Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Revealing a transitional epoch of large-scale cosmic anisotropy in the quasar distribution

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A million quasars trace a 12.5-sigma anisotropy confined to an intermediate cosmic epoch.

desk verdict The new entropy-dispersion probe is interesting, but the uniform-random mocks make the 12.5σ claim a measure of clustering, not cosmic anisotropy. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02835 v1 pith:QEBM3UNU submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.CO

Amit Mondal , Biswajit Pandey , Krishna Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords CosmologicalPrinciplequasardistributionRényientropydispersioncosmicanisotropylarge-scalestructureGaia-unWISEsurveyredshiftevolution
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 tests the Cosmological Principle — the assumption that the Universe looks the same in every direction on large scales — using the angular positions of more than a million quasars from the Gaia-unWISE catalogue. It applies Rényi entropy, an information-theoretic measure with an adjustable order $q$, to cumulative quasar shells and tracks how much the entropy spreads across orders as a function of comoving distance. The central claim is that the intermediate-redshift shell ($1 \le z < 2.2$) shows a scale-dependent anisotropy whose significance grows with distance, reaching $12.5\sigma$ near $5600$ Mpc, while lower and higher redshift bins agree with isotropy. The authors interpret this as a transitional epoch: structure formation built up coherent large-scale patterns that were later damped by accelerated expansion. If correct, isotropy is an emergent, epoch-dependent property rather than an eternal symmetry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized entropy dispersion $\Delta_{\rm norm}(r)$, the relative standard deviation of Rényi entropies $S_q(r)$ across $q=1,2,3,4,5$, computed from HEALPix pixel counts at each cumulative comoving radius $r$. For order $q$, $S_q(r) = (1/(1-q))\log \sum_i f_i^q$, where $f_i$ is the fraction of quasars in pixel $i$, so higher $q$ amplifies dense pixels. An isotropic angular distribution makes the entropy orders converge, while directional or non-Gaussian structure separates them; the paper reads this spread as a multiscale, higher-order clustering diagnostic. The significance ratio $\Psi(r) = (\Delta^{\rm data}_{\rm norm}(r) - \Delta^{\rm mock}_{\rm norm}(r))/\sigma^{\rm mock}_{\rm norm}(r)$ compares the observed dispersion with an ensemble of 100 randomized mocks that keep radial distances and the sky mask but randomize angular positions uniformly.

