Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Evolution of Neutral Oxygen During the Epoch of Reionization and its Use in Estimating the Neutral Hydrogen Fraction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In simulations, the ratio of neutral oxygen to silicon in quasar spectra gauges the neutral hydrogen fraction during reionization.

desk verdict A capable simulation paper with a plausible qualitative story about OI absorbers during reionization, but the advertised 10% accuracy of the OI/Si x_HI estimator is an in-sample curve fit, not a validated measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08549 v1 pith:66VWOQ3F submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Caitlin Doughty , Kristian Finlator This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords reionizationneutraloxygenquasarabsorptionlinescircumgalacticmediumintergalacticradiationhydrodynamicshydrogenfraction
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 argues that neutral oxygen (OI) absorption systems in quasar spectra can serve as a practical gauge of how much of the intergalactic hydrogen was still neutral during the epoch of reionization. Using synthetic sightlines through the Technicolor Dawn radiation-hydrodynamic simulation, it shows that the ratio of the OI comoving mass density to the summed SiII and SiIV comoving mass densities tracks the mass-weighted neutral hydrogen fraction, with scatter usually below ten per cent. This matters because the usual Ly-$\alpha$ forest probe saturates once the neutral fraction is above about $10^{-3}$, whereas the OI-based ratio stays usable when $x_{\rm HI} > 10$ per cent. The paper also finds that the drop in OI absorber incidence marks the overlap epoch of reionization, and that weak absorbers in diffuse gas respond first.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the $\Omega_{\rm OI}/\Omega_{\rm Si}$ ratio, defined from summed column densities of OI, SiII, and SiIV absorbers along a synthetic sightline, converted to comoving mass densities via a line-of-sight pathlength normalization. Because neutral oxygen and neutral hydrogen have nearly the same ionization energy, OI is destroyed by the same photons that reionize hydrogen; the denominator $\Omega_{\rm Si}$ stands in for the total oxygen column, avoiding the need for full ionization modeling of oxygen. The ratio removes most of the redshift-dependent enrichment and density evolution, leaving an observable quantity that responds chiefly to the ionizing background, and its scatter is controlled by restricting the sums to detected absorption systems with column-density cutoffs.

