Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Gravity and the Nonlinear Growth of Structure in the Carnegie-Spitzer-IMACS Redshift Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives and observationally confirms a closed-form law: fixed percentiles of the cosmic density field grow as the square of initial overdensity and time.

desk verdict The analytic derivation of the alpha=2, beta=2 growth law is not sound — two missing steps in the Lagrangian averaging undo the theory — but the CSI empirical scaling is a solid phenomenological result that deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08952 v3 pith:6R2AJHNQ submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Daniel D. Kelson , Louis E. Abramson , Andrew J. Benson , Shannon G. Patel , Stephen A. Shectman , Alan Dressler , Patrick J. McCarthy , John S. Mulchaey
show 1 more author
Rik J. Williams
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords nonlinearstructuregrowthLagrangianfluidequationsdensitypercentileslognormalfieldgalaxyenvironmentgravitationalcollapseredshiftsurveycosmic
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

This paper argues that the nonlinear growth of cosmic structure can be described exactly, without N-body simulations, once density fluctuations have decoupled from the Hubble expansion. Working in Lagrangian coordinates and volume-averaging the fluid equations, the authors show that the density at a fixed percentile of the real-space distribution should grow as $\delta(t) \propto \delta_0^2\,t^2$, with the same quadratic dependence for the hollowing-out of underdense regions. They test this against the evolution of galaxy stellar-mass density percentiles across roughly seven billion years in a 9.5 square degree redshift survey, measuring $\alpha = 1.98 \pm 0.04$ and $\beta = 2.01 \pm 0.11$. If the derivation and measurement hold, this supplies the first exact analytic bridge from early linear fluctuations to the fully nonlinear regime and a new, distribution-based way to interpret cross-sectional galaxy surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the volume-averaged Lagrangian continuity equation written in terms of the overdensity $\delta(m,\tau)$, with mass parcels labeled by a coordinate $m$, together with Gauss's divergence theorem. The pivotal step is equation (6), which asserts that the volume integral of $\nabla\cdot \mathbf{u}$ over parcels selected by a fixed initial overdensity equals the unrestricted volume integral and therefore vanishes; this removes the '1' in $(1+\delta)$ from the averaged continuity equation. What remains yields $\langle D^2\delta/D\tau^2\rangle \propto \delta_p^2$, the quadratic-in-initial-density law that integrates to the $\alpha=2$, $\beta=2$ trajectory. The companion piece is the lognormal quantile function $Q_\delta(p)=\exp[\sigma\,\Phi^{-1}(p)]-1$, with $\Phi^{-1}$ the probit function, which maps observed percentiles back to the inferred initial overdensity spectrum.

