pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.20262 · v4 · submitted 2025-07-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Future Parameter Constraints from Weak Lensing CMB and Galaxy Lensing Power- and Bispectra

Jonas Frugte , P. Daniel Meerburg This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 02:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords weak lensingCMB lensinggalaxy lensingbispectrumcosmological parametersneutrino massstage 4 surveys
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

The bispectrum from future CMB and galaxy weak lensing can rival the power spectrum in tightening cosmological parameter constraints.

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

This paper forecasts how stage 4 surveys will constrain an eight-parameter cosmological model that includes neutrino mass and a dark energy equation of state by analyzing both the power spectrum and bispectrum of weak lensing from the cosmic microwave background and from galaxies. The authors include cross-correlations between the two lensing probes and test the impact of a strong prior versus a weak prior. With only weak prior information the bispectrum breaks degeneracies and improves the bounds, while on small scales the bispectrum becomes competitive with the power spectrum. Strong synergy appears when CMB and galaxy lensing are combined, especially for neutrino mass limits. The main conclusions survive the inclusion of post-Born corrections to the CMB lensing bispectrum.

Core claim

In the absence of systematics both the CMB and galaxy lensing bispectra are detectable at high signal-to-noise. With a weak prior the bispectrum significantly improves parameter constraints by breaking degeneracies. On small scales where non-linear effects dominate the bispectrum's constraining power can rival that of the power spectrum. Combining CMB and galaxy lensing yields tighter bounds, particularly on neutrino mass. These results hold after post-Born corrections are applied.

What carries the argument

Joint power- and bispectrum analysis of CMB weak lensing and galaxy weak lensing, including their cross-correlations, applied to an eight-parameter model (ΛCDM plus neutrino mass sum plus dark energy equation of state).

If this is right

  • With weak priors the bispectrum breaks degeneracies and improves constraints on neutrino mass and dark energy parameters.
  • On small scales the bispectrum becomes as constraining as the power spectrum.
  • Combining CMB and galaxy lensing power and bispectra produces tighter limits than either probe alone, especially for neutrino mass.
  • Post-Born corrections leave the main conclusions about the value of the bispectrum unchanged.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Analyses of real data will need accurate modeling of non-Gaussian covariance before the forecasted bispectrum gains can be realized.
  • Joint CMB-galaxy lensing pipelines that routinely include higher-order statistics could become standard for stage 4 surveys.
  • Similar gains may appear in other higher-order lensing statistics if their covariance and modeling challenges are solved.

Load-bearing premise

The forecasts assume the absence of systematics in the lensing measurements and that non-Gaussian covariance and baryonic feedback can be neglected or perfectly modeled.

What would settle it

Actual stage 4 survey data in which the measured bispectrum signal-to-noise falls well below the forecasted high values, or in which parameter improvements fail to appear once non-Gaussian covariance and baryonic effects are included, would falsify the predicted gains.

read the original abstract

Upcoming stage 4 surveys, such as the Simons Observatory, LSST, and Euclid, are poised to measure weak gravitational lensing of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and galaxies with unprecedented precision. While the power spectrum is the standard statistic used to analyze weak lensing data, non-Gaussianity from non-linear structure growth encodes additional cosmological information in higher-order statistics. We forecast the ability of future surveys to constrain cosmological parameters using the weak lensing power spectrum and bispectrum from both CMB and galaxy surveys, including their cross-correlations. We consider an eight-parameter model ($\Lambda$CDM + $\sum m_\nu$ + $w_0$) and assess constraints for stage 4 survey specifications. In the absence of systematics, both the CMB and galaxy lensing bispectra are found to be detectable at high signal-to-noise. We test two priors: a ''strong'' one based on constraints from CMB temperature and $E$-mode polarization anisotropies, and a ''weak'' one with minimal assumptions. With the weak prior, the bispectrum significantly improves parameter constraints by breaking degeneracies. For strong priors, improvements are more limited, especially for the CMB bispectrum. On small scales, where non-linear effects dominate, the bispectrum's constraining power can rival that of the power spectrum. We also find strong synergy between CMB and galaxy lensing; combining both probes leads to tighter constraints, particularly on neutrino mass. It was recently found that the CMB lensing bispectrum is strongly affected by the Born approximation, so we also consider post-Born corrections but find that our main conclusions remain the same. These results highlight the potential of higher-order lensing statistics and motivate further work on neglected effects such as non-Gaussian covariance, instrumental systematics, and baryonic feedback.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript forecasts cosmological parameter constraints from the weak lensing power spectrum and bispectrum of CMB and galaxy lensing, including their cross-correlations, for upcoming Stage-4 surveys such as Simons Observatory, LSST, and Euclid. Using an eight-parameter model (ΛCDM + ∑mν + w0), the authors compare constraints under strong (CMB temperature and E-mode polarization) and weak priors. They report that with the weak prior the bispectrum significantly improves constraints by breaking degeneracies, that on small scales the bispectrum's constraining power can rival the power spectrum, and that strong synergy exists between CMB and galaxy lensing (especially for neutrino mass). Post-Born corrections are tested but do not alter the main conclusions. All results assume the absence of systematics.

