pith. machine review for the scientific record.
sign in

arxiv: 2509.18260 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Exploring the impact of AGN feedback model variations on the Lyman-α Forest Flux Power Spectrum

Megan Pirecki , Megan Taylor Tillman , Blakesley Burkhart , Stephanie Tonnesen , Simeon Bird This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 14:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords AGN feedbackLyman-alpha forestflux power spectrumSimba simulationCAMELSsupermassive black holesjet feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stronger AGN feedback suppresses the Lyman-alpha forest power spectrum only if it leaves the number of massive jet-producing black holes unchanged.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses the CAMELS suite to vary parameters in the Simba AGN feedback model and measures the resulting changes to the one-dimensional transmitted flux power spectrum of the Lyman-alpha forest. Parameters such as supermassive black hole radiative efficiency, jet velocity threshold, and minimum black hole mass for jet production are explored for the first time in this context. The most massive black holes affect the forest mainly through their jet mode, where heating to virial temperature removes neutral hydrogen but also limits further jet activity. The central result is that increasing feedback strength reduces the power spectrum, provided this increase does not reduce the population of massive jet-producing black holes.

Core claim

Variations in the Simba AGN feedback model show that the Lyman-α forest 1D flux power spectrum responds primarily to jet feedback from the most massive supermassive black holes. Increasing AGN feedback strength suppresses the power spectrum, but only when the feedback does not alter the number of massive jet-producing black holes. Higher radiative efficiency suppresses black hole growth and thereby reduces later feedback, while jet heating clears neutral hydrogen yet inhibits additional jet production.

What carries the argument

The Simba subgrid AGN feedback model, specifically its jet mode triggered above a minimum black hole mass, which couples momentum and thermal energy injection to the surrounding gas.

If this is right

  • Stronger AGN jets heat gas to virial temperature, removing neutral hydrogen from the Lyman-alpha forest.
  • This same heating reduces further jet feedback by limiting black hole growth.
  • Higher radiative efficiency suppresses black hole growth and thereby lowers later AGN feedback.
  • Only black holes above the jet mass threshold produce the dominant effect on the forest power spectrum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • AGN feedback implementations must separate direct impacts on the intergalactic medium from indirect changes to the black hole mass function.
  • Repeating the parameter scan in other simulation codes could test whether the conditional suppression depends on Simba-specific choices.
  • Observed Lyman-alpha forest statistics may need to be interpreted with allowance for how feedback strength correlates with black hole demographics.

Load-bearing premise

The Simba subgrid AGN feedback model and its parameter variations accurately capture the causal effects on the intergalactic medium without major numerical artifacts or unaccounted couplings between feedback channels and black hole population statistics.

