pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.21864 · v1 · pith:2VGXLC25new · submitted 2026-06-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

Optimization of Tessellation-based Statistics: Void Statistics

Yu Liu , Cheng Zhao , Yu Yu , Zhejie Ding , Jean-Paul Kneib This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 12:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords void statisticstessellationDelaunayVoronoibaryon acoustic oscillationslarge-scale structurecosmological parameterssubsampling
0
0 comments X

The pith

A subsampling and averaging scheme stabilizes tessellation-based void statistics and boosts their signal-to-noise ratios along with cosmological constraints.

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

Tessellation methods for analyzing cosmic large-scale structure are sensitive to small perturbations in point positions and densities, which rearrange the tessellations and add substantial statistical errors that weaken cosmological constraints. The paper identifies this instability as the main source of scatter in void statistics and proposes a subsampling and averaging procedure to stabilize the measurements. When tested on the void size function, two-point correlation function, and power spectrum from both Delaunay and Voronoi tessellations, the scheme substantially reduces the scatters. This produces higher signal-to-noise ratios for void baryon acoustic oscillations and tighter constraints on cosmological parameters from galaxy surveys.

Core claim

The statistical uncertainties in void statistics can be predominantly attributed to tessellation instabilities, and a subsampling-averaging procedure can substantially eliminate these scatters, dramatically boosting the signal-to-noise ratios of void BAOs and significantly improving the constraining power of void statistics on cosmological parameters.

What carries the argument

The subsampling and averaging procedure, which computes the statistics on multiple random subsamples of the catalog and averages the results to suppress rearrangements caused by small density or position perturbations.

If this is right

  • The method applies directly to the void size function, void two-point correlation function, and void power spectrum for both Delaunay-based and Voronoi-based voids.
  • Signal-to-noise ratios of void baryon acoustic oscillations increase substantially.
  • Constraints on cosmological parameters from void statistics become significantly tighter.
  • The procedure is simple enough to serve as a general framework for other tessellation-based measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same instabilities likely appear in other tessellation-derived quantities such as density field estimates or cluster finders, suggesting the averaging step could be tested there as well.
  • In future wide-field surveys the computational cost of multiple subsamples may be offset by the gain in information per object, allowing smaller effective error bars without larger volumes.
  • Optimal subsample fraction and number of realizations could be calibrated on mocks to further minimize residual scatter.

Load-bearing premise

The dominant source of statistical uncertainty in these void statistics is tessellation instability rather than sample variance or survey systematics.

