The Super-Sample Covariance of Line-Intensity Mapping Power Spectrum

Azadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah; Jos\'e Luis Bernal; Sefa Pamuk

REVIEW

The Super-Sample Covariance of Line-Intensity Mapping Power Spectrum

Sefa Pamuk, José Luis Bernal, Azadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 3 Sep 2026 · 94 references

Pith's verdict: First analytic LIM SSC derivation that is basically sound, but the few-percent validation is weaker than it looks because the same model response is subtracted in the jackknife correction and added as the SSC in the same comparison.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on September 8, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2609.04488 (version 1)

Pith IDIX4H6Y5Q, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAzadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah, Jos\'e Luis Bernal, Sefa Pamuk. "The Super-Sample Covariance of Line-Intensity Mapping Power Spectrum." arXiv:2609.04488 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IX4H6Y5Q

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Quick take: this is the first analytic derivation of the LIM power-spectrum SSC, it is basically correct, and the LIM-specific parts are new. What is genuinely new is Eq (3.15): the standard separate-universe response recast with luminosity-weighted halo-model integrals, including the shot-noise response term I2_1. The derivation is internally consistent, and the argument that LIM differs from galaxy clustering because absolute intensities remove the beat-coupling/local-average cancellation is correct and matters for the field. The volume-scaling result (V sigma_V^2 varies by only a factor of two over four orders of magnitude in V) and the factor-of-two line dependence between [CII] and HI are useful for survey design. The external check against Gkogkou et al. field-to-field fits, area exponent gamma = -0.44 versus their -0.45, supports the mechanism. The paper is honestly written: the authors flag the tree-level truncation, the halo-model intermediate-scale deficit, and the assumption that L(M) does not respond to the background mode, and they explicitly defer a systematic study of the jackknife bias.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The Section 4 validation is partly circular. The bias parameters in Table 1 are fitted to the Mithra LIMSims that serve as the validation benchmark, so the few-percent agreement on most scales is partly a measure of the fit. More concerning, the jackknife correction in Eq (4.6) subtracts a term quadratic in the same model response function whose accuracy the validation is meant to establish, and its magnitude relative to the raw jackknife covariance is never reported. The stress-test note is right: if that term is large where the SSC is claimed to matter (k greater than about 0.1 Mpc^-1), the Fig 3 agreement could be substantially a consistency relation rather than an independent check. The theory-only curve degrading to about 50 percent in two intermediate bins and overestimating at small scales is consistent with a somewhat imperfect model, not a wrong one.

None of this is fatal. The derivation stands on its own, the shape of the response matches, and the external scaling comparison is genuinely independent. But the authors should report the theory-only SSC comparison prominently, quantify or drop the jackknife correction, and propagate model uncertainty into the Section 5.4 forecasts. Also, the code URL as printed looks malformed and should be corrected.

This paper is for anyone modelling LIM covariances for [CII], CO, or 21cm surveys, and the response-function and scaling results are citable. It deserves a serious referee; I would engage, with the validation questions front and centre.

What would settle it

A direct test would compare the SSC predicted by this model for a given survey and line against the measured field-to-field variance from a large-volume lightcone simulation that includes realistic galaxy formation physics (e.g., hydrodynamic or semi-analytic models) allowing luminosity to vary with environment. If the simulated SSC deviates systematically from the analytic prediction by more than the validation margin (the paper finds ≤30% at intermediate scales), the assumption of no environmental luminosity response would be falsified. Additionally, a future high-signal-to-noise LIM observation (e.g., with CCAT-Prime) could measure the power spectrum in multiple independent fields and test whether the scatter between fields matches the total covariance including SSC.

Referee report

Significance

The derivation is a useful and, to my knowledge, novel analytic contribution: previous LIM covariance estimates relied on Gaussian approximations, mocks, or jackknife-based methods, none of which capture the effect of super-survey modes, and the halo-model-plus-SPT route is well matched to the halo-mass-luminosity structure of LIM models. The paper is notably transparent: the theory-only and bias-fitted predictions are shown separately, the validation discrepancies (30-50 percent in two intermediate bins) are reported honestly, the main modeling assumptions are stated explicitly (Sections 3.2-3.3), and the deferred jackknife systematics study is flagged. The public code release and the external comparison with the Gkogkou et al. fits (good agreement for the area scaling, qualitative for the frequency scaling) are strengths. If the validation concern below is addressed, the results would justify the paper's practical recommendation that low-noise LIM analyses include the SSC and in-box non-Gaussian terms at intermediate and small scales.

Major objections (4)

[Section 4, Eq. (4.6) and Fig. 3] The validation of the SSC is partially circular. The 'corrected jackknife' in-box covariance of Eq. (4.6) is obtained by subtracting (N_JK - 1) Var(delta_b^j - delta_b^i) times the response-function outer product, where the response is the same dP_TT/ddelta_b from Eq. (3.15) whose accuracy the validation is meant to establish; the SSC prediction then added is also quadratic in that same response. The comparison in Fig. 3 therefore tests Cov_jk^raw + (B - A)(dP_TT/ddelta_b tensor dP_TT/ddelta_b) against the subbox covariance, and its discriminating power depends on the relative size of the subtraction amplitude and the SSC normalization, which is never reported. Because the paper defers a systematic study of the jackknife bias, the agreement shown in Fig. 3 does not by itself establish the SSC amplitude. I request that the authors report, per k-bin, the magnitude of the subtracted term relative to both the raw jackknife covariance and the SSC contribution, and ideally calibrate the jackknife correction independently, for example with simulations whose in-box covariance is known by construction.
[Section 4, Table 1; Abstract] The abstract's claim of a 'successful validation' at high precision overstates what the first-principles model alone delivers. The parameters <T b1>, <T^2>, <T(b2 - 4bG2/3)>, <T^2 b1>, and eta are fitted to the very same Mithra LIMSims that serve as the validation benchmark (Table 1), so the few-percent agreement of the fitted curves partly measures the fit quality; the theory-only prediction degrades to about 50 percent in two intermediate bins and overestimates the small-scale response (Fig. 2, right panel). A test of genuine predictive power would be to apply the theory-only response at a redshift, line, or simulation not used in the fitting, or to validate against the CO maps of the same simulation suite; short of that, the abstract and conclusions should state that the model reproduces the simulations once nuisance parameters are calibrated to them.
[Section 4, Eq. (4.2) and Fig. 2] The 'measured' response function in Fig. 2 is not purely empirical: the background mode assigned to each subvolume is inferred from Eq. (4.2), delta_T_b = <T b1> delta_b, using the theoretical value of <T b1> (0.27 micro-K), while the fitted value is 0.23 micro-K (Table 1). Because the regression slope of P_TT on the inferred delta_b scales inversely with the conversion factor, a roughly 17 percent overprediction of <T b1> inflates the measured response relative to the true one, and this systematic is not propagated into the quoted agreement levels. Please state which value of <T b1> enters Eq. (4.2) and propagate this uncertainty into the response comparison.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (3.15)] The response function neglects any response of the luminosity-mass relation L(M) to the background mode, with the justification that environmental effects are 'negligible and effectively absorbed into the stochastic scatter'. No quantitative bound is given, yet the SSC is quadratic in the response, and the response itself differs by up to a factor of two between the [CII] and HI models considered in Section 5.1 (Fig. 4). Since environmental or assembly effects on line luminosity at fixed mass are poorly constrained, this assumption should be tested, for example by comparing the halo-model response with the separate-universe response of a galaxy-formation model that includes environment-dependent star formation or quenching.

