Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Bayesian 2MRS reconstruction recovers the local Universe’s large-scale gravitational flow and matches independent Cosmicflows-4 velocities.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 18:12 UTC pith:SRGX3OAM

load-bearing objection Solid, carefully framed 2MRS MAP/HMC reconstruction with external CF4 conditional-mean tests and usable Gadget ICs; the main soft spot is the ZA+bias forward model on the mildly nonlinear scales the paper itself emphasizes. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.08593 v2 pith:SRGX3OAM submitted 2026-06-07 astro-ph.CO

Bayesian Reconstruction of the Local Universe from 2MRS: Testing the Gravitational Flow with Cosmicflows-4

Adi Nusser This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords 2MRSCosmicflows-4Bayesian reconstructionZel'dovich approximationpeculiar velocitiesconstrained simulationslocal Universegravitational instability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper builds a field-level Bayesian map of the nearby density and velocity fields from the 2MASS Redshift Survey alone, then checks that map against Cosmicflows-4 peculiar velocities that never entered the fit. The reconstruction starts from Gaussian initial conditions, evolves them with the Zel’dovich approximation, and matches the observed galaxy points with an unbinned Poisson likelihood that includes selection, the Zone of Avoidance, redshift-space distortions, and a distance-dependent bias. The maximum-a-posteriori velocity field is conditionally unbiased relative to Cosmicflows-4 at the same redshift-space positions: the mean observed velocity tracks the prediction object by object, the density–velocity correlation agrees, and shell-by-shell reflex dipoles line up. Posterior draws also supply initial conditions that, when run with a full N-body code, keep the large-scale web while developing nonlinear small-scale structure and Fingers of God. A sympathetic reader cares because the same galaxy catalogue that traces the mass also predicts the independent velocity field on the scales the data can support, without pre-smoothing the velocities to the map resolution, and because the same posterior yields usable constrained simulations of the Local Universe.

Core claim

The 2MRS field-level MAP/HMC reconstruction captures the large-scale gravitational flow of the nearby Universe: at Cosmicflows-4 redshift-space positions the conditional mean satisfies ⟨V_CF4 | V_MAP⟩ ≃ V_MAP, with supporting density–velocity correlation and shell-by-shell reflex-dipole agreement, and posterior draws provide initial conditions suitable for constrained Gadget-4 simulations.

What carries the argument

Zel’dovich-approximation forward model inside an explicit Bayesian posterior: a whitened Gaussian initial field is evolved to redshift space, biased with a coarse-grid power-law radius-dependent prescription, and compared to 2MRS through an unbinned Poisson point-process likelihood; the MAP solution and HMC samples of that posterior supply both the tested velocity field and the constrained initial conditions.

Load-bearing premise

That first-order Zel’dovich evolution plus a coarse-grid power-law galaxy bias is accurate enough on the mildly nonlinear scales that enter the Cosmicflows-4 tests and the constrained simulations.

What would settle it

If, at fixed MAP velocity bins evaluated at Cosmicflows-4 redshift-space positions, the binned mean CF4 radial velocity systematically departs from the one-to-one line (or residual density–velocity correlations remain large on scales ≳10 h⁻¹ Mpc after the same model), the claim that the reconstruction recovers the gravitational flow would fail.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a field-level Bayesian reconstruction of the local density and velocity fields from 2MRS, using a Gaussian prior on whitened initial conditions, a Zel'dovich forward model with redshift-space distortions, selection, ZoA mask, and a coarse-grid radius-dependent power-law bias, constrained by an unbinned Poisson point-process likelihood. The MAP solution is obtained by optimization and HMC (NUTS) is used for posterior samples and constrained realizations. The reconstructed velocities are tested against independent CF4 group peculiar velocities (held out of the posterior) via conditional mean comparisons at CF4 redshift-space positions, a density–radial-velocity correlation statistic, and shell-by-shell reflex dipoles. Posterior draws are refined to 256³ and evolved with Gadget-4, recovering large-scale structure and nonlinear Fingers of God. The central claim is that the 2MRS reconstruction captures the large-scale gravitational flow of the nearby Universe and yields usable constrained initial conditions.

