Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Figuring Out Gas & Galaxies In Enzo (FOGGIE). XIV. The Observability of Emission from Accretion and Feedback in the Circumgalactic Medium with Current and Future Instruments

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For gas around galaxies, faintness—not blur—is the main detectability barrier; separating infall from outflow needs better than 30 km/s resolution.

desk verdict Solid sensitivity-vs-resolution trade study, but the 30 km/s inflow/outflow benchmark is likely overoptimistic because the kinematic metric ignores line widths. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.05644 v2 pith:34AXJCXG submitted 2025-11-07 astro-ph.GA

Vida Saeedzadeh , Jason Tumlinson , Molly S. Peeples , Brian W. O'Shea , Cassandra Lochhaas , Lauren Corlies , Cameron W. Trapp , Britton D. Smith
show 6 more authors
Jessica K. Werk Ayan Acharyya Ramona Augustin Andrew J. Fox Nicolas Lehner Anna C. Wright
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalacticmediumCGMemissionlinessurfacebrightnesssensitivityspectralresolutiongalacticaccretionandfeedbackhydrodynamicalsimulationsmockobservationsmultiphasegaskinematics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks what a telescope must deliver to map the circumgalactic medium (CGM)—the diffuse gas surrounding galaxies that feeds star formation and receives outflows—in emission lines rather than by absorption against background quasars. Using six high-resolution simulated Milky Way-mass halos, the authors produce mock surface-brightness and velocity maps for eight UV/optical lines and then degrade them under realistic instrument limits. Their central finding is that surface-brightness sensitivity, not spatial resolution, sets how much CGM mass can be recovered: a power-law fit to the recovered mass fraction gives a larger sensitivity exponent than spatial-resolution exponent for every ion, and raising the threshold from 100 to 500 photons s^-1 cm^-2 sr^-1 cuts detectable mass by more than half for several lines. They further find that telling inflowing from outflowing gas in projection requires kinematic resolution of about 30 km/s or better, with the separable area dropping from over 80% at 30 km/s to under 40% at 200 km/s. These benchmarks give concrete design targets for UV spectrographs and small satellites now being proposed.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a mock-observation pipeline: eight emission lines (Hα, MgII, SiII, SiIII, CIII, CIV, SiIV, OVI) are assigned emissivities from photoionization-equilibrium tables as a function of local density, temperature, and metallicity; these are projected to surface-brightness and emissivity-weighted line-of-sight velocity maps for six simulated halos. A power-law fitting formula f=a x^b y^c then isolates the influence of spatial resolution x versus surface-brightness sensitivity y on recovered mass. A disk-removal step isolates the CGM from the galaxy's H I disk. Kinematic separability is quantified by thresholding pixel-by-pixel velocity differences at 300, 200, 100, and 30 km

What would settle it

A UV spectrograph reaching ≈100 photons s^-1 cm^-2 sr^-1 with ≈30 km/s resolution around a z≈0.5 galaxy could test the predictions: if the kinematically separable O VI area is much below 80% at 30 km/s, the kinematic claim fails. A rerun of the mass-fraction fits after including resonant-scattering radiative transfer for O VI and C IV would test whether c>b survives; if the sensitivity exponent drops below the resolution exponent, the central ranking is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Surface-brightness sensitivity, not spatial resolution, controls how much circumgalactic (CGM) emitting mass an instrument recovers. Fitting recovered mass f=a x^b y^c to resolution x and sensitivity y gives c>b for all eight ions (≤7% error). Kinematically, emissivity-weighted projected velocity maps show that separating phases—and especially inflow (v≤-100 km/s) from outflow (v≥200 km/s)—requires ≲30 km/s: the separable bright area rises above 80% at 30 km/s and falls below 40% at 200 km/s. O VI traces diffuse warm-hot gas while Hα, MgII, and SiII trace cool clumps, so multi-ion mapping is essential.

