Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 88 references

DIISC -- VI (COS-DIISC): UV Metal Absorption Relative to the H I disk of Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that low- and mid-ionization metals in galaxy halos are organized by the H I disk radius, not the virial radius, based on UV absorption toward 30 background quasars.

desk verdict A useful new sample of H I-selected CGM absorbers, but the headline R_HI-vs-R_vir claim is not yet established by the statistics presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02583 v2 pith:RN25EBTY submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.GA

Brad Koplitz , Sanchayeeta Borthakur , Timothy Heckman , Mansi Padave , Tyler McCabe , Jason Tumlinson , Andrew J. Fox , Guinevere Kauffmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords quasarabsorptionlinespectroscopycircumgalacticmediumHIdiskmetalabsorbersUVphotoionizationgalaxyhalosquasar-galaxypairs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports UV metal absorption in the circumgalactic medium of 31 nearby galaxies, using background quasar spectra from the DIISC survey, which was built around each galaxy's H I disk radius $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$. It claims that the location of metals with ionization potentials between 13.6 and 33.5 eV is better traced by the impact parameter normalized by $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ than by the traditional virial radius $R_{\mathrm{vir}}$. Sight lines within about $2.5\,R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ almost always show Si III, C II, or Si II absorption, while detections beyond that are rare, and equivalent widths and component counts decline outward. If correct, the inner circumgalactic medium is not simply a dark-matter-scaled halo: its cool, metal-bearing gas is organized around the neutral gas disk, which changes how CGM surveys should be normalized and what simulation predictions should be compared against.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized impact parameter $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$, where $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ is the radius at which the H I column density reaches $1\ M_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$, derived from the adopted H I mass-to-radius relation using ALFALFA and HIPASS H I masses. Because the sample was selected to place background QSOs within roughly $3.5\,R_{\mathrm{HI}}$, the survey can separate radial trends in the disk frame from those in the halo frame. The argument is carried by comparing rest-frame equivalent widths, component counts, and covering fractions as functions of $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$, $\rho / R_{\mathrm{vir}}$, and $\rho / R_{\mathrm{pet},r}$, complemented by photoionization (CLOUDY) and collisional ionization models used to interpret component densities and cloud lengths.

What would settle it

Map the H I in the 31 galaxies directly at 21 cm and recompute each $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ at the $1\ M_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$ isophote. If the $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ trends in equivalent width, component count, and covering fraction become noisy or disappear while the $\rho / R_{\mathrm{vir}}$ trends survive, the central claim would fail. A complementary check is to compare sight lines with the same $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ but very different $\rho / R_{\mathrm{vir}}$: the claim predicts their absorption strengths should match.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 30 QSO sight lines probing 31 galaxies at $z \approx 0.002{-}0.05$ within $4.5\,R_{\mathrm{HI}}$, Si III $\lambda1206$ is detected in 18 of 31 sight lines, C II $\lambda1334$ in 17, and Si II $\lambda1260$ in 15, with all Si III nondetections beyond roughly $2.5\,R_{\mathrm{HI}}$. The paper's central claim is that the radial decline of rest-frame equivalent width, component count, and covering fraction for these ions is more strongly correlated with $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ than with $\rho / R_{\mathrm{vir}}$. Sight lines closer to the H I disk show more components and larger $W_r$, and the authors conclude that distance from the H I disk, not virial-radius-normalized distance, is the better predictor of cool metal absorption in the inner CGM.

