Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

This paper derives a quadratic estimator, weighted by the full signal-plus-noise covariance, that recovers window-free E/B-mode cosmic shear band powers with minimum variance and cuts statistical errors by 5–15% at low multipoles relative t

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

2026-08-03 02:32 UTC pith:Y6P4XIIK

load-bearing objection Solid methods paper: correct standard quadratic estimator extended to cosmic shear E/B, honestly benchmarked, but the headline optimality is only validated in the idealized regime where the fiducial covariance is the truth. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29652 v1 pith:Y6P4XIIK submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.CO

An optimal quadratic estimator for window-free cosmic shear power spectra

Taisei Terawaki , Masahiro Takada This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic shearweak lensingquadratic estimatorE/B-mode decompositionpower spectrum estimationpseudo-CℓFisher matrixsurvey window
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 sets out to replace the standard pseudo-Cℓ estimator of cosmic shear power spectra with a statistically optimal one. It argues that inverse-variance weighting based only on shape noise is optimal only where noise dominates, and that weighting by the inverse of the full covariance — sample variance plus noise — achieves the Cramér-Rao bound. The claim is that the resulting quadratic estimator, Eq. (9), returns unbiased, window-free E/B-mode band powers and, in simulations, reduces E-mode errors by 5–15% at ℓ ≲ 500 compared with pseudo-Cℓ while sharply suppressing E-to-B leakage. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the difference between extracting all available cosmological information from observed shear maps and leaving some on the table.

Core claim

The central claim is that the quadratic maximum-likelihood estimator in Eq. (9), weighted by the inverse of the full covariance (sample variance plus shape noise), is the minimum-variance unbiased estimator of window-free E/B-mode band powers. Its covariance satisfies Cov(p̂) ≥ F⁻¹[C_true⁻¹], with equality when the fiducial weight is the true covariance; because the estimator is unbiased for any positive-definite weight, all of the benefit is in the variance. The paper proves the inequality from the Cramér-Rao bound, then shows in 1,000 Gaussian shear-map realizations that the estimator recovers the input E-mode spectrum within a few percent at optimal precision on all scales, and in 1,080 n

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quadratic estimator of Eq. (9), defined by band-power parameters p and the Fisher matrix F = (1/2) Tr[C_fid⁻¹ C,s C_fid⁻¹ C,t]; the inverse full covariance C_fid⁻¹ acts as the data weight, and F⁻¹ deconvolves the survey window and E/B-mode mixing. To make the required inverse-covariance operations tractable, the implementation combines flat-sky FFTs, conjugate-gradient solution of the linear system, and Monte Carlo Gaussian ancillary fields to evaluate the Fisher matrix and noise term. The pseudo-Cℓ estimator is recovered as the suboptimal special case where the weight is the inverse shape-noise map, i.e., optimal only in the noise-dominated limit.

Load-bearing premise

The whole optimality argument rests on the fiducial covariance used to weight the data being the true covariance; the paper states its validation adopts the true spectrum as the fiducial signal, an idealized scenario, and never tests a mismatched fiducial.

What would settle it

Take the same simulated masked shear maps but build the fiducial covariance from a deliberately wrong cosmology (say, a different matter density or fluctuation amplitude), then measure the scatter of the estimated band powers across many realizations and check whether it rises above the claimed minimum-variance bound and whether iterating the estimator recovers the bound. The paper runs no such mismatched-fiducial test, so this experiment would directly settle how much of the claimed optimality survives outside the idealized setup.

