Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A subtraction-based selection method finds 23 diffuse Lyman-alpha blobs missed by conventional searches and shows blob abundance rises sharply near protoclusters.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:17 UTC pith:VMNED5U5

load-bearing objection The Tractor-based LAB selection method and the 112-object sample are the real contributions; the environment-dependent number-density claim is a suggestive hint, not an established result. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.17368 v1 pith:VMNED5U5 submitted 2025-12-19 astro-ph.GA

ODIN: A New Lyman Alpha Blob Selection Method, Sample, and Statistical Analysis at zsim3.1

Byeongha Moon , Yujin Yang , Kyoung-Soo Lee , Eric Gawiser , Arjun Dey , Francisco Valdes , Dustin Lang , Robin Ciardullo
show 21 more authors
Caryl Gronwall Ann Zabludoff Vandana Ramakrishnan Nicole M. Firestone Ethan Pinarski Seok-jun Chang Lucia Guaita Sungryong Hong Ho Seong Hwang Sang Hyeok Im Woong-Seob Jeong Eunsoo Jun Seongjae Kim Jaehyun Lee Seong-Kook Lee Gautam Nagaraj Julie B. Nantais Nelson Padilla Changbom Park Hyunmi Song Paulina Troncoso
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alpha blobsnarrowband surveysforced photometrygalaxy model subtractionluminosity functionprotoclustershigh-redshift galaxiescosmic noon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Lyα blobs — giant, diffuse halos of Lyman-alpha-emitting gas around galaxies at z≈3 — are rare and hard to catalogue, so their number densities and luminosity functions remain uncertain. This paper tries to fix that by building, from the ODIN survey's narrowband images, a larger and more uniform sample: 112 blobs in 9 square degrees at z≈3.1. It introduces a selection pipeline that models every galaxy seen in broadband light and subtracts those models from the narrowband image, leaving only extended emission that is then read as a blob. That step alone finds 23 diffuse blobs the conventional method misses. The paper then reports that blob number density inside a protocluster is four times the field average and the protocluster luminosity function is flatter, concluding that blob number densities and Lyα luminosities depend on environment.

Core claim

The central claim is that a new 'extended-beyond-continuum' selection method recovers a population of low-surface-brightness Lyman-alpha blobs that standard selection—which requires a compact Lyman-alpha emitter (LAE) to be embedded in the extended emission—systematically misses. The pipeline uses forced photometry: it fits six parametric galaxy models in the g-band image, transfers those exact shapes and positions to the N501 narrowband image, fits only each model's amplitude there, and subtracts the result. The residual image is searched for extended emission, and the 23 new sources found this way, combined with 89 from the conventional method, give 112 blobs. The paper also claims an envi

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a forced-photometry subtraction pipeline: galaxies are detected in the g-band image, their shapes (point source, Gaussian, exponential, de Vaucouleurs, Sérsic, or composite) are fitted once, and those shapes are then frozen while only brightness amplitudes are fitted in the N501 narrowband image. Subtracting the reconstructed model leaves a residual map of pure extended emission, which is searched with a fixed surface-brightness threshold and a size–luminosity cut calibrated by injected simulated point sources. The pipeline's design choices—small overlapping sub-tiles, a size cap, and a low detection threshold to catch faint galaxies—keep the residual clean enou

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that a galaxy's g-band model, with only its amplitude changed, fully describes its N501 narrowband appearance, so whatever remains after subtraction is genuine extended Lyα emission rather than a shape or PSF mismatch or an unmodeled faint galaxy; the environmental claim additionally assumes the protocluster excess is not an artifact of selecting blobs preferentially near LAE overdensities.

