{"id":"b8611b68-7700-48a3-92ac-cd57421496d8","arxiv_id":"1311.6813","paper_version":2,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":4.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":2,"one_line_summary":"For galaxy pairs separated nearly along the line of sight over large redshift intervals, lensing and time-delay correlations can exceed the standard density correlation, while relativistic corrections to the local term stay below roughly 5 percent.","lead":"Galaxy pairs separated by huge distances carry extra correlations from gravitational lensing and light-travel-time effects, and for pairs aligned nearly along the line of sight these extra terms can outweigh the standard clustering signal. The result tells future wide, deep surveys which relativistic corrections they must model to use the largest scales.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The 'dominance' claim is a fractional-contribution statement: in the near-radial regime ξ_ll has decayed to near zero, so fractional dominance does not establish that integrated terms are large in absolute terms or detectable.","rationale":"The paper's technical result is correct within its stated linear formalism. The component breakdown is traceable, and the qualitative conclusion (integrated terms grow with redshift separation and dominate fractionally near-radial configurations) is plausible. The reader's concern about linear-order extrapolation is partially valid but somewhat misplaced because linear theory is appropriate on large scales. The main remaining issue is the interpretation of 'dominance' as fractional vs absolute, which the paper partially addresses (Fig. 6, conclusions) but the abstract does not. The paper is honest about the detection caveat and the constant-Q simplification. So the verdict should remain CONDITIONAL.","tokens_in":15938,"tokens_out":10890,"duration_ms":233664,"concrete_test":"Recompute the fractional contributions in Fig. 5 (right) and Fig. 6 (right) with a fixed absolute normalization, and compare the absolute amplitude of ξ_κl to the expected statistical error for a PFS-like survey in the same (z, θ) bin. If the absolute ξ_κl is below the noise, then 'dominance' is a fractional statement only and the abstract should be qualified. Alternatively, compute the total correlation ξ_tot in the near-radial bin and compare to the local-only ξ_ll; if the difference is below the sample variance, the claim that integrated terms matter for modeling is weakened.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central claim (abstract:s3, Section IV) that integrated correlations 'dominate' the total is a statement about fractional contribution ξ_AB/ξ_tot. In the near-radial configuration (Fig. 5, right), ξ_ll decays to near zero beyond the BAO scale, so any non-zero integrated term will have a large fractional contribution. This makes 'dominance' partly a consequence of the local term vanishing rather than the integrated terms being large in absolute terms. The paper shows absolute values in Fig. 6, which mitigates this, and the conclusions acknowledge that individual configurations are probably below detection. But the abstract's language ('can become very important and even dominate the observed total correlation function') does not convey that the total itself may be small and undetectable. The reader's concern about linear-order extrapolation is partially valid but somewhat misplaced: on Hubble scales, linear theory is the appropriate tool, and the integrated terms are themselves linear-order quantities. The more load-bearing issue is the interpretation of 'dominance' as fractional vs absolute, and the lack of a detectability/importance assessment.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The manuscript applies the authors' previously published fully relativistic formalism for the galaxy two-point function (Bertacca et al. 2012, ref. [23]) to a numerical study of how the different contributions to ξ(z1,z2,θ) compare for a PFS-like survey. The observed overdensity is split into a local part (Kaiser RSD, wide-angle/mode-coupling, relativistic potential and velocity terms) and an integrated part (lensing convergence κ and the ISW/time-delay term), and the correlation function is decomposed into the nine auto- and cross-terms ξ_AB with A,B ∈ {l,κ,i}. Using Eqs. (8)–(16) the authors compute the fractional contribution of each term for transverse configurations (z1 = z2, varying θ) and non-transverse/near-radial configurations (fixed z2 = 0.6, varying z1), and repeat the exercise for magnification bias Q = 0, ±0.5, ±1. The headline results are that relativistic corrections to the local part