Meta-Calibration of the Cosmic Magnification Coefficient: Toward Unbiased Weak Lensing Reconstruction by Counting Galaxies

Haojie Xu; Huanyuan Shan; Jian Qin; Ji Yao; Liping Fu; Pengjie Zhang; Yuan Shi; Yu Yu; Zhu Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 47 references

Meta-Calibration of the Cosmic Magnification Coefficient: Toward Unbiased Weak Lensing Reconstruction by Counting Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Correcting photo-$z$ selection brings count-based lensing maps to unbiased amplitude

desk verdict A worthwhile method for calibrating photo-z selection in cosmic magnification, but the 'A≈1' headline overstates what the data and the flux-only calibration can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16420 v1 pith:L5UWUBBD submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.CO

Jian Qin , Pengjie Zhang , Zhu Chen , Liping Fu , Yu Yu , Haojie Xu , Ji Yao , Yuan Shi

show 1 more author

Huanyuan Shan

This is my paper

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords cosmicmagnificationweaklensingconvergencereconstructioncoefficientphotometricredshiftselectionRandomForestphoto-zfunctioncalibrationDESDECaLS

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 claims that the flux-limited approximation used to compute the cosmic magnification coefficient $g$ is not accurate for real, photometric-redshift-selected galaxy samples, and that this inaccuracy is what made previously reconstructed lensing convergence maps come out with wrong amplitudes. The authors re-run a Random Forest photo-$z$ estimator on DES and DECaLS galaxies with a known magnification boost applied to the $g$-, $r$-, and $z$-band fluxes, measure how the selection function changes, and use that derivative to correct $g$. With the corrected coefficient, the reconstructed map amplitude $A$ converges to about 1 when the magnitude cuts are shifted 0.8 magnitudes brighter than the luminosity-function peak, across every survey and redshift bin tested. If this is right, count-based weak lensing reconstruction can deliver unbiased convergence maps without relying on a flux-limited assumption.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a meta-calibration of the magnification coefficient. Starting from the relation $\delta_{\rm mag} = g\kappa$ with $g = (1/N_{\rm sel}) \int d\mathbf{F}\, (\partial S/\partial\kappa)\, N(\mathbf{F}) - 2$, the authors compute the selection derivative numerically by rerunning their Random Forest photo-$z$ estimator on the same galaxies with and without a constant magnification $\delta\kappa = \pm 0.05$ applied to the $g$, $r$, and $z$ fluxes, then count how many galaxies shift across photo-$z$ and magnitude bins. The corrected $g_i$ values feed the linear internal-combination estimator $\hat\kappa = \sum_i w_i \delta_i^L$, with weights fixed by $\sum_i w_i g_i = 1$, $\sum_i w_i = 0$, and minimal shot noise; the amplitude $A$ and residual clustering $\epsilon$ are then constrained by cross-correlating $\hat\kappa$ with cosmic shear and comparing against a fiducial cosmological model.

