Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 94 references

A quasi-gravitational potential can recover dynamically dominant voids and their galaxy trends despite J-PAS photometric redshift errors.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 16:34 UTC pith:A56BPSJT

load-bearing objection Solid controlled mock demo that quasi-potential watershed voids and massive void-galaxy trends hold under J-PAS-like photo-z errors; useful infrastructure, not a cosmology result, with the real-data leap already caveated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26932 v1 pith:A56BPSJT submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.CO

J-PAS & FLAMINGO: Cosmic voids and void galaxies in the gravitational landscape of photometric surveys

J.A. Mansour , B. McCarthy , L. J. Liivam\"agi , A. Tamm , R. van de Weygaert , J. Laur , E. Tempel , M. Einasto
show 29 more authors
P. Hein\"am\"aki J. Schaye M. Schaller R. Abramo A. Hern\'an-Caballero V. Marra J. Alcaniz N. Benitez S. Bonoli S. Carneiro J. Cenarro D. Crist\'obal-Hornillos S. Daflon R. Dupke A. Ederoclite Rosa M. Gonz\'alez Delgado C. Hern\'andez-Monteagudo J. Liu C. L\'opez-Sanjuan A. Mar\'in-Franch C. M. de Oliveira M. Moles F. Roig L. Sodr\'e Jr K. Taylor J. Varela H. V\'azquez Rami\'o J. Vilchez J. Zaragoza-Cardiel
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k98.65.Dx95.75.Pq98.62.Py
keywords cosmic voidsphotometric redshiftsquasi-gravitational potentialwatershed void findervoid galaxiesJ-PASFLAMINGOlarge-scale structure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Photometric surveys map huge volumes of galaxies cheaply, but redshift errors smear structures along the line of sight and wreck ordinary void finders. This paper shows that solving a Poisson equation on the log galaxy density produces a quasi-gravitational potential whose large-scale peaks mark the true expansion centres of the cosmic web. A watershed algorithm restricted to the expanding (positive) regions of that field finds voids whose sizes and shapes agree closely between an ideal mock and a mock with realistic J-PAS errors; a matched subset of voids even occupies most of the thresholded volume. Massive galaxies selected inside those voids still look less massive, bluer and more star-forming than equal-mass galaxies in dense regions. The result matters because it opens a practical route to void cosmology and environmental galaxy studies in the coming flood of photometric data.

Core claim

In FLAMINGO mocks at z=0.3 with J-PAS-like photometric redshift errors, a watershed applied to a thresholded quasi-gravitational potential recovers dynamically dominant voids whose size and ellipticity distributions match those of the ideal mock, recovers a substantial matched subset occupying roughly 63 percent of the thresholded volume, and still yields massive void-core galaxies that are less massive, bluer and more star-forming than equal-mass galaxies in high-density regions.

What carries the argument

The quasi-gravitational potential: the Poisson solution of the log-transformed galaxy number density, thresholded to positive (expanding) regions and partitioned by watershed. It acts as a low-pass filter that isolates the dynamically dominant supervoids while suppressing small-scale noise introduced by photo-z scatter.

Load-bearing premise

That fixing the log-density transform, one-megaparsec grid and positive-potential threshold is already enough to claim the method will deliver reliable voids once real survey masks, selection functions and full redshift posteriors are included.

What would settle it

Apply the identical pipeline to a larger mock that also includes survey geometry, masks, selection functions and full photo-z posteriors; if the recovered-void volume fraction collapses well below 63 percent or the void-versus-dense galaxy property trends disappear, the claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • J-PAS and similar photometric surveys can host catalogues of dynamically dominant voids without waiting for complete spectroscopy.
  • Massive void-galaxy trends in colour, stellar mass and star-formation rate remain measurable at J-PAS photo-z precision.
  • Stacking analyses that rely on void centres (Alcock–Paczyński, ISW, weak lensing) become feasible on photometric samples once the quasi-potential filter is applied.
  • Smaller nested voids and void-in-cloud systems are deliberately excluded, so cosmological constraints will reflect only the expanding supervoid population.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same potential watershed could serve as a common void definition across heterogeneous photometric and spectroscopic surveys, reducing finder-to-finder systematics.
  • Because the method already discards contracting regions, it may automatically suppress the void-in-cloud population that contaminates many cosmological void probes.
  • Extending the identical pipeline to Euclid-scale volumes would test whether the recovered volume fraction and galaxy trends remain stable when sample variance drops.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper tests whether a quasi-gravitational potential (Poisson solve on ln(1+δ) from a DTFE galaxy density field), followed by a Φ>0-thresholded watershed, can identify dynamically dominant voids in FLAMINGO-based J-PAS mocks despite photometric redshift errors. Comparing an ideal FBI mock to a JP mock with J-PAS-like line-of-sight scatter at z=0.3 and mi<20, the authors report compatible void size and ellipticity distributions, recovery of ~425 matched voids (IoU>0.5) occupying ~63% of the FBI thresholded quasi-potential volume with strong object-by-object Spearman correlations, and preservation of expected massive void-core galaxy trends (lower M*, bluer colours, elevated SFR/sSFR at fixed mass) relative to a high-density comparison sample. The main photo-z impact is interior contamination of JP density profiles and a modest drop in void abundance.

