Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Joint shear 3-point statistic doubles DES Y3 constraining power, giving S8 = 0.780 ± 0.015 and a 111% figure-of-merit gain in the Ωm–S8 plane.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The body is a DES-Y3 analysis showing a 111% figure-of-merit gain from adding aperture-mass skewness to two-point shear, but the abstract's HSC-Y3 headline numbers do not appear anywhere in the text.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The body is a solid DES-Y3 3PCF paper; the abstract is a different HSC-Y3 paper, and the mismatch makes the submission as-is unreviewable. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2508.14019 v1 pith:WC3ODCXU submitted 2025-08-19 astro-ph.CO

Cosmology from a joint analysis of second and third order shear statistics with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 data

Sunao Sugiyama , Rafael C. H. Gomes , Bhuvnesh Jain This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords weak lensingcosmic shearthree-point correlation functionaperture-mass skewnessS8 tensionDES Y3higher-order statisticsintrinsic alignments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 argues that the non-Gaussian part of cosmic shear, captured by the aperture-mass skewness ⟨M3ap⟩, carries information that the usual two-point correlation functions miss. Combining the two on Dark Energy Survey Year 3 data improves the Ωm–S8 figure of merit by 111% and tightens S8 from 0.769±0.022 to 0.780±0.015, without moving the posterior more than half a sigma. The same combination constrains the dark-energy equation-of-state w0 consistently with a cosmological constant and keeps the well-known S8 tension with Planck at 2.3σ. The paper therefore establishes third-order shear statistics as a practical, theory-driven addition to weak lensing cosmology rather than a simulation-only tool.

Core claim

Using the DES Y3 shape catalog, the authors measure the full configuration-dependent shear three-point correlation function tomographically and compress it into ⟨M3ap⟩, the skewness of the aperture mass. Fitting ΛCDM to ξ± + ⟨M3ap⟩ yields S8 = 0.780 ± 0.015 and Ωm = 0.266+0.039−0.040, a 111% improvement in the Ωm–S8 figure of merit over ξ± alone. The shift between the two-point and joint posteriors is 0.5σ with a p-value of 0.78, and the reduced χ² is 0.98. A wCDM fit gives S8 = 0.749+0.027−0.026 and w0 = −1.39 ± 0.31, compatible with w0 = −1 at about 1σ. The S8–Ωm tension with Planck 2018 remains at 2.3σ for the joint analysis, and with an uninformative prior on the highest-redshift photo-z

What carries the argument

The aperture-mass skewness ⟨M3ap⟩, a scalar derived by integrating the shear three-point correlation function over triangle configurations with a compensated filter. The paper uses a construction in which ⟨M3ap⟩ is obtained from binned natural-component 3PCF measurements, so theory and data share the same binning, and it serves as a nearly lossless compression of the full 3PCF, capturing almost all of its constraining power in a data vector of 80 numbers. Its different degeneracy direction relative to ξ± is what doubles the Ωm–S8 figure of merit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the covariance derived from 796 dark-matter-only mock maps at a single reference cosmology, together with the removal of all three-point triangles smaller than 8 arcminutes, accurately describes the real DES sky, and that baryonic feedback roughly cancels between the two-point and three-point signals at the chosen scales.

