Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Fractal properties of the cosmic web

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the standard galaxy correlation function underestimates the cosmic web's true clustering scale because of void dilution, and that the structure function $g(r)=1+\xi(r)$ with fractal dimension $D(r)=3+d\log g/d\log…

desk verdict A readable review that frames the Davis-Pietronero dispute as a void-volume effect, but the central claim is asserted, not demonstrated, and the stress-test critique of the rescaling argument is on point. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04694 v1 pith:R3QKG5WE submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.CO

Jaan Einasto This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k98.65.-r
keywords cosmicwebfractaldimensioncorrelationfunctionstructurehomogeneityscalevoidslarge-scale
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 reviews how fractal measures describe the cosmic web and makes a specific methodological claim: the two-point correlation function, because it is normalised to a Poisson random distribution, is forced into a negative tail and therefore cannot detect the scale of homogeneity. The author's recommended alternative is the structure function $g(r)=1+\xi(r)$, whose logarithmic gradient defines a scale-dependent fractal dimension. Using this measure on $\Lambda$CDM simulations and SDSS galaxy samples, the paper argues that the classical correlation length $4.5\,h^{-1}$ Mpc systematically underestimates the true 3D correlation scale, because the correlation function is diluted by void volume in deeper samples. The paper concludes that the cosmic web's fractal character extends to at least $200\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, beyond which the fractal dimension approaches 3. The consequence is that the quoted scale of homogeneity and clustering strength of the universe changes.

What carries the argument

The structure function $g(r)=1+\xi(r)=DD(r)/RR(r)$ counts, up to normalisation, the mean number of galaxies in a shell at distance $r$; its logarithmic gradient $\gamma(r)=d\log g/d\log r$ defines the scale-dependent fractal dimension $D(r)=3+\gamma(r)$. This carries the argument because, unlike $\xi$, $g$ is not forced to go negative by Poisson normalisation and so can diagnose homogeneity. The load-bearing mechanism is the void-volume comparison: adding empty space around a sample leaves $DD$ unchanged while diluting $RR$, amplifying $g$ by the volume ratio and making the correlation length grow with sample depth.

What would settle it

Compare $g(r)=1+\xi(r)$ computed in volume-limited samples drawn from one $\Lambda$CDM simulation with box sizes 256, 512, and 1024 Mpc/h while holding galaxy luminosity and density selection fixed. If the amplitude of $g(r)$ at a fixed separation changes from box to box after void fraction is accounted for, the claim that growing correlation length is pure void dilution is wrong; if $g(r)$ stays stable while the correlation length from $\xi$ keeps growing, the paper's central claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the void-volume effect, not genuine unbounded fractality, explains the sample-depth dependence of the correlation length. Adding empty space around a galaxy sample leaves galaxy-galaxy pair counts unchanged while diluting random-random counts, raising the amplitude of $1+\xi$ by a factor proportional to the volume ratio. This means the correlation function measures the emptiness of the surrounding volume as well as clustering. The paper asserts that early 2D angular analyses suppressed voids and thus underestimated the correlation length, while interpretations that the universe is fractal on all scales overinterpreted the same effect. With the structure function, the transition near $3\,h^{-1}$ Mpc separates halo interiors from filament-scale clustering, and at separations beyond $100\,h^{-1}$ Mpc the fractal dimension approaches the homogeneous value $D=3$.

