Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Predicting Ly$\alpha$ Emission from Galaxies via Empirical Markers of Production and Escape in the KBSS

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 A weighted combination of ultraviolet metal-line absorption and the O3 nebular ratio predicts net Lyman-alpha emission, capturing about 90% of its observed variance once measurement errors are included.

desk verdict A careful, useful empirical study of Ly-alpha predictors on 703 KBSS galaxies whose headline '90% of variance' overstates an in-sample variance decomposition; the underlying correlations and conditional probability framework are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04794 v2 pith:7OOQLGI5 submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.GA

Ryan F. Trainor , Allison L. Strom , Charles C. Steidel , Gwen C. Rudie , Yuguang Chen , Rachel L. Theios This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemissionhigh-redshiftgalaxiesinterstellarabsorptionlinesO3nebularratioequivalentwidthempiricalpredictionreionizationgalaxyselectionbias
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 tries to establish that the net Lyman-$\alpha$ emission of a high-redshift star-forming galaxy is predictable from two other observable quantities: the strength of low-ionization interstellar metal absorption, which tracks how easily Lyman-$\alpha$ photons escape, and the O3 nebular-line ratio, which tracks how many Lyman-$\alpha$ photons are produced. The authors combine these into a single predictor, $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}} = 0.2(\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{LIS}}/\AA) + 0.8\,\mathrm{O3}$, and report that an exponential model in this variable, together with measurement error, accounts for about 90 percent of the variance in Lyman-$\alpha$ equivalent width among 703 galaxies at $z\approx2{-}3$. If true, surveys that cannot see the Lyman-$\alpha$ line directly could still estimate a galaxy's probability of emitting it and correct the selection biases of Lyman-$\alpha$-selected samples. This matters for interpreting the apparent drop in strong Lyman-$\alpha$ emission at the end of reionization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimensionless composite $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}} = 0.2(\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{LIS}}/\AA) + 0.8\,\mathrm{O3}$, built from a weighted average of a rest-UV escape proxy and a rest-optical production proxy. Here $\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{LIS}}$ is the mean rest-frame equivalent width of six low-ionization interstellar absorption features (Si II, O I+Si II, C II, Si II, Fe II, Al II) measured from stacked velocity profiles, and $\mathrm{O3}$ is the logarithm of the $[\mathrm{O\,III}]\lambda5008/\mathrm{H}\beta$ line ratio. The 0.2/0.8 weighting is empirically tuned to maximize the Spearman correlation between the composite and $\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}$, with the optimum constrained to $\alpha=0.19\pm0.06$ by bootstrap resampling. The composite works because its two inputs are nearly orthogonal proxies for the two physical steps that set net Lyman-$\alpha$ emission, so the sum carries information neither input has alone.

What would settle it

Measure EW_Ly-alpha, EW_LIS, and O3 for a new z~2-3 sample with spatially complete or aperture-corrected Lyman-alpha fluxes, and check whether the published exponential (EW0=-15 Å, A=5 Å, beta=0.19) reproduces the observed EW_Ly-alpha values and the 90 percent variance fraction; a systematic offset with either input would show that the slit-loss assumption carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that net Lyman-$\alpha$ emission is set by two separable ingredients: photon production, traced by the O3 ratio $\mathrm{O3}=\log([\mathrm{O\,III}]\lambda5008/\mathrm{H}\beta)$, and photon escape, traced by the rest-frame equivalent width $\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{LIS}}$ of low-ionization interstellar absorption lines. These two observables are only weakly correlated with each other ($r_{\mathrm{Sp}}=0.21$) yet each correlates with the Lyman-$\alpha$ equivalent width ($r_{\mathrm{Sp}}=0.40$ and $-0.35$, respectively). Their weighted sum $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}} = 0.2(\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{LIS}}/\AA)+0.8\,\mathrm{O3}$ maximizes the rank correlation with $\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}$ at $r_{\mathrm{Sp}}=0.49$, and the best-fit exponential $\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha} = -15 + 5\,\exp(X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}}/0.19)$ angstroms, combined with estimated measurement uncertainties and an intrinsic scatter of about 7 angstroms, accounts for roughly 90 percent of the total observed variance in $\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}$. The conditional probability of net emission rises from below 25 percent at $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}}\lesssim0$ to about 80 percent at $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}}\gtrsim0.6$.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes the one-dimensional slit-spectrum Lyman-alpha equivalent width is a faithful measure of galaxy-scale net emission, even though differential Lyman-alpha-to-continuum slit losses are stated to be typically 2-3 times and are unmeasured per object; if those losses correlate with EW_LIS or O3, the fitted relation and conditional probabilities inherit a systematic bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A galaxy survey that measures rest-UV and rest-optical spectra but not Lyman-alpha can assign each galaxy a quantitative probability of being a net Lyman-alpha emitter using $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}}$, without requiring the line itself.
  • Because the two inputs to $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}}$ are measurable even when the Lyman-alpha line is censored by intergalactic absorption or contaminated by other emission, the predictor remains usable in regimes where $v_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}$ cannot be measured.
  • Galaxies with $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}}\gtrsim0.6$ are net emitters about 80 percent of the time, while those with $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}}\lesssim0$ are emitters less than 25 percent of the time, so Lyman-alpha-selected samples are strongly biased toward the high-$X$ corner of this parameter space.
  • The reported invariance of the $\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}$-versus-$\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{LIS}}$ trend over $z\approx2{-}4$ suggests the two-proxy model may remain useful at higher redshifts where direct Lyman-alpha measurements are scarce.
  • The conditional probability curves can be used as priors when interpreting Lyman-alpha nondetections during reionization, separating intrinsic galaxy behavior from suppression by the neutral intergalactic medium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 90 percent variance claim holds in independent samples, net Lyman-alpha emission is nearly deterministic given H II region ionization and neutral-gas porosity, leaving little room for stochastic resonant-scattering effects at galaxy scale.
  • The same production/escape decomposition could be tested on other resonant lines such as C IV or Mg II, whose net emission also depends on photon production plus gas transport, by building an analogous two-proxy composite.
  • Because the calibration uses slit spectroscopy with unmeasured 2-3x differential Lyman-alpha-to-continuum losses, applying $X_{\mathrm{LIS}}^{\mathrm{O3}}$ to fiber-fed or slitless data may require re-deriving the weighting coefficient; a testable prediction is that $\alpha$ changes when $\mathrm{EW}_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha}$ is measured from spatially complete data.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses 703 galaxies from the KBSS at 2≲z≲3 with both Lyα spectroscopy and rest-UV/rest-optical line measurements to construct empirical predictors of net Lyα emission. It defines EW_LIS from several low-ionization interstellar absorption features as a proxy for Lyα escape and O3 = log([O III]/Hβ) as a proxy for Lyα production, then combines them into X_LIS^O3 = 0.2(EW_LIS/Å) + 0.8 O3 (Eq. 12). Using 377 galaxies with all measurements, the authors report a Spearman correlation r_S = 0.49 between X_LIS^O3 and EW_Lyα, fit an exponential model (Eq. 14), and claim that the model plus measurement uncertainties account for ~90% of the observed variance in EW_Lyα (Sec. 4.1). They also construct nonparametric conditional probability distributions P(EW_Lyα>0 | X) (Sec. 5) and suggest applications to survey selection biases and IGM studies.