Minor objections (5)

[Section 4] The two intermediate k-bins in which the fitted (theory-only) predictions reach 30 (50) percent deviations are not identified by their wavenumber range; please give the k values.
[Fig. 3] In Fig. 3 the left panel is the covariance diagonal and the right panel is a slice at fixed k2; please state the k2 value in the panel labels and caption and check it against the text, which discusses k2 = 0.3 Mpc^-1.
[Section 5.2] The quantitative comparison of the frequency-scaling exponent beta should restate the caveat that the Ref. [50] subfields are not fully independent and that Delta_nu_proj has different meanings in the two analyses, since these caveats directly affect the interpretation of the beta difference.
[Section 3.2] The shorthand moments <T b1>, <T^2>, <T(b2 - 4/3 bG2)>, and <T^2 b1> are used throughout Section 4 before being defined; a single defining sentence at the end of Section 3.2 would help the reader.
[Appendix C and Section 5.4] The forecasts for MeerKLASS and CCAT-prime rely on the approximate F_0 treatment of anisotropic resolution for the in-box non-Gaussian term (Eq. C.9); the main text should state clearly which plotted quantities use this approximation.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

First derivation of LIM power spectrum super-sample covariance.

The reading

This paper provides the first analytical derivation of the super-sample covariance (SSC) for the line-intensity mapping (LIM) power spectrum, along with the non-Gaussian in-box covariance. The SSC arises from the uncertainty of whether the survey volume sits in a large-scale overdensity or underdensity, a contribution that cannot be estimated from the data alone. The authors combine the halo model with standard perturbation theory to compute the power-spectrum response to background modes, validating their predictions against painted N-body simulations. They find that the SSC is crucial at intermediate and small scales for low-noise surveys, and that its relative importance does not diminish with survey volume. If correct, LIM analyses that neglect the SSC risk underestimating errors and biasing inference of global cosmological and astrophysical parameters.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the LIM halo model extended with standard perturbation theory (SPT) to compute the nonlinear LIM power spectrum and its response to a large-scale background mode. The key object is the response function $dP_{\rm TT}/d\delta_b$ given in Eq. (3.15), which combines the growth-only response, the dilation term from the local expansion rate, and the shot-noise response from the one-halo term. This response function is built from luminosity-weighted bias integrals $I^\alpha_\beta$ that depend on the halo mass–luminosity relation and the halo profile. The SSC itself is then given by Eq. (2.18) as the variance of the background mode over the survey window times the product of response functions at each wavenumber.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to derive, for the first time, the real-space LIM power spectrum super-sample covariance (SSC) from first principles, using a hybrid halo model and standard perturbation theory framework. As a byproduct, it also derives the non-Gaussian in-box covariance. The SSC is expressed as a product of the power-spectrum response function, which quantifies the shift in the LIM power spectrum due to a smooth background density perturbation, and the variance of the background mode over the survey window. The response function is computed from luminosity-weighted halo bias integrals and SPT mode-coupling kernels. The model is validated against painted N-body simulations for [CII] at z=1, achieving agreement at the few-percent level over most scales, and degrading to ≤30% on two intermediate-scale bins when bias parameters are fitted to simulations. Forecasts for MeerKLASS and CCAT-Prime show that the SSC dominates the covariance at intermediate and small scales when instrumental noise is subdominant, and that it introduces sizeable off-diagonal correlations between Fourier modes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that line luminosity depends only on halo mass, with no additional response to the large-scale background density (i.e., no environmental dependence of the mass–luminosity relation). If real or simulated line emissions vary with environment beyond what is captured by the halo mass function and bias, the response function and hence the SSC amplitude would be misestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

LIM surveys that neglect the SSC will underestimate their covariance at intermediate and small scales, leading to overconfident parameter constraints and potentially biased inference of global quantities.
For low-noise experiments such as CCAT-Prime and MeerKLASS L-band, the SSC contributes significantly to the diagonal and off-diagonal covariances, requiring its inclusion for accurate likelihood analysis.
The relative importance of the SSC is roughly independent of survey volume because both Gaussian and SSC contributions scale similarly with volume, making the SSC relevant even for large surveys at small scales.
The SSC amplitude depends on the specific spectral line and its mass–luminosity relation: lines that trace more massive halos exhibit larger response functions and thus larger SSC.
The public code SSLimPy released with the paper allows the full LIM covariance including SSC to be computed for any survey geometry and spectral line, facilitating rigorous forecasts and data analyses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The framework can be extended to include redshift-space distortions and anisotropic resolution, which may significantly alter the off-diagonal covariances and affect constraints on growth of structure.
The assumption that line luminosity does not respond to the background mode (no environmental dependence) could be tested by comparing SSC predictions from separate-universe simulations that allow luminosity to vary with environment; if environmental effects are non-negligible, the response function would change, altering the SSC.
The same formalism could be applied to cross-power spectra between different lines (e.g., [CII] x CO or [CII] x 21 cm) to build multi-tracer covariance matrices, where the SSC may correlate different line signals.
The jackknife correction used in the validation (Eq. 4.6) introduces a mild systematic that could be studied further to improve empirical estimation of in-box covariance from simulations.