Load-bearing premise

The void-volume argument assumes the structure function $g(r)$ does not itself shift when the sample volume changes, so that the growth of $r_0$ with depth is entirely a dilution effect from empty voids; if $g(r)$ also depends on sample size, the conclusion that the true correlation scale exceeds $4.5\,h^{-1}$ Mpc loses its footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The classical correlation length $4.5\,h^{-1}$ Mpc should be replaced by scale- and sample-dependent descriptions based on $g(r)$ and its logarithmic gradient.
  • The scale of homogeneity of the galaxy distribution is at least $200\,h^{-1}$ Mpc, not the $10\,h^{-1}$ Mpc inferred from early angular data.
  • Fractal dimension functions computed from simulations and surveys separate halo interiors ($r\le 4\,h^{-1}$ Mpc) from filament-scale structure, providing a direct test of structure-formation models.
  • Two-dimensional angular analyses that suppress voids systematically underestimate correlation lengths and should be interpreted with caution.
  • The void-volume effect offers a unified explanation for why shallow and deep samples give different correlation lengths without requiring unbounded fractality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's own claims: the void-volume factor $V_0/V_1$ implies a rescaling correction for measured $1+\xi$, which could be tested by comparing volume-limited and flux-limited samples of the same survey.
  • If the structure function is the right measure, then surveys smaller than the largest superclusters (below roughly $200\,h^{-1}$ Mpc) should not be treated as fair samples when quoting clustering amplitudes.
  • The transition in $D(r)$ near $3\,h^{-1}$ Mpc could serve as a purely clustering-based estimator of typical halo diameter, without needing group catalogues.
  • The same void-dilution logic likely applies to other tracers such as quasars or clusters, so reported scale-dependent bias may be partly a sample-volume artifact rather than genuine astrophysics.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reviews the fractal properties of the cosmic web and argues for a specific methodological position: the two-point correlation function (CF) is normalized to a Poisson distribution, hence carries a forced negative tail and is unsuitable for measuring large-scale homogeneity; instead one should use the structure function g(r)=1+ξ(r) and its logarithmic gradient γ(r)=dlog g/dlog r, which define a scale-dependent fractal dimension D(r)=3+γ(r). The paper applies this framework to ΛCDM simulations and SDSS data, discusses the relation between 2D projected and 3D correlation functions, and reinterprets the classical result r0=4.5 h^-1 Mpc as an underestimate of the true 3D correlation scale due to a 'void-volume effect' (Sec. VI). It concludes that the fractal dimension approaches 3 at large scales and that the homogeneity scale is at least 200 h^-1 Mpc.

Significance. The paper is primarily a review of the author's long-standing line of work, with a clear and useful didactic structure: it collects the definitions of ξ, g, γ, and D, reproduces figures from earlier papers, and situates the historical Davis–Pietronero debate. Its distinctive contribution is the explicit claim in Sec. VI that the correlation length r0=4.5 h^-1 Mpc systematically underestimates the true 3D correlation scale, and the associated testable proposition that g(r) is insensitive to the finite volume of a galaxy sample. If established quantitatively, this would revise the standard interpretation of r0 and of the homogeneity scale. The paper does not, however, present the necessary quantitative test: no analysis with varying sample volume at fixed selection function is shown, and the 'true' correlation scale is never measured or fitted. The strength of the paper lies in its clear formulation of a testable hypothesis and its use of modern ΛCDM simulations and SDSS data; its weakness is the absence of a direct finite-volume test for g(r).

