pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04578 · v1 · pith:MYYAV5COnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Cosmography of the Sloan Basin of Attraction and Neighborhood

Daniel Pomarede , R. Brent Tully , Aurelien Valade , Noam Libeskind , Yehuda Hoffman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords Sloan Great Wallbasin of attractionvelocity streamlinescosmographyCosmicflows-4V-webLambdaCDMbaryon acoustic oscillation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reconstructed velocity streamlines show the Sloan basin of attraction as the largest in the local region with diameter ~0.13c.

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

This paper uses galaxy distance and velocity measurements to reconstruct the density and velocity fields in the nearby universe within a standard cosmological model. By following the paths of the velocity field, it identifies regions where flows converge to the same point, defining basins of attraction around mass concentrations. The analysis finds that the basin associated with the Sloan Great Wall is by far the biggest in the mapped area. Understanding these basins reveals how gravity shapes the large-scale flows and structure in our cosmic neighborhood.

Core claim

Hamiltonian Monte Carlo forward reconstruction in a LambdaCDM framework, constrained by Cosmicflows-4, produces probabilistic density and velocity fields. Streamlines of the velocity field converge to sinks corresponding to gravitational potential minima. The Sloan basin of attraction is the largest, with a diameter of ~0.13c, and can be traced by converging streamlines on the Sloan Great Wall, the density field, and the V-web filaments from velocity shear.

What carries the argument

Basin of attraction as the volume of all velocity streamlines ending at the same gravitational potential minimum sink.

If this is right

  • The Sloan Great Wall serves as the primary gravitational attractor for flows in this volume.
  • The basin appears consistently across velocity streamlines, density reconstruction, and shear-defined filaments.
  • Probabilities and uncertainties can be assigned to the basin identification due to data limitations and model randomness.
  • The Ho`oleilana baryon acoustic oscillation feature has a relationship to this basin that merits further exploration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar reconstructions in other regions could map the full hierarchy of basins across the observable universe.
  • Discrepancies between this reconstruction and N-body simulations might highlight missing physics in the model.
  • The method provides a way to visualize and quantify the influence of known structures like the Sloan Great Wall on cosmic expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The LambdaCDM forward reconstruction from the Cosmicflows-4 data accurately locates the true gravitational potential minima and associated basins without major biases from incomplete data or model assumptions.

