with $f_V=0.01$, the same HI columns require roughly 11 times less mass, so clumpiness cannot hide a large cool reservoir unless $f_V$ is far smaller.
  • Assuming infall on a dynamical timescale, the cool CGM can supply accretion rates at or above the current star formation rates for about a gigayear.
  • A constant cool-gas baryon fraction of a few to ten percent may extend from dwarf to $L_*$ halos, though survey and method differences still prevent a firm trend.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because the mass scales only as $f_V^{1/2}$, even an order-of-magnitude error in clumpiness changes the inferred mass by only a factor of about three, so the conclusion that cool gas is a minority of the baryon budget is robust unless the filling fraction is extremely small.
  • Inference: The paper's upper-limit framework could be sharpened by measuring metal-line absorption in the same sightlines; a metallicity estimate would fix the equilibrium temperature and break the remaining degeneracy between density and $f_V$.
  • Inference: If future observations stack O VI or X-ray data around dwarf halos, they could distinguish whether the missing ~85% of baryons remain as warm/hot CGM or have been ejected into the IGM, a test the paper does not perform.
  • Inference: The analytic relation suggests that HI column profiles alone cannot uniquely determine cool-gas mass, so progress on this question will likely require kinematic information from resolved line profiles to estimate the gas distribution along the line of sight.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a phenomenological model of cool (T≈10^4 K), photoionized circumgalactic gas in dwarf galaxies and applies it to archival HI absorption measurements from the Z24 and M24 samples. The model assumes a single power-law density profile n_H ∝ r^{-a_n} between 0.1 R200m and R200m, a constant volume filling fraction fV, and gas in photoionization and heating equilibrium with a uniform metagalactic UV background. The authors show analytically that, for a fixed HI column density profile, the required cool-gas mass scales as M ∝ N_HI^{1/2} fV^{1/2}, so volume-filling (fV=1) gas maximizes the inferred mass. Fitting the model to HI columns binned into three halo-mass bins yields M_cCGM ≈ 5×10^8–2×10^9 M_sun for fV=1, corresponding to ≈5–10% of the cosmological halo baryon budget; clumpy models with fV=0.01 give masses ≈11 times lower. The paper also estimates metallicity and redshift uncertainties, discusses gas densities, pressures, baryon and metal budgets, accretion rates, and compares with more massive halos.

