Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field ${\rm I}$: 1-Loop Corrections involving Second-Order Densities

William Ortol\'a Leonard; Zachary Slepian

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field ${\rm I}$: 1-Loop Corrections involving Second-Order Densities

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the first analytic non-Gaussian template for the covariance of the 4-point correlation function.

desk verdict First non-Gaussian 4PCF covariance template, but the W(2) kernel in Appendix A carries a factor-(2j+1) normalization error that invalidates the printed non-Gaussian coefficients. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05419 v1 pith:GXATX7LP submitted 2025-09-05 astro-ph.CO

William Ortolá Leonard , Zachary Slepian This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords 4-pointcorrelationfunctioncovariancematrixstandardperturbationtheorysecond-orderdensitycontrastgalaxybiasisotropicbasisfunctionsloopcorrectionslarge-scalestructure

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

The paper aims to replace the Gaussian-random-field covariance of the 4-point correlation function (4PCF) with a non-Gaussian, 1-loop template built from second-order density perturbations and second-order galaxy bias. It claims this is the first such calculation. The payoff would be error bars on 4PCF measurements---both parity-even and parity-odd---that reflect nonlinear mode coupling, which becomes non-negligible near $k \gtrsim 0.1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. The central reduction turns high-dimensional integrals into angular integrals over isotropic basis functions plus low-dimensional radial integrals, so the final templates are meant to be usable in practice. A companion paper extends the treatment to third-order densities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized second-order kernel $W^{(2)}$, which unifies the standard $F^{(2)}$ kernel of SPT, the unit kernel of $\delta_{\mathrm{lin}}^2$, and the tidal kernel $\tfrac{2}{3}L_2$ into one expression with coefficients $c^{(\mu)}_{j,n}$. Alongside it, the calculation relies on the isotropic basis functions, the Gaunt-type integration coefficients $G$, $H$, and $J$ of Appendix B, the rotation-averaged coefficients $Q$ of Appendix C, and the mixed-space splitting $\omega$ of Appendix D. These identities convert the high-dimensional angular integrals into products of one-dimensional radial integrals $g$ and $f$, coupled only through a single line-of-sight separation $s$; the final expressions are sums over angular momenta of these radial pieces times Legendre polynomials in the two tetrahedron orientations.

What would settle it

Pick a low angular momentum sector (say $L\le 4$), evaluate the left-hand side of Eq. (B.5) or (B.6) by direct numerical angular quadrature, and compare with the closed-form $G$/$H$/$J$ expression; any mismatch invalidates the corresponding template. Alternatively, set all second-order kernels to zero and check that the five-template covariance reduces to the Gaussian covariance of [8], a limit the paper does not demonstrate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, within standard perturbation theory at second order in the linear density field and with a second-order Eulerian bias expansion, every 1-loop contribution to the connected 4PCF covariance falls into one of five Wick-contraction configurations---three fully connected and two partially connected---and each can be written in closed angular form as Eqs. (3.14), (3.21), (3.27), (3.36), and (3.43). The full covariance is assembled by mapping any contraction to one of these universal templates, with all second-order density types ($\delta^{(2)}$, $\delta_{\mathrm{lin}}^2$, and the tidal term $S^{(2)}$) absorbed into a single generalized kernel $W^{(2)}$; substituting the appropriate kernel coefficients then gives the covariance for matter or biased galaxies. The angular parts of every integral are performed analytically, leaving only products of radial integrals $g$ and $f$ over a single loop separation $s$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reduction depends on the angular-momentum identities in Appendices B--D---the Gaunt-based coefficients $G$, $H$, $J$, the mixed-space splitting $\omega$, and the rotation-averaged $Q$---being algebraically correct; a sign or 3j-phase error anywhere propagates into every final template.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All 1-loop contractions of second-order densities are exhausted by five templates, so any future calculation can match contractions to a template and substitute the appropriate $W^{(2)}$ coefficients rather than redo the angular algebra.
The covariance's angular dependence separates into two Legendre factors $P_\Lambda$ and $P_{\Lambda'}$ in the two tetrahedron orientations, with all scale dependence carried by radial integrals that can be precomputed.
The Gaussian (disconnected) covariance is recovered as the leading piece, with the new terms supplying the next-to-leading-order correction relevant for 4PCF analyses around $k \sim 0.1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$.
By choosing the coefficients $c^{(\mu)}_{j,n}$, the same templates give the covariance for the matter density, the squared density, or the tidal field, and for galaxies with second-order bias.
The companion paper on third-order densities completes the 1-loop covariance, making the full analytic template available for survey analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension follows from the paper's logic: the same five-template reduction should hold for any second-order kernel expressible in the $W^{(2)}$ form, so redshift-space or effective-field-theory kernels could be inserted without re-deriving the angular identities.
If the Appendix B--D identities are correct, the same Gaunt-based technology may also simplify covariances of higher-order $N$-point functions, since the same angular bottleneck appears there.
The practical numerical cost of the final expressions sits in the radial integrals $g$ and $f$; the paper's plots suggest these have sharp rectangular boundaries that may admit analytic evaluation for power-law spectra, as prior work on such integrals indicates.
The paper states that the non-Gaussian corrections become non-negligible near $k\approx0.1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ and lists numerical validation against $N$-body simulations as future work, so the template's domain of validity is not yet established by the paper itself.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Hi [Name],

