Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

A cosmology weakly dependent measurement of 2D Baryon Acoustic Oscillations scale from the Southern Photometric Local Universe Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 paper claims a 3.22-sigma detection of the transversal baryon acoustic oscillation scale at $\theta_{\mathrm{BAO}} = 21.81^\circ \pm 0.85^\circ$ and $z_{\rm eff}=0.075$ using S-PLUS blue galaxies, which translates to $D_A = 242.13 \pm…

desk verdict A genuinely new low-redshift angular BAO point, but the 23% projection correction is unvalidated in mocks and Eq. (9) looks internally inconsistent; solid after major revision, not as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08288 v1 pith:HLBIAEHX submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.CO

U. Ribeiro , F. Avila , C. R. Bom , C. Franco , A. Cortesi , C. Mendes de Oliveira , A. Kanaan , T. Ribeiro
show 3 more authors
W. Schoenell E. Telles A. Bernui
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords baryonacousticoscillationsangularcorrelationfunctionphotometricredshiftsbluegalaxiesS-PLUSdiameterdistancelarge-scalestructuresoundhorizon
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 reports a weak-model-dependent measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) angular scale using only the angular clustering of blue galaxies in the Southern Photometric Local Universe Survey. The authors claim a detection of the transversal BAO signal at $\theta_{\mathrm{BAO}} = 21.81^\circ \pm 0.85^\circ$ at effective redshift $z_{\rm eff}=0.075$, with $3.22\sigma$ significance, obtained from a 2-point angular correlation function analysis of 5,977 galaxies. If the detection holds, it is the lowest-redshift robust measurement of the transversal BAO scale to date, and it gives an angular diameter distance $D_A(z_{\rm eff}) = 242.13 \pm 9.45\,\mathrm{Mpc}/h$ when combined with a Planck sound horizon. The result matters because it extends the BAO standard ruler into the local Universe using multi-band photometry rather than expensive spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-point angular correlation function, computed with the Landy-Szalay estimator from 1,000 resampled data catalogues; each resampling draws new redshifts from each galaxy's photometric-redshift probability distribution, so photometric errors are propagated into the clustering signal. The BAO bump is fitted with a parametric model, a power law plus a Gaussian, whose centroid $\theta_{\mathrm{FIT}}$ is converted to the cosmological scale by the projection-effect shift $\Delta\theta = 0.23$, a correction computed from a fiducial cosmology for a redshift shell of width $\Delta z = 0.07$. Uncertainties come from the covariance matrix of 1,000 log-normal mock catalogues. This chain — sampling, angular correlation, parametric fit, projection shift — is what carries the final measurement.