What would settle it

Run an N-body simulation, label mass parcels by their initial overdensity at the decoupling epoch, and measure the conditional mean of $\nabla\cdot \mathbf{u}$ within each initial-overdensity bin; if it is not consistent with zero, equation (6) fails and the quadratic growth law does not follow. Alternatively, measure the percentile growth exponents directly in the simulation: values of $\alpha$ or $\beta$ differing from 2 would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that after a density fluctuation decouples from the Hubble expansion, the mean evolution of its overdensity is governed by the volume-averaged Lagrangian fluid equations, and that for the ensemble of mass parcels sharing an initial overdensity $\delta_p$ the result is $\langle D^2\delta/D\tau^2\rangle = \frac{3}{2}\Omega_M H_0^2 a^{-1}\delta_p^2$. Integrating once in time gives a mean growth rate proportional to $\delta_p^2(\tau-\tau_{nl})$, and integrating again gives the quadratic trajectory $\delta(\tau)-\delta(\tau_{nl}) \propto \delta_p^2(\tau-\tau_{nl})^2$, so $\alpha=2$ and $\beta=2$; underdense percentiles drain according to a mirrored law with an extra $(1+\delta_p)^2$ factor. The paper reports that fixed percentiles of the local stellar-mass density distribution in the CSI survey evolve with $\alpha = 1.98 \pm 0.04$ and $\beta = 2.01 \pm 0.11$, and that extrapolating each percentile back to the start of galaxy growth recovers a lognormal initial density distribution with $\sigma = 0.82 \pm 0.01$. These results are presented as the first exact, analytic description of nonlinear structure growth that extends to arbitrarily low redshift and as evidence that early lognormal fluctuations grew by gravitational accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation hinges on assuming that the average expansion term within each group of mass parcels that began with the same initial density is the same as the average over all space, namely zero; if that conditional average is not zero, the predicted $\delta_0^2 t^2$ growth law does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Percentile-by-percentile density growth in the fully nonlinear regime is predictable from a closed algebraic form, so the growth of structure no longer needs to be treated as a purely numerical problem.
  • Evolving observed density percentiles backwards recovers the initial lognormal spectrum with $\sigma = 0.82 \pm 0.01$, giving a direct empirical handle on the density field at the start of star formation.
  • Because the derived form extends to arbitrarily low redshift, galaxy growth and the turnover in the cosmic star formation rate density can be modeled analytically rather than only through Monte Carlo techniques.
  • The inferred Hurst parameter $H=1$ for accretion means the scatter around mean galaxy growth relations is itself correlated signal, so cross-sectional surveys should be analyzed distributionally rather than by tracking medians alone.
  • Any additional physics, such as baryonic feedback or environmental effects, should enter as modified boundary or initial conditions, making measurements of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ a diagnostic for such physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the conditional-mean step at equation (6) survives scrutiny, the same volume-averaging trick may yield analytic growth laws for velocity statistics or higher-order density moments, not just percentile trajectories.
  • Because the $\alpha=2$, $\beta=2$ law should hold for any tracer of the underlying density field, applying the same analysis to X-ray clusters, HI maps, or lensing maps would test whether baryonic tracers follow identical exponents or reveal feedback-induced deviations.
  • The exponent pair ($\alpha,\beta$) is a redshift-independent benchmark; deviations measured in a particular percentile or scale could be converted into constraints on assembly bias or on the epoch of nonlinearity $z_{nl}$.
  • A straightforward simulation test is to repeat the CSI percentile analysis on mock catalogs with full selection effects: recovering $\alpha = \beta = 2$ would close the loop, while any offset would quantify the systematic error budget of the measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims a new analytic description of nonlinear structure growth: after overdense regions decouple from the Hubble expansion, fixed percentiles of the real-space matter density distribution should grow as δ(t) ∝ δ_0^α t^β with α = 2 and β = 2. This is derived in Section 2 by volume-averaging the Lagrangian fluid equations, and the prediction is tested against environmental densities measured from the Carnegie-Spitzer-IMACS Redshift Survey over 0.2 < z < 1.5, yielding α = 1.98 ± 0.04 and β = 2.01 ± 0.11.

