Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The cosmic web's Lyman-$\alpha$ glow at $z \approx 2.5$; hydrodynamic models, dust, and wide-field, narrow-band detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the ultraviolet excess seen in a deep, wide-field narrow-band image taken by the Condor Array Telescope is Lyman-α emission from the cosmic web at redshift z≈2.5, a claim supported by synthetic maps built from five ind

desk verdict A useful multi-simulation Lyα forecast whose claimed validation of the Condor excess is asserted, not demonstrated — and the paper's own final caveat admits unresolved sources. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.07259 v2 pith:2MM66EGC submitted 2025-10-08 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Oleksii Sokoliuk , John K. Webb , Kenneth M. Lanzetta , Michael M. Shara , Stefan Gromoll , James S. Bolton , Robert F. Carswell , Gaspar Galaz
show 7 more authors
Cédric Ledoux Gaspare Lo Curto Alain Smette David Valls-Gabaud Anja von der Linden Frederick M. Walter Joris Witstok
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemissioncosmicwebintergalacticmediumnarrow-bandimagingsurfacebrightnesshydrodynamicsimulationsdustattenuationCondorArrayTelescope
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 authors set out to show that the faint UV excess detected in the deep Condor narrow-band image is the long-sought Lyman-α glow of the cosmic web, not a foreground contaminant or artifact. They construct synthetic Lyman-α surface-brightness maps from five hydrodynamic simulations, modeling recombination, collisional excitation, star formation, and dust attenuation, and find that the simulated brightness distributions match the statistical shape of the observed excess. If correct, this would be the first wide-field, narrow-band detection of the cosmic web in emission at z≈2.5, opening a new observational window onto the gas that underpins large-scale structure.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a set of synthetic Lyman-α surface-brightness maps produced by post-processing five full-physics hydrodynamic simulations (IllustrisTNG, EAGLE, CROCODILE, SIMBA, Sherwood) onto a common grid, using semi-analytic separation of hydrogen species and emissivities from recombination, collisional excitation, and star formation. Dust attenuation is treated particle-by-particle via a slab-geometry escape fraction with an SMC extinction curve and a dust-to-baryon scaling. The Anderson-Darling statistic, which weights the tails of the brightness distribution, is then applied to noisy simulated maps to quantify detection thresholds against pure Gaussian noise.

What would settle it

A narrow-band image of the same COSMOS field taken with a filter offset by a few ångströms (so Lyα at z=2.4754 falls outside but [OII] at z=0.1332 remains inside) should show the excess vanish if it is Lyα; if it persists, the signal is not the cosmic-web glow. Alternatively, a future 5σ detection of the diffuse component at noise ~2×10^-19 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2 would confirm the most optimistic simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the surface-brightness distribution of narrow-band Lyman-α emission predicted by hydrodynamic simulations of the z≈2.5 cosmic web is statistically consistent with the UV excess in the Condor Array Telescope image reported by Lanzetta et al. (2024). Using the Anderson-Darling statistic, the authors show that three of the four simulations that include dust predict a 5σ deviation from pure Gaussian noise for fluxes brighter than roughly 8×10^-17 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2, and that isolating the low-density diffuse component requires noise below about 2×10^-19 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2, reachable only by the most optimistic simulation (Illust

Load-bearing premise

The local-universe dust escape model—SMC extinction with dust-to-baryon proportionality—correctly describes how Lyman-α photons escape from z≈2.5 gas, even though no dust constraints exist at those redshifts on simulation-particle scales.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the simulations are right, the Condor UV excess is Lyman-α emission from intergalactic and circumgalactic gas at z≈2.48, making it the first wide-field detection of the cosmic web in emission.
  • Wide-field narrow-band surveys with sensitivities around 10^-17 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2 or better can statistically detect the total cosmic-web Lyman-α glow over volumes of hundreds of thousands of cubic megaparsecs.
  • Detecting the truly diffuse, low-density component requires roughly two orders of magnitude deeper imaging (noise below ~2×10^-19 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2 in the most optimistic case), a target for next-generation facilities.
  • The broad agreement across four independent simulations, despite large differences in subgrid physics, suggests the statistical detection is not an artifact of a single baryon model, though the bright end is dust-sensitive.
  • Contaminating lines such as [OII] at z≈0.13 are shown to contribute at most a few tenths of a percent of the signal, so the 422 nm narrow-band excess is effectively pure Lyman-α.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a follow-up observation with a detuned filter (a few ångströms off the Lyα redshift) shows the excess disappearing, the cosmic-web interpretation is strongly confirmed; this is the most direct test the paper leaves implicit.
  • The paper's own caveat that the signal is likely unresolved sources rather than diffuse gas implies that 'cartographic mapping' of the filamentary network may first require separating a population of faint, clustered emitters before the diffuse component becomes visible.
  • The same semi-analytic pipeline could be adapted to other redshifts and emission lines, turning wide-field imagers into systematic probes of diffuse baryons, provided dust models can be validated at those epochs.
  • The markedly different surface-brightness PDFs produced by the dust-escape model versus high-density culling indicate that the claimed 5σ threshold for the total component is not yet pinned down; calibrating dust-to-gas at z~2.5 would materially sharpen the forecasts.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper post-processes five cosmological hydrodynamic simulations (IllustrisTNG, EAGLE, CROCODILE, SIMBA, Sherwood) at redshifts 2.0–2.74 to predict narrow-band Lyman-α surface brightness from the cosmic web. Emission is computed from recombination, collisional excitation, and star formation, with hydrogen species separated using published fitting functions (Rahmati et al.; Gnedin & Kravtsov). High-density gas is treated either with an SMC-based dust attenuation model (Eqs. 15–18) or by culling particles above a self-shielding density threshold (Sec. 2.8). The projected surface-brightness maps are then degraded by Gaussian noise, and the Anderson-Darling statistic is used to estimate detection thresholds. The authors report that a 5σ detection of total intergalactic/circumgalactic Lyman-α emission should be possible at fluxes brighter than ≈8×10^-17 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2, while the low-density cosmic-web component requires noise below ≈2×10^-19. The abstract and conclusions further claim that these predictions are consistent with the UV excess detected in the Condor Array Telescope narrow-band image reported by Lanzetta et al. (2024).

