Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 77 references

This paper reports the first large-sample clustering measurement of Lyα blobs, showing they occupy dark matter halos of roughly 10^12 solar masses at z≈2.4 and 3.1.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 12:38 UTC pith:KN4YYOJA

load-bearing objection Largest LAB clustering sample to date, but the ACF and CCF don't agree and the paper's headline halo-mass claim rests on the ACF side. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.01991 v2 pith:KN4YYOJA submitted 2026-01-05 astro-ph.GA

ODIN: Clustering Properties of Lyα Blobs at z sim 2.4 and 3.1

Byeongha Moon , Yujin Yang , Eric Gawiser , Kyoung-Soo Lee , Danisbel Herrera , Vandana Ramakrishnan , Nelson Padilla , Nicole M. Firestone
show 13 more authors
Seongjae Kim Robin Ciardullo Caryl Gronwall Lucia Guaita Ho Seong Hwang Sang Hyeok Im Woong-Seob Jeong Ankit Kumar Jaehyun Lee Seong-Kook Lee Julie B. Nantais Changbom Park Hyunmi Song
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyα blobsangular correlation functiongalaxy biasdark matter halo masshigh-redshift galaxieslarge-scale structurehalo occupation distributionnarrowband survey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Lyα blobs—rare, giant glowing gas clouds at high redshift—are thought to be signposts of forming galaxy groups, but their host halo masses have been uncertain. Using the largest sample yet (215 blobs across a contiguous 9-square-degree field), the paper measures how strongly blobs cluster with each other. It derives a galaxy bias of about 4, which translates to median dark matter halo masses of roughly 4 and 1 times 10^12 solar masses at z≈2.4 and 3.1. If the simple linear-bias conversion holds, these halos should grow into group-scale ~10^13-solar-mass halos by today, linking rare blobs to massive ellipticals. The paper is careful to note that a cross-correlation check gives systematically lower bias, so the quoted masses rest on an assumption the authors themselves flag as possibly too simple.

Core claim

From the angular auto-correlation functions of 103 and 112 Lyα blobs at z≈2.4 and 3.1, the paper reports bias factors b = 4.0±0.8 and 3.8±0.7, correlation lengths r0 = 6.5±1.0 and 5.2±1.4 h^-1 Mpc, and infers median halo masses of 4.2×10^12 and 1.1×10^12 solar masses. A simplified halo-occupation model gives minimum halo masses of 2.8×10^12 and 7.4×10^11 solar masses and occupation fractions of roughly 11% and 3% of all halos above those thresholds. The authors conclude that blobs inhabit massive dark matter halos and likely trace proto-group environments that evolve into present-day ~10^13-solar-mass halos, where massive elliptical galaxies or low-mass galaxy groups reside.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by the angular two-point correlation function (measured with the Landy-Szalay estimator), which is converted to a galaxy bias b through the relation ω_LAB = b^2 ω_m using Limber's equation and a linear matter power spectrum. The bias is then mapped to halo mass via a Sheth-Tormen-style bias-halo mass relation, with a halo mass function and a constant occupation fraction used to derive minimum and median halo masses. A cross-correlation with the more abundant Lyα emitters serves as an independent check on the auto-correlation result.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis converts the measured clustering amplitude to a halo mass using a deterministic, linear bias model—assuming blobs trace the dark matter density field exactly, with no nonlinear or stochastic scatter—and the paper's own cross-correlation measurement is 2.1σ lower at z≈2.4, so if that difference is intrinsic, the linear-bias conversion fails and the quoted halo masses are not valid.

What would settle it

Measure the auto- and cross-correlation functions of the full ~1,000-blob ODIN sample (or an equivalent large sample) and compute the ratio b_CCF^2 / b_ACF^2; if it remains below unity by more than 3σ at either redshift, the deterministic linear-bias assumption is ruled out and the halo masses derived from the ACF amplitude are overestimates.

