Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Evolution of Cluster Alignments as Evidence of Large-scale Structure Formation in the Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cluster orientations stay correlated across 200–300 cMpc and out to redshift 1, a first detection on such scales.

desk verdict A genuine new measurement of cluster alignments at 200-300 cMpc, likely robust for z<1 but the z>1 claim leans on unproven photo-z systematics assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19826 v1 pith:L554MNGU submitted 2025-06-24 astro-ph.CO

Michael J. West , Roberto De Propris , Maret Einasto , Z.L. Wen , J.L. Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords GalaxyclustersLarge-scalestructureoftheuniverseCosmologyclusteralignmentscosmicwebphotometricredshiftsLambda-CDMsimulations
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

Using the largest galaxy-cluster catalog currently available—1.58 million clusters detected out to redshift $z\simeq1.5$—this paper argues that cluster orientations are correlated over comoving separations of 200–300 cMpc, far beyond the tens-of-Mpc scale seen before, and that the correlation persists to at least $z\simeq1$. Previous alignment studies reached only $z<0.44$, so this is the first measurement to cover more than half the age of the universe. If the signal is real, the orientations of Mpc-scale clusters are being set by anisotropic matter distributions on scales two orders of magnitude larger, and cluster alignments become a practical photometric probe of the cosmic web at early epochs. A matching alignment scale in gravity-only $\Lambda$CDM simulations supports the interpretation.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on three pieces. The moment-of-inertia tensor of each cluster's projected member-galaxy distribution, diagonalized to yield the major-axis position angle $\phi$ and the ellipticity $e$, defines what 'orientation' means for every cluster. The alignment statistic $\langle\cos(2\theta)\rangle(d)$, computed from 5.54 billion cluster pairs with comoving separation $d<500$ cMpc, measures whether neighboring clusters point toward each other: it is zero for randomly oriented pairs and positive when they align. Significance is set by 1,000 Monte Carlo shuffles of the position angles that keep cluster positions fixed, providing the null distribution of the statistic. A second, outlier-robust line-fitting method (RANSAC) independently confirms the orientation measurements, letting the authors compare observed alignments directly with simulated clusters.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic sample of several thousand clusters at $z>1$ with the same sky coverage that shows no $\langle\cos(2\theta)\rangle$ excess beyond 50 cMpc would contradict the high-redshift claim; conversely, a mock catalog built from randomized cluster positions but with photometric redshift errors modeled from the survey's known depth variations, analyzed in the same way, would reveal whether the observed signal is an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the major-axis orientations of galaxy clusters are correlated with the directions to neighboring clusters out to separations of 200–300 cMpc, and that this correlation is present at all redshifts studied, reaching at least $z\simeq1$ (with a signal to roughly 100 cMpc at $z>1$). The alignment statistic $\langle\cos(2\theta)\rangle$, where $\theta$ is the acute angle between a cluster's major axis and the projected separation vector to a neighbor, is positive and decays exponentially with separation; best-fit decay scales are $\tau\simeq55$–$67$ cMpc while amplitudes $\alpha$ range from $0.011$ at $z>1$ to $0.021$ at $z<0.4$. The most massive and most elongated clusters show the strongest alignment, and the signal survives in subsamples restricted to spectroscopically confirmed redshifts at $z<1$ and to clusters with ten or more members. The same statistic computed for clusters in a large gravity-only $\Lambda$CDM simulation shows significant alignments over similar scales, with somewhat larger amplitude, which the authors attribute to idealized simulations and observational noise.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that randomizing each cluster's position angle while keeping its position fixed yields the correct null distribution for uncorrelated orientations, and that photometric redshift errors and cluster-detection effects only add noise and cannot manufacture alignments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cluster alignments become a usable photometric probe of the cosmic web out to $z\simeq1$, tracing filamentary structure at look-back times when direct galaxy mapping is difficult.
  • The large coherence scale implies that cluster formation is coupled to the large-scale tidal field, supporting the picture in which clusters grow by anisotropic accretion of groups and galaxies along supercluster filaments.
  • The measured alignment scale, comparable to the sizes of the largest known superstructures such as the 400 cMpc Quipu complex, sharpens the question of where the universe becomes homogeneous.
  • Because the most massive and most elongated clusters align most strongly, alignment measurements can help identify and confirm the richest superclusters in photometric surveys.
  • The $\Lambda$CDM simulation reproduces the observed alignment scale but with higher amplitude, suggesting that future larger spectroscopic samples can measure that amplitude and use it as a test of structure-formation models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the alignment scale decreases monotonically with redshift in the way the homogeneity scale does, measuring $\langle\cos(2\theta)\rangle(d)$ at $z>1.5$ with future deep surveys could test whether the cosmic-web skeleton was already in place in the first few billion years.
  • The paper's claim that photometric redshift errors 'cannot create a false positive detection' has a testable edge: injecting correlated photometric redshift systematics, such as those along the $i$-band survey boundary at declination $32^\circ$, into otherwise random cluster catalogs and repeating the analysis would show whether such errors can mimic the signal.
  • The same 5.54-billion-pair orientation statistic applied to galaxy shapes could connect cluster alignments to weak-lensing shear systematics, since both respond to the same large-scale tidal field.
  • If the alignment amplitude is stronger for cluster pairs embedded in the same supercluster filament than for pairs on opposite sides of a void, that would confirm the accretion-along-filaments interpretation; future environmental subsamples could test this prediction.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the Wen & Han (2024) catalog of 1.58 million galaxy clusters to measure the correlation of cluster major-axis orientations as a function of comoving pair separation, in four redshift bins out to z > 1. The statistic is the mean of cos(2θ) for cluster pairs, with significance assessed by 1,000 Monte Carlo realizations in which position angles are randomized. The authors report significant alignments out to 200–300 cMpc at z < 1 and out to ~100 cMpc at z > 1, fit exponential decay amplitudes and scales, examine dependence on cluster mass and ellipticity, and compare with the LastJourney ΛCDM simulation. They conclude that cluster alignments trace the cosmic web on unexpectedly large scales and at earlier epochs than previously measured, and that this is the first detection of such correlations at these separations and redshifts.

