Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

The MUSE Extremely Deep Field: Classifying the Spectral Shapes of Lya Emitting Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Between 32% and 51% of distant Lyman-alpha emitting galaxies show double-peaked emission, with the fraction growing as luminosity rises and staying flat with redshift.

desk verdict A careful blind census of Lyα double-peak fractions with a genuinely new spatial confirmation step; the 32-51% bracket is probably robust, but the luminosity and redshift trends need a bivariate test before they are quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14327 v1 pith:EBNJHDDY submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.GA

E. Vitte , A. Verhamme , P. Hibon , F. Leclercq , B. Alcalde Pampliega , J. Kerutt , H. Kusakabe , J. Matthee
show 9 more authors
Y. Guo R. Bacon M. Maseda J. Richard J. Pharo J. Schaye L. Boogaard T. Nanayakkara T. Contini
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Lyman-alphaemittersdouble-peakedLyαprofilesspectralclassificationMUSEextremelydeepfieldIGMattenuationblue-to-totalfluxratiopeakseparationhigh-redshiftgalaxies
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

This paper aims to give the first systematic, algorithm-driven inventory of Lyman-alpha line shapes among a blind, unbiased sample of high-redshift galaxies. Using the deepest MUSE field, it classifies 477 galaxies at z=2.8-6.6 by combining spectral detections with narrow-band images, and defines a cleaned sample of 206 galaxies. The central claim is that between 32% and 51% of these galaxies show double-peaked Lyα profiles, with the fraction increasing toward brighter Lyα luminosity and not declining steeply with redshift, although an artificial rise at the highest redshifts may explain the plateau. If true, the double-peak fraction becomes a usable tracer of how intergalactic gas attenuates Lyα emission across cosmic time, and the surprising number of blue-dominated double peaks would point to a population of galaxies with unusual gas kinematics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage classification pipeline. First, for each of 477 galaxies, one hundred bootstrap realizations of the extracted spectrum are generated; a pixel counts as signal if the S/N exceeds 1 for two adjacent pixels, and the detection spectrum is thresholded at N=40 to define areas of signal, with a flux-variation analysis catching secondary peaks inside a single area. Second, narrow-band images for each area of signal are run through a source-detection and deblending routine so that each spectral peak must have a spatial counterpart inside the reference segmentation map; this yields the GOLD, SILVER, and BRONZE spatial categories and removes fake multi-peaks. Applying three selection cuts — Lyα luminosity above $3\times10^{40}$ erg/s, integrated S/N above 7, and peak separation above 150 km/s — produces the unbiased sample of 206 galaxies, and the inclusive versus restrictive definitions of double peaks bound the true fraction.

What would settle it

Measure the double-peak fraction in redshift bins with matched Lyα luminosity distributions, for example with a survey reaching the same faint luminosities at z≈6 as at z≈3; if the high-redshift plateau disappears once luminosity is matched, the claimed IGM attenuation signal is largely a selection artifact, while if a steep decline remains, the plateau is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a measured universal fraction of double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters: $X_{\mathrm{DP,I}} = 51\pm4\%$ for the inclusive unbiased sample and $X_{\mathrm{DP,R}} = 32\pm3\%$ for the restrictive one. The authors argue that this fraction grows with Lyα luminosity, from roughly 34% in the faintest bin to near 60% in the brightest, and that the expected decrease with redshift is not seen as a steep decline, but rather as a plateau above z≈4 that may be inflated by the higher mean luminosities of the highest-redshift bins. They also report that roughly half of the inclusive double-peaked sample is blue-dominated ($B/T>0.5$), a larger share than previous studies and simulations suggest, and that about 4% of double peaks are spatially fake, with the two peaks arising from different locations.

