Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 92 references

The connection between high-redshift galaxies and Lyman ${\alpha}$ transmission in the Sherwood-Relics simulations of patchy reionisation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lyman-alpha halo signal matched, but reionisation is too late

desk verdict Solid simulation paper with a central redshift-mismatch claim whose proposed resolution is contradicted by its own Fig. 9; the physical decomposition of the signal is the more durable contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02983 v2 pith:LMBPULEV submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Luke Conaboy , James S. Bolton , Laura C. Keating , Martin G. Haehnelt , Girish Kulkarni , Ewald Puchwein This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords intergalacticmediumhigh-redshiftgalaxiesLyman-alphaforestpatchyreionisationradiativetransfersimulationsquasarabsorptionlinesgalaxy–Lyαcross-correlationlarge-scalestructure
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

During the tail end of reionisation, ionising radiation from clustered galaxies should create patches of enhanced Lyman-$\alpha$ transmission tens of comoving megaparsecs away from the galaxies themselves. This paper asks whether the reported excess transmission around high-redshift galaxies—measured using C IV absorption systems as proxies—is what patchy reionisation actually looks like. Using a suite of hybrid radiation-hydrodynamical simulations, the authors find the observed signal is reproduced quantitatively, but only at redshift 6 rather than the mean redshift 5.2 of the data. That offset corresponds to a volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction of about 0.1 at $z \approx 5.2$, which conflicts with independent measurements of Lyman-$\alpha$ effective optical depths; they suggest the tension may be resolved if the C IV absorbers live in more massive haloes than assumed. If correct, the galaxy–transmission correlation becomes a probe of reionisation timing, with a measurable fossil signal from temperature fluctuations persisting down to $z \approx 4$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the galaxy–Lyman-$\alpha$ transmission cross-correlation $\delta_F(r)=\langle F(r)\rangle/\bar{F}-1$, the fractional excess or deficit of Lyman-$\alpha$ transmission at comoving distance $r$ from galaxies. The simulations produce it by drawing mock sightlines through a hybrid radiative-transfer scheme in which the ionising luminosity of every source halo is proportional to its mass, and different reionisation histories are set by calibrating the total ionising emissivity. The key physical mechanism isolated by the analysis is local photoionisation: during reionisation, ionised bubbles around clustered sources produce the excess transmission, and the radius of the peak tracks the local mean free path of Lyman-limit photons around haloes. A set of rescaling experiments—forcing ionisation equilibrium, making the UV background uniform, and replacing the temperature field with a power-law density-temperature relation—separates the contributions of non-equilibrium effects, UV background fluctuations, and relic temperature fluctuations to the shape of $\delta_F$.

