Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Modeling the Anisotropic Tidal Effect on the Spin-Spin Correlations of Low-Mass Galactic Halos

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that anisotropic tidal fields, not just non-Gaussianity, produce the large-scale halo spin-spin correlation tail.

desk verdict New dwarf-scale spin-correlation tail is worth having, but the anisotropic-tidal origin claim rests on an unproven assumption about ensemble averages. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03467 v1 pith:CFKI3H7C submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.CO

Jounghun Lee (Seoul National University) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords halospin-spincorrelationtidaltorquetheoryanisotropicfieldintrinsicalignmentsdwarfgalaxiesdarkmatterhalosN-bodysimulationlarge-scalestructure
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the long-range halo spin-spin correlation signal, which earlier tidal-torque models could not explain, is produced by the anisotropy of the tidal field rather than by non-Gaussianity alone. It proposes a new formula for $\eta(r)$, the spin-spin correlation function, built from the rescaled linear density correlation $\tilde{\xi}(r)$ and two of its integrals, $\tilde J_3(r)$ and $\tilde J_5(r)$, multiplied by two fitted coefficients. With those coefficients, the formula reproduces N-body measurements of spin correlations of low-mass and dwarf halos across the mass range $0.05 \le M/(10^{11}\,h^{-1}M_\odot) \le 50$ at redshifts $z=0$, $0.2$, and $0.4$, including the tail at $r \ge 10\,h^{-1}$Mpc where earlier models failed. If the formula is correct, the large-scale spin alignment of dwarf halos becomes a practical complement to other probes of dark matter and of the linear density field.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended conditional covariance for tidally induced spin alignments, $\langle \hat s_i\hat s_j|\hat T\rangle = (\frac13+\frac35 c_t+\frac35 d_t)\delta_{ij}-\frac35 c_t \hat T_{ik}\hat T_{kj}-\frac35 d_t \hat T_{ij}$, where the linear-in-$\hat T$ term with the second spin-correlation parameter $d_t$ encodes the alignment of low-mass halo spins with the third eigenvector of the tidal field. Substituting this covariance into the definition $\eta(r)=\langle|\hat s(x)\cdot\hat s'(x')|^2\rangle-\frac13$ and applying the same Wick-contraction approximations as earlier tidal-torque work yields Eq. (16). The integral functions $\tilde J_3(r)$ and $\tilde J_5(r)$ are rescaled versions of $J_3(r)=3r^{-3}\int_0^r\xi(r')r'^2\,dr'$ and $J_5(r)=5r^{-5}\int_0^r\xi(r')r'^4\,dr'$; the entire claim is that these terms survive when the tidal field is anisotropic and that they carry the large-scale tail.

