pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.05118 · v3 · submitted 2024-08-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

On the origin of transient features in cosmological N-Body Simulations

J. S. Bagla , Swati Gavas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmological N-body simulationsmode couplingfinite mass resolutionvirialised halospower spectrumperturbative expansiontransient featureshalo shapes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Perturbative expansion shows mode coupling from non-spherical halos and tidal forces is small at large scales in N-body simulations.

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

The paper investigates how small-scale gravitational clustering affects larger scales through mode coupling between virialized halos in cosmological N-body simulations. Building on earlier work showing no contribution from spherical halos at small wave numbers, it uses a perturbative expansion to demonstrate that deviations from sphericity and tidal interactions produce only minor effects. These are linked directly to the artifacts introduced by finite mass resolution, which alter the evolution of perturbations at early times compared to linear theory expectations. The study also assesses the influence of a finite cutoff in the initial power spectrum and finds that the magnitude of these resolution-related effects grows with the spectral index. A key recommendation is to restrict the use of simulation data to regimes where the nonlinearity scale exceeds the average interparticle separation.

Core claim

We build on the calculation by Peebles (1974) where it was shown that a virialised halo does not contribute any mode coupling terms at small wave numbers k. Using a perturbative expansion in wave number, we show that this effect is small and arises from the deviation of halo shapes from spherical and also on tidal interactions between halos. We connect this with the impact of finite mass resolution of cosmological N-Body simulations on the evolution of perturbations at early times. This difference between the expected evolution and the evolution obtained in cosmological N-Body simulations can be quantified using such an estimate.

What carries the argument

Perturbative expansion in wave number applied to mode coupling between virialised halos, extending the result that spherical halos contribute zero at small k.

If this is right

  • The difference between expected linear evolution and the evolution seen in finite-resolution N-body runs can be quantified using the perturbative estimates.
  • The impact of small scale cutoff in the initial power spectrum and discreteness increases with (n+3), with n being the index of the power spectrum.
  • Cosmological simulation data should be used only if the scale of non-linearity is larger than the average inter-particle separation.
  • Basic estimates of the magnitude of these effects and their power spectrum dependence can be obtained from the expansion.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The perturbative estimates could serve as a baseline for correcting discreteness artifacts when interpreting early-time outputs from simulations.
  • The same wave-number expansion method might be extended to quantify similar resolution effects in simulations that include additional physics beyond gravity.
  • Simulations initialized with steeper power spectra would require proportionally higher mass resolution to keep transients below a target threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The perturbative expansion in wave number is sufficient to capture the dominant corrections from non-sphericity and tidal forces without additional unaccounted physics.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the predicted magnitude of the difference from linear theory, using the perturbative estimate at a given resolution, against the actual discrepancy measured in N-body runs with varying particle number.

read the original abstract

We study the effect of gravitational clustering at small scales on larger scales by studying mode coupling between virialised halos. We build on the calculation by Peebles (1974) where it was shown that a virialised halo does not contribute any mode coupling terms at small wave numbers $k$. Using a perturbative expansion in wave number, we show that this effect is small and arises from the deviation of halo shapes from spherical and also on tidal interactions between halos. We connect this with the impact of finite mass resolution of cosmological N-Body simulations on the evolution of perturbations at early times. This difference between the expected evolution and the evolution obtained in cosmological N-Body simulations can be quantified using such an estimate. We also explore the impact of a finite shortest scale up to which the desired power spectrum is realised in simulations. Several simulation studies have shown that this effect is small in comparison with the effect of perturbations at large scales on smaller scales. It is nevertheless important to study these effects and develop a general approach for estimating their magnitude. This is especially relevant in the present era of precision cosmology. We provide basic estimates of the magnitude of these effects and their power spectrum dependence. We find that the impact of small scale cutoff in the initial power spectrum and discreteness increases with $(n+3)$, with $n$ being the index of the power spectrum. In general, we recommend that cosmological simulation data should be used only if the scale of non-linearity, defined as the scale where the linearly extrapolated {\it rms} amplitude of fluctuations is unity, is larger than the average inter-particle separation.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines mode coupling from virialised halos in cosmological N-body simulations and its impact on larger scales. Building on Peebles (1974), it uses a perturbative expansion in wave number to argue that contributions at small k are small and arise from halo non-sphericity plus tidal interactions. It connects these effects to finite mass resolution and the shortest-scale cutoff in the initial power spectrum, supplies basic estimates showing the impact scales as (n+3), and recommends that simulation data be used only when the non-linearity scale exceeds the mean inter-particle separation.

