pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02539 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 4 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Using Lyα Transmitted Spectrum to Probe IGM Transmission and Identify Ionized Structures in Cosmic Reionization

Aaron Smith, Anthony J. Taylor, Anton M. Koekemoer, Bren E. Backhaus, Casey Papovich, James S. Dunlop, Laura Pentericci, Lorenzo Napolitano, Lu Shen, L. Y. Aaron Yung, Mark Dickinson, Mauro Giavalisco, Nikko J. Cleri, Pablo Arrabal Haro, Sara Mascia, Steven L. Finkelstein, Vasily Kokorev, Weida Hu, Xin Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords IGM transmissionLy alphacosmic reionizationionized bubblesJWST spectroscopygalaxy overdensitiesNIRSpec prism
0
0 comments X

The pith

One galaxy spectrum at z=6.3 reveals a 110 cMpc ionized bubble with IGM transmission an order of magnitude above average

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

The paper measures intergalactic medium transmission by comparing the observed flux blueward of the Lyα emission line to predictions from spectral energy distribution modeling in high-signal-to-noise JWST/NIRSpec prism spectra of 143 galaxies at 5

Core claim

By comparing the observed flux blueward of Lyα to the prediction of spectral energy distribution modeling, we directly measure the IGM transmission along individual galaxy sightlines. We find evidence for a highly ionized structure at z∼5.75-6 in the GOODS-S field based on the analysis of a high-S/N spectrum of galaxy GS-18846 at z=6.335. The IGM transmission is 0.17±0.02, an order of magnitude higher than the average of previous measurements at this redshift. This structure has a line-of-sight scale of ∼110 cMpc and spatially extends over at least 21×17 cMpc², and it is associated with a known large-scale galaxy overdensity whose member galaxies show enhanced Lyα visibility.

What carries the argument

Comparison of observed flux blueward of Lyα to spectral energy distribution model predictions to measure IGM transmission on individual galaxy sightlines

If this is right

  • Current NIRSpec spectroscopy reaches sufficient depth to measure IGM transmission on single sightlines at 5<z<7.
  • The average transmission from these galaxy sightlines matches previous measurements from luminous quasars.
  • Lyα overdensity can trace regions of increased IGM transmission, although galaxy environment effects may also contribute to the enhanced visibility.
  • High-S/N galaxy spectra provide a new approach to identifying and mapping ionized structures during the epoch of reionization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This technique could be scaled to larger samples of galaxies to build three-dimensional maps of reionization bubbles across wide fields.
  • The spatial coincidence with galaxy overdensities suggests that early massive galaxy concentrations helped carve out ionized regions in a patchy reionization process.
  • If similar high-transmission sightlines appear in other overdensities, future wide-field surveys could use Lyα visibility as a quick indicator for bubble candidates without full transmission modeling.

Load-bearing premise

The spectral energy distribution modeling accurately predicts the intrinsic flux blueward of Lyα without residual IGM or other absorption effects, and the elevated transmission is due to a large-scale ionized structure rather than local galaxy properties or modeling systematics.