Significance. If the predictive claim were validated, this would be a valuable empirical tool: a two-axis decomposition of Lyα emission into production and escape, based on observables that remain measurable when Lyα itself is not, with direct applications to selection-bias corrections. The strengths of the paper are its large sample, detailed and carefully described measurements, transparent uncertainty treatment, bootstrap estimates, and external checks against stacked faint-galaxy data and cB58. The correlations with f_esc and the weak correlation between EW_LIS and O3 support the proposed physical interpretation. However, the headline 90% figure is not yet established as predictive accuracy, and the 'predict' language in the title and abstract is stronger than the in-sample calibration demonstrates. The importance of the paper therefore depends on either reframing the claim or adding out-of-sample validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 and §4.1, Eqs. (12)–(18)] The '~90% of observed variance' claim in the abstract is an in-sample variance decomposition, not a validated prediction. The coefficient α in Eq. (12) is explicitly chosen to maximize the Spearman rank correlation of X_LIS^O3 with EW_Lyα on the same 377 galaxies (Sec. 4), the exponential model in Eq. (14) is fit to those same data, and the intrinsic scatter σ_int in Eq. (18) is adjusted until simulated data reproduce the observed scatter. Under σ²_obs = σ²_mod + σ²_int + σ²_meas, the decomposition is internally consistent by construction. The Spearman r = 0.49 reported in Table 1 implies only roughly 24% of the rank variance is shared, so the 90% figure mostly counts measurement error and model variance as 'accounted for.' The bootstrap estimates on α do not cure overfitting because they repeat the same in-sample optimization. Please report the model-only explained variance and provide out-of-sample validation (e.g., k-fold cross-validation) of both the α choice and the exponential model, and revise the abstract and conclusions to say that the model plus measurement errors account for 90% of the variance in-sample.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (2)] EW_Lyα is measured from 1D slit spectra, and the authors note that differential Lyα-to-continuum slit losses are typically 2–3× and are not measurable per object. If these slit losses correlate with EW_LIS or O3 (e.g., through galaxy size, surface brightness, or ISM geometry), the calibrated X_LIS relation and the conditional probabilities in Sec. 5 inherit a systematic bias. This is acknowledged in the text but never bounded. Please add a sensitivity test using a subsample with wide-slit/IFU or aperture-matched photometry, or a simulation that assigns plausible correlated slit losses, to show that the derived trends and probabilities are robust to such effects.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §7] The phrase 'describes ~90% of the observed variance' should be changed to 'accounts, in sample, for ~90% of the observed variance when combined with measurement uncertainties' to match the actual procedure.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption labels the horizontal axis 'XLyα', but the text and Eq. (12) use X_LIS^O3; please make the notation consistent.
  3. [§5.1, before Eq. (23)] The text says the probability is 'the inferred incidence of Lyα emitters divided by the total incidence of emitters,' but Eq. (23) divides by η_em + η_abs; the text should say 'total incidence of emitters and absorbers.'
  4. [§3.2.2 and Table 1] Notation EW_LIS and EWLIS is used interchangeably; please choose one consistent form and apply it throughout.
  5. [§4.1, Eq. (13)] The 'closest point on the model curve' is not defined precisely; specify the projection in the uncertainty-scaled coordinates and state the effective number of degrees of freedom for χ²_2D.
  6. [Fig. 7 caption] The word 'bootstap' should be 'bootstrap'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 90% variance claim reduces to a tuned intrinsic-scatter decomposition, and the r=0.49 headline is the in-sample optimum of the alpha fit; independent predictors and external checks remain.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1, after Eq. 18; abstract]
    "Assuming we have σ2obs = σ2mod + σ2int + σ2meas, we find that ∼90% of the total variance in EW Lyα is accounted for by our exponential model and the estimated measurement errors."