Significance. If the perturbative estimates are correct, the work supplies a first-principles route to quantify why discreteness-induced transients remain sub-dominant in N-body runs, which is useful for precision-cosmology applications where such effects must be controlled. The (n+3) scaling provides a simple, falsifiable diagnostic for different initial spectra.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract and available text outline a perturbative expansion in wave number but supply neither the explicit form of the expansion, the resulting correction terms, nor any error estimate or direct comparison with simulation output; this prevents verification that the claimed smallness follows from the stated assumptions (non-sphericity and tides).
minor comments (1)
  1. The recommendation that simulations be used only when the non-linearity scale exceeds the inter-particle separation is stated without a quantitative threshold or reference to existing convergence tests.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review. We respond to the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to address the request for greater explicitness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and available text outline a perturbative expansion in wave number but supply neither the explicit form of the expansion, the resulting correction terms, nor any error estimate or direct comparison with simulation output; this prevents verification that the claimed smallness follows from the stated assumptions (non-sphericity and tides).

    Authors: We agree the presentation would benefit from greater explicitness. The expansion begins from Peebles (1974), where a spherical virialized halo contributes zero to the low-k gravitational potential. We expand the halo density and potential in multipoles about the halo center, retaining the l=2 quadrupole term from non-sphericity and the external tidal field from neighboring halos. This yields a leading correction to the mode-coupling kernel that is proportional to k^2 times a moment of the halo profile (suppressed by (k R_vir)^2 for k much smaller than the inverse virial radius). Higher-order terms enter at k^4 and beyond, providing a natural error estimate. The (n+3) scaling follows directly from the small-scale cutoff in the initial power spectrum entering these moments. The manuscript supplies order-of-magnitude estimates rather than direct simulation comparisons, as the focus is analytic. In the revised version we will insert the explicit leading correction term and the truncation error estimate in Section 2. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained from external base

full rationale

The paper explicitly builds on the external Peebles (1974) result that a virialised spherical halo contributes no mode-coupling terms at small k. It then performs an independent perturbative expansion in wave number to derive first-order corrections from non-sphericity and tidal interactions; these corrections are obtained directly from the expansion without any internal fitting or parameter adjustment to the target quantities. The mapping to finite-resolution N-body effects and the (n+3) scaling estimates are presented as order-of-magnitude calculations rather than predictions forced by data inside the paper. No self-citation is load-bearing, no ansatz is smuggled, and no result is renamed or self-defined. The central claim therefore remains independent of its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on the prior result that virialized halos contribute no mode coupling at small k; no free parameters, invented entities, or additional ad-hoc assumptions are stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A virialised halo does not contribute any mode coupling terms at small wave numbers k (Peebles 1974)
    Explicitly invoked as the starting point for the perturbative expansion.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5822 in / 1243 out tokens · 26711 ms · 2026-05-23T22:22:46.715865+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

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    E., & Hahn, O

    Angulo, R. E., & Hahn, O. 2022, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 8, doi:10.1007/s41115-021-00013-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s41115-021-00013-z 2022

  4. [4]

    E., & Pontzen, A

    Angulo, R. E., & Pontzen, A. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 462, L1

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Baertschiger, T., Joyce, M., Gabrielli, A., & Labini, F. S. 2007 a , Physical Review E, 75, doi:10.1103/physreve.75.059905

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.75.059905 2007

  6. [6]

    2007 b , Physical Review E, 75, doi:10.1103/physreve.75.021113

    ---. 2007 b , Physical Review E, 75, doi:10.1103/physreve.75.021113

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.75.021113 2007

  7. [7]

    2007 c , Physical Review E, 76, doi:10.1103/physreve.76.011116

    ---. 2007 c , Physical Review E, 76, doi:10.1103/physreve.76.011116

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.76.011116 2007

  8. [8]

    Bagla, J. S. 2004, Current Science, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.ASTRO-PH/0411043

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0411043 2004

  9. [9]

    S., & Padmanabhan, T

    Bagla, J. S., & Padmanabhan, T. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 266, 227

    work page 1994

  10. [10]

    1997 a , Pramana, 49, 161

    ---. 1997 a , Pramana, 49, 161

    work page 1997

  11. [11]

    1997 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 286, 1023

    ---. 1997 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 286, 1023

    work page 1997

  12. [12]

    S., & Prasad, J

    Bagla, J. S., & Prasad, J. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 993

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    S., & Prasad , J

    Bagla , J. S., & Prasad , J. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 993