What would settle it

Run the same selection-response simulation with half-light radius and axis ratio also boosted by a magnification-like factor, as image-injection simulations would provide, and re-derive $A$ at $\Delta m = -0.8$; if $A$ moves away from 1 by more than the quoted uncertainties, the flux-and-photo-$z$ only selection model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that photometric-redshift selection produces a measurable, sizable response of the magnification coefficient to lensing: because the photo-$z$ estimator uses flux-dependent colors and magnitudes, magnification shifts galaxies across photo-$z$ bin boundaries, and this shift changes the number of selected galaxies in a way that the flux-limited formula misses. Neglecting this photo-$z$ induced selection makes the amplitude $A$ of the reconstructed convergence map deviate by amounts ranging from 0.4 to 3.5, depending on survey, redshift bin, and magnitude cut. Including it, via a meta-calibration that re-estimates photo-$z$ on flux-boosted catalogs with $\delta\kappa = \pm 0.05$, reduces the bias so that $A \approx 1$ at $\Delta m = -0.8$ for DES and DECaLS alike; residual deviations remain at fainter cuts, which the authors attribute to selection channels not captured by flux and photo-$z$ alone, such as size, morphology, imaging quality, and detection failures.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes that cosmic magnification changes a survey's galaxy selection only through the $g$, $r$, and $z$ fluxes and the photo-$z$ values computed from them, not through galaxy size, shape, or detection completeness, and that one constant flux boost $\delta\kappa = \pm 0.05$ stands in for the real magnification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At magnitude cuts $\Delta m = -0.8$, DES and DECaLS convergence maps reconstructed with the corrected coefficient have amplitude $A \approx 1$, so their overall normalization no longer needs an empirical recalibration against shear.
Flux-only magnification coefficients are inadequate for photo-$z$ selected samples; any count-based lensing measurement must account for the photo-$z$ selection response or it will mis-calibrate the map amplitude.
The same meta-calibration procedure works for any photo-$z$ estimator, not only Random Forest, so it can be ported to other surveys and to future photometric redshift algorithms.
At fainter magnitude cuts ($-0.7 \le \Delta m \le 0$) residual $A$ biases persist, indicating that photo-$z$ selection is not the only selection effect and that size, shape, imaging-quality, and detection-completeness selections must be modeled next.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: this selection-response meta-calibration could be combined with image-injection simulations that also boost galaxy size and morphology, potentially removing the residual biases at faint magnitude cuts rather than requiring bright cuts.
Editorial inference: earlier versions of this reconstruction that used the flux-only coefficient carry amplitude biases of order 1.2 to 3.5, so previously published count-based lensing cross-correlation results may need re-interpretation once recalibrated.
Editorial extension: a redshift-dependent magnification boost, rather than the constant $\delta\kappa$ used here, could test whether the $A \approx 1$ convergence at $\Delta m = -0.8$ is robust to the assumed lensing signal along the line of sight.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a real, useful step for count-based lensing reconstruction. The new piece is the finite-difference calibration of the magnification coefficient that re-runs a Random Forest photo-z on fluxes boosted by δκ, so the photo-z selection itself is included in g rather than assumed flux-limited. The external check against shear cross-correlation and Planck is the right way to test it, and the paper shows convincingly that flux-only g is badly biased (A from 0.4 to 3.5). At the brightest cuts (Δm=-0.8) the corrected A lands within ~1σ of unity in most bins, which is genuinely encouraging.

The soft spots are in the strength of the headline claim. First, the calibration models only the flux response. The RF photo-z in Zhou et al. uses half-light radius and axis ratio; those are dropped here because their magnification response isn't available. The paper is upfront that this is a limitation for the fainter cuts, but it still claims success at Δm=-0.8 without arguing that size/morphology selection becomes negligible there. It might be negligible, but the data don't show it. The A error bars at the bright end are 0.07–0.32, so a 10–20% residual selection bias cannot be excluded. Second, at default cuts the correction does not always help: DES z=0.6–0.8 goes from A=1.44 (flux-only) to 1.66 (corrected), and DECaLS 0.5–0.8 from 2.35 to 2.53. The paper says biases are 'moderately reduced' there, but in these cases the correction moves the wrong way. Third, the text claims χ2/d.o.f~1 throughout, but DECaLS 0.8–1.2 at Δm=0 has 3.2. Minor: no code or data release, so the exact RF configuration is not independently reproducible.