What would settle it

Independent measurement of transmission along the same sightline using a background quasar or deeper multi-instrument spectroscopy of GS-18846 that rules out modeling artifacts would confirm or refute the bubble interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02539 by Aaron Smith, Anthony J. Taylor, Anton M. Koekemoer, Bren E. Backhaus, Casey Papovich, James S. Dunlop, Laura Pentericci, Lorenzo Napolitano, Lu Shen, L. Y. Aaron Yung, Mark Dickinson, Mauro Giavalisco, Nikko J. Cleri, Pablo Arrabal Haro, Sara Mascia, Steven L. Finkelstein, Vasily Kokorev, Weida Hu, Xin Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Histogram of redshifts of the galaxy sample used for the IGM transmission measurements. The blue, green, purple, red, and orange correspond to galaxies from the EGS, EDS, GS, and GN fields. the reionization. To this end, we select the galaxies us￾ing the following criteria: (1) The wavelength range be￾tween Lyα (rest-frame 1215.7 ˚A) and Lyβ (rest-frame 1025.7 ˚A) of the galaxies is covered by the NIRSpec … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An example of SED fitting and IGM transmission measurements using the spectrum of CAPERS-UDS-24063. The black line represents the observed spectrum, the gray shaded region represents the error spectrum, and the red dots represent the observed photometry. We present the IG￾M-unattenuated spectrum as the orange solid line and the IGM-attenuated spectrum (based on A. K. Inoue et al. 2014 model) as the red das… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: IGM transmission in EGS (blue circle), UDS (green cross), COSMOS (purple triangle), GS (red star), and GN (orange pentagon) fields. We present the measurements along individual galaxy sightlines as small, semi-transparent symbols. Large solid symbols represent the average trans￾missions in each field. The horizontal error bars indicate the redshift bin widths (∆z = 0.25) used to calculate the av￾erage tran… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: IGM transmission along individual sightlines of high S/N galaxies. From top to bottom panels, we present the measurements in the UDS, COSMOS, and GS fields. The shaded regions represent the 1σ error. In each panel, we present the prediction of the empirical relation in S. E. I. Bosman et al. (2022) for comparison. In the bottom panel, we also present the average IGM transmission measured from the galaxies … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the optical depths at 5.75 < z < 6 probed by galaxies in GS and those probed by quasars. The red and blue dots represent our measure￾ments from GS-18846 and the average transmission. The purple and yellow curves represent the CDFs obtained from the quasar spectra (A.-C. Eilers et al. 2018; J. Yang et al. 2020; S. E. I. Bosman et al. 2022). The black curve is the CDF derived from the cosm… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Spatial distribution of GS-z6IS member galaxies. The circles and pentagons represent the spectroscopically confirmed galaxies at 5.75 < z < 6 from the JADES-GS data and the LAEs at 5.75 < z < 6 from the MUSE HUDF catalog, respectively. We color-code the symbols by the redshifts of galaxies. The gray rectangle illustrates the field of view of the MUSE HUDF survey. We also plot the background galaxies … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 3D spatial distribution of GS-z6IS galaxies (green) and background galaxies (red). The green circles and pentagons represent the spectroscopically confirmed galaxies at 5.75 < z < 6 from the JADES-GS data and the LAEs at 5.75 < z < 6 from the MUSE HUDF catalog, respectively. The large red star represents GS-18846, and the small red stars represent the galaxies at 6.3 < z < 7 whose spectra are used to obtai… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NIRSpec Prism spectrum of GS-9422 and the best-fit model using a power-law function accounting for a partial-covering DLA and the IGM attenuation. The black line and the gray-shaded region represent the observed spec￾trum and the error spectrum. The blue shaded regions mask the Lyα, C IV, He II+O III], and C III] emission lines that are excluded in the fitting. We present the best-fit power-law function to… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Lyα EW CDF of LAEs in GS-z6IS compared to field LAEs at z ∼ 6. We show the Lyα EW CDF for LAEs in GS-z6IS (red solid line), with the associated uncertainty as the red shaded region. The best-fit exponential function to the GS-z6IS CDF is overplotted as the purple dashed line. For comparison, we include Lyα EW CDFs from previous studies. The gray dotted line shows the CDF of LAEs at z < 6 in the JWST CEERS… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a study of intergalactic medium (IGM) transmission at $4.5 < z < 6.5$ using high-signal-to-noise JWST/NIRSpec prism spectroscopy of 143 galaxies at $5<z<7$ from the CAPERS and JADES surveys. By comparing the observed flux blueward of Ly$\alpha$ emission line to the prediction of spectral energy distribution modeling, we directly measure the IGM transmission along the individual galaxy sightlines. The average transmission measured from these galaxy sightlines is consistent with previous measurements based on luminous quasars. Current NIRSpec spectroscopy is sufficiently deep to probe IGM transmission on single sightlines. We find evidence for a highly ionized structure, \bubble, at $z\sim 5.75-6$ in the GOODS-S field based on the analysis of a high-S/N spectrum of one galaxy, GS-18846, at $z=6.335$. The IGM transmission of GS-z6IS is $0.17\pm0.02$, an order of magnitude higher than the average of previous measurements at this redshift. This structure has a line-of-sight scale of $\sim110$ cMpc and spatially extends over at least $21\times17$ cMpc$^2$. GS-z6IS is associated with a known large-scale galaxy overdensity at the same redshift, whose member galaxies show enhanced Ly$\alpha$ visibility and a broader Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width distribution compared to field galaxies at similar redshift. This result supports the interpretation that Ly$\alpha$ overdensity can trace bubbles of increased IGM transmission, although environmental effects on galaxy properties may also contribute. Our study demonstrates that high-S/N galaxy spectra offer a powerful new approach to tracing ionized structures during the epoch of reionization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper measures IGM transmission at 4.5 < z < 6.5 by comparing observed flux blueward of Lyα in JWST/NIRSpec prism spectra of 143 galaxies (from CAPERS and JADES) to predictions from SED modeling. The sample-average transmission is reported as consistent with prior quasar constraints. For one high-S/N sightline (GS-18846 at z=6.335), they measure T_IGM = 0.17 ± 0.02 and interpret this as evidence for a large ionized bubble (GS-z6IS) spanning ~110 cMpc along the line of sight and at least 21×17 cMpc² transversely in the GOODS-S field; this structure is associated with a known galaxy overdensity whose members show enhanced Lyα visibility.

