Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Features of the Spatial Distribution of Galaxy Clusters

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Galaxy clusters show a quasi-periodic 100–140 Mpc rhythm along two opposite sky directions.

desk verdict The claimed 4–5σ anisotropic quasi-periodic signal in cluster distributions doesn't survive a look-elsewhere correction, but the paper is transparent, honest about its limitations, and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05847 v1 pith:2YQYBG73 submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.CO

Andrei I. Ryabinkov , Alexandr D. Kaminker This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclusterslarge-scalestructurequasi-periodicitypowerspectrumanisotropyphotometricredshiftscosmologybaryonacousticoscillations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the spatial distribution of galaxy clusters in the redshift interval $0.1 \leq z \leq 0.47$ contains a weakly anisotropic quasi-periodic component with a characteristic spacing of roughly $100$–$140\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$. The signal appears along a specific direction in the north ($\alpha_0=170^\circ\pm5^\circ$, $\delta_0=29^\circ\pm5^\circ$) and an approximately opposite direction in the south ($\alpha_0=346^\circ\pm5^\circ$, $\delta_0=-29^\circ\pm5^\circ$), and it is detected in one-dimensional power spectra of cluster coordinate projections with claimed significance $\gtrsim(4-5)\sigma$. The same feature is recovered from spectroscopic redshifts in the north and from photometric redshifts in the south, so if true it is a large-scale structure spanning both hemispheres rather than a local catalog artifact. The authors also propose that the degradation of the peak with photometric redshift error could be used to test photometric calibration.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an integral projection method: project the comoving Cartesian coordinates of clusters onto a rotating $X$ axis (a discrete three-dimensional Radon transform), bin the projections to form a normalized one-dimensional distribution $N_N(X)$, and compute its power spectrum $P_X(k)$. A modified version, the rotating cuboid, fixes a box in the moving coordinate system so that each direction selects a specific cluster sample and roughly localizes the anomaly in space. Significance is estimated from the exponential distribution of power-spectrum peaks, with the mean spectrum $\langle P_X(k)\rangle$ approximated by a $\Lambda$CDM cold-dark-matter spectrum plus shot noise.

What would settle it

Run the same projection and power-spectrum search blindly over the full sky with fixed cuboid boundaries and a pre-registered direction grid, and then compare the tallest peak with the distribution of tallest peaks in mock catalogs that reproduce the survey masks and redshift errors but contain no quasi-periodicity; if such peaks appear at the same rate in the mocks, the claim is refuted. A second check is to split the redshift range into independent shells and test whether the peak position $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ stays fixed or wanders.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a rotating axis through the comoving coordinate system, the authors project galaxy cluster positions onto a one-dimensional $X$ axis and compute power spectra $P_X(k)$ of the resulting distributions. They report a dominant peak at $k \simeq 0.057\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ (quasi-period $111\pm10\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$) for the direction $X_0=(\alpha_0=170^\circ,\delta_0=29^\circ)$ from 12,863 clusters in the northern WHL12 catalog with spectroscopic redshifts, and a peak at $k\simeq0.047\pm0.004\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ (quasi-period $133\pm10\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$) for $X_0=(346^\circ,-29^\circ)$ from 16,375 clusters in the southern WH22 catalog with photometric redshifts; a broader sample of 26,832 southern clusters gives $130\pm10\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$. Both peaks are stated to exceed $5\sigma$ before a cautious reduction to $\gtrsim(4-5)\sigma$. The two preferential directions are approximately antipodal, and the authors interpret this as evidence of a single anisotropic quasi-periodic anomaly in the cluster distribution over a total extent of roughly $2500\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$ along the preferential axis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported peak height can be treated as a single draw from the exponential significance distribution, although it was selected as the maximum over hundreds of scanned directions and cuboid boundaries that were varied to maximize it; if those trials are not independent or a trials factor is omitted, the true significance would be lower.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, an anisotropic quasi-periodic component on scales $100$–$140\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$ extends across both hemispheres along nearly opposite directions, implying a single large-scale structure rather than two independent catalog fluctuations.
  • Photometric redshifts with errors $\delta z \lesssim 0.013$ are sufficient to recover the signal, so the anomaly is not an artifact of spectroscopic selection.
  • Because the peak height decreases systematically as photometric redshift error grows, the method offers an independent way to validate photometric redshift calibration.
  • The quasi-period range overlaps the baryon acoustic oscillation scale, leaving open the possibility of an anisotropic BAO-related component in the cluster distribution.
  • The total claimed extent of the anomaly is roughly $2500\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$ along the preferential axis, one of the largest suggested regularities in the local large-scale structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the quoted $\gtrsim(4-5)\sigma$ likely overstates the evidence because the peak was chosen by scanning a grid of directions and optimizing cuboid dimensions; a trials-corrected significance would be the quantity to report.
  • Editorial inference: a decisive independent test would be to apply the same projection-power-spectrum pipeline to mock galaxy catalogs with identical masks, redshifts, and errors but no built-in periodicity, counting how often a peak this tall appears anywhere in the scan.
  • Editorial inference: the nearly antipodal geometry and the $20^\circ$–$30^\circ$ offset from the galactic-pole axis suggest a possible connection to the earlier pencil-beam periodicity or to a filamentary cosmic-web geometry; the paper notes but does not settle this connection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes one-dimensional power spectra of projected Cartesian coordinates of galaxy clusters from the SDSS-based WHL12 catalog (northern hemisphere, spectroscopic and photometric redshifts) and the DES×unWISE-based WH22 catalog (southern hemisphere, photometric redshifts) in the range 0.1 ≤ z ≤ 0.47. It claims that, in a narrow cone of directions around X0 = (α0 = 170°, δ0 = 29°) in the north and X0 = (346°, −29°) in the south, the 1D power spectra contain quasi-periodic peaks at k ≈ 0.04–0.06 h Mpc−1 with significance ≳(4–5)σ, corresponding to comoving scales 100–140 h−1 Mpc. The authors argue that the two directions are approximately opposite and that the feature represents a single anisotropic quasi-periodic anomaly spanning both hemispheres. The analysis uses a rotating-cuboid method and a Radon-transform method, with significance estimated from an exponential distribution of spectral peak heights (Eqs. 5–7).