Significance. If the conditional CF4 agreement and constrained-simulation results hold under the stated model, this is a solid and useful contribution to Local-Universe reconstruction. Strengths include an explicit posterior (not only a learned mapping), an unbinned Poisson likelihood, clear separation of CF4 as external validation, and a correctly framed conditional-mean test (Eqs. 1–2) rather than object-by-object recovery of noisy velocities. The three complementary CF4 diagnostics and the Gadget-4 evolution of HMC draws go beyond many previous 2MRS reconstructions. The work sits usefully between classical constrained-realization programs and full BORG-style field-level inference, and provides practical ICs for nearby-structure simulations. The main scientific limitation is the approximate ZA+effective-bias forward model on mildly nonlinear scales, which the paper largely acknowledges.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4.3, Eqs. 26–30] §4.4.3 (Eqs. 26–30): The radius-dependent bias exponent b(r) and the coarse bias-grid scale (~10 h⁻¹ Mpc) are load-bearing free ingredients of the density-to-velocity map, yet the manuscript never states the functional form or numerical values of b(r) used for the 2MRS MAP/HMC run, nor whether they were fixed from the literature, tuned by hand, or optimized. Without this, the CF4 conditional agreement and the claim of a well-specified forward model cannot be reproduced or stress-tested. Please specify b(r), the coarse-grid choice, and any sensitivity checks (e.g., constant-b vs b(r), or alternate coarse scales).
  2. [§5] §5: The MDPL2 validation is important for conditional unbiasedness of MAP velocities (Fig. 1), but it omits the 2MRS selection function, ZoA mask, and flux-limited sampling that enter the actual reconstruction. The paper notes this, yet the central claim is about a 2MRS-constrained gravitational flow. A limited 2MRS-like mock (even one diluted realization with ϕ(r) and a ZoA cut) would substantially strengthen the bridge from Fig. 1 to Figs. 5–7; without it, residual small-scale δ–v correlations (Fig. 6, ≲10 h⁻¹ Mpc) and Local Group overdensity issues (§8) remain harder to interpret as model vs data effects.
  3. [§5] §5 text inconsistency: the MDPL2 subvolume is first stated as L=200 h⁻¹ Mpc and later as L=300 h⁻¹ Mpc, with the same halo mass cut. This affects the reported mean densities, dilutions, and the interpretation of the conditional scatter. Please correct and make the validation volume unambiguous throughout §5 and Fig. 1.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.4.2] §4.4.2: The optional 2LPT test is mentioned only qualitatively (“small changes”). A short quantitative comparison (e.g., rms velocity difference or CF4 slope change) would help justify defaulting to first-order ZA for the scales emphasized in the introduction.
  2. [§7, Fig. 5] Fig. 5: The reduced χ² uses an extra scatter floor σ0=200 km s⁻¹. Please state more clearly whether this is only a goodness-of-fit device or whether any conclusion (slopes, offsets) depends on it; the text already notes raising it to 250 km s⁻¹ for the nearest bin.
  3. [Figs. 2, 4] Fig. 2 / Fig. 4: Color bars and structure labels are helpful, but the ZoA yellow shading description in Fig. 4 (fraction of slab obscured) could be stated once in the caption more explicitly for readers unfamiliar with the geometric effect.
  4. [§6] §6: HMC setup (5 chains × 70 retained, last 30 used) is given, but no convergence diagnostics (e.g., split-ˆR or effective sample size on a few summary modes) are reported. Even a brief statement would increase confidence that the 150 late-chain samples used for mean/median are adequate.
  5. [§5] Minor typography: several compound words are missing spaces in the compiled text (e.g., “andhaloeswith”, “useshaloswithM”), likely from line-break artifacts; a proof pass would help.
  6. [§8] §8: The discussion of not collapsing FoG and of Local Group overdensity is appropriately cautious; consider flagging earlier (methods or results) that FoG are left uncollapsed so readers interpret fragmented cluster regions in redshift-space maps correctly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: 2MRS reconstruction is independent of CF4, which is held out as external validation; self-citations supply methods context only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The MAP/HMC posterior (eqs. 4, 15–16) is constrained solely by the 2MRS redshift-space point catalogue via an unbinned Poisson likelihood and a Zel’dovich + radius-dependent bias forward model under a Gaussian initial-conditions prior; CF4 enters nowhere in the likelihood or optimization (explicitly stated in §§3.2, 4.5, 7, 8). The central claim ⟨V_CF4 | V_MAP⟩ ≃ V_MAP (and the supporting density–velocity and reflex-dipole tests) is therefore an external, falsifiable comparison performed at the observed CF4 redshift-space positions without smoothing CF4 to the MAP resolution. MDPL2 halo mocks provide an independent simulation-level check of conditional unbiasedness. Self-citations (Lilow & Nusser 2021, Veena et al. 2023, etc.) appear only as related-work or methodological background and do not supply the CF4 test statistic or force the reported agreement. The ZA/bias forward model is an approximation whose adequacy is tested rather than assumed by construction; no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. Score 0 is therefore required.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central CF4 agreement claim rests on standard ΛCDM/Gaussian-IC cosmology, ZA dynamics, a Poisson galaxy likelihood, an effective radius-dependent bias, fixed survey selection/mask, and several numerical choices (box, grid, regularizations, χ² floor). No new physical entity is postulated. Free parameters are mostly modeling/hyperparameters rather than fitted cosmological parameters; cosmology is held fixed.

