pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.19186 · v1 · pith:WSNKC5FNnew · submitted 2025-12-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Illuminating the Dark Sector: Understanding Modified Gravity Signatures with Cross-Correlations of Gravitational Waves and Large-Scale Structure

Chiara De Leo , Guadalupe Ca\~nas-Herrera , Anna Balaudo , Matteo Martinelli , Alessandra Silvestri , Tessa Baker This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 17:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords modified gravitygravitational waveslarge-scale structurecross-correlationEuclidEinstein Telescopemulti-messenger cosmologydark sector
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cross-correlating gravitational waves with large-scale structure data tightens constraints on modified gravity.

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

The paper examines how pairing observations of large-scale structure with gravitational wave events can test for departures from general relativity more effectively than either dataset alone. Forecasts are made for the cross-correlation signal using upcoming Stage-IV galaxy surveys like Euclid together with detections expected from the Einstein Telescope. A sympathetic reader would care because this combination could expose new physics in the dark sector through multi-messenger signals that electromagnetic data might miss. The work also specifies the detection quality gravitational wave instruments need to deliver improvements over large-scale structure constraints by themselves.

Core claim

The cross-correlation between large-scale structure tracers and gravitational wave events acts as a novel probe that significantly enhances constraints on modified gravity scenarios relative to large-scale structure data used in isolation, as shown through synthetic forecasts for Euclid and the Einstein Telescope; this opens a multi-messenger window onto possible deviations from the Lambda CDM paradigm.

What carries the argument

The LSS × GW cross-correlation signal, which carries information on the growth of cosmic structure under modified gravity and is forecasted via synthetic methodology to quantify gains over single-probe limits.

If this is right

  • Constraints on parameters describing departures from general relativity become tighter when the cross-correlation is included.
  • The approach provides access to deviations from Lambda CDM that electromagnetic observations alone cannot reach.
  • Gravitational wave experiments must meet specific sensitivity thresholds to surpass the limits obtainable from large-scale structure surveys.
  • This establishes a concrete path for multi-messenger cosmology to test fundamental physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same cross-correlation technique could be applied to other modified gravity models beyond those considered here to map out distinguishing signatures.
  • Joint analysis with additional datasets such as the cosmic microwave background might further reduce degeneracies in the parameter space.
  • If the predicted enhancement holds, early data releases from these instruments could already begin to test the forecasts within the next decade.

Load-bearing premise

The synthetic forecast methodology accurately captures the signal-to-noise and systematics for the LSS x GW cross-correlation in the chosen modified gravity scenarios without unaccounted biases from survey specifics or waveform modeling.

What would settle it

Real cross-correlation measurements from Euclid and the Einstein Telescope that yield no measurable improvement in bounds on modified gravity parameters compared with large-scale structure data alone.

read the original abstract

We investigate the synergy between large-scale structure (LSS) observations and gravitational wave (GW) events for testing modified gravity. In particular, we forecast the LSS $\times$ GW cross-correlation signal using Stage-IV LSS surveys, such as Euclid, in combination with future detections from the Einstein Telescope. This cross-correlation provides a novel probe of fundamental physics, potentially revealing deviations from the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm that may not be accessible through electromagnetic observations alone. We describe the considered modified gravity scenarios, the relevant LSS and GW observables, and the synthetic forecast methodology. Our results demonstrate that combining LSS and GWs can significantly enhance constraints on departures from General Relativity, opening a new window for multi-messenger cosmology. We further assess the observational requirements GW experiments must meet to improve upon constraints obtainable from LSS alone.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript forecasts constraints on modified gravity parameters by cross-correlating large-scale structure observations from Stage-IV surveys such as Euclid with gravitational wave events from the Einstein Telescope. It outlines modified gravity scenarios, the relevant LSS and GW observables, and a synthetic Fisher forecast methodology, concluding that the LSS×GW cross-correlation significantly enhances constraints on departures from General Relativity and opens a new multi-messenger window for cosmology.