Significance. If the claimed ≳(4–5)σ quasi-periodic anisotropic feature were robustly established, it would be an interesting and potentially important large-scale structure signal, since the paper uses an independent southern-hemisphere cluster catalog (WH22) and cross-checks two complementary projection methods. The authors also deserve credit for explicitly acknowledging several limitations, including the circularity of using the same regions for search and significance assessment and the more modest significance of an angular-anisotropy statistic. However, the central significance claim is not supported as stated: no trials correction is applied to the multi-direction and multi-cuboid search, and the southern search is seeded at the antipode of the northern direction. The paper's own caveats in Sections 3 and 6 indicate that the true significance may be substantially lower than the headline value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (5)–(7), and Sections 4–5] The exponential p-value in Eq. (6) is derived for a single pre-specified harmonic k and a fixed direction, yet the reported peak is the maximum over a 1° grid of about 441 directions in region r1 (21×21 in α and δ) and a similar grid in region r3, after the cuboid boundaries were varied to maximize the peak (Section 4: 'the sizes of the cuboid faces are varied so that the height of the peak ... reaches the greatest value') and after scanning the larger regions r2 and r4 as checks. No trials factor, effective-number-of-independent-directions estimate, or null-hypothesis Monte Carlo is provided. Without such a look-elsewhere correction, the claimed ≥(4–5)σ global significance is not established; the penalty from scanning hundreds of correlated directions could plausibly reduce the significance below 3σ.
  2. [Section 3, final paragraph] The authors state that using the same scanning areas both for searching for preferential directions and for assessing significance 'can lead to an underestimation of λ(k) and, thus, to an overestimation of the confidence level β(k)'. This is exactly the circularity that invalidates the reported significance levels. The manuscript acknowledges the problem but does not quantify it or remedy it, for example by using an independent validation region or a bootstrap null that reproduces the full search procedure. As it stands, the headline significance is internally flagged as overestimated.
  3. [Section 5, first paragraph] The southern search is initialized at the antipode of the northern direction (α = 350°, δ = −29°) and then refined to α0 = 346°, δ0 = −29°. The claim that the southern direction is 'approximately opposite' to the northern one is therefore not an independent confirmation; it is seeded by the northern result. To claim independent southern detection, the search should be started from a grid of directions or from several unrelated starting points, and the sensitivity of the final direction to the initialization should be reported.
  4. [Section 6] The conclusions concede that an angular-anisotropy statistic gives 'much more modest significance levels ~ (3–4)σ' and describe this as 'probably ... a more realistic assessment for the entire phenomenon of quasi-periodic anisotropy'. This directly contradicts the abstract and Sections 4–5, where ≳(4–5)σ is stated as the significance of the detected peaks. The central claim needs to be restated in a way that is consistent with this caveat, or the discrepancy must be resolved quantitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, after Eq. (7)] The phrase 'short noise' should be 'shot noise'.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6] The typo 'extention' should be 'extension', and the LaTeX artifact 'greaterorsimilar(4 − 5)σ' should be rendered as a proper ≳ symbol.
  3. [Section 3, first paragraph] The sentence 'whose center is coincides with the center of the fixed CCS' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'whose center coincides with the center of the fixed CCS'.
  4. [Section 6, paragraph on pencil-beam distributions] The text refers to the 'pencile-beam distribution of galaxies'; this should be 'pencil-beam'.
  5. [References] The reference Wen and Han (2021) is listed but not cited in the text; either cite it where relevant or remove it from the reference list.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported (4-5)σ peak significance and the southern-hemisphere 'confirmation' are partly constructed by the search: the same scanning regions are used for fitting and significance, and the southern direction is initialized at the northern antipode.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, after Eq. (7); Section 4, rotating-cuboid search]
    "In contrast to the works of Ryabinkov and Kaminker (2021, 2024), in this paper we consider the same scanning areas (see Sections 4 and 5) both for searching for preferential directions (near X0) and for assessing the significance of the obtained peaks. This can lead to an underestimation of the value of λ(k) and, thus, to an overestimation of the confidence level β(k), i.e. an underestimation of the significance of the revealed peaks."