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

If this is right

  • If the estimator is applied to real wide-area surveys, E-mode band-power errors on large angular scales should shrink by roughly 5–15%, equivalent to a ~30% increase in survey area for those scales.
  • B-mode errors shrink much more than E-mode errors, so E→B leakage and B-mode systematics tests become substantially more sensitive.
  • The estimator remains unbiased even with suboptimal weights, so failures of the fiducial model cost precision, not accuracy.
  • Joint E/B estimation recovers a non-zero intrinsic-alignment B-mode spectrum better than pseudo-Cℓ, strengthening searches for astrophysical B-mode sources.
  • The computational machinery makes the optimal estimator practical at the pixel counts of current and upcoming surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the 5–15% gain is measured with the true spectrum as the fiducial; on real data the gain will depend on how close the survey's assumed cosmology is to the truth and on whether iteration converges. A mismatched-fiducial simulation is the obvious next test.
  • Editorial: the especially large B-mode error reduction suggests the method could be used to set competitive null tests for systematic shear errors and to constrain intrinsic-alignment B-modes with less sky area than pseudo-Cℓ analyses.
  • Editorial: since the estimator is unbiased for any symmetric positive-definite weight, it could be combined with simulation-based or analytic covariance that includes non-Gaussian terms, potentially preserving some optimality beyond the Gaussian assumption under which the Cramér-Rao bound is derived.
  • Editorial: the Monte Carlo Fisher matrix introduces noise that is not accounted for in the theoretical covariance; tests with fewer ancillary realizations could reveal a practical floor on the achievable variance reduction.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a quadratic maximum-likelihood estimator of window-free cosmic shear E/B-mode power spectra. The estimator weights the data by the inverse of the full signal-plus-noise covariance, uses the Fisher matrix to deconvolve the survey window and correct E/B leakage, and is implemented with flat-sky FFTs, conjugate-gradient inversion, and Monte Carlo ancillary fields. The authors prove unbiasedness for any fiducial covariance and optimality (minimum variance) when the fiducial equals the true covariance. They validate the method on 1,000 Gaussian shear maps and 1,080 ray-tracing patches, reporting unbiased E-mode recovery, reduced E-to-B leakage, and 5-15% smaller errors at ℓ ≲ 500 compared with the pseudo-Cℓ estimator.