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

If this is right

  • Lyα blobs join submillimeter galaxies and quasars as tracers of ~10^12-solar-mass halos at z~2–3, while Lyα emitters and Lyman-break galaxies trace far less massive halos.
  • The inferred present-day halo mass of ~10^13 solar masses implies blobs are ancestors of low-mass galaxy groups or central galaxies of massive ellipticals, not of typical field galaxies.
  • Bright or large blobs at z≈3.1 appear to live in halos about five times more massive than the full blob sample, suggesting size or luminosity correlates with halo mass.
  • If the auto-correlation result is correct, only a few to ten percent of halos above the minimum mass actually host a detectable blob, making blobs a rare but highly biased tracer of the densest structures.
  • The discrepancy between auto- and cross-correlation biases implies that a joint analysis with the full ~1,000-blob survey sample will be needed to decide whether the simple linear-bias model is adequate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A persistent gap between cross-correlation and auto-correlation biases would not only lower the quoted halo masses but also reveal that blobs cluster nonlinearly or stochastically, likely tied to their preference for cosmic filaments—an effect the current measurement is not powerful enough to separate from sampling noise.
  • The linear-bias conversion implicitly assumes blobs are a representative subset of halos at a given mass; a testable extension is to measure the environment-dependent clustering of blobs relative to filaments and nodes, which should show stronger stochasticity if the filament association is physically important.
  • The halo occupation fraction derived here (3–11%) could be checked against hydrodynamical simulations that predict how often a massive halo's gas reservoir produces observable extended Lyα emission; if simulations give much higher fractions, the blob sample may be missing many faint or low-surface-brightness members.
  • The method of using a redshift distribution adopted from Lyα emitters for the blobs could be improved by spectroscopic follow-up of a blob subsample; if blobs live at slightly different redshifts within the narrowband, the correlation length and bias would shift, changing the inferred halo masses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports angular auto-correlation function (ACF) measurements for 103 Lyα blobs at z≈2.4 and 112 at z≈3.1 from the ODIN survey in the extended COSMOS field. Using a power-law fit with slope fixed to β=0.8, after excluding the smallest angular bin, the authors derive correlation lengths r0=6.5±1.0 and 5.2±1.4 h⁻¹ Mpc, respectively, and bias factors b=4.0±0.8 and 3.8±0.7 from the ratio of the LAB ACF to the linear matter ACF. These bias values are converted to halo masses through the Mo & White/Sheth–Tormen bias–mass relation, giving median halo masses of 4.2×10¹² M⊙ and 1.1×10¹² M⊙, and the paper concludes that LABs trace massive, proto-group-scale halos that evolve to ~10¹³ M⊙ by z=0. As a cross-check, the paper also measures the cross-correlation between LABs and LAEs, obtaining b=1.9±0.6 and 2.6±0.3, which imply an order-of-magnitude lower halo mass; the discrepancy is discussed but not quantitatively resolved.