Significance. If the detection survives scrutiny, the result is important: it would extend the known scale of cluster alignment correlations by roughly an order of magnitude and provide a photometric probe of the cosmic web at z ~ 1. The paper has genuine strengths: it uses the largest available cluster catalog, includes multiple control checks (Monte Carlo nulls, RANSAC cross-checks, a spectroscopic subsample, a high-member-count subsample), and compares with a large public simulation. The central claim, however, rests on the validity of a null model that randomizes per-cluster position angles while preserving positions, and that null cannot exclude spatially coherent systematic effects. Because the spectroscopic check does not independently confirm the z > 1 signal, the high-redshift and very-large-scale claims are not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, §2.5] The Monte Carlo null hypothesis in §2.3 randomizes each cluster's position angle independently while keeping positions fixed, which destroys any spatial coherence in the orientation error field and therefore cannot validate the statement in §2.5 that photometric and detection effects 'cannot create a false positive detection.' If photo-z calibration, survey depth, or PSF anisotropy varies coherently on angular scales corresponding to 200–300 cMpc, neighboring clusters can share a spurious preferred orientation and produce a positive ⟨cos(2θ)⟩ that this null cannot reproduce. The global uniformity test in §2.2 checks only the marginal position-angle distribution, not two-point correlations in the angle field. The spectroscopic subsample supports the z<1 signal but, as the paper states, fewer than 1% of the 139,527 z>1 clusters have spectroscopic redshifts, so the high-redshift detection rests on the unproven noise-only assumption. I ask the authors to fit a coherent orientation-error model of plausible amplitude and show that it cannot generate the observed signal, and to test regional or survey splits (e.g., declination, depth, PSF) or perform a jackknife over sky patches, in addition to quantifying the potential effect of projected cluster members shared between neighboring clusters.
  2. [§2.3, Fig. 4] Significance is assessed bin-by-bin at p<0.001, but the analysis scans many distance bins in four redshift bins and additional mass/ellipticity splits. With no correction for multiple testing, the expected number of nominal p<0.001 fluctuations over the full scan is not negligible, and isolated long-separation bins should not be interpreted as independent discoveries. A false-discovery-rate or global null procedure should be applied before claiming significance on individual bins.
  3. [§2.3, §2.5, Discussion] The first paragraph of the Discussion states that correlations between cluster orientations are observed 'over scales of 200–300 cMpc or more and out to redshifts z>1,' which is stronger than the measurements reported in the body of the paper. Section 2.3 states that the z>1 signal extends only to ~100 cMpc, the spectroscopic check in §2.5 finds no significant alignment at z>1, and the Fig. 4 caption says the 200–300 cMpc signal is seen 'in all but the highest redshift subsample.' The abstract and conclusions restrict the large-scale claim to z≃1. These statements should be brought into agreement; the z>1 claim should be either supported by a dedicated analysis or removed from the summary claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.5] The text refers to 'WH2024' in one place; this should be 'WH24' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The displayed formula for the reduced moment of inertia tensor is garbled in the submitted text and should be typeset properly so that the numerator and denominator are clear.
  3. [§2.2] There is a missing space in 'A secondindependentmethod'; this is a typographical issue.
  4. [§2.2] The reported median absolute difference of 15.3° between the moment-of-inertia and RANSAC position angles is not negligible compared with the quoted orientation uncertainties of 16°–25°, so a brief quantitative statement of how this cross-check constrains the systematic error budget would be useful.
  5. [§2.5] The sentence 'Although such uncertainties introduce noise into our analysis, it only diminishes the ability to detect intrinsic cluster alignments' has a subject-verb agreement problem and should be rewritten.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the alignment signal is measured directly, and the null hypothesis and simulation comparison are independent checks rather than fitted restatements of the data.