Significance. If the central consistency claim could be substantiated, the paper would provide a useful framework for planning wide-field narrow-band surveys of diffuse Lyman-α emission and for quantifying the sensitivity needed to map the cosmic web in emission. The multi-simulation comparison is a genuine strength: five independent hydrodynamic codes are processed through a common pipeline, and the derived neutral-hydrogen CDDFs are checked against quasar absorption measurements. The paper is also unusually candid about the limitations of the dust model and about inter-simulation scatter. However, the headline claim of consistency with the Condor detection is not demonstrated by the statistical analysis actually presented, and the conclusions contain an admission that the observed UV excess may be dominated by unresolved sources rather than diffuse Lyman-α. With a direct comparison to the observed image or a reframing as forward predictions only, the simulation methodology and threshold estimates would still be a useful contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.2, Fig. 6] The Anderson-Darling statistic is computed only between (simulated map + Gaussian noise) and pure Gaussian noise. It is never computed for the actual masked Condor narrow-band-minus-luminance image described in §3.3.1, nor is the observed pixel PDF compared with the simulated PDFs. The statement in §3.3.1 that the two datasets can be 'compared meaningfully' is not followed by a comparison. Therefore the abstract and §4 claim that the simulation predictions are 'consistent with' the Condor UV excess is not supported by the analysis shown. Please either compute A2 (or an equivalent statistic) for the observed masked difference image, or explicitly downgrade the consistency claim to simulation-only detectability predictions.
  2. [§4, concluding paragraphs] The paper itself states that Fig. 6 suggests that Condor has not detected the diffuse component but 'more likely the statistical effect of unresolved sources.' This directly undermines the central claim that the Condor UV excess validates diffuse Lyman-α cosmic-web emission. If unresolved sources dominate the measured excess, then agreement with diffuse-emission simulations is not evidence for detection of the diffuse cosmic web. The manuscript must distinguish between (a) a claimed detection of diffuse IGM/CGM Lyman-α, and (b) a UV excess consistent with unresolved sources plus perhaps a subdominant diffuse component. The current wording conflates the two, and the conclusions should be revised to state precisely which claim is intended.
  3. [§2.7, Eqs. 15–18; §2.8; Fig. 6] The dust escape model is derived from local-universe relations, and the paper concedes in §2.1 that no dust constraints exist at z≈2.5 on simulation-particle scales. This model controls the bright end of the surface-brightness distribution and hence the quoted 5σ threshold near 8×10^-17 in the left panel of Fig. 6. The alternative density-culling treatment in §2.8 yields 'dramatically different' PDFs and threshold curves (right panel of Fig. 6). Because no observed comparison anchors the choice between these treatments, the central threshold claim is sensitive to an unvalidated modeling assumption. Please quantify the dependence of the 5σ threshold on dust-model parameters (e.g., albedo, metallicity scaling, SMC vs. LMC curve) and state whether the threshold is robust across the two adopted treatments or only a property of the fiducial dust prescription.
  4. [§3.2.1, Table 2] The factor-of-six spread in predicted diffuse IGM temperatures is presented as an inter-simulation result, but the paper also notes that all five simulations overestimate the observationally inferred Lyman-α forest temperature. This is more than a diagnostic aside: the temperature enters the emissivity calculations directly, so the bright-end predictions inherit this systematic scatter. A quantitative statement of how much of the simulation-to-simulation spread in Fig. 6 is driven by temperature differences (as opposed to density/star-formation prescriptions) would strengthen the paper and help the reader judge whether the claimed consistency threshold is robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1; §3.3.1] Section 1 states that the Condor narrow-band filter probes z=2.24754±0.0030, while §3.3.1 and §4 use z=2.4754. For λ_Lyα=121.567 nm and λ_filter=422.5 nm, z≈2.4754. The first value appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 3 text vs caption] The main text says 'the intensity scaling is kept the same for all panels,' but the figure caption says 'each simulation has its own colour map... numerical display ranges are not the same.' Please reconcile these statements.
  3. [Eq. (17)] The summation notation in Eq. (17) is undefined: the sums over Z_i and Z_i,0 are not specified (over which elements? per particle? solar abundances?). Please define all indices and reference abundances explicitly.
  4. [Fig. 6] The horizontal '5 sd.' threshold is attributed to SciPy but the corresponding Anderson-Darling critical value or p-value conversion is not given. Please state the numerical threshold used so the claim is reproducible.