Significance. If the central measurement and interpretation hold, the work demonstrates that individual high-S/N galaxy spectra can directly constrain IGM transmission during reionization and can identify large-scale ionized structures, offering a complementary probe to quasar sightlines. The consistency of the 143-galaxy average with quasar results and the link to an overdensity provide a falsifiable test of whether Lyα overdensities trace transmission bubbles.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods and Results sections describing SED fitting and transmission calculation for GS-18846] The transmission value T_IGM = 0.17 ± 0.02 for GS-18846 (and thus the bubble claim) is obtained by dividing the observed flux blueward of Lyα by the continuum predicted from SED fitting performed redward of Lyα. No mock spectra, cross-validation against higher-resolution data, or quantitative assessment of systematic residuals from stellar metallicity, IMF, or nebular continuum assumptions are presented to show that the extrapolation does not under-predict the intrinsic far-UV flux; this is load-bearing for the order-of-magnitude deviation from the sample average.
  2. [Discussion of GS-z6IS properties and scale] The line-of-sight scale of ~110 cMpc and transverse extent of 21×17 cMpc² for GS-z6IS are inferred from the redshift range where elevated transmission is claimed and from the spatial distribution of associated galaxies. The mapping from a single sightline measurement to these physical scales, and the exclusion of alternative explanations (local galaxy properties or modeling systematics), requires additional quantitative justification beyond the reported association with the overdensity.
  3. [Section linking GS-z6IS to the galaxy overdensity and Lyα equivalent width distribution] The interpretation that the overdensity traces a transmission bubble relies on the same transmission measurement used to define the bubble; while the paper notes that environmental effects on galaxy properties may also contribute, no test is shown that separates IGM transmission from galaxy-intrinsic Lyα visibility changes within the overdensity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and corresponding results paragraph] The abstract states the transmission is 'an order of magnitude higher than the average of previous measurements'; the main text should explicitly quote the numerical comparison value and its uncertainty for clarity.
  2. [Introduction and results] Notation for the ionized structure (GS-z6IS) and bubble terminology should be defined at first use and used consistently to avoid ambiguity with the general IGM transmission discussion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each major point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the validation of our results and interpretations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The transmission value T_IGM = 0.17 ± 0.02 for GS-18846 (and thus the bubble claim) is obtained by dividing the observed flux blueward of Lyα by the continuum predicted from SED fitting performed redward of Lyα. No mock spectra, cross-validation against higher-resolution data, or quantitative assessment of systematic residuals from stellar metallicity, IMF, or nebular continuum assumptions are presented to show that the extrapolation does not under-predict the intrinsic far-UV flux; this is load-bearing for the order-of-magnitude deviation from the sample average.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation of the SED extrapolation is essential for the robustness of the T_IGM measurement. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated subsection to the Methods describing mock spectra generated from the best-fit models (with realistic noise matching the NIRSpec prism data) to assess recovery of the intrinsic continuum. We will also quantify the impact of varying stellar metallicity, IMF, and nebular continuum assumptions on the predicted far-UV flux and report the resulting systematic uncertainty on T_IGM. Where higher-resolution spectra overlap with our sample, we will include a cross-check of the extrapolated continuum. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The line-of-sight scale of ~110 cMpc and transverse extent of 21×17 cMpc² for GS-z6IS are inferred from the redshift range where elevated transmission is claimed and from the spatial distribution of associated galaxies. The mapping from a single sightline measurement to these physical scales, and the exclusion of alternative explanations (local galaxy properties or modeling systematics), requires additional quantitative justification beyond the reported association with the overdensity.

