Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Redshift tomography of the kinematic matter dipole

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Redshift bin edges add a boundary term to the kinematic matter dipole that can rival or reverse the standard Ellis-Baldwin dipole.

desk verdict A clean integration-by-parts result that exposes a real, often large boundary correction to the tomographic matter dipole; the sharp-cut version is solid, and the photo-z generalization is useful but still conditional on the flux-cut independence assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13162 v2 pith:NSUOPSPS submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Sebastian von Hausegger , Charles Dalang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords kinematicmatterdipoleredshifttomographyEllis-BaldwinboundarytermsDopplerboostselectionfunctionphotometricredshiftssourcenumbercounts
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

The kinematic matter dipole is the faint dipolar asymmetry that an observer's peculiar motion imprints on the sky distribution of distant galaxies, and the Ellis-Baldwin formula predicts its amplitude from the flux slope of source counts. This paper shows that once a galaxy sample is split into observed-redshift bins, the Doppler boost of redshifts themselves adds a boundary term at the edges of each bin. For sharp cuts the term is $(1+z)\,f_b(z)$ evaluated at the two bin boundaries, and for photometric selections it becomes an integral over the logarithmic redshift derivative of the selection function $W_b(z)$. The correction can rival or exceed the Ellis-Baldwin amplitude and can even flip the dipole direction, so it must be included in redshift-tomographic tests of the cosmological principle.

What carries the argument

The central object is the boundary term $B(z_b)$ that appears when the redshift-dependent dipole $D_{\mathrm{kin}}(z) = [3 + x(z)(1+\alpha(z)) + d\log n(z)/d\log(1+z)]\,\beta$ is averaged over a bin and integrated by parts. The surface term $(1+z)f_b(z)|_{z_1}^{z_2}$, or its smooth-selection generalisation $-\int dz\, f_b(z)\, d\log W_b(z)/d\log(1+z)$, carries the new physics: it counts how sources are Doppler-shifted into or out of the bin, exactly as the flux threshold $S_*$ does in the Ellis-Baldwin effect. The selection function $W_b(z)$, built by convolving a top hat on observed redshift with the conditional photo-$z$ distribution $P(z',z)$, turns the boundary term into a quantity computable from photometric survey data.