  5. [Throughout] Small typos include 'Anderson-Darling statistical text' (§3.3.2), 'observational and stimulation data' (§3.1), and the bibliographic entry 'Lanzetta et al K. M., 2024', which should be formatted consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: the Lyα surface-brightness predictions are computed from simulation physics and external fitting functions, not fitted to the Condor image; the main weakness is that the claimed consistency with the Condor UV excess is asserted rather than demonstrated.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular by construction. Equations (1)–(26) compute Lyα emissivities, hydrogen fractions, dust escape fractions, and surface brightness from hydrodynamic simulation outputs using external fits (Rahmati et al. 2013a; Gnedin & Kravtsov 2011; Laursen et al. 2009b; Pei 1992; Haardt & Madau 2012), with no parameter fitted to the Condor measurement. The Anderson–Darling thresholds in Fig. 6 are computed from simulated maps plus Gaussian noise versus a Gaussian null; they are predictions, not fits to the observed UV excess. The paper does not compute A² for the actual masked Condor difference image (the comparison is only described in §3.3.1, where the authors say 'we are nevertheless able to compare the two meaningfully' without performing an observed-versus-simulated A² test). Its own concluding paragraph weakens the discovery claim: 'Fig.6 suggests that Condor has not detected the diffuse component, but more likely the statistical effect of unresolved sources' — a support gap, not a circular reduction. The observational target is taken from Lanzetta et al. (2024), a companion paper with overlapping authors; this is a self-referential evidentiary link, but the theoretical result does not reduce to that citation. The CDDF comparison against external quasar absorption measurements provides independent benchmark support. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, or renaming circularity was found. Score 1 reflects the minor self-referential observational anchor and the unquantified 'consistency' assertion, not derivation-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of external fitting functions and simplified physical models rather than a self-contained derivation. The most load-bearing are the dust-escape prescription (Eq. 15-18) and the star-formation emissivity normalization (Eq. 3). The cross-simulation spread is the main independent support; there are no new entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Star-formation Ly-alpha emissivity normalization = 10^42 erg s^-1 per (M_sun/yr)
    Assumed linear conversion from SFR to Ly-alpha luminosity for unresolved star-forming gas; from Byrohl et al. 2021. Not calibrated at z~2.5 and directly sets the bright-end flux.
  • Rahmati et al. HI-fraction fit parameters = alpha1=-2.28, alpha2=-0.84, f=0.02, kappa=1.64, n0=1.003 n_H,SSh
    Fit to radiative-transfer simulations at z≳2; controls the neutral fraction and thus emissivity and dust optical depth (Eqs. 6-8).
  • Dust escape fit coefficients and albedo = zeta'=2.048, eta'=0.71, A=0.32
    Local-universe Ly-alpha/dust transfer fit (Laursen et al. 2009b; Li & Draine 2001) used at z~2.5 where no constraints exist; controls the escape fraction in Eq. (15).
  • Gnedin-Kravtsov H2 prescription parameters = Sigma_c=20 M_sun pc^-2 with D, U dependencies
    Empirical molecular-hydrogen prescription (Eq. 9-10) affecting only high-column dense gas; minor for faint diffuse component.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Semi-analytic post-processing without full Monte Carlo radiative transfer is adequate for surface brightness PDFs.
    Central to the entire method; cited to Byrohl & Nelson (2023) in §2.1.
  • domain assumption The Rahmati et al. fitting functions are valid for z≳2 and the ignored helium contribution to electron density is small.
    Used to compute HI fractions in §2.3; small effect asserted from Rahmati et al. (2013a).
  • domain assumption Case B recombination is appropriate because high-column-density gas (N_HI≳1e18 cm^-2) dominates the bright-end surface brightness.
    Stated in §2.2; affects the recombination emissivity coefficient.
  • domain assumption The observed masked difference image traces only photon noise plus cosmic-web line emission; [OII] and other line contamination are negligible.
    §3.3.1 and §3.4; the [OII] estimate is an upper limit with several optimistic assumptions, and if wrong the central attribution fails.
  • domain assumption Local-universe SMC dust properties apply at z≈2.5.
    Adopted in §2.7 because no dust opacity/albedo constraints exist at z~2.5 on simulation-particle scales.
  • domain assumption Matter is homogeneous within each simulation particle; real clumpiness would make the cosmic web easier to detect.
    §2.7; direction of the bias is known, but the absolute normalization of the predicted surface brightness depends on it.
  • domain assumption The five simulation snapshots at z=2.00–2.74 are treated as comparable predictions for the single Condor narrow-band shell at z=2.4754 without correction for redshift evolution or box-size differences.
    Table 1 and §2.1; the paper asserts cosmology differences are subdominant, but the redshift spread is large for a 1-nm filter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The cosmic web's Lyman-$\alpha$ glow at $z \approx 2.5$; hydrodynamic models, dust, and wide-field, narrow-band detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MM66EGC