full rationale

The central claim is a direct measurement of <cos(2θ)> from observed cluster position angles, with significance assessed by 1000 Monte Carlo realizations in which each cluster is assigned a random position angle while its position is preserved. This null hypothesis is not constructed from the exponential fits, from the alignment statistic itself, or from any parameter fitted to the data; it is an independent permutation test. The exponential functions in Table 1 are descriptive summaries of the measured signal and are not used to define significance or to generate the claimed detection. The comparison with the LastJourney simulations is an external, independent check against a publicly available N-body simulation with Planck ΛCDM initial conditions. The Wen & Han (2024) cluster catalog is co-authored by two of the present authors, but it is used as an observational data product with clearly stated detection criteria, not as a theoretical premise; using one's own catalog as input data does not make the alignment measurement equivalent to its inputs. Other self-citations (e.g., West et al. 1995; Einasto et al. 2024) supply context and interpretation but are not load-bearing for the detection. The Section 2.5 assertion that photometric redshift uncertainties 'introduce noise into our analysis... cannot create a false positive detection' is a strong robustness assumption, and the possibility of spatially coherent orientation systematics is a legitimate validity concern. That concern, however, is a correctness or systematics risk, not circularity: the paper does not define the predicted signal in terms of the data used to test it, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained, with only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection is a direct measurement, so the main free parameters are descriptive fit parameters (α, τ). The simulation comparison introduces hand-chosen mass cuts. No new entities are postulated and no physical constants are fitted.

free parameters (9)
  • α (z<0.4) = 0.021±0.005
    Amplitude of exponential fit to alignment signal in lowest redshift bin.
  • τ (z<0.4) = 55.5±7.4 cMpc
    Decay scale of exponential fit in lowest redshift bin.
  • α (0.4<z<0.7) = 0.018±0.007
    Amplitude of exponential fit in the 0.4<z<0.7 bin.
  • τ (0.4<z<0.7) = 67.1±14.0 cMpc
    Decay scale of exponential fit in the 0.4<z<0.7 bin.
  • α (0.7<z<1) = 0.017±0.004
    Amplitude of exponential fit in the 0.7<z<1 bin.
  • τ (0.7<z<1) = 60.9±7.8 cMpc
    Decay scale of exponential fit in the 0.7<z<1 bin.
  • α (z>1) = 0.011±0.003
    Amplitude of exponential fit in the z>1 bin.
  • τ (z>1) = 65.6±11.0 cMpc
    Decay scale of exponential fit in the z>1 bin.
  • Simulation mass thresholds = 5×10^14, 2.5×10^14, 1.5×10^14 M_sun at z=0, 0.5, 0.9, 1.5
    Chosen by hand to match 'typical rich clusters' in WH24; influences the simulated alignment amplitude and coherence scale. Not fitted to the observed data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The reduced moment of inertia tensor eigen-decomposition yields the correct projected shape and orientation of a cluster's galaxy distribution.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to define cluster orientations; this is a standard linear algebra result.
  • domain assumption The WH24 catalog reliably identifies clusters and member galaxies, and its photometric redshift uncertainties are approximately unbiased noise for the alignment measurement.
    The entire analysis depends on catalog fidelity; the paper cites WH24 tests of photo-z accuracy (Section 2.5) to justify this.
  • domain assumption The projected major axis of the member galaxy distribution traces the cluster's intrinsic elongation, which is physically aligned with the local cosmic web filament.
    This is the physical premise connecting the measured statistic to large-scale structure; established in earlier work cited in Section 1.
  • domain assumption Randomizing cluster position angles while fixing positions produces a valid null distribution for the alignment statistic, correctly accounting for survey geometry and pair correlations.
    Used in Section 2.3 for Monte Carlo significance; assumes no systematic orientational correlations exist in the data other than intrinsic ones.
  • domain assumption The LastJourney gravity-only simulation with Planck ΛCDM initial conditions is an adequate model for predicting cluster alignment statistics.
    Section 3; the simulation lacks baryonic physics but is used for comparison; this is a common but simplifying assumption.
  • standard math The statistic <cos(2θ)> has expectation zero for uncorrelated orientations.
    Section 2.3; follows from the uniformity of cos(2θ) for a random angle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of Cluster Alignments as Evidence of Large-scale Structure Formation in the Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L554MNGU