What would settle it

Take quasar spectra at $5.5 \lesssim z \lesssim 7$, measure the OI, SiII, and SiIV column-density ratios from unsaturated lines, convert them to $\Omega_{\rm OI}/\Omega_{\rm Si}$, and compare the inferred neutral hydrogen fraction against independent constraints from Ly-$\alpha$ damping wings, LAE clustering, or 21-cm limits; a disagreement systematically larger than the claimed roughly 10 per cent scatter at $x_{\rm HI} > 0.1$ would falsify the proxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the comoving mass-density ratio $\Omega_{\rm OI}/\Omega_{\rm Si}$, with $\Omega_{\rm Si} = \Omega_{\rm SiII} + \Omega_{\rm SiIV}$, is a tight observational proxy for the neutral hydrogen fraction along a quasar sightline. When only gas belonging to detected metal absorption systems is included, the relation is linear, $x_{\rm HI,abs} = 0.06\,(\Omega_{\rm OI}/\Omega_{\rm Si}) - 0.05$. When all gas along the sightline is included, the relation is sigmoidal and is fitted by $x_{\rm HI} = [1+\exp(-0.51(\Omega_{\rm OI}/\Omega_{\rm Si}-9.73))]^{-1}$ for $\Omega_{\rm OI}/\Omega_{\rm Si} > 5.42$, with more than 90 per cent of sightline segments within 10 per cent of the predicted value. The authors conclude that this ratio can estimate the mass-weighted neutral hydrogen fraction, and thus track the progress of reionization, particularly where $x_{\rm HI} > 10$ per cent.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calibration rests on the assumption that the simulated gas ionization states, particularly that SiII and SiIV carry essentially all the silicon and that the ionizing background is realistic, match the real reionization-era universe; if they do not, the fitted relation will not transfer from simulation to observation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement of OI and SiII+SiIV column densities in a $z>6$ quasar spectrum can directly estimate the mass-weighted neutral hydrogen fraction, covering the regime $x_{\rm HI} > 0.1$ where Ly-alpha forest transmission saturates.
  • The predicted abrupt decline in OI absorber incidence at the overlap epoch gives a new redshift marker for the completion of reionization; the observed jump near $z=5.7$ would then mean the true neutral fraction dropped below about one per cent at that epoch.
  • Weak, low-equivalent-width OI systems respond to reionization before strong systems, so the equivalent width distribution itself encodes the outside-in progression of reionization.
  • The calibration applies only above a neutral fraction of about 10 per cent; at lower $x_{\rm HI}$ the relation flattens, so the proxy is intended for the early and middle stages of reionization, not its tail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ratio is as tight in real spectra as in the simulation, a single quasar sightline could provide a crude reionization redshift without 21-cm tomography or Ly-alpha damping-wing modeling; many sightlines could map patchiness.
  • The paper's own test with only SiII (dropping SiIV) shows a less linear, noisier relation, so whether SiIV is observable at $z>6$ is a decisive practical question; upcoming near-infrared spectra may settle it.
  • Because the simulation completes reionization earlier than current observational inferences ($z\sim6.3$ versus $z\sim5.7$), a direct test is to compare the OI/Si-inferred $x_{\rm HI}$ at $z\sim6$-$7$ against independent damping-wing and LAE clustering constraints; agreement would validate the calibration, disagreement would locate the bias.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses synthetic sightlines through the Technicolor Dawn radiation-hydrodynamic simulation to study neutral oxygen absorbers from z=8 to z=5. It reports that OI covering fractions shrink around halos as reionization proceeds, that weak absorbers are affected more than strong ones, and that the OI incidence rate drops abruptly near the overlap epoch, in qualitative agreement with the Becker et al. (2019) observations, while the simulated EW distribution overproduces weak systems and underproduces strong ones. Motivated by the similar ionization energies of OI and HI, the paper calibrates a relation between the ratio of OI to SiII+SiIV comoving mass densities, Omega_OiSi, and the neutral hydrogen fraction. For absorber-restricted quantities a linear relation (Eq. 5) describes x_HI,abs; for the full line-of-sight neutral fraction x_HI,LOS a sigmoid (Eq. 6) is fitted, with the statement that more than 90 percent of sightline-segment values lie within 10 percent of the prediction. The paper argues that the median x_HI,LOS across segments tracks the global mass-weighted x_HI,m, and therefore that Omega_OiSi is a useful reionization probe in the regime x_HI > 10 percent.