What would settle it

Measure the host halo masses of C IV absorbers at $z\approx5$–6 directly, for example from their clustering amplitude or from their association with spectroscopically confirmed galaxies: if the minimum mass is at or below $10^{10}\,h^{-1}{\rm M}_\odot$ while the excess transmission persists, the proposed resolution collapses and the simulation's required neutral fraction is ruled out by the Ly$\alpha$ effective optical depth data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Sherwood-Relics suite of hybrid radiation-hydrodynamical simulations captures the physics of patchy reionisation well enough to explain the excess Lyman-$\alpha$ transmission observed at tens of comoving megaparsecs from high-redshift galaxies. When galaxies are selected as dark matter haloes above $10^{10}\,h^{-1}\,{\rm M}_\odot$, the simulations at $z=6$ reproduce the shape and amplitude of the measured C IV absorber–Ly$\alpha$ transmission cross-correlation, with the excess caused by local ionising radiation rather than by density or velocity effects. The catch is chronological: the observed system has mean redshift 5.2, so matching it at $z=6$ demands a neutral fraction $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}\sim 0.1$ at $z\approx 5.2$, in disagreement with the observed Lyman-$\alpha$ effective optical depth distribution. The authors propose that the minimum host halo mass of C IV absorbers at $z>5$ may be larger than $10^{10}\,h^{-1}\,{\rm M}_\odot$, which would allow the same correlation shape at a lower neutral fraction and remove the tension. After reionisation ends, relic temperature fluctuations continue to shape the correlation on scales of a few comoving megaparsecs at $4\le z\le 5$, offering a way to constrain reionisation timing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed C IV absorbers and [O III] emitters correspond exactly to all simulated dark matter haloes above $10^{10}\,h^{-1}{\rm M}_\odot$, with every halo's ionising output proportional to its mass; if the real host halo masses of these tracers are different, the quoted redshift offset and the inferred neutral fraction change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the excess Lyman-alpha transmission seen near C IV absorbers at $z\approx5.2$ is a genuine reionisation-era proximity effect, not a low-redshift artefact.
  • The correlation shape at fixed neutral fraction is nearly independent of reionisation history, so comparing models at equal $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}$ rather than equal redshift removes a major modelling uncertainty.
  • Larger simulation volumes (beyond $160\,h^{-1}\,{\rm cMpc}$ on a side) are required to capture the large-scale excess; future large-box runs can test the predicted peak location against the [O III] emitter data.
  • Below $z\approx5$, relic temperature fluctuations imprint a measurable, evolving signature on the correlation at scales of a few comoving megaparsecs, so the redshift evolution of the excess absorption constrains when reionisation ended.
  • If the minimum C IV absorber host halo mass is indeed above $10^{10}\,h^{-1}{\rm M}_\odot$, the apparent conflict with the Lyman-alpha effective optical depth distribution disappears, making the correlation usable as a neutral-fraction indicator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the degeneracy between host halo mass and neutral fraction means a single measurement of $\delta_F$ cannot by itself pin down either quantity; independent halo-mass constraints, for example from clustering or abundance matching, are needed to break it.
  • If the C IV absorber population is biased to more massive haloes at $z>5$, then the observed correlation could be used to measure the C IV absorber bias, providing a new connection between quasar absorption systems and the ionising source population.
  • A testable extension would be to compute the same cross-correlation from simulations with alternative source models, such as ionising luminosity independent of halo mass; the paper predicts the $\delta_F$ shape would change, so observations of the peak amplitude could distinguish source models.
  • The predicted post-reionisation signal at $z\approx4$ could be searched for in existing galaxy–Ly$\alpha$ forest datasets from that epoch; a detectable fading of the small-scale excess with decreasing redshift would support a late end to reionisation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the Sherwood-Relics hybrid radiative-transfer simulations to compute the galaxy–Lyα transmission cross-correlation δF during and after reionisation. The authors show that the predicted δF has a central decrement and an excess at larger scales during reionisation, that the excess is driven by inhomogeneous ionising radiation around clustered sources, and that relic temperature fluctuations affect δF at z ≤ 5. They compare with Meyer et al. (2019), Meyer et al. (2020), Kashino et al. (2023), and Kakiichi et al. (2025), reporting quantitative agreement with Meyer et al. (2019) at z = 6 rather than at the data mean z ≈ 5.18, and with Kakiichi et al. (2025) at z = 5.8 using the 160-2048 box. They suggest the Meyer et al. redshift mismatch could be partly resolved if C IV absorbers trace haloes more massive than 10^10 h^-1 M_sun, and they study the degeneracy between halo mass and neutral fraction as well as the post-reionisation temperature-fluctuation signature.