Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

3D matter power spectrum correspondence to 1D Lyman-alpha flux power spectrum

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A phenomenological recipe maps 3D matter power to 1D Lyman-alpha flux power, adds warm dark matter and pressure cutoffs in quadrature, and matches simulations to within 5-20%.

desk verdict A useful empirical recipe for converting Ly-alpha flux power spectrum cutoffs into WDM and pressure scales, but the validation is partly self-referential and the observational k_cut uses a different fitting form. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14258 v1 pith:N6EYDA3V submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.CO

Ivan Ridkokasha , Andres Aramburo-Garcia , Kyrylo Bondarenko , Anastasia Sokolenko , Matthieu Schaller , Alexey Boyarsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords matterpowerspectrumfluxdarkdistributionhydrogenlyman-alpha
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 Lyman-alpha forest is the pattern of absorption lines imprinted on quasar light by neutral hydrogen gas between us and the quasar. The statistics of that pattern, summarized by the flux power spectrum, are sensitive to the small-scale distribution of dark matter, but connecting the two is complicated: the flux is a one-dimensional projection, it traces only hydrogen gas, and the gas responds to pressure as well as gravity. Warm dark matter and gas pressure both suppress small-scale structure, producing similar-looking cutoffs in the spectrum, which makes it hard to tell them apart.

The authors write the 3D matter power spectrum as a simple power law multiplied by a Gaussian cutoff, with a single cutoff scale that combines the warm dark matter cutoff and the pressure filtering scale in inverse quadrature. They then project this spectrum to one dimension and add a constant to represent the unmodeled small-scale contribution. The result is a four-parameter fitting function for the flux power spectrum.

They validate this recipe on 19 hydrodynamic simulations spanning six thermal histories, warm and cold dark matter, and several resolutions. The cutoff scale fitted from the simulated flux power spectra agrees with the theoretical prediction to within about 20% for pressure effects, 5% for warm dark matter effects, and 15% when both are present. They also show that a warm dark matter model designed using their recipe produces flux power spectra indistinguishable from a cold dark matter model with an earlier reionization, matching observed data within errors. The authors are explicit that the recipe has no rigorous derivation and works surprisingly well.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Equations (2.5) and (2.7) assert that the 1D Lyman-alpha flux power spectrum is described by projecting a power-law 3D matter power spectrum with a combined Gaussian cutoff, 1/k_cut^2 = 1/k_WDM^2 + 1/k_F^2, plus a constant small-scale term. The paper validates this by showing that the cutoff scale fitted from simulated flux power spectra matches the theoretical prediction to within 5% for WDM, 20% for pressure, and 15% for their combination, and that a WDM model designed with the recipe reproduces a CDM simulation's flux power spectrum within 5%. If correct, this is a practical mapping that lets observed flux power spectrum cutoffs be translated into constraints on dark matter mass and thermal history.

Load-bearing premise

The recipe assumes that the flux power spectrum behaves as the 1D projection of a linearly filtered, power-law 3D matter power spectrum with a Gaussian cutoff, Eq (2.7), even though the real nonlinear matter power spectrum at z<15 has no such cutoff (see Kulkarni et al. [16]), and the flux is a nonlinear exponential function of density. If the true flux field does not follow this projected-Gaussian form, then the cutoff values extracted by fitting Eq (2.7) are not a faithful measure of the physical WDM or pressure filtering scales. The paper itself admits in Sec 5 that there is no rigorous theoretical justification for this premise.