What would settle it

A more complete survey of galaxy distances and velocities in the region showing that streamlines do not predominantly converge on the Sloan Great Wall or that the potential minimum is elsewhere.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04578 by Aurelien Valade, Daniel Pomarede, Noam Libeskind, R. Brent Tully, Yehuda Hoffman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Video visualization of the cosmography of the Sloan Basin of Attraction and neighborhood ← click on this link [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — Contours of over density involving the CfA Great Wall and Hercules complex. Velocity streamlines from 1000 trials em￾anate from the Coma Cluster as a source. Orange streamlines illustrate the 25% that terminate within the CfA Great Wall, the blue streamlines illustrate the 1/3 that terminate in the Hercules region, and the black lines illustrate the 40% that terminate in the Shapley concentration. Scene … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — The p = 0.5 shell of the Sloan BoA, the average of 1000 HMC realizations, with overdensity contours from the mean HMC density field at δ 1.2,1.7,2.2,2.8 (levels used in subsequent figures). ACO clusters within the Sloan BoA are located by open circles. Distinct colors are given to those in 14 superclusters given names in the figure (Einasto et al. 1994). Scene at 04:25 in video. View it in 3D in this int… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Streamlines seeded throughout the Sloan BoA go to a sink within the Scl 126 supercluster. Scene at 05:00 in video. View it in 3D in this interactive visualization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Density contours isolated to the spine of the Sloan Great Wall. ACO clusters are located with colored balls (Scl 136: yellow; Scl 126: cyan; Scl 111: blue; Scl 91: tan; Scl 258: red). Scene at 06:10 in video. are differences in the relative populations of spirals and ellipticals between supercluster regions with the fraction of red galaxies largest in the core of the supercluster Scl 126. They suggest th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Density contours are extended to include the Boötes supercluster structure. Associated ACO clusters are shown as red balls; purple balls are within the adjacent Scl 122. Scene at 06:14 in video. View it in 3D in this interactive visualization. ray observations of the dominant Abell 1795 indicate this cluster is reasonably relaxed (Kovács et al. 2023). The nearby Abell 1775 is interesting: it contains an … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The Corona Borealis+19.6 with p = 0.5 and 0.3 levels in dust blue and grey and Corona Borealis+23.7 with the p = 0.3 level in red are behind the prospective Boötes+21.6 BoA at p = 0.3 in violet. Sloan Great Wall BoA surfaces in cyan and blue are at lower right. Scene at 07:15 in video View it in 3D in this interactive visualization. 1015M⊙ A2061 at 3h −1 Mpc in projection in a few Gyr. To paraphrase Ein… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — A superposition of V-web filaments and knots on the HMC density contours for the full CF4 volume. High density HMC levels are shown as pink and red isosurfaces and V-web filaments and knots are shown in cyan and yellow, respectively. View it in 3D in this interactive visualization. Scene at 08:55 in video [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — The Ho‘oleilana Baryon Acoustic Oscillation feature is superimposed on the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo Basin of At￾traction structures. The primary known BoA surfaces are shown at p=0.5: SGW BoA (blue), Hercules-CfAGW (Green), Perseus￾Pisces (cyan), Shapley (yellow), and Ophiuchus (gold). Black velocity streamlines seeded randomly accumulate at BoA cores. Galaxies from the CF4 sample are represented by smal… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — Daniel’s Path (blue) along the V-web from the Milky Way to the Sloan BoA. This path is explored in this video. Notable features along this path, the northernmost path of all paths, are the CfA Great Wall, Coma cluster, Dragon’s Tail filament, Corona Borealis Supercluster, and Boötes+30 Wall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Brent’s Path (orange) along the V-web from the Milky Way to the Sloan BoA is explored in this video. After a short detour through the galactic south across the Cen-Pup-PP filament and Perseus cluster, the path follows a complex network of filaments crossing the Zone of Avoidance down to an X-chromosome shaped knot, a branch of which leads to the Sextans entry point to Sloan Basin of Attraction [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — Aurélien’s Path (red) along the V-web from the Milky Way to the Sloan BoA is explored in this video. Notable features along this path are the CfA Great Wall, Hercules Supercluster, and Boötes Supercluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: — Noam’s Path (green) along the V-web from the Milky Way to the Sloan BoA is explored in this video. This is the southernmost path of all pathes. After a long detour through the galactic south across the Cen-Pup-PP filament, Perseus, Sculptor, Grus, the path crosses the Zone of Avoidance at the Circinus Bridge between the Triangulum Australis cluster and the Shapley Concentration. The path then warps arou… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: — Yehuda’s Path (brown) along the V-web from the Milky Way to the Sloan BoA is explored in this video. The path runs through the Great Attractor region to detour through the galactic south at Norma and the Norma-Pavo-Indus filament, returning to galactic north through the Scutum Bridge across the Zone of Avoidance in the vicinity of Ophiuchus cluster, onward to Hercules Supercluster, takes a lengthy road … view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: — The skeletons of the five paths. View them in 3D in this interactive visualization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_19.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Sloan Great Wall is a dominant structure that is relatively nearby. As well as evident in redshift survey maps, its presence is manifested in distortions to cosmic expansion. Here, Hamiltonian Monte Carlo forward reconstruction in a {\Lambda}CDM framework gives probabilistic density and velocity fields constrained by the Cosmicflows-4 compendium of galaxy distances and radial velocities. Streamlines of the reconstructed velocity field started from arbitrary points in space can be followed to sinks, i.e. the minima of the gravitational potential, due to the distribution of mass. A basin of attraction encompasses the volume of all streamlines ending at the same sink. The solution can be assigned probabilities, with uncertainties associated with the imperfect data and the random nature of the {\Lambda}CDM model. The Sloan basin of attraction is by far the largest basin in the study region, extending across a diameter of ~0.13c. It can be described by velocity streamlines that converge on the Sloan Great Wall, by the reconstructed density field, and by the network of filaments of the V-web, formulated by shear in the velocity field. The discussion of these elements is augmented by a video and interactive models. It is of interest to see the relationship of the Ho`oleilana baryon acoustic oscillation feature with the Sloan basin of attraction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies Hamiltonian Monte Carlo forward reconstruction in a ΛCDM framework, constrained by the Cosmicflows-4 compendium, to generate probabilistic density and velocity fields. Basins of attraction are identified by tracing velocity streamlines to gravitational potential minima (sinks). The central result is that the Sloan basin of attraction is the largest in the study region, with a diameter of ~0.13c, and is characterized by converging streamlines to the Sloan Great Wall, the reconstructed density field, and the V-web filaments defined via velocity shear. The work also relates this structure to the Ho'oleilana baryon acoustic oscillation feature and supplies visualizations.

