Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Unveiling the largest structures in the nearby Universe: Discovery of the Quipu superstructure

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using X-ray-selected galaxy clusters between redshifts 0.03 and 0.06, this paper identifies five large superstructures and claims that the largest, Quipu, spans 428 Mpc with an estimated mass of about 2e17 solar masses, making it the…

desk verdict Quipu looks real as a large cluster overdensity, but the paper's headline mass and matter-fraction claims carry no error bars and rest on adopted volume and bias choices that could shift the numbers by a factor of two. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19236 v1 pith:QXY2LBYR submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.CO

Hans Boehringer , Gayoung Chon , Joachim Truemper , Renee C. Kraan-Korteweg , Norbert Schartel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords large-scalestructuregalaxyclustersX-rayclustersurveyssuperstructurescosmicwebLambda-CDMcosmologymicrowavebackgroundimprintsHubbleconstantmeasurement
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 maps the largest matter concentrations in the nearby universe, between redshifts 0.03 and 0.06, using X-ray-selected galaxy clusters as tracers of the underlying matter distribution. It reports five superstructures with at least 20 member clusters, the largest of which, Quipu, spans 428 Mpc and carries an estimated mass of about $2\times10^{17}\,M_\odot$; the authors describe this as the largest cosmic structure discovered to date. Together the five superstructures contain roughly 45% of the clusters, 30% of the galaxies, and 25% of the matter in 13% of the surveyed volume, making them a substantial part of the local universe. The paper also shows that galaxy density around superstructure clusters stays elevated out to about 45 Mpc, farther than around field clusters, and that comparable structures appear at comparable abundance in Lambda-CDM simulations. It predicts a late-time cosmic microwave background temperature shift of a few microkelvin from the evolving potentials of these structures, and it finds an observed signal of that strength but with less than $1\sigma$ significance.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a friends-of-friends percolation algorithm run on a flux-limited, all-sky X-ray cluster catalogue with a known selection function. The linking length is set to $l = (2N_{\rm Cl})^{-1/3}$ so that the selected structures sit at cluster overdensity $\Delta \sim 1$; the observed cluster overdensity is converted to a matter overdensity using a bias factor of about 1/3, and 1/2 for the Hercules structure; and each superstructure's volume is taken as the union of regions within 0.75 of the mean linking length, 28.875 Mpc, of any member cluster. The same construction is applied to clusters drawn from a Lambda-CDM simulation to predict how many superstructures should exist and how matter density should fall with distance from member clusters.

What would settle it

A complete redshift survey across the Zone of Avoidance between Quipu's two ends, or an independent matter-density reconstruction from peculiar velocities or weak lensing over the same volume, could test the claimed 428 Mpc length and $2\times10^{17}\,M_\odot$ mass. If the reconstructed matter overdensity within the adopted 28.875 Mpc radius is below roughly 0.25 rather than 0.5, the headline mass and the 25% matter share would have to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the redshift shell z = 0.03 to 0.06 contains five coherent superstructures, each with at least 20 clusters joined by a friends-of-friends linking length tuned to the local cluster density. The largest, Quipu, is a filament of 68 X-ray clusters spanning 428 Mpc with an estimated mass of about $2.4\times10^{17}\,M_\odot$; the five structures together account for about 45% of clusters, 30% of galaxies, and 25% of matter in 13% of the surveyed volume. The paper argues these are genuine physical entities rather than chance cluster associations: the galaxy overdensity extends out to about 45 Mpc around them, and Lambda-CDM simulations produce similar superstructures at a comparable rate. It further claims that such structures should alter cosmic microwave background photons through the time-evolution of their gravitational potentials, with an expected temperature shift of several microkelvin, and that a search of CMB maps finds a signal of the expected amplitude but at low significance.

