Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

The Impact of Galaxy Overdensities and Ionized Bubbles on Ly$\alpha$ Emission at $z\sim7.0-8.5$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nearly all of the strongest Ly-alpha emitters at z≈7–8.5 sit inside galaxy overdensities whose sizes match predicted ionized bubbles, and the EGS field may host a much larger ionized sightline than standard reionization models allow.

desk verdict The largest z~7-8.5 Lyα sample to date makes a plausible case that strong LAEs trace overdensities, but the quantitative strength is softened by selection-function and aperture choices; the EGS 24 pMpc bubble claim is framed honestly as one of two scenarios. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24080 v2 pith:PAKX7GDV submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Zuyi Chen , Daniel P. Stark , Charlotte A. Mason , Mengtao Tang , Lily Whitler , Ting-Yi Lu , Michael W. Topping This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords reionizationLyman-alphaemittersgalaxyoverdensitiesionizedbubblesJWSTNIRSpecspectroscopyhigh-redshiftgalaxiesLy-alphatransmission
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 asks whether strong Ly$\alpha$ emission at $z\simeq 7$–$8.5$ is produced inside large ionized bubbles carved out by overdense groups of galaxies, and it argues that the answer is yes. Using JWST/NIRSpec spectroscopy of 292 galaxies across five fields, the authors identify 13 galaxy overdensities and 36 Ly$\alpha$ detections, finding that nearly all (8/9) of the strongest emitters (rest-frame $\mathrm{EW} > 100$ Å) lie inside the identified overdensities, near their centers or backs. The host overdensities span line-of-sight scales of $dz\simeq 0.14$ and angular scales of about 8 arcmin, comparable to the bubble radii of 0.6–1.5 pMpc predicted when the intergalactic hydrogen neutral fraction is $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}\simeq 0.5$–$0.7$. The paper further argues that the EGS field is mostly ionized along a 24 pMpc sightline at $z\simeq 7.0$–$7.6$, and that such a large ionized region would be very rare in standard gradual reionization models, though less so if reionization was driven by rarer, more massive halos.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ionized bubble (HII region) that an overdense population of galaxies carves into the surrounding neutral intergalactic medium; Ly$\alpha$ photons resonantly scatter off neutral hydrogen, so a galaxy's Ly$\alpha$ transmission increases with the distance to the nearest neutral gas, making the line a direct tracer of ionized bubbles. The paper assembles the bubble-size argument from three ingredients: spectroscopic redshifts from NIRSpec and NIRCam grism surveys to map the overdensities, Ly$\alpha$ equivalent widths and escape fractions to gauge IGM transmission, and bubble-size distributions from semi-numerical reionization simulations ('gradual' versus 'rapid' source models) used as the prediction to compare against. The mechanism that carries the argument is geometric: within a resolved bubble, galaxies on the back side should show enhanced Ly$\alpha$ transmission, which the paper tests by measuring the positions of strong emitters relative to the front, center, and back of each overdensity.