Load-bearing premise

Every predicted map assumes the CGM is optically thin and in ionization equilibrium, with line emissivity taken from photoionization tables; because resonant scattering and radiative transfer are not modeled for lines like O VI, C IV, Mg II, and Si II, the predicted surface brightnesses—and therefore the sensitivity and 30 km/s benchmarks—could shift if scattered photons are suppressed or redistributed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future CGM emission mappers should be designed for surface-brightness limits near or below 500 photons s^-1 cm^-2 sr^-1; above that threshold the recoverable mass of diffuse high-ionization gas (O VI, C IV) drops sharply, so sensitivity is the first priority.
  • Spectrographs should aim for delivered kinematic resolution around 30 km/s or finer: at 200 km/s less than 40% of the area of inflow/outflow overlap is separable, so coarse-resolution instruments cannot measure the inflow/outflow geometry of the CGM.
  • No single emission line suffices: O VI, C IV, C III, Mg II, Si II, and Hα each highlight different phases and morphologies, so multi-ion wavelength coverage is needed to recover the multiphase CGM mass and kinematics.
  • The observable mass fractions quoted are lower limits because the simulations underproduce ion column densities by 1–2 dex relative to quasar absorption observations; the ranking of sensitivity over resolution is unaffected by that normalization.
  • Current facilities fall in different parts of the trade space—some reach the sensitivity regime, some reach the kinematic regime—so complementary observations with multiple instruments can cover the needed parameter space even if no single instrument does.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if resonant scattering (not modeled here) suppresses or redistributes light in the strong resonance lines O VI, C IV, Mg II, and Si II, the faint-end surface brightnesses—and hence the derived sensitivity and 30 km/s benchmarks—could move; a radiative-transfer post-processing test would quantify the shift.
  • Editorial inference: the 30 km/s benchmark depends on the chosen inflow/outflow velocity cuts (≤-100 and ≥200 km/s); recomputing the separability fractions with different cuts, or with inflow/outflow defined by temperature or phase, would test how robust the >80%-at-30 km/s result is.
  • Editorial inference: the method transfers to other masses and redshifts; dwarf galaxies and galaxy groups have lower-density, hotter CGM, where the sensitivity-dominance result could be even stronger and the required spectral resolution different.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses six FOGGIE Milky Way-mass halos at z=0.5 to produce mock emission-line maps for eight UV/optical lines (Hα, MgII, SiII, CIII, SiIII, CIV, SiIV, OVI). It quantifies the observable CGM mass fraction as a function of spatial resolution and surface-brightness sensitivity, fits a power-law model f = a x^b y^c, and concludes that sensitivity is the dominant factor limiting detectability. It then constructs emissivity-weighted line-of-sight velocity maps and measures how well different ions, and inflowing versus outflowing gas, can be separated as a function of kinematic resolution, concluding that <30 km/s is required to distinguish inflow from outflow across more than 80% of the CGM area in all ions. Finally, it places current and proposed instruments in this parameter space and derives recommended sensitivity, spatial-resolution, and kinematic-resolution benchmarks.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides concrete, falsifiable instrument requirements for next-generation CGM emission mapping, and its multi-ion comparison is a useful step beyond single-line predictions. Strengths include the high-resolution FOGGIE sample, the explicit caveat that FOGGIE underpredicts column densities by 1–2 dex and that absolute mass fractions are lower limits, and the transparent emissivity pipeline with CLOUDY/CIAOLoop parameters in the appendix. The qualitative conclusion that sensitivity matters more than spatial resolution is directly visible in the heatmaps and is likely robust. However, the headline 30 km/s kinematic benchmark is not supported by the current analysis because the separation metric ignores line widths and spectral blending, and there are internal inconsistencies (HI versus Hα, UVB redshift) that must be addressed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2, Fig. 12] The 'distinguishable' criterion is only a comparison of emissivity-weighted mean velocities: |<v_in> - <v_out>| > R. It does not include intrinsic line widths, thermal/turbulent