Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 105 references

This paper claims that the only unbiased, covariant way to test statistical isotropy with Minkowski Tensors on the sphere is to correlate the orientations of individual connected components, and that the resulting ξ± correlation functions s

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:22 UTC pith:RMIGUSXB

load-bearing objection A serious, useful methods paper with a clean covariance critique and a promising new statistic; the 'unbiased' claim is one appendix short of being fully earned. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23973 v1 pith:RMIGUSXB submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.CO

Testing Statistical Isotropy on the Sphere with Minkowski Tensors

Stephen Appleby , Changbom Park This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords Minkowski tensorsstatistical isotropyconnected componentsrandom fields on the sphereparallel transportdipole modulationcosmic microwave backgroundmorphological statistics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that every existing way of extracting Minkowski Tensors from fields on the two-sphere is unsuited to testing statistical isotropy: the direct pixel sum is not a tensor, so its eigenvalue ratio can change with an arbitrary coordinate choice, while the covariant parallel-transport version systematically rotates vectors toward isotropy and washes out the signal. To escape this, the authors construct Minkowski Tensors for each connected component of an excursion set separately, then build pairwise correlation functions ξ± of the components' orientations relative to the great arc joining them. Because only scalars are averaged, the statistic is intrinsically covariant, and the paper shows on simulated fields that it separates globally coherent shear from locally coherent shear, with the decay scale of ξ+ measuring the angular coherence of alignment and the antipodal amplitude of ξ− measuring the globally coherent fraction. The paper also shows analytically that dipole modulation—the anisotropy pattern behind the CMB hemispherical power asymmetry—leaves no detectable orientation signal, because its effect on the traceless part of the tensor is second order in the modulation amplitude.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that statistical isotropy on S² can be tested without choosing a frame by turning the Minkowski Tensor from a global integral into a per-object shape measurement. For each connected component of the excursion set at threshold ν, one extracts the principal-axis eigenvector and ellipticity from the component's own boundary, then defines scalar spin-2 quantities ϵ± relative to the geodesic to a partner component; averaging pairs at separation θ gives ξ±(θ,ν), which are coordinate-independent by construction. The paper shows that this statistic is unbiased for isotropic fields—fluctuations scatter symmetrically, unlike the bounded ratio α—and that in sheared fields t

What carries the argument

The central object is the connected-component correlation function pair ξ±(θ,ν), built from per-component Minkowski Tensors W^{0,2}_{1,μ}. Each component's tensor is evaluated at its geometric centre after short great-arc transport of boundary normals; its eigenvalues give βμ=Λ2/Λ1 and the principal eigenvector vμ. With ψμ the angle between vμ and the geodesic tangent to the partner component, the spin-2 quantities ϵ+ = −|ϵ|cos2ψ and ϵ× = −|ϵ|sin2ψ (with |ϵ|=(1−β)/(1+β)) are scalars, so their pair averages ξ± are coordinate-independent. The work these objects do is to replace the ambiguous tensor integral on the curved sphere with comparisons of intrinsic shapes at separated points, avoiding

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that short great-arc transport of each component's boundary normals to its geometric centre distorts component shapes negligibly; the paper only quantifies this on ten isotropic realisations, and if large, elongated components in anisotropic fields—precisely those most weighted in ξ±—are significantly isotropized, the claimed discrimination between global and local alignment would blur.

