Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Local DESI galaxies match standard cosmology once distances and mocks are corrected; the claimed gigaparsec anisotropy was an artifact.

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

2026-07-12 08:56 UTC pith:UQ3E6RTU

load-bearing objection Clean public re-analysis that removes a claimed Gpc-scale violation of the cosmological principle by fixing a distance-scale error and using proper bias+RSD mocks. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.01172 v2 pith:UQ3E6RTU submitted 2026-07-01 astro-ph.CO

The local galaxy distribution does not violate the cosmological principle

Till Sawala (1) ((1) University of Helsinki) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmological principleDESI DR1large-scale structureredshift-space distortionsgalaxy biasFLAMINGO simulationhomogeneity and isotropycomoving distance
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.

A recent analysis claimed that DESI DR1 bright galaxies show coherent anisotropic clustering on gigaparsec scales, which would break the cosmological principle of statistical homogeneity and isotropy. This paper reanalyzes the same public catalog and finds that the anomaly vanishes when galaxies are placed at true comoving distances and compared with realistic mocks. Those mocks come from the FLAMINGO hydrodynamic simulation and include galaxy bias plus redshift-space distortions. Power spectra and the angular distribution of pairwise separations then agree with the data within cosmic variance. The earlier excess structure arose from treating luminosity distances in Mpc as comoving distances in h^{-1} Mpc, which both enlarges and distorts the map, plus from comparing only to dark-matter particles that understate clustering. The local galaxy web is therefore consistent with ordinary Lambda-CDM.

Core claim

When the DESI DR1 Bright Galaxy Sample is converted to correct comoving coordinates and matched against FLAMINGO galaxy catalogs that incorporate bias and redshift-space distortions, both the windowed two-dimensional power spectrum and the angular pairwise anisotropy p(theta,r) lie within the expected Lambda-CDM range; the reported gigaparsec-scale departure is produced by an incorrect distance scale and inadequate particle-only mocks.

What carries the argument

Geometry-matched FLAMINGO mocks (galaxies ranked by r-band luminosity, with and without redshift-space distortions) compared against DESI via windowed 2D power spectra and the variance of angular pairwise separations p(theta,r).

Load-bearing premise

The published S2 coordinates systematically treat luminosity distances in Mpc as if they were comoving distances in h^{-1} Mpc, producing the factor (1+z)/h enlargement shown in the paper.

What would settle it

An independent re-reduction of the identical DESI BGS sample that confirms the original S2 coordinates do not contain that distance conversion, or a public statement of the exact pipeline used to construct those coordinates.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript re-analyzes the DESI DR1 Bright Galaxy Sample previously claimed by Sylos Labini & Galoppo (2026) to exhibit statistically significant anisotropic structure on gigaparsec scales. Using the same public catalog, the author places galaxies at spectroscopic redshifts converted to comoving distances in the D3A cosmology, constructs geometry-matched mocks from the FLAMINGO L1_m8 hydrodynamical simulation that include halo/galaxy bias and redshift-space distortions, and compares both the windowed two-dimensional power spectrum P2D(k) and the angular pairwise distribution p(θ,r). The DESI data are shown to be consistent with the mocks within cosmic variance once the correct distance scale is used; the earlier excess is attributed to an incorrect identification of luminosity distances (in Mpc) with comoving distances (in h^{-1} Mpc) that spuriously enlarges and distorts the S2 coordinates by a factor (1+z)/h, together with the use of particle-only mocks that omit bias and RSD.