What would settle it

Recomputing the angular correlation function for the same galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts would settle the claim: a BAO peak at the raw 17.73 degrees rather than the corrected 21.81 degrees, or a projection shift that varies by more than 0.85 degrees across plausible cosmologies, would falsify the measurement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is the appearance of a BAO bump in the angular correlation function of S-PLUS blue galaxies in the redshift shell $0.03 \le z \le 0.1$. The fitted centroid is $\theta_{\mathrm{FIT}} = 17.73^\circ \pm 0.69^\circ$, and after applying a 23\% projection-effect shift ($\Delta\theta = 0.23$) the authors obtain the transversal BAO scale $\theta_{\mathrm{BAO}} = 21.81^\circ \pm 0.85^\circ$ at $z_{\rm eff}=0.075$. They compute the statistical significance as $3.22\sigma$ using a $\chi^2$ dilation test, and they report consistency checks with 1,000 log-normal mocks and with randomized angular positions. Assuming the Planck sound horizon $r_s = 99.08 \pm 0.18\,\mathrm{Mpc}/h$, this corresponds to $D_A = 242.13 \pm 9.45\,\mathrm{Mpc}/h$, which the paper presents as the first robust detection of the transversal BAO scale at the lowest redshift, using narrow-plus-wide photometry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fitted 17.73-degree peak is the BAO bump and that the 23% projection correction computed from the fiducial cosmology shifts it to exactly 21.81 degrees, with no uncertainty attached to that correction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured $D_A(z=0.075)$ adds a low-redshift anchor to the BAO distance-redshift relation, where spectroscopic BAO constraints are sparse.
  • The PDF-resampling technique shows that photometric surveys with narrow-band filters can extract BAO information at low redshift without spectroscopy.
  • If the detection holds at higher significance, it provides a geometric check on the local distance ladder and on late-time dark energy models.
  • The same pipeline can be applied to future S-PLUS data releases or other multi-band surveys to test whether the signal persists with more sky coverage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 23% projection correction is the main model-dependent step; propagating the full 0.228–0.235 range through the distance estimate would likely increase the error budget beyond the quoted 9.45 Mpc/h.
  • If confirmed by an independent low-redshift tracer, such as emission-line galaxies or galaxy groups, the result would strengthen the case that photometric BAO can serve as a cosmological probe at $z < 0.1$.
  • A direct comparison with a spectroscopic sample in the same footprint would calibrate the projection shift empirically and remove the largest systematic; this is a testable next step.
  • The modest 3.22-sigma significance means the claimed first detection invites confirmation; combining S-PLUS with other southern photometric surveys could push the detection past 5 sigma.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a measurement of the transverse Baryon Acoustic Oscillation angular scale using 5,977 blue galaxies from the S-PLUS iDR5 survey in the redshift range 0.03 ≤ z ≤ 0.1. The authors generate 1,000 resampled photometric-redshift catalogues from per-galaxy PDFs, compute the angular two-point correlation function with the Landy-Szalay estimator, and build a covariance matrix from 1,000 log-normal mocks. Fitting the parametric model of Eq. (8) to the mean 2PACF yields θ_FIT = 17.73° ± 0.69°; after applying a projection-effect shift Δθ = 0.23 the authors obtain θ_BAO = 21.81° ± 0.85° at z_eff = 0.075 with a claimed 3.22σ significance, and convert this to D_A = 242.13 ± 9.45 Mpc/h assuming a Planck sound horizon.