Original abstract

In this work, we provide the first derivation of the line-intensity mapping (LIM) power spectrum super-sample covariance (SSC) from first principles, and also derive as a by-product the non-Gaussian in-box contributions to the covariance for the first time. Previous studies have typically modelled the LIM power spectrum covariance using either the Gaussian approximation or estimates obtained from mocks or the data itself, neglecting uncertainties related to whether the limited volume surveyed sits in a cosmological overdensity. This contribution, known as the SSC or, depending on the context, the field-to-field variance, cannot be estimated from the data, but it is crucial for a correct inference of global quantities, i.e., for ensemble-averaged parameters rather than the actual values just within the patch of the Universe observed. For our derivation, we employ a combination of the halo model and standard perturbation theory that allows us to capture the nonlinearity and non-Gaussianity of the covariance. After a successful validation of our predictions against painted N-body simulations, we explore different scenarios related to current and future LIM experiments, quantifying the relative importance of the non-Gaussian in-box and SSC. We find that the newly derived contributions to the LIM power spectrum covariance are crucial at intermediate and small scales, especially for cases in which the covariance is not dominated by instrumental noise. We find that the relative relevance of the SSC with respect to the other covariance contributions is roughly independent of the survey volume, but does depend on the specific response of the power spectrum to large-scale modes for each line and redshift. Therefore, the impact of the SSC will be increasingly significant for parameter inference from the current and the next generation high signal-to-noise LIM surveys.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,601 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.97 · states limitation 0.25 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.09 · compares with prior results 0.90 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In this work, we provide the first derivation of the line-intensity mapping (LIM) power spectrum super-sample covariance (SSC) from first principles, and also derive as a by-product the non-Gaussian in-box contributions to the covariance for the first time. Previous studies have typically modelled the LIM power spectrum covariance using either the Gaussian approximation or estimates obtained from mocks or the data itself, neglecting uncertainties related to whether the limited volume surveyed sits in a cosmological overdensity. This contribution, known as the SSC or, depending on the context, the field-to-field variance, cannot be estimated from the data, but it is crucial for a correct inference of global quantities, i.e., for ensemble-averaged parameters rather than the actual values just within the patch of the Universe observed. For our derivation, we employ a combination of the halo model and standard perturbation theory that allows us to capture the nonlinearity and non-Gaussianity of the covariance. After a successful validation of our predictions against painted N-body simulations, we explore different scenarios related to current and future LIM experiments, quantifying the relative importance of the non-Gaussian in-box and SSC. We find that the newly derived contributions to the LIM power spectrum covariance are crucial at intermediate and small scales, especially for cases in which the covariance is not dominated by instrumental noise. We find that the relative relevance of the SSC with respect to the other covariance contributions is roughly independent of the survey volume, but does depend on the specific response of the power spectrum to large-scale modes for each line and redshift. Therefore, the impact of the SSC will be increasingly significant for parameter inference from the current and the next generation high signal-to-noise LIM surveys.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	In this work, we provide the first derivation of the line-intensity mapping (LIM) power spectrum super-sample covariance (SSC) from first principles, and also derive as a by-product the non-Gaussian in-box contributions to the covariance for the first time.	contribution 1.00	0.98	0.25	asserted 1.00
s1	Previous studies have typically modelled the LIM power spectrum covariance using either the Gaussian approximation or estimates obtained from mocks or the data itself, neglecting uncertainties related to whether the limited volume surveyed sits in a cosmological overdensity.	gap 0.77	0.04	0.04	asserted 0.99
s2	This contribution, known as the SSC or, depending on the context, the field-to-field variance, cannot be estimated from the data, but it is crucial for a correct inference of global quantities, i.e., for ensemble-averaged parameters rather than the actual values just within the patch of the Universe observed.	background 0.91	0.10	0.08	asserted 1.00
s3	For our derivation, we employ a combination of the halo model and standard perturbation theory that allows us to capture the nonlinearity and non-Gaussianity of the covariance.	method 1.00	0.93	0.03	asserted 0.99
s4	After a successful validation of our predictions against painted N-body simulations, we explore different scenarios related to current and future LIM experiments, quantifying the relative importance of the non-Gaussian in-box and SSC.	method 0.51	0.96	0.06	asserted 0.99
s5	We find that the newly derived contributions to the LIM power spectrum covariance are crucial at intermediate and small scales, especially for cases in which the covariance is not dominated by instrumental noise.	result 1.00	0.97	0.44	asserted 1.00
s6	We find that the relative relevance of the SSC with respect to the other covariance contributions is roughly independent of the survey volume, but does depend on the specific response of the power spectrum to large-scale modes for each line and redshift.	result 0.97	0.96	0.16	asserted 0.99
s7	Therefore, the impact of the SSC will be increasingly significant for parameter inference from the current and the next generation high signal-to-noise LIM surveys.	interpretation 0.99	0.74	0.44	asserted 0.91

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (94)

[1]

J.L. Bernal and E.D. Kovetz,Line-intensity mapping: theory review with a focus on star-formation lines,The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review30(2022)

View on Pith 2022
[2]

T.-C. Chang and A. Lidz,Line-Intensity Mapping,2602.03011

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[3]

S. Cunnington et al.,Revealing cosmological fluctuations in 21cm intensity maps with MeerKLASS: from maps to power spectra,2510.27549

View on Pith arXiv
[4]

CHIME collaboration,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]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[5]

SKA collaboration,Cosmology with Phase 1 of the Square Kilometre Array: Red Book 2018: Technical specifications and performance forecasts,Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37(2020) e007 [1811.02743]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[6]

A. Lidz, O. Zahn, M. McQuinn, M. Zaldarriaga and L. Hernquist,Detecting the Rise and Fall of 21 cm Fluctuations with the Murchison Widefield Array,ApJ680(2008) 962 [0711.4373]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[7]

P. Christian and A. Loeb,Measuring the x-ray background in the reionization era with first generation 21 cm experiments,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013(2013) 014

View on Pith 2013
[8]

K.A. Cleary, J. Borowska, P.C. Breysse, M. Catha, D.T. Chung, S.E. Church et al.,Comap early science. i. overview,The Astrophysical Journal933(2022) 182

View on Pith 2022
[9]

P.C. Breysse, D.T. Chung, K.A. Cleary, H.T. Ihle, H. Padmanabhan, M.B. Silva et al.,Comap early science. vii. prospects for co intensity mapping at reionization,The Astrophysical Journal933(2022) 188

View on Pith 2022
[10]

K.S. Karkare, A.J. Anderson, P.S. Barry, B.A. Benson, J.E. Carlstrom, T. Cecil et al.,Spt-slim: A line intensity mapping pathfinder for the south pole telescope,Journal of Low Temperature Physics209 (2022) 758–765. – 31 –

View on Pith 2022
[11]

The CONCERTO Collaboration, Ade, P., Aravena, M., Barria, E., Beelen, A., Benoit, A. et al.,A wide field-of-view low-resolution spectrometer at apex: Instrument design and scientific forecast,A&A642 (2020) A60

View on Pith 2020
[12]

E.R. Switzer, E.M. Barrentine, G. Cataldo, T.M. Essinger-Hileman, P.A.R. Ade, C.J. Anderson et al., Experiment for cryogenic large-aperture intensity mapping: instrument design,Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems7(2021) 044004

View on Pith 2021
[13]

M.L. Niemeyer, E. Komatsu, J.L. Bernal, C. Byrohl, R. Ciardullo, O. Curtis et al.,Lyαintensity mapping in hetdex: Galaxy-lyαintensity cross-power spectrum, 2025

View on Pith 2025
[14]

S. Cunnington, Y . Li, M.G. Santos, J. Wang, I.P. Carucci, M.O. Irfan et al.,H¡scp¿i¡/scp¿ intensity mapping with meerkat: power spectrum detection in cross-correlation with wigglez galaxies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518(2022) 6262–6272

View on Pith 2022
[15]