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Eq. (2)] The void-volume argument derives a constant rescaling of 1+ξ(r) from DD1=DD0 and a diluted RR, but this is only correct for separations r much smaller than the linear size of the enlarged volume V1. For r comparable to L1, the normalized RR(r) acquires boundary corrections of order r/L1, so the multiplicative factor is scale dependent; then γ(r)=dlog g/dlog r and D(r)=3+γ(r) are contaminated by sample geometry. The paper presents no quantitative test of volume independence: Fig. 5 varies density/luminosity thresholds at fixed box size 512 h^-1 Mpc, and Fig. 3 shows the very r0-versus-depth relation that the paper seeks to reinterpret. This missing test is load-bearing for the Sec. VII claims that r0=4.5 h^-1 Mpc underestimates the true 3D correlation scale and that the homogeneity scale is at least 200 h^-1 Mpc.
  2. [Section VII, summary point 1] The statement that the CF is 'forced to have a negative tail' and therefore 'not suitable for measuring large-scale homogeneity' is presented as a logical consequence of normalization, but the text does not establish that this property prevents a valid measurement of the homogeneity scale. The negative tail is a known integral-constraint effect that can be modeled; the paper should either demonstrate with mocks that ξ(r) yields biased homogeneity estimates, or moderate the claim.
  3. [Sections V and VI] The paper asserts that the classical r0=4.5 h^-1 Mpc systematically underestimates the true 3D correlation scale, but it never quantifies that scale. The only quantitative comparison offered, Fig. 7, concerns the difference between 2D projected and 3D correlation functions at a fixed volume, which is distinct from the void-volume effect of Sec. VI. The claim should be supported by a direct measurement, e.g., fitting g(r) in simulations with varying box sizes and showing that the inferred correlation length grows in the predicted way.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI] The phrase 'increases the amplitude of 1+ξ(r) by a factor proportional to V0/V1' should read V1/V0; as written the factor is smaller than unity for added volume.
  2. [Eq. (1) and Section VI] r0=4.5 Mpc should be written as r0=4.5 h^-1 Mpc; the h-dependence is missing in the second occurrence.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'the correlation function and its derivative, the structure function and fractal dimension function' is misleading, since the structure function is defined as 1+ξ, not as a derivative of ξ; rephrase.
  4. [Figure 2] Figure 2 contains a large block of text from Maddox et al. (1990) embedded inside the figure environment; this should be removed and replaced with the actual reproduction of the figure.
  5. [Section III] The statement 'At large distances, galaxies are less numerous than the mean density ... so DD(r)<RR(r)' is imprecise; the inequality follows from the normalization condition ∫DD=∫RR combined with DD>RR at small separations, not directly from the density contrast.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central void-volume argument is derived from the estimator definition ξ=DD/RR−1 and does not reduce to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that the correlation function is affected by the normalization to the sample's mean density, so that adding empty volume rescales g(r)=1+ξ(r) and shifts the correlation length r0. This claim is derived explicitly in Section VI from the estimator definition ξ=DD/RR−1: DD is unchanged while RR is diluted over the larger volume, giving a constant rescaling of g for separations well inside the added void. This is an analytic property of the estimator, not a conclusion imported from a cited paper. The recommendation to use γ(r)=dlog g/dlog r and D(r)=3+γ(r) follows from that same construction, and because a constant rescaling cancels in the logarithmic derivative, the fractal-dimension diagnostic is invariant under the void-volume factor. The empirical figures are drawn from the author's prior work, but they illustrate the claimed scale-dependence rather than supply the proof; the proof is the estimator argument in the text. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is invoked from the authors' own work, and the choice of g(r) is attributed to external sources (Pietronero and Saar). The heavy self-citation is a feature of this review article, but it is not load-bearing in the derivation chain. Therefore no circular step of the kinds enumerated is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the ΛCDM model, the unbiasedness of the structure function, and the reliability of the author's previous simulation and galaxy-sample analyses. No new free parameters are fitted in this review. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ΛCDM cosmological model with parameters (Ωm, ΩΛ, Ωb, h, σ8, ns) = (0.28, 0.72, 0.044, 0.693, 0.84, 1.00) is the correct description of the Universe
    The paper adopts these values in the Introduction without re-derivation, treating them as inputs from prior cosmology.
  • ad hoc to paper The structure function g(r)=1+ξ(r) is an unbiased estimator of clustering that is not affected by the finite sample volume
    The paper's argument that the correlation length increase with depth is purely a void-volume artifact assumes g(r) is immune to the normalization issue that affects ξ(r); this is asserted, not proved.
  • domain assumption The simulated ΛCDM boxes and SDSS galaxy samples from Einasto et al. (2020, 2021) are representative of the cosmic web
    All quantitative figures in Sections IV and V are reproduced from those two papers, without new validation here.
  • standard math The quantity D(r)=3+γ(r), where γ(r)=dlog(g)/dlog(r), is a meaningful fractal dimension at every scale
    This is a standard heuristic in fractal analysis, but the paper uses it to infer physical scales (halo diameters, filament scales), which requires the interpretation to hold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractal properties of the cosmic web." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R3QKG5WE

@misc{pith2026260804694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractal properties of the cosmic web},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R3QKG5WE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04694}
}
read the original abstract

The cosmic web is one of the most complex systems in nature, consisting of galaxies and clusters of galaxies connected by filaments and walls, and separated by large empty regions known as cosmic voids. The most common method for describing the web is the correlation function and its derivative, the structure function and fractal dimension function. In this paper I review the fractal properties of the cosmic web within the concordance {\Lambda}CDM framework. I describe how the fractal function is derived from the angular and spatial distributions of galaxies and discuss the relations between these approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04694 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Left: Map of Lick survey galaxies in the northern galactic hemisphere brighter than [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Correlation lengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Slice of the density field from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey at a distance of 240 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Structure functions defined as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Fractal dimension functions expressed as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Left: Two-dimensional CFs of the ΛCDM model with a particle density threshold of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Left: Two-dimensional gradient functions of the ΛCDM model with particle density thresh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Correlation function: biasing and fractal properties of the cosmic web

    J. Einasto, G. H¨ utsi, T. Kuutma, and M. Einasto, A&A640, A47 (2020), 2002.02813

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [21]

    Correlation functions in 2D and 3D as descriptors of the cosmic web

    J. Einasto, G. H¨ utsi, and M. Einasto, A&A652, A152 (2021), 2004.03232

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [36]

    Kaiser, ApJL284, L9 (1984)

    N. Kaiser, ApJL284, L9 (1984)

    work page 1984

  4. [37]

    Zehavi, D

    I. Zehavi, D. H. Weinberg, Z. Zheng, A. A. Berlind, J. A. Frieman, R. Scoccimarro, R. K. Sheth, M. R. Blanton, M. Tegmark, H. J. Mo, et al., ApJ608, 16 (2004), astro-ph/0301280

    arXiv 2004

  5. [1]