Significance. If the controlled mock result holds, the work offers a practical path for void and void-galaxy science in narrow-band photometric surveys such as J-PAS, where raw density-based void finders are known to degrade under photo-z scatter. The FBI–JP design, dual size estimators (Req and Dmax), KS and Spearman tests, spherical plus boundary density profiles, and mass-binned galaxy property comparisons with bootstrap intervals constitute a clear, falsifiable demonstration within the stated scope. Strengths include the explicit differential mock test, the dynamical motivation for restricting to expanding Φ>0 basins, and candid caveats on deferred systematics and the M*≥10^10 cut. The result is incremental rather than transformative, but useful for the community preparing J-PAS and similar surveys.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, §6] §3.2 and §6 state that grid resolution, log-transform, and the quasi-potential threshold (exclude −Φ≥0) are not calibrated here and are deferred to McCarthy et al. (in prep.). The central claim that the method ‘mitigates redshift errors’ and yields ‘reliable’ voids therefore rests on a single fixed parameter set (1 Mpc grid, Φ>0 cut, ~55–56% volume occupation). Without at least a limited sensitivity check in this manuscript (e.g., threshold variation and effect on KS p-values, recovery fraction, and stacked profiles), it is hard to judge how load-bearing those choices are for the reported FBI–JP agreement. A short appendix or table quantifying stability under modest threshold/grid changes would substantially strengthen the robustness claim.
  2. [§5.1–5.2, Fig. 12] §4.3 and §5.1 document clear photo-z contamination of JP void interiors (elevated central 1+δ; SMF excess above ~10^11 M⊙; fewer void-core galaxies because collecting spheres shrink). The galaxy-property conclusions in §5.2 (bluer colours, higher SFR/sSFR at fixed mass) are drawn from the full JP void-core sample, not the 8990 ID-matched galaxies common to FBI and JP. Given that contamination is the dominant photo-z effect, the paper should either (i) repeat Fig. 12 on the matched subset or (ii) quantify how much the JP–high-density contrast shrinks when contaminants are removed. Without that, the claim that ‘expected trends survive’ in the JP mock is only partially stress-tested.
  3. [§3.3, §4.5, Abstract] §3.3–4.5 define recovery via IoU>0.5 and report 425 recovered voids (~40% of FBI voids; ~63% of FBI thresholded volume) with high Spearman rs for Dmax and ellipticity. The abstract and conclusions call this a ‘reasonable number’ and evidence that voids are ‘reliably’ identified. The paper should state more explicitly what success criterion was set a priori (volume fraction? purity/completeness vs size?) and how sensitive the 63% figure is to the IoU cut (e.g., IoU>0.3 vs 0.5). As written, ‘reasonable’ is post hoc and weakens the quantitative recovery claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3] Fig. 3 caption and body: watershed boundaries are said to be shown in a 5 Mpc-thick slice in one place and 1 Mpc in another; clarify slice thickness consistently for density vs quasi-potential panels.
  2. [§3.2] Eq. (5) and surrounding text: the quasi-potential is defined via Poisson on ln(1+δ), but the symbol Φ is used for both the standard and quasi potential. Introduce a distinct symbol (e.g. Φ_q) to avoid confusion when discussing Φ>0 thresholds.
  3. [§2.2] §2.2: the J-PAS calibration sample is restricted to well-defined primary peaks and 0.2<z<0.4, mi<20; the text correctly notes it may not represent the full J-PAS population. A one-sentence quantitative comparison of the error distribution to the broader miniJPAS/TOPz sample would help readers gauge selection bias.
  4. [Abstract, §4.2] §4.2: KS test on Req rejects equality (p=0.0012) while Dmax does not (p=0.065). The text correctly prefers Dmax, but the abstract’s ‘overall size … distributions agree well’ should briefly acknowledge the Req tension so it is not overstated.
  5. [Title, §2.1, §3.2] Typos/notation: ‘J-P AS’ spacing inconsistencies in title/headers; ‘goaldz’ in §2.1; ‘Superhubble Bubbles’ may need a brief definition or citation call-out on first use beyond Icke 1984.
  6. [Figs. 7–8] Fig. 7–8 inset difference panels are useful; ensure axis labels and the sign convention (JP−FBI vs FBI−JP) are stated in the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: FBI–JP agreement and void-galaxy trends are independent mock measurements, not fits or definitional identities.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§3.2 (quasi-potential watershed); also §2.2 photo-z modelling]
    "In the present study we therefore apply the watershed identification of voids in a quasi-gravitational potential field (McCarthy 2024). [...] We note that this paper concerns an application of the quasi-potential framework to J-PAS galaxy mocks, rather than a methodological validation paper of the quasi-potential method. A quantitative calibration and sensitivity suite [...] is the core subject of a dedicated companion methods paper currently in preparation (McCarthy et al., in prep.)."