What would settle it

A complete, selection-corrected spectroscopic census of a single field—for instance the full EGS footprint at $z=7.0$–$7.6$—that fails to reproduce the clustering of the 10 Ly$\alpha$ emitters within the three identified overdense structures (finding instead that LAEs are distributed uniformly relative to the density field) would falsify the central claim, as would a measurement showing that the strong-emitter fraction inside overdensities is no higher than outside them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that strong Ly$\alpha$ emission at $z\simeq 7$–$8.5$ is an environmental phenomenon: the strongest emitters are almost uniformly found in spectroscopic galaxy overdensities, and where the geometry is well defined they sit between the center and the back of their host structure rather than at the front. The paper interprets this as the signature of a pMpc-scale ionized bubble: the overdense region has reionized its own volume, so a galaxy on the far side of the bubble, as seen from Earth, emits Ly$\alpha$ that crosses less neutral gas and suffers less damping-wing attenuation. The overdensity sizes that host the strong emitters ($dz\simeq 0.14$, roughly 8 arcmin) match the predicted bubble radii at $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}\simeq 0.5$–$0.7$, and the measured Ly$\alpha$ escape fractions (median 0.44 for the strong emitters) imply ionized sightlines of at least about 1 pMpc. In the EGS field, three overdense structures and ten Ly$\alpha$ emitters along $z=7.0$–$7.6$ suggest either a chain of a few bubbles or a single very large ionized region with radius $\gtrsim 12$ pMpc; both cases are rare in gradual reionization simulations, and a single large bubble would be more natural if ionizing sources were rarer and more massive.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the NIRSpec target selection and redshift completeness are uniform enough that the identified overdensities and the 8-of-9 association of strong Ly$\alpha$ emitters with those overdensities reflect true cosmic structure rather than the observing strategy, since several structures were found by visual inspection of redshift histograms and the paper notes that spectroscopic mapping may be incomplete due to the selection function and incomplete coverage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strong Ly$\alpha$ emitters with rest-frame $\mathrm{EW} > 100$ Å at $z\simeq 7$–$8.5$ are reliable signposts of galaxy overdensities: 8 of the 9 in this sample lie inside identified structures.
  • The environments that host the strongest emitters span line-of-sight sizes of $dz\simeq 0.14$ and angular scales of about 8 arcmin, matching the typical bubble radii (0.6–1.5 pMpc) predicted at $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}\simeq 0.5$–$0.7$.
  • Strong emitters sit near the center or back of their host overdensities, so Ly$\alpha$ transmission encodes where a galaxy sits inside an ionized bubble, not just whether a bubble exists.
  • If the EGS sightline at $z\simeq 7.0$–$7.6$ is one ionized region of radius $\gtrsim 12$ pMpc, it would appear in fewer than 5% of survey volumes in gradual reionization models, whereas about 25% of rapid-reionization volumes contain such bubbles.
  • Deeper Ly$\alpha$ spectroscopy of grism-confirmed and photometrically selected galaxies in the GOODS-S and GOODS-N overdensities could shrink the bubble-radius constraints, which currently allow $R_{\rm ion}\approx 2$ pMpc.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence of the IGM-transparency interpretation is that the Ly$\alpha$ detection rate inside overdensities should rise as the neutral fraction falls from $z\approx 8.5$ to $z\approx 7$; the current sample is too small to test this, but wider JWST surveys could.
  • Because strong emitters are nearly confined to overdensities, the global Ly$\alpha$ escape fraction and neutral fraction inferred from flux-limited surveys could depend on which overdensities happen to fall in the footprint; jointly modeling the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity function with the density field would remove that bias.
  • A direct geometric check of the bubble picture would be to stack the Ly$\alpha$ profiles of emitters in a single overdensity: galaxies on the back side should show less damping-wing absorption (relatively more blue-side flux) than those on the front side, a prediction the paper does not carry out.
  • The EGS 'one bubble versus several bubbles' ambiguity could be broken by a wide-area grism survey covering the whole 24 pMpc sightline, without waiting for additional NIRSpec pointings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles a sample of 292 galaxies with JWST/NIRSpec redshifts at 7.0 < z < 8.5 across five fields, detects Lyα emission in 36 of them (9 new, including two very high-EW sources in UDS), identifies 13 overdense structures, and finds that 8 of 9 strong Lyα emitters (EW > 100 Å) are associated with these structures. The authors argue that the inferred overdensity sizes (dz ~ 0.14, angular scales ~8 arcmin) are comparable to predicted ionized-bubble sizes at z ~ 7, and that the EGS field contains evidence for either 2–3 moderate bubbles or a single very large ionized region (R > 12 pMpc) along a 24 pMpc sightline, which would be in tension with standard gradual reionization models. The analysis combines grism-selected overdensities (GOODS-S, GOODS-N) with NIRSpec-based overdensities in fields without grism data (UDS, EGS, Abell 2744), and compares the observed Lyα strengths to a z ~ 5 intrinsic EW distribution and to simulations from Lu et al. (2024a).

