SERENDIPITOUS DISCOVERY OF AN OVERDENSITY OF Lyα EMITTERS AT<i>z</i>∼ 4.8 IN THE CL1604 SUPERCLUSTER FIELD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present results of a spectroscopic search for Lyα emitters (LAEs) in the Cl1604 supercluster field using the extensive spectroscopic Keck/DEep Imaging Multi-Object Spectrograph database taken as part of the Observations of Redshift Evolution in Large-Scale Environments survey. A total of 12 slitmasks were observed and inspected in the Cl1604 field, spanning a survey volume of 1.365 × 10 4 comoving Mpc 3 . We find a total of 17 high-redshift (4.39 ⩽ z ⩽ 5.67) LAE candidates down to a limiting flux of 1.9 × 10 −18 erg s −1 cm −2 ( L (Lyα) = 4.6 × 10 41 erg s −1 or ∼0.1 L * at z ∼ 5), 13 of which we classify as high quality. The resulting LAE number density is nearly double that of LAEs found in the Subaru deep field at z ∼ 4.9 and nearly an order of magnitude higher than in other surveys of LAEs at similar redshifts, an excess that is essentially independent of LAE luminosity. We also report on the discovery of two possible LAE group structures at z ∼ 4.4 and z ∼ 4.8 and investigate the effects of cosmic variance of LAEs on our results. Fitting a simple truncated single Gaussian model to a composite spectrum of the 13 high-quality LAE candidates, we find a best-fit stellar velocity dispersion of 136 km s −1 . Additionally, we see modest evidence of a second peak in the composite spectrum, possibly caused by galactic outflows, offset from the main velocity centroid of the LAE population by ∼440 km s −1 as well as evidence for a nontrivial Lyα escape fraction. We find an average star formation rate density (SFRD) of ∼5 × 10 −3 M ☉ yr −1 Mpc −3 with moderate evidence for negative evolution in the SFRD from z ∼ 4.6 to z ∼ 5.7. By simulating the statistical flux loss due to our observational setup, we measure a best-fit luminosity function characterized by Φ * L * = 2.2 +3.9 −1.3 × 10 39 erg s −1 Mpc −3 for α = −1.6, generally consistent with measurements from other surveys at similar epochs. Finally, we investigate any possible effects from weak or strong gravitational lensing induced by the foreground supercluster, finding that our LAE candidates are minimally affected by lensing processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".