Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultra-deep MUSE data reveal a 5 Mpc cosmic-web filament glowing in Lyman-alpha at z≈4.

desk verdict Genuine new detection of a Lyα filament around an ordinary LAE group, but the unresolved-galaxy budget needs a quantitative answer before the IGM claims can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06895 v2 pith:LLLB5FD7 submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Davide Tornotti , Michele Fumagalli , Matteo Fossati , Fabrizio Arrigoni Battaia , Alejandro Benitez-Llambay , Pratika Dayal , Rajeshwari Dutta , Celine Peroux
show 2 more authors
Marc Rafelski Mitchell Revalski
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicwebLyman-alphaemissionemitterslarge-scalestructureintergalacticmediumgalaxyoverdensitygasaccretionintegralfieldspectroscopy
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

Ultra-deep spectroscopic observations of a small patch of sky at redshift $z\approx 4.008$ reveal a 5-megaparsec (comoving) stretch of the cosmic web glowing in Lyman-$\alpha$ light. The emission is associated with an overdensity of 19 Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters ($\delta\approx 25$) and has an average surface brightness of $5\times10^{-20}~\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}}$. Because deep X-ray and near-infrared data show no clear active galactic nucleus, the authors argue that the emission traces the underlying gas density rather than quasar illumination. They also find that five of seven double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ lines are blue-dominated, a signature of infalling gas, and that the filament's galaxies are about 0.2 dex brighter in Lyman-$\alpha$ than control samples. If correct, this shows that ordinary, non-quasar overdensities can be imaged in emission and opens a direct window onto gas accretion in the cosmic web.

What carries the argument

The central object is the continuum-subtracted Lyman-$\alpha$ datacube of the MUDF, searched with a connected-voxel detection code (SHINE) that requires S/N > 2, at least 500 spatial pixels, at least 3 adjacent spectral layers, and a median velocity within 1000 km/s of the group redshift. A non-parametric point-spread-function subtraction removes quasar and continuum light before the search. The argument then turns on separating emission at surface brightness above versus below $4\times10^{-19}~\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}}$: the bright part is treated as circumgalactic gas within roughly 10–20 kpc of the LAEs, and the faint part as the intergalactic filament with an average surface brightness of about $5\times10^{-20}$. The comparison of surface-brightness profiles along filament-aligned slits, randomly oriented slits, and annuli provides the quantitative bridge to stacked literature samples.

