Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Improving cosmological constraints via galaxy intrinsic alignment in full-shape analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding galaxy shape-alignment statistics to full-shape clustering raises dark-energy equation-of-state figures of merit by at least 40% for a deep survey in every dynamic dark-energy model tested.

desk verdict Competent full-shape IA Fisher forecast whose headline FoM gain sits on an unmeasured IA amplitude; the conservative test doesn't cover the headline number. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08151 v2 pith:EVLLRSGX submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.CO

Junsup Shim , Teppei Okumura , Atsushi Taruya This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords intrinsicalignmentfull-shapeanalysisFisherforecastgalaxyclusteringdarkenergyequationofstatemodifiedgravitycosmologicalparameterconstraintsellipticity
topics Dark EnergyDark Matter
open problems Dark MatterDark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the intrinsic alignment of galaxy shapes—the tendency of galaxies to point along the gravitational tidal field—carries cosmological information that is largely complementary to the usual full-shape galaxy clustering analysis. Working with Fisher forecasts for a deep, narrow survey and a wide, shallow survey, it compares clustering-only constraints with constraints that also use the density–ellipticity cross-spectrum and the ellipticity auto-spectrum. The headline result is that adding this shape-alignment information improves the figure of merit for dynamical dark energy parameters by at least 40% for the deep survey in every dark-energy model considered, and tightens constraints in non-flat modified-gravity models by 6–28%. If this forecast is right, intrinsic alignment becomes a cheap complementary probe for upcoming galaxy surveys, using shape data that are already being collected.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the linear alignment (LA) model, which ties the galaxy ellipticity field to the tidal field through $\gamma_E(k,z) = b_K(z)(1-\mu^2)\,\delta_m(k,z)$, with shape bias $b_K(z) = -0.01344\,A_{IA}\,\Omega_m/D(z)$. Because the ellipticity field does not acquire redshift-space distortion at linear order while the density field does, the density–ellipticity cross-spectrum responds to growth and geometric distortions with a different angular dependence, helping to break the degeneracy between growth rate and distance. The Fisher forecast combines $P_{gg}$, $P_{gE}$, and $P_{EE}$ with a Gaussian covariance that includes shot noise and shape noise, then marginalizes over per-redshift nuisance bias parameters.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the emission-line galaxy ellipticity auto-spectrum at $z\sim1.5$ that yields an IA amplitude well below $18$, or that shows a scale-dependent amplitude or a non-zero B-mode, would falsify the forecast's central claim that IA adds at least 40% to dark-energy figures of merit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the full-shape information of intrinsic alignment—captured by the galaxy ellipticity auto-power spectrum $P_{EE}$ and the galaxy density–ellipticity cross-spectrum $P_{gE}$—contains cosmological information that the full-shape galaxy density power spectrum $P_{gg}$ alone does not. For a PFS-like deep survey, the figure of merit for the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters $(w_0, w_a)$ improves by at least 40% in every dynamical dark-energy model investigated, and for non-flat modified-gravity models the marginalized constraints tighten by 6–28% except for the dark-matter density and spectral index. In a Euclid-like wide survey the improvements are milder, which the paper attributes to the larger shape noise; with matched shape noise the gain becomes comparable. The paper also shows that IA rotates the degeneracy directions of some parameter pairs, particularly those involving $w_0$ and $w_a$, so it breaks degeneracies that clustering alone leaves intact.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast depends on the assumption that the linear alignment model, with a redshift-independent IA amplitude of $A_{IA}=18$ calibrated from blue galaxies, describes emission-line galaxy alignments at $z=0.6$–$2.4$ up to $k=0.2\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$; if the actual amplitude is lower, evolves with redshift, or has nonlinear corrections, the forecast gains shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dark-energy equation-of-state constraints from a deep survey improve by at least 40% in all dynamical dark-energy models studied, so intrinsic alignment multiplies the science return of full-shape clustering without new observations.
  • In non-flat modified-gravity models, adding shape alignment tightens constraints by 6–28% for most parameters, giving curvature and gravity modifications a sharper test.
  • A wide survey gains less, but the gap disappears when shape noise is matched; the benefit of IA tracks the quality of shape measurement, not survey volume alone.
  • IA shifts the degeneracy directions of parameter pairs such as $w_0$–$A_s$ and $w_a$–$A_s$, so joint analyses can separate effects that clustering-only full-shape analysis cannot.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If IA tracks the tidal field the way the linear alignment model assumes, then IA should also carry information about scale-dependent growth from neutrino mass or modified gravity on mildly nonlinear scales, where the paper's linear truncation at $k_{\rm max}=0.2\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ leaves gain on the table.
  • Editorial inference: The strong shape-noise dependence implies that surveys investing in better per-galaxy shape measurement—rather than only larger area—will reap outsized cosmological returns from IA, a design tension the paper does not spell out.
  • Editorial inference: The method can be extended to higher-order shape statistics and nonlinear alignment models; the paper itself notes that beyond-linear descriptions might further improve neutrino-mass and modified-gravity constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Fisher-matrix forecast for combining galaxy clustering and intrinsic alignment (IA) in a full-shape power-spectrum analysis, for a PFS-like deep survey and a Euclid-like wide survey. It models the galaxy density, density-ellipticity, and ellipticity-ellipticity power spectra using linear bias, the linear alignment model, and Gaussian covariance (Eqs. 19-28), adds a Planck compressed CMB prior, and explores models ranging from w0CDM to w0waCDM with curvature, massive neutrinos, and modified gravity. The central claim is that adding full-shape IA information to clustering significantly tightens cosmological constraints, with the dark-energy FoM improving by at least 40% for the deep survey in all dynamical dark-energy models investigated, and nonflat modified-gravity parameter constraints tightening by 6-28%; gains are milder for the wide survey.