@misc{pith2026250619826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of Cluster Alignments as Evidence of Large-scale Structure Formation in the Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L554MNGU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19826}
}
read the original abstract

The universe's large-scale structure forms a vast, interconnected network of filaments, sheets, and voids known as the cosmic web. For decades, astronomers have observed that the orientations of neighboring galaxy clusters within these elongated structures are often aligned over separations of tens of Mpc. Using the largest available catalog of galaxy clusters, we show for the first time that clusters orientations are correlated over even larger scales, up to 200-300 comoving Mpc, and such alignments are seen to redshifts of at least z = 1. Comparison with numerical simulations suggests that coherent structures on similar scales may be expected in LCDM models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Perseus-Pisces supercluster region is a nearby segment of the cosmic web. Each point in this figure represents a galaxy in NASA’s Extragalactic Database with a recessional velocity in the range 4000 − 9000 km/s, corresponding to distances of ∼ 150 to 300 million light years from Earth. Densely populated groups and clusters of galaxies dot the prominent filament like beads on a string. The major axis orientations… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: A number density plot of the sky distribution of 1.58 million clusters in the Wen & Han (2024) catalog. Bottom left: The redshift distribution of the clusters. Bottom right: The number of detected member galaxies in each cluster as a function of redshift. For reference, one degree on the sky subtends roughly 60 cMpc at redshift z = 1. The orientation of each cluster, ϕ, and the ellipticity, e, were determined f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cluster member galaxies in a 2°× 2°portion of the WH24 catalog. Each point represents an individual galaxy. The different colors correspond to different redshift bins: blue is for z < 0.4, green is for z = 0.4 − 0.7, orange in￾dicates z = 0.7 − 1, and red is for z > 1. the cluster’s orientation and the ratio of the eigenvalues giving its ellipticity, e, e = 1 − λmin λmax where λmax and λmin are the maximum and minim… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Alignments of galaxy clusters in the WH24 sample as a function of comoving separation (d) and their evolution with the redshift (z). The statistic ⟨cos(2θ)⟩ measures the strength of cluster alignments, with an expectation value of 0 if cluster orientations are uncorrel…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependence of alignments on cluster mass (left) and ellipticity (right), for all redshifts combined. Note that in some cases the error bars are smaller than the symbol size. The most massive and most elongated clusters are the most strongly aligned with their neighbors…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Projected particle distribution in three typical LastJourney clusters at redshift z = 0. The major axis orientation for each, determined from the moments of inertia of its particle distribution, is shown in red. Coordinates are relative to the cluster center [PITH_FUL…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cluster alignments at four different redshifts in the LastJourney simulation. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Galaxy Superclusters and Their Complexes in the Cosmic Web

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of galaxy superclusters that summarizes their properties and argues that the quasiregular pattern of rich superclusters and the Ho'oleilana structure are not explained by baryon acoustic oscillations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 239, 18

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 24, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu523 Bal´ azs, L

    Anderson, L., Aubourg, ´E., Bailey, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 24, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu523 Bal´ azs, L. G., Bagoly, Z., Hakkila, J. E., et al. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 452, 2236

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu523 2014

  3. [3]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.5237, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1403.5237

    Benitez, N., Dupke, R., Moles, M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.5237, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1403.5237

