Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 A galaxy inside a quasar's ionised bubble at $z\approx6.6$ is measured to leak 8-33% of its Lyman-continuum photons, an output that could help sustain reionisation.

desk verdict Genuinely new high-z data point with careful multi-tracer analysis, but the headline f_esc and quasar-geometry numbers ride on an unresolved 1σ redshift ambiguity between Lyα and [OIII]. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12256 v2 pith:TAD3MVYF submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.GA

Klaudia Protušová , Sarah E. I. Bosman , Feige Wang , Romain A. Meyer , Jaclyn B. Champagne , Frederick B. Davies , Anna-Christina Eilers , Xiaohui Fan
show 7 more authors
Joseph F. Hennawi Xiangyu Jin Hyunsung D. Jun Koki Kakiichi Zihao Li Weizhe Liu Jinyi Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords EpochofReionisationLyman-alphaemitterLymancontinuumescapefractiondouble-peakedlinequasarproximityzonelifetimeionisingphotonproductionefficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies one galaxy, LAE-11, sitting about $0.3$ pMpc from the quasar J0910-0414 at $z\approx6.6$, inside the region the quasar has ionised. Being in that bubble lets the blue half of the galaxy's Lyman-$\alpha$ line survive, something almost never seen at this redshift. The paper argues that the two-peaked line shape is a direct tracer of neutral hydrogen along the line of sight and hence of how many ionising photons escape the galaxy. Combining this with H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ detections, it concludes that LAE-11 leaks 8-33% of its Lyman-continuum photons and has a total ionising output above the range usually assumed to sustain reionisation. The same geometry also yields lower limits on the quasar's ionisation opening angle and lifetime.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the double-peaked Ly$\alpha$ emission-line profile in the Keck/DEIMOS spectrum, fitted with an absorption Voigt trough at $z = 6.6405 \pm 0.0005$ and a peak separation $\Delta v_{\rm sep} = 255.71 \pm 33.69$ km/s. Because the galaxy sits in the quasar's ionised proximity zone, the blue peak is not absorbed by the intergalactic medium, so the peak separation can be converted into a Lyman-continuum escape fraction through the empirical relation $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC} = 3.23\times10^{4}/v_{\rm sep}^2 - 1.05\times10^{2}/v_{\rm sep} + 0.095$. The same geometry, combined with the quasar's ionising photon rate $\dot{N}_{\rm QSO}^{\rm ion} = (3.43\pm0.02)\times10^{57}$ s$^{-1}$, fixes the lower limits on the quasar opening angle and lifetime through the light-echo/proximity argument. The Balmer lines H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ separately supply the ionising photon production efficiency $\xi_{\rm ion}$ under Case B recombination.

What would settle it

Obtain a calibration-independent systemic redshift for LAE-11, for example an ALMA [CII] detection or a higher-signal-to-noise rest-frame optical spectrum with an independently calibrated wavelength solution. If the redshift is $z = 6.6372$ (the [OIII] value) rather than $z = 6.6405$, then the interpretation of the blue Ly$\alpha$ peak as a radiative-transfer component would fail, and with it the $8{-}33\%$ escape fraction and the $\theta_Q > 49.62^\circ$ opening-angle limit; the non-Ly$\alpha$ escape-fraction diagnostics would still stand. Confirming the trough redshift with an independent line would corroborate the paper's central numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LAE-11, a fairly bright ($M_{\rm UV} = -19.84^{+0.14}_{-0.16}$), very blue ($\beta_{1550} = -2.61^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$), compact galaxy at $z = 6.6405 \pm 0.0005$, is a genuine leaker of Lyman-continuum photons during the Epoch of Reionisation. From the peak separation $\Delta v_{\rm sep} = 255.71 \pm 33.69$ km/s of its double-peaked Ly$\alpha$ line and several independent empirical diagnostics, the authors derive $f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC} = 0.08{-}0.33$. The H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines give $\log(\xi_{\rm ion}/{\rm Hz~erg^{-1}}) = 25.59 \pm 0.08$ and $25.65 \pm 0.09$, and the total ionising output $\log(f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\xi_{\rm ion,H\alpha}/{\rm Hz~erg^{-1}}) = 24.85^{+0.24}_{-0.34}$ is higher than the canonical $24.3{-}24.8$ assumed to drive reionisation forward. Because the blue Ly$\alpha$ peak is observed, LAE-11 must lie inside the quasar's ionisation cone; requiring the line of sight and the galaxy to both sit inside that cone constrains the quasar opening angle to $\theta_Q > 49.62^\circ$ and its bright-phase lifetime to $t_Q > 3.8\times10^5$ yr.