Significance. If taken at face value, the forecast makes a useful quantitative case that galaxy IA is a complementary probe even when clustering already exploits full-shape information. The paper's strengths are the breadth of cosmological models considered, the standard and clearly documented Fisher formalism, the explicit treatment of the joint covariance, and the inclusion of robustness tests in Section VI.C and Appendix A. The main quantitative headline is, however, conditional on a fiducial IA amplitude that is not directly measured, and the manuscript's own conservative test does not report the headline FoM quantity. The qualitative conclusion that IA helps is credible; the exact "at least 40%" number is less strongly supported than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [V.A and Appendix A] The abstract's central quantitative claim is the at-least-40% improvement in FoM_theta_DE for deep surveys, but this number is only computed for the fiducial AIA = 18, kmax = 0.2 h/Mpc setup. Appendix A tests AIA = 10 and kmax = 0.1 h/Mpc but reports only 1D-marginalized error improvements (e.g., dark-energy improvements fall from about 21% to about 9% for AIA = 10 at kmax = 0.2, and become about 21% when kmax is also lowered), not the FoM_theta_DE ratios shown in Fig. 2 and quoted in the abstract. Since Fig. 9 shows the FoM gain depends strongly on AIA, the reader cannot verify whether the "at least 40%" claim survives the paper's own conservative assumptions. Please report FoM_theta_DE (and ideally FoM_theta_base) for the four Appendix A setups and qualify the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [I, VII, and Ref. [81]] The abstract and Section VII state that this is "for the first time" full-shape IA information is leveraged, but the Introduction (Section I) cites Ref. [81] (Shim, Okumura, and Taruya, in preparation) for "dark energy constraints with full-shape IA information." These statements are mutually contradictory. Please clarify the relation between this work and Ref. [81] and remove or qualify the "first time" and "first study" claim.
  3. [IV.E and Eq. (18)] The IA signal entering PgE and PEE is proportional to bK(z) = -0.01344 AIA Omega_m/D(z) (Eq. 18), with AIA = 18 assumed constant over z = 0.6-2.4 and calibrated from a shape estimator for blue galaxies rather than from direct ELG IA measurements. The paper acknowledges the uncertainty in Appendix A, but the conservative test preserves the same linear-alignment shape and only rescales the overall amplitude; scale-dependent IA, strong redshift evolution, or nonlinear corrections are not modeled. Given that Fig. 9 shows the FoM gain is very sensitive to AIA, the abstract should either state that the quantitative gains are conditional on the fiducial IA model and amplitude, or the authors should provide the FoM_theta_DE-versus-AIA curve (analogous to Fig. 9 but for the dark-energy FoM) so the headline number is not read as unconditional.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] "At least more than 40%" is redundant; choose "at least 40%" or "more than 40%".
  2. [Eq. (18)] The multiplication dots are missing in "-0.01344AIA Omega_m/D(z)", which makes the expression harder to parse.
  3. [VI.B] The heading "Model-dependent paramater degeneracies" contains a typo: "paramater" should be "parameter".
  4. [Appendix A and Fig. 10] The phrase "and fractional errors (lower)" appears twice in the caption; please clean up the duplicated wording.
  5. [Footnote 2] "Two cases assumingAIA(z)" is missing a space; it should read "assuming AIA(z)".
  6. [Reproducibility] No code or data-release statement is provided; for a forecast paper whose quantitative results depend on many survey inputs, a reproducibility statement would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FoM gains are computed from an assumed IA signal model and Gaussian covariance, not fitted to the claim; the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim, the FoM improvement FoM^{+IA}/FoM^{GG} (Figs. 2-3), is obtained from the Fisher matrix (Eq. 25), the Gaussian covariance (Eq. 28), and the model spectra (Eqs. 19-21). Derivatives are computed numerically with CLASS, and no parameter is adjusted to reproduce the reported ratios. The IA amplitude AIA=18 is an input adopted in Sec. IV E (Eq. 18) from the external shape-estimator calibration [111]; Appendix A explicitly lowers it to AIA=10 and notes the amplitude 'may be lower than the fiducial value used in our main analysis,' so the headline number is conditional on an assumed signal, not a fitted target. The improvement is not an identity by construction: adding PgE and PEE also introduces the nuisance parameter bK(z) per redshift bin, so whether the marginalized common-parameter FoM increases depends on the (1-mu^2) kernels and the shot/shape-noise terms in Eq. (28). Self-citations to the authors' prior work are limited to the FoM definition and compressed-analysis comparisons (Refs. [78,79]) and to the in-preparation companion [81] for similar examples; these do not supply the forecast's quantitative content, which is anchored independently in the linear alignment model [55,56], the amplitude calibration [111], and the Euclid/PFS survey setups [85,123]. The 'for the first time' wording in the abstract is in tension with the self-citation [81], but that is a priority claim rather than a circular derivation step. Overall, no self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, renaming, or self-citation-forcing circularity is present; score 1 reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The forecast uses standard cosmological parameters, the linear alignment model, and survey noise assumptions. The free parameters are the IA amplitude, shape noise values, and scale cutoff that control the signal-to-noise of the IA measurement.

