Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Ensemble Average of Three-Dimensional Minkowski Tensors of a Gaussian Random Field in Redshift Space

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Closed-form ensemble averages for Minkowski tensors in redshift space yield ratio observables that isolate the growth-rate parameter β.

desk verdict First analytic ensemble prediction for 3D Minkowski tensors in redshift space, numerically validated at the 1% level; the new β-only ratios are a real step forward, but the unstated redefinition of the threshold ν needs a one-sentence fix. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02440 v1 pith:CYDVW6M6 submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.CO

Stephen Appleby , Joby P. K. , Pravabati Chingangbam , Changbom Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords MinkowskitensorsredshiftspacedistortionGaussianrandomfieldlarge-scalestructuregrowthrateKaisereffectcosmologicalparameterestimationfunctionals
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper derives the ensemble expectation values of two translation-invariant rank-2 Minkowski tensors, $W^{0,2}_1$ and $W^{0,2}_2$, when the three-dimensional matter density field is Gaussian but linearly distorted by peculiar velocities along the line of sight. The central result is equations (46)-(49): in a coordinate system aligned with the line of sight, the tensors remain diagonal but their diagonal elements are no longer equal. The ratios of the perpendicular to parallel diagonal elements, $\Theta_{1|I}$ and $\Theta_{2|I}$, depend only on the redshift-space distortion parameter $\beta=f/b$, with all other cosmological parameters cancelling. That matters because measuring these ratios from galaxy surveys would directly constrain the growth rate of cosmic structure without needing to know the clustering amplitude or bias separately. The paper also shows numerically that the analytic predictions match Gaussian realizations to better than one percent, and that a one percent measurement of $\Theta_{1|I}$ would give about a four percent constraint on $\beta$.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the boundary-integral representation of the Minkowski tensors: $W^{0,2}_1$ is an integral over iso-density surfaces of the symmetric product of the unit normal, and $W^{0,2}_2$ weights the same integrand by the mean curvature; both are normalized by the survey volume. For a Gaussian field these become integrals over a multivariate Gaussian distribution of the field value, its first derivatives, and its second derivatives, with the excursion-set threshold enforced by a delta function. Redshift-space distortion enters through the Kaiser factor $(1+\beta\mu^2)^2$ in the power spectrum, which changes the field cumulants $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_{1\perp}$, $\sigma_{1\parallel}$, $\sigma_{2\perp}$, $\sigma_{2\parallel}$, and $\sigma_{2\times}$; the only combination that survives in the diagonal ratios is $\lambda^2 = \sigma^2_{1\parallel}/\sigma^2_{1\perp} = (35+42\beta+15\beta^2)/(35+14\beta+3\beta^2)$. The argument proceeds by decorrelating the second-derivative variables through linear transformations and showing that all terms involving them integrate to zero, leaving the closed forms (46)-(49).