    Authors: We will expand the relevant section to include an explicit calculation of the line-of-sight comoving distance corresponding to the wavelength interval of elevated transmission, with propagated uncertainties. For the transverse scale, we will clarify that it represents the minimum extent implied by the spatial distribution of the associated overdensity galaxies and note the inherent limitation of a single sightline. We will add a quantitative discussion ruling out local galaxy properties or modeling systematics as the primary cause, based on the fact that other sightlines in the sample yield transmission consistent with the quasar average and that the SED fits for GS-18846 show no anomalous residuals redward of Lyα. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The interpretation that the overdensity traces a transmission bubble relies on the same transmission measurement used to define the bubble; while the paper notes that environmental effects on galaxy properties may also contribute, no test is shown that separates IGM transmission from galaxy-intrinsic Lyα visibility changes within the overdensity.

    Authors: We will add a new test in the Discussion comparing the Lyα equivalent width distribution and visibility fraction for galaxies in the overdensity versus field galaxies at similar redshift and UV luminosity. This will help quantify the relative contributions. However, we acknowledge that a complete separation of IGM transmission from intrinsic galaxy effects is not possible with the current dataset alone and will explicitly state this limitation while noting that the high measured T_IGM provides supporting evidence for an IGM contribution. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; transmission measurement is independent of bubble interpretation

full rationale

The core derivation computes IGM transmission as the ratio of observed blueward flux to the SED model prediction fitted only redward of Lyα. This ratio is a direct observable comparison and does not presuppose the existence or size of any ionized structure. The bubble claim is an interpretive step that follows from the high transmission value on one sightline plus its spatial coincidence with an independently catalogued galaxy overdensity; the overdensity membership and the transmission ratio are not defined in terms of each other. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no uniqueness theorem is invoked via self-citation, and no ansatz is smuggled through prior work. The reported consistency of the 143-galaxy average with quasar-based IGM measurements supplies an external benchmark, confirming the method is not self-referential.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of SED models for intrinsic UV continuum and the assumption that any deficit blueward of Lyα is purely IGM transmission. No new particles or forces are introduced, but the bubble is an inferred structure whose existence depends on the measurement.

free parameters (1)
  • SED model parameters for intrinsic flux
    The intrinsic flux prediction depends on choices of stellar population synthesis, dust attenuation, and star-formation history that are fitted or assumed per galaxy.
axioms (2)
  • standard math The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales at these redshifts
    Used implicitly when converting observed transmission to a physical line-of-sight scale of 110 cMpc.
  • domain assumption Lyα emission is produced inside the galaxy and any blueward absorption is external IGM
    Core assumption stated in the method description.
invented entities (1)
  • GS-z6IS ionized bubble no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain the order-of-magnitude higher transmission along one sightline
    The bubble is inferred from the data rather than directly observed; no independent falsifiable prediction (e.g., specific 21-cm signature) is given in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5726 in / 1666 out tokens · 39584 ms · 2026-05-08T18:35:22.247978+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 100 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54 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 Astropy...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54 2023

  2. [2]

    2017, A&A, 608, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833

    Bacon, R., Conseil, S., Mary, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730833 2017

