Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Voids found in galaxy groups can stand in for dark-matter halo voids in cosmological analyses, even when only 40% of galaxies have precise redshifts.

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 ↗

Group-voids identified from galaxy group catalogs reproduce halo-void size functions and density profiles in CSST mocks above ~40% spectroscopic completeness, with incompleteness at 30% captured by an effective redshift-error parameter.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful CSST group-void calibration, but the 30%-completeness headline relies on a hand-tuned σ0 that is descriptive, not yet predictive. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.01907 v2 pith:CIZKUEXP submitted 2026-06-01 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

CSST large-scale structure analysis pipeline: IV. Cosmic Voids Identified from Galaxy Group Samples as Probes of the Large-scale Structure

Yingxiao Song , Xiaohu Yang , Yan Gong , Yizhou Gu , Qingyang Li , Hong Guo , Yunkun Han , Yipeng Jing
show 11 more authors
Cheng Li Feng Shi Jipeng Sui Run Wen Hu Zhan Pengjie Zhang Youcai Zhang Gong-Bo Zhao Xian Zhong Zheng Xingchen Zhou Hu Zou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic voidsgalaxy groupsvoid size functionvoid density profilelarge-scale structuremock galaxy surveyspectroscopic completenesscosmological emulators
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.

The reading

This paper establishes that cosmic voids identified from galaxy group catalogs (group-voids) reproduce the void size function and void density profiles obtained from dark-matter halos (halo-voids) in mock surveys. The match holds across redshift bins out to z=1 when at least 40% of galaxies have accurate spectroscopic redshifts. Even at about 30% completeness, the size function can be recovered if halo redshifts are given an effective Gaussian error whose amplitude is tuned per redshift bin. The practical payoff: cosmological analyses could model group-voids directly from halo catalogs in simulations, skipping the expensive galaxy-formation step that galaxy-based void studies require.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that group-voids—underdensities traced by galaxy groups rather than individual galaxies—are statistically equivalent to halo-voids for the void size function and stacked void density profile, provided the group catalog has sufficient redshift completeness. In the ideal case of full spectroscopic redshifts, the two statistics agree within 1σ at z<0.8 and for large voids at higher redshift. In a conservative case with partial spectroscopic coverage, agreement holds where spectroscopic completeness is at least 40%; below that, a single free parameter describing a Gaussian redshift error applied to halos (with values 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02 in successive redshift bins)

What carries the argument

The argument rests on four pieces: (1) a halo-based group finder that assigns galaxies to dark matter halos, removing the finger-of-god distortion and stabilizing tracer positions; (2) a watershed-based void finder that identifies underdense zones without assuming a shape and returns volume-weighted centers and effective radii; (3) use of the brightest central galaxy (BCG) as the group center, which improves void-center accuracy when spectroscopic redshifts are sparse; and (4) a parameterization of incompleteness as an effective Gaussian redshift error applied to simulation halos, which the authors show reproduces the group-void size function in each redshift bin.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the combined effect of incomplete spectroscopy and photometric redshift errors on the group-void size function is exactly equivalent to assigning halos a Gaussian redshift error with a single amplitude per redshift bin; if this equivalence fails at other completeness levels or redshifts, the 30% acceptance claim does not follow.

What would settle it

Run the same group-finder and void-finder on mocks with spectroscopic completeness varying continuously between 20% and 50% while holding everything else fixed, and check whether the best-fit Gaussian redshift error on halos reproduces the group-void size function at every level and in every redshift bin. A break in that mapping—e.g., a sigma0 that cannot be found or that changes abruptly—would disprove the one-parameter equivalence claim.

