Thesis Master Physics

Draft version April 2, 2024
Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX631
Discovery of optically emitting circumgalactic nebulae around the majority of UV-luminous quasars at
intermediate redshift
Sean D. Johnson,1 Zhuoqi (Will) Liu,1 Jennifer I-Hsiu Li,1, 2 Joop Schaye,3 Jenny E. Greene,4
Sebastiano Cantalupo,5 Gwen C. Rudie,6 Zhijie Qu,7 Hsiao-Wen Chen,7 Marc Rafelski,8, 9 Sowgat Muzahid,10
Mandy C. Chen,7 Thierry Contini,11 Wolfram Kollatschny,12 Nishant Mishra,1 Patrick Petitjean,13
Michael Rauch,6 and Fakhri S. Zahedy6
arXiv:2404.00088v1 [astro-ph.GA] 29 Mar 2024
1 Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, 1085 S. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
2 Michigan Institute for Data Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
3 Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, PO Box 9513, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
4 Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, 4 Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
5 Department of Physics, University of Milan Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 3, I-20126 Milano, Italy
6 The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA
7 Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
8 Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
9 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
10 Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, India
11 Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie (IRAP), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, F–31400 Toulouse, France
12 Institut für Astrophysik und Geophysik, Universität Göttingen, Friedrich-Hund Platz 1, D-37077 Göttingen, Germany
13 Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris 98bis Boulevard Arago, 75014, Paris, France
(Received ?; Revised ?; Accepted ?)

Submitted to ApJ
ABSTRACT
We report the discovery of large ionized, [O II] emitting circumgalactic nebulae around the majority of
thirty UV luminous quasars at z = 0.4 − 1.4 observed with deep, wide-field integral field spectroscopy (IFS)
with the Multi-Unit Spectroscopy Explorer (MUSE) by the Cosmic Ultraviolet Baryon Survey (CUBS) and
MUSE Quasar Blind Emitters Survey (MUSEQuBES). Among the 30 quasars, seven (23%) exhibit [O II]
emitting nebulae with major axis sizes greater than 100 kpc, twenty greater than 50 kpc (67%), and 27 (90%)
greater than 20 kpc. Such large, optically emitting nebulae indicate that cool, dense, and metal-enriched
circumgalactic gas is common in the halos of luminous quasars at intermediate redshift. Several of the largest
nebulae exhibit morphologies that suggest interaction-related origins. We detect no correlation between the
sizes and cosmological dimming corrected surface brightnesses of the nebulae and quasar redshift, luminosity,
black hole mass, or radio-loudness, but find a tentative correlation between the nebulae and rest-frame [O II]
equivalent width in the quasar spectra. This potential trend suggests a relationship between ISM content
and gas reservoirs on CGM scales. The [O II]-emitting nebulae around the z ≈ 1 quasars are smaller and less
common than Lyα nebulae around z ≈ 3 quasars. These smaller sizes can be explained if the outer regions of
the Lyα halos arise from scattering in more neutral gas, by evolution in the cool CGM content of quasar host
halos, by lower-than-expected metallicities on ≳ 50 kpc scales around z ≈ 1 quasars, or by changes in quasar
episodic lifetimes between z = 3 and 1.
1. INTRODUCTION (Hayden et al. 2015; Greener et al. 2021) in the Milky Way
Surveys of the star formation rates and available inter- and distant, massive galaxies are inconsistent with simple
stellar gas reservoirs (Kennicutt & Evans 2012; Tacconi “closed-box” models (Tinsley 1974) of galaxy evolution.
et al. 2013) as well as the metallicity distribution of stars These discrepancies can be resolved if galaxies accrete
fresh material from external reservoirs as they evolve (for
a review, see Putman 2017). At the same time, outflows
Corresponding author: Sean D. Johnson driven by supernovae (e.g. Dekel & Silk 1986) and Active
[email protected] Galactic Nuclei (e.g. Silk & Rees 1998) are required in
state-of-the-art cosmological simulations to reproduce
2 Johnson et al.
the observed stellar masses of galaxies (e.g. Vogelsberger logical surface brightness dimming, the first successful
et al. 2014; Schaye et al. 2015). These same feedback surveys of individual CGM emission were conducted
mechanisms eject heavy elements produced by stars and at z = 2 − 4 in H I Lyα emission due to the inherent
supernovae out of the interstellar medium and into inter- strength of the line and its redshifting into the optical
galactic space to reproduce the mass-metallicity relation window. These surveys demonstrated that giant, ≈ 100
(e.g. Tremonti et al. 2004; Ma et al. 2016). Consequently, kpc CGM nebulae are nearly ubiquitous around lumi-
improving our empirical understanding of the rich set of nous quasars at z = 2 − 4 (Borisova et al. 2016; Cai
physical processes that regulate gas exchange between et al. 2019; O’Sullivan et al. 2020; Fossati et al. 2021;
galaxies and their surrounding cosmic ecosystems (for Mackenzie et al. 2021), and some extend to hundreds of
a reviews, see Donahue & Voit 2022; Faucher-Giguere kpc in projection (e.g. Cantalupo et al. 2014; Cai et al.
& Oh 2023) represents a key priority of extragalactic 2018).
astrophysics (National Academies of Sciences 2021). Recent IFS-enabled discoveries at lower redshifts of
Direct observations of the intergalactic and circum- z < 1.5 revealed the potential for studies of ≈ 30 − 100
galactic medium (IGM/CGM) are critical to develop- kpc-scale CGM nebulae observed in emission in non-
ing a more complete understanding of galaxy evolution. resonant, rest-frame optical lines (e.g., [O II], Hβ, and
However, the diffuse nature and cool-warm temperature [O III]) and resonant NUV lines (e.g., Mg II) around
range (T ≈ 104 − 106 K) of the IGM/CGM around typ- quasars (Johnson et al. 2018; Helton et al. 2021; Johnson
ical galaxies make emission observations difficult with et al. 2022; Dutta et al. 2023a; Epinat et al. 2023; Liu
current facilities except in the very local Universe (e.g., et al. 2024), galaxy groups (Epinat et al. 2018; Chen et al.
Chynoweth et al. 2008; Lokhorst et al. 2022) and rare 2019; Leclercq et al. 2022; Dutta et al. 2023a; Epinat
cases with unusually high surface brightness. Conse- et al. 2023), and galaxies with evidence of recent bursts
quently, emission observations of the IGM/CGM often of star formation (Rupke et al. 2019; Burchett et al.
rely on deep, coadded observations averaging over hun- 2021; Zabl et al. 2021). The joint morphological and
dreds to thousands of galaxies (e.g. Wisotzki et al. 2016; kinematic analysis of the nebulae combined with deep
Dutta et al. 2023a; Guo et al. 2023a,b). galaxy surveys enabled by IFS provide direct insights
Much of our knowledge of the physical nature and into the origins of the gas, including interactions, accre-
extent of the CGM relies on sensitive absorption spec- tion, and outflows. Furthermore, statistical analysis of
troscopy of UV bright background sightlines that pass velocity-structure functions around the largest of these
through the halos of foreground galaxies (for a review, nebulae provide new insights into halo-scale turbulence
see Tumlinson et al. 2017). These observations enable (Chen et al. 2023a,b). However, while such giant, rela-
constraints on the densities, temperatures, and metallici- tively high surface brightness optically emitting nebulae
ties of the CGM around a wide variety of galaxies and have led to significant insights in individual case studies,
across cosmic time (e.g., Zahedy et al. 2019; Rudie et al. their incidence rate, and properties around quasars have
2019; Cooper et al. 2021; Zahedy et al. 2021; Qu et al. yet to be quantified in statistical samples.
2022). However, the lack of morphological information Here, we report the first IFS survey constraining
in absorption-line studies of the IGM/CGM necessitates the incidence of optically emitting circumgalactic neb-
non-trivial model assumptions when attributing the gas ulae around 30 UV-luminous, unobscured quasars at
to inflows, outflows, or other origins (see Gauthier & z = 0.4 − 1.4 using deep observations from the Multi
Chen 2012; Ho et al. 2017; Schroetter et al. 2019; Zabl Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE; Bacon et al. 2010)
et al. 2019) except in rare cases where multiple sightlines collected by the MUSE Quasar Blind Emitters Survey
enable velocity shear measurements (e.g., Chen et al. (MUSEQuBES; e.g., Dutta et al. 2023b) and the Cosmic
2014; Zahedy et al. 2016; Lopez et al. 2018, 2020). Ultraviolet Baryon Surveys (CUBS; Chen et al. 2020).
While direct emission studies of the CGM and IGM The paper proceeds as follows: In section 2, we describe
are not generally feasible for individual galaxies beyond the observations and data reduction steps. In section 3,
the local Universe, IGM/CGM emission can be detected we characterize the properties of the MUSEQuBES and
in some rare or extreme cases. In particular, systems CUBS quasars. In section 4, we present the discovery of
like quasars that produce a significantly elevated ion- large nebulae in the quasar fields. In section 5, we discuss
izing radiation background increase the equilibrium re- the implication of our findings, search for correlations
combination rate and temperature of the surrounding between the nebulae and quasar properties, and compare
IGM/CGM, resulting in increased emission in recombina- with circum-quasar nebulae at higher redshift. Finally,
tion and collisionally excited lines (e.g., Chelouche et al. we summarize our results and make concluding remarks
2008). Consequently, observers have invested time on in Section 6.
large ground-based telescopes toward identifying and fol- Throughout, we adopt a flat Λ cosmology with Ωm =
lowing up systems where the IGM/CGM is expected to 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7, and a Hubble constant of H0 = 70 km s−1 .
be observable in emission with state-of-the-art wide-field Unless otherwise stated, all magnitudes are given in the
Integral Field Spectrographs (IFS; Bacon et al. 2010; AB system (Oke & Gunn 1983), all wavelengths are given
Martin et al. 2010; Mateo et al. 2022). Despite cosmo- in vacuum, and all distances are proper.
CGM nebulae around luminous quasars at intermediate redshift 3
2. OBSERVATIONS, DATA REDUCTION, AND 5
N
PROCESSING
0
Both the CUBS and MUSEQuBES surveys were de- 4
signed to study the CGM and IGM around galaxies at
z ≈ 0.1 − 1.4 using deep and highly complete galaxy
3
redshift surveys with MUSE in the fields of UV-bright
log RL
background quasars with high-quality UV absorption
spectra from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (Green 2
et al. 2012) aboard the Hubble Space Telescope. The
broad spectral coverage (4700 − 9350 Å), wide field-of- 1
view (1′ × 1′ ), and high throughput (peaking at 35% at 5
7000 Å) of MUSE (Bacon et al. 2010) collectively enable
N
0
searches for low surface brightness nebulae in the envi- 0 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0 10
ronments of the CUBS and MUSEQuBES background 10.0 redshift N
quasars at z = 0.4 − 1.4 (Johnson et al. 2018, 2022; Chen
et al. 2023a; Liu et al. 2024) at the same time. The 9.5
log MBH /MØ

MUSEQuBES MUSE observations (PI: J. Schaye) were
conducted in the MUSE wide-field mode under natural 9.0
seeing conditions characterized by a full width at half
maximum of FWHM = 0.5 − 1.0′′ with two to ten hours 8.5
of integration. The CUBS MUSE observations (PI: H.-
W. Chen) have integration times ranging from 1.4 to 5
8.0
N
3.4 hours and were conducted in wide-field mode with
ground-layer adaptive optics (Kolb et al. 2016; Madec 0 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0 10
48
et al. 2018). As a result, the CUBS datacubes exhibit redshift N
improved image quality of FWHM = 0.5 − 0.7′′ .
log Lbol /erg s°1
We reduced the MUSEQuBES data with the MUSE