What would settle it

Run the same g-band-model subtraction on a narrowband image centered just off the Lyα line at z≈3.1, or on a synthetic image where the only difference between g and N501 is the PSF: if the extended residual sources still appear, they are continuum subtraction artifacts rather than Lyα blobs. Alternatively, inject a large grid of synthetic diffuse halos with known sizes and surface brightnesses into the N501 image and check whether the residual-detection pipeline recovers them with the claimed sizes and luminosities.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The combined sample of 112 blobs in 9 deg^2 is one of the largest uniform z≈3.1 LAB samples, so number densities and luminosity functions can be measured with field-to-field variation at least partially averaged out.
  • The 23 new sources are the faintest-surface-brightness blobs; any census based only on LAE-embedded selection will undercount diffuse blobs by roughly 20%.
  • Within protocluster regions, blob number density is about four times the field average and the cumulative luminosity function is flatter, implying that environment must be accounted for in interpreting blob statistics.
  • If the environment dependence holds, blob abundance and luminosity can serve as tracers of overdense regions and protoclusters at z≈3.
  • The same pipeline is being applied to the full ~100 deg^2 ODIN survey at three redshifts, which the paper expects to yield about 1,000 blobs and a direct test of the environmental trend.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the subtraction residual is treated as astrophysical by construction; a natural extension is to inject synthetic diffuse halos with known surface brightness profiles into the N501 image and measure what fraction of residual flux is actually recovered versus created by PSF mismatch or undetected faint galaxies.
  • Editorial inference: the environmental claim currently rests on about 29 blobs in three protocluster regions; applying the method across the full survey area will show whether the factor-of-four excess is a general property of overdense regions or specific to those complexes.
  • Editorial inference: because the pipeline recovers 'dual-LAE' systems as single connected halos rather than two compact sources, some of the apparent size difference between selection methods may reflect deblending choices; comparing the same sources with deep integral-field spectroscopy could reveal how many blobs are truly single gaseous halos versus merger-driven complexes.
  • Editorial inference: the amplitude-only scaling assumption means any wavelength-dependent galaxy morphology (for example, strong star-forming clumps that appear differently in g and N501) becomes residual flux; a decisive check would be running the pipeline on a narrowband filter with no line emission at the same wavelength and confirming that residual sources vanish.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the ODIN LAB selection in the 9 deg^2 E-COSMOS field at z~3.1. It uses two methods: a conventional 'extended-LAE' approach that cross-matches compact LAEs with extended Ly-alpha sources (89 LABs), and a new 'extended-beyond-continuum' pipeline that models g-band galaxies with Tractor, subtracts these models from the N501 narrowband image via forced photometry, and detects residual extended emission (23 additional LABs). The combined sample is 112 LABs, with 52 having spectroscopic redshifts consistent with z~3.1. The paper then reports a LAB number density that is four times higher in ODIN protocluster regions than the field average, a comparable density to the SSA22 protocluster, and a flatter cumulative luminosity function in protocluster regions, concluding that Ly-alpha luminosities and number densities of LABs are environment-dependent.