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 proposes a phenomenological mapping between the 3D matter power spectrum and the 1D Lyman-alpha flux power spectrum. Starting from the exact projection formula Eq. (2.1), it assumes the 3D spectrum is a power law times a combined Gaussian cutoff (Eq. 2.6), with WDM and pressure cutoffs combined in inverse quadrature (Eq. 2.5), and it absorbs the small-scale contribution into a constant term, leading to the fitting function Eq. (2.7). The free parameters A, a, kcut, and xi are fitted to simulated real-space flux power spectra, and the extracted kcut values are compared with theoretical predictions from Viel et al. (Eq. A.3) and GH98 (Eq. B.1). The paper reports agreement within 5% for WDM, 20% for pressure, and 15% for the combined case, and it demonstrates in Sec. 4.3 that a WDM simulation with a redesigned thermal history reproduces the flux power spectrum of a CDM simulation within about 5%. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. 5 that there is no rigorous derivation of the ansatz.

Significance. If the recipe is correct, it provides a simple analytic route from observed Lyman-alpha flux power spectrum cutoffs to constraints on WDM mass and intergalactic-medium thermal history. The paper has several strengths: a broad simulation suite covering different thermal histories, WDM masses, and resolutions; the use of publicly available simulation and analysis codes; an honest statement of the phenomenological nature of the model; and a genuinely predictive test in Sec. 4.3, where a WDM model was designed analytically and only then run. The main weakness is that the validation is largely self-referential: the same functional form whose validity is at issue is used to extract the cutoff scale, and no fit uncertainties or full-shape residuals are reported. The significance of the claimed 5%, 20%, and 15% agreements therefore depends on the additional independent tests suggested below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (2.7), Figs. 5-7] The headline agreements (5% for WDM, 20% for pressure, 15% for the sum) are reached by fitting the simulated real-space FPS with Eq. (2.7), the very ansatz whose validity is being tested, and then comparing the single fitted parameter kcut with theory values from Eqs. (A.3), (B.1), and (2.5). Because Eq. (2.7) has four free parameters (A, a, kcut, xi) and the fit range is chosen self-consistently as kmax = kcut (App. C), a functionally incorrect model could still return a kcut that tracks the true filtering scale while the full predicted FPS is biased. No error bars on kcut or goodness-of-fit statistics for the FPS fits are reported, so the precision of the comparison is not established. I recommend an independent full-shape test: fix kcut from the theoretical expressions, fix or fit A and a from the 3D power spectrum, and compare the complete predicted Delta1D(k) from Eq. (2.7) against the simulated FPS for k <= kcut, reporting residuals as a function of k and redshift.
  2. [Sec. 4.3 and App. E, Eqs. (2.7) vs (E.1)] The observational analysis abandons the mapping defined by Eq. (2.7) and instead uses Eq. (E.1) to define kcut for both observations and simulations. No test is presented that the kcut from Eq. (E.1) equals the kcut that enters the theoretical combination rule Eq. (2.5) and the simulation validation. The Sec. 4.3 prediction chain (PuchweinLate thermal history, m = 3 keV) uses Eqs. (A.3), (B.1), and (2.5), i.e., the real-space cutoff, while the comparison in Figs. 8-10 uses kcut values from Eq. (E.1). If the two definitions differ by a redshift-dependent factor, the predicted degeneracy between the CDM and WDM simulations could be an artifact of the fitting forms. The authors should apply both fitting forms to simulations that include thermal broadening and redshift-space distortions and demonstrate the relation between the two kcut definitions.
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and App. D, Eq. (D.2), Fig. 5 (left)] The pressure-only comparison at z >~ 5.5 relies on a resolution-correction model, Eqs. (D.1)-(D.2), with a free parameter beta obtained from a linear fit across resolutions. The corrected filtering lengths are then compared with the GH98 theory without propagating the uncertainty of the extrapolation. Since at these redshifts the uncorrected filtering length is comparable to the resolution length (lF ~ 10-20 ckpc), the claimed 20% agreement is not yet robust. The authors should report uncertainties on the corrected lF and, where possible, validate the correction with a high-resolution run at the redshifts where the correction is largest.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The dependence of the extracted kcut on the chosen mean flux normalization <F> = 0.5 is not quantified; a short test at, e.g., <F> = 0.3 and 0.7 would indicate the associated systematic.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 4] At z = 15 and z = 10 the 3D matter power spectrum no longer has a clean cutoff, yet kcut values from Eq. (2.6) are quoted; the text should state explicitly that these are biased by nonlinear power and are not used for the validation.
  3. [App. C] The algorithmic definition of i0 is ambiguous: 'the smallest i, when kmax,i = kN-i < kcut,i' does not specify whether kcut,i is from the same fit or the preceding one; a pseudocode listing or a worked example would remove the ambiguity.
  4. [Reproducibility] The fitting pipeline is not released and the fitting function (2.7) has no documented uncertainty treatment; stating the availability of the code or providing a detailed numerical recipe would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Cutoff predictions are externally grounded (Viel, GH98) and the Sec. 4.3 WDM mass is computed before the confirming run, but the simulated cutoff is extracted with the same ansatz (2.7) whose validity is claimed, so the shape validation is self-referential.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.1 and App. C (extraction); Sec. 4.2 (validation); Sec. 5 (concession)]
    "To determine the cut-off scale kcut for each simulation, we fit the real-space FPS obtained as described in Sec. 3.1 with a function (2.7). ... Most of the simulated cut-off lengths are within 5% of theoretical values calculated by Eq. (A.3) from [13]."

