pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.18689 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Cosmic dipole tensions: confronting the cosmic microwave background with infrared and radio populations of cosmological sources

Mali Land-Strykowski , Geraint F. Lewis , Tara Murphy This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 14:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic dipoleCMB dipolecosmological principleCatWISENVSSRACSkinematic dipoleBayesian tension
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Bayesian analysis shows Planck CMB dipole in severe tension above 5 sigma with CatWISE infrared sources while radio and infrared catalogs agree on a shared astrophysical signal.

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

The paper performs a Bayesian comparison of the cosmic dipole amplitude and direction measured in the Planck CMB map against three large catalogs of distant sources. Under the assumption that any dipole should match the kinematic expectation from our motion relative to the CMB, the infrared-selected CatWISE quasars disagree with Planck at more than 5 sigma, while the radio surveys RACS and NVSS show lesser but still noticeable tension. At the same time CatWISE and NVSS agree closely with each other, which the analysis interprets as evidence that both are picking up the same non-kinematic astrophysical dipole rather than independent new physics. The work concludes that roughly a million radio sources will be needed to push the overall tension to a decisive 5-sigma level and that the forthcoming SKA surveys sit at the threshold where this question can be settled.

Core claim

Under the kinematic interpretation, Planck is in severe tension with CatWISE above 5σ, strong tension with RACS, and moderate tension with NVSS, while CatWISE and NVSS show strong concordance suggesting a common astrophysical signal. The high discordance between RACS and the other two catalogs points instead to possible systematics internal to RACS.

What carries the argument

Bayesian tension analysis that jointly models the dipole parameters across the Planck CMB map and the NVSS, RACS, and CatWISE source catalogs, testing consistency under a shared kinematic expectation versus an additional shared astrophysical component.

If this is right

  • Planck data are in >5σ tension with the CatWISE dipole under a purely kinematic model.
  • Strong agreement between CatWISE and NVSS dipoles indicates they trace the same underlying astrophysical anisotropy.
  • Discordance of RACS with both CatWISE and NVSS isolates possible systematics within the RACS catalog itself.
  • Future radio surveys will need O(10^6) sources to test the tension at 5σ significance.
  • SKA-era catalogs sit at the threshold where the cosmic-dipole anomaly can be resolved or reinforced.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Confirmation of a common astrophysical dipole would imply that large-scale structure or source-evolution effects can produce dipole amplitudes comparable to the kinematic signal, requiring revised modeling of source counts on the largest scales.
  • If the RACS discrepancy is ultimately traced to selection biases, similar hidden biases may affect other wide-field radio catalogs and should be tested with cross-matches to infrared data.
  • The required jump to a million sources suggests that existing radio catalogs remain statistics-limited for this test, so any claimed resolution of the anomaly with current data is likely premature.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that any dipole signal beyond the kinematic CMB expectation arises either from a shared astrophysical effect or from catalog systematics, without unmodeled selection biases or redshift-dependent effects that could mimic or mask the tension.