Significance. If the stated assumptions hold, the work demonstrates the value of including bispectra alongside power spectra for future weak-lensing analyses, particularly when priors are weak, and quantifies the synergy between CMB and galaxy lensing probes. The forward modeling under explicit Stage-4 survey specifications and the explicit check that post-Born corrections leave conclusions unchanged are strengths that support the forecasts.

major comments (2)
  1. The headline claim that the bispectrum rivals the power spectrum on small scales (Abstract) is load-bearing for the central result yet rests on the assumption that non-Gaussian covariance and baryonic feedback can be neglected or perfectly modeled. The manuscript itself flags these effects as neglected and to be addressed later; because baryonic feedback modifies the matter bispectrum at the 10-30% level on the relevant scales, a quantitative sensitivity test or error budget for these terms would be required to substantiate the small-scale rivalry statement.
  2. The numerical forecasts are presented without detailed error budgets, full specification of the covariance matrix construction, or validation against mock catalogs (as noted in the reader's assessment of soundness). This omission affects the ability to assess the robustness of the reported high signal-to-noise detections and the claimed degeneracy-breaking improvements.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that main conclusions survive post-Born corrections; a short quantitative summary of the size of these corrections in the results section would improve clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below and indicate the revisions we plan to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The headline claim that the bispectrum rivals the power spectrum on small scales (Abstract) is load-bearing for the central result yet rests on the assumption that non-Gaussian covariance and baryonic feedback can be neglected or perfectly modeled. The manuscript itself flags these effects as neglected and to be addressed later; because baryonic feedback modifies the matter bispectrum at the 10-30% level on the relevant scales, a quantitative sensitivity test or error budget for these terms would be required to substantiate the small-scale rivalry statement.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that our headline claim in the abstract is presented under the modeling assumptions detailed in the paper, specifically the neglect of non-Gaussian covariance, baryonic feedback, and other systematics, which are explicitly noted as topics for future investigation. The statement is intended to highlight the potential information content within this simplified framework. To better substantiate the claim and address the concern, we will revise the abstract and discussion sections to more prominently qualify the result as holding in the absence of these effects. We will also add a short paragraph discussing the expected magnitude of baryonic feedback effects on the bispectrum, drawing from existing studies, to provide a basic error budget perspective. A full quantitative sensitivity test would require a separate, more computationally intensive analysis that we plan to pursue in follow-up work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The numerical forecasts are presented without detailed error budgets, full specification of the covariance matrix construction, or validation against mock catalogs (as noted in the reader's assessment of soundness). This omission affects the ability to assess the robustness of the reported high signal-to-noise detections and the claimed degeneracy-breaking improvements.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this aspect of the presentation. In the revised manuscript, we will include an expanded methods section with a more complete specification of how the covariance matrix is constructed, including the Gaussian approximation used and any assumptions regarding the survey specifications. We will also add a dedicated subsection on the error budget, summarizing the primary sources of uncertainty in our forecasts. Regarding validation against mock catalogs, while this would be ideal for full robustness checks, it is not feasible within the current scope due to the high computational cost for bispectrum calculations at stage-4 precision. Our forecasts follow established methodologies in the literature for such predictions, and we will cite relevant works to support this approach. These changes should enhance the reader's ability to evaluate the results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forecasts use forward modeling under explicit priors and survey specs with no recycled fits or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper performs forward modeling of survey observables under stated priors and survey specifications; no fitted parameters from existing data are recycled into the reported forecasts. The derivation chain consists of standard cosmological modeling, computation of power spectra and bispectra, and Fisher forecasts for parameter constraints. Explicit caveats on neglected effects (non-Gaussian covariance, baryonic feedback, systematics) are stated as limitations rather than hidden assumptions that close a loop. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The central claims about degeneracy breaking and rival constraining power on small scales follow directly from the modeled signals under the stated idealizations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The forecasts rest on external survey specifications and the assumption that systematics can be ignored for the purpose of this exercise; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Stage-4 survey specifications
    Noise levels, sky coverage, and redshift distributions for Simons Observatory, LSST, and Euclid are taken as fixed inputs that determine the forecasted signal-to-noise.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Absence of systematics in weak-lensing measurements
    The abstract explicitly conditions the high signal-to-noise detection of the bispectra on the absence of systematics.
  • standard math Standard eight-parameter cosmological model
    The parameter space is defined as Lambda-CDM plus sum of neutrino masses plus w0.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5863 in / 1519 out tokens · 58583 ms · 2026-05-19T02:33:20.492348+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We forecast the ability of future surveys to constrain cosmological parameters using the weak lensing power spectrum and bispectrum from both CMB and galaxy surveys, including their cross-correlations. We consider an eight-parameter model (ΛCDM + ∑mν + w0) and assess constraints for stage 4 survey specifications.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [2]

