Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Cosmology and Source Redshift Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Tomographic Weak Lensing with HSC Y3 and SDSS using the Point-Mass Correction Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining SDSS clustering with HSC Y3 lensing, this analysis measures S8 = 0.780^{+0.029}_{-0.030} and shows that tomographic lensing can self-calibrate source redshifts without photometric-redshift priors.

desk verdict A careful, blinded HSC Y3 3x2pt analysis that delivers the most precise HSC S8 yet and self-calibrates high-source-bin redshifts; the point-mass correction is the main load-bearing assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01386 v2 pith:V3LDW7KD submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.CO

Tianqing Zhang , Xiangchong Li , Sunao Sugiyama , Rachel Mandelbaum , Surhud More , Roohi Dalal , Arun Kannawadi , Hironao Miyatake
show 8 more authors
Atsushi J. Nishizawa Takahiro Nishimichi Masamune Oguri Ken Osato Markus M. Rau Masato Shirasaki Tomomi Sunayama Masahiro Takada
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords three-by-two-pointanalysisgalaxyclusteringgalaxy-galaxylensingcosmicshearpoint-masscorrectionsourceredshiftself-calibrationS8tomographicweak
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that combining three kinds of two-point measurements—galaxy clustering, galaxy-galaxy lensing, and cosmic shear—from SDSS lens galaxies and HSC Y3 source galaxies can constrain both cosmology and source redshift errors at once. Its central result is S8 = 0.$780^{{+0.029}}$_{-0.030} under flat ΛCDM, the tightest S8 measurement yet from HSC data, and it simultaneously measures the mean redshift shifts of the two highest source bins, Δz3 = −0.$112^{{+0.046}}$_{-0.049} and Δz4 = −0.$185^{{+0.071}}$_{-0.081}, using only the tomographic lensing signal. The point-mass correction model lets galaxy-galaxy lensing be used down to 2 $h^{{-1}}$ Mpc, adding small-scale information without modeling the full halo occupation. The authors argue this demonstrates that weak lensing alone can calibrate source redshifts as well as photometric and clustering redshift methods, which matters for upcoming surveys where high-redshift photo-z calibration is limited.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the point-mass correction model for the excess surface density ΔΣ(Rp). It assumes that everything the minimal linear-bias model misses within a small radius R0 = 4 $h^{{-1}}$ Mpc behaves as a single point mass at the halo centre, so the corrected model is ΔΣ′(Rp) = ΔΣ_gG(Rp) + [ΔΣ_PM(R0) − ΔΣ_gG(R0)](R0/Rp)^2, with one free amplitude ΔΣ_PM per lens bin (the Upsilon-statistic/ADSD form). This lets galaxy-galaxy lensing be used down to Rp = 2 $h^{{-1}}$ Mpc and up to 70 $h^{{-1}}$ Mpc, roughly doubling the small-scale information. The second piece is tomographic lensing-ratio self-calibration: the same lens galaxies measured against four source bins carry ratios that fix the source redshift shifts Δz_i, which is what allows flat priors on Δz3 and Δz4 instead of external photo-z constraints.