What would settle it

Simulate a full-sky catalogue with a known boost $\beta$ and no intrinsic clustering dipole, bin it in observed redshift with a known selection function, and compare the measured per-bin dipole amplitudes with the prediction of Eq. (20) using the true $\tilde{x}_b$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_b$; disagreement in the bin-to-bin pattern of amplitudes would falsify the boundary-term claim. The paper's own 1000-mock comparison performs this same check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim is that a sample selected in observed redshift carries an additional contribution to the kinematic matter dipole from the boosting of redshifts, on top of the usual angular-aberration and flux-boosting terms. In a bin with normalised redshift distribution $f_b(z)$, the dipole amplitude becomes $D_{\mathrm{kin}}(z_b) = [2 + \tilde{x}_b(1+\tilde{\alpha}_b) + (1+z)f_b(z)|_{z_1}^{z_2}]\,\beta$ for sharp cuts, and $D_{\mathrm{kin}}(z_b) = [2 + \tilde{x}_b(1+\tilde{\alpha}_b) - \int_0^\infty dz\, f_b(z)\, \frac{d\log W_b(z)}{d\log(1+z)}]\,\beta$ for a general selection function $W_b(z)$. The new term is non-zero whenever the selection function is asymmetric around the bin's effective redshift, and it can dominate the Ellis-Baldwin terms or reverse the dipole's sign. The authors verify the expressions against full-sky mock maps and forecast the boundary terms for Euclid, Rubin-LSST and SKA redshift distributions, finding values of order a few times $\beta$ that change sign near the peak of the source distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the redshift selection function $W_b(z)$ is independent of the flux cut $S_*$; if that fails, as it can for photometric redshifts calibrated from flux-limited spectroscopic subsamples, the simple boundary-term formula no longer applies and a much harder computation is needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tomographic measurements by Euclid, Rubin-LSST and SKA will see boundary terms of order a few times $\beta$ that change sign near the peak of the source redshift distribution, so the expected dipole in each bin differs substantially from the Ellis-Baldwin value.
  • The common practice of removing low-redshift sources changes the kinematic dipole expectation for the remaining sample by tens of percent, and the removed low-redshift subsample carries boundary terms of order $+7.5\beta$ for SKA-like specifications.
  • Photometric redshift uncertainties do not erase the boundary terms; for Gaussian photo-$z$ scatter they merely reshape the selection function, and the correction is controlled by the shape of $W_b(z)$ rather than by the sharpness of the bin.
  • Since the boundary terms are proportional to $\beta$, they can aid a measurement of the kinematic boost, provided the redshift distribution and selection function are estimated accurately.
  • Cuts on color generate the same class of correction through a redshift selection function when source spectra are not perfect power laws; the effect cancels for exact power-law spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the boundary-term picture holds, previously published redshift-integrated dipole measurements remain valid, but future tomographic analyses must report their per-bin selection functions; otherwise the predicted dipole in each bin cannot be reconstructed from the published amplitude alone.
  • Because sources cross bin boundaries under the boost, dipole measurements in neighbouring redshift bins should be anti-correlated at the level of the boundary terms; searching for that cross-bin correlation would isolate the effect from other systematics.
  • The same formalism could be applied to the kinematic quadrupole, where the prefactor may lift the second-order signal above the clustering quadrupole, or to redshift-weighted number count estimators, whose weights are themselves boost-affected.
  • The boundary terms depend sensitively on the shape of $n(z)$, so redshift-distribution uncertainty, not just shot noise, is likely to dominate the error budget of future tomographic dipole measurements.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the kinematic dipole in the angular distribution of matter tracers when the sample is split into redshift bins. Its central claim is that, in addition to the standard Ellis-Baldwin terms from aberration and flux boosting, the Doppler boosting of observed redshifts produces a boundary term at the edges of the redshift selection. For sharp cuts the term is (1+z) f_b(z) evaluated at the bin edges (Eq. 13); for general redshift selection functions it is given by the logarithmic derivative of the selection function W_b(z) (Eq. 20). The authors show with model redshift distributions for Euclid, Rubin-LSST, and SKA that these boundary terms can be comparable to or larger than the standard amplitude and can even reverse the dipole direction. They also discuss redshift uncertainties, biased photo-zs, and color cuts.