What would settle it

Compute the same joint constraints on DES Y3 data using a covariance estimated from baryon-inclusive hydrodynamical mocks while keeping 3PCF triangle configurations below 8 arcminutes; if the recovered S8 shifts by more than its stated ±0.015 error, or the 111% figure-of-merit gain over ξ± alone disappears, the central claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Adding ⟨M3ap⟩ to ξ± tightens the Ωm–S8 plane by about a factor of two over ξ± alone, while shifting the joint posterior by only 0.5σ.
  • Because ξ± and ⟨M3ap⟩ have different degeneracy directions, the gain comes from breaking parameter degeneracies, not merely adding data.
  • The chosen scales make the joint analysis more robust to baryonic feedback than ξ± alone, since the 2PCF suppression and 3PCF enhancement approximately cancel.
  • With an uninformative prior on the highest-redshift photo-z shift, the joint data vector calibrates that nuisance parameter internally, giving S8 = 0.770±0.015 and a 144% figure-of-merit gain.
  • In wCDM, w0 = −1.39 ± 0.31, consistent with −1 at about 1σ, with a 22% improvement on the S8–w0 constraint.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The submission's abstract reports S8 = 0.736 ± 0.020 and a 3.2σ Planck tension, but the body's Section VI gives S8 = 0.780 ± 0.015 and 2.3σ; the body values are the ones the analysis actually produces.
  • The baryonic-cancellation claim is scale- and simulation-dependent; if it holds only for the specific 7′–40′ filters and the 8′ 3PCF scale cut, surveys with different selection or resolution may not see the same robustness.
  • The zero-crossing of the isosceles 3PCF near φ ≈ 120° could be developed as a data-driven null test for PSF systematics, with its position across redshift bins used to detect residual contamination.
  • The nearly zero cross-covariance between ξ± and ⟨M3ap⟩ suggests future analyses can add this statistic to other probes, such as CMB lensing or galaxy clustering, with little redundant information.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper as submitted advertises, in its abstract, a joint analysis of HSC-Y3 two-point correlation functions and aperture-mass skewness yielding S8 = 0.736 ± 0.020, an 80% improvement in the Ωm–S8 figure of merit, and a 3.2σ Planck tension. The body, however, is a DES Y3 analysis: the full-text title, author list, Section II.A, and all results describe the DES Y3 metacalibration catalog. Section VI.A/Eq. (25) report S8 = 0.780 ± 0.015, Ωm = 0.266+0.039/−0.040, and a 111% FoM improvement, with a 2.3σ Planck tension reported in Section VI.C. The abstract's numbers (0.736, 80%, 3.2σ) do not appear in Sections II–VII or in Table I. Evaluated as a DES-Y3 analysis, the paper is methodologically careful: it uses a 796-realization covariance, a blinded analysis with 50 mock-based validation runs, the Percival likelihood, and an emulator validated at sub-0.3% error. But the abstract/body mismatch is a central-claim inconsistency that must be resolved before the manuscript can be considered publishable.

Significance. If the DES-Y3 result is the intended result, the technical achievement is real and timely: a full tomographic 3PCF measurement compressed into ⟨M_ap^3⟩, a factor-of-two gain in the Ωm–S8 figure of merit, and an unusually thorough validation program (blinding, mock-based χ² checks, Percival likelihood, emulator accuracy). However, the paper as submitted cannot be used as is because its abstract and metadata describe a different experiment and different constraints. The scientific significance of the DES-Y3 body is high, but it is contingent on correcting the advertised claims and on addressing the covariance/scale-cut robustness issues noted below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §VI.A, §VI.C] The abstract reports an HSC-Y3 analysis with S8 = 0.736 ± 0.020, an 80% FoM improvement, and a 3.2σ Planck tension. The body identifies the data as DES Y3 (§II.A) and reports S8 = 0.780 ± 0.015, Ωm = 0.266+0.039/−0.040, 111% FoM (§VI.A, Eq. 25), and a 2.3σ Planck tension (§VI.C). None of 0.736, 80%, or 3.2σ appears in Sections II–VII or in Table I. This is the central claim of the paper, and as submitted it is unsupported. The authors must align the abstract and metadata with the actual analysis, or provide the HSC-Y3 analysis promised by the abstract.
  2. [§II.B, §IV.A, §VI.A] The joint covariance is estimated from 796 CosmoGridV1 dark-matter-only mocks at a single fiducial cosmology, with all 3PCF triangles having a side < 8′ removed because of simulation resolution; the ⟨M_ap^3⟩ filters begin at 7′. The robustness of the result therefore rests on (i) the fidelity of the mock covariance at the 8′ boundary and (ii) the baryonic-cancellation assumption carried over from Paper I. The small-scale validation in Fig. 2 compares data to the same dark-matter-only theory and so does not directly test either assumption. Please add a sensitivity test that varies the θcut (e.g., 6′–10′), compares the mock covariance with an analytic/jackknife estimate near the boundary, and uses a hydrodynamical simulation to quantify any residual baryonic bias on S8.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Metadata/title] The arXiv metadata title refers to Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3, while the full-text title and Section II.A describe DES Y3. This must be corrected consistently.
  2. [§V.A and Appendix C] Section V.A lists mν among the six base parameters, but Appendix C states that the ⟨M_ap^3⟩ emulator assumes a fixed Σmν = 0.06 eV. Clarify whether mν is fixed or sampled; if fixed, remove it from the sampled parameter list.
  3. [Eq. (12)] The line-of-sight integration in Eq. (12) should define more explicitly the argument z of ⟨M_ap^3⟩(θ,z) and the correspondence of q_i(χ), q_j(χ), q_k(χ) to the lensing/IA kernels used in Eqs. (2)–(3), so that the expression is fully reproducible.
  4. [§VI.D] The shift in Δz4 under an uninformative prior is interesting, but the statement that the shift 'should not be dismissed as resulting from projection effects alone' relies on a single simulated validation at 0.4σ; please report the full distribution of recovered Δz4 shifts across the mocks and the associated p-value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No construction-level circularity in the body: S8 = 0.780 ± 0.015 is a forward-model fit to DES Y3 data, not a re-statement of inputs; the abstract/body mismatch is a consistency defect, not a circular one.

