The COS Absorption Survey of Baryon Harbors: The Galaxy Database and Cross-Correlation Analysis of OVI Systems

(10) Durham University; (11) Google; (12) University of Edinburgh); 2); (2) Kavli IPMU; (3) U Massachusetts; 4); (4) U Washington; (5) Steward Observatory; (6) Notre Dame

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

The COS Absorption Survey of Baryon Harbors: The Galaxy Database and Cross-Correlation Analysis of OVI Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read O VI absorbers at z~0.3 are concentrated in dark-matter halos of about 10^11 solar masses, not in the diffuse intergalactic medium.

desk verdict The public CASBaH galaxy catalog is the real product; the OVI-galaxy clustering is a careful measurement, but the claimed ~10^11 Msun halo mass rests on an acknowledged ansatz and an internal estimator mismatch that shifts the number beyond the quoted uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07675 v1 pith:5DEXYKDR submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.GA

J. Xavier Prochaska (1 , 2) , Joseph N. Burchett (1) , Todd M. Tripp (3) , Jessica K. Werk (1 , 4) , Christopher N. A. Willmer (5) , J. Christopher Howk (6)

show 19 more authors

Scott Lange (1) Nicolas Tejos (7) Joseph D. Meiring (3) Jason Tumlinson (8 9) Nicolas Lehner (6) Amanda B. Ford (11) Romeel Dave (12) ((1) UC Santa Cruz (2) Kavli IPMU (3) U Massachusetts (4) U Washington (5) Steward Observatory (6) Notre Dame (7) Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso (8) STScI (9) JHU (10) Durham University (11) Google (12) University of Edinburgh)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords OVIabsorbersgalaxy-absorbercross-correlationcircumgalacticmediumdark-matterhalomassesclusteringbiasquasarabsorption-linesurveyslarge-scalestructureCASBaHsurvey

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper combines redshifts and stellar masses for 5902 galaxies around nine quasar sightlines with ultraviolet measurements of intervening O VI absorption, then measures how strongly the galaxies cluster with one another and with the absorbers. It claims that O VI systems with column density $N(\mathrm{O\,VI}) \ge 10^{13.5}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ in the redshift range $0.12

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the two-point correlation function, evaluated with the Landy-Szalay estimator for galaxy pairs and for galaxy-absorber pairs using random catalogs that reproduce the survey's magnitude-dependent redshift sensitivity. For the absorber side, a maximum-likelihood Poisson model relates the probability of finding an O VI system within $\pm400\,\mathrm{km\,s}^{-1}$ of a galaxy to the 3D cross-correlation $\xi_{ag}(r)$. The decisive conversion is the linear-bias chain $b_{\mathrm{OVI}} = b_{gg}\,\xi_{ag}/\xi_{gg}$, with $b_{gg}$ calibrated to halo mass using the dark-matter correlation function and a halo-occupation model; this chain is what turns a clustering amplitude into a claim about halo mass.

What would settle it

One decisive check is to redo the cross-correlation with random absorber catalogs that keep the observed narrow redshift spikes instead of Gaussian smoothing, and to compare the O VI bias with independently known galaxy halo masses from weak lensing or satellite kinematics; if $r_0$ shifts beyond the quoted errors or the O VI bias does not track halo mass, the inferred $\sim10^{11}\,M_\odot$ host mass would not stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a measured clustering signal. Modeling both the galaxy auto-correlation and the O VI-galaxy cross-correlation as power laws $\xi(r) = (r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$, the paper reports $r_0 = 5.48\pm0.07\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, $\gamma = 1.33\pm0.04$ for the galaxies and $r_0 = 6.00^{+1.09}_{-0.77}\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, $\gamma = 1.25\pm0.18$ for the cross-correlation. From the ratio $\xi_{ag}/\xi_{gg}=0.76\pm0.1$ it derives bias factors $b_{gg}=1.3\pm0.1$ and $b_{\mathrm{OVI}}=1.0\pm0.1$, and through an external dark-matter correlation function and a halo-occupation calibration translates those bias factors into masses: about $10^{12.1}\,M_\odot$ for the galaxies and about $10^{11}\,M_\odot$ for the O VI absorbers. The paper states explicitly that this interpretation assumes most O VI systems arise within dark-matter halos.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that most O VI gas sits inside dark-matter halos and that the linear-bias relation connects the measured clustering to halo masses; if a large share of the gas floats in intergalactic filaments or in outflows not bound to halos, the inferred $\sim 10^{11}\,M_\odot$ is a biased average rather than the true host-halo mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