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1403.5237 2014

  4. [4]

    1982, A&A, 107, 338

    Binggeli, B. 1982, A&A, 107, 338

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    A., Beutler, F., et al

    Blake, C., Kazin, E. A., Beutler, F., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1707, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19592.x

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    C., & Schartel, N

    Boehringer, H., Chon, G., Truemper, J., Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., & Schartel, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19236, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.19236

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.19236 2025

  7. [7]

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

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

    1996

  8. [8]

    2013, Astrophys

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, Astrophys. J., 779, 127

    work page 2013

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    G., Harris, K

    Clowes, R. G., Harris, K. A., Raghunathan, S., et al. 2013, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 429, 2910

    2013

  2. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01308 de Jong, R

    Zhang, C.-P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01308 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3, doi: 10.18727/0722-6691/5117 de Lapparent, V., Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1986, Astrophys. J., 302, L1

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Werner, N., Clowe, D., et al

    Dietrich, J. P., Werner, N., Clowe, D., et al. 2012, Nature, 487, 202

    2012

  5. [13]

    P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 513, 439

    2022

  6. [14]

    1983, Highlights of Astronomy, 6, 757

    Tarenghi, M. 1983, Highlights of Astronomy, 6, 757

    1983

  7. [15]

    1980, Mon

    Einasto, J., Joeveer, M., & Saar, E. 1980, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 193, 353

    1980

  8. [16]

    J., & Einasto, M

    Einasto, J., Suhhonenko, I., Liivam¨ agi, L. J., & Einasto, M. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 623, A97

    2019

  9. [17]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22082

    Einasto, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22082. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22082 12

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    1994, Mon

    Andernach, H. 1994, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 269, 301

    1994

  11. [19]

    2001, AJ, 122, 2222, doi: 10.1086/323707

    Andernach, H. 2001, AJ, 122, 2222, doi: 10.1086/323707

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 681, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347504

    Einasto, M., Einasto, J., Tenjes, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347504

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Tago, E., et al

    Einasto, M., Liivam¨ agi, L. J., Tago, E., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116564

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    1997, Astron

    Andernach, H. 1997, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 123, 119

    1997

  15. [23]

    2014, Astron

    Einasto, M., Tago, E., Lietzen, H., et al. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 568, A46

    2014

  16. [24]

    2016, Astron

    Einasto, M., Lietzen, H., Gramann, M., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 595, A70

    2016

  17. [25]

    2018, Astron

    Einasto, M., Deshev, B., Lietzen, H., et al. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 610, A82

    2018

  18. [26]

    2021, Astron

    Einasto, M., Kipper, R., Tenjes, P., et al. 2021, Astron. Astrophys., 649, A51

    2021

  19. [27]

    2022, Astron

    Einasto, M., Tenjes, P., Gramann, M., et al. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 666, A52

    2022

  20. [28]

    J., Zehavi, I., Hogg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Zehavi, I., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 560, doi: 10.1086/466512

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    A., & Bolles, R

    Fischler, M. A., & Bolles, R. C. 1981, Commun. ACM, 24, 381–395, doi: 10.1145/358669.358692

    1981

  22. [30]

    2023, Mon

    Fujii, H. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 527, 1982 Gon¸ calves, R. S., Carvalho, G. C., Andrade, U., et al. 2021, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2021, 029 Gon¸ calves, R. S., Carvalho, G. C., Bengaly, C. A. P.,

    2023

  23. [31]

    C., & Alcaniz, J

    Carvalho, J. C., & Alcaniz, J. S. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 481, 5270

    2018

  24. [32]

    R., Juri´ c, M., Schlegel, D., et al

    Gott, III, J. R., Juri´ c, M., Schlegel, D., et al. 2005, Astrophys. J., 624, 463

    2005

  25. [33]

    K., & Seshadri, T

    Goyal, P., Malik, S., Yadav, J. K., & Seshadri, T. R. 2024, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 530, 2866

    2024

  26. [34]

    2016, NewA, 42, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.06.003

    Habib, S., Pope, A., Finkel, H., et al. 2016, NewA, 42, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.06.003

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Finkel, H., et al

    Heitmann, K., Uram, T. D., Finkel, H., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 17

    2019

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJS, 252, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcc67 Horv´ ath, I., Hakkila, J., & Bagoly, Z