M. Collaboration, M. Barberi-Squarotti, J.L. Bernal, P. Bull, S. Camera, I.P. Carucci et al.,Meerklass l-band deep-field intensity maps: entering the h¡scp¿i¡/scp¿ dominated regime,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society537(2025) 3632 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/537/4/3632/61743817/staf195.pdf]

View on Pith 2025
[16]

S. Paul, M.G. Santos, Z. Chen and L. Wolz,A first detection of neutral hydrogen intensity mapping on Mpc scales at z≈0.32and z≈0.44,2301.11943

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[17]

CHIME collaboration,Detection of the Cosmological 21 cm Signal in Auto-correlation at z ˜ 1 with the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment,2511.19620

View on Pith arXiv
[18]

F.-S. Kitaura et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: mock galaxy catalogues for the BOSS Final Data Release,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.456(2016) 4156 [1509.06400]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[19]

L. Blot et al.,Comparing approximate methods for mock catalogues and covariance matrices II: Power spectrum multipoles,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485(2019) 2806 [1806.09497]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[20]

M. Colavincenzo et al.,Comparing approximate methods for mock catalogues and covariance matrices – III: bispectrum,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482(2019) 4883 [1806.09499]. [21]eBOSS collaboration,The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: 1000 multi-tracer mock catalogues with redshift evolution and systematics for galaxies and...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[22]

J. Ereza, F. Prada, A. Klypin, T. Ishiyama, A. Smith, C.M. Baugh et al.,The Uchuu-glam BOSS and eBOSS LRG lightcones: exploring clustering and covariance errors,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.532 (2024) 1659 [2311.14456]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[23]

D. Forero-S ´anchez et al.,Analytical and EZmock covariance validation for the DESI 2024 results, JCAP04(2025) 055 [2411.12027]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[24]

M. Maus, A. Baleato Lizancos, M. White, A. de Mattia and S.-F. Chen,An analytic approximation to the covariance between pre- and post-reconstruction galaxy two-point statistics,JCAP05(2026) 078 [2602.12343]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[25]

D. Wadekar and R. Scoccimarro,Galaxy power spectrum multipoles covariance in perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 123517 [1910.02914]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[26]

A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi and D. Jeong,Covariance of the matter power spectrum including the survey window function effect: N -body simulations versus fifth-order perturbation theory on grids,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 023501 [2007.05504]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[27]

R. Zhao, K. Koyama, Y . Wang and G.-B. Zhao,Modeling the Covariance Matrix for the Power Spectra Before and After the BAO Reconstruction,Res. Astron. Astrophys.24(2024) 125015 [2410.18524]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[28]

B. Hadzhiyska and M. White,Fewer simulations, sharper covariances: Reducing mock covariance noise with Zeldovich approximation control variates,2605.28817. – 32 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

A. Farina, M. Guidi, A. Veropalumbo and C. Guida,Denoising clustering covariance matrices with Rotational Invariant Estimators,2604.13851

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[30]

COMAP collaboration,Joint power spectrum and voxel intensity distribution forecast on the CO luminosity function with COMAP,Astrophys. J.871(2019) 75 [1808.07487]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[31]

I.P. Carucci et al.,Hydrogen intensity mapping with MeerKAT: Preserving cosmological signal by optimising contaminant separation,Astron. Astrophys.703(2025) A222 [2412.06750]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[32]

R. Scoccimarro, M. Zaldarriaga and L. Hui,Power spectrum correlations induced by nonlinear clustering,Astrophys. J.527(1999) 1 [astro-ph/9901099]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[33]

J. Harnois-Deraps and U.-L. Pen,Non-Gaussian Error in Galaxy Survey (Part 1),Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.423(2012) 2288 [1109.5746]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[34]

J. Harnois-Deraps and U.-L. Pen,Non-Gaussian Error Bars in Galaxy Surveys – 2,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.431(2013) 3349 [1211.6213]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[35]

A. Repp, I. Szapudi, J. Carron and M. Wolk,The Impact of Non-Gaussianity upon Cosmological Forecasts,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454(2015) 3533 [1506.00083]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[36]

D. Bertolini, K. Schutz, M.P. Solon, J.R. Walsh and K.M. Zurek,Non-Gaussian Covariance of the Matter Power Spectrum in the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 123505 [1512.07630]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[37]

I. Mohammed, U. Seljak and Z. Vlah,Perturbative approach to covariance matrix of the matter power spectrum,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.466(2017) 780 [1607.00043]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[38]

Y . Kobayashi,Fast computation of the non-Gaussian covariance of redshift-space galaxy power spectrum multipoles,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 103512 [2308.08593]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[39]

A.J.S. Hamilton, C.D. Rimes and R. Scoccimarro,On measuring the covariance matrix of the nonlinear power spectrum from simulations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.371(2006) 1188 [astro-ph/0511416]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[40]

R. de Putter, C. Wagner, O. Mena, L. Verde and W. Percival,Thinking Outside the Box: Effects of Modes Larger than the Survey on Matter Power Spectrum Covariance,JCAP04(2012) 019 [1111.6596]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[41]

M. Takada and W. Hu,Power spectrum super-sample covariance,Physical Review D87(2013)

View on Pith 2013
[42]

Y . Li, W. Hu and M. Takada,Super-Sample Covariance in Simulations,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 083519 [1401.0385]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[43]

Y . Li, W. Hu and M. Takada,Super-Sample Signal,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 103530 [1408.1081]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[44]

K.C. Chan, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah and J. Nore ˜na,Bispectrum Supersample Covariance,Phys. Rev. D 97(2018) 043532 [1709.02473]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[45]

G. Schreiner, A. Krolewski, S. Joudaki and W.J. Percival,Super sample covariance and the volume scaling of galaxy survey covariance matrices,JCAP02(2025) 022 [2411.16948]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[46]

Y . Li, M. Schmittfull and U. Seljak,Galaxy power-spectrum responses and redshift-space super-sample effect,JCAP02(2018) 022 [1711.00018]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[47]

Euclid Collaboration, Sciotti, D., Gouyou Beauchamps, S., Cardone, V . F., Camera, S., Tutusaus, I. et al.,Euclid preparation - lii. forecast impact of super-sample covariance on 3×2pt analysis with euclid,A&A691(2024) A318

View on Pith 2024
[48]

R. Reischke, S. Unruh, M. Asgari, A. Dvornik, H. Hildebrandt, B. Joachimi et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Covariance validation and the unified ONECOVARIANCE framework for projected large-scale structure observables,Astronomy&Astrophysics,699(2025) A124 [2410.06962]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[49]

A. Barreira, E. Krause and F. Schmidt,Complete super-sample lensing covariance in the response approach,JCAP06(2018) 015 [1711.07467]. – 33 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[50]

A. Gkogkou, M. B ´ethermin, G. Lagache, M. Van Cuyck, E. Jullo, M. Aravena et al.,CONCERTO: Simulating the CO, [CII], and [CI] line emission of galaxies in a 117 deg2 field and the impact of field-to-field variance,Astronomy&Astrophysics670(2023) A16 [2212.02235]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[51]

