Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Probing dipolar power asymmetry with galaxy clustering and intrinsic alignments

T0 review · 1 major / 6 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 The clustering–intrinsic-alignment cross-spectrum can carry up to half of the constraining power of galaxy clustering for a primordial dipole modulation.

desk verdict A well-specified incremental forecast: the P_gE cross-spectrum genuinely adds constraining power, but the Euclid headline relies on an LRG-calibrated IA amplitude that overstates ELG alignment by a large factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19941 v1 pith:4RPSTSIW submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Keita Minato , Atsushi Taruya , Teppei Okumura , Maresuke Shiraishi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords dipolarmodulationprimordialpowerasymmetryintrinsicalignmentsgalaxyclusteringFisherforecastBipoSHdecompositionlarge-scalestructurestatisticalisotropy
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 tests whether galaxy shapes can sharpen constraints on a dipolar modulation of the primordial power spectrum, a possible source of the CMB hemispherical asymmetry. Using a Fisher forecast built from Bipolar Spherical Harmonics coefficients, the authors compare the galaxy clustering spectrum, the intrinsic-alignment (IA) spectrum, and their cross-spectrum for Euclid and DESI-like surveys. They find that IA alone helps little, but the density–IA cross-spectrum can carry up to half the constraining power of galaxy clustering, particularly for low-bias, high-number-density surveys such as Euclid. They also show that marginalizing over galaxy and IA bias parameters barely weakens the forecast as long as the modulation amplitude is small. If correct, this gives observers an independent large-scale-structure probe that could rival CMB limits on the anomaly and serve as a systematics check.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bipolar Spherical Harmonics (BipoSH) basis $X^{LM}_{\ell\ell'}(\hat{k},\hat{n})=\{Y_\ell(\hat{k})\otimes Y_{\ell'}(\hat{n})\}_{LM}$, which expands the anisotropic auto- and cross-power spectra $P_{XY}(k,\hat{n})$ simultaneously in the Fourier direction $\hat{k}$ and the line-of-sight $\hat{n}$. A dipolar modulation generates non-vanishing BipoSH coefficients only for the multipole pairs $(\ell,\ell')=(0,1),(2,1),(2,3),(4,3),(4,5)$, and the Fisher matrix (Eq. 28) inverts the covariance of these coefficients, with the covariance kernel $\Theta$ (Eq. 27) encoding shot noise, shape noise, and the Legendre coefficients of $P_{gg}$, $P_{gE}$, and $P_{EE}$. This machinery turns the question 'how well can surveys measure a dipole in the power spectrum?' into a direct numerical forecast for $\Delta A_{1M}$.