    The intrinsic scatter σint is not measured independently; it is tuned until simulations of the model reproduce the observed Spearman r=0.49 and χ2/Ndof=1.36. With σint = 7Å (σ2int = 50 Å2) and σ2obs = 512 Å2, the 90% figure is just 1 - σ2int/σ2obs, an arithmetic consequence of the fitted σint. Thus 'model plus measurement errors account for 90% of the variance' is a restatement of the fit, not an out-of-sample prediction or validation of predictive accuracy. Any model with a free scatter parameter can be made to 'account for' the residual variance in this way.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4, Eq. 12 and accompanying text]
    "We then tune α to maximize the predictive power of this relationship. Specifically, we choose the value of α that maximizes the rank correlation coefficient between XO3LIS and EW Lyα, yielding a maximum correlation of rSp = 0.49 for α≈ 0.2."

    The composite X_LIS^O3 is constructed and its weight α is chosen by maximizing the Spearman rank correlation with EW Lyα on the same 377-galaxy sample. The reported rSp = 0.49 is therefore the maximum of the objective function by construction, not an independent measure of predictive skill. Presenting this optimized in-sample correlation as the correlation of the 'predictor' conflates model fitting with prediction: the coefficient 0.2 is selected to make the headline statistic as large as possible on these data, so the correlation is statistically forced to be the best possible value for this sample and functional form.

full rationale

The paper has substantial independent content: EWLIS and O3 are measured without reference to Lyα, the conditional-probability analysis in Sec. 5 is non-parametric and does not depend on the tuned intrinsic scatter, and the faint-stack and cB58 points are explicitly not used in fitting the exponential model. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. However, the central quantitative claim in the abstract—that X_LIS^O3 'describes ∼90% of the observed variance' in EW Lyα—is an in-sample variance decomposition: σint is adjusted until model simulations match the observed scatter, and the 90% is the complement of that fitted residual. In addition, the headline correlation rSp = 0.49 is the value obtained by tuning α to maximize that same correlation on the full sample, so it is an optimization statistic rather than a validated predictive accuracy. These are the two load-bearing reductions. The presence of independently measured inputs and some external consistency checks keeps this from being wholly circular, but the abstract's 'predictor' and '90% of variance' language overstates what a self-consistently fitted decomposition demonstrates. Score 6: one or more key predictive claims reduce by construction, while the overall empirical framework retains independent elements.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central model rests on measured proxies rather than on derivation. The main free parameters are calibration constants fitted to the same data used to evaluate the model. The physical interpretation of O3 as a production proxy and EWLIS as an escape proxy relies on standard photoionization and ISM assumptions inherited from prior KBSS papers. No new physical forces, particles, or conserved quantities are introduced; X_LIS^O3 is a composite observable.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha = 0.2 (0.19 ± 0.06)
    Weight in Eq. 12 chosen to maximize the Spearman rank correlation between X_LIS^O3 and EW_Ly-alpha on the same 377 galaxies used to evaluate the model.
  • EW0 = -15 ± 2 Å
    Vertical offset of the exponential model in Eq. 14, fit to the same data.
  • A = 5 ± 2 Å
    Amplitude of the exponential model in Eq. 14, fit to the same data.
  • beta = 0.19 ± 0.04
    Scale length of the exponential model in Eq. 14, fit to the same data.
  • sigma_int = 7 ± 1 Å
    Intrinsic scatter in Eq. 18, chosen so that simulated data reproduce the observed scatter; it is then used to quote the 90% variance fraction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Intrinsic Ly-alpha to H-alpha flux ratio (F_Ly-alpha/F_H-alpha)_int ≈ 8.7 for case-B recombination.
    Used to convert observed H-alpha flux into an expected Ly-alpha luminosity when estimating fesc in Sec. 3.2.4.
  • domain assumption Cardelli et al. attenuation curve and Balmer decrement H-alpha/H-beta = 2.86 are used to derive E(B-V)_neb.
    Adopted to dust-correct nebular lines and compute absolute Ly-alpha escape fractions in Secs. 3.2.3 and 3.2.4.
  • domain assumption SED fitting assumptions: Bruzual and Charlot models, Chabrier IMF, Calzetti attenuation, constant SFH with minimum age 50 Myr.
    Used to estimate stellar masses and SFRs that enter the weaker correlators in Secs. 2.4 and 3.3.1.
  • domain assumption LIS absorption is negligibly affected by the IGM because intergalactic gas has negligible metallicity.
    Supports the claim that EWLIS is a useful predictor of Ly-alpha escape in cases where Ly-alpha is censored by the IGM (Sec. 3.2.2).
  • domain assumption O3 ratio tracks nebular ionization parameter and therefore Ly-alpha production efficiency.
    The interpretation of O3 as a production proxy follows from photoionization modeling cited to Strom et al. 2018 (Sec. 3.3.3); if this link fails, the production/escape decomposition weakens.
invented entities (1)
  • X_LIS^O3 composite predictor
    purpose: A linear combination of EWLIS and O3 used to predict EW_Ly-alpha and Ly-alpha detection probability.
    It is a data-defined empirical marker, not a physical entity. The external cB58 and faint-stack points provide a consistency check, but the marker itself has no falsifiable handle beyond the calibrated relation in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting Ly$\alpha$ Emission from Galaxies via Empirical Markers of Production and Escape in the KBSS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7OOQLGI5

