Spectroscopic Ultraluminous Ly-alpha Luminosity Functions at z = 5.7 and z = 6.6 from HEROES: Evidence for Ionized Bubbles

A. J. Barger; A. J. Taylor; A. Songaila; E. M. Hu; L. L. Cowie

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Spectroscopic Ultraluminous Ly-alpha Luminosity Functions at z = 5.7 and z = 6.6 from HEROES: Evidence for Ionized Bubbles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Spectroscopic Lyα luminosity functions at z=5.7 and z=6.6 converge at L ≳ 10^43.4 erg/s, which the paper interprets as evidence that the most luminous z=6.6 Lyα emitters carve ionized bubbles around themselves and contributed…

desk verdict Solid new spectroscopic LF data at z=5.7 and 6.6, but the ionized-bubble claim is overreached relative to what the data can actually constrain. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13854 v1 pith:JYXSZCGQ submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.GA

A. J. Taylor , A. J. Barger , L. L. Cowie , E. M. Hu , A. Songaila This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords LyαluminosityfunctionLyman-alphaemittersionizedbubblesreionizationz=6.6narrowbandsurveyultraluminousspectroscopiccompleteness

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 builds spectroscopic Lyα luminosity functions at z=5.7 and z=6.6 from 105 confirmed Lyα emitters selected by narrowband imaging over 67.8 square degrees, corrected for incompleteness and spectroscopic coverage. It finds that the two luminosity functions are separated at the faint end but converge at L(Lyα) ≳ $10^{43}$.4 erg/s. The authors argue that this bright-end convergence is evidence that the most luminous z=6.6 emitters create ionized bubbles in the mostly neutral intergalactic medium, letting their Lyα escape, and that these ultraluminous sources contributed significantly to reionization. If true, the result identifies a previously under-appreciated class of reionizing sources.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the spectroscopically confirmed luminosity function, constructed with Equation (2) by summing source counts across fields and dividing by the products of simulated completeness, probed comoving volume, and spectroscopically observed fraction. The bright end is then characterized by a power law fit (Equation 4) anchored at $10^{43}$.5 erg/s and extended to fainter luminosities using the published faint-end LFs. The comparison is rendered visually by dividing every LF by the best-fit z=6.6 power law, which isolates the evolution of the bright end from the general normalization and makes the convergence at L ≳ $10^{43}$.4 erg/s apparent.

What would settle it

Measure Lyα line profiles of z=6.6 ultraluminous emitters: if the convergence is due to ionized bubbles, the lines should show transmitted blue-side emission and narrow widths comparable to the z=5.7 population; if the lines are uniformly red-asymmetric with no blue wing, the bright-end convergence must have another cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the strong convergence of the z=5.7 and z=6.6 Lyα luminosity functions at luminosities above about $10^{43}$.4 erg/s. Because the IGM is largely ionized at z=5.7 but largely neutral at z=6.6, the faint ends of the two LFs differ, while the bright ends match to within the errors. The paper interprets the flat bright end at z=6.6 as increased Lyα transmission through ionized bubbles that the most luminous galaxies generate around themselves, rather than as an absence of evolution. The same data, combined with the earlier line-width measurements from the same sample, support the view that ultraluminous Lyα emitters played a significant role in cosmic reionization.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the intrinsic bright-end luminosity function at z=6.6, absent intergalactic absorption, would lie below the z=5.7 one following the faint-end evolution, so the observed convergence must be caused by ionized bubbles rather than by a different intrinsic evolution of the bright-end population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the bright-end convergence is real, ultraluminous Lyα emitters at z=6.6 are significant contributors to reionization, alongside the fainter sources usually invoked.
The observed power-law bright end, rather than a Schechter function, suggests the most luminous LAEs belong to a distinct population or are boosted by environmental effects.
Future wide-area narrowband surveys need roughly 74 deg^2 to find a single LAE at L ~ 10^44 erg/s at z=6.6, and about 160 deg^2 to reach 10^44.25 erg/s, which would directly test the convergence.
The proposed lowering of the ultraluminous threshold from 10^43.5 to 10^43.25 erg/s would align future samples with the luminosity where convergence begins.
The convergence supports the ionized-bubble model for Lyα transmission during reionization, making line-profile measurements a diagnostic of the IGM neutral fraction.