Guaranteed Time Observations (GTO) team pipeline as 47
described in Bacon et al. (2017), which includes standard
reduction steps in the MUSE ESO pipeline (Weilbacher
et al. 2020) but with post-processing that improves im- 46
age quality via self-calibration and principle component- CUBS+QuBES
based sky subtraction (Soto et al. 2016). We also reduced SDSS
the data using the CubEx post-processing pipeline de- 45
scribed in Borisova et al. (2016) and Cantalupo et al. 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0 10
(2019). For MUSEQuBES fields, we performed the analy- redshift N
sis in this paper on both the GTO and CubEx reduction
products and found consistent results in all cases. Figure 1. Summary of the properties of the CUBS and
We reduced the CUBS datacubes with the ESO MUSEQuBES quasars. The main panels show bolometric
pipeline both with and without CubEx post-processing luminosity (bottom), black hole mass (middle), and radio-
as described in Chen et al. (2020) and Chen et al. (2023a). loudness (top) of the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars versus
For all of the CUBS and MUSEQuBES fields, we also redshift as black points. Quasars not detected in radio data
retrieved the reduced, coadded MUSE-DEEP datacubes are shown as open symbols marking the 3σ upper limits
from the ESO archive. Compared to the GTO and on their radio-loudness. Uncertainties are dominated by
CubEx data products, MUSE-DEEP reductions exhibit systematics and visualized as error bars in top left of each
more artifacts in continuum images and larger spectral panel. The median bolometric luminosity and black hole mass
residuals near sky lines. However, for the narrow-band, for SDSS quasars (Shen et al. 2011) is shown as a function
continuum-subtracted datacubes and surface brightness of redshift with a red line in the bottom and middle panels,
maps used in this work, we obtained similar results with with a faded red band marking 68% population scatter at
the ESO-DEEP products except when near a night sky each redshift. The small panels display histograms of the
emission line, in which case the CubEx and GTO re- redshifts (top), bolometric luminosities (bottom right), black
ductions exhibit significantly improved residuals. After hole masses (middle right), and radio-loudnesses (top right).
reducing the data, we converted the air wavelengths
By selection, the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars are more
delivered by the MUSE pipelines to vacuum for conve-
luminous and have higher inferred black hole masses than
nience. The total MUSE exposure time available and
typical SDSS quasars at the same redshifts. The sample is
evenly split between radio-quiet and loud systems.
4 Johnson et al.
Table 1. Summary of quasar properties and MUSE observations, sorted by quasar redshift.
quasar properties MUSE data
R.A.a Decl.b log λLeλ log Lfbol g

