pith. sign in

arxiv: 2305.13834 · v3 · submitted 2023-05-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Methodological refinement of the submillimeter galaxy cross-correlation function measurements and their uncertainty estimation

J. Gonz\'alez-Nuevo , L. Bonavera , M. M. Cueli , D. Crespo , J. M. Casas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 09:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cross-correlation functionsubmillimeter galaxiesmagnification biascovariance estimationbootstrap methodGAMA fieldsgalaxy surveyscosmological parameters
0
0 comments X

The pith

New full-field pair counting and oversampled bootstrap covariance method produces robust cross-correlation measurements compatible between spectroscopic and photometric lens samples.

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

The paper develops a refined methodology for estimating the cross-correlation function of submillimeter galaxies by counting pairs over the complete field area and combining them into a single estimate. Covariance is computed internally through an oversampled bootstrap applied to patches created by an automatic k-means algorithm. Results from spectroscopic and photometric lens samples agree under this approach, and an anomalous strong signal appears in the G15 field due to aligned large-scale structure excesses. The authors conclude that earlier discrepancies with mini-tile methods likely reflect sample properties rather than the measurement technique itself. This matters for obtaining reliable constraints on cosmological parameters from magnification bias studies in galaxy surveys.

Core claim

The authors present a new methodological framework that counts pairs using the full field area and estimates the covariance matrix internally via an oversampled bootstrap method on k-means defined patches. This yields cross-correlation function measurements that are compatible between spectroscopic and photometric lens samples. Analysis of the three GAMA fields shows that the G15 field has a stronger signal produced by the rare combination of large-scale structure excesses in both foreground and background samples. The results indicate that differences from the previously used mini-tile approach arise from physical properties of the samples.

What carries the argument

Full-field pair counting combined with internal oversampled bootstrap covariance estimation on automatically k-means clustered patches.

If this is right

  • Cross-correlation measurements from spectroscopic and photometric lens samples become compatible.
  • The G15 field shows a stronger signal attributable to combined large-scale structure excesses in foreground and background samples.
  • Differences from earlier mini-tile methods are due to sample properties rather than the estimation technique.
  • Using the full field area reduces statistical uncertainty by incorporating all available data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be tested on additional survey fields to check whether similar anomalies appear and affect parameter constraints.
  • Compatibility across lens types suggests future analyses can mix sample types without introducing systematic offsets from the measurement process.
  • Further study of the G15 anomaly may reveal details about how rare large-scale structure alignments influence magnification bias signals.
  • The internal covariance approach might extend to auto-correlation measurements in comparable multi-field datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The automatic k-means division into at least five patches and the oversampled bootstrap procedure correctly capture the true covariance without bias from the choice of patch number or resampling details.

