Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Revisiting the Intergalactic Medium Around GRB 130606A and Constraints on the Epoch of Reionization

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper resolves the conflicting neutral-hydrogen measurements for GRB 130606A by showing they come from modeling assumptions, and its preferred fits put a 3-sigma upper limit of about 20 to 23 percent on the neutral fraction at z~5.9.

desk verdict A genuinely useful reproduction study that explains the GRB 130606A controversy, but the headline neutral-fraction limit is prior-dependent and the paper's own numbers don't agree. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09732 v2 pith:ULSSD2DW submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.CO

H.M. Fausey , A.J. van der Horst , N.R. Tanvir , K. Wiersema , J.P.U. Fynbo , D. Hartmann , A. de Ugarte Postigo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords reionizationintergalacticmediumgamma-rayburstsLyman-alphadampingwingneutralhydrogenfractionGRB130606Aafterglowspectroscopyhigh-redshiftuniverse
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

Gamma-ray bursts are bright enough to show the Lyman-$\alpha$ damping wing that neutral hydrogen imprints on the afterglow spectrum, which makes them probes of how far reionization had progressed at a given redshift. For GRB 130606A at $z\sim5.9$, four earlier analyses using the same type of damping-wing model reached answers that disagreed widely, from $x_{\rm HI}<0.05$ to a claimed detection of $x_{\rm HI}\sim0.47$. This paper shows that all of those results can be reproduced from the same high-resolution spectrum simply by adopting each study's assumptions about where the neutral intergalactic medium begins, what wavelength range to fit, and what spectral index to assume. It then refits the spectrum with several damping-wing models using what it argues are the best-motivated assumptions, and obtains a 3-$\sigma$ upper limit on the neutral fraction of about $0.20$ to $0.23$. If the paper is right, the universe along this sightline at $z\sim5.9$ was already at least three-quarters ionized, and the earlier controversy was a modeling problem rather than evidence that the method is unreliable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Lyman-$\alpha$ damping wing, the broad absorption trough produced when neutral hydrogen scatters Lyman-$\alpha$ photons; the trough extends redward of the line and reshapes the afterglow's otherwise smooth power-law continuum. The paper fits the spectrum with three model families: the original uniform-neutral-fraction model, a version that adds a free ionized-bubble radius around the host (the McQuinn model), and redshift-shell implementations in which the neutral fraction is either independent per shell or coupled through a linear slope. The mechanism that carries the argument is the degeneracy among the spectral index $\beta$, the host hydrogen column density, and $x_{\rm HI}$: when only the top of the damping wing is fitted, the neutral fraction drifts with the assumed $\beta$. The paper controls that degeneracy by extending the fit over a long wavelength lever arm and by applying a Gaussian prior on $\beta$ derived from the X-ray-to-optical continuum.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to measure the ionized bubble radius around GRB 130606A directly, for example through deep Lyman-$\alpha$ imaging or integral-field spectroscopy of the host field, and to build an independent X-ray-to-near-infrared spectral energy distribution of the afterglow to test the single power-law prior; if the bubble exceeds roughly 90 Mpc or a spectral break appears between the X-ray and optical bands, the $x_{\rm HI}<0.20$ to $0.23$ limits would be invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the conflicting previous measurements for GRB 130606A were produced by the data-fitting assumptions, not by the data. Repeating each earlier analysis on the same X-shooter spectrum, with each paper's redshift boundary where the neutral IGM begins, spectral index, host column density treatment, and wavelength range, reproduces the published values from the low upper limit up to the high detection. The paper then argues that the statistically preferred choices, in particular starting the neutral IGM at $z\sim5.8$ rather than at the GRB redshift and using a Gaussian spectral-index prior tied to the X-ray-to-optical continuum, give consistent 3-$\sigma$ upper limits across the Miralda-Escude, McQuinn bubble, and shell models, in the range $x_{\rm HI}<0.20$ to $x_{\rm HI}<0.23$. The consequence, on the paper's own terms, is that the intergalactic medium along this line of sight at $z\sim5.9$ was at least about 77 percent ionized at 3-$\sigma$, in line with reionization ending near $z\sim5.5$ to $6$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the neutral intergalactic medium along the line of sight begins only near $z\sim5.8$ (equivalently, that a large ionized bubble up to about 90 Mpc surrounds the GRB host) and that the X-ray-to-optical continuum is a single unbroken power law with the adopted spectral index; if the bubble is larger or a spectral break exists, the $x_{\rm HI}$ upper limits would need to be revised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The IGM along the GRB 130606A sightline was at least about 77 percent ionized at z~5.9 at 3-sigma, consistent with reionization ending near z~5.5-6.
  • Future damping-wing analyses should report or marginalize over the redshift where the neutral IGM begins (equivalently the ionized bubble radius) and the spectral index, since those choices, not the data, produced the earlier spread between an upper limit of 0.05 and a claimed 0.5 neutral fraction.
  • The paper's statistically preferred neutral-IGM edge at z~5.8 matches independent hints of a neutral system or DLA near that redshift, though the damping wing alone cannot confirm its nature.
  • Progress on Epoch-of-Reionization constraints from GRBs will require many more high-redshift bursts with high-quality optical-to-near-infrared spectra, so that no single sightline dominates the measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumption-sensitivity found here generalizes, published GRB damping-wing neutral-fraction limits from other bursts may carry systematic uncertainties comparable to the original 0.05-to-0.5 spread, larger than their quoted statistical errors.
  • A direct test would be to apply the same shell model, with common priors, to every existing high-redshift GRB afterglow spectrum; if inner shells consistently sit near zero while outer shells are unconstrained, GRB damping wings are mostly probing the ionized bubble boundary rather than the global neutral fraction.
  • The Bayesian preference for a neutral edge at z~5.8 could be sharpened by a deeper search for metal-line absorption at that redshift; confirming a DLA would turn the xHI<0.2 limit into a statement about the IGM exterior to that system.
  • The same control of the boundary and spectral-index degeneracies could be applied to quasar damping wings, where continuum uncertainties are larger, and might shrink the scatter in quasar-based neutral-fraction estimates.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper re-analyzes the VLT X-shooter spectrum of GRB 130606A to understand why previous damping-wing analyses of the same object yielded conflicting neutral-hydrogen fractions. Using the same spectrum but reproducing each earlier analysis's data ranges and assumptions, the authors argue that the discrepancies are driven by modeling assumptions and data selection rather than by the data themselves. They then present new fits with the Miralda-Escudé (1998), McQuinn et al. (2008), and shell-based damping-wing models, reporting 3-sigma upper limits on the IGM neutral fraction. The abstract quotes x_HI < 0.20–0.23, while the Conclusions quote x_HI < 0.28, < 0.24, and < 0.26 for the statistically preferred fits. The paper situates these results in the broader Epoch of Reionization context and compares with GRB 210905A.