What would settle it

Measure $\langle \tilde T_{ij}(x)\tilde T_{ij}(x+r)\rangle$ directly from the same simulated tidal-field reconstructions and check whether, after subtracting $\tilde{\xi}(r)$, the residual is proportional to $\tilde J_3(r)$ and $\tilde J_5(r)$ with constant coefficients across all $r$ bins. A second decisive test is to fit Eq. (16) using only $r<10\,h^{-1}$Mpc and see whether the extrapolation reproduces the $r\ge10\,h^{-1}$Mpc tail without refitting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $\eta(r)$ decays far more slowly with separation than the old $\eta \propto \xi^2$ prediction, and that its statistically significant tail at $r \ge 10\,h^{-1}$Mpc cannot be explained by the linear-scaling $\eta \propto \xi$ model either. The reason, the paper argues, is the isotropy assumption hidden in earlier derivations: when the tidal field is allowed to be anisotropic, the two-point correlation of traceless tidal tensors retains extra terms involving $J_3(r)$ and $J_5(r)$. This leads to Eq. (16), $\eta(r) \approx (18/25)d_t^2\big[\tilde{\xi}(r)+g_3\tilde J_3(r)-g_5\tilde J_5(r)\big]$, where $d_t$ is the linear tidal coupling of the spin alignment and $g_3,g_5$ are fitted coefficients absorbing the degree of anisotropy. Fitting those two coefficients to the $\nu^2$GC-H2 and SMDPL simulations gives close agreement over the whole range of $r$ probed, with the $g_5$ term dropping sharply as mass and redshift increase, marking it as the most sensitive indicator of the anisotropic tidal effect.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the anisotropy of the tidal field changes the tensor two-point correlation exactly in the form of two extra terms proportional to $J_3$ and $J_5$ with coefficients that do not depend on separation; if that shape is wrong, the agreement with simulations is just curve fitting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the formula holds, the large-scale tail of $\eta(r)$ is a direct signature of anisotropic tides, so measuring dwarf-halo spin alignments at $r\ge10\,h^{-1}$Mpc can constrain tidal anisotropy rather than only non-Gaussianity.
  • Because $\eta(r)$ is expressed through integrals of the linear density correlation $\xi(r)$, a measured spin-spin correlation could in principle be inverted to reconstruct features of $\tilde{\xi}(r)$ without higher-order statistics.
  • The rescaled form of Eq. (16) is independent of the amplitude of $\xi(r)$, giving it the potential to break degeneracies between the power-spectrum amplitude and the dark-matter abundance.
  • The model predicts that the anisotropic term weakens with increasing halo mass and redshift, so the linear-scaling approximation should become accurate for massive halos and at $z\gtrsim0.4$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same $\tilde J_3,\tilde J_5$ decomposition could be tried on galaxy shape-shape (intrinsic alignment) correlations, where anisotropic tides may leave a comparable large-scale signature.
  • A sharper diagnostic would be to split the fitted coefficients by cosmic-web environment (filament, wall, void) and check whether the anisotropic term grows where filaments dominate.
  • The redshift-space caveat in the paper points to a concrete extension: convolve Eq. (16) with velocity-dispersion kernels and test whether the large-scale tail survives in redshift-space galaxy samples.
  • The severe drop of $g_5$ with mass and redshift suggests $g_5$ itself could be used as a measurable index of tidal anisotropy, if it can be calibrated against cosmic-web tracers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the halo spin-spin correlation function η(r) for low-mass dark matter halos using the ν2GC-H2 and SMDPL N-body simulations. It finds that η(r) decreases with separation much more slowly than the quadratic model η∝ξ² and retains a statistically significant tail at r≥10 h−1 Mpc on dwarf-galaxy scales. Building on the extended tidal-torque model of Lee (2019), which adds a linear tidal term controlled by parameter dt to the conditional spin covariance, the paper proposes Eq. (16), expressing η(r) in terms of the rescaled density correlation ξ̃(r) and the integral quantities J̃3, J̃5, with two adjustable parameters g3 and g5. The formula is fitted to the simulated η(r) for several mass ranges and redshifts and is reported to agree excellently with the measurements, especially at large separations. The paper interprets this agreement as evidence that anisotropic tidal fields produce the large-scale tail and discusses the possibility of using dwarf-halo spin-spin correlations as a complementary probe of dark matter.