Load-bearing premise

The entire peak-separation analysis rests on the assumption that the systemic redshift of LAE-11 is the Ly$\alpha$ trough at $z = 6.6405$; the [OIII] doublet gives $z = 6.6372$, a $1\sigma$ discrepancy the paper cannot currently resolve, and if the [OIII] redshift is correct the blue peak is not a radiative-transfer component and the escape fraction and opening-angle constraints do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LAE-11 has a Lyman-continuum escape fraction of 8-33%, with all indirect tracers used by the paper agreeing within $1\sigma$.
  • The total ionising output of LAE-11, $\log(f_{\rm esc}^{\rm LyC}\xi_{\rm ion,H\alpha}/{\rm Hz~erg^{-1}}) = 24.85^{+0.24}_{-0.34}$, is higher than the canonical $24.3{-}24.8$ usually assumed for galaxies sustaining reionisation.
  • The quasar J0910-0414 has an ionisation opening angle $\theta_Q > 49.62^\circ$ and a bright-phase lifetime $t_Q > 3.8\times10^5$ yr, so it cannot be one of the very young quasars inferred from short line-of-sight proximity zones.
  • Galaxies similar to LAE-11, which are compact, dust-poor, low-metallicity starbursts, could contribute significantly to the ionising budget near the end of the Epoch of Reionisation.
  • The paper's diagnostics give consistent escape-fraction estimates whether or not they use Ly$\alpha$ emission, suggesting that multiple tracers can be used to constrain LyC leakage at high redshift.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If LAE-11 is typical of galaxies in quasar proximity zones, bright compact starbursts near ionised bubbles could supply a measurable part of the reionising photon budget, complementing the contribution usually assigned to very faint galaxies.
  • Applying the same trough-versus-[OIII] redshift test to other double-peaked LAEs in similar quasar fields would turn the current $1\sigma$ tension into either a wavelength-calibration story or a stronger test of the peak-separation method.
  • The quasar-opening-angle constraint is currently a two-object technique; applying it to every quasar with a double-peaked LAE in its proximity zone would give a population-level measurement of quasar lifetimes and beaming at $z > 6$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength study of LAE-11, a double-peaked Lyα emitter at z~6.6 in the proximity zone of quasar J0910-0414, using Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopy, JWST/NIRCam WFSS and NIRSpec MSA spectroscopy, and Subaru/HSC, HST, and JWST photometry. The authors measure the galaxy's UV properties, stellar mass, star formation rate, and use a combination of indirect diagnostics to derive the Lyman-continuum escape fraction, the ionizing photon production efficiency from Hα and Hβ, and the total ionizing output. They also use the detection of the blue Lyα peak to constrain the quasar's opening angle and lifetime. The headline results are f_esc^LyC = (8-33)%, log(ξ_ion/Hz erg^-1) = 25.59±0.08 and 25.65±0.09 from Hα and Hβ, and log(f_esc ξ_ion,Hα/Hz erg^-1) = 24.85(+0.24,-0.34), which exceeds the canonical 24.3-24.8 required for reionization; the quasar constraints are θQ > 49.62° and tQ > 3.8×10^5 yr.

Significance. If the adopted systemic redshift is correct, this is a unique and important result: it provides a high-redshift measurement of f_esc from a double-peaked Lyα profile in a quasar proximity zone, independently corroborated by Balmer-line ξion measurements, and it places novel constraints on the quasar geometry and lifetime. The paper is careful in its uncertainty propagation, uses multiple independent f_esc estimators, and is transparent about the redshift tension in §3.1 and §5.4. The main claims, however, are conditional on the Lyα-trough redshift, and the unresolved 1σ tension with the [OIII] redshift currently prevents full acceptance of the headline numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1; Eq. (5); Eq. (8); Eq. (13)] The systemic redshift is a load-bearing assumption: the peak-separation f_esc = 0.18±0.08 (Eq. 5), the ξion values (Eq. 8), and the quasar opening angle (Eq. 13) are all derived under z_trough = 6.6405±0.0005, while the [OIII] doublet gives z = 6.6372±0.0004, a 1σ tension. Section 5.4 explicitly concedes that if z[OIII] is correct, the blue peak is not a radiative-transfer component, so the peak-separation f_esc and the opening-angle constraint no longer follow. The authors need to either obtain an independent systemic redshift (e.g., higher-resolution [OIII] or other nebular lines) or present all headline results under both redshift scenarios; as it stands, the central claims are conditional on an unresolved 1σ tension.
  2. [§4.4; Eq. (11); Eq. (13)] The quasar lifetime and opening angle depend on the line-of-sight distance d∥ = 0.21±0.01 pMpc. A change in redshift from 6.6405 to 6.6372 (Δz = 0.0033) changes d∥ by roughly 0.16 pMpc, which is comparable to the quoted value and could place the galaxy in front of the quasar or at a substantially different angle. The paper does not quantify the effect of the alternative redshift on θQ and tQ; this robustness check is necessary before these constraints can be accepted.
  3. [§4.1; Table 5] The statement in the Abstract that 'all tracers of ionising photon leakage agree within 1σ uncertainty' is an overstatement: the peak-separation value (0.18±0.08) is the only one tied to the double-peaked profile, while the Begley et al. relation gives 0.08±0.03, the Chisholm et al. β relation gives 0.20±0.18, the ΣSFR relations provide only lower limits (>0.16 and >0.24), and the Jaskot et al. models have asymmetric errors spanning a wide range (0.12–0.69). Given the large uncertainties and the presence of lower limits, the 'agreement' is not a strong cross-check. The authors should either provide a more quantitative comparison (e.g., a chi-squared or weighted mean) or soften this claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§6, item 4] There is a typo: 'samples of of galaxies' should read 'samples of galaxies'.
  2. [§5.4] The phrase 'this result of f_esc^LyC = 100%' should be reworded for clarity, since Eq. (8) becomes singular in that limit; the intended meaning is that ξion would be undefined/infinite.
  3. [§3.1] The authors state that the [OIII] redshift is in tension with the Lyα trough 'even when adopting the conservative calibration redshift offset Δz<0.003 quoted by Wang et al. (2023)'. Given that the two redshifts differ by Δz=0.0033, it would be helpful to explicitly state the combined 1σ systematic and statistical error budget for the [OIII] redshift.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the ionising-output and quasar-geometry results are external-calibration-based and measurement-driven, with the unresolved Lyα/[OIII] redshift tension as a stated systematic limitation.