Load-bearing premise

The three selection cuts that define the unbiased sample are assumed to remove the dominant observational biases, so the measured trends with luminosity and redshift reflect intrinsic galaxy properties rather than selection effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the fraction is truly luminosity-dependent, any survey comparing double-peak fractions across redshift must match Lyα luminosity or the apparent redshift evolution will be contaminated.
  • A plateau instead of a steep decline at z>4 weakens the simplest expectation that IGM attenuation destroys blue peaks at high redshift.
  • The finding that roughly 20% of the parent sample lies in interacting or complex environments implies that purely spectral classifications overcount multi-peaked Lyα lines.
  • A sizeable blue-dominated population, if confirmed with systemic redshifts, would challenge the standard outflow-dominated picture for high-redshift LAEs.
  • Peak separations out to nearly 1600 km/s, with a mean around 447 km/s, are consistent with earlier samples, providing a cross-check that the new method reproduces established measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If systemic redshifts become available for a larger fraction of the sample, some of the blue-dominated double peaks may turn out to have both peaks on the red side of systemic velocity, meaning they trace geometry rather than infall; the paper already sees this for one of its fifteen objects with secure redshifts.
  • The same method applied to shallower, wider surveys could test whether the luminosity trend persists when selection effects differ, and whether the low-redshift rise toward cosmic noon is real.
  • With sufficiently deep data at z>6, matching luminosity across redshift would separate an intrinsic IGM-opacity signal from a purely selection-driven plateau.
  • The 4% fake-double-peak fraction is a lower limit; higher-resolution imaging could reveal more spatially distinct components, blurring the boundary between GOLD and BRONZE classifications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. Using the MUSE eXtremely Deep Field DR2 catalogue, the paper selects 477 Lyα-emitting galaxies at z = 2.8–6.6 and develops an automated spectral-plus-spatial classification pipeline that assigns each line to no-peak, single-peak, double-peak, or triple-peak categories, with narrow-band imaging used to reject spatially spurious peaks. After applying luminosity, signal-to-noise, and peak-separation cuts, the paper defines an unbiased sample of 206 galaxies and reports a double-peak fraction between XDP_R = 32 ± 3% and XDP_I = 51 ± 4% (Eqs. 3–4). It further reports that this fraction increases with Lyα luminosity, that much of the sample is blue-dominated in B/T, and that the double-peak fraction shows a plateau rather than a strong decline at high redshift, with a possible observational cause for the plateau. The paper also identifies fake double-peaks, interacting pairs, and a small subsample with secure systemic redshifts.