log MBH Wr ([O II])i tjexp seeingk
c d −1 −1 h
quasar name (deg) (deg) z line /erg s /erg s /M⊙ log RL (Å) (hr) (arcsec)
HE 0435−5304 69.2118 −52.9800 0.4279 [O II] 44.9 45.8 8.4 < 1.0 −0.78 ± 0.04 2.0 1.0
HE 0153−4520 28.8050 −45.1032 0.4532 Hβ 45.5 46.5 8.9 < 0.9 −0.01 ± 0.01 2.0 0.7
HE 0226−4110 37.0635 −40.9541 0.4936 [O II] 46.0 47.0 9.0 < 0.1 −0.17 ± 0.01 8.0 0.5
PKS 0405−123 61.9518 −12.1935 0.5731 [O II] 46.4 47.3 9.4 3.1 −0.36 ± 0.01 9.8 1.0
HE 0238−1904 40.1357 −18.8642 0.6282 [O II] 46.2 47.2 9.8 < 0.3 −0.34 ± 0.01 10.0 0.7
3C 57 30.4882 −11.5426 0.6718 [O II] 45.8 46.8 8.9 3.7 −0.55 ± 0.02 2.0 0.7
PKS 0552−640 88.1020 −64.0363 0.6824 [O II] 46.4 47.4 9.7 2.3 −0.32 ± 0.02 2.0 0.7
J0110−1648 17.6479 −16.8077 0.7822 [O II] 46.2 46.9 9.1 2.4 −0.23 ± 0.02 1.4 0.6
J0454−6116 73.5664 −61.2740 0.7864 [O II] 46.2 46.9 9.4 < 0.9 −0.84 ± 0.02 1.4 0.7
J2135−5316 323.9716 −53.2821 0.8123 [O II] 46.6 47.3 9.4 < 0.6 −0.22 ± 0.01 1.9 0.5
J0119−2010 19.9837 −20.1729 0.8160 [O II] 46.4 47.1 9.3 < 0.9 −0.27 ± 0.01 1.4 0.5
HE 0246−4101 42.0261 −40.8093 0.8840 [O II] 46.7 47.4 9.7 < 0.7 −0.22 ± 0.03 2.1 0.7
J0028−3305 7.1266 −33.0970 0.8915 [O II] 46.3 47.0 9.4 < 1.0 −0.13 ± 0.01 1.4 0.5
HE 0419−5657 65.2246 −56.8455 0.9481 [O II] 46.1 46.8 9.2 < 1.2 −0.27 ± 0.05 1.4 0.6
Q0107−025 17.5677 −2.3141 0.9545 [O II] 46.2 46.9 9.4 < 1.1 −0.67 ± 0.10 2.0 0.9
Q0107−0235 17.5548 −2.3313 0.9574 [O II] 46.1 46.8 9.6 3.2 −1.36 ± 0.05 2.0 0.8
PKS 2242−498 341.2508 −49.5301 1.0011 [O II] 46.3 47.0 9.6 3.4 −0.83 ± 0.03 1.4 0.6
PKS 0355−483 59.3413 −48.2042 1.0128 [O II] 46.3 47.0 9.6 2.9 −0.84 ± 0.02 2.6 0.5
HE 0112−4145 18.5921 −41.4964 1.0238 [O II] 46.2 46.9 9.5 1.2 −2.04 ± 0.05 1.4 0.7
HE 0439−5254 70.0502 −52.8048 1.0530 Mg II 46.3 47.0 9.3 < 1.1 −0.03 ± 0.04 2.5 0.7
HE 2305−5315 347.1574 −52.9802 1.0733 Hβ 46.5 47.2 9.5 < 1.0 −0.03 ± 0.02 1.9 0.6
HE 1003+0149 151.3968 +1.5793 1.0807 [O II] 46.3 47.0 9.3 1.5 −0.62 ± 0.03 2.0 0.9
HE 0331−4112 53.2794 −41.0336 1.1153 [O III] 46.8 47.5 9.9 < 0.8 −0.11 ± 0.03 2.6 0.6
TXS 0206−048 32.3781 −4.6406 1.1317 [O II] 46.4 47.2 9.8 3.0 −1.65 ± 0.03 8.0 0.6
Q1354+048 209.3594 +4.5948 1.2335 [O II] 46.5 47.2 9.5 < 1.1 −0.67 ± 0.04 2.0 0.5
J0154−0712 28.7278 −7.2061 1.2957 [O II] 46.8 47.5 9.5 < 0.9 −0.11 ± 0.01 3.4 0.5
Q1435−0134 219.4511 −1.7863 1.3117 [O II] 47.1 47.8 10.0 1.8 −0.41 ± 0.02 6.1 0.6
PG 1522+101 231.1021 +9.9747 1.3302 [O II] 47.0 47.7 10.1 < 0.7 −0.18 ± 0.02 2.0 0.5
HE 2336−5540 354.8050 −55.3974 1.3531 [O II] 47.1 47.8 10.0 2.5 −0.23 ± 0.01 2.6 0.6
PKS 0232−04 38.7805 −4.0348 1.4450 [O II] 46.7 47.4 9.7 4.0 −0.70 ± 0.12 10.0 0.7
a
Right ascension of the quasar in J2000 coordinates from the Gaia survey Data Release 3 (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023).
b
Declination of the quasar in J2000 coordinates from the Gaia survey Data Release 3 (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023).
c
Quasar systemic redshift measured as described in Section 3.
d
Emission line used to measure the quasar systemic redshift. Systematic redshift uncertainties correspond to ≈ 20, 50, and
130 km s−1 for [O II], [O III], and Hβ/Mg II-based redshifts, respectively.
e
Monochromatic luminosity measured at rest-frame λ = 5100 and 3000 Å for quasars at z < 0.7 and z > 0.7, respectively.
Systematic uncertainties in the monochromatic luminosities are dominated by ≈ 10% flux calibration errors.
f
Bolometric luminosity of the quasar estimated as described in Section 3. Systematic uncertainty in bolometric luminosities are
dominated by population scatter in the bolometric corrections of ≈ 0.1 dex (Richards et al. 2006).
g
Supermassive black hole mass estimated with a single-epoch virial theorem approach described in Section 3. Systematic
uncertainties in these black hole mass estimates are ≈ 0.4 dex (Shen et al. 2023).
h
Radio-loudness based on flux at rest-frame wavelengths of 6 cm and 2500 Å. Systematic uncertainties in log RL are ≈ 0.1 dex.
i
Rest-frame [O II] equivalent widths measured in the MUSE quasar spectra within the seeing disk corresponding to ≲ 5 kpc.
j
Total exposure time of the MUSE observations.
k
FWHM seeing measured in the MUSE white-light image of the quasar.
seeing FWHM measured in the final stacked datacubes The other major differences in the ESO, GTO, and
are listed for each quasar field in Table 1. CubEx pipeline products results from their night-sky
The ESO, GTO, and CubEx pipelines all share com- subtraction approaches. All three pipelines begin by
mon wavelength and flux calibration approaches. MUSE masking continuum sources to identify spaxels where the
wavelength calibration frames are taken with three built- detected flux is dominated by sky emission, but their
in lamps (HgCd, Ne, and Xe) by ESO Science Operations modeling and subtraction of the night sky emission differ
staff in the morning, after the science exposures are ac- significantly. The ESO sky subtraction pipeline adopts a
quired. The observed locations of the arc lines on the model of the night sky-line emission based on a fixed set
detectors are fit with outlier-resistant 2D polynomials to of 5100 cataloged emission lines (Cosby et al. 2006) in the
simultaneously solve for the dispersion, tilt, and curva- MUSE wavelength range. These are categorized into 52
ture of the spectral lines in the arc frames. Comparisons groups, with lines in each group sharing the same excited
of arc lamp spectra taken over the course of a night state. The night-sky line emission model fixes the rela-
and observations of telluric absorption features in MUSE tive intensity of lines in each of these groups and fits the
spectra of bright stars indicate that systematic uncer- observed global sky spectrum, allowing the total intensity
tainties in the wavelength calibration are typically less of each group to vary and convolving with the line-spread
than 1 km s−1 (Kamann et al. 2018; Weilbacher et al. function (LSF). After this, the best-fitting global sky
2020). model is subtracted and the residuals in source-free spax-
MUSE flux calibrations are taken with spectrophoto- els are used to estimate the continuous component of the
metric standards nightly. Systematic uncertainties in night sky emission for each slice (Streicher et al. 2011).
the spectrophotometry as a function of position in the To reduce night sky residuals present after the ESO sky
datacube and wavelength are typically less than 5% for subtraction, the GTO pipeline employs post-processed
data take under photometric conditions (Weilbacher et al. sky subtraction with principal component analysis using
2020), though others have reported systematic errors in the Zurich Atmosphere Purge package (ZAP; Soto et al.
the flux calibration of up to 25% (e.g. Péroux et al. 2019). 2016). On the other hand, the CubEx pipeline operates
To quantify the level of systematic errors in the CUBS with post-processing on ESO data products with the
and MUSEQuBES flux calibration, we identified bright ESO sky subtraction module turned off. It then uses
stars and galaxies in each MUSE datacube to serve as the CubeSharp (Borisova et al. 2016; Cantalupo et al.
references and calculated synthetic photometry in the 2019) routine to produce an empirical model of the LSF
ACS+F814W and Dark Energy Camera i-bands. We on a line-by-line basis (or groups of lines if they are
then compared these synthetic magnitudes with those close in wavelength). One key advantage of the CubEx
measured in archival HST ACS+F814W images of the sky subtraction approach is that the LSF can be finely
MUSEQuBES fields and public Dark Energy Survey adjusted to improve sky subtraction while also conserv-
Data Release 2 (DES; Abbott et al. 2021) photometry ing flux. Both the GTO and CubEx pipelines improve
for the CUBS fields. Based on comparisons of the syn- sky line residuals significantly, resulting in a factor of
thetic MUSE photometry and reference photometry from approximately three reduction in the standard deviation
HST and DES, we estimate a 1σ uncertainty of 10%. of flux in source-free spaxels (Lofthouse et al. 2020).
One of the primary differences in the ESO, GTO, and To study faint line emission near the bright quasars, we
CubEx pipelines is their approach to illumination correc- performed quasar light subtraction as described in John-
tions. The ESO pipeline performs illumination correc- son et al. (2018) and Helton et al. (2021), which effectively
tions using a combination of flats taken with the calibra- removes the spatially unresolved continuum, broad-line
tion unit (Kelz et al. 2012) and twilight flats. However, emission, and narrow-line emission from the nucleus. Fi-
subtle differences in the true illumination pattern during nally, to search for line-emitting nebulae, we produced
the science observations and those taken with the cali- continuum-subtracted emission-line maps around the ex-
bration unit and twilight sky correlate with IFU slice, pected wavelength of the [O II] doublet at the redshift
resulting in artificial grid patterns in narrow-band im- of each quasar. To do so, we first identified suitable
ages and emission line maps (see discussion in Bacon continuum regions on the blue and red sides of the poten-
et al. 2015; Borisova et al. 2016). To improve the illu- tial emission line. The continuum regions are typically
mination correction and remove these artificial patterns 3000−4000 km s−1 in width but tailored for each quasar
from MUSE data, both the GTO and CubEx pipelines based on proximity to night-sky emission lines. We then
perform “self-calibration” by producing illumination cor- fit a low-order polynomial to the continuum regions in
rections based on the night sky continuum and emission each spaxel of the datacube and subtracted the best-fit
lines observed in science frames after masking continuum model to produce continuum-subtracted datacubes using
sources. These self-calibration steps effectively remove the MUSE Python Data Analysis Framework (MPDAF
the grid pattern present in ESO cubes and reduce resid- Bacon et al. 2016).
uals in synthetic images formed from the data cubes by
a factor of approximately three (Lofthouse et al. 2020).
3. QUASAR PROPERTIES
6 Johnson et al.
To characterize the properties of the CUBS and MUSE- reductions, see Li et al. (2024)). We then combined
QuBES quasars, we extracted their optical MUSE spectra the monochromatic luminosities and line-widths to infer
with MPDAF (Bacon et al. 2016; Piqueras et al. 2017) supermassive black hole masses (MBH ) using the single-
prior to quasar and continuum subtraction with aper- epoch virial theorem relations described in Shen et al.
tures chosen to include > 95% of the quasar light. We (2011). Typical uncertainties in single-epoch black hole
measured precise, narrow-line redshifts for the quasars mass estimates are 0.4 dex, though uncertainties may be
using the [O II] λλ3727, 3729 doublet whenever possible, higher for the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars because
assuming an effective centroid of λ3728.6 expected for they are higher in luminosity than typical reverberation
the 0.8:1 to 0.9:1 doublet ratio typical of quasar narrow- mapping quasar samples used to calibrate the relations
line emission (Hewett & Wild 2010). At the same time, (see discussion in Shen et al. 2023).
we also measured the rest-frame equivalent width of the To enable comparisons of the luminosities of the
[O II] doublet in the quasar spectra extracted within a quasars across redshifts, we converted the monochromatic
seeing disk, Wr ([O II]). The seeing disks correspond to luminosity measurements to bolometric luminosity esti-
≲ 5 kpc from the quasars, ensuring that the [O II] equiva- mates (Lbol ) using bolometric corrections from Richards
lent widths capture emission from the narrow-line region et al. (2006) of 10.3× and 5.6× for monochromatic lumi-
rather than more extended nebulae. Quasar redshifts nosities at 5100 Å and 3000 Å, respectively. Uncertainties
based on [O II] emission are characterized by typical un- in the bolometric luminosities are dominated by ≈ 0.1
certainties of 20 − 30 km s−1 (Boroson 2005; Hewett & dex intrinsic scatter in bolometric corrections (Richards
Wild 2010). Four quasars do not exhibit detectable [O II] et al. 2006). Finally, we estimated the radio-loudness
despite the high S/N available in the MUSE spectra, ne- (RL), defined as the flux density ratio at rest-frame 6 cm
cessitating the use of other emission line observed in the vs. 2500 Å, of each quasar using radio observations from
near-IR by Sulentic et al. (2004). For HE 0331−4112, we the Rapid Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder
estimated the systemic redshift using the [O III] λ5008 (ASKAP) Continuum Survey (RACS) Data Release 1
emission-line peak. Quasar redshifts measured with the (Hale et al. 2021) as described in Li et al. (2024). In the
peak of the [O III] line are characterized by typical sys- case of non-detections, we calculated 3σ upper limits on
tematic uncertainties of ≈ 50 km s−1 when compared the radio flux and converted these to upper limits on
to stellar absorption-based redshifts (see discussion in radio-loudness. The RACS radio observations and MUSE
Shen 2016). For the remaining three quasars, narrow rest-NUV observations are separated by a time period
emission lines are not detectable, necessitating the use of of several years, resulting in non-negligible systematic
broad Hβ (HE 0153−4520 and HE 2305−5315) or Mg II uncertainty of 0.1 dex due to potential NUV variabil-
(HE 0439-5254). We estimated the systemic redshifts ity on these timescales (Welsh et al. 2011), though we
of these three quasars by cross-correlating the observed caution that rare but significant radio variability could
quasar spectra with the template from Hewett & Wild result in significantly larger errors in the radio-loudness
(2010) using methods described in that work. As dis- (Nyland et al. 2020). The monochromatic luminosities,
cussed in Hewett & Wild (2010), the resulting broad bolometric luminosities, supermassive black hole mass
Hβ and Mg II emission redshifts exhibit uncertainties of estimates, radio-loudness measurements, and [O II] rest-
≈ 130 km s−1 when compared to more precise narrow- frame equivalent widths for each quasar are reported in
line redshifts. The quasar redshifts and the emission Table 1.
lines driving them are listed in Table 1. To contextualize the properties of the CUBS and
To estimate the luminosities and black hole masses MUSEQuBES quasars, we plot their luminosities, black
of the quasars, we used PyQSOFit (Guo et al. 2018, hole masses, and radio-loudnesses vs redshift and com-
2019) to fit the quasar continuum with a power-law and pare with quasars in the SDSS sample from Shen et al.
Fe II templates (Boroson & Green 1992; Vestergaard (2011) in Figure 1. The CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars
& Wilkes 2001) and multiple Gaussians for broad and were selected to be sufficiently UV bright for high-quality
narrow emission lines. To enable estimates of the bolo- absorption spectroscopy with COS. As a result, the
metric luminosities and black hole masses of the quasars, CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars are among the most
we measured the monochromatic luminosity at 5100 Å luminous quasars in the z < 1.4 Universe, with lumi-
and line-width of broad Hβ for systems at z < 0.7, and nosities typically ≈ 1.5 dex higher than the median
the monochromatic luminosity at 3000 Å and line-width SDSS quasar at the same redshift. Similarly, the inferred
of broad Mg II for those at z > 0.7. For four CUBS SMBH masses of the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars
quasars (HE 0331−4112, J2135−5316, PKS 2242−498, are ≈ 1 dex above the SDSS median at similar redshifts
and HE 2305−5315), the Mg II emission-line falls near or (Shen et al. 2011). The 30 quasars are approximately
in the MUSE Sodium laser gap necessitated by the adap- evenly split between radio-loud and radio-quiet with a
tive optics system. For these, we obtained supplementary division between the two classes of log RL ≈ 1.
spectra with the Magellan Echellete (MagE) spectro-
graph (Marshall et al. 2008) to enable Mg II line-width 4. DISCOVERY OF OPTICALLY EMITTING
measurements (for details of the MagE observations and CIRCUMGALACTIC NEBULAE
HE 0435°5304 HE 0153°4520 HE 0226°4110 PKS 0405°123 HE 0238°1904

z = 0.4279 z = 0.4532 z = 0.4936 z = 0.5731 z = 0.6282
0.1
<latexit sha1_base64="3A0axwi1RDxKCHpvhOBfbsUvVvk=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBg4REinosePFY0X5AG8pmO2mXbjZhdyOU0p/gxYMiXv1F3vw3btsctPXBwOO9GWbmhang2njet1NYW9/Y3Cpul3Z29/YPyodHTZ1kimGDJSJR7ZBqFFxiw3AjsJ0qpHEosBWObmd+6wmV5ol8NOMUg5gOJI84o8ZKD57r98oVz/XmIKvEz0kFctR75a9uP2FZjNIwQbXu+F5qgglVhjOB01I305hSNqID7FgqaYw6mMxPnZIzq/RJlChb0pC5+ntiQmOtx3FoO2NqhnrZm4n/eZ3MRDfBhMs0MyjZYlGUCWISMvub9LlCZsTYEsoUt7cSNqSKMmPTKdkQ/OWXV0nz0vWv3Op9tVK7yOMowgmcwjn4cA01uIM6NIDBAJ7hFd4c4bw4787HorXg5DPH8AfO5w9PzI0a</latexit>
0.2 0.1
<latexit sha1_base64="aADhnDUwOpRKXMwgA9nA0MYousQ=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ34WetX1aOXxSJ4kJCUoh4LXjxWtB/QhrLZbtqlm03YnQil9Cd48aCIV3+RN/+N2zYHbX0w8Hhvhpl5YSqFQc/7dtbWNza3tgs7xd29/YPD0tFx0ySZZrzBEpnodkgNl0LxBgqUvJ1qTuNQ8lY4up35rSeujUjUI45THsR0oEQkGEUrPXhupVcqe643B1klfk7KkKPeK311+wnLYq6QSWpMx/dSDCZUo2CST4vdzPCUshEd8I6lisbcBJP5qVNybpU+iRJtSyGZq78nJjQ2ZhyHtjOmODTL3kz8z+tkGN0EE6HSDLlii0VRJgkmZPY36QvNGcqxJZRpYW8lbEg1ZWjTKdoQ/OWXV0mz4vpXbvW+Wq5d5nEU4BTO4AJ8uIYa3EEdGsBgAM/wCm+OdF6cd+dj0brm5DMn8AfO5w9RUI0b</latexit>
0.1
50 kpc = 900 50 kpc = 900 50 kpc = 800 50 kpc = 800 50 kpc = 700
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
3C 57 PKS 0552°640 J0110°1648 J0454°6116 J2135°5316