    The quasi-potential watershed framing and the photo-z error injection recipe lean on prior/coauthor work (McCarthy 2024; Mansour et al. 2025) whose full parameter calibration is deferred. This is ordinary method inheritance, not a uniqueness theorem or a fitted input renamed as prediction: FBI and JP are still processed independently and compared with external statistics (KS tests, IoU, SMFs, SFR trends). Not load-bearing circularity; flagged only as minor self-dependence.

full rationale

The paper’s central chain is a controlled differential test: the same DTFE → log-density quasi-potential → Φ>0 watershed pipeline is run independently on an ideal FBI mock and a JP mock with externally calibrated J-PAS-like line-of-sight errors; size/ellipticity distributions, IoU-matched recovery, density profiles, and void-core vs high-density galaxy properties are then measured and compared. Nothing in that chain defines the JP outcome in terms of the FBI outcome, nor fits a free parameter to force agreement and then relabels it a prediction. Environmental ‘expected trends’ (lower M*, bluer colours, elevated SFR/sSFR) are external literature benchmarks, not quantities tuned inside the mocks. Mild self-dependence exists only as ordinary methodological background (Mansour et al. 2025 for the photo-z displacement recipe; McCarthy 2024 / in-prep for the quasi-potential watershed framing), which does not reduce the reported statistics to inputs by construction. Calibration of thresholds/grid/log-transform is explicitly deferred and caveated. Score 1 reflects that minor self-citation footprint without elevating it to circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological simulation practice plus several analysis choices that define which underdensities and galaxies count. The quasi-potential transform and Φ>0 watershed cut are the load-bearing methodological axioms; stellar-mass completeness and the simplified error model bound what “void galaxy trends survive” can mean. No new physical particle or force is introduced—only analysis constructs.