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a physical interpretation of the high-redshift galaxy–Lyα transmission correlation as a probe of patchy reionisation, connecting the scale of the excess transmission to the local mean free path of ionising photons. The work is careful in several respects: it includes resolution-convergence tests in Appendix A, a decomposition isolating ionisation-equilibrium, uniform-UVB, and temperature-fluctuation effects in Section 4.2, and a comparison at fixed neutral fraction across reionisation histories in Section 4.1. The qualitative prediction that relic temperature fluctuations imprint on δF at 4 ≤ z ≤ 5 is falsifiable with current and near-future observations. However, the quantitative claim is weakened by the redshift offset, the lack of error bars on the model curves, and an inconsistency between the proposed halo-mass resolution and the simulation results shown in Fig. 9.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Sec. 4.1, Fig. 9; abstract and Sec. 5] The proposed resolution of the redshift mismatch is contradicted by the paper's own Fig. 9. In the bottom panel at z = 5.4, increasing the halo mass makes the negative δF region more extended: the 10^12–10^13 h^-1 M_sun bin has δF < 0 out to r ~ 50 cMpc and shows no positive excess at 15–45 cMpc, exactly where Meyer et al. (2019) report δF > 0. Thus raising the minimum C IV host halo mass above 10^10 h^-1 M_sun moves the prediction in the wrong direction at z ~ 5.2–5.4, deepening the decrement instead of producing the observed excess. The abstract and conclusions state this higher halo mass may partly resolve the tension, but the paper contains no simulation demonstrating that outcome; this load-bearing suggestion therefore needs either a quantitative demonstration or removal.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 5] The headline claim that the Meyer et al. (2019) excess is 'quantitatively reproduced' at z = 6 rather than at the data mean ⟨z_CIV⟩ = 5.18 is an internal tension, as the authors recognise: in their fiducial model this redshift offset corresponds to x_HI ~ 0.1 at z ~ 5.2, while the Lyα effective optical depth distribution at z ≤ 5.2 is consistent with a fully reionised IGM. Because the quantitative reproduction is the paper's central positive result, the offset must be treated as a first-class discrepancy, not a side comment. A statistical statement of how well the z = 6 curve actually agrees with the data, and whether the offset is within the model's reionisation-history uncertainties, would be needed before this claim can be assessed.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (2) and Figs. 5–8] The model δF curves are plotted without error bars, yet the text repeatedly states agreement at the '1σ' or '1.5σ' level (e.g., Sec. 3.2 for Meyer et al. 2019 and Kakiichi et al. 2025). There is no estimate of the sampling or cosmic-variance uncertainty on the simulated δF, which is particularly important given the finite box sizes (40 h^-1 Mpc and 160 h^-1 Mpc) and the limited number of independent sightlines. Without such uncertainties, the quantitative comparison to the data is not fully defined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract opens by saying the simulations are 'qualitatively consistent' with the interpretation, then states the Meyer et al. (2019) excess is 'quantitatively reproduced'; these two characterisations should be reconciled in the abstract and in Sec. 5.
  2. [Sec. 2.2 and Fig. 2 caption] The notation 'Civ' is used inconsistently with 'C IV' elsewhere; please use a single notation throughout.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 10 caption] The phrase 'volume weighed' should read 'volume-weighted'.
  4. [Sec. 1] The sentence 'which they attributed to a small sample size and noise' would read more clearly as 'which they attributed to the small sample size and noise'.
  5. [Sec. 2.1] The phrase 'the quick Lyα approach' is a stylistic placeholder; consider giving the method a descriptive name or a citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross-correlation shape is an independent statistic compared against external data, and the paper explicitly reports its redshift mismatch rather than absorbing it into a fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The Sherwood-Relics simulations fix the reionisation history by calibrating the mean Lyα transmission to external measurements (Bosman et al. 2018; Eilers et al. 2018; Bosman et al. 2022), and the galaxy-Lyα transmission correlation δF defined in Eq. (2) is an independent statistic: its radial shape is not fitted to the Meyer et al. (2019), Kashino et al. (2023), or Kakiichi et al. (2025) data. The comparison to those external datasets is therefore a genuine test, not a renaming of the input. The paper explicitly reports that quantitative agreement occurs only at a higher redshift (z = 6) than the mean redshift of the C IV absorbers (z ≈ 5.2), and it identifies the resulting tension with the observed effective optical depth distribution; this is an honest non-finding of agreement rather than a fitted prediction. The assumed halo-mass threshold M_h ≥ 10^10 h^-1 M_sun is motivated by external abundance-matching arguments and is varied explicitly in Fig. 9, so the central comparison is not forced by construction. The ablative tests in Sec. 4.2 (uniform photoionisation rate, ionisation equilibrium, removal of temperature fluctuations) provide controlled evidence for the physical interpretation. Self-citations to Puchwein et al. (2023) and related Sherwood-Relics papers describe the simulation methodology and prior calibration, not an unverified uniqueness theorem, and they are not used to forbid alternative explanations. The possible inconsistency between the proposed larger-halo-mass resolution and Fig. 9 is a physical correctness concern, not a circularity of the derivation.