z = 0.6718 z = 0.6824 z = 0.7822 z = 0.7864 z = 0.8123
0.2
0.2
0.3
<latexit sha1_base64="MumM6M7KG8jtIRJAosPs6OW2JC8=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ34WetX1aOXxSJ4kJBoUY8FLx4r2g9oQ9lsN+3SzSbsToRS+hO8eFDEq7/Im//GbZuDtj4YeLw3w8y8MJXCoOd9Oyura+sbm4Wt4vbO7t5+6eCwYZJMM15niUx0K6SGS6F4HQVK3ko1p3EoeTMc3k795hPXRiTqEUcpD2LaVyISjKKVHjz3slsqe643A1kmfk7KkKPWLX11egnLYq6QSWpM2/dSDMZUo2CST4qdzPCUsiHt87alisbcBOPZqRNyapUeiRJtSyGZqb8nxjQ2ZhSHtjOmODCL3lT8z2tnGN0EY6HSDLli80VRJgkmZPo36QnNGcqRJZRpYW8lbEA1ZWjTKdoQ/MWXl0njwvWv3Mp9pVw9z+MowDGcwBn4cA1VuIMa1IFBH57hFd4c6bw4787HvHXFyWeO4A+czx9S1I0c</latexit>
0.2
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
J0119°2010 HE 0246°4101 J0028°3305 HE 0419°5657 Q0107°025

z = 0.8160 z = 0.8840 z = 0.8915 z = 0.8915 z = 0.9481
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Q0107°0235 PKS 2242°498 PKS 0355°483 HE 0112°4145 HE 0439°5254

z = 0.9574 z = 1.0011 z = 1.0128 z = 1.0238 z = 1.0530
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
HE 2305°5315 HE 1003+0149 HE 0331°4112 TXS 0206°048 Q1354 + 048

z = 1.0733 z = 1.0807 z = 1.1153 z = 1.1317 z = 1.2335
0.3
0.15
0.3
0.3
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
J0154°0712
PKS 0232°04 Q1435°0134
PKS 0232°04 PG 1522+101
PKS 0232°04 HE
PKS2336°5540
0232°04 PKS 0232°04
PKS 0232°04
zz =
= 1.4450
1.2957 zz =
= 1.4450
1.3117 zz =
= 1.4450
1.3302 zz =
= 1.4450
1.3531 zz =
= 1.4450
1.4450
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.7
<latexit sha1_base64="hycO8ATqkWIDz2M1uLMRWn4D0mA=">AAAB6nicbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBg4REivVY8OKxorWFNpTNdtMu3WzC7kQopT/BiwdFvPqLvPlv3LY5aOuDgcd7M8zMC1MpDHret1NYW9/Y3Cpul3Z29/YPyodHjybJNONNlshEt0NquBSKN1Gg5O1UcxqHkrfC0c3Mbz1xbUSiHnCc8iCmAyUiwSha6d5za71yxXO9Ocgq8XNSgRyNXvmr209YFnOFTFJjOr6XYjChGgWTfFrqZoanlI3ogHcsVTTmJpjMT52SM6v0SZRoWwrJXP09MaGxMeM4tJ0xxaFZ9mbif14nw+g6mAiVZsgVWyyKMkkwIbO/SV9ozlCOLaFMC3srYUOqKUObTsmG4C+/vEoeL13/yq3eVSv1izyOIpzAKZyDDzWowy00oAkMBvAMr/DmSOfFeXc+Fq0FJ585hj9wPn8AWOSNIA==</latexit>
50 kpc = 60000 50
50 kpc = 660000
kpc = 50 = 660000
kpc =
50 kpc 50 = 660000
kpc =
50 kpc 50 = 660000
kpc =
50 kpc
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
SB [erg cm°2 s°1 arcsec°2] SB [erg cm°2 s°1 arcsec°2] SB [erg cm°2 s°1 arcsec°2] SB [erg cm°2 s°1 arcsec°2] SB [erg cm°2 s°1 arcsec°2]
Figure 2. [O II] surface brightness maps for each quasar field ordered by redshift. The surface brightness maps are displayed
after quasar light subtraction, continuum subtraction, and 3D extraction, as described in the text. Each panel is 30”×30” on a
side, and a blue star at the center of each image marks the quasar’s position. A scale bar corresponding to 50 proper kpc at the
redshift of the quasar is shown in the bottom left of each panel. The names and redshifts of the quasars are shown in the top
right of each panel. The contour line in each panel corresponds to the 3σ detection limit averaged over one square arcsecond
based on the variance in each image and is labeled in units of 10−17 erg s−1 cm−2 arcsec−2 . The contours are included to visualize
the extent of the nebulae and are distinct from the 5σ significance requirement used to define a detection.
8 Johnson et al.
Table 2. Summary of the [O II] emitting nebulae around the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars, ordered by redshift.
FWHMc sized areae [O II] luminosityg SB10−30 (1 + z)4 h