Load-bearing premise

The headline numbers assume that cluster counts trace matter density with a fixed bias factor of about 1/3, or 1/2 for Hercules, and that each superstructure's volume is the region within 28.875 Mpc of a member cluster; if either choice is wrong by a factor of two, the mass, the 25% matter share, and the volume fraction change by a comparable factor, and the paper propagates no uncertainty into them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quipu is claimed to be the largest coherent cosmic structure known: 428 Mpc long, about $2\times10^{17}\,M_\odot$ in mass, and containing 68 X-ray cluster members.
  • The five superstructures hold about 45% of clusters, 30% of galaxies, and 25% of matter in 13% of the surveyed volume, so local cosmological measurements such as the Hubble constant, CMB maps, and lensing must account for them.
  • Superstructure environments are distinct from field environments: galaxy density remains above the mean out to about 45 Mpc from member clusters, versus about 30 Mpc around clusters not in superstructures.
  • Lambda-CDM simulations produce comparable superstructures at comparable numbers, so these objects are consistent with standard structure formation rather than anomalies.
  • The evolving potentials of these superstructures should create a late-time CMB temperature shift of roughly 3 to 5 microkelvin; the observed shift has the expected amplitude but less than $1\sigma$ significance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mass and volume-share numbers rest on adopted bias and volume choices; an independent calibration of the cluster-to-matter bias or a different linking radius could move the 25% matter share by up to a factor of two without destroying the existence of the structures.
  • If deeper surveys across the Zone of Avoidance fill the gap between Quipu and the neighbouring Vela supercluster, the quoted 428 Mpc length would become a lower limit and the connected structure could exceed 500 Mpc.
  • Applying the same method to deeper future X-ray cluster catalogues could test whether superstructures of this size are as abundant at higher redshift, where their CMB imprint should be stronger and easier to detect.
  • The finding that galaxy density is enhanced out to about 45 Mpc implies that environmental studies of galaxy evolution should treat the whole superstructure, not individual clusters, as the environmental unit; measuring quenched fractions or star-formation rates across that region would test whether the environment is physically special.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an all-sky search for superstructures in the redshift shell z = 0.03–0.06 using the CLASSIX X-ray cluster sample. A friends-of-friends algorithm with a density-adapted linking length yields five superstructures, the largest of which (Quipu) has a quoted length of 428 Mpc and an estimated mass of about 2.4×10^17 Msun. The authors compare the cluster distribution with 2MASS galaxies, find analogous superstructures in the Millennium simulation, and estimate the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect, reporting a Planck signal of expected amplitude but with significance below 1σ. The paper concludes that the five superstructures contain about 45% of clusters, 30% of galaxies, and 25% of matter in 13% of the surveyed volume.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, Quipu would be a remarkable object and the first all-sky census of the largest structures in a poorly explored redshift shell. The paper is built on a well-characterized cluster sample with spectroscopic redshifts and a published selection function, and the discovery is visually corroborated by the independent 2MASS galaxy maps. The ISW estimate is presented honestly as a low-significance signal of expected strength, not a detection. The comparison with the Millennium simulation is a useful sanity check. However, the headline masses, volume fractions, and matter fractions rest on adopted, unpropagated calibration choices, and at least one of the quoted percentages mixes observed and simulated volume definitions. The existence of Quipu as a coherent filamentary overdensity is well supported; the precise quantitative claims need revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Table 1]
  2. [Section 6, Table 2, and the conclusion]
  3. [Section 6 and Table 2]
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 9]
  2. [Key words]
  3. [Abstract, Sections 8.2 and 9]
  4. [Abstract]
  5. [Section 4 and Abstract]
  6. [Figure 12]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the superstructure detection, mass estimates, and ISW comparison are data-driven or use openly adopted calibrations, not fits to the claimed results.

full rationale

The central discovery is a friends-of-friends grouping of observed X-ray clusters with a linking length set by the local cluster density (Sect. 4), and the paper checks the resulting structures against the independent 2MASS galaxy distribution and the Millennium simulation (Sects. 5 and 6), so the identification is not equivalent to its inputs. The mass estimates in Table 1 are computed from an adopted volume (0.75 of the mean linking length) times cluster overdensity divided by a bias factor; the bias factor is quoted from Tinker et al. (2010) and CLASSIX clustering studies, and the volume convention is explicitly described as 'plausible' and 'adopted' rather than fitted to the headline mass or the 25% matter fraction. The '25% of matter' statement is therefore a stated conversion convention, not a prediction derived from itself; a different radius or bias would change the number, but that is calibration sensitivity, not circularity. The ISW section uses four independent spherical models with masses that do not reproduce the Table 1 masses in detail, and the Planck search is reported as less than 1 sigma, so there is no fitting-then-claiming loop. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing in a circular sense: the methods are re-derived or cross-checked with simulations and external references in this paper. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the claimed result, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central discovery does not introduce new physics; it relies on calibration relations and modeling choices. The main free parameters are the FoF linking length, the 20-member threshold, the cluster-to-matter bias factor, the volume assignment radius, and the simple ISW model masses and profiles. The X-ray luminosity-mass relation and cluster bias are adopted from prior, partly self-cited calibrations.