Significance. If the ACF-based result holds, this is a significant step: it would establish LABs as statistical tracers of ~10¹² M⊙ halos at z≈2–3, connecting them to proto-groups and massive present-day ellipticals. The paper's strengths include the largest uniform LAB sample used for clustering to date, a contiguous 9 deg² field, a standard Landy–Szalay estimator with jackknife errors, an explicit cross-correlation check with LAEs, and comparisons with previous counts-in-cells and stellar-to-halo-mass-relation estimates. The authors are also candid about the ACF–CCF tension and the limitations of the simple linear bias model. However, the central scientific claim is conditional on resolving that internal tension, so the paper's impact is currently limited.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2.1, Tables 1–3; §4.1] The paper's central claim that LABs occupy ~10¹² M⊙ halos rests entirely on the ACF-derived biases b=4.0±0.8 and 3.8±0.7 via Eq. (6). The CCF analysis in §3.2.1 gives b_LAB=1.9±0.6 and 2.6±0.3, corresponding to halo masses ~2×10¹¹ M⊙, an order of magnitude lower. The discrepancy is 2.1σ and 1.6σ and is discussed in §4.1, but the paper does not present a joint ACF+CCF fit, the cross-covariance between the two estimators, or a quantitative model of stochastic/nonlinear bias. As written, the abstract and Section 5 assert the ACF-based conclusion without making the resolution of this internal tension a condition. This is load-bearing: if the CCF is correct, the 'massive halo' conclusion fails; if the ACF is correct, the CCF must be explained. The authors should either present a joint analysis that captures the covariance and quantifies the significance of the difference, or substantially wea
  2. [§3.1.2, Eq. (6), Eq. (7)] The halo mass conversion assumes deterministic linear bias (ω_LAB=b²ω_m) and the Mo & White/Sheth–Tormen bias–mass relation. Section 4.1 correctly notes that if the ACF–CCF discrepancy is intrinsic, LAB clustering is not described by the simple linear bias model. But the bias-to-mass step is not tested for this possibility. The paper should demonstrate that the inferred masses are robust to (i) a scale-dependent/nonlinear bias term, and (ii) the choice of halo bias model and mass definition; otherwise the 10¹² M⊙ values are only as good as the linear-bias assumption that the paper itself calls into question. A simple HOD or simulation-calibrated bias model would address this.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5, §4.2, Table 2] There are internal number inconsistencies: Section 5 bullet 2 calls 5.1×10¹² and 1.4×10¹² M⊙ 'median halo masses,' but Table 2 lists these as the single-mass M_h values, with M_h,med = 4.2×10¹² and 1.1×10¹² M⊙. Section 4.2 quotes the ODIN z≈3.1 median as 2.1×10¹² M⊙ and M_h,min as 9.4×10¹¹ M⊙, whereas Table 2 gives 1.1×10¹² M⊙ and 7.4×10¹¹ M⊙, respectively. These need correction.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (4)] The redshift distribution of LABs is assumed identical to that of ODIN LAEs from White et al. (2024). Because LABs are selected by a different surface-brightness criterion, this assumption could bias the Limber inversion. A brief sensitivity test with an alternative dN/dz (e.g., a top-hat filter profile) would make the robustness of r0 and b transparent.
  3. [§3.1, Figure 2] The ACF fit excludes the first angular bin (40″–70″) as a suspected one-halo term. The authors state that the results are insensitive to this choice, but the supporting tests are not shown. Including a figure or table with β free, or with the first bin included, would help readers assess the stability of the fit given the short baseline of the fitted range.