Significance. If the central association is robust, this is an important observational step: it would connect Lyα transmission during reionization to pMpc-scale ionized regions around galaxy overdensities, and the EGS sightline would provide a concrete tension with standard reionization models. The paper's strengths include a substantially larger spectroscopic sample than earlier work, uniform reduction of public NIRSpec data, new Lyα detections, and the use of independent anchors (Lu et al. 2024a simulations for bubble sizes, Tang et al. 2024b for the z ~ 5 EW distribution) rather than a fitted input-output loop. The authors also state several caveats explicitly, including spectroscopic incompleteness and the inability to distinguish one large bubble from multiple smaller ones in EGS. However, the quantitative claims—8/9 association, the 6.4% vs 1.4% strong-LAE fractions, the overdensity amplitudes, and the EGS tension—rest on overdensity identifications and EW censoring that are not yet protected against the heterogeneous NIRSpec selection function.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, §4.2–§4.4] The central 8/9 association statistic is not yet robust to the NIRSpec selection function. Overdensities in fields without grism data are identified from the spatial distribution of NIRSpec-confirmed sources, including visual inspection of redshift histograms, and the same NIRSpec sample provides both the overdensity locations and the Lyα detections. The paper itself states in §4.1 that 'spectroscopic mapping of large scale structures may be incomplete due to the selection function and incomplete coverage.' If MSA configurations preferentially targeted galaxies around known LAEs, previously known overdensities, or grism-selected [OIII] emitters, the apparent coincidence of strong LAEs with overdensities could be partly an artifact. In addition, the 8/9 count includes CEERS-44, whose association with the z ≃ 7.2 structure is asserted despite a 3.3 pMpc spatial offset and is justified only by assuming incompleteness (§4.3). I would like to see either a completeness model for the NIRSpec target selection, a bootstrap test that randomly places targets according to the MSA pointings, or a validation using the photometric overdensity maps (Figure 6) as an independent tracer. Without one of these, the association statistic is a selection-dependent count rather than a measurement.
  2. [§5.1] The strong-LAE fraction comparison (6.4 ± 2.2% in overdensities vs 1.4 ± 1.4% outside) is affected by censoring and is only marginally significant. The text states that non-detections are counted only 'if the upper limits reach below 100 Å'; if overdense regions have systematically shallower Lyα limits (e.g., more prism-only spectra), this censoring can artificially inflate the overdense fraction. The quoted 1.4% is based on 1 of 73 galaxies, so the 4.6-point contrast is about 2σ before any selection correction. The authors should report the distribution of Lyα EW upper limits in the overdense and field samples, and ideally compute the strong-LAE fractions using survival analysis or a detection-probability model that includes the upper limits for all galaxies.
  3. [Table 2, §4.4, abstract] The overdensity amplitudes are not well-defined and are partly post hoc. For example, the GOODS-S z ≃ 8.2 structure is quoted as '>60×' using a 4.1 × 0.5 arcmin² box, but the text immediately notes that adopting a minimum rectangle width of 1 pMpc (4.1 × 3.5 arcmin²) reduces the factor to 7.4×. The table and abstract should not present the maximal post hoc geometry as the headline number without an a priori aperture rule or an explicit range. More generally, the abstract claims '13 significant (4–11×) galaxy overdensities,' yet Table 2 lists several NIRSpec-selected structures with amplitudes of only >1.6, >2.2, >2.8, >3.2, >3.3, and >3.5. These are lower limits, not 4–11× measurements. Either the overdensity threshold should be stated and applied consistently, or the summary statistics should be revised to reflect the heterogeneous amplitudes and their uncertainties.
  4. [§5.3] The EGS large-ionized-region claim is load-bearing but rests on a field with heterogeneous, incomplete spectroscopy. The 24 pMpc sightline is built from three NIRSpec redshift peaks and 10 Lyα emitters in a field whose observations combine CEERS pointings, RUBIES, GO 4287, and CAPERS follow-up with different target-selection strategies. The authors acknowledge that they cannot distinguish 2–3 moderate bubbles from one very large bubble, and the comparison to simulated bubble-size distributions in Figure 12 depends on the assumed survey volume and the overdensities being real rather than artifacts of pointing coverage. Before concluding that the EGS sightline 'would pose tension with standard reionization models,' the authors should demonstrate—for example with a Monte Carlo model of the EGS pointing pattern applied to mock catalogs—that the observed clustering of LAEs and redshift peaks is not produced by the survey geometry and target selection. A photometric-redshift-based check using the EGS maps in Figure 6 would be a useful first step.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3] The redshift histograms would benefit from error bars and a stated bin width; several overdensity identifications are described as visually evident peaks, but the statistical significance of a given histogram peak is not quantified independently of the later overdensity-factor calculation.
  2. [Table 2] The GOODS-N z ≃ 7.6 row lists N sources = 0 and no Lyα emitters yet reports an overdensity factor of 4.5; please clarify in the table notes that this is a grism-selected overdensity with no NIRSpec Lyα constraints rather than a structure with zero galaxies.
  3. [§2.3] The sentence 'we find corrections tend to be 3.3× at moderate intrinsic EW (30 Å)' is ambiguous about the direction of the correction; since the text later says prism EWs are systematically lower without correction, please state explicitly that the observed EW is multiplied by this factor to recover the intrinsic EW.
  4. [§4.4] For the GOODS-S z ≃ 8.2 structure, the alternative 7.4× value is mentioned only in the text; it should also appear in Table 2, alongside the adopted aperture definition, so that the post hoc nature of the '>60' factor is transparent to the reader.
  5. [§5.2] The inferred transmissions T = 0.52 and 0.55 for the two grism overdensities have very broad 68% credible intervals; showing the full posterior distributions or at least quoting the intervals in the text would help readers judge how constraining these values really are for bubble radii.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: overdensity–Lyα association is an observational statistic and the bubble-size comparisons use independent simulations, with the paper's own selection-function caveat noted in §4.1.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not self-referential. The overdensity catalogue is constructed from redshift-space densities relative to the Bouwens et al. (2021) UV luminosity function (for NIRSpec fields) or from grism [OIII] emitter number densities (GOODS-N/S), and the Lyα measurements are independent spectra; no fitted parameter is subsequently renamed as a prediction. The bubble-size comparison in §5.1–5.3 is anchored to Lu et al. (2024a) simulations with stated x_HI and source-population assumptions; although the author lists overlap (Lu, Mason), these simulations are external, not calibrated to the present Lyα sample, and the paper explicitly contrasts 'gradual' and 'rapid' models rather than importing a forced choice. The z~5 EW prior from Tang et al. (2024b) is an empirical external distribution. The one genuine vulnerability is selection completeness, which the paper itself flags in §4.1: 'the spectroscopic mapping of large scale structures may be incomplete due to the selection function and incomplete coverage.' That caveat could weaken the 8/9 overdensity association and the EGS large-bubble inference, but it is a completeness/selection concern, not a reduction-by-construction: the overdensities are not defined as 'regions containing strong LAEs,' and several structures are grism-defined (e.g., GOODS-S z~7.2 and GOODS-N z~7.1), hence independent of the NIRSpec LAE detections. Self-citations appear mainly as methodological precedent (Tang et al. 2024a; Chen et al. 2024), not as load-bearing circular support.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims do not require new physical entities. They rest on adopted cosmological, recombination, luminosity function, and simulation assumptions, plus several hand-chosen thresholds and post hoc apertures. The most consequential choices are the UVLF baseline and the post hoc box sizes used to quote overdensity factors.