Significance. If correct, this is a genuinely novel measurement: a low-redshift (z ≈ 0.075), photometric-only, transversally oriented BAO detection, and the paper's treatment of photo-z uncertainties through PDF resampling and its mock-based covariance pipeline are useful methodological elements. The random-position robustness test in Appendix A is a valuable internal check. However, the central value and significance are strongly affected by three issues—the algebraic definition of the projection shift, the missing mock-based validation of the fitted bump, and the mismatch between mock and data number densities—so the detection claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III E2, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) defines Δθ = (θ_E^0 − θ_E^δ)/θ_E^0 and then uses θ_BAO = (1+Δθ) θ_FIT. With that definition, the correct recovery from the measured (projected) scale is θ_BAO = θ_FIT/(1−Δθ). Using Δθ = 0.23, the printed formula gives 17.73° × 1.23 = 21.81°, while the inversion of the printed definition gives 17.73°/0.77 ≈ 23.0°, a difference larger than the quoted 0.85° uncertainty. Please state which convention was actually used and recompute the central value and D_A accordingly.
  2. [Section III C and Table I] The covariance matrix and the significance are computed from 1,000 log-normal mocks generated with N_g/m = 6,000,000 galaxies, whereas the analyzed data sample contains only 5,977 galaxies. If these mocks are not thinned to the data's number density and selection function, their shot-noise contribution to the 2PACF is far smaller than that of the data, so the covariance and the resulting θ_FIT error and 3.22σ significance are likely underestimated. The mocks should be resampled to match the data, or the effect of the density mismatch should be explicitly quantified.
  3. [Section IV and Section III E2] The paper never reports the expected θ_FIT from the 1,000 mocks that are generated with the same survey settings and cosmology. The bottom panel of Fig. 6 shows the mock 2PACFs, but the mean best-fit θ_FIT from these mocks (or the model quantity θ_E^δ) is not given. Without a quantitative comparison of the mock-inferred bump position with the data's 17.73°, the application of the 23% shift cannot be validated; it could promote any local excess in the data to the claimed BAO scale. Please provide the mean and scatter of the mocks' fitted θ_FIT and compare them with the data fit.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (13)] The quoted uncertainty on θ_BAO (0.85°) is just the θ_FIT error scaled by 1.23; no systematic uncertainty is assigned to Δθ itself, despite the paper reporting a spread of 0.228–0.235 across DESI cosmologies. This range translates into an additional systematic of roughly 0.1–0.2° on θ_BAO, which should be included in the error budget. In addition, the photo-z sampling method of Section IIID is not explicitly incorporated into the final uncertainty beyond the visual scatter in Fig. 6.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section V] The wording "first robust detection of the transversal BAO scale at the lowest-redshift in the Universe" is strong; given the large model-dependent projection correction, this claim should be softened or explicitly justified with supporting evidence.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 7] The best-fit parameters for Eq. (8) are only displayed in the frame of Fig. 7; they should be listed in the text or in a table to allow reproduction.
  3. [Section II A and reference [13]] The text refers to "De Bom et al. 2024" but the reference list gives "Bom C, Cortesi A, Ribeiro U, et al"; this should be harmonized.
  4. [Section IV, Fig. 8] The description of the significance test is one sentence and lacks the Δχ² definition and the choice of scale-dilation range; please add the necessary details or a reference to an explicit equation.
  5. [Section II C, Table I] Table I lists N_g/m = 6,000,000 while the data set contains 5,977 galaxies; if this is not a typo, the text should explain why the mocks use a much higher number density than the observed sample.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the angular BAO scale is measured from S-PLUS data and the projection shift is computed from external fiducial cosmologies rather than fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The fitted peak theta_FIT=17.73 deg comes from applying Eq. (8) to the mean 2PACF of the 1000 photo-z-sampled S-PLUS catalogs; the covariance is obtained from log-normal mocks, but the central value is not regressed onto the mock input. The projection shift Delta_theta=0.23 is computed from the theoretical 2PCF and angular correlation (Eqs. 1-5 via CCL) using a fiducial cosmology and checked against two DESI cosmologies (0.228, 0.235); it is not fitted to S-PLUS data, so the final theta_BAO=21.81 deg is not forced to equal an input scale by construction. The angular-diameter distance uses the Planck sound horizon as an external standard ruler. The 3.22 sigma significance is a Delta-chi^2 comparison of the Gaussian-plus-power-law model to the power-law-only model, not a restatement of the fitted peak. Self-citations (e.g., de Carvalho et al. 2018, 2020, 2021; Avila et al. 2024) are methodological precedents and earlier measurements; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole evidence for the detection, and the projection correction is recomputed here rather than imported. The main legitimate concerns are validation and calibration, not circularity: the paper does not report the mean fitted peak from its own 1000 mocks, which would directly test whether 17.73 deg is the projected BAO bump, and Eq. (9) defines Delta_theta=(theta_E^0-delta_E^delta)/theta_E^0 while using theta_BAO=(1+Delta_theta)theta_FIT, which is algebraically inconsistent with the stated definition. These issues affect robustness and correctness but do not make the measurement self-referential.

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

The central claim relies on a set of modeling assumptions (fiducial cosmology, log-normal mocks, parametric BAO model, photo-z PDFs) and on a large 23% projection correction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • theta_FIT (Gaussian peak position in model fit) = 17.73 +/- 0.69 deg
    Position of the BAO bump in the parametric fit to the average angular correlation function; this is the quantity later shifted by the projection correction.
  • Gaussian amplitude C and width sigma_FIT = Not reported in text; shown in Fig. 7
    Amplitude and width of the BAO Gaussian term in Eq. (8); fitted to the data and used to compute the significance.
  • Power-law background parameters A, B, gamma = Not reported in text
    Describe the smooth part of the angular correlation function in Eq. (8); fitted to the data.
  • Redshift bin limits = 0.03 to 0.1
    Chosen to avoid non-linear clustering at low z and low number density at high z; affects the sample and the projection shift.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fiducial Planck-like cosmology used to compute the projection shift and generate mocks.
    Table I and Section III E2: the 23% shift and 1000 mocks rely on a specific set of cosmological parameters (Omega_c h^2, Omega_b h^2, h, ns, As, etc.).
  • domain assumption Log-normal mocks accurately represent the covariance of the S-PLUS blue galaxy sample.
    Section II C: uncertainties are derived from 1000 log-normal realizations with bias b=1.0, which may not capture the true clustering bias or photo-z scatter.
  • standard math The parametric model of Eq. (8) describes the angular correlation function.
    Borrowed from Sanchez et al. (2011); assumes a power law plus Gaussian for the BAO bump.
  • domain assumption S-PLUS photometric redshift PDFs are correct.
    Section II D: the resampling method draws redshifts from these PDFs; any bias in the PDFs propagates to the sample and the correlation function.
  • domain assumption The projection effect shift is cosmology-independent at the level claimed.
    Section III E2: tested with three cosmologies giving 0.228 to 0.235; but the correction is a 23% shift, so small cosmology differences in the model used to compute it could still matter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A cosmology weakly dependent measurement of 2D Baryon Acoustic Oscillations scale from the Southern Photometric Local Universe Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HLBIAEHX