What would settle it

Applying the subsampling-averaging method to simulated void catalogs with known inputs and finding no reduction in the variance of the measured statistics compared with the standard single-tessellation approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.21864 by Cheng Zhao, Jean-Paul Kneib, Yu Liu, Yu Yu, Zhejie Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Delaunay tessellations (green lines) and Voronoi tessellations (pale-blue lines) constructed from point sets (blue dots) in a 2- dimensional square box of width 100 ℎ −1Mpc with periodic boundary conditions. Here, these blue dots mark the two-dimensional projected positions of halos within a random cubic volume of (100 ℎ −1Mpc) 3 from one of our cosmological 𝑁-body simulations, with a number density of 𝑛¯h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Three-dimensional spatial distributions of halos and various types of DT voids in a cubic box with a side length of 43.5 ℎ −1Mpc. In the top panels (from left to right), we show the positions of halos, small DT voids, and large DT voids, marked by blue asterisks, red dots, and green dots, respectively. The bottom panels display (from left to right) the combined spatial distribution of large&small DT voids,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Flowchart of traditional and optimized schemes for measuring tessellation-based statistics. In traditional scheme, tessellation-based Liu et al. (2024), in process statistics are computed directly from the tessellation constructed from original halo/galaxy catalogue. In contrast, the optimized scheme we advocate involves generating multiple subsamples through downsampling of original halo/galaxy catalogue.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: VSFs (left subpanels) and their corresponding 1-𝜎 uncertainties (right subpanels) for all DT voids (left panel) and disjoint DT voids (right panel). Green, red, and blue lines correspond to halo catalogues with number densities of 𝑛¯h = 8.22 × 10−3 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , 𝑛¯h = 1.37 × 10−3 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , and 𝑛¯h = 2.28 × 10−4 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , respectively (the same below). In the left subpanel of each panel, each cur… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: VSFs of ZOBOV/VIDE voids (left panel), their 1-𝜎 scatters (middle panel), and Fisher error forecasts for 𝑓 𝜎8 (right panel). Green diamonds: traditional method; blue diamonds: optimized method (the same below). As shown, compared to traditional scheme, optimized scheme reduces the statistical errors of VSFs by a factor of 3–4 and tightens the 𝑓 𝜎8 constraints by 19–37%, with larger gains at lower halo numb… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: VTCFs of large DT voids measured with traditional scheme (upper panels) and optimized scheme (bottom panels). Results are shown for large DT voids with various radius cutoffs, as specified in the legends. The three columns correspond to our halo catalogues with different number densities, from left to right: 𝑛¯h = 8.22×10−3 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , 𝑛¯h = 1.37×10−3 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , and 𝑛¯h = 2.28×10−4 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , re… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: VTCFs of ZOBOV/VIDE voids (left panel) and their statistical errors (middle panel) under traditional (solid lines) and optimized (dashed lines) schemes, together with the error ratios between two measurement schemes (right panel). This demonstrates that optimized scheme yields VTCFs with statistical uncertainties roughly a factor of 4 lower than those from traditional scheme, highlighting its substantial a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Directly-measured VPSs (left panel), shot noises (middle panel), and biases (right panel) for large DT voids with radius cutoffs of 18, 19, and 20 ℎ −1Mpc. Here, voids are constructed from our halo catalogues with number density of 𝑛¯h = 2.28 × 10−4 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 and analyzed under traditional scheme. For reference, the middle panel also shows Poisson predictions for corresponding shot noises [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Shot-noise-subtracted VPSs for large DT voids with ra￾dius cutoff of 19 ℎ −1Mpc under traditional and optimized schemes (upper panel), and their corresponding normalized BAO signatures (lower panel). For comparison, we also show the results for corre￾sponding halo catalogues with 𝑛¯h = 2.28 × 10−4 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , as well as for dark matter and initial conditions. As demonstrated, the amplitudes of normaliz… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Directly-measured VPSs (left panel), shot noises (middle panel), and biases (right panel) for ZOBOV/VIDE voids obtained under traditional (solid lines) and optimized (dashed lines) schemes. For comparison, Poisson predictions for corresponding shot noises are also displayed in the middle panel. predictions for reference, while the right panel of the same figure depicts the associated void biases (see Equa… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Shot-noise-subtracted VPSs for ZOBOV/VIDE voids obtained under traditional (left panel) and optimized (middle panel) schemes (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Directly-measured VPSs (left panel), shot noises (middle panel), and biases (right panel) for all DT voids (blue lines) and disjoint DT voids (green lines). These results are measured under traditional scheme. Here, voids are constructed from our halo catalogues with number density of 𝑛¯h = 2.28 × 10−4 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 . For reference, Poisson predictions for corresponding shot noises are also shown in the mi… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Shot-noise-subtracted VPSs for all DT voids and disjoint DT voids, measured under traditional (left panel) and optimized (right panel) schemes (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: VSFs of smaller-volume subsamples of ZOBOV/VIDE voids in redshift space. Upper panels show the results obtained with traditional scheme, while lower panels present those obtained from optimized scheme. From left to right, the panels correspond to halo number densities of 𝑛¯h = 8.22 × 10−3 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , 𝑛¯h = 1.37 × 10−3 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , and 𝑛¯h = 2.28 × 10−4 (ℎ −1Mpc) −3 , respectively. For each panel, we … view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Tessellation methods are extensively employed in the analyses of cosmic large-scale structure (LSS). However, these techniques are highly sensitive to perturbations in both densities and positions of points, often leading to substantial rearrangements of tessellation configurations. As a result, considerable additional statistical errors are introduced in various tessellation-based statistics, thereby weakening their cosmological constraints. In this work, we identify this issue and propose an efficacious measurement scheme through subsampling and averaging to enhance the stabilities of tessellation-based statistics. As a case study, we apply the new scheme to measure multiple primary void statistics [i.e., void size function (VSF), void two-point correlation function (VTCF), and void power spectrum (VPS)] in two distinct classes of voids, based on Delaunay and Voronoi tessellations, respectively. We notice that the statistical uncertainties in void statistics can be predominantly attributed to tessellation instabilities. Through rigorous testing, we demonstrate that the proposed method can substantially eliminate these scatters to deeply mine the statistical power of void statistics. Specifically, we find that our method can dramatically boost the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of void Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAOs) and significantly improve the constraining power of void statistics on cosmological parameters. These findings showcase enormous application potentials of our new method in maximizing extraction of cosmological information from galaxy surveys. Importantly, our method is simple yet highly potent with broad applicability, hopefully evolving into a standard framework for measuring tessellation-based statistics in the future.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper identifies instabilities in Delaunay and Voronoi tessellations as the dominant source of scatter in void statistics (VSF, VTCF, VPS) and proposes a subsampling-plus-averaging procedure to stabilize the measurements. It claims that this procedure substantially reduces the scatter, dramatically increases the SNR of void BAOs, and improves cosmological-parameter constraints from these statistics.