O VI at this column-density threshold traces sub-$L^*$ dark-matter halos rather than the diffuse intergalactic medium, since its correlation length is comparable to the galaxy auto-correlation length.
The high small-scale covering fraction (about 75% within 100 kpc) and the residual excess out to roughly 8 physical Mpc imply that the same O VI-bearing gas occupies both the circumgalactic medium and the large-scale surroundings of galaxies.
The one-halo excess below about $0.5\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$ indicates that some O VI systems are physically inside individual halos, so a two-halo power law alone underdescribes small scales.
A shallower cross-correlation slope ($\gamma=1.25$ versus $1.33$) means the ratio $\xi_{ag}/\xi_{gg}$ drops below unity on scales smaller than about $1.3\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, consistent with O VI being less clustered than the survey galaxies on those scales.
The public CASBaH database enables future studies to test other ions and to separate circumgalactic from intergalactic contributions using larger datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

If the paper is right, O VI absorption can serve as a statistical census of low-mass halos at intermediate redshift, because the absorber bias carries the halo-mass information even where the host galaxies are too faint for the present survey.
The Gaussian-smoothed random catalogs could erase genuine large-scale-structure spikes; redoing the analysis without smoothing, or treating fields separately, would test how much of the measured $r_0$ depends on that construction choice.
A natural extension is to split the O VI sample by column density: if higher-column systems cluster more strongly, the $10^{13.5}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ threshold is selecting a progressively more halo-dominated population rather than a single gas phase.
If future surveys confirm the large-scale excess but find no dependence on galaxy environment such as voids versus filaments, the O VI population would be better described as tracing the denser nodes of the cosmic web than as living exclusively in $\sim10^{11}\,M_\odot$ halos.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The CASBaH galaxy database is a genuine public resource, and the cross-correlation measurement is a useful new data point. But the paper's headline - OVI absorbers at z~0.3 live in ~10^11 Msun halos - is weaker than it looks. The bias value b_OVI = 1.0 is exactly what you would get for any tracer that follows the dark-matter distribution, so the measurement alone cannot tell whether the OVI is in halos or simply in large-scale filaments. The authors know this; they state the ansatz explicitly. Still, the abstract's phrasing will lead readers to think the mass is measured, when it is actually assumed. That is a soft spot worth flagging.

What is new and good: the catalog of 5902 galaxy redshifts and masses around nine UV-bright quasars is a real contribution, described with unusual care - targeting, completeness, redshift quality, SED fitting. The clustering analysis is also well done: two independent estimators for the cross-correlation agree at the ~20% level, and the covering fraction analysis adds context. I do not doubt the measured correlation length r0 ~ 6 h^-1 Mpc.

The soft spots, in order of concern. First, the internal estimator inconsistency. The paper uses the pair-counting xi_ag for the ratio xi_ag/xi_gg = 0.76 +/- 0.1, but adopts the ML-based chi_perp fit for r0 and gamma. The pair counting is ~20% lower in amplitude. Using the ML estimate would push the ratio toward ~0.9-1.0 and b_OVI toward ~1.2, moving the halo mass up by a factor of a few - beyond the quoted 0.1 uncertainty. That is a systematic error that should be propagated or removed by using a single estimator. Second, the random galaxy catalogs are built from smoothed redshift histograms; if real overdensities are smoothed over, the measured clustering amplitude (and hence the bias) is biased low. The authors note this but do not test its impact on the mass estimate. Third, the OVI absorber catalog is from an in-prep companion paper, which makes it hard for a referee to check the absorber selection independently. The code also is not released yet, though the catalog is public.