free parameters (5)
  • distance-dependent bias exponent b(r) and coarse bias-grid scale (~10 h⁻¹ Mpc)
    Effective nonlinear bias is a free modeling function; the coarse-grid scale is chosen by hand so rms fluctuations stay moderate and positivity is preserved (Section 4.4.3).
  • computational box L=300 h⁻¹ Mpc and 128³ MAP/HMC grid
    Volume/resolution tradeoff chosen for GPU memory and sparse outer 2MRS sampling; comparisons restricted to 120 h⁻¹ Mpc to buffer periodic boundaries (Section 6).
  • CF4 extra scatter floor σ0=200 km s⁻¹ in reduced χ²
    Added in quadrature to observational errors for Fig. 5 goodness-of-fit; raising to 250 km s⁻¹ is noted to bring nearby χ²_ν near unity (Section 7).
  • Poisson intensity normalization n0 via ∫ M ϕ d³r = N0 (not conditioned on model δg)
    Two normalizations are discussed; the geometry-only choice is adopted because it was more robust (Section 4.4.4).
  • redshift-space mapping regularizers r_soft and W_inner(r) near the observer
    Hand-chosen numerical cutoffs to stabilize the origin and suppress LOS distortion within ≈1 h⁻¹ Mpc (Section 4.4.2).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Initial density fluctuations are a Gaussian random field with covariance fixed by the linear matter power spectrum P(k).
    Unit Gaussian prior on whitened field ε; standard LSS assumption (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption First-order Zel'dovich approximation adequately maps initial conditions to late-time density and velocity for the scales used in the likelihood and CF4 tests.
    Default forward model; 2LPT tested only for small large-scale changes (Section 4.4.2).
  • domain assumption Observed 2MRS galaxies are an inhomogeneous Poisson point process with intensity set by selection, mask, and biased ZA density in redshift space.
    Unbinned likelihood L_P (Section 4.2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Galaxy bias is a local power-law 1+δg = A(1+δm)^{b(r)} imposed on a coarse grid and transferred as particle weights.
    Effective positive-definite, radius-dependent bias prescription chosen for numerical stability (Section 4.4.3).
  • domain assumption Background cosmology is fixed Planck ΛCDM (Ωm≈0.31, f≈Ωm^0.55); no joint sampling of cosmological parameters.
    Stated throughout; parameter inference explicitly deferred (Sections 2, 8).
  • domain assumption Dynamics and redshifts are analyzed in the Local Sheet frame so nearby redshift-space positions approximate true distances.
    Frame choice with V_LS from Tully et al. 2008 (Section 4.4.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 29192 in / 3766 out tokens · 36749 ms · 2026-07-14T18:12:16.946147+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a Bayesian reconstruction of the local density and velocity fields traced by the 2MASS Redshift Survey (2MRS) and test the inferred gravitational flow against independent Cosmicflows-4 (CF4) galaxy-group peculiar velocities. The fiducial reconstruction is the maximum-a-posteriori (MAP) solution of a Zel'dovich-approximation forward model, constrained by the 2MRS redshift-space distribution through an unbinned Poisson point-process likelihood. The model assumes Gaussian initial conditions and includes the 2MRS selection function, the Zone of Avoidance, redshift-space distortions, and a distance-dependent galaxy-bias prescription. The MAP field is obtained by optimization of the posterior, while Hamiltonian Monte Carlo is used to draw posterior samples and constrained realizations within the same framework. The reconstructed velocity field agrees well with CF4 in object-by-object, density--velocity-correlation, and shell-by-shell reflex-dipole tests. These comparisons are made at the CF4 redshift-space positions and do not require smoothing the observed CF4 velocities to the MAP resolution. We also evolve constrained initial conditions with Gadget-4. The real-space density retains the large-scale Zel'dovich structure while developing additional nonlinear small-scale structure, and the redshift-space distribution develops nonlinear Fingers of God. The results show that the 2MRS field-level reconstruction captures the large-scale gravitational flow of the nearby Universe and provides initial conditions suitable for constrained simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08593 by Adi Nusser.