Significance. If the central calibration survived external validation, an OI/Si ratio probe would be a valuable complement to Ly-alpha and 21 cm observations, particularly in the partially neutral regime where the Ly-alpha forest saturates and the OI lines are not saturated. The paper's strengths are its realistic simulation setup, including on-the-fly multifrequency radiative transfer, self-consistent metal enrichment, synthetic spectra with realistic noise and Voigt-profile fitting, explicit completeness corrections, and a generally honest confrontation with observations, including the known early reionization and weak-UVB problems. The qualitative outside-in reionization picture is well supported by the covering-fraction and absorber-distance trends. However, the quantitative accuracy claim for estimating the global mass-weighted hydrogen neutral fraction is not yet demonstrated, and the calibration is entirely internal to one simulation, so the significance of the central quantitative result is currently conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.6, Eq. (6) and inset of Figure 8] The central accuracy claim is not established by the analysis as presented. Equation (6) is fitted to x_HI,LOS, the neutral fraction of all gas along a sightline segment, and the statement that 'more than 90 percent of the sightline segment x_HI,LOS values fall within 10 percent of the predicted value' measures scatter around that fit to x_HI,LOS. The only connection to the global mass-weighted neutral fraction x_HI,m is the inset of Figure 8, which shows that the median x_HI,LOS across segments tracks x_HI,m. Because reionization is patchy, an individual quasar sightline can have an x_HI,LOS substantially different from the cosmic mean, and the right panel of Figure 8 reports a maximum scatter of roughly +/-0.2. The paper never computes the bias or rms scatter between predictions from Eq. (6) and the true global x_HI,m for individual segments. This is the load-bearing step for the abstract's claim that the probe can estimate the neutral hydrogen fraction, so it should be quantified directly, for example as a function of redshift and x_HI,m, both for single segments and for stacked samples.
  2. [Section 3.6, Eqs. (5)-(6); Section 4.4] The calibration is entirely in-sample. Equations (5) and (6) are best-fit relations evaluated on the same simulation outputs from which x_HI and Omega_OiSi are computed, so the quoted '10 percent' accuracy is a measure of internal scatter, not predictive accuracy against the real universe. The paper itself notes that the simulation completes reionization earlier than current observational inferences (z~6.3 versus z~5.7), that the simulated UVB is too weak at z<6, and that the observable silicon ionization states may not be representative at z>6. A systematic shift in the ionization balance or in the silicon ionization fractions would change the fitted coefficients in Eqs. (5) and (6). To support transferability, the paper should either propagate these stated systematic uncertainties into an error budget for the coefficients or validate the relation against an independent simulation or post-processing ionization model; otherwise the accuracy claim should be explicitly framed as conditional on the simulation's ionization balance.
  3. [Section 4.4, Figure 10] The observational utility of Omega_OiSi depends on simultaneous detection of SiII and SiIV, and the paper itself notes that SiIV may be difficult to observe at z>6 and that Becker et al. (2011) only obtained upper limits on SiIV. The SiII-only variant shown in Figure 10 loses the tight high-x_HI branch and has increased scatter, so the paper's own test indicates that the method is not as sensitive if SiIV is unavailable. The abstract states without qualification that the probe 'may prove particularly useful' for x_HI>10 percent. The conditions under which Eq. (6) can be applied to real spectra should be stated explicitly, and the claimed useful regime should be tied to a demonstrably observable set of silicon transitions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.6, Eq. (6)] The text says the fit is optimized for x_HI > 0.1, but Equation (6) is restricted by Omega_OiSi > 5.42. Please clarify whether the selection is on the predictor or the target, and whether all snapshots contribute equally to the fit.
  2. [Section 3.6] The phrase 'more than 90 percent of the sightline segment x_HI,LOS values fall within 10 percent of the predicted value' should state whether the 10 percent is relative to the predicted value or an absolute offset, and how this coexists with the reported maximum scatter of roughly +/-0.2.
  3. [Section 3.6 and Figure 8 caption] Please state explicitly that Omega_OiSi in the right panel is computed from absorber systems via Eq. (4), while x_HI,LOS is computed from all particles along the line of sight. The mixed definition is important for interpreting the claimed relation.
  4. [Section 2.2] In the sentence beginning 'Testing the sensitivity of the chosen velocity cutoff, we find that there is an insignificant adjustment...', the phrase 'up to 200 km/' is missing the unit; it should read 'up to 200 km/s'.
  5. [Section 4.4] The notation 'zO i >= 4.9' is not defined and is confusing; it should presumably be written as z >= 4.9 or z ~ 4.9.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the OI/Si–x_HI relation is an openly fitted simulation calibration with independent emergent content.

full rationale

Equations 5 and 6 are explicitly labeled as fit lines obtained by optimization; the paper never claims they are first-principles derivations. The correlation between Omega_OI/Omega_Si and x_HI,LOS is not definitional: the two axes of Figure 8 use different particle selections (all gas along the sightline segment versus detected metal absorber systems) and different elements/ions, connected by the physical assumption of similar OI and HI ionization energies. The OI absorber abundance and EW statistics are emergent predictions of the Technicolor Dawn simulation rather than tuning targets, and the paper tests them against Becker et al. (2019) as external observational benchmarks. Citations to Finlator et al. (2018) are standard references to the simulation code and its calibration, not a self-citation chain that forces the conclusion. The main weakness is that the stated 10% accuracy is the scatter around the fitted x_HI,LOS curve, and the bridge to global x_HI,m is via the median of segments rather than per-sightline validation; that is an internal validation gap or overclaim, not a reduction of the claim to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calibration rests on fitted relations from one simulation and on several domain assumptions about ionization balance and observational detectability. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Equation 5 slope and intercept = 0.06, -0.05
    Fit to simulated relation between x_HI,abs and Omega_OI/Omega_Si in Section 3.6.
  • Equation 6 sigmoid parameters = k=-0.51, midpoint=9.73, cutoff=5.42
    Fit to simulated relation between x_HI,LOS and Omega_OI/Omega_Si for x_HI > 0.1; free parameters chosen to match simulation output.
  • Completeness sigmoid parameters = z<5.7: L=0.96, k=4.81, x0=-1.17; z>5.7: L=0.97, k=4.20, x0=-1.07
    Fitted to observational completeness curves from Becker et al. 2019; used for observational comparison only.
  • Subgrid outflow and enrichment parameters = Outflow mass-loading scaling from Muratov et al. 2015; wind velocity from Dave et al.
    Calibrated subgrid physics inherited from the Technicolor Dawn simulation (Finlator et al. 2018); these shape the metal distributions and OI/Si abundances.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Planck 2016 LCDM cosmology with (Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, Omega_b, h, X_H) = (0.3089, 0.6911, 0.0486, 0.6774, 0.751).
    Used to compute distances, pathlengths, and densities; stated in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption OI traces HI because their ionization energies are similar and charge exchange couples them.
    Physical basis for the proxy, discussed in Introduction and Section 3.6.
  • domain assumption SiII and SiIV dominate the total silicon column in the simulation and in real absorbers.
    Stated in Section 3.6; weakens the proxy if other silicon states are important.
  • domain assumption The simulated reionization history and UVB are representative enough for absorber statistics to match reality.
    The simulation completes reionization earlier (z~6.3) than observed (z~5.7) and the UVB is too weak at z<6; recognized in Section 4.4.
  • domain assumption Simulated synthetic sightline absorber detection mimics observational selection.
    Assumes 5 sigma detection threshold, S/N=50, and merging criteria produce a sample comparable to Becker et al. 2019.
  • domain assumption The mass-weighted neutral fraction can be estimated from line-of-sight neutral fraction medians.
    The inset in Figure 8 shows median x_HI,LOS tracks x_HI,m; assumes representative sightlines.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of Neutral Oxygen During the Epoch of Reionization and its Use in Estimating the Neutral Hydrogen Fraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/66VWOQ3F