What would settle it

Measure the IA signal from Euclid or DESI data and test the linear alignment prediction: if the inferred $b_K(z)$ or $A_{IA}$ deviates substantially from $A_{IA}=18$, or if the E-mode spectrum shows scale dependence on the scales used ($k\lesssim0.1\,h/{\rm Mpc}$), then the forecast for $P_{gE}$ must be revised. Alternatively, repeat the Fisher calculation with $A_{IA}$ free in each redshift bin and check whether the $P_{gE}$-only error on $A_{1M}$ ceases to be within a factor of two of the $P_{gg}$-only error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the dipolar-modulation amplitude $A_{1M}$ can be constrained not only by the galaxy-galaxy power spectrum $P_{gg}$ but also by the cross-spectrum $P_{gE}$ between galaxy density and intrinsic ellipticity, which in Euclid-like configurations carries up to about half the Fisher information of $P_{gg}$. The IA auto-spectrum $P_{EE}$ and the full combination of all three spectra improve the constraint only mildly, so the paper's headline result is the cross-spectrum as an almost independent estimator. This is derived from the BipoSH expansion of the anisotropic power spectra, where the dipole modulation produces non-vanishing coefficients at specific multipole pairs, and from a Fisher matrix that inverts the covariance of these coefficients including shot noise and shape noise. The forecasts are evaluated for both a scale-independent modulation and a scale-dependent one with $f_{\rm mod}(k)=(k/k_c)^{-0.5}$; the scale-dependent case weakens small-scale sensitivity but preserves the qualitative ranking. A second result is that the off-diagonal Fisher entries coupling $A_{1M}$ to the bias parameters $b_1$ and $b_K$ are of order $A_{1M}$, so marginalizing over those biases changes the forecast error only at order $A_{1M}^2$, which is negligible while the amplitude is small, as current CMB data suggest.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes the linear alignment model is exact, meaning galaxy ellipticities are strictly proportional to the large-scale tidal field with a single redshift-independent amplitude $A_{IA}=18$ (Eq. 10), holding equally for LRGs and ELGs; if real alignments are nonlinear, sample-dependent, or redshift-evolving, the cross-spectrum's constraining power could differ from the reported numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Euclid-like survey parameters, a measurement of $P_{gE}$ alone is forecast to constrain $A_{1M}$ within about twice the error of $P_{gg}$ alone, so the two estimators can be compared as a systematics check.
  • For scale-independent modulation, galaxy clustering alone can beat the current CMB constraint on $A$ for some survey configurations; the scale-dependent case $f_{\rm mod}(k)=(k/k_c)^{-0.5}$ degrades small-scale sensitivity but keeps the same ranking.
  • Marginalizing over the redshift-dependent bias parameters $b_1(z)$ and $b_K(z)$ leaves the forecast error on $A_{1M}$ essentially unchanged while $A_{1M}\ll 1$; the degradation appears only as $A_{1M}$ approaches order unity.
  • Combining $P_{gg}$, $P_{gE}$, and $P_{EE}$ yields only a mild improvement over $P_{gg}$ alone, confirming that IA's role is complementary rather than dominant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the real intrinsic-alignment signal deviates from the assumed linear alignment model, for example with a luminosity-dependent or redshift-evolving amplitude or with nonlinear contributions on the scales used here, the forecast power of $P_{gE}$ would change; one testable extension is to let $A_{IA}$ be free per redshift bin and see whether the cross-spectrum still contributes half the informati
  • The same BipoSH machinery could be applied to other three-dimensional fields, such as galaxy velocities or galaxy-galaxy lensing, whose cross-correlations with density have different noise and bias properties; those may complement the density–IA cross-spectrum in isolating a primordial dipole from observational systematics.
  • A direct mock test, injecting a known dipole into a Euclid-like galaxy catalog with realistic masks and shape noise and then estimating $A_{1M}$ from $P_{gE}$ alone, would show whether the claimed half-of-$P_{gg}$ information survives the approximations (plane-parallel limit, BipoSH binning, and Gaussian covariance) used in the forecast.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the BipoSH-based Fisher forecast for dipolar modulation of the primordial power spectrum to include intrinsic alignments. It models galaxy density and IA E-mode fields under the plane-parallel approximation, derives the BipoSH coefficients for P_gg, P_gE, and P_EE, and forecasts 1-sigma errors on A_1M for Euclid and DESI LRG/ELG configurations. The central findings are that P_gE alone can provide up to roughly half the constraining power of P_gg, that IA alone adds little, and that marginalizing over b1 and b_K has negligible effect for small A_1M.