Significance. If correct, the result is important: tomographic measurements of the kinematic matter dipole must include the redshift-boost boundary term, otherwise the predicted amplitude is off by O(1) multiples of beta and can even have the wrong sign. The central identity is derived, not fitted; the sharp-cut result Eq. (13) is exact and depends only on observables, and the mock checks in App. C2 confirm that Eq. (21) reproduces the measured dipole in simulated samples. The forecasts are useful but conditional on the assumed analytic redshift distributions and on the explicitly stated assumption that selection functions are independent of the flux cut. The main weakness is that the general-selection formula is applied to flux-limited photometric surveys even though the paper itself concedes that real photo-z selection functions can depend on the flux cut.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B15)-(B19)] The integration by parts in Eq. (B19) drops the term -∫ n(z) W_b(z) dz, which is exactly the -1 that converts the 3 in Eq. (B15) into the 2 in Eq. (20). As printed, the chain (B15)->(B19) yields D_b = [3 + x̃_b(1+α̃_b) - ∫ f_b dlog W_b/dlog(1+z)] β, not Eq. (20). The correct identity is ∫ f_b dlog n/dlog(1+z) dz = f_b(z)(1+z)|_0^∞ - 1 - ∫ f_b dlog W_b/dlog(1+z) dz, in direct analogy with Eq. (12). Eq. (20) itself appears to be the correct final result, but the appendix derivation must be corrected.
  2. [Sec. III.C and Sec. IV.A, Eq. (20)] Eq. (20) is derived under the assumption ∂W_b/∂S_* = 0, stated immediately before the equation. Section III.C concedes that for photometric surveys calibrated on flux-limited spectroscopic subsamples, P(z',z;S_*) and hence W_b depend on the flux cut, so the integration-by-parts step no longer reduces to the simple log-derivative of W_b, and the extra ∂W_b/∂S_* contribution to x̃_b in Eqs. (B3)-(B6) is not quantified. Nevertheless, Sec. IV.A and IV.B compute boundary-term forecasts for Euclid, Rubin-LSST, and SKA using an S*-independent Gaussian P (Eq. 29). These forecasts are therefore not directly applicable to real flux-limited photo-z samples, where photo-z scatter varies with magnitude. The sharp-cut spectroscopic result Eq. (13) is not affected, but the claim to handle arbitrary redshift selection functions is overbroad; the paper should either quantify the omitted term, restrict the photometric forecasts, or qualify the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (22)-(23)] The distributional derivative of log W_b for a discontinuous top-hat selection function is not well defined because W_b vanishes outside the bin and 1/W_b is singular at the jumps; the final result Eq. (23) is correct, but it should be derived as a limit of smooth W_b rather than through the formal expression in Eq. (22).
  2. [Sec. III, around Eq. (15)] The notation would be clearer if the authors stated explicitly that n(z) in Eqs. (15) and (6) denotes the boosted observed-redshift monopole distribution, not the comoving or cosmological redshift distribution, since the distinction is central to the boundary-term argument.
  3. [Fig. 8] The quantities D_obs and B_obs appearing in the last panel of Fig. 8 are not defined in the caption or in the surrounding text; please define them explicitly where the mock analysis is described.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. III] The phrase 'arbitrary redshift selection functions' should be qualified to make clear that the formula in Eq. (20) assumes no flux-cut dependence of W_b; the discussion in Sec. III.C is honest about this, but the abstract overstates the generality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained; the W_b(S_*) limitation is an acknowledged scope restriction, not circularity.

full rationale

The central boundary-term prediction is obtained by an explicit integration-by-parts reduction of Eq. (6), which is itself an external input from Ref. [30] (Nadolny et al.) and is re-derived in App. B rather than imported as a black box. The averaged quantities x̃_b and ᾱ_b are defined as weighted averages of the directly observable x(z), α(z), and n(z), so Eqs. (13) and (20) follow by algebraic manipulation: no parameter is adjusted to match any dipole value, and the boundary terms are computed from the same redshift and selection inputs that appear in the defining integral. The forecasts use survey parameters taken from external specifications (Euclid Red Book, LSST SRD, Ref. [49]), and the mocks are same-model consistency checks rather than independent falsifications, which limits their evidential weight but does not make the derivation circular. Section III.C explicitly concedes that if W_b depends on S_*, Eq. (20) no longer applies and the computation is left to future work; that is a scope limitation, not a hidden assumption or a reduction of the result to its inputs. The only self-citation, Ref. [33], is recapitulated in Appendix B and therefore is not load-bearing. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses no fitted parameters; the only inputs are the cited per-redshift dipole expression and survey models. The main unproven input is the flux-independence of the selection function, which the paper explicitly flags.