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Barkana, R., & Loeb, A. 2001, PhR, 349, 125, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(01)00019-9 2001

  4. [4]

    Evidence of Patchy Hydrogen Reionization from an Extreme

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Madau, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3402, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2646

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2646 2015

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1963 2022

  6. [6]

    CIGALE: a python Code Investigating GALaxy Emission

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  7. [7]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1046 2022

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/90 2011

  9. [9]

    2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools , 0.6.17, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7299500

    Brammer, G. 2023, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools, 0.6.17 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7299500

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7299500 2023

  10. [10]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A288, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347094 2024

  11. [11]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.6984365 , version =

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.18.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6984365

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6984365 2025

  12. [12]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1506, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02088-5

    Cai, Z.-Y., & Wang, J.-X. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1506, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02088-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02088-5 2023

  13. [13]

    The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-Forming Galaxies

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  14. [14]

    , keywords =

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1547 2024

  15. [15]

    Carnall, A. C. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.05165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.05165

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.05165 2017

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  17. [17]

    Chardin, J., Kulkarni, G., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty992

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty992 2018

  18. [18]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 1993, ApJ, 415, 580, doi: 10.1086/173187

    work page doi:10.1086/173187 1993

  19. [19]

    P., Mason, C

    Chen, Z., Stark, D. P., Mason, C. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.24080, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.24080 D’Eugenio, F., Cameron, A. J., Scholtz, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06531, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06531 D’Eugenio, F., Helton, J. M., Hainline, K., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1138

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.24080 2025

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    Dijkstra, M. 2014, PASA, 31, e040, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.33

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.33 2014

  21. [21]

    Dunlop, J. S. 2013, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2013

  22. [22]

    396, The First Galaxies, ed

    Library, Vol. 396, The First Galaxies, ed. T. Wiklind, B. Mobasher, & V. Bromm, 223, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32362-1 5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32362-1

  23. [23]

    B., & Hennawi, J

    Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F. B., & Hennawi, J. F. 2018, ApJ, 864, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad4fd 2018

  24. [24]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465

  25. [25]

    J., Johnson , B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.12340

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12340

  26. [26]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    work page Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Charlot, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 6044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab432

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab432 2021

  28. [28]

    L., & Keating, B

    Fan, X., Carilli, C. L., & Keating, B. 2006a, ARA&A, 44, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092514

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092514

  29. [29]

    A., Becker, R

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker, R. H., et al. 2006b, AJ, 132, 117, doi: 10.1086/504836 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., &

    work page doi:10.1086/504836

  30. [30]

    2008, ApJ, 673, 39, doi: 10.1086/521639

    Hernquist, L. 2008, ApJ, 673, 39, doi: 10.1086/521639

    work page doi:10.1086/521639 2008

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 2024

  32. [32]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  33. [33]

    MNRAS512(4), 4909–4933 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac257 arXiv:2110.01628 [astro-ph.CO]

    Garaldi, E., Kannan, R., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac257

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac257 2022

  34. [34]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    work page doi:10.1086/164079 1986

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    work page doi:10.1086/379232 2004

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  37. [37]

    E., & Peterson, B

    Gunn, J. E., & Peterson, B. A. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1633, doi: 10.1086/148444 21

    work page doi:10.1086/148444 1965

  38. [38]

    , keywords =

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ee4 2024

  39. [39]

    2017, A&A, 608, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731579

    Hashimoto, T., Garel, T., Guiderdoni, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731579

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731579 2017

  40. [40]

    Science , keywords =

    Heintz, K. E., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 890, doi: 10.1126/science.adj0343

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adj0343 2024

  41. [41]

    E., Brammer , G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Watson, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450243

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450243 2025

  42. [42]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867 2024

  43. [43]

    Lewis, G. F. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 61, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2016.03.001 2016

  44. [44]

    , keywords =

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    work page doi:10.1086/131801 1986

  45. [45]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4cf4

    Hu, W., Wang, J., Zheng, Z.-Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4cf4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4cf4 2019

  46. [46]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 485, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01291-y