    Heitmann, K., Frontiere, N., Rangel, E., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcc67 Horv´ ath, I., Hakkila, J., & Bagoly, Z. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 561, L12

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Cha, S., & Cho, H

    HyeongHan, K., Jee, M. J., Cha, S., & Cho, H. 2024, Nat. Astron., 8, 377

    2024

  30. [38]

    2022, Astron

    Kim, Y., Park, C.-G., Noh, H., & Hwang, J.-C. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 660, A139 Kumar Aluri, P., Cea, P., Chingangbam, P., et al. 2023, Class. Quantum Gravity, 40, 094001

    2022

  31. [39]

    E., et al

    Lamman, C., Eisenstein, D., Forero-Romero, J. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2290

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    J., et al

    Lietzen, H., Tempel, E., Liivam¨ agi, L. J., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 588, L4 Liivam¨ agi, L. J., Tempel, E., & Saar, E. 2012, A&A, 539, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016288

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Driver, S

    Liske, J., Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 452, 2087

    2015

  34. [42]

    M., Clowes, R

    Lopez, A. M., Clowes, R. G., & Williger, G. M. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 516, 1557

    2022

  35. [43]

    M., Clowes, R

    Lopez, A. M., Clowes, R. G., & Williger, G. M. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 055, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/055

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Darvish, B., Lin, Z., et al

    Martin, D. C., Darvish, B., Lin, Z., et al. 2023, Nat. Astron., 7, 1390

    2023

  37. [45]

    2023, Mon

    Melia, F. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc

    2023

  38. [46]

    2012, Astrophys

    Park, C., Choi, Y.-Y., Kim, J., et al. 2012, Astrophys. J. Lett., 759, L7

    2012

  39. [47]

    Park, C., Song, H., Einasto, M., Lietzen, H., & Heinamaki, P. 2015, J. Korean Astron. Soc., 48, 75

    2015

  40. [48]

    J., Sgr´ o, M

    Paz, D. J., Sgr´ o, M. A., Merch´ an, M., & Padilla, N. 2011, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 414, 2029

    2011

  41. [49]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 511, 5093 —. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 594, A13

    2022

  42. [50]

    1994, Astrophys

    Plionis, M. 1994, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 95, 401

    1994

  43. [51]

    S., et al

    Sawala, T., Teeriaho, M., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.03515, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03515

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    I., Davis, T., Blake, C., et al

    Scrimgeour, M. I., Davis, T., Blake, C., et al. 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 425, 116

    2012

  45. [53]

    2012, Mon

    Niederste-Ostholt, M. 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 423, 856

    2012

  46. [54]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  47. [55]

    F., & Peebles, P

    Struble, M. F., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1985, Astron. J., 90, 582

    1985

  48. [56]

    A., Blanton, M

    Tegmark, M., Strauss, M. A., Blanton, M. R., et al. 2004, PhRvD, 69, 103501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.103501 The CHIME Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 947, 16

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    Tully, R. B. 1986, Astrophys. J., 303, 25

    1986

  50. [58]

    2019, Science, 366, 97 van Uitert, E., & Joachimi, B

    Umehata, H., Fumagalli, M., Smail, I., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 97 van Uitert, E., & Joachimi, B. 2017, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 468, 4502

    2019

  51. [59]

    F., et al

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

    2023

  52. [60]

    2009, Astrophys

    Wang, Y., Park, C., Yang, X., Choi, Y.-Y., & Chen, X. 2009, Astrophys. J., 703, 951 13

    2009

  53. [61]

    L., & Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., & Han, J. L. 2015, Astrophys. J., 807, 178 —. 2024, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 272, 39

    2015

  54. [62]

    L., Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L., & Liu, F. S. 2009, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 183, 197

    2009

  55. [63]

    L., Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L., & Yuan, Z. S. 2024, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 532, 1849

    2024

  56. [64]

    West, M. J. 1989, Astrophys. J., 347, 610

    1989

  57. [65]

    J., Jones, C., & Forman, W

    West, M. J., Jones, C., & Forman, W. 1995, Astrophys. J., 451

    1995

  58. [66]

    K., Bagla, J

    Yadav, J. K., Bagla, J. S., & Khandai, N. 2010, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., no

    2010

  59. [67]

    B., Einasto, J., & Shandarin, S

    Zeldovich, Y. B., Einasto, J., & Shandarin, S. F. 1982, Nature, 300, 407

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.