free parameters (1)
  • survey redshift distribution parameters (rho, z0, sigma) = Euclid: (1.5, 0.64, 0.05); LSST Y1: (0.94, 0.26, 0.03); LSST Y10: (0.90, 0.28, 0.03); SKA1: (1.25, 0.78, 0.05); SKA2…
    Used for forecast boundary terms; adopted from Euclid Red Book, LSST SRD, and Harrison et al. 2016, not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The per-redshift kinematic dipole is D_kin(z) = [3 + x(z)(1+alpha(z)) + d log n(z)/d log(1+z)] beta (Eq 6), inherited from Nadolny et al. 2021.
    This expression is the starting point of the binned derivation; it assumes power-law source spectra and a flux-limited sample. It is not re-derived in this paper, only cited.
  • standard math Observed redshifts are boosted as (1+z) = (1+z_bar)(1 - beta cos theta) to linear order (Eq 2).
    Special-relativistic Doppler effect; the foundation of the boundary-term mechanism.
  • domain assumption The binned dipole equals the redshift average of D_kin(z) weighted by the selected true-redshift distribution f_b(z) (Eqs 7, 19).
    Assumes linear superposition of per-redshift dipole contributions and a deterministic selection in true redshift.
  • domain assumption The redshift selection function W_b(z) is independent of the flux cut S_* (Sec III.A).
    Stated before Eq (20); the authors show in Sec III.C that when W_b depends on S_*, Eq (20) is not valid and the calculation becomes much harder.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Redshift tomography of the kinematic matter dipole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSUOPSPS

@misc{pith2026241213162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Redshift tomography of the kinematic matter dipole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSUOPSPS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13162}
}
read the original abstract

The dipole anisotropy induced by our peculiar motion in the sky distribution of cosmologically distant sources is an important consistency test of the standard FLRW cosmology. In this work, we formalize how to compute the kinematic matter dipole in redshift bins. Apart from the usual terms arising from angular aberration and flux boosting, there is a contribution from the boosting of the redshifts that becomes important when considering a sample selected on observed redshift, leading to non-vanishing correction terms. We discuss examples and provide expressions to incorporate arbitrary redshift selection functions. We also discuss the effect of redshift measurement uncertainties in this context, in particular in upcoming surveys for which we provide estimates of the correction terms. Depending on the shape of a sample's redshift distribution and on the applied redshift cuts, the correction terms can become substantial, even to the degree that the direction of the dipole is reversed. Lastly, we discuss how cuts on variables correlated with observed redshift, such as color, can induce additional correction terms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Computation of boundary terms, Eq. (14), for two different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Computation of boundary terms, Eq. (21) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Computation of boundary terms, Eq. (21). Like Fig. 2 but [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Computation of boundary terms, Eq. (21). Like Fig. 3 but [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Boundary terms including redshift bias for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Boundary terms 𝐵 (left panel) and effective redshift 𝑧𝑏 (right panel) per choice of (photometric) bin edges [𝑧 ′ 1 , 𝑧′ 2 ], computed according to Eq. (21) and (18), and corresponding to the Euclid specifications and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Boundary terms 𝐵 depending on effective redshift 𝑧𝑏 corresponding to (photometric) bin edges [𝑧 ′ 1 , 𝑧′ 1 + Δ𝑧 ′ ], as traced by the dotted and dashed lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Boundary terms 𝐵 computed via Eq. (21) for Euclid specifi￾cations and with consideration of various types of bias, as indicated by the labels in the bottom left (first three panels). These are compared against the median value of measured dipoles in 1000 mock samples, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: we present as colored, filled dots the predictions of Eq. (21) using the correct values of the biases for 𝑃(𝑧 ′ , 𝑧). To provide confidence in the accuracy of our analytical results, we also show, as empty dots, the median values of measured dipoles in 1000 random mock…

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. The Cosmological Dipole in Tilted Anisotropic Universes

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In tilted Bianchi cosmologies, a 10^-3 dipole is impossible under current shear and curvature bounds except possibly for a Khronon field.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Generally, however, boundary terms are functions of the bin edges𝑧1 and 𝑧2