    The simulated cut-off used to validate the model is defined by fitting the model itself: App. C makes k_cut the best-fit parameter of Eq. (2.7), with A, a and xi also free, and the fit range set by kmax = k_cut. Sec. 4.2 then reports that this fitted k_cut agrees with externally computed values (A.3)/(B.1). This checks that the break location of the assumed projected-Gaussian shape tracks the external filtering scales, but it cannot test the central claim that Eq. (2.7) correctly gives the 1D flux power spectrum shape: any FPS with a high-k downturn returns some k_cut from a 4-parameter fit, so the shape is never independently falsified. The paper concedes in Sec.

full rationale

The paper's central predicted quantities are externally grounded. The WDM cutoff (A.3) is taken from Viel et al. (2005), the pressure filtering scale (B.1) from Gnedin & Hui (1998), and the Gaussian cutoff forms (2.3)-(2.4) from [13,15]; none of these values is fitted to the simulations used for validation. Figures 5-7 compare the fitted cutoff with these parameter-free predictions, so the reported 5%, 20%, and 15% agreements are genuine cross-checks rather than fits renamed as predictions. The Sec. 4.3 test is genuinely predictive: the WDM mass m = 3 keV is computed from Eqs. (B.1), (A.3), and the combination rule (2.5) before the WDM-3keV-PuchweinLate simulation is run, and the resulting full flux power spectrum indeed matches the CDM-Puchwein simulation within observational errors (Figs. 9-10). The cited simulation papers with author overlap (Garzilli et al. [7,18]) supply the pure-WDM and LateCold test points, but the comparison values come from the external Viel theory and are corroborated by the authors' own Swift WDM+pressure runs, so this self-citation is not load-bearing. The circularity that remains is the one documented in the step above: the simulated cutoff is extracted with the very ansatz (2.7) whose validity is claimed, so the shape of the 3D-to-1D mapping is never independently tested, only its scale parameter. Two further gaps are flagged as limitations rather than circularity: (i) App. E redefines the observational cutoff using a different fitting form, Eq. (E.1) ('this equation is our definition of cut-off scale kcut for the observational data'), without establishing its equivalence to the (2.7) cutoff that Eqs. (2.5)/(A.3)/(B.1) predict; and (ii) the paper itself concedes in Sec. 5 that there is no rigorous theoretical justification, consistent with the authors' honest presentation of the recipe as phenomenological. Net: the central numbers are external and the headline prediction is pre-computed, but the validation loop is partially self-referential, giving a score of 3.