stay subdominant (a few per cent), that the integrated terms can become the dominant fractional contribution for near-radial pairs with large redshift separation (with ξ_κl leading), and that Q = 1 (21 cm intensity mapping) removes the lensing contribution entirely.","tokens_in":16222,"tokens_out":6304,"duration_ms":135667,"significance":"The question the paper addresses is a real and timely one: forthcoming surveys (PFS, DESI, Euclid, WFIRST, SKA) will measure correlations on scales where the standard Kaiser-plus-wide-angle treatment is no longer adequate, and a quantitative bookkeeping of which light-cone terms matter in which configuration is genuinely useful for planning analyses. The strengths are the completeness of the coefficient set in Eqs. (12)–(16), which makes the computation traceable, the explicit survey of configurations rather than a single averaged number, the scan over magnification bias, and the honest closing statement that individual configurations are probably below detection and that a proper configuration-averaged forecast is needed. The paper does not introduce new formalism or new data; its value is as a systematic exploration within an existing framework, and it is appropriately framed as such. The falsifiable content — that near-radial, large-redshift-separation pairs are where integrated terms matter most, and that Q = 1 suppresses them — is clear and testable against the detectability studies it cites ([54]–[58]).","major_comments":[{"comment":"The claim that integrated correlations 'can become very important and even dominate the observed total correlation function' is a statement about the fractional contribution ξ_AB/ξ_tot, and in the near-radial case of Fig. 5 (right) it is driven largely by ξ_ll decaying toward zero rather than by the integrated terms being large in absolute terms. Fig. 6 does show absolute values, which mitigates this, and §VI acknowledges that individual configurations are probably below detection, but the abstract and the §IV bullet list do not convey that the total correlation in the dominated configurations may itself be small. Please state explicitly, in the abstract and at the head of §IV, that 'dominance' refers to the fractional decomposition, and add at least one quantitative statement of the absolute amplitude in the dominated regime — for example ξ_κl at z1 ≈ 2, θ = 0.01 rad compared with ξ_ll at the same separation in the transverse case — so the reader can judge whether the effect is large or merely relatively large.","section":"Abstract (s3) and §IV, Figs. 5 and 6","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The two sections give inconsistent numbers for the size of the relativistic corrections to the local correlation. §III states that 'the relativistic contributions do not exceed 10% of the total local correlation ξloc' and that they account for 'more than 10% when z ≳ 1.5', whereas §VI states that 'they contribute at most ∼5% to the local correlation at high redshift'. These are the paper's own summary numbers for a stated result (abstract:s2) and they should agree. Please reconcile them and, if the 5% figure refers to a specific configuration rather than the maximum over configurations, say which one.","section":"§III versus §VI","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The paper's quantitative content is entirely the fractional contributions plotted in Figs. 3–6 and 8–11, but the cosmological parameters and the galaxy bias b(z) used to produce them are never stated. §II says only 'assuming a ΛCDM model', and b(z) appears in Eqs. (8)–(16) without a functional form or normalization being given. Since the fractions depend on both the background cosmology and the bias model, the figures cannot presently be reproduced. Please specify the parameter values (Ωm, H0, σ8, P(k) shape and normalization) and the b(z) prescription, and, if the fractions are insensitive to these choices, say so with a supporting check.","section":"§II–§IV, Figs. 2–6","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"Please check the identity as printed. With be defined by Eq. (17) one has d lnNg/dχ = −H(z) be/(1+z), whereas the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (21) is written as −H(z)(1+z) be; the second term likewise does not obviously reduce to 2[1−Q(z)]/χ. If this is a typesetting issue in the displayed equation, a corrected version would help readers who want to use Eq. (21) directly.","section":"Eq. (21)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The integrated term is labelled ∆isw throughout, but the text describes it as an 'integrated Sachs-Wolfe and time-delay contribution' and the results