Load-bearing premise

Every radial comparison is normalized by $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$, but $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ is not directly measured for most galaxies; it is inferred from H I mass through a mass-to-radius relation, so if those inferred disk sizes are systematically off, the conclusion that $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ is the better tracer is weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the inner CGM, sight lines with $\rho \lesssim 2.5\,R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ should contain Si III, C II, and Si II absorption in the majority of cases, while nondetections should dominate beyond that radius.
  • Absorber strength, measured by rest-frame equivalent width, and the number of resolved components both rise toward the H I disk, so galaxies with larger H I disks should show stronger metal absorption at a fixed physical impact parameter.
  • Covering fractions of Si II and Si III decline outward, and the decline steepens when only stronger absorbers are counted; star-forming galaxies have higher covering fractions than passive galaxies.
  • Most detected components are consistent with photoionization equilibrium, with cold and cool clouds typically smaller than 1-2 kpc and warm clouds mostly smaller than 10 kpc.
  • In the combined sample of the three surveys used here, few metals are detected beyond about $0.7\,R_{\mathrm{vir}}$, and upper limits populate the full $\rho / R_{\mathrm{vir}}$ range, unlike the sharp decline seen in $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ scaling holds, simulations of galaxy formation should compare their circumgalactic metal content against $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ rather than $\rho / R_{\mathrm{vir}}$, which would be a stiffer test of feedback and gas accretion models.
  • Because the DIISC sample was itself selected on $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$, the sharper $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ trends could be partly a selection artifact; only an unbiased sample selected on other galaxy properties can cleanly separate the two normalizations.
  • The claim is made for ions with ionization potentials up to 33.5 eV; whether higher-ionization phases such as O VI trace $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ remains open, and the paper's own stacking shows O I, Si IV, and N V have much lower covering fractions than C II and Si III.
  • A sharp testable prediction is that two galaxies with similar $R_{\mathrm{HI}}$ but very different halo masses should show comparable Si II, C II, and Si III absorption at the same $\rho / R_{\mathrm{HI}}$, even though their $\rho / R_{\mathrm{vir}}$ values differ.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents COS G130M spectra of 31 nearby galaxies from the DIISC survey and measures UV metal absorption (O I, Si II, Si III, Si IV, C II, N V) in the inner CGM at impact parameters within ~4.5 R_HI. The authors report detection statistics, Voigt-profile components, Doppler widths, velocity dispersions, equivalent widths, covering fractions, and a first-pass CLOUDY photoionization analysis. The central claim is that the radial distribution of low- and intermediate-ionization metals is better traced by rho / R_HI than by rho / R_vir, based on visual comparison of equivalent-width versus radius diagrams and one statistically significant Kendall tau for C II. The paper is careful to list limitations of the ionization modeling and positions the PIE/CIE analysis as an initial constraint.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, it would reframe how CGM metal surveys should normalize impact parameters in the inner CGM: the H I disk scale of the galaxy, rather than the virial radius, would be the relevant metric for low- and intermediate-ionization absorbers. The paper's strengths are its clearly defined sample, detailed Voigt-profile measurements, explicit treatment of upper limits, and transparent caveats about the CLOUDY modeling. The radial measurements themselves are direct and not circular with the model fitting. However, the headline claim currently rests on a visual reading of two figures and a single marginally significant correlation statistic, so the quantitative basis is not yet commensurate with the strength of the conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figures 7 and 8, Summary point 2] The central claim that metals are better traced by rho / R_HI than by rho / R_vir is based on a visual contrast: in Figure 7, Si III and other nondetections appear only beyond about 2.5 R_HI, while in Figure 8 upper limits appear across the entire rho / R_vir range. This comparison is not a controlled test of the two normalizations because Figure 7 uses only COS-DIISC data whereas Figure 8 combines COS-DIISC, COS-GASS, and COS-Halos. In addition, the DIISC survey selected sight lines within about 3.5 R_HI (Section 2.1), so the apparent absence of nondetections at small rho / R_HI is partly a consequence of the survey design. No formal model comparison, detection-rate test, or selection-function correction is presented. Please quantify the claim, for example by comparing detection/non-detection fractions as a function of each normalized radius within the same sample, or by fitting W_r versus radius with an explicit treatment of upper limits and the R_HI-based target selection.