Significance. If the upper-limit construction were made formal, this would be a valuable first empirical constraint on the cool CGM mass in 10^10–3×10^11 M_sun halos, directly relevant to the missing-baryon problem and to feedback models in dwarf galaxies. The analytic scaling argument in §2.2 and Appendix B is clean, and the conservative direction of assigning all measured HI to the cool, volume-filling phase is physically sensible. The paper is also transparent about many model limitations and provides a useful comparison with previous work on more massive halos. However, the headline 'upper limit' is not actually constructed as an upper limit in the data-fitting step: the treatment of lower limits and outliers in §2.4–2.5 is a censoring convention, not a maximization. The significance of the paper therefore hinges on whether that gap can be closed by a formal statistical treatment or by reframing the claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, §2.5] The central quantity is reported as an upper limit on M_cCGM, but the fitting procedure in §2.4 does not construct one: the models are chosen to be 'consistent with most measurements' and 'close to many of the lower limits', while the few high lower limits are set aside as 'may not be representative'. Because M_cCGM increases monotonically with the assumed N_HI (Eq. B4/B5), a genuine upper limit requires either maximizing the mass over all column values allowed by the data, including lower limits and outliers, or performing a formal censored-data fit. The paper's own sensitivity test in §2.5 shows that replacing lower-limit columns by factors of 3 and 5 raises M_cCGM by factors of 1.3–1.6 and 1.5–2.0 per bin, respectively; thus the headline range 5×10^8–2×10^9 M_sun and the '<10% of baryons' statement can shift upward by roughly a factor of two, potentially exceeding the abstract's '<15% total baryon budget' once stars are included. The claims need to be reframed as conditional on the censoring/outlier convention, or the upper-limit construction needs to be made formal.
  2. [§2.4, Table 1] No goodness-of-fit or statistical uncertainty is reported for the manual grid search over a_n and n_H,0. Table 1 lists single parameter values for each bin, but there is no measure of how many models are acceptable, what the scatter among data points contributes, or how the inferred M_cCGM varies within the acceptable region of the grid. Reporting a chi-square-like statistic or a likelihood surface over the grid, and propagating the resulting parameter ranges to M_cCGM, would make the comparison with the data quantifiable and would allow the reader to assess whether the quoted factor-of-two sensitivity is dominated by the censoring or by the model fit itself.
  3. [§2.5, §2.1, Abstract] The redshift treatment is not conservative for an upper limit. The nominal models adopt the z=0 MGRF, while the sample has median z=0.1 and 90% of galaxies at z<0.2; §2.5 states that the required masses are about 30% higher at z=0.1 and about 60% higher at z=0.2. Since a higher MGRF intensity implies more ionization and hence a larger inferred gas mass for fixed N_HI, modeling all sightlines at z=0 pushes the inferred masses systematically low. The abstract's statement that the redshift-range uncertainty is ≈15% is based on a symmetric 0≤z≤0.1 interval (the z=0.05 case), not on the actual sample redshift distribution. For an upper limit, one should either evaluate each sightline at its own redshift or adopt a high-redshift MGRF for the limit, and the reported uncertainty should reflect the sample distribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.5] In the sentence 'producing a column of NHI ∼ 10^14 cm^-3', the units should be cm^-2, not cm^-3.
  2. [§2.5] The statement 'the mass uncertainty corresponding to 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.1 is ±15%' is inconsistent with the earlier statement that z=0.1 gives a +30% mass increase; clarify that the ±15% is the symmetric uncertainty around z=0.05, not around the nominal z=0 model.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The dotted curves are described both as power-law fits to guide the eye and as clumpy fV=0.01 models; distinguish these two uses clearly in the caption or in the text.
  4. [Table 1] State explicitly that R200m and M200m are median values of each halo-mass bin, since the binning procedure uses medians rather than the full halo-mass distributions.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (B5)] The phrase 'taking L = 2 R_CGM (a good approximation out to ≈0.5 R_CGM)' is unclear; the path length through a sphere at impact parameter b is 2(R_CGM^2 - b^2)^1/2, so specify the approximation and its range of validity more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fV=1 upper-limit relation is derived in-paper (Sec 2.2, App. B), and M_cCGM is the deterministic integral of a profile fitted to external HI data; Z24/F24 self-citations provide data provenance and minor scalings only.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the paper's central analytical result (Sec 2.2, Eqs. 1-2; Appendix B, Eqs. B3-B5) derives M_cCGM ∝ fV^{β/(1+β)} from the relations NHI = n_H L f_HI f_V and f_HI ∝ n_H^β, with the in-paper inequality fV ≤ 1 proving that volume-filling gas maximizes the mass needed to reproduce a given HI column. This is a parameter-free derivation performed in the manuscript, not imported from the authors' prior work. The power-law density profile (Eq. 3) is explicitly presented as an assumption ('The main feature of this model is'), and the note that Z24 assumes the same profile is provenance, not a load-bearing citation; the profile is then fitted to observed NHI columns from archival surveys, and the reported M_cCGM values are the integrals of the fitted density profiles—outputs of the fit rather than inputs. The fV=0.01 clumpy models are checked against the same analytic scaling, a consistency test rather than a circular step. Self-citations exist (Z24 data compilation and CGM extent/nominal metallicity choices; F24 for the MGRF scaling and the weak temperature-metallicity dependence), but they are not load-bearing in the reduction sense: the data are external measurements compiled from Bordoloi et al. (2014), Liang & Chen (2014), Johnson et al. (2017), Zheng et al. (2020), and Qu & Bregman (2022), and the F24 scalings only enter the uncertainty estimates. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known empirical pattern is renamed. The strongest skeptical objection—that the quoted upper limits rest on by-eye fits that treat high lower limits as outliers, with Sec 2.5 admitting factors of 1.3-2.0 higher masses if lower limits are increased by 3-5x—is a statistical validity and censoring-robustness concern about how the profile was chosen from heterogeneous data; the paper explicitly discloses and quantifies it. That is an overclaiming and robustness issue, not a circular reduction: the mass values are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. Hence no circular step meets the quote-and-reduction test, and the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The mass estimates are governed by the fitted density profile parameters (a_n, n_H,0) and by the assumed fV, metallicity, radial extent, and ionization equilibrium. No new physical entities are introduced; the analysis is a re-analysis of existing HI absorption data with a phenomenological model.