Significance. If the headline P_gE result holds, it offers a genuinely useful independent cross-check of a dipole detection using a different observable. The BipoSH covariance machinery is clearly laid out and follows earlier derivations, and the analytic O(A^2) argument for the smallness of bias marginalization is a useful addition. However, the quantitative claim for Euclid/ELG depends on an IA amplitude that is not appropriate for those samples, so the paper currently overstates the robustness of the 'up to half' statement. The forecast framework itself is sound, and the issue is fixable by re-forecasting with sample-appropriate A_IA and by presenting SNR_gE/SNR_gg as a function of A_IA.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III.2, Table I, Sec. VI.C.2] The abstract's central assertion—that P_gE can contribute up to half the constraining power of P_gg, especially for low-bias, high-number-density surveys such as Euclid—is not robust to the choice of IA amplitude. In Table I, b_K(z) is fixed through Eq. (10) with A_IA=18 for every sample, including the Euclid and DESI ELG rows. But A_IA=18 is an LRG-calibrated amplitude, and Sec. VI.A itself notes that ELGs are not expected to show strong IA. Because P_gE is proportional to b_K (Eq. 15) while P_gg does not depend on b_K, reducing A_IA to a conservative ELG/Euclid value of order 2-5 lowers the P_gE signal. For the number densities and sigma_gamma=0.3 in Table I, the shape-noise term sigma_gamma^2/n_g in eP_EE is comparable to or larger than P_EE when A_IA is small, so the gE SNR scales roughly linearly with A_IA rather than canceling. Figure 5 varies A_IA only for the combined gg+gE+EE constraint, which is dominated by P_gg, and therefore does not exhibit this sensitivity. The authors should either re-run the gE-only forecasts with a sample-appropriate A_IA and show SNR_gE/SNR_gg versus A_IA, or restrict the headline claim to samples such as DESI LRGs for which A_IA=18 is appropriate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. V] The sentence beginning 'To investigate the statistical error' is grammatically incomplete; please rephrase.
  2. [Eq. (7)] 'refference' should be 'reference'.
  3. [Eq. (10)] 'with the present-day matter density parameter Omega_m0 and and the growth factor' contains a duplicated 'and'.
  4. [Appendix A] 'avaluated' should be 'evaluated'.
  5. [Sec. VI.C.4, Fig. 6] The f_mod(k)=(k/k_c)^2 model violates the |A_1M f_mod(k)| << 1 assumption of Eq. (3) for k larger than about 0.02 h/Mpc (at k=0.1 h/Mpc the modulation is of order 25 for A_1M~0.063), so the numerical large-A marginalization illustration is outside the validity of the first-order BipoSH expression; the analytic O(A^2) argument in Appendix B is the reliable support for the small-A claim, and the figure should be labeled as illustrative only.
  6. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says 'for each survey' but the panel appears to show a single survey; please clarify which survey is shown.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Fisher forecast is self-contained; IA amplitude A_IA=18 is an external calibration, and the P_gE constraining-power ratio is a numerical output, not an input.

full rationale

The paper is a Fisher forecast, not a fit. The dipolar signal enters linearly through Eq. (3) and Eq. (22), so the forecasted error on A_1M is computed from derivatives of the BipoSH coefficients with respect to A_1M; no parameter is adjusted to reproduce the headline result. The b_K values in Table I are fixed by Eq. (10) with A_IA=18, an externally calibrated IA amplitude from Ref. [50], and are not fitted to the forecasted constraints. The self-citations to Refs. [25] and [54] provide the BipoSH covariance algebra (Eqs. 24-27); those are parameter-free angular-momentum derivations with stated assumptions, and they do not themselves contain the claim that P_gE contributes up to half the constraining power. That claim is a numerical consequence of the survey parameters (b1, bK, ng, sigma_gamma) and the model, not a restatement of any input. The skeptical concern that A_IA=18 may not apply to low-bias ELG/Euclid samples is a model-robustness caveat, not circularity: changing A_IA would change the output, but the output is not equivalent to the input by construction. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The dipole modulation is adopted from previous literature, not invented here. The free parameters are model and survey inputs, not fitted to the paper's own target result.