Significance. If the selection methods and statistical claims hold, this is a valuable contribution: it provides one of the largest homogeneous LAB samples to date, introduces a computationally scalable selection technique for diffuse emission in large-area narrowband surveys, and includes extensive recovery simulations plus a substantial spectroscopic confirmation campaign. The new Tractor-based pipeline is a genuine methodological contribution that could be used across the full ODIN survey and similar datasets. The environmental result, however, is the least secure part of the paper and, as written, the abstract and summary state it more strongly than the body's hedged language justifies. Strengths of the paper are the large sample size, the explicit recovery tests, the public catalog structure, and the effort to place the SSA22 comparison on a common detection-depth footing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3; Abstract; §3.1] The environment-dependence claim is entangled with the selection path. Complexes A and C are defined as LAE overdensities from Ramakrishnan et al. (2023), and the extended-LAE method (Section 3.1) requires an LAE counterpart. LABs in LAE-overdense regions are therefore preferentially selected by construction. The proto-cluster number density is also computed within the same overdense cylinders used to identify the complexes, so the denominator is not an independent environmental volume. The body says 'suggest the possibility' but the abstract states the result as 'suggesting the Ly-alpha luminosities and number densities of LABs are environment-dependent.' Please (i) recompute the proto-cluster excess using only the extended-beyond-continuum LABs, which do not require LAE counterparts; (ii) bootstrap the density ratio using random apertures matched in area and depth; and (iii) adjust the
  2. [§3.2 step (4); §3.3] The central premise of the new pipeline—that Tractor models fitted in the g-band describe the N501 emission with only an amplitude scaling—is not directly validated. Section 3.2 fixes shapes and positions from g-band and fits only amplitudes in N501; any wavelength-dependent morphology, PSF mismatch, or faint undetected galaxy leaves a residual that is interpreted as extended Ly-alpha. The paper itself shows the subtraction is imperfect: 17 of 89 extended-LAE LABs are lost because forced photometry over-subtracts the bright Ly-alpha core and creates a hole (Section 3.3). Since the unique yield of 23 LABs is a headline result, add a null test: inject continuum-only galaxies with no Ly-alpha into the N501 image, run the pipeline, and report how often the residual passes the area, size-luminosity, and EW cuts. Also quantify the sensitivity to PSF mismatch between g and N501. The current rec
  3. [§3.1; §4.3] The surface-brightness detection threshold is tuned to the sample being measured: 'This SB threshold is selected based on tests using visually identified ODIN LABs' (Section 3.1). Because the number density and luminosity functions in Section 4.3 are measured with this threshold, the headline environmental contrast is partly a function of a subjectively calibrated cut. Please report the sensitivity of n and of the proto-cluster CLF slope to plausible threshold variations (e.g., 1.0–2.0 sigma_SB1), and clarify whether the visually identified LABs used for threshold tests are independent of the final 112-object sample. This is especially important because the 4x density excess is driven by sources near the faint/diffuse end where the threshold choice matters most.
  4. [§4.3; Fig. 12] The CLF comparison has internal sample-count inconsistencies. The text says 'identify 11 and 8 LABs in each complex, respectively' (19 total), but later refers to '29 LABs within three proto-clusters' without naming the third complex. The slope difference (-1.4+/-0.1 field vs -1.0+/-0.1 proto-cluster) is fitted to a small number of objects, and cumulative luminosity function bins are correlated, so the quoted uncertainties understate the true error. The SSA22 comparison also assumes that applying the ODIN recovery fraction to SSA22 surface-brightness profiles is unbiased; if this correction is uncertain, the agreement between n=7.5e-5 and n=7.7e-5 is not a strong test. Please specify the exact per-complex counts, fit the CLFs with a proper covariance treatment, and present the SSA22 recovery-corrected density with an estimate of the systematic uncertainty from profile assumptions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.3; Fig. 13] Units: 'cMpc3' appears in the text and should be cMpc^-3; Figure 13 symbols are shifted along x but the label says 'symbomls'; please proofread.
  2. [§3.2 step (1)] Typo: 'DETET THRESH' should be 'DETECT THRESH'.
  3. [Eq. (1)] Please define the units of F, f, and epsilon explicitly. The epsilon_g = 1.13 and epsilon_r = 0 values need a reference or a one-line derivation; the current text is hard to follow.
  4. [§3.4] The recovery test uses the same selection criteria and same images to define recovery; it measures internal consistency but not absolute completeness. The paper should state this limitation explicitly, particularly when using f_recv to correct the SSA22 sample.
  5. [Appendix B; Table B1] Only the first 20 catalog entries are printed. Provide a machine-readable version of the full 112-row catalog as a journal data file, and add a column noting which LABs were used in the proto-cluster CLF analysis.
  6. [Appendix A] Minor wording: 'using Ellipse in PythonPhotutils package' is a fragment; also 'L(Lyα)' notation is ambiguous and should be defined.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Environmental density excess is partly built into the LAE-based selection and the LAE-based protocluster definition.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, with Section 3.1]
    "Within the sampling box that encompasses the most overdense regions (Complexes A and C; V. Ramakrishnan et al. 2023) with a local 2D surface overdensity of δΣ∼5.5 comparable to the SSA22 proto-cluster, we identify 11 and 8 LABs in each complex, respectively. This yields a significantly elevated number density of 6.5±1.5×10−5 cMpc−3 on average, a factor of ~4 higher than that of the entire E-COSMOS LAB sample."

