Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Ly$\alpha$ radiative transfer modeling for 163 MUSE Ly$\alpha$-emitting galaxies at $z=$3--6

T0 review · 2 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 Six-parameter halo model reproduces 163 distant Lyα galaxies and points to broad, nearly static gas at large radii.

desk verdict Solid large-sample Lyα RT fitting, but the 'broad static medium' conclusion sits on an untested grid boundary and needs a grid extension before it holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08290 v1 pith:PHXCQVXD submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.GA

Sangeun Yu , Hyunmi Song , Kwang-il Seon This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemittersradiativetransfercircumgalacticmediumMUSEsurfacebrightnessprofilesgalaxyoutflowshigh-redshiftgalaxiesMonteCarlo
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 claims that a simple expanding-halo radiative transfer model, fitted simultaneously to the Lyα spectrum and surface brightness profile of each of 163 MUSE galaxies at z=3–6, reproduces the data well for most objects. The best-fit parameters pile up at the largest allowed gas scale radius and at zero outflow velocity at the halo edge, which the authors read as evidence that the circumgalactic medium around these galaxies is broadly distributed and nearly static at large radii. The paper also argues that the spatial extent of the Lyα halo is set mainly by the physical extents of the hydrogen medium and the star-forming source, while the spectral peak shift and width are governed chiefly by optical depth, with velocity structure playing a secondary role. The significance is that a single six-parameter model can capture both spectral and spatial Lyα data for a large sample, which would make halo size and outflow parameters jointly measurable from existing IFU observations.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Monte Carlo Lyα radiative transfer code of Song et al. (2020), built on a spherically symmetric halo with an exponential hydrogen density profile of scale radius $r_{\mathrm{s,HI}}$ and a piecewise-linear outflow velocity profile set by $V_{\mathrm{peak}}$, $r_{\mathrm{peak}}$, and $\Delta V$ (equivalently the edge velocity $V_{\mathrm{edge}} = V_{\mathrm{peak}} + \Delta V$), plus a total optical depth $\tau_0$ and the source scale radius $r_{\mathrm{s,cont}}$. The novelty in this paper is that for each galaxy the model spectrum and surface brightness profile are generated through the same transfer calculations and compared to the MUSE data through a summed Neyman chi-square likelihood, so the same set of photons simultaneously constrains spectral shape and spatial extent, breaking degeneracies that plague spectrum-only fits.