@misc{pith2026190804794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting Ly$\alpha$ Emission from Galaxies via Empirical Markers of Production and Escape in the KBSS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7OOQLGI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04794}
}
abstract

Ly$\alpha$ emission is widely used to detect and confirm high-redshift galaxies and characterize the evolution of the intergalactic medium. However, many galaxies do not display Ly$\alpha$ emission in typical spectroscopic observations, and intrinsic Ly$\alpha$-emitters represent a potentially biased set of high-redshift galaxies. In this work, we analyze a set of 703 galaxies at $2\lesssim z\lesssim3$ with both Ly$\alpha$ spectroscopy and measurements of other rest-frame ultraviolet and optical properties in order to develop an empirical model for Ly$\alpha$ emission from galaxies and understand how the probability of Ly$\alpha$ emission depends on other observables. We consider several empirical proxies for the efficiency of Ly$\alpha$ photon production as well as the subsequent escape of these photons through their local interstellar medium. We find that the equivalent width of metal-line absorption and the O3 ratio of rest-frame optical nebular lines are advantageous empirical proxies for Ly$\alpha$ escape and production, respectively. We develop a new quantity, $X_\mathrm{LIS}^\mathrm{O3}$, that combines these two properties into a single predictor of net Ly$\alpha$ emission, which we find describes $\sim$90% of the observed variance in Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width when accounting for our observational uncertainties. We also construct conditional probability distributions demonstrating that galaxy selection based on measurements of galaxy properties yield samples of galaxies with widely varying probabilities of net Ly$\alpha$ emission. The application of the empirical models and probability distributions described here may be used to infer the selection biases of current galaxy surveys and evaluate the significance of high-redshift Ly$\alpha$ (non-)detections in studies of reionization and the intergalactic medium.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SPURS: Massive Stars, Dense Gas, and Ly$\alpha$ Escape in GN-z11 at $z = 10.6$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    GN-z11's rest-UV spectrum shows young massive stars with very massive star winds, dense gas, and a broad red Ly alpha wing that may help Ly alpha escape the largely neutral early universe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., Greenfield , P., Droettboom , M., Bray , E., Aldcroft , T., Davis , M., Ginsburg , A., & Price-Whelan , A. M. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  4. [4]

    M., \"O stlin , G., & Mas-Hesse , J

    Atek , H., Kunth , D., Schaerer , D., Hayes , M., Deharveng , J. M., \"O stlin , G., & Mas-Hesse , J. M. 2009, , 506, L1

    2009

  5. [5]

    I., Scarlata , C., Siana , B., Henry , A., Colbert , J

    Atek , H., Malkan , M., McCarthy , P., Teplitz , H. I., Scarlata , C., Siana , B., Henry , A., Colbert , J. W., Ross , N. R., Bridge , C., Bunker , A. J., Dressler , A., Fosbury , R. A. E., Martin , C., & Shim , H. 2010, , 723, 104

    2010

  6. [6]

    Bacon , R., Brinchmann , J., Richard , J., Contini , T., Drake , A., Franx , M., Tacchella , S., Vernet , J., Wisotzki , L., Blaizot , J., Bouch \'e , N., Bouwens , R., Cantalupo , S., Carollo , C. M., Carton , D., Caruana , J., Cl \'e ment , B., Dreizler , S., Epinat , B., Guiderdoni , B., Herenz , C., Husser , T.-O., Kamann , S., Kerutt , J., Kollatschn...

    2015

  7. [7]

    A., Phillips , M

    Baldwin , J. A., Phillips , M. M., & Terlevich , R. 1981, , 93, 5

    1981

  8. [8]

    M., Leitherer , C., & Overzier , R

    Borthakur , S., Heckman , T. M., Leitherer , C., & Overzier , R. A. 2014, Science, 346, 216

    2014

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    B., van Dokkum , P

    Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., Franx , M., Fumagalli , M., Patel , S., Rix , H.-W., Skelton , R. E., Kriek , M., Nelson , E., Schmidt , K. B., Bezanson , R., da Cunha , E., Erb , D. K., Fan , X., F \"o rster Schreiber , N., Illingworth , G. D., Labb \'e , I., Leja , J., ...

    2012

  2. [10]

    & Charlot , S

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

    2003

  3. [11]

    C., Kinney , A

    Calzetti , D., Armus , L., Bohlin , R. C., Kinney , A. L., Koornneef , J., & Storchi-Bergmann , T. 2000, , 533, 682

    2000

  4. [12]

    X., Hennawi , J

    Cantalupo , S., Arrigoni-Battaia , F., Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., & Madau , P. 2014, , 506, 63

    2014

  5. [13]

    J., & Haehnelt , M

    Cantalupo , S., Lilly , S. J., & Haehnelt , M. G. 2012, , 425, 1992

    2012

  6. [14]

    J., & Miniati , F

    Cantalupo , S., Porciani , C., Lilly , S. J., & Miniati , F. 2005, , 628, 61

    2005

  7. [15]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245

    1989

  8. [16]

    2003, , 115, 763

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

    2003

  9. [17]

    Cowie , L. L. & Hu , E. M. 1998, , 115, 1319

    1998

  10. [18]

    2016, , 585, A51

    de Barros , S., Vanzella , E., Amor \' n , R., Castellano , M., Siana , B., Grazian , A., Suh , H., Balestra , I., Vignali , C., Verhamme , A., Zamorani , G., Mignoli , M., Hasinger , G., Comastri , A., Pentericci , L., P \'e rez-Montero , E., Fontana , A., Giavalisco , M., & ...