Significance. If the derivation and measurement were both sound, the result would be significant: it would provide a simple analytic law for the growth of density percentiles into the nonlinear regime and would give the first direct observational confirmation of such a law. The paper also contains substantial empirical work: careful SED fitting, Monte Carlo tests of incompleteness corrections, Delaunay-based density estimation, and robustness checks over many redshift and mass binning choices. However, the theoretical core has two unproven and apparently incorrect steps, and the empirical validation is partly circular because the initial density distribution is inferred from the same data with the growth law already assumed. The paper's central claims are therefore not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (6)] The replacement of the conditional volume integral of ∇·u over parcels with initial overdensity Qδ(p) by the full-volume integral is asserted without support. In the linear growing mode, ∇·u/(aH) = -f δ with f ≈ Ω_m^0.55, so the conditional mean of ∇·u over parcels with δ(m, τ_nl) = δ_p is -aH f δ_p, not the global mean (zero for a periodic volume). At first order in δ_p, Eq. (6) therefore fails, and the '+1' term in Eq. (5) is not removed. Since Eq. (7) and the subsequent derivation all rest on this step, the quadratic growth law does not follow from the fluid equations as presented.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (8)–(9)] Taking the Lagrangian time derivative of the product δ (∇·u) in Eq. (8) produces two terms, but Eq. (9) retains only the term involving δ ∇·(Du/Dτ). The discarded term is (Dδ/Dτ)(∇·u) = -(1+δ)(∇·u)^2 by Eq. (1), which is nonzero and on nonlinear scales is generally comparable to the retained term. No argument is given for its vanishing. Without this additional and unjustified truncation, Eq. (11) is not derived.
  3. [§6 and §7, Eqs. (16)–(17)] The empirical confirmation is partly circular. The initial lognormal A(p) = exp[σ Φ^{-1}(p)] is inferred from the same CSI percentile tracks in Section 6 after assuming β = 2, and σ is fitted. The relation B(p) ∝ [A(p)-1]^α is then compared with the data, but A(p) is constructed from those data. In addition, the free normalization γ in Eq. (17) absorbs the predicted prefactor C, so the agreement of α and β with (2, 2) tests only the shape of the growth law, not the quantitative normalization of Eq. (14). The reported posteriors therefore do not constitute an independent confirmation of the analytic derivation.
  4. [§2, Eq. (14)] The low-density branch of Eq. (14) is introduced through a brief chain-rule argument involving δ′ = ⟨ρ⟩/ρ − 1, but the derivation is not shown. In particular, the factor (1+δ_p)^2 and the statement about mass conservation in the p < 0.5 ensemble require a careful accounting of how parcels leave the percentile ensemble; as written, this part of the result is not established at the same level as the high-density branch.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6, first paragraph] Typo: 'distrbution' should be 'distribution'.
  2. [§8, final paragraph] Typo: 'Eulerian' should be 'Eulerian'.
  3. [Throughout] A number of spelling errors appear: 'outlyers' should be 'outliers', 'correspondance' should be 'correspondence', and 'stricly' should be 'strictly'.
  4. [§7, Fig. 11 caption] The low-density percentiles with Φ^{-1}(p) < -1 are excluded from the fit, but the model curves are still shown for them using dashed lines; the text should state explicitly that those dashed curves are extrapolations, not fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the §2 derivation does not use the CSI data or fitted parameters, and the empirical exponents α and β are free parameters in the final fit rather than constructions.

full rationale

The central derivation in §2 begins from the Lagrangian continuity equation, the momentum equation in the decoupled regime, and the Poisson equation (Eqs. 1–3); it does not import the CSI measurements, the fitted lognormal parameters, or any result from the authors' prior papers. The claimed scaling δ(t) ∝ δ0^2 t^2 is obtained by volume-averaging these fluid equations; it is not assumed as an input. Whether Eq. 6's conditional-averaging identity is valid is a mathematical correctness concern, not a circularity concern: a false step cannot make the conclusion identical to the premise by construction. In §6–7, the initial density distribution A(p) is inferred from the CSI percentile tracks, and then α, β, γ, and σ are treated as free parameters in Eq. 17 and marginalized over a four-dimensional grid. Since α and β are not fixed to 2 before the fit, the posterior estimates α = 1.98 ± 0.04 and β = 2.01 ± 0.11 are genuine measurements rather than forced values. The comparison of B(p) to [A(p)−1]^α is a test of a predicted functional relation between two empirically estimated quantities, analogous to a scaling-relation test; there is no statistical identity that forces the quadratic relation. The paper's self-citations to Kelson et al. (2014, 2016) appear in the SED-library construction and in the interpretative discussion of Hurst exponents; neither is load-bearing for the derivation of α = 2 and β = 2. Thus, no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's claimed prediction rests on several domain assumptions and has three effectively free parameters in the empirical model: sigma, gamma, and the adopted z_nl, plus the fitted exponents alpha and beta. The most serious burden is the Eq 6 conditional-average step, which is asserted rather than derived. The initial density distribution and normalization are fitted from the same data, so the empirical validation is partially internal.