Short version: this is the first non-Gaussian 4PCF covariance template, and the five-diagram decomposition is a real structural contribution. But there is a load-bearing normalization problem in the W(2) kernel. Appendix A.4 defines W(2) = 4π Σ c_j,n D_j Σ_m Y_jm Y*_jm q1^n q2^{-n}, with D_j = (-1)^j / sqrt(2j+1). Since Σ_m Y_jm Y*_jm = (2j+1)/(4π) L_j, the j=2 coefficient in F2 becomes 5 c_2,0 D_2 = 20/21, not the 4/21 required by the standard kernel in Eq. (A.2). The j=1 terms are off by factor 3, and S(2) is off by factor 5. Only the j=0 piece (δ^2_lin) is consistent. Every final template in §3 is built from these c sums, so the printed non-Gaussian results are wrong as they stand. This is not a missing validation; it is an internal inconsistency in the paper's own equations.

Credit where due: the decomposition into three fully-connected and two partially-connected configurations is a genuine advance, and reducing the angular integrals to radial g and f integrals using the isotropic basis is a large amount of careful algebra. Appendix E's handling of the connected covariance subtraction is thoughtful and likely correct. The paper also avoids overclaiming numerical readiness, instead flagging validation for the companion paper.

The other soft spots are minor by comparison: the permutation count in the half-half section is garbled (Eq. (3.16) says ‘89 perms’ but footnote 3 gives 90 total, and the text says ‘other 35’), and the ‘All’ sums are left implicit, which makes independent verification painful. There is no numerical check, no recovery of a known limit, and no mock comparison.

Bottom line: I would send this to a serious referee. The flaw is concrete and fixable, and the framework is worth engaging with. But I would not use the templates as printed, and I would not cite this version. Ask the authors to correct the W(2) normalization, clean up the permutation counts, and provide at least one sanity check—e.g., a low-multipole comparison to the Gaussian covariance of Hou et al. or an N-body covariance.

Best, [Name]

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives analytical templates for the 1-loop, non-Gaussian contribution to the covariance of the connected 4-point correlation function (4PCF), using second-order density contrasts and a second-order galaxy bias expansion. The calculation is organized into five Wick-contraction configurations (primary–secondary, half–half, primary–primary, PC–primary–secondary, PC–half–half), and each is reduced using the isotropic basis functions of Cahn & Slepian to products of angular-momentum coefficients and low-dimensional radial integrals g and f. The final expressions are Eqs. (3.14), (3.21), (3.27), (3.36), and (3.43). The paper claims to provide the first non-Gaussian 4PCF covariance template, with numerical validation deferred to a companion paper.

Significance. If correct, the result would be a valuable new tool for 4PCF analyses, including parity-odd statistics, and would extend the Gaussian covariance framework of Hou et al. to include nonlinear mode coupling and biasing. The paper is systematic and clearly organized: it introduces a unified second-order kernel W^(2), gives explicit angular-momentum machinery in Appendices B–D, and presents illustrative plots of the radial integrals. These are genuine strengths. However, the central derivation currently contains a normalization inconsistency in the defining kernel W^(2), and the manuscript provides no numerical or limit-based verification of the final templates. Because the error affects every final equation, the central claim as stated is not presently supported.

major comments (2)