free parameters (5)
  • Rectangular apertures for overdensity factors = e.g., 10.3x2.9, 10.3x5.0, 4.1x0.5 arcmin²
    Boxes chosen after visual identification of galaxy groups; the quoted factor varies strongly with box size (e.g., >60 to 7.4 for GOODS-S z~8.2).
  • Photometric overdensity aperture radius = R=2 arcmin
    Adopted in §4.1 for identifying photometric overdensities; changing R changes which peaks are selected.
  • Overdensity thresholds = 2x (photometric), 3x (grism)
    Thresholds for candidate overdensities in §4.1; not fitted, but chosen by hand.
  • Lyα detection threshold = S/N>3
    Standard choice for line detection in §2.3; affects which weak emitters enter the sample.
  • z~5 intrinsic EW distribution parameters = mu=2.38, sigma=1.63 from Tang et al. 2024b
    Used in §5.2 to convert observed EWs into IGM transmission; parameters were fitted to z~5 galaxies, not to this paper's data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7
    Adopted at the end of §1 for all distance and volume calculations.
  • domain assumption The IGM neutral fraction at z~7 is xHI=0.5-0.7
    Used in §5 to define predicted bubble sizes and to frame the EGS tension.
  • domain assumption Case B recombination gives Lyα/Hβ=25.0
    Used in §2.3 to compute Lyα escape fractions from Hβ fluxes.
  • domain assumption Bouwens et al. (2021) UV luminosity function is the correct field-averaged baseline
    Used in §4.2-4.6 to compute overdensity factors.
  • domain assumption The z~5 Lyα EW distribution from Tang et al. (2024b) represents the intrinsic distribution at z~7-8.5
    Used in §5.2 to infer IGM transmission from the observed EW sample.
  • domain assumption Lu et al. (2024a) reionization simulations are representative standard models
    Used in §5.3 to assess whether the EGS sightline is in tension with standard models.
  • domain assumption Inoue et al. (2014) IGM attenuation model for SED fitting
    Standard assumption in the Beagle fits described in §2.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Galaxy Overdensities and Ionized Bubbles on Ly$\alpha$ Emission at $z\sim7.0-8.5$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PAKX7GDV

@misc{pith2026250524080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Galaxy Overdensities and Ionized Bubbles on Ly$\alpha$ Emission at $z\sim7.0-8.5$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PAKX7GDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24080}
}
abstract

Ly$\alpha$ spectroscopy with JWST is opening a new window on the sizes of ionized bubbles through the reionization epoch. Theoretical expectations suggest typical bubble radii should be 0.6-1.5 pMpc at $z\simeq 7$, assuming neutral hydrogen fractions of the intergalactic medium in the range $\overline{x}_{\rm HI}$=0.5-0.7. Here we investigate this picture using JWST to characterize the environment and Ly$\alpha$ emission of 292 galaxies at $7.0<z<8.5$ across 5 fields spanning a comoving volume of $1.3\times10^6$ Mpc$^3$. If the reionization predictions are correct, we should see overdensities and strong Ly$\alpha$ emission clustered in redshift windows of d$z=0.04-0.08$ and angular scales of 5-11 arcmin. We detect Ly$\alpha$ emission in 36 out of 292 galaxies, including nine new Ly$\alpha$ detections, two of which (in the UDS field) show extremely large equivalent widths (EW = $200_{-78}^{+50}$ A and $284_{-75}^{+56}$ A). We identify 13 significant (4-11$\times$) galaxy overdensities using redshifts from NIRCam grism and NIRSpec. Strong Ly$\alpha$ emitters are almost uniformly found in the overdensities, with nearly all located between the center and back of the structures. The overdensities that host the strong Ly$\alpha$ emitters span typical line-of-sight distances (d$z\sim 0.14$) and angular scales ($\sim 8$ arcmin) that are comparable to the predicted bubble sizes at $z\simeq 7$. We discuss evidence that the EGS is mostly ionized along a 24 pMpc sightline at $z\simeq 7.0-7.6$, based on the presence of 3 overdense structures and 10 Ly$\alpha$ emitters in this volume, and find such a large ionized region would pose tension with standard reionization models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24080 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms of spectroscopic redshifts, NIRCam F150W apparent magnitudes, and absolute UV magnitudes (MUV) for the galaxies analyzed in this work. Our sample includes in total 292 z = 7.0–8.5 galaxies (top row), 20 (22) of which show Lyα detections with grating (prism) spectra (bottom row). In general, we find galaxies with Lyα detections show a similar redshift and magnitude distribution as the full sample. grating … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the Lyα emitting galaxies (red stars) across our five survey fields at 7.0 < z < 8.5. Those with extremely high equivalent widths (EW Lyα > 100 ˚A) are highlighted with red circles. We additionally show the full sample of the NIRSpec targeted galaxies (black open circles) over the same redshift range for comparison. a median exposure time of 1.68 hr. An additional 25 pointings taken with F070… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram of NIRSpec redshifts in the UDS, EGS, GOODS-S, GOODS-N, and Abell 2744 fields. Several of the peaks correspond to galaxy overdensities. Additional overdensities become clear when the redshift distribution is investigated in sub-regions of the fields. Lyα fluxes, with which we compute the line EWs. In 5 (of 22) Lyα detections in the prism spectra, the observed continuum at wavelengths longer than the Lyα sh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: New Lyα emitting galaxies at z ∼ 7.0–8.5 detected with NIRSpec medium to high resolution grating spectra. Both 1D and 2D spectra are presented. For each galaxy, we show both the Lyα detection in the left panel and the optical emission lines ([O iii] and Hβ) in the righ…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: New Lyα emitting galaxies at z ∼ 7.0–8.5 detected with NIRSpec prism spectra. We show both the 2D (top) and 1D spectrum (bottom) for each source, with detections of Lyα and strong optical emission lines labeled in blue text. emission (EW ranging from 34 to 77 ˚A). In a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spatial distribution of the photometrically-selected galaxies at z = 7.0–8.5 in the UDS (top) and EGS (bottom) fields. We split the sample into two redshift bins: 7.0 < z < 7.6 (left) and 7.6 < z < 8.5 (right). The photometric targets are shown as black dots, while the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial distribution of NIRSpec-confirmed sources in the UDS field. The left panel shows the 3D distribution, with red stars corresponding to the newly-identified Lyα emitting galaxies. Large red circles indicate galaxies with high Lyα EWs (> 100 ˚A). We also plot gala…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The 3D distribution of the NIRSpec-confirmed galaxies relative to overdensities in the GOODS-S (top), GOODS-N (middle), and Abell 2744 (bottom) fields. Here, in the GOODS-S and GOODS-N fields, we only consider the NIRSpec sample that is within the footprint of FRESCO N…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Left:) The 2D-distribution of NIRSpec-confirmed galaxies at 7.7 < z < 8.5 across GOODS-S. Several potential overdensity candidates are located outside of the FRESCO footprint in a region denoted with an orange square. The green shading illustrates the region covered …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Illustration of likely ionized bubble morphology in the EGS field at z = 7.0–7.6. The presence of 10 Lyα emitters (3 at EW>100 ˚A) suggests this region to be highly ionized, possibly hosting 2–3 bubbles with radii R ∼ 2–4 pMpc (left panel). Alternatively, the entire r…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radius of the largest ionized bubble expected within our survey volume (1.3 × 106 cMpc3 ) as a function of mean IGM neutral fraction (xHI). We show predictions from simulations by Lu et al. (2024a), considering both the fiducial ‘gradual’ reionization model (left) and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. SPURS: Evidence for Clumpy Neutral Envelopes and Ionized IGM Surrounding Little Red Dots in Abell 2744 from Ultra-Deep Rest-UV Spectroscopy