show that the time-delay part is often the relevant one. A label such as ∆int,rel or ∆td would avoid the impression that only the ISW effect is being discussed.","section":"§II, Eq. (3) and §IV","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The caption describes a left panel (N(z)) and a right panel (survey volumes), but the figure as reproduced appears to be a single panel containing N(z) with PFS, Euclid and BOSS curves. Please make the caption match the figure, or supply the missing panel.","section":"Fig. 2 and caption","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The caption notes that 'spikes correspond to zero-crossings', but on a logarithmic percentage axis these spikes are visual artefacts that obscure the behaviour near the crossings. Consider plotting |ξ_A/ξ_loc| on a linear axis, or masking the immediate neighbourhood of the zeros, so that the reader can see the actual trends.","section":"Fig. 3, bottom panel","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"Nine curves per panel with a single line style are difficult to disentangle, and several of the subdominant terms overlap. Consider plotting only the four or five terms that ever exceed, say, 0.1%, and distinguishing them by line style as well as colour.","section":"Figs. 4, 5, 8–11","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The two panels use very different vertical ranges (10^-9 to 10^-4 on the left, 10^-9 to 1 on the right). Since the point of the figure is the relative size of the terms, please state the ranges explicitly in the caption or use a common range so that the two configurations can be compared directly.","section":"Fig. 6","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The assumption of a redshift-independent Q is acknowledged in §II as a simplification, which is fine, but the conclusion that 'surveys with a more negative Q will be more powerful in detecting integrated effects' would be strengthened by one example with a realistic Q(z) taken from a survey specification such as ref. [44], even if only for the near-radial configuration.","section":"§V","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The statement that 'in this case ξAB = ξBA' holds because z1 = z2 is imposed; please say so explicitly, since the same equality does not hold in the non-transverse case and the reader may otherwise carry the symmetry over.","section":"§IV, transverse case","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"Ref. [40] is listed as 'in preparation'. Since it is cited as part of the same series, please mark it clearly as unpublished in the text where it is invoked, or remove the citation if the present paper does not depend on it.","section":"References","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The phrase 'including all the lightcone and relativistic effects' should be qualified as 'at linear order in perturbation theory', since the analysis is linear throughout and does not include higher-order or non-linear contributions on the scales where the integrated terms are claimed to matter.","section":"Abstract (s0)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"minor_revision"},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"This is a follow-up to the authors' own formalism paper (Bertacca et al. 2012), and it does what a good follow-up should: it takes the machinery and asks which terms actually matter as a function of redshift, angle, and magnification bias. The component-by-component decomposition in Eqs. (23)-(24) is clean, the coefficient set in (12)-(16) is fully written out, and the figures separate local, mixed, and integrated terms in a way that is easy to check. The qualitative finding — integrated terms grow with redshift separation and matter most for near-radial pairs — is plausible and, as far as I know, not quantified this way before. Credit for that. The paper is also honest about its own simplifications: constant Q, a PFS-like N(z), and the admission in the conclusions that individual configurations are probably below detection. That last admission matters, and I'll come back to it. The soft spot is the word 'dominate' in the abstract (abstract:s3). What the figures actually show is fractional contribution: in the near-radial case xi_ll decays toward zero past the BAO scale, so any nonzero integrated term gets a large fraction almost by construction. Fig. 6 does plot absolute values, which partly rescues this, and the conclusions are appropriately measured. But the abstract does not convey that the total correlation in those configurations may itself be small. That is a framing problem, not a math problem, and it is fixable with one