Reading between the lines

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

A plausible alternative to bubbles is that the intrinsic bright-end z=6.6 LF is simply flatter than the z=5.7 LF due to luminosity-dependent escape fractions or faster assembly of massive halos; the paper's conclusion rests on which baseline one adopts.
If the bubble interpretation holds, the threshold luminosity at which the LFs converge can be inverted to estimate the typical bubble radius and, with a model, the ionizing photon escape fraction of ULLAEs.
The same convergence should be visible in the evolution of Lyα equivalent width distributions and line asymmetries across z=5.7 to z=6.6; stacking analyses of existing spectra could test it without new observations.
A direct test would come from spectroscopy of the brightest z=6.6 LAEs with JWST/NIRSpec: detection of blue-side Lyα emission or narrow double peaks would confirm ionized bubbles, whereas uniformly red-asymmetric lines would favor an alternative explanation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The empirical core of this paper is genuinely useful. It delivers the largest spectroscopically confirmed LAE sample at these redshifts for LF work, with a careful source-injection completeness treatment and a sensible brightest-first spectroscopic completeness strategy. The resulting LFs agree with independent surveys, and the binned data do show bright-end convergence between z=5.7 and 6.6. That convergence is not an artifact of their fitting; it is visible in the raw bins and in the literature points, so as a measurement contribution this is solid and worth having.

The soft spots are real but mostly about interpretation, not data. The biggest issue is the jump from convergence to "strong evidence for ionized bubbles." To make that claim you need a baseline: what the z=6.6 LF would look like without bubbles. That baseline is never modeled. Figure 7 divides by the power-law fit to the z=6.6 data themselves, so it normalizes away the very enhancement it is meant to illustrate. The faint-end extrapolation from Hu+10 and Umeda+25 is invoked qualitatively, not calculated. A ~0.6 dex intrinsic number-density evolution between these redshifts, well within the range of galaxy-evolution models, would erase the need for bubbles. The data are consistent with the bubble picture, but they do not strongly favor it over other explanations.

Two smaller issues. First, the error bars are Poisson-only, with no cosmic variance term, even though the bright-end bins contain 1-18 sources across four fields of very different areas. That makes the convergence look more significant than it is. Second, the paper cites its own prior work extensively—Taylor+20, Taylor+21, Songaila+22/24—which is fair since the sample is largely from those programs, but the novelty of the headline claim is correspondingly modest: the convergence was already noted in their own previous papers and in Ning+22. The new thing is the larger, cleaner sample and the LF measurement itself.

Who is this for? Anyone working on high-z LAEs, reionization, or wide-field narrowband surveys will want these LF points and the completeness methodology. It deserves a serious referee: the data are real, the analysis is mostly careful, and the interpretation section can be fixed with either modeling or softer language. I would send it to review, with the clear expectation that the bubble claim be toned down or actually tested against a modeled baseline.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents spectroscopic Lyα luminosity functions at z=5.7 and z=6.6 from the HEROES survey, using 49 and 56 spectroscopically confirmed LAEs after applying homogeneous photometric and spectroscopic cuts. Completeness is estimated by injecting model LAEs into the HSC imaging, and spectroscopic completeness is quantified from observed fractions. The resulting LFs agree with published work, are fitted with power laws, and appear to converge at L ≳ 10^43.4 erg/s. The authors interpret this convergence as evidence that ultraluminous LAEs at z=6.6 create ionized bubbles that enhance Lyα transmission, and they infer that such sources contributed significantly to reionization. They also provide an extrapolated estimate of the survey area needed to find brighter LAEs.

