Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

The first CHIME/FRB catalog shows no significant anisotropy in the FRB sky, though the sample is too small for a definitive test.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 00:31 UTC pith:QMY6JDZM

load-bearing objection A carefully hedged null result that adds FRBs to the isotropy-test toolbox; the 2PACF error budget is too shaky to carry weight, but the sigma-map analysis is honest and the conclusions are appropriately weak. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14982 v1 pith:QMY6JDZM submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Testing the Isotropy of the Universe with the CHIME/FRB Catalog I

Jun-Yi Shen , Yuan-Chuan Zou This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic isotropyCosmological Principlefast radio burstsCHIME/FRBtwo-point angular correlation functionsigma-mapangular power spectruminjection data
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 paper tests whether fast radio bursts are distributed isotropically across the sky, as the Cosmological Principle assumes. Using 536 bursts from the first CHIME/FRB catalog, it applies two complementary statistics: the two-point angular correlation function and a sigma-map that searches for direction-dependent clustering. After correcting for CHIME's sky exposure with injection data, both statistics are consistent with an isotropic Universe. But the paper does not claim to prove isotropy: the sample is small, shot noise dominates, and the correlation-function covariance matrix is too ill-conditioned for robust parameter constraints. The honest conclusion is that no statistically significant anisotropy is found, with constraining power still limited.

Core claim

The central discovery is a null result stated carefully: with 536 FRBs, the angular distribution shows no statistically significant departure from isotropy in either statistic, but the measurement is not precise enough to rule out anisotropy. The 2PACF fit yields a power-law amplitude A_w = 0.0958 and slope gamma = 1.536, but the large reduced chi-square and the low-rank covariance matrix mean the fit cannot be interpreted as a robust detection of clustering. The sigma-map angular power spectrum decreases from l=1 to l=5 and stays within 3 sigma of isotropic Monte Carlo realizations built from the injection catalog. The paper's own summary is that the current FRB sample does not allow a stat

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on two complementary estimators. The two-point angular correlation function, computed with the Landy–Szalay estimator, measures how much FRB pair counts at angular separation exceed a random catalog built to match CHIME's exposure map. The sigma-map divides the sky into 768 spherical caps and computes, for each cap, the variance of local 2PACF deviations from isotropy; a spherical harmonic decomposition of this sigma field yields an angular power spectrum C_l. The injection data—synthetic bursts fed through CHIME's real-time detection pipeline—are the load-bearing ingredient for both the random catalog and the Monte Carlo uncertainty bands. Also central is the covariance m

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the assumption that the CHIME injection dataset exactly reproduces the telescope's position-dependent completeness and selection function; if it does not, every random catalog, covariance estimate, and uncertainty band is potentially wrong, and a real anisotropy could be hidden or a spurious one created.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 2PACF and sigma-map analysis on the CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 sample (3641 bursts) once its injection data are released. If the sigma-map power spectrum at l=1 rises above 3 sigma of the injection-based Monte Carlo realizations, or if the 2PACF fit produces a stable, well-conditioned covariance with chi-square near the number of degrees of freedom and a different amplitude, the isotropy conclusion would need revision. Alternatively, if the injection exposure map, when compared with an independent beam model, shows a substantial mismatch in per-declination completeness, the null resul