sentence. On the reader's worry about extrapolating linear theory to Hubble scales: I think that concern is somewhat misplaced. Linear theory is the right tool at those scales, and the integrated terms are themselves linear-order quantities, so there is no inconsistency in using them there. The real open question is detectability, not validity. The constant-Q simplification is acknowledged and the Q-scan in Section V is a reasonable first pass; a redshift-dependent Q would strengthen it but is not required for the qualitative claim. No code shipped, which is a minor annoyance for a numerical paper but not disqualifying. Who should read it: anyone building large-scale two-point models for DESI, Euclid, or SKA, and anyone thinking about lensing-density cross terms in wide-deep samples. It is a useful reference, not a landmark. I would send it to referees, with a request that the abstract be softened to match the conclusions and that the authors add a short absolute-magnitude or detectability discussion for the near-radial case.","headline":"A careful, honest numerical breakdown of the authors' own relativistic correlation formalism; the physics is sound but the abstract's 'dominate' language oversells a fractional-contribution result.","tokens_in":16773,"tokens_out":823,"duration_ms":18974},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["98.80.-k","98.65.-r"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The paper argues that in the observed two-point correlation of galaxies, terms built from lensing magnification and from time delay along the line of sight can grow to dominate the standard density-and-velocity correlation, above all for a ","keywords":["galaxy clustering","two-point correlation function","relativistic effects","weak lensing magnification","redshift-space distortions","integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect","large-scale structure","light-cone effects"],"falsifier":"A ray-traced or higher-order numerical evaluation of the same configurations, or a direct measurement in a deep survey, showing that the near-radial correlation at $z_{1} ∼ 1.5$–$2$ stays negative past the BAO dip instead of crossing back to positive, or that the $ξ_{κl}$ amplitude falls well below $ξ_{ll}$ at those separations, would refute the dominance claim.","tokens_in":17354,"feed_emoji":"🌌","tokens_out":3508,"duration_ms":74560,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Galaxy surveys measure clustering by counting pairs, and the textbook description of a pair count keeps only what happens at the two galaxies: their local density and their peculiar velocities. This paper works through the full light-cone expression, in which the observed overdensity is a local piece plus integrals along each line of sight from lensing convergence and from a time-delay (integrated Sachs-Wolfe-type) term. Evaluating the pieces separately for a PFS-like survey, the authors find the local relativistic corrections stay sub-dominant, at most a few per cent, while the integrated cross-terms do not: for pairs with a large redshift difference, and especially for pairs nearly along the line of sight, the lensing-density term overtakes the local-local term above $z_{1} �� 0.8$–$1.2$. If that holds, dropping the integrated terms is not a safe approximation for deep and wide surveys on large scales, and the radial correlation function acquires a positive tail past the BAO dip that is lensing rather than clustering.","feed_headline":"Lensing can dominate galaxy correlations at large separations","feed_subtitle":"For pairs separated mostly along the line of sight, lensing and time-delay terms outweigh the density correlation.","key_machinery":"The engine is a tripolar spherical harmonic expansion of the correlation function, $ξ_{loc} = b(z_1)b(z_2)∑ B^{n}_{ℓ_1ℓ_2L}(χ_1,χ_2) S_{ℓ_1ℓ_2L}(n_1,n_2,n_{12}) ξ^{L}_{n}(χ_{12};z_1,z_2)$, in which the angular dependence is carried by $S_{ℓ_1ℓ_2L}$ and the dynamics by Bessel-weighted moments of the matter power spectrum. The local overdensity is written as a sum of spherical transforms $A_{nℓ}$ with four coefficients: $β = f/b$ for the Kaiser term, $α$ for wide-angle mode coupling (with its Newtonian limit $α_{nwt}$ separated out so the relativistic correction is explicit), and $γ$ for the gravitational-potential term. The integrated pieces carry their own line-of-sight kernels $σ(z, z̃)$ for lensing and $μ(z, z̃)$ for time delay, both built from $Ω_m$, the growth rate and the evolution bias $b_e$, and both carrying the magnification bias $Q$. Setting $Q=1$ makes $σ$ vanish, which is the formal statement that lensing disappears for intensity mapping; $Q=-1$ roughly doubles the lensing amplitude. The $Q$ scan over $0, ±0.5, ±1$ is what turns the formalism into a statement about which surveys can see the effect.","core_discovery":"Splitting the observed galaxy overdensity into a local part (bias, redshift-space distortions, wide-angle mode coupling, relativistic velocity and potential terms) and an integrated part (lensing convergence with magnification bias $2(Q-1)κ$, plus the time-delay term), the authors compute the full matrix of correlations $ξ_{AB}$ for $A,B = l, κ, i$ as a function of the pair configuration. They report three results. First, relativistic corrections inside the local correlation reach roughly 5–10 per cent at high redshift but never dominate, and the purely relativistic $ξ_γ$ piece is negligible. Second, for transverse pairs the local-local term still dominates strongly out to $z ≲ 1.4$, with integrated terms contributing only 1–10 per cent beyond that. Third, and this is the claim the paper is built around, for non-transverse pairs with a growing redshift separation the mixed lensing-local and time-delay-local terms overtake the local-local term once the far galaxy passes $z_{1} ∼ 1.2$ at a half-angle of $0.1$ rad, and for a near-radial pair ($θ = 0.01$ rad) the lensing terms dominate from $z ∼ 0.8$ onward, with $ξ_{ll}$ decaying toward zero as the separation becomes radial. The asymmetry between $ξ_{κl}$ and $ξ_{lκ}$ is real and is explained by which galaxy is held fixed. A further signature is that the radial correlation, after going negative past the BAO peak, crosses zero again and turns positive, and that positive tail is lensing.","pith_inferences":["The paper's most checkable prediction is not the amplitude ratio but the sign structure: a measured radial correlation that stays negative past the BAO dip, without the lensing-induced second zero crossing, would be a cleaner discriminator than any per-cent comparison.","Because the effect is largest exactly where the linear expansion is least controlled, the natural next step is a ray-traced or N-body cross-check of the same configurations rather than a further analytic refinement of the kernels.","The asymmetry between $ξ_{κl}$ and $ξ_{lκ}$ suggests a practical estimator: choosing which galaxy of the pair to treat as the 'near' one is a free choice in the analysis, and the pair asymmetry could be used as a null test for systematics that are symmetric under swapping the two galaxies.","The $Q$ dependence implies that the same survey split by luminosity threshold would show a different fraction of integrated signal, which is a cheap internal consistency check on the whole decomposition."],"forward_implications":["For a deep survey, the standard practice of modelling only $ξ_{ll}$ will misestimate the correlation on near-radial, large-separation pairs, where the lensing-density term is the largest single contribution above $z ∼ 1$.","The radial correlation function is predicted to turn positive again past the BAO dip, with the positive tail produced by lensing rather than by clustering, so the usual integral constraint $∫ξ(r) r^2 dr = 0$ no longer applies on the light cone.","HI intensity mapping, where $Q = 1$, is predicted to show essentially none of the lensing contribution, while surveys with steeper luminosity functions (more negative $Q$) will see the integrated terms more strongly.","The time-delay-local correlation $ξ_{il}$ is a purely relativistic term with no Newtonian counterpart, and it becomes comparable to the local term in the same near-radial configurations where lensing dominates.","Any programme that uses very large-scale clustering to test dark energy or modified gravity must include the integrated terms, since they carry the same information about the potentials but are currently thrown away."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the entire formalism: the local-plus-integrated decomposition, Eqs. (8)–(10), and the coefficients the paper evaluates.","marker":"[23]"},{"why":"The tripolar spherical harmonic expansion used to organize the angular dependence of the wide-angle correlation.","marker":"[18]"},{"why":"Fixes the magnification bias parameter $Q$ and the relativistic number-count expression behind the lensing coefficient.","marker":"[30]"},{"why":"The wide-angle mode-coupling term that the $αβ$ contribution reproduces in its Newtonian limit.","marker":"[22]"},{"why":"Earlier treatment of lensing magnification in the galaxy correlation at large separations, the baseline this paper extends.","marker":"[19]"},{"why":"Source of the statement that $Q = 1$ for 21cm intensity mapping, so that the lensing term vanishes.","marker":"[33]"},{"why":"Survey-dependent