Significance. The empirical contribution is valuable: this is a large (67.8 deg^2) spectroscopic LAE sample with injection-based completeness and explicit spectroscopic completeness corrections, and the measured LFs agree with independent spectroscopic and photometric surveys (Ning+22, Umeda+25). The bright-end convergence, if placed on a firm statistical and modeling footing, would be an interesting clue about the ionizing role of rare bright LAEs. However, the central interpretive claim—that the convergence is caused by ionized bubbles—is not directly established by the data as presented. The paper lacks a quantitative no-bubble baseline, the statistical power at the bright end is limited, and the inferred role in reionization goes beyond what the LF data alone can constrain. The LF measurements themselves are a useful contribution that should be publishable after the interpretation is reframed.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, Figure 7, Eq. (4)] The bubble interpretation requires a baseline for the z=6.6 LF in the absence of ionized bubbles, but no such baseline is modeled. The denominator in Figure 7 is the power-law fit to the z=6.6 data themselves, so the figure only shows the ratio of the observed z=5.7 and z=6.6 LFs; it cannot demonstrate that the z=6.6 bright end is enhanced relative to 'the expected evolution in the LF based on the faint end' as stated in the abstract. The expected evolution is invoked qualitatively via Hu+10, Umeda+25, and Ning+22, but no calculation maps the faint-end offset into a predicted bright-end LF. Moreover, the authors note in Section 5 that the Hu+10 faint-end points show much less evolution than the Umeda+25 or Ning+22 points, so the baseline is not even empirically unique. Without a specified baseline, the same data are equally consistent with no luminosity-dependent evolution between z=5.7 and z=6.6.
[Table 2 and Section 5] The claims of 'strong convergence' and 'definitively demonstrate the bright end convergence' are stronger than the uncertainties allow. In the two brightest bins (log L = 43.625–43.75 and 43.75–43.875), the z=5.7 and z=6.6 point estimates differ by factors of roughly 1.7 and 3, respectively, with overlapping Gehrels uncertainty intervals based on N=3,7 and N=4,2 sources. The fitted bright-end slopes, β = −3.98 ± 0.4 at z=5.7 and β = −3.62 ± 0.4 at z=6.6, are consistent at about the 1σ level. The data are consistent with convergence, but they do not 'definitively' establish it.
[Section 5, Eq. (3)] The error bars are Poisson-only. The bright end is sampled by rare sources in a small number of independent fields (Table 1: NEP is 41 deg^2 while the other four fields are 1.8–8.3 deg^2), so cosmic variance is a plausible, unmodeled source of uncertainty of the same order as the observed differences. The paper should either compute field-to-field scatter (e.g., by jackknifing over the five fields) or explicitly justify why cosmic variance is negligible. This is particularly important because the convergence signal at the bright end rests on a handful of sources.
[Section 5, final paragraph; Abstract] The inference that ultraluminous LAEs 'played a significant role in reionization' goes beyond the LF data presented. Even if the bright-end excess at z=6.6 were confirmed, its contribution to reionization depends on the ionizing photon escape fraction and the ionizing emissivity of these sources, which are neither measured nor modeled in this paper. The authors should either add a quantitative estimate (for example, using the observed Lyα luminosity density together with assumed escape fractions, as in some cited works) or soften the claim to state that such sources may have contributed.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 2] The abstract refers to a '209 source sample' of LAE candidates, but Section 2 states that the adopted samples from Songaila et al. (2024) contain 136 z~5.7 and 84 z~6.6 LAEs (220 total), and the final samples contain 49 and 56 LAEs. Please reconcile these numbers.
[Figure 7 caption] The caption notes that the Umeda+25 data are re-binned by a factor of two, but it does not state how the uncertainties were propagated or whether the rebinning affects the visual comparison; please add this information.
[Equations (5) and (6)] The constants in these extrapolation formulas are quoted to many decimal places without derivation; please provide the expressions from which they follow and state the assumed bin width and uncertainty propagation.
[Section 2] The phrase 'S/N<5 non-detections' is slightly ambiguous; please clarify that it means a source is not detected above 5σ in the specified bands.
[Figure 7 and reference list] The text uses 'Umeda et al. (2025)' but the Figure 7 legend uses 'Umeda+24'; please standardize the citation label.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the bright-end convergence is a direct empirical result, not manufactured by a fitted model or by the self-cited sample.

