pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2511.00822 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· gr-qc

The CatWISE2020 Quasar dipole: A Reassessment of the Cosmic Dipole Anomaly

Masroor Bashir , Pravabati Chingangbam , Stephen Appleby This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 01:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords quasar dipoleCatWISE2020cosmic dipole anomalyEllis-Baldwin testclustering biaspartial sky coveragelognormal simulationsmultipole fitting
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Simulations incorporating clustering bias and sky coverage lower the CatWISE2020 quasar dipole significance to 3.27-3.63 sigma.

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

The paper reassesses the Ellis-Baldwin test by comparing the kinematic CMB dipole to the number-count dipole in the CatWISE2020 quasar catalog. Earlier work reported an excess amplitude at 4.9 sigma significance. The authors run FLASK lognormal simulations that include the kinematic dipole, quasar clustering bias, radial selection function, shot noise, and the survey's exact partial-sky mask. These simulations yield revised significances of 3.63 sigma without a clustering dipole, 3.44 sigma for a random clustering dipole, and 3.27 sigma when the clustering dipole aligns with the kinematic one. The anomaly is reduced but persists and is not fully accounted for by clustering or mask-induced mode coupling alone.

Core claim

Using lognormal realizations from the FLASK package that incorporate the kinematic dipole, intrinsic clustering dipole, shot noise, and survey geometry, the significance of the CatWISE2020 number-count dipole excess is found to be 3.63 sigma in the absence of a clustering dipole, 3.44 sigma with a randomly oriented clustering dipole, and 3.27 sigma when aligned with the kinematic dipole. Although reduced, the anomaly remains and is not solely due to the clustering dipole or mode coupling from the survey mask. Fitting models with higher-order multipoles up to ell = 4 shows that partial sky coverage induces mode coupling that shifts the dipole estimate higher and inflates its variance, visible

What carries the argument

FLASK lognormal simulations of large-scale structure that include quasar clustering bias, radial selection function, and exact sky coverage, used to model the full covariance and significance of the dipole measurement.

If this is right

  • The observed dipole excess cannot be explained solely by the clustering dipole or survey mask mode coupling.
  • Partial sky coverage causes mode coupling that biases the dipole estimate upward when the octopole and higher terms are included.
  • There is a bias-variance trade-off in multipole fitting on partial-sky data, reflected in the rising condition number of the estimator as more modes are added.
  • The remaining 3 sigma level tension warrants checks for other systematic contributions beyond clustering and geometry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar simulation-based reassessments could be applied to other large-scale dipole tests to check for comparable reductions in reported tension.
  • The lowered significance suggests that unmodeled clustering effects may have contributed to the original anomaly in earlier analyses.
  • Fuller sky coverage in future catalogs would likely reduce the mode-coupling bias observed when fitting multiple multipoles.
  • If the residual tension holds under improved data, it could point to new physics affecting the cosmological principle at large scales.