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: MDPL2 conditional heat-map tests of the MAP N = 128 radial peculiar-velocity reconstruction. Each panel shows the conditional distribution of the true MDPL2 halo radial velocity at fixed MAP radial velocity. The labels Poisson and normal indicate the likelihood term used in the MAP estimate: an inhomogeneous Poisson point-process likelihood and a Gaussian grid-based likelihood, respectively. The top row sh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Slice through the Supergalactic plane of the Zel’dovich redshift-space density field. The panels show, from top to bottom, the MAP field, the posterior mean of the evolved HMC fields, and the cell-by-cell posterior me￾dian. All panels show log10(1 + δnl) with the same color scale. White points mark 2MRS galaxies selected to lie close to the plane, |z|/r < 0.05. Redshifts are in the Local Sheet frame. terio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of projected density maps for one evolved N-body realization and the corresponding Zel’dovich predic￾tion. Each panel shows the SGX–SGY projection through a slab centered on the supergalactic plane with |SGZ| < 15 h −1Mpc. Rows show the N-body and Zel’dovich maps, while columns show real and redshift space. The color scale is the normalized projected density, Σ/⟨Σ⟩. The pixel size in the SGX–SGY… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projected density of two evolved N-body realizations initialized from independent HMC posterior draws, in su￾pergalactic coordinates. Columns show the two realizations and rows show the SGX–SGY (|SGZ| < 15 h −1Mpc), SGY–SGZ (|SGX| < 15 h −1Mpc), and SGX–SGZ projections. The SGY limits for the bottom row are indicated in the figure. Colors give Σ/⟨Σ⟩ and yellow shading marks the Galactic zone of avoidance, … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density–radial-velocity correlation, Ψ s δv(r), measured in redshift space with the MAP density field and evaluated for MAP, CF4, and HMC velocity fields at the CF4 positions. Symbols, curves, and uncertainty bands are described in the text. The point-by-point comparison is important, but it does not test whether velocity residuals remain corre￾lated with the reconstructed density field. If the MAP velocit… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between observed CF4 radial pecu￾liar velocities, VCF4, and 2MRS model-predicted radial veloc￾ities, VMAP, for the distance ranges indicated in the panels. The red curve and shaded band show the binned mean and scatter. Dashed lines show the one-to-one relation and the best-fitting linear trend. where η is a zero-mean random contribution at fixed MAP velocity. It represents distance-indicator no… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CF4 shell-by-shell reflex dipole compared with HMC predictions using the same tracer positions, shell se￾lection, and dipole-fitting procedure. Panels show the am￾plitude and Cartesian supergalactic components. CF4 error bars come from Monte Carlo perturbations of the measured radial velocities. Dashed curves show the HMC median, and the grey band gives the central 68% HMC interval for the amplitude. indic… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Emulating Cosmic Structure Formation with a Lagrangian Neural Cellular Automaton

