Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 92 references

Constraining the geometry of the gas surrounding a typical galaxy at $z = 3.4$ with Ly$\alpha$ polarization

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spectropolarimetry of a typical z≈3.4 galaxy finds a 4.6% Lyα polarization upper limit and a fairly symmetric outflow.

desk verdict First Lyα spectropolarimetric constraint on a typical lensed star-forming galaxy at z~3.4, with a careful observational pipeline but geometric conclusions that depend on a single point in model parameter space. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01742 v1 pith:HQCZFEW5 submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.GA

A. Bolamperti , S.-J. Chang , J. Vernet , A. Zanella , M. Gronke , F. Arrigoni Battaia , F. Calura , E. Iani
show 1 more author
E. Vanzella
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemissionpolarizationradiativetransfercircumgalacticmediumbiconicaloutflowhigh-redshiftgalaxiesgravitationallensingspectropolarimetry
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 reports the first deep spectropolarimetric observation of the Ly$\alpha$ line from an ordinary, clumpy star-forming galaxy at high redshift, the strongly lensed system Abell 2895a at $z\approx 3.4$. The authors measure a $1\sigma$ upper limit of $4.6\%$ on the degree of linear polarization of Ly$\alpha$ and build radiative-transfer models of Ly$\alpha$ scattering in a biconical outflow to interpret it. The central claim is that this low polarization, combined with the observed redshifted, asymmetric line profile, rules out strongly asymmetric biconical wind geometries and leaves a fairly symmetric outflow in which the line of sight lies inside a wide wind cone. If correct, this makes Ly$\alpha$ polarization a working observable for constraining the geometry of the circumgalactic medium around typical galaxies, not merely around extreme systems such as Ly$\alpha$ blobs and radio galaxies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a biconical outflow geometry: two opposing cones of neutral hydrogen expanding radially from the galaxy at speed $v_{\rm exp}$, with half-opening angle $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}$ measured from the outflow axis, and a central point-like Ly$\alpha$ source emitting a Gaussian line of width $\sigma_{\rm Src}$; the viewing angle $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}$ is the angle between the outflow axis and the line of sight, with $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}=0^{\circ}$ looking into the cone. The mechanism that carries the argument is scattering-induced linear polarization: each Ly$\alpha$ scattering polarizes the photon, and the net observed polarization is nonzero only when the scatterings have a preferential direction, which happens when the H I geometry is asymmetric and the viewing angle is not aligned with the axis. The spectral profile independently encodes whether photons escape directly through the cone or scatter in the wind, so together the two observables constrain the opening angle and orientation of the outflow.

What would settle it

A spectropolarimetric observation of Abell 2895a about three times deeper than the present one, reaching a measured rather than merely bounded polarization in the Ly$\alpha$ peak bin with $P/\sigma_P\approx 2$–$3$; a measured value above $4.6\%$ would falsify the symmetric biconical interpretation, while a null result would tighten the allowed parameter region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the Ly$\alpha$ emission of Abell 2895a is essentially unpolarized: after correcting for the dilution by the unpolarized light of the nearby brightest cluster galaxy, the authors obtain a $1\sigma$ upper limit of $4.6\%$ on the polarization fraction in the Ly$\alpha$ bin ($5.8\%$ at $2\sigma$, $6.5\%$ at $3\sigma$). To interpret this they simulate Ly$\alpha$ scattering in a biconical outflow with a central Gaussian source of width $\sigma_{\rm Src}=150$ km s$^{-1}$, H I column density $N_{\rm HI}=10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, and expansion velocity $v_{\rm exp}=200$ km s$^{-1}$, varying the wind half-opening angle $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}$ and the viewing angle $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}$, where $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}=0^{\circ}$ means looking into the outflow. The observed spectral profile requires $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}<\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}$ and $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}>15^{\circ}$, while the polarization bound rejects the models in which the geometry is most asymmetric, i.e. those with $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}\approx\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}$. The surviving parameter region is $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}\approx 30^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, and $60^{\circ}$ for $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}\le 20^{\circ}$, $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}\approx 75^{\circ}$ for $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}\le 40^{\circ}$, and $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}\approx 90^{\circ}$ for any $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}$, which the authors summarize as a fairly symmetric CGM outflow viewed inside its cone.