Significance. If the error-source attribution and the reported SNR gains are robustly demonstrated, the method could meaningfully increase the cosmological return from void analyses in upcoming surveys. The manuscript supplies no variance decomposition or controlled isolation of tessellation instabilities versus sample variance, shot noise, or survey systematics, so the claimed gains remain unverified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (results on error attribution): the assertion that 'statistical uncertainties in void statistics can be predominantly attributed to tessellation instabilities' is not supported by any variance decomposition (e.g., comparison of jackknife covariance with covariance obtained from controlled tessellation perturbations, or from multiple realizations with fixed tessellation). Without this test the SNR improvements for void BAOs cannot be shown to arise from the proposed scheme rather than from other sources.
  2. [§4] §4 (SNR and parameter constraints): the reported 'dramatic' SNR boosts and improved cosmological constraints are presented without a baseline comparison that isolates the contribution of the subsampling-averaging step from changes in effective volume, number of voids, or post-processing choices. A controlled ablation (with vs. without the averaging step on identical catalogs) is required to substantiate the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the two void classes (Delaunay-based vs. Voronoi-based) is introduced without an explicit definition or reference to the precise void-finding algorithm used.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the number of subsamples and the averaging procedure so that the method can be reproduced from the plots alone.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address the concerns on error attribution and controlled comparisons below, and will incorporate additional tests in the revised manuscript to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] the assertion that 'statistical uncertainties in void statistics can be predominantly attributed to tessellation instabilities' is not supported by any variance decomposition (e.g., comparison of jackknife covariance with covariance obtained from controlled tessellation perturbations, or from multiple realizations with fixed tessellation). Without this test the SNR improvements for void BAOs cannot be shown to arise from the proposed scheme rather than from other sources.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit variance decomposition isolating tessellation instabilities from sample variance or shot noise was not included. Our existing tests compare scatter across multiple realizations and show substantial reduction only when the subsampling-averaging is applied, which we attribute to stabilization of tessellation configurations. To directly address the referee's point, we will add a controlled test in the revised §3: we will generate perturbed point sets with fixed underlying density field and compare covariances from jackknife versus these controlled perturbations. This will quantify the tessellation contribution. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] the reported 'dramatic' SNR boosts and improved cosmological constraints are presented without a baseline comparison that isolates the contribution of the subsampling-averaging step from changes in effective volume, number of voids, or post-processing choices. A controlled ablation (with vs. without the averaging step on identical catalogs) is required to substantiate the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that isolating the effect of the subsampling-averaging procedure requires a controlled ablation on identical catalogs. In the revised §4 we will add direct side-by-side comparisons of VSF, VTCF, and VPS (including BAO SNR and cosmological constraints) computed with and without the averaging step, holding the input catalogs, effective volume, and void selection fixed. This will demonstrate that the reported gains arise specifically from the proposed scheme. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: method and claims are empirically tested without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper identifies tessellation instabilities as a source of scatter in void statistics (VSF, VTCF, VPS), proposes a subsampling-averaging scheme, and reports SNR gains from tests on simulated or survey data. No equations appear in the abstract or described chain that equate a fitted quantity to a prediction by construction. No self-citations are invoked to establish uniqueness theorems or to smuggle ansatzes. The attribution of dominant error to instabilities is framed as an empirical observation rather than a definitional or fitted tautology, and the reported improvements are presented as outcomes of controlled tests, rendering the central claims externally falsifiable rather than internally forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only. No free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are mentioned.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Tessellation methods are highly sensitive to perturbations in densities and positions of points, leading to substantial rearrangements.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the motivation for the work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5807 in / 1242 out tokens · 18259 ms · 2026-06-26T12:08:39.198055+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 61