free parameters (4)
  • AIA (IA amplitude) = 18 (redshift-independent fiducial)
    Sets the size of the IA power spectra through Eq. (18). The forecasted improvements scale strongly with it, though Appendix A tests AIA = 10.
  • sigma_gamma (PFS shape noise) = 0.2
    Shape noise per galaxy for the PFS-like survey, taken from HSC expectations. Smaller shape noise drives the larger IA gains.
  • sigma_gamma (Euclid shape noise) = 0.3
    Shape noise for the Euclid-like survey, taken from Euclid Collaboration assumptions. Larger shape noise suppresses IA improvements.
  • kmax = 0.2 h/Mpc
    Maximum wavenumber for the full-shape analysis. Appendix A tests 0.1 h/Mpc and finds the improvements persist.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Galaxy ellipticity traces the gravitational tidal field linearly (linear alignment model, Eqs. 15-17).
    The entire IA signal is modeled as bK(1 - mu^2) delta_m. Any scale-dependent or nonlinear IA would change the Fisher gains.
  • domain assumption Modified gravity is captured by a scale-independent gamma-parametrization that rescales the growth amplitude only (Eqs. 9-10).
    MG models with scale-dependent features such as f(R) gravity are excluded, and the paper states this limitation in Section VII.
  • domain assumption Observed power spectra follow linear Kaiser RSD and linear galaxy bias (Eq. 13).
    The full-shape analysis uses linear theory up to k = 0.2 h/Mpc; nonlinear corrections and scale-dependent bias are not modeled.
  • standard math Power spectrum covariance is Gaussian with shot noise and shape noise (Eq. 28).
    Non-Gaussian covariance and survey window effects are ignored, which is standard for Fisher forecasts but optimistic.
  • domain assumption The Planck-15 compressed likelihood with four parameters sufficiently captures CMB information (Section IV C).
    The CMB prior strongly shapes dark energy and curvature constraints; the compressed likelihood is assumed adequate for this forecast.
  • domain assumption The IA amplitude AIA is redshift-independent and representative for emission-line galaxy host halos (Section IV E).
    The estimator of Ref. [111] is extrapolated to both surveys. If AIA evolves or differs, the improvement magnitudes change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving cosmological constraints via galaxy intrinsic alignment in full-shape analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVLLRSGX

@misc{pith2026241208151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving cosmological constraints via galaxy intrinsic alignment in full-shape analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVLLRSGX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08151}
}
abstract

The intrinsic alignment (IA) of galaxy shapes probes the underlying gravitational tidal field, thus offering cosmological information complementary to galaxy clustering. In this paper, we perform a Fisher forecast to assess the benefit of IA in improving cosmological parameter constraints, for the first time, leveraging the full-shape (FS) information of IA statistics. Our forecast is based on PFS-like and Euclid-like surveys as examples of deep and wide galaxy surveys, respectively. We explore various cosmological models, with the most comprehensive one simultaneously including dynamical dark energy, curvature, massive neutrinos, and modified gravity (MG). We find that adding FS IA information significantly tightens cosmological constraints relative to the FS clustering-only cases, particularly for dynamical dark energy and nonflat-MG models. For a deep galaxy survey, the Figure-of-Merit for the dark energy equation of state parameters is improved by at least more than $40\%$ in all dynamical dark energy models investigated. For nonflat-MG models, parameter constraints are tightened by $6-28\%$, except for the dark matter density and spectral index parameters. For a wide galaxy survey, improvements with IA become milder, although its joint constraints are tighter than those from the deep survey. Our findings highlight the efficacy of the galaxy IA as a complementary cosmological probe to galaxy clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08151 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: FoM ratios for various models relative to a given refer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Same as Fig. 2, but FoM for the entire parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: FoM improvement with IA in each model relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: 2D-confidence ellipses for 10 cosmological parameters of the most extended model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: 1D-marginalized constraints on cosmological parameters from PFS-like (upper) and Euclid-like (lower) surveys, includ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Improvement in 1D-marginalized constraints on cosmological parameters with IA, relative to clustering-only constraints. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: 2D-confidence ellipse contours for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: 2D-confidence ellipse contours for the base parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: FoM gain by combining with IA relative to the clustering-only analysis as a function of three different survey parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Joint 1D-marginalized parameter constraints (upper) and improvements with IA relative to clustering-only constraints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Squeezing Full-Shape Dynamical Dark Energy Constraints with Galaxy Alignments