quasar za flagb (arcsec) (kpc) (kpc2 ) SNRf (erg s−1 ) (erg cm−2 s−1 arcsec−2 )
HE 0435−5304 0.4279 = 2.6 55 1170 35.3 9.6×10 41
5.6×10−17
HE 0153−4520 0.4532 < 0.6 7 35 2.4 1.9×1040 1.4×10−18
HE 0226−4110 0.4936 = 3.9 84 2740 156.3 1.1×10 42
3.9×10−17
PKS 0405−123i 0.5731 = 9.1 129 8180 134.8 2.7×1042 2.2×10−17
HE 0238−1904 j
0.6282 = 4.9 103 4820 187.9 2.3×10 42
9.0×10−17
3C 57 0.6718 = 3.6 71 1930 71.3 1.2×1042 5.6×10−17
PKS 0552−640 0.6824 = 6.2 153 5180 119.6 3.4×10 42
1.1×10−16
J0110−1648 0.7822 = 1.8 29 530 20.3 4.1×1041 1.3×10−17
J0454−6116 k
0.7864 = 3.5 102 4350 234.0 4.8×10 42
1.3×10−16
J2135−5316k 0.8123 = 3.8 83 2250 47.9 2.1×1042 9.4×10−17
J0119−2010 0.8160 = 4.2 96 3090 60.1 2.5×10 42
1.4×10−16
HE 0246−4101 0.8840 = 3.8 74 2280 44.3 1.0×1042 4.6×10−17
J0028−3305 0.8915 = 2.1 42 500 23.2 2.9×10 41
1.1×10−17
HE 0419−5657 0.9481 = 2.1 35 620 23.2 5.6×1041 2.5×10−17
Q0107−025 0.9545 = 1.9 28 410 13.9 2.0×10 41
1.4×10−17
Q0107−0235 0.9574 = 3.1 90 2130 144.8 3.7×1042 1.3×10−16
PKS 2242−498 1.0011 = 3.4 71 2260 54.6 2.3×10 42
1.2×10−16
PKS 0355−483 1.0128 = 2.8 50 1310 70.5 1.0×1042 6.2×10−17
HE 0112−4145 1.0238 = 1.8 38 890 70.8 2.7×10 42
7.8×10−17
HE 0439−5254 1.0530 = 2.5 47 970 34.3 9.1×1041 5.6×10−17
HE 2305−5315 1.0733 < 0.6 15 100 3.9 9.6×10 40
1.1×10−17
HE 1003+0149 1.0807 = 2.8 53 1660 94.8 7.0×1042 3.9×10−16
HE 0331−4112 1.1153 = 1.8 32 520 25.9 6.9×10 41
3.1×10−17
TXS 0206−048l 1.1317 = 5.0 200 10800 257.1 9.7×1042 3.0×10−16
Q1354+048 1.2335 = 6.4 126 2860 66.5 2.9×10 42
9.9×10−17
J0154−0712 1.2957 = 2.8 63 1340 41.9 2.2×1042 1.2×10−16
Q1435−0134 1.3117 = 2.7 63 2010 76.0 7.3×10 42
2.6×10−16
PG 1522+101 1.3302 = 2.9 50 1220 28.3 2.5×1042 1.6×10−16
HE 2336−5540 1.3531 < 0.4 7 30 3.6 5.0×10 40
4.3×10−17
PKS 0232−04 1.4450 = 4.0 116 3670 97.1 7.8×1042 3.6×10−16
a
Quasar systemic redshift repeated from Table 1 for convenience.
b
Nebula detection flag with “=” indicating a detection and “<” indicating a non-detection in which case all nebula
measurements represent upper limits.
c
FWHM of the [O II] surface brightness profiles, which have systematic uncertainties of ≈ 10%.
d
Projected linear sizes of the [O II] nebula defined as the major axis diameter, which have systematic uncertainties of 15%.
e
Projected areas of the [O II] nebula, which have systematic uncertainties of ≈ 20%.
f
Total signal-to-noise ratios of the [O II] nebula.
g
Total luminosities of the [O II] nebula, which have systematic uncertainties of ≈ 25%.
h
Mean cosmological dimming corrected surface brightness measured in an annulus with inner and outer radii of 10 and 30
kpc, which have systematic uncertainties of ≈ 25%.
i
For more details on this nebula and its environment, see Johnson et al. (2018).
j
For more details on this nebula and its environment, see Zhao & Wang (2023) and Liu et al. (2024).
k
For more details on these nebulae and their environments, see Chen et al. (2023a)
l
For more details on this nebula and its environment, see Johnson et al. (2022).
To identify large nebulae around the CUBS and MUSE- surface brightness maps integrated over fixed velocity in-
QuBES quasars, we first visually inspected the quasar tervals chosen for each quasar field to include 95% of the
light and continuum-subtracted MUSE datacubes by detected [O II] nebular emission in the quasar-light and
searching for extended emission within |∆v| < 2000 continuum subtracted datacubes. The resulting narrow-
km s−1 of the expected wavelength of the [O II] doublet. band surface brightness maps are broadly consistent with
We chose this large velocity interval to be sufficient to those obtained from 3D segmentation. However, the
include emission from bound gas in even massive galaxy SNR in the 3D segmentation-based maps is noticeably
clusters. Furthermore, the velocity interval is sufficient improved compared to synthetic narrow-band images in
to account for potential systematic uncertainty in the cases where the nebular emission is spread over a wide
quasar systemic redshifts, even for those with redshifts velocity range. To ensure the robustness of the results,
based on Mg II or broad Hβ. We focused the search we performed all of the analysis in this paper on the
on the [O II] doublet because the MUSE spectral range surface brightness maps produced by 3D segmentation
covers it for all of the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars. and synthetic narrow bands. We confirmed that the
Moreover, detailed studies of individual nebulae around conclusions of the paper hold with both approaches.
quasars at z ≈ 0.5 − 0.6, where a more comprehensive To characterize the size and flux of the nebulae around
suite of emission lines is available, suggest that [O II] the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars relative to the
dominated regions of circum-quasar nebulae are often seeing and noise level, we used the source measurement
more extended than [O III] dominated areas (e.g. Chen functions of Photutils (Bradley et al. 2016) to measure
et al. 2023a; Liu et al. 2024). Our initial inspection re- the FWHM of the nebulae in the surface brightness maps.
vealed that most of the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars We integrated the 3D segmentation to estimate their total
exhibit extended [O II] emission on ≳ 20 − 30 kpc scales. [O II] flux. We define extended nebulae to be detections
To enable quantitative detection and analysis of the if their FWHM exceeds the FWHM seeing measured in
nebulae, we performed thresholded detection and segmen- the datacube and if their total SNR is greater than five.
tation in three dimensions (3D; 2 spatial + 1 spectral) With these criteria, all but three of the quasars have
following the approach often used in studies of Lyα nebu- detected [O II] emitting, extended nebulae surrounding
lae at z = 2−3 (e.g. Borisova et al. 2016; Arrigoni Battaia them. One of these, HE 2305−5315, does exhibit a small
et al. 2019b; Sanderson et al. 2021). In particular, we nebula offset from the quasar centroid, but its FWHM is
formed a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) datacube and then comparable to the seeing, so we do not consider it further
smoothed it in both the spatial and spectral dimensions in this paper. In all 27 cases with detected, extended
using a Gaussian kernel with σ ≈ 1.5 pixels, though nebulae, the measured FWHM of the nebulae exceed
with a somewhat larger σ in cases with elevated noise the seeing FWHM by a factor of > 2.4. This ensures
due to night sky lines. We then performed 3D source that the effect of seeing on measured properties of the
detection and segmentation on the smoothed SNR maps nebulae are minimal. For example, the contributions of
with a threshold of SNR ≈ 1.5, though with a slightly the seeing to the measured FWHM of the nebulae are
higher threshold in cases where the night sky line residu- < 10% when considered in quadrature.
als are elevated relative to the variance map. We then To estimate the size of the nebulae, we measured the
connected adjacent pixels above this threshold and re- major axis length-scale determined by the maximum
quired a minimum of ten connected pixels and a total projected separation between pixels contained within
SNR ≳ 5 to define a detection. To uniformly visualize the SNR-defined segmentation map corresponding to
and characterize these nebulae, we produced [O II] sur- each nebula. We adopted this definition of the size
face brightness maps by integrating the unsmoothed flux of the nebulae to enable comparison with studies of
in each spaxel over the wavelength interval defined by the z ≈ 3 Lyα nebulae around quasars such as Borisova et al.
3D segmentation. For spaxels that do not include any (2016) and Mackenzie et al. (2021) which used a similar
detected nebulae, the background and noise properties approach. In two cases, PKS 0405−123 (Johnson et al.
correspond to those expected of three spectral pixels at 2018) and TXS 0206−048 (Johnson et al. 2022), multiple
the wavelength where the mean SNR per pixel of the large nebulae are detected in the quasar environment,
nebula is highest. The resulting [O II] surface brightness some of which are well offset from the quasars themselves.
maps for each quasar are shown in Figure 2. For these, we report the projected size for the largest
These 3D extractions have the advantage of visualizing contiguous nebula as defined in the 3D segmentation.
the full extent of detected emission while reducing noise Several of the nebulae are quite elongated along one
for kinematically quiescent or undetected regions com- axis, meaning that the major axis size does not fully
pared to surface brightness maps defined by fixed velocity encapsulate the extent of the systems. For this reason,
intervals. However, they also exhibit complicated, spatial we also report the area in square kpc defined by the
varying noise characteristics (see discussion in Borisova projection of the 3D segmentation of each nebula. In
et al. 2016; Arrigoni Battaia et al. 2019a; Mackenzie cases with multiple nebulae, we report the sum of their
et al. 2021). To quantify systematic uncertainty in the areas. Finally, to quantify the surface brightness of the
measured properties of the nebulae, we also produced nebulae, we computed the redshift dimming corrected
10 Johnson et al.
surface brightness measured in an annulus centered on PKS 0405−123 (Johnson et al. 2018), TXS 0206−048
the quasar with an inner radius corresponding to 10 kpc (Johnson et al. 2022), and HE 0238−1904 (Liu et al.
and an outer radius corresponding to 30 kpc, which we 2024). This can be explained if the larger nebulae are
denote as SB10−30 (1 + z)4 . The outer radius of 30 kpc is often result from ram pressure and tidal stripping experi-
chosen to be half of the median major axis full size of the enced during galaxy interactions as previously suggested
nebulae around the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars. by Stockton & MacKenty (1987). The nebulae do not
The inner radius is chosen to be large enough to avoid exhibit obvious coincidences with the radio lobe and
residuals from quasar light subtraction and to exceed the jet orientation of the radio-loud quasars, disfavoring jet-
effective radii expected in stellar continuum images of driven outflow origin (though see Fu & Stockton 2009).
late-type and early-type massive galaxies at intermediate Further investigation of the coincidences between the
redshift (e.g. van der Wel et al. 2014). The FWHM, extended nebulae and interacting galaxies in the quasar
major axis size, projected area, total SNR, total [O II] host environment will require detailed investigation of
luminosity, and SB10−30 (1+z)4 measured for the nebulae the group environments like those in Johnson et al. (2018,
are reported in Table 2. To quantify the systematic un- 2022); Helton et al. (2021), and Liu et al. (2024).
certainty in these quantities, we remeasured them using
the synthetic narrow-band images of the [O II] nebulae. 5. DISCUSSION
While the systematic differences inferred from the me- Empirical characterizations of cool CGM around
dian ratios between the quantities measured with the 3D quasars have advanced significantly in the last decade,
segmentation approach versus the synthetic narrow-band thanks to a combination of large ground-based surveys
images are minimal, there is a non-negligible scatter cor- like SDSS that enable studies of Mg II absorption at z ≲ 2
responding to 10% for FWHM, 15% for size, 20% for (e.g. Bowen et al. 2006; Farina et al. 2014; Johnson et al.
area, and 25% for both luminosity and SB10−30 (1 + z)4 . 2015; Chen et al. 2023c), dedicated absorption surveys
While half of the 30 quasars in this work have HST with large telescopes at z = 2 − 4 in rest UV absorption
images available in the archive, the images were acquired (e.g. Hennawi et al. 2006; Prochaska et al. 2013; Lau et al.
with long exposures to enable study of the morpholo- 2016), and observations of Lyα emission nebulae at z > 2
gies of faint foreground galaxies and cross-correlate with (e.g. Borisova et al. 2016; Cai et al. 2019; O’Sullivan et al.
CGM/IGM absorption. As a result, the bright quasars 2020; Fossati et al. 2021; Mackenzie et al. 2021). The
are saturated, preventing studies of stellar continuum discovery of rest-frame optical emission from > 20 − 30
from the host galaxies. However, the mean effective kpc ionized nebulae around the majority of UV-luminous
radius of the stellar component of massive late- and quasars at z = 0.4 − 1.4 represents a new opportunity to
early-type galaxies at these redshifts is Reff ≈ 9 − 10 kpc study the relationship between cool CGM and the galac-
(e.g. van der Wel et al. 2014), corresponding to a diame- tic systems they surround while also opening a new set
ter of ≈ 20 kpc. If quasar hosts represent 2σ outliers in of physical diagnostics based on non-resonant emission
the mass-size relation, we expect their effective radii to lines.
be ≈ 15 kpc, corresponding to a diameter of 30 kpc.
To gain insights into the extent of the nebulae in 5.1. Possible relationships between nebulae and quasar
comparison to the expected extents of stellar components properties
of their host galaxies, we compute the fraction of systems Previous studies of the cool, absorbing CGM around
with nebulae larger than 100, 50, 30, and 20 kpc in the quasars at z < 2 demonstrated that strong Mg II ab-
following. Among the thirty quasars, seven (23+9 −6 %) have sorbers, which typically trace cool (T ≈ 104 K), high
detected [O II] nebulae with major axis sizes greater than column density (log N (H I)/cm−2 ≳ 17) enriched gas,
100 kpc, twenty (67+7 +5