Significance. If the optimality claim holds in practice, the method would be a valuable tool for Stage-IV weak-lensing surveys, offering improved cosmological constraints from power spectra and more sensitive B-mode null tests. The derivation is standard but well executed: the unbiasedness proof (Eq. 11) is correct, and the Cramér-Rao argument (Eqs. 17-20) is standard and cleanly presented. The paper includes extensive simulations over a range of galaxy densities, realistic masks, and non-Gaussian ray-tracing fields. The main caveats are that all simulations use the true spectrum as the fiducial covariance and that Monte Carlo noise in the Fisher matrix is not propagated. With additional robustness tests, the result would be of clear value to the cosmic shear community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A (see also Eqs. 17-20)] The optimality bound Eq. (20) requires H = C_true, but all validation runs set the fiducial signal S_fid to the true input spectrum, which the authors explicitly call an idealized scenario (Sec. III A). No simulation uses a mismatched fiducial, although the estimator remains unbiased for any C_fid while its covariance degrades according to Eq. (17). The unqualified 'statistically optimal' claim in the abstract, and the 5-15% gains in Fig. 7, are therefore upper limits. Please add a sensitivity test with a perturbed fiducial (e.g., a shifted band-power spectrum or different σ_8) and/or demonstrate that iteration converges to the true covariance and restores the ideal variance.
  2. [Sec. II B 2, Eq. (14)] The Fisher matrix is estimated from a finite number (1,000) of ancillary Gaussian realizations. Because Eq. (9) uses F^{-1}, Monte Carlo noise in F makes the estimator biased in the ensemble average: E[F_est^{-1} F] ≠ I. The paper does not quantify this bias or compare the simulation scatter to the theoretical minimum covariance F^{-1}[C_true^{-1}]. To verify the 'statistically optimal precision' claim, please report the ratio of the empirical band-power scatter to the theoretical F^{-1} for the Gaussian runs, and show stability as the number of ancillary realizations is varied.
  3. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 7] The headline 5-15% error reduction at ℓ ≲ 500 is measured with C_fid = C_true and with the input B-mode set to zero. While the relative improvement over pseudo-Cℓ is useful, the absolute optimality remains unverified. In addition, the large BB error-bar ratio in the middle panel of Fig. 7 is for a zero-signal band; its interpretation would be clearer if the authors also show the ratio for a non-zero B-mode (as in Fig. 8) with error bars on the ratio itself, and if they quantify the uncertainty in the ratio from the finite number of realizations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The Gaussian log-likelihood as written has the wrong signs: the quadratic term and log-determinant should carry a minus sign if the quantity is to be maximized, or the text should say it is the negative log-likelihood to be minimized. Please correct the sign convention or the wording.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] 'Inverse Variance (IA) weighting' should read 'Inverse Variance (IV) weighting'; 'IA' in this context refers to intrinsic alignments and is confusing.
  3. [Sec. IV A] The flat-sky projection of the HEALPix spin-2 fields is deferred to 'Terawaki et al., in preparation'. Since this is a key step in constructing the ray-tracing mock fields, a brief description of the projection method or a citable reference would help reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. III B] The band-power binning (20 linear bins over 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ 2000, two edge bins excluded) is stated, but the rationale for the bin width and the sensitivity of the quoted improvements to the binning choice are not discussed. A short comment would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the estimator is derived from the Gaussian likelihood, the optimality claim is a Cramér–Rao inequality, and the simulations use the input spectrum only as a benchmark truth and fiducial.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (9) is the standard maximum-likelihood quadratic estimator obtained by Taylor-expanding the Gaussian likelihood (Eq. 8) around a fiducial spectrum; no parameter is fitted to the quantity later reported as a prediction. Unbiasedness (Eq. 11) holds for any fiducial covariance, so using the true input spectrum as S_fid in Section III A does not make the recovered band powers equal the input by construction: p̂ is a random function of the data d, and the simulations only compare its ensemble mean and scatter with the known input. The optimality statement (Eqs. 17–20) is a Cramér–Rao inequality, Cov(p̂) ≥ F⁻¹[C_true⁻¹], with equality when the weight H equals C_true; this is a theorem, not a reduction of the output to the input. The E/B-leakage test is also a clean benchmark: the input B and EB spectra are set to zero and the estimator's residual B-band powers are measured from the data, so no fitted value is being renamed as a prediction. The self-citations ([34], [39]) supply computational techniques and the equivalence between the pseudo-Cℓ estimator and a diagonal-noise-weight quadratic estimator; that equivalence is also independently established through Refs. [28,40], so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The one caveat the paper itself flags — Section III A: “we adopt the true angular power spectrum as the fiducial signal S_fid, namely the same spectrum used to generate the underlying shear fields. This setup therefore represents an idealized scenario” — is a limitation in generalizing the quoted gains to a survey with a mismatched fiducial, and a possible correctness risk, but it is not circularity: no step of the derivation substitutes the quantity being predicted with the input used to generate it.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the paper is a pure estimation-methods contribution. The central claim rests on two hand-chosen inputs (binning and the fiducial spectrum set to the truth) and on seven modeling assumptions, of which the Gaussian-likelihood and known-fiducial-covariance assumptions are the most consequential for the optimality claim.