full rationale

The body's derivation is not circular by construction. DES Y3 shear catalogs are measured; ξ± and the 3PCF are binned; the 3PCF is linearly compressed into ⟨M3ap⟩ via the Jarvis/Porth formalism; the theory vector comes from Halofit/BiHalofit and the fastnc multipole emulator trained on Sobol-sequence cosmologies; the joint covariance is estimated from 796 CosmoGridV1 mocks; and the Percival likelihood maps residuals to posteriors. No nuisance or cosmological parameter is calibrated on the Y3 data to define the observable itself, and the small-scale ξ± and ⟨M3ap⟩ checks (Figures 2, 14, 15) use scales excluded from the fit, so they are genuine out-of-fit predictions rather than fitted inputs called predictions. The substantial reliance on the authors' own Paper I (covariance, scale cuts, baryonic-cancellation claim, emulator details) is a companion-methodology dependence, not a tautology: the central S8 result is obtained by fitting the model to DES Y3 data in this paper, and the body explicitly flags that the baryonic-cancellation finding 'needs further study with a wider set of hydrodynamic simulations.' The submitted text's serious defect is internal inconsistency, not circularity: the abstract reports an HSC-Y3 analysis with S8 = 0.736 ± 0.020, 80% FoM improvement, and 3.2σ Planck tension, while the body is a DES-Y3 analysis with S8 = 0.780 ± 0.015, 111% FoM, and 2.3σ tension (Section VI.A/Eq. 25); the numbers 0.736, 80%, and 3.2σ do not appear in Sections II–VII. This mismatch means the abstract's central claim is unsupported by the body, but it is a consistency/correctness problem, not circular reasoning. Score 2 reflects minor self-citation dependence without any construction-level circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The constraint rests on: external empirical fitting formulas (revised Halofit, BiHalofit) and the Limber approximation for the theory power and bispectra; the sufficiency of the NLA intrinsic-alignment model at the three-point level; the assumption that a single-fiducial-cosmology, dark-matter-only mock covariance with the Percival correction is unbiased; the accuracy of the neural-network emulator; and the hand-chosen 8-arcmin 3PCF scale cut together with the claimed cancellation of baryonic effects between 2PCF and 3PCF. Fitted nuisance parameters (photo-z shifts, shear biases, IA amplitude) enter the likelihood, and the emulator fixes the neutrino mass at 0.06 eV. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • photo-z shift parameters Δz_i (i = 1..4) = Δz4 ~ +0.05 when prior relaxed (2σ above zero)
    Fitted nuisance parameters with informative DES Y3 priors; the joint analysis self-calibrates bin 4 (Section VI.D).
  • multiplicative shear bias m_i (i = 1..4)
    Fitted nuisance parameters with priors from the DES Y3 metacalibration analysis (Section III.D).
  • intrinsic alignment parameters A1, α1 = low; no significant IA detected
    Fitted under the NLA model, applied to both 2PCF and 3PCF via Eqs. 16-17.
  • 3PCF scale cut θ = 8 arcmin = 8′
    Hand-chosen threshold from simulation resolution limits; removes all triangles with a side below 8′ (Section IV). The central S8 constraint depends on this cut.
  • neutrino mass fixed at 0.06 eV in the <M3ap> emulator = 0.06 eV
    Appendix C: the emulator assumes a fixed neutrino mass, so Σmν is not varied and no neutrino constraint is reported.
  • aperture filter radii = 7′, 14′, 25′, 40′ (plus 2-8′ validation)
    Chosen to avoid baryonic contamination at small scales and observational systematics at large scales (Section IV).
  • cosmological parameters Ωm, S8, h0, Ωb, ns (+ w0 in wCDM) = Ωm = 0.266(+0.039/-0.040), S8 = 0.780 ± 0.015 (body)
    The measurement targets, fitted by the likelihood; listed for completeness.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Nonlinear matter power spectrum and bispectrum are accurately given by revised Halofit and BiHalofit.
    Section III.B, Eqs. 7-8. Empirical fits from prior literature, used without re-validation here.
  • domain assumption Limber approximation applies to the projected convergence power and bispectrum.
    Section III.A, Eqs. 7-8. Standard lensing approximation, not exact.
  • domain assumption NLA model with amplitude A1 and slope α1 suffices for intrinsic alignments in both 2PCF and 3PCF.
    Section III.D. TATT is acknowledged as more realistic; a 3PCF TATT model is unavailable and left to future work.
  • domain assumption Sample covariance from 796 CosmoGridV1 mocks at one cosmology, with the Percival likelihood correction, yields unbiased constraints.
    Section II.B, Eqs. 20-23. Cross-covariance between ξ± and <M3ap> is claimed negligible (max r = 0.13).
  • domain assumption The neural-network emulator errors (<0.29% for 99% of ΛCDM test samples) do not bias inference.
    Section III.C. Hyperparameters and training ranges deferred to Paper I.
  • domain assumption Multipole truncation at n = 100 with 63 opening-angle bins, with matched binning in theory and data, gives an unbiased <M3ap>.
    Section IV. The 8′ scale cut removes triangle configurations affected by simulation resolution.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmology from a joint analysis of second and third order shear statistics with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WC3ODCXU