What would settle it

Counting the number of massive black holes in simulation snapshots across feedback parameter variations and verifying that power-spectrum suppression appears only in runs where this count stays constant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.18260 by Blakesley Burkhart, Megan Pirecki, Megan Taylor Tillman, Simeon Bird, Stephanie Tonnesen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Lyα forest transmitted 1D flux power spectrum for different redshifts varying the SMBH momentum flux (AAGN1). The top row is the P1D and the bottom row shows the ratios of the P1D relative to the fiducial. The black line is the fiducial simulation value while red corresponds to a high parameter value, and blue is the low parameter value. The dashed grey line is the 10% difference from the fiducial simu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The accretion rate density of SMBHs and the total number of SMBHs for both the radiative mode (top two plots) and the jet mode (bottom two plots) as a function of redshift for the BHRadiativeEff, BHJetTvirVel, and BHJetMassThr parameters. Similar data for AAGN1 and AAGN2 is presented in Tillman et al. (2023b). The colored lines correspond to the low, fiducial, and high values for each parameter. For BHJetM… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the effects of varying different Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) feedback parameters on the Lyman-$\alpha$ (Ly$\alpha$) forest 1D transmitted flux power spectrum (P1D). We use the Cosmological and Astrophysics with Machine Learning Simulations (CAMELS) suite to explore variations on the Simba simulation AGN feedback model. The parameters explored include AGN momentum flux, AGN jet speed, supermassive black hole (SMBH) radiative efficiency, jet velocity threshold, and minimum SMBH mass needed to produce jet feedback. Although all parameters affect the P1D, this work explores the radiative efficiency, jet velocity threshold, and minimum SMBH mass in this context for the first time and finds the following results: Primarily, the most massive SMBHs impact the Ly$\alpha$ forest through the jet feedback mode. While heating AGN jets to the virial temperature at injection aids in the removal of neutral hydrogen from the Ly$\alpha$ forest, this heating also inhibits further jet feedback. Similar behaviors are seen when varying the SMBH radiative efficiency, with higher values resulting in a suppression of SMBH growth and thus a later reduction in AGN feedback and lower values directly reducing the impact of AGN feedback on the Ly$\alpha$ forest P1D. These results imply that increasing the AGN feedback strength in the Simba simulation model suppresses the Ly$\alpha$ forest P1D, but only if the feedback does not impact the number of massive jet producing BHs. Future studies of AGN feedback models will require careful exploration of the unique aspects of the specific subgrid model, and how they interact with one another, for a complete understanding of the potential astrophysical impacts of SMBH feedback.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the CAMELS suite to perform parameter variations on the Simba AGN feedback model and measures the resulting changes to the Lyman-α forest 1D transmitted flux power spectrum (P1D). It reports that the most massive SMBHs affect the forest primarily through the jet mode, that jet heating to virial temperature removes neutral hydrogen but self-limits further feedback, and that higher radiative efficiency suppresses SMBH growth and thereby reduces later AGN impact. The central result is the conditional statement that increasing AGN feedback strength suppresses the P1D only when the variation does not alter the number of massive jet-producing black holes.

Significance. If the reported trends are robust, the work demonstrates that subgrid AGN feedback implementations contain internal couplings that produce non-monotonic effects on IGM observables. This is relevant for cosmological analyses that rely on the Lyα forest P1D to constrain parameters, because it shows that model-specific interactions between radiative efficiency, BH growth, and jet demographics must be understood before feedback strength can be mapped to observable suppression.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The conditional qualifier in the headline result—that suppression of the P1D occurs 'only if the feedback does not impact the number of massive jet producing BHs'—is not isolated from self-consistent changes in the BH population. Parameters such as SMBH radiative efficiency, jet velocity threshold, and minimum SMBH mass for jet feedback directly modulate accretion and growth rates in the Simba subgrid model, so an increase in one channel can reduce the count of BHs above the jet threshold. Without a control run that holds the BH mass function fixed (or post-hoc reweighting), the observed P1D changes cannot be unambiguously attributed to direct IGM heating versus altered BH demographics.
  2. [Results] Results section (parameter sweeps): The manuscript presents qualitative trends but does not report quantitative error bars on the P1D measurements, convergence tests with respect to resolution or volume, or the precise definition of the 'suppression' metric used to compare runs. These omissions make it difficult to judge whether the reported differences exceed numerical or cosmic variance uncertainties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract states that the work 'explores the radiative efficiency, jet velocity threshold, and minimum SMBH mass in this context for the first time'; a brief literature comparison in the introduction would help readers assess the degree of novelty.
  2. Notation for the 1D power spectrum is given as P1D; consistent use of this abbreviation (or explicit definition on first use) throughout the text would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. Below we respond point by point to the major comments, indicating where revisions will be made and where limitations of the present study prevent a complete response.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The conditional qualifier in the headline result—that suppression of the P1D occurs 'only if the feedback does not impact the number of massive jet producing BHs'—is not isolated from self-consistent changes in the BH population. Parameters such as SMBH radiative efficiency, jet velocity threshold, and minimum SMBH mass for jet feedback directly modulate accretion and growth rates in the Simba subgrid model, so an increase in one channel can reduce the count of BHs above the jet threshold. Without a control run that holds the BH mass function fixed (or post-hoc reweighting), the observed P1D changes cannot be unambiguously attributed to direct IGM heating versus altered BH demographics.