Load-bearing premise

The lognormal realizations and the adopted quasar clustering bias model accurately capture the intrinsic dipole contribution and its covariance with the kinematic dipole under the survey mask.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the quasar clustering dipole amplitude and direction from a different survey or full-sky mock that matches the original 4.9 sigma excess while using the same mask would falsify the revised significances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.00822 by Masroor Bashir, Pravabati Chingangbam, Stephen Appleby.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Sky mask for the CatWISE2020 quasar sample which excludes the Galactic plane (|b| < 30◦ ), regions around bright stars, and other areas with poor photometry, removing 52.6% of the sky. Bottom: Sky distribution of the CatWISE2020 quasar catalog used for dipole anisotropy studies. We compute the areal density of this sample by creat￾ing a map using the HEALPix framework (K. M. G´orski et al. 2005) with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: demonstrates the nature of the leakage. The top panel shows Mℓℓ′ as a 2D heatmap. Prominent off￾diagonal elements demonstrate significant power leak￾age from higher multipoles (ℓ ′ ) into lower multipoles (ℓ). The middle panel provides a 3D representation of the same matrix, visually emphasizing the strength and pattern of this leakage. Both plots highlight how power from a wide range of scales couples wit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The fractional deviation of the measured dipole amplitude, (Df − Di)/Di, as a function of injected multipole power. The solid lines represent the mean across 1000 realizations, while the shaded regions indicate the ±1σ uncertainty intervals. Results are shown for the CatWISE2020 mask (orange) and symmetrical 10◦ (green) and 30◦ (blue) galactic cuts. Panels (a) and (c) show the results for even multipoles (… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the shot-noise subtracted angular power spectrum of the CatWISE2020 over-density map (∆n), which agrees well with FLASK simulations within the 2σ confidence interval for ℓ ≥ 5. This agree￾ment validates that the amplitudes of higher multipoles considered in the simulations here are reasonable and representative of CatWISE2020 quasar data. This comparison reveals power in higher multipoles that was pr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability density functions (PDFs) of the dipole amplitude (×1000) from six simulation scenarios. Across all subplots, the CatWISE2020 catalog dipole amplitude (D obs × 103 = 15.54) is indicated by the vertical red dashed line. The blue dashed and black dotted vertical lines represent the median and 3σ confidence level, respectively, specific to each simulation set. Simulations Physical inputs Clustering… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left column: Monopole component of the number count density map. Middle column: Dipole contributions - kinematic (top), shot noise (middle), and clustering aligned with the CMB dipole direction (bottom). Right column: Combined higher multipole contributions from shot noise and clustering. Bottom: Final simulated number count density map, N(ˆn), as defined in Eq. 19, obtained by summing all the above compon… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Ellis-Baldwin test probes the cosmological principle by comparing the kinematic Cosmic Microwave Background dipole with the Doppler-driven dipole in the number counts of extragalactic radio sources. Recent analysis of the CatWISE2020 quasar catalog reported a number-count dipole amplitude exceeding the kinematic expectation at $4.9\sigma$ significance. We present a comprehensive reassessment of this test using the same dataset, incorporating major sources of uncertainty in the statistical inference. We employ a simulation framework based on the FLASK package, using lognormal realizations of the large-scale structure, quasar clustering bias, the survey's radial selection function, and its exact sky coverage. Our simulations account for the kinematic dipole, the intrinsic clustering dipole, shot noise, and survey geometry effects. The analysis yields a revised significance of $3.63\sigma$ in the absence of a clustering dipole, and $3.44\sigma$ with a randomly oriented clustering dipole. When the clustering dipole is aligned with the kinematic dipole, the significance decreases further to $3.27\sigma$. Although the anomaly is reduced, it cannot be explained solely by the clustering dipole or mode coupling from the survey mask. We further assess dipole measurement robustness by fitting models with successively higher-order multipoles up to $\ell = 4$. Partial sky coverage induces mode coupling, shifting the dipole estimate to higher values when the octopole is included and inflating its variance as additional modes are incorporated, reflected in the increasing condition number of the estimator. This behavior highlights a bias-variance trade-off inherent in multipole fitting on partial-sky data.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reassesses the 4.9σ excess reported for the CatWISE2020 quasar number-count dipole relative to the kinematic CMB dipole. Using FLASK lognormal realizations that incorporate quasar clustering bias, the survey radial selection function, exact sky coverage, shot noise, the kinematic dipole, and an intrinsic clustering dipole (tested in zero, random, and aligned configurations), the authors report revised significances of 3.63σ, 3.44σ, and 3.27σ respectively. They further examine the robustness of the dipole estimator by successively including higher multipoles up to ℓ=4, noting that partial-sky mode coupling shifts the dipole amplitude and inflates its variance, as reflected in the increasing condition number of the estimator.

Significance. If the lognormal mocks accurately reproduce the marginal variance and mask-induced covariance of the dipole estimator, the work demonstrates that the anomaly is less significant than previously claimed while remaining at the ~3σ level. The use of Monte Carlo simulations that are independent of the observed dipole amplitude, together with explicit modeling of the main known contaminants (clustering dipole, shot noise, and survey geometry), constitutes a clear methodological improvement over analytic estimates. The explicit discussion of the bias-variance trade-off in multipole fitting on masked data is a useful contribution to the Ellis-Baldwin test literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation framework (Methods)] The revised significances (3.27–3.63σ) rest on the assumption that the FLASK lognormal realizations faithfully reproduce both the variance of the dipole estimator and its covariance with the kinematic term under the CatWISE mask. Lognormal fields are known to suppress higher-order cumulants relative to realistic quasar clustering; if the real field exhibits larger tails or stronger ℓ=1 to higher-ℓ coupling induced by the mask, the simulated p-values will be too small. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that the anomaly is reduced but not eliminated. A direct comparison of the dipole variance and octopole-induced shifts between the lognormal ensemble and the data (or higher-fidelity mocks) is required.
  2. [Multipole fitting analysis] The abstract states that adding octopole terms shifts the dipole estimate and inflates its variance, yet the manuscript does not report whether the lognormal mocks recover the same quantitative shift and variance increase as seen in the real catalog when the same multipole model is fitted. Without this validation, it remains unclear whether the reported significance reduction fully accounts for the estimator behavior under partial-sky coverage.
minor comments (2)
  1. Specify the exact number of FLASK realizations used for each Monte Carlo distribution and whether the quasar clustering bias is held fixed or drawn from a prior in the different simulation suites.
  2. The condition number of the estimator is mentioned as a diagnostic of the bias-variance trade-off; tabulating its values for the successive multipole models (ℓ=1 to ℓ=4) would make the quantitative impact clearer.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review, which highlights both the strengths of our simulation-based approach and areas where additional validation would strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation framework (Methods)] The revised significances (3.27–3.63σ) rest on the assumption that the FLASK lognormal realizations faithfully reproduce both the variance of the dipole estimator and its covariance with the kinematic term under the CatWISE mask. Lognormal fields are known to suppress higher-order cumulants relative to realistic quasar clustering; if the real field exhibits larger tails or stronger ℓ=1 to higher-ℓ coupling induced by the mask, the simulated p-values will be too small. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that the anomaly is reduced but not eliminated. A direct comparison of the dipole variance and octopole-induced shifts between the lognormal ensemble and the data (or higher-fidelity mocks) is required.