What would settle it

Take a subset of the best-fitting galaxies, extend the grid to $r_{\mathrm{s,HI}}$ up to $0.99\,r_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{edge}}$ down to −500 km/s (or allow a static outer shell rather than a linear outflow), re-run the MLE fits, and check whether the $r_{\mathrm{s,HI}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{edge}}$ distributions remain piled at the new boundaries; if they do, the 'extended static CGM' interpretation is a boundary effect rather than a physical detection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the spectra and surface brightness profiles of 163 red-peak-dominated Lyα emitters in the MUSE Hubble Ultra Deep Field are all approximately reproduced by one six-parameter expanding-halo model, and that the best-fit values concentrate at $r_{\mathrm{s,HI}} = 0.9\,r_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{edge}} = 0$ km/s. The authors interpret this pile-up as showing that the hydrogen medium around these galaxies is extended and essentially static at large radii, and they show that this conclusion can only be reached when spectra and surface brightness profiles are modelled together: fitting either observable alone leaves the parameters poorly determined. A correlation analysis then connects observables to physical parameters, showing that Lyα halo size tracks the medium and source scale radii, whereas spectral peak shift and FWHM track optical depth, with outflow kinematics modulating the trends and adding scatter.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumption that the true best fit for each galaxy lies inside the chosen parameter grid, since the best-fit values of $r_{\mathrm{s,HI}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{edge}}$ sit exactly at the grid boundary and the paper does not test whether extending the grid changes the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, halo size measurements from Lyα surface brightness maps can be translated into physical gas and stellar extents for large samples, without needing expensive hydrodynamical simulations.
  • The best-fit pile-up at large $r_{\mathrm{s,HI}}$ and low $V_{\mathrm{edge}}$ implies that outflow deceleration zones, where gas returns to near rest at large radii, are common in the circumgalactic medium of z=3–6 star-forming galaxies.
  • Because spectrum-only or SBP-only fits scatter much more than joint fits, future Lyα surveys should treat spectral and spatial data as a single constraint set; conclusions drawn from either alone will be unreliable.
  • The peak-shift–FWHM relation commonly used to estimate systemic redshifts is shown to be sample-dependent: red-peak-only galaxies and double-peaked galaxies occupy different regions of that plane, so the relation needs velocity-profile information to be predictive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the adopted grid had allowed $r_{\mathrm{s,HI}}$ beyond $0.9\,r_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{edge}}$ below 0 km/s, the best fits might have moved further out and further down, making the paper's physical conclusion a lower limit on gas extent rather than a measurement.
  • The authors neglect IGM transmission, which is strongest at z≈6, so the low-velocity edge could partly absorb blue-wing photons; a natural extension is to fold in per-object IGM transmission to see whether the $V_{\mathrm{edge}}$ distribution shifts.
  • The same joint-fitting machinery could be applied to double-peaked LAEs, spectroscopically confirmed redshifts, or higher-signal-to-noise IFU data to test whether the pile-up persists with independent 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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. Yu et al. model the Lyα spectra and surface brightness profiles (SBPs) of 163 MUSE Lyα-emitting galaxies at z=3–6 using the six-parameter expanding-halo Monte Carlo radiative transfer model of Song et al. (2020). They find that the best-fit models reproduce both observables for most galaxies, and that the simultaneous best-fit values of the HI density scale radius rsHI cluster at 0.9 rmax and the outer-edge velocity Vedge at 0 km/s, which they interpret as evidence for a broad, nearly static outer circumgalactic medium. They further analyze correlations between observables and model parameters, concluding that the spatial extent of Lyα halos is primarily set by the medium and source scale radii, while spectral peak shift and FWHM are mainly governed by optical depth with a secondary role for the velocity structure. The paper also shows that correlations derived from the full model grid and from the best-fit subset differ substantially, and it cautions against overinterpreting the full-grid correlations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this paper demonstrates that a simple parametric outflow model can simultaneously reproduce Lyα spectra and SBPs for a statistically meaningful sample, extending Song et al. (2020) from 8 to 163 galaxies and placing population-level constraints on the CGM of z=3–6 LAEs. The use of direct MUSE data rather than digitized figures, the systematic MLE-versus-MAP comparison, and the explicit discussion of sample bias in correlation analysis are notable strengths that increase confidence in the fitting procedure. However, the interpretation that the outer medium is broad and static rests on best-fit parameters that pile up at the edge of the adopted parameter grid, and on the neglect of IGM transmission at redshifts where it is known to be important; both issues are load-bearing for the central conclusion and require further testing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1, Figure 10] The best-fit rsHI values for the simultaneous fits concentrate at 0.9 rmax, which is the upper boundary of the adopted grid (rsHI ∈ {0.1, ..., 0.9}). The paper interprets this pile-up as evidence that the medium is 'largely extended', but a pile-up at a grid boundary is also what one expects if the true best fit lies beyond the searched range. No test with rsHI > 0.9 or with a larger rmax is presented, so the MLE at 0.9 cannot be taken as a reliable estimate of the preferred scale radius. Because this is one of the two pillars of the central 'broad static medium' claim, the authors should either extend the grid and show the likelihood behavior beyond the boundary, or explicitly qualify rsHI = 0.9 as a lower limit rather than a detection. The qualitative direction of the claim may survive such a test, but the current analysis does not demonstrate it.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'It is worth noting...'] The models ignore IGM transmission even though the sample spans z=3–6, where the mean IGM transmission declines from roughly 60% at z=3 to near zero at z=6 (Inoue et al. 2014). The model has no physical mechanism other than outflowing gas to suppress the blue Lyα peak, so IGM absorption can produce red-peak-dominated spectra even for intrinsically symmetric or weakly outflowing media. This degeneracy may bias the inferred velocity structure, notably Vedge, and possibly rsHI for the highest-redshift objects. The authors acknowledge the issue but do not quantify its impact. I request a quantitative check, such as applying a representative IGM transmission to the model spectra for a subsample and refitting, or at least a careful discussion of how the central conclusion of a static outer CGM is robust to plausible IGM attenuation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The text states that 19 of 184 LAEs have double-peaked spectra and the rest have red-peak-only spectra, which would leave 165 red-peak-dominated objects, yet the modeling is performed for 163 galaxies; please clarify why two additional galaxies were excluded.
  2. [Section 3, Equation (1) and following paragraph] The text says 'the total likelihood was computed by summing the likelihoods calculated from the spectrum and SBP,' but Equation (1) defines a log-likelihood. If the sum is over log-likelihoods, the wording should say so; if the sum is actually over likelihoods (not log-likelihoods), the statistical procedure is incorrect and needs correction.
  3. [Section 4.2, Figure 10] Vedge = Vpeak + ΔV is introduced only in the Figure 10 axis label; it would be clearer to define this derived quantity explicitly in the text before discussing its best-fit distribution.
  4. [Section 4.1, Figure 4] The reduced chi-square values are discussed without specifying how the degrees of freedom are computed for each object; because the number of spectral and SBP data points varies and parameters are selected on a discrete grid, a brief definition of the reduced chi-square would improve interpretability.
  5. [Figures 11–14] Several correlation p-values are printed as 0.000; these should be reported as <0.001 or as the actual floating-point values to avoid implying a literally zero probability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper fits an independently published radiative-transfer model to external MUSE observations; the self-citations are normal model reuse and do not reduce the conclusions to inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the Song et al. (2020) MCRT calculations, which are used as a forward generative model. Best-fit parameters are obtained by comparing model spectra and SBPs to MUSE observations from Leclercq et al. (2017), an external dataset, through the likelihood in Eq. (1). The central claims (broad HI distribution, low Vedge, and the correlations of halo size with rsHI and rscont) are interpretations of fitted parameters and of the forward-model grid, not quantities defined in terms of the targets they are said to explain. The pile-up of rsHI at the upper grid boundary 0.9 rmax is a search-range completeness limitation that could affect the physical interpretation, but it does not make the conclusion equivalent by construction to the input; one would need to show that the likelihood itself, not the grid edge, selected that value. The self-citation to Song et al. (2020) is standard reuse of a previously published model, and the present paper applies it to a new, larger external MUSE sample while also comparing against the original eight objects, so the citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no empirical pattern is merely renamed. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for the purpose of this analysis, and no significant circularity is found.