broadening, or spectral blending, even though the paper defines kinematic resolution as a 'delivered velocity separation between two components that can be reliably distinguished' in §5.1. A real observation yields a single blended spectrum; a 30 km/s centroid offset is not separable at 30 km/s resolution if the components have velocity dispersions of tens to hundreds of km/s. The headline claim that <30 km/s is required to distinguish inflow from outflow over more than 80% of the CGM area is therefore likely overoptimistic. Please recompute the fractions using synthetic spectra with realistic line profiles, or restate the result as a centroid-offset threshold rather than a distinguishability criterion.
  2. [Section 5.1, Figs. 8–9, abstract] The reference ion for the phase-kinematics comparison is called 'HI' throughout, but the line list (Table 2) and methods do not include an HI emission line; Hα is explicitly chosen instead of Lyα. If 'HI' is intended as neutral-hydrogen maps, the method for computing emissivity-weighted HI velocities is missing. If it is a typo for Hα, the interpretation that MgII and SiII 'follow HI velocities' is not supported, because Hα traces warm ionized gas rather than neutral gas. Please correct the notation and, if HI is intended, describe the calculation used to produce those maps.
  3. [Section 2.3 and Appendix C.0.1] The emissivity tables are constructed with the HM12 UV background at z=0 ('Table HM12 redshift 0.00', 'CMB redshift 0.00'), while the halos are analyzed at z=0.5. The text states that this is 'the same evolving UVB used during the simulation runtime,' which is contradictory: the simulation uses an evolving UVB, and at z=0.5 the ionizing background differs from z=0. This can bias ion-specific emissivities (e.g., MgII, SiII, CIV, OVI) and hence the mass-fraction fits and kinematic maps. Please recompute the tables at z=0.5 or justify quantitatively why the z=0 tables are adequate.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Section 5] All predictions assume optically thin line emission and neglect resonant scattering for the resonance lines considered (OVI 1032/1038, CIV 1548, MgII 2796, SiII 1260). At the low surface brightnesses of interest, resonant scattering can redistribute line photons and broaden line profiles, altering both the recovered mass fractions and the kinematic separability benchmarks. The paper justifies avoiding Lyα for this reason but does not assess the optical depth of the other lines. Please provide estimates of line-center optical depths in the simulated CGM, or a quantitative justification that these lines are effectively thin.
  5. [Section 4, Eq. (1), Fig. 6] The exponents b and c are reported without uncertainties or halo-to-halo scatter, and the fitting grid is coarse (4 spatial resolutions and a small number of sensitivity thresholds). The MAE ≤ 7% only measures how well the power law reproduces the grid values. To support the quantitative claim that 'sensitivity is dominant' and the corresponding abstract wording, please provide bootstrap or MCMC uncertainties and per-halo values, or restrict the claim to the qualitative trend that is directly visible in the heatmaps.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] The text says 'eight spectral lines: Hα, MgII, SiII, SiIII, CIII, CIV, and OVI,' which lists only seven lines; SiIV is missing. Please correct the list or the count.
  2. [Section 4, Fig. 5] The exact sensitivity grid values (100, 500, 2000, and any additional thresholds) are not stated in the text. Please specify the grid explicitly so the power-law fit is reproducible.
  3. [Section 5.2] The inflow/outflow definitions use asymmetric radial velocity cuts (-100 and +200 km/s). The results may depend on these cuts; please add a short robustness test or state clearly that the conclusions are conditional on this choice.
  4. [Section 7 and Fig. 12] The summary bullet says 'over 90%' of emission-resolved gas is kinematically distinguishable at 30 km/s, while Fig. 12 and the abstract state 'more than 80%.' Please harmonize these numbers and specify which quantity each refers to.