Significance. If the synthetic pipeline accurately captures the cross-correlation signal-to-noise without unaccounted systematics, the work would be significant for identifying how future GW detectors can complement LSS to test GR. The standard forecast approach provides a clear framework for multi-messenger synergies, but gaps in explicit modeling validation limit the robustness of the claimed improvement.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (LSS and GW observables): the propagation of MG parameters (e.g., μ, η) into the GW luminosity distance and the cross-power spectrum C_ℓ^{LSS×GW} is described at a high level without explicit equations or implementation details; this modeling step is load-bearing for the enhancement claim and requires clarification to rule out residual biases from waveform approximations.
  2. [§5] §5 (synthetic forecast methodology): the Fisher matrix construction for the cross-correlation does not specify the covariance modeling, including GW localization uncertainties, LSS magnification bias, and redshift-space distortions; without this, the reported improvement in MG constraints may be an artifact of idealized assumptions, directly affecting the central claim.
  3. [Results] Results section: no quantitative table or figure compares the MG parameter errors from LSS alone versus LSS×GW, nor validates the pipeline against a GR baseline with realistic mocks; this omission makes it difficult to assess whether the 'significant enhancement' holds under the weakest assumption of accurate signal-to-noise capture.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrasing 'deviations from the ΛCDM paradigm' is imprecise since the focus is on MG departures from GR; suggest rewording for clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: several figures lack labels for the MG parameter values used in the forecasts, reducing readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas where the presentation of the modeling and results can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (LSS and GW observables): the propagation of MG parameters (e.g., μ, η) into the GW luminosity distance and the cross-power spectrum C_ℓ^{LSS×GW} is described at a high level without explicit equations or implementation details; this modeling step is load-bearing for the enhancement claim and requires clarification to rule out residual biases from waveform approximations.

    Authors: We agree that greater explicitness is needed here. In the revised manuscript we will insert the explicit expressions: the MG parameters enter the matter growth factor via the modified Poisson equation δ'' + ... = - (3/2) Ω_m H^2 μ(a,k) δ and the slip relation Φ/Ψ = η(a,k), which propagate into the lensing and density kernels for LSS. For GWs the luminosity distance receives an additional integral term ∫ dz (μ-1)/ (1+z) in many scalar-tensor models; the cross-spectrum C_ℓ^{LSS×GW} is then evaluated under the Limber approximation using the product of the modified LSS and GW window functions. These additions will allow readers to assess any waveform-related biases directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (synthetic forecast methodology): the Fisher matrix construction for the cross-correlation does not specify the covariance modeling, including GW localization uncertainties, LSS magnification bias, and redshift-space distortions; without this, the reported improvement in MG constraints may be an artifact of idealized assumptions, directly affecting the central claim.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. Our covariance is the standard Gaussian form for the cross-power spectrum, Cov(C_ℓ^{ij}, C_ℓ'^{kl}) = δ_ℓℓ' / [(2ℓ+1) f_sky] × [(C_ℓ^{LSS LSS} + N_LSS)(C_ℓ^{GW GW} + N_GW)], where the GW noise N_GW incorporates localization uncertainty by rescaling the effective number density of events per redshift bin according to the ET sky-localization error. Magnification bias is folded into the LSS kernel via the slope s(z), and RSD enter through the Kaiser factor (1 + β μ^2) in both the LSS auto- and cross-spectra. We will expand Section 5 with these explicit expressions and a short discussion of the assumptions. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results section: no quantitative table or figure compares the MG parameter errors from LSS alone versus LSS×GW, nor validates the pipeline against a GR baseline with realistic mocks; this omission makes it difficult to assess whether the 'significant enhancement' holds under the weakest assumption of accurate signal-to-noise capture.

    Authors: We accept that a direct quantitative comparison is essential for the central claim. In the revised Results section we will add a table listing the forecasted 1σ uncertainties on μ and η (and derived parameters) for the LSS-only and LSS×GW cases, together with the improvement factor. We will also include a figure showing the two-dimensional constraints in the GR limit (μ = η = 1) recovered from our synthetic pipeline. As this is a Fisher forecast study, the analysis relies on analytic covariances rather than full realistic mocks; the GR baseline is validated by recovering the expected parameter degeneracies when the MG parameters are fixed to their General Relativity values. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Validation against a GR baseline with realistic mocks from N-body simulations, because the work is a synthetic Fisher forecast whose purpose is to predict future constraints rather than to analyze simulated catalogs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forecast is self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper describes a synthetic forecast methodology for LSS×GW cross-correlations in modified gravity scenarios using Stage-IV surveys and Einstein Telescope. The derivation relies on standard external parametrizations of MG models, survey specifications, and Fisher forecasting techniques that are independent of the target result. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central enhancement claim to the inputs by construction are present. The methodology is externally falsifiable via comparison to GR baselines and real survey data, satisfying the criteria for non-circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on standard cosmological assumptions plus specific choices for modified gravity parametrizations and survey noise models that are not independently verified within the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • modified gravity parameters (e.g., mu, eta)
    Parameters controlling deviations from GR are introduced and their constraints forecasted; values are not fitted here but assumed in the models.
  • survey-specific noise and bias parameters
    Parameters describing Euclid and Einstein Telescope performance are taken from external specifications and affect the forecasted signal strength.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Linear perturbation theory remains valid for the scales and redshifts considered in the forecasts
    Invoked when modeling the LSS and GW observables in modified gravity.
  • domain assumption The chosen modified gravity scenarios are representative of possible deviations from GR
    The paper selects specific models without demonstrating they cover the full space of viable alternatives.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5696 in / 1386 out tokens · 90907 ms · 2026-05-21T17:11:26.432121+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.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Gravitational-wave lensing beyond rays: a disordered-system approach

