Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Lyman-alpha Halos of Galaxies at z=2-3 in the Keck Baryonic Structure Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Galaxies whose cores absorb Lyman-alpha still emit it at 50 kpc and beyond.

desk verdict A solid, honest data paper with one genuinely new capability (fitting central Lyα absorbers), but the headline spatial-match claim needs a robustness check with recovery tests before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15881 v1 pith:3AYUEBHK submitted 2025-05-21 astro-ph.GA

Ryan F.Trainor , Noah R. Lamb , Charles C. Steidel , Yuguang Chen , Dawn K. Erb , Elizabeth Trenholm , Rebecca L. McClain , Io Kovach This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemissioncircumgalacticmediumgalaxystackspoint-spreadfunctionhigh-redshiftgalaxiesnarrowbandimagingequivalentwidthhaloscalelength
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 stacks narrow-band images of 734 Lyman-$\alpha$-selected galaxies and 119 continuum-selected galaxies at $z\approx2$–3 to determine whether extended Lyman-$\alpha$ halos are a generic property of star-forming galaxies. It argues that every subsample, including galaxies whose centers show net Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption in slit spectroscopy, is a net Lyman-$\alpha$ emitter on circumgalactic scales of $R \gtrsim 50$ kpc, and that the spatial scale of the central Lyman-$\alpha$ component matches the scale of the stellar continuum. If true, the halo-making process is common to all star-forming galaxies and their surrounding gas, with central absorption a small-scale feature embedded in a larger emitting envelope. The paper also shows that one two-exponential model convolved with an empirical point-spread function can describe both centrally emitting and centrally absorbing stacks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is an empirical large-scale point-spread function built from 17–46 stars per field, represented by an analytic core-wing profile fit to each star and extrapolated beyond roughly 5 arcseconds, then smoothed and matched across fields so that a single effective PSF can be convolved with analytic surface-brightness models. Each Lyman-$\alpha$ stack is fit with a seven-parameter forward model consisting of two exponentials (a central 'galaxy' component and an outer 'halo' component), a constant background, and center coordinates; the central amplitude is allowed to be negative, which is what lets the same model absorb or emit at the center. Parameterizing each exponential by its flux within $R=50$ kpc stabilizes the fit, and the derived fraction $f_{\mathrm{gal}}^{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}$ measures how much of the total Lyman-$\alpha$ flux belongs to the central component. A parallel direct exponential fit to the one-dimensional profile reproduces the earlier literature method, and encircled equivalent-width curves turn the fitted profiles into an aperture-dependent statement about who counts as a Lyman-$\alpha$ emitter.