[§A.4, Eq. (A.7)] Equation (A.7) is internally inconsistent with Eq. (A.2). Expanding the second equality of (A.7) using the addition theorem sum_m Y_jm(qhat1)Y*_jm(qhat2) = (2j+1)/(4pi) L_j(qhat1·qhat2) gives W^(2)_mu = sum_{j,n} c^(mu)_{j,n} (-1)^j sqrt(2j+1) L_j(qhat1·qhat2) q1^n q2^{-n}. Inserting the stated c^(F) values yields a j=2 coefficient of (4sqrt(5)/21)*sqrt(5) = 20/21 and a j=1 coefficient of 3/2 (q1/q2+q2/q1), whereas Eq. (A.2) requires 4/21 and 1/2, respectively. For S^(2), c^(0)_{2,0}=2sqrt(5)/3 gives (10/3)L_2 instead of (2/3)L_2. Thus the kernel expansion does not reproduce the second-order SPT, tidal, or bias kernels it claims to encode. Since W^(2) enters every term of Eqs. (3.14), (3.21), (3.27), (3.36), and (3.43), all non-Gaussian j=1 and j=2 contributions are mis-weighted by factors of 3 and 5. This is a load-bearing error in the definition of the central object of the calculation, and it must be corrected (by fixing either the c coefficients or the D_j normalization) before the claimed templates can be accepted.
[§3 and Appendices B–D] The paper contains no numerical or symbolic verification that the final five templates are correct. In particular, there is no check that in the limit W^(2)=0 (equivalently b2=bs=0 with no second-order matter density) the expressions vanish, nor that specializing W^(2) to F^(2) reproduces known perturbation-theory results or reduces to the Gaussian covariance of Hou et al. in an appropriate limit. Given the complexity of the Gaunt/3j identities in Appendices B–D and the rotation-averaged Q coefficients in Appendix C, even one targeted validation—for example, numerically evaluating a single S integral against direct quadrature, or evaluating the W^(2) expansion for the F^(2) case—would substantially increase confidence. The absence of any such check is especially consequential here because the normalization inconsistency in Eq. (A.7) is exactly the kind of error such a check would have caught.

minor comments (4)

[Footnote 3 and Eq. (3.16)] In Eq. (3.16), the text says '+89 perms.' and the footnote correctly counts 90 total permutations, but the footnote text says 'other 35 combinations'; this should read 'other 89 combinations.'
[Eq. (3.22)] In the definition of S for the half–half configuration, the argument of the second g-factor is written as g^{[0]}_{L2,L'2,L2s}(r2,r'_1,s); from the structure of the other terms and from Eq. (3.17), this should be (r2,r'_2,s).
[Eq. (3.28)] In the primary–primary radial integral S, two arguments appear to be inconsistent: g^{[-n]}_{L3,L'3,L3s}(r3,r3,s) should likely be (r3,r'_3,s), and g^{[-n-n']}_{L02,L'02,L2qs}(r2,r'_2,s) should likely be (r0,r'_0,s) to match Eqs. (3.25)–(3.26).
[Eq. (3.36)] In the PC–primary–secondary result, the fourth factor on the second line is written as wLk1,L10 bGL10,L10,j; based on the pattern of the preceding terms, this should involve the primed indices, e.g., wL'k'_2,L'20 bGL'20,L'20,j'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained and the cited prior work supplies mathematical infrastructure, not the target result.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to data, does not rename an empirical pattern as a prediction, and does not assume its target covariance result at the start. The central object W^(2) in Eq. (A.7) is a repackaging of the standard SPT kernels F2, delta_lin^2, and S^(2) with explicitly stated coefficients; the covariance templates in Eqs. (3.14), (3.21), (3.27), (3.36), and (3.43) are obtained by Wick contractions, angular-momentum identities, and radial integral reduction. The cited works [3] and [13] are self-citations involving coauthor Slepian, but they are used for spherical-harmonic basis identities, plane-wave expansion coefficients, and the known expansion of the second-order SPT kernel; these are mathematical/standard perturbative inputs that do not encode the 4PCF covariance result. The derivation is shown in the appendices, with the reduction from high-dimensional integrals to radial integrals carried by Gaunt-based coefficients, rotation averages, and basis splitting identities. Even if the normalization of the W^(2) coefficients flagged by the skeptic were wrong, that would be an internal algebraic correctness issue, not circularity: the output would be incorrect, but it would not reduce by construction to the input. The paper is self-contained against external SPT kernels and the linear power spectrum, and the 'prediction' is an analytic expression rather than a fitted quantity, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The template rests on standard SPT and bias assumptions, on Gaussianity of the linear field, and on the basis-function infrastructure from prior work. No new physical entity is introduced: W^(2) is a bookkeeping kernel that unifies the known F^(2), squared-density, and tidal kernels. The main unvalidated ingredient is the correctness of the angular-momentum identities in Appendices B through D.