What would settle it

Repeating the analysis with a different number of k-means patches or a standard jackknife covariance estimator produces results that are incompatible between the spectroscopic and photometric lens samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2305.13834 by D. Crespo, J. Gonz\'alez-Nuevo, J. M. Casas, L. Bonavera, M. M. Cueli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Normalised redshift distributions of the three catalogues used in this work: the background sample, that is H-ATLAS high-z SMGs (solid red line); the GAMA spectroscopic foreground sample (dashed dark blue line); and the SDSS photometric foreground sample (dotted light blue line). 2.2. Foreground samples This study utilises two distinct foreground samples, each se￾lected independently. The first sample, is … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The spatial distribution of foreground (top panel) and background (bottom panel) sample galaxies for the G15 field. For the background sample, different colours indicate patch definitions, with five of them shown (approximately 9.6 square degrees each). The red square in the top panel indicates the typical shape and size of a "mini-tile" (see text for more details). Figures 2 and 3 show the distribution of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The spatial distribution of foreground (top panel) and background (bottom panel) sample galaxies for the G09 field. For the background sample, different colours indicate patch definitions, with 16 of them shown (approximately 3 square degrees each). The red square in the top panel indicates the typical shape and size of a "mini-tile" (see text for more details). largest angular scales. This kind of correct… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the cross-correlation function estimated using different approaches. Grey circles correspond to the mini-tile approach before the IC correction is applied (see blue dashed line). Black cir￾cles correspond to the mini-tile results after the IC correction, while red circles are estimated using the new approach without any further cor￾rection. The uncertainties are derived from the covariance ma… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the correlation matrices estimated with three methods for the cross-correlation signal. The mini-tiles estimation (top left) and the bootstrapping estimation (bottom left) are similar, with higher correlation at central angular distances. However, the Jackknife estimation (top right) shows strong correlation across all angular separations, indicating an implementation issue. To address potent… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the cross-correlation function measurements from the zspec and zph lens samples with the IC-corrected mini-tiles mea￾surements (common in both panels, gray circles). The top panel shows the measurements from the zspec sample (red circles) and without the G15 field (magenta circles), while the bottom panel shows the measure￾ments from the zph sample (blue circles) and without the G15 field (cy… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the cross-correlation functions estimated for each individual field for the spectroscopic sample (zspec; red circles) and the photometric one (zph; blue circles). The mini-tiles measurements for the whole area are the same in each panel and are added as a visual guide (gray circles). and G12 fields of the zph sample, albeit to a lesser extent. These findings suggest that the discrepancy is no… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The auto-correlation functions for the zspec foreground sample estimated for all the fields (black circles) are compared to the ones derived from individual fields (red circles) in this figure. The cross-correlation functions estimated for each individual field are also shown for comparison (grey circles). arations below 10 arcmin, with the SGP region showing a slightly stronger correlation. However, the b… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The auto-correlation functions for the background sample estimated for all the fields (black circles) are compared to the ones derived from individual fields (red circles) in this figure. The cross-correlation functions estimated for each individual field are also shown for comparison (grey circles). topic that requires a comprehensive analysis to fully understand its different aspects, in particular the m… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this study, we aim to develop a new methodology to estimate the cross-correlation function and uncertainties and apply it to the analysis of magnification bias in galaxy surveys. We adopt a new methodological framework that uses a statistically rigorous approach to obtain more robust measurements for constraining cosmological parameters. This strategy involves using the full field area to count the number of different pairs for each field and combine them into a single estimation, reducing statistical uncertainty and accounting for the full information available in the data. The covariance matrix was estimated internally using an oversampled bootstrap method. We divided each field into at least five patches, that were defined automatically using a k-mean clustering algorithm. We investigate the robustness of the new methodology by comparing the results from a spectroscopic lens sample with those from a photometric lens sample, finding them to be compatible. We also analyse the cross-correlation function and auto-correlation function for individual fields in the three GAMA fields, comparing both samples. The G15 field was found to have a stronger signal compared to the other fields, suggesting that the stronger cross-correlation is produced by the rare combination of two excesses of large-scale structure in both the foreground and background samples. Our results demonstrate the robustness of the new methodology and suggest that the differences with respect to the mini-tile previously used approached may be due to physical properties of the samples themselves. The identified G15 anomalous signal warrants further investigation into its impact on cosmological parameters.

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 manuscript proposes a refined methodology for measuring the submillimeter galaxy cross-correlation function by counting pairs over the full field area and estimating the covariance matrix via an oversampled bootstrap with automatic k-means patch division (at least five patches per field). Applied to magnification bias analysis in GAMA fields using spectroscopic and photometric lens samples, it reports compatible results between the two samples, attributes the stronger G15 signal to physical large-scale structure excesses rather than systematics, and claims the approach is more robust than prior mini-tile methods.

Significance. If the internal covariance estimation proves unbiased and the sample compatibility reflects genuine robustness rather than shared procedural artifacts, the method could reduce statistical uncertainties in cross-correlation measurements and improve cosmological constraints from galaxy surveys. The data-driven nature of the bootstrap is a potential strength, but the absence of quantitative validation or external benchmarks limits the assessed impact on the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The central robustness claim rests on compatibility between spectroscopic and photometric lens samples, yet the abstract (and available text) provides no quantitative measures such as chi-squared, p-values, or explicit error budgets to support this; without these, it is impossible to evaluate whether differences from prior methods arise from sample properties or unaccounted covariance biases.
  2. [Methodology (bootstrap and patch division)] The oversampled bootstrap covariance estimation with k-means patches is load-bearing for the uncertainty quantification and compatibility claims, but the description does not include tests varying patch number, comparisons to jackknife or simulated covariances, or checks against field geometry (e.g., equal-area or contiguous patches); k-means clustering risks correlating patches with large-scale structure, potentially underestimating cosmic variance as hinted by the G15 excess.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from including at least one numerical result (e.g., measured correlation amplitude or uncertainty reduction factor) to ground the claims of reduced statistical uncertainty.
  2. [Introduction/Methods] Notation for the cross-correlation function and covariance matrix should be defined explicitly with equations early in the text to aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions have been made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central robustness claim rests on compatibility between spectroscopic and photometric lens samples, yet the abstract (and available text) provides no quantitative measures such as chi-squared, p-values, or explicit error budgets to support this; without these, it is impossible to evaluate whether differences from prior methods arise from sample properties or unaccounted covariance biases.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative measures strengthen the presentation of the compatibility claim. The revised manuscript updates the abstract to report the chi-squared value and p-value for the spectroscopic versus photometric sample comparison, and the results section now includes an explicit discussion of the error budget arising from the covariance estimation. These additions allow direct evaluation of whether observed differences are consistent with sample properties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methodology (bootstrap and patch division)] The oversampled bootstrap covariance estimation with k-means patches is load-bearing for the uncertainty quantification and compatibility claims, but the description does not include tests varying patch number, comparisons to jackknife or simulated covariances, or checks against field geometry (e.g., equal-area or contiguous patches); k-means clustering risks correlating patches with large-scale structure, potentially underestimating cosmic variance as hinted by the G15 excess.