    Authors: We agree that the explored parameters affect both the strength of AGN feedback and the demographics of the black-hole population through the self-consistent evolution built into the Simba model. The central result of the paper is precisely this conditional dependence, which arises naturally from the internal couplings of the subgrid implementation. The parameter variations we consider are those provided by the CAMELS suite; the observed non-monotonic behavior on the P1D is therefore a direct consequence of how changes in radiative efficiency, jet threshold, or minimum jet mass alter both heating and the number of jet-producing BHs. A dedicated control simulation that holds the BH mass function fixed would require new runs outside the existing CAMELS data set. We will add a paragraph in the discussion section clarifying that the reported P1D changes include both direct IGM heating and demographic effects, and we will note the absence of a fixed-BHMF control as a limitation for future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The manuscript presents qualitative trends but does not report quantitative error bars on the P1D measurements, convergence tests with respect to resolution or volume, or the precise definition of the 'suppression' metric used to compare runs. These omissions make it difficult to judge whether the reported differences exceed numerical or cosmic variance uncertainties.

    Authors: We acknowledge that quantitative error bars, convergence information, and an explicit definition of the suppression metric were not provided. In the revised manuscript we will (i) report error bars on the P1D derived from the ensemble variance across the CAMELS realizations, (ii) include a brief convergence discussion using the resolution and volume variations already available in the CAMELS suite, and (iii) define the suppression metric explicitly (e.g., the ratio of P1D(k) in each varied run to the fiducial run, evaluated at representative wavenumbers). revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Performing new control simulations that hold the black-hole mass function fixed in order to fully separate direct feedback heating from demographic changes, as such runs lie outside the CAMELS simulation suite used for this study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct simulation parameter sweeps

full rationale

The paper's central findings are obtained by executing CAMELS-Simba simulations with explicit variations in AGN subgrid parameters (radiative efficiency, jet velocity threshold, minimum SMBH mass) and then measuring the transmitted flux P1D directly from the simulation outputs. No step reduces a claimed prediction or result to a fitted input by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on a self-citation chain that itself assumes the target outcome. The conditional statement about feedback strength and BH demographics is an empirical observation from the runs, not a definitional equivalence. Self-citations to the Simba or CAMELS frameworks supply the simulation code but do not substitute for the independent parameter explorations performed here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the fidelity of the Simba AGN subgrid model and the assumption that individual parameter variations can be isolated. Several free parameters are the varied AGN feedback settings themselves. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • AGN momentum flux
    One of the varied parameters in the Simba AGN feedback model.
  • AGN jet speed
    One of the varied parameters in the Simba AGN feedback model.
  • SMBH radiative efficiency
    Explored for the first time in this context; directly affects feedback impact.
  • jet velocity threshold
    Explored for the first time in this context; controls jet production.
  • minimum SMBH mass for jet feedback
    Explored for the first time in this context; sets threshold for massive BHs.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Simba simulation subgrid model correctly represents AGN feedback physics and its coupling to the intergalactic medium.
    All results rest on the validity of this particular feedback implementation.
  • ad hoc to paper Individual AGN feedback parameters can be varied independently while holding other aspects of the simulation fixed.
    The exploration design assumes such isolation is possible without hidden couplings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5862 in / 1656 out tokens · 68553 ms · 2026-05-18T14:11:09.487727+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We study the effects of varying different Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) feedback parameters on the Lyman-α forest 1D transmitted flux power spectrum (P1D). We use the Cosmological and Astrophysics with Machine Learning Simulations (CAMELS) suite to explore variations on the Simba simulation AGN feedback model.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    These results imply that increasing the AGN feedback strength in the Simba simulation model suppresses the Lyα forest P1D, but only if the feedback does not impact the number of massive jet producing BHs.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Marsh, D. J. E., & Baur, J. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 4606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1870

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1870 2017

  2. [2]

    2017, JCAP, 2017, 013, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/12/013

    Baur, J., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Y` eche, C., et al. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 013, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/12/013

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/12/013 2017

  3. [3]

    2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 012, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/012

    Baur, J., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Y` eche, C., Magneville, C., & Viel, M. 2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 012, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/012