Load-bearing premise

The constraints rest on the adopted intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ width of $\sigma_{\rm Src}=150$ km s$^{-1}$, the H I column density $N_{\rm HI}=10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, and the outflow speed $v_{\rm exp}=200$ km s$^{-1}$, values taken from a previous shell-model fit; if the true intrinsic width or column density is different, the polarization predicted for each geometry shifts and the allowed opening-angle region changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strongly asymmetric biconical winds are excluded for Abell 2895a: any model with $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}\approx\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}$ predicts more polarization than observed, so the Ly$\alpha$-scattering gas around this typical galaxy is fairly symmetric or viewed inside a wide cone.
  • Combining line profile and polarization breaks the degeneracies that each observable leaves: the profile fixes $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}<\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}$ and $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}>15^{\circ}$, and the polarization bound removes the asymmetric cases with $\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}\approx\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}$.
  • The allowed region ($\theta_{o,\mathrm{Wind}}\approx 30^{\circ}$–$60^{\circ}$ for $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}\le 20^{\circ}$, $\approx 75^{\circ}$ for $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}\le 40^{\circ}$, $\approx 90^{\circ}$ for any $\theta_{\mathrm{LOS}}$) gives concrete geometric targets for CGM models of main-sequence galaxies at $z\approx 3$–$4$.
  • With enough signal-to-noise, the polarization angle would reveal the projected outflow direction and help distinguish scattering from in-situ Ly$\alpha$ production, extending the method to spatially resolved studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: if similar low bounds are found for a small sample of lensed typical galaxies, polarization would become a statistical probe of how symmetric circumgalactic outflows actually are at cosmic noon, something line-profile analyses cannot deliver on their own.
  • Our inference: because the predicted polarization depends non-monotonically on $N_{\rm HI}$, a future measurement rather than an upper limit at the line peak could start to constrain the H I column density directly, provided the intrinsic width is anchored by Balmer lines from the same galaxy.
  • Our inference: applying the same technique to resonance doublets such as Mg II, whose K and H components are spectrally resolved, could yield the same geometric information at lower luminosities; the paper notes Mg II is much fainter, so strongly lensed targets would be the practical route to test this.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first spectropolarimetric observations of Lyα emission from a typical star-forming galaxy at z = 3.4 (Abell 2895a), using VLT/FORS2 PMOS. The authors measure a 1σ upper limit on the Lyα polarization of 4.6% after correcting for statistical bias and BCG dilution, and interpret the result with new Lyα radiative transfer models of a biconical outflow geometry. They conclude that the data favor a fairly symmetric wind geometry, with opening angles θ_o,Wind ~ 30°–75° and line-of-sight angles θ_LOS ≲ 20°–40° depending on the opening angle, and argue that polarization constraints are complementary to spectral profile constraints.