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

The central claim rests on a phenomenological ansatz rather than a derivation, so the ledger is dominated by modeling assumptions: Gaussian cutoff shape, quadrature combination, constant small-scale term, and the kmax=kcut fitting rule. There are no new particles or forces, but several parameters are fitted per spectrum.

free parameters (6)
  • kcut per simulation snapshot = Varies by snapshot; e.g., 12.9 to 50.1 cMpc^-1 in Fig 3.
    Central cutoff scale extracted by fitting Eq (2.7) to each simulated flux power spectrum; its redshift and model dependence is the quantity compared with theory.
  • A (power-law amplitude) = Not reported.
    Amplitude of the assumed power-law 3D spectrum in Eq (2.6) and (2.7), fitted per flux power spectrum.
  • a (power-law slope) = 0.565 to 0.731 in Fig 4.
    Slope fitted per flux power spectrum; treated as a model parameter rather than predicted.
  • xi (small-scale integral constant) = Not reported.
    The whole k > kmax contribution is collapsed into an unknown constant xi, defined in Sec 2 and treated as a free parameter in Eq (2.7).
  • c (WDM transfer function recalibration) = 1.79.
    Free parameter chosen in App A so that the exponential form (A.2) approximates the Viel et al. transfer function (A.1); it rescales kWDM.
  • beta (resolution correction) = Estimated from linear fit across resolutions.
    Unknown dimensionless parameter in App D modeling resolution as an additional exponential cutoff; estimated by fitting l_sim^2 versus L_box^2 N_gas^(-2/3) across resolutions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 1D flux power spectrum obeys the projection of a 3D isotropic field, Eq (2.1), applied to the flux field.
    Eq (2.7) assumes the flux power spectrum is a 1D projection of a 3D spectrum with the form (2.6); the flux-matter relation is nonlinear, so this is a modeling assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The 3D matter power spectrum in the fitted range is a power law times a Gaussian cutoff, Eq (2.6).
    Motivated by linear-theory approximations in [13,15] and extended to the nonlinear regime without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper WDM and pressure cutoffs combine by inverse quadrature, Eq (2.5).
    Asserted as a simple combination rule and tested in Sec 4.2, but not derived from the underlying physics.
  • domain assumption GH98 filtering scale with mean-density temperature is valid at z=3-10 after nonlinear structure forms.
    The theoretical kF lines in Fig 5 and the Sec 4.3 prediction rely on Eq (B.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The self-consistent fit range kmax=kcut yields unbiased cutoff estimates.
    App C introduces this rule algorithmically without independent justification.
  • standard math Standard projection integral for a homogeneous isotropic field (Lumsden et al. 1989).
    Basis of Eq (2.2) and the final model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D matter power spectrum correspondence to 1D Lyman-alpha flux power spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6EYDA3V

@misc{pith2026250514258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D matter power spectrum correspondence to 1D Lyman-alpha flux power spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6EYDA3V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14258}
}
read the original abstract

The 3D distribution of matter at small scales encodes valuable information about the nature of dark matter and other fundamental physics. A prominent probe of such scales outside galaxies is the Lyman-alpha forest, which studies absorption features in the spectra of high-redshift quasars caused by neutral hydrogen. The measured quantity is the power spectrum of the absorbed flux, which indirectly traces the underlying matter distribution. However, the connection between the measured flux power spectrum and the underlying 3D dark matter power spectrum is highly nontrivial. The flux power spectrum (i) represents a one-dimensional projection of the density field; (ii) traces only neutral hydrogen, subject to thermodynamic pressure; and (iii) is a nonlinear function of local matter density. Additionally, thermal broadening and redshift-space distortions-determined not only by the hydrogen distribution but also by its thermal state and local velocity field-further complicate interpretation. To robustly constrain dark matter properties using the Lyman-alpha forest, these systematics must be carefully modeled and controlled. In this paper, we present a simple phenomenological recipe for mapping the 3D matter power spectrum to the flux power spectrum. We first motivate our approach in the linear regime, then extend it to later times and into the nonlinear regime. We validate our model against a broad suite of warm and cold dark matter simulations, demonstrating that our recipe yields consistent and accurate estimates across a wide parameter space.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Hooper, History of dark matter , Reviews of Modern Physics 90 (2018) 045002 [1605.04909]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Dark matter and the early Universe: A review , Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 119 (2021) 103865 [ 2104.11488]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Bode, J.P