    A unified model for the evolution of galaxies and quasars , volume =

    David J. Bacon, Alexandre R. Refregier, and Richard S. Ellis. “Detection of weak gravitational lensing by large-scale structure”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 318.2 (Oct. 2000), pp. 625–640. issn: 1365-2966. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03851.x. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03851.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03851.x 2000

  2. [3]

    Large-Scale Cosmic Shear Measurements

    N. Kaiser, G. Wilson, and G. Luppino. “Large-Scale Cosmic Shear Measurements”. In: arXiv preprint astro-ph/0003338 (2000)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  3. [4]

    Detection of weak gravitational lensing distortions of distant galaxies by cosmic dark matter at large scales

    David M. Wittman et al. “Detection of weak gravitational lensing distortions of distant galaxies by cosmic dark matter at large scales”. In: Nature 405.6783 (May 2000), pp. 143–148. issn: 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/35012001. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35012001

    work page doi:10.1038/35012001 2000

  4. [5]

    Detection of correlated galaxy ellipticities on CFHT data: first evidence for gravitational lensing by large-scale structures

    L. Van Waerbeke et al. Detection of correlated galaxy ellipticities on CFHT data: first ev- idence for gravitational lensing by large-scale structures . 2000. arXiv: astro - ph / 0002500 [astro-ph]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0002500

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  5. [6]

    Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review

    Martin Kilbinger. “Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review”. In: Reports on Progress in Physics 78.8 (2015), p. 086901. doi: 10.1088/0034- 4885/78/8/086901 . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0115

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0034- 2015

  6. [7]

    Detection of correlated galaxy ellipticities from CFH12k VLT data: first evidence for gravitational lensing by large-scale structures

    L. Van Waerbeke, Y. Mellier, T. Erben, et al. “Detection of correlated galaxy ellipticities from CFH12k VLT data: first evidence for gravitational lensing by large-scale structures”. In: Astronomy & Astrophysics 358 (2000), pp. 30–44

    work page 2000

  7. [8]

    Weak gravitational lensing

    Matthias Bartelmann and Peter Schneider. “Weak gravitational lensing”. In: Physics Reports 340 (2001), pp. 291–472

    work page 2001

  8. [9]

    Aghanim et al

    Planck Collaboration. “Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing”. In: arXiv e-prints (July 2018). arXiv: 1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  9. [10]

    The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts

    PAR Ade, J Aguirre, Z Ahmed, et al. “The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts”. In: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019.02 (2019), p. 056

    work page 2019

  10. [11]

    LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products

    ˇZ. Ivezi´ c, S. M. Kahn, J. A. Tyson, et al. “LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 873.2 (2019), p. 111

    work page 2019

  11. [12]

    Laureijs and others (Euclid Collaboration)

    R. Laureijs and others (Euclid Collaboration). Euclid Definition Study Report. ESA/SRE(2011)12

    work page 2011

  12. [13]

    arXiv: 1110.3193. – 17 –

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [14]

    Mass Reconstruction with Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization

    Wayne Hu and Takemi Okamoto. “Mass Reconstruction with Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 574.2 (Aug. 2002), pp. 566–574. issn: 1538-4357. doi: 10.1086/341110. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/341110

    work page doi:10.1086/341110 2002

  14. [15]

