MAMMOTH-Subaru III. Ly$α$ Halo Extended to $\sim200$ kpc Identified by Stacking $\sim 3300$ Ly$α$ Emitters at $z=2.2-2.3$
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a Ly$α$ halo extended to $\sim200$ kpc identified by stacking $\sim 3300$ Ly$α$ emitters at $z=2.2-2.3$. We carry out imaging observations and data reduction with Subaru/Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC). Our total survey area is $\sim12$ deg$^2$ and imaging depths are $25.5-27.0$ mag. Using the imaging data, we select 1,240 and 2,101 LAE candidates at $z=2.2$ and 2.3, respectively. We carry out spectroscopic observations of our LAE candidates and data reduction with Magellan/IMACS to estimate the contamination rate of our LAE candidates. We find that the contamination rate of our sample is low (8%). We stack our LAE candidates with a median stacking method to identify the Ly$α$ halo at $z=2$. We show that the Ly$α$ halo is extended to $\sim200$ kpc at a surface brightness level of $10^{-20}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ arcsec$^{-2}$. Comparing to previous studies, our Ly$α$ halo is more extended at radii of $\sim25-100$ kpc, which is not likely caused by the contamination in our sample but by different redshifts and fields instead. To investigate how central galaxies affect surrounding LAHs, we divide our LAEs into subsamples based on the Ly$α$ luminosity ($L_{\rm Lyα}$), rest-frame Ly$α$ equivalent width (EW$_0$), and UV magnitude (M$_{\rm uv}$). We stack the subsamples and find that higher $L_{\rm Lyα}$, lower EW$_0$, and brighter M$_{\rm uv}$ cause more extended halos. Our results suggest that more massive LAEs generally have more extended Ly$α$ halos.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".