Significance. The observational measurement is technically careful: the paper describes the reduction of 18.1 hr of PMOS data, sky subtraction, stacking, bias correction of the polarization, dilution correction, and several aperture and spatial-half cross-checks. The resulting 4.6% 1σ upper limit is an important first step for Lyα spectropolarimetry of normal high-redshift galaxies. The radiative-transfer modeling with RT-scat is a useful extension of the earlier shell-model analysis, and the explicit comparison of intensity and polarization constraints in Fig. 7 is instructive. However, the geometric conclusions depend on a single choice of the wind parameters N_HI, v_exp, and σ_Src, and the statistical basis for excluding models is only 1σ; these are load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 1, Fig. 7] The predicted Lyα polarization, and hence the red-hatched excluded region in Fig. 7, is computed only for N_HI = 10^20 cm^-2, v_exp = 200 km/s, and σ_Src = 150 km/s. The paper itself notes in Section 4.2 that the polarization depends non-monotonically on N_HI (weaker at 10^20 than at 10^19, and weaker again below 10^18), and in Section 4.1 that σ_Src was increased from the shell-model value of 100 km/s in order to reproduce the red Lyα peak. Because no grid over N_HI and σ_Src is presented, it is not shown that the exclusion of asymmetric geometries (e.g., θ_o,Wind ≈ θ_LOS) is robust to the plausible range of these parameters. For instance, if the effective N_HI is lower or the intrinsic broadening is achieved by a different mechanism (Appendix C), the predicted P for the same geometry could fall below 4.6%, and the polarization constraint would no longer rule out any geometry beyond the spectrum. The authors should either explore this parameter dependence or temper the conclusion that polarization provides stringent geometric constraints.
  2. [Section 4.3 and abstract] The exclusion of models is based on the 1σ upper limit of 4.6%, and the spectral consistency is judged by a reduced χ² that the authors explicitly say should not be interpreted in an absolute sense. No statistical threshold is given for the spectral constraint, and the final allowed ranges in the abstract and Section 6 (e.g., θ_o,Wind ~ 60° for θ_LOS ≤ 20°) do not carry a confidence level. A model with predicted P = 5% would be outside the 1σ limit but inside the 2σ limit (5.8%), so the word 'ruled out' corresponds to only ~68% confidence. To make the geometric constraints reproducible, the paper should state the confidence level associated with the exclusion and define the criterion (e.g., a χ² cutoff or a p-value) used to select 'consistent' spectral models.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The same condition θ_LOS ≤ 20° is listed for θ_o,Wind = 30°, 45°, and 60°; this is presumably a typo and should be corrected (e.g., different θ_LOS upper bounds for each opening angle), since these are the paper's key quantitative results.
  2. [Appendix A] In the description of the continuum bins, 'from 1224 Å to 1260 Å for the blue' should read 'for the red'.
  3. [References] Gronke et al. 2016a and 2016b are listed with the identical journal, volume, and page (ApJ, 833, L26); one of these citations is likely incorrect or duplicated.
  4. [Section 4.1] The passage stating that 'all the simulated spectra of the wind model for different θ_o,Wind values ... do not match the observed spectrum' could be clearer if it explicitly identifies the red-peak discrepancy and notes that σ_Src = 150 km/s is the only remedy explored within the wind model, with Appendices C and D ruling out other remedies within their assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization upper limit is an external observable and the geometry constraints are not forced by construction or by self-citation.

full rationale

The central comparison is not circular. The Ly-alpha polarization upper limit was measured from new FORS2 PMOS observations (Section 3) and was not used to fit any model parameter. The wind-model parameters N_HI, v_exp, and sigma_Src are fixed before the polarization comparison (Section 4.3, Table 1), and sigma_Src was increased to 150 km/s in Section 4.1 specifically to reproduce the observed spectral red peak, not to match the polarization. The allowed theta_o,Wind and theta_LOS regions in Fig. 7 are obtained by comparing the model polarization, binned over the same wavelength range, against the observed 1-sigma upper limit; no equation forces P_model = P_obs by construction. Self-citations to Iani et al. (2021) and to the RT-scat code (Chang et al. 2023; Chang & Gronke 2024) are present, but they are prior code and published fits, and the adopted shell-fit values are conditional inputs rather than the output of the derivation. Appendix C explicitly acknowledges the width discrepancy and models a possible ISM broadening origin, which is a robustness caveat rather than a circular step. The conclusion that polarization adds complementary geometric information is therefore supported by an independent observable and does not reduce to the model inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are model inputs fixed from prior spectral fitting or adjusted to match the observed spectrum, and the axioms are the standard scattering physics plus the idealized biconical wind geometry. The most fragile input is sigma_Src, which was increased to make the wind model work.

free parameters (3)
  • sigma_Src (intrinsic Ly-alpha width) = 150 km/s
    Adopted after 100 km/s failed to reproduce the observed red peak with the wind geometry; controls the spectral shape and affects the predicted polarization.
  • N_HI (H I column density) = 10^20 cm^-2
    Fixed from the prior shell-model fit (Iani et al. 2021), not re-fit in the wind model; directly affects the number of scatterings and polarization.
  • v_exp (wind expansion velocity) = 200 km/s
    Fixed from the prior shell-model fit; combined with sigma_Src it sets the spectral peak position and the polarization behavior.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard Ly-alpha scattering physics with resonance core and wing (Rayleigh) scattering and quantum polarization fractions.
    Invoked in Section 4.2 when predicting polarization levels from scattering geometries.
  • domain assumption The CGM is modeled as a smooth, isothermal (10^4 K), constant-density biconical outflow with no H I outside the wind cones.
    Stated in Section 4.1; the authors acknowledge that inflowing gas or satellites might add H I, which would change the polarization.
  • domain assumption The Ly-alpha source is a central point source with a Gaussian intrinsic profile and no dust.
    Assumed in Section 4.1; supported by the low dust content of the galaxy, but it is a simplified description of the ISM.
  • domain assumption The bright cluster galaxy (BCG) light is unpolarized and dilutes the measured polarization, so the correction factor f_d in Eq. 1 is valid.
    Used in Section 3.1 to derive the 4.6% upper limit; if the BCG were partially polarized, the dilution correction would be inaccurate.
  • domain assumption Models whose predicted Ly-alpha polarization falls within 1-sigma of the observational upper limit are considered consistent with the data.
    Adopted in Section 4.3; because the data are only upper limits, this is a conservative consistency criterion but it does not uniquely identify a best-fit geometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the geometry of the gas surrounding a typical galaxy at $z = 3.4$ with Ly$\alpha$ polarization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQCZFEW5

