Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Enhancing Cosmological Constraints by Two-dimensional $\beta$-cosmic-web Weighted Angular Correlation Functions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that weighting the angular two-point correlation function with β-cosmic-web marks—especially the inverse mean neighbor distance—makes the statistic two to three times more sensitive to the matter density parameter…

desk verdict A legitimate but statistically under-powered proof-of-concept that β-cosmic-web marks can be applied to 2D angular clustering, though the headline 2–3× sensitivity gain is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21509 v2 pith:WS27KYM6 submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.CO

Fenfen Yin , Liang Xiao , Wenying Du , Zhujun Jiang , Zhiwei Min , Jaime Forero-Romero , Jiacheng Ding , Le Zhang
show 1 more author
Xiao-Dong Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords β-cosmicwebmark-weightedcorrelationfunctionangularcosmologicalparameterconstraintsmatterdensityCMASSgalaxiesslitlesssurveyslarge-scalestructure
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 standard angular two-point correlation function becomes a much sharper cosmological probe when it is weighted by marks derived from the β-skeleton cosmic web. On thin redshift slices of the CMASS galaxy sample and mock catalogs with $\Omega_m = 0.25$, $0.31$, and $0.4$, the authors measure how well each statistic separates these cosmologies through the average $\Delta\chi^2$ over six redshift bins. Weighting by mean neighbor distance improves the average $\Delta\chi^2$ by roughly 40%-130%, and weighting by its inverse improves it by a factor of 2-3. If correct, this gives surveys with imprecise redshifts a way to recover cosmological information that would otherwise be lost in 3D clustering analysis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the β-skeleton of the projected galaxy distribution: a graph that connects two galaxies when a lune-shaped empty region between them contains no third galaxy, with $\beta = 3$ chosen as the baseline. From this graph each galaxy receives three marks: $N_{\rm con}$, the number of connected neighbors; $\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$, the mean distance to those neighbors; and $1/\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$, its inverse. The mark-weighted angular correlation function is computed with the Landy–Szalay pair-count estimator, weighted by these marks, normalized by the integral of the monopole over separations from 10 to 58 $h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$, and evaluated in six overlapping thin redshift slices projected to two dimensions. The $1/\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$ weight emphasizes galaxies in dense regions, and the paper attributes the sensitivity gain to information carried by those environments.

What would settle it

Run the same $1/\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$ weighting on an independent set of mocks with known $\Omega_m$ values (for example, the mocks used for covariance estimation, or a full N-body simulation set) and check whether the weighted statistic still separates $\Omega_m = 0.25$ and $0.4$ from $0.31$ by roughly 2-3 times more $\Delta\chi^2$ than the unweighted angular correlation function; if the gain disappears, the enhancement is a property of the mock family rather than of the statistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The reported discovery is that combining the standard two-point angular correlation function with a β-cosmic-web weighted angular correlation function is substantially more discriminating in $\Omega_m$ than the unweighted statistic alone. The inverse mean neighbor distance weight, $1/\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$, raises the average $\Delta\chi^2$ by 229%-336% relative to the unweighted case, depending on the fiducial model, which the paper states as a factor of 2-3. The mean neighbor distance weight gives a 39%-130% improvement, while the connection-number weight gives little or no gain and even reduces sensitivity at low $\Omega_m$. Across all statistics the minimum $\chi^2$ falls at $\Omega_m = 0.31$, the mock cosmology the authors find most consistent with the observed CMASS sample.