What would settle it

Compute ξ± for a strongly sheared field twice: once with per-component tensors evaluated after transport to the component centre, and once with the same tensors evaluated with no transport in a fixed frame. If for the largest components the transport-induced change in the ellipticity β is comparable to the difference between the global-shear and local-shear ξ± curves at large separations, the central claim fails; equivalently, a simulation in which the anisotropic signal is dominated by components with areas much larger than the smoothing area would settle it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The one-point eigenvalue ratio α, in either its non-covariant or covariant form, should not be used alone to claim or exclude statistical isotropy on the sphere; the paper demonstrates that a frame rotation can null a real shear signal.
  • For shear-type anisotropies, the decay scale of ξ+ gives a direct measurement of the angular coherence length of structure alignment, and the large-separation amplitude of ξ− gives the fraction of alignment that is globally coherent, separating models that a single global statistic cannot tell apart.
  • Dipole modulation of the type studied in CMB power-asymmetry analyses produces no significant ξ± or α signal; the dominant effect appears instead in the trace W1 measured in latitude bands, with a variance modulation linear in the amplitude λ.
  • Because ξ± are not bounded quantities, finite-area noise scatters them symmetrically about zero for isotropic fields, removing the noise bias that makes ⟨α⟩<1 even in the isotropic case.
  • The statistic is ready to be applied to CMB temperature maps and two-dimensional galaxy projections as a scale-resolved isotropy test.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same construction should work for other tensor-valued morphological descriptors: any per-object shape statistic reduced to scalar angles before averaging inherits the covariance property, so ξ±-style estimators could be built for polarization maps or weak-lensing shear fields.
  • Because ξ± is blind to dipole modulation, a null result from orientation statistics does not bound all anisotropy: it must be paired with band-resolved scalar statistics such as W1 to cover different symmetry breakings of SO(3).
  • The mirror relation ξ−(θ)≈ξ+(180°−θ) seen for global shear suggests a compact diagnostic: for any coherent alignment with antipodal symmetry, the signal migrates from ξ+ to ξ− as separation grows, and a 45°-rotated 'cross' shear would flip the sign of ξ−—a prediction the paper states but does not yet simulate.
  • One can calibrate the statistic before cosmology use by applying it to simulated maps with a planted finite-range alignment and checking that the inferred ξ+ decay scale matches the planted coherence length.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the ambiguity of defining Minkowski tensors on S^2. It shows that the standard pixel-sum estimator is non-covariant under local rotations, while the parallel-transport estimator, although covariant, systematically isotropizes anisotropic signals. To evade both problems, the authors define Minkowski tensors for individual connected components of excursion sets and construct pairwise orientation correlation functions ξ±(θ,ν) built from scalar quantities. They validate these statistics on simulated isotropic, dipole-modulated, globally sheared, and locally sheared Gaussian fields, and provide an analytic calculation showing that dipole modulation affects the traceless part of the tensor only at second order in the modulation amplitude. The central claim is that ξ± provide an intrinsic, unbiased, scale-dependent test of statistical isotropy on S^2.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful methodological contribution: it offers a covariant statistic that retains sensitivity to anisotropic alignment, in contrast to the one-point estimators analyzed in the paper. The analytic result for dipole modulation (Eq. 48), the explicit non-covariance demonstration (Eqs. 6–7), and the extensive validation on four ensembles of N_real=400 simulations are concrete strengths. The statistic is also falsifiable: it makes distinct predictions for global versus local shear, and the mirror relation ξ−(θ)≃ξ+(180°−θ) is a sharp, testable consequence of the construction. The paper would be a valuable reference for future CMB and large-scale-structure isotropy analyses, provided the finite-size transport issue is addressed quantitatively.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV and Appendix B] The practical covariance of ξ± rests on the assumption that great-arc transport of boundary normals to the component center p̄_μ produces negligible distortion. Appendix B quantifies this only for the scalar shape parameter β, in isotropic fields, on 10 realizations. But ξ± enters through the orientation angle ψ via ε_+ = −|ε| cos2ψ and ε_× = −|ε| sin2ψ; an eigenvector error δψ changes ε_+ and ε_× at first order (derivative −2 sin2ψ). Moreover, the pair average weights by |ε_μ||ε_η|, and the most elongated components carry the largest weight, while the paper's statement that 'pair counts do not weight by size' misses the fact that |ε| is size-correlated in Gaussian fields. The finite-size distortion must be measured for the eigenvector direction, for isotropic and anisotropic fields, and the resulting |ε|-weighted bias in ξ± must be shown to be subdominant to the signals in Figs. 6–7. Th