free parameters (3)

b1
Linear galaxy bias coefficient, retained symbolically in Eq. (2.3); not fitted or constrained in this paper.
b2
Second-order galaxy bias coefficient from Eq. (2.3); not fitted in this paper.
bs
Tidal bias coefficient from Eq. (2.3); not fitted in this paper.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Eulerian bias expansion delta_g = b1 delta_m + (b2/2) delta_m^2 + bs S^(2), truncated at second order.
Eq. (2.3) and surrounding text; higher-order bias terms are neglected without a stated validity test for the scales of interest.
domain assumption SPT expansion delta_m = delta_lin + delta^(2) + O(delta_lin^3), with third-order and higher matter terms dropped.
Eq. (2.4); the authors explicitly defer third-order densities to the companion paper [14].
domain assumption The linear density field is Gaussian, so Wick's theorem contracts products of linear fields in all possible pairings.
Used throughout Section 3 to reduce ensemble averages to products of the linear power spectrum.
domain assumption The large-volume hierarchy r_c^3/V selects only the five connected diagrams included in the final covariance.
Appendix E, Eqs. (E.3) through (E.8); relies on survey volume much larger than the correlation volume.
standard math Isotropic basis functions, plane-wave expansion coefficients C and Upsilon, and Gaunt integral identities from Cahn and Slepian and from Ortola Leonard et al. are correct and complete.
These identities are the engine of Appendices B through D and are imported from [3] and [13].
domain assumption The linear matter power spectrum P_lin(k) is an external input.
P_lin enters the radial integrals g and f in Section 3 and is not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field ${\rm I}$: 1-Loop Corrections involving Second-Order Densities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GXATX7LP

@misc{pith2026250905419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field $\rm I$: 1-Loop Corrections involving Second-Order Densities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GXATX7LP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05419}
}

read the original abstract

Analytical templates for the covariance matrix of the 4-Point Correlation Function (4PCF) have been developed in the past assuming a Gaussian Random Field (GRF). In this work, we present the first non-Gaussian calculation of the 4PCF covariance, incorporating 1-loop corrections using the second-order density contrast. Furthermore, we introduce a non-trivial galaxy bias scheme at second order. To simplify the calculation, we decompose the covariance into five distinct structures, and then exploit the isotropic basis functions of Cahn & Slepian (2023). This approach reduces the complexity of the high-dimensional integrals naively involved, enabling the angular parts to be performed and leaving us with low-dimensional radial integrals. This analytical template will provide a more accurate characterization of the statistical errors on the 4PCF, improving both the parity-odd and parity-even analyses. This is the first paper in a two-part series.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Large-scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory,

Bernardeau F., et al., "Large-scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory," Physics Reports, Sept. 2002

2002
[2]

Non-Gaussian covariance of the matter power spectrum in the effective field theory of large scale structure,

Bertolini D., et al., "Non-Gaussian covariance of the matter power spectrum in the effective field theory of large scale structure," PRD, June 2016

2016
[3]

Isotropic N-point basis functions and their properties,

Cahn R. N., Slepian Z., "Isotropic N-point basis functions and their properties," J. Phys. A Math. Gen., Aug. 2023

2023
[4]

Test for Cosmological Parity Violation Using the 3D Distribution of Galaxies,

Cahn R. N., Slepian Z., Hou J., "Test for Cosmological Parity Violation Using the 3D Distribution of Galaxies," PRL, Volume 130, Issue 20, article id.201002, May 2023

2023
[5]

Triple-spherical Bessel function integrals with exponential and Gaussian damping: towards an analytic N-point correlation function covariance model,

Chellino J., Slepian Z., "Triple-spherical Bessel function integrals with exponential and Gaussian damping: towards an analytic N-point correlation function covariance model," PRSA, Vol. 479, Issue 2276, Art. id.20230138, Aug. 2023

2023
[6]

DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars,

DESI Collaboration, et al., "DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars," arXiv e-prints 2411.12021, Nov. 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

http://dlmf.nist.gov/

DLMF, NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions. http://dlmf.nist.gov/
[8]

Analytic Gaussian covariance matrices for galaxy N -point correlation functions,

Hou J., et al., "Analytic Gaussian covariance matrices for galaxy N -point correlation functions," PRD, Aug. 2022

2022

Show all 21 references

[9]

Hou J., et al., "Measurement of parity-odd modes in the large-scale 4-point correlation function of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey twelfth data release CMASS and LOWZ galaxies," MNRAS, May 2023

2023
[10]

Study of the Connected Four-Point Correlation Function of Galaxies from DESI Data Release 1 Luminous Red Galaxy Sample,

Hou J., et al., "Study of the Connected Four-Point Correlation Function of Galaxies from DESI Data Release 1 Luminous Red Galaxy Sample," arXiv:2508.09070, Aug. 2025

2025 arXiv
[11]