Significance. If the differential trends survive closer scrutiny, this would be one of the first blind, spatially verified censuses of Lyα spectral shapes at z ≈ 3–6. The inclusive/restrictive bracket is a useful way to bound classification uncertainties, and the background-spectrum test (Sect. 3.6) is a clear strength, as is the narrow-band spatial confirmation that eliminates a substantial number of false peaks. The catalogue of peak separations and B/T ratios will be useful for studies of LyC leakers, IGM transmission, and gas kinematics. The headline double-peak fraction range is probably robust as a bracket, but the paper's two differential claims about luminosity and redshift evolution are not yet established because the analysis does not separate those two variables.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.3.2–4.3.3, Figs. 10 and 12] The two differential claims in the abstract—that the double-peak fraction increases with Lyα luminosity and does not decline steeply with redshift—are not separated from each other. The unbiased-sample cuts in Sect. 4.1.3 remove some observational biases but do not break the luminosity–redshift degeneracy: Fig. 12 shows that the highest-redshift bins also have the highest mean Lyα luminosity, and Sect. 4.3.3 concedes that this may create the observed plateau. The same covariance can also produce the luminosity trend in Fig. 10, because the faint luminosity bins are preferentially at low redshift, where the double-peak fraction is already low. A bivariate analysis (for example, XDP in two-dimensional luminosity–redshift bins, a luminosity-matched comparison, or an explicit forward-model of the selection) is needed before the abstract's claims of luminosity-dependent evolution and the absence of a severe redshift decline can be taken as intrinsic population properties. As written, the one-dimensional binning leaves these as plausible but non-unique interpretations.
  2. [4.1.2–4.1.3 and App. A] The thresholds defining the unbiased sample (LLyα > 3 × 10^40 erg/s, integrated S/N > 7, vsep > 150 km/s, and the N = 40 detection threshold) are chosen empirically from the same dataset, and the S/N = 7 cut in particular is justified by the plateau in the cumulative double-peak fraction in Fig. 6. The background test in Sect. 3.6 quantifies false positives, but it does not measure completeness: it does not tell what fraction of true double-peaks at a given S/N, vsep, B/T, and redshift are missed by the pipeline. Since the quoted XDP range and the trends in Figs. 10 and 12 depend directly on these choices, the systematic uncertainty from threshold selection is currently not propagated into the quoted errors. An end-to-end injection/recovery test, or at least an explicit demonstration that the conclusions are stable as the thresholds are moved within plausible ranges, is needed to support the 'universal fraction' framing.
  3. [4.2.3 and 5.3] The paper presents a large blue-dominated fraction (48/105 in the inclusive unbiased sample) as suggesting unique gas dynamics and inflows, but for most of the unbiased sample the systemic redshift is unknown, so 'blue peak' means only 'bluer than the red peak', not necessarily blueward of the systemic velocity. The only secure check, in Sect. 5.3, gives eight double-peaks with systemic redshifts, of which only one has B/T > 0.5, and that object has both peaks on the red side of the systemic redshift. The manuscript does acknowledge this limitation in Sect. 5.3, but the abstract and Sect. 4.2.3 still convey the physical inflow interpretation without this caveat. Please either quantify how many of the blue-dominated objects can plausibly be true blue-dominated given the systemic-redshift subsample, or state in the abstract that the inflow interpretation is preliminary.
minor comments (3)
  1. [4.2.3] The sentence 'The fraction of the sample which is red peak dominated is 23%' appears to be a typo: the numbers quoted just before it (N = 51 below B/T = 0.5 and N = 15 above) give a blue-dominated fraction of 23% for UDP_R, not a red-dominated fraction.
  2. [3.6] The sentence 'around 10% of the peaks detected are spurious (∼76 over 760 detected peaks)' is not directly derivable from Table 2, which reports 7% and 12% of background spectra with a noise peak; please clarify the denominator and the conversion from the background test to the estimated number of spurious peaks.