  4. [§3.1.3, Eq. (9)] The HOD modeling assumes a constant occupation fraction above a sharp minimum mass and at most one LAB per halo. This simplification is acknowledged, but the inferred f_LAB and median mass are quoted with formal uncertainties that do not include model uncertainty. A sentence noting that model choice dominates the systematic error would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: LAB clustering analysis uses external bias-mass relations and independent cross-checks.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs: observed pair counts (Eq. 1) to power-law ACF with integral constraint (Eqs. 2-3); bias via b^2 = omega/omega_m (Eq. 6), with omega_m from the linear CCL matter power spectrum and Limber projection applied to an adopted dN/dz from external DESI LAE observations (White et al. 2024); halo mass via the analytic Mo & White (2002) bias-mass relation (Eq. 7) and Sheth & Tormen (1999) mass function (Eqs. 9-10). None of these steps defines its output in terms of the paper's own fitted parameters; the conversion relations are external analytic results and the redshift distribution is an external measurement. The CCF analysis (Section 3.2.1) provides an independent cross-check using LAE bias from White et al. (2024); the fact that it gives lower bias (b = 1.9 +/- 0.6, 2.6 +/- 0.3 vs. b = 4.0 +/- 0.8, 3.8 +/- 0.7) and the paper's own Section 4.1 caveat that an intrinsic difference would imply non-linear/stochastic bias is a robustness limitation, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (Moon et al. 2025 for selection; Ramakrishnan et al. for random-catalog construction and protocluster bias) supply data provenance and comparison values, not the load-bearing theoretical premise. The central halo-mass claim therefore does not reduce, by construction or by self-citation, to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis leans on standard cosmological tools and on three domain assumptions not validated in this paper: LABs share the LAE dN/dz, the linear bias relation holds on fitted scales, and the simplified one-LAB-per-halo HOD is adequate. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law slope β = 0.8 (fixed)
    Set a priori (Peebles 1980; Kovac et al. 2007) rather than fitted. It enters Limber's equation (Eq. 4) and the bias conversion, so it directly influences r0, bias, and halo mass; the paper states results are robust to varying it, but no fit is shown.
  • LAB redshift distribution dN/dz = adopted from ODIN LAEs (White et al. 2024)
    Assumed identical to LAEs because the same narrowband filters and EW threshold are used. This function enters Equations 4 and 6; if LABs have a different redshift distribution within the band, the inferred correlation length, bias, and halo mass shift.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with ΩΛ=0.7, Ωm=0.3, ns=0.95, h=0.7, σ8=0.8
    Adopted cosmology; enters Limber equation, matter power spectrum, halo mass function, and growth factor. Stated in Section 1 and used throughout.
  • domain assumption LABs have the same redshift distribution dN/dz as ODIN LAEs from DESI (White et al. 2024)
    Assumed because both use the same narrowbands and EW threshold; no LAB spectroscopy is presented. Enters Eqs. 4 and 6; if false, bias and halo masses shift.
  • domain assumption The angular correlation function is a power law with fixed slope β=0.8 (γ=1.8) over fitted scales
    Standard clustering prior; paper says results are unchanged if β is allowed to vary, but the fixed slope is an input to Eq. 4 and the σ8 conversion.
  • domain assumption Linear deterministic bias: ω_LAB = b^2 ω_m, with scale-independent bias on the fitted range
    Used in Eq. 6 to convert ACF amplitude to bias. The paper itself questions this in Section 4.1 if the CCF discrepancy is intrinsic.
  • domain assumption Simplified HOD: at most one LAB per halo above M_h,min, with constant occupation fraction f_LAB
    Equations 9–10; needed to convert bias and number density into M_h,min and f_LAB. A more detailed HOD is deferred to future work.
  • standard math Sheth-Tormen mass function and Mo & White (2002) bias formula with a=0.707, b=0.5, c=0.6, δc=1.69