Significance. If correct, the result removes a claimed direct contradiction of the cosmological principle that would otherwise motivate inhomogeneous cosmologies. The demonstration is self-contained: public DESI and FLAMINGO data, open analysis code, and side-by-side visual, power-spectrum and anisotropy comparisons (Figs. 2–5, A1–A4) allow independent verification. The reconstruction of the S2 geometry by applying the standard luminosity-to-comoving conversion (Fig. 5, Appendix D) is a particularly clear diagnostic. The work therefore supplies a concrete, falsifiable resolution of a high-profile claim rather than a generic consistency check.

major comments (2)
  1. Appendix D and Fig. 5: the central explanatory claim rests on the inference that the published S2 coordinates equate luminosity distances in Mpc with comoving distances in h^{-1} Mpc. The visual and quantitative match after applying (1+z)/h is persuasive, yet residual differences in selection function, K-corrections or assumed cosmology are acknowledged. A short quantitative residual (e.g., rms coordinate difference after the rescaling, or a statement of any remaining mismatch in number density) would make the diagnosis fully load-bearing rather than largely visual.
  2. Section 4 / Fig. 3 and Appendix E: the windowed P2D(k) comparison is performed inside a circular aperture whose window function is not deconvolved. While the same estimator is applied to data and mocks, the large-scale modes remain strongly window-dominated; a brief statement of the effective k-range that is actually informative (or a simple analytic window estimate) would strengthen the claim that agreement holds “on all scales.”
minor comments (4)
  1. Figure 1 caption and Section 2: the cylinder radius is given as both R=300 h^{-1} Mpc (S2) and R=290 h^{-1} Mpc (present work); a single clarifying sentence on the origin of the 10 h^{-1} Mpc difference would avoid confusion.
  2. Appendix A: the approximate K-correction Kr(z,g-r)=z(2.5-1.5(g-r)) is standard at low z, but a one-line reference or note that it is adequate for the volume-limited cuts used would be helpful.
  3. Figure 4 and Appendix F: the anisotropy measure σ^{2}_ heta(r) is defined but only the full p(θ,r) maps are shown in the main text; moving the variance curves of Fig. A4 into the main body (or at least referencing them more prominently) would make the quantitative comparison easier to follow.
  4. Code and Data sections: the GitHub link and public data URLs are welcome; ensuring that the exact commit or DOI that reproduces every figure is frozen at acceptance would further improve long-term reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct reanalysis of public DESI data against independent FLAMINGO mocks under fixed cosmology.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison: DESI DR1 BGS galaxies placed at spectroscopic redshifts converted to comoving distances in the fixed D3A cosmology, versus geometry-matched FLAMINGO galaxy mocks that include halo/galaxy bias and redshift-space distortions. Windowed 2D power spectra and angular pairwise anisotropy p( heta,r) are measured identically on both and shown to agree within cosmic variance (Figs. 2–4, A1–A4). No parameters are fitted to DESI to force the match; the distance-scale factor (1+z)/h that reconciles the published S2 coordinates is the standard FLRW relation between luminosity and comoving distance, not a free parameter. Self-citations (prior Sawala works) are incidental and non-load-bearing. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external public data and an independent simulation, with no reduction of a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard FLRW distance relations, the public DESI and FLAMINGO data products, and the modeling assumption that FLAMINGO galaxies with RSD are an adequate realization of ΛCDM clustering. No new free parameters are fitted to the DESI power spectrum or anisotropy; the only numerical choices are conventional (Mr cuts to match number density, cylinder geometry, D3A cosmology shared with the simulation).