Significance. If the reconstruction reliably locates potential minima without dominant biases, the work supplies a probabilistic cosmographic map of local gravitational flows and the cosmic web on scales up to ~0.13c. The use of multiple independent descriptors (streamlines, density, V-web) and the provision of probabilistic uncertainties constitute methodological strengths. The visualizations and interactive models aid interpretability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Reconstruction] The central claim that the Sloan basin is accurately recovered and is by far the largest rests on the assumption that the HMC reconstruction from Cosmicflows-4 recovers true potential minima without dominant systematic biases from incompleteness or model assumptions. No quantitative validation, convergence tests, error budgets, or comparisons to independent data or simulations are reported to support this assumption.
  2. [Results / Basin Identification] The basin definition is obtained directly from the reconstructed velocity field via streamline tracing to sinks. Without reported tests for sensitivity to the probabilistic sampling or data gaps, it is unclear whether the reported diameter of ~0.13c and dominance over other basins could be affected by reconstruction artifacts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'the solution can be assigned probabilities' but does not indicate how these probabilities are propagated into the basin boundaries or the quoted diameter.
  2. [Discussion] The relationship between the Sloan basin and the Ho'oleilana feature is mentioned but lacks quantitative measures (e.g., overlap statistics or distance between features).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Reconstruction] The central claim that the Sloan basin is accurately recovered and is by far the largest rests on the assumption that the HMC reconstruction from Cosmicflows-4 recovers true potential minima without dominant systematic biases from incompleteness or model assumptions. No quantitative validation, convergence tests, error budgets, or comparisons to independent data or simulations are reported to support this assumption.

    Authors: The HMC forward reconstruction builds on the same methodology validated in our prior Cosmicflows papers, where convergence, bias tests against mocks, and comparisons to independent datasets were presented. The current work is an application paper focused on cosmography rather than method development; the posterior sampling itself supplies the error budget, and internal consistency is checked via agreement among streamlines, density field, and V-web. We agree that explicit cross-references to those validations plus a short robustness subsection would strengthen the manuscript and will add them. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / Basin Identification] The basin definition is obtained directly from the reconstructed velocity field via streamline tracing to sinks. Without reported tests for sensitivity to the probabilistic sampling or data gaps, it is unclear whether the reported diameter of ~0.13c and dominance over other basins could be affected by reconstruction artifacts.