    Hu, W., Wang, J., Infante, L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 485, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01291-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01291-y 2021

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Hu, W., Martin, C. L., Gronke, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceefd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceefd 2023

  48. [48]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu936 2014

  49. [49]

    G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S

    Iyer, K. G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052 2019

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Jones, G. C., Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A238, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347099

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347099 2024

  51. [51]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Jung, I., Finkelstein, S. L., Larson, R. L., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.09850, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.09850

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09850 2022

  52. [52]

    F., Ono, Y., et al

    Kakiichi, K., Hennawi, J. F., Ono, Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1376

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1376 2023

  53. [53]

    M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 , 197, 36

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  54. [54]

    , keywords =

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Hutchison, T. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbd Le F` evre, O., Tasca, L. A. M., Cassata, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423829

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbd 2022

  55. [55]

    , keywords =

    Lu, T.-Y., Mason, C. A., Hutter, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae266

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae266 2024

  56. [56]

    Malhotra, S., & Rhoads, J. E. 2002, ApJL, 565, L71, doi: 10.1086/338980

    work page doi:10.1086/338980 2002

  57. [57]

    Malhotra, S., & Rhoads, J. E. 2004, ApJL, 617, L5, doi: 10.1086/427182

    work page doi:10.1086/427182 2004

  58. [58]

    E., Pirzkal, N., et al

    Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 666, doi: 10.1086/430047

    work page doi:10.1086/430047 2005

  59. [59]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Markov, V., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 458, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02426-1 2025

  60. [60]

    L., Hu, W., Wold, I

    Martin, C. L., Hu, W., Wold, I. G. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.13140, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.13140

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13140 2025

  61. [61]

    A., & Gronke, M

    Mason, C. A., & Gronke, M. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2910 2020

  62. [62]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7 2018

  63. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 449, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw322

    Matthee, J., Sobral, D., Oteo, I., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 449, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw322

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw322 2016

  64. [64]

    R., Heckman, T

    Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., & Calzetti, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, 64, doi: 10.1086/307523

    work page doi:10.1086/307523 1999

  65. [65]

    A., Roberts-Borsani, G., Oesch, P

    Meyer, R. A., Roberts-Borsani, G., Oesch, P. A., & Ellis, R. S. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1312

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1312 2025

  66. [66]

    M., Mason, C

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1104 2021

  67. [67]

    , keywords =

    Napolitano, L., Pentericci, L., Santini, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449644

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449644 2024

  68. [68]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14171, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14171

    Napolitano, L., Pentericci, L., Dickinson, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14171, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14171

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.14171 2025

  69. [69]

    The THESAN project: Lyman-alpha emitters as probes of ionized bubble sizes

    Neyer, M., Smith, A., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.18946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.18946

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18946 2025

  70. [70]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4268

    Ning, Y., Jiang, L., Zheng, Z.-Y., & Wu, J. 2022, ApJ, 926, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4268

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4268 2022

  71. [71]

    , keywords =

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2411

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2411 2023

  72. [72]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  73. [73]

    Ouchi et al.ApJ, 723(1):869–894, Nov

    Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Furusawa, H., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 869, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/869 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/869 2010

  74. [74]

    X., O’Meara, J

    Prochaska, J. X., O’Meara, J. M., Fumagalli, M., Bernstein, R. A., & Burles, S. M. 2015, ApJS, 221, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/2

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/2 2015

  75. [75]

    J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al

    Rieke, M. J., Robertson, B., Tacchella, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf44d 2023

  76. [76]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c 2018

  77. [77]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa093

    Santos, S., Sobral, D., Matthee, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa093

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa093 2020

  78. [78]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1353 2018

  79. [79]

    R., Glazebrook, K., Bunker, A

    Stanway, E. R., Glazebrook, K., Bunker, A. J., et al. 2004, ApJL, 604, L13, doi: 10.1086/383523

    work page doi:10.1086/383523 2004

  80. [80]

    , keywords =

    Steidel, C. C., Bogosavljevi´ c, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/160

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/160 2011

Showing first 80 references.