    Standard analytic halo model used in Eqs. 7–9; not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Mean halo mass growth from the Millennium simulation (Fakhouri et al. 2010) applies to LAB host halos
    Used to project z≈2.4/3.1 halo masses to z=0; simulation-based and not LAB-specific.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20407 in / 14679 out tokens · 139436 ms · 2026-08-03T12:38:33.665106+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Spatially extended Ly$\alpha$ nebulae, known as Ly$\alpha$ blobs (LABs), are a rare population at $z > 2$ that are thought to trace proto-groups or the progenitors of massive galaxies in the present-day universe. However, their dark matter halo properties (e.g., halo mass) are still uncertain due to their rarity and strong field-to-field variation. The One-hundred-deg$^2$ DECam Imaging in Narrowbands (ODIN) survey has discovered 103 and 112 LABs in the extended ($\sim$9~\sqdeg) COSMOS field at $z\sim2.4$ and 3.1, respectively, enabling estimation of their bias and host halo masses through clustering analysis. We measure the angular auto-correlation functions (ACFs) of LABs and derive galaxy bias factors of $b$ = $4.0\pm0.8$ and $3.8\pm0.7$, corresponding to minimum halo masses of $2.8^{+3.0}_{-1.8}$ and $0.7^{+0.8}_{-0.5}\times10^{12}~M_\odot$ and median halo masses of $4.2^{+3.8}_{-2.5}$ and $1.1^{+1.1}_{-0.7}\times10^{12}~M_\odot$ at $z\sim2.4$ and 3.1, respectively. LABs occupy $\sim$11$^{+39}_{-8}$\% and $\sim$3$^{+9}_{-2}$\% of all dark matter halos above these minimum halo masses. These findings suggest that LABs inhabit massive dark matter halos, likely tracing proto-group environments that evolve into present-day massive halos ($\sim$10$^{13}~M_\odot$), where massive elliptical galaxies or galaxy groups reside, by $z=0$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.01991 by Ankit Kumar, Byeongha Moon, Caryl Gronwall, Changbom Park, Danisbel Herrera, Eric Gawiser, Ho Seong Hwang, Hyunmi Song, Jaehyun Lee, Julie B. Nantais, Kyoung-Soo Lee, Lucia Guaita, Nelson Padilla, Nicole M. Firestone, Robin Ciardullo, Sang Hyeok Im, Seongjae Kim, Seong-Kook Lee, Vandana Ramakrishnan, Woong-Seob Jeong, Yujin Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Postage-stamp images (30 × 30 arcsec2 ) of selected LABs in this study. In each panel, the yellow contours indicate the surface brightness detection thresholds. Top: A Lyα blob at z ∼ 2.4, shown in a composite of Subaru/HSC r (red), Subaru/HSC g (green), and ODIN N419 (blue) images. Bottom: A Lyα blob at z ∼ 3.1, shown in a composite of Subaru/HSC r (red), ODIN N501 (green), and Subaru/HSC g (blue) images.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observed ACFs of LABs at z ∼ 2.4 and 3.1 [ωobs = (ω − IC)/(1 + IC)]. Open markers are not used for fitting the correlation functions because they could be the one-halo term. Black dash-dot lines represent the best fit power-law function (Equation 3, β = 0.8), while red solid lines are the best fit with Equation 6. The best-fit parameters are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: compares the biases of LABs with those in the literature. LABs show significantly higher biases than LAEs (b ∼ 1.5–2, E. Gawiser et al. 2007; L. Guaita et al. 2010; H. Umeda et al. 2025; M. White et al. 2024; D. Herrera et al. 2025) and LBGs (b ∼ 2.5, K.-S. Lee et al. 2006) at z = 2 – 3, but lower biases than proto-clusters (b ∼ 6, V. Ramakrishnan et al. 2025a). LAB at z ∼ 2.4 have bias comparable to those… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left, Middle) Observed CCF between LABs and LAEs at z ∼ 2.4 and z ∼ 3.1. (Right) CCF between large LABs and LAEs at z ∼ 3.1. The black dot-dashed lines indicate the best-fit power-law function (Equation 3, β = 0.8), while the red solid lines show the best-fit results using Equation 6. Open markers denote data points excluded from the fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    M., Simpson, J