free parameters (2)
  • Band-power binning scheme (20 linear bins over 0≤ℓ≤2000, two edge bins excluded) = 20 bins; ℓ in (0,2000); bins 1 and 20 dropped
    Hand-chosen discretization. The estimator's response and out-of-band leakage behavior depend on bin width, and the authors exclude the two edge bins because leakage from multipoles outside the covered range cannot be corrected (§III B). This choice shapes all quoted error reductions.
  • Fiducial signal spectrum S_fid = Set equal to the true input spectrum of the simulations
    Chosen by hand to equal the truth in every validation run (§III A). Not fitted to data, but it is the input that makes the 'statistically optimal' claim hold; robustness to a different fiducial is untested.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Gaussian likelihood for the pixelized shear field
    The estimator form (Eq. 9) and the Cramér-Rao optimality argument (Eqs. 17–20) are derived from the Gaussian likelihood in §II B 1; non-Gaussianity is tested in §IV and found to reduce but not remove the gains.
  • domain assumption Flat-sky approximation
    Used throughout (§II A): shear is expanded in plane-wave spin-2 modes and FFTs replace spherical harmonic transforms.
  • domain assumption Binary survey window without apodization
    Window W(θ) ∈ {0,1} per pixel with no apodization (§III A). The pseudo-Cℓ benchmark is therefore the unapodized limit; real surveys often apodize, which would change the comparison.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo ancillary fields replace the exact Fisher matrix
    Eq. (14) uses ⟨a a†⟩ = C_fid estimated from 1,000 realizations; convergence of the ensemble average is assumed and the noise in the estimated F is not propagated into band-power errors (§II B 2).
  • domain assumption Shape-noise model: white Gaussian per-pixel variance σ²_c,g/N_gal
    Noise maps are built from HSC-like per-galaxy dispersions (σ_int ∈ [0.37,0.43], σ_meas ∈ [0.05,0.3]) and Poisson galaxy counts (§III A). The optimal weight inherits any error in this noise model.
  • domain assumption Takahashi et al. ray-tracing simulations faithfully represent non-Gaussian ΛCDM shear fields
    Used as the ground truth for the non-Gaussian test (§IV A); the 'input' spectrum is computed from the same simulations without noise or window.
  • ad hoc to paper Flat-sky projection of HEALPix spin-2 fields is valid
    The mapping from full-sky to flat-sky shear is essential to the ray-tracing pipeline but is deferred to 'Terawaki et al., in preparation' (§IV A), so a load-bearing processing step is not described in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 177 in / 12889 out tokens · 175127 ms · 2026-08-03T02:32:43.850242+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The pseudo-$C_\ell$ estimator recovers the true cosmic shear power spectrum by correcting for the survey window convolution while employing inverse-variance weighting based on intrinsic shape noise of source galaxies. However, this weighting scheme is optimal only on small angular scales where shape noise dominates. In this paper, we derive a quadratic estimator for the unwindowed cosmic shear power spectrum by maximizing the Gaussian likelihood of the pixelized galaxy-shape field using the full covariance matrix, which accounts for both sample variance and shape noise. By combining FFTs in the flat-sky approximation, the conjugate-gradient method, and Monte Carlo realizations of Gaussian ancillary fields, we substantially reduce the computational cost of estimating the Fisher matrix, a key ingredient of the estimator that requires repeated inverse-covariance matrix operations. Using Gaussian simulations of shape fields, we validate the method and demonstrate that it can recover the input $E$-mode power spectrum with statistically optimal precision across all angular scales. We then apply the method to shape fields generated from ray-tracing simulations for a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology and show that, compared with the pseudo-$C_\ell$ method, it reduces the statistical uncertainties in the $E$-mode power spectrum by 5--15\% at multipoles of $\ell \lesssim 500$. We further demonstrate that the method significantly suppresses $E$- to $B$-mode leakage across the full multipole range. Our estimator therefore provides a statistically optimal approach for measuring cosmic shear power spectra from wide-area galaxy survey data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29652 by Masahiro Takada, Taisei Terawaki.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. An example of a simulated Gaussian shear field gener [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ratio of the estimated power spectra, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The ratio of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Similar to Fig. 3, but using the simulated shape fields gener [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Similar to Fig. 2, but using galaxy shape fields generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Similar to Fig. 4, but using the simulated shape fields generated from the ray-tracing simulations of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the B-mode power spectra estimated using the optimal estimator or the pseudo-Cℓ estimator, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

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

51 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Likelihood formalism Let us consider shear fields defined on pixels and denote the total number of pixels asN pix. For the weak lensing case, 3 we define the2N pix-dimensional shear data vector asd≡ (d+,d −), whose components are defined as d± = γW ± (θ1),· · ·, γW ± (θNpix ) .(7) Then, since the shear has two components, the covariance ma- trixC= dd† con...