Load-bearing premise

The mock galaxy catalogs reproduce not only standard clustering statistics but also the β-skeleton connection properties of the real galaxy sample, so the differences between the different matter-density models are cosmological rather than simulation artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $1/\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$-weighted statistic combined with the standard angular correlation function raises average $\Delta\chi^2$ by 229%-336%, which the paper equates to the sensitivity gain of a substantially larger dataset.
  • The estimator works in thin angular slices, so it can be applied to slitless and wide-band photometric surveys where redshift errors degrade full 3D clustering.
  • The mean neighbor distance weight improves $\Delta\chi^2$ by 40%-130% while the connection-number weight gives little or no improvement, indicating that environmental density rather than raw connectivity drives the gain.
  • The minimum $\chi^2$ at $\Omega_m = 0.31$ appears in every statistic, so weighting sharpens a discrimination that the unweighted angular correlation function already makes, rather than changing which cosmology fits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $1/\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$ upweights dense regions, the result suggests that the angular clustering of galaxies in dense environments carries non-Gaussian, small-scale information that the standard angular correlation function misses; a natural next test is whether similar gains appear for $\sigma_8$ or the dark-energy equation of state.
  • The gain is measured with one family of fast mock catalogs; applying the same weighting to an independent set of mocks, or to an observational sample with a known $\Omega_m$ from other probes, would show whether the improvement survives outside that mock family.
  • The paper combines only one weighted statistic at a time with the standard angular correlation function; combining several weighted statistics in a single covariance vector could push the 2D gain toward the larger improvements seen in 3D marked statistics.
  • Other 2D marks, such as powers of local density or density-gradient weights, are suggested by the authors but untested; these could extend the method further if the dense-region signal is as informative as the paper argues.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes mark-weighted angular correlation functions (MACFs) built from two-dimensional β-cosmic-web classifications, using connection number Ncon, mean neighbor distance Dnei, and inverse mean neighbor distance 1/Dnei as marks. The method is tested on SDSS DR12 CMASS-NGC galaxies and COLA mocks with Ωm = 0.25, 0.31, and 0.4, with covariance matrices estimated from 300 PATCHY mocks. The central claim is that combining the standard 2PACF with the 1/Dnei-weighted angular correlation statistic increases Δχ² by a factor of 2–3 relative to the unweighted 2PACF alone, as quantified in Table 1. The paper also argues that the thin-redshift-slice formulation is well suited to slitless surveys such as Euclid and CSST.