    The quoted 4-5σ peak is not a pre-specified statistic: the cuboid faces are varied so that the peak height reaches its greatest value, the direction is corrected on a 1° grid, and Eq. (6) is then applied with λ(k)=⟨PX(k)⟩^{-1} averaged over the very regions (r1/r3) used for that search. Eq. (6) is the single-trial exponential p-value for a fixed harmonic, so applying it to the maximum of a multi-direction, multi-boundary search overstates significance. The paper itself concedes this overestimation, so the headline significance is partly an artifact of the fitting procedure rather than an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, southern hemisphere, scanning cuboid]
    "we select as the initial direction of the X0 axis the direction opposite to that found for the northern hemisphere: α = 350◦, δ = −29◦. Fixing this direction, we vary the coordinates of the cuboid vertices in its own coordinate system, to obtain the greatest height of the peak ... Next, considering the derived coordinates ... as a zero approximation, we successively vary the direction of the X0 axis with a step of 1◦ ... As a result, the coordinates of the X0 axis ... α0 = 346◦ and δ0 = −29"

    The southern 'independent' detection is seeded at the exact antipode of the northern result and then refined by maximizing the peak within a small region around that seed. The final direction (346°, -29°) is only 4° from the seed in right ascension, so the claimed near-opposite alignment and the two-hemisphere anomaly are not produced by an unbiased search; they are largely carried over from the northern claim. The confirmation therefore does not independently validate the northern direction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a ≥(4-5)σ anisotropic quasi-periodic feature in the same direction in both hemispheres. The derivation chain is not formally circular in the sense of Eq. X being defined as Eq. Y: the power spectra are computed from cluster coordinates and compared with a CDM-plus-shot-noise model. However, two load-bearing steps reduce the claim toward its own inputs. First, the significance levels are computed from the same scanning regions in which the direction and cuboid boundaries were optimized, with no trials factor for the ~400-direction grid or boundary variations; the authors explicitly warn that this overestimates β(k). Second, the southern search starts from the antipode of the northern direction and maximizes around it, so the 'independent' confirmation is seeded by the northern claim. The paper also concedes in Section 6 that an anisotropy statistic gives only ~3-4σ, a more modest significance than the headline. These are not mere self-citations: the method and the initial direction come from the authors' previous papers, and the improvement from the initial 3-4σ to the quoted >5σ is obtained by in-sample optimization. The new catalogs provide some independent content, so this is a partial circularity rather than a fully self-referential derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard periodogram significance formulas and on a ΛCDM distance-redshift relation. The main burden is in the free parameters fitted to maximize the signal: the two sky directions, the cuboid boundaries, and the chosen wave-number interval. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Northern preferential direction α0, δ0 = 170°, 29°
    Determined by scanning directions with 1° steps and selecting the maximum power-spectrum peak.
  • Southern preferential direction α0, δ0 = 346°, -29°
    Same procedure, initialized at the antipode of the northern direction.
  • Northern cuboid boundaries X, Y, Z = X=132-1242, Y=-90-500, Z=-390-320 h^-1 Mpc
    Face coordinates varied until the peak height was maximized.
  • Southern cuboid boundaries X, Y, Z = X=122-1182, Y=-160-730, Z=-720-330 h^-1 Mpc
    Same optimization for the southern sample.
  • kmax (peak wave number) = 0.057 h Mpc^-1 (north), 0.047-0.048 h Mpc^-1 (south)
    Position of the maximum peak within the chosen 0.04-0.06 h Mpc^-1 interval.
  • Photometric accuracy thresholds = δz ≤ 0.013 and ≤ 0.018
    Thresholds chosen to test the effect of photometric redshift errors on peak height.
  • Wave-number search interval = 0.04 ≤ k ≤ 0.06 h Mpc^-1
    Fixed interval containing the BAO scale and the signals from the authors' previous work.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Power spectral peak heights follow the exponential distribution of Eq. (5) for Gaussian noise.
    Used to convert peak heights into sigma levels; requires Gaussian and independent Fourier coefficients.
  • domain assumption The direction-averaged 1D power spectrum is approximated by the CDM model plus shot noise (Eq. 7).
    Invoked via the projection-slice theorem to set the significance baseline from the matter power spectrum.
  • domain assumption Comoving distances are computed in a flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ωm=0.25, ΩΛ=0.75 (Eq. 2).
    Standard cosmological model; changing parameters would shift scales proportionally.
  • standard math The Fourier harmonics are statistically independent, so Eq. (6) applies.
    Required for the cumulative significance formula; violated if the window function couples harmonics.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift errors in WH22 are characterized by δz≲0.013 and do not by themselves create the quasi-periodic signal.
    The southern analysis relies entirely on photometric redshifts, so their error properties are critical.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Features of the Spatial Distribution of Galaxy Clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2YQYBG73