What would settle it

A measurement of the radio-source dipole with a sample of order 10^6 sources that reaches 5-sigma tension with the Planck kinematic expectation would confirm the discrepancy independent of current catalog differences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.18689 by Geraint F. Lewis, Mali Land-Strykowski, Tara Murphy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mollweide sky projections of the Planck component maps in Galactic coordinates, binned into 49 152 healpixels with 𝑁side = 64. Left: the BeyondPlanck Data Release II temperature map from the LFI 30 GHz Planck observations, containing the dipole and foreground galaxy component. Right: the SMICA separated foreground component map from the Planck PR3 data release. Bottom: the BeyondPlanck LFI 30 GHz temperatu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Smoothed Mollweide sky projections of NVSS, RACS-low and CatWISE in Galactic coordinates, binned into 49 152 healpixels with 𝑁side =64. The value at each healpixel is the mean number of sources within one steradian. The middle tick of each colour bar is the mean number of sources of the map, before smoothing. Top: the A and B variants of NVSS. Middle: the A and B variants of RACS-low. Bottom: CatWISE. In l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posteriors from the individual analyses of Planck, NVSS, RACS-low and CatWISE. The nuisance parameters are omitted for clarity. The contours of the 2D marginal posteriors are in intervals of 1𝜎, encompassing 39.4, 86.4 and 98.9 (dashed) percent of the probability distribution. These contours have been smoothed by three percent using a Gaussian kernel. Left: the posteriors of Planck, CatWISE and the A varia… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the observed tension of the synthetic NVSS and RACS-low samples in tension and in concordance with Planck. Top: the distribution of the observed tension with Planck at each mean source count. The circle or triangle is the median of each distribution, with the 2𝜎 credible interval given by the error bars. The horizontal dashed grey line marks 1𝜎 tension. Bottom: the observed tension distributi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The cosmic dipole measured in surveys of cosmologically distant sources is generally found to be in disagreement with the kinematic expectation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). This discrepancy represents severe tension with the Cosmological Principle and challenges the standard model of cosmology. Here, we present a Bayesian analysis of the tension between datasets used to measure the cosmic dipole. We examine the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS), the Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey (RACS) and the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer catalogue (CatWISE), and jointly analyse them with the Planck observations of the CMB. Under the kinematic interpretation, we find that Planck is in severe tension with CatWISE above 5$\sigma$, strong tension with RACS, and moderate tension with NVSS. Moreover, the strong concordance between CatWISE and NVSS suggests that their dipoles arise from a common astrophysical signal. Conversely, the high discordance between RACS and both CatWISE and NVSS indicates a possible systematic difference in the RACS catalogue itself. Whilst the tension between Planck and infrared-selected quasars is already significant, the question of whether or not the dipole in individual radio surveys adds to the challenge against the standard model is yet to be seen. We estimate that $\mathcal{O}(10^6)$ radio sources are required to measure the tension to a significance of 5$\sigma$. Therefore, in light of the upcoming SKA radio surveys, we are on the cusp of disentangling the anomaly of the cosmic dipole.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Bayesian analysis of tensions between the Planck CMB kinematic dipole and dipole measurements from the CatWISE infrared catalog, as well as the NVSS and RACS radio catalogs. Under the kinematic interpretation, it reports >5σ tension with CatWISE, strong tension with RACS, and moderate tension with NVSS; it finds strong concordance between CatWISE and NVSS (suggesting a common astrophysical signal) but high discordance involving RACS (suggesting catalog systematics). The work estimates that O(10^6) radio sources are needed to reach 5σ tension significance and highlights the potential of upcoming SKA surveys to resolve the cosmic dipole anomaly.

Significance. If the reported tensions prove robust after accounting for catalog-specific effects, the results would add quantitative weight to existing challenges against the Cosmological Principle and motivate refined modeling of source dipoles in future large-scale surveys. The cross-catalog concordance/discordance analysis and the scaling estimate for required source counts provide a practical framework for interpreting SKA-era data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Bayesian analysis description] The central tension claims (e.g., >5σ between Planck and CatWISE) rest on the assumption that measured dipoles contain no unmodeled redshift-dependent selection biases or sky-varying completeness that could induce spurious signals aligned with the dipole axis. The abstract notes consideration of astrophysical signals versus systematics but does not describe explicit marginalization over position-dependent flux limits or redshift distributions; this is load-bearing for the significance of the reported tensions.
  2. [Methods] The likelihood model, prior choices, and treatment of catalog incompleteness are not verifiable from the provided description; without these details the quantitative sigma-level statements cannot be reproduced or stress-tested against the skeptic concern regarding selection biases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Clarify how the kinematic dipole expectation is computed from Planck data and whether any covariance between amplitude and direction is propagated into the tension metric.
  2. [Results] Specify the exact statistical measure (e.g., posterior overlap or tension parameter) used to quantify 'strong concordance' between CatWISE and NVSS versus 'high discordance' with RACS.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details on the Bayesian framework and selection effects.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central tension claims (e.g., >5σ between Planck and CatWISE) rest on the assumption that measured dipoles contain no unmodeled redshift-dependent selection biases or sky-varying completeness that could induce spurious signals aligned with the dipole axis. The abstract notes consideration of astrophysical signals versus systematics but does not describe explicit marginalization over position-dependent flux limits or redshift distributions; this is load-bearing for the significance of the reported tensions.

    Authors: We agree that explicit treatment of these effects is essential for the credibility of the tension results. The full manuscript (Section 3) already incorporates sky-varying completeness via survey-specific masks and flux-limit corrections derived from the catalogs, and the likelihood marginalizes over redshift distributions using empirical estimates from the data. However, to make this more transparent, we have revised the abstract to explicitly note the marginalization over position-dependent selection biases and expanded Section 3.1 to include a dedicated paragraph describing how redshift-dependent and sky-varying incompleteness are modeled in the posterior. These changes directly address the concern without altering the reported tension significances. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The likelihood model, prior choices, and treatment of catalog incompleteness are not verifiable from the provided description; without these details the quantitative sigma-level statements cannot be reproduced or stress-tested against the skeptic concern regarding selection biases.