Significance. If the reported gain is robust, the paper provides a timely and potentially useful extension of mark-weighted statistics to 2D angular clustering, which would be valuable for photometric and slitless surveys. The paper is transparent about its proof-of-concept nature, includes a public code link for the β-skeleton construction, and applies the method to a real SDSS sample. However, the headline quantitative claim—the factor of 2–3 improvement—rests on a single COLA mock realization per cosmological model and on a covariance matrix whose fidelity for the new mark statistics is not validated. The central result therefore needs substantial additional statistical support before the claimed sensitivity gain can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Section 4, Table 1, Eq. (17)] The factor-of-2–3 improvement in Δχ² is computed from one COLA mock realization per Ωm, and no uncertainty is quoted for the relative sensitivity r defined in Eq. (17). The six redshift shells entering Eq. (14) overlap by 80% (each shell has Δz = 0.05 and the central redshifts step by 0.01), so they are far from independent; averaging them does not reduce the noise by √6. Consequently the 229%–336% values in Table 1 are point estimates whose statistical error could be comparable to the claimed effect. I request multiple independent COLA realizations per Ωm, or at minimum a jackknife/bootstrap over mock realizations and data, with error bars reported on r and on the individual Δχ² values.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (10)–(13)] The covariance matrix used in the χ² calculation is estimated from PATCHY mocks, but the paper does not validate that PATCHY reproduces the β-skeleton connection properties (Ncon, Dnei, 1/Dnei) or the spatial correlations of these marks. The COLA mocks are validated against standard 2PCF, 3PCF, and power spectrum in the cited work, but not against the mark statistics that are the basis of the new angular correlation functions. If PATCHY's mark statistics are inaccurate, all entries of Table 1 change. I recommend adding a validation figure comparing PATCHY mark-weighted angular correlation functions with those from COLA mocks and/or the data, or computing the covariance from the same COLA simulations used for the model predictions.
  3. [Section 3.1, Figure 5; Section 4, Table 1] The text around Figure 5 states that the probability distributions of Lcon and Dnei 'lie too close to each other to reliably distinguish between different cosmological models,' yet Table 1 reports very large Δχ² differences for the Dnei- and 1/Dnei-weighted statistics. The paper should explain why statistics built from nearly identical marginal distributions can nevertheless have large discriminating power, and should demonstrate that the effect is not driven by the single-mock noise realization or by the choice of truncation threshold fcut and normalization limits a and b. As written, the apparent contradiction weakens the interpretation of the weighted-statistic gains.
  4. [Section 4, Table 1; Section 5] The concluding statement that weighting by Ncon 'provides minimal improvement' is not supported by Table 1: at Ωm = 0.4, the Ncon combination gives r = +88%, which is larger than the Dnei improvement at Ωm = 0.25 (+39%). The ranking of the statistics is therefore not stable across the two off-fiducial Ωm values. The paper should quantify the stability of the ranking and avoid a summary claim that depends on one of the two comparison points.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (9)] The relation between the angular separation θ and the comoving scale s is stated in Eq. (8) but the binning in s and θ is not given explicitly; please state the bin edges in θ for the eight bins used in the analysis.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (15)–(16)] The notation for Δχ² is confusing: Eq. (15) defines a per-shell quantity while Eq. (16) redefines it as the difference of averaged χ² values. Using distinct symbols (e.g., Δχ²_i and an averaged \(\overline{\Delta\chi^2}\)) would prevent ambiguity.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (4)] The Landy–Szalay estimator is written for the 3D quantity W(s, μ), but the actual analysis uses 2D angular correlation functions; please specify the angular estimator used for the projected shells, since this is the core methodological step.
  4. [Section 4] The sentence 'Statistically, this enhancement is equivalent to increasing our dataset by the same amount' is an overinterpretation: a λ-fold increase in Δχ² does not map directly to a λ-fold increase in survey volume unless the full covariance is rescaled in a specific way.
  5. [Section 4] There is a typo in the sentence 'we compute the mean Δχ² cross the six overlapping redshift bins'; 'cross' should be 'across'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the sensitivity gain is measured from un-fitted simulation/data comparisons; only self-citation is method provenance.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Section 2 builds the COLA/SHAM mocks; Section 3 defines the beta-skeleton weights and Equations 1-9 define the normalized weighted angular statistic w_hat(theta); Equations 10-14 compute chi-squared using a PATCHY covariance; Table 1 and Figure 10 report the Delta-chi-squared and the relative gain r. At no point is a parameter fitted to force the weighted statistic to match the data, and no equation defines the claimed sensitivity gain in terms of the input weights by construction. The beta=3 choice and the three weighting schemes are imported from Yin et al. (2024), a same-group paper, but the present 2D angular measurements are new, and the text also gives an independent data-side motivation for beta=3 via the connection-count comparison (1467 links for the CMASS data, 1467 for beta=3). The COLA mocks are validated against GADGET simulations in Ding et al. (2024), and the covariance is estimated from external PATCHY mocks, so these are independent checks rather than circular self-support. The main caveat, one COLA mock per Omega_m, heavily overlapping redshift shells, and no uncertainty on r, is a statistical robustness limitation, not evidence that the result reduces to its own inputs by construction. Therefore the central claim is self-contained in the sense required for a circularity flag; the score of 2 reflects only the minor self-citation for methodological provenance.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the method uses existing galaxy catalogs, graph-based marks, and standard cosmological simulations. The central assumptions are about mock fidelity and covariance validity rather than new physics.