@misc{pith2026251007259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The cosmic web's Lyman-$\alpha$ glow at $z \approx 2.5$; hydrodynamic models, dust, and wide-field, narrow-band detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MM66EGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.07259}
}
abstract

The diffuse Lyman-$\alpha$ glow of the cosmic web has long been predicted but has so far eluded direct detection over cosmologically significant volumes. We construct synthetic Lyman-$\alpha$ surface-brightness maps using five state-of-the-art hydrodynamic simulations (\texttt{IllustrisTNG, EAGLE, CROCODILE, SIMBA, and Sherwood}), modeling recombination, collisional excitation, star formation, and localized dust attenuation. Our study focuses on the redshift range $2.0<z<2.7$, motivated by the numerous detailed studies of the COSMOS region. Significant variations are seen in the results obtained from these independent simulations. Using the Anderson-Darling statistic to probe these statistical differences, we demonstrate that a $5\sigma$ statistical detection of the total intergalactic and circumgalactic Lyman-$\alpha$ emission is achievable with current facilities at flux thresholds brighter than $\sim 8 \times 10^{-17} \text{ erg s}^{-1}\text{ cm}^{-2}\text{ arcsec}^{-2}$. Conversely, isolating the underlying low-density component of the cosmic web requires ultra-deep sensitivity, with the most optimistic simulation (IllustrisTNG) reaching a 5$\sigma$ detection only for background noise levels below $\sigma \sim 2 \times 10^{-19} \text{ erg s}^{-1}\text{ cm}^{-2}\text{ arcsec}^{-2}$. These quantitative limits validate the feasibility of ongoing wide-field narrow-band campaigns, opening a new era of empirical intergalactic cartography.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comoving HI Column Density Distribution Function and its probability distribution for each simulation. 3.2 Physical insights from the log𝑇-log 𝑛H and logS-log 𝑁HI phase diagrams [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left column (a): Temperature vs. hydrogen number density relation. Note the abrupt 𝑛H cutoff for some simulations, a consequence of the switch to a stochastic Kennicutt–Schmidt star formation law. Right column (b): HI column density vs. Lyman-𝛼 surface brightness. Power-law fits for this relation are shown as dotted lines, offset from the image data for visualisation. See Sections 3.2.1 to 3.2. The colour scale in t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lyman-𝛼 surface brightness map for each simulation. Middle and right panels show 5× and 10× zoom-ins on arbitrarily selected regions. See Section 3.3. Each simulation has its own colour map, i.e. the numerical display ranges are not the same for each simulation. Instead, each colour map is set by the minimum and maximum count in each image. MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface brightness map from the EAGLE simulation made using the dust calculation (Section 2.7), for various Gaussian noise models (Section 3.3.2), emulating (in part, Section 3.3.1) real observational data. The standard deviation 𝜎 of the Gaussian noise added is shown …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Anderson-Darling 𝐴 2 statistic (Eq. 35) for each simulation, for different values of added Gaussian noise 𝜎. The left panel here corresponds to the left panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Metallicity and Lyman-𝛼 escape fraction vs. hydrogen density. Sherwood does not provide metallicity per particle so is not shown. The wedge-like feature observed in the left column is a consequence of the artificial relation between gas density and temperature imposed …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. FEASTS and MHONGOOSE: HI Column Density Distribution at $z=0$ for $N_\mathrm{HI}>10^{17.8}\, \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The z=0 HI column-density distribution function has been measured for the first time down to 10^17.8 cm^-2 from 1-kpc-resolution 21-cm images, showing modest evolution since z~3 at LLS-like densities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Altay G., Theuns T., Schaye J., Crighton N. H. M., Dalla Vecchia C., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L37 , 737, L37

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/l37 2011

  2. [2]

    W., Darling D

    Anderson T. W., Darling D. A., 1952, @doi [Annals of Mathematical Statistics] 10.1214/aoms/1177729437 , 23, 193

    arXiv 1952

  3. [5]

    & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039887 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.107B 647, A107

    Bacon R., et al., 2021, @doi [Astron. & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039887 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.107B 647, A107

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039887 2021

  4. [6]

    Bacon R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A...4B 670, A4

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244187 2023

  5. [7]

    Bacon R., Mainieri V., Randich S., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints

    2024

  6. [8]

    D., 2024, MUSEQuBES: Unveiling Cosmic Web Filaments at z 3.6 through Dual Absorption and Emission Line Analysis ( @eprint arXiv 2412.04546 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04546

    Banerjee E., Muzahid S., Schaye J., Cantalupo S., Johnson S. D., 2024, MUSEQuBES: Unveiling Cosmic Web Filaments at z 3.6 through Dual Absorption and Emission Line Analysis ( @eprint arXiv 2412.04546 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04546

    arXiv 2024

  7. [9]

    Bauer A., Springel V., Vogelsberger M., Genel S., Torrey P., Sijacki D., Nelson D., Hernquist L., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3593B 453, 3593

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1893 2015

  8. [10]

    Bird S., Vogelsberger M., Haehnelt M., Sijacki D., Genel S., Torrey P., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2313B 445, 2313

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1923 2014

Show all 153 references
  1. [11]

    Boess L., 2024, SPHtoGrid.jl homepage: https://github.com/LudwigBoess/SPHtoGrid.jl

    2024

  2. [12]

    arXiv:2402.04837

    Boldrini P., Laigle C., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.04837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240204837B p. arXiv:2402.04837

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [13]

    S., Puchwein E., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M

    Bolton J. S., Puchwein E., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M. G., Kim T.-S., Meiksin A., Regan J. A., Viel M., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw2397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..897B 464, 897

    2017 doi

  4. [14]

    Bonatto C., Bica E., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18901.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2827B 415, 2827

    2011

  5. [15]

    R., Kofman L., Pogosyan D., 1996, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/380603a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.380..603B 380, 603

    Bond J. R., Kofman L., Pogosyan D., 1996, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/380603a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.380..603B 380, 603

    1996 doi

  6. [16]

    Brough S., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2045 , 528, 771

    2024 doi

  7. [17]

    N., Elek O., Tejos N., Prochaska J

    Burchett J. N., Elek O., Tejos N., Prochaska J. X., Tripp T. M., Bordoloi R., Forbes A. G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab700c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891L..35B 891, L35