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

The central quantitative comparison depends on the assumed halo mass threshold for tracers and the calibrated reionisation history. The latter is fitted to the mean transmission, not to the cross-correlation, so the excess shape is a prediction. The temperature rescaling parameters are internal diagnostics and do not enter the main claim.

free parameters (4)
  • Minimum halo mass for galaxy tracers = M_h >= 10^10 h^-1 M_sun
    Chosen from abundance matching arguments by Meyer et al. (2019) and Pizzati et al. (2024). The paper shows the cross-correlation shape depends on this threshold (Sec 4.1).
  • Ionising source minimum halo mass = M_h > 10^9 h^-1 M_sun
    Input from Puchwein et al. (2023); haloes below this mass do not contribute ionising photons.
  • Ionising emissivity normalization and reionisation history = Calibrated to match mean transmission (Bosman et al. 2018; Eilers et al. 2018; Bosman et al. 2022)
    The paper states 'the exact emissivity of each halo is not a prediction but is determined by fixing the redshift evolution of the total ionising emissivity' (Sec 2.1). This calibrates the simulations to the mean Lyα forest, not to the cross-correlation.
  • Temperature-density relation parameters for rescaling = T0 = 1.14e4 K, gamma = 1.15 (Sec 4.2) and 1.25 (Sec 4.3)
    Used to remove temperature fluctuations in the diagnostic rescalings; taken from fits to the simulation or from literature values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The hybrid radiative transfer scheme (aton run in post-processing on a periodically refreshed density field) captures the hydrodynamic response of the gas to inhomogeneous reionisation.
    Central to the interpretation that the excess transmission is caused by local ionising radiation; the method is introduced in Sec 2.1 and validated by comparison to observations in the same paper.
  • domain assumption Ionising source luminosity scales linearly with halo mass.
    Used throughout; the authors note that alternative source models may change the results (Sec 4.1, Sec 5).
  • domain assumption The quick Lyα scheme, which converts gas particles with overdensity > 1000 and T < 10^5 K into stars, is a sufficient galaxy formation model for this statistic.
    The simulations lack subgrid feedback; the paper acknowledges this may affect small scales (Sec 2.1, Sec 3.2).
  • domain assumption The Tepper-García (2006) approximation to the Voigt profile and the neglect of observational effects (noise, resolution) do not bias the cross-correlation comparison.
    The mock spectra do not model observational effects; see Sec 2.1 and App B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The connection between high-redshift galaxies and Lyman ${\alpha}$ transmission in the Sherwood-Relics simulations of patchy reionisation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LMBPULEV

@misc{pith2026250202983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The connection between high-redshift galaxies and Lyman $\alpha$ transmission in the Sherwood-Relics simulations of patchy reionisation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LMBPULEV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02983}
}
abstract