values of the magnification bias that motivate the $Q$ scan in Section V.","marker":"[44]"},{"why":"The double-dip radial correlation against which the paper's near-radial curves are compared.","marker":"[39]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Near-radial galaxy pairs: lensing and time delays take over","Lensing overtakes density for near-radial galaxy pairs at z~0.8","Galaxy correlation tail turns positive from lensing after BAO","Relativistic corrections stay subdominant as lensing dominates radial pairs","Transverse galaxy pairs remain density-dominated out to z~1.4"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The whole calculation is first order in perturbation theory on the light cone, and the claim that the integrated terms dominate rests on extrapolating that linear expansion to separations approaching the Hubble scale, where the paper checks it against neither simulations nor higher-order terms.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Near-radial galaxy pairs: lensing and time delays take over","Lensing overtakes density for near-radial galaxy pairs at z~0.8","Galaxy correlation tail turns positive from lensing after BAO","Relativistic corrections stay subdominant as lensing dominates radial pairs","Transverse galaxy pairs remain density-dominated out to z~1.4"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":2162,"prompt_tokens":1007,"completion_tokens":1155,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":1072}},"tokens_in":1007,"tokens_out":1155,"duration_ms":30126,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":1072,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-11-14T22:48:17.630625+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"pipeline_version":"pith-pipeline@v1.5.0-archive-selfhost","input_kind":null,"input_chars":null,"input_total_chars":null,"passes_missing":null,"published_standing":null,"published_confidence":null,"objection_audit":null,"run_record":null,"basis":{"kind":"not_recorded","source":null,"chars_given":null,"chars_total":null},"receipt":null,"falsifier":"A ray-traced or higher-order numerical evaluation of the same configurations, or a direct measurement in a deep survey, showing that the near-radial correlation at $z_{1} ∼ 1.5$–$2$ stays negative past the BAO dip instead of crossing back to positive, or that the $ξ_{κl}$ amplitude falls well below $ξ_{ll}$ at those separations, would refute the dominance claim.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Beyond the plane-parallel and Newtonian approach: Wide-angle redshift distortions and convergence in general relativity","cited_arxiv_id":"1205.5221","evidence_quote":"Supplies the entire formalism: the local-plus-integrated decomposition, Eqs. (8)–(10), and the coefficients the paper evaluates."},{"cited_title":"Redshift Space Distortions of the Correlation Function in Wide Angle Galaxy Surveys","cited_arxiv_id":"astro-ph/9712007","evidence_quote":"The tripolar spherical harmonic expansion used to organize the angular dependence of the wide-angle correlation."},{"cited_title":"Large-scale clustering of galaxies in general relativity","cited_arxiv_id":"1107.5427","evidence_quote":"Fixes the magnification bias parameter $Q$ and the relativistic number-count expression behind the lensing coefficient."},{"cited_title":"Non-Perturbative Effects of Geometry in Wide-Angle Redshift Distortions","cited_arxiv_id":"0802.2940","evidence_quote":"The wide-angle mode-coupling term that the $αβ$ contribution reproduces in its Newtonian limit."},{"cited_title":"The Correlation Function in Redshift Space: General Formula with Wide‐Angle Effects and Cosmological Distortions","cited_arxiv_id":"astro-ph/9908056","evidence_quote":"Earlier treatment of lensing magnification in the galaxy correlation at large separations, the baseline this paper extends."},{"cited_title":"Testing General Relativity with 21 cm intensity mapping","cited_arxiv_id":"1212.0728","evidence_quote":"Source of the statement that $Q = 1$ for 21cm intensity mapping, so that the lensing term vanishes."},{"cited_title":"The Impact of Magnification and Size Bias on Weak Lensing Power Spectrum and Peak Statistics","cited_arxiv_id":"1310.7517","evidence_quote":"Survey-dependent values of the magnification bias that motivate the $Q$ scan in Section V."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The double-dip radial correlation against which the paper's near-radial curves are compared."}],"lane_accuracy":{"status":"not yet measured","lane":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","input_kind":null},"url":"https://pith.science/accuracy"},"review_version":1}