    Authors: We will add a brief analysis showing that the Sloan basin remains the dominant structure (both in extent and in streamline convergence) when the same tracing is repeated on individual posterior samples and on reconstructions with masked data gaps. This directly tests sensitivity to sampling and incompleteness while remaining within the existing posterior ensemble. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper performs a standard cosmographic analysis by applying Hamiltonian Monte Carlo forward reconstruction in a ΛCDM model constrained by the Cosmicflows-4 dataset to recover probabilistic density and velocity fields. Basins of attraction are then identified as the volumes of streamlines converging to the same gravitational potential minimum (sink). This identification follows directly from the reconstructed fields using established streamline and V-web methods without any definitional reduction, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The central claim (Sloan basin as largest) is an empirical mapping result within the survey volume and does not loop back to the input data or model assumptions by construction. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the ΛCDM model for relating density to velocity and on the assumption that Cosmicflows-4 provides sufficient unbiased constraints for the reconstruction.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The ΛCDM model accurately describes the relationship between the density field and the peculiar velocity field on the scales probed by Cosmicflows-4.
    The reconstruction is performed entirely within a ΛCDM framework as stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5773 in / 1331 out tokens · 35312 ms · 2026-06-28T05:20:51.062118+00:00 · methodology

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

61 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abell, G. O. 1958, ApJS, 3, 211, doi:10.1086/190036

    work page doi:10.1086/190036 1958

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1086/191333 , keywords =

    Abell, G. O., Corwin, Harold G., J., & Olowin, R. P. 1989, ApJS, 70, 1, doi:10.1086/191333

    work page doi:10.1086/191333 1989

  3. [3]

    J., & Einasto, M

    Bag, S., Liivamägi, L. J., & Einasto, M. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4712, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad811

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad811 2023

  4. [4]

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

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603, doi:10.1038/380603a0

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/380603a0 1996

  5. [5]

    2021, A&A, 649, A37, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040083

    Botteon, A., Giacintucci, S., Gastaldello, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A37, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040083

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040083 2021

  6. [6]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume =

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi:10.1086/163168 de Lapparent, V., Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1986, ApJ, 302, L1, doi:10.1086/184625 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1958, Nature, 182, 1478, doi:10.1038/1821478a0 Di Valentino, E., & Brout, D. 2024, The Hubble Constant Tension, doi:10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7

    work page doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  7. [7]

    M., Burstein, D., et al

    Dressler, A., Faber, S. M., Burstein, D., et al. 1987, ApJ, 313, L37, doi:10.1086/184827

    work page doi:10.1086/184827 1987

  8. [8]

    Dupuy, A., & Courtois, H. M. 2023, A&A, 678, A176, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346802 10

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346802 2023

  9. [9]

    M., Libeskind, N

    Dupuy, A., Courtois, H. M., Libeskind, N. I., & Guinet, D. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3513, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa536

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa536 2020

  10. [10]

    2024, Dark Matter and Cosmic Web Story, doi:10.1142/13812

    Einasto, J. 2024, Dark Matter and Cosmic Web Story, doi:10.1142/13812

    work page doi:10.1142/13812 2024

  11. [11]

    2003a, A&A, 405, 425, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030419

    Einasto, J., Hütsi, G., Einasto, M., et al. 2003a, A&A, 405, 425, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030419

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030419

  12. [12]

    B., & Andernach, H

    Einasto, M., Einasto, J., Tago, E., Dalton, G. B., & Andernach, H. 1994, MNRAS, 269, 301, doi:10.1093/mnras/269.2.301

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/269.2.301 1994

  13. [13]

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

    Einasto, M., Einasto, J., Tago, E., Müller, V., & Andernach, H. 2001, AJ, 122, 2222, doi:10.1086/323707

    work page doi:10.1086/323707 2001

  14. [14]

    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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347504 2024

  15. [15]

    2003b, A&A, 405, 821, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030632

    Einasto, M., Jaaniste, J., Einasto, J., et al. 2003b, A&A, 405, 821, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030632

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030632

  16. [16]

    J., et al

    Einasto, M., Saar, E., Martínez, V. J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 83, doi:10.1086/590374

    work page doi:10.1086/590374 2008

  17. [17]

    2010, A&A, 522, A92, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015165

    Einasto, M., Tago, E., Saar, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A92, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015165

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015165 2010

  18. [18]

    J., Tempel, E., et al

    Einasto, M., Liivamägi, L. J., Tempel, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 51, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/51

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/51 2011

  19. [19]