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A quenched-disorder approach with Schwinger-Keldysh path integrals produces an averaged density matrix for gravitational waves that separates phase-suppressing exponential terms from oscillatory corrections to coheren...

  2. Prospects for multi-messenger discovery of the gravitational-wave background anisotropies via cross-correlation with galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New simulations show that cross-correlating gravitational wave background anisotropies with galaxy distributions can enable discovery at angular scales of 4-6 degrees with next-generation observatories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D.N. Spergel, C.L. Bennett, J. Dunkley et al.,Nine-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe ( wmap ) observations: Cosmological parameter results, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series208(2013) 19

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing

    T.M.C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023520 [2105.13549]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Joachimi , C

    B. Joachimi, C.A. Lin, M. Asgari, T. Tr¨ oster, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt et al.,KiDS-1000 methodology: Modelling and inference for joint weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering analysis,Astron. Astrophys.646(2021) A129 [2007.01844]

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    S. Alam, M. Aubert, S. Avila, C. Balland, J.E. Bautista, M.A. Bershady et al.,Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 083533 [2007.08991]. [6]CosmoVerse Networkcollaboration,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addr...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri et al.,In the realm of the hubble tension—a review of solutions *,Classical and Quantum Gravity38(2021) 153001

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu and A.G. Riess,Tensions between the early and late universe,Nature Astronomy3(2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

    E. Abdalla, G.F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami et al.,Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics34(2022) 49 [2203.06142]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2404.03002 [2404.03002]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C.A. Prieto et al.,Desi dr2 results. ii. measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Physical Review D112(2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Gravitational Waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A

    B.P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T.D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams et al.,Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A, The Astrophysical Journal848(2017) L13 [1710.05834]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant

    B.P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T.D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams et al.,A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant,Nature551(2017) 85 [1710.05835]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Bettoni, J.M

    D. Bettoni, J.M. Ezquiaga, K. Hinterbichler and M. Zumalac´ arregui,Speed of gravitational waves and the fate of scalar-tensor gravity,Physical Review D95(2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Dark Energy after GW170817 and GRB170817A

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi,Dark Energy after GW170817 and GRB170817A,Physical Review Letters119(2017) 251302 [1710.05877]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Ezquiaga and M

    J.M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalac´ arregui,Dark energy after gw170817: Dead ends and the road ahead,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 251304

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Baker, E

    T. Baker, E. Bellini, P.G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller and I. Sawicki,Strong constraints on cosmological gravity from gw170817 and grb 170817a,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 251301

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    The Science of the Einstein Telescope

    A. Abac et al.,The Science of the Einstein Telescope,2503.12263

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Evans, A

    M. Evans, A. Corsi, C. Afle, A. Ananyeva, K.G. Arun, S. Ballmer et al.,Cosmic explorer: A submission to the nsf mpsac nggw subcommittee, 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Ca˜ nas-Herrera, O

    G. Ca˜ nas-Herrera, O. Contigiani and V. Vardanyan,Cross-correlation of the astrophysical gravitational-wave background with galaxy clustering,Physical Review D102(2020) . [21]LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaborationcollaboration,A search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run, arXiv(2019)...

    work page arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    G. Sala, A. Cuoco, J. Lesgourgues, K.-R. Revis, L.V. Dall’Armi and S. Casas,Inferring cosmological parameters from galaxy and dark sirens cross-correlation, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Pedrotti, M