free parameters (4)
  • Density profile slope a_n = 1.5 (low), 1.2 (mid), 0.9 (high mass bin)
    Power-law index of the gas density profile (Eq. 3), tuned to fit the observed HI column density profile in each halo mass bin. The mass integral depends on this slope.
  • Density normalization n_H,0 = 4.1e-6, 4.4e-6, 3.1e-6 cm^-3 (low, mid, high bins)
    Normalization of the density profile, adjusted to match the observed HI column densities. Since M_cCGM is proportional to n_H,0 for a fixed profile, this parameter sets the mass scale.
  • Volume filling fraction fV = 1 (nominal), 0.01 (clumpy)
    Assumed constant with radius. The result is reported as a function of fV; fV=1 gives the upper limit and fV=0.01 gives masses about 11 times lower.
  • Gas metallicity Z' = 0.3 (nominal), varied 0.1 to 1.0
    Assumed metallicity affects the equilibrium temperature and HI fraction. The paper finds a weak dependence, with about 10% mass variation across the tested range.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Cool CGM gas is in photoionization and heating/cooling equilibrium with the metagalactic UV background.
    Used in Section 2.3 to compute the equilibrium temperature and neutral fraction with Cloudy. This is a standard but unverified assumption for dwarf CGM gas.
  • domain assumption The cool gas density follows a single power law in radius, n_H proportional to r^-a_n, from 0.1 to 1 R200m.
    Equation 3 in Section 2.3, adopted from Z24 and earlier works. The mass estimate is sensitive to this assumed distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper The volume filling fraction fV is constant with radius.
    Section 2.3 states that no information on fV(r) is available. The simplification is motivated by the ability of the density slope alone to reproduce the observations.
  • ad hoc to paper All measured HI column density originates in the cool, photoionized CGM.
    Section 2.4. This conservative assumption maximizes the inferred cool gas mass; any IGM or warm/hot CGM contribution would lower M_cCGM and thus preserve the upper limit.
  • domain assumption Stellar masses are converted to halo masses using the UniverseMachine and Colossus toolkits.
    Section 2.1. The binning and R200m values depend on this external calibration, whose scatter is not propagated into the mass uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The cool gas is optically thin to ionizing radiation.
    Section 2.3. Valid given the low measured HI columns (NHI below about 1e16 cm^-2), but it simplifies the Cloudy calculation and is not directly tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Upper Limits on the Mass of Cool Gas in the Circumgalactic Medium of Dwarf Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YU7KVFGS

@misc{pith2026250102056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Upper Limits on the Mass of Cool Gas in the Circumgalactic Medium of Dwarf Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YU7KVFGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02056}
}
abstract

We use HI absorption measurements to constrain the amount of cool ($\approx 10^4$ K), photoionized gas in the circumgalactic medium (CGM) of dwarf galaxies with $M_* = 10^{6.5-9.5}~M_\odot$ in the nearby Universe ($z<0.3$). We show analytically that volume-filling gas gives an upper limit on the gas mass needed to reproduce a given HI column density profile. We introduce a power-law density profile for the gas distribution and fit our model to archival HI observations to infer the cool CGM gas mass, $M_{\rm cCGM}$, as a function of halo mass. For volume-filling ($f_V=1$) models, we find $M_{\rm cCGM} = 5 \times 10^8-2 \times 10^9~M_{\odot}$, constituting $\lesssim 10\%$ of the halo baryon budget. For clumpy gas, with $f_V=0.01$, the masses are a factor of $\approx 11$ lower, in agreement with our analytic approximation. Our assumption that the measured HI forms entirely in the cool CGM provides a conservative upper limit on $M_{\rm cCGM}$, and possible contributions from the intergalactic medium or warm/hot CGM will further strengthen our result. We estimate the mass uncertainties due to the range of redshifts in our sample and the unknown gas metallicity to be $\approx 15\%$ and $\approx 10\%$, respectively. Our results show that dwarf galaxies have only $\lesssim 15\%$ of their baryon budget in stars and the cool CGM, with the rest residing in the warm/hot CGM or ejected from the dark matter halos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02056 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The effect of the volume filling fraction on the gas properties for a given HI column density profile (and fixed density slope, an). The three models have fV between unity (solid black) and 0.01 (dotted red) and the gas total mass varies to produce the same HI column density profile (right panel), roughly following the measured column densities (markers). Volume-filling gas (solid black curve) has lower volume densi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our models fitted to the HI column densities measured in absorption, after binning the data in halo mass. Top: comparison to observations. Markers: observed HI column densities (full and empty markers show measurements and limits, respectively), dotted curves are power-law fits to the column density profile to guide the eye (upper limits are ignored for this fitting), and solid black curves are our models. Dashed cu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cool CGM mass vs. halo mass. The shaded bands around our upper limits shows the uncertainties due to unknown gas metallicity and redshift range (vertical and di￾agonal hatching, respectively). Horizontal error bars for our results indicate the halo mass bin widths, and for all other results - the range of halo masses in each sample. Dashed lines show fixed fractions of the halo cosmological baryon mass budget, Mb,co… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The HI column density for a path length of 150 kpc as a function of gas density and temperature (solid contours). Thick dotted curve shows the gas equilibrium temperature, and the thin dashed lines show the gas ther￾mal pressure. The shaded regions show diffuse gas in …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    C 5,gQ@qK[ W[-'V[Z uU [Wb:uO@E