@misc{pith2026250814019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmology from a joint analysis of second and third order shear statistics with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WC3ODCXU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14019}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We present a joint cosmological analysis of the two-point correlation function and the aperture-mass skewness measured from the Year 3 data of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program (HSC-Y3). The aperture-mass skewness is a compressed representation of three-point shear information, designed to capture non-Gaussian features while keeping the data vector computationally tractable. We find that including the aperture-mass skewness improves the $S_8$-$\Omega_m$ figure of merit by 80% compared to the 2PCF-only case, primarily due to the breaking of degeneracies. Our joint analysis yields a constraint of $S_8=0.736\pm0.020$, which is slightly lower than the two-point-only result and increases the tension with Planck 2018 to 3.2$\sigma$ in the $S_8$-$\Omega_m$ plane. The two- and three-point statistics are found to be internally consistent across redshift bins and angular scales, and we detect no significant intrinsic alignment signal. We also explore extensions to the $w$CDM model and find no evidence for deviations from a cosmological constant. This work demonstrates the feasibility and scientific value of incorporating third-order shear statistics into weak lensing cosmology and provides a practical pathway for similar analyses in future Stage-IV surveys such as LSST, Euclid, and Roman.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L. F. Secco, M. Jarvis, B. Jain, C. Chang, M. Gatti, et al. , Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Three-Point Shear Correlations and Mass Aperture Moments, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2201.05227 (2022), 2201.05227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.05227 2022

  2. [2]

    A. Amon, D. Gruen, M. A. Troxel, N. MacCrann, S. Dodelson, et al. , Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Re- sults: Cosmology from Cosmic Shear and Robustness to Data Calibration, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2105.13543 (2021), 2105.13543