@misc{pith2026250201742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the geometry of the gas surrounding a typical galaxy at $z = 3.4$ with Ly$\alpha$ polarization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQCZFEW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01742}
}
abstract

Ly$\alpha$ emission is the strongest tracer of recombining ionized hydrogen in young, star-forming galaxies, but its origin is still debated. Ly$\alpha$ arises when emitted photons scatter in neutral hydrogen and, so far, observational efforts have mostly focused on the Ly$\alpha$ surface brightness and spectral profile, which depend on the neutral hydrogen column density, geometry, kinematics, powering mechanism and on the region from which the photons are emitted. Different processes produce similar spectra, but have different degrees of polarization, that we can use to discriminate between them. In this paper, we present the first spectropolarimetric observations of a typical star-forming galaxy at $z\sim 3.4$, strongly lensed by the cluster of galaxies Abell 2895, taken with the PMOS mode of the VLT/FORS2 instrument. We measure a Ly$\alpha$ degree of polarization $1\sigma$ upper limit of $4.6\%$. We develop new Ly$\alpha$ radiative transfer models to reproduce the observations, that can be explained by assuming the star-forming galaxy being embedded in a CGM with a biconical outflow geometry, with an opening angle of the wind $\theta_{o,Wind}\sim 30^\circ$ for line-of-sight angles $\theta_{LOS} \leq 20^\circ$, $\theta_{o,Wind}\sim 45^\circ$ for $\theta_{LOS}\leq 20^\circ$, $\theta_{o,Wind}\sim 60^\circ$ for $\theta_{LOS}\leq 20^\circ$, and $\theta_{o,Wind}\sim 75^\circ$ for $\theta_{LOS}\leq 40^\circ$, where $\theta_{LOS}=0^\circ$ means observing in the direction of the outflow. We notice that the constraints from polarization are complementary to those from the spectral line profile. This study shows the potential of adding measurements of the Ly$\alpha$ degree of polarization to constrain the geometry of the gas surrounding typical star-forming galaxies and paves the way to spatially resolved studies that will allow us to disentangle between different Ly$\alpha$ origin mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: HST F606W image of the inner part of A2895, where the three multiple images of Abell 2895a (M1, M2, and M3) appear. It represents the rest-frame UV at the redshift of Abell 2895a, z ∼ 3.4. In orange, we show the 2, 3, and 5σ contours of the Lyα emission, detected with MUSE. The green box represents the FORS2 1.4 ′′ × 22′′adopted slit, that includes M1 and M2, and one image of another source at z ∼ 3.7 (Iani et… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panels: total intensity spectra (green solid line) and 1σ uncertainties (light green shaded region) in the spectral region around the Lyα line. The top (bottom) panel shows the normalized spectrum before (after) the subtraction of the BCG contribution. The black filled squares, with 1σ uncertainties, represent the binned data. Right panels: polarization (P) measurements obtained before (top) and after (bottom) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic illustration of the wind model composed of a central point source (orange) and a bipolar outflow with the radius Ro (red). The central source emits Lyα photons, following a Gaussian profile with a width σSrc. The bipolar outflow is characterized by the H i column den￾sity NHi , the opening angle θo,Wind (increasing from the +z-axis, as the blue solid arrow), and the expansion velocity vexp parameters. The … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons between observed and simulated Lyα spectra. The simulated spectra of the wind models are normalized by setting the same peak height as the spectrum of the previous fit with the shell model. The black dashed line is the observed Lyα spectrum, which is contin…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The degree of polarization P for models with θLOS from 0◦ to 90◦ , with steps of 10◦ . Given its low significance, we do not display the degree of polarization when the flux in the simulated intensity spectrum is smaller than 5% of the peak flux of the Lyα line. The le…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top and third rows: observed (black, with 1σ uncertainties in grey) and modeled (with different colors denoting different line-of-sight angles, θLOS, reported in the legend) normalized total intensity spectra I, assuming a H i column density NHi of 1020 cm−2 , an outfl…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between observations and wind models at NHi = 1020 cm−2 , vexp = 200 km s−1 , σSrc = 150 km s−1 . The sketches along the axes give a visual representation of the models, with increasing θo,Wind along the y-axis and increasing θLOS along the x-axis, represent…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, T. F. 1972, ApJ, 174, 439