  2. [2]

    ancil- lary

    Practical implementation A naive implementation of Eq. (9) is computationally ex- pensive due to the large number of pixels (typicallyN pix ∼ 106); e.g., a direct computation of the Fisher matrixFin Eq. (10) requiresO(N 3 pix)matrix operations sinceN sub ∼ Npix, and this is therefore computationally intractable. In- stead, we use the fast Fourier transfor...

    2000

  3. [3]

    Mandelbaum, Weak Lensing for Precision Cosmology, ARAA56, 393 (2018), arXiv:1710.03235 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Mandelbaum, Weak Lensing for Precision Cosmology, ARAA56, 393 (2018), arXiv:1710.03235 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    X. Li, T. Zhang, S. Sugiyama, R. Dalal, R. Terasawa, M. M. Rau, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada, S. More, M. A. Strauss, H. Miyatake, M. Shirasaki, T. Hamana, M. Oguri, W. Luo, A. J. Nishizawa, R. Takahashi, A. Nicola, K. Osato, A. Kan- nawadi, T. Sunayama, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch, Y . Komiyama, R. H. Lupton, N. B. Lust, L. A. MacArthur, S. Miyazaki, H. Murayama,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Dalal, X

    R. Dalal, X. Li, A. Nicola, J. Zuntz, M. A. Strauss, S. Sugiyama, T. Zhang, M. M. Rau, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada, S. More, H. Miyatake, A. Kannawadi, M. Shirasaki, T. Taniguchi, R. Takahashi, K. Osato, T. Hamana, M. Oguri, A. J. Nishizawa, A. A. P. Malag´on, T. Sunayama, D. Alonso, A. Slosar, W. Luo, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch, B.-C. Hsieh, Y . Komiyama, R. H....

    2023

  6. [6]

    A. H. Wright, B. St ¨olzner, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Gib- lin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi, K. Kuijken, S.-S. Li, R. Reischke, M. von Wietersheim- Kramsta, M. Yoon, P. Burger, N. E. Chisari, J. de Jong, A. Dvornik, C. Georgiou, J. Harnois-D ´eraps, P. Jalan, A. J. William, S. Joudaki, G. F. Lesci, L. Linke, A. Loureiro, C. Ma- h...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [8]

    R. D. Blandford, A. B. Saust, T. G. Brainerd, and J. V . Vil- lumsen, The distortion of distant galaxy images by large-scale structure., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.251, 600 (1991)

    1991

  8. [9]

    Miralda-Escude, The Correlation Function of Galaxy Ellip- ticities Produced by Gravitational Lensing, Astrophys

    J. Miralda-Escude, The Correlation Function of Galaxy Ellip- ticities Produced by Gravitational Lensing, Astrophys. J.380, 1 (1991)

    1991

  9. [10]

    Kaiser, Weak Gravitational Lensing of Distant Galaxies, As- trophys

    N. Kaiser, Weak Gravitational Lensing of Distant Galaxies, As- trophys. J.388, 272 (1992). 11

    1992

  10. [11]

    Schneider, L

    P. Schneider, L. van Waerbeke, M. Kilbinger, and Y . Mellier, Analysis of two-point statistics of cosmic shear. I. Estimators and covariances, Astronomy & Astrophysics396, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0206182 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  11. [12]

    M. Sato, M. Takada, T. Hamana, and T. Matsubara, Simulations of Wide-field Weak-lensing Surveys. II. Covariance Matrix of Real-space Correlation Functions, Astrophys. J.734, 76 (2011), arXiv:1009.2558 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [13]

    Shirasaki, T

    M. Shirasaki, T. Hamana, M. Takada, R. Takahashi, and H. Miyatake, Mock galaxy shape catalogues in the Subaru Hy- per Suprime-Cam Survey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 52 (2019), arXiv:1901.09488 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [14]