What would settle it

Measure the diagonal ratios $\Theta_{1|I}$ and $\Theta_{2|I}$ from a large N-body simulation with a known growth rate and bias, on scales where the field should be Gaussian; if the measured ratios deviate from equations (51)-(52) by more than the simulation's statistical error, the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that for a Gaussian random field whose power spectrum is modified by the linear Kaiser factor, the ensemble averages of $W^{0,2}_1$ and $W^{0,2}_2$ are diagonal matrices with explicit closed forms (46)-(49). The anisotropy introduced by redshift-space distortion makes the entry along the line of sight (index 3) differ from the two perpendicular entries (index $I=1,2$). Because the prefactors involving the real-space cumulants $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_1$, and $\sigma_2$ cancel, the ratios $a_{1|I}/a_{1|3}$ and $a_{2|I}/a_{2|3}$ depend only on the single parameter $\lambda^2=\sigma^2_{1\parallel}/\sigma^2_{1\perp}$, which is itself a rational function of $\beta=f/b$. Thus the diagonal ratios isolate $\beta$ from all other cosmological parameters. The paper further argues that these ratios should be measured from the matrix elements directly rather than from the eigenvalues of the tensors, because eigenvalue ratios acquire a noise-induced bias in the isotropic limit that is not under analytic control.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the redshift-space density field is exactly Gaussian with the linear Kaiser power spectrum in the distant-observer limit; if non-Gaussian velocity effects or wide-angle geometry are significant, the analytic formulas do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxy surveys can use $\Theta_{1|I}$ and $\Theta_{2|I}$ as cosmological observables that isolate $\beta=f/b$ without needing to know the clustering amplitude or bias separately.
  • $W^{0,2}_1$ is the more powerful of the two statistics: a one percent measurement of its diagonal ratio yields roughly a four percent constraint on $\beta$, while the same accuracy in $W^{0,2}_2$ yields about a ten percent constraint.
  • Matrix elements, not eigenvalues, should be used for parameter estimation when the anisotropy direction is known; eigenvalue ratios can masquerade as anisotropy in an isotropic field purely from statistical noise.
  • The analytic predictions hold only for linear distortions in the distant-observer limit; extending them to non-Gaussian or wide-angle regimes requires corrections beyond this work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ratio method is as clean as claimed, it could be applied to other anisotropic signals with a known direction, such as intrinsic alignments or survey window functions, by measuring diagonal ratios of Minkowski tensors in a coordinate system aligned with that direction.
  • The eigenvalue caveat suggests a general test for any shape statistic defined through eigen-decompositions: check whether its expectation value in an isotropic field with finite noise differs from the isotropic signal, since a nonzero offset would mimic anisotropy.
  • The same derivation chain could produce analogous ratios for higher-rank Minkowski tensors or for translation-covariant tensors, potentially giving additional independent constraints on $\beta$ from the same survey data.
  • Comparing the Gaussian prediction with ratios measured from simulations that include gravitational non-Gaussianity would map the scale and smoothing range where the $\beta$-only dependence survives, which is a testable extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives ensemble-averaged values for the translation-invariant rank-2 Minkowski tensors W_1^{0,2} and W_2^{0,2} for a three-dimensional Gaussian random field subject to linear Kaiser redshift-space distortion. Section II reviews the isotropic real-space calculation; Section III generalizes it to a field with line-of-sight-dependent cumulants, obtaining diagonal but unequal expectation values (Eqs. (28)-(29), (39)-(40)) and the amplitude coefficients (46)-(49). The ratios Theta_{1|I} and Theta_{2|I} of perpendicular and parallel amplitudes are shown to depend only on beta=f/b. Section IV validates the analytic predictions against 100 numerical Gaussian realizations with agreement better than about 1%, and Section V argues for using the matrix elements rather than eigenvalue ratios for cosmological parameter estimation.

Significance. The paper provides closed-form, parameter-free (given beta) predictions for Minkowski-tensor amplitudes in redshift space, and the cancellation of all cosmological parameters except beta in the ratios is a strong and useful feature. The numerical confirmation of the analytic results at sub-percent level is a genuine external check and strengthens confidence in the derivation. The clear statement of the linear-Kaiser/Gaussian scope is appropriate, and the comparison of matrix-element versus eigenvalue statistics is a useful practical contribution. If the threshold normalization ambiguity is resolved, these results constitute a practical tool for extracting redshift-space distortion constraints from morphological statistics of galaxy surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (27)] The threshold variable nu is defined in Section II as nu = delta_c/sigma_0, but in Section III the field is renormalized as x = delta/sigma with sigma^2 = A_0 sigma_0^2, and Eq. (27) writes delta_D(x-nu) without redefining nu. Consistency requires nu = delta_c/sigma, using the redshift-space variance, not delta_c/sigma_0. As written, the predicted curves W_i(nu) in Eqs. (28)-(29) and (39)-(40) are expressed in ambiguous threshold units; a reader adopting the Section II definition would obtain incorrect absolute predictions. The ratios (51)-(52) are not affected because the sigma-dependent prefactors cancel, but the central formulas (46)-(49) and their derivation are only unambiguous once the threshold redefinition is stated. Please add an explicit one-sentence redefinition of nu after Eq. (23) and use it consistently throughout.
  2. [Section IV, numerical analysis] The numerical validation does not state which variance is used to normalize the threshold when comparing the anisotropic-field measurements with the analytic curves. The reported agreement below 1% suggests that the redshift-space variance sigma_s was used, but this must be stated explicitly for the test to be reproducible. If instead the real-space sigma_0 were used to set nu, the amplitudes extracted via Eqs. (54)-(55) would be rescaled by (sigma_s/sigma_0)^n relative to Eqs. (46)-(49), and the comparison with the analytic predictions would not be meaningful. Please specify the variance normalization used for the threshold in both the isotropic and anisotropic fields.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] There is a typo in the introduction: 'Minkowki' should be 'Minkowski'.
  2. [Section III, after Eq. (23)] It would help the reader to denote the redshift-space variance explicitly, for example sigma_s^2 = A_0 sigma_0^2, so that it is clearly distinguished from the real-space sigma_0 throughout.
  3. [Section IV, Figure 1] Please specify the orientation of the box and the line-of-sight axis used in the numerical simulations, since the analytic results are only valid when the line of sight is aligned with one coordinate axis.
  4. [Section IV, Eqs. (57)-(58)] The term 'optimistically' is appropriate for the single-parameter Fisher-type bound, but it would be useful to state explicitly that this forecast assumes no other nuisance parameters and ignores any residual correlation between the amplitude estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the redshift-space Minkowski tensor predictions are derived from the stated Gaussian/Kaiser model and tested against independent simulations.