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    S., Prasad, J., & Khandai, N

    Bagla, J. S., Prasad, J., & Khandai, N. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 918

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    S., Prasad, J., & Ray, S

    Bagla, J. S., Prasad, J., & Ray, S. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 360, 194

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    S., & Ray, S

    Bagla, J. S., & Ray, S. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 358, 1076

    work page 2005

  17. [17]

    2012, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012, 051

    Baumann, D., Nicolis, A., Senatore, L., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2012, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012, 051

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    Benson, A. J. 2010, Physics Reports, 495, 33

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Large-Scale Structure of the Universe and Cosmological Perturbation Theory

    Bernardeau, F., Colombi, S., Gaztanaga, E., & Scoccimarro, R. 2001, Physics Report, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.ASTRO-PH/0112551

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0112551 2001

  20. [20]

    1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 599

    Bertschinger, E. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 599

    work page 1998

  21. [21]

    1996, Astrophysical Journal, 472, 1

    Bharadwaj , S. 1996, Astrophysical Journal, 472, 1

    work page 1996

  22. [22]

    1977, The Astrophysical Journal, 215, 483

    Binney, J. 1977, The Astrophysical Journal, 215, 483

    work page 1977

  23. [23]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 350, 939

    ---. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 350, 939

    work page 2004

  24. [24]

    2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 333, 378

    Binney, J., & Knebe, A. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 333, 378

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    R., & Myers, S

    Bond, J. R., & Myers, S. T. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 103, 1

    work page 1996

  26. [26]

    R., Adam , J

    Bouchet , F. R., Adam , J. C., & Pellat , R. 1985, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 144, 413

    work page 1985

  27. [27]

    G., Scherrer, R

    Brainerd, T. G., Scherrer, R. J., & Villumsen, J. V. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 418, 570

    work page 1993

  28. [28]

    Carrasco, J. J. M., Hertzberg, M. P., & Senatore, L. 2012, Journal of High Energy Physics, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1206.2926

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1206.2926 2012

  29. [29]

    1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 286, 38

    Cole, S. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 286, 38

    work page 1997

  30. [30]

    Couchman, H. M. P., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 497, 499

    work page 1998

  31. [31]

    2006, Physical Review D, 73, doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.063519

    Crocce, M., & Scoccimarro, R. 2006, Physical Review D, 73, doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.063519

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.063519 2006

  32. [32]

    Davis, M., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1977, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 34, 425

    work page 1977

  33. [33]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348, 977

    Diemand, J., Moore, B., Stadel, J., & Kazantzidis, S. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348, 977

    work page 2004

  34. [34]

    El-Zant, A. A. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 1247

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    Gabrielli, A., Baertschiger, T., Joyce, M., Marcos, B., & Labini, F. S. 2006, Physical Review E, 74, doi:10.1103/physreve.74.021110

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.74.021110 2006

  36. [36]

    2023 a , Physical Review D, 107, doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063539

    Garny, M., Laxhuber, D., & Scoccimarro, R. 2023 a , Physical Review D, 107, doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063539

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063539 2023

  37. [37]

    2023 b , Physical Review D, 107, doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063540

    ---. 2023 b , Physical Review D, 107, doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063540

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063540 2023

  38. [38]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 5960–5971

    Gavas, S., Bagla, J., Khandai, N., & Kulkarni, G. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 5960–5971

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    M., & Bertschinger, E

    Gelb, J. M., & Bertschinger, E. 1994 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 436, 467

    work page 1994

  40. [40]

    1994 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 436, 491

    ---. 1994 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 436, 491

    work page 1994

  41. [41]

    N., Saichev, A

    Gurbatov, S. N., Saichev, A. I., & Shandarin, S. F. 1989, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 236, 385

    work page 1989

  42. [42]

    Hamilton, A. J. S., Matthews, A., Kumar, P., & Lu, E. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 374, L1

    work page 1991

  43. [43]

    1953, The Astrophysical Journal, 118, 513

    Hoyle, F. 1953, The Astrophysical Journal, 118, 513

    work page 1953

  44. [44]

    1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 471, 1

    Hui, L., & Bertschinger, E. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 471, 1

    work page 1996

  45. [45]

    J., & White, S

    Jain, B., Mo, H. J., & White, S. D. M. 1995, mnras, 276, L25

    work page 1995

  46. [46]

    2007 a , Physical Review D, 76, doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.103505

    Joyce, M., & Marcos, B. 2007 a , Physical Review D, 76, doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.103505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.103505 2007

  47. [47]