Significance. If the claimed low neutral-fraction upper limits are robust, the paper would reconcile previously conflicting measurements of GRB 130606A and provide a meaningful constraint on the ionization state of the IGM at z ~ 5.9. The reconstruction exercise in Section 3 is a genuine strength: using a single high-resolution dataset to reproduce earlier results demonstrates convincingly that differing assumptions, rather than the data quality, are the main source of the earlier controversy. The use of multiple damping-wing models and explicit reporting of marginal likelihoods are also positive features. However, the headline numerical result is not currently presented in a self-consistent way, and the tightest upper limits depend on an external spectral-index prior and on assumed ionized-bubble geometry. These issues are fixable but are load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §4.2, Tables 2–3] The headline 3-sigma upper limit is prior-dependent. With a uniform prior on the spectral index beta, the same X-shooter data give x_HI < 0.53 for the Miralda-Escudé model with z_IGM,u = 5.8 (Table 2) and x_HI < 0.76 for the McQuinn model (Table 3); the values x_HI < 0.20–0.23 quoted in the abstract appear only after imposing the Swift-XRT Gaussian prior beta = 0.71 ± 0.07. That prior is valid only if the optical-to-X-ray afterglow is a single unbroken power law; if host-galaxy extinction or a spectral break is present, the inferred neutral fraction could be biased. The Bayes factors quoted in §4.1 and §4.2 compare fits with different priors on beta rather than different physical models, so they do not by themselves demonstrate that the data require x_HI < 0.2. I recommend either reporting the uniform-prior limits as the conservative headline result or, at minimum, quantifying the sensitivity of the limit to the prior (e.g., by repeating the fits with broadened Gaussian priors and with a free spectral break).
  2. [Abstract and §6] The central number is not internally stable. The abstract states a 3-sigma upper limit ranging from x_HI < 0.20 to x_HI < 0.23, while the Conclusions report x_HI < 0.28, < 0.24, and < 0.26 for the statistically preferred Miralda-Escudé, McQuinn, and shell-model fits. Tables 2–4 list < 0.23, < 0.20, and < 0.22 for the Gaussian-prior fits. These three sets of numbers are mutually inconsistent, and the paper must reconcile them before publication; as written, the reader cannot determine which value is the claimed result.
  3. [§2.1, §4.1] The unexplained spectral feature between 8469 and 8480 Å is excluded from the analysis. This feature lies in the damping-wing region and is reported in multiple independent spectra (VLT, Gemini, Subaru, GTC). Removing it without modeling it or without a sensitivity test is an unquantified systematic. Please show that the neutral-fraction upper limit is insensitive to the treatment of this feature, for instance by including it with a broad-line model or by varying the mask boundaries by a few Å.
  4. [§4.2, §4.3, Fig. 8] The preferred low x_HI values are also conditional on the assumed ionized-bubble geometry. In the McQuinn model the bubble radius R_b is driven to the edge of its prior (60 Mpc h^-1), and in the dependent-shell model with free z_IGM,u the posterior is flat at z < 5.6, where the damping wing is insensitive. This means that the tight upper limits essentially assume that the IGM immediately outside the host is largely ionized (z_IGM,u ~ 5.8 or R_b <~ 60 Mpc/h). The paper should state this explicitly as a condition of the result and show how the x_HI upper limit changes as R_b or z_IGM,u is varied over a wider range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.2] There is a typo in 'zhsost' that should read 'zhost'.
  2. [§4] The opening sentence of Section 4 mentions the 'Miralda-Escudé (1998) and Totani et al. (2006) models', but the section subsequently uses the Miralda-Escudé, McQuinn, and shell implementations; please clarify whether the Totani et al. (2006) model is used anywhere.
  3. [Table 1] The z_IGM,u row is visually confusing because several entries are placed under a single column; the table should be reformatted so that each analysis's z_IGM,u value is clearly aligned with its column.
  4. [§2.3] Please state explicitly how the reported 3-sigma upper limits are computed from the posterior distributions (e.g., as the 99.7th percentile) and apply this definition consistently to all tables.
  5. [Fig. 9] The y-axis label is partly described in the caption rather than appearing on the figure; ensure that the axis labels are readable and complete in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: xHI constraints are observational spectral fits with transparent prior dependence, and the cited shell model is not load-bearing for the central result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical spectral fit, not a derivation from the model output. The central quantity xHI is sampled by MCMC under three damping-wing models (Miralda-Escude 1998; McQuinn et al. 2008; and a shell implementation described in the paper and cited to Fausey et al. 2024). The tight headline values xHI<0.20-0.23 are obtained only when a Gaussian prior beta=0.71+/-0.07 from Swift-XRT is imposed (Tables 2-4), and the paper transparently reports the uniform-prior results (xHI<0.53, xHI<0.76, xHI<0.48) that are much weaker. This is prior sensitivity, not circularity: the prior comes from independent X-ray data, is not derived from the optical damping-wing spectrum, and does not by construction set the xHI posterior. The reported Bayes factors compare models on the same dataset, but that comparison is not a hidden fit of xHI to itself. The only self-citations (Fausey et al. 2024 for the shell implementation and marginal-likelihood usage) are methodological; the headline result is independently reproduced with the two externally established models, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then renamed a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known empirical pattern is relabeled as unification. The unexplained 8469-8480 A feature and the inconsistency between abstract upper limits (0.20-0.23) and conclusions (0.28, 0.24, 0.26) are robustness and reporting concerns, not circularity.