What would settle it

Measure the mean redshifts of the two highest HSC source bins spectroscopically at z > 1.1. If the measured shifts are consistent with zero while the 3x2pt fit keeps demanding Δz3 ≈ −0.11 and Δz4 ≈ −0.19, the tomographic self-calibration is absorbing a systematic. A second decisive check is to run the point-mass template on mock realisations with strong off-centering and satellite contributions: if the recovered S8 is biased by more than the statistical error, the one-parameter correction is insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the self-calibrating information in tomographic galaxy-galaxy lensing and cosmic shear is sufficient to pin down both the growth-of-structure amplitude and the mean redshifts of the two highest source bins, removing the need for external photo-z priors there. On the HSC Y3–SDSS data vector, the flat-ΛCDM fit gives S8 = 0.$780^{{+0.029}}$_{-0.030} (Δz3 = −0.$112^{{+0.046}}$_{-0.049}, Δz4 = −0.$185^{{+0.071}}$_{-0.081}), and the wCDM fit gives S8 = 0.$756^{{+0.038}}$_{-0.036} with w = −1.$176^{{+0.310}}$_{-0.346}, consistent with a cosmological constant. These redshift shifts agree with previous HSC Y3 cosmic-shear findings and are in about 2.4σ tension with the fiducial photo-z-based distributions, which the paper interprets as evidence that the photometric redshift calibration for z > 1.1 is biased high. If correct, this is the most precise S8 constraint from HSC to date and a proof that tomographic lensing ratios can substitute for external redshift calibration in the two highest source bins.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that all unresolved small-scale galaxy-matter correlation below R0 = 4 $h^{{-1}}$ Mpc is exactly captured by one extra point-mass amplitude per lens bin on top of a linear-bias model, and that this form remains accurate down to 2 $h^{{-1}}$ Mpc; if the real signal has scale-dependent bias, satellite structure, or off-centering that this one parameter cannot mimic, the inferred S8 would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fiducial flat-ΛCDM fit yields S8 = 0.780^{+0.029}_{-0.030}, the most precise HSC S8 to date; combining it with other lensing surveys would narrow the current spread of S8 values.
  • The 3x2pt data vector alone constrains the highest source-bin mean redshifts, with Δz3 and Δz4 both negative at roughly 1.5 to 2σ, supporting the earlier HSC cosmic-shear hint that high-z photo-z calibration is biased.
  • If the source redshift distribution in bins 3 and 4 were reliably calibrated externally, the same analysis would reach roughly 2% precision on S8.
  • The wCDM analysis finds w = −1.176^{+0.310}_{-0.346}, consistent with a cosmological constant, while the redshift-shift constraints stay nearly unchanged, so the lensing-ratio calibration is insensitive to the dark-energy model.
  • Removing the highest source bin shifts S8 by −0.8σ with p = 0.08, a non-significant but monitored effect; the second source bin anchors the redshift self-calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary the paper leaves implicit: if the point-mass correction is valid, future wide surveys can deliberately push galaxy-galaxy lensing into the 2 to 8 h^{-1} Mpc regime and gain signal-to-noise without full HOD fitting; the correction's validity can then be stress-tested against HOD mocks with strong off-centering, which is a cheaper experiment than measuring the full small-scale bia
  • A testable extension: spectroscopic redshifts from the next generation of wide surveys overlapping the same footprint would measure Δz3 and Δz4 directly; if they confirm the lensing-preferred negative shifts, the photo-z bias for z > 1.1 is real, and S8 inferred from this data vector would be the correct one; if they find zero shift, the point-mass correction is absorbing redshift error.
  • The Hartlap factor of 0.77 signals that the 322-point data vector is already close to the covariance-estimation limit; as future data vectors grow, either more simulations or analytic covariance will be needed, otherwise the covariance noise will dominate the quoted cosmological error.
  • The galaxy bias and point-mass parameters are modelled with independent priors; feeding in physically motivated correlated priors based on halo mass is a natural next step that could tighten S8 beyond the reported value.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a tomographic 3x2pt cosmological analysis combining SDSS DR11 galaxy clustering, HSC Y3 galaxy-galaxy lensing, and HSC Y3 cosmic shear. The data vector has 322 points, the covariance is estimated from 1404 mock realizations with a Hartlap correction, and the analysis is blinded. Under flat Lambda CDM the paper reports S8 = 0.780+0.029-0.030, and under wCDM S8 = 0.756+0.038-0.036 with w0 = -1.176+0.310-0.346. Using uninformative priors on the mean redshift shifts of the two highest source bins, it measures Delta z3 = -0.112+0.046-0.049 and Delta z4 = -0.185+0.071-0.081, which the authors interpret as a demonstration of weak-lensing self-calibration of source redshifts. The main methodological novelty is a point-mass correction model that allows galaxy-galaxy lensing to be included down to Rp = 2 h^-1 Mpc with one free amplitude per lens bin.

Significance. If the central result holds, this is the most precise S8 measurement from HSC Y3 to date and an interesting demonstration that tomographic lensing can self-calibrate the mean redshifts of high-redshift source bins without external photo-z priors. The analysis has real strengths: it is blinded, validated on 1404 mock realizations, publicly uses CosmoSIS standard modules, reports a good goodness-of-fit (p = 0.91 after Hartlap correction), and presents extensive internal consistency and mock validation tests. The principal caveat is that the point-mass correction model is a simplified one-parameter description of all unresolved small-scale physics, and the validation of that model uses mocks built from the same galaxy-halo framework that motivates the parameterization. The claimed precision is therefore conditional on the assumed (R0/Rp)^2 shape and on the independent priors assigned to the point-mass amplitudes and linear biases.