What would settle it

Re-run the same stacking and forward modeling while replacing the stellar PSF with a PSF constructed from a different source class or measured only over the inner arcseconds, and vary the background subtraction by its uncertainty; if the net 50 kpc equivalent width changes sign or the halo scale lengths fall below about 5 kpc under any of those choices, the universality claim would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using stacks of 734 Lyman-$\alpha$-selected and 119 UV-continuum-selected galaxies in nine fields at mean redshift $z\approx2.6$, the paper claims that extended Lyman-$\alpha$ emission is universal: every stack, including the 55-galaxy stack with net central Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption, has net positive Lyman-$\alpha$ flux within a 50 kpc aperture. Direct exponential fits give halo scale lengths $r_0 \approx 10$–21 kpc, several times the continuum scale lengths, and the forward-modeled halo scale lengths are $r_{0,\mathrm{halo}} \approx 9$–21 kpc. The fitted central Lyman-$\alpha$ component has a scale length of roughly 1–3 kpc, consistent with the fitted continuum scale length, even in absorbing stacks, indicating that the absorbing gas is co-located with the UV-bright stars. The paper further finds only weak dependence of halo scale on galaxy luminosity or Lyman-$\alpha$ equivalent width, with a slight tendency for continuum-faint, high-equivalent-width galaxies to have larger halos, in contrast to some earlier stacked surveys.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that even central Lyman-alpha absorbers are net emitters at 50 kpc assumes that the point-spread function built from stars, after smoothing and field matching, faithfully represents how extended Lyman-alpha light is spread, and that the sky background is flat and correctly subtracted at those radii.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every stacked subsample, Lyman-alpha light extends well beyond the UV continuum, with halo exponential scale lengths around 10–20 kpc regardless of central galaxy luminosity or equivalent width.
  • Galaxies classified as net Lyman-alpha absorbers in small apertures become net emitters within a 50 kpc aperture, so the emitter/absorber label is aperture-dependent rather than intrinsic.
  • The central Lyman-alpha component's fitted scale length matches the continuum scale length of roughly 1–3 kpc, even for absorbing stacks, placing the absorbing gas on the same spatial scale as the stars.
  • Encircled equivalent width grows by factors of 2–3 from the center out to 50–70 kpc, so slit-based classifications can underestimate the total Lyman-alpha output of a galaxy.
  • Continuum-faint, high-equivalent-width galaxies tend to have slightly larger halos, opposite to the trends reported by some earlier stacked surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The universality claim rests on the large-radius behavior of the stellar PSF; a PSF with slightly more power in its wings than the true extended-source profile would inflate halo scale lengths, so reconstructing the PSF from extended sources would be a sharper test.
  • Editorial inference: Because the analysis fixes one stacking recipe, the quoted uncertainties are formal lower bounds; varying the sigma-clipping threshold and flux scaling could move the scale lengths by more than the quoted 1-sigma errors.
  • Editorial inference: The near-constancy of halo scale across galaxy properties hints that environment, such as Mpc-scale overdensity, may matter more than luminosity or equivalent width; the paper's quasar-centered fields are plausibly overdense, a possibility it flags for future work.
  • Editorial inference: Literature differences between integral-field halo scales near 5 kpc and the 10–20 kpc scales found here and in other stacked surveys may stem from instrument- and method-dependent systematics, so cross-survey trends in halo size should not be read as purely physical until a common pipeline is applied to all data.
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 presents the Keck/LRIS narrowband Lyα imaging of the KBSS-Lyα survey for the first time and uses stacked imaging of 734 Lyα-selected and 119 continuum-selected galaxies at 2<z<3 to measure the spatial extent of Lyα and UV continuum emission. Radial profiles are characterized with two methods: direct exponential fits to the 1D azimuthally averaged profiles, and a PSF-convolved dual-exponential forward model that allows a central 'galaxy' component of either positive or negative amplitude plus an extended 'halo' component. The central results are that all stacked subsamples, including those with net central Lyα absorption, show net Lyα emission on scales R>50 kpc; that the forward-modeled central Lyα component has a scale length consistent with the continuum scale length, including for the absorbing subsample; and that the halo scale length shows only weak dependence on M_UV and EW_Lyα, possibly in the sense of larger halos for fainter, high-EW galaxies. The paper also compares the results with earlier KBSS, MUSE, and Subaru measurements.