    1972

  2. [2]

    & Lee, H.-W

    Ahn, S.-H. & Lee, H.-W. 2015, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 48, 195

    2015

  3. [3]

    Ahn, S.-H., Lee, H.-W., & Lee, H. M. 2000, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 33, 29

    2000

  4. [4]

    Ahn, S.-H., Lee, H.-W., & Lee, H. M. 2002, ApJ, 567, 922

    2002

  5. [5]

    Ahn, S.-H., Lee, H.-W., & Lee, H. M. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 863

    2003

  6. [6]

    E., Bregman, J

    Anderson, M. E., Bregman, J. N., & Dai, X. 2013, ApJ, 762, 106

    2013

  7. [7]

    Angel, J. R. P. 1969, ApJ, 158, 219

    1969

  8. [8]

    1998, The Messenger, 94, 1 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J

    Appenzeller, I., Fricke, K., Fürtig, W., et al. 1998, The Messenger, 94, 1 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3162 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    1998

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Beck, M., Scarlata, C., Hayes, M., Dijkstra, M., & Jones, T. J. 2016, ApJ, 818, 138

    2016

  2. [10]

    A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D

    Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D. K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, L3

    2019

  3. [11]

    2023, A&A, 674, A79

    Bergamini, P., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A79

    2023

  4. [12]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3749

    Blaizot, J., Garel, T., Verhamme, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3749

    2023

  5. [13]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88

    2023

  6. [14]

    B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al

    Caminha, G. B., Grillo, C., Rosati, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A3

    2023

  7. [15]

    J., & Miniati, F

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

    2005

  8. [16]

    1960, Radiative transfer

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, Radiative transfer

    1960

  9. [17]

    & Gronke, M

    Chang, S.-J. & Gronke, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.11524

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 5018

    Chang, S.-J., Lee, H.-W., & Yang, Y . 2017, MNRAS, 464, 5018

    2017

  11. [19]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 100

    Chang, S.-J., Yang, Y ., Seon, K.-I., Zabludoff, A., & Lee, H.-W. 2023, ApJ, 945, 100

    2023

  12. [20]

    X., Schaerer, D., Gazagnes, S., & Henry, A

    Chisholm, J., Prochaska, J. X., Schaerer, D., Gazagnes, S., & Henry, A. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2554

    2020

  13. [21]

    H., Vermeulen, R

    Cohen, M. H., Vermeulen, R. C., Ogle, P. M., Tran, H. D., & Goodrich, R. W. 1997, ApJ, 484, 193

    1997

  14. [22]

    2014, PASA, 31, e040

    Dijkstra, M. 2014, PASA, 31, e040

    2014

  15. [23]

    2019, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 46, 1

    Dijkstra, M. 2019, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 46, 1

    2019

  16. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 74

    Dijkstra, M., Gronke, M., & Sobral, D. 2016, ApJ, 823, 74

    2016

  17. [25]

    2006, ApJ, 649, 14

    Dijkstra, M., Haiman, Z., & Spaans, M. 2006, ApJ, 649, 14

    2006

  18. [26]

    & Loeb, A

    Dijkstra, M. & Loeb, A. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 492

    2008

  19. [27]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 535

    Dutta, R., Fossati, M., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 535

    2023

  20. [28]