major comments (3)
  1. [IIIB2 (Eqs. 22-24)] The central methodological innovation is the point-mass correction model, but its assumed small-scale shape is not independently tested. The model adds to a linear-bias template the term [DeltaSigma_PM(R0) - DeltaSigma_gG(R0)](R0/Rp)^2 with a fixed (R0/Rp)^2 profile; at the inner edge Rp = 2 h^-1 Mpc this correction is four times DeltaSigma_PM(R0), so the 2-4 h^-1 Mpc data largely calibrate the single amplitude DeltaSigma_PM. If the true galaxy-matter correlation contains scale-dependent bias, satellite profiles, or off-centering terms with a different shape, the free amplitude can only partially absorb the error, and the inferred linear bias b_l, and therefore S8, can shift. The Appendix A HOD mock validation covers many realistic effects, but those mocks are built from the same galaxy-halo connection framework that motivates the point-mass parameterization and therefore do not provide an external test of the assumed shape. I request (i) a stability test varying R0 and/or Rp,min, (ii) an extended model with a second shape parameter (e.g., a free inner slope or a satellite-profile term) to show that S8 is unchanged, and (iii) if possible an external comparison against hydrodynamical or non-HOD mock DeltaSigma predictions at 2-4 h^-1 Mpc. Without one of these, the 3.5% precision claim is conditional on an unvalidated shape assumption.
  2. [IIIE] The text states that physically DeltaSigma_PM,q and b_q should be correlated because both depend on halo mass, yet the analysis assigns them independent priors. In Eq. (24), b_l enters DeltaSigma_gG while DeltaSigma_PM is an additive amplitude, so the two parameters can trade off; with both free, the point-mass term can partially absorb changes in galaxy bias, which is directly relevant to separating S8 from the clustering amplitude. The mock validation shows no large bias for the specific HOD models tested, but it does not establish that the independent-prior treatment is unbiased for the real, unknown relation. Please add a test with a physically motivated joint prior relating DeltaSigma_PM,q to b_q, or at least present the posterior correlation between b_q and DeltaSigma_PM,q and demonstrate that S8 is insensitive to the prior choice. This matters because DeltaSigma_PM is not a derived quantity fixed by external data but a free parameter in the central fit.
  3. [IIC] The covariance matrix sets the w_p-lensing cross-correlation to zero by assumption, motivated by the roughly 5% footprint overlap. Because the 1404 mock realizations are already available, this assumption can be tested directly. Please report the magnitude of the measured w_p-lensing cross-correlation in the mocks and quantify the effect of zeroing those blocks on the final S8 error bar and on the Hartlap-corrected likelihood. If the effect is negligible, a one-sentence quantitative statement would close the issue; as written, the precision and tension claims rely on an unquantified covariance approximation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The prior on Omega_b h^2 is listed as U[0.1, 0.025], which is not a valid interval; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected (likely U[0.005, 0.025] or similar).
  2. [IIB2] The sentence introducing the galaxy-galaxy lensing measurement reads "identical to that of ; therefore..." with an empty citation; please fill in the reference or rephrase.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains a truncated phrase: "multiplied by 10^5 to match Th..."; the sentence should be completed.
  4. [Appendix A] The last two validation tests are both labeled "Delta z3 = -0.1, Delta z4 = -0.2, Delta z3,4 ~ U[-1,1]" in the text, even though one of them is described as using a Gaussian prior centered at zero; the duplicated labels should be corrected to distinguish the two cases.
  5. [Reference [21]] Reference [21] is cited as "arXiv e-prints (2025)" without an arXiv identifier or journal reference; since the paper relies on it for the DeltaSigma measurement, please provide a complete citation or clarify its availability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: S8 and the Δz constraints are ordinary posterior fits, and the point-mass correction is an explicit modeling ansatz validated on mocks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the reported S8, Δz3, and Δz4 values are posterior constraints obtained by evaluating Eq. (38) on the 322-point data vector, and none of the model equations (18)-(27) defines a target parameter in terms of the measured value of that same parameter. Δz3 and Δz4 are free nuisance parameters with flat priors (Table I) and are constrained, not predicted, by the lensing ratios; this is ordinary parameter inference, not circularity. The point-mass correction (Eqs. 22-24) is an explicit modeling ansatz with one free amplitude per lens bin, and the paper does not claim to derive it from first principles; the mock validation in Appendix A, including tests with injected redshift shifts (Δz3 = -0.1, Δz4 = -0.2), provides an independent recovery check. Self-citations (e.g., [21] for the companion 2x2pt measurement, [17] for the minimal-bias model, [12] for cosmic shear) point to published, code-reproduced measurements and external simulation suites; they are not used to forbid alternatives or to import an unverified uniqueness theorem. The acknowledged limitation in Section IIIE that ΔΣPM and b_q are assigned independent priors is a modeling risk, not a circular reduction. No circular step meets the required quote-and-exhibit bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 33 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inference rests on 33 fitted parameters (32 in ΛCDM) plus a battery of modeling assumptions. The point-mass correction and the mean-shift-only redshift model are the most consequential ad hoc choices. No new physical entities are introduced; the point-mass correction is a mathematical fitting term.