    Authors: We have added text clarifying that k-means was selected to produce patches of comparable area without manual intervention and that the minimum of five patches per field was chosen to ensure sufficient resampling while respecting field boundaries. A short sensitivity discussion on patch number has been included. However, systematic variation of patch number, jackknife comparisons, and external simulated covariance benchmarks are not performed here, as the paper focuses on the internal data-driven approach and the consistency check provided by the two independent lens samples. The G15 excess is supported by the auto-correlation measurements in both samples, which we interpret as physical large-scale structure rather than a covariance artifact. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; methodology is data-driven and self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives cross-correlation measurements and covariance estimates directly from the survey data via full-field pair counting and oversampled bootstrap on the same fields. No equations reduce the reported results to fitted parameters by construction, no self-citation chains justify the central claims, and the compatibility between lens samples is presented as an empirical outcome rather than a definitional or fitted equivalence. The derivation remains independent of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard assumptions of bootstrap resampling validity and k-means clustering producing representative patches; no free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5806 in / 1195 out tokens · 22127 ms · 2026-05-24T09:20:43.053718+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2003, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 66, 671, special Issue on PODS 2001

    Achlioptas, D. 2003, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 66, 671, special Issue on PODS 2001

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    L., Steidel, C

    Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, 697

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.02905

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.02905

    work page arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 4649

    Amvrosiadis, A., Valiante, E., Gonzalez-Nuevo, J., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 4649

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Bakx, T. J. L. C., Eales, S., & Amvrosiadis, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4276

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Bakx, T. J. L. C., Eales, S. A., Negrello, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1751

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    K., Alpaslan, M., Bauer, A

    Baldry, I. K., Alpaslan, M., Bauer, A. E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2440

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    K., Robotham, A

    Baldry, I. K., Robotham, A. S. G., Hill, D. T., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 86

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 64

    Bianchini, F., Bielewicz, P., Lapi, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 64

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 24

    Bianchini, F., Lapi, A., Calabrese, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 24

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Blain, A. W. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1340

    work page 1996

  12. [12]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    M., & Gonzalez-Nuevo, J

    Bonavera, L., Cueli, M. M., & Gonzalez-Nuevo, J. 2022, Proceedings of the MG16 Meeting on General Relativity, R. Ru ffini & G. Vereshchagin eds., World Scientific., arXiv:2112.02959

    work page arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    M., González-Nuevo, J., et al

    Bonavera, L., Cueli, M. M., González-Nuevo, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A99

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    M., González-Nuevo, J., Casas, J

    Bonavera, L., Cueli, M. M., González-Nuevo, J., Casas, J. M., & Crespo, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.13836

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    M., et al

    Bonavera, L., González-Nuevo, J., Cueli, M. M., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A128

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    L., et al

    Bonavera, L., González-Nuevo, J., Suárez Gómez, S. L., et al. 2019, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys., 2019, 021

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    J., et al

    Bourne, N., Dunne, L., Maddox, S. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1714

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    S., Gurwell, M

    Bussmann, R. S., Gurwell, M. A., Fu, H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 134

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    S., Pérez-Fournon, I., Amber, S., et al

    Bussmann, R. S., Pérez-Fournon, I., Amber, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 25

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    A., Fu, H., Cooray, A., et al

    Calanog, J. A., Fu, H., Cooray, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 138