free parameters (2)
  • Mr absolute-magnitude cut
    Chosen to match the surface number density of the published S2 sample (Mr ≲ −21.55 for the R=290 h^{-1} Mpc cylinder; Mr < −20 for smaller volumes). Not fitted to the power spectrum or anisotropy statistic itself.
  • Cylinder radius and thickness
    R=290 h^{-1} Mpc (or 175 h^{-1} Mpc for the true S2 extent) and 40 h^{-1} Mpc thickness are fixed by the geometry of the earlier claim; not free parameters of a fit.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW distance–redshift relation with the D3A parameters (h=0.681, Ωm=0.306, …) converts spectroscopic redshift to comoving distance.
    Used throughout for both DESI and FLAMINGO; standard in the field and shared with the simulation.
  • domain assumption FLAMINGO L1_m8 hydrodynamic galaxies ranked by r-band luminosity, with line-of-sight peculiar velocities added, constitute a fair mock of the DESI BGS clustering statistics.
    Appendix B–C; required for the claim that the data are consistent with ΛCDM.
  • ad hoc to paper The published S2 coordinates treat luminosity distances in Mpc as comoving distances in h^{-1} Mpc, producing a spurious enlargement by (1+z)/h.
    Appendix D and Fig. 5; the load-bearing diagnosis of the earlier anomaly. Supported by reconstruction but not by an independent pipeline audit.
  • domain assumption Windowed 2D power spectra and the angular pairwise density p(θ,r) are adequate statistics for comparing inhomogeneity and anisotropy inside the survey cylinder.
    Same estimators used by the original claim; Appendices E–F.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19946 in / 2900 out tokens · 23328 ms · 2026-07-12T08:56:29.922521+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The cosmological principle, which states that the Universe is statistically homogeneous and isotropic on sufficiently large scales, is a foundational assumption of the standard cosmological model. A recent analysis of DESI DR1 galaxy samples reported coherent anisotropic features in the local galaxy distribution extending to gigaparsec scales. If correct, this result would directly contradict the cosmological principle and motivate inhomogeneous cosmologies. Here I analyze the same data and compare them with galaxy distributions predicted by the FLAMINGO cosmological hydrodynamic simulation, performed in the standard $\Lambda$CDM paradigm. I show that the apparent anomaly disappears when the correct comoving distance scale is used and when compared to mock catalogs that account for bias and redshift-space distortions. Rather than violating the cosmological principle, the observed structures are consistent with those expected in a $\Lambda$CDM Universe.

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. Gravitational Lensing in a Kasner Background: Distinguishing Wormholes and Black Holes

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    In a Kasner (anisotropic) universe, wormhole and black-hole lenses produce different directional splits of the Einstein-like scale, while the full critical curves remain nearly circular.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    “Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument. ” Astronomical Journal171 (5): 285.10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43. Astropy Collaboration, Adrian M. Price-Whelan, Pey Lian Lim, Nicholas Earl, Nathaniel Starkman, Larry Bradley, David L. Shupe, Aarya A. Patil, Lia Corrales, C. E. Brasseur, et al

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43

  2. [2]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    “The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package. ”The Astrophysical Journal935 (2): 167 . 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74. Astropy Collaboration, Thomas P . Robitaille, Erik J. Tollerud, Perry Greenfield, Michael Droett- boom, Erik Bray, Tom Aldcroft, Matt Davis, Adam G...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

  3. [3]

    Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy

    “ Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy. ”Astronomy and Astrophysics558: A33.10.1051/0004-6361/201322068. Balázs, Lajos G., Lídia Rejtő, and Gábor Tusnády

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

  4. [4]

    Some statistical remarks on the giant GRB ring

    “Some statistical remarks on the giant GRB ring. ”MNRAS473 (3): 3169–3179 .10.1093/mnras/stx2550. Buchert, T. and S. Räsänen

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2550

  5. [5]

    Spatially homogeneous universes with late-time anisotropy

    “Spatially homogeneous universes with late-time anisotropy. ”Classical and Quantum Gravity40 (24): 245015.10.1088/1361-6382/ad0b36. Courtois, H. M., J. Mould, A. M. Hollinger, A. Dupuy, and C. P . Zhang

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad0b36

  6. [6]

    The evolution of large-scale structure in a universe dominated by cold dark matter

    “The evolution of large-scale structure in a universe dominated by cold dark matter. ”ApJ292: 371–394. 10.1086/163168. de Lapparent, V ., M. J. Geller, and J. P . Huchra

    doi:10.1086/163168

  7. [7]

    A slice of the Universe

    “A slice of the Universe. ”ApJ302: L1–L5. DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, et al. 2025a. “DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. ” Physical Review D112: 083515.10.1103/tr6y-kpc6. DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexand...

    doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2024

  8. [8]

    Einasto, M., L

    10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021. Einasto, M., L. J. Liivamägi, E. Tempel, E. Saar, E. Tago, P . Einasto, I. Enkvist, J. Einasto, V . J. Martínez, P . Heinämäki, et al