free parameters (5)
  • Dipole modulation amplitude A_1M = 0.063 (fiducial from CMB, Ref [11])
    Target parameter of the forecast; also sets the SNR reference level in Eq. (32). The Fisher error itself is independent of this value because the signal enters linearly.
  • Scale dependence f_mod(k) = f_mod = 1; f_mod = (k/k_c)^(-1/2) with k_c = 0.005 Mpc^-1; toy f_mod = (k/k_c)^2
    Chosen to mirror CMB constraints (Ref [11]) and to explore a large-amplitude regime; the toy model is not self-consistent with the linearized expansion.
  • IA amplitude A_IA = 18
    Fiducial value from Kurita et al. 2020 (Ref [50]); sets b_K via Eq. (10). The P_gE and P_EE signals scale with b_K, so this choice drives the IA constraining power.
  • Shape noise sigma_gamma = 0.3
    Survey assumption from Lamman et al. 2023 (Ref [60]); sets the shot-noise term in Eq. (24) for P_EE.
  • Fiducial survey specifications (b1(z), b_K(z), ng(z), V(z)) = per Table I
    Inputs from Euclid and DESI survey designs; the central forecast is conditional on these values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Kaiser linear galaxy bias model: delta_g = (b1 + f mu^2) delta_m (Eq. 5)
    Assumes linear, local, scale-independent galaxy bias and linear redshift-space distortions; used for all power spectra.
  • domain assumption Linear alignment (LA) model: gamma_E = b_K (1 - mu^2) delta_m (Eq. 8), with b_K from Eq. (10)
    Assumes galaxy ellipticities respond linearly and instantaneously to the tidal field, with a single amplitude A_IA; drives the IA signal and cross-spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper First-order expansion in dipolar modulation: P_m(k, n_hat) = Pbar_m(k)[1 + 2 A_1M f_mod Y_1M] (Eq. 3), assuming |A f_mod| << 1
    Models the dipole asymmetry; the smallness assumption is stated in Sec. II but is violated in the toy f_mod = (k/k_c)^2 analysis.
  • standard math BipoSH orthogonality and covariance formula (Eqs. 21, 26-27)
    Taken from angular momentum addition theory and from Refs [25,54]; no new derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption No correlation between redshift bins; Gaussian covariance; no lensing distortion; plane-parallel limit
    Stated in Secs. III and V; these simplify the Fisher matrix and are standard for forecasts.
  • domain assumption Statistical isotropy of noise and Gaussian shape noise
    Assumed in the shot-noise terms of Eq. (24); standard in Fisher forecasts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing dipolar power asymmetry with galaxy clustering and intrinsic alignments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RPSTSIW

@misc{pith2026250519941,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing dipolar power asymmetry with galaxy clustering and intrinsic alignments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RPSTSIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19941}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the prospects for probing large-scale statistical anisotropy through galaxy clustering and intrinsic alignments (IA) in Stage IV galaxy surveys. Specifically, we consider a dipolar modulation in the primordial power spectrum and evaluate the Fisher information matrix using the two-point statistics of both the galaxy clustering and IA. Our analysis reveals that while IA alone provides limited improvement in constraining the anisotropy amplitude, the cross-spectrum between galaxy density and IA can contribute up to half the constraining power of galaxy clustering, especially for surveys with low galaxy bias and high number density of galaxies, such as Euclid. This demonstrates the potential of IA-clustering cross-correlations as a robust consistency check against systematics, and highlights the complementary roles of galaxy clustering and IA in constraining cosmic statistical anisotropy. We also show that marginalizing over galaxy bias and IA bias parameters has a negligible impact on the final constraint on the anisotropy amplitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19941 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig.3, but with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Expected 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Testing Statistical Isotropy on the Sphere with Minkowski Tensors

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Connected-patch orientation correlations ξ±(θ,ν) give a coordinate-independent test of statistical isotropy on the sphere and separate global from local alignment in sheared random fields, while dipole modulation leav...

  2. Where Galaxies Point: First Measurement of the Large-Scale Axial Intrinsic Alignment

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 reject novelty 7.0 of 10

    DES galaxy position angles show a coherent preferred axis (RA≈300°, Dec≈50°) — elliptical major and spiral minor axes aligned along it — reported as the first detection of horizon-scale axial intrinsic alignment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    In this paper, we consider distant galaxies where the typical angular size of the observed structures is small enough compared to the scale of the dipolar modulation