free parameters (4)
  • β (beta) parameter = 3
    Controls connectivity of the β-skeleton graph and therefore all three mark weights; chosen in Section 3.1 because β=3 gives roughly one connection per galaxy and follows Yin et al. (2024). It is not fitted to the Ωm data.
  • f_cut truncation threshold = 95th percentile of 1/Dnei distribution
    Introduced in Section 3.2 to prevent divergence of the inverse neighbor-distance weight; value is data-derived from the sample and is a hand-chosen robustness parameter.
  • Normalization integration limits a and b = a=10 h^-1 Mpc, b=58 h^-1 Mpc
    Fiducial range for the normalization integral in Eq. 9; chosen as a 'conservative compromise' in Section 3.2 after examining variations.
  • Redshift slice thickness and central redshifts = Δz=0.05; zc=0.475, 0.485, 0.495, 0.505, 0.515, 0.525
    Analysis choice defining the six projected 2D shells; affects angular projection and bin correlations but is not varied in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption COLA+SHAM mocks faithfully reproduce CMASS galaxies including the β-skeleton mark distributions used for weighting.
    Section 2.2 cites Ding et al. (2024) validation for standard 2PCF, 3PCF, and power spectrum, but not for Ncon, Dnei, or their angular weighted statistics.
  • domain assumption PATCHY mocks provide an unbiased covariance matrix for the normalized weighted angular correlation functions.
    Section 2.3 and Eq. 12-13 use 300 PATCHY realizations at fixed Ωm=0.307; no validation that PATCHY reproduces the β-skeleton mark covariance.
  • standard math Flat-sky and thin-redshift-slice approximations hold for Δz=0.05 shells and θ in 0.43-2.62 degrees.
    Section 3.2, Eq. 8, states these approximations are well satisfied; standard for angular clustering analyses.
  • domain assumption Normalizing ŵ(θ) by its integral over s removes galaxy bias without removing the cosmological signal of interest.
    Section 3.2, Eq. 9; the normalization changes the meaning of the statistic and is assumed not to bias the Ωm comparison.
  • domain assumption Weights for isolated galaxies set to zero and the Landy-Szalay estimator with weighted pair counts is unbiased for MACFs.
    Section 3.2, after Eq. 3 and Eq. 4; no tests of estimator bias for marked pair counts are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Cosmological Constraints by Two-dimensional $\beta$-cosmic-web Weighted Angular Correlation Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WS27KYM6

@misc{pith2026250421509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Cosmological Constraints by Two-dimensional $\beta$-cosmic-web Weighted Angular Correlation Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WS27KYM6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21509}
}
abstract

In this study, we investigate the potential of mark-weighted angular correlation functions (MACFs), which integrate $\beta$-cosmic-web classification with angular correlation function analysis to improve cosmological constraints. Using SDSS DR12 CMASS-NGC galaxies and mock catalogs with $\Omega_m$ varying from 0.25 to 0.40, we assess the discriminative power of different statistics via the average improvement in chi-squared, $\Delta \overline{\chi^2}$, across six redshift bins. This metric quantifies how effectively each statistic distinguishes between different cosmological models. Incorporating cosmic-web weights leads to substantial improvements. Using statistics weighted by the mean neighbor distance ($\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$) increases $\Delta \overline{\chi^2}$ by approximately 40%-130%, while applying inverse mean neighbor distance weighting ($1/\bar{D}_{\rm nei}$) yields even larger gains, boosting $\Delta \overline{\chi^2}$ by a factor of 2-3 compared to traditional unweighted angular statistics. These enhancements are consistent with previous 3D clustering results, demonstrating the superior sensitivity of the $\beta$-weighted approaches. Our method, based on thin redshift slices, is particularly suited for slitless surveys (e.g., Euclid, CSST) where redshift uncertainties limit 3D analyses. This study also offers a framework for applying marked statistics to 2D angular clustering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the Right Ascension (R.A.)-Declination (Dec.) distribution of the CMASS-NGC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lune-based definition of the empty regions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual comparisons of 2D β-cosmic-webs from CMASS-NGC data, with β set to 1, 3 and 5, respec￾tively. The structures are derived from galaxies with z ∈ [0.48, 0.53]. Following Yin et al. (2024), we adopt the β = 3 results as our baseline analysis, as its topological structure closely agrees with our conceptual understanding of the cosmic web [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The β = 3 web of the CMASS-NGC galaxies and the COLA mocks with Ωm = 0.31, 0.25, 0.4. In all plots we chose galaxies with z ∈ [0.48, 0.53], R.A. ∈ [220◦ , 230◦ ] and Dec. ∈ [30◦ , 45◦ ]. By comparing the the connectivity of these webs, we find COLA simulation with Ωm =…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Although some differences are present, they are relatively minor–intuitively, the curves lie too [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the 2D β-cosmic-web weights for CMASS-NGC galaxies with β = 3, represented by circle sizes. The region spans R.A. ∈ [220◦ , 230◦ ] and Dec. ∈ [30◦ , 45◦ ]. The weights are derived from a 2D shell projected from 3D spatial data within redshift slice ∆z …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of normalized angular correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as in Figure 7, but for measurements in the redshift interval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized covariance matrix showing the correlation coefficients of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The variation of ∆χ2 as Ωm changes from 0.25 to 0.4. It reveals a minimum χ 2 min at Ωm = 0.31, distinctively lower than values at other two Ωm. Combination of 2PACF and wˆ(θ) weighted by 1/D¯ nei (represented by red squares) yields to the highest sensitivity to Ωm […