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

If this is right

  • If the result is right, the 536-burst FRB sky is consistent with the Cosmological Principle at current precision; any claimed FRB dipole or clustering in this catalog should be treated as fluctuation-dominated.
  • The ill-conditioned 2PACF covariance implies that chi-square-based fits to FRB angular clustering with only hundreds of bursts are not statistically trustworthy, even when the number of mocks exceeds the number of angular bins.
  • The sigma-map at low multipoles, especially l=1, has large uncertainties; ruling out large-scale anisotropy requires either a much larger sample or more complete sky coverage.
  • Once CHIME/FRB Catalog 2 or 3 injection data become public, the same pipeline can be rerun; the paper predicts that an order-of-magnitude increase in sample size will stabilise the covariance and tighten low-l constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A reader might infer that this null result is not evidence for isotropy, only a statement about the current sample's insensitivity; the practical implication is that FRB isotropy tests should be reported with upper limits on anisotropic amplitude rather than p-values.
  • The injection-data dependence suggests a testable cross-check: compare the injection-derived exposure map against an independent estimate of CHIME's beam response or against the localization distribution in Catalog 2; a mismatch would change both the random pair counts and the Monte Carlo uncertainty bands.
  • Extending the sigma-map to include dispersion measure or redshift information would turn the angular test into a tomographic test, letting the same machinery probe whether any anisotropy is distance-dependent—a distinction the 2D projection cannot make.
  • If the sample is dominated by CHIME's declination-dependent exposure, then the isotropic conclusion is largely a statement about the survey's selection function; future wide-field FRB surveys with complementary sky coverage provide the natural control experiment.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper tests cosmic isotropy using 536 FRBs from the CHIME/FRB Catalog 1. Two complementary statistics are employed: the two-point angular correlation function (2PACF) with the Landy–Szalay estimator, and a sigma-map whose spherical-harmonic power spectrum is compared with Monte Carlo realizations built from CHIME injection data. Selection effects are addressed with injection data and exposure maps; uncertainties are estimated from lognormal mock catalogs and jackknife resampling. The 2PACF is fit to a power law, but the covariance matrix is reported as ill-conditioned; the sigma-map power spectrum is consistent with isotropy within the 3σ Monte Carlo band. The paper concludes that the current FRB sample cannot provide a statistically definitive isotropy test, but that no statistically significant evidence for anisotropy is found.