What would settle it

Run the exact pipeline on a $\Lambda$CDM light-cone mock with realistic quasar clustering, bias, redshift-space distortion, and the Gaia-unWISE selection function and angular mask: if that isotropic-by-construction mock yields $\Psi(r)$ values comparable to the observed $5$–$12.5\sigma$ in Sample 2, the null is too weak and the transitional anisotropy is an artifact of the uniform-angle assumption, whereas $\Psi \approx 0$ in the mock would leave the signal as a genuine anomaly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the angular distribution of quasars is not isotropic at every epoch. Dividing 206,505 masked Gaia-unWISE quasars ($G<20.0$) into three redshift samples, the authors compute, at each cumulative comoving radius, the spread of Rényi entropies across orders $q=1,2,3,4,5$. The intermediate sample ($1 \le z < 2.2$) deviates from an isotropic null at a level that rises monotonically with distance, reaching $\Psi \approx 12.5\sigma$ near 5600 Mpc under the standard mask and $\approx 5\sigma$ under a more conservative mask, while the low- and high-redshift samples remain consistent with isotropy. The authors conclude that this confined, scale-dependent signal is a physical imprint of a transitional epoch — the era when gravitational clustering built superclusters and filaments — whose anisotropy was later damped as accelerated expansion froze structure growth.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an isotropic quasar sky should have uniform angular positions apart from shot noise, so mocks made by shuffling angles uniformly can serve as the null — if realistic large-scale clustering and cosmic variance produce the same entropy spread, the $12.5\sigma$ signal would measure clustering rather than anisotropy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the intermediate-epoch signal is real, isotropy at large scales is an emergent property: it held in the early Universe, broke during the peak of structure formation, and returned as accelerated expansion froze growth.
  • The monotonic growth of $\Psi(r)$ with comoving radius in Sample 2 makes the anisotropy scale-dependent, tying it to Gpc-scale coherent structure rather than small-scale shot noise.
  • The same Rényi-entropy dispersion, computed for cumulative shells, can be applied to other tracers and future wide-area surveys to search for analogous transitional epochs in the matter distribution.
  • The absence of a signal at $z < 1$ is consistent with the paper's argument that dark energy began suppressing structure growth around $z \approx 1$, before it dominates the energy budget near $z \approx 0.3$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the null hypothesis of uniform random angles is far too simple for a $\Lambda$CDM sky; the decisive next test is the same pipeline on a light-cone simulation with realistic quasar clustering, bias, and selection, which is isotropic by construction.
  • Editorial extension: the redshift bins are chosen a priori, so a sliding-window redshift scan could map the onset and decay of the anisotropy and compare its shape with the nonlinear growth rate of structure.
  • Editorial extension: if the signal is physical, the direction of maximum entropy dispersion in Sample 2 should correlate with known large-scale structures or with the preferred directions reported from quasar dipole measurements.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses Rényi entropy of order q = 1–5 to analyze the angular distribution of cumulative quasar samples from the Gaia-unWISE catalogue in three redshift bins (0.36 ≤ z < 1, 1 ≤ z < 2.2, 2.2 ≤ z ≤ 2.8). It defines a normalized entropy dispersion Δ_norm(r) and a significance ratio Ψ(r) that compares the data with angular-randomized mock catalogues preserving only the radial distances. The authors report that the intermediate-redshift bin shows a scale-dependent excess reaching Ψ ≈ 12.5σ near 5600 Mpc, while the other bins are consistent with isotropy, and they interpret this as evidence for a transitional epoch of large-scale anisotropy. Robustness checks at Nside = 64, under two masks, and mock-convergence tests are also presented.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, it would be an important challenge to the Cosmological Principle and would motivate new entropy-based probes of the quasar sky. The paper makes its data and code publicly available and performs several mask/resolution robustness tests, which are commendable. However, the reported significance is computed against mocks that remove all angular clustering and cosmic variance, so the excess is expected even for a statistically isotropic ΛCDM universe; the result as presented does not establish anisotropy. The central claim therefore currently lacks a valid statistical null, and the quoted significance cannot be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods: Generating isotropic mock realizations; Eq. (6)] The null hypothesis in Eq. (6) is built from mock realizations in which angular coordinates are drawn uniformly over the masked sky while radial distances are preserved. Such mocks contain no angular clustering and no cosmic variance. A statistically isotropic ΛCDM quasar sky is not uniform: quasars are strongly clustered (bias ~2–3), so any single realization has a clumpy angular projection with a non-trivial angular correlation function. The normalized entropy dispersion Δ_norm is a rotation-invariant measure of the spread of the pixel count distribution; it is zero only for a perfectly uniform distribution and positive for any clustered distribution. The large Ψ(r) therefore measures the presence of angular clustering, not a violation of statistical isotropy or a preferred direction. The paper reports no directional statistic (dipole, axis, or multipole) and no comparison to clustering-preserving mocks, so the 12.5σ excess over uniform randoms does not support the physical interpretation. A test against mocks that include realistic quasar clustering and sample variance is required before any cosmological conclusion can be drawn.
  2. [A transitional epoch emerges; Fig. 6] The identification of the intermediate-redshift bin as a unique 'transitional epoch' is made post hoc after scanning three redshift bins and 30 cumulative radial shells. No correction for multiple comparisons is applied; with roughly 90 radial test points, a few large Ψ(r) values are not surprising under the null even if the null were correct. The quoted 12.5σ occurs at the largest radius of Sample 2 and is not accompanied by a trials-corrected p-value or an estimate of the effective number of independent scales. Without such a correction, the redshift and scale specificity of the signal cannot be used as evidence for a physical transition.
  3. [A transitional epoch emerges; Fig. 6 and Fig. 7] The text states that Sample 1 is 'fully consistent with statistical isotropy' and that Ψ(r) remains close to unity, but the plotted Ψ(r) in the right panels of Figures 6 and 7 appears to reach values of order 4–5 or higher for Sample 1 at several radii. If the plotted curves are correct, this contradicts the stated consistency and weakens the claimed contrast between the intermediate bin and the other bins. The authors should quote the actual Ψ values for Sample 1 and explain why these deviations are not considered significant, or correct the text if the figure rendering is misleading.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods: Significance ratio and statistical comparison with mocks] The number of mock realizations is inconsistent across the manuscript: the 'Significance ratio' subsection says 50 randomized mock catalogues, 'Generating isotropic mock realizations' says 100, and Figure 10 uses 150 for the convergence reference. In addition, the data bootstrap count is given as 10 in the text but 100 in the caption of Figure 5. These numbers affect the error bars in Eq. (7) and should be reconciled.
  2. [Abstract and Data and Catalogues] The abstract says 'over one million quasars', but the adopted G < 20.0 sample contains 755,850 sources (the full catalogue has 1,295,502). Please make the sample-size statement consistent with the actual adopted sample.
  3. [Methods: Normalized Entropy Dispersion, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is typeset with an unusual square-root placeholder ('radicaltp/radicalvertex'), and several figure labels contain '×10□2'. These are rendering artifacts that should be corrected in the published version.
  4. [References] Reference [39] is cited as an arXiv e-print; if a peer-reviewed version exists, it should be cited instead. Please also check that the Gaia-unWISE catalogue reference [43] includes the full author list or the standard abbreviation used by the journal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entropy-based statistic is not fitted to its own output, and self-citations are interpretive rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the enumerated sense. The normalized entropy dispersion and the significance ratio Psi(r) (Eqs. 5-6) are computed directly from the data and from explicitly constructed uniform-random mocks; no parameter is fitted to the target signal, and no equation defines the claimed anisotropy in terms of itself. The q-values, redshift bins, masks, and HEALPix resolutions are fixed or varied as robustness checks, not optimized to produce the 12.5-sigma result. The 'transitional epoch' is an empirical contrast across three redshift bins, not an input assumption. The paper cites prior work by the same group (Renyi entropy in galaxy distributions [31,33]; configuration-entropy cosmology [29,30,32]), but these citations serve as method precedent and interpretive context; they are not used to construct the statistic or to force the detection. The uniform-random mock null is a potentially serious astrophysical assumption because it removes all angular clustering rather than only a preferred direction, and this could make the reported excess measure clustering rather than anisotropy. That is a validity and correctness concern, not a circularity of the derivation: the mocks are not fitted parameters, and the observed excess is a genuine property of the data under that stated null. No specific reduction of the form Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or of a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, can be exhibited from the paper's own equations. The only reason the score is not 0 is the presence of several self-citations in the interpretive discussion, but none of them are load-bearing for the central statistical claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'transitional epoch' is an interpretation of a statistical signal, not a new entity. The main uncharged assumptions are the isotropic null model and the tracer-bias assumption, which are listed above.