    Alexander, D. M., Simpson, J. M., Harrison, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1509

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1509 2016

  2. [2]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa960f Arrigoni Battaia, F., Prochaska, J

    Ao, Y., Matsuda, Y., Henkel, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa960f Arrigoni Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2465

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa960f 2017

  3. [3]

    M., Bond, J

    Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., & Szalay, A. S. 1986, ApJ, 304, 15, doi: 10.1086/164143

    doi:10.1086/164143 1986

  4. [4]

    A., & Weinberg, D

    Berlind, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2002, ApJ, 575, 587, doi: 10.1086/341469

    doi:10.1086/341469 2002

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/39 B˘ adescu, T., Yang, Y., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8220

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/39 2016

  6. [6]

    E., Alonso, D., Krause, E., et al

    Chisari, N. E., Alonso, D., Krause, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 242, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1658

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab1658 2019

  7. [7]

    M., et al

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038700 2021

  8. [8]

    M., Valentino, F., et al

    Daddi, E., Rich, R. M., Valentino, F., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac531f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac531f 2022

  9. [9]

    1999, ApJ, 520, 24, doi: 10.1086/307428

    Dekel, A., & Lahav, O. 1999, ApJ, 520, 24, doi: 10.1086/307428

    work page doi:10.1086/307428 1999

  10. [10]

    T., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1086/430775 2005

  11. [11]

    2015, A&A, 576, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425532

    Durkalec, A., Le F` evre, O., de la Torre, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425532

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425532 2015

  12. [12]

    D., White, M., et al

    Eftekharzadeh, S., Myers, A. D., White, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1763

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1763 2015

  13. [13]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x 12Moon et al

    Fakhouri, O., Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x 12Moon et al

    arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c9 2024

  15. [15]

    N., & Gaztanaga, E

    Fry, J. N., & Gaztanaga, E. 1993, ApJ, 413, 447, doi: 10.1086/173015

    doi:10.1086/173015 1993

  16. [16]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 278, doi: 10.1086/522955

    Gawiser, E., Francke, H., Lai, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 278, doi: 10.1086/522955

    doi:10.1086/522955 2007

  17. [17]

    E., Sobral, D., Hickox, R

    Geach, J. E., Sobral, D., Hickox, R. C., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 679, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21725.x

    arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    E., Alexander, D

    Geach, J. E., Alexander, D. M., Lehmer, B. D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/1 Gonz´ alez Lobos, J., Arrigoni Battaia, F., Chang, S.-J., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346879

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

  19. [19]

    2010, ApJ, 714, 255, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/255

    Guaita, L., Gawiser, E., Padilla, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 255, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/255

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/1/255 2010

  20. [20]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S33, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx129

    He, W., Akiyama, M., Bosch, J., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S33, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx129

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx129 2018

  21. [21]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adec82 2025

  22. [22]

    C., Wardlow, J

    Hickox, R. C., Wardlow, J. L., Smail, I., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 284, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20303.x

    arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3219 2019

  24. [24]

    1984, ApJL, 284, L9, doi: 10.1086/184341

    Kaiser, N. 1984, ApJL, 284, L9, doi: 10.1086/184341

    doi:10.1086/184341 1984

  25. [25]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psy087 2018

  26. [26]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/301139 1999

  27. [27]

    2019, PASJ, 71, L2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz055 Kovaˇ c, K., Somerville, R

    Kikuta, S., Matsuda, Y., Cen, R., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, L2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz055 Kovaˇ c, K., Somerville, R. S., Rhoads, J. E., Malhotra, S., &

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psz055 2019

  28. [28]

    2007, ApJ, 668, 15, doi: 10.1086/520668

    Wang, J. 2007, ApJ, 668, 15, doi: 10.1086/520668

    doi:10.1086/520668 2007

  29. [29]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 3333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2392

    Kubo, M., Yamada, T., Ichikawa, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2392

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2392 2016

  30. [30]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx148

    Kusakabe, H., Shimasaku, K., Ouchi, M., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 4, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx148

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx148 2018

  31. [31]

    D., & Szalay, A

    Landy, S. D., & Szalay, A. S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64, doi: 10.1086/172900

    doi:10.1086/172900 1993

  32. [32]

    Y., et al

    Lee, K.-S., Giavalisco, M., Gnedin, O. Y., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 63, doi: 10.1086/500387

    doi:10.1086/500387 2006

  33. [33]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad165e 2024

  34. [34]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad812c 2024

  35. [35]

    Limber, D. N. 1953, ApJ, 117, 134, doi: 10.1086/145672

    doi:10.1086/145672 1953

  36. [36]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/422020 2004

  37. [37]

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

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

    arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    Metchnik, M. V. L. 2009, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    2009

  39. [39]

    J., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., & White, S. D. M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.2.347

    doi:10.1093/mnras/282.2.347 1996

  40. [40]