@misc{pith2026250605847,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Features of the Spatial Distribution of Galaxy Clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2YQYBG73}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05847}
}
abstract

A statistical analysis of anisotropic quasiperiodic features of the spatial distribution of galaxy clusters obtained on the basis of spectroscopic and photometric redshifts in the interval $0.1 \leq z \leq 0.47$ has been carried out. Based on data from the SDSS~III catalog, we show that the preferential direction previously detected in the northern hemisphere (a narrow cone of directions: $\alpha_0=170^\circ \pm 5^\circ, \ \delta_0= 29^\circ \pm 5^\circ$), along which the one-dimensional distribution of projections of the Cartesian coordinates of clusters contains a significant ($\gtrsim (4 - 5) \sigma$) quasi-periodic component, can also be found using photometric redshifts, achieving a certain accuracy ($\Delta z \lesssim 0.013$). Based on data from the photometric DES$\times$unWISE catalog, we have analyzed the spatial distribution of clusters in the southern hemisphere, where a cone of close directions was also detected ($\alpha_0=346^\circ \pm 5^\circ,\ \delta_0= - 29^\circ \pm 5^\circ $), which are approximately an extention of the directions revealed in the northern hemisphere. The power spectra of one-dimensional distributions along these directions contain significant ($\gtrsim (4 - 5) \sigma$) features in the same interval of wave numbers $0.04 \lesssim k \lesssim 0.06~h$~Mpc$^{-1}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05847 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Angular distributions of galaxy clusters considered in this paper in the equatorial coordinate system. The upper left part of Fig. 1a shows the region of clusters, mainly in the northern hemisphere, identified by Wen et al. (2012) based on SDSS data (catalog “WHL12”). The lower right part shows the region of clusters, mainly in the southern hemisphere (catalog “WHL22”), identified by Wen and Han (2022) based on phot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The same angular distributions of galaxy clusters, as in Fig. 1a, but with rectangular boundaries superimposed on them, which are formed by the extreme positions of two faces of cuboids corresponding to the maximum Xmax and minimum Xmin when scanning by the X axis of the regions (shown in Figs. 1b and 1c) in the northern − Fig. 2a and southern − Fig. 2b hemispheres, respectively; the faces that being most distant fr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Fig. 4a is organized similarly to Fig. 3a but for the set of galaxy clusters in the southern hemisphere from the “WH22” catalog (see Section 2) containing only photometric zph, determined with an average accuracy of δz ∼ 0.013 over the interval 0.1 ≤ z ≤ 0.47; the direction X0 (shown in Fig. 1c) corresponds to the peak of maximum height at k = kmax = 0.047 ± 0.004 h Mpc−1 or the scales 133 ± 10 h −1 Mpc; the coordin… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alam , M

    S. Alam , M. Ata , S. Bailey , , \ 470, 2617\ (2017). \\

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Bardeen , J.R

    J.M. Bardeen , J.R. Bond , N. Kaiser , and A.S. Szalay , \ 304, 15\ (1986). \\

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Bolton , D.J

    A.S. Bolton , D.J. Schlegel , E. Aubourg , , \ 144, 144\ (2012). \\

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Broadhurst , R.S

    T.J. Broadhurst , R.S. Ellis , D.C. Koo , and A.S. Szalay , \ (London, U.K.) 343, 726\ (1990). \\