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Fisher forecast shows that including galaxy intrinsic alignments alongside full-shape galaxy clustering improves the dark energy figure-of-merit by 42-57% and the primordial amplitude constraint by 17-19% for a PFS-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [81]

    J. Shim, T. Okumura, and A. Taruya, in preparation (2025)

    2025

  2. [128]

    Aviles, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2409.15640 (2024), 2409.15640

    A. Aviles, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2409.15640 (2024), 2409.15640

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, ApJ 162, 815 (1970)

    1970

  4. [2]

    D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, ApJ 496, 605 (1998), astro- ph/9709112

    arXiv 1998

  5. [3]

    S. Cole, W. J. Percival, J. A. Peacock, P. Norberg, C. M. Baugh, C. S. Frenk, I. Baldry, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, et al., MNRAS 362, 505 (2005), astro-ph/0501174

    arXiv 2005

  6. [4]

    D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D. W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, M. R. Blanton, R. C. Nichol, R. Scranton, H.-J. Seo, M. Tegmark, Z. Zheng, et al., ApJ 633, 560 (2005), astro-ph/0501171

    arXiv 2005

  7. [5]

    J. C. Jackson, MNRAS 156, 1P (1972), 0810.3908

    arXiv 1972

  8. [6]

    W. L. W. Sargent and E. L. Turner, ApJ212, L3 (1977)

    1977

Show all 136 references
  1. [7]

    Kaiser, MNRAS 227, 1 (1987)

    N. Kaiser, MNRAS 227, 1 (1987)

    1987

  2. [8]

    A. J. S. Hamilton, ApJ 385, L5 (1992)

    1992

  3. [9]

    J. A. Peacock, S. Cole, P. Norberg, C. M. Baugh, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. D. Cannon, M. Col- less, C. Collins, W. Couch, et al., Nature 410, 169 (2001), astro-ph/0103143

    2001 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Seo and D

    H.-J. Seo and D. J. Eisenstein, ApJ 598, 720 (2003), astro-ph/0307460

    2003 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Tegmark, M

    M. Tegmark, M. A. Strauss, M. R. Blanton, K. Abaza- jian, S. Dodelson, H. Sandvik, X. Wang, D. H. Wein- berg, I. Zehavi, N. A. Bahcall, et al., Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004), astro-ph/0310723

    2004 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Okumura, T

    T. Okumura, T. Matsubara, D. J. Eisenstein, I. Kayo, C. Hikage, A. S. Szalay, and D. P. Schneider, ApJ 676, 889 (2008), 0711.3640

    2008 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Guzzo, M

    L. Guzzo, M. Pierleoni, B. Meneux, E. Branchini, O. Le F` evre, C. Marinoni, B. Garilli, J. Blaizot, G. De Lucia, 18 Ωb Ωc h As ns w0 wa Ωk mν γ 10 2 10 1 100 101 σi/θi AIA = 10 fiducial kmax = 0.1hMpc−1 kmax = 0.1hMpc−1, AIA = 10 Ωb Ωc h As ns w0 wa Ωk mν γ0 10 20 30 40 ϵ(%) ...

    2008 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley-Smith, G. B. Poole, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders, and F. Watson, MNRAS 423, 3430 (2012), 1204.4725

    2012 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Blake, S

    C. Blake, S. Brough, M. Colless, C. Contreras, W. Couch, S. Croom, T. Davis, M. J. Drinkwater, K. Forster, D. Gilbank, et al., MNRAS 415, 2876 (2011), 1104.2948

    2011 arXiv

  10. [16]

    B. A. Reid, L. Samushia, M. White, W. J. Perci- val, M. Manera, N. Padmanabhan, A. J. Ross, A. G. S´ anchez, S. Bailey, D. Bizyaev, et al., MNRAS 426, 2719 (2012), 1203.6641

    2012 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Samushia, B

    L. Samushia, B. A. Reid, M. White, W. J. Percival, A. J. Cuesta, L. Lombriser, M. Manera, R. C. Nichol, D. P. Schneider, D. Bizyaev, et al., MNRAS 429, 1514 (2013), 1206.5309

    2013 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Beutler, S

    F. Beutler, S. Saito, H.-J. Seo, J. Brinkmann, K. S. Dawson, D. J. Eisenstein, A. Font-Ribera, S. Ho, C. K. McBride, F. Montesano, et al., MNRAS 443, 1065 (2014), 1312.4611

    2014 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Aubourg, S

    ´E. Aubourg, S. Bailey, J. E. Bautista, F. Beutler, V. Bhardwaj, D. Bizyaev, M. Blanton, M. Blomqvist, A. S. Bolton, J. Bovy, et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 123516 (2015), 1411.1074