  2. [§VI and §VIII] The interpretation that 'the decay scale of ξ+ measures the angular coherence of the alignment, and the antipodal amplitude of ξ− measures its globally coherent fraction' is not given a quantitative definition or calibration. For the locally sheared field, the ξ− rise is attributed to a sub-dominant globally coherent component generated by the quadratic construction in Q̃, but no measure of 'coherent fraction' is defined, and the mapping between the ξ− amplitude and that fraction is not established. Without a formal definition or a controlled test (e.g., fields with known coherent fractions), this central interpretation remains heuristic. Please define the quantity and demonstrate the claimed proportionality, or weaken the claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B] Appendix B measures Δβ for β only; it would be more informative to also plot the transport-induced rotation of the principal eigenvector, since that is the quantity entering ξ±. The current figure cannot rule out a few-degree rotation that would induce O(10%) fractional changes in ε_+ and ε_×.
  2. [§IV] The notation ξ+ and ξ− is introduced immediately after Eq. (14) but the sign convention is not explicitly motivated. The reader would benefit from a sentence stating that these are the standard weak-lensing E/B-mode combinations, with ξ− negative for 45°-rotated patterns, to facilitate comparison with the lensing literature.
  3. [§V] The dipole and shear amplitudes λ=0.76 are fixed 'to ensure a large ∼40% dipole modulation amplitude and a ∼4% shear contribution'. For the dipole field, λ=0.76 gives a 40% amplitude, but the shear fractional contribution is stated as ≃0.056λ, so λ=0.76 gives ∼4.3%; the wording could be tightened to avoid implying the same parameter controls both effects in the same way.
  4. [Figure 6] The error bars in Fig. 6 are the standard error of the mean over 400 realizations. For a cosmological application, a single sky has cosmic variance; the error bars therefore do not represent the expected scatter of a single realization. Consider showing the realization scatter (e.g., shaded 16/84% bands) in addition to the error on the mean, as done in Fig. 5.
  5. [Appendix A] The marching-triangle algorithm updates W^{0,2}_1 by adding |e_12|(n⊗n) evaluated at one endpoint t_1, and the text notes this neglects variation of n along the arc. This is reasonable for small triangles, but a brief comment on the induced error (order |e_12|^2 times the field curvature) would help quantify the approximation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the central estimator is defined directly, the dipole result is an analytic expansion, and the shear interpretations are post-hoc readings of controlled simulations rather than construction-level reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained at the level of circularity. The central estimator ξ± is defined directly from component eigenvalues and eigenvectors (Sec. IV, Eqs. 14–16) and is not obtained by fitting anything to the simulated outputs; the anisotropy parameters (λ=0.76, the ℓ=4,5 band limit, θ_G, and n) are inputs to the field generators, not parameters adjusted to make ξ± match. The dipole result (Eq. 48) is a parameter-free analytic expansion from the stated Gaussian covariances (Eqs. 31–47) and does not import the numerical dipole null as an input; it predicts the second-order suppression of the traceless part. The shear interpretations—ξ+ decay scale as angular coherence and ξ− antipodal amplitude as globally coherent fraction—are post-hoc readings of controlled injection-recovery simulations, not derivations that reduce to their definitions; the coherence lengths are set independently by the field construction (global vs ℓ=4,5 local direction field). The mirror relation ξ−(θ)≃ξ+(180°−θ) is presented as a derived cross-check from great-arc geometry, not an assumed output. Self-citations (e.g., [75], [83]) are used as context or as positions the paper argues against, not as load-bearing justifications. The main caveat—Appendix B quantifies finite-size transport distortion only via Δβ on 10 isotropic realisations, without measuring eigenvector orientation error or the large-component |ϵ| weighting—is a correctness/validation gap, not a circular reduction; it under-supports the 'intrinsic, unbiased' claim but does not make any step equivalent to its own input. Likewise, the assertion that ξ± are 'not bounded' is mathematically questionable (ϵ=(1−β)/(1+β)∈[0,1] and the products are bounded), but that is a correctness concern, not circularity. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No physical entities are invented. The free-parameter content of the central demonstration consists of the designer-field inputs (λ, band limit, smoothing, spectral index, threshold), all stated explicitly; the 'measuring' claims inherit their quantitative content from these inputs, particularly in the local-shear case where the ξ+ decay scale is an input property of the constructed direction field rather than an independent measurement. The axioms are standard geometry plus the Gaussian random field model.