    Weak Gravitational Lensing and Its Cosmological Ap- plications

    Henk Hoekstra and Bhuvnesh Jain. “Weak Gravitational Lensing and Its Cosmological Ap- plications”. In: Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 58.1 (2008), pp. 99–123

    work page 2008

  15. [16]

    Weak lensing statistics as a probe of non-Gaussian initial conditions

    F. Bernardeau, L. Van Waerbeke, and Y. Mellier. “Weak lensing statistics as a probe of non-Gaussian initial conditions”. In: Astronomy & Astrophysics 322 (1997), pp. 1–18

    work page 1997

  16. [17]

    Cosmological parameters from lensing power spectrum and bis- pectrum tomography

    M. Takada and B. Jain. “Cosmological parameters from lensing power spectrum and bis- pectrum tomography”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 340 (2003), pp. 580–608

    work page 2003

  17. [18]

    Detection of the CMB lensing – galaxy bispectrum

    Gerrit S. Farren et al. “Detection of the CMB lensing – galaxy bispectrum”. In: (Nov. 2023). arXiv: 2311.04213 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [19]

    Constraints from CMB lensing tomography with projected bispectra

    Lea Harscouet et al. “Constraints from CMB lensing tomography with projected bispectra”. In: (July 2025). arXiv: 2507.07968 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    Detection of the Power Spectrum of Cosmic Microwave Background Lensing by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope

    Sudeep Das et al. “Detection of the Power Spectrum of Cosmic Microwave Background Lens- ing by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011), p. 021301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.021301. arXiv: 1103.2124 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.021301 2011

  20. [21]

    Planck 2013 results. XVII. Gravitational lensing by large-scale structure

    Planck Collaboration. “Planck 2013 results. XVII. Gravitational lensing by large-scale struc- ture”. In: Astron. Astrophys. 571 (2014), A17. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321543. arXiv: 1303.5077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321543 2013

  21. [22]

    Planck 2015 results. XV. Gravitational lensing

    Planck Collaboration. “Planck 2015 results. XV. Gravitational lensing”. In: Astron. Astro- phys. 594 (2016), A15. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525941. arXiv: 1502.01591 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525941 2015

  22. [23]

    CFHTLenS: higher order galaxy–mass correlations probed by galaxy–galaxy–galaxy lensing

    P. Simon et al. “CFHTLenS: higher order galaxy–mass correlations probed by galaxy–galaxy–galaxy lensing”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 430.3 (Feb. 2013), pp. 2476–

    work page 2013

  23. [24]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt069

    issn: 0035-8711. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt069 . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stt069

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt069

  24. [27]

    Impact of Next-to-Leading Order Contributions to Cosmic Mi- crowave Background Lensing

    Giovanni Marozzi et al. “Impact of Next-to-Leading Order Contributions to Cosmic Mi- crowave Background Lensing”. In: Physical Review Letters 118.21 (May 2017). issn: 1079-

    work page 2017

  25. [28]

    1103 / physrevlett

    doi: 10 . 1103 / physrevlett . 118 . 211301. url: http : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.118.211301

    work page

  26. [29]

    Impact of post-Born lensing on the CMB

    Geraint Pratten and Antony Lewis. “Impact of post-Born lensing on the CMB”. In: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016.08 (Aug. 2016), pp. 047–047. issn: 1475-7516. doi: 10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516 / 2016 / 08 / 047. url: http : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516/2016/08/047

    work page 2016

  27. [30]

    The Born and lens–lens corrections to weak gravi- tational lensing angular power spectra

    Charles Shapiro and Asantha Cooray. “The Born and lens–lens corrections to weak gravi- tational lensing angular power spectra”. In: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2006.03 (Mar. 2006), pp. 007–007. issn: 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/03/007. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2006/03/007. – 18 –

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/03/007 2006

  28. [31]

    CMB-lensing beyond the Born approximation

    Giovanni Marozzi et al. “CMB-lensing beyond the Born approximation”. In: Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2016.09 (Sept. 2016), pp. 028–028. issn: 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/028 . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/ 09/028

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/028 2016

  29. [32]

    CMB lensing beyond the leading order: Temperature and polariza- tion anisotropies