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A ~4,000-parameter recurrent local network correcting the Zeldovich approximation reaches percent-level matter power-spectrum accuracy at k≲0.5 h/Mpc at z=0, matching larger U-Net emulators on Quijote N-body tests.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Tully, R. B. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 258, 64, doi: 10.1086/160053

    doi:10.1086/160053 1982

  2. [2]

    Bilicki, M., Chodorowski, M., Jarrett, T., & Mamon, G. A. 2011, ApJ, 741, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/31 20A. Nusser

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/31 2011

  3. [3]

    Ajhar, E. A. 1999, \apjl, 527, L73, doi: 10.1086/312404

    doi:10.1086/312404 1999

  4. [4]

    S., Fiedorowicz, P., & Rozo, E

    Boruah, S. S., Fiedorowicz, P., & Rozo, E. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 023524, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023524

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.023524 2024

  5. [5]

    2012, MNRAS, 424, 472, doi: 10.1111/J.1365-2966.2012.21210.X

    Branchini, E., Davis, M., & Nusser, A. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 472, doi: 10.1111/J.1365-2966.2012.21210.X

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21210.x 2012

  6. [6]

    2002, MNRAS, 335, 53, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05611.x

    Branchini, E., Eldar, A., & Nusser, A. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 53, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05611.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05611.x 2002

  7. [7]

    1993, MNRAS, 264, 375

    Buchert, T., & Ehlers, J. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 375

    1993

  8. [8]

    G., Hoffman, Y., Gottlöber, S., et al

    Carlesi, E., Sorce, J. G., Hoffman, Y., Gottlöber, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw357

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw357 2016

  9. [9]

    J., Lavaux, G., & Hudson, M

    Carrick, J., Turnbull, S. J., Lavaux, G., & Hudson, M. J. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv547

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv547 2015

  10. [10]

    M., Pomarède, D., Tully, R

    Courtois, H. M., Pomarède, D., Tully, R. B., Hoffman, Y., & Courtois, D. 2013, Astronomical Journal, 146, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/3/69 de Grijs, R., & Bono, G. 2020, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 251, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abbb96

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/3/69 2013

  11. [11]

    1987, ApJ, 313, 59, doi: 10.1086/164948

    Djorgovski, S., & Davis, M. 1987, ApJ, 313, 59, doi: 10.1086/164948

    doi:10.1086/164948 1987

  12. [12]

    1995, MNRAS, 272, 885

    Zaroubi, S. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 885

    1995

  13. [13]

    2002, \nat, 417, 260 Gottlöber, S., Hoffman, Y., & Yepes, G

    Frisch, U., Matarrese, S., Mohayaee, R., & Sobolevski, A. 2002, \nat, 417, 260 Gottlöber, S., Hoffman, Y., & Yepes, G. 2010, in High Performance Computing in Science and Engineering, Garching/Munich 2009, ed. S. Wagner, M. Steinmetz, A. Bode, & M. M. Müller (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 309–322 Haugbølle, T., Hannestad, S., Thomsen, B....

    doi:10.1086/513600 2002

  14. [14]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L5, doi: 10.1086/186160

    Hoffman, Y., & Ribak, E. 1991, ApJL, 380, L5, doi: 10.1086/186160

    doi:10.1086/186160 1991

  15. [15]

    P., Macri, L

    Huchra, J. P., Macri, L. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 26, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 2012

  16. [16]

    Jasche, J., & Wandelt, B. D. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt449

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt449 2013

  17. [17]

    1987, MNRAS, 227, 1

    Kaiser, N. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1

    1987

  18. [18]

    D., Kaisina, E

    Karachentsev, I. D., Kaisina, E. I., Makarov, D. I., et al. 2013, Astronomical Journal, 145, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/101

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/101 2013

  19. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 1915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx152

    Keselman, A., & Nusser, A. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx152

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx152 2017

  20. [20]

    E., et al

    Kitaura, F.-S., Erdogdu, P., Nuza, S. E., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, L35, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01330.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01330.x 2012

  21. [21]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw248

    Klypin, A., Yepes, G., Gottlöber, S., Prada, F., & Heß, S. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw248

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw248 2016

  22. [22]

    B., Eftekharzadeh, S., et al

    Kourkchi, E., Tully, R. B., Eftekharzadeh, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ABB66B

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb66b 2020

  23. [23]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 3169, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2499

    Lavaux, G., & Jasche, J. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3169, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2499

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2499 2016

  24. [24]

    B., Mohayaee, R., & Colombi, S

    Lavaux, G., Tully, R. B., Mohayaee, R., & Colombi, S. 2010, ApJ, 709, 483, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/483

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/1/483 2010

  25. [25]

    I., Carlesi, E., Grand, R

    Libeskind, N. I., Carlesi, E., Grand, R. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2541

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2541 2020

  26. [26]

    2024, A&A, 689, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450219

    Lilow, R., Ganeshaiah Veena, P., & Nusser, A. 2024, A&A, 689, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450219

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450219 2024

  27. [27]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1557, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAB2009

    Lilow, R., & Nusser, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1557, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAB2009

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2009 2021

  28. [28]

    Linder, E. V. 2005, PRD, 72, 043529, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043529

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.043529 2005

  29. [29]

    M., Kraan-Korteweg, R

    Macri, L. M., Kraan-Korteweg, R. C., Lambert, T., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab465a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab465a 2019