free parameters (5)
  • sigma (width of initial lognormal) = 0.82+/-0.01 in the first pass; marginalized in the final fit
    Maps percentile p to initial density via A(p)=exp[sigma Phi^-1(p)] in Eq 16. It is fitted to the same CSI percentile evolution, so the later alpha and beta test is not fully external.
  • gamma (normalization of growth rate) = order-unity nuisance, marginalized
    Absorbs systematic dilution of observed densities and uncertainty in the epoch of nonlinearity in Eq 17. It allows the normalization of B(p) to float instead of being predicted.
  • alpha (density-growth exponent) = 1.98+/-0.04
    Fitted as a free exponent in Eq 17. The agreement with 2 is the empirical claim, not an externally imposed constant.
  • beta (time-growth exponent) = 2.01+/-0.11
    Fitted as a free exponent in Eq 17 after an earlier per-percentile analysis assumed beta=2 to infer the initial density distribution. The agreement with 2 is the empirical claim.
  • z_nl (epoch of nonlinearity) = 10 (adopted)
    Sets the predicted normalization C=3/4 Omega_M H0^2 (1+z_nl) and the time zero point. The paper marginalizes over gamma to absorb uncertainty in this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption After decoupling from the Hubble expansion, the momentum equation is Du/Dtau=-grad phi with no Hubble drag terms, and a is fixed at decoupling (Eqs 1-3).
    This removes the linear growth terms from the fluid equations and restricts the derivation to the post-decoupling regime.
  • domain assumption Modes grow independently before nonlinearity, making the conditional volume integral of div u equal to the global volume average (Eq 6).
    This is the load-bearing step that makes the '1' part of (1+delta) vanish by Gauss's theorem. The paper provides no proof that the conditional mean of div u is zero.
  • ad hoc to paper Only one term survives the time derivative of the averaged product delta div u (Eqs 8-9).
    The discarded product term is not shown to vanish; this step is required to reach Eq 11 and the quadratic law.
  • domain assumption Galaxy stellar mass density traces matter density in the mean on scales above individual halos.
    Stated in Section 2. The empirical test measures stellar mass density, not dark matter density, so baryonic processes could bias the comparison.
  • domain assumption The initial density distribution at the start of stellar mass growth is lognormal with unknown width sigma.
    Adopted in Sections 6 and 7 and fitted to the same data. It is not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Fixed percentiles in cross-sectional density distributions can be modeled as evolving Lagrangian ensembles.
    The paper identifies percentile tracks in redshift slices with mean growth trajectories of initial density parcels, stated in Sections 2 and 5. Mass flow between percentiles complicates this identification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravity and the Nonlinear Growth of Structure in the Carnegie-Spitzer-IMACS Redshift Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6R2AJHNQ

@misc{pith2026190808952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravity and the Nonlinear Growth of Structure in the Carnegie-Spitzer-IMACS Redshift Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6R2AJHNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08952}
}
abstract