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

The central constraint depends on standard damping wing radiative transfer models (Miralda-Escude 1998 and McQuinn et al. 2008), on the assumption that the GRB afterglow continuum is a single power law with no X-ray-to-optical break, and on the choice of the neutral IGM boundary z_IGM,u=5.8 in the preferred fits. No new physical entities are introduced; all fitted parameters are standard nuisance parameters of the models.

free parameters (6)
  • neutral fraction x_HI = 0 (3-sigma upper limit 0.20-0.23)
    Central fitted parameter in all damping wing models.
  • spectral index beta = 0.69 +/- 0.03 (with Gaussian prior)
    Fitted; constrained with Gaussian prior from Swift-XRT photon index in the preferred models.
  • host column density log(N_HI/cm^-2) = ~19.91
    Fitted in all models; prior 18-23.
  • ionized bubble radius R_b = unconstrained, tends to 60 Mpc/h upper bound
    Free parameter in McQuinn et al. (2008) model.
  • z_IGM,u (upper redshift of neutral IGM) = 5.8 (fixed) or free
    Fixed to 5.8 in the preferred ME and shell fits; free in one shell implementation.
  • dx_HI/dz (slope) = unconstrained
    Free parameter in dependent shell model; posterior flat.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Miralda-Escude (1998) damping wing model with uniform neutral fraction between z_IGM,u and z_IGM,l is a valid description of the IGM.
    Used throughout; Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The GRB afterglow intrinsic spectrum is a single power law F_nu ∝ nu^-beta with no spectral break between X-ray and UV/optical.
    The Gaussian spectral index prior from Swift-XRT is applied to the optical spectrum; Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption The only absorption sources are the host HI column, the IGM damping wing, and identified metal/telluric lines; the 8469-8480 Å feature is not a real absorption system.
    Section 2.1: the feature is removed as 'unexplained by absorption lines'.
  • domain assumption The McQuinn et al. (2008) model with an ionized bubble of radius R_b and fully ionized interior is a valid approximation.
    Section 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper In the dependent shell model, the neutral fraction evolves linearly with redshift, with slope dx_HI/dz, within the fitted redshift range.
    Section 2.2: 'Given the short range of redshifts being examined, we assume a linear evolution'.
  • domain assumption Planck 2020 cosmological parameters are correct.
    Stated in Section 1: H0 = 67.4, Omega_m = 0.315, Omega_b h^2 = 0.0224, Y_P = 0.2454.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the Intergalactic Medium Around GRB 130606A and Constraints on the Epoch of Reionization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULSSD2DW