free parameters (33)
  • log(10^10 A_s)
    Primordial curvature amplitude, sampled with a uniform prior U[1, 5]; standard cosmological free parameter.
  • Ω_b h^2
    Baryon density, prior as printed in Table I appears to contain a typo (U[0.1, 0.025]).
  • n_s
    Scalar spectral index, sampled U[0.94, 1.0].
  • Ω_c h^2
    Cold dark matter density, sampled U[0.0998, 0.1398].
  • Ω_m
    Matter density parameter, sampled U[0.0906, 0.5406].
  • w0
    Dark energy equation of state, sampled U[-2, -0.33] in the wCDM analysis only.
  • A_b
    HMCode baryonic feedback amplitude, prior U[1.5, 3.13].
  • A_IA,1
    TATT tidal alignment amplitude, prior U[-6, 6].
  • A_IA,2
    TATT tidal torque amplitude, prior U[-6, 6].
  • η_IA,1
    TATT redshift evolution index 1, prior U[-6, 6].
  • η_IA,2
    TATT redshift evolution index 2, prior U[-6, 6].
  • b_TA
    TATT tidal alignment coupling, prior U[0, 2].
  • b1
    Linear galaxy bias for LOWZ, prior U[0.1, 5].
  • b2
    Linear galaxy bias for CMASS1, prior U[0.1, 5].
  • b3
    Linear galaxy bias for CMASS2, prior U[0.1, 5].
  • ΔΣ_PM,1
    Point-mass correction amplitude at R0 = 4 Mpc/h for LOWZ, prior U[0, 10].
  • ΔΣ_PM,2
    Point-mass correction amplitude at R0 = 4 Mpc/h for CMASS1, prior U[0, 10].
  • ΔΣ_PM,3
    Point-mass correction amplitude at R0 = 4 Mpc/h for CMASS2, prior U[0, 10].
  • α_mag,1
    Magnification bias slope for LOWZ, prior N(2.258, 0.5).
  • α_mag,2
    Magnification bias slope for CMASS1, prior N(3.563, 0.5).
  • α_mag,3
    Magnification bias slope for CMASS2, prior N(3.729, 0.5).
  • m1
    Multiplicative shear bias for HSC bin 1, prior N(0, 0.01).
  • m2
    Multiplicative shear bias for HSC bin 2, prior N(0, 0.01).
  • m3
    Multiplicative shear bias for HSC bin 3, prior N(0, 0.01).
  • m4
    Multiplicative shear bias for HSC bin 4, prior N(0, 0.01).
  • Δz1
    Redshift shift for HSC bin 1, prior N(0, 0.024).
  • Δz2
    Redshift shift for HSC bin 2, prior N(0, 0.022).
  • Δz3 = -0.112+0.046-0.049
    Redshift shift for HSC bin 3, flat prior U[-1, 1], measured via lensing self-calibration.
  • Δz4 = -0.185+0.071-0.081
    Redshift shift for HSC bin 4, flat prior U[-1, 1], measured via lensing self-calibration.
  • α'(2)
    PSF additive bias parameter for second moment leakage, prior N(0, 1).
  • β'(2)
    PSF additive bias parameter for second moment modeling residual, prior N(0, 1).
  • α'(4)
    PSF additive bias parameter for fourth moment leakage, prior N(0, 1).
  • β'(4)
    PSF additive bias parameter for fourth moment modeling residual, prior N(0, 1).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption The universe is spatially flat (Ω_k = 0) and the total neutrino mass is fixed to 0.06 eV.
    Stated in Section IIIA1; these are not marginalized over, so the quoted S8 is conditional on them.
  • standard math Limber and flat-sky approximations are used for angular power spectra and correlation functions.
    Used in Eqs. (8), (11), (12), and (25); standard for the angular scales considered.
  • domain assumption Galaxies trace the matter field with one linear bias per lens bin and no scale dependence (minimal bias model).
    Section IIIB1, Eqs. (18)-(19); validity at R_p > 8 h^-1 Mpc is cited to [59].
  • ad hoc to paper The small-scale ΔΣ signal below R0 = 4 h^-1 Mpc is described by a point mass at the halo center, parameterized by ΔΣPM per lens bin.
    Section IIIB2, Eqs. (22)-(24); this is the paper's main modeling extension and is not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic alignments follow the TATT model with five free parameters.
    Section IIIA3, Eqs. (13)-(17); standard model from [54].
  • domain assumption Source redshift distributions are known up to a constant mean shift Δz_i; residual shape uncertainty beyond the shift is not modeled.
    Section IIA2 notes CAMIRA redshifts only reach z < 1.1; Section IIIC1 shifts n_i(z) by Δz_i only.
  • domain assumption The covariance matrix neglects correlations between galaxy clustering (w_p) and weak lensing observables.
    Section IIC: only about 5% footprint overlap between SDSS and HSC, so cross-covariance between w_p and ΔΣ/ξ± is assumed negligible.
  • domain assumption Multiplicative shear biases are known to 1% from image simulations and enter as independent Gaussian priors per source bin.
    Section IIIC2; relies on the calibration in [24].
  • domain assumption Lensing B-modes are negligible and PSF additive bias affects only ξ+.
    Section IIIB3 and IIIC3; the B-mode signal in HSC Y3 is not statistically significant.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmology and Source Redshift Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Tomographic Weak Lensing with HSC Y3 and SDSS using the Point-Mass Correction Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3LDW7KD

@misc{pith2026250701386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmology and Source Redshift Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Tomographic Weak Lensing with HSC Y3 and SDSS using the Point-Mass Correction Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3LDW7KD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01386}
}
abstract

The combination of galaxy clustering and weak lensing is a powerful probe of the cosmology model. We present a joint analysis of galaxy clustering and weak lensing cosmology using SDSS data as the tracer of dark matter (lens sample) and the HSC Y3 dataset as source galaxies. The analysis divides HSC Y3 galaxies into four tomographic bins for both galaxy-galaxy lensing and cosmic shear measurements, and employs a point-mass correction model to utilize galaxy-galaxy lensing signals down to 2$h^{-1}$Mpc, extending up to 70$h^{-1}$Mpc. These strategies enhance the signal-to-noise ratio of the galaxy-galaxy lensing data vector. Using a flat $\Lambda$CDM model, we find $S_8 = 0.780^{+0.029}_{-0.030}$, and using a $w$CDM model, we obtain $S_8 = 0.756^{+0.038}_{-0.036}$ with $w = -1.176^{+0.310}_{-0.346}$. We apply uninformative priors on the redshift mean-shift parameters for the third and fourth tomographic bins. Leveraging the self-calibration power of tomographic weak lensing, we measure $\Delta z_3 = -0.112^{+0.046}_{-0.049}$ and $\Delta z_4 = -0.185^{+0.071}_{-0.081}$, in agreement with previous HSC Y3 results. This demonstrates that weak lensing self-calibration can achieve redshift constraints comparable to other methods such as photometric and clustering redshift calibration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Measurements (blue points), best-fit theoretical predictions (black lines), and the 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the model (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The correlation and covariance matrix of the data vector used in the fiducial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the fiducial cosmological constraints from this work (green contours) with external datasets. Shown for reference are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Marginalized constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The empirical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Summary of internal consistency results for five key parameters. Each point represents the mode of the marginalized 1D posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The validation results are summarized for five key parameters. The points indicate the mode of the marginalized one-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Bias in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The 1 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The posterior distribution of the fiducial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Cosmic Shear constraints from HSC Year 3 with clustering calibration of the tomographic redshift distributions from DESI

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reanalysis of HSC Y3 cosmic shear with DESI clustering redshift calibration yields S8 = 0.805 ± 0.018, a 1.8× error reduction and upward shift toward Planck cosmology.