    2020 doi

  8. [18]

    Byrohl C., Nelson D., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad1779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.5248B 523, 5248

    2023 doi

  9. [19]

    Byrohl C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5129B 506, 5129

    2021 doi

  10. [20]

    Caddy S., Spitler L., Ellis S., 2024, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2024.25 , 41, e025

    2024 doi

  11. [21]

    J., Miniati F., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/430758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628...61C 628, 61

    Cantalupo S., Porciani C., Lilly S. J., Miniati F., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/430758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628...61C 628, 61

    2005 doi

  12. [22]

    J., 2008, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/523298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672...48C 672, 48

    Cantalupo S., Porciani C., Lilly S. J., 2008, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/523298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672...48C 672, 48

    2008 doi

  13. [23]

    X., Hennawi J

    Cantalupo S., Arrigoni-Battaia F., Prochaska J. X., Hennawi J. F., Madau P., 2014, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature12898 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.506...63C 506, 63

    2014 doi

  14. [24]

    F., 2024, VPFIT homepage: https://people.ast.cam.ac.uk/ rfc/, https://people.ast.cam.ac.uk/ rfc/

    Carswell R. F., 2024, VPFIT homepage: https://people.ast.cam.ac.uk/ rfc/, https://people.ast.cam.ac.uk/ rfc/

    2024

  15. [25]

    F., Webb J

    Carswell R. F., Webb J. K., 2014, VPFIT: Voigt profile fitting program, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ascl.soft08015C , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1408.015 )

    2014

  16. [26]

    Cautun M., van de Weygaert R., Jones B. J. T., Frenk C. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2923C 441, 2923

    2014 doi

  17. [27]

    G., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1065C 478, 1065

    Chardin J., Kulkarni G., Haehnelt M. G., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1065C 478, 1065

    2018 doi

  18. [28]

    Chen S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15101] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.15101

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [29]

    Chia-Yu H., 2024, ParticleGridMapper.jl homepage: https://github.com/huchiayu/ParticleGridMapper.jl, https://github.com/huchiayu/ParticleGridMapper.jl

    2024

  20. [30]

    Codis S., Pogosyan D., Pichon C., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479..973C 479, 973

    2018 doi

  21. [31]

    Collaboration D., Aghamousa A., Aguilar J., Ahlen S., et al., 2016, arXiv e-prints

    2016

  22. [32]

    arXiv:2409.16952

    Connor L., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240916952C p. arXiv:2409.16952

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [33]

    arXiv:2207.11698

    Cooke J., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2207.11698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220711698C p. arXiv:2207.11698

    2022 doi arXiv

  24. [34]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1937C 450, 1937

    Crain R. A., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1937C 450, 1937

    2015 doi

  25. [35]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw2586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4204C 464, 4204

    Crain R. A., et al., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw2586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4204C 464, 4204

    2017 doi

  26. [36]

    & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A..49C 619, A49

    Cucciati O., et al., 2018, @doi [Astron. & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A..49C 619, A49

    2018 doi

  27. [37]

    H., Katz N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...477...21D 477, 21

    Dav \'e R., Hernquist L., Weinberg D. H., Katz N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...477...21D 477, 21

    1997 doi

  28. [38]

    H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...511..521D 511, 521

    Dav \'e R., Hernquist L., Katz N., Weinberg D. H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...511..521D 511, 521

    1999 doi

  29. [39]

    H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    2019 doi

  30. [40]

    S., White S

    Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..371D 292, 371

    1985 doi

  31. [41]

    B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..97D 596, A97

    De Cia A., Ledoux C., Mattsson L., Petitjean P., Srianand R., Gavignaud I., Jenkins E. B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..97D 596, A97

    2016 doi

  32. [42]

    Dietrich J. P., Werner N., Clowe D., Finoguenov A., Kitching T., Miller L., Simionescu A., 2012, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature11224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.487..202D 487, 202

    2012 doi

  33. [43]

    Dijkstra M., 2014, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2014.33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31...40D 31, e040

    2014 doi

  34. [44]

    Dome T., Fialkov A., Sartorio N., Mocz P., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2276 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..348D 525, 348

    2023 doi

  35. [45]

    T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium . Princeton University Press

    2011

  36. [46]

    Duval F., Schaerer D., \"O stlin G., Laursen P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..52D 562, A52

    2014 doi

  37. [47]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452L..36D 452, L36

    Dvorkin I., Silk J., Vangioni E., Petitjean P., Olive K. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452L..36D 452, L36

    2015 doi

  38. [48]

    Eckert D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature16058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Natur.528..105E 528, 105

    2015 doi

  39. [49]

    Efstathiou G., Davis M., White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJS...57..241E 57, 241

    1985 doi

  40. [50]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L. A. S., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M. L., Bray J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...58E 34, e058

    2017 doi

  41. [51]

    Elias L. M., Genel S., Sternberg A., Devriendt J., Slyz A., Visbal E., Bouch \'e N., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa1059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5439E 494, 5439

    2020 doi

  42. [52]

    Euclid Collaboration 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...697A...1E 697, A1

    2025 doi

  43. [53]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., Dijkstra M., Hernquist L., Zaldarriaga M., 2010, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/633 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...725..633F 725, 633

    2010 doi

  44. [54]

    Fossati M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2693 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.1451F 490, 1451