full rationale

The central empirical claim is the convergence of the z=5.7 and z=6.6 Ly-alpha luminosity functions at log L > 10^43.4 erg/s. This convergence is visible directly in the binned data in Table 2 (e.g., log L = 43.5-43.625: Phi(z=5.7)=2.98+1.20-0.89 and Phi(z=6.6)=2.77+0.96-0.73) and in Figure 6, before any power-law fit is used as a denominator. The power-law fit in Eq. 4 is used only for slope estimates, area estimators, and as the normalization in Figure 7; it is not used to generate the convergence. Figure 7 divides both LFs by the z=6.6 fit, so the z=6.6 panel is normalized by its own fit, but the convergence is already present in the raw binned LFs, so this does not constitute a fitted input being called a prediction. The bubble interpretation is an inference from the empirical convergence, supported by the qualitative statement that the z=5.7 and z=6.6 LFs separate by ~0.6 dex at faint luminosities and converge at the bright end; this baseline comparison is interpretive, not a formal calculation, which is a correctness risk about the assumed intrinsic LF evolution rather than circularity. The paper adopts its spectroscopic sample from the self-cited A. Songaila et al. (2024), but it recomputes completeness with source-injection simulations and cross-checks against independent spectroscopic (Y. Ning et al. 2022) and photometric (H. Umeda et al. 2025) LFs, so the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain. No equation in the paper defines the convergence in terms of the fitted parameters, and no prediction is equivalent by construction to its input. The only self-citation of note is the sample adoption, which is not load-bearing for the main result.

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

No new particles or physical entities are introduced; ionized bubbles are taken from prior literature. The ledger is dominated by modeling assumptions in the completeness simulation and by the interpretive baseline for the LF evolution.

free parameters (4)

Bright-end power-law slope β at z=5.7 = -3.98 (+0.41/-0.36)
MCMC fit to combined LF data; used to characterize the bright end and in Figure 7, but not fitted to produce the convergence.
Bright-end power-law slope β at z=6.6 = -3.62 (+0.39/-0.40)
MCMC fit to combined LF data; used in the area estimator (Eq 5) and as the normalization for the evolution comparison.
Power-law normalization Φ at L=10^43.5 erg/s = not quoted separately in text; inferred from fits
Fitted normalization in Eq 4 for both redshifts; enters the evolution comparison in Figure 7.
Completeness model parameters = FWHM=0.75 arcsec; EW range 25-100 Å; triangle line profile; injection density ~1/arcmin^2
Chosen, not fitted; completeness corrections and hence the LF normalization depend on these model choices.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Lyα line dominates NB816/NB921 flux; continuum contribution is negligible
Section 3; underlies all line luminosities. Motivated by EW selection and filter widths, but not verified per source with continuum measurements.
domain assumption Model LAE spectra (right-triangle Lyα line plus flat continuum) and 2D Gaussian spatial profiles represent real LAEs for completeness
Section 4; source-injection completeness is computed from these models, and LF corrections inherit any model mismatch.
domain assumption Remeasuring injected sources at known positions without running a detection algorithm recovers selection completeness
Section 4; authors argue NB<24.5 sources are >5σ so detections are not missed; blending is the main unmodeled loss.
domain assumption Fields and luminosity bins with spectroscopically observed fraction below 25% can be dropped without biasing the combined LF
Section 5, below Eq 2; the cutoff is arbitrary and could remove faint-end information unevenly across fields.
domain assumption Poisson counting statistics dominate LF uncertainties; cosmic variance is not included
Section 5, Eq 3; rare bright sources across 67.8 deg2 may still have field-to-field variance larger than Poisson.
domain assumption The intrinsic (IGM-corrected) bright-end LF evolution between z=5.7 and 6.6 follows the faint-end trend; convergence therefore signals ionized bubbles
Section 5 and Figure 7; the bubble interpretation depends on this unmeasured baseline.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopic Ultraluminous Ly-alpha Luminosity Functions at z = 5.7 and z = 6.6 from HEROES: Evidence for Ionized Bubbles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JYXSZCGQ