    Galaxy Clustering The most fundamental probe of the large-scale struc- ture of the universe is the spatial distribution of galaxies [41]. In this paper, we consider distant galaxies where the typical angular size of the observed structures is small enough compared to the scale of the dipolar modulation. Under this condition, the observed anisotropies, whi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Intrinsic Alignment of Galaxy In addition to galaxy clustering, one of the key probes of large-scale structure is the intrinsic alignment (IA) of galaxies. It is quantified by the two-component elipticity field (γ +, γ×), which is defined with the minor-to-major axis ratioqon the celestial sphere: γ+ γ× (x) = 1−q 2 1 +q 2 cos(2ϕx) sin(2ϕx) ,(7) with the m...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Power Spectrum Considering the case that an opening angle between the directions towards target galaxies is small and we can neglect the wide-angle effect (plane-parallel limit), we can calculate the auto/cross power spectra of these cosmological fields: ⟨δg(k,ˆn)δg(k′,ˆn)⟩= (2π)3δ3(k+k ′)P gg(k,ˆn),(11) ⟨δg(k,ˆn)γE(k′,ˆn)⟩= (2π)3δ3(k+k ′)P gE(k,ˆn),(12) ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Effects of Bias Marginalization Next, we consider a more practical scenario that in- cludes the marginalization over other parameters. In the previous section and previous studies, the analysis was performed under the assumption that only the amplitude of the dipolar modulation,A 1M , was estimated simulta- neously. However, in practical analyses, it is n...

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A7 (2020), arXiv:1906.02552 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    RESUL TS A

    0.75 1.23 −0.110 1.0×10 −3 3.15 0.85 1.29 −0.115 7.4×10 −4 3.65 0.95 1.35 −0.121 7.2×10 −4 4.10 1.05 1.41 −0.126 4.5×10 −4 4.52 1.15 1.47 −0.131 3.9×10 −4 4.89 1.25 1.53 −0.137 3.6×10 −4 5.22 1.35 1.60 −0.142 1.3×10 −4 5.50 1.45 1.66 −0.148 1.1×10 −4 5.75 1.55 1.72 −0.154 7.7×10 −5 5.97 1.65 1.78 −0.159 2.9×10 −5 6.15 VI. RESUL TS A. Survey Setup In this ...

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    This serves as a baseline to assess the im- pact of including intrinsic alignments (IA) in the parame- ter estimation

    Fisher forecast from galaxy clustering We first perform a Fisher analysis using galaxy cluster- ing data alone. This serves as a baseline to assess the im- pact of including intrinsic alignments (IA) in the parame- ter estimation. The top panels of Fig. 3 show the forecast 1σerrors on the amplitude of the dipolar modulation pa- rameterA 1M , assuming a sc...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The yellow and red curves in Fig

    Joint analysis with Intrinsic Alignments Next, we evaluate the utility of IA for constraining the modulation amplitude by comparing the Fisher matrix results from clustering data only with those from the joint analysis of clustering and IA. The yellow and red curves in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 repre- sent the errors evaluated fromP gE andP EE, respectively, whil...

    work page

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    (28) while varyingA IA andσ γ from their fiducial values

    Dependence of IA model parameters We also evaluated Eq. (28) while varyingA IA andσ γ from their fiducial values. The results are shown in Fig. 5. We find that the constraint from IA alone is strongly de- pendent on bothA IA andσ γ, as these parameters directly control the amp...

  2. [10]

    Gordon, The Astrophysical Journal656, 636–640 (2007)

    C. Gordon, The Astrophysical Journal656, 636–640 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    M. R. Nolta, E. L. Wright, L. Page, C. L. Ben- nett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, D. N. Spergel, G. S. Tucker, and E. Wollack, The Astrophysical Journal608, 10–15 (2004)

    2004

  4. [13]

    Land and J

    K. Land and J. a. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 071301 (2005)

    2005

  5. [14]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.594, A16 (2016), arXiv:1506.07135 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Kanno, M

    S. Kanno, M. Sasaki, and T. Tanaka, Progress of Theo- retical and Experimental Physics2013, 111E01 (2013)

    2013

  7. [16]

    H. K. Eriksen, F. K. Hansen, A. J. Banday, K. M. Gorski, and P. B. Lilje, The Astrophysical Journal605, 14–20 (2004)

    2004

  8. [17]

    F. K. Hansen, P. Cabella, D. Marinucci, and N. Vittorio, The Astrophysical Journal607, L67–L70 (2004)

    2004

  9. [18]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.571, A23 (2014), arXiv:1303.5083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Hinshaw, A