    2015, A&A, 580, A69, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526399

    Einasto, M., Gramann, M., Saar, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A69, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526399

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526399 2015

  20. [20]

    2016, A&A, 595, A70, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628567

    Einasto, M., Lietzen, H., Gramann, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A70, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628567

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628567 2016

  21. [21]

    2018, A&A, 620, A149, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833711

    Einasto, M., Gramann, M., Park, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A149, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833711

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833711 2018

  22. [22]

    2020, A&A, 641, A172, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037982

    Einasto, M., Deshev, B., Tenjes, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A172, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037982

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037982 2020

  23. [23]

    2021, A&A, 649, A51, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040200

    Einasto, M., Kipper, R., Tenjes, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A51, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040200

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040200 2021

  24. [24]

    Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 1985, AJ, 90, 2445, doi:10.1086/113949

    work page doi:10.1086/113949 1985

  25. [25]

    Richard, I., Jurić, M., Schlegel, D., et al

    Gott, J. Richard, I., Jurić, M., Schlegel, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 463, doi:10.1086/428890

    work page doi:10.1086/428890 2005

  26. [26]

    A., & Thompson, L

    Gregory, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. 1978, ApJ, 222, 784, doi:10.1086/156198

    work page doi:10.1086/156198 1978

  27. [27]

    and Mellema, Garrelt and Mao, Yi and Iliev, Ilian T

    Hoffman, Y., Metuki, O., Yepes, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2049, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21553.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21553.x 2012

  28. [28]

    I., et al

    Hoffman, Y., Valade, A., Libeskind, N. I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3788, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3433 2024

  29. [29]

    M., & Hudson, M

    Hollinger, A. M., & Hudson, M. J. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 788, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1042

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1042 2024

  30. [30]

    R., et al

    Howlett, C., Said, K., Lucey, J. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 953, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1681 Jõeveer, M., Einasto, J., & Tago, E. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 357, doi:10.1093/mnras/185.2.357

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1681 2022

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Jones, D. H., Read, M. A., Saunders, W., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 683, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x 2009

  32. [32]

    Shectman, S. A. 1987, ApJ, 314, 493, doi:10.1086/165080 Kovács, O. E., Zhu, Z., Werner, N., Simionescu, A., & Bogdán, Á. 2023, A&A, 678, A91, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347201

    work page doi:10.1086/165080 1987

  33. [33]

    I., Hoffman, Y., & Gottlöber, S

    Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y., & Gottlöber, S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1974, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu629

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu629 2014

  34. [34]

    I., Hoffman, Y., Tully, R

    Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y., Tully, R. B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1052, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1302

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1302 2015

  35. [35]

    I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1195, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1976 Liivamägi, L. J., Tempel, E., & Saar, E. 2012, A&A, 539, A80, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016288

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1976 2018

  36. [36]

    Robust Morphological Measures for Large-Scale Structure in the Universe

    Mecke, K. R., Buchert, T., & Wagner, H. 1994, A&A, 288, 697, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9312028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9312028 1994

  37. [37]

    W., Batiste, M., & Batuski, D

    Pearson, D. W., Batiste, M., & Batuski, D. J. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1601, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu693

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu693 2014

  38. [38]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 2020, Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of our Modern Understanding of the Universe, doi:10.1515/9780691201665

    work page doi:10.1515/9780691201665 2020

  39. [39]

    I., Hoffman, Y., et al

    Pfeifer, S., Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 470, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1382

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1382 2022

  40. [40]

    Simulating Galaxy Formation with the IllustrisTNG Model

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Pomarède, D., Hoffman, Y., Courtois, H. M., & Tully, R. B. 2017, ApJ, 845, 55, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f78 Pomarède, D., Tully, R. B., Graziani, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 133, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9952

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  41. [41]

    J., & Huchra, J

    Postman, M., Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1988, AJ, 95, 267, doi:10.1086/114635

    work page doi:10.1086/114635 1988

  42. [42]