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., Ag¨ueros, M

    Abazajian, K., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ueros, M. A., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2081 2

    2003

  2. [2]

    K., Ag¨ueros, M

    Abazajian, K., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ueros, M. A., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 502 2

    2004

  3. [3]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2025, 021 3

    2025

  4. [4]

    K., Ag¨ueros, M

    Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ueros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al. 2006, ApJS, 162, 38 2 Enhancing Cosmological Constraints 17

    2006

  5. [5]

    K., Ag¨ueros, M

    Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ueros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 297 2

    2008

  6. [6]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617 2

    Alam, S., Ata, M., Bailey, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617 2

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    S., Carvalho, G

    Alcaniz, J. S., Carvalho, G. C., Bernui, A., Carvalho, J. C., & Benetti, M. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.08458 3

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    1998, Graphical Models and Image Processing, 60, 125 2

    Amenta, N., Bern, M., & Eppstein, D. 1998, Graphical Models and Image Processing, 60, 125 2

    work page 1998

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 3435 2

    Anderson, L., Aubourg, E., Bailey, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 3435 2

    2012

  2. [10]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 24 2

    Anderson, L., Aubourg, ´E., Bailey, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 24 2

    2014

  3. [11]

    M., Bond, J

    Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., & Szalay, A. S. 1986, ApJ, 304, 15 2

    1986

  4. [12]

    D., Bhavsar, S

    Barrow, J. D., Bhavsar, S. P., & Sonoda, D. H. 1985, MNRAS, 216, 17 6

    1985

  5. [13]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 3017 2

    Beutler, F., Blake, C., Colless, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3017 2

    2011

  6. [14]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 3430 2

    Beutler, F., Blake, C., Colless, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3430 2

    2012

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Beutler, F., Seo, H.-J., Ross, A. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3409 2

    2017

  8. [16]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Bolton, A. S., Schlegel, D. J., Aubourg, ´E., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 144 4

    2012

  9. [17]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603 2

    1996

  10. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2178 3

    Cao, Y ., Gong, Y ., Meng, X.-M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2178 3

    2018

  11. [19]

    C., Bernui, A., Benetti, M., Carvalho, J

    Carvalho, G. C., Bernui, A., Benetti, M., Carvalho, J. C., & Alcaniz, J. S. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 023530 3

    2016

  12. [20]

    C., Bernui, A., Benetti, M., et al

    Carvalho, G. C., Bernui, A., Benetti, M., et al. 2020, Astroparticle Physics, 119, 102432 3

    2020

  13. [21]

    2017, Phys

    Chuang, C.-H., Kitaura, F.-S., Liang, Y ., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 063528 2

    2017

  14. [22]

    2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039 2

    Colless, M., Dalton, G., Maddox, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039 2

    2001

  15. [23]

    J., Scranton, R., Johnston, D., et al

    Connolly, A. J., Scranton, R., Johnston, D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 579, 42 3

    2002

  16. [24]

    D., & Lindstrom, P

    Correa, C. D., & Lindstrom, P. 2013, Int. J. Uncertainty Quantif., 3, 187 6

    2013

  17. [25]

    F., Leistedt, B., Graham, M

    Crenshaw, J. F., Leistedt, B., Graham, M. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.06016 3

    2025

  18. [26]

    C., Bertin, E., Bolzonella, M., et al

    Cuillandre, J. C., Bertin, E., Bolzonella, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A6 3

    2025

  19. [27]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10 4 de Carvalho, E., Bernui, A., Carvalho, G. C., Novaes, C. P., & Xavier, H. S. 2018, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2018, 064 3 de Lapparent, V ., Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1986, ApJL, 302, L1 2 DESI Colla...