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/012 2016

  4. [4]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society406(4), 2405–2420 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16885.x arXiv:1004.4003

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Haehnelt, M. G., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1096, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17507.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17507.x 2011

  5. [5]

    2017, FSFE: Fake Spectra Flux Extractor

    Bird, S. 2017, FSFE: Fake Spectra Flux Extractor. http://ascl.net/1710.012

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 1834, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2542

    Bird, S., Haehnelt, M., Neeleman, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1834, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2542

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2542 2015

  7. [7]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  8. [8]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05471, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05471

    Bird, S., Fernandez, M., Ho, M.-F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05471, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05471

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05471 2023

  9. [9]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  10. [10]

    D., Bolton, J

    Boera, E., Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., & Nasir, F. 2019, ApJ, 872, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafee4 The Impact of AGN Models on the Ly α P1D 11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafee4 2019

  11. [11]

    Carswell, R. F. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 386, 1131, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13114.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13114.x 2008

  12. [12]

    B., et al

    Burkhart, B., Tillman, M., Gurvich, A. B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 933, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7e49

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7e49 2022

  13. [13]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 1825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1242

    Chabanier, S., Bournaud, F., Dubois, Y., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1242

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1242 2020

  14. [14]

    F., Dav´ e, R., Sorini, D., & Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D

    Christiansen, J. F., Dav´ e, R., Sorini, D., & Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3007 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 —. 2019b, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 Dav´ e, R., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 473, doi: 1...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3007 2020

  15. [15]

    The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey of SDSS-III

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 2013

  16. [16]

    S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W

    Dawson, K. S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 44, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/44

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/44 2016

  17. [17]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    Kotzlowski, H. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 534–545, doi: 10.1117/12.395512 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1117/12.395512 2000

  18. [18]

    2023, ApJL, 945, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba89

    Dong, C., Lee, K.-G., Ata, M., Horowitz, B., & Momose, R. 2023, ApJL, 945, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba89

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acba89 2023

  19. [19]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.13568, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.13568

    Dong, C., Lee, K.-G., Dav´ e, R., Cui, W., & Sorini, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.13568, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.13568

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.13568 2024

  20. [20]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 2011

  21. [21]

    A., Bird, S., & Ho, M.-F

    Fernandez, M. A., Bird, S., & Ho, M.-F. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.03943, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.03943

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.03943 2023

  22. [22]

    G., & Choudhury, T

    Gaikwad, P., Srianand, R., Haehnelt, M. G., & Choudhury, T. R. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2017 2021

  23. [23]

    2018, JCAP, 2018, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/011

    Garny, M., Konstandin, T., Sagunski, L., & Tulin, S. 2018, JCAP, 2018, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/011

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/011 2018

  24. [24]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/175

    Gurvich, A., Burkhart, B., & Bird, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/175

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/175 2017

  25. [25]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195 —. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1712.01294, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1712.01294

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  26. [26]

    F., et al

    Hu, T., Khaire, V., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.17895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.17895 Irˇ siˇ c, V., Viel, M., Haehnelt, M. G., Bolton, J. S., &

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.17895 2023

  27. [27]

    Becker, G. D. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 031302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.031302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.031302 2017

  28. [28]

    N., Hennawi, J., et al

    Khaire, V., Burchett, J. N., Hennawi, J., et al. 2022, Searching for the Imprints of AGN Feedback on the Ly-alpha Forest Around Massive Quenched Galaxies, HST Proposal. Cycle 30, ID. #17048

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    F., et al

    Khaire, V., Hu, T., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.08470, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.08470

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.08470 2023

  30. [30]

    F., Walther, M., & Davies, F

    Khaire, V., Hu, T., Hennawi, J. F., Walther, M., & Davies, F. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3374

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3374 2024

  31. [31]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, L30, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv060

    Khaire, V., & Srianand, R. 2015, MNRAS, 451, L30, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv060

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv060 2015

  32. [32]

    F., Spergel, D

    Lee, K.-G., Hennawi, J. F., Spergel, D. N., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 196, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/196

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/196 2015

  33. [33]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 313, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355