    Giovanni Marozzi et al. “CMB lensing beyond the leading order: Temperature and polariza- tion anisotropies”. In: Physical Review D 98.2 (July 2018). issn: 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/ physrevd.98.023535. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.023535 2018

  30. [33]

    Post-Born corrections to the one-point statistics of (CMB) lensing convergence obtained via large deviation theory

    Alexandre Barthelemy, Sandrine Codis, and Francis Bernardeau. “Post-Born corrections to the one-point statistics of (CMB) lensing convergence obtained via large deviation theory”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 494.3 (Apr. 2020), pp. 3368–3382. issn: 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa931. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ staa931

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa931 2020

  31. [34]

    Quadratic estimators for CMB weak lensing

    Abhishek S. Maniyar et al. “Quadratic estimators for CMB weak lensing”. In: Phys. Rev. D 103.8 (2021), p. 083524. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 103 . 083524. arXiv: 2101 . 12193 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page 2021

  32. [35]

    Reconstruction of lensing from the cosmic microwave background polarization

    Christopher M. Hirata and Uroˇ s Seljak. “Reconstruction of lensing from the cosmic microwave background polarization”. In: Physical Review D 68.8 (Oct. 2003). issn: 1089-4918. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.68.083002. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.083002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.083002 2003

  33. [36]

    Efficient computation of cosmic microwave background anisotropies in closed FRW models

    Antony Lewis, Anthony Challinor, and Anthony Lasenby. “Efficient computation of cosmic microwave background anisotropies in closed FRW models”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 538 (2000), pp. 473–476

    work page 2000

  34. [37]

    An improved fitting formula for the dark matter bispectrum

    Hector Gil-Marin et al. “An improved fitting formula for the dark matter bispectrum”. In: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012.02 (2012), p. 047. doi: 10.1088/1475- 7516/2012/02/047. arXiv: 1111.4477 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475- 2012

  35. [38]

    Modern Cosmology

    Scott Dodelson and Fabian Schmidt. Modern Cosmology. 2nd. Elsevier, 2020. isbn: 978-0-12- 815948-4

    work page 2020

  36. [39]

    Determination of inflationary observables by cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiments

    Lloyd Knox. “Determination of inflationary observables by cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiments”. In: Physical Review D 52.8 (1995), pp. 4307–4318. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.52.4307

    work page 1995

  37. [40]

    Karhunen–Lo` eve eigenvalue prob- lems in cosmology: how should we tackle large data sets?

    Max Tegmark, Andrew N. Taylor, and Alan F. Heavens. “Karhunen–Lo` eve eigenvalue prob- lems in cosmology: how should we tackle large data sets?” In: The Astrophysical Journal 480.1 (1997), pp. 22–35. doi: 10.1086/303939

    work page doi:10.1086/303939 1997

  38. [41]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , month =

    N. Aghanim et al. “Planck2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters”. In: Astronomy and Astrophysics 641 (Sept. 2020), A6. issn: 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  39. [42]

    Roy, Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data, Phys

    Nandan Roy et al. “Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data”. In: arXiv preprint (2024). arXiv: 2406.00634 [astro-ph.CO]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.00634

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [43]

    CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition

    Kevork N. Abazajian et al. CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition . 2016. arXiv: 1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02743

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [44]

    Euclid Assessment Study Report for the ESA Cosmic Visions

    R. Laureijs et al. Euclid Assessment Study Report . Tech. rep. ESA, 2009. arXiv: 0912.0914

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [45]

    KiDS-1000 catalogue: Weak gravitational lensing shear measure- ments

    Benjamin Kuijken and et al. “KiDS-1000 catalogue: Weak gravitational lensing shear measure- ments”. In: A&A 652 (2021), A30. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040857. arXiv: 2007.01845. – 19 –

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040857 2021

  43. [46]

    Euclid Preparation - X. The Euclid Photometric-Redshift Challenge

    Euclid Collaboration: G. Desprez, S. Paltani, J. Coupon, et al. “Euclid Preparation - X. The Euclid Photometric-Redshift Challenge”. In: Astronomy and Astrophysics 644 (2020), A31. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039403 . url: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/ 2020/12/aa39403-20.pdf

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039403 2020

  44. [47]

    LSST System Per- formance

    Steven M. Kahn, Justin R. Bankert, Srinivasan Chandrasekharan, et al. “LSST System Per- formance”. In: LSST Science Book, Version 2.0 . Accessed: 2025-02-11. 2009. url: https: //www.lsst.org/sites/default/files/docs/sciencebook/SB_3.pdf

    work page 2025

  45. [48]