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    2022, A&A, 667, A146

    Crespo, D., González-Nuevo, J., Bonavera, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A146

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    M., Bonavera, L., González-Nuevo, J., et al

    Cueli, M. M., Bonavera, L., González-Nuevo, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A44

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    M., Bonavera, L., González-Nuevo, J., & Lapi, A

    Cueli, M. M., Bonavera, L., González-Nuevo, J., & Lapi, A. 2021, A&A, 645, A126

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    M., González-Nuevo, J., Bonavera, L., et al

    Cueli, M. M., González-Nuevo, J., Bonavera, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.13835

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    P., Hill, D

    Driver, S. P., Hill, D. T., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    2010, PASP, 122, 499

    Eales, S., Dunne, L., Clements, D., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 499

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    1979, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1

    Efron, B. 1979, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1

    work page 1979

  29. [29]

    S., et al

    Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A119 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A112

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    M., González-Nuevo, J., et al

    Fernandez, L., Cueli, M. M., González-Nuevo, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A19

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    F., & Gruen, D

    Friedrich, O., Seitz, S., Eifler, T. F., & Gruen, D. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2662

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 134 González-Nuevo, J., Cueli, M

    Fu, H., Jullo, E., Cooray, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 134 González-Nuevo, J., Cueli, M. M., Bonavera, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A152 González-Nuevo, J., Lapi, A., Bonavera, L., et al. 2017, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2017, 024 González-Nuevo, J., Lapi, A., Fleuren, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 65 González-Nuevo, J., Lapi, A., Negrello, M., et al. 2014,...

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al

    Griffin, M. J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L3

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    2001, in Cosmological Physics with Gravitational Lensing, ed

    Herranz, D. 2001, in Cosmological Physics with Gravitational Lensing, ed. J. Tran Thanh Van, Y . Mellier, & M. Moniez, 197

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 3230

    Hildebrandt, H., van Waerbeke, L., Scott, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3230

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    J., Cava, A., et al

    Ibar, E., Ivison, R. J., Cava, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 38

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    2015, TreeCorr: Two-point correlation functions, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1508.007

    Jarvis, M. 2015, TreeCorr: Two-point correlation functions, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1508.007

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    2001, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python

    work page 2001

  40. [40]

    Landy, S. D. & Szalay, A. S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64

    work page 1993

  41. [41]

    K., Driver, S

    Liske, J., Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 2087

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Maddox, S. J. & Dunne, L. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2363

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Marinoni, C., Bel, J., & Buzzi, A. 2012, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012, 036 Ménard, B., Scranton, R., Fukugita, M., & Richards, G. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1025

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 17 Article number, page 13 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Nayyeri, H., Keele, M., Cooray, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 17 Article number, page 13 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3558

    Negrello, M., Amber, S., Amvrosiadis, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3558

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    2010, Science, 330, 800

    Negrello, M., Hopwood, R., De Zotti, G., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 800

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, 1557

    Negrello, M., Perrotta, F., González-Nuevo, J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1557

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    M., Gaztañaga, E., & Croton, D

    Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Gaztañaga, E., & Croton, D. J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 19

    work page 2009

  49. [49]

    J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al

    Oliver, S. J., Bock, J., Altieri, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1614

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 911 Pérez, F

    Pascale, E., Auld, R., Dariush, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 911 Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    L., Riedinger, J

    Pilbratt, G. L., Riedinger, J. R., Passvogel, T., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L1 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    work page 2010

  52. [52]

    2010, A&A, 518, L2

    Poglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L2

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    E., Maddox, S

    Rigby, E. E., Maddox, S. J., Dunne, L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2336

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 2453

    Sarkar, S., Pandey, B., & Khatri, R. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2453

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., & Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses

    work page 1992

  56. [56]

    T., et al

    Scranton, R., Ménard, B., Richards, G. T., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 589

    work page 2005

  57. [57]

    1986, The Annals of Statistics, 14, 1322

    Shao, J. 1986, The Annals of Statistics, 14, 1322

    work page 1986

  58. [58]

    2021, A&A, 653, A35 The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration

    Sureshkumar, U., Durkalec, A., Pollo, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A35 The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Valiante, E., Smith, M. W. L., Eales, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3146

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    L., Cooray, A., De Bernardis, F., et al

    Wardlow, J. L., Cooray, A., De Bernardis, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 59

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    H., et al

    Zehavi, I., Zheng, Z., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 1 Article number, page 14 of 14

    work page 2005