full rationale

The paper's ionising-output claims are not circular. The f_LyC_esc values in Table 5 are obtained by applying external empirical calibrations (Izotov et al. 2018; Begley et al. 2024; Chisholm et al. 2022; Naidu et al. 2020; Jaskot et al. 2024b) to independently measured peak separations, Lyα equivalent width, UV slope, and ΣSFR; none of these relations is fitted in this paper, and none takes the quoted f_esc as an input. ξion is computed from Hα and Hβ luminosities and M_UV via Eq. 8, with f_esc = 0.18 entering only as a measured input; combining f_esc and ξion into f_esc ξion is a product of two measurements, not a self-fulfilling prediction. The quasar opening angle (Eq. 13) and lifetime (Eq. 11) follow from a stated bipolar-cone light-echo geometry plus the observed fact that the blue Lyα peak is transmitted; the geometric model is cited to Bosman et al. (2020), but the formula is parameter-free and is applied to measured separations, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The paper's main vulnerability is the 1σ tension between the Lyα-trough redshift (z = 6.6405) and the [OIII] redshift (z = 6.6372), explicitly reported in Sec. 3.1 and discussed in Sec. 5.4; the paper concedes that if z_[OIII] is correct the blue peak is not a radiative-transfer component and the peak-separation-based f_esc and opening-angle constraints no longer follow. That is a stated systematic uncertainty, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central numbers are measurements plus applications of external calibrations; no ad hoc parameters or new entities are introduced to force the result.

free parameters (2)
  • Lyα line-profile MCMC parameters (log A_Gauss, σ_Gauss, z_Lyα, z_trough, log N, log b) = log A_Gauss=-17.76±0.07, σ_Gauss=6.89±0.74 Å, z_trough=6.6405±0.0005, log N=13.96±0.24, log b=6.93±0.12 (Table 2)
    Fitted to the observed double-peaked Lyα profile; the trough redshift and peak separation used in Eq. 5 and Eq. 11 come from this fit.
  • BAGPIPES SED parameters (log M*, log U, log Z, A_V, non-parametric SFH bins) = log M*/M⊙=7.93, log U=-1.33, log Z/Z⊙=-0.86, A_V<0.01 (Table 6)
    Fitted to photometry and NIRSpec spectrum; used for galaxy physical properties but not for the central f_esc or xi_ion values.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math ΛCDM Planck18 cosmology (ΩΛ=0.69, Ωm=0.31, H0=67.7 km/s/Mpc)
    Used for luminosity distances and physical separations; stated in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption Case B recombination with ne=1e3 cm^-3, Te=1e4 K to convert Hα/Hβ luminosities to ionising photon rates
    Used in Section 4.2; the measured Hα/Hβ=2.47±0.49 agrees within 1σ with Case B value 2.86.
  • ad hoc to paper Empirical f_esc relations calibrated on z<0.4 galaxies (Eq. 5, Eq. 6, Eq. 7, Jaskot et al. models) remain valid at z~6.6
    The paper applies these relations to LAE-11 and notes the potential bias (Section 4.1), citing caution from Jaskot et al. (2024b).
  • domain assumption The double-peaked Lyα trough traces the systemic redshift and the peak separation traces the neutral hydrogen column density (Verhamme et al. 2006, 2018)
    Foundation for the f_esc and quasar geometry analysis; questioned under the z[OIII] scenario in Section 5.4.
  • ad hoc to paper The quasar ionises in a simple bipolar cone and both the observer and LAE-11 lie inside it
    Used in Section 4.4 to derive θQ>49.62°; the BAL nature is used to argue the observer is near the cone edge.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unique window into the Epoch of Reionisation: A double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ emitter in the proximity zone of a quasar at $z\sim 6.6$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TAD3MVYF