    B., Gronke, M., Dijkstra, M., & Hayes, M

    Eide, M. B., Gronke, M., Dijkstra, M., & Hayes, M. 2018, ApJ, 856, 156 Elíasdóttir, Á., Limousin, M., Richard, J., et al. 2007, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0710.5636 ESO CPL Development Team. 2015, EsoRex: ESO Recipe Execution Tool, As- trophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.003

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Faber, S. M. & Jackson, R. E. 1976, ApJ, 204, 668

    1976

  22. [30]

    B., Oppenheimer, B

    Ford, A. B., Oppenheimer, B. D., Davé, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 89 Fox & Davé. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies

    2013

  23. [31]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 123

    Gronke, M., Bull, P., & Dijkstra, M. 2015, ApJ, 812, 123

    2015

  24. [32]

    & Dijkstra, M

    Gronke, M. & Dijkstra, M. 2016, ApJ, 826, 14

    2016

  25. [33]

    Gronke, M., Dijkstra, M., McCourt, M., & Oh, S. P. 2017, A&A, 607, A71

    2017

  26. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 862, L7

    Gronke, M., Girichidis, P., Naab, T., & Walch, S. 2018, ApJ, 862, L7

    2018

  27. [35]

    & Rees, M

    Haiman, Z. & Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 87

    2001

  28. [36]

    2000, ApJ, 537, L5

    Haiman, Z., Spaans, M., & Quataert, E. 2000, ApJ, 537, L5

    2000

  29. [37]

    Hansen, M. & Oh, S. P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 979

    2006

  30. [38]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  31. [39]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 49

    Hayes, M., Melinder, J., Östlin, G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 49

    2016

  32. [40]

    & Scarlata, C

    Hayes, M. & Scarlata, C. 2011, in SF2A-2011: Proceedings of the Annual meet- ing of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. G. Alecian, K. Belkacem, R. Samadi, & D. Valls-Gabaud, 129–133

    2011

  33. [41]

    2011, Nature, 476, 304

    Hayes, M., Scarlata, C., & Siana, B. 2011, Nature, 476, 304

    2011

  34. [42]

    A., Scarlata, C., Verhamme, A., & Erb, D

    Henry, A., Berg, D. A., Scarlata, C., Verhamme, A., & Erb, D. 2018, ApJ, 855, 96

    2018

  35. [43]

    C., Hayes, M., & Scarlata, C

    Herenz, E. C., Hayes, M., & Scarlata, C. 2020, A&A, 642, A55

    2020

  36. [44]

    Hogan, C. J. & Weymann, R. J. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 1P

    1987

  37. [45]

    2013, ApJ, 768, L3

    Humphrey, A., Vernet, J., Villar-Martín, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, L3

    2013

  38. [46]

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

    2007

  39. [47]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 5018

    Iani, E., Zanella, A., Vernet, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5018

    2023

  40. [48]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 3830

    Iani, E., Zanella, A., Vernet, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3830

    2021

  41. [49]

    I., Chisholm, J., Worseck, G., et al

    Izotov, Y . I., Chisholm, J., Worseck, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2864

    2022

  42. [50]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 4265

    Katz, H., Garel, T., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4265

    2022

  43. [51]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 33

    Kim, E., Yang, Y ., Zabludoff, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 33

    2020

  44. [52]

    Koratkar, A., Antonucci, R. R. J., Goodrich, R. W., Bushouse, H., & Kinney, A. L. 1995, ApJ, 450, 501

    1995

  45. [53]

    Laursen, P., Sommer-Larsen, J., & Andersen, A. C. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1640

    2009

  46. [54]

    & Ahn, S.-H

    Lee, H.-W. & Ahn, S.-H. 1998, ApJ, 504, L61

    1998

  47. [55]

    & Gronke, M

    Li, Z. & Gronke, M. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5034

    2022

  48. [56]

    C., Jones, T

    Livermore, R. C., Jones, T. A., Richard, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1812

    2015

  49. [57]

    F., et al

    Mas-Ribas, L., Dijkstra, M., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 19

    2017

  50. [58]

    2018, astropy/astroscrappy: v1.0.5 Zenodo Release

    McCully, C., Crawford, S., Kovacs, G., et al. 2018, astropy/astroscrappy: v1.0.5 Zenodo Release