@misc{pith2026241209732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the Intergalactic Medium Around GRB 130606A and Constraints on the Epoch of Reionization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULSSD2DW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09732}
}
read the original abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are excellent probes of the high-redshift Universe due to their high luminosities and the relatively simple intrinsic spectra of their afterglows. They can be used to estimate the fraction of neutral hydrogen (i.e., neutral fraction) in the intergalactic medium at different redshifts through the examination of their Lyman-alpha damping wing with high quality optical-to-near-infrared spectra. Neutral fraction estimates can help trace the evolution of the Epoch of Reionization, a key era of cosmological history in which the intergalactic medium underwent a phase change from neutral to ionized. We revisit GRB 130606A, a z ~ 5.9 GRB for which multiple analyses, using the same damping wing model and data from different telescopes, found conflicting neutral fraction results. We identify the source of the discrepant results to be differences in assumptions for key damping wing model parameters and data range selections. We perform a new analysis implementing multiple GRB damping wing models and find a 3-sigma neutral fraction upper limit ranging from xHI < 0.20 to xHI < 0.23. We present this result in the context of other neutral fraction estimates and Epoch of Reionization models, discuss the impact of relying on individual GRB lines of sight, and highlight the need for more high-redshift GRBs to effectively constrain the progression of the Epoch of Reionization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example fit to the X-shooter spectrum of GRB˜130606A using the assumptions from (Chornock et al. 2013), and zIGM,l = 5.8 (left) along with a zoomed-in examination of the damping wing fit and residuals (right). Regions with metal or telluric lines are shaded grey and excluded from the fit. Top: Spectral data (black) with the 100 final positions of each walker (blue). Middle: Residual plot in erg s−1 cm−2 ˚A −1 . The … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior distribution corresponding to a fit using the assumptions from Chornock et al. (2013), with zIGM,l = 5.8. the two values are within 3σ of each other. However, the spectral index is unusually low at β = 0.23±0.12 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posteriors for the Totani et al. (2014) results reconstruction. Left: Results reconstruction for zIGM,u = zhost, and a free spectral index. Right: Results reconstruction for zIGM,u = 5.83, and a Gaussian spectral index prior. It is important to note that the Totani et al. (2014) data range often results in a poor fit of the damping wing (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Example fit to the X-shooter spectrum of GRB˜130606A using the assumptions from the Totani et al. (2014) fit using zIGM,u = zhost. Right: A zoomed-in examination of the damping wing fit and residuals. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Zoomed-in fit of the X-shooter spectrum of GRB 130606A using the assumptions from the Hartoog et al. (2015). See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Zoomed-in fit of the X-shooter spectrum of GRB 130606A using the assumptions from the Totani et al. (2016). See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posteriors for the Miralda-Escude (1998) model with zIGM,u = 5.8, and zIGM,l = 5.65 and a Gaussian spectral index prior. β prior β result xHI result χ 2 red. χ 2 ln(ML) Uniform 0.52+0.11 −0.16 < 0.76 2730.8 1.53 -1358.8 Gaussian 0.69+0.03 −0.04 < 0.20 2716.4 1.52 -1355…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Posterior distributions associated with the McQuinn et al. (2008) model, a Gaussian spectral index prior, and an Rb upper limit of 60 Mpc h −1 or ∼ 90 Mpc. zIGM,u is treated as a free parameter, it tends toward lower redshift, with a flat distribution between z ∼ 5.0 −…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Recent EoR models (Ishigaki et al. 2018; Finkelstein et al. 2019; Naidu et al. 2020; Bruton et al. 2023) and neutral fraction estimates as a function of redshift using a variety of methods. The cyan stars show results from the analysis of the GRB 130606A damping wing (…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Posteriors for the independent shell implementation of the Miralda-Escude (1998) model for shells with widths of ∆z ∼ 0.1 and zIGM,u fixed to zhost. The neutral fraction posterior is most densely populated around 0, with an increasing 3σ upper limits for redshifts fur…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Posteriors for the dependent shell implementation of the Miralda-Escude (1998) model for shells of width ∆z = 0.1 and zIGM,u treated as a free parameter. zIGM,u tends towards farther redshifts indicating a large ionized bubble around the GRB host galaxy. The neutral f…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Posteriors for the dependent shell implementation of the Miralda-Escude (1998) model for shells of width ∆0.1, zIGM,u = 5.8 and a Gaussian spectral index prior (µ = 0.71, σ = 0.07). xHI does not significantly deviate from 0 for all shells, and the slope of the neutral…

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. Multi-fidelity emulator for large-scale 21 cm lightcone images: a few-shot transfer learning approach with generative adversarial network

    astro-ph.IM 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Few-shot transfer learning lets a GAN trained on small 21 cm simulations emulate large-scale lightcone images with only 80 large-box simulations, at percent-level small-scale accuracy and tens-of-percent large-scale accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, , 848, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  5. [5]

    A., Nicuesa Guelbenzu , A., et al

    Afonso , P., Kann , D. A., Nicuesa Guelbenzu , A., et al. 2013, GRB Coordinates Network, 14807, 1

    2013

  6. [6]

    T., G \"o tz , D., et al

    Amati , L., O'Brien , P. T., G \"o tz , D., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 52, 183, 10.1007/s10686-021-09807-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-021-09807-8 2021

  7. [7]

    Arons , J., & Wingert , D. W. 1972, , 177, 1, 10.1086/151682

    work page doi:10.1086/151682 1972

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 140 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Cordier , B., & Wei , J