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

If this is right

  • Group-void size functions and density profiles can be predicted directly from dark-matter-only simulations, making emulator-based cosmological inference feasible without galaxy-formation prescriptions.
  • Spectroscopic incompleteness in a survey can be captured by one effective redshift-error parameter per redshift bin, greatly simplifying nuisance-parameter treatment.
  • The method extends the usable redshift range and void-size range for void cosmology with partial spectroscopic surveys, because group tracers are less sensitive to individual galaxy redshift errors.
  • Using the brightest central galaxy as the void center recovers accurate low-density regions out to z≈0.6 even when only a third of galaxies have precise redshifts.
  • The 40% completeness threshold provides a target for survey design: surveys that meet it can use group-voids without extra modeling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The single-redshift-error mapping may also absorb other residual systematics (e.g., group-finder incompleteness, photometric outliers), so the inferred sigma0 values should not be interpreted literally as redshift errors; this can be tested by varying completeness in controlled mocks.
  • If the equivalence holds in real data, void statistics from group catalogs could be combined with galaxy-void statistics to cross-check systematics and tighten dark-energy constraints.
  • The approach might generalize to other tracer types, such as galaxy clusters or emission-line galaxies, wherever a group/halo correspondence can be established.
  • A direct test on a real survey with both photometric and spectroscopic redshifts (like the one the mock emulates) would confirm whether the 30% floor holds outside the mock.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using voids identified in galaxy group catalogs (group-voids) as cosmological probes, arguing that groups are directly linked to dark matter halos and therefore that group-void statistics can be modeled from halo catalogs in simulations, bypassing expensive galaxy-formation modeling. Using the CSST MGRS mock, the authors construct group catalogs in an ideal case (100% spectroscopic redshifts, z_spec) and a conservative case (~30% spectroscopic completeness, z_CSST), identify voids with the VIDE/ZOBOV algorithm, and measure the void size function (VSF) and stacked void density profile in five redshift bins from z=0 to 1. They compare these statistics with halo-voids and further attempt to model the conservative-case VSF by adding a Gaussian redshift error sigma0(1+z) to the halo redshifts, claiming that sigma0=0.005, 0.01, and 0.02 in different redshift bins reproduces the group-void VSF. The central assertion is that group-voids with ≥40% spectroscopic completeness faithfully reproduce halo-void statistics, and that even at 30% completeness the effect can be captured by a single effective redshift-error parameter.

Significance. If fully validated, the proposed group-void approach could significantly simplify void-based cosmological analyses by replacing galaxy-void emulators requiring galform models or HOD/abundance matching with halo-void emulators. The paper uses realistic CSST mock catalogs with a sophisticated slitless-spectroscopy simulation and a well-established group finder, and the ideal-case comparisons (z_spec group-voids vs halo-voids) are a useful sanity check of the pipeline. The density-profile analysis with BCG centers is also a potentially valuable practical improvement. However, the headline claim about 30% completeness rests on a post-hoc, unvalidated effective parameter, and the 40% claim is stronger than the plotted 2-sigma and density-profile evidence supports. With additional formal fitting and out-of-sample validation, the idea could be made compelling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 / Figure 3] The effective redshift error sigma0 is chosen per redshift bin (0.005, 0.01, 0.02) by visually matching the halo-void VSF to the group-void z_CSST VSF. No goodness-of-fit statistic, uncertainty on sigma0, or independent test is provided. Because sigma0 is tuned to the exact data it is then claimed to reproduce, the statement in the Abstract and Conclusion that group-voids at 30% completeness can be 'reliably described' via a redshift error term is circular and unsupported. The text itself (Section 3.1) concedes 'We intend to investigate this strategy in future work,' which confirms the model is not yet established. This is load-bearing: the 30% tolerance is a key result. A formal likelihood fit with jackknife covariances and an out-of-sample prediction (e.g., predicting the density profile, or the VSF at an intermediate sigma0/completeness not used in the fit) is needed.
  2. [Section 4 / Section 3.2 / Figure 6] The conclusion that 'group-voids can reliably represent halo-voids in redshift bins with spectroscopic completeness of 40% or higher' is overstated. In the 0.2<z≤0.4 bin (the 40%-completeness bin), Figure 2 shows agreement only for voids with R_v ≳ 40 h−1Mpc and at the 2-sigma level, not a full 1-sigma match. Moreover, Figure 6 shows that the density profiles from group-voids with z_CSST deviate significantly at z>0.2 unless BCG centers are used; the improvement from BCG is demonstrated only for z≤0.6. Thus the blanket '40% or higher' claim is not uniformly supported by the plotted statistics. The conclusion should be qualified to specify radius range, center choice, and statistic.
  3. [Section 2 / Overall interpretation] The group-void versus halo-void comparison is partly self-referential by construction: the mock galaxies are placed into subhalos via SHAM, and the group finder assigns halo masses by abundance matching to an assumed HMF. The near-agreement in the ideal case is therefore an expected consistency check of the group finder and SHAM, not an independent empirical validation that group-voids generally trace halo-voids in real surveys. This does not invalidate the practical modeling approach, but it means the claims of 'faithfully reproduce' should be framed as a pipeline validation on mocks rather than an independent discovery, and the paper should discuss how group-finder uncertainties or mass errors in real data might break this agreement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and text] The title and several headings contain 'V oids' with an apparent space; this is likely a LaTeX/compilation artifact and should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 3] The caption does not list the exact sigma0 values for each panel in the printed text, relying on the reader to infer from the line styles; please state explicitly (e.g., '0.2<z≤0.4: sigma0=0.005') in the caption.
  3. [Section 3.1] The relative deviation δ is mentioned in the text and figure subpanels but never defined by an equation. Please define δ explicitly (e.g., δ = (VSF_group − VSF_halo)/VSF_halo) and state how the jackknife errors are propagated into the subpanels.
  4. [Section 3.1] The number of sigma0 values tested is only three (0.005, 0.01, 0.02), yet the paper states these 'match' the group-void VSF. It would be clearer to describe these as discrete trial values rather than a fit, unless a fitting procedure is actually used.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central 30%-completeness claim rests on sigma0 tuned to the same group-void VSF it is then said to describe; the match is by construction rather than a validated prediction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, Figure 3; Abstract; Section 4]
    "We apply redshift errors with σ0 = 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02 to the halo catalog, and compare the VSFs of these halo-voids with that of the group-voids from zCSST at z >0.2 in different redshift bins. As shown in Figure 3, the VSFs of halo-voids with σ0 = 0.005, 0.01, and 0.02 match the results of group-voids (zCSST) in the redshift ranges 0.2 < z ≤ 0.4, 0.4 < z ≤ 0.8, and 0.8 < z ≤ 1.0, respectively."