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would establish that Lyα halos are a generic property of star-forming galaxies at z~2-3, extending even to galaxies whose small-aperture spectra show net Lyα absorption, and it would provide the first quantitative comparison of the spatial scale of central Lyα absorption with the stellar continuum. The paper has notable strengths: it presents a large, homogeneous imaging data set; it cross-checks the halo measurements with two independent fitting methods; it provides bootstrap uncertainties; and it explicitly acknowledges that the fixed stacking methodology makes reported uncertainties lower bounds on the total systematic uncertainty (Sec. 5.3). The near-equality of f_gal^Lyα with the ratio of small-aperture to 50 kpc EW_Lyα is correctly identified by the authors as a consistency check rather than independent evidence (Sec. 5.1). The most fragile load-bearing claim is the scale match of the central Lyα absorption component, which relies on the recovery of a negative compact exponential against the positive halo and the PSF wings without a demonstrated recovery test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Table 3, Fig. 11, and Abstract] The abstract states that the spatial scale of central Lyα 'approximately matches' that of the continuum emission, and Sec. 5.2 extends this to the KBSS All and Abs stacks where the central Lyα component is negative. This claim is not equally supported for all stacks: for KBSS All, Table 3 reports only a 2σ upper limit r0,gal<2.7 kpc, so the scale of the absorbing component is not actually measured for the full KBSS stack. For KBSS Abs, the quoted r0,gal=1.7±0.3 kpc is precise, but the paper presents no injection-recovery test demonstrating that a negative compact exponential can be recovered when convolved with the empirical PSF and superposed on a positive halo. Without such a test, the agreement with r0,cont=1.8±0.1 kpc may reflect the model priors and the PSF-wing shape rather than a physical co-location of absorbing gas and stars. I request a recovery test using synthetic stacks with known negative galaxy components and positive halos, fit through the same pipeline, and a revised abstract that restricts the scale-match claim to the stacks for which it is actually constrained.
  2. [Appendix A and Sec. 4.2] The forward-modeling results depend on the assumption that the empirical stellar PSF, after iterative smoothing to a common 'broadest PSF' and with the outer region (θ>10'') replaced by a Moffat model, accurately describes the light spread of the extended galaxy-plus-halo emission at all fitted radii. A mismatch between the stellar PSF and the true extended-source PSF at intermediate radii (≈1-5 arcsec) would be partially absorbed by the central exponential terms, biasing r0,gal toward the continuum scale and also affecting r0,halo. The paper currently provides no quantitative test of this sensitivity. I recommend repeating the fits with alternative PSF constructions (e.g., unsmoothed field PSFs, pure Moffat PSFs, different transition radii, and PSFs with artificially modified wing amplitude) and reporting the resulting scatter in r0,gal and r0,halo as a systematic uncertainty. This is a necessary check for the specific claim of co-located central absorption and continuum emission.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Table 3, Fig. 13, and Summary item 6] The claimed weak trends of halo scale length with M_UV and EW_Lyα are not robustly established by the present analysis. In Table 3, the direct exponential fits give r0,dir(LoEW)=18.5±3.4 kpc versus r0,dir(HiEW)=20.2±2.5 kpc, and r0,dir(Faint)=21.3±5.0 versus r0,dir(Bright)=21.2±2.8 kpc, i.e., no significant difference; the apparent trends come from the forward-modeled r0,halo values with asymmetric bootstrap uncertainties. Because the stacking method is fixed, these uncertainties do not include the effect of different sigma-clipping thresholds, weighting, or background corrections, which the authors themselves note in Sec. 5.3 would increase the inferred variation particularly for the KBSS All and Abs stacks. The paper should either marginalize over a range of stacking choices and report the resulting uncertainties on the trend, or explicitly present the trend as not significant pending such an analysis. The current wording in Summary item 6 ('we find a weakly negative relationship... as well as a weak positive correlation') overstates the evidence given the acknowledged systematics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The phrase 'other recent students of Lyαhalos' should read 'other recent studies of Lyα halos'.
  2. [Sec. 6.3] In the footnote describing the S. Kikuta et al. (2023) models, 'our on work' should read 'our own work'.
  3. [Sec. 2.1] The word 'correponding' on the NB filter description should be 'corresponding'.