  3. [4.1.2] The term 'unbiased sample' is used for a sample that is still restricted by luminosity, S/N, and peak-separation cuts; consider adding a qualifier such as 'unbiased within the selected parameter range' to avoid overstating the degree to which observational selection has been removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all headline fractions and trends are direct measurements on public MUSE data, with thresholds chosen from independent sensitivity curves and limitations explicitly flagged.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, XDP_I = 51±4% and XDP_R = 32±3% (Eqs. 3-4), are directly measured counts (105/206 and 66/206) after explicit cuts, not outputs of a fitted model or of a self-citation chain. The inclusive/restrictive pair brackets detection-method sensitivity rather than tuning a target fraction. The threshold choices (N=40 detection threshold, S/N=7, vsep=150 km/s, L_Lyα > 3×10^40 erg/s) are justified from independent characterization curves (Figs. 6-7) and tested for robustness: Appendix A compares N=30, 40, 50, and Sect. 3.6 measures the spurious-peak rate on 200 background spectra. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then 'predicted' as a closely related quantity, and no result is assumed by construction. Citations to Bacon et al. (2023) supply the public DR2 catalogue and reference spectra, and Blaizot et al. (2023) is used only for qualitative physical interpretation of B/T and for comparison, not to derive the fractions; neither is load-bearing in a way that reduces a claim to its own input. The final fraction range is also compared with independent external literature values (Kulas et al. 2012: 30%; Yamada et al. 2012: 50%; Kerutt et al. 2022: 33%; Trainor et al. 2015: 40%), providing outside anchoring. The paper itself explicitly flags the main validity concern: the luminosity and redshift trends are not separated, with Sect. 4.3.3 stating that the high-z plateau 'might be caused by the high mean luminosity' in the last bins and Sect. 4.3.2 noting that the luminosity trend 'may still be due to observational biases.' These are recognized selection/confounding limitations that affect the strength of the physical interpretation, but they are not circular reasoning: the measurement chain is self-contained, and the reservations are disclosed rather than hidden.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on empirical thresholds (listed as free parameters) and on domain assumptions inherited from the Ly-alpha radiative-transfer literature and the MUSE DR2 catalogue. No new physical entities are postulated; the spatial classes (GOLD, SILVER, BRONZE) are analysis categories, not entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Detection threshold N = 40
    Empirical threshold on the detection spectrum (pixel detected in at least 40 of 100 bootstrap realizations) to define areas of signal; tested at N=30 and N=50 in App. A.
  • S/N threshold for unbiased sample = 7
    Empirical cut on integrated S/N chosen from the plateau in the cumulative double-peak fraction (Fig. 6) and from the need to detect extreme B/T values (1/(S/N) < B/T < 1 - 1/(S/N), Fig. 7 middle).
  • Ly-alpha luminosity threshold = 3 x 10^40 erg/s
    Chosen to minimize the redshift dependence of the sample caused by redshift dimming (Fig. 7 left).
  • Peak separation threshold = 150 km/s
    Minimum peak separation measurable at all redshifts given the MUSE line spread function (about 150 km/s at z=3, about 90 km/s at z>6).
  • SourceFinder detection threshold = 2-sigma with 3 connected pixels
    Empirical threshold for narrow-band image source detection, chosen to be consistent with the spectral criterion and to detect faint compact emission (App. A).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Double-peaked Ly-alpha profiles with peaks on either side of the systemic velocity arise from radiative transfer through a neutral medium; B/T and peak separation encode column density and gas kinematics.
    Invoked in the Introduction and Sect. 5.3 to interpret the measured fractions and B/T values; established in prior literature (Verhamme et al. 2006, 2015; Blaizot et al. 2023) and used as a benchmark, not derived here.
  • domain assumption The 100 Gaussian realizations per spectrum with independent pixel noise approximate the detection statistics of the MUSE data.
    Sect. 3.2 uses this bootstrap to define detection spectra; the authors note MUSE noise is correlated and the false-positive rate is higher than the ideal 2.5%, which they measure empirically on 200 background spectra in Sect. 3.6.
  • domain assumption The DR2 catalogue redshifts are sufficiently reliable to define the parent sample, with a misclassification rate below 10% even for the faintest sources.
    Sect. 2.2 relies on B23's ZCONF estimates, including 146 sources with ZCONF=1 that are retained; the paper verifies that removing ZCONF=1 objects does not change the distributions in Fig. 8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The MUSE Extremely Deep Field: Classifying the Spectral Shapes of Lya Emitting Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EBNJHDDY