@misc{pith2026241212256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unique window into the Epoch of Reionisation: A double-peaked Lyman-$\alpha$ emitter in the proximity zone of a quasar at $z\sim 6.6$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TAD3MVYF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12256}
}
abstract

We present a study of a double-peaked Ly$\alpha$ emitter, named LAE-11, found in the proximity zone of QSO J0910-0414 at $z\sim6.6$. We use a combination of deep photometric data from Subaru Telescope, HST, and JWST with spectroscopic data from Keck/DEIMOS, NIRCam WFSS and NIRSpec MSA to characterise the ionising and general properties of the galaxy, as well as the quasar environment surrounding it. We detect Ly$\alpha$, H$\beta$, [OIII] doublet, and H$\alpha$ emission lines in the various spectral datasets. The presence of a double-peaked Ly$\alpha$ line in the spectrum allows us to characterise the opening angle and lifetime of the QSO as $\theta_Q>49.62${\deg} and $t_Q > 3.8\times10^5$ years. LAE-11 is a fairly bright (M$_\rm{UV} = -19.84^{+0.14}_{-0.16}$), blue galaxy with a UV slope of $\beta = -2.61^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$. Since the galaxy is located in a quasar-ionised region, we have a unique opportunity to measure the escape fraction of Lyman Continuum photons using the un-attenuated double-peaked Ly$\alpha$ emission profile and its equivalent width at such high redshift. We employ diagnostics which do not rely on the detection of Ly$\alpha$ for comparison, and find that all tracers of ionising photon leakage agree within 1$\sigma$ uncertainty. We measure a moderate escape of Lyman Continuum photons from LAE-11 of $f_\rm{esc}^\rm{LyC} = (8 - 33)\%$. Detections of both H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ emission lines allow for separate measurements of the ionising photon production efficiency, resulting with $\log(\xi_\rm{ion}/\rm{Hz~erg^{-1}}) = 25.59\pm0.08$ and $25.65\pm0.09$, for H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$, respectively. The total ionising output of LAE-11, $\log(f_\rm{esc}^\rm{LyC}\xi_\rm{ion, H\alpha}/\rm{Hz~erg^{-1}}) = 24.85^{+0.24}_{-0.34}$, is higher than the value of $24.3 - 24.8$ which is traditionally assumed as needed to drive Reionisation forward.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12256 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The available photometric and spectroscopic dataset of LAE-11. (upper) A composite image of LAE-11 consisting of the NB926, F125W and F356W photometry, the 2D and 1D NIRSpec/PRISM spectrum of LAE-11 located at z = 6.6405±0.0005. The uncertainty on each pixel of the 1D spectrum is represented with a red line. The dotted vertical lines represent detected emission lines. From left to right: Lyα, Hβ, [OIII] doublet, and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The velocity separation of the Lyα emission profile in relation to its luminosity for z ∼ 0 − 0.4 LAEs (Izotov et al. 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024), z ∼ 0.3 GPs (Yang et al. 2017), z ∼ 2 − 3 LAEs (Kulas et al. 2012; Hashimoto et al. 2015; Vanzella et al. 2016), and z ≥ 5.5 LAEs (Hu et al. 2016; Songaila et al. 2018; Bosman et al. 2020; Meyer et al. 2021). LAE-11 is most consistent with local luminous GPs and LAEs. I… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The correlation between [OIII] + Hβ EW0 and the velocity offset of the red Lyα peak as measured by Tang et al. (2024b) for 26 EELGs at z ∼ 2−3 (circles). LAE-11 is depicted with a star. The colour of each data point corresponds to the Lyα EW0 of each galaxy. (EELGs) examined in Tang et al. (2024b), where galaxies with high equivalent widths of ([OIII] + Hβ) and Lyα show small peak offset (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (upper) Imaging of LAE-11 in all available bands across Subaru/HSC, HST/WFC3 and JWST/NIRCam, sorted by wavelength. The white dashed circle corresponds to the aperture used to measure the photometry in each filter. (lower) The observed NIRSpec PRISM spectrum and its 1σ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The posterior non-parametric SFH of LAE-11 depicted with solid black line. The 1σ uncertainty is marked with a shaded grey re￾gion. For R50−β model we only calculate the lower limit of the escape fraction, as the radius RUV of the galaxy is smaller than the PSF. We not…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolution of the ionising output of galaxies (ξion f LyC esc ) with redshift. The ionising output required to sustain Reionisation deter￾mined by Robertson et al. (2013) is depicted with shaded purple re￾gion, while the mean ionising output needed to maintain EoR a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The positions of the LAEs (orange circles) and [OIII] emitters (purple dots) in 3D comoving coordinates with respect to the position of J0910-0414 (blue star). The line-of-sight distance is defined to be negative towards the observer with the quasar positioned at 0 cMp…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Quasar lifetimes from literature as a function of redshift. Mea￾surements using HI proximity zones along the line of sight are shown with blue squares (Eilers et al. 2018, 2021; Davies et al. 2019, 2020; Andika et al. 2020; Morey et al. 2021), studies using quasar clu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