    For this reason it is not suitable for measuring large-scale homogeneity

    The CF is normalised to a Poisson distribution and therefore forced to have a negative tail. For this reason it is not suitable for measuring large-scale homogeneity. To describe the fractal character and its dimension, one should use the structure function g(r) = 1 +ξ(r) and its log–log gradientγ(r) =dlogg(r)/dlogrinstead of the CF

    work page

  6. [2]

    Fractal properties of the cosmic web are revealed by the fractal dimension function shown in Fig. 6. The fractal dimensionD(r) = 3 +γ(r) of 3D ΛCDM and SDSS samples (with sizes of 512h −1 Mpc) characterises the internal structure of halos at small separations (r≤4h −1 Mpc) and the distribution of particles/galaxies along filaments at larger separations

    work page

  7. [3]

    8) depends strongly on the thickness Lof the samples

    The gradient function derived from 2D data (Fig. 8) depends strongly on the thickness Lof the samples. In Millennium galaxy samples, the internal structure of halos is not preserved in 2D projections, leading to the (incorrect) conclusion that the fractal dimension is nearly constant over the interval 0.01≤r≤10h −1 Mpc. 14

    work page

  8. [4]

    New 3D data indicate that at large separations (r >100h −1 Mpc) the fractal dimension approaches the limitD(r) = 3

    Early 2D studies suggested that the fractal character of galaxy distribution extends only to∼10h −1 Mpc, beyond which the distribution becomes homogeneous. New 3D data indicate that at large separations (r >100h −1 Mpc) the fractal dimension approaches the limitD(r) = 3

    work page

Show all 50 references
  1. [5]

    4), is at least 200h −1 Mpc

    The scale of homogeneity, as inferred from the fractal dimension function and the size of the largest superclusters (Fig. 4), is at least 200h −1 Mpc. In recent years, considerable attention has been devoted to analysing the fractal properties of the early Universe. These resu...

  2. [6]

    Kiang, MNRAS135, 1 (1967)

    T. Kiang, MNRAS135, 1 (1967)

    1967

  3. [7]

    M. J. Haggerty and J. R. Wertz, MNRAS155, 495 (1972)

    1972

  4. [8]

    M. S. Longair and J. Einasto, eds.,The large scale structure of the universe; Proceedings of the Symposium, Tallin, Estonian SSR, September 12-16, 1977, vol. 79 ofIAU Symposium(1978)

    1978

  5. [9]

    Einasto, Fractal and Fractional9, arXiv:2509.04252 (2025), 2509.04252

    J. Einasto, Fractal and Fractional9, arXiv:2509.04252 (2025), 2509.04252

    2025 arXiv

  6. [10]

    B. B. Mandelbrot,The fractal geometry of nature(San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1977)

    1977

  7. [11]

    C. V. L. Charlier, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I98, 1 (1922)

    1922

  8. [12]

    E. F. Carpenter, ApJ88, 344 (1938)

    1938

  9. [13]

    E. J. Groth and P. J. E. Peebles, ApJ217, 385 (1977)

    1977

  10. [14]

    Einasto, E

    J. Einasto, E. Saar, and A. A. Klypin, MNRAS219, 457 (1986)

    1986

  11. [15]

    de Vaucouleurs, Science167, 1203 (1970)

    G. de Vaucouleurs, Science167, 1203 (1970)

    1970

  12. [16]

    R. M. Soneira and P. J. E. Peebles, AJ83, 845 (1978)

    1978

  13. [17]

    Shane and C

    C. Shane and C. Wirtanen, Publ. Lick Obs.22(1967)

    1967

  14. [18]

    Seldner, B

    M. Seldner, B. Siebers, E. J. Groth, and P. J. E. Peebles, AJ82, 249 (1977)

    1977

  15. [19]

    S. J. Maddox, G. Efstathiou, W. J. Sutherland, and J. Loveday, MNRAS242, 43 (1990)

    1990

  16. [22]

    Pietronero, Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications144, 257 (1987)

    L. Pietronero, Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications144, 257 (1987)

    1987

  17. [23]

    B. J. T. Jones, V. J. Martinez, E. Saar, and J. Einasto, ApJL332, L1 (1988)

    1988

  18. [24]

    Waves of larger wavelength remain outside the horizon and do not influence the scale of cosmic structures

    showed that density perturbations up to scales≤128h −1 Mpc determine the size of voids and superclusters. Waves of larger wavelength remain outside the horizon and do not influence the scale of cosmic structures. Important constraints on cosmological parameters come from the c...