  4. [Sec. 6.1.2] The sentence containing 'all of the the observed profiles' has a duplicated 'the' and should be corrected.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption of Figure 5 describes the continuum profiles as 'as in Fig. 5', but the intended cross-reference is likely to Fig. 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fitted scale lengths and halo parameters are outputs of the measurement chain, not inputs; the one near-tautology is explicitly acknowledged and used only as a consistency check.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are measured quantities, not derived quantities that reduce to their own inputs. The Ly-alpha and continuum stamps are constructed from narrowband and broadband images using Eqs. 3-4 and stacked with bootstrap resampling (Sec. 3.3). The two profile-fitting methods (direct exponential fits in Sec. 4.1 and PSF-convolved dual-exponential forward modeling in Sec. 4.2) are independent analyses of these stacks. The recovered scale lengths r0,halo and r0,gal, the flux fraction f_gal, and the aperture-dependent EW curves are outputs of the fits and direct photometry, not fitted parameters that are then relabeled as predictions. The one nearly tautological relation is explicitly identified by the authors: the near-identity of f_gal with the ratio EW(5 kpc)/EW50 in Fig. 10 is described as 'may therefore appear tautological' and is used only as 'a useful check that the integrated flux of the PSF-convolved exponential profiles yield very similar descriptions... to their direct measurements in circular apertures.' It is not used as evidence for a physical claim. The claim that the central Ly-alpha scale matches the continuum scale is a comparison of two separately fitted parameters from the same model; the only hard prior, r0,gal < 5 kpc and r0,halo > 5 kpc, separates components but does not force the Ly-alpha and continuum galaxy scales to agree. The authors even flag the KBSS All case as an unconstrained upper limit (<2.7 kpc), so no circular overclaim is made there. Self-citations (T13/T15/T16 for survey design, Steidel et al. 2011 for comparison) supply sample definitions and prior measurements, but the halos and profiles in this paper are newly measured from the imaging data presented here, and comparisons to external MUSE, Subaru, and KCWI samples provide independent empirical benchmarks. The empirical stellar PSF is an assumption that could bias results, and the authors note that fixed stacking methodology makes uncertainties lower bounds, but this is a systematic-error concern about the measurement, not a circularity in which an input is equivalent to the claimed output.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard observational modeling choices: the empirical stellar PSF, flat sky background, two-exponential model, and QSO-redshift proxy for Lyα galaxies. No invented physical entities are introduced. The free parameters listed are hand-chosen analysis settings; the fitted scale lengths are results rather than ad hoc parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Annulus range for direct exponential fits to Lyα (20-60 kpc) = 20-60 kpc
    Chosen as the range where the profile is monotonic and significantly detected for most stacks; authors state small changes do not affect results, but the range excludes the central region where the profile shape varies between emitters and absorbers.
  • Component separation threshold r0 = 5 kpc = 5 kpc
    Used in forward-modeling to classify exponentials as 'galaxy' (r0<5 kpc) or 'halo' (r0>5 kpc); this affects the interpretation of the fitted components.
  • Sigma-clipping thresholds in stacking = 2.5σ (KBSS-Lyα), 4σ (KBSS)
    Chosen to remove nearby sources while preserving signal; the authors acknowledge that changing these thresholds changes the inferred KBSS All and Abs profiles.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The empirical PSF built from stars is representative of the PSF for extended galaxy+halo emission at all fitted radii.
    Used in Sec 4.2 and Appendix A; any mismatch between the stellar PSF and the extended-source PSF directly biases the deconvolved scale lengths and the amplitude of the central absorption component.
  • domain assumption The Lyα sky background is constant after subtraction; no radial oversubtraction as seen in the continuum.
    Sec 3.3 states the Lyα images 'do not display this radially-dependent oversubtraction.' If wrong, the claimed positive emission at R>50 kpc could be an artifact.
  • domain assumption The stacked, sigma-clipped, flux-scaled images are unbiased representations of the underlying galaxy sample.
    Sec 3.3: the scaling and clipping choices affect the central profile shape, particularly for KBSS All and Abs; the authors fix one stacking methodology.
  • domain assumption A two-exponential model (galaxy + halo) convolved with the PSF adequately describes the Lyα surface brightness distribution.
    Sec 4.2: this model is adopted from previous studies and is not derived from first principles; if the true profile is not a sum of exponentials, the fitted scale lengths are model-dependent.
  • domain assumption QSO redshift is a good proxy for the redshift of Lyα-selected galaxies.
    Used to convert observed NB flux to rest-frame Lyα and equivalent width; justified by T15 but not independently checked for all objects in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Lyman-alpha Halos of Galaxies at z=2-3 in the Keck Baryonic Structure Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3AYUEBHK

