pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18908 · v1 · pith:E5VLOKSNnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Impact of lensing magnification on the power spectrum turnover

Yolanda Dube , Roy Maartens , Bikash R. Dinda , S\^ecloka L. Guedezounme , Sheean Jolicoeur This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords lensing magnificationpower spectrum turnoverstandard rulergalaxy surveysmatter-radiation equalityEuclid surveyMegaMapper surveycosmological bias
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lensing magnification shifts the turnover scale of the galaxy power spectrum at high redshifts and biases its recovery as a standard ruler.

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

The paper shows that lensing magnification adds a scale-dependent term to the monopole of the observed galaxy power spectrum in deep spectroscopic surveys. This term moves the location of the turnover scale k0, which marks the matter-radiation equality epoch, toward smaller scales as redshift rises. Mock catalogs modeled on Euclid and MegaMapper surveys quantify the resulting bias in the recovered turnover, finding it remains below 1 sigma for Euclid-like cases but reaches 3.6 sigma at the highest redshifts for MegaMapper-like cases. The analysis concludes that the correction must be modeled explicitly if the turnover is to serve as an independent standard ruler alongside baryon acoustic oscillations.

Core claim

Lensing magnification produces a scale-dependent correction to the monopole of the galaxy power spectrum that displaces the turnover scale k0. In mocks resembling the Euclid H-alpha survey the maximum bias reaches about 0.4 sigma; in mocks resembling the proposed MegaMapper Lyman-break galaxy survey the bias reaches about 3.6 sigma. To keep the bias below 1 sigma the usable redshift range for a MegaMapper-like survey must be cut at z approximately 2.9, and the turnover feature itself disappears for z greater than or equal to 3.7.

What carries the argument

The lensing magnification correction applied to the monopole of the observed galaxy power spectrum, which alters its shape and displaces the turnover scale k0.

If this is right

  • The turnover remains a usable standard ruler in Euclid-like surveys over their full redshift range once the lensing term is included.
  • MegaMapper-like surveys must restrict turnover analyses to z less than or equal to 2.9 to avoid biases exceeding 1 sigma.
  • Data above z approximately 3.7 in MegaMapper-like surveys cannot recover the intrinsic turnover without additional modeling.
  • Stacking multiple redshift bins amplifies the need to model the lensing correction to prevent cumulative bias in the combined turnover measurement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Unmodeled lensing shifts could lead high-redshift surveys to infer an incorrect redshift for matter-radiation equality.
  • Joint fits that marginalize over magnification bias parameters might still recover an unbiased turnover from the higher-redshift bins.
  • Analogous scale-dependent corrections could appear in intensity-mapping or photometric surveys and would require similar treatment.
  • Including redshift-space distortions in the mocks would test whether they partially cancel or reinforce the lensing-induced shift.

Load-bearing premise

The mock surveys isolate the lensing magnification effect on the monopole without dominant contamination from other scale-dependent systematics.

What would settle it

A high-redshift survey measurement of the galaxy power spectrum monopole that recovers the same turnover scale whether or not the lensing magnification term is included in the model would falsify the predicted shift.