    McQuinn, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 313, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355 2016

  34. [34]

    Meiksin, A. A. 2009, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81, 1405, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1405

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1405 2009

  35. [35]

    S., Viel, M., et al

    Nasir, F., Bolton, J. S., Viel, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1648 2017

  36. [36]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.02096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.02096

    Ni, Y., Genel, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.02096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.02096

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.02096 2023

  37. [37]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 038, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/038

    Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Y` eche, C., Sch¨ oneberg, N., et al. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 038, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/038

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/038 2020

  38. [38]

    2015a, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 045, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/02/045

    Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Y` eche, C., Lesgourgues, J., et al. 2015a, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 045, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/02/045

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/02/045 2015

  39. [39]

    2015b, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/011

    Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Y` eche, C., Baur, J., et al. 2015b, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/011

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/011 2015

  40. [40]

    WEAVE-QSO: A Massive Intergalactic Medium Survey for the William Herschel Telescope

    Pieri, M. M., Bonoli, S., Chaves-Montero, J., et al. 2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. C. Reyl´ e, J. Richard, L. Cambr´ esy, M. Deleuil, E. P´ econtal, L. Tresse, & I. Vauglin, 259–266, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.09388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.09388 2016

  41. [41]

    B., Rudie, G

    Qezlou, M., Newman, A. B., Rudie, G. C., & Bird, S. 2022, ApJ, 930, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6259 12 Pirecki et al

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6259 2022

  42. [42]

    2017, ApJS, 233, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa93d6 —

    Rossi, G. 2017, ApJS, 233, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa93d6 —. 2020, ApJS, 249, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9d1e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa93d6 2017

  43. [43]

    C., Steidel, C

    Rudie, G. C., Steidel, C. C., & Pettini, M. 2012, ApJL, 757, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L30

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/l30 2012

  44. [44]

    J., & Arnold, J

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x 2010

  45. [45]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 362:41–58

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x 2005

  46. [46]

    Bryan, G. L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05383, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05383

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.05383 2024

  47. [47]

    T., Burkhart, B., Tonnesen, S., et al

    Tillman, M. T., Burkhart, B., Tonnesen, S., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 945, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb7f1 —. 2023b, AJ, 166, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad02f5 Upton Sanderbeck, P. R., D’Aloisio, A., & McQuinn, M. J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 1885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1117

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb7f1 2041

  48. [48]

    D., Bolton, J

    Viel, M., Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 043502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043502 2013

  49. [49]

    D., Bolton, J

    Viel, M., Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., et al. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 041304, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.041304

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.041304 2008

  50. [50]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00685.x

    Viel, M., Bolton, J. S., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2009, MNRAS, 399, L39, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00720.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00720.x 2009

  51. [51]

    Viel, M., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 365, 231, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09703.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09703.x 2006

  52. [52]

    G., Bolton, J

    Viel, M., Haehnelt, M. G., Bolton, J. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, L86, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx004

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx004 2017

  53. [53]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Genel, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf7ba 2021

  54. [54]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Genel, S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbf47 2023

  55. [55]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 023502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.023502

    Villasenor, B., Robertson, B., Madau, P., & Schneider, E. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 023502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.023502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.023502 2023

  56. [56]

    S., Allen, S

    Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine, 362, doi: 10.1117/12.176725

    work page doi:10.1117/12.176725 1994

  57. [57]

    F., Hiss, H., et al

    Walther, M., Hennawi, J. F., Hiss, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c81 2018

  58. [58]

    2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., & Pakmor, R. 2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c 2020

  59. [59]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944 10

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944 Y` eche, C., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Baur, J., & du Mas des Bourboux, H. 2017, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017, 047, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/047

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  60. [60]

    2001, ApJ, 557, 519, doi: 10.1086/321652

    Zaldarriaga, M., Hui, L., & Tegmark, M. 2001, ApJ, 557, 519, doi: 10.1086/321652

    work page doi:10.1086/321652 2001

  61. [61]

    D., Bosman, S

    Zhu, Y., Becker, G. D., Bosman, S. E. I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c2 2021