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    Deans , The Radon transform and some of its applications (N.Y.: Dover, New York, 2007)

    S.R. Deans , The Radon transform and some of its applications (N.Y.: Dover, New York, 2007). \\

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Einasto , M

    J. Einasto , M. Einasto , S. Gottl o ber , , \ (London, U.K.) 385, 139\ (1997a). \\

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Einasto , M

    J. Einasto , M. Einasto , P. Frisch , , \ 289, 801\ (1997b). \\

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Einasto , G

    J. Einasto , G. H u tsi , E. Saar , , \ 531, A75\ (2011). \\

    work page 2011

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Einasto ,\ Dark Matter and Cosmic Web Story

    J. Einasto ,\ Dark Matter and Cosmic Web Story. Advanced Series in Astrohysics and Cosmology, Ed: Remo Ruffini .\ (World Scientific, Singapore, 2014). \\

    2014

  2. [10]

    Einasto , P

    M. Einasto , P. Hein a m a ki , L.J. Liivam a gi , , \ 587, A116\ (2016). \\

    2016

  3. [11]

    Eisenstein , H.-J

    D.J. Eisenstein , H.-J. Seo , and M. White , \ 664, 660\ (2007). \\

    2007

  4. [12]

    Feldman , N

    H.A. Feldman , N. Kaiser , and J.A. Peacock , \ 426, 23\ (1994). \\

    1994

  5. [13]

    Frescura , C.A

    F.A.M. Frescura , C.A. Engelbrecht , and B.S. Frank , \ 388, 1693\ (2008). \\

    2008

  6. [14]

    Hogg , astro-ph/9905116,\ (1999)

    D.W. Hogg , astro-ph/9905116,\ (1999). \\

    1999 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jenkins and D.G

    G.M. Jenkins and D.G. Watts , Spectral analysis and its applications\ (Holden-Day, Oakland, 1968). \\

    1968

  8. [16]

    Kayser , P

    R. Kayser , P. Helbig , and T. Schramm , \ 318, 680 (1997)

    1997

  9. [17]

    D.C. Koo , N. Ellman , R.G. Kron , J.A. Munn , A.S. Szalay , T.J. Broadhurst , and R.S. Ellis , in Observational Cosmology, Ed. by G.L. Chincarini , A. Iovino , T. Maccacaro , and D. Maccagni , ASP Conf. Ser. 51 , 112 (1993). \\

    1993

  10. [18]

    Landy , S.A

    S.D. Landy , S.A. Shectman , H. Lin , R.P. Kirshner , A.A. Oemler , and D. Tucker , \ 456, L1 (1996). \\

    1996

  11. [19]

    Lomb , \ 39, 447\ (1976)

    N.R. Lomb , \ 39, 447\ (1976). \\

    1976

  12. [20]

    Ryabinkov and A.D

    A.I. Ryabinkov and A.D. Kaminker , \ 364, 129\ (2019). \\

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ryabinkov and A.D

    A.I. Ryabinkov and A.D. Kaminker , Universe\ 7, 289\ (2021). \\

    2021

  14. [22]

    Ryabinkov and A.D

    A.I. Ryabinkov and A.D. Kaminker , \ 527, 1813\ (2024). \\

    2024

  15. [23]

    Saar , J

    E. Saar , J. Einasto , O. Toomet , , \ 393, 1\ (2002). \\

    2002

  16. [24]

    Scargle , \ 263, 835\ (1982)

    J.D. Scargle , \ 263, 835\ (1982). \\

    1982

  17. [25]

    Szalay , T.J

    A.S. Szalay , T.J. Broadhurst , N. Ellman , D.C. Koo , and R.S. Ellis ), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90, 4853\ (1993). \\

    1993

  18. [26]

    Wen , J.L

    Z.L. Wen , J.L. Han , and F.S. Liu , \ 199, 34\ (2012). \\

    2012

  19. [27]

    Wen and J.L

    Z.L. Wen and J.L. Han , \ 500, 1003\ (2021). \\

    2021

  20. [28]

    Wen and J.L

    Z.L. Wen and J.L. Han , \ 513, 3946\ (2022). \\

    2022

  21. [29]

    Yoshida , J

    N. Yoshida , J. Colberg , S.D.M. White , A.E. Evrard , ), \ 325, 803\ (2001). references document

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.