@misc{pith2026250608288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A cosmology weakly dependent measurement of 2D Baryon Acoustic Oscillations scale from the Southern Photometric Local Universe Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HLBIAEHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08288}
}
abstract

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) provide a robust standard ruler for observational cosmology, enabling precise constraints on the expansion history of the Universe. We present a weakly model-dependent measurement of the BAO angular scale in the low-redshift Universe using the blue galaxies from the Southern Photometric Local Universe Survey (S-PLUS). Our analysis is based on the 2-point angular correlation function applied to a selected photometric sample of $5977$ galaxies with redshifts $0.03 \leq z \leq 0.1$. To account for photometric redshift uncertainties, we implement a resampling technique using the probability distribution function of each galaxy. Angular correlations are computed using the Landy-Szalay estimator; the uncertainties are quantified using a set of $1000$ log-normal mock catalogues. Our 2-point angular correlation analyses reveal a prominent BAO signal that after a shift correction, due to the projection effect caused by the finite thickness of the redshift bin, provides the transversal BAO measurement: $\theta_{BAO} = 21.81^{\circ} \pm 0.85^{\circ}$, at $z_{eff} = 0.075$, detected with a statistical significance of $3.22 \sigma$. In addition, we performed consistency tests that support the robustness of our result. Our measurement constitutes the first robust detection of the transversal BAO scale: at the lowest-redshift in the Universe and using multi-band (narrow+wide) photometry data from the S-PLUS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Footprint covering all blue galaxies of S-PLUS iDR5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Footprint of the selected region for our BAO analyses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Histogram of the data observed in the footprint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Correlation matrix calculated with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Samplings for a galaxy redshift. In the upper panel we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Using the data points corresponding to the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Study of the statistical significance of our 2PACF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. These plots contain the 2PACF analyses considering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. These plots complement the analyses shown in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spatial Correlation Function The 2-point correlation function (2PCF) is a statistical tool that let us to extract useful information about the matter distribution in the universe [6, 44]. The direct in- terpretation for the 2PCF is that it determines an excess or missing probability of finding two point sources with a distancerand can be derived from the ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    It can be derived in a similar approach as the one used in the spatial correla- tion function, but with the data projected in the celestial sphere

    Angular correlation Function The 2-point angular correlation function (2PACF), ω(θ), study the angular separation between pairs of cos- mic objects in a given redshift bin. It can be derived in a similar approach as the one used in the spatial correla- tion function, but with the data projected in the celestial sphere. Therefore, we use the angular power ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Parametric Model To calculate the transversal BAO scale we used a para- metricmodelproposedbySánchezetal[51](seealso[25]) that assumes a power law to describe the general shape of the correlation function plus a Gaussian function to fit the BAO bump ω(θ) =A+Bθ γ +Ce −(θ−θFIT)2/2σ2 FIT ,(8) whereA,B,γ,C,θ FIT, andσ FIT are free parameters. The first three ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    However, this is not possible because we need a redshift bin large enough to have a significant amount of galaxies for analyses there

    Projection Effect TheBAOangularscalemeasurementwouldbedirectly obtained from the 2PACF for data in case of an infinitesi- mal thin redshift bin,∆z→0, because in such a case the projection effect would be negligible. However, this is not possible because we need a redshift bin large enough to have a significant amount of galaxies for analyses there. Distan...