free parameters (5)
  • FoF linking length = 26 to 56 Mpc (mean 38.5 Mpc)
    Set as l=(2*N_Cl)^(-1/3) to target cluster overdensity Δ≈1; the resulting superstructure sizes and memberships are directly set by this scale.
  • Minimum member threshold = 20 clusters
    Chosen from the plateau in the multiplicity function; selects five structures and affects their derived properties.
  • Matter bias factor = ≈1/3 (1/2 for Hercules)
    Multiplies the inverse cluster overdensity to obtain matter overdensity; mass estimates scale linearly with it and no uncertainty is quoted.
  • Volume assignment radius = 28.875 Mpc (0.75 times the mean linking length)
    Used to assign volume/mass and volume fraction; described as a 'plausible solution' and 'adopted', not derived.
  • ISW model mass and profile = 2e16 to 3e16 M_sun inside 40 Mpc; top-hat and r^-1.8 profiles
    Inputs to the four spherical ISW models used to compute expected 3 to 5 microkelvin signals; not central to the discovery but used to interpret the sub-1 sigma Planck signal.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption X-ray luminosity is tightly correlated with cluster mass (Pratt et al. 2009; Böhringer et al. 2012)
    Used to assign M200 to all clusters; calibration is prior and partly self-cited; the stated 1 sigma scatter is 40%.
  • domain assumption Cluster distribution traces the matter distribution with a known linear bias, validated on the Millennium simulation
    Critical for converting cluster overdensities into matter overdensities; Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the correlation but no quantitative bias error is propagated.
  • domain assumption The CLASSIX selection function and completeness (including the Zone of Avoidance) are correct in the target redshift range
    The FoF linking length is normalized by the local cluster density estimated from the luminosity function and selection function; errors here would alter the detection threshold.
  • domain assumption The Millennium simulation with Planck/Lambda-CDM cosmology provides a fair comparison population for superstructure abundance
    Used to conclude the observed five structures are expected in Lambda-CDM; assumes the simulation cluster selection matches the observed one.
  • domain assumption Planck CMB maps and masks are adequately cleaned for the cross-correlation
    Underlies the ISW search; since the signal is sub-1 sigma the conclusion does not depend strongly on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the largest structures in the nearby Universe: Discovery of the Quipu superstructure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QXY2LBYR

@misc{pith2026250119236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the largest structures in the nearby Universe: Discovery of the Quipu superstructure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QXY2LBYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19236}
}
read the original abstract