Significance. If the analysis is correct, this is a useful null result: the 536-burst CHIME/FRB Catalog 1 sky distribution is consistent with statistical isotropy at the precision allowed by the sample, and the paper explicitly demonstrates how shot noise and covariance instability limit the test. Its strengths are the use of public CHIME injection data, two complementary estimators, a comparison of mock and jackknife errors, and a carefully hedged conclusion. However, the central non-detection rests on assumptions about the injection-based null distribution and on a covariance model whose reliability is not established; the paper itself reports a reduced χ²≈16 and jackknife/mock discrepancies up to a factor of 5. These issues mean the qualitative conclusion is plausible but not yet as robust as the presentation implies.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Fig. 3] The sigma-map null distribution is built by drawing sources from the CHIME injection catalog, assuming the injections reproduce the real detection pipeline's position-dependent completeness. This is not validated anywhere in the paper. If injected bursts differ from astrophysical FRBs in spectrum, duration, or scattering, or if injection positions do not trace the true exposure, the 3σ band in Fig. 3 is displaced and the reported consistency with isotropy could be spurious. Please provide a cross-check, e.g., compare against an exposure-based random catalog or against a flux/DM-limited subsample, and explicitly state whether the null distribution is robust to such choices.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (4.1)] The random catalog used for RR in the 2PACF is described ambiguously. Eq. (4.1) defines P(RA,Dec) ∝ exposure(RA,Dec), but the text immediately adds that CHIME injection data allow 'a more accurate construction' of the RR catalog. The paper never states which RR catalog was actually used for the results in Fig. 2. Since the 2PACF value and its zero point depend directly on RR, this must be clarified. If the injection-based RR was used, show that it is consistent with the exposure map; if the exposure-based RR was used, justify the claim about injection accuracy.
  3. [§3.2.1, Table 1; §4.1] The mock-catalog covariance uses hand-picked parameters: linear bias b=2.0, snapshot z=0.5, and Ngal≈600 host galaxies. These values are not derived from FRB host properties, and the paper's claim that conclusions are insensitive to snapshot redshift is not shown. Moreover, Table 2 shows jackknife errors exceed mock errors by a factor of up to 5.18 (bin 1) and often ~1.5–2. Given this discrepancy and the reduced χ²≈16 at the best fit, the mock covariance is not a reliable basis for parameter inference. The authors acknowledge the ill-conditioning, but still use this covariance in Eq. (4.3) to report best-fit A_w and γ with uncertainties. Please either adopt a more robust covariance (e.g., jackknife with a correction, or a mock calibrated to FRB hosts) or explicitly state that the 2PACF provides no meaningful constraint on clustering, rather than implying a null detection.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5)] Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4) define ξ(r) for the three-dimensional correlation function, but the analysis then switches to ω(θ). Define both quantities explicitly to avoid confusion.
  2. [§2, reference [26]] The sentence 'Both the real-time injection data and the catalog presented in [26] serve this purpose' seems to cite the wrong reference; [26] is the CHIME 21 cm cross-correlation paper, not a CHIME/FRB catalog. Presumably [29] is meant.
  3. [Table 1] The entry 'Pnmax' should be 'Nmax' or 'grid size'; also Ngal≈600 is not justified in the text — why this number of mock FRB hosts?
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'Mosaic of the 2PACF', which is unclear; the figure appears to show a single ω(θ) plot with a best-fit line.
  5. [§4.1] When reporting reduced χ²≈16, specify the number of degrees of freedom used. The effective number of independent bins is smaller than 14 because of the strong inter-bin correlations.
  6. [§3.3] The variable N_bins is first used for the number of angular separation bins in Eq. (3.8), but later in §4.2 it is set to 49152, which is a HEALPix pixel count. Use different names to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the analyses are based on external CHIME data and injection catalogs, with model parameters presented as fits rather than predictions.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its central result from inputs that already contain the result. The 2PACF is measured from observed FRB positions using the Landy–Szalay estimator and an exposure-weighted random catalog (Eq. 4.1); the power-law parameters A_w and gamma are fitted to that measured 2PACF and explicitly reported as best-fit parameters (Fig. 2), not as predictions. The sigma-map null distribution is built from CHIME injection data, an external and publicly available dataset: Figure 3 draws 100 Monte Carlo realizations from the injection catalog to define the 3-sigma confidence interval, which is a standard way to model isotropic skies convolved with the instrument selection function. It is not a re-labeling of the observed data. The covariance matrix for the 2PACF error budget comes from lognormal mock catalogs with cosmological parameters taken from Planck, again an external input. There are no load-bearing self-citations by the present authors; references [29] and [30] are external CHIME/FRB catalogs, and reference [42] supplies an external method whose parameters are adopted. The paper candidly states its limitations: small sample size, shot noise, ill-conditioned covariance, and large low-multipole uncertainties. These are validity caveats, not circular reductions. The only fragile dependency is the injection-based null distribution, but that is an unvalidated external input and a scientific limitation, not a case where the conclusion is equivalent to the input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's error budget rests on hand-chosen mock parameters (bias b=2, snapshot z=0.5, Ngal~600) and on the assumption that CHIME injection data perfectly capture exposure and selection effects. The power-law fit introduces two fitted parameters (A_w, gamma). No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • A_w (2PACF amplitude) = 0.0958 (+0.0032, -0.0071)
    Amplitude of the power-law fit to the measured angular correlation function; fitted to data via MCMC.
  • gamma (2PACF power-law index) = 1.536 (+0.162, -0.129)
    Slope parameter of the power-law fit; fitted to data via MCMC.
  • Linear bias b in mock catalog = 2.0
    Chosen by hand for the lognormal mock; directly sets the clustering amplitude of the mock and therefore the estimated covariance.
  • Snapshot redshift z for mock = 0.5
    Chosen to represent the FRB host distribution; affects the projected angular clustering of the mock catalog.
  • Mock galaxy number Ngal = ~600
    Chosen to roughly match the observed sample size; affects shot noise in the mock covariance.
axioms (4)
  • standard math The large-scale density field is a Gaussian random field, so all clustering information is contained in the two-point correlation function.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to justify using only 2PACF and ignoring higher-order correlations.
  • domain assumption The lognormal mock catalog with the parameters in Table 1 accurately reproduces the covariance of the FRB angular correlation function.
    Errors on the 2PACF and the chi^2 statistic depend on this mock; the paper does not validate the mock against the observed 2PACF.
  • domain assumption CHIME injection data fully characterize the sky exposure and detection selection function.
    Used to construct the random catalog (Eq. 4.1) and the Monte Carlo null for the sigma-map (Fig. 3); if untrue, both bias corrections fail.
  • domain assumption A single snapshot at z=0.5 is representative of FRB hosts for angular statistics.
    The authors state they verified insensitivity to snapshot redshift, but no quantitative evidence is shown.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11321 in / 12229 out tokens · 127249 ms · 2026-08-02T00:31:03.110038+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We test the isotropy of the Universe using 536 Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) from the first CHIME/FRB catalog, employing two complementary statistical methods: the two-point angular correlation function (2PACF) and the sigma-map method, with observational biases corrected using CHIME injection data. Both analyses are consistent with the isotropic expectation, but are limited by the small sample size. The 2PACF suffers from an ill-conditioned covariance matrix, preventing robust parameter inference. The sigma-map angular power spectrum shows no statistically significant directional anisotropy, though the uncertainties at low multipoles remain large. Future FRB surveys are expected to improve these limitations.