A. COORAY and R. SHETH,Halo models of large scale structure,Physics Reports372(2002) 1–129

View on Pith 2002
[52]

M. Asgari, A.J. Mead and C. Heymans,The halo model for cosmology: a pedagogical review,The Open Journal of Astrophysics6(2023)

View on Pith 2023
[53]

F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gazta ˜naga and R. Scoccimarro,Large-scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory,Physics Reports367(2002) 1–248

View on Pith 2002
[54]

A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, F. Nikakhtar, G.K. Keating and E. Castorina,Precision tests of CO and CII power spectra models against simulated intensity maps,JCAP02(2022) 026 [2111.03717]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[55]

K. Akitsu, M. Takada and Y . Li,Large-scale tidal effect on redshift-space power spectrum in a finite-volume survey,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 083522 [1611.04723]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[56]

E. Castorina and A. Moradinezhad Dizgah,Local Primordial Non-Gaussianities and Super-Sample Variance,JCAP10(2020) 007 [2005.14677]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[57]

J.L. Bernal, P.C. Breysse, H. Gil-Mar ´ın and E.D. Kovetz,User’s guide to extracting cosmological information from line-intensity maps,Physical Review D100(2019)

View on Pith 2019
[58]

A. Barreira and F. Schmidt,Response Approach to the Matter Power Spectrum Covariance,JCAP11 (2017) 051 [1705.01092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[59]

W.H. Press and P. Schechter,Formation of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies by Self-Similar Gravitational Condensation,ApJ187(1974) 425

View on Pith 1974
[60]

M. Lujan Niemeyer et al.,Surface Brightness Profile of Lyman-αHalos out to 320 kpc in HETDEX, Astrophys. J.929(2022) 90 [2203.04826]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[61]

M. Lujan Niemeyer et al.,LyαHalos around [O iii]-selected Galaxies in HETDEX,Astrophys. J. Lett. 934(2022) L26 [2207.11098]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[62]

M. Lujan Niemeyer,Effect of LyαRadiative Transfer on Intensity Mapping Power Spectra,Astrophys. J. 980(2025) 250 [2407.03060]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[63]

COMAP collaboration,A Model of Spectral Line Broadening in Signal Forecasts for Line-intensity Mapping Experiments,Astrophys. J.923(2021) 188 [2104.11171]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[64]

Z. Li, L. Wolz, H. Guo, S. Cunnington and Y . Mao,Modeling the nonlinear power spectrum in low-redshift hi intensity mapping, 2024

View on Pith 2024
[65]

V . Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Large-scale galaxy bias,Phys. Rep.733(2018) 1 [1611.09787]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[66]

D.J. Croton, L. Gao and S.D.M. White,Halo assembly bias and its effects on galaxy clustering,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society374(2007) 1303 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/374/4/1303/2860822/mnras0374-1303.pdf]

View on Pith 2007
[67]

H. Miyatake, S. More, M. Takada, D.N. Spergel, R. Mandelbaum, E.S. Rykoffet al.,Evidence of halo assembly bias in massive clusters,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 041301

View on Pith 2016
[68]

D. Blas, M. Garny and T. Konstandin,Cosmological perturbation theory at three-loop order,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2014(2014) 010 [1309.3308]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[69]

T. Matsubara,Resumming cosmological perturbations via the lagrangian picture: One-loop results in real space and in redshift space,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 063530

View on Pith 2008
[70]

D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological non-linearities as an effective fluid,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(2012) 051

View on Pith 2012
[71]

A. Eggemeier, R. Scoccimarro and R.E. Smith,Bias Loop Corrections to the Galaxy Bispectrum,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 123514 [1812.03208]. – 34 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[72]

T. Lazeyras, C. Wagner, T. Baldauf and F. Schmidt,Precision measurement of the local bias of dark matter halos,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2016(2016) 018 [1511.01096]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[73]

F. Sinigaglia and F.-S. Kitaura,Cosmic variance or galaxy bias? Disentangling finite-volume and galaxy formation effects in cosmological analysis,2606.04830

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[74]

M. Silva, M.G. Santos, A. Cooray and Y . Gong,Prospects for Detecting C II Emission during the Epoch of Reionization,ApJ806(2015) 209 [1410.4808]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[75]

P.S. Behroozi, R.H. Wechsler and C. Conroy,On the Lack of Evolution in Galaxy Star Formation Efficiency,ApJ762(2013) L31 [1209.3013]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[76]

P.S. Behroozi, R.H. Wechsler and C. Conroy,The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z=0-8,ApJ770(2013) 57 [1207.6105]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[77]

R.K. Sheth, H.J. Mo and G. Tormen,Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial distribution of dark matter haloes,MNRAS323(2001) 1 [astro-ph/9907024]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[78]

M.M. Abidi and T. Baldauf,Cubic halo bias in Eulerian and Lagrangian space,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018(2018) 029 [1802.07622]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[79]

J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White,The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos,ApJ462(1996) 563 [astro-ph/9508025]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[80]

B. Diemer and M. Joyce,An Accurate Physical Model for Halo Concentrations,ApJ871(2019) 168 [1809.07326]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[81]

G. Sato-Polito, N. Kokron and J.L. Bernal,A multitracer empirically driven approach to line-intensity mapping light cones,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526(2023) 5883 [2212.08056]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[82]

M. Bethermin et al.,CONCERTO: High-fidelity simulation of millimeter line emissions of galaxies and [CII] intensity mapping,Astron. Astrophys.667(2022) A156 [2204.12827]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[83]

C. Modi, E. Castorina, Y . Feng and M. White,Intensity mapping with neutral hydrogen and the Hidden Valley simulations,JCAP09(2019) 024 [1904.11923]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[84]

Y . Feng, M.-Y . Chu, U. Seljak and P. McDonald,FastPM: a new scheme for fast simulations of dark matter and haloes,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.463(2016) 2273 [1603.00476]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[85]

Y .P. Jing,Correcting for the Alias Effect When Measuring the Power Spectrum Using a Fast Fourier Transform,ApJ620(2005) 559 [astro-ph/0409240]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[86]

A.J. Mead, S. Brieden, T. Tr ¨oster and C. Heymans,HMCODE-2020: improved modelling of non-linear cosmological power spectra with baryonic feedback,MNRAS502(2021) 1401 [2009.01858]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[87]

D. Sarkar and S. Foreman,Simulation-Based Priors for HI Bias from Halo Occupation Physics, 2607.14206

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[88]

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,1606.00233

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[89]

Euclidcollaboration,Euclid preparation - LXXXIX. Accurate and precise data-driven angular power spectrum covariances,Astron. Astrophys.708(2026) A167 [2506.09118]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[90]

P. Norberg, C.M. Baugh, E. Gaztanaga and D.J. Croton,Statistical Analysis of Galaxy Surveys - I. Robust error estimation for 2-point clustering statistics,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.396(2009) 19 [0810.1885]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[91]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[92]