free parameters (6)
  • quasi-potential watershed threshold (exclude -Φ ≥ 0 / keep Φ>0 basins) = Φ>0 (volume occupation ~55% FBI, ~56% JP)
    Hand-imposed cut that sets void volume occupation (~55–56%) and preferentially selects large expanding voids; not fitted to data here and calibration deferred to companion paper.
  • DTFE / potential grid spacing = 1 Mpc
    Fixed analysis resolution entering density and quasi-potential fields.
  • void-core galaxy local density cut = log10(1+δ) < -0.3 plus sphere enclosing 50% of void mean density
    Defines the void galaxy sample used for environmental trends.
  • high-density comparison cut = log10(1+δ) > 0.5
    Defines the control sample against which void trends are claimed.
  • void recovery IoU threshold = IoU > 0.5
    Binary match criterion for “recovered” voids and the 63% volume statistic.
  • galaxy sample limits (mi, M*, z snapshot, photo-z quality cuts) = z=0.3, mi<20, M*≥1e10 M⊙; calibration 0.2<z<0.4 primary peaks
    Sets tracer population and error distribution; high-quality primary-peak photo-z subset may not represent full J-PAS.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Poisson quasi-potential on ln(1+δ) preserves the dynamically relevant large-scale void basins under photo-z line-of-sight scatter better than raw density watersheds.
    Core methodological premise (§3.2); motivated by low-pass 1/k^2 filtering and prior potential-basin work, but quantitative optimality not demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption FLAMINGO L1_m8 galaxies with ≥100 star particles are adequate tracers for void structure and massive void-galaxy property trends at z=0.3.
    Standard sim-to-mock assumption (§2.2); limits claims to M*≥1e10 M⊙.
  • domain assumption J-PAS photo-z errors can be modelled as z-axis comoving distance offsets drawn from the TOPz calibration error distribution, ignoring RSD, masks, and selection functions for this controlled test.
    Explicit modelling choice in §2.2; authors flag full systematics as future work.
  • domain assumption Watershed basins on the thresholded negative quasi-potential correspond to dynamically dominant expanding voids (void-in-void / Superhubble-type regions).
    Interpretation linking potential peaks to expansion centres (Icke; Sheth & van de Weygaert hierarchy language in §1 and §3.2).
  • standard math Periodic-box DTFE density on a Cartesian grid is a faithful continuous tracer field for void finding.
    Standard DTFE usage (§3.1) with public implementation cited.
invented entities (2)
  • Quasi-gravitational potential (Poisson solve on ln(1+δ) galaxy density) no independent evidence
    purpose: Smooth photo-z noise and isolate large repulsive basins for watershed void finding.
    Named and operationalized here following McCarthy 2024 / in-prep; not a new physical field, but a constructed analysis field central to all void results.
  • Void-core galaxy sample (max-potential-centred sphere at 50% void mean density ∩ log10(1+δ)<-0.3) no independent evidence
    purpose: Define resident massive void galaxies for environmental comparisons under photo-z contamination.
    Paper-specific selection dual criterion (§3.4); trends depend on this definition.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 34379 in / 4098 out tokens · 99294 ms · 2026-07-30T16:34:52.933908+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Photometric surveys offer a powerful way to map the large-scale structure of the Universe, but their redshift errors complicate the identification of cosmic voids, challenging studies of their environmental effect on galaxy properties. We present an approach to robustly identify dynamically relevant voids and void galaxies in galaxy mocks of the Javalambre Physics of the Accelerating Universe Astrophysical Survey (J-PAS), testing whether known trends in void galaxy properties survive photometric redshift errors. Using FLAMINGO mocks at z = 0.3 and mi < 20, we compare a FLAMINGO-based ideal (FBI) mock to a FLAMINGO-based JP mock with J-PAS-like redshift errors. We mitigate redshift errors using a quasi-gravitational potential field in the two galaxy mocks. We apply a watershed algorithm to the thresholded quasi-potential field to identify dynamically dominant voids, and define massive void galaxies alongside a comparison sample in high-density regions. Photometric errors lead to a slightly lower void abundance and a marginal shift toward larger, less spherical voids, but overall size and ellipticity distributions agree well between mocks. Their main impact is contamination of void interiors in the JP density profiles by galaxies scattered from high-density regions. We recover a reasonable number of FBI sample voids in the JP sample, with excellent size and shape agreement, occupying ~63% of the thresholded quasi-potential volume. In both mocks, void galaxies show lower stellar masses, bluer colours, and enhanced star formation relative to equal-mass galaxies in high-density regions. These results suggest a quasi-potential can mitigate redshift errors at the level expected for J-PAS, enabling identification of reliable, dynamically dominant voids that are less sensitive to small-scale noise. The massive void galaxy population shows the expected trends relative to high-density environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26932 by A. Ederoclite, A. Hern\'an-Caballero, A. Mar\'in-Franch, A. Tamm, B. McCarthy, C. Hern\'andez-Monteagudo, C. L\'opez-Sanjuan, C. M. de Oliveira, D. Crist\'obal-Hornillos, E. Tempel, F. Roig, H. V\'azquez Rami\'o, J. Alcaniz, J.A. Mansour, J. Cenarro, J. Laur, J. Liu, J. Schaye, J. Varela, J. Vilchez, J. Zaragoza-Cardiel, K. Taylor, L. J. Liivam\"agi, L. Sodr\'e Jr, M. Einasto, M. Moles, M. Schaller, N. Benitez, P. Hein\"am\"aki, R. Abramo, R. Dupke, Rosa M. Gonz\'alez Delgado, R. van de Weygaert, S. Bonoli, S. Carneiro, S. Daflon, V. Marra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: J-PAS photometric redshift error distribution provided by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A 15 Mpc thick slice zoom-in of the 1 Gpc FLAMINGO box of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FBI (top row) and JP (bottom row) galaxy mocks of J-PAS shown in a 5 Mpc-thick slice (left column), together with the corresponding density fields (middle column) and the quasi-potential fields (right columns) displayed in a 1 Mpc-thick slice in the X–Z projection. White lines indicate the watershed void boundaries. Bright regions in the quasi-potential field map correspond to regions of Φ < 0 which have b… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-section of a watershed void identified in the quasi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-section of a watershed void identified in the quasi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Void size distributions of the equivalent radius and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Individual (coloured lines) and stacked (black lines) spherical density profiles for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Individual (coloured lines) and stacked (black lines) void boundary density profiles are presented for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of shape parameters for voids in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Stellar mass function for void core galaxies (solid lines, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sizes and shapes of the recovered voids (right halves) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Star formation rate (left), specific star formation rate (centre) and colour (right) of void core (solid lines, circles), high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520