    2015 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Okumura, C

    T. Okumura, C. Hikage, T. Totani, M. Tonegawa, H. Okada, K. Glazebrook, C. Blake, P. G. Ferreira, S. More, A. Taruya, et al., PASJ 68, 38 (2016), 1511.08083

    2016 arXiv

  15. [21]

    S. Alam, M. Ata, S. Bailey, F. Beutler, D. Bizyaev, J. A. Blazek, A. S. Bolton, J. R. Brownstein, A. Bur- den, C.-H. Chuang, et al., MNRAS 470, 2617 (2017), 1607.03155

    2017 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Beutler, H.-J

    F. Beutler, H.-J. Seo, A. J. Ross, P. McDonald, S. Saito, A. S. Bolton, J. R. Brownstein, C.-H. Chuang, A. J. Cuesta, D. J. Eisenstein, et al., MNRAS 464, 3409 (2017), 1607.03149

    2017 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Gil-Mar ´ ın, W

    H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, W. J. Percival, L. Verde, J. R. Brown- stein, C.-H. Chuang, F.-S. Kitaura, S. A. Rodr ´ ıguez- Torres, and M. D. Olmstead, MNRAS465, 1757 (2017), 1606.00439

    2017 arXiv

  18. [24]

    A. J. Hawken, B. R. Granett, A. Iovino, L. Guzzo, J. A. Peacock, S. de la Torre, B. Garilli, M. Bolzonella, M. Scodeggio, U. Abbas, et al., A&A 607, A54 (2017), 1611.07046

    2017 arXiv

  19. [25]

    J. Hou, A. G. S´ anchez, A. J. Ross, A. Smith, R. Neveux, J. Bautista, E. Burtin, C. Zhao, R. Scoccimarro, K. S. Dawson, et al., MNRAS 500, 1201 (2021), 2007.08998

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Aubert, M.-C

    M. Aubert, M.-C. Cousinou, S. Escoffier, A. J. Hawken, S. Nadathur, S. Alam, J. Bautista, E. Burtin, C.-H. Chuang, A. de la Macorra, et al., MNRAS 513, 186 (2022), 2007.09013

    2022 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Anderson, ´E

    L. Anderson, ´E. Aubourg, S. Bailey, F. Beutler, V. Bhardwaj, M. Blanton, A. S. Bolton, J. Brinkmann, J. R. Brownstein, A. Burden, et al., MNRAS 441, 24 (2014), 1312.4877

    2014 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Nadathur, P

    S. Nadathur, P. M. Carter, W. J. Percival, H. A. Winther, and J. E. Bautista, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023504 (2019), 1904.01030

    2019 arXiv

  23. [29]

    C. Zhao, A. Variu, M. He, D. Forero-S´ anchez, A. Ta- mone, C.-H. Chuang, F.-S. Kitaura, C. Tao, J. Yu, J.-P. Kneib, et al., MNRAS 511, 5492 (2022), 2110.03824

    2022 arXiv

  24. [30]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2404.03002 (2024), 2404.03002

    2024 arXiv

  25. [31]

    A. G. S´ anchez, M. Crocce, A. Cabr´ e, C. M. Baugh, and E. Gazta˜ naga, MNRAS400, 1643 (2009), 0901.2570

    2009 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Montesano, A

    F. Montesano, A. G. S´ anchez, and S. Phleps, MNRAS 408, 2397 (2010), 1007.0755

    2010 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Montesano, A

    F. Montesano, A. G. S´ anchez, and S. Phleps, MNRAS 421, 2656 (2012), 1107.4097

    2012 arXiv

  28. [34]

    A. G. S´ anchez, E. A. Kazin, F. Beutler, C.-H. Chuang, A. J. Cuesta, D. J. Eisenstein, M. Manera, F. Monte- sano, R. C. Nichol, N. Padmanabhan, et al., MNRAS 433, 1202 (2013), 1303.4396

    2013 arXiv

  29. [35]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 042 (2020), 1909.05277

    2020 arXiv

  30. [36]

    R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, S. Kumar, E. Di Valentino, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123506 (2022), 2203.08093

    2022 arXiv

  31. [37]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043517 (2022), 2112.04515

    2022 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Simon, P

    T. Simon, P. Zhang, and V. Poulin, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys. 2023, 041 (2023), 2210.14931

    2023 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Gsponer, R

    R. Gsponer, R. Zhao, J. Donald-McCann, D. Ba- con, K. Koyama, R. Crittenden, T. Simon, and E.-M. Mueller, MNRAS 530, 3075 (2024), 2312.01977

    2024 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Ramirez, M

    S. Ramirez, M. Icaza-Lizaola, S. Fromenteau, M. Vargas-Maga˜ na, and A. Aviles, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024, 049 (2024), 2310.17834

    2024 arXiv

  35. [41]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto, M. Al- varez, O. Alves, A. Anand, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2411.12022 (2024), 2411.12022

    2024 arXiv

  36. [42]