read the original abstract

The turnover scale $k_0$ of the matter power spectrum -- and consequently of the standard galaxy power spectrum monopole -- encodes a fundamental signature of matter-radiation equality and constitutes an important standard ruler independent of baryon acoustic oscillations. In principle, we can detect the turnover at multiple redshifts and amplify the signal by stacking redshift bins. However, in spectroscopic surveys reaching high redshifts, such as the Euclid H$\alpha$ survey and the proposed MegaMapper Lyman-break galaxy survey, the monopole of the observed galaxy power spectrum receives a scale-dependent correction from lensing magnification. This can modify the signal shape and shift the turnover scale, undermining its use as a standard ruler. Using mock surveys similar to Euclid and MegaMapper, we forecast this shift and the consequent bias in the turnover scale that is recovered from the mock data. The shift in the turnover scale grows with redshift, leading to a maximum bias of $\sim 0.4\sigma$ (Euclid-like) and $\sim 3.6\sigma$ (MegaMapper-like). To avoid a bias $>1\sigma$, the maximum redshift for a MegaMapper-like survey is $z\approx 2.9$. Data in the remaining range $2.9\lesssim z\le 5$ does not directly provide a reliable recovery of the intrinsic turnover. In fact, we find that the turnover vanishes in a MegaMapper-like survey for $z\gtrsim 3.7$. Our results show that the lensing correction to the monopole should be included and carefully modelled when surveys are used to measure the cosmological turnover at high redshifts.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that lensing magnification introduces a scale-dependent correction to the galaxy power spectrum monopole at high redshifts in surveys like Euclid and MegaMapper. Using mock surveys, it forecasts that the resulting shift in the turnover scale k0 grows with redshift, producing biases of ~0.4σ (Euclid-like) and ~3.6σ (MegaMapper-like) in recovered k0, with the turnover vanishing for z≳3.7 in MegaMapper-like cases. It concludes that the lensing term must be modeled to use the turnover as a standard ruler beyond z≈2.9 for MegaMapper-like surveys.

Significance. If the mock-based forecasts hold, the result is significant because it quantifies a systematic that can bias a fundamental scale (matter-radiation equality turnover) independent of BAO, directly affecting cosmological constraints from next-generation high-z spectroscopic surveys. The provision of concrete redshift thresholds and bias magnitudes offers actionable guidance for survey analysis pipelines.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods (mock construction): The forecasts rest on the difference between two mock monopoles being attributable solely to the added lensing magnification term. The abstract states mocks are 'similar to' the surveys with the correction 'added to the monopole,' but provides no explicit validation that the base galaxy power spectrum excludes or controls for scale-dependent contributions from redshift-space distortions (Kaiser + FoG) or survey-window convolutions in the turnover region. This isolation is load-bearing for the reported Δk0 values, the 3.6σ bias, and the z≳3.7 vanishing claim.
  2. [Results] Results (bias forecasts): The maximum biases (~0.4σ Euclid, ~3.6σ MegaMapper) and the z≈2.9 limit for <1σ bias are derived from fits to mock data. Without reported details on error propagation, turnover-fitting procedure, or cross-validation against analytic models of the monopole, the precise sigma values remain provisional and cannot yet support the headline quantitative conclusions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods (mock construction): The forecasts rest on the difference between two mock monopoles being attributable solely to the added lensing magnification term. The abstract states mocks are 'similar to' the surveys with the correction 'added to the monopole,' but provides no explicit validation that the base galaxy power spectrum excludes or controls for scale-dependent contributions from redshift-space distortions (Kaiser + FoG) or survey-window convolutions in the turnover region. This isolation is load-bearing for the reported Δk0 values, the 3.6σ bias, and the z≳3.7 vanishing claim.

    Authors: The base mock monopoles are generated from the standard galaxy clustering model (linear bias, Kaiser RSD, and FoG damping) without the lensing magnification term; the lensing correction is then added to produce the second set of monopoles. Survey window convolutions are applied identically in both cases. The difference therefore isolates the lensing contribution by construction. To make this explicit, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section that (i) states the exact model components used for the base spectrum and (ii) shows a direct comparison of the base mock monopole to the analytic expectation in the turnover region (k ≈ 0.005–0.02 h Mpc⁻¹). This addition addresses the referee’s concern without altering the reported results. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (bias forecasts): The maximum biases (~0.4σ Euclid, ~3.6σ MegaMapper) and the z≈2.9 limit for <1σ bias are derived from fits to mock data. Without reported details on error propagation, turnover-fitting procedure, or cross-validation against analytic models of the monopole, the precise sigma values remain provisional and cannot yet support the headline quantitative conclusions.