free parameters (5)
  • Entropy order set q = 1 to 5 = q = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    Chosen by hand to balance sensitivity to overdensities and robustness to shot noise; the spread across these q values defines the anisotropy statistic.
  • Redshift bin edges = 0.36, 1.0, 2.2, 2.8
    Chosen to balance sample counts; the intermediate bin carries the claimed signal, so the bin choice is load-bearing for the transitional-epoch claim.
  • Mask 1 thresholds = b >= 40 deg or b <= -60 deg; completeness f < 0.9
    Hand-selected sky cuts; changing them changes the effective sky area and could alter the significance.
  • Mask 2 circular cut = theta0 = 68.6 deg (4 sr)
    Exclusion radius around the Galactic center chosen to remove one-third of the sky; this affects whether the signal persists.
  • HEALPix resolution Nside = 8 for main run, 64 for validation
    Angular pixel scale chosen by the authors; robustness is only checked at two resolutions.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Renyi entropy and HEALPix equal-area pixelization provide a valid measure of angular structure
    Definition of S_q(r) in Eq. (3) and HEALPix tessellation are standard tools; no issue.
  • domain assumption Flat Planck 2018 LambdaCDM cosmology for distance-redshift conversion
    Comoving distances depend on assumed cosmology; systematic shifts could rescale radial positions but not the angular statistic itself.
  • domain assumption Uniform random angular mocks with preserved radial distances represent the isotropic null
    This is the load-bearing assumption: the mocks include only shot noise and mask geometry, not the cosmic variance expected from known large-scale clustering.
  • domain assumption Quasar angular distribution traces the underlying matter density field
    Quasars are biased tracers; the interpretation of angular clustering as cosmological anisotropy assumes the selection function is fully accounted for by the masks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing a transitional epoch of large-scale cosmic anisotropy in the quasar distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QEBM3UNU