What would settle it

A deep JWST/NIRCam mosaic of the same field reaching below the current F140W AB≈28 limit, combined with an independent PSF-subtraction method, would settle the point: if the integrated flux of newly resolved faint galaxies plus residuals reproduces the observed $\approx5\times10^{-20}~\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}}$ surface brightness, the diffuse-intergalactic-gas interpretation fails; if a smooth residual remains after masking all detected sources, it is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper reports the direct detection of Lyman-$\alpha$ emission from a ~5 comoving Mpc portion of the cosmic web at $z\approx 4.008$, imaged within the MUSE Ultra Deep Field. The diffuse emission, outside the circumgalactic gas of individual galaxies, reaches surface brightness levels of about $\sim3\times10^{-20}~\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}}$ with a mean of about $5\times10^{-20}$ over the structure, which connects 19 Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters arranged in a narrow band roughly 150 kpc thick. The structure is an overdensity of $\delta\approx 25$ relative to the field LAE population. The absence of bright AGN signatures (C IV and He II upper limits, no ALMA or X-ray detections) leads the authors to conclude that the emission is regulated primarily by gas density, with galaxies possibly contributing collectively to the photon budget. Embedded galaxies show a high fraction of blue-peaked double lines, interpreted as gas infall, and a marginal 2$\sigma$ excess of Lyman-$\alpha$ luminosity over control samples. Finally, the surface-brightness profile along the filament breaks at about 20 kpc, which the authors identify as the CGM-to-IGM transition and use to reinterpret the flattening seen in stacked LAE profiles as geometric dilution of filament emission.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the faint extended light (surface brightness about $3$–$5\times10^{-20}~\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}}$) is genuinely diffuse intergalactic gas, not the summed light of undetected galaxies or residuals from subtracting the quasar and continuum point-spread function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detection is real, cosmic-web filaments can be imaged in Lyman-alpha emission in ordinary overdensities of star-forming galaxies at z≈4, not only around bright quasars or in rare protoclusters.
  • Because the average surface brightness is similar to the quasar-host filament at z≈3.22 after accounting for the $(1+z)^4$ dimming, the result implies that the underlying gas density, not AGN radiation, sets the IGM emission level on megaparsec scales.
  • The prevalence of blue-peaked double-peaked Lyman-alpha profiles (5 out of 7) and the ~0.2 dex excess of Lyman-alpha luminosity indicate that galaxies embedded in the filament are experiencing enhanced gas accretion and possibly elevated star formation.
  • The break in the stacked surface-brightness profile at about 20 kpc, close to the expected virial radius of LAE host halos, marks the CGM/IGM boundary; the flattening seen in large LAE stacks can be understood as geometric dilution of filament emission rather than a bright outer CGM.
  • If such filaments are common at this surface brightness, medium-depth surveys sensitive to about $10^{-20}~\mathrm{erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}}$ should yield statistically useful samples of directly imaged cosmic-web gas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to image the same field with JWST/NIRCam below the current F140W AB≈28 limit; if newly resolved faint galaxies account for the low-surface-brightness flux, the intergalactic interpretation would weaken, while a smooth residual would support it.
  • If gas density sets the emission level, the average Lyman-alpha surface brightness should increase with local overdensity; comparing several detected filaments across $\delta\approx 10$–30 would test this directly.
  • The blue-peaked majority also suggests that filaments are preferred accretion sites; direct inflow velocities could be sought with high-resolution spectroscopy on next-generation telescopes, connecting the line profiles to the roughly 200 km/s resonant-scattering uncertainty.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the detection of extended Lyα emission from a ~5 comoving Mpc portion of the cosmic web at z≈4.008 in the MUSE Ultra Deep Field, associated with an overdensity (δ≈25) of 19 LAEs. The extended emission reaches an average surface brightness of ~5×10^-20 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2, is confirmed in six low-surface-brightness spectral extraction apertures, and is compared with a previously detected quasar-associated filament at z≈3.22. The authors further analyze the embedded LAEs, reporting a ~0.2 dex Lyα luminosity excess at ~2σ significance, a high fraction of blue-peaked double profiles (5/7), and a break in the stacked SB profile at ~20 kpc that they interpret as a CGM/IGM transition. They argue that the lack of obvious AGN in the deep multiwavelength data implies that gas density, rather than ionizing radiation from AGN, regulates the diffuse emission.