Overall: the method is a legitimate advance, the validation is external, and the authors are honest about residual systematics at fainter cuts. The central mechanism is demonstrated. The overreach is in claiming 'converges to ~1' across all bins when one bin is 1.19±0.32 and the morphology response is untested. This deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review and ask for a tempering of the claim and either a morphology-response estimate or a clear statement that the bright-cut success is conditional on that response being subdominant.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'meta-calibration' of the cosmic magnification coefficient g by explicitly modeling the selection effect induced by photometric redshift (photo-z) estimation. Using a Random Forest photo-z trained on DES/DECaLS DR9 data, the authors rerun the photo-z on fluxes boosted by a constant convergence δκ=±0.05, and recompute the magnification coefficient for each flux bin including both flux and photo-z selection. This corrected g is then used in the linear convergence reconstruction of Qin et al., and the reconstructed κ maps are cross-correlated with shear to fit an overall amplitude A. The paper reports that at bright magnitude cuts (Δm=-0.8), A converges to ~1 across DES and DECaLS redshift bins, whereas the previous flux-only g yields A values deviating from unity by up to a factor of ~3.5. The authors conclude that photo-z selection is a major source of bias and that accounting for it is critical for unbiased count-based lensing reconstruction.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper addresses a real and important systematic in count-based weak lensing reconstruction: the selection response of photo-z algorithms to magnification. The cross-survey consistency (DES vs DECaLS) and the use of an external shear/Planck calibration (rather than fitting g to A) are genuine strengths. The paper is also honest about what is not modeled: it explicitly states that morphological features are excluded from the photo-z response and that other selection effects (size, shape, detection completeness) remain unaccounted for. However, the headline claim that the corrected estimator yields 'unbiased' reconstructions is not fully supported by the data: at the bright cuts where A~1, the uncertainties are typically 5-30%, and the omitted size/detection response could plausibly shift A by a comparable amount. The work is a useful step, but the generality of the unbiased-reconstruction claim needs to be either demonstrated with simulations or substantially qualified.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II.A and IV, Tables II-III] The central calibration of the selection response omits morphological features (half-light radius, axis ratio, shape probability) because their magnification response is unavailable, as stated in Sec. II.A. Yet the actual survey selection and the Zhou et al. photo-z include these features, and magnification changes galaxy sizes and surface brightness. The headline result that A converges to ~1 at Δm=-0.8 rests on the untested assumption that flux plus the RF photo-z (trained without morphology) captures the full selection response. The external shear check does not rule out residual bias: for example, at Δm=-0.8 the DECaLS z=0.5-0.8 bin gives A=1.19±0.32 and the DES z=0.4-0.6 bin gives A=1.12±0.25, both consistent with unity at only ~1σ or less. The precision is insufficient to exclude a 10-20% residual bias from the omitted size/detection selection. The paper should either validate the g estimate with image simulations (e.g., Balrog-type mocks) or restrict the 'unbiased' conclusion to the flux+photo-z selection model, explicitly acknowledging that the full selection response has not been measured.
[Sec. II.B and Eq. (1)] The finite-difference calibration applies a constant δκ=±0.05 to all galaxies and reruns the RF photo-z. This captures the derivative of the selection function with respect to flux, but not the joint response of the selection to magnification-induced changes in photometric noise, size, or detection probability. The statement that the numerical calculation converges for |δκ|<0.1 verifies only the stability of the finite-difference derivative, not the accuracy of the modeled selection response. Because Eq. (1) requires the full derivative ∂S/∂κ, the computed g is at best a partial response. This is a load-bearing limitation for the claimed unbiasedness of the reconstruction at bright cuts, and it should be quantified or explicitly incorporated into the error budget.
[Sec. IV and abstract] The abstract concludes that the improved estimator leads to 'unbiased weak lensing reconstructions,' but the tables show that at the default magnitude cuts (Δm=0) the improved g often leaves A far from unity, and in some cases makes it worse than the flux-only estimate (e.g., DES z=0.6-0.8 Δm=0: improved A=1.66±0.12 vs flux-only 1.44±0.10; DES z=0.8-1.0 Δm=0: improved 0.53±0.04 vs flux-only 0.41±0.03). The paper itself acknowledges 'significant biases persist across all cases' at default cuts. The convergence to A≈1 occurs only at the brightest cuts, and even there the statistical significance is moderate. The claim should be tempered to 'reduces multiplicative bias' rather than 'unbiased,' unless the authors provide a more stringent test of residual bias at Δm=-0.8.

minor comments (3)