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Abbott TMC, Aguena M, Allam S, et al (2022) Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: A 2.7% mea- surement of baryon acoustic oscillation distance scale at redshift 0.835. Phys. Rev. D105(4):043512. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043512, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2107.04646 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    arXiv e-prints URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14738, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Abdul-Karim M, Aguilar J, Ahlen S, et al (2025) Desi dr2 results ii: Measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations and cosmological constraints. arXiv e-prints URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14738, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Agrawal A, Makiya R, Chiang CT, et al (2017) Generating log-normal mock catalog of galax- ies in redshift space. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2017(10):003. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/10/003, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1706.09195 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 623:A76

    Ansari R, Choyer A, Habibi F, et al (2019) Impact of photometric redshifts on the galaxy power spectrum and 11 bao scale in the lsst survey. Astronomy & Astrophysics 623:A76

    work page 2019

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    MNRAS488(1):1481–1487

    Avila F, Novaes CP, Bernui A, et al (2019) The angular scale of homogeneity in the lo- cal Universe with the SDSS blue galaxies. MNRAS488(1):1481–1487. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1765, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1906.10744 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    MNRAS509(2):2994–3003

    Avila F, Bernui A, Nunes RC, et al (2022) The homo- geneity scale and the growth rate of cosmic structures. MNRAS509(2):2994–3003. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3122, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2111.08541 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    MNRAS529(4):4980–4992

    Avila F, de Carvalho E, Bernui A, et al (2024) Baryon acoustic scale at z ef f = 0.166 with the SDSS blue galaxies. MNRAS529(4):4980–4992. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae867, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2404.00747 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    MNRAS393(4):1324–

    Bamford SP, Nichol RC, Baldry IK, et al (2009) Galaxy Zoo: the dependence of morphology and colour on environment*. MNRAS393(4):1324–

    2009

  5. [13]

    Bom C, Cortesi A, Ribeiro U, et al (2024) An extended catalogue of galaxy morphology using deep learning in southern photometric local universe survey data release

    2024

  6. [14]

    In: Ruiz-Lapuente P (ed) Dark Energy: Observational andTheoreticalApproaches.CambridgeUniversityPress Cambridge, p 246, doi:10.48550/arXiv.0910.5224

    Bassett B, Hlozek R (2010) Baryon acoustic oscillations. In: Ruiz-Lapuente P (ed) Dark Energy: Observational andTheoreticalApproaches.CambridgeUniversityPress Cambridge, p 246, doi:10.48550/arXiv.0910.5224

    2010 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    MNRAS416(4):3017–

    Beutler F, Blake C, Colless M, et al (2011) The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local Hubble constant. MNRAS416(4):3017–

    2011

  8. [16]

    Physical Review D 93(2):023,530

    Carvalho G, Bernui A, Benetti M, et al (2016) Baryon acoustic oscillations from the sdss dr10 galaxies angular correlation function. Physical Review D 93(2):023,530

    2016

  9. [17]

    MNRAS418(3):1707–

    Blake C, Kazin EA, Beutler F, et al (2011) The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: map- ping the distance-redshift relation with baryon acoustic oscillations. MNRAS418(3):1707–

    2011

  10. [18]

    apjs 242(1):2

    Chisari NE, Alonso D, Krause E, et al (2019) Core Cosmology Library: Precision Cosmological Predictions for LSST. apjs 242(1):2. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab1658, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1812.05995 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    MNRAS485(2):2806–2824

    Blot L, Crocce M, Sefusatti E, et al (2019) Compar- ing approximate methods for mock catalogues and covariance matrices II: power spectrum multipoles. MNRAS485(2):2806–2824. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz507, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1806.09497 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    MNRAS362(2):505–534

    Cole S, Percival WJ, Peacock JA, et al (2005) The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: power-spectrum anal- ysis of the final data set and cosmological impli- cations. MNRAS362(2):505–534. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2005.09318.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro- ph/0501174 [astro-ph]

    2005

  13. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 528(3):4188–4208

  14. [22]

    Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VI pp 161–166

    Carnero-Rosell A, Sánchez E, Garcıa-Bellido J, et al (2011) Tracing the sound horizon scale with photometric redshift surveys. Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VI pp 161–166

    2011

  15. [23]

    MNRAS481(2):2371–2383

    Carter P, Beutler F, Percival WJ, et al (2018) Low redshift baryon acoustic oscillation measurement from the reconstructed 6-degree field galaxy survey. MNRAS481(2):2371–2383. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2405, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1803.01746 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    de Carvalho E, Bernui A, Carvalho GC, et al (2018) Angular Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measure at z=2.225 from the SDSS quasar survey. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.04(4):064. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/064, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1709.00113 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477(3):3892–3909