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.13543 2021

  3. [3]

    Asgari, C.-A

    M. Asgari, C.-A. Lin, B. Joachimi, B. Giblin, C. Hey- mans, et al. , KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cosmic shear con- straints and comparison between two point statistics, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2007.15633 (2020), 2007.15633

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.15633 2007

  4. [4]

    Dalal, X

    R. Dalal, X. Li, A. Nicola, J. Zuntz, M. A. Strauss, et al. , Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 Results: Cos- mology from Cosmic Shear Power Spectra, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2304.00701 (2023), 2304.00701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.00701 2023

  5. [5]

    The average χ2 for a noisy mock simulation is 73.3. While this value is different than the number of degrees of freedom computed through the method by Raveri and Hu [58], both approaches show the statistical validity of our joint Y3 result. The differences between the results arise from the fact that the degrees-of-freedom approach assumes a Gaussian appr...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The three-point correlation function of cosmic shear: I. The natural components

    P. Schneider and M. Lombardi, The three-point corre- lation function of cosmic shear: I. The natural com- ponents, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207454 (2002), astro-ph/0207454

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207454 2002

  7. [7]

    Petri, Z

    A. Petri, Z. Haiman, L. Hui, M. May, and J. M. Kra- tochvil, Cosmology with minkowski functionals and mo- ments of the weak lensing convergence field, Physical Re- view D 88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.123002 (2013)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.123002 2013

  8. [8]

    We obtain, for the tension between DES Y3 ξ± and Planck 2018, a significance of 2.3σ

    We quantify the tension in the S8-Ωm plane through the method devised by Raveri and Hu [58]. We obtain, for the tension between DES Y3 ξ± and Planck 2018, a significance of 2.3σ. The tension between DES Y3 ⟨M3 ap⟩ 14 � �� � �� � �� � � �� � �� � �� � � � �� � � �� � � �� � � � � �� � � �� � � � � �� � �� � � � � � � � �� FIG. 6. Parameter constraints from...

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    X. Li, T. Zhang, S. Sugiyama, R. Dalal, R. Terasawa, et al. , Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 Results: Cosmol- ogy from Cosmic Shear Two-point Correlation Functions, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2304.00702 (2023), 2304.00702

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.00702 2023

  10. [10]

    Barthelemy, A

    A. Barthelemy, A. Halder, Z. Gong, and C. Uhlemann, Making the leap i: Modelling the reconstructed lensing convergence pdf from cosmic shear with survey masks and systematics (2024), arXiv:2307.09468 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Cheng, Y.-S

    S. Cheng, Y.-S. Ting, B. Mnard, and J. Bruna, A new approach to observational cosmology us- ing the scattering transform, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 499, 5902 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/499/4/5902/34157889/staa3165.pdf

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Allys, T

    E. Allys, T. Marchand, J.-F. Cardoso, F. Villaescusa- Navarro, S. Ho, and S. Mallat, New interpretable statis- tics for large-scale structure analysis and generation, Physical Review D 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.103506 (2020)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.103506 2020

  13. [13]

    G. A. Marques, J. Liu, M. Shirasaki, L. Thiele, D. Grandn, K. M. Huffenberger, S. Cheng, J. Harnois- Draps, K. Osato, and W. R. Coulton, Cosmology from weak lensing peaks and minima with subaru hyper suprime-cam survey first-year data, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 528, 45134527 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Zrcher, J

    D. Zrcher, J. Fluri, R. Sgier, et al. , Dark en- ergy survey year 3 results: Cosmology with peaks using an emulator approach, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511, 2075 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/511/2/2075/42497465/stac078.pdf

    work page 2075

  15. [15]

    Giblin, Y.-C

    B. Giblin, Y.-C. Cai, and J. Harnois-Draps, Enhancing cosmic shear with the multiscale lensing probability den- sity function, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 520, 17211737 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Z. Gong, A. Halder, A. Barreira, S. Seitz, and O. Friedrich, Cosmology from the integrated shear 3- point correlation function: simulated likelihood analyses with machine-learning emulators, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (07), 040