[Table II caption] The caption uses 'δm = -0.8' in the header; this should be 'Δm = -0.8' for consistency with the text and Fig. 4.
[Fig. 4 caption] The fifth panel label 'DESaLS' is a typo; it should be 'DECaLS'.
[Sec. II.A and Fig. 2] The magnitude limits for the sample selection are stated differently in the text ('gmag < 24.0 or rmag < 23.0 or zmag < 22.5') and Fig. 2 ('zmag < 21.0' for the truth catalog). Please define all selection thresholds precisely and consistently, since the magnification coefficient depends on the actual cuts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photo-z selection response is calibrated by forward-modeling delta-kappa through the RF photo-z, and the headline A~1 is validated against an external Planck-based shear template, not fitted.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is not circular. Sec. II.B-II.C computes the magnification coefficient g from Eq. (1) by rerunning the Random Forest photo-z on photometry boosted by delta-kappa = +/-0.05, i.e., a finite-difference estimate of dS/dkappa for S = (flux cut, photo-z bin). This step uses only the RF estimator and galaxy photometry; it does not use the shear cross-correlation or the amplitude A. The reconstruction (Sec. III) then solves for weights w_i from the constraints (3)-(4) and shot-noise minimization (5), and A is measured by comparing the reconstructed kappa-shear cross-correlation to Planck-2018 theory (Eq. (7)). Because the calibration input (g from RF response) is independent of the validation output (A from shear), the central claim does not reduce to its inputs. The same RF defining and calibrating the photo-z selection is internally consistent rather than circular: it models how a fixed estimator responds to magnification. The paper's explicit caveats are scope limitations, not circularity: Sec. II.A states morphological features are excluded because 'the impact of magnification on the morphological information is not available in the current dataset,' and Sec. IV concedes that for fainter cuts 'other factors, such as galaxy size, shape, imaging quality, and instrument or redshift failures, may contribute to additional selection effects.' These passages weaken generality but do not make the A~1 result definitionally forced. Self-citations to the authors' earlier reconstruction papers [1,2] supply the pipeline and baseline, but the validation here is externally falsifiable via the Planck shear template; the score is therefore low (1) rather than 0 only to acknowledge the heavy reliance on the prior pipeline and the same-group photo-z code, neither of which constitutes circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are analysis choices (δκ step, magnitude cuts), and the axioms are standard cosmological and weak-lensing assumptions plus the paper-specific premise that the RF photo-z response to a constant flux boost is the correct selection response.

free parameters (2)

finite-difference magnification step δκ = 0.05 (±0.05 for symmetric difference)
Chosen by hand to compute dS/dκ; the paper states the numerical g is stable for |δκ|<0.1, but the actual step used in the main calculation is an analysis choice, not a fit to the target A.
Default magnitude cuts and photo-z bins (Table I) = g/r/z cuts per bin (e.g., DES 0.4-0.6: 22.5/22.0/21.5)
Adopted from prior work based on the luminosity function peak; these choices determine the size of the photo-z selection bias and are hand-tuned rather than derived from first principles.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The linear relation δ^mag = g κ (Eq. 1) captures the magnification signal to first order.
Standard weak-lensing Taylor expansion; the paper relies on it for the estimator design (Sec. II.B, Eq. 1).
domain assumption Planck 2018 ΛCDM provides the correct theoretical ξ^{κγ} used to measure A.
The amplitude A is defined as the ratio of measured to Planck-based cross-correlation; any cosmology dependence in the template propagates into A (Sec. III, Eq. 7).
ad hoc to paper The Random Forest photo-z trained on the Zhou et al. truth catalog represents the survey photo-z selection, with morphology neglected.
The paper uses its own RF photo-z for both binning and calibration; the absence of morphological inputs is stated in Sec. II.A and is a premise for the g calculation.
domain assumption Applying a constant δκ to all galaxies approximates the redshift-dependent magnification response of the source sample.
The finite-difference calibration (Sec. II.B) boosts every galaxy's flux by the same factor; real magnification varies with source redshift, and the resulting error is not quantified.
ad hoc to paper The survey detection completeness is fully captured by step-function magnitude cuts and photo-z bins.
The selection model ignores detection completeness, seeing, and other pipeline effects; the paper itself attributes residual biases at faint cuts to such effects (Sec. IV).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Meta-Calibration of the Cosmic Magnification Coefficient: Toward Unbiased Weak Lensing Reconstruction by Counting Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L5UWUBBD

@misc{pith2026250516420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Meta-Calibration of the Cosmic Magnification Coefficient: Toward Unbiased Weak Lensing Reconstruction by Counting Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L5UWUBBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16420}
}