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

The model parameters and geometry are adopted from Song et al. (2020) with two authors in common. The paper contributes no new physical entities, but its physical conclusions rest on a set of simplified domain assumptions and on grid boundaries that are not tested. The most consequential assumptions are the spherical outflow geometry and the neglect of IGM transmission.

free parameters (6)
  • rsHI (HI density scale radius, normalized by rmax) = grid 0.1 to 0.9; best-fit pile-up at 0.9
    Fitted independently for each galaxy; its distribution drives the claim of a broad medium.
  • rpeak (radius of peak outflow velocity) = grid 0.0 to 0.6
    Fitted per galaxy; helps set velocity profile shape.
  • Vpeak (peak outflow velocity) = grid 100 to 500 km/s
    Fitted per galaxy; controls Doppler shifting of Lyα photons.
  • ΔV (velocity difference at rpeak and edge) = grid -500 to 0 km/s
    Fitted per galaxy; Vedge = Vpeak + ΔV piles up at 0 km/s.
  • log τ0 (log optical depth at Lyα center) = grid 5.7 to 7.2
    Fitted per galaxy; primary driver of peak shift and FWHM in this model.
  • z (redshift offset from MUSE estimate) = grid zMUSE -0.015 to +0.002
    Fitted per galaxy to correct systemic redshift.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The circumgalactic medium is spherically symmetric with an exponential HI density profile of scale radius rsHI.
    Section 3; central to the model geometry. If the true geometry is clumpy or non-spherical, inferred parameters could be biased.
  • domain assumption The medium is isothermal at 10^4 K.
    Section 3; temperature affects the Voigt profile and scattering rates.
  • domain assumption The bulk motion is a smooth outflow that rises linearly to Vpeak at rpeak and then drops to Vpeak+ΔV at rmax.
    Section 3; the model only produces red-peak-dominated spectra, so 19 double-peaked galaxies are excluded.
  • domain assumption The initial Lyα photon distribution follows the UV continuum distribution, an exponential in projection and a modified Bessel function in 3D.
    Section 3; ties source extent to observable rs,cont.
  • ad hoc to paper Dust-to-gas ratio is zero and the intergalactic medium is ignored.
    Section 3; DGR excluded because poorly constrained; IGM ignored for simplicity, though it can strongly attenuate the blue side of Lyα at z=3-6.
  • ad hoc to paper The parameter grid boundaries (rsHI max 0.9, Vedge max 0) encompass the true best-fit parameters.
    Section 4.2 and Table 1; pile-up at boundaries suggests this may be false.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ly$\alpha$ radiative transfer modeling for 163 MUSE Ly$\alpha$-emitting galaxies at $z=$3--6." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PHXCQVXD