@misc{pith2026250702835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing a transitional epoch of large-scale cosmic anisotropy in the quasar distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QEBM3UNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02835}
}
abstract

The Cosmological Principle posits that the Universe is isotropic on the largest scales. While widely supported, this foundational assumption remains testable. We analyse the angular distribution of over one million quasars from the Gaia-unWISE catalogue using Renyi entropy, a multiscale statistical measure sensitive to higher-order clustering. Dividing the sample into three redshift bins, we find that both the low- and high-redshift distributions are statistically consistent with isotropy. However, at intermediate redshift ($1 \leq z < 2.2$), we detect a statistically significant and scale-dependent anisotropy that persists under stringent masking, suggesting a physical origin. We interpret this as evidence for a transitional epoch in cosmic history, during which large-scale structures such as superclusters became prominent before their growth was gradually damped by the onset of accelerated expansion. These findings position Renyi entropy as a powerful probe of cosmic evolution and highlight the potential thermodynamic links between structure formation, entropy dissipation, and the emergence of large-scale isotropy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02835 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sky map of quasar counts from the Gaia-unWISE catalog ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top panel shows the distribution of quasar counts as a function of redshift, while the bottom panel displays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quasar count maps for Sample 1, constructed using HEALPix with resolution parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top panel displays the quasar counts for Sample 1 after applying a stringent mask (Mask 2) that excludes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This shows the variation of Renyi entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left panels show the mean normalized entropy dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as Figure 3 but when using a stringent mask that excludes regions with potential systematics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: This shows the impact of HEALPix resolution on anisotropy measures using Mask 1. Left panels show the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as Figure 8, but using Mask 2 (galactic latitude cut plus circular mask). The plots illustrate that the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This shows the convergence of the mean normalized entropy dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 083504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107. 083504

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107 2023

  2. [2]

    k., Cea, P., Chingangbam, P., et al

    Aluri, P. k., Cea, P., Chingangbam, P., et al. 2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 094001, doi: 10. 1088/1361-6382/acbefc

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2022, The As- trophysical Journal, 928, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ ac562a

    Appleby, S., Park, C., Pranav, P., et al. 2022, The As- trophysical Journal, 928, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ ac562a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2022

  4. [4]

    Bengaly, C. A. P., Bernui, A., Ferreira, I. S., & Alcaniz, J. S. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stw3233

    doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2017

  5. [5]

    L., Verde, L., & Cuesta, A

    Bernal, J. L., Verde, L., & Cuesta, A. J. 2016, JCAP, 2016, 059, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/059

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/059 2016

  6. [6]

    2002, Nature, 416, 150, doi: 10

    Blake, C., & Wall, J. 2002, Nature, 416, 150, doi: 10. 1038/416150a

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    G., Harris, K

    Clowes, R. G., Harris, K. A., Raghunathan, S., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety, 429, 2910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts497

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts497 2013

  8. [8]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, L13, doi: 10

    Colin, J., Mohayaee, R., Rameez, M., & Sarkar, S. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, L13, doi: 10. 1051/0004-6361/201936373

    work page 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    G., Aguilar, J., et al

    DESI Collaboration, Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3217

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810 5

    Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810 5

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Richards, G

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Richards, G. T., et al. 2001, AJ, 121, 31, doi: 10.1086/318032

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 7400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3616

    Franco, C., Avila, F., & Bernui, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3616

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    G., & Williger, G

    Friday, T., Clowes, R. G., & Williger, G. M. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac269

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration, Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Teyssier, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/ 202243232

    2023 doi

  7. [17]

    Gibelyou,C.,&Huterer,D.2012,MNRAS,427,1994, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22032.x

    2012

  8. [18]

    M., Hivon, E., Banday, A

    Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  9. [19]

    Gupta, S., & Saini, T. D. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 651, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16945.x

    2010

  10. [20]

    E., & Fang, W

    Huterer, D., Cunha, C. E., & Fang, W. 2013, MN- RAS, 432, 2945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt653

    2013 doi

  11. [21]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  12. [22]

    C., Barger, A

    Keenan, R. C., Barger, A. J., & Cowie, L. L. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 62, doi: 10.1088/ 0004-637x/775/1/62

    2013

  13. [23]

    2024, European Physical Journal C, 84, 75, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12417-1