abstract

Weak lensing alters galaxy sizes and fluxes, influencing the clustering patterns of galaxies through cosmic magnification. This effect enables the reconstruction of weak lensing convergence $\hat{\kappa}$ maps for DES and DECaLS by linearly combining galaxy overdensities across magnitude bins in the $g$, $r$, and $z$ photometry bands \citep{Qin+,Qin2+}. In this study, we enhance the lensing reconstruction method by addressing biases in the magnification coefficient estimation, which arise from incomplete consideration of selection effects, especially those induced by photometric redshift (photo-$z$) selection. Using a Random Forest-based photo-$z$ estimation for DECaLS and DES galaxies, we quantify the impact of photo-$z$ induced selection on magnification coefficient estimation. Our results show that neglecting photo-$z$ selection introduces significant biases in the magnification coefficient, leading to deviations in the reconstructed convergence map amplitude $A$, with values ranging from 0.4 to 3.5 depending on the survey, redshift, and magnitude cuts. By incorporating an improved magnification coefficient estimation that accounts for photo-$z$ selection, these biases are significantly reduced, with $A$ converging to $\sim 1$ as the magnitude cuts approach optimal values. This improvement is consistently observed across DES and DECaLS datasets and redshift bins, despite differences in survey strategies and depths. Our findings highlight the importance of addressing photo-$z$ induced selection to achieve unbiased weak lensing reconstructions and accurate cosmic magnification measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16420 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** shows the relationship between photo-𝑧 and spec- 𝑧 for 𝑧mag < 21.0 objects in the truth catalog in the DR9 South region. The photo-𝑧 scatter, quantified as 𝜎NMAD = 1.48× median(|𝑧phot − 𝑧spec |/(1 + 𝑧spec)), is 0.023. The outlier rate, defined as the fraction of objects with |𝑧phot − 𝑧spec |/(1 + 𝑧spec) > 0.1, is 1.74%. These values are comparable to the photo-𝑧 estimation results for 𝑧mag < 21.0 galaxies of the DR8… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Normalized redshift distributions of DR9 South galaxies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Magnification coefficient estimations for DES (top) and DECaLS (bottom) galaxies across flux bins in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

J. Qin, P. Zhang, H. Xu, Y. Yu, J. Yao, R. Ma, and H. Shan, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2310.15053 (2023), 2310.15053

arXiv 2023
[2]

J. Qin, P. Zhang, Y. Yu, H. Xu, J. Yao, Y. Shi, and H. Shan, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2412.00829 (2024), 2412.00829

arXiv 2024
[3]

Bartelmann and P

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

arXiv 2001
[4]

Kilbinger, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 086901 (2015), 1411.0115

M. Kilbinger, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 086901 (2015), 1411.0115

arXiv 2015
[5]

Hamana, M

T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, S. Miyazaki, C. Hikage, M. Oguri, S. More, R. Armstrong, A. Leauthaud, R. Mandelbaum, H. Miy- atake, et al., PASJ 72, 16 (2020), 1906.06041

arXiv 2020
[6]

Asgari, C.-A

M. Asgari, C.-A. Lin, B. Joachimi, B. Giblin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, A. Kannawadi, B. St¨olzner, T. Tr¨oster, J. L. van den Busch, et al., A&A 645, A104 (2021), 2007.15633

arXiv 2021
[7]

Giblin, C

B. Giblin, C. Heymans, M. Asgari, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi, A. Kannawadi, K. Kuijken, C.-A. Lin, L. Miller, et al., A&A 645, A105 (2021), 2007.01845

arXiv 2021
[8]

Loureiro, L

A. Loureiro, L. Whittaker, A. Spurio Mancini, B. Joachimi, A. Cuceu, M. Asgari, B. St ¨olzner, T. Tr ¨oster, A. H. Wright, M. Bilicki, et al., A&A 665, A56 (2022), 2110.06947

arXiv 2022

Show all 47 references

[9]

A. Amon, D. Gruen, M. A. Troxel, N. MacCrann, S. Do- delson, A. Choi, C. Doux, L. F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, et al. (DES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023514 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.105.023514

2022
[10]

L. F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, M. Raveri, A. Campos, A. Amon, A. Chen, C. Doux, et al. (DES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D105, 023515 (2022), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023515

2022 doi
[11]

X. Li, T. Zhang, S. Sugiyama, R. Dalal, M. M. Rau, R. Mandel- baum, M. Takada, S. More, M. A. Strauss, H. Miyatake, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2304.00702 (2023), 2304.00702

2023 arXiv
[12]

Abbott, F

Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, T. Abbott, F. B. Abdalla, J. Aleksi ´c, S. Allam, A. Amara, D. Bacon, E. Balbinot, M. Banerji, K. Bechtol, et al., MNRAS 460, 1270 (2016), 1601.00329

2016 arXiv
[13]

J. T. A. de Jong, G. A. Verdoes Kleijn, K. H. Kuijken, and E. A. Valentijn, Experimental Astronomy35, 25 (2013), 1206.1254

2013 arXiv
[14]

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
[15]