    2019 doi

  45. [55]

    R., Schaye J., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599L...1F 599, L1

    Furlanetto S. R., Schaye J., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599L...1F 599, L1

    2003 doi

  46. [56]

    Gaikwad P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.4093G 525, 4093

    2023 doi

  47. [57]

    J., Huchra J

    Geller M. J., Huchra J. P., 1989, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.246.4932.897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Sci...246..897G 246, 897

    1989 doi

  48. [58]

    Y., Kravtsov A

    Gnedin N. Y., Kravtsov A. V., 2011, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728...88G 728, 88

    2011 doi

  49. [59]

    H., 1996, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/177707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...468..462G 468, 462

    Gould A., Weinberg D. H., 1996, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/177707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...468..462G 468, 462

    1996 doi

  50. [60]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/175 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..175G 835, 175

    Gurvich A., Burkhart B., Bird S., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/175 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..175G 835, 175

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..125H 746, 125

    2012 doi

  52. [62]

    J., 1968, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968BAN....19..421H 19, 421

    Habing H. J., 1968, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968BAN....19..421H 19, 421

    1968

  53. [63]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  54. [64]

    M., Atek H., Kunth D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730....8H 730, 8

    Hayes M., Schaerer D., \"O stlin G., Mas-Hesse J. M., Atek H., Kunth D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730....8H 730, 8

    2011 doi

  55. [65]

    H., Miralda-Escud \'e J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457L..51H 457, L51

    Hernquist L., Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Miralda-Escud \'e J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457L..51H 457, L51

    1996 doi

  56. [66]

    F., O \ n orbe J., O'Meara J

    Hiss H., Walther M., Hennawi J. F., O \ n orbe J., O'Meara J. M., Rorai A., Luki \'c Z., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...42H 865, 42

    2018 doi

  57. [67]

    J., Weymann R

    Hogan C. J., Weymann R. J., 1987, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/225.1.1P , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.225P...1H 225, 1P

    1987 doi

  58. [68]

    Y., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.1.27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292...27H 292, 27

    Hui L., Gnedin N. Y., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.1.27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292...27H 292, 27

    1997 doi

  59. [69]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  60. [70]

    Kaiser N., Burgett W., Chambers K., et al., 2010, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes III. p. 77330E, @doi 10.1117/12.859188

    2010 doi

  61. [71]

    H., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Supplements] 10.1086/192305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..105...19K 105, 19

    Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [Astrophysical Journal Supplements] 10.1086/192305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..105...19K 105, 19

    1996 doi

  62. [72]

    S., Partl A

    Kim T. S., Partl A. M., Carswell R. F., M \"u ller V., 2013, @doi [Astron. & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...552A..77K 552, A77

    2013 doi

  63. [73]

    Kim J., et al., 2022, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..179K 926, 179

    2022 doi

  64. [74]

    S., Sinigaglia F., Balaguera-Antol \' nez A., Favole G., 2024, @doi [AAP] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.215K 683, A215

    Kitaura F. S., Sinigaglia F., Balaguera-Antol \' nez A., Favole G., 2024, @doi [AAP] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.215K 683, A215

    2024 doi

  65. [75]

    A., Shandarin S

    Klypin A. A., Shandarin S. F., 1983, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/204.3.891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983MNRAS.204..891K 204, 891

    1983 doi

  66. [76]

    A., Zasowski G., Rix H.-W., Johns M., Anderson S

    Kollmeier J. A., Zasowski G., Rix H.-W., Johns M., Anderson S. F., et al., 2017, arXiv e-prints

    2017

  67. [77]

    arXiv:2407.16489

    Kugel R., van de Weygaert R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240716489K p. arXiv:2407.16489

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [78]

    Lagos C. d. P., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3815L 452, 3815

    2015 doi

  69. [79]

    M., Bowen D

    Lanzetta K. M., Bowen D. V., Tytler D., Webb J. K., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...442..538L 442, 538

    1995 doi

  70. [80]

    M., Gromoll S., Shara M

    Lanzetta K. M., Gromoll S., Shara M. M., Berg S., Valls-Gabaud D., Walter F. M., Webb J. K., 2023, @doi [PASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/acaee6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135a5002L 135, 015002

    2023 doi

  71. [81]

    M., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p

    Lanzetta et al K. M., 2024, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2412.10081

    2024 arXiv

  72. [82]

    O., Sommer-Larsen J., 2009a, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..853L 696, 853

    Laursen P., Razoumov A. O., Sommer-Larsen J., 2009a, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..853L 696, 853

    doi

  73. [83]

    C., 2009b, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704.1640L 704, 1640

    Laursen P., Sommer-Larsen J., Andersen A. C., 2009b, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704.1640L 704, 1640

    doi

  74. [84]

    K., Carswell R

    Lee C.-C., Webb J. K., Carswell R. F., Milakovi \'c D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1787L 504, 1787

    2021 doi

  75. [85]

    K., Carswell R

    Lee C.-C., Webb J. K., Carswell R. F., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab3779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..198L 511, 198

    2022 doi

  76. [86]

    Leitherer C., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..123....3L 123, 3

    1999 doi

  77. [87]

    T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554..778L 554, 778

    Li A., Draine B. T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554..778L 554, 778

    2001 doi

  78. [88]

    F., Yajima H., Zhu Q., Maji M., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1919L 494, 1919

    Li Y., Gu M. F., Yajima H., Zhu Q., Maji M., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1919L 494, 1919