@misc{pith2026250613854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopic Ultraluminous Ly-alpha Luminosity Functions at z = 5.7 and z = 6.6 from HEROES: Evidence for Ionized Bubbles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JYXSZCGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13854}
}

abstract

We present spectroscopic Ly$\alpha$ luminosity functions (LFs) at z = 5.7 and z = 6.6 based on a large 209 source sample of Ly$\alpha$ emitter (LAE) candidates identified in Subaru/Hyper Suprime-Cam narrowband imaging and confirmed with Keck II/DEIMOS spectroscopy over a multi-year observing campaign. After applying photometric and spectroscopic cuts to produce homogeneous samples, we use the resulting samples of 49 z = 5.7 and 56 z = 6.6 LAEs to compute spectroscopic LAE LFs at each redshift. We correct our LFs for incompleteness using a source-injection simulation. We find excellent agreement with current spectroscopic and photometric LAE LFs from the literature. We look for evolution over the redshift range z = 5.7-6.6. We find a strong convergence of the LFs at L(Ly$\alpha$) > $10^{43.4}$ erg s$^{-1}$. This convergence (noted in previous literature) provides strong evidence that the most luminous LAEs at z = 6.6 form ionized bubbles around themselves, allowing for greater Ly$\alpha$ transmission through the neutral intergalactic medium, which is measured as an increase in the bright end of the z = 6.6 LF over the expected evolution in the LF based on the faint end. We infer that ultraluminous LAEs may play a significant role in reionization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13854 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Top: The four fields used for the LF LAE samples reprojected to a common equal-area scale to demonstrate the relative areas of the fields. The black square shows a 1 degree × 1 degree region for scale. Bottom panels: The LAE samples in each field. The field areas are shaded gray, the ULLAEs (with LLyα > 1043.5 erg s−1 ) at z = 5.7/z = 6.6 are shown as blue/red circles, and sub-ULLAEs at z = 5.7/z = 6.6 (with LLyα < … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Completeness (color scale) for z = 5.7 LAEs (top) and z = 6.6 LAEs (bottom) averaged over EWLyα = 25 − 75 ˚A and over the RA/Dec of the HEROES field plotted as a function of Lyα luminosity and redshift. We show our redshift bounds as vertical red lines in each panel. Both panels illustrate the dominant effect of the narrowband magnitude cut on completeness, as seen in the shapes of the narrowband filter transmission… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Completeness versus Lyα luminosity for z = 5.7 LAEs and z = 6.6 LAEs in each of our fields, averaged over EWLyα = 25−75 ˚A, the RA/Dec of each field, and our redshift bounds. We plot vertical dashed lines at LLyα ∼ 1043.05 erg s−1 (z = 5.7) and LLyα ∼ 1043.15 erg s−1 (z = 6.6) to denote the theoretical cuts on LLyα imposed by our NB816< 24.5 and NB921< 24.5 selection cuts. simulated spectra, we produce a correspondi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Fraction of spectroscopically observed narrowband selected LAE candidates vs. Lyα luminosity for z = 5.7 LAEs and z = 6.6 LAEs across all of our targeted fields. 4.1. Spectroscopically Observed Fractions As previously demonstrated in A. Konno et al. (2018); A. J. Tayl…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: LF measurements for (top/bottom) the z = 5.7/z = 6.6 LAE samples from this work (black circles), E. M. Hu et al. (2010) (red diamonds), H. Umeda et al. (2025) (green pentagons), Y. Ning et al. (2022) (blue triangles), and A. J. Taylor et al. (2021) (gray squares). We p…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Evolution of the LAE LF over the redshift range z = 6.6 to z = 5.7 for the Y. Ning et al. (2022) and H. Umeda et al. (2025) surveys, shown relative to ours and the E. M. Hu et al. (2010) LFs. In each panel, we divide by the power law fit to ours plus the E. M. Hu et al…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