    Chaves-Montero J, Angulo RE, Hernández-Monteagudo C (2018) The effect of photometric redshift uncertain- ties on galaxy clustering and baryonic acoustic oscilla- tions. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477(3):3892–3909

    2018

  18. [26]

    MNRAS492(3):4469–4476

    de Carvalho E, Bernui A, Xavier HS, et al (2020) Baryon acoustic oscillations signature in the three-point angular correlation function from the SDSS-DR12 quasar survey. MNRAS492(3):4469–4476. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa119, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2002.01109 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    MNRAS482(4):4883–4905

    Colavincenzo M, Sefusatti E, Monaco P, et al (2019) Comparing approximate methods for mock cat- alogues and covariance matrices - III: bispectrum. MNRAS482(4):4883–4905. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2964, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1806.09499 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    arXiv e-prints arXiv:2504.01669

    Di Valentino E, Levi Said J, Riess A, et al (2025) The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing ob- servational tensions in cosmology with system- atics and fundamental physics. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2504.01669. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.01669, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2504.01669 [a...

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    MNRAS248:1–13

    Coles P, Jones B (1991) A lognormal model for the cosmological mass distribution. MNRAS248:1–13. doi: 10.1093/mnras/248.1.1

    1991 doi

  22. [30]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 482(2):2807–2822

    Crocce M, Ross A, Sevilla-Noarbe I, et al (2019) Dark energy survey year 1 results: galaxy sample for bao mea- surement. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 482(2):2807–2822

    2019

  23. [32]

    ApJ426:23

    Feldman HA, Kaiser N, Peacock JA (1994) Power- Spectrum Analysis of Three-dimensional Red- shift Surveys. ApJ426:23. doi:10.1086/174036, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/9304022 [astro- ph]

    1994 arXiv

  24. [33]

    In: Journal of Physics Conference Series, Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol 1558

    de Carvalho E, Bernui A, Carvalho JC (2020) The pro- jection effect on the measurement of the angular BAO scale. In: Journal of Physics Conference Series, Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol 1558. IOP, p 012004, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1558/1/012004

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    MNRAS527(3):7400–7413

    Franco C, Avila F, Bernui A (2024) Prob- ing cosmic isotropy in the Local Universe. MNRAS527(3):7400–7413. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3616, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2312.03152 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    A&A649:A20

    de Carvalho E, Bernui A, Avila F, et al (2021) BAO angular scale at zef f= 0.11 with the SDSS blue galax- ies. A&A649:A20. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039936, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2103.14121 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [36]

    MNRAS376(4):1425–1444

    Gerke BF, Newman JA, Faber SM, et al (2007) The DEEP2 galaxy redshift survey: the evo- lution of the blue fraction in groups and the field. MNRAS376(4):1425–1444. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2007.11374.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro- ph/0608569 [astro-ph]

    2007

  28. [37]

    MNRAS526(3):3219–3229

    Dias BL, Avila F, Bernui A (2023) Prob- ing cosmic homogeneity in the Local Universe. MNRAS526(3):3219–3229. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2980, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2310.04594 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Dressler A, Oemler AJr., Couch WJ, et al (1997) Evolu- tion since Z = 0.5 of the Morphology-Density Relation for ClustersofGalaxies.ApJ490:577–+.doi:10.1086/304890, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/9707232

    1997 arXiv

  30. [39]

    ApJ633(2):560–574

    Eisenstein DJ, Zehavi I, Hogg DW, et al (2005) Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large- Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies. ApJ633(2):560–574. doi:10.1086/466512, 12 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0501171 [astro- ph]

    2005 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol 412, no 1, p 64-71 412:64–71

    Landy SD, Szalay AS (1993) Bias and variance of angu- lar correlation functions. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol 412, no 1, p 64-71 412:64–71

    1993

  32. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:250104960

    Ferreira PS, Reis RR (2025) Influence of photometric galaxies redshift distribution in bao estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:250104960

    2025

  33. [42]

    Lintott CJ, Schawinski K, Slosar A, et al (2008) Galaxy Zoo: morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey*. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 389(3):1179– 1189.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x, URLhttps: //doi.or...