A Non-Degenerate Neutrino Mass Signature in the Galaxy Bispectrum,

Kamalinejad F., Slepian Z., "A Non-Degenerate Neutrino Mass Signature in the Galaxy Bispectrum," arXiv e-prints 2011.00899, Nov. 2020

2011 arXiv
[12]

Perturbative approach to covariance matrix of the matter power spectrum,

Mohammed I., et al., "Perturbative approach to covariance matrix of the matter power spectrum," MNRAS, April 2017

2017
[13]

A Model for the Redshift-Space Galaxy 4-Point Correlation Function,

Ortolá Leonard W., Slepian Z., Hou J., "A Model for the Redshift-Space Galaxy 4-Point Correlation Function," arXiv e-prints 2402.15510, Feb. 2024

2024 arXiv
[14]

Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field II: 1-loop Corrections with Third-Order Densities,

Ortolá Leonard W., Slepian Z., "Analytical Template for the 4-Point Correlation Function Covariance Beyond the Gaussian Random Field II: 1-loop Corrections with Third-Order Densities,"In prep
[15]

A First Detection of the Connected 4-Point Correlation Function of Galaxies Using the BOSS CMASS Sample,

Philcox, O.H.E., Hou J., Slepian Z., "A First Detection of the Connected 4-Point Correlation Function of Galaxies Using the BOSS CMASS Sample," eprint arXiv:2108.01670, Aug. 2021. – 35 –

2021 arXiv
[16]

Probing parity violation with the four-point correlation function of BOSS galaxies,

Philcox, O.H.E., "Probing parity violation with the four-point correlation function of BOSS galaxies," PRD, Sept. 2022

2022
[17]

The Bispectrum as a Signature of Gravitational Instability in Redshift Space,

Scoccimarro R., et al., "The Bispectrum as a Signature of Gravitational Instability in Redshift Space," AJ, June 1999

1999
[18]

On a generating function for the isotropic basis functions and other connected results,

Slepian Z., Chellino J., Greco A., "On a generating function for the isotropic basis functions and other connected results," Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, Volume 57, Issue 50, id.505203, 32 pp., Dec. 2024

2024
[19]

Modeling the large-scale redshift-space 3-point correlation function of galaxies,

Slepian Z., Eisenstein D. J., "Modeling the large-scale redshift-space 3-point correlation function of galaxies," MNRAS, Volume 469, Issue 2, p.2059-2076, Aug. 2017

2017
[20]

Measurement of Parity-Violating Modes of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Year 1 Luminous Red Galaxies’ 4-Point Correlation Function,

Slepian Z., et al., "Measurement of Parity-Violating Modes of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Year 1 Luminous Red Galaxies’ 4-Point Correlation Function," arXiv:2508.09133, Aug. 2025

2025 arXiv
[21]

Galaxy power spectrum multipoles covariance in perturbation theory,

Wadekar D., Scoccimarro R., "Galaxy power spectrum multipoles covariance in perturbation theory," PRD, Dec. 2020. – 36 –

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Large-scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory,

Bernardeau F., et al., "Large-scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory," Physics Reports, Sept. 2002

2002

[2] [2]

Non-Gaussian covariance of the matter power spectrum in the effective field theory of large scale structure,

Bertolini D., et al., "Non-Gaussian covariance of the matter power spectrum in the effective field theory of large scale structure," PRD, June 2016

2016

[3] [3]

Isotropic N-point basis functions and their properties,

Cahn R. N., Slepian Z., "Isotropic N-point basis functions and their properties," J. Phys. A Math. Gen., Aug. 2023

2023

[4] [4]

Test for Cosmological Parity Violation Using the 3D Distribution of Galaxies,

Cahn R. N., Slepian Z., Hou J., "Test for Cosmological Parity Violation Using the 3D Distribution of Galaxies," PRL, Volume 130, Issue 20, article id.201002, May 2023

2023

[5] [5]

Triple-spherical Bessel function integrals with exponential and Gaussian damping: towards an analytic N-point correlation function covariance model,

Chellino J., Slepian Z., "Triple-spherical Bessel function integrals with exponential and Gaussian damping: towards an analytic N-point correlation function covariance model," PRSA, Vol. 479, Issue 2276, Art. id.20230138, Aug. 2023

2023

[6] [6]

DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars,

DESI Collaboration, et al., "DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars," arXiv e-prints 2411.12021, Nov. 2024

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

http://dlmf.nist.gov/

DLMF, NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions. http://dlmf.nist.gov/

[8] [8]

Analytic Gaussian covariance matrices for galaxy N -point correlation functions,

Hou J., et al., "Analytic Gaussian covariance matrices for galaxy N -point correlation functions," PRD, Aug. 2022

2022