    σ0 is chosen post hoc so that the smoothed halo-void VSF lines up with the very zCSST group-void VSF used for the comparison; the agreement is therefore a consequence of the choice, not a prediction. The chosen values are not taken from the catalog's input photo-z error σz=(0.01+0.015z)(1+z), so they are empirical adjustment parameters. No independent redshift bin, completeness level, or void density profile is used to validate the effective-error model. The paper itself defers validation ("We intend to investigate this strategy in future work"), yet the Abstract and Conclusion state that 30% completeness can be reliably described and that the effect is well captured by the redshift error term—restating the fit as a result.

full rationale

The ideal-case comparison (group-voids from zspec vs halo-voids) is a genuine, non-circular consistency test of the group finder: the groups are not assigned the halo positions, and the measured VSF/density-profile agreement is not guaranteed by construction. Nor is there a load-bearing self-citation chain: the Yang et al. group finder and Gu et al. MGRS are tool/mock references, not uniqueness theorems that force the conclusion. The circular component is isolated to the paper's strongest practical claim: that at ~30% spectroscopic completeness, group-voids can be reliably modeled by halo-voids with a Gaussian redshift-error term. That term's amplitude σ0 is selected per redshift bin by matching the same zCSST group-void VSF it is then said to reproduce, so the match in Figure 3 is by construction. Because this calibrated-σ0 step is the only support for the 30% threshold and the abstract's headline statement, the central claim is partially circular. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: one key prediction reduces to a fit, while the 40%-completeness and zspec results retain independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the group finder's fidelity and on the ad hoc equivalence between spectroscopic incompleteness and a Gaussian halo redshift error sigma0. The sigma0 values themselves are fitted parameters, and the single-mock realization is an unquantified source of cosmic variance.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma0 (effective halo redshift error) = 0.005 for 0.2<z<=0.4; 0.01 for 0.4<z<=0.8; 0.02 for 0.8<z<=1.0
    Chosen by hand so that halo-void VSFs with added Gaussian redshift error match the group-void (zCSST) VSF; no uncertainty or goodness-of-fit reported (Fig. 3).
  • Photometric redshift error sigma_z = sigma_z = (0.01+0.015 z_spec)(1+z)
    Assigned to galaxies without accurate redshifts in the conservative mock; a hand-chosen input model, not fitted here, but it shapes the zCSST catalog.
  • Void radius threshold = R_v > 20 h^-1 Mpc
    Chosen as ~1.5 times the mean tracer separation to ensure void completeness; affects which voids enter all VSF and density-profile statistics.
  • Density-profile upper radius limits = 60, 70, 70, 80, 80 h^-1 Mpc in the five z-bins
    Hand-chosen upper cuts for statistical significance in stacked profiles.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The extended halo-based group finder (Yang et al. 2021) correctly assigns galaxies to halos and gives centers (luminosity-weighted or BCG) close to true halo centers.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.2; underlies the equivalence of group-voids to halo-voids.
  • domain assumption SHAM-based galaxy luminosities and matching to DESI LS DR9 produce a realistic galaxy population for CSST.
    Sec. 2.1; galaxy catalog realism is inherited from prior work (Gu et al. 2024).
  • domain assumption VIDE/ZOBOV watershed voids in tracer samples trace the same underdense regions as voids in dark matter.
    Sec. 2.3; standard void-finder behavior, assumed without validation here.
  • ad hoc to paper A Gaussian redshift error of size sigma0(1+z) applied to halos reproduces the VSF change caused by spectroscopic incompleteness and photometric redshift errors.
    Sec. 3.1; this is the paper's model for the 30%-completeness case, tuned to match the data.
  • domain assumption One realization of the Jiutian simulation box suffices; cosmic variance is not assessed.
    All results come from a single mock; no variation over realizations or cosmologies.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CSST large-scale structure analysis pipeline: IV. Cosmic Voids Identified from Galaxy Group Samples as Probes of the Large-scale Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIZKUEXP

@misc{pith2026260601907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CSST large-scale structure analysis pipeline: IV. Cosmic Voids Identified from Galaxy Group Samples as Probes of the Large-scale Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIZKUEXP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.01907}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Because groups are directly associated with halos, they allow for considerably simpler theoretical modeling than approaches based on individual galaxies. We therefore propose to use voids identified in galaxy group catalogs, referred to as group-voids, to investigate the cosmic large-scale structure (LSS). Using the reference mock galaxy redshift survey (MGRS) designed for the Chinese Space-station Survey Telescope (CSST), we build two galaxy group catalogs representing ideal and realistic scenarios, derived from galaxy samples with 100\% and roughly 30\% spectroscopic redshift completeness, respectively. We then identify voids in these two mock group catalogs, as well as in the underlying halo catalog, and measure two void statistics, the void size function (VSF) and the void density profile, within five redshift intervals spanning $z=0$ to $1.0$. We compare the statistics obtained from two kinds of voids: those defined by galaxy groups (group-voids) and those defined by dark matter halos (halo-voids). In the void-finding process, we adopt the brightest central galaxy (BCG) as the group center to improve the accuracy of the inferred void centers. Our analysis shows that void statistics derived from group-voids with spectroscopic redshift completeness of at least 40\% can faithfully reproduce the corresponding statistics from halo-voids. Even when the redshift completeness of galaxies falls to as low as 30\%, we can still reliably describe group-voids via halo-voids by incorporating a redshift error term. This indicates that group-voids are a promising tool for probing LSS and offer a valuable complement to standard void studies, which is especially advantageous for emulator-based methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01907 by Cheng Li, Feng Shi, Gong-Bo Zhao, Hong Guo, Hu Zhan, Hu Zou, Jipeng Sui, Pengjie Zhang, Qingyang Li, Run Wen, Xian Zhong Zheng, Xiaohu Yang, Xingchen Zhou, Yan Gong, Yingxiao Song, Yipeng Jing, Yizhou Gu, Youcai Zhang, Yunkun Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: The galaxy number density distribution from the ideal case (zspec) and the conservative case (zCSST) at z < 1. The dashed line shows the number distribution of galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts (zspec′ ) in the conservative case. Right panel: The number density distribution of halos and of groups from zspec and zCSST with log[M/h−1M⊙] ≥ 13 at z = 0 − 1. 2. MOCK DATA 2.1. Galaxy Catalog We u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The VSF data from halo catalog (blue) and group catalogs with zspec (green) and zCSST (red) in the five redshift bins. The small subpanel shows the relative deviation δ between the VSF of the two group-void samples and that of the halo-voids. The shaded regions and error bars indicate the 1σ uncertainty of the VSF data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The VSF data from the halo catalogs (blue) and group catalogs with zCSST (red) in the five redshift bins. The blue color becomes darker and the line style changes from solid to dashed, dash-dotted, and dash-double-dotted with increasing additional redshift errors applied to the halo catalog (σ0 = 0, 0.005, 0.01, 0.02). The small subpanel shows the relative deviation δ between the VSF of the halo-voids with… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stacked void density profile from the halo catalog and the group catalogs with zspec in the five redshift bins. Colors from red to purple indicate the void radius bins ranging from Rv = 20 to 80 h −1Mpc. The shaded regions and error bars represent the 1σ error. The horizontal dashed line and vertical dotted line denote the mean background density and the void boundary (r/Rv = 1), respectively [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stacked void density profile from the halo catalog and the group catalogs with zCSST identified using BCG in the first three redshift bins. Colors from red to cyan indicate the void radius bins ranging from Rv = 20 to 70 h −1Mpc. The shaded regions and error bars represent the 1σ error. The horizontal dashed line and vertical dotted line denote the mean background density and the void boundary (r/Rv = 1), … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stacked void density profile from the halo catalog and the group catalogs with zCSST in the five redshift bins. Colors from red to purple indicate the void radius bins ranging from Rv = 20 to 80 h −1Mpc. The shaded regions and error bars represent the 1σ error. The horizontal dashed line and vertical dotted line denote the mean background density and the void boundary (r/Rv = 1), respectively [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantifying Environmental Effects on Galaxy Properties using Non-spherical Voids Identified from SDSS DR7