    Schneider, L

    P. Schneider, L. van Waerbeke, and Y . Mellier, B-modes in cos- mic shear from source redshift clustering, Astronomy & Astro- physics389, 729 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0112441 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  14. [15]

    Hu and M

    W. Hu and M. White, Power Spectra Estimation for Weak Lens- ing, The Astrophysical Journal554, 67 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0010352

    arXiv 2001

  15. [16]

    M. L. Brown, A. N. Taylor, D. J. Bacon, M. E. Gray, S. Dye, K. Meisenheimer, and C. Wolf, The shear power spectrum from the COMBO-17 survey, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society341, 100 (2003)

    2003

  16. [17]

    K ¨ohlinger, M

    F. K ¨ohlinger, M. Viola, B. Joachimi, H. Hoekstra, E. Van Uitert, H. Hildebrandt, A. Choi, T. Erben, C. Heymans, S. Joudaki, D. Klaes, K. Kuijken, J. Merten, L. Miller, P. Schneider, and E. A. Valentijn, KiDS-450: the tomographic weak lensing power spectrum and constraints on cosmological parameters, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society471, ...

    2017

  17. [18]

    Hikage, M

    C. Hikage, M. Oguri, T. Hamana, S. More, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada, F. K¨ohlinger, H. Miyatake, A. J. Nishizawa, H. Ai- hara, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch, J. Coupon, A. Ducout, P. Ho, B.- C. Hsieh, Y . Komiyama, F. Lanusse, A. Leauthaud, R. H. Lup- ton, E. Medezinski, S. Mineo, S. Miyama, S. Miyazaki, R. Mu- rata, H. Murayama, M. Shirasaki, C. Sif ´on, M. Simet...

    2019

  18. [19]

    C. Doux, B. Jain, D. Zeurcher, J. Lee, X. Fang, R. Rosen- feld, A. Amon, H. Camacho, A. Choi, L. F. Secco, J. Blazek, C. Chang, M. Gatti, E. Gaztanaga, N. Jeffrey, M. Raveri, S. Samuroff, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, F. Andrade-Oliveira, E. Baxter, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, G. M. Bernstein, A. Cam- pos, A. C. Rosell, M. C. Kind, R. Cawthon, R. Chen, J. Cordero, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1942

  19. [20]

    Takada and W

    M. Takada and W. Hu, Power spectrum super-sample covari- ance, Phys. Rev. D87, 123504 (2013), arXiv:1302.6994 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [21]

    M. Sato, T. Hamana, R. Takahashi, M. Takada, N. Yoshida, T. Matsubara, and N. Sugiyama, Simulations of Wide-Field Weak Lensing Surveys. I. Basic Statistics and Non-Gaussian Effects, Astrophys. J.701, 945 (2009), arXiv:0906.2237 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [22]

    Takada and B

    M. Takada and B. Jain, The impact of non-Gaussian errors on weak lensing surveys, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.395, 2065 (2009), arXiv:0810.4170 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2065

  22. [23]

    Krause and T

    E. Krause and T. Eifler, cosmolike - cosmological likelihood analyses for photometric galaxy surveys, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.470, 2100 (2017), arXiv:1601.05779 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [24]

    Stebbins, Weak Lensing On the Celestial Sphere (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9609149

    A. Stebbins, Weak Lensing On the Celestial Sphere (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9609149

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  24. [25]

    R. G. Crittenden, P. Natarajan, U.-L. Pen, and T. Theuns, Dis- criminating Weak Lensing from Intrinsic Spin Correlations Us- ing the Curl-Gradient Decomposition, Astrophys. J.568, 20 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0012336 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  25. [26]

    Hamana, M

    T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, S. Miyazaki, C. Hikage, M. Oguri, S. More, R. Armstrong, A. Leauthaud, R. Mandelbaum, H. Miyatake, A. J. Nishizawa, M. Simet, M. Takada, H. Ai- hara, J. Bosch, Y . Komiyama, R. Lupton, H. Murayama, M. A. Strauss, and M. Tanaka, Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions with HSC sur- vey first-year ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [27]