Significance. If Eq. (16) were a derived consequence of the extended tidal-torque model, the result would be significant: it would provide a physical explanation for the large-scale spin-spin tail and a new connection between spin alignments and the linear density correlation function. The paper has genuine strengths: the validation of Eq. (5) on dwarf-galaxy scales in Section 2.2 is parameter-free and tests the extended model against a high-resolution simulation; the numerical measurements cover a broad mass range and several redshifts; and the empirical formula (16) does appear to describe the simulated η(r) well in Figures 3–8. However, the physical interpretation is not currently established. Equation (16) is introduced as a fitting formula with two free parameters and rests on an explicit assumption about anisotropic tidal tensors that is not derived. The fit is performed on the same data that supply ξ̃, J̃3, J̃5, and dt, and no out-of-sample prediction or goodness-of-fit statistic is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (16)] The central claim that anisotropic tidal effects generate the r≥10 h−1 Mpc tail rests on the assertion that for anisotropic T the J3 and J5 terms survive the contraction ⟨T̃_ij T̃'_ij⟩. This is an assumption, not a derivation. In a statistically homogeneous and isotropic cosmological model, the ensemble-averaged two-point function of the tidal tensor retains the isotropic form given by Eq. (14), and the anisotropy of individual tidal tensors in a particular realization (the cosmic web) does not alter the symmetry of the ensemble average. The paper's own wording in Section 3.2 ("Assuming here that for the anisotropic T, the terms containing J3 and J5 ... would not vanish, we propose the following fitting formula") acknowledges this gap. Since g3 and g5 are fitted to each η(r) curve (Table 1) and the mean dt is measured from the same halos, the excellent agreement shown in Figures 3–8 is equally consistent with curve fitting and does not by itself establish that anisotropic tides cause the large-scale tail. A derivation of the contraction in a controlled anisotropic model, or an explicit demonstration that the J3/J5 terms appear with nonzero coefficients in the ensemble average, is required.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (11)–(12)] The step from Eq. (3) to Eq. (11) is compressed and appears to contain an incorrect constant. For r→∞, the two-point function ⟨T̃_ij T̃'_ij⟩ of unit traceless tensors vanishes, so Eq. (11) gives η→−1/3, whereas the definition Eq. (6) requires η→0. The expansion of Eq. (3) into Eq. (11) also omits terms involving the product of the T̃² and T̃ terms; the derivation should be written out in full and the constant offset checked. This issue is load-bearing because Figure 2 uses Eq. (11) to validate the model before Eq. (16) is introduced.
  3. [Section 3.3, Table 1] The best-fit parameters g3 and g5 are tabulated without uncertainties or a goodness-of-fit statistic such as reduced χ², and the claim of "excellent agreement" is assessed visually. Moreover, the fit is performed on the same data that supply ξ̃, J̃3, J̃5, and the mean dt; no out-of-sample prediction (for example, a mass or redshift split not used in the fit) is presented. Consequently, the paper does not currently demonstrate that Eq. (16) has predictive content beyond being an interpolation formula for the simulated η(r).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "between the neighbor halos" should be "between neighboring halos" or "between neighbor halos".
  2. [Section 2.2] "snapshopts" is a typo for "snapshots".
  3. [Eq. (15)] The differentials "dr'^2" and "dr'^4" are likely typos; they should presumably be r'^2 dr' and r'^4 dr'.
  4. [Section 3.3] The text states that the range 0≤r/(h−1 Mpc)≤20 is divided into bins of length Δr, but the value of Δr is never specified.
  5. [Table 1] The notation for the mass ranges is confusing; explicit ranges such as "0.01≤M<0.5" would be clearer than brackets followed by a comma.
  6. [Figures 3–8] The figures would be easier to interpret if the numerical η(r) points included error bars, since the text says the one-standard-deviation errors are calculated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The 'new formula' is an explicit fitting formula whose two anisotropic-tide coefficients are fitted to the target η(r); the large-scale tail agreement is therefore in-sample, not a derived prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, fitting of Eq. (16) to η(r)]
    "We determine the best-fit values of g3 and g5 by fitting Equation (16) to the numerically obtained η(r) with the help of the χ2-statistics (see Table 1)."

    Equation (16) is the paper's central new formula, and the only terms representing the anisotropic tidal effect are g3 J3(r) and g5 J5(r). These coefficients are fitted to the very same η(r) that the paper later says Equation (16) 'agrees best with'. The agreement is therefore an in-sample fit, not a prediction. In particular, the claim that anisotropic tides produce the r ≥ 10 h−1 Mpc tail is supported only by the positive fitted values of g3 and g5, which are chosen to make the formula match that tail.

  2. other [Section 3.2, Eq. (16) and preceding paragraph]
    "Equation (14) holds true only if the tidal field is isotropic. If i = k and j = l, then all of the terms containing J3 and J5 in Equation (13) would vanish by symmetry, resulting in ⟨T̃ij T̃′ij⟩ expressed only in terms of ξ(r). In the nonlinear regime, however, T is far from being isotropic, the manifestation of which is nothing but the presence of the filamentary cosmic web."