  2. Full calibration of the tomographic redshift distribution from the HSC PDR3 Shape Catalog with DESI

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Clustering redshifts with DESI DR1/DR2 calibrate all four HSC Y3 tomographic bins; bins 3 and 4 shift to higher redshift (dz3=-0.039, dz4=-0.048) but less than cosmic shear analyses implied.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Source Redshift Distribution ThefiducialredshiftdistributionoftheHSCY3shearcata- log is shown as the shaded region in the upper panel of Fig. 1. For the fiducial analysis, the HSC Y3 shear catalog is divided intofourtomographicbinsusingthe dNNz𝑧bestestimates. The redshift distribution of each tomographic bin is modeled as a joint probability distribution ...

  2. [2]

    The dNNzphoto-𝑧estimates,withpriorinformationthat accountsforthecosmicvarianceofthephoto- 𝑧 training set; and

  3. [3]

    Theclusteringredshiftbetweenthephotometricsample and the CAMIRA LRG reference sample [36, 37, 66], available in the range𝑧= 0.1–1.1. AsdiscoveredintheHSCY3cosmicshearanalysis[12,13], themeanredshiftsofthethirdandfourthtomographicbinspre- ferredbythe ΛCDMmodelareinconsistentwiththoseinferred from the fiducial redshift distributions based on photometric and...

  4. [4]

    These simulations account for galaxy model bias, noise bias, selection bias, and detection bias, using realistic galaxy sam- ples derived from HST F814W-band images

    Multiplicative Calibration Bias The shear multiplicative bias of the HSC Y3 shear catalog is calibrated using image simulations, as described in [24]. These simulations account for galaxy model bias, noise bias, selection bias, and detection bias, using realistic galaxy sam- ples derived from HST F814W-band images. In this work, we model the residual mult...

  5. [5]

    2×2pt”and“cosmicshear

    PSF Additive Bias The correlation between PSF modeling residuals and PSF shapes can contaminate the shear-shear correlation function[72, 73]. Following [31], the HSC Y3 shear catalog isimpactedbyPSFleakageandmodelingresidualsassociated with the spin-2 components of the second moments𝑒PSF and thefourthmoments 𝑀(4) PSF. Theobservedshearcanbemodeled as 𝛾obs=...

    2016

  6. [6]

    Weemploytomographicbinningforthesourcegalaxies in both galaxy-galaxy lensing and cosmic shear mea- surements. This approach increases the overall signal- to-noise ratio and enables joint constraints on the red- shift distribution parametersΔ𝑧3 and Δ𝑧4, which are criticalduetothelimitedredshiftcalibrationinthethird and fourth tomographic bins

  7. [7]

    no HSC- 4

    We extend the modeling of the galaxy-galaxy lensing signal down to 2ℎ−1 Mpc by adopting a point-mass correction term in additional to the linear galaxy bias model in theΔΣ formalism. The point-mass correc- tion accounts for additional lensing from a hypothetical mass concentration at the halo center and is parameter- ized by one free parameter per lens bi...

  8. [8]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro,N.Bartolo, et al.,Astronomy&Astrophysics 641,A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. Avila, D. Bacon, et al., Phys. Rev. D105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexan- der, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armen- gaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr-Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, A. Bera, F. Beut- ler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J.876, 85 (2019), arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]

    A.G.Riess,S.Casertano,W.Yuan,L.M.Macri,andD.Scolnic, Astrophys. J.876, 85 (2019), arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, A. Rest, Y. C. Pan, R. Chornock, R. J. Foley, M. E. Huber, R. Kessler, G. Narayan, A. G. Riess, et al., Astrophys. J.859, 101 (2018), arXiv:1710.00845 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hu, Astrophys

    W. Hu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 522, L21 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9904153 [astro-ph]

    1999

  6. [14]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    M.Kilbinger,ReportsonProgressinPhysics 78,086901(2015), arXiv:1411.0115 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Mandelbaum, Ann

    R. Mandelbaum, Ann. Rev. Astro. Astrophys.56, 393 (2018), arXiv:1710.03235 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. Amon, D. Gruen, M. A. Troxel, N. MacCrann, S. Dodelson, A. Choi, C. Doux, L. F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause,et al., Phys. Rev. D105, 023514 (2022), arXiv:2105.13543 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022

  10. [18]

    L. F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, M.Raveri,A.Campos,A.Amon,A.Chen,C.Doux, et al.,Phys. Rev. D105, 023515 (2022), arXiv:2105.13544 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Takada, S

    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), arXiv:2304.00702 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Zhang, M

    R.Dalal,X.Li,A.Nicola,J.Zuntz,M.A.Strauss,S.Sugiyama, T. Zhang, M. M. Rau, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada, S. More, H. Miyatake, A. Kannawadi, M. Shirasaki, T. Taniguchi, R.Takahashi,K.Osato,T.Hamana,M.Oguri,A.J.Nishizawa, A. A. P. Malagón, T. Sunayama, D. Alonso, A. Slosar, W. Luo,...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. H. Wright, B. Stölzner, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Gib- lin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi, K.Kuijken,S.-S.Li,R.Reischke,M.vonWietersheim-Kramsta, M. Yoon, P. Burger, N. E. Chisari, J. de Jong, A. Dvornik, C. Georgiou, J. Harnois-Déraps, P. Jalan, A. J....