Recent work has suggested that, during reionisation, spatial variations in the ionising radiation field should produce enhanced Ly ${\alpha}$ forest transmission at distances of tens of comoving Mpc from high-redshift galaxies. We demonstrate that the Sherwood-Relics suite of hybrid radiation-hydrodynamical simulations are qualitatively consistent with this interpretation. The shape of the galaxy--Ly ${\alpha}$ transmission cross-correlation is sensitive to both the mass of the haloes hosting the galaxies and the volume averaged fraction of neutral hydrogen in the IGM, $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}$. The reported excess Ly ${\alpha}$ forest transmission on scales r ~ 10 cMpc at $\langle z \rangle \approx 5.2$ -- as measured using C IV absorbers as proxies for high-redshift galaxies -- is quantitatively reproduced by Sherwood-Relics at z = 6 if we assume the galaxies that produce ionising photons are hosted in haloes with mass $M_{\rm h}\geq 10^{10}~h^{-1}\,{\rm M}_\odot$. However, this redshift mismatch is equivalent to requiring $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}\sim 0.1$ at $z\simeq 5.2$, which is inconsistent with the observed Ly ${\alpha}$ forest effective optical depth distribution. We suggest this tension may be partly resolved if the minimum C IV absorber host halo mass at z > 5 is larger than $M_{\rm h}=10^{10}~h^{-1}\,{\rm M}_\odot$. After reionisation completes, relic IGM temperature fluctuations will continue to influence the shape of the cross-correlation on scales of a few comoving Mpc at $4 \leq z \leq 5$. Constraining the redshift evolution of the cross-correlation over this period may therefore provide further insight into the timing of reionisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02983 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: evolution of the volume-averaged neutral fraction 𝑥¯HI in the 40-2048 (coloured solid), 40-1024 (dot-dashed), 40-512 (dotted) and 160-2048 (long-dashed) runs. For the 40-2048 run we show four different reionisation models: late (gold), fiducial (orange), mid (dark pink) and early (purple) – see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Logarithm of the normalised real-space Ly 𝛼 transmission in stacked slices, each centred on a halo with mass 𝑀h ≥ 1010 ℎ −1 M⊙ for the fiducial 40-2048 model. Each slice has width 40 ℎ −1 cMpc and depth 115.2 ckpc. We show the stacked transmission fluctuation at fixed redshifts of (from left to right) 𝑧 = 7.0, 6.0, 5.4 and 4.2, where each stack is produced from 2,431, 4,540, 6,191 and 10,706 slices, respectively. To… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stacked slices of the key quantities that set the real-space Ly 𝛼 transmission displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The low-redshift (𝑧 ≤ 5.4) galaxy–Ly 𝛼 transmission correlation (𝛿𝐹, see Eq. (2)) as a function of distance 𝑟 from haloes with mass 𝑀h ≥ 1010 ℎ −1 M⊙ in the fiducial 40-2048 (solid, top panel) and 160-2048 (dashed, bottom panel) simulations. Both models are shown every…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: we show the Kakiichi et al. (2025) results compared to our fiducial 40-2048 and 160-2048 models. For the 40-2048 model at 𝑧 = 5.8 – approximately the mean redshift of the [O iii] emitters used in Kakiichi et al. (2025) – the simulation is within 1𝜎 of the Kakiichi et a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Impact of halo mass used in the calculation of the galaxy-Ly 𝛼 transmission fluctuation correlation in the 160-2048 run at 𝑧 = 6.0 (top panel, pink) and 𝑧 = 5.4 (bottom panel, blue). We show the correlation between our simulated spectra and haloes in bins spanning four…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of different reionisation histories to the fiducial 40- 2048 run at approximately equal volume weighed IGM neutral hydrogen fractions, 𝑥¯HI. Shown are the late (top panel, dashed), mid (middle panel dot-dashed) and early (bottom panel, long dashed) reionisa…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Galaxy–Ly 𝛼 transmission correlation calculated from the 40- 2048 run (‘original’, black solid), after: recomputing the ionisation fractions of hydrogen and helium assuming ionisation equilibrium (‘ion. eq.’, blue short dashed); setting the photoionisation rate to be …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Post-reionisation galaxy–Ly 𝛼 transmission correlation from the original slightlines (‘original’, solid) and where temperatures have been re￾calculated according to 𝑇 ∝ Δ 𝛾−1 to remove spatial fluctuations in the gas temperature and 𝑥HI has been appropriately rescaled…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Shapley A

    Adelberger K. L., Shapley A. E., Steidel C. C., Pettini M., Erb D. K., Reddy N. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431753 , 629, 636

    doi:10.1086/431753 2005

  2. [2]

    Arrabal Haro P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 , 622, 707

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7 2023

  3. [3]

    G., Kulkarni G., Bolton J

    Asthana S., Haehnelt M. G., Kulkarni G., Bolton J. S., Gaikwad P., Keating L. C., Puchwein E., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.15453 , p. arXiv:2409.15453

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.15453

  4. [4]

    G., Kulkarni G., Aubert D., Bolton J

    Asthana S., Haehnelt M. G., Kulkarni G., Aubert D., Bolton J. S., Keating L. C., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1945 , 533, 2843

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1945

  5. [5]

    Atek H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6 , 626, 975

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6 2024

  6. [6]

    Aubert D., Teyssier R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13223.x , 387, 295

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Ba \ n ados E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25180 , 553, 473

    doi:10.1038/nature25180 2018

  8. [8]

    arXiv:2411.11959

    Banerjee E., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.11959 , p. arXiv:2411.11959

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.11959 2024

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    D., D'Aloisio A., Christenson H