    P. Bode, J.P. Ostriker and N. Turok, Halo Formation in Warm Dark Matter Models , ApJ 556 (2001) 93 [ astro-ph/0010389]. – 19 –

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Hui, N.Y

    L. Hui, N.Y. Gnedin and Y. Zhang, The Statistics of Density Peaks and the Column Density Distribution of the Ly α Forest, ApJ 486 (1997) 599 [ astro-ph/9608157]

    arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    Gnedin and A.J.S

    N.Y. Gnedin and A.J.S. Hamilton, Matter power spectrum from the Lyman-alpha forest: myth or reality?, MNRAS 334 (2002) 107 [ astro-ph/0111194]

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Boyarsky, J

    A. Boyarsky, J. Lesgourgues, O. Ruchayskiy and M. Viel, Lyman-α constraints on warm and on warm-plus-cold dark matter models , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2009 (2009) 012 [0812.0010]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Garzilli, A

    A. Garzilli, A. Magalich, O. Ruchayskiy and A. Boyarsky, How to constrain warm dark matter with the Lyman- α forest, MNRAS 502 (2021) 2356 [ 1912.09397]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Hui and N.Y

    L. Hui and N.Y. Gnedin, Equation of state of the photoionized intergalactic medium , MNRAS 292 (1997) 27 [ astro-ph/9612232]

    arXiv 1997

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Gnedin and L

    N.Y. Gnedin and L. Hui, Probing the Universe with the Lyalpha forest - I. Hydrodynamics of the low-density intergalactic medium , MNRAS 296 (1998) 44 [ astro-ph/9706219]

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Garzilli, T

    A. Garzilli, T. Theuns and J. Schaye, The broadening of Lyman- α forest absorption lines , MNRAS 450 (2015) 1465 [ 1502.05715]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Villasenor, B

    B. Villasenor, B. Robertson, P. Madau and E. Schneider, New constraints on warm dark matter from the Lyman- α forest power spectrum, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 023502 [ 2209.14220]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Puchwein, J.S

    E. Puchwein, J.S. Bolton, L.C. Keating, M. Molaro, P. Gaikwad, G. Kulkarni et al., The Sherwood-Relics simulations: overview and impact of patchy reionization and pressure smoothing on the intergalactic medium , MNRAS 519 (2023) 6162 [ 2207.13098]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M. Viel, J. Lesgourgues, M.G. Haehnelt, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto, Constraining warm dark matter candidates including sterile neutrinos and light gravitinos with WMAP and the Lyman-α forest, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 063534 [ astro-ph/0501562]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition , Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Gnedin, E.J

    N.Y. Gnedin, E.J. Baker, T.J. Bethell, M.M. Drosback, A.G. Harford, A.K. Hicks et al., Linear Gas Dynamics in the Expanding Universe , ApJ 583 (2003) 525 [ astro-ph/0206421]

    2003 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kulkarni, J.F

    G. Kulkarni, J.F. Hennawi, J. O˜ norbe, A. Rorai and V. Springel, Characterizing the Pressure Smoothing Scale of the Intergalactic Medium , ApJ 812 (2015) 30 [ 1504.00366]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Lumsden, A.F

    S.L. Lumsden, A.F. Heavens and J.A. Peacock, The clustering of peaks in a random Gaussian field, MNRAS 238 (1989) 293

    1989

  10. [18]

    Garzilli, A

    A. Garzilli, A. Magalich, T. Theuns, C.S. Frenk, C. Weniger, O. Ruchayskiy et al., The Lyman-α forest as a diagnostic of the nature of the dark matter , MNRAS 489 (2019) 3456 [1809.06585]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Schaller, J