    The paper explicitly states that in the only case it can calculate, the isotropic case, the J3 and J5 terms cancel exactly in the contraction ⟨T̃ij T̃′ij⟩, leaving only ξ(r). The retention of J3 and J5 terms is not derived from an anisotropic version of Eq. (14); it is simply assumed so that the formula has extra freedom beyond ξ(r). Thus the 'anisotropic tidal effect' is an ansatz with two adjustable parameters, not a first-principles prediction. The subsequent success of Eq. (16) cannot by itself establish that anisotropic tides cause the large-scale tail, because the terms responsible for that tail were inserted by assumption and their coefficients were fitted.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper is that Eq. (16) with best-fit parameters describes the spin-spin correlation function, especially the tail at r ≥ 10 h−1 Mpc, and that this success demonstrates the role of the anisotropic tidal effect. But Eq. (16) is labeled by the authors as a 'fitting formula', and its two anisotropic-tide coefficients g3 and g5 are fitted to η(r) in each mass/redshift sample. The shape information in ξ~(r), J3~(r), and J5~(r) is independently measured from the density field, and d_t is measured from halo spins, so the fit is not completely empty; however, the specific claim that anisotropic tides generate the tail reduces to two fitted coefficients. Moreover, the derivation from Eq. (14) shows that in the calculable isotropic case the J3 and J5 terms cancel in the contraction used, so keeping them for 'anisotropic T' is an assumption, not a derived consequence. The paper itself acknowledges this with 'Assuming here that...'. There is also a related algebraic concern that Eq. (11) does not reproduce η(r) → 0 as r → ∞, indicating that the formal chain from Eq. (3) to Eq. (16) is not fully transparent. No significant self-citation issue arises: the Lee (2019) model is independently tested against N-body probability densities in Section 2.2. The circularity burden is therefore concentrated in presenting an in-sample two-parameter fit as confirmation of a physical mechanism.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formula sits on the Lee (2019) extended alignment model, the Gaussian covariance ansatz of Lee and Pen (2000), and the assumption that anisotropic tides are representable by constant-coefficient corrections built from J3 and J5. The coefficients g3 and g5 are fit to the target statistic in each sample, and dt is measured from the same halos, so the contribution beyond the prior model is largely an empirical fitting form.

free parameters (3)
  • g3 = Table 1: 2.1, 6.0, 8.3, 2.4, 3.0, 1.0
    Introduced in Equation (16) as the weight of J3_tilde and determined by chi-square fitting to the numerically obtained eta(r) in each mass and redshift sample.
  • g5 = Table 1: 2.3, 5.1, 8.0, 0.1, 1.8, 0.0
    Introduced in Equation (16) as the weight of J5_tilde and fitted in the same manner as g3.
  • mean dt = Not tabulated; computed per sample
    The second spin correlation parameter is computed from measured spin and tidal eigenvalues via Equation (4) and averaged over each halo sample. It is used in Equations (5) and (16), so it is an empirical input from the same simulations rather than an independently predicted quantity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The conditional covariance of halo spin given the tidal tensor takes the Lee (2019) extended form, Equation (3), with a linear T term controlled by dt.
    Section 2.1 reviews this as established; the supporting test in Section 2.2 uses the same author's model and the same nu2GC-H2 simulation, so it is not an independent first-principles input.
  • domain assumption Spin directions follow a multi-variate Gaussian conditional distribution, Equation (5), inherited from Lee and Pen (2000).
    This statistical ansatz underlies the derived probability densities and the covariance model; it is not derived from tidal torque dynamics in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper For anisotropic tidal fields, the correlation of traceless tidal tensors retains non-vanishing J3 and J5 terms that can be written as g3 J3_tilde - g5 J5_tilde.
    Section 3.2 states this as an assumption and immediately calls Equation (16) a fitting formula; g3 and g5 are not derived or predicted from the anisotropy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the Anisotropic Tidal Effect on the Spin-Spin Correlations of Low-Mass Galactic Halos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CFKI3H7C