@misc{pith2026190808549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of Neutral Oxygen During the Epoch of Reionization and its Use in Estimating the Neutral Hydrogen Fraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/66VWOQ3F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08549}
}
abstract

We use synthetic sightlines drawn through snapshots of the Technicolor Dawn simulations to explore how the statistics of neutral oxygen OI absorbers respond to hydrogen reionization. The ionization state of the circumgalactic medium (CGM) initially roughly tracks that of the intergalactic medium, but beginning at $z=8$ the CGM grows systematically more neutral owing to self-shielding. Weak absorbers trace diffuse gas that lies farther from halos, hence they are ionized first, whereas stronger systems are less sensitive to reionization. The overall OI covering fraction decreases slowly with time owing to competition between ongoing enrichment and gradual encroachment of ionization fronts into increasingly overdense gas. While the declining covering fraction is partially offset by continued formation of new halos, the ionization of the diffuse gas causes the predicted line-of-sight incidence rate of OI absorbers to decline abruptly at the overlap epoch, in qualitative agreement with observations. In comparison to the recently-observed equivalent width (EW) distribution at $z\approx6$, the simulations underproduce systems with $EW \geq 0.1 \unicode{x212B}$, although they reproduce weaker systems with $EW \geq 0.05 \unicode{x212B}$. By $z\approx5$, the incidence of $EW < 0.1 \unicode{x212B}$ systems are overproduced, consistent with previous indications that the simulated ionizing background is too weak at $z<6$. The summed column densities of SiII and SiIV trace the total oxygen column, and hence the ratio of the OI and SiII + SiIV comoving mass densities traces the progress of reionization. This probe may prove particularly useful in the regime where $x_{HI} > 10\%$

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08549 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Slice of width δv = 50 km/s centered on the most massive halo, defined at z = 5 to be Mhalo = 1.1 × 1011M . Color corresponds to column density, of O i in the top row and total oxygen in the bottom row. The red cross indicates the location of the halo’s center at each redshift. The white line shows the location of the log N = 14.0 contour. Imaged box side length corresponds to 0.6 h−1 cMpc. of high-resolution radiat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. O i covering fractions for different column density limits as a function of halo mass for 100 halos, calculated for an r = 500 h−1 ckpc circle centered on each halo. The regions between the 16th and 84th percentiles of the distributions are shaded to show the 1σ variation with the median for each halo mass bin indicated by the solid line. mostly grouped into very high or very low column densities with a sharp discon… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative histogram of the distribution of O i equiv￾alent widths from the simulation alongside the observations of Becker et al. (2019), all normalized by the pathlength at the given redshift as calculated using our cosmology (note the loga￾rithmic scale on the x-axis). The blue hatching shows the scatter about the z = 6 distribution when the long sightline is divided into segments of dX = 63.3, comparable to that… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comoving mass densities of several species calculated along the sightline. The solid lines indicate the total comoving mass density for an element, while the other styles indicate that for an individual ionization state. Hydrogen is indicated in yellow, oxygen in purpl…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: The evolution in the incidence rate of O i ab￾sorbers. The uncertainty in ` (X) is given as √ n where n is the number of absorbers detected in the simulation at the given red￾shift. Two cutoffs in equivalent width have been applied: one at EW = 0.01 ˚A (blue hatch…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: The neutral fractions of H i and O i, each calculated as ratios between the comoving mass density of the neutral state to that of the element, plotted for all snapshots from z = 12 → 5. The values are calculated using the column density of H i and H ii and …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mean metallicity of all gas particles within the simulation for several redshifts, compared to that of Keating et al. (2014) at z = 6. The metallicity dependence predicted by our sim￾ulation agrees in normalization with their prescription although the slope is slig…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The neutral hydrogen fraction measured from indi￾vidual sightline segments as a function of the comoving density ratio of O i to Si ii, where the colors indicate the redshift. The relationship is far less linear than when using ΩO iSi and shows increased scatter. with…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ba \ n ados E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..227...11B 227, 11