    The extended-LAE selection path defines LABs as extended Lyα emission around compact LAEs: Section 3.1 first 'identifying bright cores of LABs (i.e., LAEs)' and then detecting emission around them. The overdense 'sampling box' is itself an LAE overdensity from V. Ramakrishnan et al. (2023), a same-collaboration catalog. Thus the numerator of the 4× density excess is selected from positions defined by the same LAE population that defines the environmental volume and the selection path. In LAE-overdense regions, the extended-LAE selection function is automatically higher. The paper does not report the environment signal separately for the 23 LAE-independent Tractor-only LABs, so the claimed excess is at least partly a consequence of requiring LAE counterparts rather than an independent measu

full rationale

The paper's main methodological contribution—the extended-beyond-continuum Tractor pipeline—is not circular: it models g-band galaxies, subtracts them from N501, detects residual Lyα emission, and is validated by injection-recovery tests and 52 spectroscopic confirmations. The SB threshold is admittedly calibrated on visually identified LABs, but that is a detection tuning, not a prediction fitted to the reported statistics. The genuine partial circularity is in the environmental claim. The 89 extended-LAE LABs require a compact LAE counterpart, while the protocluster complexes are defined as LAE overdensities from the same collaboration's prior work; hence the number-density excess and flatter CLF in those boxes are partly inherited from the LAE-association requirement rather than from an independent definition of environment. This does not invalidate the LAB catalog, but it weakens the abstract's conclusion that LABs are environment-dependent, because the paper does not separate the LAE-independent subset when measuring the environmental signal. Self-citations to Ramakrishnan et al. are normal observational references and do not, by themselves, constitute circularity; the circular load is carried by the selection overlap.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's empirical quantities rest on a chain of standard photometric assumptions (continuum interpolation, PSF-matched subtraction, EW cuts). The genuinely tuned element is the SB detection threshold, which is fit to visually identified LABs. The new method's validity rests on the model-transfer assumption (g-band shapes applied to N501), which the paper's own over-subtraction discussion shows to be imperfect. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • Surface-brightness detection threshold = 3.3e-18 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2
    Selected based on tests using visually identified ODIN LABs (Section 3.1); tuned to recover the known visual sample rather than derived from an independent criterion.
  • Minimum isophotal area for LAB classification = 20 arcsec^2
    Selection cut applied in both pipelines (Sections 3.1, 3.2); no physical model justifies the value.
  • Point-source size-luminosity rejection threshold = 3-sigma above simulated point-source sequence
    Boundary separating LABs from bright point sources; simulation-based but the sigma level is conventional.
  • Rest-frame equivalent width cut = EW_rest > 20 Angstrom
    Adopted to match LAE selection of previous works (Yang et al. 2010; Badescu et al. 2017); standard but free.
  • Detection minimum area in extended-LAE pipeline = 42 pixels (~3 arcsec^2)
    SExtractor DETECT_MINAREA above the 1.5-sigma SB threshold; chosen to suppress noise clumps.
  • Filter transmission correction factors = epsilon_g = 1.13, epsilon_r = 0
    Adopted constants in Equation 1 to convert broadband fluxes to continuum at N501; taken from the ODIN pipeline, not derived here.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Continuum flux at N501 is a linear interpolation of g- and r-band fluxes
    Equation 1: f_NB_cont is estimated by linear interpolation between the two broadband fluxes. Breaks for strong continuum curvature or line contamination in the broadbands; standard but an assumption.
  • domain assumption Galaxy shapes fitted in the g-band are identical in N501 (only amplitudes refit)
    Section 3.2 steps (3)-(4): shapes and positions are fixed from the g-band models; wavelength-dependent morphology would leave fake residual emission.
  • domain assumption Residual N501 flux after galaxy subtraction is Ly-alpha at z~3.1, not interlopers or PSF mismatch
    Section 3.2 step (6); mitigated by the EW_rest>20A cut and by 52/112 spectroscopic confirmations, but 60/112 LABs lack spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7, H0=70 km/s/Mpc
    Stated in Section 1; standard distance and volume conversion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26479 in / 15561 out tokens · 157583 ms · 2026-08-03T15:17:35.122104+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Ly$\alpha$ blobs (LABs) are large, spatially extended Ly$\alpha$-emitting objects whose nature remains unclear. Their statistical properties such as number densities and luminosity functions are still uncertain because of small sample sizes and large cosmic variance. The One-hundred-deg$^2$ DECam Imaging in Narrowbands (ODIN) survey, with its large volume, offers an opportunity to overcome these limitations. We describe our LAB selection method and present 112 new LABs in the 9 deg$^2$ E-COSMOS field. We begin with the conventional LAB selection approach, cross-matching LAEs with extended Ly$\alpha$ sources, yielding 89 LAB candidates. To obtain a more complete LAB sample, we introduce a new selection pipeline that models all galaxies detected in deep broadband imaging, subtracts them from the narrowband image, and then directly detects extended Ly$\alpha$ emission. This method successfully identifies 23 additional low-surface-brightness LABs which could otherwise be missed by the conventional method. The number density of ODIN LABs near an ODIN protocluster ($n=7.5\times10^{-5}$ cMpc$^{-3}$) is comparable to that found in the SSA22 proto-cluster and is four times higher than the average across the field. The cumulative Ly$\alpha$ luminosity