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Deep rest-UV grating spectra of Abell2744-QSO1 reveal a broad Lyα profile consistent with clumpy dense neutral gas and show the LRD traces a dense, ionized environment at z=7.04.

  2. Subaru meets JWST: A Direct Measurement of Ly$\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ Escape Fraction at $\boldsymbol{z\simeq6.2}$ with Dual Narrow-Band Imaging

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Completeness-weighted stacking of 56 HAEs at z≃6.2 gives median f_esc^Lyα = 0.106^{+0.066}_{-0.044} with no strong Hα-luminosity dependence and UV-linked galaxy-to-galaxy trends.

  3. All the Massive Galaxy Overdensities during Reionization: JWST Rest-Frame Optical Selection Reveals Young, Chemically Evolved Galaxies Embedded in Dense, Neutral Gas at z > 5

    astro-ph.GA 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A rest-frame optical JWST survey finds five robust galaxy overdensities at z≈5.7-6.8 whose members are younger, less massive, and sometimes embedded in denser neutral hydrogen than field galaxies.

  4. Deep JWST spectroscopy of galaxies in a candidate ionized bubble at $z = 8.7$: probing reionization at pMpc scales with Ly$\alpha$ emission

    astro-ph.GA 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Lyα transmission in the z=8.7 EGS volume is T_IGM=0.26+0.25−0.14, consistent with the field average and mildly inconsistent with a 2-pMpc ionized bubble, making such a bubble unlikely.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ikm q' 2 z7ݰߦ) ( < <|=jl u7; N= ngk 02 yMA P! W * 0 ; @f` ԇCa6 h I Zf&6Vn r+ ZNP6Ϳb_lk [+ 9e m

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    2017

  4. [4]

    L., et al

    Arrabal Haro , P., Dickinson , M., Finkelstein , S. L., et al. 2023 a , , 622, 707, 10.1038/s41586-023-06521-7

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

  5. [5]

    2023 b , , 951, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54

    ---. 2023 b , , 951, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54 2023

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 139 references
  1. [9]

    2004, , 609, 474, 10.1086/421079

    Barkana , R., & Loeb , A. 2004, , 609, 474, 10.1086/421079

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    E., et al

    Bezanson , R., Labbe , I., Whitaker , K. E., et al. 2024, , 974, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66cf

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Mason , C., et al

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

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Oesch , P

    Bouwens , R. J., Oesch , P. A., Stefanon , M., et al. 2021, , 162, 47, 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, 1.5.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, eazy-py , 0.5.2, 10.5281/zenodo.5012704

    Brammer, G. 2021, eazy-py , 0.5.2, 10.5281/zenodo.5012704

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools , 0.3, 10.5281/zenodo.7299500

    ---. 2022, msaexp: NIRSpec analyis tools , 0.3, 10.5281/zenodo.7299500

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, grizli , 1.5.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6672538

    Brammer , G., Strait , V., Matharu , J., & Momcheva , I. 2022, grizli , 1.5.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6672538

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    B., van Dokkum , P

    Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., & Coppi , P. 2008, , 686, 1503, 10.1086/591786

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual , G., & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  11. [19]

    J., Cameron , A

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

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline , 1.16.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14153298

    Bushouse , H., Eisenhamer , J., Dencheva , N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline , 1.16.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14153298

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Wilkins , S

    Caruana , J., Bunker , A. J., Wilkins , S. M., et al. 2014, , 443, 2831, 10.1093/mnras/stu1341

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, , 818, L3, 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L3

    Castellano , M., Dayal , P., Pentericci , L., et al. 2016, , 818, L3, 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L3

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, , 972, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    Castellano , M., Napolitano , L., Fontana , A., et al. 2024, , 972, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

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

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Mason , C., et al

    Chen , Z., Stark , D. P., Mason , C., et al. 2024, , 528, 7052, 10.1093/mnras/stae455

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, , 462, 1415, 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