LSST Science Collaboration, P. A. Abell, J. Allison, S. F. An- derson, J. R. Andrew, J. R. P. Angel, L. Armus, D. Arnett, S. J. Asztalos, T. S. Axelrod, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:0912.0201 (2009), 0912.0201

2009 arXiv
[16]

Laureijs, J

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

2011 arXiv
[17]

Y. Gong, X. Liu, Y. Cao, X. Chen, Z. Fan, R. Li, X.-D. Li, Z. Li, X. Zhang, and H. Zhan, ApJ 883, 203 (2019), 1901.04634

2019 arXiv
[18]

J. Yao, H. Shan, R. Li, Y. Xu, D. Fan, D. Liu, P. Zhang, Y. Yu, C. Wei, B. Hu, et al., MNRAS 527, 5206 (2024), 2304.04489

2024 arXiv
[19]

A. H. Bauer, E. Gazta ˜naga, P. Mart ´ı, and R. Miquel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 440, 3701 (2014), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/440/4/3701/3913172/stu530.pdf, URL https: //app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub. 1059915677

2014
[20]

Bellagamba, M

F. Bellagamba, M. Sereno, M. Roncarelli, M. Maturi, M. Radovich, S. Bardelli, E. Puddu, L. Moscardini, F. Getman, H. Hildebrandt, et al., MNRAS 484, 1598 (2019), 1810.02827

2019 arXiv
[21]

I. Chiu, J. P. Dietrich, J. Mohr, D. E. Applegate, B. A. Ben- son, L. E. Bleem, M. B. Bayliss, S. Bocquet, J. E. Carlstrom, R. Capasso, et al., MNRAS 457, 3050 (2016), 1510.01745

2016 arXiv
[22]

I. N. Chiu, K. Umetsu, R. Murata, E. Medezinski, and M. Oguri, MNRAS 495, 428 (2020), 1909.02042

2020 arXiv
[23]

Scranton, B

R. Scranton, B. M ´enard, G. T. Richards, R. C. Nichol, A. D. Myers, B. Jain, A. Gray, M. Bartelmann, R. J. Brunner, A. J. Connolly, et al., ApJ 633, 589 (2005), astro-ph/0504510

2005 arXiv
[24]

A. H. Bauer, C. Baltay, N. Ellman, J. Jerke, D. Rabinowitz, and R. Scalzo, ApJ 749, 56 (2012), 1202.1371

2012 arXiv
[25]

C. B. Morrison, R. Scranton, B. M ´enard, S. J. Schmidt, J. A. Tyson, R. Ryan, A. Choi, and D. M. Wittman, MNRAS 426, 2489 (2012), 1204.2830

2012 arXiv
[26]

Tudorica, H

A. Tudorica, H. Hildebrandt, M. Tewes, H. Hoekstra, C. B. Morrison, A. Muzzin, G. Wilson, H. K. C. Yee, C. Lidman, A. Hicks, et al., A&A 608, A141 (2017), 1710.06431

2017 arXiv
[27]

Bonavera, M

L. Bonavera, M. M. Cueli, J. Gonz ´alez-Nuevo, T. Ronconi, M. Migliaccio, A. Lapi, J. M. Casas, and D. Crespo, A&A656, A99 (2021), 2109.12413

2021 arXiv
[28]

Crespo, J

D. Crespo, J. Gonz ´alez-Nuevo, L. Bonavera, M. M. Cueli, J. M. Casas, and E. Goitia, A&A 667, A146 (2022), 2210.17318

2022 arXiv
[29]

Zhang and U.-L

P. Zhang and U.-L. Pen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 241302 (2005), astro-ph/0506740

2005 arXiv
[30]

Yang and P

X. Yang and P. Zhang, MNRAS 415, 3485 (2011), 1105.2385

2011 arXiv
[31]

Zhang, J

P. Zhang, J. Zhang, and L. Zhang, MNRAS 484, 1616 (2019)

2019
[32]

X. Yang, P. Zhang, J. Zhang, and Y. Yu, MNRAS 447, 345 (2015)

2015
[33]

X. Yang, J. Zhang, Y. Yu, and P. Zhang, ApJ 845, 174 (2017), 1703.01575

2017 arXiv
[34]

Zhang, X

P. Zhang, X. Yang, J. Zhang, and Y. Yu, ApJ 864, 10 (2018), 1807.00443. 7

2018 arXiv
[35]

S.-T. Hou, Y. Yu, and P.-J. Zhang, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 21, 247 (2021), 2106.09970