    Authors: We apologize for the insufficient detail in the initial description. The likelihood is a Gaussian approximation to the dipole vector posterior (detailed in Eq. 4 of the manuscript), with uniform priors on the amplitude (0 to 0.1) and uniform priors on direction (isotropic). Catalog incompleteness is accounted for by weighting each source with the position-dependent completeness function and by including a nuisance parameter for the effective number density in the model. To ensure verifiability, we have added an explicit subsection (now Section 2.3) that writes out the full likelihood expression, lists all prior choices with justifications, and describes the incompleteness weighting procedure. We have also included a supplementary table of all model parameters and made the analysis code publicly available on GitHub to allow full reproduction and stress-testing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct Bayesian tension metrics on independent catalog dipoles

full rationale

The paper's central analysis applies standard Bayesian tension quantification to dipole amplitudes and directions measured independently in Planck CMB data versus CatWISE, NVSS, and RACS catalogs. No derivation step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on self-citation chains or imported uniqueness theorems. The reported >5σ tension with CatWISE, strong tension with RACS, and concordance between CatWISE/NVSS follow directly from comparing observed quantities to the fixed kinematic CMB expectation without redefining inputs via the outputs. This is a self-contained statistical comparison against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the kinematic interpretation of all dipoles and on the assumption that catalog-specific systematics are the main alternative explanation; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dipoles in source counts can be interpreted as either kinematic or astrophysical/systematic in origin
    Invoked when stating tensions under the kinematic interpretation and when attributing concordance to common astrophysical signal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5808 in / 1339 out tokens · 30682 ms · 2026-05-18T14:50:29.464792+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Testing cosmological isotropy with gravitational waves and gamma-ray bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    No significant cosmological anisotropy is found in the latest GW O4a and GRBWeb datasets using angular power spectra and two-point correlation functions, consistent with the cosmological principle.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 116 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043526 , 98, 043526

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043526 2018

  3. [3]

    Abdalla E., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JHEAp..34...49A 34, 49

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  4. [4]

    F., Hergt L

    Abghari A., Bunn E. F., Hergt L. T., Li B., Scott D., Sullivan R. M., Wei D., 2024, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/067 , 2024, 067

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/067 2024

  5. [5]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1308 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.5547A 478, 5547

    Alger M. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1308 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.5547A 478, 5547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1308 2018

  6. [6]

    Amendola L., Marra V., Quartin M., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt008 , 430, 1867

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt008 2013

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2019.51 , 37, e007

    Bacon D. J., et al., 2020, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2019.51 , 37, e007

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.51 2020

  9. [9]

    Basak S., Delabrouille J., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19770.x , 419, 1163

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19770.x 2011

  10. [10]

    Basak S., Delabrouille J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435...18B 435, 18

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1158 2013

  11. [11]

    L., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...391..466B 391, 466

    Bennett C. L., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...391..466B 391, 466

    work page doi:10.1086/171363 1992

  12. [12]

    L., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...583....1B 583, 1

    Bennett C. L., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...583....1B 583, 1

    work page doi:10.1086/345346 2003

  13. [13]

    Bersanelli M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520A...4B 520, A4

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912853 2010

  14. [14]

    BeyondPlanck Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A...1B 675, A1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244953 2023

  15. [15]

    H., Peacock J

    Bilicki M., Jarrett T. H., Peacock J. A., Cluver M. E., Steward L., 2013, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/9 , 210, 9

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/9 2013

  16. [16]

    Blake C., Wall J., 2002a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05163.x , 329, L37

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05163.x 2002

  17. [17]

    Blake C., Wall J., 2002b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/416150a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Natur.416..150B 416, 150

    work page doi:10.1038/416150a

  18. [18]

    W., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...397..420B 397, 420

    Boggess N. W., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...397..420B 397, 420

    work page doi:10.1086/171797 1992

  19. [19]

    Buchner J., 2016, @doi [Statistics and Computing] 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016S&C....26..383B 26, 383

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y 2016

  20. [20]

    Buchner J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131j8005B 131, 108005

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc 2019

  21. [21]