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 25 4, 5

    Ding, J., Li, S., Zheng, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 25 4, 5

    2024

  21. [29]

    1983, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 29, 551 2

    Edelsbrunner, H., Kirkpatrick, D., & Seidel, R. 1983, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 29, 551 2

    1983

  22. [30]

    J., Annis, J., Gunn, J

    Eisenstein, D. J., Annis, J., Gunn, J. E., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2267 4

    2001

  23. [31]

    J., Zehavi, I., Hogg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Zehavi, I., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 560 2

    2005

  24. [32]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72 4 Euclid Collaboration, Scaramella, R., Amiaux, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A112 3 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y ., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025a, A&A, 697, A1 3 Euclid Collaboration, Cropper, M. S., Al-Bahlaw...

    2011

  25. [33]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 5276 2, 9

    Fang, F., Forero-Romero, J., Rossi, G., Li, X.-D., & Feng, L.-L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5276 2, 9

    2019

  26. [34]

    Feldbrugge, J., van de Weygaert, R., Hidding, J., & Feldbrugge, J. 2018, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2018, 027 2

    2018

  27. [35]

    E., Contreras, S., & Padilla, N

    Forero-Romero, J. E., Contreras, S., & Padilla, N. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1090 2

    2014

  28. [36]

    E., Hoffman, Y ., Gottl¨ober, S., Klypin, A., & Yepes, G

    Forero-Romero, J. E., Hoffman, Y ., Gottl¨ober, S., Klypin, A., & Yepes, G. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1815 2

    2009

  29. [37]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7400 3

    Franco, C., Avila, F., & Bernui, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7400 3

    2024

  30. [38]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1146603 3 Garc´ıa-Alvarado, M

    Fu, Z.-S., Qi, Z.-X., Liao, S.-L., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 1146603 3 Garc´ıa-Alvarado, M. V ., Li, X. D., & Forero-Romero, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 498, L145 2, 9

    2023

  31. [39]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 203 3

    Gong, Y ., Liu, X., Cao, Y ., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 203 3

    2019

  32. [40]

    R., Juri´c, M., Schlegel, D., et al

    Gott, III, J. R., Juri´c, M., Schlegel, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 463 2

    2005

  33. [41]

    2014, A&A, 566, A108 2

    Guzzo, L., Scodeggio, M., Garilli, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A108 2

    2014

  34. [42]

    M., & Dekel, A

    Hahn, O., Porciani, C., Carollo, C. M., & Dekel, A. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 489 2

    2007

  35. [43]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 2049 2

    Hoffman, Y ., Metuki, O., Yepes, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2049 2

    2012

  36. [44]

    P., Macri, L

    Huchra, J. P., Macri, L. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 26 2 Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111 3

    2012

  37. [45]

    G., & Radke, J

    Kirkpatrick, D. G., & Radke, J. D. 1985, in Machine Intelligence and Pattern Recognition, V ol. 2, Computational Geometry, ed. G. T. TOUSSAINT (North-Holland), 217 6

    1985

  38. [46]

    S., Yepes, G., & Prada, F

    Kitaura, F. S., Yepes, G., & Prada, F. 2014, MNRAS, 439, L21 6

    2014

  39. [47]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 4156 4, 6

    Kitaura, F.-S., Rodr´ıguez-Torres, S., Chuang, C.-H., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4156 4, 6

    2016

  40. [48]

    1997, arXiv e-prints, astro 2

    Klypin, A., & Holtzman, J. 1997, arXiv e-prints, astro 2

    1997

  41. [49]

    R., & Knebe, A

    Knollmann, S. R., & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608 2

    2009

  42. [50]

    A., & Sen, A

    Kumar, D., Mitra, A., Adil, S. A., & Sen, A. A. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 043503 3

    2025

  43. [51]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 289512 16

    Lai, L., Ding, J., Luo, X., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 289512 16

    2024

  44. [52]

    D., & Szalay, A

    Landy, S. D., & Szalay, A. S. 1993, ApJ, 412, 64 10

    1993

  45. [53]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193 3

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193 3

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    2011, Communications in Theoretical Physics, 56, 525 16 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P

    Li, M., Li, X.-D., Wang, S., & Wang, Y . 2011, Communications in Theoretical Physics, 56, 525 16 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201 3

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 1844 3

    Luo, Z., Li, Y ., Lu, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1844 3

    2024

  48. [56]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.04228 3

    Massara, E., Hahn, C., Eickenberg, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.04228 3