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Table 1] R_HI, the normalizing scale on which the main conclusion rests, is not directly measured for most galaxies. It is derived from the H I mass-to-radius relation of Swaters et al. (2002), as stated in the Table 1 note. If these radii carry systematic errors, the apparent sharp boundary near 2.5 R_HI could be an artifact of the adopted relation. The paper would be substantially strengthened by a sensitivity analysis: using directly measured H I radii for the subset of galaxies where they are available, propagating the scatter of the Swaters relation through the Kendall tau and detection-fraction tests, or demonstrating that the conclusion is robust to plausible R_HI perturbations.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Figure 4] The only statistically significant radial trend favoring R_HI over R_vir is the C II sigma_LOS correlation: tau = -0.48 with p = 0.031 for rho / R_HI versus tau = -0.33 with p = 0.153 for rho / R_vir. Because several ions and two normalizations are examined, this p-value should be corrected for multiple comparisons or supported by an additional independent statistic. Furthermore, sigma_LOS excludes sight lines with a single component, which may bias the correlation if single-component sight lines are preferentially located at larger or smaller radii. This one correlation, together with the visual argument in Figures 7 and 8, is not by itself sufficient to establish the paper's headline conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and minor grammatical errors: 'prevelent' should be 'prevalent' (Section 1), 'dominate' should be 'dominant' (Summary point 4), 'determines' should be 'determined' (Section 3.4), 'investigate' should be 'investigated' (Summary), and 'ALF ALF A' appears with an extra space in Section 2.1.
  2. [Figure 7] The bottom panels show rho / R_pet,r but the caption does not describe the meaning of the downward arrows or the symbol types, and the text does not quantify the difference between the top and bottom rows. At minimum, define the upper-limit notation in the caption and state the number of detections and nondetections in each panel.
  3. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'These distributions are not consistent from the radial density distribution of a Navarro-Frenk-White dark matter halo' should read 'not consistent with'. The NFW comparison itself is qualitative; please state whether any quantitative goodness-of-fit was computed.
  4. [Section 3.4] The cloud-length estimate is obtained from N(H)/n(H) using the model total hydrogen column, so the derived lengths depend directly on the assumed N(H I) and metallicity grid. The paper explicitly calls these upper limits, but it would help to state in the text that the lengths are model-dependent quantities, not direct measurements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the radial claim rests on direct measurements, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that metals are better traced by rho/R_HI than rho/R_vir, is based on direct measurements of rest-frame equivalent widths and detection/nondetection patterns as functions of impact parameter normalized by two independently defined galaxy radii (Section 3.2, Figures 7 and 8). No parameter is fitted to this trend; R_HI is an external galaxy property derived from ALFALFA/HIPASS H I masses via the Swaters et al. (2002) relation, not from the CGM absorption data. The CLOUDY photoionization analysis fits a grid of density, metallicity, and H I column to reproduce observed ionic columns, but the resulting cloud lengths are explicitly presented as a first-pass model interpretation, not as a prediction of the radial claim, and the paper disclaims their robustness (Section 3.4). Self-citations (Borthakur et al. 2024 for Ly alpha and H I columns; Padave et al. 2023 for sSFR; Koplitz et al. 2023 for sigma_LOS interpretation) supply inputs or context but are not the load-bearing evidence for the headline conclusion. Potential concerns such as the sample selection truncated at <3.5 R_HI and the use of derived rather than measured H I radii affect the strength of the comparison but are not definitional circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained for the central claim.