function within the protocluster regions is similar to that measured for the LABs in the SSA22 proto-cluster, suggesting a large excess of luminous LABs relative to the average field. These findings suggest the Ly$\alpha$ luminosities and number densities of LABs are environment-dependent. ODIN will provide an expansive LAB and protocluster samples across six additional fields and two more redshifts, allowing us to investigate the nature of LABs in relation to their environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.17368 by Ann Zabludoff, Arjun Dey, Byeongha Moon, Caryl Gronwall, Changbom Park, Dustin Lang, Eric Gawiser, Ethan Pinarski, Eunsoo Jun, Francisco Valdes, Gautam Nagaraj, Ho Seong Hwang, Hyunmi Song, Jaehyun Lee, Julie B. Nantais, Kyoung-Soo Lee, Lucia Guaita, Nelson Padilla, Nicole M. Firestone, Paulina Troncoso, Robin Ciardullo, Sang Hyeok Im, Seok-Jun Chang, Seongjae Kim, Seong-Kook Lee, Sungryong Hong, Vandana Ramakrishnan, Woong-Seob Jeong, Yujin Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Size-luminosity relation for LAB candidates se￾lected using the extended-LAE selection method. Blue cir￾cles represent the LAB candidates. The ODIN LAE sample (orange dots; N. M. Firestone et al. 2024) shows two se￾quences. One extends to LABs implying that they could be LAH candidates, while the other follows the simulated point sources, indicating that our LAB candidates are dis￾tinct from bright and com… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Postage stamp (20 × 20 arcsec2 ) images for ex￾amples of diffuse and extended Lyα halos identified by our visual inspection. These objects are not selected as LAB in extended-LAE method, requiring additional LAB selection is necessary for assembling a complete LAB samples. Left: Color image constructed with N501, g, and r bands. Green shows the diffuse and extended signal in the N501 image. Middle: High co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example 192 × 192 pixel2 (52′′×52′′) HSC SSP g band image that illustrates our tiling strategy. We use 64 × 64 pixel2 sub-tile images to perform model fitting for g-band galaxies. To ensure accurate model fitting and avoid fragmentation near the sub-tile edges, We offset each tile by half a tile-size from its nearest adjoining tile. This pattern is illustrated by the solid blue and red dashed squares, whos… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cutout images (3′ × 3 ′ ) illustrating the ro￾bustness of the Tractor-based residual Lyα detection image. Top: N501 and g band images. A bright internal reflec￾tion (dark stripe) is clearly visible across the g-band image, introducing large-scale artifacts. Bottom: Lyα detection images from the extended-LAE (left) and the extended-be￾yond-continuum methods, respectively. Yellow contours in￾dicate regions e… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average surface brightness within the isophotes for the extended-LAE pipeline and the extended-beyond– continuum pipeline. The bin size (0.1875 in a log) is defined following D. W. Hogg (2008). The LABs recovered only with the extended-beyond-continuum pipeline (red) have lower surface brightnesses. yields ∼10,000 extended features, which must then be cross-matched with LAEs to reduce the sample to ∼280 ca… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 30 × 30 arcsec2 postage stamp RGB images of 112 LABs. The color represented are composed of Subaru/HSC r (red), ODIN N501 (green), and Subaru/HSC g (blue) images. In each case, the yellow contours indicate the surface brightness detection threshold (1.5σSB1 = 3.3×10−18erg s−1 cm−2 arcsec−2 ). The LAB IDs are colored red, blue, and black, corresponding to LABs selected only by the extended-LAE method, only … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gemini/GMOS spectra (Section 2) alongside Lyα images. The first column in each panel shows the Lyα image with the GMOS slit position overlaid in blue. The second column is the corresponding 2D spectrum; blue dashed lines indicate the apertures used for extracting the 1D spectrum. The vertical axis corresponds to the spatial direction, aligned with the orientation in the Lyα images. The third column display… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gemini/GMOS 1D and 2D spectrum for LAB004 and a central QSO. The gray-shaded regions indi￾cate areas affected by poor sky subtraction or bad columns. A large gap at λ ∼ 5550 ˚A is because of the bad amplifier. Red dashed lines indicate observed emission lines. The broad hard ionization lines (N V and C IV) implies that the QSO is the powering source of LAB004. thus be classified as LABs, inflating the sam… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Recovery test results for SSA22 LABs. Left: Recovered isophotal size vs. original size. Middle: Recovered luminosity vs. original luminosity. Right: The recovered size–luminosity relation for the SSA22 LABs overlaid with ODIN LAB selection criteria. Because of ODIN’s shallower surface brightness depth, the sizes and luminosities of the SSA22 LABs would be measured as smaller than their original values by … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative luminosity functions (CLFs) of the SSA22 and E-COSMOS LABs. Data points are slightly offset for clarity. Proto-cluster–associated LABs are shown as open symbols, while blue filled circles represent all ODIN LABs across the E-COSMOS field. The dashed lines indicate linear fits to the CLFs of each LAB sample. The flatter slopes and higher amplitudes of the proto-cluster–associated LAB CLFs sugges… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Number densities of LABs as a function of redshift (lower axis) and cosmic time (upper axis). Filled points indicate LAB samples whose number densities are directly comparable, while open points correspond to samples selected with different criteria and/or surface brightness depths, and are therefore treated as upper limits. The red circle represents the average number density at Complexes A and C. Some s… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ODIN: Clustering Properties of Ly$\alpha$ Blobs at $z$ $\sim$ 2.4 and 3.1