    Chevallard , J., & Charlot , S. 2016, , 462, 1415, 10.1093/mnras/stw1756

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, , 780, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002

    Dayal , P., & Ferrara , A. 2018, , 780, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05948, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05948

    de Graaff , A., Brammer , G., Weibel , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05948, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05948

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    J., Scholtz , J., et al

    D'Eugenio , F., Cameron , A. J., Scholtz , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06531, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06531

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2024, The CANDELS-Area Prism Epoch of Reionization Survey (CAPERS) , JWST Proposal

    Dickinson , M., Amorin , R., Arrabal Haro , P., et al. 2024, The CANDELS-Area Prism Epoch of Reionization Survey (CAPERS) , JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. \#6368

    2024

  24. [32]

    2014, , 31, e040, 10.1017/pasa.2014.33

    Dijkstra , M. 2014, , 31, e040, 10.1017/pasa.2014.33

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

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

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    J., Johnson , B

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

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Topping , M

    Endsley , R., Chisholm , J., Stark , D. P., Topping , M. W., & Whitler , L. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01905

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Endsley , R., & Stark , D. P. 2022, , 511, 6042, 10.1093/mnras/stac524

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    P., Whitler , L., et al

    Endsley , R., Stark , D. P., Whitler , L., et al. 2024 b , , 533, 1111, 10.1093/mnras/stae1857

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Porter , R

    Ferland , G. J., Porter , R. L., van Hoof , P. A. M., et al. 2013, , 49, 137. 1302.4485

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2022, , 661, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    Ferruit , P., Jakobsen , P., Giardino , G., et al. 2022, , 661, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142673

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    L., Bagley , M

    Finkelstein , S. L., Bagley , M. B., Arrabal Haro , P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04085, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04085

    2025 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    2010, , 725, L205, 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L205

    Fontana , A., Vanzella , E., Pentericci , L., et al. 2010, , 725, L205, 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L205

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

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

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

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    R., & Oh , S

    Furlanetto , S. R., & Oh , S. P. 2005, , 363, 1031, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09505.x

    2005

  36. [44]

    R., Zaldarriaga , M., & Hernquist , L

    Furlanetto , S. R., Zaldarriaga , M., & Hernquist , L. 2004, , 613, 1, 10.1086/423025

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Shuntov , M., Atek , H., et al

    Furtak , L. J., Shuntov , M., Atek , H., et al. 2023 a , , 519, 3064, 10.1093/mnras/stac3717

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Zitrin , A., Weaver , J

    Furtak , L. J., Zitrin , A., Weaver , J. R., et al. 2023 b , , 523, 4568, 10.1093/mnras/stad1627

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Mutch , S

    Geil , P. M., Mutch , S. J., Poole , G. B., et al. 2016, , 462, 804, 10.1093/mnras/stw1718

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, Shapely , 2.1.1, 10.5281/zenodo.5597138

    Gillies, S., van der Wel, C., Van den Bossche, J., et al. 2025, Shapely , 2.1.1, 10.5281/zenodo.5597138

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Labbe , I., Goulding , A

    Greene , J. E., Labbe , I., Goulding , A. D., et al. 2024, , 964, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    E., & Peterson , B

    Gunn , J. E., & Peterson , B. A. 1965, , 142, 1633, 10.1086/148444

    1965 doi

  43. [51]

    2016, , 462, 1757, 10.1093/mnras/stw1716

    Gutkin , J., Charlot , S., & Bruzual , G. 2016, , 462, 1757, 10.1093/mnras/stw1716

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    The Cosmos in its Infancy: JADES Galaxy Candidates at z > 8 in GOODS-S and GOODS-N

    Hainline, K. N., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023, The datasets for "The Cosmos in its Infancy: JADES Galaxy Candidates at z > 8 in GOODS-S and GOODS-N" , v1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7996500

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946

    Harikane , Y., Zhang , Y., Nakajima , K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, , 955, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57c

    Hashimoto , T., \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., Fudamoto , Y., et al. 2023, , 955, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57c

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    E., Watson , D., Brammer , G., et al

    Heintz , K. E., Watson , D., Brammer , G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.00647, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.00647

    2023 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

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

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

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, , 878, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1de7

    Hoag , A., Brada c , M., Huang , K., et al. 2019, , 878, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1de7

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

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

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

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

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

    2007 doi

  53. [61]

    T., Mellema , G., Pen , U

    Iliev , I. T., Mellema , G., Pen , U. L., et al. 2006, , 369, 1625, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10502.x

    2006

  54. [62]

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

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

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    Johnson , B. D. 2021, bd-j/sedpy: sedpy v0.2.0 , v0.2.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4582723

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    C., Bunker , A

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

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    2025, , 536, 2355, 10.1093/mnras/stae2670

    ---. 2025, , 536, 2355, 10.1093/mnras/stae2670

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Larson , R

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

    2022 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05834, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05834

    Kageura , Y., Ouchi , M., Nakane , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05834, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05834

    2025 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    2016, in IOS Press, 87--90, 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver , T., Ragan-Kelley , B., P \'e rez , F., et al. 2016, in IOS Press, 87--90, 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    D., Onoue , M., Inayoshi , K., et al

    Kocevski , D. D., Onoue , M., Inayoshi , K., et al. 2023, , 954, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2022, , 263, 38, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9909

    Kokorev , V., Brammer , G., Fujimoto , S., et al. 2022, , 263, 38, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9909

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Taylor , A

    Kokorev , V., Ch \'a vez Ortiz , \'O . A., Taylor , A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12504, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12504