    2022

  2. [2]

    Aragon-Calvo, M. A. & Szalay, A. S. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3409 Aragón-Calvo, M. A., van de Weygaert, R., & Jones, B. J. T. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2163

    2013

  3. [3]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.5237

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4325

    Bermejo, R., Wilding, G., van de Weygaert, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4325

    2024

  5. [5]

    F., van der Hulst, J

    Beygu, B., Peletier, R. F., van der Hulst, J. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 666

    2017

  6. [6]

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

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

    1996

  7. [7]

    2021, A&A, 653, A31

    Bonoli, S., Marín-Franch, A., Varela, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A31

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bos, E. G. P., van de Weygaert, R., Dolag, K., & Pettorino, V . 2012, MNRAS, 426, 440

    2012

  9. [9]

    Cautun, M., Cai, Y .-C., & Frenk, C. S. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2540

    2016

  10. [10]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2923

    2014

  11. [11]

    Cautun, M. C. & van de Weygaert, R. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1105.0370

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Ceccarelli, L., Paz, D., Lares, M., Padilla, N., & Lambas, D. G. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1435

    2013

  13. [13]

    M., Pearce, F., Foster, C., et al

    Colberg, J. M., Pearce, F., Foster, C., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 933

    2008

  14. [14]

    & Jones, B

    Coles, P. & Jones, B. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 1

    1991

  15. [15]

    A., Jackson, C., et al

    Colless, M., Peterson, B. A., Jackson, C., et al. 2003, The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Final Data Release

    2003

  16. [16]

    M., García-Benito, R., González Delgado, R

    Conrado, A. M., García-Benito, R., González Delgado, R. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 709, A227

    2026

  17. [17]

    M., González Delgado, R

    Conrado, A. M., González Delgado, R. M., García-Benito, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A98

    2024

  18. [18]

    2024, A&A, 682, A20

    Contarini, S., Pisani, A., Hamaus, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A20

    2024

  19. [19]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14362

    Contarini, S., Verza, G., & Pisani, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14362

    arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Curtis, O., McDonough, B., & Brainerd, T. G. 2024, ApJ, 962, 58 de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3 de Lapparent, V ., Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1986, ApJ, 302, L1

    2024

  21. [21]

    1934, Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR

    Delaunay, B. 1934, Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR. Otdelenie Matematich- eskikh i Estestvennykh Nauk, 793, bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS. Classe des sciences mathématiques et naturelles DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 207 Domínguez-Gómez, J., Pérez, I., Ruiz-Lara, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 269

    1934

  22. [22]

    S., Finoguenov, A., et al

    Doubrawa, L., Cypriano, E. S., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A98

    2024

  23. [23]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  24. [24]

    N., Goldwirth, D

    Dubinski, J., da Costa, L. N., Goldwirth, D. S., Lecar, M., & Piran, T. 1993, ApJ, 410, 458