    Constraints on neutrino mass from cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure

    Z. Pan and L. Knox. “Constraints on neutrino mass from cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 454.3 (Oct. 2015), pp. 3200–3206. issn: 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2164. url: http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/mnras/stv2164

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2164 2015

  46. [49]

    The skewness of the distance-redshift relation in LambdaCDM

    T. Schiavone, E. Di Dio, and G. Fanizza. “The skewness of the distance-redshift relation in LambdaCDM”. In: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024.02 (Feb. 2024), p. 050. issn: 1475-7516. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/050. url: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/050

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/050 2024

  47. [50]

    Precise and accurate cosmology with CMB× LSS power spectra and bispectra

    Shu-Fan Chen, Hayden Lee, and Cora Dvorkin. “Precise and accurate cosmology with CMB× LSS power spectra and bispectra”. In: JCAP 05 (2021), p. 030. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/ 05/030. arXiv: 2103.01229 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/ 2021

  48. [51]

    CMB multipole measurements in the presence of foregrounds

    Ang´ elica de Oliveira-Costa and Max Tegmark. “CMB multipole measurements in the presence of foregrounds”. In: Physical Review D 74.2 (July 2006). issn: 1550-2368. doi: 10 . 1103 / physrevd.74.023005. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.023005 2006

  49. [52]

    Parameter constraints from cross-correlation of CMB lensing with galaxy clustering

    Marcel Schmittfull and Uroˇ s Seljak. “Parameter constraints from cross-correlation of CMB lensing with galaxy clustering”. In: Physical Review D 97.12 (2018), p. 123540. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.97.123540. arXiv: 1710.09465

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [53]

    Bias to CMB lensing measure- ments from the bispectrum of large-scale structure

    Vanessa B¨ ohm, Marcel Schmittfull, and Blake D. Sherwin. “Bias to CMB lensing measure- ments from the bispectrum of large-scale structure”. In: Physical Review D 94.4 (Aug. 2016). issn: 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.94.043519 . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.94.043519

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.043519 2016

  51. [54]

    Physical Review D111(1), 016020 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD

    Vanessa B¨ ohm et al. “Effect of non-Gaussian lensing deflections on CMB lensing measure- ments”. In: Physical Review D 98.12 (Dec. 2018). issn: 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd. 98.123510. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123510

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd 2018

  52. [55]

    CMB lensing beyond the power spectrum: Cosmological constraints from the one-point probability distribution function and peak counts

    Jia Liu et al. “CMB lensing beyond the power spectrum: Cosmological constraints from the one-point probability distribution function and peak counts”. In: Physical Review D 94.10 (Nov. 2016). issn: 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.94.103501 . url: http://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.103501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.103501 2016

  53. [56]

    Delensing CMB polarization with external datasets

    Kendrick M Smith et al. “Delensing CMB polarization with external datasets”. In: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012.06 (June 2012), pp. 014–014. issn: 1475-7516. doi: 10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516 / 2012 / 06 / 014. url: http : / / dx . doi . org / 10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516/2012/06/014

    work page 2012

  54. [57]

    Baryonic feedback biases on fundamental physics from lensed CMB power spectra

    Fiona McCarthy, J. Colin Hill, and Mathew S. Madhavacheril. “Baryonic feedback biases on fundamental physics from lensed CMB power spectra”. In: Physical Review D 105.2 (Jan. 2022). issn: 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.105.023517 . url: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023517. – 20 –

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023517 2022

  55. [58]

    Baryonic effects on CMB lens- ing and neutrino mass constraints

    Eegene Chung, Simon Foreman, and Alexander van Engelen. “Baryonic effects on CMB lens- ing and neutrino mass constraints”. In: Phys. Rev. D 101 (6 Mar. 2020), p. 063534. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063534 . url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 101.063534

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063534 2020

  56. [59]

    Pranjal R. S. et al. Impact of cosmology dependence of baryonic feedback in weak lensing

    work page

  57. [60]

    url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21980

    arXiv: 2410.21980 [astro-ph.CO]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21980

    work page arXiv

  58. [61]

    Avoiding baryonic feedback effects on neutrino mass measurements from CMB lensing