    G. Hinshaw, A. J. Banday, C. L. Bennett, K. M. G´ orski, A. Kogut, C. H. Lineweaver, G. F. Smoot, and E. L. Wright, The Astrophysical Journal464, L25–L28 (1996)

    1996

  11. [20]

    M. Yoon, D. Huterer, C. Gibelyou, A. Kov´ acs, and I. Sza- pudi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters445, L60–L64 (2014)

    2014

  12. [22]

    A. L. Erickcek, M. Kamionkowski, and S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. D78, 123520 (2008), arXiv:0806.0377 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [23]

    A. L. Erickcek, C. M. Hirata, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D80, 083507 (2009), arXiv:0907.0705 [astro- ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Schmidt and L

    F. Schmidt and L. Hui, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 011301 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.110,059902(2013)], arXiv:1210.2965 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Shiraishi, N

    M. Shiraishi, N. S. Sugiyama, and T. Okumura, Physical Review D95, 10.1103/physrevd.95.063508 (2017)

    2017 doi

  16. [26]

    D. H. Lyth, JCAP1308, 007, arXiv:1304.1270 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  17. [27]

    Ashoorioon and T

    A. Ashoorioon and T. Koivisto, Phys. Rev.D94, 043009 (2016), arXiv:1507.03514 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Byrnes, G

    C. Byrnes, G. Dom` enech, M. Sasaki, and T. Takahashi, JCAP12, 020, arXiv:1610.02650 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  19. [29]

    C. M. Hirata, JCAP09, 011, arXiv:0907.0703 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  20. [30]

    N. E. Chisari and C. Dvorkin, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013(12), 029–029

  21. [31]

    Appleby and A

    S. Appleby and A. Shafieloo, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(10), 070–070

  22. [32]

    Alonso, A

    D. Alonso, A. I. Salvador, F. J. S´ anchez, M. Bilicki, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, and E. S´ anchez, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society449, 670–684 (2015)

    2015

  23. [33]

    C. A. P. Bengaly, A. Bernui, J. S. Alcaniz, H. S. Xavier, and C. P. Novaes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society464, 768–774 (2016)

    2016

  24. [34]

    Tiwari and A

    P. Tiwari and A. Nusser, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2016(03), 062–062

  25. [35]

    Masaki, T

    S. Masaki, T. Nishimichi, and M. Takada, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society496, 483–496 (2020)

    2020

  26. [36]

    N. S. Sugiyama, M. Shiraishi, and T. Okumura, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society473, 2737–2752 (2017)

    2017

  27. [37]

    R. A. C. Croft and C. A. Metzler, The Astrophysical Journal545, 561–571 (2000)

    2000

  28. [38]

    C. M. Hirata and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D70, 063526 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406275 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  29. [39]

    andDESI[40], to constrain dipole anisotropy using this approach. Our analysis quantifies the potential im- provement when IA is included, and clarifies how LSS data can be used to shed new light on the nature of the large-scale anomalies observed in the CMB. The rest of this p...

  30. [40]

    0.75 2.49 −0.110 4.2×10 −4 3.15 0.85 2.61 −0.115 2.5×10 −4 3.65 0.95 2.73 −0.121 9.3×10 −5 4.10 1.05 2.86 −0.126 1.6×10 −5 4.52 1.15 2.98 −0.131 4.9×10 −6 4.89 DESI ELG 0.65 1.17 −0.105 1.6×10 −4 2.63

  31. [41]

    Joachimi and S

    B. Joachimi and S. L. Bridle, Astronomy & amp; Astro- physics523, A1 (2010)

    2010

  32. [42]

    N. E. Chisari, C. Dvorkin, F. Schmidt, and D. N. Spergel, Physical Review D94, 10.1103/physrevd.94.123507 (2016)

    2016 doi

  33. [43]

    Okumura and A

    T. Okumura and A. Taruya, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters493, L124–L128 (2020). 13

    2020

  34. [44]

    Okumura, A

    T. Okumura, A. Taruya, and T. Nishimichi, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society494, 694–702 (2020)

    2020

  35. [45]