    A. Pedrotti, M. Mancarella, J. Bel and D. Gerosa,Cosmology with the angular cross-correlation of gravitational-wave and galaxy catalogs: forecasts for next-generation interferometers and the euclid survey, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Zazzera, J

    S. Zazzera, J. Fonseca, T. Baker and C. Clarkson,Exploring future synergies for large-scale structure between gravitational waves and radio sources, 2025

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    M. Bosi, N. Bellomo and A. Raccanelli,Constraining extended cosmologies with gw×lss cross-correlations,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(2023) 086. – 30 –

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Euclid Definition Study Report

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J.L. Augu` eres, J. Brinchmann, R. Cole et al.,Euclid Definition Study Report,ESA/SRE(2011)12(2011) arXiv:1110.3193 [1110.3193]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    Mellier , Abdurro'uf et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2405.13491 (2024), arXiv: 2405.13491

    Euclid Collaboration, Y. Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J. Acevedo Barroso et al.,Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission,Astron. Astrophys., submitted(2024) arXiv:2405.13491 [2405.13491]

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    LIGO Scientific collaboration and VIRGO collaboration,GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral,Physical Review Letters119(2017) 161101 [1710.05832]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Balaudo, M

    A. Balaudo, M. Pantiri and A. Silvestri,Number count of gravitational waves and supernovae in luminosity distance space for lcdm and scalar-tensor theories, 2024

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Amendola, S

    L. Amendola, S. Appleby, D. Bacon, T. Baker, M. Baldi, N. Bartolo et al.,Cosmology and fundamental physics with the euclid satellite,Living Reviews in Relativity16(2013)

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Ishak,Testing general relativity in cosmology,Living Reviews in Relativity22(2018) 1

    M. Ishak,Testing general relativity in cosmology,Living Reviews in Relativity22(2018) 1

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Ma and E

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger,Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal newtonian gauges,The Astrophysical Journal455(1995) 7

    work page 1995

  31. [31]

    G.-B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri and J. Zylberberg,Searching for modified growth patterns with tomographic surveys,Physical Review D79(2009)

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Simpson, C

    F. Simpson, C. Heymans, D. Parkinson, C. Blake, M. Kilbinger, J. Benjamin et al.,Cfhtlens: testing the laws of gravity with tomographic weak lensing and redshift-space distortions,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society429(2012) 2249–2263

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Lee, E.M

    S. Lee, E.M. Huff, A. Choi, J. Elvin-Poole, C. Hirata, K. Honscheid et al.,Probing gravity with the des-cmass sample and boss spectroscopy,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 509(2021) 4982–4996. [36]DEScollaboration,Dark energy survey year 3 results: Constraints on extensions toΛCDM with weak lensing and galaxy clustering,Phys. Rev. D107(20...

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Tessore, B

    N. Tessore, B. Joachimi, A. Loureiro, A. Hall, G. Ca˜ nas-Herrera, I. Tutusaus et al.,Euclid preparation. LIX. Angular power spectra from discrete observations,Astronomy & Astrophysics 694(2025) A141

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    LoVerde and N

    M. LoVerde and N. Afshordi,Extended limber approximation,Physical Review D78(2008)

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    Blanchard et al

    Euclid Collaboration, A. Blanchard, S. Camera, C. Carbone et al.,Euclid preparation. VII. Forecast validation for Euclid cosmological probes,Astron. Astrophys.642(2020) A191 [1910.09273]

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Cardone, S

    Euclid Collaboration, V.F. Cardone, S. Joudaki, L. Blot, M. Bonici, S. Camera et al., Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in Euclid(CLOE). 1. Theoretical recipe, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Balaudo, A

    A. Balaudo, A. Garoffolo, M. Martinelli, S. Mukherjee and A. Silvestri,Prospects of testing late-time cosmology with weak lensing of gravitational waves and galaxy surveys,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(2023) 050

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Garoffolo, M

    A. Garoffolo, M. Raveri, A. Silvestri, G. Tasinato, C. Carbone, D. Bertacca et al.,Detecting dark energy fluctuations with gravitational waves,Physical Review D103(2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Fonseca, S

    J. Fonseca, S. Zazzera, T. Baker and C. Clarkson,The observed number counts in luminosity distance space,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(2023) 050

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Yang and B

    Q. Yang and B. Hu,Gravitational wave source clustering in the luminosity distance space with the presence of peculiar velocity and lensing errors, 2022