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/11 2016

  2. [2]

    N., Peebles P

    Bahcall J. N., Peebles P. J. E., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180337 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...156L...7B 156, L7

    doi:10.1086/180337 1969

  3. [3]

    D., Sargent W

    Becker G. D., Sargent W. L. W., Rauch M., Calverley A. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/93 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...93B 735, 93

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/93 2011

  4. [4]

    D., Bolton J

    Becker G. D., Bolton J. S., Madau P., Pettini M., Ryan-Weber E. V., Venemans B. P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2646 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.3402B 447, 3402

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2646 2015

  5. [5]

    D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190702983B p

    Becker G. D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190702983B p. arXiv:1907.02983

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    S., Haehnelt M

    Bolton J. S., Haehnelt M. G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts455 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.1695B 429, 1695

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts455 2013

  7. [7]

    Bosman S. E. I., Fan X., Jiang L., Reed S., Matsuoka Y., Becker G., Haehnelt M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.1055B 479, 1055

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1344 2018

  8. [8]

    D., Rogers A

    Bowman J. D., Rogers A. E. E., Monsalve R. A., Mozdzen T. J., Mahesh N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25792 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.555...67B 555, 67

    doi:10.1038/nature25792 2018

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Cai Z., Fan X., Dave R., Finlator K., Oppenheimer B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849L..18C 849, L18

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Aubert D., Puchwein E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1786 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2943C 453, 2943

    Chardin J., Haehnelt M. G., Aubert D., Puchwein E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1786 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2943C 453, 2943

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3429C 465, 3429

    Chardin J., Puchwein E., Haehnelt M. G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3429C 465, 3429

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    V., Garc \' a L

    Codoreanu A., Ryan-Weber E. V., Garc \' a L. \'A ., Crighton N. H. M., Becker G., Pettini M., Madau P., Venemans B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2576 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4940C 481, 4940

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Simcoe R

    Cooper T. J., Simcoe R. A., Cooksey K. L., Bordoloi R., Miller D. R., Furezs G., Turner M. L., Ba \ n ados E., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190105980C

    2019

  6. [14]

    Couchman H. M. P., Rees M. J., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/221.1.53 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.221...53C 221, 53

    1986 doi

  7. [15]

    R., McQuinn M., Trac H., Shapiro P

    D'Aloisio A., Upton Sanderbeck P. R., McQuinn M., Trac H., Shapiro P. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx711 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4691D 468, 4691

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1862 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3265D 462, 3265

    Dav \'e R., Thompson R., Hopkins P. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1862 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3265D 462, 3265

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    R., 2016, in Electromagnetics in Advanced Applications (ICEAA), 2016 International Conference on, article id

    DeBoer D. R., 2016, in Electromagnetics in Advanced Applications (ICEAA), 2016 International Conference on, article id. 7731446. p. 7731446, @doi 10.1109/ICEAA.2016.7731446

    2016

  10. [18]

    D., Dav \'e R., Zackrisson E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty156 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmp..152D

    Doughty C., Finlator K., Oppenheimer B. D., Dav \'e R., Zackrisson E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty156 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmp..152D

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Einasto M., Einasto J., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/226.3.543 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.226..543E 226, 543

    1987 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Strauss M

    Fan X., Narayanan V. K., Strauss M. A., White R. L., Becker R. H., Pentericci L., Rix H.-W., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339030 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.1247F 123, 1247