    2007 b , Physical Review D, 75, doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.063516

    ---. 2007 b , Physical Review D, 75, doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.063516

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.063516 2007

  48. [48]

    Joyce, M., Marcos, B., Gabrielli, A., Baertschiger, T., & Labini, F. S. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.011304

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.011304 2005

  49. [49]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 531, 17

    Kanekar, N. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 531, 17

    work page 2000

  50. [50]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 435, L78

    Kitaura, F.-S., & Heb, S. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 435, L78

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    A., & Melott, A

    Klypin, A. A., & Melott, A. L. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 399, 397

    work page 1992

  52. [52]

    L., & Shandarin, S

    Kuhlman, B., Melott, A. L., & Shandarin, S. F. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 470, L41

    work page 1996

  53. [53]

    2014, New Astronomy, 30, 79

    L'Huillier, B., Park, C., & Kim, J. 2014, New Astronomy, 30, 79

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    H., & Park, C

    Little, B., Weinberg, D. H., & Park, C. 1991, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 253, 295

    work page 1991

  55. [55]

    1967, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 136, 101

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1967, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 136, 101

    work page 1967

  56. [56]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 508, L5

    Ma, C.-P. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 508, L5

    work page 1998

  57. [57]

    A Cosmological Kinetic Theory for the Evolution of Cold Dark Matter Halos with Substructure: Quasi-Linear Theory

    Ma, C.-P., & Bertschinger, E. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.ASTRO-PH/0311049

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0311049 2003

  58. [58]

    2004, Physical Review Letters, 93, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.021301

    Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2004, Physical Review Letters, 93, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.021301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.021301 2004

  59. [59]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 3309

    Mansfield, P., & Avestruz, C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 3309

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Marcos, B., Baertschiger, T., Joyce, M., Gabrielli, A., & Labini, F. S. 2006, Physical Review D, 73, doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.103507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.103507 2006

  61. [61]

    1992, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 259, 437

    Matarrese, S., Lucchin, F., Moscardini, L., & Saez, D. 1992, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 259, 437

    work page 1992

  62. [62]

    Michaux, M., Hahn, O., Rampf, C., & Angulo, R. E. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 663

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    2002 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 331, 587

    Monaco, P., Theuns, T., & Taffoni, G. 2002 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 331, 587

    work page 2002

  64. [64]

    2002 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 8

    Monaco, P., Theuns, T., Taffoni, G., et al . 2002 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 8

    work page 2002

  65. [65]

    2016, Physics Letters B, 762, 247

    Nishimichi, T., Bernardeau, F., & Taruya, A. 2016, Physics Letters B, 762, 247

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 271, 976

    Nityananda, R., & Padmanabhan, T. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 271, 976

    work page 1994

  67. [67]

    2022, Lagrangian displacement field estimators in cosmology, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2211.07960

    Ota, A., Seo, H.-J., Saito, S., & Beutler, F. 2022, Lagrangian displacement field estimators in cosmology, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2211.07960

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.07960 2022

  68. [68]

    1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 278, L29

    Padmanabhan, T. 1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 278, L29

    work page 1996

  69. [69]

    2002, Theoretical Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press), doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840166

    ---. 2002, Theoretical Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press), doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840166

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840166 2002

  70. [70]

    Pattern in Nonlinear Gravatational Clustering: A Numerical Investigation

    Padmanabhan, T., Cen, R., Ostriker, J. P., & Summers, F. J. 1995, Astrophysical Journal, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.ASTRO-PH/9506051

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9506051 1995

  71. [71]

    Peacock, J. A. 1998, Cosmological Physics (Cambridge University Press), doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804533

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804533 1998

  72. [72]

    A., & Dodds, S

    Peacock, J. A., & Dodds, S. J. 1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 280, L19

    work page 1996

  73. [73]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1974, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 32, 391

    work page 1974

  74. [74]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1981, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton University Press), doi:10.1515/9780691206714

    work page doi:10.1515/9780691206714 1981

  75. [75]

    1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 297, 350

    ---. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 297, 350

    work page 1985

  76. [76]

    1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 365, 27

    ---. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 365, 27

    work page 1990

  77. [77]

    2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 030

    Pixius, C., Celik, S., & Bartelmann, M. 2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 030

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6

    Plank Collaboration, a., Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al . 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6

    work page 2020

  79. [79]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 691

    Power, C., & Knebe, A. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 691

    work page 2006

  80. [80]

    Ramakrishnan , S., Paranjape , A., & Sheth , R. K. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 2053

    work page 2021

Showing first 80 references.