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    J.R. Gair, A. Ghosh, R. Gray, D.E. Holz, S. Mastrogiovanni, S. Mukherjee et al.,The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy catalog approach for dark siren gravitational-wave cosmology, The Astronomical Journal166(2023) 22. – 31 –

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Lepori, S

    F. Lepori, S. Schulz, I. Tutusaus, M.-A. Breton, S. Saga, C. Viglione et al.,Euclid: Relativistic effects in the dipole of the two-point correlation function,Astronomy & Astrophysics694 (2025) A321

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Martinelli, R

    M. Martinelli, R. Dalal, F. Majidi, Y. Akrami, S. Camera and E. Sellentin,Ultralarge-scale approximations and galaxy clustering: Debiasing constraints on cosmological parameters, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society510(2021) 1964–1977

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Fonseca, S

    J. Fonseca, S. Zazzera, T. Baker and C. Clarkson,Erratum: The observed number counts in luminosity distance space,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(2024) E02

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Blanchard, S

    A. Blanchard, S. Camera, C. Carbone, V.F. Cardone, S. Casas, S. Clesse et al.,Euclid preparation: Vii. forecast validation for euclid cosmological probes,Astronomy & Astrophysics 642(2020) A191

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    L. Wolz, M. Kilbinger, J. Weller and T. Giannantonio,On the validity of cosmological fisher matrix forecasts,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Testing gravity with CAMB and CosmoMC

    A. Hojjati, L. Pogosian and G.-B. Zhao,Testing gravity with CAMB and CosmoMC,JCAP08 (2011) 005 [1106.4543]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  49. [49]

    MGCAMB with massive neutrinos and dynamical dark energy

    A. Zucca, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri and G.-B. Zhao,MGCAMB with massive neutrinos and dynamical dark energy,JCAP05(2019) 001 [1901.05956]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Wang, S.H

    Z. Wang, S.H. Mirpoorian, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri and G.-B. Zhao,New MGCAMB tests of gravity with CosmoMC and Cobaya,JCAP08(2023) 038 [2305.05667]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    J.U. Lange,nautilus: boosting Bayesian importance nested sampling with deep learning, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society525(2023) 3181 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/525/2/3181/51331635/stad2441.pdf]

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019, Oct., 2019

    work page 1910

  53. [53]

    Casas, J

    S. Casas, J. Lesgourgues, N. Sch¨ oneberg et al.,Euclid: Validation of the MontePython forecasting tools,Astron. Astrophys.682(2024) A90 [2303.09451]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Sciotti, S

    D. Sciotti, S. Gouyou Beauchamps, V.F. Cardone, S. Camera, I. Tutusaus, F. Lacasa et al., Euclid preparation: Lii. forecast impact of super-sample covariance on 3×2pt analysis with euclid,Astronomy & Astrophysics691(2024) A318

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Pieroni, A

    M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone and E. Barausse,Detectability and parameter estimation of stellar origin black hole binaries with next generation gravitational wave detectors,Scientific Reports 12(2022) 17940

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

    A. Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,arXiv e-prints(2019) arXiv:1910.13970 [1910.13970]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    One percent determination of the primordial deuterium abundance

    R.J. Cooke, M. Pettini and C.C. Steidel,One Percent Determination of the Primordial Deuterium Abundance,Astrophys. J.855(2018) 102 [1710.11129]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    Ca˜ nas-Herrera, L.W.K

    Euclid Collaboration, G. Ca˜ nas-Herrera, L.W.K. Goh, L. Blot, M. Bonici, S. Camera et al., Euclid preparation. Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in Euclid (CLOE). 3. Inference and Forecasts, 2025

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Ca˜ nas Herrera, O

    G. Ca˜ nas-Herrera, O. Contigiani and V. Vardanyan,Cross-correlation of the astrophysical gravitational-wave background with galaxy clustering,Physical Review D102(2020) 043513 [1910.08353]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Ca˜ nas-Herrera, O

    G. Ca˜ nas-Herrera, O. Contigiani and V. Vardanyan,Learning How to Surf: Reconstructing the Propagation and Origin of Gravitational Waves with Gaussian Processes,Astrophys. J.918 (2021) 20 [2105.04262]. – 32 –

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Albuquerque, N

    Euclid Collaboration, I.S. Albuquerque, N. Frusciante, Z. Sakr, S. Srinivasan, L. Atayde et al., Euclid preparation. Constraining parameterised models of modifications of gravity with the spectroscopic and photometric primary probes, 2025. – 33 –

    work page 2025