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

The main radial trends are empirical and do not require free parameters. The cloud-size and PIE fractions do: they depend on a grid of n(H), metallicity, and N(HI) assumptions, plus phase assignments. R_HI itself is a derived quantity, and the sample was selected on it, so the central normalization claim is tied to the accuracy of those radii.

free parameters (4)
  • Total hydrogen density n(H) grid = log n(H)/cm^-3 from -5.00 to 0.00 in 0.25 dex steps
    Used in CLOUDY models to reproduce observed ion column density ratios; the best n(H) determines inferred cloud lengths, so derived sizes scale with this choice (Section 3.4).
  • Metallicity Z = 0.04, 0.30, 0.50, 1.00 solar
    Assumed from other CGM surveys rather than measured; affects which photoionization models are consistent and the derived hydrogen densities (Section 3.4).
  • H I column density log N(HI) = Varied in 0.2 dex steps over per-system ranges (e.g., 14.0 to 18.0)
    Not directly measurable from the data because Ly-alpha is saturated and no Lyman series lines are available; the assumed range from Borthakur et al. (2024) is an input to CLOUDY that shapes the PIE-consistency fractions and cloud lengths (Section 3.4, Table 3).
  • Milky Way radiation field distance = 10, 50, or 100 kpc chosen per sight line
    The models use a fixed MW radiation field from Fox et al. (2005), selected by the impact parameter of the sight line; this is a modeling choice, not a measured property of the target galaxy (Section 3.4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Absorbers within +-600 km/s of the galaxy's systemic velocity are associated with the target galaxy.
    Section 2.2; used to define the sample of absorbers that feeds all radial and covering fraction trends.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-phase assignment (O I and Si II cold; C II and Si III cool; Si IV and N V warm) is a valid decomposition of the CGM.
    Section 3.4; the paper itself acknowledges that a single ion can be produced by multiple phases and that clear phase delineation is unrealistic; the PIE-consistency fractions depend on this assignment.
  • domain assumption Photoionization equilibrium is the relevant framework for interpreting the metal ratios.
    Section 3.4; CLOUDY models assume PIE; the conclusion that most components are consistent with PIE is conditional on that framework. CIE is only compared as an alternative for some ratios.
  • domain assumption Solar relative abundances and no dust depletion apply to all sight lines.
    Section 3.4; the paper lists these as limitations but uses them in all CLOUDY runs.
  • domain assumption The H I radius from the Swaters et al. relation and ALFALFA and HIPASS represents the true neutral gas disk size.
    Table 1 note and Section 2.1; all R_HI-normalized claims inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption The nearest and most massive galaxy at the same redshift is the source of absorption when systems overlap.
    Section 2.1; KUG 1429+101 is excluded because its absorption is attributed to NGC 5669, a choice that affects the sample and the radial trends.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DIISC -- VI (COS-DIISC): UV Metal Absorption Relative to the H I disk of Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RN25EBTY

@misc{pith2026250202583,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DIISC -- VI (COS-DIISC): UV Metal Absorption Relative to the H I disk of Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RN25EBTY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02583}
}
abstract