None of this kills the paper. The database alone justifies publication. The clustering measurement is a solid subfield contribution. I would send it to a serious referee, with the request that the authors either use one estimator consistently or quote a systematic error on the mass from the estimator choice, and that they soften the "hosted by halos of 10^11 Msun" phrasing to reflect the halo/IGM degeneracy.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the CASBaH galaxy survey database: 5902 galaxies with high-quality redshifts and stellar masses in the fields of 9 UV-bright quasars at z~1, assembled from SDSS, DECaLS, LBT/LBC imaging, and MMT/Hectospec plus Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopy. The authors use this sample to measure the galaxy auto-correlation function and the galaxy-OVI cross-correlation function for OVI absorbers with N(OVI)>=10^13.5 cm^-2 at 0.12<z<0.75, restricting the analysis to transverse separations 1-8 h^-1 Mpc. They find (r0,gamma)=(5.48+/-0.07 h^-1 Mpc,1.33+/-0.04) for galaxies and (6.00(+1.09/-0.77) h^-1 Mpc,1.25+/-0.18) for the cross-correlation, translate the galaxy bias to a halo mass of ~10^12.1 Msun, and use the ratio xi_ag/xi_gg=0.76+/-0.1 to infer b_OVI=1.0+/-0.1 and a typical OVI host halo mass of ~10^11 Msun. The paper also releases the galaxy database publicly through the specdb package.

Significance. If the central inference holds, this is an important result: it would establish that OVI absorbers at z~0.3 cluster with galaxies on Mpc scales and are statistically associated with sub-L* dark matter halos, connecting the circumgalactic medium to the galaxy-halo connection. The database itself is a valuable legacy product for absorber-galaxy studies, and the clustering analysis is careful in several respects: the sample selection and completeness are documented, two independent estimators are used for the cross-correlation, the redshift uncertainty is internally calibrated, and the analysis is restricted to the two-halo regime. The public release of the galaxy catalog and the stated intent to release analysis code are also strengths. However, the halo-mass claim rests on an explicitly conditional ansatz and on one estimator choice that the authors themselves note differs by about 20% from the maximum-likelihood analysis; these issues need to be addressed before the quantitative mass statement can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)

[Section 6.3/6.4, Eq. (6), Figures 26-27] The quoted bias ratio xi_ag/xi_gg = 0.76 +/- 0.1 is taken from the pair-counting estimator, while the adopted r0 and gamma for the cross-correlation come from the maximum-likelihood chi_perp analysis, which the authors state yields an approximately 20% higher amplitude at most scales. Re-scaling the pair-counting ratio by this factor gives xi_ag/xi_gg ~ 0.95 and b_OVI ~ 1.2 to 1.25, shifting the inferred halo mass upward by roughly a factor of a few, well outside the stated +/-0.1 uncertainty on b_OVI. The authors should either compute the bias ratio with the same estimator used for the quoted correlation parameters or add a systematic uncertainty that covers this discrepancy.
[Section 6.2, Figure 18] The random galaxy catalogs are constructed from Gaussian-smoothed versions of the observed redshift histograms, explicitly smoothing out redshift 'spikes,' and a custom sensitivity function is needed for PG1630+377 because of a large overdensity at z ~ 0.4. If those spikes are real large-scale structure, this procedure changes the effective clustering amplitude in a way that is not quantified; the effect on xi_gg, xi_ag, and especially the ratio xi_ag/xi_gg could be non-negligible. I request a test using unsmoothed or differently smoothed random distributions to demonstrate that the derived bias and halo mass are robust to this choice.
[Section 6, Abstract, Section 7] The inferred OVI halo mass of ~10^11 Msun is explicitly conditional on the ansatz that most OVI systems arise within dark matter halos, yet the abstract and summary present this mass as the paper's central conclusion. Under the same linear-bias model, b_OVI = 1.0 is exactly the bias of the dark-matter distribution itself, so a tracer that simply follows the cosmic web (e.g., diffuse IGM gas in filaments) would produce the same xi_ag/xi_gg ratio against the b_gg = 1.3 galaxy population. Because this degeneracy is load-bearing for the mass interpretation, the manuscript should either add an empirical test distinguishing halo occupation from diffuse IGM tracing (for example using the one-halo term or the incidence/covering-fraction data) or consistently frame the 10^11 Msun value as a conditional estimate rather than a direct measurement.