    1993

  25. [25]

    & Courtois, H

    Dupuy, A. & Courtois, H. M. 2023, A&A, 678, A176

    2023

  26. [26]

    M., Libeskind, N

    Dupuy, A., Courtois, H. M., Libeskind, N. I., & Guinet, D. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3513

    2020

  27. [27]

    1991, MNRAS, 250, 802

    Einasto, M. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 802

    1991

  28. [28]

    2022, A&A, 668, A69

    Einasto, M., Kipper, R., Tenjes, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A69

    2022

  29. [29]

    2025, A&A, 704, A151 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y ., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Einasto, M., Tenjes, P., Kipper, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A151 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y ., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1

    2025

  30. [30]

    A., Kannappan, S

    Florez, J., Berlind, A. A., Kannappan, S. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 97

    2021

  31. [31]

    E., Hoffman, Y ., Gottlöber, S., Klypin, A., & Yepes, G

    Forero-Romero, J. E., Hoffman, Y ., Gottlöber, S., Klypin, A., & Yepes, G. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1815 Ganeshaiah Veena, P., Cautun, M., Tempel, E., van de Weygaert, R., & Frenk, C. S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1607–1625 García-Benito, R., Jiménez, A., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A161 González Delgado, R. M., Díaz-García, L. A., de Amorim, A., et al....

    2009

  32. [32]

    Gregory, S. A. & Thompson, L. A. 1978, ApJ, 222, 784

    1978

  33. [33]

    Grogin, N. A. & Geller, M. J. 1999, The Astronomical Journal, 118, 2561–2580

    1999

  34. [34]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 899

    Habouzit, M., Pisani, A., Goulding, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 899

    2020

  35. [35]

    2016, PRL, 117

    Hamaus, N., Pisani, A., Sutter, P., et al. 2016, PRL, 117

    2016

  36. [36]

    C., McGibbon, R

    Helly, J. C., McGibbon, R. J., Schaye, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24324 Hernán-Caballero, A., Varela, J., López-Sanjuan, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A101 Hernán-Caballero, A., Willmer, C. N. A., Varela, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A71

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.18209

    Hertzsch, B., Feldbrugge, J., & van de Weygaert, R. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.18209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    & Melchior, P

    Horowitz, B. & Melchior, P. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 2050

    2025

  39. [39]

    R., V ogeley, M

    Hoyle, F., Rojas, R. R., V ogeley, M. S., & Brinkmann, J. 2005, ApJ, 620, 618

    2005

  40. [40]

    S., & Pan, D

    Hoyle, F., V ogeley, M. S., & Pan, D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3041

    2012

  41. [41]

    P., Macri, L

    Huchra, J. P., Macri, L. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 26

    2012

  42. [42]

    1984, MNRAS, 206, 1P Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S

    Icke, V . 1984, MNRAS, 206, 1P Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111 Jõeveer, M., Einasto, J., & Tago, E. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 357

    1984

  43. [43]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 2167

    Jennings, E., Li, Y ., & Hu, W. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2167

    2013

  44. [44]

    Jones, B. J. T., van de Weygaert, R., & Aragón-Calvo, M. A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 897

    2010

  45. [45]

    P., Oemler, Augustus, J., Schechter, P

    Kirshner, R. P., Oemler, Augustus, J., Schechter, P. L., & Shectman, S. A. 1987, ApJ, 314, 493

    1987

  46. [46]

    2016, PRL, 116

    Kitaura, F.-S., Chuang, C.-H., Liang, Y ., et al. 2016, PRL, 116

    2016

  47. [47]

    A., et al

    Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Aragón-Calvo, M. A., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 4 J.A Mansour et al.: J-PAS & FLAMINGO: Cosmic voids and void galaxies in the gravitational landscape of photometric surveys

    2011

  48. [48]

    A., et al

    Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Aragón-Calvo, M. A., et al. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 16

    2012

  49. [49]

    D., Pisani, A., Carbone, C., et al

    Kreisch, C. D., Pisani, A., Carbone, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4413

    2019

  50. [50]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103

    Kugel, R., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103

    2023

  51. [51]

    & van de Weygaert, R

    Kugel, R. & van de Weygaert, R. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag193

    2026

  52. [52]

    2022, A&A, 668, A8

    Laur, J., Tempel, E., Tamm, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A8