As part of the Deciphering the Interplay between the Interstellar medium, Stars, and the Circumgalactic medium (DIISC) survey, we present the UV metal absorption features in the Circumgalactic Medium (CGM) near the H I gas disk ($<$4.5$R_\mathrm{HI}$) of 31 nearby galaxies through quasar absorption line spectroscopy. Of the ions under study, Si III $\lambda1206$ was most frequently detected (18 of 31 sight lines), while C II $\lambda1334$ and Si II $\lambda1260$ were detected in 17 and 15 of 31 sight lines, respectively. Many components were consistent with photoionization equilibrium models, most of the cold and cool gas phase clouds were found to have lengths smaller than 2 kpc. Sight lines with smaller impact parameters ($\rho$) normalized by the galaxy's virial radius ($R_\mathrm{vir}$) and H I radius ($R_\mathrm{HI}$) tend to have more components and larger rest-frame equivalent widths ($W_r$) than those that probe the CGM at larger radii. In particular, we find that the location of metals are better traced by $\rho$ / $R_\mathrm{HI}$ rather than the traditional $\rho$ / $R_\mathrm{vir}$. Larger covering fractions are found closer to galaxies, with a radial decline that depends on the $W_r$ limit used. Our results provide new insights into the spatial distribution of metals around the H I disks of low-redshift galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02583 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of stellar mass (left) and impact pa￾rameter relative to the H I radius of the targeted foreground galaxies (right) in the COS-DIISC sample. ρ = 21 − 163 kpc. The properties of the COS-DIISC sample are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Voigt profile fits of the spectrum towards the QSO J0835+2459 probing the galaxy NGC 2611. Each panel is centered on the galaxy’s systematic velocity (vsys). Individual components are shown in blue, with the combined profile in green. The gray shaded regions show the range used to calculate the rest-frame equivalent width. Features other than the one being highlighted are colored based on their origin: cyan for Milk… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measured Doppler width against column den￾sity for our most frequently detected ions. The ion being shown in each panel is indicated in the lower right corner. The vertical black dashed line indicates the resolution of the G130M filter of COS (FWHM ≈ 20 km s−1 corresponding to a b ≈ 12 km s−1 ). Components to the left of the line are likely unresolved. The strength of the correlation seems to be related to the numbe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inferred line-of-sight velocity dispersion as a function of impact parameter relative to the galaxy’s virial radius (left) and the galaxy’s H I radius (right) for the most frequently detected ions. The ion being shown in each panel is indicated in the upper right corne…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-correlation analysis of Si III absorbers shown in purple with the standard deviation of our boot￾strap analysis (as discussed in Section 3.1) in gray. The top panel compares the velocity centroids of Si II to those of Si III while the bottom panel compares the ce…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of the average number of components per sight line (<C/SL>) of Si II (far left), C II (left center), and Si III (right center) as a function of impact parameter normalized by the galaxy’s virial radius. The far right panel is the number of components along a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Measured rest-frame equivalent width of Si II (left column), C II (center column), and Si III (right column) as a function of impact parameter normalized by the galaxy’s H I disk (top panels) and impact parameter normalized by the galaxy’s r-band Petrosian radius (bott…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured rest-frame equivalent width of Si II (left) and Si III (right) as a function of impact parameter relative to the galaxy’s virial radius. We show the different samples being plotted as different symbols with stars representing COS-DIISC points, circles showing …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Covering fraction of Si II (top) and Si III (bottom) as a function of impact parameter relative to the galaxy’s virial radius for the combined COS-DIISC+COS-GASS+COS-Halos sample. Each column uses a different log rest-frame equivalent width limit, which is shown at the…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Position of QSO in terms of angle from the target galaxy’s major axis and impact parameter relative to the galaxy’s H I radius. Data points are colored based on the measured rest-frame equivalent width of Si II (left), C II (center), and Si III (right). Sight lines wh…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: An example comparison of our measurements for the QSO-galaxy pair J1042+2501-NGC 3344 to CLOUDY PIE models. The top, middle, and bottom panels correspond to the cold, cool, and warm gas phases, respectively. Our measurements are shown as colored horizontal lines, with…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Derived cloud lengths based on CLOUDY models. of the warm phase clouds were larger than 1 kpc though the majority (6 / 10) are smaller than 10 kpc. These sizes should be thought of as upper limits given that at least some of the absorbers with the largest N are likely…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Inferred total hydrogen density as a function of impact parameter normalized by the galaxies virial radius. Values from the cool clouds in our sample (COS-DIISC) are shown as purple stars, while those from the COS-Halos sam￾ple are shown as cyan diamonds. −2 −1 0 1 2 …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparing CIE models from Gnat & Sternberg (2007), colored circles, to observed column density ratios, stars. The color of the circles corresponds to the temperature of the CIE model. probes more coherent phases covering a narrower range of IPs (16.4 − 33.5 eV). In th…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Stacked spectra of all sight lines at the velocity of each ion. The metal being shown is indicated in the bottom right of each panel. The 1σ uncertainties are shown as red shaded regions. The gray regions highlight the velocity range used to calculate the rest-frame e…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 2383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2310

    Smith, B. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2310

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2310 2021

  2. [2]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/379 2010

  4. [4]

    K., et al

    Bordoloi, R., Tumlinson, J., Werk, J. K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/136

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/136 2014

  5. [5]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/46 —

    Borthakur, S., Heckman, T., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/46 —. 2016, ApJ, 833, 259, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/259

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/46 2015

  6. [6]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12554, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12554

    Borthakur, S., Padave, M., Heckman, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12554, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12554

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12554 2024

  7. [7]

    V., Chelouche, D., Jenkins, E

    Bowen, D. V., Chelouche, D., Jenkins, E. B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 50, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/50

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/50 2016

  8. [8]

    N., Tripp, T

    Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., Wang, Q. D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3170

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3170 2018

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    N., Tripp, T

    Burchett, J. N., Tripp, T. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f7f

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Gauthier, J.-R., et al

    Chen, H.-W., Helsby, J. E., Gauthier, J.-R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1521, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1521