A key obstacle to developing a satisfying theory of galaxy evolution is the difficulty in extending analytic descriptions of early structure formation into full nonlinearity, the regime in which galaxy growth occurs. Extant techniques, though powerful, are based on approximate numerical methods whose Monte Carlo-like nature hinders intuition building. Here, we develop a new solution to this problem and its empirical validation. We first derive closed-form analytic expectations for the evolution of fixed percentiles in the real-space cosmic density distribution, {\it averaged over representative volumes observers can track cross-sectionally\}. Using the Lagrangian forms of the fluid equations, we show that percentiles in $\delta$---the density relative to the median---should grow as $\delta(t)\propto\delta_{0}^{\alpha}\,t^{\beta}$, where $\alpha\equiv2$ and $\beta\equiv2$ for Newtonian gravity at epochs after the overdensities transitioned to nonlinear growth. We then use 9.5 sq. deg. of Carnegie-Spitzer-IMACS Redshift Survey data to map {\it galaxy\} environmental densities over $0.2<z<1.5$ ($\sim$7 Gyr) and infer $\alpha=1.98\pm0.04$ and $\beta=2.01\pm0.11$---consistent with our analytic prediction. These findings---enabled by swapping the Eulerian domain of most work on density growth for a Lagrangian approach to real-space volumetric averages---provide some of the strongest evidence that a lognormal distribution of early density fluctuations indeed decoupled from cosmic expansion to grow through gravitational accretion. They also comprise the first exact, analytic description of the nonlinear growth of structure extensible to (arbitrarily) low redshift. We hope these results open the door to new modeling of, and insight-building into, the galaxy growth and its diversity in cosmological contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The positions, in comoving Mpc. for galaxies with stellar masses M∗ > 1010M in four redshift slices in the CSI XMM field. The colour of each point reflects the local stellar mass density relative to the median density in the slice (see §4), while the point sizes reflect the stellar masses of the individual galaxies. High density regions are expected to grow in density contrast with time, while low density regions ar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example Delaunay triangulation of CSI galaxies in the redshift slice 0.48 6 z 6 0.60 within the SWIRE XMM field. Each box is 7 Mpc × 7 Mpc. To compute the surface density at the location of a galaxy of interest (open orange circle) at center of each box, the areas of the adjacent triangles are summed and multipled by the depth of the redshift slice to derive a local volume element. These volume elements adapt to the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results of Monte Carlo simulations of distributions of galax￾ies in fields of variable mean projected density on the sky, in which local projected densities are computed using the Delaunay Triangulation estima￾tor described in the text. Here we plot local projected density estimates from catalogs suffering from source-density-dependent incompleteness in a manner similar to the CSI selection function, plotted aga… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The cumulative distributions normalized to the median density at each redshift. (b) Magnification of the low density tail of the cumulative distributions, with vertical lines at the percentiles displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of local stellar mass densities from the combined samples of the CSI SWIRE XMM and CDFS fields. Each point represents a fixed percentile, p, defined over the range −2σ to +2σ for a Gaussian dis￾tribution, in intervals of σ/4. The black filled circles m…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of local stellar mass densities relative to the me￾dian within a redshift slice. Relative to the median local stellar mass density, higher density percentiles are growing more rapidly than lower density per￾centiles. evolves according to ρ∗(t, p) ρ∗(t,…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Top and Bottom) The marginalized posteriors for α and β in thin coloured lines from forty variants of slicing the CSI dataset, in stel￾lar mass and redshift binning. Combining the posteriors from the different slicings of the data, we have derived a combined set of p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Gladders, M

    Abramson, L. E., Gladders, M. D., Dressler, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, L12

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    E., Gladders, M

    Abramson, L. E., Gladders, M. D., Dressler, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 7

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    K., & Corasaniti, P

    Achitouv, I., Rasera, Y ., Sheth, R. K., & Corasaniti, P. S. 2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 231303

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57

    2013

  5. [5]

    J., Bower, R

    Benson, A. J., Bower, R. G., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 38

    2003

  6. [6]

    Benson, A. J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2599

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    1992, New Insights into the Universe, 65

    Bertschinger, E. 1992, New Insights into the Universe, 65

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    1994, ApJ, 431, 486

    Bertschinger, E., & Jain, B. 1994, ApJ, 431, 486

    work page 1994

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    R., Faber, S

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517

    1984

  2. [10]

    R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N

    Bond, J. R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N. 1991, ApJ, 379, 440

    1991

  3. [11]

    Bouchet, F. R. 1996, Dark Matter in the Universe, 565

    1996

  4. [12]

    L., Blanton, M

    Coil, A. L., Blanton, M. R., Burles, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 8

    2011

  5. [13]

    S., Navarro, J

    Cole, S., Aragon-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C. S., Navarro, J. F., & Zepf, S. E. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 781

    1994

  6. [14]

    1991, MNRAS, 248, 1

    Coles, P., & Jones, B. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 1

    1991

  7. [15]

    C., Yan, R., Dickinson, M., et al

    Cooper, M. C., Yan, R., Dickinson, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2116