full rationale

The central result (Eqs. 46-49) is obtained by direct analytic integration of the Gaussian probability functional with the linearly redshift-space-distorted cumulants (Eqs. 23-25). The A factors are fixed by the Kaiser-model power spectrum P_s(k) = (1+β μ^2)^2 P(k), not fitted to the Minkowski-tensor outputs; no parameter is calibrated from the quantities being predicted. The ratios Θ1|I and Θ2|I are formed after deriving the amplitudes, and the cancellation of the σ prefactors follows algebraically, so the β-only dependence is a consequence rather than an input. The numerical simulations in Sec. IV serve as an independent test of the formulas, and the self-citations (e.g., ref. [50] for numerical reconstruction and refs. [49,50] for the isotropic expectation values) are not load-bearing: the isotropic case is re-derived in Sec. II A from the Gaussian probability distribution, and the reconstruction method is used only to validate, not to define, the prediction. There is therefore no step in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to an unverified self-citation. The ν-normalization ambiguity noted by a skeptical reader (whether ν is δc/σ0 or δc/σ after the redefinition x = δ/σ in Sec. III) is a potential correctness/application issue, but it is not circularity: it does not make Eqs. (46-49) identical to any input assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies only on standard Gaussian random field theory, the linear Kaiser model, and the mathematical definition of Minkowski tensors. No new entities are introduced, and there are no free parameters fitted to data. The only model parameter is β, which is the target of the proposed measurement.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The matter density field is a Gaussian random field with a given power spectrum P(k).
    Used throughout Sections II and III to define the joint probability distribution of the field and its derivatives, and to compute ensemble averages.
  • domain assumption Linear Kaiser redshift-space distortion in the plane-parallel limit: δ_s(k) = (1+β μ²) δ_r(k), with β = f/b.
    Invoked in Section III around eq. (19) to model the anisotropic power spectrum and to derive the modified cumulants (eqs. 23-25).
  • domain assumption The Minkowski tensor statistics of the redshift-space field can be computed from the field and its derivatives in redshift-space coordinates using the standard Gaussian random field formalism.
    This is the basis of the calculation of the ensemble averages; it assumes the iso-density surfaces are defined by the redshift-space field and the coarea formula applies.
  • standard math The coarea formula / integral transformation (eq. 6) relating surface integrals to volume integrals with a delta function.
    Used to convert the surface integrals defining W1 and W2 into volume integrals over the Gaussian variables.
  • domain assumption Statistical homogeneity and ergodicity of the field, so the volume average equals the ensemble average.
    Used to cancel the volume factor V in the ensemble averages and to compare with simulation measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ensemble Average of Three-Dimensional Minkowski Tensors of a Gaussian Random Field in Redshift Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CYDVW6M6

@misc{pith2026190802440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ensemble Average of Three-Dimensional Minkowski Tensors of a Gaussian Random Field in Redshift Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CYDVW6M6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02440}
}
abstract