    Atteia , J. L., Cordier , B., & Wei , J. 2022, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31, 2230008, 10.1142/S0218271822300087

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Mazzucchelli , C., et al

    Ba \ n ados , E., Venemans , B. P., Mazzucchelli , C., et al. 2018, , 553, 473, 10.1038/nature25180

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2004, , 601, 64, 10.1086/380435

    Barkana , R., & Loeb , A. 2004, , 601, 64, 10.1086/380435

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    D., & Bolton , J

    Becker , G. D., & Bolton , J. S. 2013, , 436, 1023, 10.1093/mnras/stt1610

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, , 459, 3635, 10.1093/mnras/stw895

    Beniamini , P., & Granot , J. 2016, , 459, 3635, 10.1093/mnras/stw895

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Mason , C., et al

    Bolan , P., Lemaux , B. C., Mason , C., et al. 2022, , 517, 3263, 10.1093/mnras/stac1963

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Illingworth , G

    Bouwens , R. J., Illingworth , G. D., Oesch , P. A., et al. 2012, , 752, L5, 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L5

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Bruton , S., Lin , Y.-H., Scarlata , C., & Hayes , M. J. 2023, , 949, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd5d0

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, , 946, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    Burns , E., Svinkin , D., Fenimore , E., et al. 2023, , 946, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Maio , U., Salvaterra , R., & Ciardi , B

    Campisi , M. A., Maio , U., Salvaterra , R., & Ciardi , B. 2011, , 416, 2760, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19238.x

    2011

  13. [21]

    J., S \'a nchez-Ram \' rez , R., Ellison , S

    Castro-Tirado , A. J., S \'a nchez-Ram \' rez , R., Ellison , S. L., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1312.5631, 10.48550/arXiv.1312.5631

    2013 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2024, , 528, L33, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad171

    Chen , H. 2024, , 528, L33, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad171

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    A., & Li , Z.-Y

    Chevalier , R. A., & Li , Z.-Y. 1999, , 520, L29, 10.1086/312147

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    B., et al

    Chornock , R., Berger , E., Fox , D. B., et al. 2013, , 774, 26, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/26

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Christensen , L., Fynbo , J. P. U., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2011, , 727, 73, 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/73

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    2000, , 540, 687, 10.1086/309384

    Ciardi , B., & Loeb , A. 2000, , 540, 687, 10.1086/309384

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Fox , D

    Cucchiara , A., Levan , A. J., Fox , D. B., et al. 2011, , 736, 7, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Hennawi , J

    Davies , F. B., Hennawi , J. F., Ba \ n ados , E., et al. 2018, , 864, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Eichler , D., Livio , M., Piran , T., & Schramm , D. N. 1989, , 340, 126, 10.1038/340126a0

    1989 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2007, , 469, 379, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    2009, , 397, 1177, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    ---. 2009, , 397, 1177, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009

  24. [32]

    2008, , 688, 85, 10.1086/592289

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Lidz , A., Hernquist , L., & Zaldarriaga , M. 2008, , 688, 85, 10.1086/592289

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Vejlgaard , S., van der Horst , A

    Fausey , H. M., Vejlgaard , S., van der Horst , A. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.13126, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.13126

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    L., D'Aloisio , A., Paardekooper , J.-P., et al

    Finkelstein , S. L., D'Aloisio , A., Paardekooper , J.-P., et al. 2019, , 879, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Bagley , M

    Finkelstein , S. L., Bagley , M. B., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2023, , 946, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Hurley , K., Svinkin , D

    Frederiks , D. D., Hurley , K., Svinkin , D. S., et al. 2013, , 779, 151, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/151

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Lien , A

    Fryer , C. L., Lien , A. Y., Fruchter , A., et al. 2022, , 929, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5c

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Vreeswijk , P

    Galama , T. J., Vreeswijk , P. M., van Paradijs , J., et al. 1998, , 395, 670, 10.1038/27150

    1998 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, , 934, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac80c7

    Gao , H., Lei , W.-H., & Zhu , Z.-P. 2022, , 934, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac80c7

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Giannios , D., & Spruit , H. C. 2007, , 469, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066739

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2011, Astronomische Nachrichten, 332, 227, 10.1002/asna.201111523

    Goldoni , P. 2011, Astronomische Nachrichten, 332, 227, 10.1002/asna.201111523

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    J., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Abel , T., & Zhang , B

    Gou , L. J., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Abel , T., & Zhang , B. 2004, , 604, 508, 10.1086/382061

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    Greenhouse , M. A. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9904, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. H. A. MacEwen , G. G. Fazio , M. Lystrup , N. Batalha , N. Siegler , & E. ...