    Sensitivity of boundary terms to bin choices In section IIB, boundary terms were shown for simple ex- ampledistributionsandtop-hatselections,wheretheboundary terms were plotted as functions of the bins’ effective redshift, 𝑧𝑏. Generally, however, boundary terms are functions of the bin edges𝑧1 and 𝑧2. Yet, under certain conditions, a pre- sentation of the...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Boundary terms 𝐵 (left panel) and effective redshift𝑧𝑏 (rightpanel)perchoiceof(photometric)binedges [𝑧′ 1,𝑧′ 2],computed according to Eq

    2.5 Figure 6. Boundary terms 𝐵 (left panel) and effective redshift𝑧𝑏 (rightpanel)perchoiceof(photometric)binedges [𝑧′ 1,𝑧′ 2],computed according to Eq. (21) and (18), and corresponding to theEuclid specifications and Fig. 2. Dotted and dashed lines illustrate where equal-width bins would trace the functions𝐵 and𝑧𝑏. Open squares show the deviation from the...

    work page

  3. [3]

    and𝑧𝑏(𝑧′ 1,𝑧′ 2) forthechoiceoftheEuclidredshiftdistribution 𝑛(𝑧),wherewe compare the trace in(𝑧′ 1,𝑧′

    work page

  4. [4]

    Lastly, varying𝜎𝑧 for chosen narrow bins does not change the functional form of the boundary terms much, whereas the presence of redshift bias can

    space taken by the bins for equi- distant, equal-width bins in𝑧′ with those (equal populated) bins defined in the main text. Lastly, varying𝜎𝑧 for chosen narrow bins does not change the functional form of the boundary terms much, whereas the presence of redshift bias can. We discuss the influence of bias on the boundary terms in the next section. However,...

    work page

  5. [5]

    −0.5 𝑧′−𝑚𝑧−𝑎 𝜎𝑧 2# + 𝑓𝑜 (2𝜋𝜎2𝑧)0.5 exp

    Bias studies In addition to the simple checks in the main text, we here investigate the influence of bias and catastrophic outliers of redshift estimates forEuclid on the boundary terms using a broader range of biases.15 To this effect, consider the condi- tional distribution function [e.g. 45] 𝑃(𝑧′,𝑧)= 1− 𝑓𝑜 (2𝜋𝜎2𝑧)0.5 exp " −0.5 𝑧′−𝑚𝑧−𝑎 𝜎𝑧 2# + 𝑓𝑜 (2𝜋𝜎2...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Each point is assigned a cosmological redshift ¯𝑧, sampled from Eq

    Mock data and Sampling aid Wegeneratefull-skysamplesof 𝑁 datapointsisotropically distributed across the sphere. Each point is assigned a cosmological redshift ¯𝑧, sampled from Eq. (28). Given each value of¯𝑧, (photometric) redshifts¯𝑧′ are sampled from the distribution (C1) with corresponding input parameters. Redshifts ¯𝑧′ are then boosted via Eq. (2) to...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Color cut for power law spectra It is useful to apply color cuts on sources to differentiate betweenobjectsofdifferentnaturesuchasstarsorquasars,for example. ThiswasindeeddonebySecrest etal.,whoimposed acolorcutonWISEbandmagnitudes, 𝑊1−𝑊2≥ 0.8,toobtain a high-redshift sample of quasars with which they performed theirmeasurementofthematterdipole. Inthepres...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Then, a color cut may affect the source countsdifferentlyindifferentdirectionsrelativetothedirection of motion

    Running spectral index In the case where the power law spectrum has a running of the spectral index, the cancellation observed in the previous section need not hold. Then, a color cut may affect the source countsdifferentlyindifferentdirectionsrelativetothedirection of motion. This stems directly from the dependence of color on the observed redshift𝑧 in (...

    work page

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    D. J. Schwarz, inFundamental Interactions: A Memorial Vol- umeforWolfgangKummer ,editedbyD.Grumiller,A.Rebhan, and D. Vassilevich (World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd,

  2. [10]

    Ehlers, P

    J. Ehlers, P. Geren, and R. K. Sachs, J. Math. Phys.9, 1344 (1968)

    1968

  3. [11]