  5. [Table 3, Fig. 14] For MUSE and KCWI, the reported O VI and Hα surface-brightness limits are identical. Please clarify whether this is a deliberate simplification or a coincidence of the sensitivity calculation, since the sky background and throughput differ between the relevant redshift regimes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: results are forward-modeled from simulation post-processing; self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The central claims—sensitivity-limited detectability and the ~30 km/s kinematic-resolution requirement—are computed from FOGGIE simulation outputs via a fixed post-processing pipeline (CLOUDY emissivity tables, Trident ion masses, yt projections). Section 4's Eq. (1) is a descriptive power-law fit to the computed mass-fraction heatmaps; the conclusion that the sensitivity exponent c exceeds the resolution exponent b is a summary of those fitted values, not a target quantity defined by the fit. Section 5's 'distinguishable' criterion (|Δv| > resolution threshold) is an explicit, transparent definition; the resulting fractions are quantiles of the simulated centroid-difference maps, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations (Corlies et al. 2020; Lochhaas et al. 2025; Trapp et al. 2025) establish the emissivity pipeline and disk-removal method; these are inherited methodology and are not invoked to forbid alternatives or to assert uniqueness. The paper also flags its own limitation (FOGGIE under-predicts column densities by 1–2 dex) and presents results as lower limits, further indicating the analysis is not constructed to force the conclusions. The skeptic's concern about ignoring line widths in the two-component separation is a correctness/physics limitation, not circularity: nothing in the paper's equations defines the target benchmark in terms of the model's free parameters.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on simulation realism, optically thin emissivity, ionization equilibrium, and hand-set analysis thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile assumption is the optically thin treatment of resonance lines, which is not acknowledged in the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • Power-law exponents b and c = per-ion b,c values from Eq. 1 (c>b for all ions)
    Fit to mock observable-mass-fraction heatmaps (Figs. 5–6); central to the claim that sensitivity dominates over spatial resolution.
  • Power-law normalization a = per-ion a from Eq. 1
    Same fit; sets the overall normalization of the observable mass fraction.
  • Inflow/outflow radial velocity cuts = -100 km/s inflow, +200 km/s outflow
    Hand-chosen to isolate coherent radial flows; changing these cuts changes the resolved fractions in Fig. 12.
  • HI disk removal density threshold = n_HI ≈ 2e-2 cm^-3
    Defines the disk component removed before all CGM-only maps; affects surface brightness and kinematic maps (Section 2.2).
  • Surface brightness thresholds = 100, 500, 2000 photons s^-1 cm^-2 sr^-1
    Chosen to represent current/future instrument sensitivities; the mass-fraction grid and b/c exponents depend on these discrete thresholds.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption CGM line emission is dominated by collisional excitation followed by radiative decay, so emissivity scales as n_H^2 and can be precomputed from CLOUDY tables at given n_H, T, and redshift.
    Section 2.3; underpins all surface brightness maps.
  • domain assumption Each simulation cell is in ionization equilibrium under the Haardt & Madau (2012) UV background; photoionization and collisional ionization are included, non-equilibrium effects and local ionizing sources are not.
    Section 2.3; inherited from the CLOUDY pipeline.
  • domain assumption All metal-line emissivities scale linearly with cell metallicity from solar-metallicity CLOUDY tables.
    Section 2.3; ignores abundance pattern variations.
  • domain assumption The FOGGIE simulations with forced and cooling refinement reproduce the CGM density/temperature/metallicity structure well enough for observability trends; underpredictions of 1–2 dex in column density are acknowledged.
    Section 4; the paper relies on this for relative comparisons.
  • domain assumption Six z=0.5 Milky Way-mass halos with no major mergers are representative of low-redshift CGM emission morphologies.
    Section 2.1; sample selection statement.
  • domain assumption Projected emissivity-weighted velocity maps, binned to resolution thresholds, approximate what an integral-field spectrograph would measure; PSF and line-profile effects are ignored.
    Section 5.1; explicitly noted as idealized.
  • ad hoc to paper Resonant scattering and radiative transfer are negligible for the UV/optical lines considered.
    Not stated explicitly, but the optically thin CLOUDY emissivity treatment assumes it; likely invalid for OVI, CIV, and MgII.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Figuring Out Gas & Galaxies In Enzo (FOGGIE). XIV. The Observability of Emission from Accretion and Feedback in the Circumgalactic Medium with Current and Future Instruments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34AXJCXG