2021 arXiv
[36]

R. Ma, P. Zhang, Y. Yu, and J. Qin, MNRAS527, 7547 (2024), 2306.15177

2024 arXiv
[37]

Bonoli and U

S. Bonoli and U. L. Pen, MNRAS396, 1610 (2009), 0810.0273

2009 arXiv
[38]

Hamaus, U

N. Hamaus, U. Seljak, V. Desjacques, R. E. Smith, and T. Bal- dauf, Phys. Rev. D82, 043515 (2010), 1004.5377

2010 arXiv
[39]

Baldauf, R

T. Baldauf, R. E. Smith, U. Seljak, and R. Mandelbaum, Phys. Rev. D81, 063531 (2010), 0911.4973

2010 arXiv
[40]

von Wietersheim Kramsta, B

M. von Wietersheim Kramsta, B. Joachimi, J. L. van den Busch, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, M. Asgari, T. Tr’oster, S. Unruh, and A. H. Wright, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 504, 1452–1465 (2021), URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stab1000

2021 doi
[41]

Elvin-Poole, N

J. Elvin-Poole, N. MacCrann, S. Everett, J. Prat, E. S. Rykoff, J. De Vicente, B. Yanny, K. Herner, A. Fert ´e, E. D. Valentino, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 523, 3649 (2023), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/523/3/3649/5...

2023 doi
[42]

Wenzl, S.-F

L. Wenzl, S.-F. Chen, and R. Bean, MNRAS 527, 1760 (2024), 2308.05892

2024 arXiv
[43]

R. Zhou, J. A. Newman, Y.-Y. Mao, A. Meisner, J. Moustakas, A. D. Myers, A. Prakash, A. R. Zentner, D. Brooks, Y. Duan, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 501, 3309 (2021)

2021
[44]

Joachimi and S

B. Joachimi and S. L. Bridle, A&A 523, A1 (2010), 0911.2454

2010 arXiv
[45]

G. M. Bernstein, ApJ 695, 652 (2009), 0808.3400

2009 arXiv
[46]

Elvin-Poole, N

J. Elvin-Poole, N. MacCrann, S. Everett, J. Prat, E. S. Rykoff, J. De Vicente, B. Yanny, K. Herner, A. Fert ´e, E. Di Valentino, et al., MNRAS 523, 3649 (2023), 2209.09782

2023 arXiv
[47]

Everett, B

S. Everett, B. Yanny, N. Kuropatkin, E. M. Huff, Y. Zhang, J. Myles, A. Masegian, J. Elvin-Poole, S. Allam, G. M. Bern- stein, et al., ApJS 258, 15 (2022), 2012.12825. 8

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. Qin, P. Zhang, H. Xu, Y. Yu, J. Yao, R. Ma, and H. Shan, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2310.15053 (2023), 2310.15053

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

J. Qin, P. Zhang, Y. Yu, H. Xu, J. Yao, Y. Shi, and H. Shan, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2412.00829 (2024), 2412.00829

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Bartelmann and P

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

arXiv 2001

[4] [4]

Kilbinger, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 086901 (2015), 1411.0115

M. Kilbinger, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 086901 (2015), 1411.0115

arXiv 2015

[5] [5]

Hamana, M

T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, S. Miyazaki, C. Hikage, M. Oguri, S. More, R. Armstrong, A. Leauthaud, R. Mandelbaum, H. Miy- atake, et al., PASJ 72, 16 (2020), 1906.06041

arXiv 2020

[6] [6]

Asgari, C.-A

M. Asgari, C.-A. Lin, B. Joachimi, B. Giblin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, A. Kannawadi, B. St¨olzner, T. Tr¨oster, J. L. van den Busch, et al., A&A 645, A104 (2021), 2007.15633

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

Giblin, C

B. Giblin, C. Heymans, M. Asgari, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi, A. Kannawadi, K. Kuijken, C.-A. Lin, L. Miller, et al., A&A 645, A105 (2021), 2007.01845

arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Loureiro, L

A. Loureiro, L. Whittaker, A. Spurio Mancini, B. Joachimi, A. Cuceu, M. Asgari, B. St ¨olzner, T. Tr ¨oster, A. H. Wright, M. Bilicki, et al., A&A 665, A56 (2022), 2110.06947

arXiv 2022