Significance. If the diffuse emission is genuinely from intergalactic gas, the paper provides one of the largest direct images of the cosmic web in Lyα emission at z≈4, extending the environment range from quasar fields to a galaxy overdensity without luminous AGN. The authors deserve credit for the spectral confirmation in six apertures, the public release of the SHINE source-finding code, robustness checks on smoothing and S/N thresholds, cross-checks of the overdensity against independent luminosity functions, and the random-orientation stacking test. The differential comparison with the z≈3.22 quasar filament is a useful step toward understanding what sets the surface brightness of cosmic-web emission. However, the physical interpretation as intergalactic gas, and the resulting claims about gas-density-regulated emission and the CGM/IGM transition at 20 kpc, depend on an unresolved-galaxy contamination budget that is currently only acknowledged, not quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 and §5] The attribution of the low-surface-brightness emission (SB≈3–5×10^-20 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2) to diffuse intergalactic gas is not quantitatively separated from the summed Lyα halos of undetected galaxies. The LAE catalog is 50% complete at log L≈41.5 erg s^-1 (Section 2), and the faint-end slope of the z≈4 LAE luminosity function is steep, so a substantial population of unresolved LAEs is expected in this overdense volume. Each such galaxy has an extended Lyα halo (Wisotzki et al. 2018; Guo et al. 2024), and the projected sum of these halos can plausibly produce the observed plateau. The authors explicitly concede this in Section 5 ('we cannot exclude the potential presence of undetected galaxies, which may contribute to the extended Lyα emission'), but no budget calculation is provided. Because the abstract's claim that the emission is 'mainly regulated by the underlying gas density' and the 20 kpc CGM/IGM transition in Section 4 both depend on the diffuse light being genuinely intergalactic, I consider this the most load-bearing weakness. A quantitative estimate—e.g., integrating the luminosity function below the completeness limit and adding empirical stacked LAE halo profiles, or using the deep HST/ALMA data to place limits on the unresolved population—is needed before the IGM interpretation can be accepted.
  2. [§3 and Fig. 6] The random-orientation slit and annulus comparison in Figure 6 demonstrates that the extended emission is aligned with the filament and is not an artifact of isotropic noise, but it does not test the unresolved-galaxy contamination scenario. Undetected galaxies and their halos contribute to all slit orientations, including random orientations and annuli, because they are distributed along the filament and are not masked by the continuum-source masking (which only removes detected sources). The fact that the aligned slits show a plateau while random slits decline therefore constrains the geometry of the extended component, not whether that component is truly intergalactic rather than the integrated CGM of unresolved galaxies. An explicit test, such as masking or subtracting all flux associated with even tentative sources before re-extracting the diffuse SB profile, would directly address the degeneracy.
  3. [§4, SB profile interpretation] The identification of a CGM/IGM transition at ≈20 kpc from the inflection of the median slit profile is not unique to that interpretation: the break could also arise from the transition between resolved, bright LAE cores and a fainter, smoother unresolved population, or from the geometry of the adaptive slit widths and the masking of continuum sources. The authors compare the break with the virial radius of 10^10.5–10^11 M⊙ halos, which is reasonable, but this comparison does not exclude the unresolved-galaxy scenario because those halos would themselves host the undetected galaxies whose halos contribute to the outer profile. The paper should either provide an estimate of the expected unresolved-galaxy contribution to the profile as a function of radius or soften the CGM/IGM interpretation accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'contribution of intragalactic gas' in the abstract should presumably read 'intergalactic gas'; if not, the intended meaning should be clarified.
  2. [§3] There is a typo in 'we made publicy available'; it should be 'publicly'.
  3. [§4] The word 'Futhermore' should be 'Furthermore', and 'emssion' should be 'emission' in the kinematics discussion.
  4. [References] The reference 'Galbiati et al. 2023' appears twice with identical details; one entry should be removed.