    2012

  8. [16]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  9. [17]

    2011, PASP, 123, 288

    Dressler, A., Bigelow, B., Hare, T., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 288

    2011

  10. [18]

    D., Abramson, L

    Dressler, A., Kelson, D. D., Abramson, L. E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 251

    2016

  11. [19]

    D., & Abramson, L

    Dressler, A., Kelson, D. D., & Abramson, L. E. 2018, ApJ, 869, 152 Driver S.P. & Robotham A.S.G., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2131

    2018

  12. [20]

    D., Oemler, A., Dressler, A., et al

    Gladders, M. D., Oemler, A., Dressler, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 64

    2013

  13. [21]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201

    1993

  14. [22]

    D., 2014b, arXiv:1406.5191

    Kelson, D. D., 2014b, arXiv:1406.5191

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    D., Benson, A

    Kelson, D. D., Benson, A. J., & Abramson, L. E. 2016, arXiv:1610.06566

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

    Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottlöber, S., Prada, F., & Heß, S. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340

    2016

  17. [25]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5206 Le Fevre, O., Vettolani, G., Maccagni, D., et al

    Knebe, A., Stoppacher, D., Prada, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5206 Le Fevre, O., Vettolani, G., Maccagni, D., et al. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 173

    2018

  18. [26]

    J., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., & Crampton, D

    Lilly, S. J., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., & Crampton, D. 1996, ApJ, 460, L1

    1996

  19. [27]

    1995, ApJ, 455, 7

    Ma, C.-P., & Bertschinger, E. 1995, ApJ, 455, 7

    1995

  20. [28]

    Ma, C.-P., & Fry, J. N. 2000, ApJ, 543, 503

    2000

  21. [29]

    C., Dickinson, M

    Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388

    1996

  22. [30]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 393

    Mandelbaum, R. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 393

    2018

  23. [31]

    B., & van Ness, J

    Mandelbrot, B. B., & van Ness, J. W. 1968, SIAM Review, 10, 422

    1968

  24. [32]

    B., & Wallis, J

    Mandelbrot, B. B., & Wallis, J. R. 1969, Water Resources Research, 5, 228

    1969

  25. [33]

    Q., Hahn, G

    Meeker, W. Q., Hahn, G. J., & Escobar, L. A., 2017,Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners and Researchers, John Wiley & Sons

    2017

  26. [34]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121

    2013

  27. [35]

    R., et al

    Moutarde, F., Alimi, J.-M., Bouchet, F. R., et al. 1991, ApJ, 382, 377

    1991

  28. [36]

    G., Weiner, B

    Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43

    2007

  29. [37]

    2004, ApJ, 608, 647

    Ohta, Y ., Kayo, I., & Taruya, A. 2004, ApJ, 608, 647

    2004

  30. [38]

    G., et al

    Oemler, A., Jr., Dressler, A., Gladders, M. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 63

    2013

  31. [39]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1967, ApJ, 147, 859

    1967

  32. [40]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1974, A&A, 32, 391

    1974

  33. [41]

    J., Kovaˇc, K., et al

    Peng, Y .-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇc, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

    2010

  34. [42]

    J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M

    Peng, Y .-j., Lilly, S. J., Renzini, A., & Carollo, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 4 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2015, arXiv:1502.01589

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    H., & Schechter, P

    Press, W. H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

    1974

  36. [44]

    2018, A&A, 609, A84

    Scodeggio, M., Guzzo, L., Garilli, B., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A84

    2018

  37. [45]

    and Lorensen, B

    Shroeder, W., Martin, K. and Lorensen, B. 2002, The Visualization Toolkit, 3rd Edition. Kitware Inc., New York. van der Burg, R. F. J., Muzzin, A., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A15

    2002

  38. [46]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 32 Zel’dovich, Y

    Wang, X., Neyrinck, M., Szapudi, I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 32 Zel’dovich, Y . B. 1970, A&A, 5, 84 This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by the author. MNRAS 000, 1–13 (0000)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.