For a precise determination of cosmological parameters we need to understand the effects of the local large-scale structure of the Universe on the measurements. They include modifications of the cosmic microwave background, distortions of sky images by large-scale gravitational lensing, and the influence of large-scale streaming motions on measurements of the Hubble constant. The streaming motions, for example, originate from mass concentrations with distances up to 250 Mpc. In this paper we provide the first all-sky assessment of the largest structures at distances between 130 and 250 Mpc and discuss their observational consequences, using X-ray galaxy clusters to map the matter density distribution. Among the five most prominent superstructures found, the largest has a length longer than 400 Mpc with an estimated mass of about 2 10e17 Msun. This entity, which we named Quipu, is the largest cosmic structure discovered to date. These superstructures contain about 45% of the galaxy clusters, 30% of the galaxies, 25% of the matter, and occupy a volume fraction of 13%, thus constituting a major part of the Universe. The galaxy density is enhanced in the environment of superstructures out to larger distances from the nearest member clusters compared to the outskirts of clusters in the field. We find superstructures with similar properties in simulations based on Lambda-CDM cosmology models. We show that the superstructures should produce a modification on the cosmic microwave background through the integrated Sachs-Wolf effect. Searching for this effect in the Planck data we found a signal of the expected strength, however, with low significance. Characterising these superstructures is also important for astrophysical research, for example the study of the environmental dependence of galaxy evolution as well as for precision tests of cosmological models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Matter density distribution in two regions with a side-length of 117 h −1 100 Mpc from the Millennium simulation. The depth of the slices through the simulation is 15.6 h −1 100 Mpc. The matter density is colour￾coded, with increasing density in rainbow colours from blue to red. The positions of the clusters, selected analogously to the clusters of the ex￾tended CLASSIX survey, are marked by black dots [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation of the overdensity of matter to that of clusters in cells of 64 h −1 100 Mpc (top) and 128h −1 100 Mpc side-length (bottom) in the Millennium simulation. linked to these superstructures outside the redshift range. Includ￾ing these additional clusters the superstructures have 185 clus￾ter members. Table A.1 in the appendix provides a catalogue of these clusters in superstructures with sky coordinates, red… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multiplicity function of clusters in superstructures, that is the distribution of the number of member clusters in these structures. For this accounting we have included also member clusters outside the tar￾get redshift interval. (Böhringer et al. 2013; Pratt et al. 2009). This mass estimate has a 1σ uncertainty of about 40%. 3. Matter density mapping We illustrate the connection of the cluster distribution with the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the CLASSIX clusters in the redshift shell z = 0.03 - 0.06 (solid and open circles). The member clusters of the five superstructures are marked in colour, Quipu (red), Shapley (blue), Serpens-Corona Borealis (green), Hercules (purple) and Sculptor-Pegas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three-dimensional representation of the Quipu Superstructure in equatorial coordinates. The wedges indicate the embedding volume of the structure separately for the northern and southern sky. The dots are the cluster members with sizes and colours indicating the distan…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wedge diagram in declination and distance of the Quipu super￾structure. The distance is in units of Mpc. The red dots show the super￾structure members and the black lines show the friends-to-friends link￾ing. The grey dots show the non-member clusters in the target red…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the five superstructures on the sky in galactic coordinates, with the same colours and symbols as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Four of the superstructures shown in declination-redshift dia￾grams. The distance units are in Mpc and the two dotted lines show the redshift distance z = 0.03 and 0.06. Top: Shapley supercluster shown by red dots. Grey points show the non-member clusters in the same r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Density map of the 2MASS galaxy distribution in the redshift in￾terval z = 0.03 − 0.06 in equatorial coordinates. The density ratio to the average density is shown by six contour levels: 0 - 0.23 (black), 0.23 - 0.62 (dark brown), 0.62 - 1.13 (middle brown), 1.13 - 1.9…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: To quantify the correlation of the cluster and galaxy distribu￾tion, we map the galaxy density as a function of the radial dis￾tance from the superstructures in the following way. All 2MASS galaxies at z = 0.03 to 0.06 are counted as part of the superstruc￾ture, whose …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Density ratio to the mean density of the galaxy density distri￾bution in superstructures (red) and in regions around clusters outside superstructures (blue) as a function of the limiting radius. The solid lines show the results for the total survey volume and the dash…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Differential density ratio to the mean density of the galaxy dis￾tribution in superstructures (red) and in regions around clusters outside superstructures (blue) as a function of the limiting radius. on large-scale, with superstructures living in a significantly more …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Ratio of the matter density around superstructures to the mean matter density as a function of the limiting radius (solid curve) com￾pared to that of field clusters (dashed line). The radii for which the val￾ues are listed in Table2 are marked with solid points [PITH…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Volume fraction filled by superstructures (solid line) and field clusters with their halos (dashed line) as a function of limiting radius. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Cluster density distribution as a function of redshift for the CLASSIX galaxy clusters covering the sky at |bII| ≥ 20o for a minimum luminosity of 1042 erg s−1 (0.1 - 2.4 keV). The density distribution has been normalised by the local mean cluster density based on the…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Normalised cumulative mass function of clusters in superstruc￾tures (red) and field clusters (black). Studies of the topology of the large-scale structure in cosmolog￾ical simulations (Cautun et al. 2014; Libeskind et al. 2018) have shown that large filaments with a s…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Integrated Sachs-Wolfe temperature increment in concentric circles around each member cluster of the superstructures. The three data points show the signal from the commander (left offset), nilc (mid￾dle) and smica (right offset) analysis codes. The blue points show t…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Differential potential energy gain comparing corresponding 1 Mpc intervals in the incoming and outgoing path of the photons for model 3. The supercluster centre corresponds to the path location at 80 Mpc. structures are evolving out of the linear regime, we use a nume…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Little ado about everything II: an `emergent' dark energy from structure formation to rule cosmic tensions

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An ensemble-averaged stochastic cosmology with a 'little ado' noise term produces an emergent dark energy that fits late-time data and claims to relieve the H0 and f sigma8 tensions.