    Authors: We agree that lognormal realizations are an approximation whose limitations must be quantified. While they correctly incorporate the two-point clustering, radial selection, shot noise, and exact mask geometry, they do suppress higher-order cumulants. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit validation subsection that (i) compares the dipole variance measured across the lognormal ensemble to a jackknife estimate of the variance from the real CatWISE2020 catalog and (ii) reports the distribution of octopole-induced dipole shifts recovered from the mocks and compares the mean shift to the shift observed in the data. We will also note that full N-body mocks would be a valuable future extension but lie outside the scope of the present work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Multipole fitting analysis] The abstract states that adding octopole terms shifts the dipole estimate and inflates its variance, yet the manuscript does not report whether the lognormal mocks recover the same quantitative shift and variance increase as seen in the real catalog when the same multipole model is fitted. Without this validation, it remains unclear whether the reported significance reduction fully accounts for the estimator behavior under partial-sky coverage.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current text reports the observed shifts and variance inflation but does not demonstrate that the mocks reproduce these quantities at the same level. In the revision we will add a direct comparison: for each multipole model (dipole only, dipole+quadrupole, dipole+octopole, up to ℓ=4) we will tabulate the mean dipole amplitude shift and the increase in estimator variance measured in the lognormal ensemble, and we will overlay these values against the corresponding quantities measured on the real catalog. This will confirm that the mode-coupling effects captured by the mocks are quantitatively consistent with the data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: significance derived from independent Monte Carlo mocks

full rationale

The paper's central result revises the dipole significance by comparing the observed CatWISE2020 amplitude against distributions from FLASK lognormal realizations that include the kinematic dipole, a fixed or randomly drawn clustering dipole, radial selection function, and exact survey mask. None of these inputs are fitted to the target dipole measurement; the clustering dipole is either set to zero, sampled randomly, or aligned by hand. Multipole fitting robustness checks and condition-number analysis are performed directly on data and mocks without self-referential definitions or renaming of fitted quantities as predictions. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain, ansatz smuggled via prior work, or uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors. The derivation remains self-contained against the external simulation framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that lognormal density fields plus a constant bias model plus the survey mask and selection function together constitute a sufficient forward model for the observed quasar counts. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • quasar clustering bias
    Adopted value used to generate the intrinsic clustering dipole in the simulations; its precise numerical value is not stated in the abstract but is required to produce the quoted significances.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Lognormal realizations adequately describe the one-point and two-point statistics of the quasar density field on the scales relevant to the dipole.
    Invoked when generating the large-scale structure realizations with FLASK.
  • domain assumption The radial selection function and sky mask are known to sufficient accuracy that they can be applied directly in the simulations without additional uncertainty propagation.
    Used when constructing the simulated catalogs that match the survey geometry.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5833 in / 1714 out tokens · 34735 ms · 2026-05-18T01:48:25.647670+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.

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

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., et al

    Abell, P. A., et al. 2009, doi: 10.2172/1156415

    work page doi:10.2172/1156415 2009

  2. [2]

    F., Hergt L

    Abghari, A., Bunn, E. F., Hergt, L. T., et al. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 067, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/067

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/067 2024

  3. [3]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    Aghamousa, A., et al. 2016, https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    2019, Mon

    Alonso, D., Sanchez, J., & Slosar, A. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 484, 4127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz093 2019

  5. [5]

    2018, Living Rev

    Amendola, L., et al. 2018, Living Rev. Rel., 21, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-017-0010-3 2018

  6. [6]

    L., & Shafieloo, A

    Antony, A., Appleby, S., Matthewson, W. L., & Shafieloo, A. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07439

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C

    Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/26 2013

  8. [8]