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  9. [9]

    The Sloan Great Wall. Morphology and galaxy content

    “The Sloan Great Wall. Morphology and galaxy content. ” The Astrophysical Journal736 (1): 51.10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/51. Forouhar Moreno, Victor J., John Helly, Robert McGibbon, Joop Schaye, Matthieu Schaller, Jiaxin Han, Roi Kugel, and Yannick M. Bahé

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/51

  10. [10]

    Assessing subhalo finders in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations

    “Assessing subhalo finders in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. ”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society543 (2): 1339– 1372.10.1093/mnras/staf1478. Fujii, Hirokazu

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1478

  11. [11]

    Critical assessment of the recent report on the gigaparsec-scale correlation of the orientations of large quasar groups

    “Critical assessment of the recent report on the gigaparsec-scale correlation of the orientations of large quasar groups. ”MNRAS527 (2): 1982–1992. 10.1093/mnras/ stad3356. Geller, M. J. and J. P . Huchra. 1989 . “Mapping the Universe. ”Science246: 897–903. Gott, III, J. Richard et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/ 1982

  12. [12]

    The DESI Bright Galaxy Survey: Final Target Selection, Design, and Validation

    “The DESI Bright Galaxy Survey: Final Target Selection, Design, and Validation. ” Astronomical Journal165 (6): 253.10.3847/1538-3881/accff8. Han, Jiaxin, Shaun Cole, Carlos S. Frenk, Alejandro Benitez-Llambay, and John Helly

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

  13. [13]

    HBT+: an improved code for finding subhaloes and building merger trees in cosmological simulations

    “HBT+: an improved code for finding subhaloes and building merger trees in cosmological simulations. ” MNRAS474 (1): 604–617 .10.1093/mnras/stx2792. Harris, Charles R., K. Jarrod Millman, St’efan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2792

  14. [14]

    Array programming with NumPy

    “ Array programming with NumPy. ”Nature585 (7825): 357–362.10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2. Helly, John C., Robert J. McGibbon, Joop Schaye, Matthieu Schaller, William McDonald, Joey Braspenning, Jeger C. Broxterman, Emily E. Costello, Willem Elbers, Victor J. Forouhar Moreno, et al

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

  15. [16]

    Huchra, J

    48550/arXiv.2604.24324. Huchra, J. P . and M. J. Geller

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [17]

    Groups of Galaxies. I. Nearby groups

    “Groups of Galaxies. I. Nearby groups. ”ApJ257: 423–437 . 10.1086/160000. Hunter, J. D. 2007 . “Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. ”Computing in Science & Engineering 9 (3): 90–95.10.1109/MCSE.2007.55. Kaiser, N

    doi:10.1086/160000 2007

  17. [18]

    On the spatial correlations of Abell clusters

    “On the spatial correlations of Abell clusters. ”The Astrophysical Journal Letters284: L9–L12.10.1086/184341. Kaiser, N. 1987 . “Clustering in real space and in redshift space. ”MNRAS227: 1–21. Kauffmann, G., A. Nusser, and M. Steinmetz. 1997 . “Galaxy formation and large-scale bias. ”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society286 (4): 795–811.10.10...

    doi:10.1086/184341 1987

  18. [19]

    Evidence for a ∼300 Megaparsec Scale Under- density in the Local Galaxy Distribution

    “Evidence for a ∼300 Megaparsec Scale Under- density in the Local Galaxy Distribution. ”ApJ775: 62.10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/62. Kugel, Roi, Joop Schaye, Matthieu Schaller, John C. Helly, Joey Braspenning, Willem Elbers, Carlos S. Frenk, Ian G. McCarthy, Juliana Kwan, Jaime Salcido, et al

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/62

  19. [20]

    FLAMINGO: Calibrating large cosmological hydrodynamical simulations with machine learning

    “FLAMINGO: Calibrating large cosmological hydrodynamical simulations with machine learning. ”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526 (4): 6103–6127 .10.1093/mnras/stad2540. Kumar Aluri, Pavan, Paolo Cea, Pravabati Chingangbam, Ming-Chung Chu, Roger G. Clowes, Damien Hutsemékers, Joby P . Kochappan, Alexia M. Lopez, Lang Liu, Niels C. M. Marte...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2540

  20. [21]

    Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle?