    Becker G. D., D'Aloisio A., Christenson H. M., Zhu Y., Worseck G., Bolton J. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2696 , 508, 1853

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Bolton J

    Becker G. D., Bolton J. S., Zhu Y., Hashemi S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1918 , 533, 1525

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    arXiv.2410.10988

    Begley R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10988 , p. arXiv.2410.10988

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1772 , 471, 2174

    Bielby R. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1772 , 471, 2174

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Bolton J

    Boera E., Becker G. D., Bolton J. S., Nasir F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafee4 , 872, 101

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Becker G

    Bolton J. S., Becker G. D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00700.x , 398, L26

    2009

  7. [15]

    Bosman S. E. I., Fan X., Jiang L., Reed S., Matsuoka Y., Becker G., Haehnelt M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1344 , 479, 1055

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Bosman S. E. I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1046 , 514, 55

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Dobb's Journal of Software Tools

    Bradski G., 2000, Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools

    2000

  10. [18]

    Cain C., D'Aloisio A., Gangolli N., McQuinn M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1057 , 522, 2047

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Castellano M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88 , 972, 143

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf450 , 955, 138

    Christenson H. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf450 , 955, 138

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Furlanetto S

    D'Aloisio A., McQuinn M., Davies F. B., Furlanetto S. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2341 , 473, 560

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc , 864, 142

    Davies F. B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc , 864, 142

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Davis M., Peebles P. J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160884 , 267, 465

    1983 doi

  16. [24]

    D urov c \'i kov \'a D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4888 , 969, 162

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Hennawi J

    Eilers A.-C., Davies F. B., Hennawi J. F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4fd , 864, 53

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Fan J., Chen H., Avestruz C., Khadir A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ada1d3 , 979, 150

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Chapman E., Haehnelt M

    Feron J., Conaboy L., Bolton J. S., Chapman E., Haehnelt M. G., Keating L. C., Kulkarni G., Puchwein E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1636 , 532, 2401

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Gaikwad P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa907 , 494, 5091

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Gaikwad P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2566 , 525, 4093

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Christenson H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.08358 , p

    Gangolli N., D'Aloisio A., Cain C., Becker G. D., Christenson H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.08358 , p. arXiv:2408.08358

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    arXiv:2410.02850

    Garaldi E., Bellscheidt V., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02850 , p. arXiv:2410.02850

    doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2410.02853

    Garaldi E., Bellscheidt V., 2024b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02853 , p. arXiv:2410.02853

    doi

  25. [33]

    Y., Madau P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12dc , 876, 31

    Garaldi E., Gnedin N. Y., Madau P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12dc , 876, 31

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Garaldi E., Kannan R., Smith A., Springel V., Pakmor R., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac257 , 512, 4909

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    arXiv:2410.03337

    Gazagnes S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.03337 , p. arXiv:2410.03337

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Y., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/29 , 793, 29

    Gnedin N. Y., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/29 , 793, 29

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Grazian A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6980 , 974, 84

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Greig B., Mesinger A., Ba \ n ados E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz230 , 484, 5094

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    E., Peterson B

    Gunn J. E., Peterson B. A., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148444 , 142, 1633

    1965 doi

  32. [40]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e , 959, 39

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Harikane Y., Nakajima K., Ouchi M., Umeda H., Isobe Y., Ono Y., Xu Y., Zhang Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e , 960, 56

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

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

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

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

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

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

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    S., White S

    Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Colberg J. M., Cole S., Evrard A. E., Couchman H. M. P., Yoshida N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04029.x , 321, 372

    2001

  37. [45]

    Jin X., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca678 , 942, 59

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Jin X., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad82de , 976, 93

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Jung I., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd44 , 904, 144

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Kakiichi K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1318 , 479, 43

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    arXiv:2503.07074

    Kakiichi K., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.07074 , p. arXiv:2503.07074

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kannan R., Garaldi E., Smith A., Pakmor R., Springel V., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3710 , 511, 4005

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Matthee J., Eilers A.-C., Mackenzie R., Bordoloi R., Simcoe R

    Kashino D., Lilly S. J., Matthee J., Eilers A.-C., Mackenzie R., Bordoloi R., Simcoe R. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc588 , 950, 66