minor comments (4)

[Section 5, first paragraph] The sentence 'In the following section, we will study the study the clustering...' contains a duplicated phrase and should be corrected.
[Section 6.2, text after Eq. (3)] The quoted auto-correlation parameters appear as 'r0 = 5.48 +/- 0.07 h^-1_100 Mpc h^-1_100 Mpc'; the units are duplicated.
[Table 3] The field name 'PG1448+549' appears in the LBT/LBC imaging table, but the survey field list in Table 1 contains 'PG1148+549'; this is presumably a typo.
[Throughout] The notation for the oxygen ion is inconsistent: the text uses 'OVI', 'O VI', and 'N(O+5)' interchangeably; please standardize, especially in figures and the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the OVI-galaxy clustering and halo-mass inference are empirical fits interpreted with externally calibrated bias models and a transparently stated ansatz.

full rationale

The central claims are empirical measurements rather than derivations that assume their conclusions. The galaxy auto-correlation and OVI-galaxy cross-correlation parameters (r0, gamma) are obtained from pair counting and maximum likelihood fits to the data, and the quoted values (r0 = 5.48 +/- 0.07 h^-1 Mpc, gamma = 1.33 +/- 0.04; r0 = 6.00 (+1.09/-0.77) h^-1 Mpc, gamma = 1.25 +/- 0.18) are not inputs to the analysis. The bias inference uses Eq. (6), b_OVI = b_gg * (xi_ag/xi_gg), with the measured ratio xi_ag/xi_gg = 0.76 +/- 0.1 and b_gg = 1.3 +/- 0.1 calibrated against the external Smith et al. (2003) dark-matter correlation function and Zehavi et al. (2011) HOD; these are independent external calibrations, not self-citations. The paper explicitly flags the conditional nature of the halo-mass statement in Section 6: 'any estimate on mass follows from the ansatz that the majority of these O VI systems arise within dark matter halos.' This is an honest interpretive assumption, not a circular derivation, and the abstract separately defers the question of IGM-associated OVI to future work. The l_OVI incidence adopted in Section 6.3 is partly estimated from the CASBaH sample but is stated to be consistent with the external Tripp et al. (2008) and Danforth et al. (2016) measurements, and the pair-count ratio used for the bias estimate does not depend on that adopted l_OVI value. Self-citations, including the Tejos et al. (2014) methodology and the Hennawi & Prochaska (2007) likelihood estimator, are standard analysis tools or contextual comparisons and are not load-bearing in a way that reduces the result to a self-citation. The possible fragility of the random-catalog construction and the ansatz are legitimate systematic concerns but are not circularity: they concern accuracy and interpretation, not the derivation being equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This ledger separates the data products that the paper actually delivers (the galaxy catalog) from the modeling choices and background assumptions used to turn the pair counts into halo masses. The fitted correlation lengths and slopes are measurements, but they are listed because the halo-mass claim is derived from them. The l_OVI incidence rate, MeanShift bandwidth, velocity window, and column density threshold are hand-chosen inputs that define the absorber sample and the likelihood. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