@misc{pith2026190803467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the Anisotropic Tidal Effect on the Spin-Spin Correlations of Low-Mass Galactic Halos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CFKI3H7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03467}
}
abstract

The halo spin-spin correlation function, $\eta(r)$, measures how rapidly the strength of the alignments of the spin directions between the neighbor halos change with the separation distance, $r$. The previous model based on the tidal torque theory expresses the halo spin-spin correlation function as a power of the linear density two-point correlation function, $\eta(r)\propto \xi^{n}(r)$, predicting $n=2$ in the linear regime and $n=1$ in the non-linear regime. Using a high-resolution N-body simulation, we show that the halo spin-spin correlation function in fact drops much less rapidly with $r$ than the prediction of the previous model, finding $\eta(r)$ to be statistically significant even at $r\ge 10\,h^{-1}$Mpc on the dwarf galaxy scale. Claiming that the anisotropic tidal effect is responsible for the failure of the previous model, we propose a new formula for the halo spin-spin correlation function expressed in terms of the integrals of $\xi(r)$. The new formula with the best-fit parameters turns out to agree excellently with the numerical results in a broad mass range, $0.05\le M/(10^{11}\,h^{-1}\,M_{\odot})\le 50$, describing well the large-scale tail of $\eta(r)$. We discuss a possibility of using the large-scale spin-spin correlations of the dwarf galactic halos as a complementary probe of dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Probability density functions of the cosines of the angles of t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Correlations of the unit spin vectors between the neighbor d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Comparison of the numerically obtained spin-spin correlations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Same as Figure 3 but for the higher-mass galactic halos in the r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Same as Figure 4 but for the galactic halos in the narrower mas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Same as Figure 5 but for the galactic halos in the higher mass ra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Same as Figure 4 but at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Same as Figure 4 but at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B

    Arag´ on-Calvo, M. A., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & van de r Hulst, J. M. 2007, ApJ, 655, L5

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    C., Adams, J., et al

    Aslanyan, G., Price, L. C., Adams, J., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1 17, 141102

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2660

    Banik, I., & Zhao, H. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2660

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 762, 109 de Bernardis, P., Ade, P. A. R., Bock, J. J., et al. 2000, Nature, 404 , 955

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    S., et al

    Bett, P., Eke, V., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 215

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    E., & Frenk, C

    Bett, P. E., & Frenk, C. S. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3324

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    E., & Frenk, C

    Bett, P. E., & Frenk, C. S. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1338

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.12244

    Biagetti, M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.12244

    arXiv 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 2006, Science, 313, 311

    2006

  2. [10]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603

    1996

  3. [11]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    2015

  4. [12]

    F., & Winther, H

    Carlesi, E., Mota, D. F., & Winther, H. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4813

    2017

  5. [13]

    E., Dvorkin, C., Schmidt, F., et al

    Chisari, N. E., Dvorkin, C., Schmidt, F., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 123507

    2016

  6. [14]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 3320

    Codis, S., Pichon, C., Devriendt, J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3320

    2012

  7. [15]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3391

    Codis, S., Gavazzi, R., Dubois, Y., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3391

    2015

  8. [16]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 3369

    Codis, S., Pichon, C., & Pogosyan, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3369

    2015

  9. [17]

    G., Natarajan, P., Pen, U.-L., & Theuns, T

    Crittenden, R. G., Natarajan, P., Pen, U.-L., & Theuns, T. 2001, Ap J, 559, 552

    2001

  10. [18]

    Davis, M., Miller, A., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 63

    1997

  11. [19]

    Doroshkevich, A. G. 1970, Astrofizika, 6, 581 Ganeshaiah Veena, P., Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 414

    1970

  12. [20]

    M., Porciani, C., & Dekel, A

    Hahn, O., Carollo, C. M., Porciani, C., & Dekel, A. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 41 – 15 –