−9 %) greater than 50 kpc, 25 (83−9 %) are common around quasar host galaxies (Bowen et al.
greater than 30 kpc, and 27 (90+3 −8 %) greater than 20 2006; Farina et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2015). The Mg II
kpc. The median size of the [O II] nebulae detected covering factors observed around quasar hosts is signif-
around the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars is 60 kpc. icantly greater than those found around luminous red
The sizes of the [O II] nebulae are therefore larger than galaxies (e.g. Huang et al. 2016) and comparable to or
the expected sizes of the stellar component of their host higher than those of massive star-forming galaxies (e.g.
galaxies, indicating that the majority of UV luminous Huang et al. 2021). Moreover, Johnson et al. (2015)
quasars at z = 0.4−1.4 are surrounded by [O II] emitting, identified a strong correlation between Mg II absorption
CGM-scale nebulae. covering fractions at d < 200 kpc and quasar luminosity
Interestingly, the smaller 20−60 kpc nebulae are gener- with luminous quasars (log Lbol /erg s−1 > 45.5) exhibit-
ally well centered on the quasars and relatively symmet- ing Mg II covering fractions approximately double those
ric, but the larger ones often exhibit irregular morphology of lower luminosity quasars. Early studies of large-scale
and may not be well centered (e.g. PKS 0405−123 and optical emission around quasars based on a combination
Q1354+048). In some cases, the morphologies of the of narrow-band [O III] imaging and follow-up long slit
nebulae are coincident with nearby galaxies with red- spectroscopy suggested that emitting nebulae on scales
shifts similar to the quasars as previously reported for of tens of kpc are common around radio-loud quasars
size [kpc]
size [kpc]
size [kpc]
size [kpc]
size [kpc]
2 10 2 2 2
2 10
1010 10
nebula
nebula
nebula
nebula
nebula
1 11 1 1
101010
1010
0.50.5
0.50.50.5 1.01.0
1.01.01.0 1.51.5 4646464646 4747474747 4848484848 9 9 9 9 9 101010100100 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 40 40 0 0 0°1°1°1°1°1°2°2°2°2°2
1.51.51.5
arcsec°2 ]
redshift
redshift
redshift
redshift
redshift °1°1°1°1°1 loglog
M M
log
log
M/M
log
M/M
M loglog
RLRL
log
log
RL
log
RLRL
loglog
L Llog
log
bolL/erg
bol /erg
log
L
bolL sbol
/erg
bol s /erg
/ergs s s BHBHBHØ/M
BHØ/M
BHØ/M
ØØ WWr ([O
([O
rW rII])
W rII])
([O
W r[II])
([OÅ][II])
([O Å]II])
[Å][Å][Å]
SB10°30 (1+z)4
SB10°30 (1+z)4
4
(1+z)44
10°30 (1+z)4
°16
°16°16
°16
°16
°16
°16
101010
101010
10
(1+z)
s (1+z)
°2 °1
SB10°30
SB10°30
cm10°30
°17°17
°17
°17
°17
101010
1010 10°17
10 °17
SB
[erg SB
°18°18
°18
°18
°18
101010
101010 °18
10°18
0.50.50.5
0.5 0.51.01.01.0
0.50.5 1.0 1.01.51.51.5
1.01.0 1.5 1.54646
1.51.5
46 46474747
464646 47474747484848 48 9 9 99 9 99 101010
484848 0 00 0 00 2 2 22 2 22 4 4 44 40 440 00 0 00°1°1°1
10
1010010 °1 °1°1 °1°2°2°2 °2 °2
°2°2
°1°1°1 °1
redshift
redshift redshift
redshift
redshift
redshift
redshift loglog
Llog
log
Llog
bol Llog
/erg
L
log
bolL
bol
bolL
/erg
L/erg
bols/erg
/ergss°1
s°1
/erg
s /erg
bol
bol ss°1 loglog
M
log
log
Mlog
BH M
Mlog
log
/M
BHM/M
BHM
BHM
Ø/M
BH/M
Ø/M
BH
BHØ
Ø/M
/M
ØØØ loglog
RL
log
log
RL
loglog
RL
RL
log
RL RL
RL WW ([O
W
W([O
W W
II])
([O
([O
WII])
([O
r r rr r rr [ ([O
II])
([O
Å]
II])
II])
[ Å]
[II])
II])
[Å]
Å]
[ Å]
[[ Å]
Å]
Figure 3. Projected linear sizes (top panels) and dimming corrected surface brightness measured in an annulus of 10 − 30 kpc
radius (bottom panels), SB10−30 (1 + z)4 , of the [O II] emitting nebulae detected around the CUBS and MUSeQuBES quasars vs
quasar properties including (from left to right) redshift, bolometric luminosity, black hole mass, radio-loudness, and rest-frame
[O II] equivalent width. In all panels, quasars with detections of extended, [O II] emitting quasars are shown in black, while
upper limits from non-detections are shown in grey. Quasars with non-detections in the radio data are shown as open triangles
marking the upper limit on their radio-loudness. For reference, the 5σ surface brightness detection limit in SB10−30 (1 + z)4 for
the quasars are shown in the bottom left panel as small open symbols. Systematic uncertainties are visualized with error bars in
the top left of each panel. Statistical uncertainty in [O II] equivalent width are shown as error bars, though most are smaller than
the data points. While most of the panels exhibit significant scatter and little evidence of a correlation, the sizes and surface
brightnesses of the nebulae are tentatively correlated with rest-frame [O II] equivalent width with a generalized Kendall τ test
returning correlation coefficients of −0.3 and p-values of 0.01.
and uncommon around radio-quiet ones (e.g. Boroson 0.8), consistent with the lack of a visual trend seen in
et al. 1985; Stockton & MacKenty 1987). This correla- Figure 3. On the other hand, the apparent correlation
tion between extended nebulosity and radio properties between [O II] equivalent width and the sizes and surface
led to suggestions that the nebulae arise from radio-mode brightnesses of the nebulae is marginally significant, with
feedback (e.g. Fu & Stockton 2009). a correlation coefficient of −0.3 (indicating a positive
To search for correlations between properties of the correlation between the emission-line strengths in the
quasars and surrounding nebulae, Figure 3 displays plots quasar spectra and large-scale nebulae) and a p-value
of the sizes and dimming-corrected surface brightnesses of 0.01 (2.5σ). To demonstrate that the extended neb-
(SB10−30 (1 + z)4 ) of the nebulae versus quasar redshift, ulae themselves are not responsible for this correlation,
bolometric luminosity, black hole mass, radio-loudness, we re-measured the [O II] equivalent widths in quasar
and [O II] rest-frame equivalent width. The panels in spectra extracted with an aperture radius of 0.6 arcsec
Figure 3 exhibit substantial scatter with no clear trend (3-5 kpc at z = 0.4 − 1.4) and found consistent results.
between quasar redshifts, bolometric luminosities, and The tentative correlation between [O II] equivalent width
the sizes and areas of the [O II] nebulae. One the other and the nebulae suggests a general correlation between
hand, the [O II] emission levels in the quasar spectra circum-nuclear and ISM-scale gas observed in the quasar
(with negative values indicating stronger emission rela- spectra and larger-scale gas supplies in the massive halos
tive to the continuum) appear to be weakly correlated that host UV luminous quasars (see Li et al. (2024)).
with the sizes and surface brightnesses of the nebulae, This trend is reminiscent of a previously reported poten-
though with substantial scatter (see the right panel of tial correlation between ISM or nuclear [O II] emission
Figure 3). We quantified the correlations and level of sig- in luminous red galaxies and Mg II absorption in their
nificance with the generalized Kendall τ test, accounting CGM at projected distances of d ≲ 50 kpc (Huang et al.
for upper limits and non-detections following Isobe et al. 2016).
(1986). Tests for correlations between the properties of The lack of correlations between the properties of the
the nebulae and quasar redshifts, bolometric luminosi- nebulae and the bolometric luminosities of the quasars
ties, black hole masses, and radio-loudness returned no that they surround suggests that the presence of the emit-
statistically significant results (p-values between 0.2 and ting gas may be unrelated to quasar outflows in many
12 Johnson et al.
cases. Alternatively, the lack of correlations between a correlation between radio loudness and the presence of
the nebulae and quasar luminosity could be partly due [O III] emitting nebulae will likely require larger samples
to a lack of dynamic range in the sample. The CUBS observed with wide-field IFS data covering both [O II]
and MUSEQuBES surveys do not include any quasars of and [O III].
log Lbol /erg s−1 < 45.5. The correlation between Mg II
absorption at d < 200 kpc and quasar luminosity re- 5.2. Comparison with giant Lyα nebulae observed
ported by Johnson et al. (2015) sets in when comparing around quasars at z = 2 − 4
luminous quasars of log Lbol /erg s−1 > 45.5 with less The discovery that half of luminous quasars at z ≈ 1
luminous ones of log Lbol /erg s−1 < 45.5, and this study are surrounded (in projection) by [O II] emitting nebu-
reported no trend within the more luminous quasar pop- lae with sizes greater than 60 kpc indicates that dense,
ulation. Furthermore, previous studies of the extended cool CGM is common in quasar-host halos at this epoch.
narrow-line regions around obscured AGN found a trend However, this represents a significantly lower incidence
between luminosity and [O III]-detected narrow-line re- and smaller size-scale than findings of ubiquitous, ≳ 100
gion size with AGN of luminosity log Lbol /erg s−1 < 45.5 kpc H I Lyα emitting nebulae around quasars at z > 2
exhibiting narrow line region sizes of RNLR ≲ 6 kpc (Borisova et al. 2016; Cai et al. 2019; O’Sullivan et al.
and more luminous obscured quasars exhibiting larger 2020; Fossati et al. 2021; Mackenzie et al. 2021). How-
extended narrow-line regions with RNLR ≈ 10 − 15 kpc ever, physical interpretation of this apparent difference
(Sun et al. 2017). We note that these narrow-line region requires accounting for the expected [O II] to H I Lyα line
scales are smaller than most of the nebulae found around ratio and the difference in surface brightness dimming
the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars, which is likely between z ≈ 1 and z > 2.
the result of the choice of emission line ([O II] versus The radiative transfer involved in modeling Lyα is
[O III]) or increased sensitivity of MUSE relative to more complex, so we opt for an empirical approach and adopt
traditional long-slit spectrographs. Consequently, de- a measured Lyα/Hα ratio observed around quasars and
termining whether the correlation between cool CGM then combine this with model expectations for Hα/[O II]
and quasar luminosity extends to ionized, line-emitting to determine whether we expect the types of nebulae
nebulae on circumgalactic scales will require samples of observed in Lyα at z = 2 − 4 around quasars to be
lower-luminosity systems observed with wide-field IFS. observable in [O II] at z ≈ 1. To set expectations for
The lack of correlation between the presence, size, Hα/[O II], we considered emission models of moderately
and surface brightness of the [O II] emitting nebulae and enriched, dust-free gas photoionized by an AGN using
radio-loudness also stands in contrast to previous studies, Cloudy v17.03 (Ferland et al. 2017) with model parame-
which found [O III] emitting nebulae around radio-loud ters motivated by Groves et al. (2004). In particular, we
quasars but not radio-quiet ones (e.g. Boroson et al. chose a power-law ionizing spectrum with spectral slope
1985; Stockton & MacKenty 1987). While the nebulae ranging from α = −2.0 to −1.4. We note that the range
presented in this work are observed in [O II] for the sake of predicted Hα/[O II] ratios for AGN photoionized gas
of uniformity given our lack of [O III] coverage for the z > are similar to predictions for fast shocks (e.g. Allen et al.
0.85 systems, the results are not substantially different 2008) and star-forming galaxies (e.g. Kewley et al. 2004),
for [O III] within the lower-z CUBS and MUSEQuBES indicating that our conclusions are not sensitive to the
quasars. ionization source.
Our finding of common large nebulae around radio- One of the dominant drivers of variation in expected
quiet quasars compared to their absence in previous Hα/[O II] ratios is gas metallicity. While the metallicity
surveys may be the result of the sensitivity of MUSE. of the CGM around quasars at z ≈ 1 is not well stud-
The larger telescope aperture, higher throughput, and ied due to observational limitations, Liu et al. (2014)
higher spectral resolution of MUSE result in dramat- inferred approximately solar metallicity in the nebula
ically improved surface brightness limits compared to around HE 0238−1904 for regions detectable in weak-
previous long-slit spectroscopy and narrow-band imaging line diagnostics. Furthermore, the cool absorbing CGM
surveys. Indeed, Lyα nebulae around z > 2 quasars around luminous quasars at z = 2 − 4 from Lau et al.
were commonly detected around radio-loud systems but (2016) and luminous red galaxies (LRGs) at z = 0.4
were thought to be rare around radio-quiet ones until from Zahedy et al. (2019) exhibit typical metallicities of
new, more sensitive observations with MUSE and KCWI Z ≈ 0.25 Z⊙ , though with substantial scatter in the case
became available. The increased sensitivity resulted of LRGs. We therefore adopt a fiducial metallicity of
in the discovery of ubiquitous, 100 kpc-scale nebulae Z = 0.25 Z⊙ for the AGN photoionized gas models but
around radio-quiet quasars at high redshift, despite non- also explore a range of Z = 0.1 − 1.0Z⊙ . The presence
detections with less sensitive instruments (see discussion of substantial dust in large nebulae around quasars is
in Borisova et al. 2016; Cantalupo 2017). However, there disfavored in cases where Balmer line ratios are mea-
is no correlation between surface brightness and radio surable (e.g., Helton et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2024). The
loudness within the sample of 30 quasars studied here. left axis of Figure 4 shows the Hα/[O II] ratio versus
Reconciling this result with previous studies that found [O III]/[O II] over the range of [O III]/[O II] observed in
1.0 Surveys of Lyα emission around quasars at ⟨z⟩ ≈ 3.3