    W. R. Stoeger, S. J., R. Maartens, and G. F. R. Ellis, Astrophys. J. 443, 1 (1995)

    1995

  4. [12]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Annals Phys. 447, 169159 (2022), arXiv:2208.05018 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. K. Aluri et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 094001 (2023), arXiv:2207.05765 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. M. Stewart and D. W. Sciama, Nature (London)216, 748 (1967)

    1967

  7. [15]

    (Planck),Astron.Astrophys

    N.Aghanim etal. (Planck),Astron.Astrophys. 641,A1(2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]. 17

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Challinor and F

    A. Challinor and F. van Leeuwen, Phys. Rev. D65, 103001 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0112457

    2002 arXiv

  9. [17]

    (Planck),Astron.Astrophys

    N.Aghanim etal. (Planck),Astron.Astrophys. 571,A27(2014), arXiv:1303.5087 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P. d. S. Ferreira and M. Quartin, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 101301 (2021), arXiv:2011.08385 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S.Saha,S.Shaikh,S.Mukherjee,T.Souradeep,andB.D.Wan- delt, JCAP2021(10), 072, arXiv:2106.07666 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. E. Gunn, inThe Extragalactic Distance Scale, Astronomical SocietyofthePacificConferenceSeries,Vol.4,editedbyS.van den Bergh and C. J. Pritchet (1988) p. 344

    1988

  13. [21]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D44, 3737 (1991)

    1991

  14. [22]

    Langlois and T

    D. Langlois and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D 53, 2908 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9507094

    1996 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. L. Erickcek, S. M. Carroll, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D78, 083012 (2008), arXiv:0808.1570 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Domènech, R

    G. Domènech, R. Mohayaee, S. P. Patil, and S. Sarkar, JCAP 2022(10), 019, arXiv:2207.01569 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    G. F. R. Ellis and J. E. Baldwin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 206, 377 (1984)

    1984

  18. [26]

    F.Lacasa,C.Bonvin,C.Dalang,andR.Durrer,JCAP 2024(6), 045, arXiv:2402.18438 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Crawford, Astrophys

    F. Crawford, Astrophys. J.692, 887 (2009), arXiv:0810.4520 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    N. J. Secrest, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A383, 20240027 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Blake and J

    C. Blake and J. Wall, Nature416, 150 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0203385 [astro-ph]

    2002

  22. [30]

    A. K. Singal, Astrophysical Journal Letters742, L23 (2011), arXiv:1110.6260 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Rubart and D

    M. Rubart and D. J. Schwarz, Astronomy&Astrophysics555, A117 (2013), arXiv:1301.5559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar, and J. Colin, Astrophys. J. Lett.908, L51 (2021), arXiv:2009.14826 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, and S.Sarkar,Astrophys.J.Lett. 937,L31(2022),arXiv:2206.05624 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    L. Dam, G. F. Lewis, and B. J. Brewer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 525, 231 (2023), arXiv:2212.07733 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. D. Wagenveld, H.-R. Klöckner, and D. J. Schwarz, Astron. Astrophys. 675, A72 (2023), arXiv:2305.15335 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    O. T. Oayda, V. Mittal, G. F. Lewis, and T. Murphy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531, 4545 (2024), arXiv:2406.01871 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Maartens, C

    R. Maartens, C. Clarkson, and S. Chen, JCAP2018 (1), 013, arXiv:1709.04165 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Nadolny, R

    T. Nadolny, R. Durrer, M. Kunz, and H. Padmanabhan, JCAP 2021(11), 009, arXiv:2106.05284 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dalang and C

    C. Dalang and C. Bonvin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 3895 (2022), arXiv:2111.03616 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    C.Guandalin,J.Piat,C.Clarkson,andR.Maartens,Astrophys. J. 953, 144 (2023), arXiv:2212.04925 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    von Hausegger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society: Letters535, L49 (2024), arXiv:2404.07929 [astro- ph.CO]