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

50 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Luminet, J.R

    J.-P. Luminet, J.R. Weeks, A. Riazuelo, R. Lehoucq and J.-P. Uzan,Dodecahedral space topology as an explanation for weak wide-angle temperature correlations in the cosmic microwave background,Nature425(2003) 593 [astro-ph/0310253]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    Lachieze-Rey and J

    M. Lachieze-Rey and J. Luminet,Cosmic topology,Phys. Rep.254(1995) 135 [gr-qc/9605010]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  3. [3]

    Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology(1993), 10.1515/9780691206721

    P.J.E. Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology(1993), 10.1515/9780691206721

    doi:10.1515/9780691206721 1993

  4. [4]

    Friedmann, ¨Uber die Kr¨ ummung des Raumes,Zeitschrift fur Physik10(1922) 377

    A. Friedmann, ¨Uber die Kr¨ ummung des Raumes,Zeitschrift fur Physik10(1922) 377

    1922

  5. [5]

    Fixsen, E.S

    D.J. Fixsen, E.S. Cheng, J.M. Gales, J.C. Mather, R.A. Shafer and E.L. Wright,The Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from the Full COBE FIRAS Data Set,Astrophys. J.473 (1996) 576 [astro-ph/9605054]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    Komatsu, K.M

    E. Komatsu, K.M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C.L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw et al.,Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation, Astrophys. J. Suppl.192(2011) 18 [1001.4538]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Aghanim, Y

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Sarkar, B

    S. Sarkar, B. Pandey and R. Khatri,Testing isotropy in the Universe using photometric and spectroscopic data from the SDSS,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.483(2019) 2453 [1810.07410]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Bengaly, R

    C.A.P. Bengaly, R. Maartens, N. Randriamiarinarivo and A. Baloyi,Testing the cosmological principle in the radio sky,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2019(2019) 025 [1905.12378]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Bengaly, Jr., A

    C.A.P. Bengaly, Jr., A. Bernui and J.S. Alcaniz,Probing Cosmological Isotropy with Type Ia Supernovae,Astrophys. J.808(2015) 39 [1503.01413]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Bernui, I.S

    A. Bernui, I.S. Ferreira and C.A. Wuensche,On the Large-Scale Angular Distribution of Short Gamma-Ray Bursts,Astrophys. J.673(2008) 968 [0710.1695]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    Secrest, S

    N.J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar and J. Colin,A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars,Astrophys. J. Lett.908(2021) L51 [2009.14826]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Eriksen, F.K

    H.K. Eriksen, F.K. Hansen, A.J. Banday, K.M. G´ orski and P.B. Lilje,Asymmetries in the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Field,Astrophys. J.605(2004) 14 [astro-ph/0307507]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  14. [14]

    Secrest, S

    N.J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee and S. Sarkar,A Challenge to the Standard Cosmological Model,Astrophys. J. Lett.937(2022) L31 [2206.05624]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Lopez, R.G

    A.M. Lopez, R.G. Clowes and G.M. Williger,A Giant Arc on the Sky,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.516(2022) 1557 [2201.06875]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Horv´ ath, J