    2022

  53. [53]

    & Wandelt, B

    Lavaux, G. & Wandelt, B. D. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1392

    2010

  54. [54]

    2025, MNRAS, 543, 2204

    Lim, S., Tacchella, S., Maiolino, R., Schaye, J., & Schaller, M. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2204

    2025

  55. [55]

    A., Liivamägi, L

    Mansour, J. A., Liivamägi, L. J., Tamm, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A174 Martínez-Solaeche, G., González Delgado, R. M., García-Benito, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A158 Martínez-Solaeche, G., Queiroz, C., González Delgado, R. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A103

    2025

  56. [56]

    Maturi, M., Finoguenov, A., Lopes, P. A. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A145

    2023

  57. [57]

    McCarthy, B. M. 2024, Comparative Analysis of the Watershed V oid Finding Technique, bSc thesis, University of Groningen

    2024

  58. [58]

    G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A. M. C. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2936

    2017

  59. [59]

    1963, Morse theory, Based on lecture notes by M

    Milnor, J. 1963, Morse theory, Based on lecture notes by M. Spivak and R. Wells. Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 51 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press), vi+153

    1963

  60. [60]

    1934, The calculus of variations in the large, V ol

    Morse, M. 1934, The calculus of variations in the large, V ol. 18 (American Math- ematical Soc.)

    1934

  61. [61]

    & Hotchkiss, S

    Nadathur, S. & Hotchkiss, S. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1248

    2014

  62. [62]

    Newman, J. A. & Gruen, D. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 363

    2022

  63. [63]

    Neyrinck, M. C. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2101

    2008

  64. [64]

    2000, Spatial tessellations : concepts and applications of voronoi diagrams

    Okabe, A., ed. 2000, Spatial tessellations : concepts and applications of voronoi diagrams

    2000

  65. [65]

    Oprea, A. G. 2025, Hierarchical Topology of the Cosmic Web Tidal Force Field, bSc thesis, University of Groningen

    2025

  66. [66]

    Paillas, E., Lagos, C. D. P., Padilla, N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4434

    2017

  67. [67]

    & Roukema, B

    Peper, M. & Roukema, B. F. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1223 Pérez, I., Verley, S., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A213 Pérez-Ràfols, I., Abramo, L. R., Martínez-Solaeche, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A144

    2021

  68. [68]

    N., et al

    Pisani, A., Massara, E., Spergel, D. N., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 40

    2019

  69. [69]

    2005, PhD thesis, Groningen

    Platen, E. 2005, PhD thesis, Groningen

    2005

  70. [70]

    Platen, E., van de Weygaert, R., & Jones, B. J. T. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 551

    2007

  71. [71]

    Platen, E., van de Weygaert, R., & Jones, B. J. T. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 128

    2008

  72. [72]

    Platen, E., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., Vegter, G., & Calvo, M. A. A. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2494

    2011

  73. [73]

    2024, The Tidal Origin of the Cosmic Web: A Hidden Structure in the Primordial Universe, bSc thesis, University of Groningen Rodríguez-Medrano, A

    Ram, J. 2024, The Tidal Origin of the Cosmic Web: A Hidden Structure in the Primordial Universe, bSc thesis, University of Groningen Rodríguez-Medrano, A. M., Paz, D. J., Stasyszyn, F. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 916–925

    2024

  74. [74]

    R., V ogeley, M

    Rojas, R. R., V ogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., & Brinkmann, J. 2004, ApJ, 617, 50

    2004

  75. [75]

    R., V ogeley, M

    Rojas, R. R., V ogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., & Brinkmann, J. 2005, ApJ, 624, 571

    2005

  76. [76]

    Rosas-Guevara, Y ., Tissera, P., Lagos, C. d. P., Paillas, E., & Padilla, N. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 712 Sánchez, C., Clampitt, J., Kovacs, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 746

    2022

  77. [77]

    Schaap, W. E. & van de Weygaert, R. 2000, A&A, 363, L29

    2000

  78. [78]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978

    2023

  79. [79]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 055

    Schuster, N., Hamaus, N., Pisani, A., et al. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 055

    2019

  80. [80]

    A., Heitmann, K., & Habib, S

    Shandarin, S., Feldman, H. A., Heitmann, K., & Habib, S. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1629

    2006

Showing first 80 references.