Galaxy auto-correlation length r0_gg = 5.48 +/- 0.07 h^-1 Mpc
Fitted to the projected galaxy-galaxy correlation function over R=[1,10] h^-1 Mpc (two-halo term); used with gamma_gg to infer b_gg and halo mass.
Galaxy auto-correlation slope gamma_gg = 1.33 +/- 0.04
Fitted simultaneously with r0_gg in the maximum-likelihood power-law fit.
OVI-galaxy cross-correlation length r0_ag = 6.00 (+1.09/-0.77) h^-1 Mpc
Maximum-likelihood fit to the absorber-galaxy clustering via Eqs. (4)-(5) over R=[1,8] h^-1 Mpc; central input to the OVI bias and halo-mass estimate.
OVI-galaxy cross-correlation slope gamma_ag = 1.25 +/- 0.18
Fitted with r0_ag in the same likelihood; the shallower slope compared with gamma_gg affects the scale dependence of xi_ag/xi_gg.
OVI incidence rate l_OVI(z) = 13.5 (systems per unit redshift)
Adopted from the paper's own 59 systems plus Danforth et al. (2016); used in Eq. (4) for the Poisson miss probability in the maximum-likelihood estimator.
MeanShift bandwidth = 600 km/s
Hand-chosen in Section 6.1 to group OVI components into systems; affects the system redshifts and column densities used in the clustering analysis.
Association velocity window delta_v = +/-400 km/s
Hand-chosen in Section 6.3 to define galaxy-OVI hits/misses and the covering fraction; affects both the likelihood and fC.
Column density threshold Nlim = 10^13.5 cm^-2
Hand-chosen lower limit on OVI column density defining the absorber sample (criterion 2, Section 6.1).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Planck15 cosmological parameters
Adopted throughout for distances and correlation scales ('Throughout the analysis we adopt the Planck15 cosmology').
domain assumption OVI absorbers arise within dark matter halos
Explicitly stated in Section 6: 'any estimate on mass follows from the ansatz that the majority of these O VI systems arise within dark matter halos.' This is load-bearing for the 10^11 solar mass inference.
domain assumption Linear bias relation b_OVI = b_gg * xi_ag/xi_gg and b_gg^2 = xi_gg/xi_DM
Used in Section 6.4 to convert measured correlation amplitudes into halo masses, calibrated by Smith et al. (2003) and Zehavi et al. (2011).
domain assumption Random galaxy catalogs from Gaussian-smoothed redshift histograms
Sensitivity functions in Section 6.2 smooth over redshift spikes; if spikes are real large-scale structure, this suppresses the measured clustering relative to truth.
domain assumption OVI incidence l(X) constant over the analysis window
Section 6.3: 'we adopt l_OVI(z) = 13.5 at z = 0.2 and assume that l(X) is constant throughout our analysis window.'
domain assumption Power-law form xi(r) = (r/r0)^(-gamma)
Assumed for both auto- and cross-correlation functions, standard in clustering analyses but a model choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The COS Absorption Survey of Baryon Harbors: The Galaxy Database and Cross-Correlation Analysis of OVI Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DEXYKDR

@misc{pith2026190807675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The COS Absorption Survey of Baryon Harbors: The Galaxy Database and Cross-Correlation Analysis of OVI Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DEXYKDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07675}
}