    2016

  11. [19]

    Dopita , M. A. & Sutherland , R. S. 2003, Astrophysics of the diffuse universe, Berlin, New York: Springer, 2003. Astronomy and astrophysics library, ISBN 3540433627

    2003

  12. [20]

    E., Reddy , N

    Du , X., Shapley , A. E., Reddy , N. A., Jones , T., Stark , D. P., Steidel , C. C., Strom , A. L., Rudie , G. C., Erb , D. K., Ellis , R. S., & Pettini , M. 2018, , 860, 75

    2018

  13. [21]

    K., Pettini , M., Steidel , C

    Erb , D. K., Pettini , M., Steidel , C. C., Strom , A. L., Rudie , G. C., Trainor , R. F., Shapley , A. E., & Reddy , N. A. 2016, , 830, 52

    2016

  14. [22]

    K., Steidel , C

    Erb , D. K., Steidel , C. C., Trainor , R. F., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Shapley , A. E., Nestor , D. B., Kulas , K. R., Law , D. R., Strom , A. L., Rudie , G. C., Reddy , N. A., Pettini , M., Konidaris , N. P., Mace , G., Matthews , K., & McLean , I. S. 2014, , 795, 33

    2014

  15. [23]

    L., Hill , G

    Finkelstein , S. L., Hill , G. J., Gebhardt , K., Adams , J., Blanc , G. A., Papovich , C., Ciardullo , R., Drory , N., Gawiser , E., Gronwall , C., Schneider , D. P., & Tran , K.-V. 2011, , 729, 140

    2011

  16. [24]

    J., Robertson , B

    Fletcher , T. J., Robertson , B. E., Nakajima , K., Ellis , R. S., Stark , D. P., & Inoue , A. 2018, ArXiv e-prints

    2018

  17. [25]

    E., Smail , I., Best , P

    Geach , J. E., Smail , I., Best , P. N., Kurk , J., Casali , M., Ivison , R. J., & Coppin , K. 2008, , 388, 1473

    2008

  18. [26]

    R., Behrens , C., Ciardullo , R., Grasshorn Gebhardt , H

    Hagen , A., Zeimann , G. R., Behrens , C., Ciardullo , R., Grasshorn Gebhardt , H. S., Gronwall , C., Bridge , J. S., Fox , D. B., Schneider , D. P., Trump , J. R., Blanc , G. A., Chiang , Y.-K., Chonis , T. S., Finkelstein , S. L., Hill , G. J., Jogee , S., & Gawiser , E. 201...

    2016

  19. [27]

    M., Cannon , J

    Hayes , M., \"O stlin , G., Duval , F., Sandberg , A., Guaita , L., Melinder , J., Adamo , A., Schaerer , D., Verhamme , A., Orlitov \'a , I., Mas-Hesse , J. M., Cannon , J. M., Atek , H., Kunth , D., Laursen , P., Ot \' -Floranes , H., Pardy , S., Rivera-Thorsen , T., & Heren...

    2014

  20. [28]

    M., Leitherer , C., Atek , H., Kunth , D., Verhamme , A., de Barros , S., & Melinder , J

    Hayes , M., \"O stlin , G., Schaerer , D., Mas-Hesse , J. M., Leitherer , C., Atek , H., Kunth , D., Verhamme , A., de Barros , S., & Melinder , J. 2010, , 464, 562

    2010

  21. [29]

    L., & Erb , D

    Henry , A., Scarlata , C., Martin , C. L., & Erb , D. 2015, , 809, 19

    2015

  22. [30]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  23. [31]

    I., Schaerer , D., Thuan , T

    Izotov , Y. I., Schaerer , D., Thuan , T. X., Worseck , G., Guseva , N. G., Orlitov \'a , I., & Verhamme , A. 2016, , 461, 3683

    2016

  24. [32]

    I., Worseck , G., Schaerer , D., Guseva , N

    Izotov , Y. I., Worseck , G., Schaerer , D., Guseva , N. G., Thuan , T. X., Fricke , Verhamme, A., & Orlitov \'a , I. 2018, , 478, 4851

    2018

  25. [33]

    P., & Ellis , R

    Jones , T., Stark , D. P., & Ellis , R. S. 2012, , 751, 51

    2012

  26. [34]

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 1998, , 36, 189

    1998

  27. [35]

    A., Zheng , Z., Dav \'e , R., Gould , A., Katz , N., Miralda-Escud \'e , J., & Weinberg , D

    Kollmeier , J. A., Zheng , Z., Dav \'e , R., Gould , A., Katz , N., Miralda-Escud \'e , J., & Weinberg , D. H. 2010, , 708, 1048

    2010

  28. [36]