    Authors: We agree that the fitting and error-analysis details were insufficiently documented. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Results section to include: (1) the functional form and free parameters of the turnover model fitted to each mock monopole, (2) the covariance matrix construction from the mock ensemble and the resulting parameter uncertainties, and (3) a cross-check in which the same fitting pipeline is applied to analytic monopoles (with and without lensing) to confirm recovery of the input k0. These additions will substantiate the quoted bias values and redshift thresholds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forecasts derived from forward-modeled mocks

full rationale

The paper builds mock galaxy power spectrum monopoles that incorporate an explicit lensing magnification correction term, then extracts the turnover scale k0 from those mocks and compares to the uncorrected case. This is a standard forward-modeling forecast whose output (the redshift-dependent shift and bias values) is not equivalent to any fitted input or self-citation chain. No equations or sections reduce a claimed prediction to a parameter that was itself tuned on the same data; the mocks are described as independent constructions similar to the target surveys. The central claims therefore remain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central forecast rests on the domain assumption that mocks capture the dominant lensing effect.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Lensing magnification produces a scale-dependent additive correction to the observed galaxy power spectrum monopole that can be isolated in mocks.
    This modeling choice underpins the entire bias forecast.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5845 in / 1238 out tokens · 26858 ms · 2026-06-26T20:05:57.132159+00:00 · methodology

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

30 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Prada, A

    F. Prada, A. Klypin, G. Yepes, S. Nuza, and S. Gottloeber,Measuring equality horizon with the zero-crossing of the galaxy correlation function,arXiv:1111.2889

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    G. B. Poole, C. Blake, D. Parkinson, S. Brough, M. Colless, C. Contreras, W. Couch, D. J. Croton, S. Croom, T. Davis, et al.,The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: probing the epoch of radiation domination using large-scale structure,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.(2013) [arXiv:1211.5605]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Pryer, R

    D. Pryer, R. E. Smith, R. Booth, C. Blake, A. Eggemeier, and J. Loveday,The galaxy power spectrum on the lightcone: deep, wide-angle redshift surveys and the turnover scale,JCAP08 (2022), no. 08 019, [arXiv:2111.01811]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Cunnington,Detecting the power spectrum turnover with HI intensity mapping,Mon

    S. Cunnington,Detecting the power spectrum turnover with HI intensity mapping,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512(2022), no. 2 2408–2425, [arXiv:2202.13828]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Bahr-Kalus, D

    B. Bahr-Kalus, D. Parkinson, and E.-M. Mueller,Measurement of the matter-radiation equality scale using the extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey quasar sample,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524(2023), no. 2 2463–2476, [arXiv:2302.07484]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Alonso, O

    D. Alonso, O. Hetmantsev, G. Fabbian, A. Slosar, and K. Storey-Fisher,Measurement of the power spectrum turnover scale from the cross-correlation between CMB lensing and Quaia, arXiv:2410.24134. [7]DESICollaboration, B. Bahr-Kalus et al.,Model-independent measurement of the matter-radiation equality scale in DESI 2024,Phys. Rev. D112(2025), no. 6 063553, ...

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Y. Dube, B. R. Dinda, S. Jolicoeur, and R. Maartens,Turnover detection using the power spectrum and bispectrum,JCAP04(2026) 021, [arXiv:2511.06962]

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Kaiser,Clustering in real space and in redshift space,Mon

    N. Kaiser,Clustering in real space and in redshift space,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.227 (1987) 1–27

    1987

  9. [9]

    Bonvin and R

    C. Bonvin and R. Durrer,What galaxy surveys really measure,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 063520, [arXiv:1105.5280]. First complete general-relativistic expression for galaxy number counts

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    Challinor and A

    A. Challinor and A. Lewis,Linear power spectrum of observed source number counts,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 043516, [arXiv:1105.5292]. Relativistic galaxy number counts including lensing, RSD, Doppler, and potential terms

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Jeong, F

    D. Jeong, F. Schmidt, and C. M. Hirata,Large-scale clustering of galaxies in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 023504, [arXiv:1107.5427]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

    Camera, R

    S. Camera, R. Maartens, and M. G. Santos,Einstein’s legacy in galaxy surveys,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451(2015), no. 1 L80–L84, [arXiv:1412.4781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Alonso, P

    D. Alonso, P. Bull, P. G. Ferreira, R. Maartens, and M. Santos,Ultra large-scale cosmology in next-generation experiments with single tracers,Astrophys. J.814(2015), no. 2 145, [arXiv:1505.07596]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Jelic-Cizmek, F