  5. [Fig. 2] The caption and text should specify how the purple 'background' distribution is constructed (e.g., from off-line spectral windows or noise-realized cubes), since the comparison between signal and background is central to the S/N discussion.
  6. [§2.1] The notation '∆V = 2σ ≈ 5.8 cMpc' mixes a velocity dispersion with a comoving length; please clarify whether the effective volume uses a velocity window of ≈900 km s^-1 converted to a comoving line-of-sight length.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the detection is an empirical measurement with independent cross-checks, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a direct observational detection of extended Ly-alpha emission in the MUSE Ultra Deep Field, not the output of a fitted model or a theorem whose premises contain the conclusion. The LAE group is identified with a friends-of-friends algorithm using linking lengths taken from prior MUDF work, but the authors explicitly verify that the group identification is stable when the linking parameters are varied, and the overdensity estimate delta ~ 25 is cross-checked against the independent Thai et al. (2023) luminosity functions, giving a consistent range delta ~ 18-29. The extended emission is validated spectrally in six apertures and via a S/N distribution against a background model. The separation into CGM and IGM components is presented as an interpretation guided by an empirical surface-brightness cut, not as a prediction derived from the cut itself, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the residual degeneracy with undetected galaxies ('we cannot exclude the potential presence of undetected galaxies, which may contribute to the extended Ly-alpha emission'). The SB profile analysis compares filament-aligned slits with randomly oriented slits and annuli, and with literature stacks, which is an independent comparison rather than a circular reduction. Reliance on the same team's datacube and on the SHINE code (Fossati & Tornotti 2025) is reuse of data products and publicly released software, not the import of an unverified self-citation as the load-bearing argument. No uniqueness theorem, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or ansatz smuggled in via citation appears in the derivation chain. The acknowledged limitation about unresolved galaxies is a real observational degeneracy but does not make the detection circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection does not depend on any fitted model parameters. The analysis uses hand-chosen linking lengths and surface-brightness thresholds that are tested for robustness. The physical interpretation relies on standard domain assumptions: that the emission traces gas density, that Lyα redshifts are accurate to ~200 km/s, and that PSF subtraction does not create the extended signal. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Friends-of-Friends linking lengths (ΔR=500 kpc, Δv=400 km/s)
    Hand-chosen from Fossati et al. 2019; used to define LAE groups; the authors verify stability by varying ±100 kpc and ±100 km/s.
  • Velocity window for overdensity (≈900 km/s)
    Used to compute δ≈25; cross-checked with luminosity-function expectation, giving δ≈18-29.
  • Surface-brightness split at 4e-19 erg/s/cm2/arcsec2 = 4×10^-19 erg s^-1 cm^-2 arcsec^-2
    Hand-chosen threshold to separate CGM from diffuse IGM emission; based on radial profile analysis, not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The extended Lyα emission arises from intergalactic gas rather than from unresolved galaxies or PSF-subtraction residuals.
    The paper argues against noise via spectral extraction but cannot fully exclude undetected galaxies, as acknowledged in Section 5. This is a standard assumption in direct cosmic-web imaging.
  • domain assumption Lyα redshifts from the line peak (red peak for double-peaked profiles) are accurate enough for group assignment, with offsets up to 200 km/s.
    Section 2 states well-documented limitations due to resonant scattering; the authors claim group properties are not significantly affected.
  • domain assumption The non-parametric PSF subtraction of continuum sources does not remove or create extended emission.
    Section 2; the cube is prepared by subtracting PSF of quasars and continuum sources; residuals could in principle contaminate faint SB.
  • domain assumption Emission mechanisms (recombination and collisional excitation) scale with gas density squared, so SB traces underlying gas density.
    Section 4; used to infer that gas density, not radiation field, regulates IGM-scale emission. This is theoretical input from prior work, not tested here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The MUSE Ultra Deep Field: A 5 Mpc stretch of the z $\approx$ 4 cosmic web revealed in emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LLLB5FD7