    “Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle?”Classical 11 and Quantum Gravity40 (9): 094001.10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc. Lan, Ting-Wen et al

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc

  21. [22]

    The DESI Survey Validation: Results from Visual Inspection of Bright Galaxies, Luminous Red Galaxies, and Emission Line Galaxies

    “The DESI Survey Validation: Results from Visual Inspection of Bright Galaxies, Luminous Red Galaxies, and Emission Line Galaxies. ”Astrophysical Journal943 (1): 68.10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fa. Land-Strykowski, M., G. F. Lewis, and T. Murphy

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fa

  22. [23]

    Lopez, Alexia M., Roger G

    10.3847/1538- 4357/ad01bb. Lopez, Alexia M., Roger G. Clowes, and Gerard M. Williger

    doi:10.3847/1538-

  23. [24]

    A Giant Arc on the Sky

    “A Giant Arc on the Sky. ”MNRAS 516 (2): 1557–1572.10.1093/mnras/stac2204. Lopez, Alexia M., Roger G. Clowes, and Gerard M. Williger

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2204

  24. [25]

    Investigating Ultra-Large Large-Scale Structures: Potential Implications for Cosmology

    “Investigating Ultra-Large Large-Scale Structures: Potential Implications for Cosmology. ”arXiv e-printsarXiv:2409 .14894. 10.48550/arXiv.2409.14894. Marinello, Gabriel E., Roger G. Clowes, Luis E. Campusano, Gerard M. Williger, Ilona K. Söchting, and Matthew J. Graham

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.14894

  25. [26]

    Compatibility of the large quasar groups with the concordance cosmological model

    “Compatibility of the large quasar groups with the concordance cosmological model. ”MNRAS461 (3): 2267–2281.10.1093/mnras/stw1513. Mazurenko, Sergij, Indranil Banik, and Pavel Kroupa

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1513

  26. [27]

    10.21105/joss. 08252. Meissner, Krzysztof A. and Roger Penrose

    doi:10.21105/joss

  27. [28]

    The Physics of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

    “The Physics of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. ” arXiv e-printsarXiv:2503.24263.10.48550/arXiv.2503.24263. Migkas, K. et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.24263

  28. [29]

    Probing cosmic isotropy with a new X-ray galaxy cluster sample through the LX-T scaling relation

    “Probing cosmic isotropy with a new X-ray galaxy cluster sample through the LX-T scaling relation. ”A&A636: A15.10.1051/0004-6361/201936602. Nadathur, Seshadri

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936602

  29. [30]

    Seeing patterns in noise: gigaparsec-scale ‘structures’ that do not violate homogeneity

    “Seeing patterns in noise: gigaparsec-scale ‘structures’ that do not violate homogeneity. ”MNRAS434 (1): 398–406.10.1093/mnras/stt1028. Park, Changbom, Yun-Young Choi, Juhan Kim, III Gott, J. Richard, Sungsoo S. Kim, and Kap-Sung Kim

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1028

  30. [31]

    The Challenge of the Largest Structures in the Universe to Cosmology

    “The Challenge of the Largest Structures in the Universe to Cosmology. ”ApJ759 (1): L7 .10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/L7. Park, Changbom, Hyunmi Song, Maret Einasto, Heidi Lietzen, and Pekka Heinamaki

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/759/1/l7 2041

  31. [32]

    Large SDSS Quasar Groups and Their Statistical Significance

    “Large SDSS Quasar Groups and Their Statistical Significance. ”Journal of Korean Astronomical Society 48 (1): 75–82.10.5303/JKAS.2015.48.1.75. Peebles, P . J. E. 1980.The large-scale structure of the universe. Princeton University Press. Sawala, Till, Carlos Frenk, Jens Jasche, Peter H. Johansson, and Guilhem Lavaux

    doi:10.5303/jkas.2015.48.1.75 2015

  32. [33]