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2019, , 625, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201835002

    Afruni , A., Fraternali , F., & Pezzulli , G. 2019, , 625, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201835002

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201835002 2019

  5. [5]

    2021, , 501, 5575, 10.1093/mnras/staa3759

    ---. 2021, , 501, 5575, 10.1093/mnras/staa3759

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3759 2021

  6. [6]

    E., Bregman , J

    Anderson , M. E., Bregman , J. N., & Dai , X. 2013, , 762, 106, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/106

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/106 2013

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    2023, , 524, 5391, 10.1093/mnras/stad2046

    Ayromlou , M., Nelson , D., & Pillepich , A. 2023, , 524, 5391, 10.1093/mnras/stad2046

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2046 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    H., Hearin , A

    Behroozi , P., Wechsler , R. H., Hearin , A. P., & Conroy , C. 2019, , 488, 3143, 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2003, , 345, 349, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x

    Birnboim , Y., & Dekel , A. 2003, , 345, 349, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x

    2003

  3. [11]

    X., Tumlinson , J., et al

    Bordoloi , R., Prochaska , J. X., Tumlinson , J., et al. 2018, , 864, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8ac

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    K., et al

    Bordoloi , R., Tumlinson , J., Werk , J. K., et al. 2014, , 796, 136, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/136

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2000, , 272, 3, 10.1023/A:1002661516435

    Breitschwerdt , D., & Komossa , S. 2000, , 272, 3, 10.1023/A:1002661516435

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Gnat , O., & Brinboim , Y

    Bromberg , I., Sarkar , K. C., Gnat , O., & Brinboim , Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18071, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18071

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2023, , 59, 327, 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    Chatzikos , M., Bianchi , S., Camilloni , F., et al. 2023, , 59, 327, 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Boettcher , E., et al

    Chen , H.-W., Zahedy , F. S., Boettcher , E., et al. 2020, , 497, 498, 10.1093/mnras/staa1773

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Collins , M. L. M., & Read , J. I. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 647, 10.1038/s41550-022-01657-4

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    A., & van de Voort , F

    Crain , R. A., & van de Voort , F. 2023, , 61, 473, 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    D., & Finlator , K

    Dav \'e , R., Oppenheimer , B. D., & Finlator , K. 2011, , 415, 11, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18680.x

    2011

  12. [20]

    2018, , 239, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    Diemer , B. 2018, , 239, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    S., & Sternberg , A

    Faerman , Y., Pandya , V., Somerville , R. S., & Sternberg , A. 2022, , 928, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ca6

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    R., McQuinn , M., & Werk , J

    Faerman , Y., Piacitelli , D. R., McQuinn , M., & Werk , J. K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03553, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03553

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Faerman , Y., Sternberg , A., & McKee , C. F. 2017, , 835, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Faerman , Y., & Werk , J. K. 2023, , 956, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf217

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2009, , 703, 1416, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Lidz , A., Zaldarriaga , M., & Hernquist , L. 2009, , 703, 1416, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Oh , S. P. 2023, , 61, 131, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

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

    Ferland , G. J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al. 2017, , 53, 385. 1705.10877

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    1996, , 461, 20, 10.1086/177035

    Haardt , F., & Madau , P. 1996, , 461, 20, 10.1086/177035

    1996 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, , 746, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    ---. 2012, , 746, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    H., Martin , C

    Ho , S. H., Martin , C. L., & Schaye , J. 2021, , 923, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c73