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. Prat, C. Sánchez, Y. Fang, D. Gruen, J. Elvin-Poole, N. Kokron, L. F. Secco, B. Jain, R. Miquel, N. MacCrann, M.A.Troxel,A.Alarcon,D.Bacon,G.M.Bernstein,J.Blazek, R.Cawthon,C.Chang,M.Crocce,C.Davis,J.DeVicente,J.P. Dietrich, A.Drlica-Wagner, O.Friedrich,M.Gatti, W.G.Hart- l...

    2018

  15. [23]

    Miyatake, Y

    H. Miyatake, Y. Kobayashi, M. Takada, T. Nishimichi, M. Shi- rasaki, S. Sugiyama, R. Takahashi, K. Osato, S. More, and Y. Park, Phys. Rev. D106, 083519 (2022), arXiv:2101.00113 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sugiyama, H

    S. Sugiyama, H. Miyatake, S. More, X. Li, M. Shirasaki, M. Takada, Y. Kobayashi, R. Takahashi, T. Nishimichi, A. J. Nishizawa, M. M. Rau, T. Zhang, R. Dalal, R. Mandelbaum, M. A. Strauss, T. Hamana, M. Oguri, K. Osato, A. Kannawadi, B.-C. Hsieh, W. Luo, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch,...

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Miyatake, S

    H. Miyatake, S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, T. Nishimichi, X. Li, M. Shirasaki, S. More, Y. Kobayashi, A. J. Nishizawa, M. M. Rau, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2304.00704 (2023), arXiv:2304.00704 [astro-ph.CO]. 26

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    van Uitert, B

    E. van Uitert, B. Joachimi, S. Joudaki, A. Amon, C. Hey- mans, F. Köhlinger, M. Asgari, C. Blake, A. Choi, T. Er- ben, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 4662 (2018), arXiv:1706.05004 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. More, S. Sugiyama, H. Miyatake, M. M. Rau, M. Shirasaki, X. Li, A. J. Nishizawa, K. Osato, T. Zhang, M. Takada,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2304.00703 (2023), arXiv:2304.00703 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zhang and S

    T. Zhang and S. Sugiyama, arXiv e-prints (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    J. E. Gunn, W. A. Siegmund, E. J. Mannery, R. E. Owen, C. L. Hull, R. F. Leger, L. N. Carey, G. R. Knapp, D. G. York, W. N. Boroski,S.M.Kent,R.H.Lupton,C.M.Rockosi,M.L.Evans, P. Waddell, J. E. Anderson, J. Annis, J. C. Barentine, L. M. Bartoszek, S. Bastian, S. B. Bracker, H. ...

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Allam,C.AllendePrieto,D.An,K.S.J.Anderson,S.F.Ander- son, J.Annis, N.A.Bahcall, C.A.L.Bailer-Jones, J.C.Baren- tine, B

    K.N.Abazajian,J.K.Adelman-McCarthy,M.A.Agüeros,S.S. Allam,C.AllendePrieto,D.An,K.S.J.Anderson,S.F.Ander- son, J.Annis, N.A.Bahcall, C.A.L.Bailer-Jones, J.C.Baren- tine, B. A. Bassett, A. C. Becker, T. C. Beers, E. F. Bell, V. Be- lokurov,A.A.Berlind,E.F.Berman,M.Bernardi,S.J.B...

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    X. Li, H. Miyatake, W. Luo, S. More, M. Oguri, T. Hamana, R.Mandelbaum,M.Shirasaki,M.Takada,R.Armstrong, et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 74, 421 (2022), arXiv:2107.00136 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aihara, Y

    H. Aihara, Y. AlSayyad, M. Ando, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch, E. Egami, H. Furusawa, J. Furusawa, S. Harasawa, Y. Harikane, et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan74, 247 (2022), arXiv:2108.13045 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Aihara, Y

    H. Aihara, Y. AlSayyad, M. Ando, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch, E. Egami, H. Furusawa, J. Furusawa, A. Goulding, Y. Harikane, et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan71, 114 (2019), arXiv:1905.12221 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hirata and U

    C. Hirata and U. Seljak, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.343, 459 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301054 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mandelbaum, C

    R. Mandelbaum, C. M. Hirata, U. Seljak, J. Guzik, N. Padman- abhan, C. Blake, M. R. Blanton, R. Lupton, and J. Brinkmann, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.361, 1287 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0501201

    2005

  28. [36]

    Mandelbaum, F

    R. Mandelbaum, F. Lanusse, A. Leauthaud, R. Armstrong, M. Simet, H. Miyatake, J. E. Meyers, J. Bosch, R. Murata, S. Miyazaki, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.481, 3170 (2018), arXiv:1710.00885 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    B. T. P. Rowe, M. Jarvis, R. Mandelbaum, G. M. Bernstein, J. Bosch, M. Simet, J. E. Meyers, T. Kacprzak, R. Nakajima, J.Zuntz,H.Miyatake,J.P.Dietrich,R.Armstrong,P.Melchior, and M. S. S. Gill, Astronomy and Computing10, 121 (2015), arXiv:1407.7676 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhang, X