@misc{pith2026241114327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The MUSE Extremely Deep Field: Classifying the Spectral Shapes of Lya Emitting Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EBNJHDDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14327}
}
read the original abstract

The Hydrogen Lyman-alpha (Lya) line shows a large variety of shapes which is caused by factors at different scales, from the interstellar medium to the intergalactic medium. This work aims to provide a systematic inventory and classification of the spectral shapes of Lya emission lines to understand the general population of high-redshift Lya emitting galaxies (LAEs). Using the data from the MUSE eXtremely Deep Field, we select 477 galaxies at z=2.8-6.6. We develop a method to classify Lya emission lines in four spectral and three spatial categories, by combining a spectral analysis with a narrow-band image analysis. We measure spectral properties, such as the peak separation and the blue-to-total flux ratio. To ensure a robust sample for statistical analysis, we define a final unbiased sample of 206 galaxies by applying thresholds for signal-to-noise ratio, peak separation, and Lya luminosity. Our analysis reveals that between 32% and 51% of the galaxies exhibit double-peaked profiles. This fraction seems to evolve dependently with the Lya luminosity, while we don't notice a severe decrease of this fraction with redshift. A large amount of these double-peaked profiles shows blue-dominated spectra, suggesting unique gas dynamics and inflow characteristics in some high-redshift galaxies. Among the double-peaked galaxies, 4% are spurious detections. Around 20% out of the 477 sources of the parent sample lie in a complex environment, meaning there are other clumps or galaxies at the same redshift within a distance of 30kpc. Our results suggest that the Lya double-peak fraction may trace the evolution of IGM attenuation, but faintest galaxies are needed to be observed at high redshift. In addition, it is crucial to obtain secure systemic redshifts for LAEs to better constrain the nature of the double-peaks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exposure time map of the MXDF. The blue circles are the MXDF-selected objects, the pink triangles indicate the UDF￾10-selected targets and the green squares the MOSAIC-selected objects (see Sect. 2.2). The field is coloured by exposure time in hours, from 0h to 140h. The red contour represents the 100h limit of the field. The solid and dashed white contours show the 30h and 10h exposure time of the MXDF, respectivel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of the method. The input data are indicated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ) and each pixel above this threshold is considered as real signal (shaded areas in panel (a) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ID 3240, double-peak, GOLD category. (a): Example of a detection spectrum in black obtained from the 100 realizations of the original spectrum (Sect. 3.2). The S/N spectrum of the original spectrum is plotted in dotted black. The horizontal dashed green line shows our …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Illustration of a GOLD double-peaked galaxy. The emission of each peak (red circle) is located inside the seg￾mentation map (black contour) at the same spatial location. Mid￾dle panel: SILVER category. Each peak of the double-peaked Lyα line is coming from …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of the different spectral shape categories (Sect. 4.1), except the "No-peak" category (see App. D). First row: spectra of single-peak galaxies. Second and third rows: spectra from sources belonging to the double-peak category, red and blue dominated spectra, r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative fraction of double-peaks with increasing S [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GOLD, SILVER and BRONZE objects are represented by triangles, crosses, and squares symbols, respectively. Left: Lyα luminosity as a function of redshift for the parent sample. The horizontal black dash-dotted line represents the luminosity cut (LLyα = 3 × 1040 [erg s−1…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a): Logarithmic Lyα luminosity distribution. (b): FWHM distribution of the peak of the Lyα line with the strongest flux. (c): B/T distribution measured on the Lyα emission lines of the double-peaked objects. B/T = 0.5 is represented by a black dash-dotted line. The nu…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Peak separation plotted against the redshift for our double-peak sample as well as the literature (Kulas et al. 2012; Yamada [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fraction of double-peaked LAEs plotted against the log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top panel: B/T flux ratio distributions of the inclusive unbiased double-peak sample (UDPI) divided into 2 Lyα lumi￾nosity bins with the same number of objects (53 and 52). The faint sub-sample (LLyα < 3.7 × 1041 erg s−1 ) is in black and the bright one (LLyα > 3.7 × …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fractions of double-peaked LAEs plotted against the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ID 399, double-peak, BRONZE category. Example of a LAE surrounded by a satellite discovered thanks to our method. (a), (b) and (c): Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ID 8439, double-peak, BRONZE category. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: ID 7817, single-peak, GOLD category. Example of a pair of galaxies. The galaxy ID 8271 has the same redshift as ID 7817 (z ≈ 4.14). segmentation map, the object is thus classified as a SILVER object. Finally, for double- and triple-peaks, an object can be classified B…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: ID 412, double-peak, GOLD category. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Velocities of every peak and trough for the double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The MUSE Ultra Deep Field: A 5 Mpc stretch of the z $\approx$ 4 cosmic web revealed in emission

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A ~5 Mpc comoving cosmic-web filament at z≈4 is detected in Lyα emission around an overdensity of 19 LAEs, with no bright AGN.