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, , 484, 5094, 10.1093/mnras/stz230

    Greig , B., Mesinger , A., & Ba \ n ados , E. 2019, , 484, 5094, 10.1093/mnras/stz230

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    B., et al

    Greig , B., Mesinger , A., Davies , F. B., et al. 2022, , 512, 5390, 10.1093/mnras/stac825

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, , 265, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane , Y., Ouchi , M., Oguri , M., et al. 2023, , 265, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Malesani , D., Fynbo , J

    Hartoog , O. E., Malesani , D., Fynbo , J. P. U., et al. 2015, , 580, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425001

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    2003, , 423, 847, 10.1038/nature01750

    Hjorth , J., Sollerman , J., M ller , P., et al. 2003, , 423, 847, 10.1038/nature01750

    2003 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, , 878, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1de7

    Hoag , A., Brada c , M., Huang , K., et al. 2019, , 878, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1de7

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

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

    Hook , I. M., J rgensen , I., Allington-Smith , J. R., et al. 2004, , 116, 425, 10.1086/383624

    2004 doi

  45. [53]

    Y.-Y., Abdurro'uf , Coe , D., et al

    Hsiao , T. Y.-Y., Abdurro'uf , Coe , D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.03042, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.03042

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    K., Shimizu , I., Iwata , I., & Tanaka , M

    Inoue , A. K., Shimizu , I., Iwata , I., & Tanaka , M. 2014, , 442, 1805, 10.1093/mnras/stu936

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    K., Hasegawa , K., Ishiyama , T., et al

    Inoue , A. K., Hasegawa , K., Ishiyama , T., et al. 2018, , 70, 55, 10.1093/pasj/psy048

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2018, , 854, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544

    Ishigaki , M., Kawamata , R., Ouchi , M., et al. 2018, , 854, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    I., Worseck , G., Schaerer , D., et al

    Izotov , Y. I., Worseck , G., Schaerer , D., et al. 2021, , 503, 1734, 10.1093/mnras/stab612

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, , 942, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca678

    Jin , X., Yang , J., Fan , X., et al. 2023, , 942, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca678

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2013, , 560, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433

    Jones , A., Noll , S., Kausch , W., Szyszka , C., & Kimeswenger , S. 2013, , 560, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    L., Dickinson , M., et al

    Jung , I., Finkelstein , S. L., Dickinson , M., et al. 2020, , 904, 144, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd44

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    S., Laporte , N., et al

    Kakiichi , K., Ellis , R. S., Laporte , N., et al. 2018, , 479, 43, 10.1093/mnras/sty1318

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    2002, , 54, 819, 10.1093/pasj/54.6.819

    Kashikawa , N., Aoki , K., Asai , R., et al. 2002, , 54, 819, 10.1093/pasj/54.6.819

    2002 doi

  55. [63]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  56. [64]

    C., Puchwein , E., Bolton , J

    Keating , L. C., Puchwein , E., Bolton , J. S., Haehnelt , M. G., & Kulkarni , G. 2024, , 531, L34, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae022

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    2018, , 70, S16, 10.1093/pasj/psx131

    Konno , A., Ouchi , M., Shibuya , T., et al. 2018, , 70, S16, 10.1093/pasj/psx131

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Fishman , G

    Kouveliotou , C., Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., et al. 1993, , 413, L101, 10.1086/186969

    1993 doi

  59. [67]

    Q., & Reichart, D

    Lamb, D. Q., & Reichart, D. E. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 536, 1, 10.1086/308918

    2000 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Gompertz , B

    Levan , A. J., Gompertz , B. P., Salafia , O. S., et al. 2024 a , , 626, 737, 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Jonker , P

    Levan , A. J., Jonker , P. G., Saccardi , A., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16350, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16350

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    2015, , 805, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/13

    Li , L., Wu , X.-F., Huang , Y.-F., et al. 2015, , 805, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/13

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    2021, , 917, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0af0

    Lidz , A., Chang , T.-C., Mas-Ribas , L., & Sun , G. 2021, , 917, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0af0

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Fryer , C

    Lloyd-Ronning , N. M., Fryer , C. L., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2002, , 574, 554, 10.1086/341059

    2002 doi

  65. [73]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 725, L234, 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L234

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 725, L234, 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L234

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    1995, , 441, 18, 10.1086/175332

    Madau , P. 1995, , 441, 18, 10.1086/175332

    1995 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Treu , T., Dijkstra , M., et al

    Mason , C. A., Treu , T., Dijkstra , M., et al. 2018, , 856, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Fontana , A., Treu , T., et al

    Mason , C. A., Fontana , A., Treu , T., et al. 2019, , 485, 3947, 10.1093/mnras/stz632

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    P., Brammer , G., et al

    Matthee , J., Naidu , R. P., Brammer , G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05448, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05448

    2023 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    P., Golenetskii , S

    Mazets , E. P., Golenetskii , S. V., Ilinskii , V. N., et al. 1981, , 80, 3, 10.1007/BF00649140

    1981 doi

  71. [79]

    D., Wallis , C

    McEwen , J. D., Wallis , C. G. R., Price , M. A., & Docherty , M. M. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.12720, 10.48550/arXiv.2111.12720

    2021 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    2016, , 54, 313, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355

    McQuinn , M. 2016, , 54, 313, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122355

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    2008, , 388, 1101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13271.x

    McQuinn , M., Lidz , A., Zaldarriaga , M., Hernquist , L., & Dutta , S. 2008, , 388, 1101, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13271.x