  30. [30]

    P., Côté, P., et al

    Mei, S., Blakeslee, J. P., Côté, P., et al. 2007, Astrophysical Journal, 655, 144, doi: 10.1086/509598

    doi:10.1086/509598 2007

  31. [31]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae17c0

    Mundow, R., & Nusser, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae17c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae17c0 2025

  32. [32]

    2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 058, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/058

    Nguyen, N.-M., Schmidt, F., Lavaux, G., & Jasche, J. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 058, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/058

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/058 2021

  33. [33]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, 083534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083534

    Mohayaee, R. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 083534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083534

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.083534 2023

  34. [34]

    K., Lévy, B., & Mohayaee, R

    Nikakhtar, F., Sheth, R. K., Lévy, B., & Mohayaee, R. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 129, 251101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.251101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.251101 2022

  35. [35]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 123512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123512

    Mohayaee, R. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 123512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123512

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123512 2024

  36. [36]

    M., Hawkins, E., et al

    Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Hawkins, E., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 64, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04839.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04839.x 2001

  37. [37]

    2017, Mon

    Nusser, A. 2017, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. , 470, 445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1225

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1225 2017

  38. [38]

    2000, MNRAS, 313, 587, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03261.x

    Nusser, A., & Branchini, E. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 587, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03261.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03261.x 2000

  39. [39]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/77

    Nusser, A., Branchini, E., & Davis, M. 2011, ApJ, 735, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/77

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/77 2011

  40. [40]

    1994, ApJL, 421, L1, doi: 10.1086/187172

    Nusser, A., & Davis, M. 1994, ApJL, 421, L1, doi: 10.1086/187172

    doi:10.1086/187172 1994

  41. [41]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/157

    Nusser, A., Davis, M., & Branchini, E. 2014, ApJ, 788, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/157

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/157 2014

  42. [42]

    1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 391, 443, doi: 10.1086/171360

    Nusser, A., & Dekel, A. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 391, 443, doi: 10.1086/171360

    doi:10.1086/171360 1992

  43. [43]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc42f 2MRS Bayesian Reconstruction21

    Nusser, A., Yepes, G., & Branchini, E. 2020, ApJ, 905, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc42f 2MRS Bayesian Reconstruction21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc42f 2020

  44. [44]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton University Press, NJ). http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980lssu.book.....P —. 1989, ApJ, 344, L53, doi: 10.1086/185529

    doi:10.1086/185529 1980

  45. [45]

    Peebles, P. J. E., & Tully, R. B. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 778, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/137

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/137 2013

  46. [46]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009, doi: 10.1086/300499 Rodríguez-Puebla, A., Behroozi, P., Primack, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1705

    doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  47. [47]

    W., & Chilingarian, I

    Saulder, C., Mieske, S., Zeilinger, W. W., & Chilingarian, I. 2013, AA, 557, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321466

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321466 2013

  48. [48]

    2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 033, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/033

    Schmidt, F. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 033, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/033

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/033 2021

  49. [49]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.14546

    Scolnic, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.14546. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14546

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Zier, O., & Reinecke, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1855 2021

  51. [51]

    B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E

    Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E. J., et al. 2009, Astronomical Journal, 138, 323, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/323

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/323 2009

  52. [52]

    B., Shaya, E

    Tully, R. B., Shaya, E. J., Karachentsev, I. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 184, doi: 10.1086/527428

    doi:10.1086/527428 2008

  53. [53]

    B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8 2023

  54. [54]

    I., Pomarède, D., et al

    Valade, A., Libeskind, N. I., Pomarède, D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1610, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02370-0

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02370-0 2024

  55. [55]

    G., Lilow, R., & Nusser, A

    Veena, P. G., Lilow, R., & Nusser, A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1222

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1222 2023

  56. [56]

    Wempe, E., Lavaux, G., White, S. D. M., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A348, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450975

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450975 2024

  57. [57]

    B., & Lahav, O

    Zaroubi, S., Hoffman, Y., Fisher, K. B., & Lahav, O. 1995, ApJ, 449, 446, doi: 10.1086/176070

    doi:10.1086/176070 1995

  58. [58]

    H., et al

    Zehavi, I., Zheng, Z., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/59 Zel’dovich, Y. B. 1970, A&A, 5, 84

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/59 2011