@misc{pith2026251105644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Figuring Out Gas & Galaxies In Enzo (FOGGIE). XIV. The Observability of Emission from Accretion and Feedback in the Circumgalactic Medium with Current and Future Instruments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34AXJCXG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.05644}
}
abstract

Observing the circumgalactic medium (CGM) in emission lines from ionized gas enables direct mapping of its spatial and kinematic structure, offering new insight into the gas flows that regulate galaxy evolution. Using the high-resolution Figuring Out Gas & Galaxies In Enzo (FOGGIE) simulations, we generate mock emission-line maps for six Milky Way-mass halos. Different lines (e.g., H$\alpha$, OVI) trace distinct CGM phases and structures, highlighting the importance of observations in multiple species. We quantify the observable CGM mass fraction as a function of instrument spatial resolution and surface brightness sensitivity, finding that sensitivity is the dominant factor limiting detectability across all ions. At fixed sensitivity, higher spatial resolution reveals more structures; at fixed spatial resolution, higher sensitivity recovers a higher percentage of the total mass. We explore CGM kinematics by constructing emissivity-weighted projected velocity maps and comparing line-of-sight velocities between emission lines. OVI shows the largest kinematic deviation from H$\alpha$, while MgII and SiII most closely follow HI velocities. Distinguishing these phases out to 50kpc from the galaxy center requires spectral resolution better than 30km/s for most ion pairs. Additionally, separating inflowing from outflowing gas based on projected kinematics also requires high spectral resolution: at 30km/s, more than 80% of gas above the emission detection threshold can be distinguished kinematically, but this fraction drops to <40% with a resolution of 200km/s. Our results provide predictions for future UV and optical instruments, showing that recovering the multiphase structure and kinematics of circumgalactic emission will require both high sensitivity and fine kinematic resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.05644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Face-on H I column density maps for the FOG￾GIE Squall halo within a 100 kpc box. Top: All gas con￾tributing to the H I column density. Bottom: Map after removing the H I disk component. Some H I remains visible in the inner region after removing the disk; this gas is not part of the disk but lies in front of or behind it along the line of sight. This figure illustrates how removing the dense H I disk reveals surrou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Face-on surface brightness maps of the Squall halo for eight ions with emission lines in the UV/optical: Hα, Mg II, Si II, Si III, C III, C IV, and O VI.. The box sizes cover 100 kpc fields of view. The H I disk has been removed to isolate CGM emission; green contours indicate where the disk was. These maps highlight the multiphase nature of the CGM, as different ions trace different physical structures and temperat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial surface brightness profiles for eight ions across all FOGGIE halos (face-on, 0.27 kpc resolution). Solid lines show median profiles including all gas; dashed lines show CGM-only emission after H I disk removal. Shaded regions indicate the range of halo-to-halo variation. Most ions follow power-law profiles, while Hα, Mg II, and Si II show a break in slope around 0.1 Rvir—reflecting a transition from disk to C… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Surface brightness maps for three UV emission lines for the Blizzard halo, shown edge-on. Each column corresponds to a different spatial resolution: 0.27 kpc, 1, 3 and 6 kpc. These correspond at z = 0.5 (z = 0, 10 Mpc) to ∼ 0.04 (5.6), 0.16 (21), 0.5 (62), and 1 (123) …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observable CGM mass fraction as a function of spatial resolution (x-axis) and surface brightness sensitivity (y-axis). The spatial resolutions of 0.27, 1, 3, and 6 kpc, correspond at z = 0.5 (z = 0, 10 Mpc) to ∼ 0.04 (5.6), 0.16 (20), 0.5 (61), and 1 (120) arcsec, resp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial resolution exponent (b) and sensitivity exponent (c) from the fitting formula (Eqn. 1). A larger value of the sensitivity exponent indicates a stronger influence of sensitivity on recovering the CGM mass for each ion. These results highlight the need for emissi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Emissivity-weighted projected line of sight velocity maps for eight ions for the Cyclone halo in an edge-on view and a field of view of 100 kpc. The galactic disk has been removed in all panels to isolate the kinematics of CGM gas. The gray line shows where the disk wa…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Velocity differences between H I and O VI, C III, and Mg II in the Cyclone halo. Top: Maps show where emissivity-weighted velocity differences exceed kinematic resolution thresholds (200, 100, 30 km s−1 ). Gray pixels are unresolved; colored pixels are kinematically di…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Resolved fraction of CGM surface area as a function of kinematic resolution for velocity differences between H I and three representative ions: O VI (left), C III (middle), and Mg II (right). Each line corresponds to one of the six FOGGIE halos. The resolved fraction i…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top panels: Emissivity-weighted line-of-sight velocity maps for O VI in the Maelstrom halo (edge-on view), showing only gas classified as inflow (with a center-directed vrad ≤ −100 km s−1 in the frame of the galaxy’s center of mass; left panel) or outflow (vrad ≥ 200 …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Projected velocity maps for inflowing and outflowing O VI-emitting gas in the Maelstrom halo (edge-on). Each panel shows the same projected map of pixel-by-pixel velocity differences between inflowing and outflowing O VI-emitting gas in the Maelstrom halo (as in the b…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fraction of projected area where inflows and outflows are kinematically distinguishable as a function of kinematic resolution for eight UV emission lines. Values rep￾resent the percentage of pixels from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Combined effects of spectral and spatial resolution on CGM kinematic observability for the Maelstrom halo using O VI emission.Each row corresponds to a different spatial resolution (0.27, 1, 3, and 6 kpc, which correspond at z = 0.5 (z = 0) to ∼ 0.04 (5.6), 0.16 (20),…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of current (stars) and future (circles) instruments designed/suitable for CGM studies in emission across multiple performance planes. Sensitivity (photons s−1 cm−2 sr−1 ) is shown on the x-axis of the three 2D panels. First panel: Spatial resolution versus …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Observable CGM mass fraction as a function of spatial resolution (x-axis) and surface brightness sensitivity (y-axis), for eight emission lines, averaged over six FOGGIE halos, edge-on. Each cell shows the percentage of total CGM mass detectable above the given sensit…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows temperature–number density phase plots for the Maelstrom halo, color-coded by the emissivity of each ion. The emissivity values are calculated as described in Sections 2.3, C.0.1, and C.0.2. Dark blue pixels indicate regions of parameter space where gas exists b…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., & van Dokkum, P