    2008

  74. [82]

    G., D'Avanzo , P., et al

    Melandri , A., Bernardini , M. G., D'Avanzo , P., et al. 2015, , 581, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526660

    2015 doi

  75. [83]

    Mesinger , A., & Furlanetto , S. R. 2008, , 385, 1348, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12836.x

    2008

  76. [84]

    A., Kakiichi , K., Bosman , S

    Meyer , R. A., Kakiichi , K., Bosman , S. E. I., et al. 2020, , 494, 1560, 10.1093/mnras/staa746

    2020 doi

  77. [85]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 501, 15, 10.1086/305799

    Miralda-Escude, J. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 501, 15, 10.1086/305799

    1998 doi

  78. [86]

    M., Mason , C

    Morales , A. M., Mason , C. A., Bruton , S., et al. 2021, , 919, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1104

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    2023, , 947, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    Morishita , T., Roberts-Borsani , G., Treu , T., et al. 2023, , 947, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    E., Shapley , A

    Mostardi , R. E., Shapley , A. E., Steidel , C. C., et al. 2015, , 810, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/107

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    B., Mirocha , J., Chisholm , J., Furlanetto , S

    Mu \ n oz , J. B., Mirocha , J., Chisholm , J., Furlanetto , S. R., & Mason , C. 2024, , 535, L37, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    P., Tacchella , S., Mason , C

    Naidu , R. P., Tacchella , S., Mason , C. A., et al. 2020, , 892, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cc9

    2020 doi

  83. [91]

    1992, , 395, L83, 10.1086/186493

    Narayan , R., Paczynski , B., & Piran , T. 1992, , 395, L83, 10.1086/186493

    1992 doi

  84. [92]

    2018, in SF2A-2018: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Neichel , B., Mouillet , D., Gendron , E., et al. 2018, in SF2A-2018: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. P. Di Matteo , F. Billebaud , F. Herpin , N. Lagarde , J. B. Marquette , A. Robin , & O. Venot , Di, 10.48550/arXiv....

    2018 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    2012, , 543, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    Noll , S., Kausch , W., Barden , M., et al. 2012, , 543, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    2012 doi

  86. [94]

    2018, , 70, S13, 10.1093/pasj/psx074

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

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    J., Shapley , A., Steidel , C

    Pahl , A. J., Shapley , A., Steidel , C. C., Chen , Y., & Reddy , N. A. 2021, , 505, 2447, 10.1093/mnras/stab1374

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    J., Mortlock , D

    Patel , M., Warren , S. J., Mortlock , D. J., & Fynbo , J. P. U. 2010, , 512, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913876

    2010 doi

  89. [97]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  90. [98]

    Qin , Y., Mesinger , A., Bosman , S. E. I., & Viel , M. 2021, , 506, 2390, 10.1093/mnras/stab1833

    2021 doi

  91. [99]

    C., Gompertz , B

    Rastinejad , J. C., Gompertz , B. P., Levan , A. J., et al. 2022, , 612, 223, 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    2022 doi

  92. [100]

    J., & Meszaros , P

    Rees , M. J., & Meszaros , P. 1992, , 258, 41, 10.1093/mnras/258.1.41P

    1992 doi

  93. [101]

    Robberto , M., Roming , P. W. A., van der Horst , A. J., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 1144774, 10.1117/12.2568031

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    Robertson , B. E. 2022, , 60, 121, 10.1146/annurev-astro-120221-044656

    2022 doi

  95. [103]

    E., Ellis , R

    Robertson , B. E., Ellis , R. S., Furlanetto , S. R., & Dunlop , J. S. 2015, , 802, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/L19

    2015 doi

  96. [104]

    2022, , 932, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2

    Rossi , A., Rothberg , B., Palazzi , E., et al. 2022, , 932, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2

    2022 doi

  97. [105]

    J., Scarlata , C., Haardt , F., et al

    Rutkowski , M. J., Scarlata , C., Haardt , F., et al. 2016, , 819, 81, 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/81

    2016 doi

  98. [106]

    D., De Cia , A., et al

    Saccardi , A., Vergani , S. D., De Cia , A., et al. 2023, , 671, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244205

    2023 doi

  99. [107]

    2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 35, 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.03.001

    Salvaterra , R. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 35, 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.03.001

    2015 doi

  100. [108]

    2009, , 461, 1258, 10.1038/nature08445

    Salvaterra , R., Della Valle , M., Campana , S., et al. 2009, , 461, 1258, 10.1038/nature08445

    2009 doi

  101. [109]

    Sari , R., Piran , T., & Halpern , J. P. 1999, , 519, L17, 10.1086/312109

    1999 doi

  102. [110]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 497, L17, 10.1086/311269

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 497, L17, 10.1086/311269

    1998 doi

  103. [111]

    2006, New Journal of Physics, 8, 195, 10.1088/1367-2630/8/9/195

    Savaglio , S. 2006, New Journal of Physics, 8, 195, 10.1088/1367-2630/8/9/195

    2006 doi

  104. [112]