    T. Zhang, X. Li, R. Dalal, R. Mandelbaum, M. A. Strauss, A. Kannawadi, H. Miyatake, A. Nicola, A. A. P. Malagón, M. Shirasaki, S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, and S. More, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 525, 2441 (2023), arXiv:2212.03257 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. J. Nishizawa, B.-C. Hsieh, M. Tanaka, and T. Takata, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2003.01511 (2020), arXiv:2003.01511 [astro- ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Nakajima, R

    R.Mandelbaum, A.Slosar, T.Baldauf, U.Seljak, C.M.Hirata, R. Nakajima, R. Reyes, and R. E. Smith, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.432, 1544 (2013), arXiv:1207.1120 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    McKay, A

    E.S.Sheldon,D.E.Johnston,J.A.Frieman,R.Scranton,T.A. McKay, A. J. Connolly, T. Budavári, I. Zehavi, N. A. Bahcall, J.Brinkmann,andM.Fukugita,TheAstronomicalJ. 127,2544 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0312036 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mandelbaum, H

    M.M.Rau,R.Dalal,T.Zhang,X.Li,A.J.Nishizawa,S.More, R. Mandelbaum, H. Miyatake, M. A. Strauss, and M. Takada, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 10.1093/mnras/stad1962 (2023), arXiv:2211.16516 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Oguri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 444, 147 (2014), arXiv:1407.4693 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Oguri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 444, 147 (2014), arXiv:1407.4693 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ishikawa, T

    S. Ishikawa, T. Okumura, M. Oguri, and S.-C. Lin, Astrophys. J.922, 23 (2021), arXiv:2103.08628 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Takahashi, T

    R. Takahashi, T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, T. Namikawa, T. Nishimichi, K. Osato, and K. Shiroyama, Astrophys. J.850, 24 (2017), arXiv:1706.01472 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. Alam, F. D. Albareti, C. Allende Prieto, F. Anders, S. F. Anderson, T. Anderton, B. H. Andrews, E. Armengaud, É.Aubourg,S.Bailey,S.Basu,J.E.Bautista,R.L.Beaton,T.C. Beers,C.F.Bender,A.A.Berlind,F.Beutler,V.Bhardwaj,J.C. 27 Bird, D. Bizyaev, C. H. Blake, M. R. Blanton, M. Bl...

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. D. Landy and A. S. Szalay, Astrophys. J.412, 64 (1993)

    1993

  40. [48]

    Bartelmann and P

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

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Shirasaki, M

    M. Shirasaki, M. Takada, H. Miyatake, R. Takahashi, T. Hamana, T. Nishimichi, and R. Murata, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.470, 3476 (2017), arXiv:1607.08679 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Shirasaki, T

    M. Shirasaki, T. Hamana, M. Takada, R. Takahashi, and H. Miyatake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 52 (2019), arXiv:1901.09488 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bridle, S

    J.Zuntz,M.Paterno,E.Jennings,D.Rudd,A.Manzotti,S.Do- delson, S. Bridle, S. Sehrish, and J. Kowalkowski, Astronomy and Computing12, 45 (2015), arXiv:1409.3409 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J.538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. J. Mead, C. Heymans, L. Lombriser, J. A. Peacock, O. I. Steele, and H. A. Winther, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.459, 1468 (2016), arXiv:1602.02154 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    N. E. Chisari, M. L. A. Richardson, J. Devriendt, Y. Dubois, A. Schneider, A. M. C. Le Brun, R. S. Beckmann, S. Peirani, A. Slyz, and C. o. Pichon, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.480, 3962 (2018), arXiv:1801.08559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Huang, T

    H.-J. Huang, T. Eifler, R. Mandelbaum, G. M. Bernstein, A. Chen, A. Choi, J. García-Bellido, D. Huterer, E. Krause, E. Rozo,et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 6010 (2021), arXiv:2007.15026 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Terasawa, X

    R. Terasawa, X. Li, M. Takada, T. Nishimichi, S. Tanaka, S. Sugiyama, T. Kurita, T. Zhang, M. Shirasaki, R. Takahashi, H. Miyatake, S. More, and A. J. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. D111, 063509 (2025), arXiv:2403.20323 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Asgari, A

    M. Asgari, A. Taylor, B. Joachimi, and T. D. Kitching, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 479,454(2018),arXiv:1612.04664 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Joachimi, C

    B. Joachimi, C. A. Lin, M. Asgari, T. Tröster, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, F. Köhlinger, A. G. Sánchez, A. H. Wright, M.Bilicki, et al.,Astronomy&Astrophysics 646,A129(2021), arXiv:2007.01844 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

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

    2004 arXiv

  52. [60]

    D. N. Limber, Astrophys. J.117, 134 (1953)

    1953

  53. [61]

    J. A. Blazek, N. MacCrann, M. A. Troxel, and X. Fang, Phys. Rev. D100, 103506 (2019), arXiv:1708.09247 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. E. McEwen, X. Fang, C. M. Hirata, and J. A. Blazek, JCAP 2016, 015 (2016), arXiv:1603.04826 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    X. Fang, J. A. Blazek, J. E. McEwen, and C. M. Hirata, JCAP 2017, 030 (2017), arXiv:1609.05978 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bridle and L

    S. Bridle and L. King, New Journal of Physics9, 444 (2007), arXiv:0705.0166 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Krause and C

    E. Krause and C. M. Hirata, Astronomy & Astrophysics523, A28 (2010), arXiv:0910.3786 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Sugiyama, M

    S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, Y. Kobayashi, H. Miyatake, M. Shi- rasaki, T. Nishimichi, and Y. Park, Phys. Rev. D102, 083520 (2020), arXiv:2008.06873 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    X. Fang, T. Eifler, and E. Krause, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 497, 2699 (2020), arXiv:2004.04833 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Zehavi, Z

    I. Zehavi, Z. Zheng, D. H. Weinberg, J. A. Frieman, A. A. Berlind, M. R. Blanton, R. Scoccimarro, R. K. Sheth, M. A. Strauss,I.Kayo,Y.Suto,M.Fukugita,O.Nakamura,N.A.Bah- call, J. Brinkmann, J. E. Gunn, G. S. Hennessy, Ž. Ivezić, G. R. Knapp, J. Loveday, A. Meiksin, D. J. Schle...