    Kothari, R., Panwar, M., Singh, G., Tiwari, P., & Jain, P. 2024, European Physical Journal C, 84, 75, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12417-1

    2024 doi

  14. [24]

    2014, AJ, 147, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/ 147/5/108

    Lang, D. 2014, AJ, 147, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/ 147/5/108

    2014 doi

  15. [25]

    A., Fishman, G

    Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., Wilson, R. B., et al. 1992, Nature, 355, 143, doi: 10.1038/355143a0

    1992 doi

  16. [26]

    M., Lang, D., Schlafly, E

    Meisner, A. M., Lang, D., Schlafly, E. F., & Schlegel, D. J. 2019, PASP, 131, 124504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ ab3df4

    2019 doi

  17. [27]

    T., & Lewis, G

    Mittal, V., Oayda, O. T., & Lewis, G. F. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3706

    2024 doi

  18. [28]

    2023, PRL, 131, 111001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.111001

    Nguyen, N.-M., Huterer, D., & Wen, Y. 2023, PRL, 131, 111001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.111001

    2023 doi

  19. [29]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, L77, doi: 10.1093/ mnrasl/slx109

    Pandey, B. 2017, MNRAS, 471, L77, doi: 10.1093/ mnrasl/slx109

    2017

  20. [30]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, L73, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/ slz037

    —. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L73, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/ slz037

    2019 doi

  21. [31]

    2021, JCAP, 2021, 023, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/ 2021/02/023

    —. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 023, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/ 2021/02/023

    2021 doi

  22. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, L43, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz029

    Pandey, B., & Das, B. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L43, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz029

    2019 doi

  23. [33]

    2021, JCAP, 2021, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/07/019

    Pandey, B., & Sarkar, S. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/07/019

    2021 doi

  24. [34]

    A., & Wilson, R

    Penzias, A. A., & Wilson, R. W. 1965, ApJ, 142, 419, doi: 10.1086/148307

    1965 doi

  25. [35]

    2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    PlanckCollaboration,Aghanim,N.,Akrami,Y.,etal. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  26. [36]

    2012, General Rel- ativity and Gravitation, 44, 685, doi: 10.1007/ s10714-011-1299-y

    Radicella, N., & Pavón, D. 2012, General Rel- ativity and Gravitation, 44, 685, doi: 10.1007/ s10714-011-1299-y

    2012

  27. [37]

    1961, in Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability, Vol

    Rényi, A. 1961, in Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematics, Statistics and Probability, Vol. 1 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), 547–561

    1961

  28. [38]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 2453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3272

    Sarkar, S., Pandey, B., & Khatri, R. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3272

    2019 doi

  29. [39]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.05624

    Secrest, N., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mo- hayaee, R., & Sarkar, S. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.05624. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.05624

    2022 arXiv

  30. [40]

    J., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., et al

    Secrest, N. J., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40

    2021 doi

  31. [41]

    Shannon,C.E.1948,TheBellSystemTechnicalJour- nal, 27, 379, doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

    1948

  32. [42]

    F., Bennett, C

    Smoot, G. F., Bennett, C. L., Kogut, A., et al. 1992, ApJL, 396, L1, doi: 10.1086/186504

    1992 doi

  33. [43]

    W., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Storey-Fisher, K., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1328

    2024 doi

  34. [44]

    2014, MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety,443, 241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1118

    Wiegand, A., Buchert, T., & Ostermann, M. 2014, MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety,443, 241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1118

    2014 doi

  35. [45]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/ 6/1868

    2010 doi

  36. [46]

    super-pixels

    Wu, K. K. S., Lahav, O., & Rees, M. J. 1999, Nature, 397, 225, doi: 10.1038/16637 Methods Data and Catalogues We use the publicly available Gaia–unWISE quasar catalogue[43], a nearly all-sky quasar compilation that combines optical data from Gaia DR3 [14, 15] with mid- infrare...

    1999 doi

  37. [50]

    Repeating this test for other samples and masking schemes yields similar results, confirming that our significance calculations are not limited by the size of the mock ensemble

    Based on this convergence test, we adopted 100 mock realizations for the main analysis, which comfortably ex- ceeds the threshold for statistical stability and ensures reliable estimation of the mock entropy dispersion across all radial scales. Repeating this test for other sa...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.