@misc{pith2026250515881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Lyman-alpha Halos of Galaxies at z=2-3 in the Keck Baryonic Structure Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3AYUEBHK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15881}
}
read the original abstract

We present the large-scale spatial Lya profiles of galaxies from the Keck Baryonic Structure Survey (KBSS) at 2<z<3. This work also describes the Lya imaging for the KBSS-Lya survey for the first time. Our sample includes 734 Lya-selected galaxies and 119 continuum-selected galaxies with Lya narrow-band imaging, and we measure the spatial morphology of Lya and continuum emission for stacked subsamples of these two populations. These samples allow us to study the variation in Lya emission profiles over a broad range of UV continuum luminosities and Lya equivalent widths (EW_Lya), including systems with net Lya absorption in slit spectroscopy. We characterize the spatial profiles using two techniques: directly fitting an exponential function to the stacked profile, and a multi-component forward-modeling technique using the empirical large-scale PSF. We find that both methods yield similar results and that the forward-modeling technique self-consistently fits profiles exhibiting central Lya emission or Lya absorption, with the spatial scale of central Lya approximately matching that of the continuum emission. We also find extended Lya emission such that all our subsamples -- including central Lya absorbers -- are net Lya emitters on scales comparable to the circumgalactic medium (R > 50 kpc, theta > 6''). We find that the scale length of the Lya halo is not strongly dependent on the properties of the central galaxy, including its net continuum luminosity or EW_Lya, although we find a possible weak tendency of continuum-faint, high-EW_Lya galaxies to exhibit larger Lya halos in contrast with previous work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distributions of KBSS (red) and KBSS-Lyα (blue) galaxies with respect to EWLyα and MUV as defined in the text. Top panel and histograms show the distributions of individual galaxy properties, while the bottom panel shows the median properties of each galaxy subsample described in Sec. 3.2 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stacked Lyα (top) and continuum (bottom) emission profiles for the KBSS-Lyα (i.e., Lyα-selected) subsamples. Objects are binned by continuum luminosity and EWLyα as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stacked Lyα (top) and continuum (bottom) emission profiles as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Azimuthally-averaged Lyα surface brightness profiles for stacked galaxy samples drawn from the KBSS-Lyα. Both panels show the same data with linear (left) or logarithmic (right) scaling in Lyα surface brightness. Colored lines correspond to the galaxy stacks named in t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Azimuthally-averaged continuum surface brightness profiles for stacked galaxy samples drawn from the KBSS-Lyα, which are analogous to the Lyα profiles in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Azimuthally-averaged Lyα surface brightness profiles as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Azimuthally-averaged continuum surface brightness profiles as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Azimuthally-averaged Lyα and continuum surface brightness profiles and fit results from our forward-modeling framework, which incorporates the large-scale Keck/LRIS-B PSF and uncertainties in the local background subtraction (Sec. 4.2). The empirical Lyα (continuum) di…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Encircled EWLyα measured directly from the stacked galaxy samples presented in Figs. 4–7. Left panel displays the KBSS-Lyα samples; right panel displays the corresponding curves for the KBSS samples. Shaded regions denote the 16%-tile to 84%-tile confidence interval de…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: The fraction f Lyα gal of Lyα flux associated with the central galaxy component as inferred from the forward– modeling fits (Sec. 4.2) vs. the ratio between the median EWLyα value (calculated in a ∼5 kpc aperture) within a sample to the EW50 Lyα value measured o…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of parameter values extracted from the direct exponential fits to the 1D emission profiles and those obtained via our forward-modeling framework as described in Secs. 4.1–4.2. In each panel, the gray dashed line indicates the 1:1 relation for the plotted qu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Azimuthally-averaged Lyα surface brightness profiles for galaxy samples selected in KBSS fields, including KCWI observations by Y. Chen et al. (2021) and D. K. Erb et al. (2023) and the KBSS-Lyα All and KBSS LAE samples. All of the samples have generally similar Lyα h…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Best-fit Lyα halo scale lengths obtained via our forward-modeling technique (Sec. 4.2) as a function of the median UV luminosity MUV (left panel) and median Lyα equivalent width (right panel) for the stacked galaxy samples presented in this paper as well as several me…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Best-fit Lyα halo scale lengths as a function of redshift (left panel) and continuum scale length (right panel) for the KBSS and KBSS-Lyα samples as well as comparison samples as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: NB (blue) and BB (orange) PSFs plotted vs. projected angle for each field before (dashed) and after (solid) our iterative PSF-matching procedure. The matched PSFs show very close agreement across bands and fields. 0 2 4 6 8 10 [ 00] 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 Normalized…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The final PSF used as the input to our forward-modeling procedure described in Sec. 4.2. Left: The final 1D PSF (black) plotted with the 18 individual PSFs for the PSF-matched field images (gray). The small width of the gray shading indicates the consistency of the ma…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CECILIA: Ultra-Deep Rest-Optical Spectra of Faint Galaxies at Cosmic Noon