We present the ensemble expectation values for the translation invariant, rank-2 Minkowski tensors in three-dimensions, for a linearly redshift space distorted Gaussian random field. The Minkowski tensors $W^{0,2}_{1}$, $W^{0,2}_{2}$ are sensitive to global anisotropic signals present within a field, and by extracting these statistics from the low redshift matter density one can place constraints on the redshift space distortion parameter $\beta = f/b$. We begin by reviewing the calculation of the ensemble expectation values $\langle W^{0,2}_{1} \rangle$, $\langle W^{0,2}_{2} \rangle $ for isotropic, Gaussian random fields, then consider how these results are modified by the presence of a linearly anisotropic signal. Under the assumption that all fields remain Gaussian, we calculate the anisotropic correction due to redshift space distortion in a coordinate system aligned with the line of sight, finding inequality between the diagonal elements of $\langle W^{0,2}_{1} \rangle $, $\langle W^{0,2}_{2} \rangle $. The ratio of diagonal elements of these matrices provides a set of statistics that are sensitive only to the redshift space distortion parameter $\beta$. We estimate the Fisher information that can be extracted from the Minkowski tensors, and find $W^{0,2}_{1}$ is more sensitive to $\beta$ than $W^{0,2}_{2}$, and a measurement of $W^{0,2}_{1}$ accurate to $\sim 1\%$ can yield a $\sim 4\%$ constraint on $\beta$. Finally, we discuss the difference between using the matrix elements of the Minkowski tensors directly against measuring the eigenvalues. For the purposes of cosmological parameter estimation we advocate the use of the matrix elements, to avoid spurious anisotropic signals that can be generated by the eigenvalue decomposition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: [Top panel] The diagonal components of the Minkowski tensors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The fractional 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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

  1. Testing Statistical Isotropy on the Sphere with Minkowski Tensors

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Connected-patch orientation correlations ξ±(θ,ν) give a coordinate-independent test of statistical isotropy on the sphere and separate global from local alignment in sheared random fields, while dipole modulation leav...

  2. Cosmological constraints from the Minkowski functionals of the BOSS CMASS galaxy sample

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A simulation-based emulator of Minkowski functionals applied to BOSS CMASS galaxies yields cosmological constraints from both Gaussian and non-Gaussian information, tighter than the 2PCF alone.

  3. Probing massive neutrinos and modified gravity with redshift-space morphologies and anisotropies of large-scale structure

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a dark-matter-only simulation forecast, combining power spectrum multipoles with Minkowski functionals and tensors tightens constraints on neutrino mass and f(R) gravity parameters by factors of 1.5 to 3.4.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Hadwiger, Vorlesungen ber Inhalt, Oberflche und Isoperimetriee (Springer, Grundlehren der mathematis- chen Wissenschaften, 1957)

    H. Hadwiger, Vorlesungen ber Inhalt, Oberflche und Isoperimetriee (Springer, Grundlehren der mathematis- chen Wissenschaften, 1957)

    work page 1957

  2. [2]

    Matheron, Random sets and integral geometry (Wiley New York, 1974)

    G. Matheron, Random sets and integral geometry (Wiley New York, 1974)

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    (14) The isotropy of the field has manifested as ⟨W 0,2 1 ⟩ being proportional to the identity matrix – all diagonal ele- ments are equal

    = σ1 9 √ 3πσ0 e−ν2/2. (14) The isotropy of the field has manifested as ⟨W 0,2 1 ⟩ being proportional to the identity matrix – all diagonal ele- ments are equal. The integrand of⟨W 0,2 2 ⟩ contains all ten variables. To proceed, we de-correlate xii andx using the linear trans- formation 4 yii = xii +γx√ 1−γ2. (15) The mean curvatureG2 is then given in terms...

    work page

  4. [4]

    ˜M|II ˜X4 [ (x2 1 +x2 2)(1 +λ2) + 2λ2x2 3 ] , (37) ⟨W 0,2 2 |33⟩ = σ2 1⊥νe−ν2/2 72π3σ2 ∫ ∞ −∞ dx1 ∫ ∞ −∞ dx2 ∫ ∞ −∞ dx3e− 1 2(x2 1+x2 2+x2

    work page

  5. [5]

    ˜M|33 ˜X4 [ (x2 1 +x2 2)(1 +λ2) + 2λ2x2 3 ] . (38) The integrals admit analytic solutions ⟨W 0,2 2 |II⟩ = σ2 1⊥ 72π √ 2πσ2 [ (λ2− 2)(λ2− 1)1/2 +λ4 tan−1√ λ2− 1 ] (λ2− 1)3/2 νe−ν2/2, (39) ⟨W 0,2 2 |33⟩ = σ2 1⊥ 36π √ 2πσ2 λ2[ (λ2− 1)1/2 + (λ2− 2) tan−1√ λ2− 1 ] (λ2− 1)3/2 νe−ν2/2, (40) ⟨W 0,2 2 |IJ⟩ = ⟨W 0,2 2 |I3⟩ = 0. (41) In the isotropic limit, β → 0, λ...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    D. Hug, R. Schneider, and R. Schuster, St. Petersburg Math. J. 19, 137 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    McMullen, Rend