    S. von Hausegger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society: Letters535, L49 (2024), arXiv:2404.07929 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. S. Wang, F. Beutler, and D. Bacon, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 2598 (2020), arXiv:2007.01802 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Benítez, Astrophys

    N. Benítez, Astrophys. J. 536, 571 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9811189 [astro-ph]

    2000

  36. [44]

    Le Fèvre, Y

    O.Ilbert,S.Arnouts,H.J.McCracken,M.Bolzonella,E.Bertin, O. Le Fèvre, Y. Mellier, G. Zamorani, R. Pellò, A. Iovino, L. Tresse, V. Le Brun, D. Bottini, B. Garilli, D. Maccagni, J. P. Picat,R.Scaramella,M.Scodeggio,G.Vettolani,A.Zanichelli, C. Adami, S. Bardelli, A. Cappi, S. Cha...

    2006

  37. [45]

    A. J. Battisti, E. da Cunha, K. Grasha, M. Salvato, E. Daddi, L. Davies, S. Jin, D. Liu, E. Schinnerer, M. Vaccari, and COSMOS Collaboration, Astrophys. J. 882, 61 (2019), arXiv:1908.00771 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mellieret al

    Y. Mellieret al. (Euclid), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.13491 (2024), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  39. [47]

    O. Doré, J. Bock, M. Ashby, P. Capak, A. Cooray, R. de Put- ter, T. Eifler, N. Flagey, Y. Gong, S. Habib, K. Heitmann, C. Hirata, W.-S. Jeong, R. Katti, P. Korngut, E. Krause, D.- H. Lee, D. Masters, P. Mauskopf, G. Melnick, B. Mennesson, H. Nguyen, K. Öberg, A. Pullen, A. Rac...

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bolton, F

    M.Levi,L.E.Allen,A.Raichoor,C.Baltay,S.BenZvi,F.Beut- ler, A. Bolton, F. J. Castander, C.-H. Chuang, A. Cooper, J.-G. Cuby, A. Dey, D. Eisenstein, X. Fan, B. Flaugher, C. Frenk, A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, O. Graur, J. Guy, S. Habib, K. Hon- scheid,S.Juneau,J.-P.Kneib,O.Lahav,D.La...

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ivezićet al

    v. Ivezićet al. (LSST), The Astrophysical Journal 873, 111 (2019), arXiv:0805.2366 [astro-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.13632 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    D. J. Bacon et al. (SKA), Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia37, e007 (2020), arXiv:1811.02743 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Laureijs et al

    R. Laureijs et al. (Euclid), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1110.3193 (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Blanchard et al

    A. Blanchard et al. (Euclid), Astron. Astrophys. 642, A191 (2020), arXiv:1910.09273 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Mandelbaum et al

    R. Mandelbaum et al. (LSST Dark Energy Science), arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1809.01669 (2018), arXiv:1809.01669 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R. J. Wilman, L. Miller, M. J. Jarvis, T. Mauch, F. Levrier, F. B. Abdalla, S. Rawlings, H. R. Klöckner, D. Obreschkow, D. Olteanu, and S. Young, MNRAS 388, 1335 (2008), arXiv:0805.3413 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    814,145(2015),arXiv:1505.07596[astro-ph.CO]

    D.Alonso,P.Bull,P.G.Ferreira,R.Maartens,andM.G.Santos, Astrophys.J. 814,145(2015),arXiv:1505.07596[astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Harrison, S

    I. Harrison, S. Camera, J. Zuntz, and M. L. Brown, MNRAS 463, 3674 (2016), arXiv:1601.03947 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A.Bonaldi, I.Harrison, S.Camera,andM.L.Brown,MNRAS 463, 3686 (2016), arXiv:1601.03948 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J.D.Wagenveld,H.-R.Klöckner,N.Gupta,S.Sekhar,P.Jagan- nathan, P. P. Deka, J. Jose, S. A. Balashev, D. Borgaonkar, A. Chatterjee, F. Combes, K. L. Emig, A. N. Gaunekar, M. Hilton, G. I. G. Józsa, D. Y. Klutse, K. Knowles, J. K. Krogager, E. Momjian, S. Muller, and S. P. Sikhosa...