    Abraham, R. G., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2014, PASP, 126, 55, doi: 10.1086/674875

    doi:10.1086/674875 2014

  2. [2]

    S., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Acharyya, A., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06613, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06613 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.06613 2024

  3. [3]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 6195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1673

    Augustin, R., P´ eroux, C., Hamanowicz, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 6195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1673

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1673 2021

  4. [4]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 2417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2238

    Augustin, R., Quiret, S., Milliard, B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2238

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2238 2019

  5. [5]

    S., et al

    Augustin, R., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06551, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06551

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.06551 2025

  6. [6]

    N., & Spitzer, Jr., L

    Bahcall, J. N., & Spitzer, Jr., L. 1969, ApJL, 156, L63, doi: 10.1086/180350

    doi:10.1086/180350 1969

  7. [7]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Bertone, S., Schaye, J., Booth, C. M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1120, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17188.x FOGGIE XIV. CGM Emission Observability29

    arXiv 2010

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    J., Kacprzak, G

    Bordoloi, R., Lilly, S. J., Kacprzak, G. G., & Churchill, C. W. 2014, ApJ, 784, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/108

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Sharon, K., et al

    Bordoloi, R., O’Meara, J. M., Sharon, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04616-1

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/259

    Borthakur, S., Heckman, T., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/259

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    V., Chelouche, D., Jenkins, E

    Bowen, D. V., Chelouche, D., Jenkins, E. B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 50, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/50

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1636, doi: 10.21105/joss.01636

    Brummel-Smith, C., Bryan, G., Butsky, I., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1636, doi: 10.21105/joss.01636

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    P., et al

    Cadiou, C., Katz, H., Rey, M. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05667. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05667

    2025

  8. [16]

    Cen, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 2006, ApJ, 650, 560, doi: 10.1086/506505

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

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

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Pasha, I., et al

    Chen, S., Lokhorst, D. M., Pasha, I., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13094, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes X, ed. H. K. Marshall, J. Spyromilio, & T. Usuda, 130942J, doi: 10.1117/12.3019491

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Pasha, I., et al

    Chen, S., Lokhorst, D. M., Pasha, I., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 084103, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adedb8

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    J., & Hamden, E

    Chung, H., Vargas, C. J., & Hamden, E. 2021a, ApJ, 916, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac04af

    doi

  13. [22]

    J., Hamden, E., et al

    Chung, H., Vargas, C. J., Hamden, E., et al. 2021c, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11819, UV/Optical/IR Space Telescopes and Instruments: Innovative Technologies and Concepts X, ed. A. A. Barto, J. B. Breckinridge, & H. P. ...

    doi

  14. [23]

    S., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Corlies, L., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9310

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    L., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Emerick, A., Bryan, G. L., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2689 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Oh, S. P. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 131, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    P., Heckman, T., Strickland, D., et al

    Grimes, J. P., Heckman, T., Strickland, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 891, doi: 10.1086/521353

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    Ha, T., Rupke, D. S. N., Caraker, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0b5

    2025 doi

  18. [27]

    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

  19. [28]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 49, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/49

    Hayes, M., Melinder, J., ¨Ostlin, G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 49, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/49

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., & Silvia, D. W. 2017, ApJ, 847, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e2d

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

    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

  22. [31]

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

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    G., Churchill, C

    Kacprzak, G. G., Churchill, C. W., & Nielsen, N. M. 2012, ApJL, 760, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L7

    2012 doi

  24. [33]

    J., & Hamden, E

    Kim, J.-A., Chung, H., Vargas, C. J., & Hamden, E. 2024, AJ, 168, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4887

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    J., D’Onghia, E., et al

    Krishnarao, D., Fox, A. J., D’Onghia, E., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 915, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05090-5

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.04399

    Kusakabe, H., Mauerhofer, V., Verhamme, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.04399

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc08

    Lan, T.-W., & Mo, H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc08

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    C., Tripp, T

    Lehner, N., Howk, J. C., Tripp, T. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/138

    2013 doi

  29. [38]