  2. Primordial Black Holes as Coma Cluster Dark Matter and the Unresolved {\gamma}-Ray Background

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A 0.1% dark matter fraction of 1e-19 to 1e-17 solar mass primordial black holes fits Coma's GeV gamma-ray emission, but evaporating PBHs contribute negligibly to the unresolved gamma-ray background and Draco X shows n...

  3. Galaxy Superclusters and Their Complexes in the Cosmic Web

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of galaxy superclusters that summarizes their properties and argues that the quasiregular pattern of rich superclusters and the Ho'oleilana structure are not explained by baryon acoustic oscillations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G., Böhringer, H., et al

    Balaguera-Antolínez, A., Sánchez, A. G., Böhringer, H., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 386

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    & Huchra, J

    Barmby, P. & Huchra, J. P. 1998, AJ, 115, 6

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    H., Peacock, J

    Bilicki, M., Jarrett, T. H., Peacock, J. A., Cluver, M. E., & Steward, L. 2014, ApJS, 210, 9 Böhringer, H. & Chon, G. 2021, A&A, 656, A144 Böhringer, H., Chon, G., & Collins, C. A. 2020, A&A, 633, A19 Böhringer, H., Chon, G., Collins, C. A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A30 Böhringer, H., Chon, G., Retzlaff, J., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 220 Böhringer, H., Chon, G....

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    2024, A&A, 685, A106

    Bulbul, E., Liu, A., Kluge, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A106

    2024

  5. [5]

    Cai, Y .-C., Cole, S., Jenkins, A., & Frenk, C. S. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 201

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2923

    2014

  7. [7]

    & Böhringer, H

    Chon, G. & Böhringer, H. 2012, A&A, 538, A35

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    A., & Krause, M

    Chon, G., Böhringer, H., Collins, C. A., & Krause, M. 2014, A&A, 567, A144

    work page 2014

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    2015, A&A, 575, L14

    Chon, G., Böhringer, H., & Zaroubi, S. 2015, A&A, 575, L14

    2015

  2. [10]

    M., Dupuy, A., Guinet, D., et al

    Courtois, H. M., Dupuy, A., Guinet, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L15

    2023

  3. [11]

    M., Kraan-Korteweg, R

    Courtois, H. M., Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., Dupuy, A., Graziani, R., & Libeskind, N. I. 2019, MNRAS, 490, L57

    2019

  4. [12]

    M., Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., Tully, R. B., Hoffman, Y ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, L6

    2017

  5. [13]

    1996, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Crittenden, R., Boughn, S., & Turok, N. 1996, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 189, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 51.04

    1996

  6. [14]

    & Huchra, J

    Davis, M. & Huchra, J. 1982, ApJ, 254, 437 de Lapparent, V ., Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1986, ApJ, 302, L1

    1982

  7. [15]

    G., Pilipenko, S., et al

    Dolag, K., Sorce, J. G., Pilipenko, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A169

    2023

  8. [16]

    2016, A&A, 595, A70

    Einasto, M., Lietzen, H., Gramann, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A70

    2016

  9. [17]

    & Enßlin, T

    Frommert, M. & Enßlin, T. A. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1837

    2009

  10. [18]

    Fry, J. N. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, ApJ, 238, 785

    1980

  11. [19]

    Giannantonio, T., Crittenden, R., Nichol, R., & Ross, A. J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2581

    2012

  12. [20]

    P., & Chincarini, G

    Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., & Chincarini, G. L. 1986, ApJ, 300, 77

    1986

  13. [21]

    R., Neyrinck, M

    Granett, B. R., Neyrinck, M. C., & Szapudi, I. 2008, ApJ, 683, L99

    2008

  14. [22]