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Heydenreich, B

    S. Heydenreich, B. Brck, and J. Harnois-Draps, Persis- tent homology in cosmic shear: Constraining parame- ters with topological data analysis, Astronomy & Astro- physics 648, A74 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Anbajagane, C

    D. Anbajagane, C. Chang, A. Banerjee, et al. , Be- yond the 3rd moment: A practical study of using lens- ing convergence cdfs for cosmology with des y3 (2023), arXiv:2308.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Gatti, B

    M. Gatti, B. Jain, C. Chang, M. Raveri, D. Z¨ urcher, et al. , Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology with moments of weak lensing mass maps, Physical Re- view D 106, 083509 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Jeffrey, L

    N. Jeffrey, L. Whiteway, M. Gatti, et al. , Dark energy survey year 3 results: likelihood-free, simulation-based wcdm inference with neural compression of weak-lensing map statistics (2024), arXiv:2403.02314 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    J. Prat, M. Gatti, C. Doux, et al. , Dark energy survey year 3 results: wcdm cosmology from simulation-based inference with persistent homology on the sphere (2025), arXiv:2506.13439 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Samario-Nava, A

    S. Samario-Nava, A. Aviles, and J. C. Hidalgo, Non- gaussian statistics in galaxy weak lensing: com- pressed three-point correlations and cosmological fore- casts (2025), arXiv:2506.19811 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Sugiyama, R

    S. Sugiyama, R. C. H. Gomes, and M. Jarvis, Fast mod- eling of the shear three-point correlation function (2024), arXiv:2407.01798 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Arvizu, A

    A. Arvizu, A. Aviles, J. C. Hidalgo, E. Moreno, G. Niz, M. A. Rodriguez-Meza, and S. Samario (LSST Dark En- ergy Science), Modeling the 3-point correlation function of projected scalar fields on the sphere, JCAP 12, 049, arXiv:2408.16847 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Gatti, N

    M. Gatti, N. Jeffrey, L. Whiteway, J. Williamson, B. Jain, et al. , Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: simulation-based cosmological inference with wavelet harmonics, scattering transforms, and moments of weak lensing mass maps I: validation on simulations, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2310.17557 (2023), 2310.17557

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.17557 2023

  26. [26]

    A roadmap to cosmological parameter analysis with third-order shear statistics I: Modelling and validation

    S. Heydenreich, L. Linke, P. Burger, and P. Schneider, A roadmap to cosmological parameter analysis with third- order shear statistics I: Modelling and validation, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2208.11686 (2022), 2208.11686

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.11686 2022

  27. [27]

    R. C. H. Gomes, S. Sugiyama, B. Jain, et al., Cosmology 21 � �� � �� � � � � � � � � � � � �� � �� � � � �� � � �� � � � �� � �� � � � �� � �� � �� � � �� � � �� � � � � �� � � � �� � �� � � �� � � �� � � � � �� � � �� � � � ��� � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� FIG. 12. Parameter constraints on the full set of cosmological parameters from ξ± and ⟨M...

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Y3 cosmology 22 � �� � �� � � � � � � � � � � �� � �� � � � �� � � �� � � � �� � �� � � � �� � �� � �� � � �� � �� � � � �� � � �� � � � � �� � � � � � � �� � � �� � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� FIG. 13. Parameter constraints on the whole set of cosmological parameters from ξ± and ⟨M3 ap⟩ using wCDM mod...

    work page

  29. [29]

    P. A. Burger, L. Porth, S. Heydenreich, L. Linke, N. Wielders, et al. , KiDS-1000 cosmology: Com- bined second- and third-order shear statistics, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2309.08602 (2023), 2309.08602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.08602 2023

  30. [30]

    Gatti, E

    M. Gatti, E. Sheldon, A. Amon, M. Becker, M. Troxel, et al. , Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Weak Lens- ing Shape Catalogue, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2011.03408 (2020), 2011.03408

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.03408 2011

  31. [31]

    CosmoGridV1: a simulated $w$CDM theory prediction for map-level cosmological inference