    C., Howk, J

    Lehner, N., Berek, S. C., Howk, J. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba49c

    2020 doi

  30. [40]

    C., Collins, L., et al

    Lehner, N., Howk, J. C., Collins, L., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16573, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16573

    doi arXiv

  31. [41]

    W., et al

    Lochhaas, C., Tumlinson, J., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2496

    2021 doi

  32. [42]

    S., et al

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

    2023 doi

  33. [43]

    S., O’Shea, B

    Lochhaas, C., Peeples, M. S., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25844. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25844

    2025

  34. [45]

    2019b, ApJ, 877, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab184e

    Schaye, J. 2019b, ApJ, 877, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab184e

    doi

  35. [46]

    F., et al

    Lopez, S., Tejos, N., Barrientos, L. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3183 30Saeedzadeh et al

    2020 doi

  36. [47]

    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

    2019 doi

  37. [48]

    M., Bacon, R., Bauer, S., et al

    McDermid, R. M., Bacon, R., Bauer, S., et al. 2008, in 2007 ESO Instrument Calibration Workshop, ed. A. Kaufer & F. Kerber, 325, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76963-7 44

    2008 doi

  38. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cd1

    Melso, N., Schiminovich, D., Sitaram, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6cd1

    2024 doi

  39. [50]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d9c

    Melso, N., Schiminovich, D., Smiley, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d9c

    2022 doi

  40. [51]

    M., Picouet, V., Lin, Z., et al

    Miles, D. M., Picouet, V., Lin, Z., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/add15c

    2025 doi

  41. [52]

    C., et al

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

    2018 doi

  42. [53]

    M., Churchill, C

    Nielsen, N. M., Churchill, C. W., & Kacprzak, G. G. 2013, ApJ, 776, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/115

    2013 doi

  43. [54]

    M., Fisher, D

    Nielsen, N. M., Fisher, D. B., Kacprzak, G. G., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1602, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02365-x

    2024 doi

  44. [55]

    M., Howk, J

    Otte, B., Murphy, E. M., Howk, J. C., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 821, doi: 10.1086/375535

    2003 doi

  45. [56]

    S., Werk, J

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

    2014 doi

  46. [57]

    S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Peeples, M. S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2019 doi

  47. [58]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac832

    Pontzen, A., & Tremmel, M. 2018, ApJS, 237, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac832

    2018 doi

  48. [59]

    X., Werk, J

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

    2017 doi

  49. [60]

    M., et al

    Shaban, A., Bordoloi, R., O’Meara, J. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0b9

    2025 doi

  50. [61]

    C., Peeples, M

    Simons, R. C., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc5b8

    2020 doi

  51. [62]

    C., Peeples, M

    Simons, R. C., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.17244, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.17244

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [63]

    Norman, M. L. 2009, ApJ, 691, 441, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/441

    2009 doi

  53. [64]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3291

    2017 doi

  54. [65]

    W., et al

    Taira, E., Kopenhafer, C., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc4e The LUVOIR Team. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.06219, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.06219

    2025 doi arXiv

  55. [66]

    W., Peeples, M

    Trapp, C. W., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.00158. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.00158

    2025 arXiv

  56. [67]

    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

  57. [68]

    K., et al

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

    2011 doi

  58. [69]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson, J., Thom, C., Werk, J. K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/59

    2013 doi

  59. [70]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 van de Voort, F., Springel, V., Mandelker, N., van den

    2011 doi

  60. [71]

    C., & Pakmor, R

    Bosch, F. C., & Pakmor, R. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L85, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly190

    2019 doi

  61. [72]

    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

  62. [73]

    2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Vorobiev, D. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 246, 246th Meeting of the American Astronomical Society, 141.03

    2025

  63. [74]

    Walt, S. v. d., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  64. [75]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab049

    Muzahid, S. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab049

    2021 doi

  65. [76]

    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

  66. [77]

    2018, Nature, 562, 229, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0564-6

    Wisotzki, L., Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 229, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0564-6

    2018 doi

  67. [78]

    M., Fleming, B

    Witt, E. M., Fleming, B. T., McCandliss, S., et al. 2025, in

    2025

  68. [79]

    C., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M

    Wright, A. C., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49a3

    2024 doi

  69. [80]

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

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

    2019 doi

  70. [81]

    S., O’Shea, B

    Zheng, Y., Peeples, M. S., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab960a

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.