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Prochaska, J

    Chen, H. W., Prochaska, J. X., & Lanzetta, K. M. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 254, Extragalactic Gas at Low Redshift, ed. J. S. Mulchaey & J. T. Stocke, 88, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0108068

    2002 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    S., Boettcher, E., et al

    Chen, H.-W., Zahedy, F. S., Boettcher, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1773

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Kacprzak, G. G. 2013, ApJ, 779, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/87

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Rudie, G

    Cooper, T. J., Rudie, G. C., Chen, H.-W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2869

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    W., & Shull, J

    Danforth, C. W., & Shull, J. M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 194, doi: 10.1086/587127

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Crain, R

    Davies, J. J., Crain, R. A., Oppenheimer, B. D., & Schaye, J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3201

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03146, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.03146

    Madau, P. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.03146, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.03146

    2023 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    2006

  12. [20]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Donahue, M., & Voit, G. M. 2022, PhR, 973, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, L32, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw091

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Morris, S

    Finn, C. W., Morris, S. L., Tejos, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw918

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Savage, B

    Fox, A. J., Savage, B. D., Wakker, B. P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 602, 738, doi: 10.1086/381024

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Wakker, B

    Fox, A. J., Wakker, B. P., Savage, B. D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 332, doi: 10.1086/431915

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Borthakur, S., Momjian, E., et al

    Gim, H. B., Borthakur, S., Momjian, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2303

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Kent, B

    Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Kent, B. R., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 2598, doi: 10.1086/497431

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    2007, ApJS, 168, 213, doi: 10.1086/509786

    Gnat, O., & Sternberg, A. 2007, ApJS, 168, 213, doi: 10.1086/509786

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Froning, C

    Green, J. C., Froning, C. S., Osterman, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/60

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1603

    Hafen, Z., Stern, J., Bullock, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1603

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Tripp, T

    Haislmaier, K. J., Tripp, T. M., Katz, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4993, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3544

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B

    Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., Kent, B. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80dc

    Bordoloi, R. 2017, ApJ, 846, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80dc

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    H., Martin, C

    Ho, S. H., Martin, C. L., Kacprzak, G. G., & Churchill, C. W. 2017, ApJ, 835, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/267

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

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

    Izotov, Y. I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1036

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    G., Churchill, C

    Kacprzak, G. G., Churchill, C. W., Evans, J. L., Murphy, M. T., & Steidel, C. C. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3118, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19261.x DIISC-VI: CGM Metal Features 19

    2011

  31. [39]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 3751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1950

    Kauffmann, G., Borthakur, S., & Nelson, D. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3751, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1950

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Stocke, J

    Keeney, B. A., Stocke, J. T., Rosenberg, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/27

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Stocke, J

    Keeney, B. A., Stocke, J. T., Danforth, C. W., et al. 2017, ApJS, 230, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6b59 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

    2017

  34. [42]

    V., Kulkarni, V., Wake, D

    Klimenko, V. V., Kulkarni, V., Wake, D. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace329

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4fc

    Koplitz, B., , Edward Buie, I., & Scannapieco, E. 2023, ApJ, 956, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4fc

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    D., & Szalay, A

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

    1993 doi

  37. [45]

    C., & Wakker, B

    Lehner, N., Howk, J. C., & Wakker, B. P. 2015, ApJ, 804, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/79

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    C., Tripp, T

    Lehner, N., Howk, J. C., Tripp, T. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/138

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    C., Howk, J

    Lehner, N., Berek, S. C., Howk, J. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba49c

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    J., & Chen, H.-W

    Liang, C. J., & Chen, H.-W. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1901

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    Machado, R. E. G., Tissera, P. B., Lima Neto, G. B., & Sodr´ e, L. 2018, A&A, 609, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628886

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 4965, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty529

    Muzahid, S., Fonseca, G., Roberts, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4965, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty529

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  44. [53]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2419

    Nelson, D., Sharma, P., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2419

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    M., Churchill, C

    Nielsen, N. M., Churchill, C. W., & Kacprzak, G. G. 2013, ApJ, 776, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/115