  2. A unique window into the Epoch of Reionisation: A double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ emitter in the proximity zone of a quasar at $z\sim 6.6$

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using a double-peaked Lyman-alpha profile from a galaxy in a quasar proximity zone at z≈6.6, the authors infer a Lyman-continuum escape fraction of 8-33% and a quasar opening angle greater than 49.6 degrees, with an i...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 670

    Ao , Y., Zheng , Z., Henkel , C., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 670

    2020

  4. [4]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

    2022

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  7. [7]

    2017, PhD Thesis

    Bacher . 2017, PhD Thesis

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bacon , R., Accardo , M., Adjali , L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 773508

    2010

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    2023, , 670, A4

    Bacon , R., Brinchmann , J., Conseil , S., et al. 2023, , 670, A4

    2023

  2. [10]

    2017, , 608, A1

    Bacon , R., Conseil , S., Mary , D., et al. 2017, , 608, A1

    2017

  3. [11]

    2023, [ [arXiv] 2305.10047 ]

    Blaizot , J., Garel , T., Verhamme , A., et al. 2023, [ [arXiv] 2305.10047 ]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A., Bouwens , R

    Boogaard , L. A., Bouwens , R. J., Riechers , D., et al. 2021, , 916, 12

    2021

  5. [13]

    Bosman , S. E. I., Kakiichi , K., Meyer , R. A., et al. 2020, , 896, 49

    2020

  6. [14]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0

    Bradley , L. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0

    2023

  7. [15]

    J., Cameron , A

    Bunker , A. J., Cameron , A. J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02467

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2020, , 499, 3610

    Cao , X., Li , R., Shu , Y., et al. 2020, , 499, 3610

    2020

  9. [17]

    L., Lee , N., Capak , P., et al

    Carilli , C. L., Lee , N., Capak , P., et al. 2008, , 689, 883

    2008

  10. [18]

    M., et al

    Daddi , E., Valentino , F., Rich , R. M., et al. 2021, , 649, A78

    2021

  11. [19]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.03416

    Dijkstra , M. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.03416

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2006, ApJ, 649, 14

    Dijkstra , M., Haiman , Z., & Spaans , M. 2006, ApJ, 649, 14

    2006

  13. [21]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    K., Steidel , C

    Erb , D. K., Steidel , C. C., Trainor , R. F., et al. 2014, , 795, 33

    2014

  15. [23]

    R., Jaskot , A

    Flury , S. R., Jaskot , A. E., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2022, , 260, 1

    2022

  16. [24]

    J., Plat , A., Zitrin , A., et al

    Furtak , L. J., Plat , A., Zitrin , A., et al. 2022, , 516, 1373

    2022

  17. [25]

    2021, , 504, 1902

    Garel , T., Blaizot , J., Rosdahl , J., et al. 2021, , 504, 1902

    2021

  18. [26]

    C., Froning , C

    Green , J. C., Froning , C. S., Osterman , S., et al. 2012, , 744, 60

    2012

  19. [27]

    2015, , 812, 157

    Hashimoto , T., Verhamme , A., Ouchi , M., et al. 2015, , 812, 157

    2015

  20. [28]

    J., Runnholm , A., Gronke , M., & Scarlata , C

    Hayes , M. J., Runnholm , A., Gronke , M., & Scarlata , C. 2021, , 908, 36

    2021

  21. [29]

    L., & Erb , D

    Henry , A., Scarlata , C., Martin , C. L., & Erb , D. 2015, , 809, 19

    2015

  22. [30]

    M., Cowie , L

    Hu , E. M., Cowie , L. L., Songaila , A., et al. 2016, , 825, L7

    2016

  23. [31]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  24. [32]

    2017, , 608, A2

    Inami , H., Bacon , R., Brinchmann , J., et al. 2017, , 608, A2

    2017

  25. [33]

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

    Izotov , Y. I., Schaerer , D., Worseck , G., et al. 2020, , 491, 468

    2020

  26. [34]