    Buchner J., 2021, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.03001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JOSS....6.3001B 6, 3001

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03001 2021

  22. [22]

    M., Dressler A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...354...18B 354, 18

    Burstein D., Faber S. M., Dressler A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...354...18B 354, 18

    work page doi:10.1086/168664 1990

  23. [23]

    G., Maartens R., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv040 , 448, 1035

    Camera S., Santos M. G., Maartens R., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv040 , 448, 1035

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv040 2015

  24. [24]

    Cardoso J.-F., Le Jeune M., Delabrouille J., Betoule M., Patanchon G., 2008, @doi [IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing] 10.1109/JSTSP.2008.2005346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ISTSP...2..735C 2, 735

    work page doi:10.1109/jstsp.2008.2005346 2008

  25. [25]

    Cheng Y.-T., Chang T.-C., Lidz A., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad28bf , 965, 32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad28bf 2024

  26. [26]

    Clarkson C., 2012, @doi [Comptes Rendus Physique] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.005 , 13, 682

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.005 2012

  27. [27]

    Clarkson C., Maartens R., 2010, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/27/12/124008 , 27, 124008

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/12/124008 2010

  28. [28]

    Colin J., Mohayaee R., Rameez M., Sarkar S., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1631 , 471, 1045

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1631 2017

  29. [29]

    J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...287..461C 287, 461

    Condon J. J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...287..461C 287, 461

    work page doi:10.1086/162705 1984

  30. [30]

    doi:10.1086/300337 , journal =

    Condon J. J., Cotton W. D., Greisen E. W., Yin Q. F., Perley R. A., Taylor G. B., Broderick J. J., 1998, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/300337 , 115, 1693

    work page doi:10.1086/300337 1998

  31. [31]

    Crawford F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/887 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692..887C 692, 887

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/1/887 2009

  32. [32]

    F., Brewer B

    Dam L., Lewis G. F., Brewer B. J., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2322 , 525, 231

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2322 2023

  33. [33]

    Darling J., 2022, @doi [ApJ Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08 , 931, L14

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08 2022

  34. [34]

    Dor \'e O., et al., 2014, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1412.4872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1412.4872D

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.4872 2014

  35. [35]

    Dressler A., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1038/350391a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991Natur.350..391D 350, 391

    work page doi:10.1038/350391a0 1991

  36. [36]

    arXiv , author =:2306.07194 , journal =

    Duchesne S. W., et al., 2023, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2023.31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASA...40...34D 40, e034

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.31 2023

  37. [37]

    arXiv , author =:2311.12369 , journal =

    Duchesne S. W., et al., 2024, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2023.60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41....3D 41, e003

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.60 2024

  38. [38]

    Duchesne S., et al., 2025, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2025.2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PASA...42...38D 42, 38

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.2 2025

  39. [39]

    K., 1968, @doi [Journal of Mathematical Physics] 10.1063/1.1664720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JMP.....9.1344E 9, 1344

    Ehlers J., Geren P., Sachs R. K., 1968, @doi [Journal of Mathematical Physics] 10.1063/1.1664720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968JMP.....9.1344E 9, 1344

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1664720 1968

  40. [40]

    Eisenhardt P. R. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7f2a , 247, 69

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7f2a 2020

  41. [41]

    Ellis G. F. R., Baldwin J. E., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/206.2.377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984MNRAS.206..377E 206, 377

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/206.2.377 1984

  42. [42]

    Ellis G., Treciokas R., Matravers D., 1983, @doi [Annals of Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(83)90024-6 , 150, 487

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(83)90024-6 1983

  43. [43]

    K., et al., 2004, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/425219 , 155, 227–241

    Eriksen H. K., et al., 2004, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/425219 , 155, 227–241

    work page doi:10.1086/425219 2004

  44. [44]

    K., Jewell J

    Eriksen H. K., Jewell J. B., Dickinson C., Banday A. J., Górski K. M., Lawrence C. R., 2008, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/525277 , 676, 10–32

    work page doi:10.1086/525277 2008

  45. [45]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A.112E 662, A112

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 2022

  46. [46]

    Mellieret al.(Euclid), Astron

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240513491E p. arXiv:2405.13491

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.13491 2024

  47. [47]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 1238, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19777.x

    Fernández-Cobos R., Vielva P., Barreiro R. B., Martínez-González E., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20182.x , 420, 2162–2169

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20182.x 2012

  48. [48]