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    M., Kacprzak, G

    Nielsen, N. M., Kacprzak, G. G., Pointon, S. K., Churchill, C. W., & Murphy, M. T. 2018, ApJ, 869, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaedbd

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    2011, Ap&SS, 335, 257, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0699-5

    Osterman, S., Green, J., Froning, C., et al. 2011, Ap&SS, 335, 257, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0699-5

    2011 doi

  48. [57]

    A., et al

    Padave, M., Borthakur, S., Jansen, R. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16690, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16690

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    B., et al

    Padave, M., Borthakur, S., Gim, H. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c01 —. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.08482, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.08482 P´ eroux, C., & Howk, J. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014

    2021 doi arXiv

  50. [59]

    X., Werk, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Werk, J. K., Worseck, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6007

    2017 doi

  51. [60]

    C., et al

    Qu, Z., Chen, H.-W., Rudie, G. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2528 —. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1886

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    2018, in COS Data Handbook, 4

    Rafelski, M., & et al. 2018, in COS Data Handbook, 4

    2018

  53. [62]

    2021, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.3.5, v1.3.5, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5774815

    Reback, J., Jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., et al. 2021, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.3.5, v1.3.5, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5774815

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    P., Fechner, C., et al

    Richter, P., Wakker, B. P., Fechner, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527038

    2016 doi

  55. [64]

    R., Charlton, J

    Rigby, J. R., Charlton, J. C., & Churchill, C. W. 2002, ApJ, 565, 743, doi: 10.1086/324723

    2002 doi

  56. [65]

    C., Steidel, C

    Rudie, G. C., Steidel, C. C., Trainor, R. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/67

    2012 doi

  57. [66]

    C., Wakker, B

    Sameer, Charlton, J. C., Wakker, B. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae962

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    D., & Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., & Sembach, K. R. 1991, ApJ, 379, 245, doi: 10.1086/170498

    1991 doi

  59. [68]

    2012, ApJ, 760, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/50

    Shen, S., Madau, P., Aguirre, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/50

    2012 doi

  60. [69]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  61. [70]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 2760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2937

    Sorini, D., Dav´ e, R., & Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2937

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    T., Keeney, B

    Stocke, J. T., Keeney, B. A., Danforth, C. W., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/148

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2762

    Suresh, J., Bird, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2762

    2015 doi

  64. [73]

    2002, A&A, 390, 829, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011755

    Sancisi, R. 2002, A&A, 390, 829, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011755

    2002 doi

  65. [74]

    K., Wilde, M

    Tchernyshyov, K., Werk, J. K., Wilde, M. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc86a

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    L., Finn, C

    Tejos, N., Morris, S. L., Finn, C. W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1844

    2014 doi

  67. [76]

    K., et al

    Thom, C., Tumlinson, J., Werk, J. K., et al. 2012, ApJL, 758, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L41

    2012 doi

  68. [77]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  69. [78]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson, J., Thom, C., Werk, J. K., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 948, doi: 10.1126/science.1209840 —. 2013, ApJ, 777, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/59 van de Voort, F., Springel, V., Mandelker, N., van den

    2011 doi

  70. [79]

    C., & Pakmor, R

    Bosch, F. C., & Pakmor, R. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L85, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly190

    2019 doi

  71. [80]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 769, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 20 Koplitz et al

    Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 769, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 20 Koplitz et al

    2005 arXiv

  72. [81]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    M., Bryan, G

    Voit, G. M., Bryan, G. L., Prasad, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba42e

    2020 doi

  74. [83]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Thom, C., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/17

    2013 doi

  75. [84]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/8

    2014 doi

  76. [85]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Cantalupo, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/54

    2016 doi

  77. [86]

    C., Werk, J

    Wilde, M. C., Werk, J. K., Burchett, J. N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abea14

    2021 doi

  78. [87]

    S., Chen, H.-W., Cooper, T

    Zahedy, F. S., Chen, H.-W., Cooper, T. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1661

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2607

    Zinger, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2607

    2020 doi

  80. [89]

    A., Meyer, M

    Zwaan, M. A., Meyer, M. J., Webster, R. L., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1210, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07782.x

    2004

Pith tools

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