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

    Izotov , Y. I., Worseck , G., Schaerer , D., et al. 2021, , 503, 1734

    2021

  27. [35]

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

    Izotov , Y. I., Worseck , G., Schaerer , D., et al. 2018, , 478, 4851

    2018

  28. [36]

    A., Wisotzki , L., et al

    Kerutt , J., Oesch , P. A., Wisotzki , L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.08791

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.06642

    Kerutt , J., Wisotzki , L., Verhamme , A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.06642

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    G., Kerutt , J., Verhamme , A., et al

    Kramarenko , I. G., Kerutt , J., Verhamme , A., et al. 2024, , 527, 9853

    2024

  31. [39]

    R., Shapley , A

    Kulas , K. R., Shapley , A. E., Kollmeier , J. A., et al. 2012, , 745, 33

    2012

  32. [40]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.07257

    Kusakabe , H., Verhamme , A., Blaizot , J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.07257

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Laursen , P., Sommer-Larsen , J., & Razoumov , A. O. 2011, , 728, 52

    2011

  34. [42]

    2017, , 608, A8

    Leclercq , F., Bacon , R., Wisotzki , L., et al. 2017, , 608, A8

    2017

  35. [43]

    C., Gronke , M., Chen , Y., & Matsuda , Y

    Li , Z., Steidel , C. C., Gronke , M., Chen , Y., & Matsuda , Y. 2022, , 513, 3414

    2022

  36. [44]

    & Rhoads , J

    Malhotra , S. & Rhoads , J. E. 2004, , 617, L5

    2004

  37. [45]

    2022, , 517, 2972

    Marques-Chaves , R., Schaerer , D., \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., et al. 2022, , 517, 2972

    2022

  38. [46]

    L., Dijkstra , M., Henry , A., et al

    Martin , C. L., Dijkstra , M., Henry , A., et al. 2015, , 803, 6

    2015

  39. [47]

    2020, , 635, A194

    Mary , D., Bacon , R., Conseil , S., Piqueras , L., & Schutz , A. 2020, , 635, A194

    2020

  40. [48]

    V., Bacon , R., Franx , M., et al

    Maseda , M. V., Bacon , R., Franx , M., et al. 2018, , 865, L1

    2018

  41. [49]

    2022, , 660, A10

    Matthee , J., Feltre , A., Maseda , M., et al. 2022, , 660, A10

    2022

  42. [50]

    2018, , 619, A136

    Matthee , J., Sobral , D., Gronke , M., et al. 2018, , 619, A136

    2018

  43. [51]

    2021, , 505, 1382

    Matthee , J., Sobral , D., Hayes , M., et al. 2021, , 505, 1382

    2021

  44. [52]

    A., Laporte , N., Ellis , R

    Meyer , R. A., Laporte , N., Ellis , R. S., Verhamme , A., & Garel , T. 2021, , 500, 558

    2021

  45. [53]

    Moffat , A. F. J. 1969, , 3, 455

    1969

  46. [54]

    2023, , 680, L5

    Mukherjee , T., Zafar , T., Nanayakkara , T., et al. 2023, , 680, L5

    2023

  47. [55]

    P., Matthee , J., Oesch , P

    Naidu , R. P., Matthee , J., Oesch , P. A., et al. 2022, , 510, 4582

    2022

  48. [56]

    P., Oesch , P

    Naidu , R. P., Oesch , P. A., Reddy , N., et al. 2017, , 847, 12

    2017

  49. [57]

    Neufeld , D. A. & McKee , C. F. 1990, in NASA Conference Publication, Vol. 3084, NASA Conference Publication, ed. D. J. Hollenbach & J. Thronson , Harley A., 243

    1990

  50. [58]

    A., Brammer , G., Naidu , R

    Oesch , P. A., Brammer , G., Naidu , R. P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.02026

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2018, , 616, A60

    Orlitov \'a , I., Verhamme , A., Henry , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A60

    2018

  52. [60]