    2007

  13. [21]

    Hahn, O., Teyssier, R., & Carollo, C. M. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 274

    2010

  14. [22]

    & Zhang Z

    Hui, L. & Zhang Z. 2002, preprint [astro-ph/0205512]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2008, ApJ, 688, 742

    Hui, L., & Zhang, J. 2008, ApJ, 688, 742

    2008

  16. [24]

    Ishiyama, T., Enoki, M., Kobayashi, M. A. R., et al. 2015, PASJ, 67, 61

    2015

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Kogai, K., Matsubara, T., Nishizawa, A. J., et al. 2018, JCAP, 2018, 0 14

    2018

  18. [26]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

    Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottl¨ ober, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

    2016

  19. [27]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, L26

    Lacerna, I., & Padilla, N. 2012, MNRAS, 426, L26

    2012

  20. [28]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 2744

    Laigle, C., Pichon, C., Codis, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2744

    2015

  21. [29]

    2000, ApJ, 532, L5

    Lee, J., & Pen, U.-L. 2000, ApJ, 532, L5

    2000

  22. [30]

    2001, ApJ, 555, 106

    Lee, J., & Pen, U.-L. 2001, ApJ, 555, 106

    2001

  23. [31]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 1248

    Lee, J., & Erdogdu, P. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1248

    2007

  24. [32]

    2008, ApJ, 681, 798

    Lee, J., & Pen, U.-L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 798

    2008

  25. [33]

    I., Hoffman, Y., Forero-Romero, J., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y., Forero-Romero, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS , 428, 2489

    2013

  26. [34]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 25

    Makiya, R., Enoki, M., Ishiyama, T., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 25

    2016

  27. [35]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 106

    Ntampaka, M., Trac, H., Cisewski, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 106

    2017

  28. [36]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.00213

    Park, C.-G., & Ratra, B. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.00213

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J., Stasyszyn, F., & Padilla, N

    Paz, D. J., Stasyszyn, F., & Padilla, N. D. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1127

    2008

  30. [38]

    2000, ApJ, 543, L107 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pen, U.-L., Lee, J., & Seljak, U. 2000, ApJ, 543, L107 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571 , A16

    2000

  31. [39]

    2002, MNRAS, 332, 339

    Porciani, C., Dekel, A., & Hoffman, Y. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 339

    2002

  32. [40]

    E., & Dvorkin, C

    Schmidt, F., Chisari, N. E., & Dvorkin, C. 2015, JCAP, 2015, 032

    2015

  33. [41]

    Seo, H.-J., & Eisenstein, D. J. 2003, ApJ, 598, 720 – 16 –

    2003

  34. [42]

    O., & Yunes, N

    Silva, H. O., & Yunes, N. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.10269

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    E., Lewis, G

    Trowland, H. E., Lewis, G. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2013, ApJ, 762, 72

    2013

  36. [44]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 62 9

    2005

  37. [45]

    1986, Nature, 323, 132

    Vittorio, N., Juszkiewicz, R., & Davis, M. 1986, Nature, 323, 132

    1986

  38. [46]

    2014, MN RAS, 445, L46

    Welker, C., Devriendt, J., Dubois, Y., Pichon, C., & Peirani, S. 2014, MN RAS, 445, L46

    2014

  39. [47]

    White, S. D. M. 1984, ApJ, 286, 38

    1984

  40. [48]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.0 1029 Zel’dovich, Y

    Yu, H.-R., Yu, Y., Motloch, P., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.0 1029 Zel’dovich, Y. B. 1970, A&A, 5, 84

    2019

  41. [49]

    2009, ApJ, 706, 747 This preprint was prepared with the AAS L ATEX macros v5.2

    Zhang, Y., Yang, X., Faltenbacher, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 747 This preprint was prepared with the AAS L ATEX macros v5.2. – 17 – Fig. 1.— Probability density functions of the cosines of the angles of t he unit spin vectors of the dwarf galactic halos with the third, second...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.