@misc{pith2026250608290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ly$\alpha$ radiative transfer modeling for 163 MUSE Ly$\alpha$-emitting galaxies at $z=$3--6},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PHXCQVXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08290}
}
abstract

We utilized Ly$\alpha$ radiative transfer calculations from \citet{Song2020} to investigate the properties of extended Ly$\alpha$ halos around star-forming galaxies in the \textit{Hubble} Ultra Deep Field, observed by the Multi-Unit Spectroscopic Explorer. Expanding on the work of \citet{Song2020}, which was limited to eight galaxies, we derived best-fit models for a significantly larger sample of 163 galaxies, which successfully reproduced both their Ly$\alpha$ spectra and surface brightness profiles (SBPs). These best-fit models suggest a broad medium distribution surrounding each galaxy, with low expanding velocities at large radii. This conclusion could not have been drawn from modeling either the spectrum or SBP alone, but only through simultaneous modeling of both. Our correlation analysis between observables and model parameters reveals that the spatial extent of Ly$\alpha$ halos is primarily determined by the extents of the medium and the source, while the spectral peak shift and full width at half maximum are governed mainly by optical depth, with the velocity structure of the medium playing a secondary yet non-negligible role. The fact that various correlations derived from the full set of models and those from the best-fit subset can differ significantly highlights the complex and interdependent nature of Ly$\alpha$ radiative transfer. All model parameters interact to shape the observed Ly$\alpha$ features in a non-trivial way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08290 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of MUSE LAEs’ Lyα spectra and surface brightness profiles (SBPs). The left of each panel presents the spectrum for each object, while the right shows the corresponding SBP. The MUSE ID for each object is indicated in the upper left corner of each panel. The spectra exhibit various shapes, such as a clear red peak, a double peak, or a broad emission line (see objects #1113, #1756, #3281). the limitation of b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of S/N obtained from the spectrum (⟨S/N⟩ spec ) and the SBP (⟨S/N⟩ sbp). The histograms in the upper left and lower right represent the individual distributions of ⟨S/N⟩ for the spectrum and SBP, respectively. study, and it is now being applied to a larger sample that is 20 times greater. Here, we provide an overall description of the model. A halo is assumed to be spherically symmetric with an exponent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fitting results for the eight objects analyzed in the previous study (Song et al. 2020). The left and right sides of each panel show the spectrum and SBP, respectively, with the observed data (black dots with error bars) and the best-fit model (red solid line). The MUSE ID is indicated in the upper left of each panel, and the best-fit parameter set used to construct the best-fit model is presented in the upper right… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The reduced χ 2 values for the 163 galaxies. ˜χ 2 tot,spec and ˜χ 2 tot,sbp represent the reduced χ 2 values for the model spectra and the model SBP, respectively, based on the given best-fit parameter set. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 (rsHI)MLE 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the best-fit parameters obtained with and without marginalization. Each panel represents the two-dimensional histogram for one of our model parameters, obtained from all samples, illustrating the best-fit parameters obtained after marginalization (denoted…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of the marginal posterior distribution. The top panel in each column represents the 1D posterior distribution, while the remaining panels show the 2D posterior map for the total likelihood of object #1185. The tilde denotes that the posterior values have bee…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between best-fit parameters. The subscript “spec” indicates the best-fit parameter obtained by consid￾ering only the spectrum, while “tot” denotes the total best-fit parameter determined by considering both the spectrum and the SBP. The black dotted line rep…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The histogram of best-fit values for each parameter. The blue area shows the distribution of best-fit parameters derived by considering only the spectrum, the green area illustrates the distribution based on only SBP, and the red area depicts the total best-fit parame…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Correlation between the size of Lyα halo (rshalo, normalized by rmax) and each of the model parameters. The distribution of the full set of models is shown as a 2D histogram in red and the best-fit models for observed galaxies are shown as gray dots. Since transparenc…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Correlation between peak shift and FWHM. The red 2D histogram is for the full set of models, and the gray dots represent the best-fit models for observed galaxies. The blue solid line corresponds to the empirical relation established by Verhamme et al. (2018), and the…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahn, S.-H., Lee, H.-W., & Lee, H. M. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 863, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06353.x

    arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    2015, A&A, 575, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425419

    Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., Richard, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425419

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425419 2015

  4. [4]

    A., Garel, T., & Kacprzak, G

    Barnes, L. A., Garel, T., & Kacprzak, G. G. 2014, PASP, 126, 969, doi: 10.1086/679178

    doi:10.1086/679178 2014

  5. [5]