    G. Jelic-Cizmek, F. Lepori, C. Bonvin, and R. Durrer,On the importance of lensing for galaxy clustering in photometric and spectroscopic surveys,JCAP04(2021) 055, [arXiv:2004.12981]

    arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Grimm, F

    N. Grimm, F. Scaccabarozzi, J. Yoo, S. G. Biern, and J.-O. Gong,Galaxy Power Spectrum in General Relativity,JCAP11(2020) 064, [arXiv:2005.06484]

    arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Castorina and E

    E. Castorina and E. di Dio,The observed galaxy power spectrum in General Relativity,JCAP 01(2022), no. 01 061, [arXiv:2106.08857]

    arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Viljoen, J

    J.-A. Viljoen, J. Fonseca, and R. Maartens,Multi-wavelength spectroscopic probes: biases from neglecting light-cone effects,JCAP12(2021), no. 12 004, [arXiv:2108.05746]. – 13 –

    arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Lepori, J

    F. Lepori, J. Adamek, and R. Durrer,Cosmological simulations of number counts,JCAP12 (2021), no. 12 021, [arXiv:2106.01347]

    arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Noorikuhani and R

    M. Noorikuhani and R. Scoccimarro,Wide-angle and relativistic effects in Fourier-space clustering statistics,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 8 083528, [arXiv:2207.12383]

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Foglieni, M

    M. Foglieni, M. Pantiri, E. Di Dio, and E. Castorina,Large Scale Limit of the Observed Galaxy Power Spectrum,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023), no. 11 111201, [arXiv:2303.03142]. [22]EuclidCollaboration, G. Jelic-Cizmek et al.,Euclid preparation - XL. Impact of magnification on spectroscopic galaxy clustering,Astron. Astrophys.685(2024) A167, [arXiv:2311.03168]

    arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    S. L. Guedezounme, S. Jolicoeur, and R. Maartens,Primordial non-Gaussianity — the effects of relativistic and wide-angle corrections to the power spectrum,JCAP07(2025) 063, [arXiv:2412.06553]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Addis, S

    C. Addis, S. L. Guedezounme, J. Hammond, C. Clarkson, F. Montano, S. Camera, S. Jolicoeur, and R. Maartens,Unbiased analysis of primordial non-Gaussianity: the multipoles of the full relativistic power spectrum,arXiv:2511.09466

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    LoVerde, L

    M. LoVerde, L. Hui, and E. Gaztanaga,Lensing corrections to features in the angular two-point correlation function and power spectrum,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 023512, [arXiv:0708.0031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    L. Hui, E. Gaztanaga, and M. LoVerde,Anisotropic Magnification Distortion of the 3D Galaxy Correlation: II. Fourier and Redshift Space,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 063526, [arXiv:0710.4191]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  25. [25]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,JCAP07(2011) 034, [arXiv:1104.2933]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05(2021) 057, [arXiv:2005.05290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Addis, C

    C. Addis, C. Guandalin, and C. Clarkson,Multipoles of the galaxy bispectrum on a light cone: wide-separation and relativistic corrections,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 080, [arXiv:2407.00168]. [30]EuclidCollaboration, A. Blanchard et al.,Euclid preparation. VII. Forecast validation for Euclid cosmological probes,Astron. Astrophys.642(2020) A191, [...

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    D. J. Schlegel et al.,The MegaMapper: A Stage-5 Spectroscopic Instrument Concept for the Study of Inflation and Dark Energy,arXiv:2209.04322

    arXiv

  29. [29]

    S. J. Rossiter, S. Camera, C. Clarkson, and R. Maartens,Decoupling local primordial non-Gaussianity from relativistic effects in the galaxy bispectrum,JCAP07(2025) 055, [arXiv:2407.06301]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    de Belsunce et al.,Cosmology from Planck CMB lensing and DESI DR1 quasar tomography, JCAP10(2025) 077, [arXiv:2506.22416]

    R. de Belsunce et al.,Cosmology from Planck CMB lensing and DESI DR1 quasar tomography, JCAP10(2025) 077, [arXiv:2506.22416]. – 14 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025