pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.01907 · v1 · pith:CIZKUEXPnew · 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

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 13:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic voidsgalaxy groupslarge-scale structurevoid size functionvoid density profileCSSTredshift completenesshalo voids
0
0 comments X

The pith

Voids found in galaxy group catalogs reproduce the statistics of halo voids even at 40 percent spectroscopic completeness.

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

The paper proposes identifying cosmic voids directly in galaxy group catalogs rather than individual galaxies or halos, because groups map more cleanly to dark matter halos and allow simpler theoretical modeling. Using mock catalogs built for the CSST survey at full and partial redshift completeness, the authors locate voids in the group samples and in the parent halo catalog, then compare two statistics: the void size function and the void density profile across five redshift bins. They show that group-void statistics match halo-void statistics when completeness reaches at least 40 percent; at 30 percent completeness an extra redshift-error term still recovers the match. This makes group-voids a practical complement to conventional void analyses, especially for emulator-based cosmological inference.

Core claim

Voids identified in mock galaxy group catalogs with spectroscopic redshift completeness of at least 40 percent produce void size functions and density profiles that faithfully match those measured in the underlying halo catalog; even at 30 percent completeness the match holds once a redshift error term is included. The brightest central galaxy is adopted as the group center to improve void centering accuracy. These results are obtained in five redshift intervals from z=0 to 1.0 using the reference mock galaxy redshift survey for CSST.

What carries the argument

Comparison of the void size function and void density profile measured on voids found in galaxy group catalogs versus the parent halo catalog, with groups centered on brightest central galaxies.

If this is right

  • Group-voids permit simpler theoretical modeling of large-scale structure than galaxy-based voids because groups associate directly with halos.
  • The approach remains usable down to 30 percent redshift completeness once a redshift error correction is applied.
  • Group-void catalogs offer a practical complement to standard void studies for surveys with incomplete spectroscopy.
  • The method is especially advantageous for emulator-based cosmological analyses that rely on accurate void statistics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same group-void approach could be applied to existing or future surveys with similar completeness levels to test consistency with halo-based results.
  • If the match holds in real data, void statistics from groups might reduce the need for full halo catalogs in large-volume cosmological forecasts.
  • Extending the analysis to cross-correlations between group-voids and other tracers could tighten constraints on void evolution models.

Load-bearing premise

The mock galaxy redshift survey used as reference accurately captures how real galaxies map onto groups and halos and how the void finder behaves on catalogs of varying completeness.

What would settle it

A statistically significant mismatch between group-void and halo-void size functions or density profiles in real CSST data at known completeness above 40 percent would falsify the central claim.

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 ↗
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 conservative 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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using voids identified in galaxy group catalogs (group-voids) as probes of large-scale structure for the CSST survey. Using a single reference mock galaxy redshift survey (MGRS), it constructs group catalogs at high (100%) and low (~30%) spectroscopic completeness, identifies voids with BCG centering, and compares the void size function (VSF) and density profiles to those from the underlying halo catalog across five redshift bins from z=0 to 1. The central claim is that group-void statistics faithfully reproduce halo-void statistics at >=40% completeness, and remain reliable at 30% completeness when a redshift error term is incorporated.

Significance. If the results generalize beyond the specific MGRS, the approach would enable simpler theoretical modeling of void statistics by directly linking groups to halos, offering a practical complement to galaxy-based void studies. This could be especially advantageous for emulator-based methods in upcoming surveys with incomplete redshift data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported agreement in VSF and density profiles between group-voids and halo-voids (at >=40% completeness, and at 30% with redshift error term) is measured entirely inside one reference MGRS. No cross-checks against independent simulations, alternative group finders, or different incompleteness models are described. This is load-bearing for the claim that group-voids can be used as halo-void proxies in actual CSST data, as any systematic in the MGRS galaxy-to-group assignment or void-finder response would directly affect the quantitative match.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (and associated methods/results sections): The incorporation of a 'redshift error term' to describe group-voids at 30% completeness is presented as a rescue mechanism, but without explicit details on its functional form, derivation, or quantitative impact on the statistics (e.g., how it modifies the VSF or profiles), it is unclear whether this correction is robust or mock-specific.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'roughly 30%' completeness for the conservative catalog; specifying the exact value used in the analysis would improve precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate planned revisions to improve clarity and scope the claims appropriately.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The reported agreement in VSF and density profiles between group-voids and halo-voids (at >=40% completeness, and at 30% with redshift error term) is measured entirely inside one reference MGRS. No cross-checks against independent simulations, alternative group finders, or different incompleteness models are described. This is load-bearing for the claim that group-voids can be used as halo-void proxies in actual CSST data, as any systematic in the MGRS galaxy-to-group assignment or void-finder response would directly affect the quantitative match.

    Authors: The MGRS is the designated reference mock constructed specifically to replicate CSST survey characteristics, including galaxy selection, redshift distributions, and incompleteness. Our analysis demonstrates the viability of the group-void approach within this controlled and representative framework. We agree that broader validation would be valuable but lies outside the present scope. We will revise the abstract and add a dedicated limitations paragraph in the discussion to explicitly note that results are derived from this single MGRS and to qualify the generalization to actual CSST data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and associated methods/results sections): The incorporation of a 'redshift error term' to describe group-voids at 30% completeness is presented as a rescue mechanism, but without explicit details on its functional form, derivation, or quantitative impact on the statistics (e.g., how it modifies the VSF or profiles), it is unclear whether this correction is robust or mock-specific.

    Authors: We will expand the methods section with the explicit functional form of the redshift error term, its derivation from the mock redshift uncertainties, and quantitative demonstrations of its effect on both the VSF and stacked density profiles at 30% completeness. These additions will clarify the implementation and its impact within the MGRS. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; validation is a direct mock-internal comparison without reduction to fitted inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The paper constructs group catalogs from a reference MGRS mock at varying completeness levels, identifies voids in both group and halo catalogs using the same void finder, and directly measures VSF and density profiles for comparison. This constitutes an empirical test inside one simulation rather than a derivation that reduces by construction to its own inputs. No equations or steps are shown where a prediction is statistically forced by a prior fit, where an ansatz is smuggled via self-citation, or where a uniqueness theorem from the same authors is invoked to force the result. The central claim (group-voids reproduce halo-voids at >=40% completeness) is therefore a reported measurement outcome, not a tautology. Self-citation of the MGRS design paper, if present, is not load-bearing for the reported agreement itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the fidelity of the MGRS mock and the assumption that BCG centering and the chosen void finder produce comparable catalogs.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The MGRS mock accurately represents CSST observations and the galaxy-group-halo correspondence.
    Used to construct the ideal and conservative group catalogs and to define the comparison baseline.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5905 in / 1220 out tokens · 25666 ms · 2026-06-28T13:21:13.684817+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

52 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244095 2022

  9. [9]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    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/...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3252 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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...

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.023504 2019

  21. [21]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3372 2019

  22. [22]

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13180.x 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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad956 2023

  24. [24]

    Filtering Interlopers with Photometry and Diagnostic Features: A Machine Learning Framework Validated with CSST Slitless Spectroscopy

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review 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

    work page 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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12125.x 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8986 2022

  42. [42]

    The Connection between Galaxies and their Dark Matter Halos

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review 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

    work page 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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2475 2022

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08560.x 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page 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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf611 2025

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

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

    work page 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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bbf 2024