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Ultra-deep JWST/NIRSpec spectra of nine faint galaxies at z~2.5 yield low SFRs, low dust, low electron densities, and hints of a very-low-metallicity turnover in the [OIII]/Hβ diagnostic.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    L., Shapley, A

    Adelberger, K. L., Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 636, doi: 10.1086/431753

    doi:10.1086/431753 2005

  2. [2]

    L., Steidel, C

    Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., & Pettini, M. 2003, ApJ, 584, 45, doi: 10.1086/345660 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collab...

    doi:10.1086/345660 2003

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  4. [4]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  5. [5]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  6. [6]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    Cai, Z., Fan, X., Yang, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14 2017

  7. [7]

    2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Cantalupo, S. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2017

  8. [8]

    430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed

    Library, Vol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed. A. Fox & R. Dav´ e, 195, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52512-99

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52512-99

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Madau, P

    Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature12898

    2014 doi

  2. [11]

    S., Johnson, S

    Chen, H.-W., Zahedy, F. S., Johnson, S. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1541

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    C., Hummels, C

    Chen, Y., Steidel, C. C., Hummels, C. B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2808

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    C., Erb, D

    Chen, Y., Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 19, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2383

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    J., Rudie, G

    Cooper, T. J., Rudie, G. C., Chen, H.-W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2869

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    K., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., & Steidel, C

    Erb, D. K., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., & Steidel, C. C. 2011, ApJL, 740, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L31

    2011 doi

  7. [16]

    K., Li, Z., Steidel, C

    Erb, D. K., Li, Z., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd849

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    K., Pettini, M., Steidel, C

    Erb, D. K., Pettini, M., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 52, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/52

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    K., Shapley, A

    Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 813, doi: 10.1086/503623

    2006 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Hagen, A., Ciardullo, R., et al

    Feldmeier, J. J., Hagen, A., Ciardullo, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/75

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    Fielding, D., Quataert, E., McCourt, M., & Thompson, T. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3810, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3326

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    B., Oppenheimer, B

    Ford, A. B., Oppenheimer, B. D., Dav´ e, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt393

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

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

    Gallego, S. G., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty037

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    G., Cantalupo, S., Sarpas, S., et al

    Gallego, S. G., Cantalupo, S., Sarpas, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 16, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab796

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    2000, ApJL, 537, L5, doi: 10.1086/312754