    P. McMullen, Rend. Circ. Palermo 50, 259 (1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Alesker, Geometriae Dedicata 74, 241 (1999)

    S. Alesker, Geometriae Dedicata 74, 241 (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Beisbart, R

    C. Beisbart, R. Dahlke, K. Mecke, and H. Wagner, in Morphology of Condensed Matter (2002), vol. 600 of Lec- ture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag , pp. 238– 260

    2002

  2. [10]

    L. A. Santalo, Integral geometry and geometric probabil- ity (Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Advanced Book Program Reading, Mass, 1976)

    1976

  3. [11]

    G. E. Schroder-Turk, W. Mickel, S. C. Kapfer, F. M. Schaller, B. Breidenbach, D. Hug, and K. Mecke, New Journal of Physics 15, 083028 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Schroder-Turk, S

    G. Schroder-Turk, S. Kapfer, B. Breidenback, C. Beis- bart, and K. Mecke, Journal of Microscopy 238, 57 (2010), ISSN 1365-2818

    2010

  5. [13]

    Beisbart, T

    C. Beisbart, T. Buchert, and H. Wagner, Physica A293, 592 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    A. G. Doroshkevich, Astrophysics 6, 320 (1970)

    1970

  7. [15]

    Rehse, K

    S. Rehse, K. Mecke, and R. Magerle, Phys. Rev. E 77, 051805 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    J. C. Becker, G. Gr¨ un, R. Seemann, H. Mantz, K. Jacobs, K. R. Mecke, and R. Blossey, Nature Materials 2, 59 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Olszowka, M

    V. Olszowka, M. Hund, V. Kuntermann, S. Scherdel, L. Tsarkova, A. Boker, and G. Krausch, Soft Matter 2, 1089 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    B. S. Ryden, A. L. Melott, D. A. Craig, J. R. Gott, D. H. Weinberg, R. J. Scherrer, S. P. Bhavsar, and J. M. Miller, ApJ. 340, 647 (1989)

    1989

  11. [19]

    Adler, The Geometry of Random Fields (Wiley, 1981)

    R. Adler, The Geometry of Random Fields (Wiley, 1981)

    1981

  12. [20]

    J. S. A. Hamilton, J. R. Gott, and D. Weinberg, ApJ. 309, 1 (1986)

    1986

  13. [21]

    J. R. Gott, M. Dickinson, and A. L. Melott, ApJ. 306, 341 (1986)

    1986

  14. [22]

    Park and J

    C. Park and J. R. Gott, ApJ. 378, 457 (1991)

    1991

  15. [23]

    J. R. Gott, III, J. Miller, T. X. Thuan, S. E. Schnei- der, D. H. Weinberg, C. Gammie, K. Polk, M. Vogeley, S. Jeffrey, S. P. Bhavsar, et al., ApJ. 340, 625 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    A. L. Melott, A. P. Cohen, A. J. S. Hamilton, J. R. Gott, and D. H. Weinberg, ApJ. 345, 618 (1989)

    1989

  17. [25]

    C. Park, J. R. Gott, A. L. Melott, and I. D. Karachentsev, ApJ. 387, 1 (1992)

    1992

  18. [26]

    J. R. I. Gott, D. C. Hambrick, M. S. Vogeley, J. Kim, C. Park, Y.-Y. Choi, R. Cen, and J. P. Ostriker, ApJ. 675, 16 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Matsubara (1994), astro-ph/9501076

    T. Matsubara (1994), astro-ph/9501076

    1994 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Matsubara, ApJ

    T. Matsubara, ApJ. 457, 13 (1996)

    1996

  21. [29]

    Schmalzing, M

    J. Schmalzing, M. Kerscher, and T. Buchert, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi 132, 281 (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    Appleby, C

    S. Appleby, C. Park, S. E. Hong, and J. Kim, ApJ. 836, 45 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    J. R. Gott, Y.-Y. Choi, C. Park, and J. Kim (SDSS), ApJ. 695, L45 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    W. N. Colley, J. R. G. III, D. H. Weinberg, C. Park, and A. A. Berlind, ApJ. 529, 795 (2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    C. Park, J. Kim, and J. R. Gott, ApJ. 633, 1 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Park and Y.-R