    Bengaly, C. A. P., Maartens, R., & Santos, M. G. 2018, JCAP, 2018, 031, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/031

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/031 2018

  9. [9]

    2002, Nature, 416, 150, doi: 10.1038/416150a B¨ ohme, L., Schwarz, D

    Blake, C., & Wall, J. 2002, Nature, 416, 150, doi: 10.1038/416150a B¨ ohme, L., Schwarz, D. J., Tiwari, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.16732, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.16732

    work page doi:10.1038/416150a 2002

  10. [10]

    2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.12699

    Braun, R., Bonaldi, A., Bourke, T., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.12699

    work page arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    2017, Mon

    Colin, J., Mohayaee, R., Rameez, M., & Sarkar, S. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 471, 1045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1631 5 http://healpix.sourceforge.net/

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1631 2017

  12. [12]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337

    work page doi:10.1086/300337 1998

  13. [13]

    P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al

    Crill, B. P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al. 2020, in (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup & M. D. Perrin, 114430I, doi: 10.1117/12.2567224

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2567224 2020

  14. [14]

    F., Brewer B

    Dam, L., Lewis, G. F., & Brewer, B. J. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2322

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2322 2023

  15. [15]

    Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Marocco, F., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7f2a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7f2a 2020

  16. [16]

    Ellis, G. F. R., & Baldwin, J. E. 1984, MNRAS, 206, 377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/206.2.377

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/206.2.377 1984

  17. [17]

    D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21871.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.3282M 426, 3282

    Gibelyou, C., & Huterer, D. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 427, 1994, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22032.x G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22032.x 2012

  18. [18]

    M., Netterfield, C

    Hivon, E., G´ orski, K. M., Netterfield, C. B., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, 2, doi: 10.1086/338126

    work page doi:10.1086/338126 2002

  19. [19]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  20. [20]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview

    Lesgourgues, J. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1104.2932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2932

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1104.2932 2011

  21. [21]

    Marocco, F., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd805

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd805 2021

  22. [22]

    Nadolny, T., Durrer, R., Kunz, M., & Padmanabhan, H. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 009, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/009 14 Monopole Dipoles Higher multipoles(ℓ>1) (Shot noise + clustering) Kinetic Shot noise Clustering ↘ ↓ ↙ Figure 6.Left column: Monopole component of the number count density map.Middle column: Dipole contributions - kinematic (top), shot noise (m...

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/009 2021

  23. [23]

    T., Mittal V., Lewis G

    Oayda, O. T., Mittal, V., Lewis, G. F., & Murphy, T. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1399 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020a, A&A, 641, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020b, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1399 2024

  24. [24]

    Rubart, M., & Schwarz, D. J. 2013, A&A, 555, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321215

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321215 2013

  25. [25]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23526

    Secrest, N., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mohayaee, R., & Sarkar, S. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23526

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    J., von Hausegger S., Rameez M., Mohayaee R., Sarkar S., Colin J., 2021, @doi [ApJ Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40 , 908, L51

    Secrest, N. J., Hausegger, S. v., Rameez, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40 2021

  27. [28]

    J., von Hausegger S., Rameez M., Mohayaee R., Sarkar S., 2022, @doi [ApJ Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac88c0 , 937, L31

    Secrest, N. J., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mohayaee, R., & Sarkar, S. 2022b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 937, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac88c0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac88c0 2041

  28. [29]

    M., Schmidt-Rubart, M., & Schwarz, D

    Siewert, T. M., Schmidt-Rubart, M., & Schwarz, D. J. 2021, A&A, 653, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039840

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039840 2021

  29. [30]

    Singal, A. K. 2011, Astrophys. J. Lett., 742, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/l23 2011

  30. [31]

    Singal, A. K. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 063501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.063501 2019

  31. [32]

    Singal, A. K. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3636, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2161

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2161 2023

  32. [33]

    Singal, A. K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.20769

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20769 2025

  33. [34]

    J., Benford, D

    Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/30 2012

  34. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acacf8 von Hausegger, S., Secrest, N., Desmond, H., et al

    Tiwari, P., Zhao, G.-B., & Nusser, A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acacf8 von Hausegger, S., Secrest, N., Desmond, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.23769. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23769

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acacf8 2023

  35. [36]

    D., Klöckner H.-R., Schwarz D

    Wagenveld, J. D., Kl¨ ockner, H.-R., & Schwarz, D. J. 2023, A&A, 675, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346210

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346210 2023

  36. [37]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., et al. 2010, Astron. J., 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010

  37. [38]

    S., Abdalla, F

    Xavier, H. S., Abdalla, F. B., & Joachimi, B. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw874

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw874 2016

  38. [39]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019