    Distinct distributions of elliptical and disk galaxies across the Local Supercluster as aΛCDM prediction

    “Distinct distributions of elliptical and disk galaxies across the Local Supercluster as aΛCDM prediction. ” Nature Astronomy8: 247–255.10.1038/s41550-023-02130-6. Sawala, Till, Meri Teeriaho, Carlos S. Frenk, John Helly, Adrian Jenkins, Gabor Racz, Matthieu 12 Schaller, and Joop Schaye

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02130-6

  33. [34]

    The Emperor’s New Arc: gigaparsec patterns abound in a ΛCDM universe

    “The Emperor’s New Arc: gigaparsec patterns abound in a ΛCDM universe. ”MNRAS.10.1093/mnrasl/slaf021. Schaller, Matthieu

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf021

  34. [35]

    On the anisotropic distribution of clusters in the local Universe

    “On the anisotropic distribution of clusters in the local Universe. ”MNRAS 529 (1): L23–L27 .10.1093/mnrasl/slad199. Schaye, Joop, Roi Kugel, Matthieu Schaller, John C. Helly, Joey Braspenning, Willem Elbers, Ian G. McCarthy, Marcel P . van Daalen, Bert Vandenbroucke, Carlos S. Frenk, et al

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad199

  35. [36]

    The FLAMINGO project: cosmological hydrodynamical simulations for large-scale structure and galaxy cluster surveys

    “The FLAMINGO project: cosmological hydrodynamical simulations for large-scale structure and galaxy cluster surveys. ”MNRAS526 (4): 4978–5020.10.1093/mnras/stad2419. Secrest, N. J. et al

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2419

  36. [37]

    The dipole of the Pantheon+SH0ES data

    “The dipole of the Pantheon+SH0ES data. ”JCAP 2023 (11): 054.10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/054. Springel, V ., S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, N. Yoshida, L. Gao, J. Navarro, R. Thacker, D. Croton, J. Helly, et al

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/054 2023

  37. [38]

    Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars

    “Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars. ”Nature435: 629–636.10.1038/nature03597. Sylos Labini, F. and T. Antal

    doi:10.1038/nature03597

  38. [39]

    Large-scale galaxy correlations from the DESI first data release

    “Large-scale galaxy correlations from the DESI first data release. ” A&A707: A254.10.1051/0004-6361/202558271. Sylos Labini, Francesco and Marco Galoppo

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202558271

  39. [40]

    Detection of anisotropic cosmic structures on a gigaparsec scale

    “Detection of anisotropic cosmic structures on a gigaparsec scale. ”Nature. 10.1038/s41586-026-10702-5 . Published online 24 June

    doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10702-5

  40. [41]

    The Laniakea supercluster of galaxies

    “The Laniakea supercluster of galaxies. ”Nature513: 71–73.10.1038/nature13674. Valade, A. et al

    doi:10.1038/nature13674

  41. [42]

    Analysing the large-scale bulk flow using cosmicflows4: increasing tension with the standard cosmological model

    “Analysing the large-scale bulk flow using cosmicflows4: increasing tension with the standard cosmological model. ”MNRAS524: 1885–1892. White, Simon D. M., Carlos S. Frenk, Marc Davis, and George Efstathiou. 1987 . “Clusters, Filaments, and Voids in a Universe Dominated by Cold Dark Matter. ”ApJ313: 505.10.1086/164990. Appendix A. Selection and processing...

    doi:10.1086/164990 1987

  42. [43]

    As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the inclusion of redshift-space distortions is crucial to reproduce the observed projected galaxy distribution

    are negligible for the scales considered here. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the inclusion of redshift-space distortions is crucial to reproduce the observed projected galaxy distribution. Appendix D. Origin and implications of the scale discrepancy In a spatially flat Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker cosmology, the physical line- of-sight comoving dist...

    2026