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Void galaxies identified by local volume in non-spherical voids are bluer and more star-forming than non-void galaxies, with the environmental effect decreasing with stellar mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac828

    Aubert, M., Cousinou, M.-C., Escoffier, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac828

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac828 2022

  2. [2]

    2023, A&A, 670, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244445

    Bonici, M., Carbone, C., Davini, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244445

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244445 2023

  3. [3]

    A., & Padilla, N

    Cai, Y.-C., Taylor, A., Peacock, J. A., & Padilla, N. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1809

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1809 2016

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty463

    Cautun, M., Paillas, E., Cai, Y.-C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty463

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty463 2018

  5. [5]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 5021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1112

    Contarini, S., Marulli, F., Moscardini, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1112

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1112 2021

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acde54 —

    Contarini, S., Pisani, A., Hamaus, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acde54 —. 2024, A&A, 682, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347572

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acde54 2023

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1989

    Contarini, S., Ronconi, T., Marulli, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1989

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1989 2019

  8. [8]

    2022, A&A, 667, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244095

    Contarini, S., Verza, G., Pisani, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244095

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244095 2022

  9. [9]

    M., Paz, D

    Correa, C. M., Paz, D. J., S´ anchez, A. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 911, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3252 CSST Collaboration, Gong, Y., Miao, H., et al. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 239501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2809-0 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi: 10.48550/...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2021

  10. [10]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4033, doi: 10.21105/joss.04033

    Douglass, K., Veyrat, D., O’Neill, S., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4033, doi: 10.21105/joss.04033

    doi:10.21105/joss.04033 2022

  11. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e

    Gong, Y., Liu, X., Cao, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e 2019

  12. [12]

    2025, Science China

    Gong, Y., Miao, H., Zhou, X., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  13. [13]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 280402, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2646-2

    doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2646-2

  14. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae762

    Gu, Y., Yang, X., Han, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae762

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae762 2024

  15. [15]

    2022, A&A, 658, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142073

    Hamaus, N., Aubert, M., Pisani, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142073

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142073 2022

  16. [16]

    2025, Science China

    Han, J., Li, M., Jiang, W., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  17. [17]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 109511, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2712-1

    doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2712-1

  18. [18]

    F., & Winther, H

    Mauland, R., Elgarøy, Ø., Mota, D. F., & Winther, H. A. 2023, A&A, 674, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346287 12Y.Song et al. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 r/Rv 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 (r)/ 1 0.0 < z 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 r/Rv 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 (r)/ 1 0.2 < z 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 r/Rv 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346287 2023

  19. [19]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3583

    Miao, H., Gong, Y., Chen, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3583

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3583 2023

  20. [20]

    M., Percival, W

    Nadathur, S., Carter, P. M., Percival, W. J., Winther, H. A., & Bautista, J. E. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 023504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023504

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.023504 2019

  21. [21]

    Nadathur, S., & Percival, W. J. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3472, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3372

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3372 2019

  22. [22]