168 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adelberger, K. L. 2004, ApJ, 612, 706

    2004

  2. [2]

    T., Jahnke, K., Onoue, M., et al

    Andika, I. T., Jahnke, K., Onoue, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 34

    2020

  3. [3]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 11372

    Asada, Y ., Sawicki, M., Abraham, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11372

    2024

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Atek, H., Labbé, I., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 975 Bañados, E., Venemans, B., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 178

    2024

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Begley, R., Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4040

    2024

  6. [6]

    & Arnouts, S

    Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393 Article number, page 13 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda

    1996

  7. [7]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Bertin, E., Schefer, M., Apostolakos, N., et al. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Soft- ware and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo, E. R. Deul, J. D. Mol, J. de Plaa, & H. Verkouter, 461

    2020

  8. [8]

    J., Cantalupo, S., et al

    Borisova, E., Lilly, S. J., Cantalupo, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 120

    2016

Show all 168 references
  1. [9]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S5

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., & Bickerton, S. 2018, PASJ, 70, S5

    2018

  2. [10]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55

    2022

  3. [11]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Fan, X., Jiang, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1055

    2018

  4. [12]

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

    2020

  5. [13]

    J., Smit, R., Labbé, I., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Smit, R., Labbé, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 176

    2016

  6. [14]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  7. [15]

    2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline

    2022

  8. [16]

    J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B

    Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 840, 44

    2017

  9. [17]

    L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T

    Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582

    1994

  10. [18]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Cantalupo, S., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63

    2014

  11. [19]

    J., & Porciani, C

    Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., & Porciani, C. 2007, ApJ, 657, 135

    2007

  12. [20]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 417

    2019

  13. [21]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B., Casey, C

    Champagne, J. B., Casey, C. M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 99

    2023

  15. [23]

    B., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al

    Champagne, J. B., Wang, F., Yang, J., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03827

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    B., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al

    Champagne, J. B., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.03826

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    & Gnedin, N

    Chen, H. & Gnedin, N. Y . 2018, ApJ, 868, 126

    2018

  18. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 32

    Chen, N., Motohara, K., Spitler, L., Nakajima, K., & Terao, Y . 2024, ApJ, 968, 32

    2024

  19. [27]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104

    Chisholm, J., Saldana-Lopez, A., Flury, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5104

    2022

  20. [28]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3751

    Choustikov, N., Katz, H., Saxena, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3751

    2024

  21. [29]

    B., Bosman, S

    Davies, F. B., Bosman, S. E. I., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.18186

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    B., Hennawi, J

    Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., & Eilers, A.-C. 2019, ApJ, 884, L19

    2019

  23. [31]

    B., Wang, F., Eilers, A.-C., & Hennawi, J

    Davies, F. B., Wang, F., Eilers, A.-C., & Hennawi, J. F. 2020, ApJ, 904, L32

    2020

  24. [32]

    R., et al

    Dayal, P., V olonteri, M., Choudhury, T. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3065 De Barros, S., Oesch, P. A., Labbé, I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2355

    2020

  25. [33]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  26. [34]

    2014, PASA, 31, e040

    Dijkstra, M. 2014, PASA, 31, e040

    2014

  27. [35]

    Dijkstra, M., Mesinger, A., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2139

    2011

  28. [36]

    A., Brotherton, M

    DiPompeo, M. A., Brotherton, M. S., & De Breuck, C. 2012, ApJ, 752, 6 Domínguez, A., Siana, B., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 839 Domínguez, A., Siana, B., Henry, A. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 145

    2012

  29. [37]

    B., Hennawi, J

    Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 24

    2017

  30. [38]

    F., & Davies, F

    Eilers, A.-C., Hennawi, J. F., & Davies, F. B. 2018, ApJ, 867, 30

    2018

  31. [39]