    E., Kr \"u hler , T., et al

    Sparre , M., Hartoog , O. E., Kr \"u hler , T., et al. 2014, , 785, 150, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/150

    2014 doi

  105. [113]

    C., Daigne , F., & Drenkhahn , G

    Spruit , H. C., Daigne , F., & Drenkhahn , G. 2001, , 369, 694, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010131

    2001 doi

  106. [114]

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

    Steidel , C. C., Bogosavljevi \'c , M., Shapley , A. E., et al. 2018, , 869, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed28

    2018 doi

  107. [115]

    R., Fox , D

    Tanvir , N. R., Fox , D. B., Levan , A. J., et al. 2009, , 461, 1254, 10.1038/nature08459

    2009 doi

  108. [116]

    R., Levan , A

    Tanvir , N. R., Levan , A. J., Fruchter , A. S., et al. 2012, , 754, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/46

    2012 doi

  109. [117]

    R., Laskar , T., Levan , A

    Tanvir , N. R., Laskar , T., Levan , A. J., et al. 2018, , 865, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba9

    2018 doi

  110. [118]

    R., Fynbo , J

    Tanvir , N. R., Fynbo , J. P. U., de Ugarte Postigo , A., et al. 2019, , 483, 5380, 10.1093/mnras/sty3460

    2019 doi

  111. [119]

    1994, , 270, 480, 10.1093/mnras/270.3.480

    Thompson , C. 1994, , 270, 480, 10.1093/mnras/270.3.480

    1994 doi

  112. [120]

    C., Fynbo , J

    Th \"o ne , C. C., Fynbo , J. P. U., Goldoni , P., et al. 2013, , 428, 3590, 10.1093/mnras/sts303

    2013 doi

  113. [121]

    2016, , 68, 15, 10.1093/pasj/psv123

    Totani , T., Aoki , K., Hattori , T., & Kawai , N. 2016, , 68, 15, 10.1093/pasj/psv123

    2016 doi

  114. [122]

    2006, , 58, 485, 10.1093/pasj/58.3.485

    Totani , T., Kawai , N., Kosugi , G., et al. 2006, , 58, 485, 10.1093/pasj/58.3.485

    2006 doi

  115. [123]

    2014, , 66, 63, 10.1093/pasj/psu032

    Totani , T., Aoki , K., Hattori , T., et al. 2014, , 66, 63, 10.1093/pasj/psu032

    2014 doi

  116. [124]

    N., Stamatikos , M., Maselli , A., et al

    Ukwatta , T. N., Stamatikos , M., Maselli , A., et al. 2013, GCN Report, 444, 1

    2013

  117. [125]

    2024, , 971, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad554e

    Umeda , H., Ouchi , M., Nakajima , K., et al. 2024, , 971, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad554e

    2024 doi

  118. [126]

    D., Cushing , M

    Vacca , W. D., Cushing , M. C., & Rayner , J. T. 2003, , 115, 389, 10.1086/346193

    2003 doi

  119. [127]

    2016, , 825, 41, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/41

    Vanzella , E., de Barros , S., Vasei , K., et al. 2016, , 825, 41, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/41

    2016 doi

  120. [128]

    Vergani , S. D. 2013, in SF2A-2013: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. L. Cambresy , F. Martins , E. Nuss , & A. Palacios , 377--382

    2013

  121. [129]

    2011, , 536, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    Vernet , J., Dekker , H., D'Odorico , S., et al. 2011, , 536, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752

    2011 doi

  122. [130]

    B., Vergani , S

    Vielfaure , J. B., Vergani , S. D., Japelj , J., et al. 2020, , 641, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038316

    2020 doi

  123. [131]

    B., Yang , J., et al

    Wang , F., Davies , F. B., Yang , J., et al. 2020, , 896, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8c45

    2020 doi

  124. [132]

    E., Bauer , F

    White , N. E., Bauer , F. E., Baumgartner , W., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11821, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXII, ed. O. H. Siegmund , 1182109, 10.1117/12.259929310.48550/...

    2021

  125. [133]

    R., Mason , C

    Whitler , L. R., Mason , C. A., Ren , K., et al. 2020, , 495, 3602, 10.1093/mnras/staa1178

    2020 doi

  126. [134]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16608, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16608

    Witstok , J., Jakobsen , P., Maiolino , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16608, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16608

    2024 doi arXiv

  127. [135]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273, 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  128. [136]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 56, 10.33232/001c.121193

    Wu , Z., & Kravtsov , A. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 56, 10.33232/001c.121193

    2024 doi

  129. [137]

    2020, , 897, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26

    Yang , J., Wang , F., Fan , X., et al. 2020, , 897, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26

    2020 doi

  130. [138]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Yuan , W., Zhang , C., Chen , Y., & Ling , Z. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo , 86, 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_151-1

    2022 doi

  131. [139]

    D., Bosman , S

    Zhu , Y., Becker , G. D., Bosman , S. E. I., et al. 2022, , 932, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e60

    2022 doi

  132. [140]

    2024, , 533, L49, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae061

    ---. 2024, , 533, L49, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae061

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.