M.P. Ib ´a˜nez, D. Alonso, J.A. Peacock, M. Zennaro and S. Brieden,CHEFT: A Hybrid Effective Field Theory halo model,2607.09571. – 35 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[93]

CCAT-Prime Collaboration, M. Aravena, J.E. Austermann, K. Basu, N. Battaglia, B. Beringue et al., CCAT-prime Collaboration: Science Goals and Forecasts with Prime-Cam on the Fred Young Submillimeter Telescope,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series264(2023) 7 [2107.10364]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[94]

A. Obuljen, E. Castorina, F. Villaescusa-Navarro and M. Viel,High-redshift post-reionization cosmology with 21cm intensity mapping,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018(2018) 004 [1709.07893]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[95]

A. Obuljen, D. Alonso, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, I. Yoon and M. Jones,The H I content of dark matter haloes at z≈0 from ALFALFA,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486(2019) 5124 [1805.00934]. – 36 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Extracting non-Gaussian information of line-intensity maps with weighted skew spectra
astro-ph.CO 2026-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For line-intensity maps, four optimally weighted skew spectra can match full-bispectrum Fisher constraints within a few percent, and combined with the power spectrum they measure the evolution of second-order bias rat...
HI intensity mapping with MeerKAT: A measurement of the 21-cm auto-spectrum on cosmological scales
astro-ph.CO 2026-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A 6.2-sigma detection of the 21-cm auto-power spectrum from neutral hydrogen at z = 0.42 on cosmological scales, yielding 10^3 Ω_HI b_HI = 1.271 (+1.080, -0.598).
An Empirically Calibrated [C II] Luminosity-Halo Mass Relation for Line Intensity Mapping
astro-ph.CO 2026-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A [C II] halo-mass luminosity relation fitted directly to [C II] data predicts a clustering peak 45 to 64 times the shot-noise floor at z=4.5 to 5.5, crossing at k about 0.4 h/Mpc.

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

J.L. Bernal and E.D. Kovetz,Line-intensity mapping: theory review with a focus on star-formation lines,The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review30(2022)

View on Pith 2022

[2] [2]

T.-C. Chang and A. Lidz,Line-Intensity Mapping,2602.03011

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[3] [3]

S. Cunnington et al.,Revealing cosmological fluctuations in 21cm intensity maps with MeerKLASS: from maps to power spectra,2510.27549

View on Pith arXiv

[4] [4]

CHIME collaboration,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]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

SKA collaboration,Cosmology with Phase 1 of the Square Kilometre Array: Red Book 2018: Technical specifications and performance forecasts,Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37(2020) e007 [1811.02743]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[6] [6]

A. Lidz, O. Zahn, M. McQuinn, M. Zaldarriaga and L. Hernquist,Detecting the Rise and Fall of 21 cm Fluctuations with the Murchison Widefield Array,ApJ680(2008) 962 [0711.4373]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[7] [7]

P. Christian and A. Loeb,Measuring the x-ray background in the reionization era with first generation 21 cm experiments,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013(2013) 014

View on Pith 2013

[8] [8]

K.A. Cleary, J. Borowska, P.C. Breysse, M. Catha, D.T. Chung, S.E. Church et al.,Comap early science. i. overview,The Astrophysical Journal933(2022) 182

View on Pith 2022

[9] [9]

P.C. Breysse, D.T. Chung, K.A. Cleary, H.T. Ihle, H. Padmanabhan, M.B. Silva et al.,Comap early science. vii. prospects for co intensity mapping at reionization,The Astrophysical Journal933(2022) 188

View on Pith 2022

[10] [10]

K.S. Karkare, A.J. Anderson, P.S. Barry, B.A. Benson, J.E. Carlstrom, T. Cecil et al.,Spt-slim: A line intensity mapping pathfinder for the south pole telescope,Journal of Low Temperature Physics209 (2022) 758–765. – 31 –

View on Pith 2022

[11] [11]

The CONCERTO Collaboration, Ade, P., Aravena, M., Barria, E., Beelen, A., Benoit, A. et al.,A wide field-of-view low-resolution spectrometer at apex: Instrument design and scientific forecast,A&A642 (2020) A60

View on Pith 2020

[12] [12]

E.R. Switzer, E.M. Barrentine, G. Cataldo, T.M. Essinger-Hileman, P.A.R. Ade, C.J. Anderson et al., Experiment for cryogenic large-aperture intensity mapping: instrument design,Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems7(2021) 044004

View on Pith 2021

[13] [13]

M.L. Niemeyer, E. Komatsu, J.L. Bernal, C. Byrohl, R. Ciardullo, O. Curtis et al.,Lyαintensity mapping in hetdex: Galaxy-lyαintensity cross-power spectrum, 2025

View on Pith 2025

[14] [14]

S. Cunnington, Y . Li, M.G. Santos, J. Wang, I.P. Carucci, M.O. Irfan et al.,H¡scp¿i¡/scp¿ intensity mapping with meerkat: power spectrum detection in cross-correlation with wigglez galaxies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518(2022) 6262–6272

View on Pith 2022

[15] [15]

M. Collaboration, M. Barberi-Squarotti, J.L. Bernal, P. Bull, S. Camera, I.P. Carucci et al.,Meerklass l-band deep-field intensity maps: entering the h¡scp¿i¡/scp¿ dominated regime,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society537(2025) 3632 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/537/4/3632/61743817/staf195.pdf]

View on Pith 2025

[16] [16]

S. Paul, M.G. Santos, Z. Chen and L. Wolz,A first detection of neutral hydrogen intensity mapping on Mpc scales at z≈0.32and z≈0.44,2301.11943

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[17] [17]

CHIME collaboration,Detection of the Cosmological 21 cm Signal in Auto-correlation at z ˜ 1 with the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment,2511.19620

View on Pith arXiv

[18] [18]

F.-S. Kitaura et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: mock galaxy catalogues for the BOSS Final Data Release,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.456(2016) 4156 [1509.06400]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[19] [19]

L. Blot et al.,Comparing approximate methods for mock catalogues and covariance matrices II: Power spectrum multipoles,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485(2019) 2806 [1806.09497]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[20] [20]

M. Colavincenzo et al.,Comparing approximate methods for mock catalogues and covariance matrices – III: bispectrum,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482(2019) 4883 [1806.09499]. [21]eBOSS collaboration,The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: 1000 multi-tracer mock catalogues with redshift evolution and systematics for galaxies and...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[21] [22]

J. Ereza, F. Prada, A. Klypin, T. Ishiyama, A. Smith, C.M. Baugh et al.,The Uchuu-glam BOSS and eBOSS LRG lightcones: exploring clustering and covariance errors,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.532 (2024) 1659 [2311.14456]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[22] [23]

D. Forero-S ´anchez et al.,Analytical and EZmock covariance validation for the DESI 2024 results, JCAP04(2025) 055 [2411.12027]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[23] [24]