    Abel, T., Hahn, O., & Kaehler, R. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 61

    2012

  2. [2]

    2019, PhRvD, 100, 123513

    Achitouv, I. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 123513

    2019

  3. [3]

    2006, arXiv e-prints, astro

    Albrecht, A., Bernstein, G., Cahn, R., et al. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2006

  4. [4]

    Alonso, R., Ojeda, J., Hitschfeld, N., Hervías, C., & Campusano, L. E. 2018, Astronomy and Computing, 22, 48

    2018

  5. [5]

    Aragon-Calvo, M. A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 557 Aragón-Calvo, M. A., Jones, B. J. T., van de Weygaert, R., & van der Hulst, J. M. 2007, A&A, 474, 315 Aragón-Calvo, M. A., Platen, E., van de Weygaert, R., & Szalay, A. S. 2010, ApJ, 723, 364

    2021

  6. [6]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 186

    Aubert, M., Cousinou, M.-C., Escoffier, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 186

    2022

  7. [7]

    2018, PhRvD, 98, 023511

    Baker, T., Clampitt, J., Jain, B., & Trodden, M. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 023511

    2018

  8. [8]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 083530

    Baldauf, T., Codis, S., Desjacques, V., & Pichon, C. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 083530

    2021

  9. [9]

    2015, JCAP, 2015, 007

    Baldauf, T., Mercolli, L., Mirbabayi, M., & Pajer, E. 2015, JCAP, 2015, 007

    2015

  10. [10]

    E., Hamaus, N., & Desjacques, V

    Baldauf, T., Seljak, U., Smith, R. E., Hamaus, N., & Desjacques, V. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 083507 Bayer,A. E.,Villaescusa-Navarro, F.,Massara, E.,et al.2021,ApJ, 919, 24

    2013

  11. [11]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4325

    Bermejo, R., Wilding, G., van de Weygaert, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4325

    2024

  12. [12]

    2002, PhR, 367, 1

    Bernardeau, F., Colombi, S., Gaztañaga, E., & Scoccimarro, R. 2002, PhR, 367, 1

    2002

  13. [13]

    1996, MNRAS, 279, 693

    Bernardeau, F., & van de Weygaert, R. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 693

    1996

  14. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07923 Beyond-2pt Collaboration, :, Krause, E., et al

    Besuner, R., Dey, A., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07923 Beyond-2pt Collaboration, :, Krause, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02252

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Biswas, R., Alizadeh, E., & Wandelt, B. D. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 023002

    2010

  16. [16]

    2013, International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications, 23, 303

    BOISSONNAT, J.-D., DYER, R., & GHOSH, A. 2013, International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications, 23, 303

    2013

  17. [17]

    2014, International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications, 24, 125

    BOISSONNAT, J.-D., DYER, R., & GHOSH, A. 2014, International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications, 24, 125

    2014

  18. [18]

    2022, A&A, 661, A146 Bos,E.G

    Bonnaire, T., Aghanim, N., Kuruvilla, J., & Decelle, A. 2022, A&A, 661, A146 Bos,E.G. P.,vandeWeygaert,R., Dolag,K.,&Pettorino,V.2012, MNRAS, 426, 440

    2022

  19. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.22532

    Cai, Y.-C., & Neyrinck, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.22532

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 3364

    Cai, Y.-C., Neyrinck, M., Mao, Q., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3364

    2017

  21. [21]

    C., Szapudi, I., Cole, S., & Frenk, C

    Cai, Y.-C., Neyrinck, M. C., Szapudi, I., Cole, S., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, ApJ, 786, 110