  19. [25]

    Turok, ed.,Critical dialogues in cosmology(World Scientific, 1997)

    N. Turok, ed.,Critical dialogues in cosmology(World Scientific, 1997)

    1997

  20. [26]

    Davis, inCritical Dialogues in Cosmology, edited by N

    M. Davis, inCritical Dialogues in Cosmology, edited by N. Turok (World Scientific, 1997), p. 13, astro-ph/9610149

    1997 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Pietronero, M

    L. Pietronero, M. Montuori, and F. Sylos Labini, inCritical Dialogues in Cosmology, edited by N. Turok (World Scientific, 1997), p. 24, astro-ph/9611197

    1997 arXiv

  22. [28]

    V. J. Mart ´ ınez and E. Saar,Statistics of the Galaxy Distribution(Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2002)

    2002

  23. [29]

    P. J. E. Peebles, ApJ185, 413 (1973)

    1973

  24. [30]

    P. J. E. Peebles,The large-scale structure of the universe, Princeton Series in Physics (Prin- seton University Press, 1980)

    1980

  25. [31]

    Suhhonenko, J

    I. Suhhonenko, J. Einasto, L. J. Liivam¨ agi, E. Saar, M. Einasto, G. H¨ utsi, V. M¨ uller, A. A. Starobinsky, E. Tago, and E. Tempel, A&A531, A149+ (2011), 1101.0123. 16

    2011 arXiv

  26. [32]

    This approach assumes that the 2D and 3D distributions of galaxies are statistically equivalent

    recommended using galaxy positions and velocities independently, i.e., estimating CFs from 2D angular data. This approach assumes that the 2D and 3D distributions of galaxies are statistically equivalent. To test this assumption, Einasto et al. [21] calculated CFs and their de...

  27. [33]

    Saar, inMorphological Cosmology, edited by P

    E. Saar, inMorphological Cosmology, edited by P. Flin and H. W. Duerbeck (Springer, 1989), vol. 332, p. 205

    1989

  28. [34]

    Coles, inData Analysis in Cosmology, edited by V

    P. Coles, inData Analysis in Cosmology, edited by V. J. Mart ´ ınez, E. Saar, E. Mart ´ ınez- Gonz´ alez, and M.-J. Pons-Border ´ ıa (Springer, 2009), vol. 665, pp. 493–522

    2009

  29. [35]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, J. Einasto, and S. F. Shandarin, Nature300, 407 (1982)

    1982

  30. [38]

    Kaiser, MNRAS227, 1 (1987)

    N. Kaiser, MNRAS227, 1 (1987)

    1987

  31. [39]

    Davis and P

    M. Davis and P. J. E. Peebles, ApJ267, 465 (1983)

    1983

  32. [40]

    Springel, S

    V. Springel, S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, N. Yoshida, L. Gao, J. Navarro, R. Thacker, D. Croton, J. Helly, et al., Nature435, 629 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504097

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Norberg, C

    P. Norberg, C. M. Baugh, E. Hawkins, S. Maddox, J. A. Peacock, S. Cole, C. S. Frenk, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, et al., MNRAS328, 64 (2001), astro-ph/0105500

    2001 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zehavi, Z

    I. Zehavi, Z. Zheng, D. H. Weinberg, J. A. Frieman, A. A. Berlind, M. R. Blanton, R. Scoc- cimarro, R. K. Sheth, M. A. Strauss, I. Kayo, et al., ApJ630, 1 (2005), astro-ph/0408569

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Einasto, L

    J. Einasto, L. J. Liivam¨ agi, and M. Einasto, MNRAS518, arXiv:2209.06036 (2023), 2209.06036

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Einasto, G

    J. Einasto, G. H¨ utsi, E. Saar, I. Suhhonenko, L. J. Liivam¨ agi, M. Einasto, V. M¨ uller, A. A. Starobinsky, E. Tago, and E. Tempel, A&A531, A75 (2011), 1012.3550

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    L. A. Kofman and S. F. Shandarin, Nature334, 129 (1988)

    1988

  38. [46]

    R. A. Sunyaev and J. Chluba, Astronomische Nachrichten330, 657 (2009), 0908.0435

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., A&A641, A6 (2020), 1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. S. Bagla, J. Yadav, and T. R. Seshadri, MNRAS390, 829 (2008), 0712.2905

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. K. Yadav, J. S. Bagla, and N. Khandai, MNRAS405, 2009 (2010), 1001.0617

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    C. Park, H. Song, M. Einasto, H. Lietzen, and P. Heinamaki, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society48, 75 (2015), 1502.03563

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.