read the original abstract

We describe the survey for galaxies in the fields surrounding 9 sightlines to far-UV bright, z~1 quasars that define the COS Absorption Survey of Baryon Harbors (CASBaH) program. The photometry and spectroscopy that comprise the dataset come from a mixture of public surveys (SDSS, DECaLS) and our dedicated efforts on private facilities (Keck, MMT, LBT). We report the redshifts and stellar masses for 5902 galaxies within ~10 comoving-Mpc (cMpc) of the sightlines with a median of z=0.28 and M_* ~ 10^(10.1) Msun. This dataset, publicly available as the CASBaH specDB, forms the basis of several recent and ongoing CASBaH analyses. Here, we perform a clustering analysis of the galaxy sample with itself (auto-correlation) and against the set of OVI absorption systems (cross-correlation) discovered in the CASBaH quasar spectra with column densities N(O^+5) >= 10^(13.5)/cm^2. For each, we describe the measured clustering signal with a power-law correlation function xi(r) = (r/r_0)^(-gamma) and find that (r_0,gamma) = (5.48 +/- 0.07 h_100^-1 Mpc, 1.33 +/- 0.04) for the auto-correlation and (6.00 +/- 1 h^-1 Mpc, 1.25 +/- 0.18) for galaxy-OVI cross-correlation. We further estimate a bias factor of b_gg = 1.3 +/- 0.1 from the galaxy-galaxy auto-correlation indicating the galaxies are hosted by halos with mass M_halo ~ 10^(12.1 +/- 0.05) Msun. Finally, we estimate an OVI-galaxy bias factor b_OVI = 1.0 +/- 0.1 from the cross-correlation which is consistent with OVI absorbers being hosted by dark matter halos with typical mass M_halo ~ 10^(11) Msun. Future works with upcoming datasets (e.g., CGM^2) will improve upon these results and will assess whether any of the detected OVI arises in the intergalactic medium.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[1]

2015, ApJS, 219, 12, arXiv: 1501.00963

Alam, S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12, arXiv: 1501.00963

arXiv 2015
[2]

Frye, B. L. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 139

2006
[3]

N., & Peebles, P

Bahcall, J. N., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, ApJL, 156, L7+

1969
[4]

J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R

Battisti, A. J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R. 2016, ApJ, 818, 13 —. 2017, ApJ, 851, 90

2016
[5]

1996, A&AS, 117, 393

Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

1996
[6]

2002, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, V ol

Bertin, E., Mellier, Y ., Radovich, M., Missonnier, G., Didelon, P., & Morin, B. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, V ol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A

2002
[7]

2019, in prep

Bielby, R., & et al. 2019, in prep

2019
[8]

R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603

1996

Show all 90 references

[9]

M., Schaye, J., Delgado, J

Booth, C. M., Schaye, J., Delgado, J. D., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1053

2012
[10]

V ., Pettini, M., & Blades, J

Bowen, D. V ., Pettini, M., & Blades, J. C. 2002, ApJ, 580, 169

2002
[11]

2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

2003
[12]

2011, A&A, 533, A93

Buat, V ., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A93

2011
[13]

2019, in prep

Burchett, J., et al., et al., & et al. 2019, in prep

2019
[14]

N., et al

Burchett, J. N., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints —. 2015, ApJ, 815, 91

2018
[15]

B., & Dav´e, R

Ford, A. B., & Dav´e, R. 2013, ApJL, 779, L17

2013
[16]

2000, ApJ, 533, 682

Storchi-Bergmann, T. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

2000
[17]

2014, Nature, 506, 63

Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63

2014
[18]

Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., & Jones, B. J. T. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1286

2013
[19]

2003, PASP, 115, 763

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

2003
[20]

C., et al

Chambers, K. C., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints

2016
[21]

Chen, H., & Mulchaey, J. S. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1219

2009
[22]

X., Weiner, B

Chen, H.-W., Prochaska, J. X., Weiner, B. J., Mulchaey, J. S., & Williger, G. M. 2005, ApJL, 629, L25

2005
[23]

Chen, H.-W., & Tinker, J. L. 2008, ApJ, 687, 745

2008
[24]

L., Mendez, A

Coil, A. L., Mendez, A. J., Eisenstein, D. J., & Moustakas, J. 2017, ApJ, 838, 87

2017
[25]

Croft, R. A. C., Weinberg, D. H., Bolte, M., Burles, S., Hernquist, L., Katz, N., Kirkman, D., & Tytler, D. 2002, ApJ, 581, 20

2002
[26]

M., & et al

Cutri, R. M., & et al. 2013, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2328

2013
[27]

A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., Armus, L., D´ıaz-Santos, T., & Shi, Y . 2014, ApJ, 784, 83

2014
[28]

W., et al

Danforth, C. W., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 111

2016
[29]

S., & White, S

Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371

1985
[30]