    Haiman, Z., Spaans, M., & Quataert, E. 2000, ApJL, 537, L5, doi: 10.1086/312754

    2000 doi

  18. [27]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    2013, ApJL, 765, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L27

    Hayes, M., ¨Ostlin, G., Schaerer, D., et al. 2013, ApJL, 765, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L27

    2013 doi

  20. [29]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/6

    Hayes, M., ¨Ostlin, G., Duval, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/6

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    2015, Science, 348, 779, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa539710.48550/arXiv.1505.03786

    Arrigoni-Battaia, F. 2015, Science, 348, 779, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa539710.48550/arXiv.1505.03786

    2015

  22. [31]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

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

    2007 doi

  24. [33]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2214

    Kakiichi, K., & Dijkstra, M. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2214

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    2019, PASJ, 71, L2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz055

    Kikuta, S., Matsuda, Y., Cen, R., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, L2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz055

    2019 doi

  26. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf30

    Kikuta, S., Matsuda, Y., Inoue, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf30

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.07257

    Kusakabe, H., Verhamme, A., Blaizot, J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.07257. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.07257

    2022 arXiv

  28. [37]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/46

    Lake, E., Zheng, Z., Cen, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/46

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    W., Prochaska, J

    Lau, M. W., Prochaska, J. X., & Hennawi, J. F. 2016, ApJS, 226, 25, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/2/25

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    W., Prochaska, J

    Lau, M. W., Prochaska, J. X., & Hennawi, J. F. 2018, ApJ, 857, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab78e

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    2007, ApJL, 657, L69, doi: 10.1086/513191

    Laursen, P., & Sommer-Larsen, J. 2007, ApJL, 657, L69, doi: 10.1086/513191

    2007 doi

  32. [41]

    2017, A&A, 608, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731480

    Leclercq, F., Bacon, R., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731480

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    2020, A&A, 635, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937339 Lujan Niemeyer, M., Komatsu, E., Byrohl, C., et al

    Leclercq, F., Bacon, R., Verhamme, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937339 Lujan Niemeyer, M., Komatsu, E., Byrohl, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5cb8

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    L., Dijkstra, M., Henry, A., et al

    Martin, C. L., Dijkstra, M., Henry, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/6

    2015 doi

  36. [46]

    C., O’Sullivan, D., Matuszewski, M., et al

    Martin, D. C., O’Sullivan, D., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 822, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0791-2 Lya Halos atz∼2−3 25

    2019 doi

  37. [47]

    2016, ApJ, 822, 84, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/84

    Mas-Ribas, L., & Dijkstra, M. 2016, ApJ, 822, 84, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/84

    2016 doi

  38. [48]

    F., et al

    Mas-Ribas, L., Dijkstra, M., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa704e

    2017 doi

  39. [49]

    V., & Anderson, E

    Massey, P., Strobel, K., Barnes, J. V., & Anderson, E. 1988, ApJ, 328, 315, doi: 10.1086/166294

    1988 doi

  40. [50]

    2004, AJ, 128, 569, doi: 10.1086/42202010.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405221

    Matsuda, Y., Yamada, T., Hayashino, T., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 569, doi: 10.1086/42202010.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405221

    2004

  41. [52]

    D., Blaizot, J., Cadiou, C., et al

    Mitchell, P. D., Blaizot, J., Cadiou, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab035

    2021 doi

  42. [53]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu825

    Momose, R., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu825

    2014 doi

  43. [54]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 2318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw021

    Momose, R., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw021

    2016 doi

  44. [55]

    G., Levine, S

    Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 984, doi: 10.1086/345888

    2003 doi

  45. [56]

    C., et al

    Morrissey, P., Matuszewski, M., Martin, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad597

    2018 doi

  46. [58]

    Oke, J. B. 1990b, AJ, 99, 1621, doi: 10.1086/115444

    doi

  47. [59]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, doi: 10.1086/160817 O’Sullivan, D. B., Martin, C., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab838c