    2014

  22. [22]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 1036

    Cai, Y.-C., Padilla, N., & Li, B. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1036

    2015

  23. [23]

    A., & Padilla, N

    Cai, Y.-C., Taylor, A., Peacock, J. A., & Padilla, N. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2465

    2016

  24. [24]

    2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 280403

    Cai, Z., Huang, S., Liu, Y., Zhao, C., & Huang, L. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 280403

    2025

  25. [25]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3195

    Cautun, M., Paillas, E., Cai, Y.-C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3195

    2018

  26. [26]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., & Jones, B. J. T. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1286

    2013

  27. [27]

    C., & Hamaus, N

    Chan, K. C., & Hamaus, N. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 043502

    2021

  28. [28]

    C., Hamaus, N., & Desjacques, V

    Chan, K. C., Hamaus, N., & Desjacques, V. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 103521

    2014

  29. [29]

    C., Li, Y., Biagetti, M., & Hamaus, N

    Chan, K. C., Li, Y., Biagetti, M., & Hamaus, N. 2020, ApJ, 889, 89

    2020

  30. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 5902

    Cheng, S., Ting, Y.-S., Ménard, B., & Bruna, J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5902

    2020

  31. [31]

    S., Soares-Santos, M., Tait, T

    Chou, A. S., Soares-Santos, M., Tait, T. M. P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.09978

    arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 063528 Colberg,J.M.,Pearce,F.,Foster,C.,etal.2008,MNRAS,387,933

    Chuang, C.-H., Kitaura, F.-S., Liang, Y., et al. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 063528 Colberg,J.M.,Pearce,F.,Foster,C.,etal.2008,MNRAS,387,933

    2017

  33. [33]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 5021

    Contarini, S., Marulli, F., Moscardini, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5021

    2021

  34. [34]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 46

    Contarini, S., Pisani, A., Hamaus, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 46

    2023

  35. [35]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3526

    Contarini, S., Ronconi, T., Marulli, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3526

    2019

  36. [36]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14362

    Contarini, S., Verza, G., & Pisani, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14362

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    2022, A&A, 667, A162

    Contarini, S., Verza, G., Pisani, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A162

    2022

  38. [38]

    M., Paz, D

    Correa, C. M., Paz, D. J., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1871

    2022

  39. [39]

    M., Paz, D

    Correa, C. M., Paz, D. J., Sánchez, A. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 911

    2021

  40. [40]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3336

    Cuesta-Lazaro, C., Paillas, E., Yuan, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3336

    2024

  41. [41]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10 de Berg, M., van Kreveld, M., Overmars, M., & Schwarzkopf, O. 1997, Computational geometry: algorithms and applications (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag) de Jong, R. S., Agertz, O., Berbel, A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2013

  42. [42]

    1934, Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS

    Delaunay, B. 1934, Bulletin de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS. Classe des sciences mathématiques et na, 1934, 793 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1934

  43. [43]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16408

    Dhawalikar, S., Paranjape, A., & Alam, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16408

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    2003, Modern Cosmology

    Dodelson, S. 2003, Modern Cosmology

    2003

  45. [45]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3838 Doré, O., Bock, J., Ashby, M., et al

    Dong, F., Yu, Y., Zhang, J., Yang, X., & Zhang, P. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3838 Doré, O., Bock, J., Ashby, M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.4872

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4033

    Douglass, K., Veyrat, D., O’Neill, S., et al. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4033

    2022

  47. [47]

    A., Veyrat, D., & BenZvi, S

    Douglass, K. A., Veyrat, D., & BenZvi, S. 2023, ApJS, 265, 7

    2023

  48. [48]

    1979, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1

    Efron, B. 1979, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1

    1979

  49. [49]

    J., Seo, H.-J., & White, M

    Eisenstein, D. J., Seo, H.-J., & White, M. 2007, ApJ, 664, 660 Eisenstein,D.J.,Weinberg,D.H.,Agol,E.,etal.2011,AJ,142,72

    2007

  50. [50]

    Endo, T., Tashiro, H., & Nishizawa, A. J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 587 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491

    arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 3262

    Falck, B., Koyama, K., Zhao, G.-B., & Cautun, M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3262