Z/Z = 0.25 α = −1.4 such as Borisova et al. (2016) and Mackenzie et al. (2021)
0.8 Z/Z = 0.25 α = −2.0
1.4 achieve observed-frame surface brightness limits similar
log(3.7 × Hα/[O II] λλ3727, 3729)

to the ones enabled by the CUBS and MUSEQuBES ob-
Z/Z = 0.1 − 1.0
log(Hα/[O II] λλ3727, 3729)
0.6 1.2 servations. However, the difference in surface brightness

dimming at the mean redshift of the Borisova et al. (2016)
0.4 1.0 and Mackenzie et al. (2021) studies versus ⟨z⟩ = 0.95 in
this work introduces a factor of (1+3.3)4 /(1+0.95)4 ≈ 24
0.2 0.8 difference in rest-frame surface brightness sensitivity.
This factor of 24 difference in surface brightness dimming
0.0 0.6 is equivalent to 1.4 dex, compensating for the expectation
that [O II] will be a weaker line than Lyα. Therefore, if
−0.2 0.4 the cool, Lyα emitting CGM observed around quasars
primarily arise from recombination radiation with only
−0.4 0.2 modest scattering, if the quantities of cool, emitting
CGM around quasars do not evolve significantly between
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
z ≈ 3 and z ≈ 1, if CGM metallicities around z ≈ 1
log([O III] λ5008/[O II] λλ3727, 3729)
quasars are not substantially lower than expected from
absorption surveys, and if quasar episodic lifetimes are
Figure 4. Expected line ratios of Hα/[O II] as a func- not smaller at intermediate redshift compared to z ≈ 3,
tion of [O III]/[O II] ratio for dust-free AGN photoionized we expect that the [O II] nebulae observed in this work
gas of Z = 0.25Z⊙ (black lines) and with metallicities of would be similar in size and incidence rate to Lyα at
Z = 0.1 − 1.0Z⊙ (faded red band). The gas metallicity is higher redshift.
chosen to be consistent with typical metallicities of absorb- In contrast to this expectation, the [O II] emitting
ing CGM around quasars at z = 2 − 4 (Lau et al. 2016) nebulae found around CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars
and luminous red galaxies at z = 0.4 (Zahedy et al. 2019). are smaller and less common than their Lyα counterparts
The two lines show the predicted line ratio for ionizing spec- at z ≈ 3 as shown in the left panel Figure 5. In particular,
trum power-law slopes of α = −1.4 and −2.0 in solid and while 100 kpc-scale Lyα nebulae are fairly ubiquitous at
dashed black line for reference. The right axis is scaled to z = 3, only seven of the thirty (23+9
−6 %) of the CUBS and
3.7×Hα/[O II] to approximate the expected Lyα/[O II] ratio MUSEQuBES quasars exhibit such large [O II] nebulae.
under the assumption that the Lyα emission is primarily The smaller sizes of the [O II] nebulae at z ≈ 1 are even
from recombination with modest scattering (see discussion in
starker when considered relative to the estimated virial
radii of the quasar host halos, which are ≈ 120 kpc at
Langen et al. 2023). Observations of ionized nebulae around
z ≈ 3 (Shen et al. 2007) compared to ≈ 500 kpc for
quasars at z = 0.4 − 0.7 where the [O III] to [O II] ratio is
UV luminous quasars at z ≈ 1 (Li et al. 2024). The
constrained with optical data indicate that the line ratios
fact that [O II] emitting nebulae are smaller and less
range from log[O III]/[O II] = −1 to 1.
common around z ≈ 1 quasars than Lyα nebulae around
z = 3 ones can be explained if a substantial fraction
extended nebulae around z ≈ 0.6 quasars (Johnson et al. Lyα in the outer regions of the z = 3 nebulae arise from
2018; Helton et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2024). scattered Lyα photons in a more neutral phase of the
To translate this expected Hα/[O II] into expected CGM that does not emit in [O II]. The contrast could
Lyα/[O II], we multiply by a factor of 3.7 corresponding also be explained if there is substantial evolution in the
to the observed Lyα/Hα ratio of 3.7 ± 0.3 observed in quantities or density distribution of the cool, dense phase
nebulae around three z ≈ 3 quasars from Langen et al. of halo gas around quasars between z ≈ 3 and z ≈ 1 or
(2023). We note that ratio is a factor of ≈ 2 − 3 below if the metallicities of the CGM of z ≈ 1 quasar hosts
that expected from pure recombination radiation. Lan- on ≈ 50 kpc scales are substantially lower than 0.25Z⊙ .
gen et al. (2023) and previous works (e.g. Cantalupo et al. We note, however, that the Z ≈ 0.25Z⊙ metallicity
2019) attribute this decreased Lyα/Hα to radiative trans- used to estimate the [O II] to Lyα ratio in Figure 4 is
fer effects combined with aperture losses. Combining this based on absorption measurements in massive halos at
empirical Lyα/[O II] ratio with the modeled Hα/[O II] distances of d ≈ 50−100 kpc (e.g., Lau et al. 2016; Zahedy
we expect log(Lyα/[O II]) ≈ 0.25 − 1.4 assuming AGN et al. 2019), similar to the size-scale of the Lyα nebulae.
photoionization, Lyα emission arising primarily from Further, Johnson et al. (2015) found little evidence for
recombination with moderate scattering, and modest evolution in Mg II covering factor observed in the CGM
metal enrichment levels. The expected Lyα/[O II] ratios of quasars over this same cosmic period. Alternatively,
are shown as a function of [O III]/[O II] in the right axis the difference in size and incidence of Lyα nebulae at
of Figure 4. The presence of dust would only increase z ≈ 3 and [O II] emitting nebulae at z ≈ 1 could also be
the strength of [O II] relative to Lyα. explained if luminous quasar episodic lifetimes at z ≈ 1
14 Johnson et al.
10 12
z º 1 [O II] full sample (this work)
z º 1 [O II] radio°quiet (this work)
z º 3 LyÆ luminous (Borisova+2016) 10
8
z º 3 LyÆ low luminosity (Mackenzie+2021)
8
6
N
N
4
4
2
2
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 45 46 47 48
size [kpc] log Lbol /erg s°1
Figure 5. left panel: Comparison of the sizes of [O II] emitting nebulae discovered around CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars at
z = 0.4 − 1.4 from this work with Lyα nebulae around z ≈ 3 quasars (Borisova et al. 2016; Mackenzie et al. 2021). The full CUBS
and MUSEQuBES [O II] sample is shown in black, while the sub-sample of radio-quiet systems is shown in solid grey histogram.
For the z ≈ 3 Lyα nebulae, the size distribution of luminous quasars from Borisova et al. (2016) is shown in red dashed line
while that of less luminous quasars from Mackenzie et al. (2021) is shown in orange dash-dotted line. The [O II] nebulae around
z = 0.4 − 1.4 quasars are substantially smaller than Lyα nebulae at z ≈ 3 regardless of radio properties. right panel: Comparison
of the luminosities of the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars with the z = 3 samples from Borisova et al. (2016) and Mackenzie
et al. (2021). The [O II] nebulae discovered around the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars are smaller and more rare than the
Lyα nebulae discovered around z ≈ 3 quasars Borisova et al. (2016) and low-luminosity quasars Mackenzie et al. (2021) even
though the luminosities of the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasars fall within the range spanned by the two z = 3 samples.
are shorter than at z ≈ 2 − 3. Further investigation spectra due to circumnuclear and ISM-scale ionized gas.
of the differences in optically-emitting [O II] nebulae vs Further investigation of the relationship between quasars
UV emitting Lyα nebulae around quasars requires multi- and their surrounding cool gas supplies will require larger
wavelength observations at both redshifts. samples extending over a broader range of quasar prop-
erties, particularly to lower luminosities and black hole
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS masses.
The [O II] emitting nebulae around quasars at z ≈ 1
In this paper, we presented the first comprehensive
found in this work are less common and smaller on
search for non-resonant, optically emitting [O II] nebu-
average than Lyα emitting nebulae found around quasars
lae around 30 UV luminous quasars at z = 0.4 − 1.4
at z > 2. This difference can be explained, for example,
using deep integral field spectroscopy acquired as part
if the dense, cool phase of the CGM around quasars
of the Cosmic Ultraviolet Baryons Survey and MUSE
evolves significantly with redshift, if the metallicities in
Quasar Blind Emitters Survey. Our findings indicate
quasar-host CGM on ≈ 50 kpc scales are lower than
that > 60 kpc-scale circumgalactic nebulae are common
expected from absorption surveys, if quasar episodic
around UV luminous quasars, with approximately half
lifetimes are shorter at z ≈ 1 compared to z ≈ 3, or if
of the sample exhibiting such large-scale emission while
the scattering of Lyα photons off of more neutral gas
≈ 80 − 90% exhibit emission on > 20 − 30 kpc scales.
contributes non-negligibly to the outer regions of Lyα
Within the CUBS and MUSEQuBES quasar samples,
halos around quasars at z = 2 − 3. These scenarios can
the presence and size of the [O II] nebulae are not cor-
be tested by observing the nebulae with broader spectral
related with quasar redshift, luminosity, supermassive
coverage using upcoming near-IR IFS such as MIRMOS
black hole mass, or radio-loudness. On the other hand,
(Konidaris et al. 2020) and HARMONI (Thatte et al.
the sizes and surface brightnesses of the [O II] nebulae
2021), or with new UV space-based instrumentation
are tentatively correlated (2.5σ significance) with the
targeting low-z systems in H I Lyα.
rest-frame [O II] equivalent width detected in the quasar
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere

We thank the anonymous referee for constructive com- under ESO. The paper made use of the NASA/IPAC
ments and suggestions that significantly strengthened Extragalactic Database, the NASA Astrophysics Data
this paper. We are grateful to Eric Bell and Kayhan System, Astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al. 2018),
Gültekin for insightful discussions which helped shape in- and Aplpy (Robitaille & Bressert 2012).
terpretation of the results. SDJ acknowledges partial sup-
port from HST-GO-15280.009-A, HST-GO-15298.007-A,
HST-GO-15655.018-A, and HST-GO-15935.021-A. JIL is DATA AVAILABILITY
supported by the Eric and Wendy Schmidt AI in Science The raw MUSE data, associated calibrations, and ESO
Postdoctoral Fellowship, a Schmidt Futures program. reduced datacubes are publicly available in the ESO
Based on observations from the European Organization archive.
REFERENCES
Abbott, T. M. C., Adamów, M., Aguena, M., et al. 2021, Burchett, J. N., Rubin, K. H. R., Prochaska, J. X., et al.
ApJS, 255, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021, ApJ, 909, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4e0
Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, Cai, Z., Hamden, E., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2018, ApJL,
R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 20, 861, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aacce6
doi: 10.1086/589652 Cai, Z., Cantalupo, S., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2019, ApJS,
Arrigoni Battaia, F., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 245, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4796
2019a, MNRAS, 482, 3162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2827 Cantalupo, S. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science
Arrigoni Battaia, F., Obreja, A., Prochaska, J. X., et al. Library, Vol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed. A. Fox
2019b, A&A, 631, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936211 & R. Davé, 195
Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., Cantalupo, S., Arrigoni-Battaia, F., Prochaska, J. X.,
et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Hennawi, J. F., & Madau, P. 2014, Nature, 506, 63,
Bacon, R., Piqueras, L., Conseil, S., Richard, J., & Shepherd, doi: 10.1038/nature12898
Cantalupo, S., Pezzulli, G., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS,
M. 2016, MPDAF: MUSE Python Data Analysis
483, 5188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3481
Framework, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record
Chelouche, D., Ménard, B., Bowen, D. V., & Gnat, O. 2008,
ascl:1611.003. http://ascl.net/1611.003
ApJ, 683, 55, doi: 10.1086/588836
Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of
Chen, H.-W., Gauthier, J.-R., Sharon, K., et al. 2014,
Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)
MNRAS, 438, 1435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2288
Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne
Chen, H.-W., Johnson, S. D., Straka, L. A., et al. 2019,
Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K.
MNRAS, 484, 431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3513
Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773508
Chen, H.-W., Zahedy, F. S., Boettcher, E., et al. 2020,
Bacon, R., Brinchmann, J., Richard, J., et al. 2015, A&A,
MNRAS, 497, 498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1773
575, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425419
Chen, M. C., Chen, H.-W., Rauch, M., et al. 2023a,
Bacon, R., Conseil, S., Mary, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A1,
MNRAS, 518, 2354, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3193
doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833
—. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.18406,
Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, ApJ,
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.18406
831, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/39 Chen, Z.-F., Qin, H.-C., Cai, J.-T., et al. 2023c, ApJS, 265,
Boroson, T. 2005, AJ, 130, 381, doi: 10.1086/431722 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbe01
Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109, Chynoweth, K. M., Langston, G. I., Yun, M. S., et al. 2008,
doi: 10.1086/191661 AJ, 135, 1983, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/1983
Boroson, T. A., Persson, S. E., & Oke, J. B. 1985, ApJ, 293, Cooper, T. J., Rudie, G. C., Chen, H.-W., et al. 2021,
120, doi: 10.1086/163219 MNRAS, 508, 4359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2869
Bowen, D. V., Hennawi, J. F., Ménard, B., et al. 2006, ApJL, Cosby, P. C., Sharpee, B. D., Slanger, T. G., Huestis, D. L.,
645, L105, doi: 10.1086/506274 & Hanuschik, R. W. 2006, Journal of Geophysical
Bradley, L., Sipocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2016, Photutils: Research (Space Physics), 111, A12307,
Photometry tools, Astrophysics Source Code Library, doi: 10.1029/2006JA012023
record ascl:1609.011. http://ascl.net/1609.011 Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050
16 Johnson et al.
Donahue, M., & Voit, G. M. 2022, PhR, 973, 1, Hewett, P. C., & Wild, V. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2302,
doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16648.x
Dutta, R., Fossati, M., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, Ho, S. H., Martin, C. L., Kacprzak, G. G., & Churchill,
522, 535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1002 C. W. 2017, ApJ, 835, 267,
Dutta, S., Muzahid, S., Schaye, J., et al. 2023b, arXiv doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/267
e-prints, arXiv:2303.16933, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.16933 Huang, Y.-H., Chen, H.-W., Johnson, S. D., & Weiner, B. J.
Epinat, B., Contini, T., Finley, H., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2327
A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731877 Huang, Y.-H., Chen, H.-W., Shectman, S. A., et al. 2021,
Epinat, B., Contini, T., Mercier, W., et al. 2023, arXiv MNRAS, 502, 4743, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab360
e-prints, arXiv:2312.00924, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.00924 Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., & Nelson, P. I. 1986, ApJ, 306,
Farina, E. P., Falomo, R., Scarpa, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 490, doi: 10.1086/164359
441, 886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu585 Johnson, S. D., Chen, H.-W., & Mulchaey, J. S. 2015,
Faucher-Giguere, C.-A., & Oh, S. P. 2023, arXiv e-prints, MNRAS, 452, 2553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1481
arXiv:2301.10253, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.10253 Johnson, S. D., Chen, H.-W., Straka, L. A., et al. 2018,
Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, ApJL, 869, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1cf
RMxAA, 53, 385. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10877 Johnson, S. D., Schaye, J., Walth, G. L., et al. 2022, ApJL,
Fossati, M., Fumagalli, M., Lofthouse, E. K., et al. 2021, 940, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca28e
Kamann, S., Husser, T. O., Dreizler, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS,
MNRAS, 503, 3044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab660
473, 5591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2719
Fu, H., & Stockton, A. 2009, ApJ, 690, 953,
Kelz, A., Bauer, S.-M., Hahn, T., et al. 2012, in Society of
doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/953
Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)
Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al.
Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne
2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940
Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K.
Gauthier, J.-R., & Chen, H.-W. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1952,
Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84465T
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21327.x
Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531,
Green, J. C., Froning, C. S., Osterman, S., et al. 2012, ApJ,
doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610
744, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/60
Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., & Jansen, R. A. 2004, AJ, 127,
Greener, M. J., Merrifield, M., Aragón-Salamanca, A., et al.
2002, doi: 10.1086/382723
2021, MNRAS, 502, L95, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab012
Kolb, J., Madec, P.-Y., Arsenault, R., et al. 2016, in Society
Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2004,
of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)
ApJS, 153, 75, doi: 10.1086/421114
Conference Series, Vol. 9909, Adaptive Optics Systems V,
Guo, H., Liu, X., Shen, Y., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3288,
ed. E. Marchetti, L. M. Close, & J.-P. Véran, 99092S
doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2920
Konidaris, N. P., Rudie, G. C., Newman, A. B., et al. 2020,
Guo, H., Shen, Y., & Wang, S. 2018, PyQSOFit: Python in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers
code to fit the spectrum of quasars, Astrophysics Source (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Society of
Code Library, record ascl:1809.008. Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)
http://ascl.net/1809.008 Conference Series, 114471E
Guo, Y., Bacon, R., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, Langen, V., Cantalupo, S., Steidel, C. C., et al. 2023,
arXiv:2309.05513, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.05513 MNRAS, 519, 5099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3205
Guo, Y., Bacon, R., Bouché, N. F., et al. 2023b, arXiv Lau, M. W., Prochaska, J. X., & Hennawi, J. F. 2016, ApJS,
e-prints, arXiv:2312.05167. 226, 25, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/2/25
https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05167 Leclercq, F., Verhamme, A., Epinat, B., et al. 2022, arXiv
Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, e-prints, arXiv:2203.05614.
PASA, 38, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.47 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.05614
Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, Li, J. I., Johnson, S. D., Boettcher, E., et al. 2024, arXiv
808, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 e-prints, arXiv:2403.03983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03983
Helton, J. M., Johnson, S. D., Greene, J. E., & Chen, H.-W. Liu, G., Zakamska, N. L., & Greene, J. E. 2014, MNRAS,
2021, MNRAS, 505, 5497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1647 442, 1303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu974
Hennawi, J. F., Strauss, M. A., Oguri, M., et al. 2006, AJ, Liu, Z., Johnson, S. D., Li, J. I. H., et al. 2024, MNRAS,
131, 1, doi: 10.1086/498235 527, 5429, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3364
Lofthouse, E. K., Fumagalli, M., Fossati, M., et al. 2020, Qu, Z., Chen, H.-W., Rudie, G. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS,
MNRAS, 491, 2057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3066 516, 4882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2528
Lokhorst, D., Abraham, R., Pasha, I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al.
136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac50b6 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525
Lopez, S., Tejos, N., Ledoux, C., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints. Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical
https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10175 Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code
Lopez, S., Tejos, N., Barrientos, L. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, Library. http://ascl.net/1208.017
491, 4442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3183 Rudie, G. C., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., et al. 2019, ApJ,
Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2016, 885, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4255
MNRAS, 456, 2140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2659 Rupke, D. S. N., Coil, A., Geach, J. E., et al. 2019, Nature,
Mackenzie, R., Pezzulli, G., Cantalupo, S., et al. 2021, 574, 643, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1686-1
MNRAS, 502, 494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3277 Sanderson, K. N., Prescott, M. K. M., Christensen, L.,
Madec, P. Y., Arsenault, R., Kuntschner, H., et al. 2018, in Fynbo, J., & Møller, P. 2021, ApJ, 923, 252,
Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3077
(SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10703, Adaptive Optics Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS,
Systems VI, ed. L. M. Close, L. Schreiber, & D. Schmidt, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058
1070302 Schroetter, I., Bouché, N. F., Zabl, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS,
Marshall, J. L., Burles, S., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2008, in 490, 4368, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2822
Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers Shen, Y. 2016, ApJ, 817, 55,
(SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/55
Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. Shen, Y., Strauss, M. A., Oguri, M., et al. 2007, AJ, 133,
McLean & M. M. Casali, 701454 2222, doi: 10.1086/513517
Martin, C., Moore, A., Morrissey, P., et al. 2010, in Society Shen, Y., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS,
of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) 194, 45, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45
Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Shen, Y., Grier, C. J., Horne, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints,
Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. arXiv:2305.01014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.01014
Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77350M Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1
Mateo, M., Bailey, J. I., Song, Y., et al. 2022, in Society of Soto, K. T., Lilly, S. J., Bacon, R., Richard, J., & Conseil, S.
Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw474
Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Stockton, A., & MacKenty, J. W. 1987, ApJ, 316, 584,
Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. doi: 10.1086/165227
Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121845P Streicher, O., Weilbacher, P. M., Bacon, R., & Jarno, A.
National Academies of Sciences. 2021, Pathways to Discovery 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference
in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Proceedings Series, Vol. 442, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and
of the National Academy of Sciences), doi: 10.17226/26141 Systems XX, ed. I. N. Evans, A. Accomazzi, D. J. Mink,
Nyland, K., Dong, D. Z., Patil, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 74, & A. H. Rots, 257
doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc341 Sulentic, J. W., Stirpe, G. M., Marziani, P., et al. 2004,
Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, A&A, 423, 121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035912
doi: 10.1086/160817 Sun, A.-L., Greene, J. E., & Zakamska, N. L. 2017, ApJ, 835,
O’Sullivan, D. B., Martin, C., Matuszewski, M., et al. 2020, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/222
ApJ, 894, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab838c Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74,
Péroux, C., Zwaan, M. A., Klitsch, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74
doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz202 Thatte, N., Tecza, M., Schnetler, H., et al. 2021, The
Piqueras, L., Conseil, S., Shepherd, M., et al. 2017, ArXiv Messenger, 182, 7, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5215
e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03554 Tinsley, B. M. 1974, ApJ, 192, 629, doi: 10.1086/153099
Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2013, Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al.
ApJ, 776, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/136 2004, ApJ, 613, 898, doi: 10.1086/423264
Putman, M. E. 2017, An Introduction to Gas Accretion onto Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A,
Galaxies, ed. A. Fox & R. Davé, Vol. 430, 1 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240
18 Johnson et al.
van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, Zabl, J., Bouché, N. F., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS,
ApJ, 788, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28 507, 4294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2165
Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1, Zahedy, F. S., Chen, H.-W., Johnson, S. D., et al. 2019,
doi: 10.1086/320357 MNRAS, 484, 2257. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.05115
Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014,
Zahedy, F. S., Chen, H.-W., Rauch, M., Wilson, M. L., &
MNRAS, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536
Zabludoff, A. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2423,
Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al. 2020, A&A,
doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw484
641, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855
Welsh, B. Y., Wheatley, J. M., & Neil, J. D. 2011, A&A, Zahedy, F. S., Chen, H.-W., Cooper, T. M., et al. 2021,
527, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015865 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.04608.
Wisotzki, L., Bacon, R., Blaizot, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.04608
A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527384 Zhao, Q., & Wang, J. 2023, ApJL, 943, L25,
Zabl, J., Bouché, N. F., Schroetter, I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb546
485, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz392

Thesis Master Physics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Master Physics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Master Physics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft version April 2, 2024

Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX631

(Received ?; Revised ?; Accepted ?)

2. OBSERVATIONS, DATA REDUCTION, AND 5

log MBH /MØ

We reduced the MUSEQuBES data with the MUSE

quasar properties MUSE data

R.A.a Decl.b log λLeλ log Lfbol g

HE 0435°5304 HE 0153°4520 HE 0226°4110 PKS 0405°123 HE 0238°1904

3C 57 PKS 0552°640 J0110°1648 J0454°6116 J2135°5316

J0119°2010 HE 0246°4101 J0028°3305 HE 0419°5657 Q0107°025

Q0107°0235 PKS 2242°498 PKS 0355°483 HE 0112°4145 HE 0439°5254

HE 2305°5315 HE 1003+0149 HE 0331°4112 TXS 0206°048 Q1354 + 048

FWHMc sized areae [O II] luminosityg SB10−30 (1 + z)4 h

1.0 Surveys of Lyα emission around quasars at ⟨z⟩ ≈ 3.3

log(3.7 × Hα/[O II] λλ3727, 3729)

0.6 1.2 servations. However, the difference in surface brightness

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere

You might also like