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Chen , H.-W., Mulchaey , J

    Johnson , S. D., Chen , H.-W., Mulchaey , J. S., Schaye , J., & Straka , L. A. 2017, , 850, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9370

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, , 484, 4174, 10.1093/mnras/stz174

    Khaire , V., & Srianand , R. 2019, , 484, 4174, 10.1093/mnras/stz174

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    N., Cohen , J

    Kirby , E. N., Cohen , J. G., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2013, , 779, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, , 486, 608, 10.1093/mnras/stz839

    Lan , T.-W., & Mo , H. 2019, , 486, 608, 10.1093/mnras/stz839

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    J., & Chen , H.-W

    Liang , C. J., & Chen , H.-W. 2014, , 445, 2061, 10.1093/mnras/stu1901

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    S., et al

    Lochhaas , C., Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M. S., et al. 2023, , 948, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb06

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    1999, , 513, 142, 10.1086/306832

    Mac Low , M.-M., & Ferrara , A. 1999, , 513, 142, 10.1086/306832

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    H., & Bullock , J

    Maller , A. H., & Bullock , J. S. 2004, , 355, 694, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08349.x

    2004

  33. [41]

    McQuinn , M., & Werk , J. K. 2018, , 852, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d3f

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Rudie , G

    Mishra , N., Johnson , S. D., Rudie , G. C., et al. 2024, , 976, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0a

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Kere s , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al

    Muratov , A. L., Kere s , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2015, , 454, 2691, 10.1093/mnras/stv2126

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    F., Faerman , Y., & Genel , S

    Oren , Y., Sternberg , A., McKee , C. F., Faerman , Y., & Genel , S. 2024, , 974, 291, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6f08

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , v2.2.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10697587

    pandas development team, T. 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , v2.2.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10697587

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    S., Werk , J

    Peeples , M. S., Werk , J. K., Tumlinson , J., et al. 2014, , 786, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/54

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    X., Werk , J

    Prochaska , J. X., Werk , J. K., Worseck , G., et al. 2017, , 837, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6007

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Qu , Z., & Bregman , J. N. 2018 a , , 856, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafd4

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2018 b , , 862, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaccec

    ---. 2018 b , , 862, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaccec

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, , 927, 228, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51df

    ---. 2022, , 927, 228, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51df

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    C., et al

    Qu , Z., Chen , H.-W., Rudie , G. C., et al. 2023, , 524, 512, 10.1093/mnras/stad1886

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18238, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18238

    Ramesh , R., Nelson , D., & Girichidis , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18238, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18238

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    V., Wetzel , A., & Fattahi , A

    Sales , L. V., Wetzel , A., & Fattahi , A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897, 10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    T., Faerman , Y., Stern , J., & Nagai , D

    Singh , P., Lau , E. T., Faerman , Y., Stern , J., & Nagai , D. 2024, , 532, 3222, 10.1093/mnras/stae1695

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    Singh Bisht , M., Sharma , P., Dutta , A., & Nath , B. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17173, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17173

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    F., et al

    Stern , J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2018, , 865, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac884

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    F., Prochaska , J

    Stern , J., Hennawi , J. F., Prochaska , J. X., & Werk , J. K. 2016, , 830, 87, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/87

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16359, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16359

    Sultan , I., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Stern , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16359, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16359

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    K., Wilde , M

    Tchernyshyov , K., Werk , J. K., Wilde , M. C., et al. 2022, , 927, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac450c

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    G., Werk , J

    Telford , O. G., Werk , J. K., Dalcanton , J. J., & Williams , B. F. 2019, , 877, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b3f

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Heckman , T

    Tremonti , C. A., Heckman , T. M., Kauffmann , G., et al. 2004, , 613, 898, 10.1086/423264

    2004 doi

  55. [63]

    S., & Werk , J

    Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M. S., & Werk , J. K. 2017, , 55, 389, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    K., Prochaska , J

    Werk , J. K., Prochaska , J. X., Tumlinson , J., et al. 2014, , 792, 8, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/8

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    S., Chen , H.-W., Johnson , S

    Zahedy , F. S., Chen , H.-W., Johnson , S. D., et al. 2019, , 484, 2257, 10.1093/mnras/sty3482

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    E., et al

    Zheng , Y., Emerick , A., Putman , M. E., et al. 2020, , 905, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc875

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    D., et al

    Zheng , Y., Faerman , Y., Oppenheimer , B. D., et al. 2024, , 960, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe6b

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.