@misc{pith2026241206895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The MUSE Ultra Deep Field: A 5 Mpc stretch of the z $\approx$ 4 cosmic web revealed in emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LLLB5FD7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06895}
}
abstract

We detect Ly$\alpha$ emission from a ~5 Mpc-long (comoving) portion of the cosmic web hosting an overdensity ($\delta \approx 25$) of 19 Ly$\alpha$ emitters (LAEs) at $z\approx 4$ within the MUSE Ultra Deep Field (MUDF), reaching an average surface brightness (SB) of $5\times 10^{-20}~\rm{erg~s^{-1}~ cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}}$. This large-scale structure has an average SB similar to the filament across the two MUDF quasars at $z\approx 3.22$. However, deep multiwavelength data do not show a clear presence of active galactic nuclei, suggesting that the emission is mainly regulated by the underlying gas density. We find $\approx 0.2$ dex higher star formation compared to control samples and a remarkable predominance (5/7) of blue-peaked emission lines in the spectra of the embedded LAEs, indicative of favorable conditions for gas accretion. Lastly, we quantify the contribution of intragalactic gas to the Ly$\alpha$ SB profile at large distances from LAEs. By studying samples of filaments detected in emission within diverse environments, we are finally gaining new insight into the physics of gas accretion within the cosmic web.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Extracted Lyα image of a cosmic web filament connecting an overdensity (δ ≈ 25) of 19 LAEs at redshift z ≈ 4.008 obtained from the continuum-subtracted datacube. North is up and East to the left. The black contour is the detection limit at S/N = 2. The purple and red contours are at 1 × 10−19 and 5 × 10−19 erg s−1 cm−2 arcsec−2 . The blue crosses indicate the LAEs identified at this redshift. L5 and L19 exhibi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The signal-to-noise distribution of the voxels in the datacube used for signal extraction at the redshift of the z ≈ 4.008 LAE group. The purple line defines the distribu￾tion of the background. The gray region indicates the voxels associated with the emission from LAEs, while the blue re￾gion corresponds to the diffuse emission from the filaments (i.e, not overlapping in projection with SB levels of 4×10−19 erg s−1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra of the 19 LAEs associated with the analyzed group. The sources are sorted by redshift as labeled in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean spectral stack for the 19 LAEs associated with the analyzed group. From the left, the three panels show the spectral region associated with the Lyα, C IV and He II lines. The dashed blue vertical lines represent the expected zero velocity in each line, while the r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the Lyα luminosity of galaxies in the z ≈ 4.008 filament (red diamonds) and in a con￾trol sample, which we divide in galaxies in groups (125, yel￾low stars) or more isolated systems (34, green circles). The solid black line and the associated gray region …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Median SB profile of LAEs extracted along slits aligned with the filament emission (black), randomly￾oriented slits (blue), and annuli (red). The vertical arrow marks the inflection point we identified at ≈ 20 kpc. Pro￾files from large samples of LAEs from the literatu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx721 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J

    Alam, S., Ata, M., Bailey, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx721 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2827 Arrigoni Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2465 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P.,...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 2017

  2. [2]

    2021, A&A, 647, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039887

    Bacon, R., Mary, D., Garel, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039887

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039887 2021

  3. [3]

    Johnson, S. D. 2025, ApJL, 979, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada94f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada94f 2025

  4. [4]

    S., Puchwein, E., Sijacki, D., et al

    Bolton, J. S., Puchwein, E., Sijacki, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2397

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2397 2017

  5. [5]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603, doi: 10.1038/380603a0

    doi:10.1038/380603a0 1996

  6. [6]

    J., et al

    Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/39

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/39 2016

  7. [7]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1779

    Byrohl, C., & Nelson, D. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1779

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1779 2023

  8. [8]

    F., & Madau, P

    Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature12898 10 Tornotti et al

    doi:10.1038/nature12898 2014

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    W., & Tonry, J

    Davis, M., Huchra, J., Latham, D. W., & Tonry, J. 1982, ApJ, 253, 423, doi: 10.1086/159646 Dav´ e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 98, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x

    1982

  2. [10]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451, doi: 10.1038/nature07648

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 649, 14, doi: 10.1086/506243

    Dijkstra, M., Haiman, Z., & Spaans, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 649, 14, doi: 10.1086/506243

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Genel, S., Sternberg, A., et al

    Elias, L. M., Genel, S., Sternberg, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 5439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1059

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, SHINE (Spectral Highlighting and Identification of Emission), v1.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14710518

    Fossati, M., & Tornotti, D. 2025, SHINE (Spectral Highlighting and Identification of Emission), v1.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14710518

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    K., et al

    Fossati, M., Fumagalli, M., Lofthouse, E. K., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2693

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    K., et al

    Fossati, M., Fumagalli, M., Lofthouse, E. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab660 Gal´ arraga-Espinosa, D., Langer, M., & Aghanim, N. 2022, A&A, 661, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141974

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3474, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2087

    Galbiati, M., Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3474, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2087

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    Gould, A., & Weinberg, D. H. 1996, ApJ, 468, 462, doi: 10.1086/177707

    1996 doi

  10. [19]

    2024, A&A, 688, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347658

    Guo, Y., Bacon, R., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347658

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    N., Shapley, A

    Hainline, K. N., Shapley, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Steidel, C. C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/31

    2011 doi

  12. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 Herrero Alonso, Y., Miyaji, T., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244693