    F., Davies, F

    Eilers, A.-C., Hennawi, J. F., Davies, F. B., & Simcoe, R. A. 2021, ApJ, 917, 38

    2021

  32. [40]

    R., et al

    Emami, N., Siana, B., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 71

    2019

  33. [41]

    P., Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5229

    2021

  34. [42]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2312

    2023

  35. [43]

    M., Phillips, A

    Faber, S. M., Phillips, A. C., Kibrick, R. I., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 4841, In- strument Design and Performance for Optical /Infrared Ground-based Tele- scopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1657–1669

    2003

  36. [44]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455 Falcón-Barroso, J., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A95

    2012

  37. [45]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761

    1998

  38. [46]

    L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al

    Finkelstein, S. L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 36

    2019

  39. [47]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  40. [48]

    Fruchter, A. S. & et al. 2010, in 2010 Space Telescope Science Institute Calibra- tion Workshop, 382–387

    2010

  41. [49]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S3

    Furusawa, H., Koike, M., Takata, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S3

    2018

  42. [50]

    G., Davies, F

    Gaikwad, P., Haehnelt, M. G., Davies, F. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4093

    2023

  43. [51]

    Giovinazzo, E., Trebitsch, M., Mauerhofer, V ., Dayal, P., & Oesch, P. A. 2024, A&A, 688, A122

    2024

  44. [52]

    1999, MN- RAS, 306, 843

    Glazebrook, K., Blake, C., Economou, F., Lilly, S., & Colless, M. 1999, MN- RAS, 306, 843

    1999

  45. [53]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 123

    Gronke, M., Bull, P., & Dijkstra, M. 2015, ApJ, 812, 123

    2015

  46. [54]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 157

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

    2015

  47. [55]

    Hennawi, J. F. & Prochaska, J. X. 2013, ApJ, 766, 58

    2013

  48. [56]

    F., Prochaska, J

    Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., Cantalupo, S., & Arrigoni-Battaia, F. 2015, Science, 348, 779

    2015

  49. [57]

    Hogan, C. J. & Weymann, R. J. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 1P

    1987

  50. [58]

    M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J

    Hook, I. M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 425

    2004

  51. [59]

    M., Cowie, L

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

    2016

  52. [60]

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

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1805

    2014

  53. [61]

    I., Chisholm, J., Worseck, G., et al

    Izotov, Y . I., Chisholm, J., Worseck, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2864

    2022

  54. [62]

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

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

    2020

  55. [63]

    I., Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y . I., Thuan, T. X., Guseva, N. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 281

    2024

  56. [64]

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

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

    2021

  57. [65]

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

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

    2018

  58. [66]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80

    2022

  59. [67]

    E., Dowd, T., Oey, M

    Jaskot, A. E., Dowd, T., Oey, M. S., Scarlata, C., & McKinney, J. 2019, ApJ, 885, 96

    2019

  60. [68]

    E., Silveyra, A

    Jaskot, A. E., Silveyra, A. C., Plantinga, A., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 973, 111 Juri´c, M., Kantor, J., Lim, K. T., & Lupton. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 512, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXV , ed. N. P. F. Lorente, K. Sh...

    2017

  61. [69]

    & Gronke, M

    Kakiichi, K. & Gronke, M. 2021, ApJ, 908, 30

    2021

  62. [70]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 582

    Kakiichi, K., Schmidt, T., & Hennawi, J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 582

    2022

  63. [71]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 765

    Kashikawa, N., Kitayama, T., Doi, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 765

    2007

  64. [72]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 4265

    Katz, H., Garel, T., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4265

    2022

  65. [73]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 66

    Kawanomoto, S., Uraguchi, F., Komiyama, Y ., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 66

    2018

  66. [74]

    C., Chojnowski, S

    Keel, W. C., Chojnowski, S. D., Bennert, V . N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 878

    2012

  67. [75]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541

    1998

  68. [76]

    S., Hennawi, J

    Khrykin, I. S., Hennawi, J. F., & Worseck, G. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3897

    2019

  69. [77]

    S., Hennawi, J

    Khrykin, I. S., Hennawi, J. F., Worseck, G., & Davies, F. B. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 649

    2021

  70. [78]

    A., MacKenty, J

    Kimble, R. A., MacKenty, J. W., O’Connell, R. W., & Townsend, J. A. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2008

  71. [79]

    7010, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2008: Optical, In- frared, and Millimeter, ed

    Series, V ol. 7010, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2008: Optical, In- frared, and Millimeter, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. W. M. de Graauw, & H. A. MacEwen, 70101E

    2008

  72. [80]

    & Tytler, D

    Kirkman, D. & Tytler, D. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1457

    2008

  73. [81]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S2

    Komiyama, Y ., Obuchi, Y ., Nakaya, H., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S2