    T. Kacprzak, J. Fluri, A. Schneider, A. Refregier, and J. o. Stadel, CosmoGridV1: a simulated �w�CDM the- ory prediction for map-level cosmological inference, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2209.04662 (2022), 2209.04662

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.04662 2022

  32. [32]

    L. F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, et al. , Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmol- ogy from Cosmic Shear and Robustness to Modeling Uncertainty, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2105.13544 (2021), 2105.13544

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.13544 2021

  33. [33]

    Myles, A

    J. Myles, A. Alarcon, A. Amon, et al. , Dark energy sur- vey year 3 results: redshift calibration of the weak lensing source galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 505, 42494277 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Fitting the nonlinear matter bispectrum by the Halofit approach

    R. Takahashi, T. Nishimichi, T. Namikawa, A. Taruya, I. Kayo, et al. , Fitting the nonlinear matter bispectrum by the Halofit approach, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.1911.07886 (2019), 1911.07886

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.07886 1911

  35. [35]

    Kilbinger, Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 78, 086901 (2015)

    M. Kilbinger, Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 78, 086901 (2015)

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Takahashi, M

    R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya, and 23 ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ � � � � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ � � � � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � ������ ������ ������ ������ ������ � � � � ��� �� � ��� �� � ��� �� � ��� �� � ��� �� � � � � � � � �����...

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    I. M. Sobol, The distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals, USSR Compu- tational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 7, 86 (1967)

    work page 1967

  38. [38]

    Porth, S

    L. Porth, S. Heydenreich, P. Burger, L. Linke, and P. o. Schneider, A roadmap to cosmological parameter anal- ysis with third-order shear statistics III: Efficient es- timation of third-order shear correlation functions and an application to the KiDS-1000 data, arXiv (2023), 2309.08601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Jarvis, G

    M. Jarvis, G. Bernstein, and B. Jain, The Skewness of the Aperture Mass Statistic, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.astro- ph/0307393 (2003), astro-ph/0307393

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro- 2003

  40. [40]

    Gatti, C

    M. Gatti, C. Chang, O. Friedrich, B. Jain, D. Bacon, et al. , Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: cosmology with moments of weak lensing mass maps validation on simulations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical 24 ������ ������ ������ ������ � � � � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � � ��� �� � ������ ������ ������ ������ � � � � � ��� �� � �...

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    MacCrann, M

    N. MacCrann, M. R. Becker, J. McCullough, et al., Dark energy survey y3 results: blending shear and redshift bi- ases in image simulations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 509, 33713394 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    S. Pyne, A. Tenneti, and B. Joachimi, Three-point intrinsic alignments of dark matter halos in the Il- lustrisTNG simulation, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2204.10342 (2022), 2204.10342

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.10342 2022

  43. [43]

    J. A. Blazek, N. MacCrann, M. A. Troxel, and X. Fang, Beyond linear galaxy alignments, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103506 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Krause, T

    E. Krause, T. F. Eifler, J. Zuntz, O. Friedrich, M. A. Troxel, et al., Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Multi- Probe Methodology and Simulated Likelihood Analyses, arXiv (2017), arXiv: 1706.09359, 1706.09359

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Bridle and L

    S. Bridle and L. King, Dark energy constraints from cos- mic shear power spectra: impact of intrinsic alignments on photometric redshift requirements, New Journal of Physics 9, 444444 (2007)

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    E. S. Sheldon and E. M. Huff, Practical Weak-lensing Shear Measurement with Metacalibration, The Astro- physical Journal 841, 24 (2017), 1702.02601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    T. Bakx, T. Kurita, A. Eggemeier, N. E. Chisari, and Z. Vlah, The bispectrum of intrinsic alignments: The- ory modelling and forecasts for stage iv galaxy surveys (2025), arXiv:2504.10009 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    T. Bakx, T. Kurita, A. Eggemeier, N. E. Chisari, and Z. Vlah, The bispectrum of intrinsic alignments: Ii. preci- sion comparison against dark matter simulations (2025), arXiv:2507.06818 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Dodelson and M

    S. Dodelson and M. D. Schneider, The effect of covariance 25 estimator error on cosmological parameter constraints, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063537 (2013)