    Terasawa, X

    R. Terasawa, X. Li, M. Takada, T. Nishimichi, S. Tanaka, S. Sugiyama, T. Kurita, T. Zhang, M. Shirasaki, R. Takahashi, H. Miyatake, S. More, and A. J. Nishizawa, Exploring the baryonic effect signature in the Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 cosmic shear two-point correlations on small scales: The S8 tension remains present, Phys. Rev. D111, 063509 (2025), arXiv:...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [28]

    Hikage and M

    C. Hikage and M. Oguri, A pseudo-spectrum analysis of galaxy-galaxy lensing (2016), arXiv:1603.07818

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [29]

    B. D. Wandelt, E. Hivon, and K. M. Gorski, The Pseudo- Cl method: Cosmic microwave background anisotropy power spectrum statistics for high precision cosmology, Physical Re- view D64, 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.083003 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0008111

    arXiv 2001

  29. [30]

    Alonso, J

    D. Alonso, J. Sanchez, A. Slosar, and LSST Dark Energy Sci- ence Collaboration, A unified pseudo-Cℓframework, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society484, 4127 (2019)

    2019

  30. [31]

    Nicola, D

    A. Nicola, D. Alonso, J. S ´anchez, A. Slosar, H. Awan, A. Broussard, J. Dunkley, E. Gawiser, Z. Gomes, R. Mandel- baum, H. Miyatake, J. A. Newman, I. Sevilla-Noarbe, S. Skin- ner, and E. L. Wagoner, Tomographic galaxy clustering with the Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first year public data release, JCAP2020, 044 (2020), arXiv:1912.08209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [32]

    Shirasaki and M

    M. Shirasaki and M. Takada, Stacked lensing estimators and their covariance matrices: excess surface mass density versus lensing shear, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, 4277 (2018), arXiv:1802.09696 [astro-ph.CO]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [33]

    Maraio, A

    A. Maraio, A. Hall, and A. Taylor, Testing Quadratic Maximum Likelihood estimators for forthcoming Stage-IV weak lensing surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 520, 4836 (2023), arXiv:2207.10412 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [34]

    S. P. Oh, D. N. Spergel, and G. Hinshaw, An Efficient Tech- nique to Determine the Power Spectrum from Cosmic Mi- crowave Background Sky Maps, The Astrophysical Journal 510, 551 (1999)

    1999

  34. [35]

    K. M. Smith and M. Zaldarriaga, Algorithms for bispectra: forecasting, optimal analysis and simulation: Algorithms for bispectra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 417, 2 (2011)

    2011

  35. [36]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Cosmology Without Windows: Quadratic Es- timators for the Galaxy Power Spectrum, Physical Review D 103, 103504 (2021), arXiv:2012.09389 [astro-ph, physics:gr- qc, physics:hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [37]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Cosmology Without Window Functions: Cu- bic Estimators for the Galaxy Bispectrum, Physical Review D 104, 123529 (2021), arXiv:2107.06287 [astro-ph, physics:hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [38]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Optimal Estimation of the Binned Mask- Free Power Spectrum, Bispectrum, and Trispectrum on the Full Sky: Scalar Edition, Physical Review D107, 123516 (2023), arXiv:2303.08828 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [39]

    O. H. E. Philcox and T. Fl ¨oss, PolyBin3D: A Suite of Optimal and Efficient Power Spectrum and Bispectrum Estimators for Large-Scale Structure (2025), arXiv:2404.07249 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [40]

    J. R. Bond, A. H. Jaffe, and L. Knox, Estimating the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, Physical Re- view D57, 2117 (1998)

    1998

  40. [41]

    Terawaki, M

    T. Terawaki, M. Takada, and T. Taniguchi, Quadratic es- timators for unwindowed power spectrum of galaxy-galaxy weak lensing and its application toP gm(k)estimation (2025), arXiv:2507.18789 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    Hikage, M