    2018

  52. [52]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 807

    Feldbrugge, J. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 807

    2025

  53. [53]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 2273 Fernández-García, E., Betancort-Rijo, J

    Feng, Y., Chu, M.-Y., Seljak, U., & McDonald, P. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2273 Fernández-García, E., Betancort-Rijo, J. E., Prada, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A19

    2016

  54. [54]

    S., Paillas, E., Percival, W

    Fraser, T. S., Paillas, E., Percival, W. J., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 001

    2025

  55. [55]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 217 18Yu Liu et al

    Gebhardt, K., Mentuch Cooper, E., Ciardullo, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 217 18Yu Liu et al

    2021

  56. [56]

    Ghafour, P., Tavasoli, S., & Shojaei, M. R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16431

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Ginzburg, D., Desjacques, V., & Chan, K. C. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 083528

    2017

  58. [58]

    A., & de Serio, V

    Goberna, M. A., & de Serio, V. N. V. 2011, TOP, 20, 411

    2011

  59. [59]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 203

    Gong, Y., Liu, X., Cao, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 203

    2019

  60. [60]

    2023, Astronomy and Computing, 44, 100713

    Guidotti, V., Alonso, R., Bravo, M., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Computing, 44, 100713

    2023

  61. [61]

    2017, JCAP, 2017, 014

    Hamaus, N., Cousinou, M.-C., Pisani, A., et al. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 014

    2017

  62. [62]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 023

    Hamaus, N., Pisani, A., Choi, J.-A., et al. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 023

    2020

  63. [63]

    M., et al

    Hamaus, N., Pisani, A., Sutter, P. M., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 117, 091302

    2016

  64. [64]

    E., & Baldauf, T

    Hamaus, N., Seljak, U., Desjacques, V., Smith, R. E., & Baldauf, T. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 043515

    2010

  65. [65]

    M., Lavaux, G., & Wandelt, B

    Hamaus, N., Sutter, P. M., Lavaux, G., & Wandelt, B. D. 2014a, JCAP, 2014, 013

    2014

  66. [66]

    M., & Wandelt, B

    Hamaus, N., Sutter, P. M., & Wandelt, B. D. 2014b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1409.7621

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    2022, A&A, 658, A20

    Hamaus, N., Aubert, M., Pisani, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A20

    2022

  68. [68]

    2018, AJ, 156, 160

    Hand, N., Feng, Y., Beutler, F., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 160

    2018

  69. [69]

    J., Aubert, M., Pisani, A., et al

    Hawken, A. J., Aubert, M., Pisani, A., et al. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 012

    2020

  70. [70]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19 Ilić, S., Langer, M., & Douspis, M

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19 Ilić, S., Langer, M., & Douspis, M. 2013, A&A, 556, A51 Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2013

  71. [71]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 2167

    Jennings, E., Li, Y., & Hu, W. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2167

    2013

  72. [72]

    Jing, Y. P. 2005, ApJ, 620, 559

    2005

  73. [73]

    2008, Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis, Vol

    Jost, J., & Jost, J. 2008, Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis, Vol. 42005 (Springer)

    2008

  74. [74]

    2016b, MNRAS, 456, 4156 Kovács, A

    Kitaura, F.-S., Rodríguez-Torres, S., Chuang, C.-H., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 456, 4156 Kovács, A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1777

    2018

  75. [75]

    D., Pisani, A., Carbone, C., et al

    Kreisch, C. D., Pisani, A., Carbone, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4413

    2019

  76. [76]

    D., Pisani, A., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., et al

    Kreisch, C. D., Pisani, A., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 100

    2022

  77. [77]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 3481

    Li, B., Zhao, G.-B., & Koyama, K. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3481

    2012

  78. [78]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 4020

    Liang, Y., Zhao, C., Chuang, C.-H., Kitaura, F.-S., & Tao, C. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4020

    2016

  79. [79]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 4

    Liu, Y., Yu, Y., & Li, B. 2021, ApJS, 254, 4

    2021

  80. [80]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 063515

    Liu, Y., Yu, Y., Yu, H.-R., & Zhang, P. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 063515

    2020

Showing first 80 references.