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    Higher-order moments of the lensing shear and other spin two fields

    M. Zaldarriaga and R. Scoccimarro, Higher Order Mo- ments of the Cosmic Shear and Other Spin-2 Fields, Astrophys. J. 584, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208075 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  51. [51]

    W. J. Percival, O. Friedrich, E. Sellentin, and A. Heavens, Matching bayesian and frequentist coverage probabili- ties when using an approximate data covariance matrix, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 510, 3207 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/510/3/3207/42110821/stab3540.pdf

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Zuntz, M

    J. Zuntz, M. Paterno, E. Jennings, D. Rudd, A. Manzotti, S. Dodelson, S. Bridle, S. Sehrish, and J. Kowalkowski, Cosmosis: Modular cosmological pa- rameter estimation, Astronomy and Computing 12, 4559 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Krause, X

    E. Krause, X. Fang, S. Pandey, et al. , Dark energy sur- vey year 3 results: Multi-probe modeling strategy and validation (2021), arXiv:2105.13548 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    [18] from the second moment and Betti numbers, constraints by Jeffrey et al

    from the second and third moment of the weak lensing mass map, scattering transforms, and wavelet phase harmonics, constraints by Prat et al. [18] from the second moment and Betti numbers, constraints by Jeffrey et al. [17] from power spectra, peak statistics, and CNN map-level inference, and the constraints from ξ± and ⟨M3 ap⟩ presented in this work. We ...

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Heavens, E

    A. Heavens, E. Sellentin, D. d. Mijolla, and A. Vianello, Massive data compression for parameter-dependent covariance matrices, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.1707.06529 (2017), 1707.06529

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.06529 2017

  56. [56]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmol- ogy and particle physics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 398, 1601 (2009), 0809.3437

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  57. [57]

    Gatti, G

    M. Gatti, G. Campailla, N. Jeffrey, et al. , Dark energy survey year 3 results: simulation-based cosmological in- ference with wavelet harmonics, scattering transforms, and moments of weak lensing mass maps ii. cosmological results (2024), arXiv:2405.10881 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Marn, L. Verde, and J. L. Bernal, Blind observers of the sky, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (09), 052

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Novell-Masot et al

    S. Novell-Masot et al. , Catalog-level blinding on the bis- pectrum for DESI-like galaxy surveys, JCAP 10, 089, arXiv:2407.12931 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    J. Muir, G. M. Bernstein, D. Huterer, et al. , Blinding multiprobe cosmological experiments, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 494, 44544470 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Raveri and W

    M. Raveri and W. Hu, Concordance and Discordance in Cosmology, Physical Review D 99, 043506 (2019), arXiv: 1806.04649, 1806.04649

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Anbajagane, C

    D. Anbajagane, C. Chang, A. Drlica-Wagner, et al., The decade cosmic shear project iv: cosmological constraints from 107 million galaxies across 5,400 deg 2 of the sky (2025), arXiv:2502.17677 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    A. Mead, S. Brieden, T. Tr¨ oster, and C. Heymans, hmcode-2020: improved modelling of non-linear cosmo- logical power spectra with baryonic feedback, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502, 1401 (2021), arXiv:2009.01858 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    An Empirical Model For Intrinsic Alignments: Insights From Cosmological Simulations

    N. Van Alfen, D. Campbell, J. Blazek, C. D. Leonard, F. Lanusse, A. Hearin, and R. Mandelbaum (LSST Dark Energy Science), An Empirical Model For Intrinsic Align- ments: Insights From Cosmological Simulations, Open J. Astrophys. 7, 001c.118783 (2024), arXiv:2311.07374 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    McCullough, A

    J. McCullough, A. Amon, E. Legnani, et al. , Dark en- ergy survey year 3: Blue shear (2024), arXiv:2410.22272 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Pandey, J

    S. Pandey, J. C. Hill, et al. , Constraints on cosmology and baryonic feedback with joint analysis of dark energy survey year 3 lensing data and act dr6 thermal sunyaev- zel’dovich effect observations (2025), arXiv:2506.07432 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.