    astro-ph.GA 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    Lyα blobs at z≈2.4 and 3.1 cluster with bias b≈4, implying host dark matter halos of ~10^12 M⊙, though a cross-correlation check gives lower values.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 114, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    Aihara, H., AlSayyad, Y., Ando, M., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 114, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz103

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

  2. [2]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 670, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1033-3 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Prochaska, J

    Ao, Y., Zheng, Z., Henkel, C., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 670, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1033-3 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2465 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Chen, C.-C., Liu, H.-Y. B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a4d Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, ...

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1033-3 2020

  3. [3]

    2013, PSFEx: Point Spread Function Extractor,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1301.001 http://ascl.net/1301.001

    Bertin, E. 2013, PSFEx: Point Spread Function Extractor,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1301.001 http://ascl.net/1301.001

    2013

  4. [4]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  5. [5]

    2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0, 2.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440 B˘ adescu, T., Yang, Y., Bertoldi, F., et al

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2025, astropy/photutils: 2.2.0, 2.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14889440 B˘ adescu, T., Yang, Y., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8220

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.14889440 2025

  6. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d14 2017

  7. [7]

    F., & Madau, P

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

    doi:10.1038/nature12898 2014

  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

  9. [9]

    J., Moustakas, J., Blanton, M

    Cool, R. J., Moustakas, J., Blanton, M. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/118 2013

  10. [10]

    M., et al

    Daddi, E., Valentino, F., Rich, R. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038700

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038700 2021

  11. [11]

    M., Valentino, F., et al

    Daddi, E., Rich, R. M., Valentino, F., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac531f de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Annales d’Astrophysique, 11, 247 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14745 2022