M. Maus, A. Baleato Lizancos, M. White, A. de Mattia and S.-F. Chen,An analytic approximation to the covariance between pre- and post-reconstruction galaxy two-point statistics,JCAP05(2026) 078 [2602.12343]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[24] [25]

D. Wadekar and R. Scoccimarro,Galaxy power spectrum multipoles covariance in perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 123517 [1910.02914]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[25] [26]

A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi and D. Jeong,Covariance of the matter power spectrum including the survey window function effect: N -body simulations versus fifth-order perturbation theory on grids,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 023501 [2007.05504]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[26] [27]

R. Zhao, K. Koyama, Y . Wang and G.-B. Zhao,Modeling the Covariance Matrix for the Power Spectra Before and After the BAO Reconstruction,Res. Astron. Astrophys.24(2024) 125015 [2410.18524]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[27] [28]

B. Hadzhiyska and M. White,Fewer simulations, sharper covariances: Reducing mock covariance noise with Zeldovich approximation control variates,2605.28817. – 32 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[28] [29]

A. Farina, M. Guidi, A. Veropalumbo and C. Guida,Denoising clustering covariance matrices with Rotational Invariant Estimators,2604.13851

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[29] [30]

COMAP collaboration,Joint power spectrum and voxel intensity distribution forecast on the CO luminosity function with COMAP,Astrophys. J.871(2019) 75 [1808.07487]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[30] [31]

I.P. Carucci et al.,Hydrogen intensity mapping with MeerKAT: Preserving cosmological signal by optimising contaminant separation,Astron. Astrophys.703(2025) A222 [2412.06750]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[31] [32]

R. Scoccimarro, M. Zaldarriaga and L. Hui,Power spectrum correlations induced by nonlinear clustering,Astrophys. J.527(1999) 1 [astro-ph/9901099]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[32] [33]

J. Harnois-Deraps and U.-L. Pen,Non-Gaussian Error in Galaxy Survey (Part 1),Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.423(2012) 2288 [1109.5746]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[33] [34]

J. Harnois-Deraps and U.-L. Pen,Non-Gaussian Error Bars in Galaxy Surveys – 2,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.431(2013) 3349 [1211.6213]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[34] [35]

A. Repp, I. Szapudi, J. Carron and M. Wolk,The Impact of Non-Gaussianity upon Cosmological Forecasts,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454(2015) 3533 [1506.00083]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[35] [36]

D. Bertolini, K. Schutz, M.P. Solon, J.R. Walsh and K.M. Zurek,Non-Gaussian Covariance of the Matter Power Spectrum in the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 123505 [1512.07630]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[36] [37]

I. Mohammed, U. Seljak and Z. Vlah,Perturbative approach to covariance matrix of the matter power spectrum,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.466(2017) 780 [1607.00043]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[37] [38]

Y . Kobayashi,Fast computation of the non-Gaussian covariance of redshift-space galaxy power spectrum multipoles,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 103512 [2308.08593]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[38] [39]

A.J.S. Hamilton, C.D. Rimes and R. Scoccimarro,On measuring the covariance matrix of the nonlinear power spectrum from simulations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.371(2006) 1188 [astro-ph/0511416]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[39] [40]

R. de Putter, C. Wagner, O. Mena, L. Verde and W. Percival,Thinking Outside the Box: Effects of Modes Larger than the Survey on Matter Power Spectrum Covariance,JCAP04(2012) 019 [1111.6596]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[40] [41]

M. Takada and W. Hu,Power spectrum super-sample covariance,Physical Review D87(2013)

View on Pith 2013

[41] [42]

Y . Li, W. Hu and M. Takada,Super-Sample Covariance in Simulations,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 083519 [1401.0385]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[42] [43]

Y . Li, W. Hu and M. Takada,Super-Sample Signal,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 103530 [1408.1081]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[43] [44]

K.C. Chan, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah and J. Nore ˜na,Bispectrum Supersample Covariance,Phys. Rev. D 97(2018) 043532 [1709.02473]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[44] [45]

G. Schreiner, A. Krolewski, S. Joudaki and W.J. Percival,Super sample covariance and the volume scaling of galaxy survey covariance matrices,JCAP02(2025) 022 [2411.16948]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[45] [46]

Y . Li, M. Schmittfull and U. Seljak,Galaxy power-spectrum responses and redshift-space super-sample effect,JCAP02(2018) 022 [1711.00018]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[46] [47]

Euclid Collaboration, Sciotti, D., Gouyou Beauchamps, S., Cardone, V . F., Camera, S., Tutusaus, I. et al.,Euclid preparation - lii. forecast impact of super-sample covariance on 3×2pt analysis with euclid,A&A691(2024) A318

View on Pith 2024

[47] [48]

R. Reischke, S. Unruh, M. Asgari, A. Dvornik, H. Hildebrandt, B. Joachimi et al.,KiDS-Legacy: Covariance validation and the unified ONECOVARIANCE framework for projected large-scale structure observables,Astronomy&Astrophysics,699(2025) A124 [2410.06962]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[48] [49]

A. Barreira, E. Krause and F. Schmidt,Complete super-sample lensing covariance in the response approach,JCAP06(2018) 015 [1711.07467]. – 33 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[49] [50]

A. Gkogkou, M. B ´ethermin, G. Lagache, M. Van Cuyck, E. Jullo, M. Aravena et al.,CONCERTO: Simulating the CO, [CII], and [CI] line emission of galaxies in a 117 deg2 field and the impact of field-to-field variance,Astronomy&Astrophysics670(2023) A16 [2212.02235]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[50] [51]

A. COORAY and R. SHETH,Halo models of large scale structure,Physics Reports372(2002) 1–129

View on Pith 2002

[51] [52]

M. Asgari, A.J. Mead and C. Heymans,The halo model for cosmology: a pedagogical review,The Open Journal of Astrophysics6(2023)

View on Pith 2023

[52] [53]

F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gazta ˜naga and R. Scoccimarro,Large-scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory,Physics Reports367(2002) 1–248

View on Pith 2002

[53] [54]

A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, F. Nikakhtar, G.K. Keating and E. Castorina,Precision tests of CO and CII power spectra models against simulated intensity maps,JCAP02(2022) 026 [2111.03717]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[54] [55]

K. Akitsu, M. Takada and Y . Li,Large-scale tidal effect on redshift-space power spectrum in a finite-volume survey,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 083522 [1611.04723]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[55] [56]

E. Castorina and A. Moradinezhad Dizgah,Local Primordial Non-Gaussianities and Super-Sample Variance,JCAP10(2020) 007 [2005.14677]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[56] [57]

J.L. Bernal, P.C. Breysse, H. Gil-Mar ´ın and E.D. Kovetz,User’s guide to extracting cosmological information from line-intensity maps,Physical Review D100(2019)

View on Pith 2019

[57] [58]