    1983 doi

  48. [60]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  49. [61]

    Prescott, M. K. M., Kashikawa, N., Dey, A., & Matsuda, Y. 2008, ApJL, 678, L77, doi: 10.1086/58860610.48550/arXiv.0803.4230

    2008

  50. [62]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.01626

    Rasekh, A., Melinder, J., ¨Ostlin, G., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.01626. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.01626

    2021 arXiv

  51. [63]

    A., Pettini, M., Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., Pettini, M., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/25

    2012 doi

  52. [64]

    A., Steidel, C

    Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 48, doi: 10.1086/521105

    2008 doi

  53. [65]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 344, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20883.x

    Rosdahl, J., & Blaizot, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 344, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20883.x

    2012

  54. [66]

    C., Steidel, C

    Rudie, G. C., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4255

    2019 doi

  55. [67]

    C., Steidel, C

    Rudie, G. C., Steidel, C. C., Trainor, R. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/67

    2012 doi

  56. [68]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a91

    Runnholm, A., Hayes, M., Melinder, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a91

    2020 doi

  57. [69]

    J., Lin, Y.-H., et al

    Runnholm, A., Hayes, M. J., Lin, Y.-H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1264

    2023 doi

  58. [70]

    Thompson, T. A. 2020, ApJ, 895, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ae8

    2020 doi

  59. [71]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2003, ApJ, 588, 65, doi: 10.1086/373922

    2003 doi

  60. [72]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/89

    Shen, S., Madau, P., Guedes, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/89

    2013 doi

  61. [73]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2000, ApJ, 532, 170, doi: 10.1086/308568

    2000 doi

  62. [74]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 592, 728, doi: 10.1086/375772

    2003 doi

  63. [75]

    C., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., Shapley, A

    Steidel, C. C., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/160

    2011 doi

  64. [76]

    C., Erb, D

    Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/289

    2010 doi

  65. [77]

    C., Shapley, A

    Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 604, 534, doi: 10.1086/381960

    2004 doi

  66. [78]

    C., Rudie, G

    Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 165, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/165

    2014 doi

  67. [79]

    L., Steidel, C

    Strom, A. L., Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/164

    2017 doi

  68. [80]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2762

    Suresh, J., Bird, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2762

    2015 doi

  69. [81]

    Trainor, R., & Steidel, C. C. 2013, ApJL, 775, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L3

    2013 doi

  70. [82]

    F., & Steidel, C

    Trainor, R. F., & Steidel, C. C. 2012, ApJ, 752, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/39

    2012 doi

  71. [83]

    F., Steidel, C

    Trainor, R. F., Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., & Rudie, G. C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/89

    2015 doi

  72. [84]

    F., Strom, A

    Trainor, R. F., Strom, A. L., Steidel, C. C., & Rudie, G. C. 2016, ApJ, 832, 171, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/171

    2016 doi

  73. [85]

    F., Strom, A

    Trainor, R. F., Strom, A. L., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4993

    2019 doi

  74. [86]

    S., & Werk, J

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

    2017 doi

  75. [87]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson, J., Thom, C., Werk, J. K., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 948, doi: 10.1126/science.1209840

    2011 doi

  76. [88]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  77. [89]

    K., Prochaska, J

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

    2014 doi

  78. [90]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Cantalupo, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/54

    2016 doi

  79. [91]

    2016, A&A, 587, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527384 26Trainor et al

    Wisotzki, L., Bacon, R., Blaizot, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527384 26Trainor et al

    2016 doi

  80. [92]

    broadest PSF

    Zheng, Z., Cen, R., Weinberg, D., Trac, H., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2011, ApJ, 739, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/62 Lya Halos atz∼2−3 27 APPENDIX A.CONSTRUCTION OF THE LARGE-SCALE PSF The point spread function (PSF) used in our forward-modeling technique (Sec. 4.2) is empir...

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.