    2018

  51. [59]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 2318

    Momose, R., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2318

    2016

  52. [60]

    2004, ApJ, 613, L97

    Mori, M., Umemura, M., & Ferrara, A. 2004, ApJ, 613, L97

    2004

  53. [61]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 28

    Nakane, M., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 28

    2024

  54. [62]

    Neufeld, D. A. 1990, ApJ, 350, 216

    1990

  55. [63]

    Neufeld, D. A. 1991, ApJ, 370, L85

    1991

  56. [64]

    2024, A&A, 684, A147 Orlitová, I., Verhamme, A., Henry, A., et al

    North, P., Hayes, M., Millon, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A147 Orlitová, I., Verhamme, A., Henry, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A60

    2024

  57. [65]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1962, ApJ, 135, 195 pandas development team, T. 2023, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas

    1962

  58. [66]

    Partridge, R. B. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1967, ApJ, 148, 377 Péroux, C. & Howk, J. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 363 Péroux, C., Zwaan, M. A., Klitsch, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1595

    1967

  59. [67]

    Prescott, M. K. M., Smith, P. S., Schmidt, G. D., & Dey, A. 2011, ApJ, 730, L25

    2011

  60. [68]

    X., Kasen, D., & Rubin, K

    Prochaska, J. X., Kasen, D., & Rubin, K. 2011, ApJ, 734, 24

    2011

  61. [69]

    E., Peek, J

    Putman, M. E., Peek, J. E. G., & Joung, M. R. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 491

    2012

  62. [70]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 268

    Richard, J., Jauzac, M., Limousin, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 268

    2014

  63. [71]

    E., Ostriker, E

    Schneider, E. E., Ostriker, E. C., Robertson, B. E., & Thompson, T. A. 2020, ApJ, 895, 43

    2020

  64. [72]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.17908

    Seon, K.-i. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.17908

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 3

    Seon, K.-i., Song, H., & Chang, S.-J. 2022, ApJS, 259, 3

    2022

  66. [74]

    1958, Acta Astron., 8, 135

    Serkowski, K. 1958, Acta Astron., 8, 135

    1958

  67. [75]

    Simmons, J. F. L. & Stewart, B. G. 1985, A&A, 142, 100

    1985

  68. [76]

    Stenflo, J. O. 1980, A&A, 84, 68

    1980

  69. [77]

    Suresh, J., Rubin, K. H. R., Kannan, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2966

    2017

  70. [78]

    & Shioya, Y

    Taniguchi, Y . & Shioya, Y . 2000, ApJ, 532, L13

    2000

  71. [79]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420

    2017

  72. [80]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 4304

    Vanzella, E., Calura, F., Meneghetti, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4304

    2017

  73. [81]

    D., & Aalto, S

    Veilleux, S., Maiolino, R., Bolatto, A. D., & Aalto, S. 2020, A&A Rev., 28, 2

    2020

  74. [82]

    2006, A&A, 460, 397

    Verhamme, A., Schaerer, D., & Maselli, A. 2006, A&A, 460, 397

    2006

  75. [83]

    & Cimatti, A

    Vernet, J. & Cimatti, A. 2001, A&A, 380, 409

    2001

  76. [84]

    Vernet, J., Fosbury, R. A. E., Villar-Martín, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 366, 7

    2001

  77. [85]

    P., Savage, B

    Wakker, B. P., Savage, B. D., Fox, A. J., Benjamin, R. A., & Shapiro, P. R. 2012, ApJ, 749, 157

    2012

  78. [86]

    Wardle, J. F. C. & Kronberg, P. P. 1974, ApJ, 194, 249

    1974

  79. [87]

    M., Foster, C., et al

    Weng, S., Sadler, E. M., Foster, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3638

    2022

  80. [88]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 28

    Xu, X., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 28

    2023

  81. [89]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 130

    Yang, H., Malhotra, S., Gronke, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 130

    2016

  82. [90]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 182

    You, C., Zabludoff, A., Smith, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 182

    2017

  83. [91]

    2024, A&A, 685, A80

    Zanella, A., Iani, E., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A80

    2024

  84. [92]

    2015, ApJ, 810, L12 Article number, page 15 of 15

    Zitrin, A., Labbé, I., Belli, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, L12 Article number, page 15 of 15

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.