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    P., & Geller, M

    Huchra, J. P., & Geller, M. J. 1982, ApJ, 257, 423, doi: 10.1086/160000

    1982 doi

  14. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  15. [24]

    A., & Shandarin, S

    Klypin, A. A., & Shandarin, S. F. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 891, doi: 10.1093/mnras/204.3.891

    1983 doi

  16. [25]

    R., Shapley, A

    Kulas, K. R., Shapley, A. E., Kollmeier, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/33

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731480

    Leclercq, F., Bacon, R., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731480

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/119 Lujan Niemeyer, M., Komatsu, E., Byrohl, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5cb8

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, L62, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz032

    Lusso, E., Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L62, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz032

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2564

    Lusso, E., Nardini, E., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2564

    2023 doi

  21. [31]

    C., O’Sullivan, D., Matuszewski, M., et al

    Martin, D. C., O’Sullivan, D., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 822, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0791-2

    2019 doi

  22. [32]

    A., et al

    Muzahid, S., Schaye, J., Marino, R. A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 1013, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1347

    2020 doi

  23. [33]

    2007, Statistical Modelling, 7, 315, doi: 10.1177/1471082X0700700403

    Ng, P., & Maechler, M. 2007, Statistical Modelling, 7, 315, doi: 10.1177/1471082X0700700403

    2007 doi

  24. [34]

    T., & Maechler, M

    Ng, P. T., & Maechler, M. 2024, COBS – Constrained B-splines (Sparse matrix based). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cobs

    2024

  25. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06249, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06249

    Pensabene, A., Galbiati, M., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06249, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06249

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [36]

    1998, ARA&A, 36, 267, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.267

    Rauch, M. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 267, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.267

    1998 doi

  27. [37]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acb8ae

    Revalski, M., Rafelski, M., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acb8ae

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382c

    Revalski, M., Rafelski, M., Henry, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad382c

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    Rosenfeld, A., & Pfaltz, J. L. 1968, Pattern Recognition, 1, 33, doi: 10.1016/0031-3203(68)90013-7

    1968 doi

  30. [40]

    2021, cc3d: Connected components on multilabel 3D & 2D images., 3.2.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5719536

    Silversmith, W. 2021, cc3d: Connected components on multilabel 3D & 2D images., 3.2.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5719536

    2021 doi

  31. [41]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  32. [42]

    S., Mart ´ ınez, V

    Tempel, E., Stoica, R. S., Mart ´ ınez, V. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2454

    2014 doi

  33. [43]

    T., Tuan-Anh, P., Pello, R., et al

    Thai, T. T., Tuan-Anh, P., Pello, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346716

    2023 doi

  34. [44]

    Thomas, P. A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 478, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02040.x

    1998

  35. [45]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02463-w A 5-Mpc-stretch of thez ≈ 4 cosmic web

    Tornotti, D., Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02463-w A 5-Mpc-stretch of thez ≈ 4 cosmic web. 11

    2025 doi

  36. [46]

    2024, Diffuse Ly$\alpha$ Emission, arXiv

    Tsai, S.-H., Chen, K.-J., Smith, A., & Chiang, Y.-K. 2024, Diffuse Ly$\alpha$ Emission, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00450

    2024 arXiv

  37. [47]

    2019, Science, 366, 97, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    Umehata, H., Fumagalli, M., Smail, I., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 97, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5949

    2019 doi

  38. [48]

    2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 460, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065554

    Verhamme, A., Schaerer, D., & Maselli, A. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 460, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065554

    2006 doi

  39. [49]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, L60, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly058

    Verhamme, A., Garel, T., Ventou, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, L60, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly058

    2018 doi

  40. [50]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  41. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14327, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14327

    Vitte, E., Verhamme, A., Hibon, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14327, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14327

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [52]

    2018, Nature, 562, 229, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0564-6

    Wisotzki, L., Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 229, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0564-6

    2018 doi

  43. [53]

    2005, Tech

    Wu, K., Otoo, E., & Suzuki, K. 2005, Tech. Rep. LBNL-59102, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/929013

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.