    2020 doi

  79. [89]

    Li Q., Narayanan D., Torrey P., Dav \'e R., Vogelsberger M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507..548L 507, 548

    2021 doi

  80. [90]

    I., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1195L 473, 1195

    Libeskind N. I., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.1195L 473, 1195

    2018 doi

  81. [91]

    H., Mo H

    Lim S. H., Mo H. J., Wang H., Yang X., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4017L 480, 4017

    2018 doi

  82. [92]

    Lokhorst D., Abraham R., van Dokkum P., Wijers N., Schaye J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab184e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877....4L 877, 4

    2019 doi

  83. [93]

    Lombardo S., Valls-Gabaud D., Bonino D., et al., 2019, in Proceedings of SPIE. p. 111802W, @doi 10.1117/12.2536023

    2019 doi

  84. [94]

    W., Nugent P., White M., Meiksin A

    Luki \'c Z., Stark C. W., Nugent P., White M., Meiksin A. A., Almgren A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.3697L 446, 3697

    2015 doi

  85. [95]

    C., Darvish B., Lin Z., Cen R., Matuszewski M., Morrissey P., Neill J

    Martin D. C., Darvish B., Lin Z., Cen R., Matuszewski M., Morrissey P., Neill J. D., Moore A. M., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02054-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1390M 7, 1390

    2023 doi

  86. [96]

    R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17272.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1945M 408, 1945

    McQuinn M., Switzer E. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17272.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1945M 408, 1945

    2010

  87. [97]

    & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834961 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.154M 635, A154

    Michel-Dansac L., Blaizot J., Garel T., Verhamme A., Kimm T., Trebitsch M., 2020, @doi [Astron. & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834961 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.154M 635, A154

    2020 doi

  88. [98]

    U., 2001, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...372L..57M 372, L57

    M ller P., Fynbo J. U., 2001, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010606 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...372L..57M 372, L57

    2001 doi

  89. [99]

    Navdha Busch P., White S. D. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf578 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.1248N 539, 1248

    2025 doi

  90. [100]

    A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...350..216N 350, 216

    Neufeld D. A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...350..216N 350, 216

    1990 doi

  91. [101]

    & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...547L...1N 547, L1

    Noterdaeme P., et al., 2012, @doi [Astron. & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220259 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...547L...1N 547, L1

    2012 doi

  92. [102]

    Oku Y., Nagamine K., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..183O 975, 183

    2024 doi

  93. [103]

    Oku Y., Tomida K., Nagamine K., Shimizu I., Cen R., 2022, @doi [ApJSupp] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac77ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262....9O 262, 9

    2022 doi

  94. [104]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei., 2nd ed. / donald e. osterbrock, gary j. ferland. edn. University Science Books, Sausalito, Calif

    2006

  95. [105]

    C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..130P 395, 130

    Pei Y. C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395..130P 395, 130

    1992 doi

  96. [106]

    M., Stinson G., Wadsley J., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13854.x , 390, 1349

    Pontzen A., Governato F., Pettini M., Booth C. M., Stinson G., Wadsley J., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13854.x , 390, 1349

    2008

  97. [107]

    H., Rai c evi \'c M., Schaye J., 2013a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2427R 430, 2427

    Rahmati A., Pawlik A. H., Rai c evi \'c M., Schaye J., 2013a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2427R 430, 2427

    doi

  98. [108]

    H., Raičević M., 2013b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt310 , 431, 2261

    Rahmati A., Schaye J., Pawlik A. H., Raičević M., 2013b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt310 , 431, 2261

    doi

  99. [109]

    Rauch M., 1998, @doi [Ann.Rev.Astron.Astrophys.] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA&A..36..267R 36, 267

    1998 doi

  100. [110]

    Rauch M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/525846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681..856R 681, 856

    2008 doi

  101. [111]

    H., et al., 2021, @doi [Astron

    Reiprich T. H., et al., 2021, @doi [Astron. & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A...2R 647, A2

    2021 doi

  102. [112]

    Renard P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3783 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3883R 501, 3883

    2021 doi

  103. [113]

    Renard P., Spinoso D., Montero-Camacho P., Sun Z., Zou H., Cai Z., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae2358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535..826R 535, 826

    2024 doi

  104. [114]

    K., Hlo z ek R., Lagu \"e A., Ivanov M

    Rogers K. K., Hlo z ek R., Lagu \"e A., Ivanov M. M., Philcox O. H. E., Cabass G., Akitsu K., Marsh D. J. E., 2023, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...06..023R 2023, 023

    2023 doi

  105. [115]

    Romano L. E. C., Nagamine K., Hirashita H., 2022a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac1385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1441R 514, 1441

    doi

  106. [116]

    Romano L. E. C., Nagamine K., Hirashita H., 2022b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac1386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1461R 514, 1461

    doi

  107. [117]

    F., Haehnelt M

    Rorai A., Carswell R. F., Haehnelt M. G., Becker G. D., Bolton J. S., Murphy M. T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2871R 474, 2871

    2018 doi

  108. [118]

    N., et al., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2105.12582 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210512582S p

    Saridakis E. N., et al., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2105.12582 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210512582S p. arXiv:2105.12582

    2021 doi arXiv

  109. [119]

    Schaye J., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/322421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559..507S 559, 507

    2001 doi

  110. [120]

    Schaye J., Dalla Vecchia C., 2008, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12639.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383.1210S 383, 1210