    I. Horv´ ath, J. Hakkila and Z. Bagoly,Possible structure in the GRB sky distribution at redshift two,Astron. Astrophys.561(2014) L12 [1401.0533]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara,Challenges forΛCDM: An update,New Astron. Rev.95 (2022) 101659 [2105.05208]. – 12 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Kumar Aluri, P

    P. Kumar Aluri, P. Cea, P. Chingangbam, M.-C. Chu, R.G. Clowes, D. Hutsem´ ekers et al.,Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle?,Classical and Quantum Gravity40(2023) 094001 [2207.05765]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Lorimer, M

    D.R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M.A. McLaughlin, D.J. Narkevic and F. Crawford,A Bright Millisecond Radio Burst of Extragalactic Origin,Science318(2007) 777 [0709.4301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    Macquart, J.X

    J.-P. Macquart, J.X. Prochaska, M. McQuinn, K.W. Bannister, S. Bhandari, C.K. Day et al., A census of baryons in the Universe from localized fast radio bursts,Nature581(2020) 391 [2005.13161]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Walters, A

    A. Walters, A. Weltman, B.M. Gaensler, Y.-Z. Ma and A. Witzemann,Future Cosmological Constraints From Fast Radio Bursts,Astrophys. J.856(2018) 65 [1711.11277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Zhao, Z.-X

    Z.-W. Zhao, Z.-X. Li, J.-Z. Qi, H. Gao, J.-F. Zhang and X. Zhang,Cosmological Parameter Estimation for Dynamical Dark Energy Models with Future Fast Radio Burst Observations, Astrophys. J.903(2020) 83 [2006.01450]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    James, E.M

    C.W. James, E.M. Ghosh, J.X. Prochaska, K.W. Bannister, S. Bhandari, C.K. Day et al.,A measurement of Hubble’s Constant using Fast Radio Bursts,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.516 (2022) 4862 [2208.00819]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Glowacki and K.-G

    M. Glowacki and K.-G. Lee,Cosmology with fast radio bursts, inEncyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 5, vol. 5, pp. 448–470, Jan., 2026, DOI [2410.24072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Bandura, G.E

    K. Bandura, G.E. Addison, M. Amiri, J.R. Bond, D. Campbell-Wilson, L. Connor et al., Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) pathfinder, inGround-based and Airborne Telescopes V, L.M. Stepp, R. Gilmozzi and H.J. Hall, eds., vol. 9145 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, p. 914522, July, 2014, DOI [1...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

    Amiri, K

    M. Amiri, K. Bandura, A. Chakraborty, M. Dobbs, M. Fandino, S. Foreman et al.,A Detection of Cosmological 21 cm Emission from CHIME in Cross-correlation with eBOSS Measurements of the LyαForest,Astrophys. J.963(2024) 23 [2309.04404]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Amiri, K

    CHIME Collaboration, M. Amiri, K. Bandura, A. Chakraborty, J.-F. Cliche, M. Dobbs et al., Detection of the Cosmological 21 cm Signal in Auto-correlation at z ˜1 with the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2511.19620 [2511.19620]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Mondal, B

    D. Mondal, B. Pandey and A. Mondal,Probing cosmic isotropy with gamma-ray bursts: A dipole and quadrupole analysis of BATSE and Fermi GBM data,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics51(2026) 100549 [2510.27644]

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Amiri, B.C

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, M. Amiri, B.C. Andersen, K. Bandura, S. Berger, M. Bhardwaj et al.,The First CHIME/FRB Fast Radio Burst Catalog,Astrophys. J. Suppl.257(2021) 59 [2106.04352]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Abbott, B.C

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, T. Abbott, B.C. Andersen, S. Andrew, K. Bandura, M. Bhardwaj et al.,The Second CHIME/FRB Catalog of Fast Radio Bursts,Astrophys. J. Suppl.283(2026) 34 [2601.09399]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    H. Mo, F.C. van den Bosch and S. White,Galaxy Formation and Evolution(2010), 10.1017/CBO9780511807244

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807244 2010

  32. [32]

    Landy and A.S

    S.D. Landy and A.S. Szalay,Bias and Variance of Angular Correlation Functions,Astrophys. J.412(1993) 64