    O. H. E. Philcox, M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 032 (2020), 2002.04035

    2020 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, and L. Verde, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2021, 054 (2021), 2106.07641

    2021 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, and L. Verde, Phys. Rev. D 104, L121301 (2021), 2106.11931

    2021 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Ishak, J

    M. Ishak, J. Pan, R. Calderon, K. Lodha, G. Valo- giannis, A. Aviles, G. Niz, L. Yi, C. Zheng, C. Garcia- Quintero, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2411.12026 (2024), 2411.12026

    2024

  40. [46]

    Boyle and E

    A. Boyle and E. Komatsu, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2018, 035 (2018), 1712.01857

    2018 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Kumar, R

    S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, and P. Yadav, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2022, 060 (2022), 2205.04292

    2022 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Moretti, M

    C. Moretti, M. Tsedrik, P. Carrilho, and A. Pourtsi- dou, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023, 025 (2023), 2306.09275

    2023 arXiv

  43. [49]

    M. A. Rodriguez-Meza, A. Aviles, H. E. Noriega, C.-Z. Ruan, B. Li, M. Vargas-Maga˜ na, and J. L. Cervantes- Cota, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024, 049 (2024), 2312.10510

    2024 arXiv

  44. [50]

    S. M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Trodden, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043528 (2004), astro- ph/0306438

    2004

  45. [51]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, Phys. Rep. 429, 307 (2006), astro-ph/0603494

    2006 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064004 (2007), 0705.1158

    2007 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Kaiser, ApJ 388, 272 (1992)

    N. Kaiser, ApJ 388, 272 (1992)

    1992

  48. [54]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Phys. Rep. 340, 291 20 (2001), astro-ph/9912508

    2001 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Catelan, M

    P. Catelan, M. Kamionkowski, and R. D. Blandford, MNRAS 320, L7 (2001), astro-ph/0005470

    2001 arXiv

  50. [56]

    C. M. Hirata and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 70, 063526 (2004), astro-ph/0406275

    2004 arXiv

  51. [57]

    M. L. Brown, A. N. Taylor, N. C. Hambly, and S. Dye, MNRAS 333, 501 (2002), astro-ph/0009499

    2002 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Mandelbaum, C

    R. Mandelbaum, C. M. Hirata, M. Ishak, U. Seljak, and J. Brinkmann, MNRAS 367, 611 (2006), astro- ph/0509026

    2006

  53. [59]

    C. M. Hirata, R. Mandelbaum, M. Ishak, U. Seljak, R. Nichol, K. A. Pimbblet, N. P. Ross, and D. Wake, MNRAS 381, 1197 (2007), astro-ph/0701671

    2007 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Okumura, Y

    T. Okumura, Y. P. Jing, and C. Li, ApJ 694, 214 (2009), 0809.3790

    2009 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Tonegawa and T

    M. Tonegawa and T. Okumura, ApJ 924, L3 (2022), 2109.14297

    2022 arXiv

  56. [62]

    Tsaprazi, N.-M

    E. Tsaprazi, N.-M. Nguyen, J. Jasche, F. Schmidt, and G. Lavaux, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2022, 003 (2022), 2112.04484

    2022 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Okumura and A

    T. Okumura and A. Taruya, ApJ 945, L30 (2023), 2301.06273

    2023 arXiv

  58. [64]

    C. Zhou, A. Tong, M. A. Troxel, J. Blazek, C. Lin, D. Bacon, L. Bleem, C. Chang, M. Costanzi, J. DeRose, et al., MNRAS 526, 323 (2023), 2302.12325

    2023 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Schmidt and D

    F. Schmidt and D. Jeong, Phys. Rev. D 86, 083513 (2012), 1205.1514

    2012 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Faltenbacher, C

    A. Faltenbacher, C. Li, and J. Wang, ApJ 751, L2 (2012), 1112.0503

    2012 arXiv

  61. [67]

    N. E. Chisari and C. Dvorkin, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2013, 029 (2013), 1308.5972

    2013 arXiv

  62. [68]

    N. E. Chisari, C. Dvorkin, F. Schmidt, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D 94, 123507 (2016), 1607.05232

    2016 arXiv

  63. [69]

    Kogai, T

    K. Kogai, T. Matsubara, A. J. Nishizawa, and Y. Urakawa, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2018, 014 (2018), 1804.06284

    2018 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Biagetti and G

    M. Biagetti and G. Orlando, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 005 (2020), 2001.05930

    2020 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Okumura and A

    T. Okumura and A. Taruya, MNRAS 493, L124 (2020), 1912.04118

    2020 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Okumura, A

    T. Okumura, A. Taruya, and T. Nishimichi, MNRAS 494, 694 (2020), 2001.05302

    2020 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Chuang, T

    Y.-T. Chuang, T. Okumura, and M. Shirasaki, MNRAS 515, 4464 (2022), 2111.01417

    2022 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Akitsu, Y

    K. Akitsu, Y. Li, and T. Okumura, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063531 (2023), 2209.06226

    2023 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Shiraishi, T

    M. Shiraishi, T. Okumura, and K. Akitsu, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023, 013 (2023), 2303.10890

    2023 arXiv

  70. [76]