    2018

  74. [82]

    & Boily, C

    Kroupa, P. & Boily, C. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1188

    2002

  75. [83]

    R., Shapley, A

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

    2012

  76. [84]

    C., Haehnelt, M

    Kulkarni, G., Keating, L. C., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L24 Labbé, I., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, L19

    2019

  77. [85]

    Laurent, P., Eftekharzadeh, S., Le Go ff, J.-M., et al. 2017, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys., 2017, 017

    2017

  78. [86]

    C., Gil de Paz, A., Tremonti, C., et al

    Lee, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Tremonti, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 599

    2009

  79. [87]

    & Heckman, T

    Leitherer, C. & Heckman, T. M. 1995, ApJS, 96, 9

    1995

  80. [88]

    C., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3

    2019

  81. [89]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  82. [90]

    & Pozzetti, L

    Madau, P. & Pozzetti, L. 2000, MNRAS, 312, L9

    2000

  83. [91]

    2024, A&A, 685, A3

    Mascia, S., Pentericci, L., Calabrò, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A3

    2024

  84. [92]

    Mason, C. A. & Gronke, M. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1395

    2020

  85. [93]

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

    Mason, C. A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 2

    2018

  86. [94]

    2006, ApJ, 640, L123

    Matsuda, Y ., Yamada, T., Hayashino, T., Yamauchi, R., & Nakamura, Y . 2006, ApJ, 640, L123

    2006

  87. [95]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 772

    Matthee, J., Sobral, D., Darvish, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 772

    2017

  88. [96]

    2018, A&A, 619, A136

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

    2018

  89. [97]

    P., et al

    Mazzucchelli, C., Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 91

    2017

  90. [98]

    A., Bosman, S

    Meyer, R. A., Bosman, S. E. I., Kakiichi, K., & Ellis, R. S. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 19

    2019

  91. [99]

    A., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al

    Meyer, R. A., Decarli, R., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 141

    2022

  92. [100]

    A., Kakiichi, K., Bosman, S

    Meyer, R. A., Kakiichi, K., Bosman, S. E. I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1560

    2020

  93. [101]

    A., Laporte, N., Ellis, R

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

    2021

  94. [102]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S1

    Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y ., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S1

    2018

  95. [103]

    A., Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F

    Morey, K. A., Eilers, A.-C., Davies, F. B., Hennawi, J. F., & Simcoe, R. A. 2021, ApJ, 921, 88

    2021

  96. [104]

    P., Matthee, J., Oesch, P

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

    2022

  97. [105]

    P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C

    Naidu, R. P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 109

    2020

  98. [106]

    & Vivek, M

    Nair, A. & Vivek, M. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4946

    2022

  99. [107]

    S., Robertson, B

    Nakajima, K., Fletcher, T., Ellis, R. S., Robertson, B. E., & Iwata, I. 2018, MN- RAS, 477, 2098

    2018

  100. [108]

    & Ouchi, M

    Nakajima, K. & Ouchi, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 900

    2014

  101. [109]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 28

    Nakane, M., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 28

    2024

  102. [110]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 266, 713

    1983

  103. [111]

    D., Segers, M., Schaye, J., Richings, A

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Segers, M., Schaye, J., Richings, A. J., & Crain, R. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4740 Orlitová, I., Verhamme, A., Henry, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A60

    2018

  104. [112]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nu- clei (University Science Books) Planck Collaboration. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A1

    1989

  105. [113]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308

    2020

  106. [114]

    B., Kovalev, Y

    Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Lister, M. L., & Savolainen, T. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4992

    2017

  107. [115]

    J., Baum, S

    Rieke, M. J., Baum, S. A., Beichman, C. A., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 4850, IR Space Telescopes and Instruments, ed. J. C. Mather, 478–485 Article number, page 14 of 17 K. Protušová et al.: A double-peak...

    2003

  108. [116]

    I., Iani, E., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., Iani, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 12

    2024

  109. [117]

    E., Ellis, R

    Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Furlanetto, S. R., & Dunlop, J. S. 2015, ApJ, 802, L19

    2015

  110. [118]

    E., Furlanetto, S

    Robertson, B. E., Furlanetto, S. R., Schneider, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 71

    2013

  111. [119]

    L., et al

    Rojas-Ruiz, S., Mazzucchelli, C., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 27

    2024

  112. [120]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  113. [121]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4918

    Satyavolu, S., Eilers, A.-C., Kulkarni, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4918

    2023

  114. [122]

    J., Jones, G

    Saxena, A., Bunker, A. J., Jones, G. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A84

    2024

  115. [123]

    M., Hennawi, J

    Schmidt, T. M., Hennawi, J. F., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 165

    2019

  116. [124]