    J., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., & White, S. D. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 112, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05723.x

    arXiv 2002

  41. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.17368

    Moon, B., Yang, Y., Lee, K.-S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.17368. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17368

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    D., Brunner, R

    Myers, A. D., Brunner, R. J., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 85, doi: 10.1086/511519

    work page doi:10.1086/511519 2007

  43. [43]

    M., Gazta˜ naga, E., & Croton, D

    Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Gazta˜ naga, E., & Croton, D. J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 19, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14389.x

    arXiv 2009

  44. [44]

    2008, ApJS, 176, 301, doi: 10.1086/527673

    Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Akiyama, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 301, doi: 10.1086/527673

    doi:10.1086/527673 2008

  45. [45]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 869, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/869

    Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Furusawa, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 869, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/869

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/869 2010

  46. [46]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx074

    Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., Shibuya, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx074

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx074 2018

  47. [47]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe

    1980

  48. [48]

    2015, A&A, 579, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424715

    Popesso, P., Biviano, A., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424715

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424715 2015

  49. [49]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/2/86 2012

  50. [50]

    H., & Schechter, P

    Press, W. H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425, doi: 10.1086/152650

    doi:10.1086/152650 1974

  51. [51]

    H., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd341 2023

  52. [52]

    C., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cb 2024

  53. [53]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb624

  54. [54]

    ODIN: Characterizing the Three-dimensional Structure of Two Protocluster Complexes at $z = 3.1$

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11826

  55. [56]

    A., Oguri, M., et al

    Shen, Y., Strauss, M. A., Oguri, M., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2222, doi: 10.1086/513517

    doi:10.1086/513517 2007

  56. [58]

    K., & Tormen, G

    Sheth, R. K., & Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x

    arXiv 1999

  57. [59]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx122 2018

  58. [60]

    S., Lemson, G., Sigad, Y., et al

    Somerville, R. S., Lemson, G., Sigad, Y., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 320, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03894.x

    arXiv 2001

  59. [61]

    C., Adelberger, K

    Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2000, ApJ, 532, 170, doi: 10.1086/308568 Clustering Analysis For Lyman Alpha Blobs13

    doi:10.1086/308568 2000

  60. [62]

    1999, ApJ, 522, 46, doi: 10.1086/307612

    Taruya, A., & Soda, J. 1999, ApJ, 522, 46, doi: 10.1086/307612

    work page doi:10.1086/307612 1999

  61. [63]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S12, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx102

    Toshikawa, J., Uchiyama, H., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S12, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx102

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx102 2018

  62. [64]

    K., Yamada, T., Kajisawa, M., et al

    Uchimoto, Y. K., Yamada, T., Kajisawa, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/116 2012

  63. [65]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adb1c0 2025

  64. [66]

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

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

    doi:10.1126/science.aaw5949 2019

  65. [67]

    C., et al

    Umehata, H., Smail, I., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1106

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1106 2021

  66. [68]

    J., & van den Bosch, F

    Wang, Y., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2007, ApJ, 664, 608, doi: 10.1086/519245

    work page doi:10.1086/519245 2007

  67. [69]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/020

    White, M., Raichoor, A., Dey, A., et al. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/020

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/020 2024

  68. [70]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    doi:10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 1978

  69. [71]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 1380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2405

    Wilkinson, A., Almaini, O., Chen, C.-C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2405

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2405 2017

  70. [72]

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

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

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

  71. [73]

    2014a, ApJ, 784, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/171

    Yang, Y., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 784, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/171

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/171

  72. [74]

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

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

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

  73. [75]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/2/114

  74. [76]

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

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

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

  75. [77]

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

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

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

  76. [78]

    H., et al

    Zehavi, I., Zheng, Z., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/59

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/59 2011

  77. [79]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb41b

    Zhang, H., Cai, Z., Li, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb41b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb41b 2025