    O. H. E. Philcox, M. J. K¨ onig, S. Alexander, and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063541 (2024), 2309.08653

    2024 arXiv

  71. [77]

    S. Saga, M. Shiraishi, K. Akitsu, and T. Okumura, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043520 (2024), 2312.16316

    2024 arXiv

  72. [78]

    Taruya and T

    A. Taruya and T. Okumura, ApJ 891, L42 (2020), 2001.05962

    2020 arXiv

  73. [79]

    Okumura and A

    T. Okumura and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043523 (2022), 2110.11127

    2022 arXiv

  74. [80]

    K. Xu, Y. P. Jing, G.-B. Zhao, and A. J. Cuesta, Nature Astronomy 7, 1259 (2023), 2306.09407

    2023 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. E. Allen, C. Allende Prieto, J. Annis, S. Bailey, C. Balland, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1611.00036 (2016), 1611.00036

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Laureijs, J

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J. L. Augu` eres, J. Brinchmann, R. Cole, M. Cropper, C. Dabin, L. Du- vet, A. Ealet, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1110.3193 (2011), 1110.3193

    2011 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Blanchard, S

    Euclid Collaboration, A. Blanchard, S. Camera, C. Car- bone, V. F. Cardone, S. Casas, S. Clesse, S. Ili´ c, M. Kil- binger, T. Kitching, et al., A&A 642, A191 (2020), 1910.09273

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue, A. Dressler, B. S. Gaudi, T. Greene, O. Guyon, C. Hi- rata, J. Kalirai, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1305.5422 (2013), 1305.5422

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Man- delbaum, T

    The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, R. Man- delbaum, T. Eifler, R. Hloˇ zek, T. Collett, E. Gawiser, D. Scolnic, D. Alonso, H. Awan, R. Biswas, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:1809.01669 (2018), 1809.01669

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Miyazaki, Y

    S. Miyazaki, Y. Komiyama, S. Kawanomoto, Y. Doi, H. Furusawa, T. Hamana, Y. Hayashi, H. Ikeda, Y. Ka- mata, H. Karoji, et al., PASJ 70, S1 (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    Aihara, N

    H. Aihara, N. Arimoto, R. Armstrong, S. Arnouts, N. A. Bahcall, S. Bickerton, J. Bosch, K. Bundy, P. L. Capak, J. H. H. Chan, et al., PASJ 70, S4 (2018), 1704.05858

    2018 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D 10, 213 (2001), gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  83. [91]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003), astro- ph/0208512

    2003

  84. [92]

    E. L. Wright, PASP 118, 1711 (2006), astro- ph/0609593

    2006

  85. [93]

    Komatsu and others, ApJS 192, 18 (2011), 1001.4538

    E. Komatsu and others, ApJS 192, 18 (2011), 1001.4538

    2011 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Jimenez, T

    R. Jimenez, T. Kitching, C. Pe˜ na-Garay, and L. Verde, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2010, 035 (2010), 1003.5918

    2010 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Zhao, J.-F

    M.-M. Zhao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Physics Letters B 779, 473 (2018), ISSN 0370-2693, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0370269318301527

    2018

  88. [96]

    W. Yang, R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D 95, 103522 (2017), 1703.02556

    2017 arXiv

  89. [97]

    E.-K. Li, H. Zhang, M. Du, Z.-H. Zhou, and L. Xu, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2018, 042 (2018), 1703.01554

    2018 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Mangano, G

    G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, T. Pinto, O. Pisanti, and P. D. Serpico, Nuclear Physics B 729, 221 (2005), hep-ph/0506164

    2005 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Kiakotou, O

    A. Kiakotou, O. Elgarøy, and O. Lahav, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063005 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.063005

    2008 doi

  92. [100]

    Wang and P

    L. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, ApJ 508, 483 (1998), astro-ph/9804015

    1998 arXiv

  93. [101]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043529 (2005), astro- ph/0507263

    2005

  94. [102]

    P. J. E. Peebles, The large-scale structure of the universe (1980)

    1980

  95. [103]

    Lahav, P

    O. Lahav, P. B. Lilje, J. R. Primack, and M. J. Rees, MNRAS 251, 128 (1991)

    1991

  96. [104]

    Kaiser, ApJ 284, L9 (1984)

    N. Kaiser, ApJ 284, L9 (1984)

    1984

  97. [105]

    Okumura and Y

    T. Okumura and Y. P. Jing, ApJ 694, L83 (2009), 0812.2935

    2009 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Stebbins, T

    A. Stebbins, T. McKay, and J. A. Frieman, in Astro- physical Applications of Gravitational Lensing, edited 21 by C. S. Kochanek and J. N. Hewitt (1996), vol. 173 of IAU Symposium, p. 75, astro-ph/9510012

    1996 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Babul, C. M. Cress, and A. Re- fregier, MNRAS 301, 1064 (1998), astro-ph/9712030