    M., Terlevich , E., Terlevich , R., Lequeux , J., & Fall , S

    Kunth , D., Mas-Hesse , J. M., Terlevich , E., Terlevich , R., Lequeux , J., & Fall , S. M. 1998, , 334, 11

    1998

  29. [37]

    L., Dijkstra , M., Henry , A., Soto , K

    Martin , C. L., Dijkstra , M., Henry , A., Soto , K. T., Danforth , C. W., & Wong , J. 2015, , 803, 6

    2015

  30. [38]

    S., Steidel , C

    McLean , I. S., Steidel , C. C., Epps , H. W., Konidaris , N., Matthews , K. Y., Adkins , S., Aliado , T., Brims , G., Canfield , J. M., Cromer , J. L., Fucik , J., Kulas , K., Mace , G., Magnone , K., Rodriguez , H., Rudie , G., Trainor , R., Wang , E., Weber , B., & Weiss , ...

    2012

  31. [39]

    M., Finkelstein , S

    McLinden , E. M., Finkelstein , S. L., Rhoads , J. E., Malhotra , S., Hibon , P., Richardson , M. L. A., Cresci , G., Quirrenbach , A., Pasquali , A., Bian , F., Fan , X., & Woodward , C. E. 2011, , 730, 136

    2011

  32. [40]

    2014, , 442, 110

    Momose , R., Ouchi , M., Nakajima , K., Ono , Y., Shibuya , T., Shimasaku , K., Yuma , S., Mori , M., & Umemura , M. 2014, , 442, 110

    2014

  33. [41]

    2016, , 457, 2318

    ---. 2016, , 457, 2318

    2016

  34. [42]

    S., Iwata , I., Inoue , A

    Nakajima , K., Ellis , R. S., Iwata , I., Inoue , A. K., Kusakabe , H., Ouchi , M., & Robertson , B. E. 2016, , 831, L9

    2016

  35. [43]

    Nakajima , K., Ouchi , M., Shimasaku , K., Hashimoto , T., Ono , Y., & Lee , J. C. 2013, , 769, 3

    2013

  36. [44]

    B., Cohen , J

    Oke , J. B., Cohen , J. G., Carr , M., Cromer , J., Dingizian , A., Harris , F. H., Labrecque , S., Lucinio , R., Schaal , W., Epps , H., & Miller , J. 1995, , 107, 375

    1995

  37. [45]

    Osterbrock , D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    1989

  38. [46]

    M., Gruyters , P., Herenz , E

    \"O stlin , G., Hayes , M., Duval , F., Sandberg , A., Rivera-Thorsen , T., Marquart , T., Orlitov \'a , I., Adamo , A., Melinder , J., Guaita , L., Atek , H., Cannon , J. M., Gruyters , P., Herenz , E. C., Kunth , D., Laursen , P., Mas-Hesse , J. M., Micheva , G., Ot \' -Flor...

    2014

  39. [47]

    J., Smail , I., Best , P

    Oteo , I., Sobral , D., Ivison , R. J., Smail , I., Best , P. N., Cepa , J., & P \'e rez-Garc \' a , A. M. 2015, , 452, 2018

    2015

  40. [48]

    K., Umemura , M., Mori , M., Hasegawa , K., Higuchi , R., Komiyama , Y., Matsuda , Y., Nakajima , K., Saito , T., & Wang , S.-Y

    Ouchi , M., Harikane , Y., Shibuya , T., Shimasaku , K., Taniguchi , Y., Konno , A., Kobayashi , M., Kajisawa , M., Nagao , T., Ono , Y., Inoue , A. K., Umemura , M., Mori , M., Hasegawa , K., Higuchi , R., Komiyama , Y., Matsuda , Y., Nakajima , K., Saito , T., & Wang , S.-Y....

    2018

  41. [49]

    A., Blanc , G

    Oyarz \'u n , G. A., Blanc , G. A., Gonz \'a lez , V., Mateo , M., & Bailey , John I., I. 2017, , 843, 133

    2017

  42. [50]

    A., Blanc , G

    Oyarz \'u n , G. A., Blanc , G. A., Gonz \'a lez , V., Mateo , M., Bailey , III, J. I., Finkelstein , S. L., Lira , P., Crane , J. D., & Olszewski , E. W. 2016, , 821, L14

    2016

  43. [51]

    W., Oey , M

    Pellegrini , E. W., Oey , M. S., Winkler , P. F., Points , S. D., Smith , R. C., Jaskot , A. E., & Zastrow , J. 2012, , 755, 40

    2012

  44. [52]

    2011, , 743, 132

    Pentericci , L., Fontana , A., Vanzella , E., Castellano , M., Grazian , A., Dijkstra , M., Boutsia , K., Cristiani , S., Dickinson , M., Giallongo , E., Giavalisco , M., Maiolino , R., Moorwood , A., Paris , D., & Santini , P. 2011, , 743, 132

    2011

  45. [53]

    A., Steidel , C

    Pettini , M., Rix , S. A., Steidel , C. C., Adelberger , K. L., Hunt , M. P., & Shapley , A. E. 2002, , 569, 742

    2002

  46. [54]

    C., Adelberger , K

    Pettini , M., Steidel , C. C., Adelberger , K. L., Dickinson , M., & Giavalisco , M. 2000, , 528, 96

    2000

  47. [55]