    2014, A&A, 572, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424755

    Behrens, C., & Braun, H. 2014, A&A, 572, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424755

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424755 2014

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1523

    Blaizot, J., Garel, T., Verhamme, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1523

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1523 2023

  7. [7]

    2011, Nature, 476, 288, doi: 10.1038/476288a

    Bower, R. 2011, Nature, 476, 288, doi: 10.1038/476288a

    work page doi:10.1038/476288a 2011

  8. [8]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acac98

    Chang, S.-J., Yang, Y., Seon, K.-I., Zabludoff, A., & Lee, H.-W. 2023, ApJ, 945, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acac98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac98 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    2014, PASA, 31, e040, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.33

    Dijkstra, M. 2014, PASA, 31, e040, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.33

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2006, ApJ, 649, 14, doi: 10.1086/506243

    Dijkstra, M., Haiman, Z., & Spaans, M. 2006, ApJ, 649, 14, doi: 10.1086/506243

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab990

    Garel, T., Blaizot, J., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab990

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 237 Lyman-alpha spectra of MUSE-Wide survey (Gronke, 2017), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/608/A139

    Gronke, M. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 237 Lyman-alpha spectra of MUSE-Wide survey (Gronke, 2017), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/608/A139. Originally published in: 2017A&A...608A.139G, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.36080139

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/123

    Gronke, M., Bull, P., & Dijkstra, M. 2015, ApJ, 812, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/123

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 14, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/14

    Gronke, M., & Dijkstra, M. 2016, ApJ, 826, 14, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/14

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Gronke, M., Dijkstra, M., McCourt, M., & Oh, S. P. 2017, A&A, 607, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731013

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Hansen, M., & Oh, S. P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 979, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09870.x

    2006

  9. [17]

    2015, PASA, 32, e027, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.25

    Hayes, M. 2015, PASA, 32, e027, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.25

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    2011, Nature, 476, 304, doi: 10.1038/nature10320

    Hayes, M., Scarlata, C., & Siana, B. 2011, Nature, 476, 304, doi: 10.1038/nature10320

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu936

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab837f

    Kim, E., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab837f

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Zheng, Z., Dav´ e, R., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Zheng, Z., Dav´ e, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1048, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1048

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

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

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

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5034, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1207

    Li, Z., & Gronke, M. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5034, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1207

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Neufeld, D. A. 1990, ApJ, 350, 216, doi: 10.1086/168375

    1990 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f4b

    Park, H., Jung, I., Song, H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f4b

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Prescott, M. K. M., Smith, P. S., Schmidt, G. D., & Dey, A. 2011, ApJL, 730, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/L25

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    2011, A&A, 531, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116709

    Schaerer, D., Hayes, M., Verhamme, A., & Teyssier, R. 2011, A&A, 531, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116709

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, ApJS, 250, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba2d6

    Seon, K.-I., & Kim, C.-G. 2020, ApJS, 250, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba2d6

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3af1

    Seon, K.-I., Song, H., & Chang, S.-J. 2022, ApJS, 259, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3af1

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 39, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3483

    Smith, A., Ma, X., Bromm, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 39, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3483

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv565 18Yu et al

    Smith, A., Safranek-Shrader, C., Bromm, V., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv565 18Yu et al

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2641

    Smith, A., Kannan, R., Tacchella, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2641

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Song, H., Seon, K.-I., & Hwang, H. S. 2020, ApJ, 901, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abac02

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2012, A&A, 546, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218783

    Verhamme, A., Dubois, Y., Blaizot, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218783

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    2006, A&A, 460, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065554

    Verhamme, A., Schaerer, D., & Maselli, A. 2006, A&A, 460, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065554

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, L60, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly058

    Verhamme, A., Garel, T., Ventou, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, L60, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly058

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2016, A&A, 587, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527384

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

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 130, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/130

    Yang, H., Malhotra, S., Gronke, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 130, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/130

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    E., et al

    Yang, H., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6337

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/182

    You, C., Zabludoff, A., Smith, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/182

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2011, ApJ, 739, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/62

    Zheng, Z., Cen, R., Weinberg, D., Trac, H., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2011, ApJ, 739, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/62

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    2002, ApJ, 578, 33, doi: 10.1086/342400

    Zheng, Z., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2002, ApJ, 578, 33, doi: 10.1086/342400

    2002 doi

Pith tools

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