    M., Hennawi, J

    Schmidt, T. M., Hennawi, J. F., Worseck, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 122

    2018

  117. [125]

    M., Worseck, G., Hennawi, J

    Schmidt, T. M., Worseck, G., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., & Crighton, N. H. M. 2017, ApJ, 847, 81

    2017

  118. [126]

    H., & Shen, Y

    Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., & Shen, Y . 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1959

    2010

  119. [127]

    R., Iliev, I

    Shapiro, P. R., Iliev, I. T., & Raga, A. C. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 753

    2004

  120. [128]

    A., Oguri, M., et al

    Shen, Y ., Strauss, M. A., Oguri, M., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2222

    2007

  121. [129]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 15

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., & Harikane, Y . 2015, ApJS, 219, 15

    2015

  122. [130]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 164

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y ., & Nakajima, K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 164

    2019

  123. [131]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S15

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y ., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S15

    2018

  124. [132]

    & Rees, M

    Silk, J. & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1

    1998

  125. [133]

    A., Burgasser, A

    Simcoe, R. A., Burgasser, A. J., Schechter, P. L., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 270

    2013

  126. [134]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 6139

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6139

    2024

  127. [135]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 5468

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5468

    2023

  128. [136]

    M., Barger, A

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

    2018

  129. [137]

    Spina, B., Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Gaikwad, P., & Zhu, Y . 2024, A&A, 688, L26

    2024

  130. [138]

    Storey, P. J. & Zeippen, C. J. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 813

    2000

  131. [139]

    A., Ellis, R

    Sullivan, M., Treyer, M. A., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 442

    2000

  132. [140]

    2022, ApJ, 936, L8

    Sun, F., Egami, E., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, L8

    2022

  133. [141]

    L., Bagley, M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 170

    2022

  134. [142]

    P., Ellis, R

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 972, 56 Tepper-García, T. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 2025

    2006

  135. [143]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4087

    2024

  136. [144]

    P., et al

    Torralba-Torregrosa, A., Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.10040

    2024 arXiv

  137. [145]

    & Steidel, C

    Trainor, R. & Steidel, C. C. 2013, ApJ, 775, L3

    2013

  138. [146]

    F., Steidel, C

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

    2015

  139. [147]

    2016, ApJ, 821, L27

    Vanzella, E., De Barros, S., Cupani, G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, L27

    2016

  140. [148]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, L15

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

    2018

  141. [149]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, L60

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

    2018

  142. [150]

    2015, A&A, 578, A7

    Verhamme, A., Orlitová, I., Schaerer, D., & Hayes, M. 2015, A&A, 578, A7

    2015

  143. [151]

    2017, A&A, 597, A13

    Verhamme, A., Orlitová, I., Schaerer, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A13

    2017

  144. [152]

    2006, A&A, 460, 397

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

    2006

  145. [153]

    & Croft, R

    Visbal, E. & Croft, R. A. C. 2008, ApJ, 674, 660

    2008

  146. [154]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14327

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

    2024 arXiv

  147. [155]

    2020, Mapping A Distant Protocluster An- chored by A Luminous Quasar in the Epoch of Reionization, HST Proposal

    Wang, F., Banados, E., Bian, F., et al. 2020, Mapping A Distant Protocluster An- chored by A Luminous Quasar in the Epoch of Reionization, HST Proposal. Cycle 28, ID. #16187

    2020

  148. [156]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 30

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 30

    2019

  149. [157]

    F., et al

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L4

    2023

  150. [158]

    D., Ross, N

    White, M., Myers, A. D., Ross, N. P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 933

    2012

  151. [159]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07937

    Witten, C., McClymont, W., Laporte, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07937

    2024 arXiv

  152. [160]

    S., Hennawi, J

    Worseck, G., Khrykin, I. S., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., & Farina, E. P. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5084

    2021

  153. [161]

    Wyithe, J. S. B. & Loeb, A. 2004, Nature, 427, 815

    2004

  154. [162]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 171

    Yang, H., Malhotra, S., Gronke, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 171

    2017

  155. [163]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 262

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 262

    2021

  156. [164]

    2023, ApJ, 951, L5

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L5

    2023

  157. [165]

    & Tremaine, S

    Yu, Q. & Tremaine, S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965

    2002

  158. [166]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 78

    Zackrisson, E., Binggeli, C., Finlator, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 78

    2017

  159. [167]

    K., & Jensen, H

    Zackrisson, E., Inoue, A. K., & Jensen, H. 2013, ApJ, 777, 39

    2013

  160. [168]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Zheng, W., Overzier, R. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 574 Article number, page 15 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda Appendix A: Additional figures Fig. A.1. (upper) The raw coadded 2D spectrum generated by the Pypeit pipeline. (middle) The sky subtraction res...

    2023

Pith tools

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