    Neyrinck, M. C. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13180.x

    arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad956

    Pelliciari, D., Contarini, S., Marulli, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad956

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad956 2023

  24. [24]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03883, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03883

    Peng, H., Yu, Y., Guo, Y., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03883, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03883

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03883 2026

  25. [25]

    M., Hamaus, N., et al

    Pisani, A., Sutter, P. M., Hamaus, N., et al. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 083531, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083531 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.083531 2015

  26. [26]

    Platen, E., van de Weygaert, R., & Jones, B. J. T. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 551, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12125.x

    arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx785

    Pollina, G., Hamaus, N., Dolag, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx785

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx785 2017

  28. [28]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 2836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1470 Radinovi´ c, S., Winther, H

    Pollina, G., Hamaus, N., Paech, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1470 Radinovi´ c, S., Winther, H. A., Nadathur, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451358 Radinovi´ c, S., Nadathur, S., Winther, H. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346121

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1470 2019

  29. [29]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 5075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2115 S´ anchez, C., Clampitt, J., Kovacs, A., et al

    Moscardini, L. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2115 S´ anchez, C., Clampitt, J., Kovacs, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2745

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2115 2019

  30. [30]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/241 —

    Shi, F., Yang, X., Wang, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/241 —. 2018, ApJ, 861, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb20

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/241 2016

  31. [31]

    2025a, MNRAS, 538, 114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf305

    Song, Y., Gong, Y., Xiong, Q., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, 538, 114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf305

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf305

  32. [32]

    2025b, MNRAS, 540, 2853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf918

    Song, Y., Gong, Y., Zhou, X., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 540, 2853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf918

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf918

  33. [33]

    2024a, MNRAS, 534, 128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2094 —

    Song, Y., Xiong, Q., Gong, Y., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 534, 128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2094 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 532, 1049, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1575 —. 2024c, ApJ, 976, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de9

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2094

  34. [34]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf304

    Sui, J., Zou, H., Yang, X., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf304

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf304 2025

  35. [35]

    M., Lavaux, G., Hamaus, N., et al

    Sutter, P. M., Lavaux, G., Hamaus, N., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.002

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2014.10.002 2015

  36. [36]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad434e

    Thiele, L., Massara, E., Pisani, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad434e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad434e 2024

  37. [37]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 079, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/079

    Matarrese, S. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 079, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/079

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/079 2024

  38. [38]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07d9

    Verza, G., Degni, G., Pisani, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 227, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae07d9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae07d9 2025

  39. [39]

    2023, JCAP, 2023, 010, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/010

    Baccigalupi, C. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 010, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/010

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/010 2023

  40. [40]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3231

    Vielzeuf, P., Kov´ acs, A., Demirbozan, U., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3231

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3231 2021

  41. [41]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8986

    Wang, J., Yang, X., Zhang, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8986

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8986 2022

  42. [42]

    H., & Tinker, J

    Wechsler, R. H., & Tinker, J. L. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756 2018

  43. [43]

    Z., Han, Y., et al

    Wen, R., Zheng, X. Z., Han, Y., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae157

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae157 2024

  44. [44]

    J., et al

    Woodfinden, A., Nadathur, S., Percival, W. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2475

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2475 2022

  45. [45]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., & Jing, Y. P. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1293, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08560.x

    arXiv 2005

  46. [46]

    J., van den Bosch, F

    Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 153, doi: 10.1086/522027

    doi:10.1086/522027 2007

  47. [47]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/41

    Han, J. 2012, ApJ, 752, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/41

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/41 2012

  48. [48]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2

    Yang, X., Xu, H., He, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abddb2 2021

  49. [49]

    2021, Chinese Science Bulletin, 66, 1290, doi: 10.1360/TB-2021-0016

    Zhan, H. 2021, Chinese Science Bulletin, 66, 1290, doi: 10.1360/TB-2021-0016

    doi:10.1360/tb-2021-0016 2021

  50. [50]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 1692, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf611

    Zhang, Y., Yang, X., Guo, H., Wang, P., & Shi, F. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 1692, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf611

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf611 2025

  51. [51]

    A., Mao, Y.-Y., et al

    Zhou, R., Newman, J. A., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3764

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3764 2021

  52. [52]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bbf

    Zhou, X., Gong, Y., Zhang, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bbf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bbf 2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.