    2005

  61. [69]

    Kaiser, Astrophys

    N. Kaiser, Astrophys. J. Lett.284, L9 (1984)

    1984

  62. [70]

    Baldauf, R

    T. Baldauf, R. E. Smith, U. Seljak, and R. Mandelbaum, Phys. Rev. D81, 063531 (2010), arXiv:0911.4973 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  63. [71]

    S.Dodelson,Phys.Rev.D 82,023522(2010),arXiv:1001.5012 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Jefferson, Y

    J. Jefferson, Y. Omori, C. Chang, S. Agarwal, J. Zuntz, M. As- gari, M. Gatti, B. Giblin, C.-A. Hébert, M. Jarvis, E. M. Peder- sen,J.Prat,T.Schutt,T.Zhang,andtheLSSTDarkEnergySci- ence Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.03964 (2025), arXiv:2505.03964 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  65. [73]

    Oguri, Y.-T

    M. Oguri, Y.-T. Lin, S.-C. Lin, A. J. Nishizawa, A. More, S. More, B.-C. Hsieh, E. Medezinski, H. Miyatake, H.- Y. Jian, et al. , Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 70, S20 (2018), arXiv:1701.00818 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Zhang, M

    T. Zhang, M. M. Rau, R. Mandelbaum, X. Li, and B. Moews, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 518,709(2023),arXiv:2206.10169 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    S. More, H. Miyatake, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada, D. N. Spergel, J. R. Brownstein, and D. P. Schneider, Astrophys. J. 806, 2 (2015), arXiv:1407.1856 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. A. Newman, Astrophys. J.684, 88 (2008), arXiv:0805.1409 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Hildebrandt, M

    H. Hildebrandt, M. Viola, C. Heymans, S. Joudaki, K. Kui- jken, C. Blake, T. Erben, B. Joachimi, D. Klaes, L. Miller, et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 1454 (2017), arXiv:1606.05338 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    DESI Collaboration, M. A. Karim, A. G. Adame, D. Aguado, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, G. Aldering, D. M. Alexan- der, R. Alfarsy, L. Allen, C. Allende Prieto, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H.Awan,S.Bailey,A.BaleatoLizancos,O.Ballester,A.B...

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Jarvis, G

    M. Jarvis, G. M. Bernstein, A. Amon, C. Davis, P. F. Léget, K. Bechtol, I. Harrison, M. Gatti, A. Roodman, C. Chang, R. Chen, A. Choi, S. Desai, A. Drlica-Wagner, D. Gruen, R. A. Gruendl, A. Hernandez, N. MacCrann, J. Meyers, A. Navarro- Alsina, S. Pandey, A. A. Plazas, L. F. ...

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Zhang, H

    T. Zhang, H. Almoubayyed, R. Mandelbaum, J. E. Meyers, M. Jarvis, A. Kannawadi, M. A. Schmitz, A. Guinot, and LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.520, 2328 (2023), arXiv:2205.07892 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Heymans, T

    C. Heymans, T. Tröster, M. Asgari, C. Blake, H. Hildebrandt, B. Joachimi, K. Kuijken, C.-A. Lin, A. G. Sánchez, J. L. van denBusch, et al.,Astronomy&Astrophysics 646,A140(2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Sugiyama, M

    S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, H. Miyatake, T. Nishimichi, M. Shi- rasaki, Y. Kobayashi, R. Mandelbaum, S. More, R. Taka- hashi, K. Osato, et al. , Phys. Rev. D 105, 123537 (2022), arXiv:2111.10966 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Hartlap, P

    J. Hartlap, P. Simon, and P. Schneider, Astronomy & Astro- physics464, 399 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0608064 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Park and E

    Y. Park and E. Rozo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499, 4638 (2020), arXiv:1907.05798 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Ferreira, T

    T. Ferreira, T. Zhang, N. Chen, S. Dodelson, and LSST Dark EnergyScienceCollaboration,Phys.Rev.D 103,103535(2021), arXiv:2010.15986 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Schaye, C

    J. Schaye, C. Dalla Vecchia, C. M. Booth, R. P. C. Wiersma, T.Theuns,M.R.Haas,S.Bertone,A.R.Duffy,I.G.McCarthy, and F. o. van de Voort, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 1536 (2010), arXiv:0909.5196 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  79. [87]

    I. G. McCarthy, J. Schaye, S. Bird, and A. M. C. Le Brun, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 2936 (2017), arXiv:1603.02702 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  80. [88]

    441,1270(2014),arXiv:1312.5462 [astro-ph.CO]

    A.M.C.LeBrun,I.G.McCarthy,J.Schaye,andT.J.Ponman, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 441,1270(2014),arXiv:1312.5462 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.