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    C.A.P.Bengaly,T.M.Siewert,D.J.Schwarz,andR.Maartens, MNRAS 486, 1350 (2019), arXiv:1810.04960 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Loureiro, C

    H.Johnston,N.E.Chisari,S.Joudaki,R.Reischke,B.Stölzner, A. Loureiro, C. Mahony, S. Unruh, A. H. Wright, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, P. Burger, A. Dvornik, C. Georgiou, B. Giblin, C.Heymans,H.Hildebrandt,B.Joachimi,K.Kuijken,S.-S.Li, L. Linke, L. Porth, H. Shan, T. Tröster, J. L. van...

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    H. Awan, E. Gawiser, J. Sanchez, I. Sevilla-Noarbe, and the LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.14265 (2024), arXiv:2409.14265 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  55. [63]

    da Silveira Ferreira and V

    P. da Silveira Ferreira and V. Marra, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2403.14580 (2024), arXiv:2403.14580 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Tiwari, D

    P. Tiwari, D. J. Schwarz, G.-B. Zhao, R. Durrer, M. Kunz, and H. Padmanabhan, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.09946 (2024), arXiv:2409.09946 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hernández–Monteagudo, J

    C. Hernández–Monteagudo, J. Chaves-Montero, and R. E. Angulo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 503, L56 (2021), arXiv:1911.12056 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Legrand, C

    L. Legrand, C. Hernández-Monteagudo, M. Douspis, N. Aghanim, and R. E. Angulo, Astron. Astrophys.646, A109 (2021), arXiv:2007.14412 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    W. L. Matthewson, D. Stock, and R. Durrer, JCAP2022 (9), 065, arXiv:2203.07414 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Watkins, T

    R. Watkins, T. Allen, C. J. Bradford, A. Ramon, A. Walker, H. A. Feldman, R. Cionitti, Y. Al-Shorman, E. Kourkchi, and R. B. Tully, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524, 1885 (2023), arXiv:2302.02028 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Soc.526, 3051 (2023), arXiv:2306.11269 [astro-ph.CO]

    A.M.Whitford,C.Howlett,andT.M.Davis,Mon.Not.Roy.As- tron. Soc.526, 3051 (2023), arXiv:2306.11269 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Panwar, P

    M. Panwar, P. Jain, and A. Omar, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 535, L63 (2024), arXiv:2405.16853 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Ghosh, P

    S. Ghosh, P. Jain, R. Kothari, M. Panwar, G. Singh, and P. Ti- wari, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy44, 22 (2023), arXiv:2301.03065 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del Río, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. Gérard-Marchant, K. Sheppard, T. ...

    2020

  65. [73]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W.Weckesser,J.Bright,S.J.vanderWalt, M.Brett,J.Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E.Larson,C.J.Carey,İ.Polat,Y.Feng,E.W.Moore,J.Vande...

    2020

  66. [74]

    J.D.Hunter,ComputinginScience&Engineering 9,90(2007)

    2007

  67. [75]

    A.Zonca,L.Singer,D.Lenz,M.Reinecke,C.Rosset,E.Hivon, andK.Gorski,JournalofOpenSourceSoftware 4,1298(2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    K. M. Górski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelman, Astrophys. J.622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513

    2005 arXiv

  69. [77]

    D. W. Hogg, I. K. Baldry, M. R. Blanton, and D. J. Eisen- stein, arXiv e-prints , astro-ph/0210394 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0210394 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  70. [78]

    B.Friedman-Shaw,A.Krolewski,M.Foglieni,andN.Afshordi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.04705 (2024), arXiv:2410.04705 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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