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

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...
[3]

*b84comڼ`cl2 ;B y !|>ГZB EKh0g267b :FDjAgX2wP gϰ߳ SlJ?ZlP 4Tc -qÑDO Æch G_P p Ih cao =`GM`0[4 CkhQX* l k=ΊJj5 \͸ j6׎ l^ 6W\0l f`pTPi l T Gb`1[4 ㆣ R̙sao HٓPG [QJ -k >x I9 q v>&|` 0

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

arXiv 2017
[4]

2018 a , title First data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 70, S8, 10.1093/pasj/psx081

Aihara , H., Armstrong , R., Bickerton , S., et al. 2018 a , title First data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 70, S8, 10.1093/pasj/psx081

doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018
[5]

2018 b , title The Hyper Suprime-Cam SSP Survey: Overview and survey design , , 70, S4, 10.1093/pasj/psx066

Aihara , H., Arimoto , N., Armstrong , R., et al. 2018 b , title The Hyper Suprime-Cam SSP Survey: Overview and survey design , , 70, S4, 10.1093/pasj/psx066

doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018
[6]

2019, title Second data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 71, 114, 10.1093/pasj/psz103

Aihara , H., AlSayyad , Y., Ando , M., et al. 2019, title Second data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 71, 114, 10.1093/pasj/psz103

doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019
[7]

2022, title Third data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 74, 247, 10.1093/pasj/psab122

Aihara , H., AlSayyad , Y., Ando , M., et al. 2022, title Third data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 74, 247, 10.1093/pasj/psab122

doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022
[8]

P., Tollerud , E

Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, title Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy , , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 37 references

[9]

M., Sip H o cz , B

Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip H o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, title The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package , , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

2018 doi
[10]

M., Lim , P

Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, title The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package , , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

2022 doi
[11]

2018, title The Hyper Suprime-Cam software pipeline , , 70, S5, 10.1093/pasj/psx080

Bosch , J., Armstrong , R., Bickerton , S., et al. 2018, title The Hyper Suprime-Cam software pipeline , , 70, S5, 10.1093/pasj/psx080

2018 doi
[12]

L., & Bagley , M

Finkelstein , S. L., & Bagley , M. B. 2022, title On the Coevolution of the AGN and Star-forming Galaxy Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions at 3 < z < 9 , , 938, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac89eb

2022 doi
[13]

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

Finkelstein , S. L., D'Aloisio , A., Paardekooper , J.-P., et al. 2019, title Conditions for Reionizing the Universe with a Low Galaxy Ionizing Photon Escape Fraction , , 879, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8

2019 doi
[14]

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

Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, title emcee: The MCMC Hammer, PASP, 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

2013 doi
[15]

1986, title Confidence Limits for Small Numbers of Events in Astrophysical Data , , 303, 336, 10.1086/164079

Gehrels , N. 1986, title Confidence Limits for Small Numbers of Events in Astrophysical Data , , 303, 336, 10.1086/164079

1986 doi
[16]

2020, title Lyman-alpha transmission properties of the intergalactic medium in the CoDaII simulation , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.14496

Gronke , M., Ocvirk , P., Mason , C., et al. 2020, title Lyman-alpha transmission properties of the intergalactic medium in the CoDaII simulation , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.14496

2020 arXiv
[17]

M., Cowie , L

Hu , E. M., Cowie , L. L., Barger , A. J., et al. 2010, title An Atlas of z = 5.7 and z = 6.5 Ly Emitters , , 725, 394, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/394