free parameters (5)
  • λ (anisotropy amplitude) = 0.76
    Chosen by hand to give ~40% dipole modulation and ~4% shear contribution. It is an input to the designed fields, not fitted to data, but the second-order dipole conclusion (Eq. 48) uses λ as the expansion parameter.
  • Local-shear direction-field band limit = Cℓ=4 = Cℓ=5 ≠ 0, all other modes zero
    This input sets the ~40° coherence domains of the alignment direction in the locally-sheared field; the observed ξ+ decay scale — offered as the measure of angular coherence — is largely determined by this choice and by the critical points of δ̃.
  • Smoothing scale θ_G = 3θ̄ ≃ 0.7° for Np = 800,000
    Chosen to suppress shot noise; sets the small-separation behavior of ξ± (the θ<θ_G sign flip and the peak at ~1.5θ_G) and the units in which the short-range results are quoted.
  • Power spectrum index n = 0 (flat)
    Choice of the Gaussian field ensemble; determines the cumulants σ0, σ1, σ2 that enter the analytic dipole calculation and the reported suppression factor λσ0/σ1.
  • Threshold ν for ξ± panels = ν = 1 (and ν = 2 in Fig. 7)
    Results are stated to be 'largely similar' at other thresholds, but the quantitative short-range ratios (ξ+/ξ− ≃ −0.35 at ν=1, ≃ −0.95 at ν=2) are ν-dependent, so the headline numbers are threshold-specific.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption δ_iso is a zero-mean Gaussian random field with Cℓ = ℓⁿ exp[−ℓ(ℓ+1)θ_G²]
    All four ensembles are constructed from this process (§V, Eq. 17); the analytic dipole calculation (Section VII) and the shear interpretations assume Gaussianity of the underlying field.
  • domain assumption Joint Gaussianity of (δ, δθ, δϕ) in the dipole calculation
    Section VII, Eqs. (38)-(39): the ensemble averages of W1 and ΔW are computed from this joint PDF; linearity of δ in δ_iso preserves Gaussianity for the dipole-modulated field.
  • standard math Parallel transport on S² is path-dependent, and great arcs are the minimal transport choice
    Section IIIA: the covariant estimator's output depends on the chosen path; the paper adopts great arcs only. This is standard differential geometry.
  • domain assumption The marching-triangle algorithm with linear interpolation along great arcs adequately approximates the integral definitions
    Appendix A: the true normals along a boundary segment vary; the algorithm evaluates n̂ at the segment endpoint and neglects the variation on the grounds that |e12| ≪ 1.
  • domain assumption Ergodicity: spatial averages over S² represent ensemble averages
    Section V: fields are normalized by the spatial variance σ̄; the interpretation of band measurements in Section VII relies on relating spatial averages to ensemble expectations.
  • standard math Tensorial integration on a curved manifold is ambiguous without a transport prescription
    Section III: this is the motivating premise of the whole paper and the basis for the non-covariance proof; it is a standard fact of differential geometry.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28358 in / 18018 out tokens · 176157 ms · 2026-07-31T23:22:23.831129+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider how a class of morphological descriptors, the Minkowski Tensors (MTs), can be used to test the statistical isotropy of random fields on the sphere. The definition of the MTs involves an integral of a tensor, which is an ambiguous operation on a curved manifold. We find that existing estimators in the literature, when applied to fields on the two-sphere, either explicitly break covariance or artificially isotropize the MT due to a geometric rotation of tangent spaces. To evade these issues, we construct the MTs of individual connected components and use them to build correlation functions $\xi_{\pm}(\theta,\nu)$ of their relative orientations. These correlation functions are built from scalars and are therefore covariant, and can be used to search for alignment of structures as a function of scale (angular separation). We generate four sets of random fields on $S^{2}$ -- isotropic, dipole modulated, globally-sheared and locally-sheared, and show how the connected component correlation functions can distinguish scale dependent alignments. For the sheared fields, the decay scale of $\xi_{+}$ measures the angular coherence of the alignment, and the amplitude of $\xi_{-}$ at large separations measures its globally coherent fraction, distinguishing the two shear models. In contrast, dipole modulation generates no significant signal in the orientation statistics. We show analytically that its effect on the traceless component of the Minkowski tensor is second order in the modulation amplitude $\lambda \ll 1$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23973 by Changbom Park, Stephen Appleby.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. [Left Panel] An example of the geometric rotation of vectors generated by the covariant averaging procedure outlined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Example of a Gaussian random field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. A 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An example of a single realisation of the four fields generated in this work : Isotropic (top left), dipole modulated (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The statistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The connected component correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The connected component correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. [Left Panel] Minkowski functional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The fractional difference in connected component shape parameter ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The statistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗

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

105 extracted references · 58 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    We placeN p points randomly and isotropically distributed on the sphere, assigning each point anglesϕ i = 2πu i, θi = cos −1(2vi −1) whereu i, vi ∼ U(0,1] are uniformly distributed

    Numerically we always analyze fields normalised by the spatial averageδ/¯σ, which for the isotropic case is equivalent to the unit normalised quantityδ/σ 0. We placeN p points randomly and isotropically distributed on the sphere, assigning each point anglesϕ i = 2πu i, θi = cos −1(2vi −1) whereu i, vi ∼ U(0,1] are uniformly distributed. Each point has cor...

  2. [2]

    Isotropy is broken by couplingℓandℓ±1 modes

    Dipole modulation : δ=δ iso (1 +λY 10(θ, ϕ)),(18) with direction chosen such that the field has more power in the north pole relative to the south. Isotropy is broken by couplingℓandℓ±1 modes. This is analogous to the CMB hemispherical power asymmetry

  3. [3]

    Global shear : δ=δ iso +λ ¯θ2QabH ab ,(19) wherea, b= (θ, ϕ), repeated indices are summed and we introduce the traceless, symmetric spin-2 tensor that generates a preferred direction in the tangent plane at every point onS 2 : Q= 1 2 1 0 0−1 ,(20) and the Hessian is Hab =∇ a∇bδiso ,(21) where here and throughout this work we define∇ ϕ = (1/sinθ)∂ ϕ. The c...

  4. [4]

    1 +λ r 3 4π cosθ # = 0,⟨δ 2⟩=⟨δ 2 iso⟩

    Local shear : δ=δ iso +λ ¯θ2 ˜QabH ab .(22) The HessianH ab =∇ a∇bδiso is the same as the global shear case, but now an independent, large-scale Gaussian random field ˜δis drawn with a power spectrum restricted toC ℓ=4 =C ℓ=5 ̸= 0 and all other modes zero. At each point, the local gradient of ˜δdefines a preferred direction ˆd= ∇˜δ(x) |∇˜δ(x)| .(23) The s...

  5. [5]

    Battye and A

    R.A. Battye and A. Moss,How isotropic is dark energy?,2601.22351. [6]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,1807.06209

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Points/error bars are the mean and standard error ofN real = 400 realisations

    We present the isotropic ensemble only; the dipole modulated ensemble is identical, and the sheared ensembles exhibit the same short-range structure superposed on their additional alignment signals. Points/error bars are the mean and standard error ofN real = 400 realisations. where∇ ϕ = (1/sinθ)∂ ϕ, and the relevant non-zero, one-point covariances are σ2...

    2024

  7. [7]

    Ifδ k, δk+1, δk+2 > ν, then the triangle area is added toW 0

  8. [8]

    The area enclosed by the four vertices (t 1,t 2,p k,p k+1) is added toW 0 and the length of the great arc segmente 12 between [t 1,t 2] onS 2 is added toW 1

    If any two of the density values satisfyδ k, δk+1 > νandδ k+2 < ν, then we linearly interpolate, on the surface ofS 2, using great arc distances, along the triangle edges [δ k, δk+2] and [δ k+1, δk+2] to find the two pointst 1, t2 at whichδ=ν. The area enclosed by the four vertices (t 1,t 2,p k,p k+1) is added toW 0 and the length of the great arc segment...