    C. Park and Y.-R. Kim, ApJ. 715, L185 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Appleby, C

    S. Appleby, C. Park, S. E. Hong, and J. Kim, ApJ. 853, 17 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Chingangbam and C

    P. Chingangbam and C. Park, JCAP 1302, 031 (2013), 1210.2250

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y.-Y. Choi, C. Park, J. Kim, J. R. Gott, D. H. Weinberg, M. S. Vogeley, and S. S. Kim, ApJS. 190, 181 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    J. R. Gott, D. H. Weinberg, and A. L. Melott, ApJ. 319, 1 (1987)

    1987

  31. [39]

    Matsubara, ApJ

    T. Matsubara, ApJ. 434, L43 (1994)

    1994

  32. [40]

    Matsubara and Y

    T. Matsubara and Y. Suto, ApJ. 460, 51 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Schmalzing and T

    J. Schmalzing and T. Buchert, ApJ 482, L1 (1997)

    1997

  34. [42]

    Matsubara (2000), astro-ph/0006269

    T. Matsubara (2000), astro-ph/0006269

    2000 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D. H. Weinberg, J. R. Gott, and A. L. Melott, ApJ. 321, 2 (1987)

    1987

  36. [44]

    A. L. Melott, D. H. Weinberg, and J. R. Gott, ApJ. 328, 50 (1988)

    1988

  37. [45]

    Matsubara and J

    T. Matsubara and J. Yokoyama, ApJ. 463, 409 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Codis, C

    S. Codis, C. Pichon, D. Pogosyan, F. Bernardeau, and T. Matsubara, MNRAS 435, 531 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Hikage, P

    C. Hikage, P. Coles, M. Grossi, L. Moscardini, K. Dolag, E. Branchini, and S. Matarrese, MNRAS 385, 1613 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Pogosyan, C

    D. Pogosyan, C. Gay, and C. Pichon, Phys. Rev. D80, 081301 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    C. Gay, C. Pichon, and D. Pogosyan, Phys. Rev. D85, 023011 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Appleby, P

    S. Appleby, P. Chingangbam, C. Park, K. P. Yogendran, and P. K. Joby, ApJ. 863, 200 (2018). 14

    2018

  43. [51]

    Beisbart, R

    C. Beisbart, R. Valdarnini, and T. Buchert, Astron. As- trophys. 379, 412 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    Ganesan and P

    V. Ganesan and P. Chingangbam, JCAP 1706, 023 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Chingangbam, K

    P. Chingangbam, K. P. Yogendran, J. P. K., V. Ganesan, S. Appleby, and C. Park, JCAP 1712, 023 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Kapahtia, P

    A. Kapahtia, P. Chingangbam, and S. Appleby (2019), 1904.06840

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Appleby, P

    S. Appleby, P. Chingangbam, C. Park, S. E. Hong, J. Kim, and V. Ganesan, ApJ. 858, 87 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    P. K. Joby, P. Chingangbam, T. Ghosh, V. Ganesan, and C. D. Ravikumar, JCAP 1901, 009 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    The redshift space distortion creates a coherent anisotropy parallel to the line of sight

    and measurements of multipoles in the void-galaxy cross-correlation function [58] . The redshift space distortion creates a coherent anisotropy parallel to the line of sight. As the Minkowski tensors are particularly sensitive to anisotropic signals, by extracting these statis...

  50. [58]

    Kapahtia, P

    A. Kapahtia, P. Chingangbam, S. Appleby, and C. Park, JCAP 1810, 011 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Kaiser, MNRAS 227, 1 (1987)

    N. Kaiser, MNRAS 227, 1 (1987)

    1987

  52. [60]

    J. C. Jackson, MNRAS 156, 1P (1972)

    1972

  53. [61]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), MNRAS 470, 2617 (2017), 1607.03155

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hamaus, M.-C

    N. Hamaus, M.-C. Cousinou, A. Pisani, M. Aubert, S. Escoffier, and J. Weller, JCAP 1707, 014 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Schmalzing and K

    J. Schmalzing and K. M. Gorski, MNRAS 297, 355 (1998)

    1998

  56. [64]

    Goyal et al., In prep

    P. Goyal et al., In prep. (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Park, MNRAS 319, 573 (2000)

    C. Park, MNRAS 319, 573 (2000)

    2000

  58. [66]

    Park and C

    C.-G. Park and C. Park, ApJ 637, 1 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Szalay, ApJ. 304, 15 (1986)

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.