    2008

  34. [43]

    arXiv e- prints arXiv:2502.02574

    Franco C, Avila F, Bernui A (2025) Probing large-scale structures with the 2-point function and the power spec- trum: insights into cosmic clustering evolution. arXiv e- prints arXiv:2502.02574. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.02574, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2502.02574 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 doi

  35. [44]

    Marques GA, Bernui A (2020) Tomographic analyses of the CMB lensing and galaxy clustering to probe the linear structure growth. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.05(5):052. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/052, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1908.04854 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526(4):5374–5385

    Ishikawa K, Sunayama T, Nishizawa AJ, et al (2023) Robustness of baryon acoustic oscillations measurements with photometric redshift uncertainties. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526(4):5374–5385

    2023

  37. [46]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 352(1):338–352

    Jarvis M, Bernstein G, Jain B (2004) The skewness of the aperture mass statistic. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 352(1):338–352

    2004

  38. [47]

    A&A631:A73

    Keihänen E, Kurki-Suonio H, Lindholm V, et al (2019) Estimating the galaxy two-point corre- lation function using a split random catalog. A&A631:A73. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935828, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1905.01133 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [48]

    ApJ162:815

    Peebles PJE, Yu JT (1970) Primeval Adiabatic Per- turbation in an Expanding Universe. ApJ162:815. doi: 10.1086/150713

    1970 doi

  40. [49]

    Lima EVR, Sodré Jr L, Bom C, et al (2022) Photometric redshifts for the s-plus survey: Is machine learning up to the task? Astronomy and Computing 38:100,510

    2022

  41. [50]

    MNRAS437(2):1109–1126

    Ross AJ, Samushia L, Burden A, et al (2014) The cluster- ing of galaxies in the SDSS-III DR10 Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: no detectable colour depen- dence of distance scale or growth rate measurements. MNRAS437(2):1109–1126. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1895, https://arx...

    2014 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Correlation function

    Lippich M, Sánchez AG, Colavincenzo M, et al (2019) Comparing approximate methods for mock catalogues and covariance matrices - I. Correlation function. MNRAS482(2):1786–1806. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2757, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1806.09477 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Ap&SS7(1):3–19

    Sunyaev RA, Zeldovich YB (1970) Small-Scale Fluc- tuations of Relic Radiation. Ap&SS7(1):3–19. doi: 10.1007/BF00653471

    1970 doi

  44. [53]

    MNRAS489(1):241–267

    Mendes de Oliveira C, Ribeiro T, Schoenell W, et al (2019) The Southern Photometric Local Universe Survey (S-PLUS): improved SEDs, mor- phologies, and redshifts with 12 optical filters. MNRAS489(1):241–267. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1985, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1907.01567 [ast...

    2019 arXiv

  45. [54]

    An unbiased estimate of the growth rate of structure at 〈z〉= 0.85 using the clustering of luminous blue galax- ies

    Mohammad FG, Granett BR, Guzzo L, et al (2018) The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). An unbiased estimate of the growth rate of structure at 〈z〉= 0.85 using the clustering of luminous blue galax- ies. A&A610:A59. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731685, https://arxi...

    2018 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507(4):5847–5868

    Nakazono L, Mendes de Oliveira C, Hirata NST, et al (2021) On the discovery of stars, quasars, and galaxies in the southern hemisphere with s-plus dr2. Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507(4):5847–5868

    2021

  47. [57]

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim N, Akrami Y, et al (2018) Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. ArXiv e-prints https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  48. [59]

    MNRAS411(1):277–

    Sánchez E, Carnero A, García-Bellido J, et al (2011) Tracing the sound horizon scale with pho- tometric redshift surveys. MNRAS411(1):277–

    2011

  49. [62]

    MNRAS432(3):1961–1979

    Wang Y, Brunner RJ, Dolence JC (2013) The SDSS galaxy angular two-point correlation function. MNRAS432(3):1961–1979. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt450, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1303.2432 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [63]

    ApJ630(1):1–27

    Zehavi I, Zheng Z, Weinberg DH, et al (2005) The Luminosity and Color Dependence of the Galaxy Cor- relation Function. ApJ630(1):1–27. doi:10.1086/431891, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0408569 [astro- ph]

    2005 arXiv

  51. [288]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17679.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1006.3226 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010

  52. [1724]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19592.x, https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1108.2635 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011

Pith tools

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