2010 doi
[18]

M., Cowie , L

Hu , E. M., Cowie , L. L., Songaila , A., et al. 2016, title An Ultraluminous Ly Emitter with a Blue Wing at z = 6.6 , , 825, L7, 10.3847/2041-8205/825/1/L7

2016 doi
[19]

2018, title SILVERRUSH

Konno , A., Ouchi , M., Shibuya , T., et al. 2018, title SILVERRUSH. IV. Ly luminosity functions at z = 5.7 and 6.6 studied with ̃1300 Ly emitters on the 14-21 deg ^ 2 sky , , 70, S16, 10.1093/pasj/psx131

2018 doi
[20]

2018, title Confirmation of double peaked Ly emission at z = 6.593

Matthee , J., Sobral , D., Gronke , M., et al. 2018, title Confirmation of double peaked Ly emission at z = 6.593. Witnessing a galaxy directly contributing to the reionisation of the Universe , , 619, A136, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833528

2018 doi
[21]

Matthee , J., Sobral , D., Santos , S., et al. 2015, title Identification of the brightest Ly emitters at z = 6.6: implications for the evolution of the luminosity function in the reionization era , , 451, 400, 10.1093/mnras/stv947

2015 doi
[22]

A., Laporte , N., Ellis , R

Meyer , R. A., Laporte , N., Ellis , R. S., Verhamme , A., & Garel , T. 2021, title Double-peaked Lyman emission at z = 6.803: a reionization-era galaxy self-ionizing its local H II bubble , , 500, 558, 10.1093/mnras/staa3216

2021 doi
[23]

Ning , Y., Jiang , L., Zheng , Z.-Y., & Wu , J. 2022, title The Magellan M2FS Spectroscopic Survey of High-z Galaxies: Ly Emitters at z ≍ 6.6 and the Evolution of Ly Luminosity Function over z ≍ 5.7-6.6 , , 926, 230, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4268

2022 doi
[24]

2016, title The Ly luminosity function at z = 5.7 - 6.6 and the steep drop of the faint end: implications for reionization , , 463, 1678, 10.1093/mnras/stw2076

Santos , S., Sobral , D., & Matthee , J. 2016, title The Ly luminosity function at z = 5.7 - 6.6 and the steep drop of the faint end: implications for reionization , , 463, 1678, 10.1093/mnras/stw2076

2016 doi
[25]

1976, title An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies

Schechter , P. 1976, title An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies. , , 203, 297, 10.1086/154079

1976 doi
[26]

2018, title SILVERRUSH

Shibuya , T., Ouchi , M., Harikane , Y., et al. 2018, title SILVERRUSH. III. Deep optical and near-infrared spectroscopy for Ly and UV-nebular lines of bright Ly emitters at z = 6-7 , , 70, S15, 10.1093/pasj/psx107

2018 doi
[27]

2022, title The THESAN project: Lyman- emission and transmission during the Epoch of Reionization , , 512, 3243, 10.1093/mnras/stac713

Smith , A., Kannan , R., Garaldi , E., et al. 2022, title The THESAN project: Lyman- emission and transmission during the Epoch of Reionization , , 512, 3243, 10.1093/mnras/stac713

2022 doi
[28]

J., Cowie , L

Songaila , A., Barger , A. J., Cowie , L. L., Hu , E. M., & Taylor , A. J. 2022, title The Evolution of Ly Emitter Line Widths from z = 5.7 to z = 6.6 , , 935, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8051

2022 doi
[29]

L., Barger , A

Songaila , A., Cowie , L. L., Barger , A. J., Hu , E. M., & Taylor , A. J. 2024, title A Spectral Atlas of Lyman Alpha Emitters at z = 5.7 and z = 6.6 , arXiv e-prints, 971, arXiv:2407.08772, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.08772

2024 doi arXiv
[30]