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    L., Keating B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092514 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA

    Fan X., Carilli C. L., Keating B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092514 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J., Korista K

    Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., Verner D. A., Ferguson J. W., Kingdon J. B., Verner E. M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316190 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..761F 110, 761

    1998 doi

  15. [24]

    A., Oppenheimer B

    Finlator K., Mu \ n oz J. A., Oppenheimer B. D., Oh S. P., \"O zel F., Dav \'e R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1697 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1818F 436, 1818

    2013 doi

  16. [25]

    D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2668 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.2526F 447, 2526

    Finlator K., Thompson R., Huang S., Dav \'e R., Zackrisson E., Oppenheimer B. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2668 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.2526F 447, 2526

    2015 doi

  17. [26]

    D., Dav \'e R., Zackrisson E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1949 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2628F 480, 2628

    Finlator K., Keating L., Oppenheimer B. D., Dav \'e R., Zackrisson E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1949 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2628F 480, 2628

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    M., Prochaska J

    Fumagalli M., O'Meara J. M., Prochaska J. X., Worseck G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/78 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775...78F 775, 78

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

    A., Tescari E., Ryan-Weber E

    Garc \' a L. A., Tescari E., Ryan-Weber E. V., Wyithe J. S. B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx053 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469L..53G 469, L53

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    M., Trac H., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aad68a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RNAAS...2c.135G 2, 135

    Glazer D., Rau M. M., Trac H., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aad68a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RNAAS...2c.135G 2, 135

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Y., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...535..530G 535, 530

    Gnedin N. Y., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...535..530G 535, 530

    2000 doi

  22. [31]

    E., Peterson B

    Gunn J. E., Peterson B. A., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148444 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142.1633G 142, 1633

    1965 doi

  23. [32]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..125H 746, 125

    2012 doi

  24. [33]

    Hahn O., Abel T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2101H 415, 2101

    2011

  25. [34]

    Haiman Z., Loeb A., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304238 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...483...21H 483, 21

    1997 doi

  26. [35]

    L., Sand D., Bildfell C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...15H 834, 15

    Heringer E., Pritchet C., Kezwer J., Graham M. L., Sand D., Bildfell C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...15H 834, 15

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    Hoag A., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190109001H

    2019

  28. [37]

    Huml \' cek J., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0022-4073(79)90062-1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979JQSRT..21..309H 21, 309

    1979 doi

  29. [38]

    B., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181112410H p

    Hummels C. B., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181112410H p. arXiv:1811.12410

    2018 arXiv

  30. [39]

    K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psy048 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70...55I 70, 55

    Inoue A. K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psy048 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70...55I 70, 55

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1a6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870..137K 870, 137

    Kacprzak G. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1a6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870..137K 870, 137

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    C., Haehnelt M

    Keating L. C., Haehnelt M. G., Becker G. D., Bolton J. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2324 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.1820K 438, 1820

    2014 doi

  33. [42]

    C., Puchwein E., Haehnelt M

    Keating L. C., Puchwein E., Haehnelt M. G., Bird S., Bolton J. S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1306 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..606K 461, 606

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    Konno A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S..16K 70, S16

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    2001

  36. [45]

    J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312934 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542L..69M 542, L69

    Madau P., Rees M. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312934 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542L..69M 542, L69

    2000 doi

  37. [46]

    Mason C. A., Treu T., Dijkstra M., Mesinger A., Trenti M., Pentericci L., de Barros S., Vanzella E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856....2M 856, 2

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    D., Fan X., Jiang L., Cai Z., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaab4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..131M 155, 131

    McGreer I. D., Fan X., Jiang L., Cai Z., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaab4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..131M 155, 131

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    McQuinn M., Lidz A., Zahn O., Dutta S., Hernquist L., Zaldarriaga M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11489.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.377.1043M 377, 1043

    2007

  40. [49]

    Mellema G., et al., 2013, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-013-9334-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ExA....36..235M 36, 235

    2013 doi

  41. [50]

    Miralda-Escud \'e J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305799 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501...15M 501, 15

    1998 doi

  42. [51]

    J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308330 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...530....1M 530, 1

    Miralda-Escud \'e J., Haehnelt M., Rees M. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308330 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...530....1M 530, 1

    2000 doi

  43. [52]

    F., Wyithe J

    Morales M. F., Wyithe J. S. B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130936 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA

    2010 doi

  44. [53]

    423, Understanding the Epoch of Cosmic Reionization: Challenges and Progress

    Mortlock D., 2016, in Mesinger A., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 423, Understanding the Epoch of Cosmic Reionization: Challenges and Progress. p. 187 ( @eprint arXiv 1511.01107 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21957-8_7

    2016 arXiv

  45. [54]

    L., Kere s D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hopkins P

    Muratov A. L., Kere s D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2126 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2691M 454, 2691

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    M., Kacprzak G

    Nielsen N. M., Kacprzak G. G., Muzahid S., Churchill C. W., Murphy M. T., Charlton J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/148 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..148N 834, 148

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    Nomoto K., Tominaga N., Umeda H., Kobayashi C., Maeda K., 2006, @doi [Nuclear Physics A] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NuPhA.777..424N 777, 424

    2006 doi

  48. [57]

    P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05859.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336.1021O 336, 1021

    Oh S. P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05859.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336.1021O 336, 1021

    2002

  49. [58]

    Onoue M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8cc6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847L..15O 847, L15

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    D., Dav \'e R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13280.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387..577O 387, 577

    Oppenheimer B. D., Dav \'e R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13280.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387..577O 387, 577

    2008

  51. [61]

    D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1066 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2157O 460, 2157

    Oppenheimer B. D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1066 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2157O 460, 2157

    2016 doi

  52. [62]

    D., Schaye J., Crain R

    Oppenheimer B. D., Schaye J., Crain R. A., Werk J. K., Richings A. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2281 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..835O 481, 835

    2018 doi

  53. [63]

    P., Gnedin N

    Ostriker J. P., Gnedin N. Y., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310375 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472L..63O 472, L63

    1996 doi

  54. [64]

    Ouchi M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx074 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S..13O 70, S13

    2018 doi

  55. [65]

    Pallottini A., Gallerani S., Ferrara A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu126 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444L.105P 444, L105

    2014 doi

  56. [66]

    H., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63e7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...65P 838, 65

    Patil A. H., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63e7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...65P 838, 65

    2017 doi

  57. [67]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..129P 873, 129

    Peeples M. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..129P 873, 129

    2019 doi

  58. [68]

    H., Agertz O., Christensen L., Renaud F., Uldall Fynbo J

    Pehlivan Rhodin N. H., Agertz O., Christensen L., Renaud F., Uldall Fynbo J. P., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190110777P

    2019

  59. [69]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  60. [70]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180706209P ( @eprint arXiv 1807.06209 )

    2018 arXiv

  61. [71]

    E., Prochaska J

    Prochter G. E., Prochaska J. X., Burles S. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499341 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...639..766P 639, 766

    2006 doi

  62. [72]

    M., Prochaska J

    Rafelski M., Wolfe A. M., Prochaska J. X., Neeleman M., Mendez A. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/89 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...89R 755, 89

    2012 doi

  63. [73]

    V., Pettini M., Madau P., Zych B

    Ryan-Weber E. V., Pettini M., Madau P., Zych B. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14618.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395.1476R 395, 1476

    2009

  64. [74]

    N., Cooksey K

    Seyffert E. N., Cooksey K. L., Simcoe R. A., O'Meara J. M., Kao M. M., Prochaska J. X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/161 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..161S 779, 161

    2013 doi

  65. [75]

    A., Sullivan P

    Simcoe R. A., Sullivan P. W., Cooksey K. L., Kao M. M., Matejek M. S., Burgasser A. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11612 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.492...79S 492, 79

    2012 doi

  66. [76]

    Songaila A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324761 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...561L.153S 561, L153

    2001 doi

  67. [77]

    L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1448 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1448S 721, 1448

    Songaila A., Cowie L. L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1448 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1448S 721, 1448

    2010 doi

  68. [78]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06207.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339..312S 339, 312

    2003

  69. [79]

    P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023417 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA

    Stark D. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023417 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA

    2016 doi

  70. [80]

    B., Trenti M., Bradley L

    Treu T., Schmidt K. B., Trenti M., Bradley L. D., Stiavelli M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775L..29T 775, L29

    2013 doi

  71. [81]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA

    2017 doi

  72. [82]

    C., Pakmor R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L..85V 482, L85

    van de Voort F., Springel V., Mandelker N., van den Bosch F. C., Pakmor R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L..85V 482, L85

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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