    Groth, E. J. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1977, ApJ, 217, 385

    1977

  15. [23]

    2009, A&A, 499, 357

    Guzzo, L., Schuecker, P., Böhringer, H., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 357

    2009

  16. [24]

    M., & Tully, R

    Hoffman, Y ., Courtois, H. M., & Tully, R. B. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4494

    2015

  17. [25]

    P., Macri, L

    Huchra, J. P., Macri, L. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 26 Jõeveer, M., Einasto, J., & Tago, E. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 357

    2012

  18. [26]

    & Lavaux, G

    Jasche, J. & Lavaux, G. 2019, A&A, 625, A64

    2019

  19. [27]

    F., et al

    Kogut, A., Lineweaver, C., Smoot, G. F., et al. 1993, ApJ, 419, 1

    1993

  20. [28]

    C., Cluver, M

    Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., Cluver, M. E., Bilicki, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, L29

    2017

  21. [29]

    I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1195

    2018

  22. [30]

    2024, A&A, 689, A226

    Lilow, R., Ganeshaiah Veena, P., & Nusser, A. 2024, A&A, 689, A226

    2024

  23. [31]

    M., Kraan-Korteweg, R

    Macri, L. M., Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., Lambert, T., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 6

    2019

  24. [32]

    2013, Phys

    Marra, V ., Amendola, L., Sawicki, I., & Valkenburg, W. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 241305

    2013

  25. [33]

    H., Courtois, H., et al

    Mould, J., Jarrett, T. H., Courtois, H., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 925

    2024

  26. [34]

    & Crittenden, R

    Nadathur, S. & Crittenden, R. 2016, ApJ, 830, L19

    2016

  27. [35]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 157

    Nusser, A., Davis, M., & Branchini, E. 2014, ApJ, 788, 157

    2014

  28. [36]

    Oort, J. H. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 373 Planck Collaboration, Adam, R., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016a, A&A, 594, A9 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016b, A&A, 594, A13 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016c, A&A, 594, A21

    1983

  29. [37]

    & Kolokotronis, V

    Plionis, M. & Kolokotronis, V . 1998, ApJ, 500, 1

    1998

  30. [38]

    & Valdarnini, R

    Plionis, M. & Valdarnini, R. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 46

    1991

  31. [39]

    W., Croston, J

    Pratt, G. W., Croston, J. H., Arnaud, M., & Böhringer, H. 2009, A&A, 498, 361

    2009

  32. [40]

    R., & Maze, J

    Reisenegger, A., Quintana, H., Carrasco, E. R., & Maze, J. 2000, AJ, 120, 523

    2000

  33. [41]

    J., et al

    Rowan-Robinson, M., Sharpe, J., Oliver, S. J., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 375

    2000

  34. [42]

    Sachs, R. K. & Wolfe, A. M. 1967, in Liege International Astrophysical Collo- quia, V ol. 15, Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia, 59

    1967

  35. [43]

    1991, ApJ, 376, L1

    Scaramella, R., Vettolani, G., & Zamorani, G. 1991, ApJ, 376, L1

    1991

  36. [44]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629

    2005

  37. [45]

    A., Yahil, A., Davis, M., Huchra, J

    Strauss, M. A., Yahil, A., Davis, M., Huchra, J. P., & Fisher, K. 1992, ApJ, 397, 395

    1992

  38. [46]

    L., Robertson, B

    Tinker, J. L., Robertson, B. E., Kravtsov, A. V ., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 878

    2010

  39. [47]

    1993, Science, 260, 1769

    Truemper, J. 1993, Science, 260, 1769

    1993

  40. [48]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., & Sorce, J. G. 2016, AJ, 152, 50

    2016

  41. [49]

    B., Pomarède, D., Graziani, R., et al

    Tully, R. B., Pomarède, D., Graziani, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 24

    2019

  42. [50]

    Whitbourn, J. R. & Shanks, T. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2146

    2014

  43. [51]

    Yahil, A., Sandage, A., & Tammann, G. A. 1980, ApJ, 242, 448 Article number, page 13 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no. Superstruc Appendix A: Cluster catalogue Table A.1. Catalogue of the 185 clusters in the five superstructures. name RA DEC redshift LX,500 M200 Quipu RXCJ0150....

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.