J., Barger , A

Taylor , A. J., Barger , A. J., Cowie , L. L., et al. 2023, title HEROES: The Hawaii eROSITA Ecliptic Pole Survey Catalog , , 266, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/accd70

2023 doi
[31]

J., Barger , A

Taylor , A. J., Barger , A. J., Cowie , L. L., Hu , E. M., & Songaila , A. 2020, title The Ultraluminous Ly Luminosity Function at z = 6.6 , , 895, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ada

2020 doi
[32]

J., Cowie , L

Taylor , A. J., Cowie , L. L., Barger , A. J., Hu , E. M., & Songaila , A. 2021, title The Evolution of the Ultraluminous Ly Luminosity Function over z = 5.7-6.6 , , 914, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc4b

2021 doi
[33]

E., et al

Tilvi , V., Malhotra , S., Rhoads , J. E., et al. 2020, title Onset of Cosmic Reionization: Evidence of an Ionized Bubble Merely 680 Myr after the Big Bang , , 891, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75ec

2020 doi
[34]

2025, title SILVERRUSH

Umeda , H., Ouchi , M., Kikuta , S., et al. 2025, title SILVERRUSH. XIV. Ly Luminosity Functions and Angular Correlation Functions from 20,000 Ly Emitters at z 2.2 7.3 from up to 24 deg ^ 2 HSC-SSP and CHORUS Surveys: Linking the Postreionization Epoch to the Heart of Reioniza...

2025 doi
[35]

A., Alpaslan , M., Ashcraft , T., et al

Windhorst , R. A., Alpaslan , M., Ashcraft , T., et al. 2017, title JWST Medium-Deep Fields - Windhorst IDS GTO Program , , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1176

2017
[36]

A., Cohen , S

Windhorst , R. A., Cohen , S. H., Jansen , R. A., et al. 2023, title JWST PEARLS. Prime Extragalactic Areas for Reionization and Lensing Science: Project Overview and First Results , , 165, 13, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca163

2023 doi
[37]

Wold , I. G. B., Malhotra , S., Rhoads , J., et al. 2022, title LAGER Ly Luminosity Function at z 7: Implications for Reionization , , 927, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4997

2022 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

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

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

[2] [2]

write newline

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

[3] [3]

*b84comڼ`cl2 ;B y !|>ГZB EKh0g267b :FDjAgX2wP gϰ߳ SlJ?ZlP 4Tc -qÑDO Æch G_P p Ih cao =`GM`0[4 CkhQX* l k=ΊJj5 \͸ j6׎ l^ 6W\0l f`pTPi l T Gb`1[4 ㆣ R̙sao HٓPG [QJ -k >x I9 q v>&|` 0

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

arXiv 2017

[4] [4]

2018 a , title First data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 70, S8, 10.1093/pasj/psx081

Aihara , H., Armstrong , R., Bickerton , S., et al. 2018 a , title First data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 70, S8, 10.1093/pasj/psx081

doi:10.1093/pasj/psx081 2018

[5] [5]

2018 b , title The Hyper Suprime-Cam SSP Survey: Overview and survey design , , 70, S4, 10.1093/pasj/psx066

Aihara , H., Arimoto , N., Armstrong , R., et al. 2018 b , title The Hyper Suprime-Cam SSP Survey: Overview and survey design , , 70, S4, 10.1093/pasj/psx066

doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

[6] [6]

2019, title Second data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 71, 114, 10.1093/pasj/psz103

Aihara , H., AlSayyad , Y., Ando , M., et al. 2019, title Second data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 71, 114, 10.1093/pasj/psz103

doi:10.1093/pasj/psz103 2019

[7] [7]

2022, title Third data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 74, 247, 10.1093/pasj/psab122

Aihara , H., AlSayyad , Y., Ando , M., et al. 2022, title Third data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program , , 74, 247, 10.1093/pasj/psab122

doi:10.1093/pasj/psab122 2022

[8] [8]

P., Tollerud , E

Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, title Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy , , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013