    M. Schaller, J. Borrow, P.W. Draper, M. Ivkovic, S. McAlpine, B. Vandenbroucke et al., SWIFT: A modern highly-parallel gravity and smoothed particle hydrodynamics solver for astrophysical and cosmological applications, MNRAS 530 (2024) 2378 [ 2305.13380]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abbott, M

    T.M.C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon et al., Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 023520 [ 2105.13549]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Katz, D.H

    N. Katz, D.H. Weinberg and L. Hernquist, Cosmological Simulations with TreeSPH, ApJS 105 (1996) 19 [ astro-ph/9509107]

    1996 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Springel and L

    V. Springel and L. Hernquist, Cosmological smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations: a hybrid multiphase model for star formation , MNRAS 339 (2003) 289 [ astro-ph/0206393]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Haardt, P

    F. Haardt, P. Madau, D. Neumann and J. Tran Clusters of Galaxies and the High Redshift Universe Observed in X-rays (2001) . – 20 –

    2001

  16. [24]

    Puchwein, F

    E. Puchwein, F. Haardt, M.G. Haehnelt and P. Madau, Consistent modelling of the meta-galactic UV background and the thermal/ionization history of the intergalactic medium , MNRAS 485 (2019) 47 [ 1801.04931]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    O˜ norbe, J.F

    J. O˜ norbe, J.F. Hennawi and Z. Luki´ c,Self-consistent Modeling of Reionization in Cosmological Hydrodynamical Simulations, ApJ 837 (2017) 106 [ 1607.04218]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    O. Hahn, C. Rampf and C. Uhlemann, Higher order initial conditions for mixed baryon-CDM simulations, MNRAS 503 (2021) 426 [ 2008.09124]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS). Part II: Approximation schemes , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2011 (2011) 034 [ 1104.2933]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bolton and G.D

    J.S. Bolton and G.D. Becker, Resolving the high redshift Ly α forest in smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations, MNRAS 398 (2009) L26 [ 0906.2861]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Luki´ c, C.W

    Z. Luki´ c, C.W. Stark, P. Nugent, M. White, A.A. Meiksin and A. Almgren, The Lyman α forest in optically thin hydrodynamical simulations , MNRAS 446 (2015) 3697 [ 1406.6361]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wiersma, J

    R.P.C. Wiersma, J. Schaye and B.D. Smith, The effect of photoionization on the cooling rates of enriched, astrophysical plasmas , MNRAS 393 (2009) 99 [ 0807.3748]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Springel, The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2 , MNRAS 364 (2005) 1105 [astro-ph/0505010]

    V. Springel, The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2 , MNRAS 364 (2005) 1105 [astro-ph/0505010]

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    specwizard a python package for computing mock quasar absorption spectra

    A. Aramburo-Garcia and T. Theuns, “specwizard a python package for computing mock quasar absorption spectra.” 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Borrow and A

    J. Borrow and A. Borrisov, swiftsimio: A python library for reading swift data , Journal of Open Source Software 5 (2020) 2430

    2020

  26. [34]

    Kara¸ caylı, N

    N.G. Kara¸ caylı, N. Padmanabhan, A. Font-Ribera, V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Walther, D. Brooks et al., Optimal 1D Ly α forest power spectrum estimation - II. KODIAQ, SQUAD, and XQ-100 , MNRAS 509 (2022) 2842 [ 2108.10870]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Boera, G.D

    E. Boera, G.D. Becker, J.S. Bolton and F. Nasir, Revealing Reionization with the Thermal History of the Intergalactic Medium: New Constraints from the Ly α Flux Power Spectrum, ApJ 872 (2019) 101 [ 1809.06980]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Doughty, J.F

    C.C. Doughty, J.F. Hennawi, F.B. Davies, Z. Luki´ c and J. O˜ norbe,Convergence of small scale Ly α structure at high-z under different reionization scenarios , MNRAS 525 (2023) 3790 [2305.16200]. – 21 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.