    1998 arXiv

  100. [108]

    R. G. Crittenden, P. Natarajan, U.-L. Pen, and T. The- uns, ApJ 568, 20 (2002), astro-ph/0012336

    2002 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Joachimi, R

    B. Joachimi, R. Mandelbaum, F. B. Abdalla, and S. L. Bridle, A&A 527, A26 (2011), 1008.3491

    2011 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Kurita, M

    T. Kurita, M. Takada, T. Nishimichi, R. Takahashi, K. Osato, and Y. Kobayashi, MNRAS 501, 833 (2021), 2004.12579

    2021 arXiv

  103. [111]

    J. Shi, K. Osato, T. Kurita, and M. Takada, ApJ 917, 109 (2021), 2104.12329

    2021 arXiv

  104. [112]

    J. Shi, T. Kurita, M. Takada, K. Osato, Y. Kobayashi, and T. Nishimichi, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2021, 030 (2021), 2009.00276

    2021 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Inoue, T

    T. Inoue, T. Okumura, S. Saga, and A. Taruya, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2406.19669 (2024), 2406.19669

    2024 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Alcock and B

    C. Alcock and B. Paczynski, Nature 281, 358 (1979)

    1979

  107. [115]

    Tegmark, Phys

    M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3806 (1997), astro- ph/9706198

    1997

  108. [116]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2011, 034 (2011), 1104.2933

    2011 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., A&A 594, A14 (2016), 1502.01590

    2016 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Wang and P

    Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 76, 103533 (2007), astro-ph/0703780

    2007 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Mukherjee, M

    P. Mukherjee, M. Kunz, D. Parkinson, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 78, 083529 (2008), 0803.1616

    2008 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Zhai, C.-G

    Z. Zhai, C.-G. Park, Y. Wang, and B. Ratra, J. Cos- mology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 009 (2020), 1912.04921

    2020 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Efstathiou and J

    G. Efstathiou and J. R. Bond, MNRAS 304, 75 (1999), astro-ph/9807103

    1999 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Albrecht, G

    A. Albrecht, G. Bernstein, R. Cahn, W. L. Freedman, J. Hewitt, W. Hu, J. Huth, M. Kamionkowski, E. W. Kolb, L. Knox, et al., arXiv e-prints astro-ph/0609591 (2006), astro-ph/0609591

    2006 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Takada, R

    M. Takada, R. S. Ellis, M. Chiba, J. E. Greene, H. Ai- hara, N. Arimoto, K. Bundy, J. Cohen, O. Dor´ e, G. Graves, et al., PASJ 66, R1 (2014), 1206.0737

    2014 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Hikage, M

    C. Hikage, M. Oguri, T. Hamana, S. More, R. Mandel- baum, M. Takada, F. K¨ ohlinger, H. Miyatake, A. J. Nishizawa, H. Aihara, et al., PASJ 71, 43 (2019), 1809.09148

    2019 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Matsubara, ApJ 615, 573 (2004), astro-ph/0408349

    T. Matsubara, ApJ 615, 573 (2004), astro-ph/0408349

    2004 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., A&A 641, A6 (2020), 1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  119. [127]

    S. Alam, M. Aubert, S. Avila, C. Balland, J. E. Bautista, M. A. Bershady, D. Bizyaev, M. R. Blanton, A. S. Bolton, J. Bovy, et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), 2007.08991

    2021 arXiv

  120. [129]

    Taruya, S

    A. Taruya, S. Saito, and T. Nishimichi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 103527 (2011), 1101.4723

    2011 arXiv

  121. [130]

    Lamman, D

    C. Lamman, D. Eisenstein, J. E. Forero-Romero, J. N. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Bailey, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, A. de la Macorra, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2408.11056 (2024), 2408.11056

    2024 arXiv

  122. [131]

    J. A. Blazek, N. MacCrann, M. A. Troxel, and X. Fang, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103506 (2019), 1708.09247

    2019 arXiv

  123. [132]

    Z. Vlah, N. E. Chisari, and F. Schmidt, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 025 (2020), 1910.08085

    2020 arXiv

  124. [133]

    T. Bakx, T. Kurita, N. Elisa Chisari, Z. Vlah, and F. Schmidt, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023, 005 (2023), 2303.15565

    2023 arXiv

  125. [134]

    Okumura, A

    T. Okumura, A. Taruya, T. Kurita, and T. Nishimichi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103501 (2024), 2310.07384

    2024 arXiv

  126. [135]

    Taruya, T

    A. Taruya, T. Kurita, and T. Okumura, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2409.06616 (2024), 2409.06616

    2024 arXiv

  127. [136]

    S. Pyne, A. Tenneti, and B. Joachimi, MNRAS 516, 1829 (2022), 2204.10342

    2022 arXiv

  128. [137]

    Linke, S

    L. Linke, S. Pyne, B. Joachimi, C. Georgiou, K. Hoff- mann, R. Mandelbaum, and S. Singh, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2406.05122 (2024), 2406.05122

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.