    2020, , 58, 617

    Ouchi , M., Ono , Y., & Shibuya , T. 2020, , 58, 617

    2020

  53. [61]

    Partridge , R. B. & Peebles , P. J. E. 1967, , 147, 868

    1967

  54. [62]

    2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Piqueras , L., Conseil , S., Shepherd , M., et al. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 521, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVI, ed. M. Molinaro , K. Shortridge , & F. Pasian , 545

    2019

  55. [63]

    I., Gardner , J

    Rafelski , M., Teplitz , H. I., Gardner , J. P., et al. 2015, , 150, 31

    2015

  56. [64]

    E., Xu , C., Dawson , S., et al

    Rhoads , J. E., Xu , C., Dawson , S., et al. 2004, , 611, 59

    2004

  57. [65]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.01657

    Richard , J., Bacon , R., Blaizot , J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.01657

    2019

  58. [66]

    E., Dahle , H., Chisholm , J., et al

    Rivera-Thorsen , T. E., Dahle , H., Chisholm , J., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 738

    2019

  59. [67]

    E., Steidel , C

    Shapley , A. E., Steidel , C. C., Pettini , M., & Adelberger , K. L. 2003, , 588, 65

    2003

  60. [68]

    2018, , 477, 2817

    Sobral , D., Matthee , J., Darvish , B., et al. 2018, , 477, 2817

    2018

  61. [69]

    M., Barger , A

    Songaila , A., Hu , E. M., Barger , A. J., et al. 2018, , 859, 91

    2018

  62. [70]

    2007, , 467, 63

    Tapken , C., Appenzeller , I., Noll , S., et al. 2007, , 467, 63

    2007

  63. [71]

    F., Steidel , C

    Trainor , R. F., Steidel , C. C., Strom , A. L., & Rudie , G. C. 2015, , 809, 89

    2015

  64. [72]

    2019, , 624, A141

    Urrutia , T., Wisotzki , L., Kerutt , J., et al. 2019, , 624, A141

    2019

  65. [73]

    C., & Varoquaux , G

    van der Walt , S., Colbert , S. C., & Varoquaux , G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  66. [74]

    2017, , 465, 3803

    Vanzella , E., Balestra , I., Gronke , M., et al. 2017, , 465, 3803

    2017

  67. [75]

    2016, , 825, 41

    Vanzella , E., de Barros , S., Vasei , K., et al. 2016, , 825, 41

    2016

  68. [76]

    2018, , 476, L15

    Vanzella , E., Nonino , M., Cupani , G., et al. 2018, , 476, L15

    2018

  69. [77]

    2018, , 478, L60

    Verhamme , A., Garel , T., Ventou , E., et al. 2018, , 478, L60

    2018

  70. [78]

    2015, , 578, A7

    Verhamme , A., Orlitov \'a , I., Schaerer , D., & Hayes , M. 2015, , 578, A7

    2015

  71. [79]

    2017, , 597, A13

    Verhamme , A., Orlitov \'a , I., Schaerer , D., et al. 2017, , 597, A13

    2017

  72. [80]

    2006, , 460, 397

    Verhamme , A., Schaerer , D., & Maselli , A. 2006, , 460, 397

    2006

  73. [81]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  74. [82]

    M., Palsa , R., Streicher , O., et al

    Weilbacher , P. M., Palsa , R., Streicher , O., et al. 2020, , 641, A28

    2020

  75. [83]

    2013, , 765, 118

    Wofford , A., Leitherer , C., & Salzer , J. 2013, , 765, 118

    2013

  76. [84]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 29, publisher: The American Astronomical Society

    Yamada, T., Matsuda, Y., Kousai, K., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 29, publisher: The American Astronomical Society

    2012

  77. [85]

    2016, , 820, 130

    Yang , H., Malhotra , S., Gronke , M., et al. 2016, , 820, 130

    2016

  78. [86]

    & Miralda-Escud \'e , J

    Zheng , Z. & Miralda-Escud \'e , J. 2002, , 568, L71

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.