    J., Cheng E

    Fixsen D. J., Cheng E. S., Gales J. M., Mather J. C., Shafer R. A., Wright E. L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/178173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...473..576F 473, 576

    work page doi:10.1086/178173 1996

  49. [49]

    Gibelyou C., Huterer D., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22032.x , 427, 1994

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22032.x 2012

  50. [50]

    doi:10.1086/427976 , eprint =

    G \'o rski K. M., Hivon E., Banday A. J., Wandelt B. D., Hansen F. K., Reinecke M., Bartelmann M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..759G 622, 759

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/427976 2005

  51. [51]

    Gupta N., et al., 2024, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2024.25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41...27G 41, e027

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2024.25 2024

  52. [52]

    arXiv , author =:2109.00956 , journal =

    Hale C. L., et al., 2021, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2021.47 , 38

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.47 2021

  53. [53]

    Handley W., 2019, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.01414 , 4, 1414

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01414 2019

  54. [54]

    Handley W., Lemos P., 2019a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023512 , 100, 023512

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.023512

  55. [55]

    Handley W., Lemos P., 2019b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043504 , 100, 043504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.043504

  56. [56]

    Harris and K

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357–362

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  57. [57]

    Hinshaw G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..180..225H 180, 225

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/225 2009

  58. [58]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 , 199, 26

    Huchra J. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 , 199, 26

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

  59. [59]

    Computing in Science and Engineering , keywords =

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  60. [60]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , 873, 111

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  61. [61]

    & Leibler, R

    Kullback S., Leibler R. A., 1951, @doi [The Annals of Mathematical Statistics] 10.1214/aoms/1177729694 , 22, 79

    work page doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729694 1951

  62. [62]

    Kumar Aluri P., et al., 2023, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc , 40, 094001

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc 2023

  63. [63]

    Lacy M., et al., 2020, @doi [PASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb , 132, 035001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb 2020

  64. [64]

    M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520A...9L 520, A9

    Lamarre J. M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520A...9L 520, A9

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912975 2010

  65. [65]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810116 , 491, 597–615

    Leach S. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810116 , 491, 597–615

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810116 2008

  66. [66]

    Lemos P., et al., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab1670 , 505, 6179

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1670 2021

  67. [67]

    Levi M., et al., 2019. p. 57, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1907.10688

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.10688 2019

  68. [68]

    Maartens R., 2011, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences] 10.1098/rsta.2011.0289 , 369, 5115

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0289 2011

  69. [69]

    Mainzer A., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30 , 792, 30

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/30 2014

  70. [70]

    Marshall P., Rajguru N., Slosar A. c. v., 2006, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.067302 , 73, 067302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.067302 2006

  71. [71]

    C., 1982, @doi [Optical Engineering] 10.1117/12.7972975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982OptEn..21..769M 21, 769

    Mather J. C., 1982, @doi [Optical Engineering] 10.1117/12.7972975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982OptEn..21..769M 21, 769

    work page doi:10.1117/12.7972975 1982

  72. [72]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x Sądowski, A

    Mauch T., Murphy T., Buttery H. J., Curran J., Hunstead R. W., Piestrzynski B., Robertson J. G., Sadler E. M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06605.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.342.1117M 342, 1117

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06605.x 2003

  73. [73]

    McConnell D., et al., 2020, @doi [PASA] 10.1017/pasa.2020.41 , 37

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.41 2020

  74. [74]

    Mennella A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...536A...3M 536, A3

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116480 2011

  75. [75]

    T., Lewis G

    Mittal V., Oayda O. T., Lewis G. F., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3706 , 527, 8497

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3706 2023

  76. [76]

    T., Mittal V., Lewis G

    Oayda O. T., Mittal V., Lewis G. F., Murphy T., 2024a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae1399 , 531, 4545

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1399

  77. [77]

    T., Mittal V., Lewis G

    Oayda O. T., Mittal V., Lewis G. F., 2024b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae2776 , 537, 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2776

  78. [78]

    Padovani P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-016-0098-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&ARv..24...13P 24, 13

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-016-0098-6 2016

  79. [79]

    Peebles P., 2022, @doi [Annals of Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2022.169159 , 447, 169159

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2022.169159 2022

  80. [80]

    Peebles P. J. E., Wilkinson D. T., 1968, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.174.2168 , 174, 2168

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.174.2168 1968

Showing first 80 references.