  12. [12]

    T., et al

    Dey, A., Bian, C., Soifer, B. T., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 654, doi: 10.1086/430775

    doi:10.1086/430775 2005

  13. [13]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  14. [14]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/l31 2011

  15. [15]

    M., Gawiser, E., Ramakrishnan, V., et al

    Firestone, N. M., Gawiser, E., Ramakrishnan, V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c9 2024

  16. [16]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150 2015

  17. [17]

    J., Williger, G

    Francis, P. J., Williger, G. M., Collins, N. R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1001, doi: 10.1086/321417 18Moon et al

    work page doi:10.1086/321417 2001

  18. [18]

    E., Alexander, D

    Geach, J. E., Alexander, D. M., Lehmer, B. D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/1 2009

  19. [19]

    E., Narayanan, D., Matsuda, Y., et al

    Geach, J. E., Narayanan, D., Matsuda, Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 37, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/37

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/37 2016

  20. [20]

    2017, A&A, 608, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731791

    Gronke, M. 2017, A&A, 608, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731791

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731791 2017

  21. [21]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf

    Hasinger, G., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabacf 2018

  22. [22]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10320 2011

  23. [23]

    2015, Science, 348, 779, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5397

    Arrigoni-Battaia, F. 2015, Science, 348, 779, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5397

    doi:10.1126/science.aaa5397 2015

  24. [24]

    2025, ApJL, 988, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adec82

    Herrera, D., Gawiser, E., Benda, B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L57, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adec82

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adec82 2025

  25. [25]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02 2021

  26. [26]

    Hogg, D. W. 2008, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0807.4820, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0807.4820

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0807.4820 2008

  27. [27]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 3950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3219

    Hong, S., Dey, A., Lee, K.-S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3219

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3219 2019

  28. [28]

    M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J

    Hook, I. M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 425, doi: 10.1086/383624

    doi:10.1086/383624 2004

  29. [29]

    2018, PASJ, 70, L6, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy087

    Kato, Y., Matsuda, Y., Iono, D., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, L6, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy087

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psy087 2018

  30. [30]

    1999, AJ, 118, 2547, doi: 10.1086/301139

    Waddington, I. 1999, AJ, 118, 2547, doi: 10.1086/301139

    doi:10.1086/301139 1999

  31. [31]

    Windhorst, R. A. 2009, AJ, 138, 986, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/3/986

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/3/986 2009

  32. [32]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz055 2019

  33. [33]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab837f 2020

  34. [34]

    G., Franx, M., et al

    Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 776, doi: 10.1086/520789

    doi:10.1086/520789 2007

  35. [35]

    2022, A&A, 660, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142302

    Kusakabe, H., Verhamme, A., Blaizot, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142302

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142302 2022

  36. [36]

    W., & Schlegel, D

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., & Schlegel, D. J. 2016b, AJ, 151, 36, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/36

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/36

  37. [37]

    C., et al

    Langen, V., Cantalupo, S., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3205

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3205 2023

  38. [38]

    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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731480 2017

  39. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

    Lee, K.-S., Gawiser, E., Park, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e 2024

  40. [40]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c

    Li, M., Zhang, H., Cai, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c 2024

  41. [41]

    J., Le Brun, V., Maier, C., et al

    Lilly, S. J., Le Brun, V., Maier, C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 218, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/184/2/218

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/184/2/218 2009

  42. [42]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, L62, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz032

    Lusso, E., Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L62, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz032

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz032 2019

  43. [43]

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

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  44. [44]

    2004, AJ, 128, 569, doi: 10.1086/422020

    Matsuda, Y., Yamada, T., Hayashino, T., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 569, doi: 10.1086/422020

    doi:10.1086/422020 2004

  45. [45]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, L13, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00969.x

    Matsuda, Y., Yamada, T., Hayashino, T., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, L13, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00969.x

    arXiv 2011

  46. [46]

    G., Brammer, G

    Momcheva, I. G., Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 27, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 2016

  47. [47]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw021 2016

  48. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.14510, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.14510

    Nagaraj, G., Ciardullo, R., Gronwall, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.14510, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.14510