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    C., Puchwein E., Haehnelt M

    Keating L. C., Puchwein E., Haehnelt M. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty968 , 477, 5501

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Weinberger L

    Keating L. C., Weinberger L. H., Kulkarni G., Haehnelt M. G., Chardin J., Aubert D., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3083 , 491, 1736

    doi

  46. [54]

    C., Kulkarni G., Haehnelt M

    Keating L. C., Kulkarni G., Haehnelt M. G., Chardin J., Aubert D., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1909 , 497, 906

    doi

  47. [55]

    F., O \ n orbe J., Rorai A., Springel V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/30 , 812, 30

    Kulkarni G., Hennawi J. F., O \ n orbe J., Rorai A., Springel V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/30 , 812, 30

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    C., Haehnelt M

    Kulkarni G., Keating L. C., Haehnelt M. G., Bosman S. E. I., Puchwein E., Chardin J., Aubert D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz025 , 485, L24

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    Madau P., Giallongo E., Grazian A., Haardt F., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ce8 , 971, 75

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640 , 691, A145

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Matthee J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae673 , 529, 2794

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Puchwein E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx191 , 468, 1893

    Meiksin A., Bolton J. S., Puchwein E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx191 , 468, 1893

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Bosman S

    Meyer R. A., Bosman S. E. I., Kakiichi K., Ellis R. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2954 , 483, 19

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa746 , 494, 1560

    Meyer R. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa746 , 494, 1560

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    Molaro M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3416 , 509, 6119

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Lieu M., Keating L

    Molaro M., Ir s i c V., Bolton J. S., Lieu M., Keating L. C., Puchwein E., Haehnelt M. G., Viel M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad598 , 521, 1489

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 , 940, L14

    Naidu R. P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22 , 940, L14

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    Nasir F., D'Aloisio A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa894 , 494, 3080

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Pizzati E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2307 , 534, 3155

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , 571, A16

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    G., Madau P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz222 , 485, 47

    Puchwein E., Haardt F., Haehnelt M. G., Madau P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz222 , 485, 47

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    Puchwein E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3761 , 519, 6162

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    C., Haehnelt M

    Satyavolu S., Kulkarni G., Keating L. C., Haehnelt M. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1717 , 533, 676

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    Saxena A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347132 , 684, A84

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    Schaye J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2419 , 526, 4978

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    Simmonds C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3605 , 527, 6139

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    Smith A., Kannan R., Garaldi E., Vogelsberger M., Pakmor R., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac713 , 512, 3243

    2022 doi

  69. [77]

    Sorini D., Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2937 , 499, 2760

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    Spina B., Bosman S. E. I., Davies F. B., Gaikwad P., Zhu Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450798 , 688, L26

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , 364, 1105

    2005

  72. [80]

    Tepper-Garc \'i a T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10450.x , 369, 2025

    2006

  73. [81]

    M., Shanks T., Theuns T., Crighton N

    Tummuangpak P., Bielby R. M., Shanks T., Theuns T., Crighton N. H. M., Francke H., Infante L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu828 , 442, 2094

    2014 doi

  74. [82]

    L., Schaye J., Steidel C

    Turner M. L., Schaye J., Steidel C. C., Rudie G. C., Strom A. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1801 , 445, 794

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    Umeda H., Ouchi M., Nakajima K., Harikane Y., Ono Y., Xu Y., Isobe Y., Zhang Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad554e , 971, 124

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Ferland G

    Verner D. A., Ferland G. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192284 , 103, 467

    1996 doi

  77. [85]

    G., Springel V., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08224.x , 354, 684

    Viel M., Haehnelt M. G., Springel V., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08224.x , 354, 684

    2004

  78. [86]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , 17, 261

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02397-3

    Zavala J. A., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02397-3

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    Zhu Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aceef4 , 955, 115

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Zhu Y., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae061 , 533, L49

    doi

  82. [90]

    Y., Avestruz C., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad793c , 975, 115

    Zhu H., Gnedin N. Y., Avestruz C., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad793c , 975, 115

    doi

  83. [91]

    van der Velden E., 2020, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02004 , 5, 2004

    2020 doi

  84. [92]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.