A. Barreira and F. Schmidt,Response Approach to the Matter Power Spectrum Covariance,JCAP11 (2017) 051 [1705.01092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[58] [59]

W.H. Press and P. Schechter,Formation of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies by Self-Similar Gravitational Condensation,ApJ187(1974) 425

View on Pith 1974

[59] [60]

M. Lujan Niemeyer et al.,Surface Brightness Profile of Lyman-αHalos out to 320 kpc in HETDEX, Astrophys. J.929(2022) 90 [2203.04826]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[60] [61]

M. Lujan Niemeyer et al.,LyαHalos around [O iii]-selected Galaxies in HETDEX,Astrophys. J. Lett. 934(2022) L26 [2207.11098]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[61] [62]

M. Lujan Niemeyer,Effect of LyαRadiative Transfer on Intensity Mapping Power Spectra,Astrophys. J. 980(2025) 250 [2407.03060]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[62] [63]

COMAP collaboration,A Model of Spectral Line Broadening in Signal Forecasts for Line-intensity Mapping Experiments,Astrophys. J.923(2021) 188 [2104.11171]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[63] [64]

Z. Li, L. Wolz, H. Guo, S. Cunnington and Y . Mao,Modeling the nonlinear power spectrum in low-redshift hi intensity mapping, 2024

View on Pith 2024

[64] [65]

V . Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Large-scale galaxy bias,Phys. Rep.733(2018) 1 [1611.09787]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[65] [66]

D.J. Croton, L. Gao and S.D.M. White,Halo assembly bias and its effects on galaxy clustering,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society374(2007) 1303 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/374/4/1303/2860822/mnras0374-1303.pdf]

View on Pith 2007

[66] [67]

H. Miyatake, S. More, M. Takada, D.N. Spergel, R. Mandelbaum, E.S. Rykoffet al.,Evidence of halo assembly bias in massive clusters,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 041301

View on Pith 2016

[67] [68]

D. Blas, M. Garny and T. Konstandin,Cosmological perturbation theory at three-loop order,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2014(2014) 010 [1309.3308]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[68] [69]

T. Matsubara,Resumming cosmological perturbations via the lagrangian picture: One-loop results in real space and in redshift space,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 063530

View on Pith 2008

[69] [70]

D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological non-linearities as an effective fluid,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(2012) 051

View on Pith 2012

[70] [71]

A. Eggemeier, R. Scoccimarro and R.E. Smith,Bias Loop Corrections to the Galaxy Bispectrum,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 123514 [1812.03208]. – 34 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[71] [72]

T. Lazeyras, C. Wagner, T. Baldauf and F. Schmidt,Precision measurement of the local bias of dark matter halos,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2016(2016) 018 [1511.01096]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[72] [73]

F. Sinigaglia and F.-S. Kitaura,Cosmic variance or galaxy bias? Disentangling finite-volume and galaxy formation effects in cosmological analysis,2606.04830

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[73] [74]

M. Silva, M.G. Santos, A. Cooray and Y . Gong,Prospects for Detecting C II Emission during the Epoch of Reionization,ApJ806(2015) 209 [1410.4808]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[74] [75]

P.S. Behroozi, R.H. Wechsler and C. Conroy,On the Lack of Evolution in Galaxy Star Formation Efficiency,ApJ762(2013) L31 [1209.3013]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[75] [76]

P.S. Behroozi, R.H. Wechsler and C. Conroy,The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z=0-8,ApJ770(2013) 57 [1207.6105]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[76] [77]

R.K. Sheth, H.J. Mo and G. Tormen,Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial distribution of dark matter haloes,MNRAS323(2001) 1 [astro-ph/9907024]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[77] [78]

M.M. Abidi and T. Baldauf,Cubic halo bias in Eulerian and Lagrangian space,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018(2018) 029 [1802.07622]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[78] [79]

J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White,The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos,ApJ462(1996) 563 [astro-ph/9508025]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[79] [80]

B. Diemer and M. Joyce,An Accurate Physical Model for Halo Concentrations,ApJ871(2019) 168 [1809.07326]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[80] [81]

G. Sato-Polito, N. Kokron and J.L. Bernal,A multitracer empirically driven approach to line-intensity mapping light cones,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526(2023) 5883 [2212.08056]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[81] [82]

M. Bethermin et al.,CONCERTO: High-fidelity simulation of millimeter line emissions of galaxies and [CII] intensity mapping,Astron. Astrophys.667(2022) A156 [2204.12827]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[82] [83]

C. Modi, E. Castorina, Y . Feng and M. White,Intensity mapping with neutral hydrogen and the Hidden Valley simulations,JCAP09(2019) 024 [1904.11923]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[83] [84]

Y . Feng, M.-Y . Chu, U. Seljak and P. McDonald,FastPM: a new scheme for fast simulations of dark matter and haloes,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.463(2016) 2273 [1603.00476]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[84] [85]

Y .P. Jing,Correcting for the Alias Effect When Measuring the Power Spectrum Using a Fast Fourier Transform,ApJ620(2005) 559 [astro-ph/0409240]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[85] [86]

A.J. Mead, S. Brieden, T. Tr ¨oster and C. Heymans,HMCODE-2020: improved modelling of non-linear cosmological power spectra with baryonic feedback,MNRAS502(2021) 1401 [2009.01858]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[86] [87]

D. Sarkar and S. Foreman,Simulation-Based Priors for HI Bias from Halo Occupation Physics, 2607.14206

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[87] [88]

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,1606.00233

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[88] [89]

Euclidcollaboration,Euclid preparation - LXXXIX. Accurate and precise data-driven angular power spectrum covariances,Astron. Astrophys.708(2026) A167 [2506.09118]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[89] [90]

P. Norberg, C.M. Baugh, E. Gaztanaga and D.J. Croton,Statistical Analysis of Galaxy Surveys - I. Robust error estimation for 2-point clustering statistics,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.396(2009) 19 [0810.1885]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[90] [91]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[91] [92]

M.P. Ib ´a˜nez, D. Alonso, J.A. Peacock, M. Zennaro and S. Brieden,CHEFT: A Hybrid Effective Field Theory halo model,2607.09571. – 35 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[92] [93]

CCAT-Prime Collaboration, M. Aravena, J.E. Austermann, K. Basu, N. Battaglia, B. Beringue et al., CCAT-prime Collaboration: Science Goals and Forecasts with Prime-Cam on the Fred Young Submillimeter Telescope,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series264(2023) 7 [2107.10364]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[93] [94]

A. Obuljen, E. Castorina, F. Villaescusa-Navarro and M. Viel,High-redshift post-reionization cosmology with 21cm intensity mapping,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018(2018) 004 [1709.07893]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[94] [95]

A. Obuljen, D. Alonso, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, I. Yoon and M. Jones,The H I content of dark matter haloes at z≈0 from ALFALFA,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486(2019) 5124 [1805.00934]. – 36 –

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019