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14510 2025

  49. [49]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859 2020

  50. [50]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 1164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1164

    Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., Egami, E., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1164

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/2/1164 2009

  51. [51]

    Woodgate, B. E. 2004, ApJ, 602, 545, doi: 10.1086/381145 Pˆ aris, I., Petitjean, P., Aubourg,´E., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322691

    work page doi:10.1086/381145 2004

  52. [52]

    Prescott, M. K. M., Dey, A., & Jannuzi, B. T. 2012a, ApJ, 748, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/125

  53. [53]

    Prescott, M. K. M., Kashikawa, N., Dey, A., & Matsuda, Y. 2008, ApJL, 678, L77, doi: 10.1086/588606

    doi:10.1086/588606 2008

  54. [54]

    Prescott, M. K. M., Dey, A., Brodwin, M., et al. 2012b, ApJ, 752, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/86

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/2/86

  55. [55]

    H., et al

    Ramakrishnan, V., Moon, B., Im, S. H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd341

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd341 2023

  56. [56]

    C., et al

    Ramakrishnan, V., Lee, K.-S., Artale, M. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cb 2024

  57. [57]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11826, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11826

    Ramakrishnan, V., Ortiz, A., Moon, B., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11826, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11826

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11826

  58. [58]

    2025b, ApJ, 982, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb624

    Ramakrishnan, V., Lee, K.-S., Firestone, N., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 982, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb624

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb624

  59. [59]

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

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

    arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    2006, ApJ, 648, 54, doi: 10.1086/505678 S´ ersic, J

    Saito, T., Shimasaku, K., Okamura, S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 54, doi: 10.1086/505678 S´ ersic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41 ODIN: A New LyαBlob Selection and Analysis atz∼3.1 19

    work page doi:10.1086/505678 2006

  61. [61]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S14, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx122

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Konno, A., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S14, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx122

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx122 2018

  62. [62]

    D., Kashino, D., Sanders, D., et al

    Silverman, J. D., Kashino, D., Sanders, D., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/12 2015

  63. [63]

    Smith, D. J. B., & Jarvis, M. J. 2007, MNRAS, 378, L49, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00318.x

    arXiv 2007

  64. [64]

    C., Adelberger, K

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

    doi:10.1086/308568 2000

  65. [65]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 577, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02463-w

    Tornotti, D., Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 577, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02463-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02463-w 2025

  66. [66]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb1c0

    Umeda, H., Ouchi, M., Kikuta, S., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adb1c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb1c0 2025

  67. [67]

    2019, Science, 366, 97, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    Umehata, H., Fumagalli, M., Smail, I., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 97, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    doi:10.1126/science.aaw5949 2019

  68. [68]

    N., Yang, G., et al

    Vito, F., Brandt, W. N., Yang, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2486

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2486 2018

  69. [69]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/29

    Yamada, T., Matsuda, Y., Kousai, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/29

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/1/29 2012

  70. [70]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 1654, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1654

    Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., Eisenstein, D., & Dav´ e, R. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1654, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1654

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1654 2010

  71. [71]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/114

    Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., Jahnke, K., & Dav´ e, R. 2014, ApJ, 793, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/114

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/114 2014

  72. [72]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/87

    Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., Jahnke, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/87

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/87 2011

  73. [73]

    2009, ApJ, 693, 1579, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1579

    Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A., Tremonti, C., Eisenstein, D., & Dav´ e, R. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1579, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1579

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1579 2009

  74. [74]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/182 2017

  75. [75]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7917

    Zhang, H., Ouchi, M., Itoh, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7917

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7917 2020

  76. [76]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb41b 20Moon et al

    Zhang, H., Cai, Z., Li, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb41b 20Moon et al. APPENDIX A.SURF ACE BRIGHTNESS PROFILE OF LABS AND LAES 1042 1043 1044 Ly Luminosity [erg s 1] 101 102 Isophotal Area, AISO [arcsec2] Point sources ODIN LAEs LABs 1.5 SB1 2 SB1 1 Distance [arcsec] 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 Normalized SB Point like LABs LAEs Me...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb41b 2025