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    L., Finkelstein , S

    Larson , R. L., Finkelstein , S. L., Hutchison , T. A., et al. 2022, , 930, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbd

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Qin , Y., et al

    Leonova , E., Oesch , P. A., Qin , Y., et al. 2022, , 515, 5790, 10.1093/mnras/stac1908

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    P., Furlanetto , S

    Lin , Y., Oh , S. P., Furlanetto , S. R., & Sutter , P. M. 2016, , 461, 3361, 10.1093/mnras/stw1542

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    J., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al

    Looser , T. J., D'Eugenio , F., Maiolino , R., et al. 2024, , 629, 53, 10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    A., Hutter , A., et al

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

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    A., Mesinger , A., et al

    Lu , T.-Y., Mason , C. A., Mesinger , A., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04176, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04176

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    2024, , 691, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    Maiolino , R., Scholtz , J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2024, , 691, A145, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, , 690, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450493

    Mascia , S., Roberts-Borsani , G., Treu , T., et al. 2024, , 690, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450493

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    A., Chen , Z., Stark , D

    Mason , C. A., Chen , Z., Stark , D. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11702, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11702

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    A., & Gronke , M

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

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    A., Treu , T., Dijkstra , M., et al

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

    2018 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Fontana , A., Treu , T., et al

    Mason , C. A., Fontana , A., Treu , T., et al. 2019, , 485, 3947, 10.1093/mnras/stz632

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15859, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15859

    McClymont , W., Tacchella , S., D'Eugenio , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15859, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15859

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    2015, , 446, 566, 10.1093/mnras/stu2089

    Mesinger , A., Aykutalp , A., Vanzella , E., et al. 2015, , 446, 566, 10.1093/mnras/stu2089

    2015 doi

  78. [86]

    2007, , 669, 663, 10.1086/521806

    Mesinger , A., & Furlanetto , S. 2007, , 669, 663, 10.1086/521806

    2007 doi

  79. [88]

    A., Oesch , P

    Meyer , R. A., Oesch , P. A., Giovinazzo , E., et al. 2024, , 535, 1067, 10.1093/mnras/stae2353

    2024 doi

  80. [89]

    1998, , 501, 15, 10.1086/305799

    Miralda-Escud \'e , J. 1998, , 501, 15, 10.1086/305799

    1998 doi

  81. [90]

    2023, , 947, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    Morishita , T., Roberts-Borsani , G., Treu , T., et al. 2023, , 947, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb99e

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    P., Matthee , J., Kramarenko , I., et al

    Naidu , R. P., Matthee , J., Kramarenko , I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01874, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01874

    2024 doi arXiv

  83. [92]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.06804, 10.48550/arXiv.2312.06804

    Nakane , M., Ouchi , M., Nakajima , K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.06804, 10.48550/arXiv.2312.06804

    2023 doi arXiv

  84. [93]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.11220

    Napolitano , L., Pentericci , L., Santini , P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.11220. 2402.11220

    2024 arXiv

  85. [94]

    A., et al

    Nikoli \'c , I., Mesinger , A., Mason , C. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07980, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07980

    2025 doi arXiv

  86. [95]

    A., van Dokkum , P

    Oesch , P. A., van Dokkum , P. G., Illingworth , G. D., et al. 2015, , 804, L30, 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L30

    2015 doi

  87. [96]

    A., Brammer , G., Naidu , R

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

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    B., & Gunn , J

    Oke , J. B., & Gunn , J. E. 1983, , 266, 713, 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  89. [98]

    2010, , 724, 1524, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1524

    Ono , Y., Ouchi , M., Shimasaku , K., et al. 2010, , 724, 1524, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1524

    2010 doi

  90. [99]

    2012, , 744, 83, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/83

    Ono , Y., Ouchi , M., Mobasher , B., et al. 2012, , 744, 83, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/83

    2012 doi

  91. [100]

    E., & Ferland , G

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

    2006

  92. [101]

    2020, , 58, 617, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    Ouchi , M., Ono , Y., & Shibuya , T. 2020, , 58, 617, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    2020 doi

  93. [102]

    Pei , Y. C. 1992, , 395, 130, 10.1086/171637

    1992 doi

  94. [103]

    2014, , 793, 113, 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/113

    Pentericci , L., Vanzella , E., Fontana , A., et al. 2014, , 793, 113, 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/113

    2014 doi

  95. [104]

    2018, , 619, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732465

    Pentericci , L., Vanzella , E., Castellano , M., et al. 2018, , 619, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732465

    2018 doi

  96. [105]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  97. [106]

    H., Bezanson , R., Labbe , I., et al

    Price , S. H., Bezanson , R., Labbe , I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03920, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03920

    2024 doi arXiv

  98. [107]

    Qin , Y., Mesinger , A., Bosman , S. E. I., & Viel , M. 2021, , 506, 2390, 10.1093/mnras/stab1833

    2021 doi

  99. [108]

    2023, , 618, 480, 10.1038/s41586-023-05994-w

    Roberts-Borsani , G., Treu , T., Chen , W., et al. 2023, , 618, 480, 10.1038/s41586-023-05994-w

    2023 doi

  100. [109]

    W., Bouwens , R

    Roberts-Borsani , G. W., Bouwens , R. J., Oesch , P. A., et al. 2016, , 823, 143, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/143

    2016 doi

  101. [110]