S., et al

Dawson, K. S., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10 de Jong, J. T. A., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A134

2013
[31]

2018, ArXiv e-prints

Dey, A., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints

2018
[32]

J., et al

Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2267

2001
[33]

M., et al

Faber, S. M., et al. 2003, in Proceedings of the SPIE, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1657–1669

2003
[34]

2005, PASP, 117, 1411

Fabricant, D., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1411

2005
[35]

W., et al

Finn, C. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 590

2016
[36]

A., et al

Flewelling, H. A., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints

2016
[37]

B., et al

Ford, A. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1745 Gaia Collaboration et al. 2016a, A&A, 595, A2 —. 2016b, A&A, 595, A1

2016
[38]

2013, MNRAS, 435, 1233

Ganguly, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1233

2013
[39]

2008, A&A, 482, 349

Giallongo, E., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 349

2008
[40]

Gould, A., & Weinberg, D. H. 1996, ApJ, 468, 462

1996
[41]

C., et al

Green, J. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 60

2012
[42]

F., & Prochaska, J

Hennawi, J. F., & Prochaska, J. X. 2007, ApJ, 655, 735

2007
[43]

C., & Wild, V

Hewett, P. C., & Wild, V . 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2302

2010
[44]

Howk, J. C. e. a. 2019, in prep

2019
[45]

2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2317

Hudelot, P., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2317

2012
[46]

D., Chen, H.-W., & Mulchaey, J

Johnson, S. D., Chen, H.-W., & Mulchaey, J. S. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3263

2015
[47]

A., et al

Keeney, B. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 11

2018
[48]

2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.05786

Lan, T.-W., & Mo, H. 2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.05786

2018 arXiv
[49]

D., & Szalay, A

Landy, S. D., & Szalay, A. S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64

1993
[50]

2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599

Lawrence, A., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599

2007
[51]

2013, ApJ, 770, 138 Lo Faro, B., Buat, V ., Roehlly, Y ., Alvarez-Marquez, J., Burgarella, D.,

Lehner, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 138 Lo Faro, B., Buat, V ., Roehlly, Y ., Alvarez-Marquez, J., Burgarella, D.,

2013
[52]

2017, MNRAS, 472, 1372 Luki´c, Z., Stark, C

Silva, L., & Efstathiou, A. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1372 Luki´c, Z., Stark, C. W., Nugent, P., White, M., Meiksin, A. A., & Almgren, A. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3697

2017
[53]

Mathur, S., & Wilkes, B. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 585

1995
[54]

X., Lehner, N., & Sembach, K

Prochaska, J. X., Lehner, N., & Sembach, K. R. 2013, ApJ, 767, 49 Miralda-Escud´e, J., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., & Rauch, M. 1996, ApJ, 471, 582

2013
[55]

2007, AJ, 134, 1634

Kashikawa, N. 2007, AJ, 134, 1634

2007
[56]

J., Giovanelli, R., & Irwin, M

Terrile, R. J., Giovanelli, R., & Irwin, M. 1993, ApJ, 419, 524

1993
[57]

2013, ApJ, 767, 50

Moustakas, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 50

2013
[58]

D., & Narayanan, A

Muzahid, S., Srianand, R., Arav, N., Savage, B. D., & Narayanan, A. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2885

2013
[59]

A., et al

Newman, J. A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 5

2013
[60]

Noll, S., Burgarella, D., Giovannoli, E., Buat, V ., Marcillac, D., & Mu˜noz-Mateos, J. C. 2009, A&A, 507, 1793

2009
[61]

E., et al

Nuza, S. E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 743

2013
[62]

2013, A&A, 559, A85

Palanque-Delabrouille, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A85

2013
[63]

2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

Pedregosa, F., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

2011
[64]

V ., Stocke, J

Penton, S. V ., Stocke, J. T., & Shull, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 565, 720

2002
[65]