    1989, Nature, 342, 251, doi:10.1038/342251a0

    Raychaudhury, S. 1989, Nature, 342, 251, doi:10.1038/342251a0

    work page doi:10.1038/342251a0 1989

  43. [43]

    S., & Shandarin, S

    Sahni, V., Sathyaprakash, B. S., & Shandarin, S. F. 1998, ApJ, 495, L5, doi:10.1086/311214

    work page doi:10.1086/311214 1998

  44. [44]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3227, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3722

    Sarkar, P., Pandey, B., & Sarkar, S. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3227, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3722

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3722 2023

  45. [45]

    1989, Nature, 338, 562, doi:10.1038/338562a0

    Scaramella, R., Baiesi-Pillastrini, G., Chincarini, G., Vettolani, G., & Zamorani, G. 1989, Nature, 338, 562, doi:10.1038/338562a0

    work page doi:10.1038/338562a0 1989

  46. [46]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4978, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419 2023

  47. [47]

    1937, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 423, 1

    Shapley, H. 1937, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 423, 1

    1937

  48. [48]

    A., Ma, C.-P., Sargent, W

    Small, T. A., Ma, C.-P., Sargent, W. L. W., & Hamilton, D. 1998, ApJ, 492, 45, doi:10.1086/305037

    work page doi:10.1086/305037 1998

  49. [49]

    2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 57824, doi:10.33232/001c.157824

    Stiskalek, R., Desmond, H., McAlpine, S., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 57824, doi:10.33232/001c.157824

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.157824 2026

  50. [50]

    Thompson, L. A. 1979, ApJ, 234, 793, doi:10.1086/157558

    work page doi:10.1086/157558 1979

  51. [51]

    S., Martínez, V

    Tempel, E., Stoica, R. S., Martínez, V. J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3465, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2454

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2454 2014

  52. [52]

    Tully, R. B. 1982, ApJ, 257, 389, doi:10.1086/159999

    work page doi:10.1086/159999 1982

  53. [53]

    B., Courtois, H., Hoffman, Y., & Pomarède, D

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H., Hoffman, Y., & Pomarède, D. 2014, Nature, 513, 71, doi:10.1038/nature13674

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13674 2014

  54. [54]

    B., Howlett, C., & Pomarède, D

    Tully, R. B., Howlett, C., & Pomarède, D. 2023a, ApJ, 954, 169, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceaf3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceaf3

  55. [55]

    ApJ , keywords =

    Tully, R. B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H. M., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 944, 94, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8

  56. [56]

    I., & Graziani, R

    Valade, A., Hoffman, Y., Libeskind, N. I., & Graziani, R. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5148, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1244

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1244 2022

  57. [57]

    I., Hoffman, Y., & Pfeifer, S

    Valade, A., Libeskind, N. I., Hoffman, Y., & Pfeifer, S. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2981, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3673

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3673 2023

  58. [58]

    I., Pomarède, D., et al

    Valade, A., Libeskind, N. I., Pomarède, D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02370-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02370-0 2024

  59. [59]

    S., Hoyle, F., Rojas, R

    Vogeley, M. S., Hoyle, F., Rojas, R. R., & Goldberg, D. M. 2004, in IAU Colloq. 195: Outskirts of Galaxy Clusters: Intense Life in the Suburbs, ed. A. Diaferio, 5–11, doi:10.1017/S1743921304000043

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921304000043 2004

  60. [60]

    Zwicky, F., Herzog, E., Wild, P., Karpowicz, M., & Kowal, C. T. 1961, Catalogue of galaxies and of clusters of galaxies, Vol. I

    1961

  61. [61]

    Catalogue of Galaxies and of Clusters of Galaxies

    Zwicky, F., & Kowal, C. T. 1968, “Catalogue of Galaxies and of Clusters of Galaxies”, Volume VI APPENDIX The web of filaments is confusing even in the relatively small fraction of the Universe that is being explored in this study. A taste of the complexity is provided by the five videos included in this appendix. Each one follows the filament network from...

    1968