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2012, Phys

    Parkinson, D., Riemer-Sørensen, S., Blake, C., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 103518 2

    2012

  50. [58]

    J., Cole, S., Eisenstein, D

    Percival, W. J., Cole, S., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1053 2

    2007

  51. [59]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 565 16 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565 16 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13 5

    1999

  52. [60]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009 16 Rodr´ıguez-Torres, S. A., Chuang, C.-H., Prada, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1173 6

    1998

  53. [61]

    J., Samushia, L., Howlett, C., et al

    Ross, A. J., Samushia, L., Howlett, C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 835 2 Enhancing Cosmological Constraints 19 S´anchez, A. G., Sc´occola, C. G., Ross, A. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 415 2 S´anchez, A. G., Kazin, E. A., Beutler, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1202 2 S´anchez, A. ...

    2015

  54. [62]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 2148 3

    Satpathy, S., A C Croft, R., Ho, S., & Li, B. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2148 3

    2019

  55. [63]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12621 16

    Shi, F., Wang, Z., Yang, X., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12621 16

  56. [64]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, 350 2

    Sousbie, T. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 350 2

    2011

  57. [65]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726 2

    2001

  58. [66]

    L., Zhai, Z., et al

    Storey-Fisher, K., Tinker, J. L., Zhai, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 208 3 Su´arez-P´erez, J. F., Camargo, Y ., Li, X.-D., & Forero-Romero, J. E. 2021a, ApJ, 922, 204 2 Su´arez-P´erez, J. F., Camargo, Y ., Li, X.-D., & Forero-Romero, J. E. 2021b, ApJ, 922, 204 2

    2024

  59. [67]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 395 3

    Sui, J., Zou, H., Yang, X., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 395 3

    2025

  60. [68]

    Tassev, S., Zaldarriaga, M., & Eisenstein, D. J. 2013, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2013, 036 4

    2013

  61. [69]

    R., Strauss, M

    Tegmark, M., Blanton, M. R., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 702 2

    2004

  62. [70]

    J., & Ross, K

    Venville, B., Parkinson, D., Hurley-Walker, N., Galvin, T. J., & Ross, K. 2024, PASA, 41, e070 3

    2024

  63. [71]

    J., & Dolence, J

    Wang, Y ., Brunner, R. J., & Dolence, J. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1961 3

    2013

  64. [72]

    H., Mortonson, M

    Weinberg, D. H., Mortonson, M. J., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2013, Phys. Rep., 530, 87 16

    2013

  65. [73]

    1989, Reviews of Modern Physics, 61, 1 16

    Weinberg, S. 1989, Reviews of Modern Physics, 61, 1 16

    1989

  66. [74]

    White, M. 2016, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2016, 057 3

    2016

  67. [75]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 3 3

    Wu, Y .-W., & Xia, J.-Q. 2025, ApJ, 979, 3 3

    2025

  68. [76]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 6253 3

    Xiao, L., Huang, Z., Zheng, Y ., Wang, X., & Li, X.-D. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6253 3

    2023

  69. [77]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 595 3, 16

    Xiao, X., Yang, Y ., Luo, X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 595 3, 16

    2022

  70. [78]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 5 3

    Xu, T., Cai, Y .-C., Chen, Y ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 5 3

    2025

  71. [79]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 6 3, 16

    Yang, Y ., Miao, H., Ma, Q., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 6 3, 16

    2020

  72. [80]

    2024, Phys

    Yin, F., Ding, J., Lai, L., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 123537 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15

    2024

  73. [81]

    2012, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 21, 1230002 16

    Yoo, J., & Watanabe, Y . 2012, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 21, 1230002 16

    2012

  74. [82]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 2

    2000

  75. [83]

    2011, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 41, 1441 3

    Zhan, H. 2011, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 41, 1441 3

    2011

  76. [84]

    2021, Chinese Science Bulletin, 66, 1290 3

    Zhan, H. 2021, Chinese Science Bulletin, 66, 1290 3

    2021

  77. [85]

    2002, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing, 2002

    Zhang, W., & King, I. 2002, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing, 2002. ICONIP ’02., V ol. 3 (IEEE), 1423 2

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.