    2008

  111. [121]

    Schlieder J., et al., 2024, in Proceedings of the SPIE. SPIE, p. 130920S, @doi 10.1117/12.3020622

    2024 doi

  112. [122]

    T., Walters H

    Scholz T. T., Walters H. R. J., 1991, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/170587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...380..302S 380, 302

    1991 doi

  113. [123]

    T., Walters H

    Scholz T. T., Walters H. R. J., Burke P. J., Scott M. P., 1990, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/242.4.692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.242..692S 242, 692

    1990 doi

  114. [124]

    F., 2011, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/05/015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JCAP...05..015S 2011, 015

    Shandarin S. F., 2011, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/05/015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JCAP...05..015S 2011, 015

    2011 doi

  115. [125]

    F., Sunyaev R

    Shandarin S. F., Sunyaev R. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...500...19S 500, 19

    2009 doi

  116. [126]

    M., Danforth C

    Shull J. M., Danforth C. W., Tilton E. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796...49S 796, 49

    2014 doi

  117. [127]

    B., Kooistra R., Zaroubi S., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1961S 462, 1961

    Silva M. B., Kooistra R., Zaroubi S., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1961S 462, 1961

    2016 doi

  118. [128]

    Smith A., Safranek-Shrader C., Bromm V., Milosavljevi \'c M., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.4336S 449, 4336

    2015 doi

  119. [129]

    Sokoliuk O., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202553903 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...699A..59S 699, A59

    2025 doi

  120. [130]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339..289S 339, 289

    2003

  121. [131]

    Springel V., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx3304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..676S 475, 676

    2018 doi

  122. [132]

    Stevens A. R. H., et al., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty3451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5334S 483, 5334

    2019 doi

  123. [133]

    R., Thomas P

    Theuns T., Leonard A., Efstathiou G., Pearce F. R., Thomas P. A., 1998, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02040.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.301..478T 301, 478

    1998

  124. [134]

    Theuns T., Leonard A., Schaye J., Efstathiou G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02393.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.303L..58T 303, L58

    1999

  125. [135]

    T., et al., 2023, @doi [Astron

    Tillman M. T., et al., 2023, @doi [Astron. J.] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad02f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..228T 166, 228

    2023 doi

  126. [136]

    Tornotti D., et al., 2025a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02463-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs.tmp...27T

    doi

  127. [137]

    Tornotti D., et al., 2025b, @doi [Ap.J.Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/adb0ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980L..43T 980, L43

    doi

  128. [138]

    Umehata H., et al., 2019, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaw5949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Sci...366...97U 366, 97

    2019 doi

  129. [139]

    Vazza F., Feletti A., 2020, @doi [Frontiers in Physics] 10.3389/fphy.2020.525731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020FrP.....8..491V 8, 491

    2020

  130. [140]

    G., Springel V., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08224.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.354..684V 354, 684

    Viel M., Haehnelt M. G., Springel V., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08224.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.354..684V 354, 684

    2004

  131. [141]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatMe..17..261V 17, 261

    2020 doi

  132. [142]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa137 , 492, 5167

    2020 doi

  133. [143]

    W., Bond J

    Wadsley J. W., Bond J. R., 1997, in Clarke D. A., West M. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 12, Computational Astrophysics; 12th Kingston Meeting on Theoretical Astrophysics. p. 332 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9612148 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro...

    1997 doi arXiv

  134. [144]

    V., 1967, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/149278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...149..465W 149, 465

    Wagoner R. V., 1967, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/149278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...149..465W 149, 465

    1967 doi

  135. [145]

    K., Carswell R

    Webb J. K., Carswell R. F., Lee C.-C., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab2895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3620W 508, 3620

    2021 doi

  136. [146]

    K., Prochaska J

    Werk J. K., Prochaska J. X., Thom C., Tumlinson J., Tripp T. M., O'Meara J. M., Peeples M. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..204...17W 204, 17

    2013 doi

  137. [147]

    Wisotzki L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0564-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.562..229W 562, 229

    2018 doi

  138. [148]

    G., 2021, @doi [Astron

    Witstok J., Puchwein E., Kulkarni G., Smit R., Haehnelt M. G., 2021, @doi [Astron. & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A..98W 650, A98

    2021 doi

  139. [149]

    Yanchulova Merica-Jones P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847..102Y 847, 102

    2017 doi

  140. [150]

    S., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acbe96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23d5007Y 23, 045007

    Yang L., Zheng Z., Kim T. S., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acbe96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23d5007Y 23, 045007

    2023 doi

  141. [151]

    M., Frank S., 2013, @doi [Astron

    Zafar T., P \'e roux C., Popping A., Milliard B., Deharveng J. M., Frank S., 2013, @doi [Astron. & Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A.141Z 556, A141

    2013 doi

  142. [152]

    B., 1970, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970A&A.....5...84Z 5, 84

    Zel'dovich Y. B., 1970, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970A&A.....5...84Z 5, 84

    1970

  143. [153]

    Zheng Z., Miralda-Escud \'e J., 2002, @doi [ApJL] 10.1086/340330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568L..71Z 568, L71

    2002 doi

  144. [154]

    A., Prochaska J

    Zwaan M. A., Prochaska J. X., 2006, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/503191 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...643..675Z 643, 675

    2006 doi

  145. [155]

    van de Voort F., Schaye J., Altay G., Theuns T., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20503.x , 421, 2809

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.