    C., & Rudie , G

    Rakic , O., Schaye , J., Steidel , C. C., & Rudie , G. C. 2012, , 751, 94

    2012

  48. [56]

    A., Pettini , M., Steidel , C

    Reddy , N. A., Pettini , M., Steidel , C. C., Shapley , A. E., Erb , D. K., & Law , D. R. 2012, , 754, 25

    2012

  49. [57]

    A., Steidel , C

    Reddy , N. A., Steidel , C. C., Pettini , M., Adelberger , K. L., Shapley , A. E., Erb , D. K., & Dickinson , M. 2008, , 175, 48

    2008

  50. [58]

    E., Malhotra , S., Dey , A., Stern , D., Spinrad , H., & Jannuzi , B

    Rhoads , J. E., Malhotra , S., Dey , A., Stern , D., Spinrad , H., & Jannuzi , B. T. 2000, , 545, L85

    2000

  51. [59]

    E., Hayes , M., \"O stlin , G., Duval , F., Orlitov \'a , I., Verhamme , A., Mas-Hesse , J

    Rivera-Thorsen , T. E., Hayes , M., \"O stlin , G., Duval , F., Orlitov \'a , I., Verhamme , A., Mas-Hesse , J. M., Schaerer , D., Cannon , J. M., Ot \' -Floranes , H., Sandberg , A., Guaita , L., Adamo , A., Atek , H., Herenz , E. C., Kunth , D., Laursen , P., & Melinder , J....

    2015

  52. [60]

    E., Ellis , R

    Robertson , B. E., Ellis , R. S., Furlanetto , S. R., & Dunlop , J. S. 2015, , 802, L19

    2015

  53. [61]

    Rousseeuw, P. J. & Croux, C. 1993, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1273

    1993

  54. [62]

    C., Steidel , C

    Rudie , G. C., Steidel , C. C., Trainor , R. F., Rakic , O., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Pettini , M., Reddy , N., Shapley , A. E., Erb , D. K., & Law , D. R. 2012, , 750, 67

    2012

  55. [63]

    L., Shapley , A

    Sanders , R. L., Shapley , A. E., Kriek , M., Reddy , N. A., Freeman , W. R., Coil , A. L., Siana , B., Mobasher , B., Shivaei , I., Price , S. H., & de Groot , L. 2016, , 816, 23

    2016

  56. [64]

    A., Ellis , R

    Schenker , M. A., Ellis , R. S., Konidaris , N. P., & Stark , D. P. 2013, , 777, 67

    2013

  57. [65]

    A., Stark , D

    Schenker , M. A., Stark , D. P., Ellis , R. S., Robertson , B. E., Dunlop , J. S., McLure , R. J., Kneib , J.-P., & Richard , J. 2012, , 744, 179

    2012

  58. [66]

    E., Steidel , C

    Shapley , A. E., Steidel , C. C., Pettini , M., & Adelberger , K. L. 2003, , 588, 65

    2003

  59. [67]

    E., Steidel , C

    Shapley , A. E., Steidel , C. C., Strom , A. L., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Reddy , N. A., Siana , B., Mostardi , R. E., & Rudie , G. C. 2016, , 826, L24

    2016

  60. [68]

    I., Chary , R.-R., Colbert , J., & Frayer , D

    Siana , B., Teplitz , H. I., Chary , R.-R., Colbert , J., & Frayer , D. T. 2008, , 689, 59

    2008

  61. [69]

    N., Geach , J

    Sobral , D., Best , P. N., Geach , J. E., Smail , I., Kurk , J., Cirasuolo , M., Casali , M., Ivison , R. J., Coppin , K., & Dalton , G. B. 2009, , 398, 75

    2009

  62. [70]

    L., Gebhardt , K., Hill , G

    Song , M., Finkelstein , S. L., Gebhardt , K., Hill , G. J., Drory , N., Ashby , M. L. N., Blanc , G. A., Bridge , J., Chonis , T., Ciardullo , R., Fabricius , M., Fazio , G. G., Gawiser , E., Gronwall , C., Hagen , A., Huang , J.-S., Jogee , S., Livermore , R., Salmon , B., S...

    2014

  63. [71]

    P., Schenker , M

    Stark , D. P., Schenker , M. A., Ellis , R., Robertson , B., McLure , R., & Dunlop , J. 2013, , 763, 129

    2013

  64. [72]

    C., Adelberger , K

    Steidel , C. C., Adelberger , K. L., Shapley , A. E., Pettini , M., Dickinson , M., & Giavalisco , M. 2000, , 532, 170

    2000

  65. [73]

    2003, , 592, 728

    ---. 2003, , 592, 728

    2003

  66. [74]

    C., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Shapley , A

    Steidel , C. C., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Shapley , A. E., Kollmeier , J. A., Reddy , N. A., Erb , D. K., & Pettini , M. 2011, , 736, 160

    2011

  67. [75]

    C., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Shapley , A

    Steidel , C. C., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Shapley , A. E., Reddy , N. A., Rudie , G. C., Pettini , M., Trainor , R. F., & Strom , A. L. 2018, , 869, 123

    2018

  68. [76]

    C., Erb , D

    Steidel , C. C., Erb , D. K., Shapley , A. E., Pettini , M., Reddy , N., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Rudie , G. C., & Rakic , O. 2010, , 717, 289

    2010

  69. [77]