    C. Hikage, M. Takada, T. Hamana, and D. Spergel, Shear Power Spectrum Reconstruction using Pseudo-Spectrum Method, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society412, 65 (2011), arXiv:1004.3542 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [43]

    X. Li, H. Miyatake, W. Luo, S. More, M. Oguri, T. Hamana, R. Mandelbaum, M. Shirasaki, M. Takada, R. Armstrong, A. Kannawadi, S. Takita, S. Miyazaki, A. J. Nishizawa, A. A. P. Malag´on, M. A. Strauss, M. Tanaka, and N. Yoshida, The three- year shear catalog of the Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam SSP Sur- vey, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan74, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [44]

    D. E. S. Collaboration, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alar- con, O. Alves, A. Amon, D. Anbajagane, F. Andrade-Oliveira, W. d’Assignies, S. Avila, D. Bacon, J. Beas-Gonzalez, K. Bech- tol, M. R. Becker, G. M. Bernstein, J. Blazek, S. Bocquet, D. Brooks, H. Camacho, G. Camacho-Ciurana, R. Camilleri, G. Campailla, A. Campos, A. C. Rosell, M. C. Kind, J. Car...

    arXiv 2026

  44. [45]

    Giannini, G

    G. Giannini, G. Camacho-Ciurana, A. Whyley, J. Prat, J. Blazek, C. S ´anchez, G. Zacharegkas, A. Alarcon, E. Leg- nani, A. Amon, D. Anbajagane, S. Avila, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, G. M. Bernstein, S. Bocquet, A. Campos, A. C. Rosell, R. Cawthon, C. Chang, M. Crocce, W. d’Assignies, J. D. Vi- cente, A. Drlica-Wagner, S. Elvin-Poole, A. Fert ´e, M. Gatti, D...

    arXiv 2026

  45. [46]

    X. Fang, T. Eifler, E. Schaan, H.-J. Huang, E. Krause, and S. Ferraro, Cosmology from Clustering, Cosmic Shear, CMB Lensing, and Cross Correlations: Combining Rubin Observa- tory and Simons Observatory, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society509, 5721 (2021), arXiv:2108.00658 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [47]

    K. Cao, D. H. Weinberg, V . Miranda, N. Dalal, T. Eifler, J. Xu, and H. Bowden, Fisher Forecasts for Cosmological Yields from 3×2pt Analysis of the Roman Space Telescope High Latitude Imaging Survey (2026), arXiv:2601.00438 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  47. [48]

    Takahashi, T

    R. Takahashi, T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, T. Namikawa, T. Nishimichi, K. Osato, and K. Shiroyama, Full-sky Grav- itational Lensing Simulation for Large-area Galaxy Surveys and Cosmic Microwave Background Experiments, The Astro- physical Journal850, 24 (2017), arXiv:1706.01472 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [49]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, C. L. Ben- nett, J. Dunkley, M. R. Nolta, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, N. Ode- gard, L. Page, K. M. Smith, J. L. Weiland, B. Gold, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright, NINE-YEARWILKINSON MICROWA VE ANISOTROPY PROBE(WMAP) OBSERV ATIONS: COSMO- LOGICAL PARAMETER...

    2013

  49. [50]

    Sefusatti, M

    E. Sefusatti, M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro, and H. M. P. Couch- man, Accurate estimators of correlation functions in Fourier space, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460, 3624 (2016)

    2016

  50. [51]

    G. M. Bernstein and M. Jarvis, Shapes and Shears, Stars and Smears: Optimal Measurements for Weak Lensing, The Astro- nomical J.123, 583 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0107431 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  51. [52]

    J. A. Blazek, N. MacCrann, M. A. Troxel, and X. Fang, Beyond linear galaxy alignments, Phys. Rev. D100, 103506 (2019), arXiv:1708.09247 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019