    1993

  33. [33]

    Franco, F

    C. Franco, F. Avila and A. Bernui,Probing cosmic isotropy in the Local Universe,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.527(2024) 7400 [2312.03152]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Franco, F

    C. Franco, F. Avila and A. Bernui,Probing Large-scale Structures with the Two-point Function and the Power Spectrum: Insights into Cosmic Clustering Evolution,Astrophys. J.993(2025) 133 [2502.02574]. – 13 –

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Norberg, C.M

    P. Norberg, C.M. Baugh, E. Gazta˜ naga and D.J. Croton,Statistical analysis of galaxy surveys - I. Robust error estimation for two-point clustering statistics,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.396 (2009) 19 [0810.1885]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    Mohammad and W.J

    F.G. Mohammad and W.J. Percival,Creating jackknife and bootstrap estimates of the covariance matrix for the two-point correlation function,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.514(2022) 1289 [2109.07071]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Coles and B

    P. Coles and B. Jones,A lognormal model for the cosmological mass distribution.,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.248(1991) 1

    1991

  38. [38]

    Clerkin, D

    L. Clerkin, D. Kirk, M. Manera, O. Lahav, F. Abdalla, A. Amara et al.,Testing the lognormality of the galaxy and weak lensing convergence distributions from Dark Energy Survey maps,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.466(2017) 1444 [1605.02036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Chiang, P

    C.-T. Chiang, P. Wullstein, D. Jeong, E. Komatsu, G.A. Blanc, R. Ciardullo et al.,Galaxy redshift surveys with sparse sampling,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2013(2013) 030 [1306.4157]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Escoffier, M.-C

    S. Escoffier, M.-C. Cousinou, A. Tilquin, A. Pisani, A. Aguichine, S. de la Torre et al., Jackknife resampling technique on mocks: an alternative method for covariance matrix estimation,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1606.00233 [1606.00233]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Favole, B.R

    G. Favole, B.R. Granett, J. Silva Lafaurie and D. Sapone,Does jackknife scale really matter for accurate large-scale structure covariances?,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.505(2021) 5833 [2004.13436]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Bengaly, A

    C.A.P. Bengaly, A. Bernui, I.S. Ferreira and J.S. Alcaniz,Probing cosmological isotropy with Planck Sunyaev-Zeldovich galaxy clusters,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.466(2017) 2799 [1511.09414]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    Bernui, B

    A. Bernui, B. Mota, M.J. Rebou¸ cas and R. Tavakol,Mapping the large-scale anisotropy in the WMAP data,Astron. Astrophys.464(2007) 479 [astro-ph/0511666]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  44. [44]

    Bizarria, C.P

    B.B. Bizarria, C.P. Novaes, F. Avila, R. Mokeddem, H.H. da Costa, C.A. Wuensche et al., Accessing the homogeneity scale with 21 cm intensity mapping surveys,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2511.13931 [2511.13931]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Peebles,The large-scale structure of the universe(1980)

    P.J.E. Peebles,The large-scale structure of the universe(1980)

    1980

  46. [46]

    Hartlap, P

    J. Hartlap, P. Simon and P. Schneider,Why your model parameter confidences might be too optimistic. Unbiased estimation of the inverse covariance matrix,Astron. Astrophys.464 (2007) 399 [astro-ph/0608064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  47. [47]

    Foreman-Mackey, D.W

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125(2013) 306 [1202.3665]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon et al.,healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in Python,The Journal of Open Source Software4(2019) 1298

    2019

  49. [49]

    Sharma, V

    K. Sharma, V. Ravi, L. Connor, C. Law, S.K. Ocker, M. Sherman et al.,Preferential occurrence of fast radio bursts in massive star-forming galaxies,Nature635(2024) 61 [2409.16964]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Amiri, B.C

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, M. Amiri, B.C. Andersen, S. Andrew, K. Bandura, M. Bhardwaj et al.,CHIME/FRB Outriggers: Design Overview,Astrophys. J.993(2025) 55 [2504.05192]. – 14 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025