    C., Rudie , G

    Steidel , C. C., Rudie , G. C., Strom , A. L., Pettini , M., Reddy , N. A., Shapley , A. E., Trainor , R. F., Erb , D. K., Turner , M. L., Konidaris , N. P., Kulas , K. R., Mace , G., Matthews , K., & McLean , I. S. 2014, , 795, 165

    2014

  70. [78]

    C., Shapley , A

    Steidel , C. C., Shapley , A. E., Pettini , M., Adelberger , K. L., Erb , D. K., Reddy , N. A., & Hunt , M. P. 2004, , 604, 534

    2004

  71. [79]

    C., Strom , A

    Steidel , C. C., Strom , A. L., Pettini , M., Rudie , G. C., Reddy , N. A., & Trainor , R. F. 2016, , 826, 159

    2016

  72. [80]

    L., Steidel , C

    Strom , A. L., Steidel , C. C., Rudie , G. C., Trainor , R. F., & Pettini , M. 2018, , 868, 117

    2018

  73. [81]

    L., Steidel , C

    Strom , A. L., Steidel , C. C., Rudie , G. C., Trainor , R. F., Pettini , M., & Reddy , N. A. 2017, , 836, 164

    2017

  74. [82]

    I., McLean , I

    Teplitz , H. I., McLean , I. S., Becklin , E. E., Figer , D. F., Gilbert , A. M., Graham , J. R., Larkin , J. E., Levenson , N. A., & Wilcox , M. K. 2000, , 533, L65

    2000

  75. [83]

    L., Steidel , C

    Theios , R. L., Steidel , C. C., Strom , A. L., Rudie , G. C., Trainor , R. F., & Reddy , N. A. 2019, , 871, 128

    2019

  76. [84]

    & Steidel , C

    Trainor , R. & Steidel , C. C. 2013, , 775, L3

    2013

  77. [85]

    Trainor , R. F. & Steidel , C. C. 2012, , 752, 39

    2012

  78. [86]

    F., Steidel , C

    Trainor , R. F., Steidel , C. C., Strom , A. L., & Rudie , G. C. 2015, , 809, 89

    2015

  79. [87]

    F., Strom , A

    Trainor , R. F., Strom , A. L., Steidel , C. C., & Rudie , G. C. 2016, , 832, 171

    2016

  80. [88]

    & Osterbrock , D

    Veilleux , S. & Osterbrock , D. E. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 63, 295

    1987

  81. [89]

    C., Schaye , J., Bouch \'e , N., Cantalupo , S., Contini , T., Carollo , C

    Wisotzki , L., Bacon , R., Blaizot , J., Brinchmann , J., Herenz , E. C., Schaye , J., Bouch \'e , N., Cantalupo , S., Contini , T., Carollo , C. M., Caruana , J., Courbot , J. B., Emsellem , E., Kamann , S., Kerutt , J., Leclercq , F., Lilly , S. J., Patr \' cio , V., Sandin ...

    2016

  82. [90]

    E., Leitherer , C., Wofford , A., Jiang , T., Dijkstra , M., Tilvi , V., & Wang , J

    Yang , H., Malhotra , S., Gronke , M., Rhoads , J. E., Leitherer , C., Wofford , A., Jiang , T., Dijkstra , M., Tilvi , V., & Wang , J. 2017, , 844, 171

    2017

  83. [91]

    B., Trenti , M., Strait , V., Lemaux , B

    Hoag , A., Brada c , M., Huang , K., Mason , C., Treu , T., Schmidt , K. B., Trenti , M., Strait , V., Lemaux , B. C., Finney , E. Q., & Paddock , M. 2019, , 878, 12

    2019

  84. [92]

    A., Treu , T., Dijkstra , M., Mesinger , A., Trenti , M., Pentericci , L., de Barros , S., & Vanzella , E

    Mason , C. A., Treu , T., Dijkstra , M., Mesinger , A., Trenti , M., Pentericci , L., de Barros , S., & Vanzella , E. 2018, , 856, 2

    2018

  85. [93]

    J., Cristiani , S., Dickinson , M., Finkelstein , S

    Pentericci , L., Vanzella , E., Castellano , M., Fontana , A., De Barros , S., Grazian , A., Marchi , F., Bradac , M., Conselice , C. J., Cristiani , S., Dickinson , M., Finkelstein , S. L., Giallongo , E., Guaita , L., Koekemoer , A. M., Maiolino , R., Santini , P., & Tilvi ,...

    2018

  86. [94]

    W., Bouwens , R

    Roberts-Borsani , G. W., Bouwens , R. J., Oesch , P. A., Labbe , I., Smit , R., Illingworth , G. D., van Dokkum , P., Holden , B., Gonzalez , V., Stefanon , M., Holwerda , B., & Wilkins , S. 2016, , 823, 143

    2016

  87. [95]

    P., Ellis , R

    Stark , D. P., Ellis , R. S., Charlot , S., Chevallard , J., Tang , M., Belli , S., Zitrin , A., Mainali , R., Gutkin , J., Vidal-Garc \' a , A., Bouwens , R., & Oesch , P. 2017, , 464, 469

    2017

  88. [96]

    P., Ellis , R

    Stark , D. P., Ellis , R. S., Chiu , K., Ouchi , M., & Bunker , A. 2010, , 408, 1628

    2010

Pith tools

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