T., Stocke, J

Pratt, C. T., Stocke, J. T., Keeney, B. A., & Danforth, C. W. 2018, ApJ, 855, 18

2018
[66]

X., et al

Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 136

2013
[67]

2012, The SVO Filter Proﬁle Service

Rodrigo, C., Solano, E., & Bayo, A. 2012, The SVO Filter Proﬁle Service

2012
[68]

J., Olszewski, E

Sand, D. J., Olszewski, E. W., Willman, B., Zaritsky, D., Seth, A., Harris, J., Piatek, S., & Saha, A. 2009, ApJ, 704, 898

2009
[69]

D., et al

Savage, B. D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1526 Schlaﬂy, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

2010
[70]

A., Sargent, W

Simcoe, R. A., Sargent, W. L. W., & Rauch, M. 2004, ApJ, 606, 92

2004
[71]

2013, JCAP, 4, 26

Slosar, A., et al. 2013, JCAP, 4, 26

2013
[72]

E., et al

Smith, R. E., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1311

2003
[73]

McLin, K. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 217

2006
[74]

L., Crighton, N

Tejos, N., Morris, S. L., Crighton, N. H. M., Theuns, T., Altay, G., & Finn, C. W. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 245

2012
[75]

2014, MNRAS, 437, 2017

Tejos, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2017

2014
[76]

2014, MNRAS, 438, 3465

Saar, E. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3465

2014
[77]

Tripp, T. 2013, Science white paper submitted to NASA Solicitation NNH12ZDA008L: Science Objectives and Requirements for the Next NASA UV/Visible Astrophysics Mission Concepts, arXiv:1303.0043

2013 arXiv
[78]

2019, in prep

Tripp, T., et al., et al., & et al. 2019, in prep

2019
[79]

M., Lu, L., & Savage, B

Tripp, T. M., Lu, L., & Savage, B. D. 1998, ApJ, 508, 200

1998
[80]

M., et al

Tripp, T. M., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 952

2011
[81]

2008, ApJS, 177, 39

Lehner, N., & Richter, P. 2008, ApJS, 177, 39

2008
[82]

2011, Science, 334, 948

Tumlinson, J., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 948

2011
[83]

A., Barthel, P

Verner, D. A., Barthel, P. D., & Tytler, D. 1994, A&AS, 108, 287

1994
[84]

P., Hernandez, A

Wakker, B. P., Hernandez, A. K., French, D. M., Kim, T.-S., Oppenheimer, B. D., & Savage, B. D. 2015, ApJ, 814, 40

2015
[85]

P., & Savage, B

Wakker, B. P., & Savage, B. D. 2009, ApJS, 182, 378

2009
[86]

J., et al

Warren, S. J., et al. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

2007
[87]

K., Prochaska, J

Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Thom, C., Tumlinson, J., Tripp, T. M., O’Meara, J. M., & Peeples, M. S. 2013, ApJS, 204, 17

2013
[88]

E., et al

Woodgate, B. E., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 1183

1998
[89]

2011, ApJ, 736, 59

Zehavi, I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 59

2011
[90]

2014, MNRAS, 439, 3139

Zhu, G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3139

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2015, ApJS, 219, 12, arXiv: 1501.00963

Alam, S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12, arXiv: 1501.00963

arXiv 2015

[2] [2]

Frye, B. L. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 139

2006

[3] [3]

N., & Peebles, P

Bahcall, J. N., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, ApJL, 156, L7+

1969

[4] [4]

J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R

Battisti, A. J., Calzetti, D., & Chary, R.-R. 2016, ApJ, 818, 13 —. 2017, ApJ, 851, 90

2016

[5] [5]

1996, A&AS, 117, 393

Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

1996

[6] [6]

2002, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, V ol

Bertin, E., Mellier, Y ., Radovich, M., Missonnier, G., Didelon, P., & Morin, B. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, V ol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A

2002

[7] [7]

2019, in prep

Bielby, R., & et al. 2019, in prep

2019

[8] [8]

R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603

1996