    Fiona McCarthy, Simon Foreman, and Alexander van Engelen. “Avoiding baryonic feedback effects on neutrino mass measurements from CMB lensing”. In: Physical Review D 103.10 (May 2021). issn: 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.103.103538 . url: http://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103538

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.103538 2021

  59. [62]

    Weak Gravitational Lensing Bispectrum

    Asantha Cooray and Wayne Hu. “Weak Gravitational Lensing Bispectrum”. In: The Astro- physical Journal 548.1 (Feb. 2001), pp. 7–18. issn: 1538-4357. doi: 10.1086/318660 . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/318660

    work page doi:10.1086/318660 2001

  60. [63]

    George Casella and Roger L. Berger. Statistical Inference. 2nd. Duxbury Pacific Grove, CA,

    work page

  61. [64]

    Cosmic Confusion: Degeneracies among Cosmological Parameters Derived from Measurements of Microwave Background Anisotropies

    Max Tegmark. “Cosmic Confusion: Degeneracies among Cosmological Parameters Derived from Measurements of Microwave Background Anisotropies”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 294.2 (1997), pp. 337–348. doi: 10.1093/mnras/294.2.337

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/294.2.337 1997

  62. [65]

    Fun- damental limits on constraining primordial non-Gaussianity

    Alba Kalaja, P. Daniel Meerburg, and William R. Pimentel Guilherme L.and Coulton. “Fun- damental limits on constraining primordial non-Gaussianity”. In: Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021.04 (Apr. 2021), p. 050. issn: 1475-7516. doi: 10 . 1088 / 1475 - 7516/2021/04/050. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/050. A Weak Lensing ...

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/050 2021

  63. [66]

    Xℓ(−ℓ), Xℓ(−ℓ+1), · · ·, Xℓ(ℓ−1), Xℓℓ

    By definition ⟨XℓmX ′ ℓ′m′⟩ = (2π)3δℓℓ′δmm′CXX ′ ℓ , so you can average over the measurements done for different values ofm, i.e. Xℓ(−ℓ), Xℓ(−ℓ+1), · · ·, Xℓ(ℓ−1), Xℓℓ. This results in the (2 ℓ + 1)−1 factor in the power spectrum covariance. – 28 –

    work page

  64. [67]

    This is where experimental noise is incorporated into the calculation

    The tilde is used to denote the power spectrum as calculated earlier, plus the noise power spectrum, N XX ′ ℓ , which is the power spectrum of the noise associated with the estimator of the field. This is where experimental noise is incorporated into the calculation. Under the Gaussian approximation, the covariance matrix vanishes except for 3 × 3 block m...

    work page

  65. [68]

    d.p.” stands for “distinct permutations

    vanishes. It can then be shown that the entries of each block matrix are given as (Covℓ1ℓ2ℓ3)XY Z,X ′Y ′Z′ = ˜CXX ′ ℓ1 ˜CY Y ′ ℓ2 ˜CZZ ′ ℓ3 + δℓ1ℓ2 ˜CXY ′ ℓ1 ˜CY X ′ ℓ2 ˜CZZ ′ ℓ3 + δℓ2ℓ3 ˜CXX ′ ℓ1 ˜CY Z ′ ℓ2 ˜CZX ′ ℓ3 +δℓ3ℓ1 ˜CXZ ′ ℓ1 ˜CY Y ′ ℓ2 ˜CZX ′ ℓ3 + δℓ1ℓ2δℓ2ℓ3 ˜CXY ′ ℓ1 ˜CY Z ′ ℓ2 ˜CZX ′ ℓ3 + ˜CXZ ′ ℓ1 ˜CY X ′ ℓ2 ˜CZY ′ ℓ3 . With our ordering, thi...

    work page

  66. [69]

    weak priors CMB lensing Gal

    All survey parameters are the same as in section 4. weak priors CMB lensing Gal. lensing CMB × Gal. lensing Par prior Cℓ Bℓ1 ℓ2 ℓ3 Cℓ + Bℓ1 ℓ2 ℓ2 Cℓ Bℓ1 ℓ2 ℓ3 Cℓ + Bℓ1 ℓ2 ℓ3 Cℓ Bℓ1 ℓ2 ℓ3 Cℓ + Bℓ1 ℓ2 ℓ3 H0 17 17 16 6.5 13 4.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.0 103Ωbh2 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.48 0.46 Ωch2 0.29 0.0070 0.012 0.0063 0.0095 0.0049 0.0041 0.0050 ...

    work page arXiv