    E., Bunker , A

    Saxena , A., Robertson , B. E., Bunker , A. J., et al. 2023, , 678, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346245

    2023 doi

  102. [111]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.09015, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09015

    Scarlata , C., Hayes , M., Panagia , N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.09015, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.09015

    2024 doi arXiv

  103. [112]

    A., Ellis , R

    Schenker , M. A., Ellis , R. S., Konidaris , N. P., & Stark , D. P. 2014, , 795, 20, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/20

    2014 doi

  104. [113]

    2019, , 487, 5739, 10.1093/mnras/stz1663

    Seiler , J., Hutter , A., Sinha , M., & Croton , D. 2019, , 487, 5739, 10.1093/mnras/stz1663

    2019 doi

  105. [114]

    2014, , 440, 1662, 10.1093/mnras/stu377

    Sobacchi , E., & Mesinger , A. 2014, , 440, 1662, 10.1093/mnras/stu377

    2014 doi

  106. [115]

    P., Ellis , R

    Stark , D. P., Ellis , R. S., Chiu , K., Ouchi , M., & Bunker , A. 2010, , 408, 1628, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17227.x

    2010

  107. [116]

    P., Topping , M

    Stark , D. P., Topping , M. W., Endsley , R., & Tang , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17078, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17078

    2025 doi arXiv

  108. [117]

    P., Ellis , R

    Stark , D. P., Ellis , R. S., Charlot , S., et al. 2017, , 464, 469, 10.1093/mnras/stw2233

    2017 doi

  109. [118]

    D., Robertson , B

    Tacchella , S., Johnson , B. D., Robertson , B. E., et al. 2023, , 522, 6236, 10.1093/mnras/stad1408

    2023 doi

  110. [119]

    P., & Ellis , R

    Tang , M., Stark , D. P., & Ellis , R. S. 2022, , 513, 5211, 10.1093/mnras/stac1280

    2022 doi

  111. [120]

    P., Topping , M

    Tang , M., Stark , D. P., Topping , M. W., Mason , C., & Ellis , R. S. 2024 a , , 975, 208, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7eb7

    2024 doi

  112. [121]

    P., Chen , Z., et al

    Tang , M., Stark , D. P., Chen , Z., et al. 2023, , 526, 1657, 10.1093/mnras/stad2763

    2023 doi

  113. [122]

    P., Ellis , R

    Tang , M., Stark , D. P., Ellis , R. S., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.06070, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.06070

    2024 doi arXiv

  114. [123]

    L., et al

    Tilvi , V., Papovich , C., Finkelstein , S. L., et al. 2014, , 794, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/5

    2014 doi

  115. [124]

    E., et al

    Tilvi , V., Malhotra , S., Rhoads , J. E., et al. 2020, , 891, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75ec

    2020 doi

  116. [125]

    W., Stark , D

    Topping , M. W., Stark , D. P., Endsley , R., et al. 2024, , 529, 4087, 10.1093/mnras/stae800

    2024 doi

  117. [126]

    B., Trenti , M., Bradley , L

    Treu , T., Schmidt , K. B., Trenti , M., Bradley , L. D., & Stiavelli , M. 2013, , 775, L29, 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L29

    2013 doi

  118. [127]

    2022, , 935, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    Treu , T., Roberts-Borsani , G., Bradac , M., et al. 2022, , 935, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    2022 doi

  119. [128]

    L., Nunez-Iglesias , J., et al

    van der Walt , S., Sch \"o nberger , J. L., Nunez-Iglesias , J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453, 10.7717/peerj.453

    2014 doi

  120. [129]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  121. [130]

    B., Yang , J., et al

    Wang , F., Davies , F. B., Yang , J., et al. 2020, , 896, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8c45

    2020 doi

  122. [131]

    J., et al

    Weibel , A., de Graaff , A., Setton , D. J., et al. 2025, , 983, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/adab7a

    2025 doi

  123. [132]

    H., Kulkarni , G., Haehnelt , M

    Weinberger , L. H., Kulkarni , G., Haehnelt , M. G., Choudhury , T. R., & Puchwein , E. 2018, , 479, 2564, 10.1093/mnras/sty1563

    2018 doi

  124. [133]

    P., Endsley , R., et al

    Whitler , L., Stark , D. P., Endsley , R., et al. 2024, , 529, 855, 10.1093/mnras/stae516

    2024 doi

  125. [134]

    2023, , 519, 5859, 10.1093/mnras/stad004

    ---. 2023, , 519, 5859, 10.1093/mnras/stad004

    2023 doi

  126. [135]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16608, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16608

    Witstok , J., Jakobsen , P., Maiolino , R., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16608, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16608

    2024 doi arXiv

  127. [136]

    2024 b , , 682, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347176

    Witstok , J., Smit , R., Saxena , A., et al. 2024 b , , 682, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347176

    2024 doi

  128. [137]

    2025, , 536, 27, 10.1093/mnras/stae2535

    Witstok , J., Maiolino , R., Smit , R., et al. 2025, , 536, 27, 10.1093/mnras/stae2535

    2025 doi

  129. [138]

    Wyithe , J. S. B., & Loeb , A. 2005, , 625, 1, 10.1086/429529

    2005 doi

  130. [139]

    2024, , 974, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7097

    Yanagisawa , H., Ouchi , M., Nakajima , K., et al. 2024, , 974, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7097

    2024 doi

  131. [140]

    2020, , 897, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26

    Yang , J., Wang , F., Fan , X., et al. 2020, , 897, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.