    Taruya and T

    A. Taruya and T. Okumura, The Astrophysical Journal Letters891, L42 (2020)

    2020

  36. [46]

    Akitsu, T

    K. Akitsu, T. Kurita, T. Nishimichi, M. Takada, and S. Tanaka, Physical Review D103, 10.1103/phys- revd.103.083508 (2021)

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    Akitsu, Y

    K. Akitsu, Y. Li, and T. Okumura, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(04), 041

  38. [48]

    Okumura and A

    T. Okumura and A. Taruya, Physical Review D106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.043523 (2022)

    2022 doi

  39. [49]

    Mellieret al.(Euclid), Euclid

    Y. Mellieret al.(Euclid), Euclid. I. Overview of the Eu- clid mission (2025), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  40. [50]

    Aghamousaet al.(DESI), The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Aghamousaet al.(DESI), The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [51]

    P. J. E. Peebles, (Princeton, N.J., Princeton Univ. Press, 1980)

    1980

  42. [52]

    Kaiser, Mon

    N. Kaiser, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.227, 1 (1987)

    1987

  43. [53]

    A. J. S. Hamilton, Linear redshift distortions: A review, inThe Evolving Universe(Springer Netherlands, 1998) p. 185–275

    1998

  44. [54]

    A. J. S. Hamilton, Astrophysical Journal Letters385, L5 (1992)

    1992

  45. [55]

    Okumura and Y

    T. Okumura and Y. P. Jing, The Astrophysical Journal 726, 5 (2010)

    2010

  46. [56]

    Blazek, Z

    J. Blazek, Z. Vlah, and U. Seljak, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015(08), 015–015

  47. [57]

    R. G. Crittenden, P. Natarajan, U. Pen, and T. Theuns, The Astrophysical Journal568, 20–27 (2002)

    2002

  48. [58]

    Catelan, M

    P. Catelan, M. Kamionkowski, and R. D. Blandford, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society320, L7–L13 (2001)

    2001

  49. [59]

    Okumura, A

    T. Okumura, A. Taruya, and T. Nishimichi, Physical Re- view D100, 10.1103/physrevd.100.103507 (2019)

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    Kurita, M

    T. Kurita, M. Takada, T. Nishimichi, R. Takahashi, K. Osato, and Y. Kobayashi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society501, 833–852 (2020)

    2020

  51. [61]

    A. N. M. D. A. Varshalovich and V. K. Khersonsky, World Scientific, Singapore (1988)

    1988

  52. [62]

    Bartolo, A

    N. Bartolo, A. Kehagias, M. Liguori, A. Riotto, M. Shi- raishi, and V. Tansella, Phys. Rev. D97, 023503 (2018), arXiv:1709.05695 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Akitsu, N

    K. Akitsu, N. S. Sugiyama, and M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. D100, 103515 (2019), arXiv:1907.10591 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Shiraishi, T

    M. Shiraishi, T. Okumura, and K. Akitsu, JCAP03, 039, arXiv:2009.04355 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Shiraishi, T

    M. Shiraishi, T. Okumura, and K. Akitsu, JCAP08, 013, arXiv:2303.10890 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  56. [66]

    C. M. Hirata, R. Mandelbaum, M. Ishak, U. Seljak, R. Nichol, K. A. Pimbblet, N. P. Ross, and D. Wake, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society381, 1197–1218 (2007)

    2007

  57. [67]

    J. Shi, K. Osato, T. Kurita, and M. Takada, The Astro- physical Journal917, 109 (2021)

    2021

  58. [68]

    Lammanet al., Detection of the large-scale tidal field with galaxy multiplet alignment in the desi y1 spectro- scopic survey (2024), arXiv:2408.11056 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Lammanet al., Detection of the large-scale tidal field with galaxy multiplet alignment in the desi y1 spectro- scopic survey (2024), arXiv:2408.11056 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Ishikawa, A

    S. Ishikawa, A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi, T. Okumura, and S. Tanaka, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.01588 (2025), arXiv:2505.01588 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Lammanet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society522, 117–129 (2023)

    C. Lammanet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society522, 117–129 (2023)

    2023

  61. [71]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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