  9. [9]

    The area enclosed by the three vertices (t1,t 2,p k) is added toW 0 and the length|e 12|of the segment [t 1,t 2] onS 2 is added toW 1

    If one density value satisfiesδ k > νand the other twoδ k+1, δk+2 < ν, then we linearly interpolate along the triangle edges [δk, δk+1] and [δk, δk+2] to find the two pointst 1,t 2 at whichδ=ν. The area enclosed by the three vertices (t1,t 2,p k) is added toW 0 and the length|e 12|of the segment [t 1,t 2] onS 2 is added toW 1. Similarly to the previous ca...

  10. [10]

    The Betti numbers are calculated using a graph search on adjacent triangles

    If all density values satisfyδ k, δk+1, δk+2 < ν, then the triangle does not contribute to the MF, MTs. The Betti numbers are calculated using a graph search on adjacent triangles. Each pointp i in the excursion set is initially assigned a labeln= 0 to mark it as unvisited in the search. We then iterate through all triangles sequentially. When a triangle ...

  11. [11]

    Aluri et al.,Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle?,Class

    P.K. Aluri et al.,Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle?,Class. Quant. Grav.40(2023) 094001 [2207.05765]. [2]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and Statistics of the CMB,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A7 [1906.02552]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Secrest, S

    N.J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar and J. Colin,A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars,Astrophys. J. Lett.908(2021) L51 [2009.14826]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Jones, C.J

    J. Jones, C.J. Copi, G.D. Starkman and Y. Akrami,Strong Evidence Against a Statistically Isotropic Universe, 2310.12859

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    Eriksen, F.K

    H.K. Eriksen, F.K. Hansen, A.J. Banday, K.M. Gorski and P.B. Lilje,Asymmetries in the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy field,Astrophys. J.605(2004) 14 [astro-ph/0307507]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  15. [15]

    Hansen, A.J

    F.K. Hansen, A.J. Banday, K.M. Gorski, H.K. Eriksen and P.B. Lilje,Power Asymmetry in Cosmic Microwave Background Fluctuations from Full Sky to Sub-degree Scales: Is the Universe Isotropic?,Astrophys. J.704(2009) 1448 [0812.3795]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Rubart and D.J

    M. Rubart and D.J. Schwarz,Cosmic radio dipole from NVSS and WENSS, A&A555(2013) A117 [1301.5559]. 23 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 ν 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 α Isotropic Non Covariant Stereographic −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 ν 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 α Dipole Modulation Non Covariant Stereographic −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 ν 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 α Global Shear Non Covariant Stereo...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    Singal,Large disparity in cosmic reference frames determined from the sky distributions of radio sources and the microwave background radiation, Phys

    A.K. Singal,Large disparity in cosmic reference frames determined from the sky distributions of radio sources and the microwave background radiation, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 063501 [1904.11362]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Hajian and T

    A. Hajian and T. Souradeep,Measuring statistical isotropy of the CMB anisotropy,Astrophys. J. Lett.597(2003) L5 [astro-ph/0308001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  19. [19]

    Hajian and T

    A. Hajian and T. Souradeep,The Cosmic microwave background bipolar power spectrum: Basic formalism and applications,astro-ph/0501001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Matsubara,Integrated perturbation theory for cosmological tensor fields

    T. Matsubara,Integrated perturbation theory for cosmological tensor fields. I. Basic formulation,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 063543 [2210.10435]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Matsubara,Integrated perturbation theory for cosmological tensor fields

    T. Matsubara,Integrated perturbation theory for cosmological tensor fields. II. Loop corrections,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 063544 [2210.11085]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Matsubara,Integrated perturbation theory for cosmological tensor fields

    T. Matsubara,Integrated perturbation theory for cosmological tensor fields. III. Projection effects,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 063545 [2304.13304]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Matsubara,Integrated perturbation theory for cosmological tensor fields

    T. Matsubara,Integrated perturbation theory for cosmological tensor fields. IV. Full-sky formulation,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 063546 [2405.09038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Inoue, T

    T. Inoue, T. Okumura, S. Saga and A. Taruya,Information content in anisotropic cosmological fields: Impact of different multipole expansion scheme for galaxy density and ellipticity correlations,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 023507 [2406.19669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Minato, A

    K. Minato, A. Taruya, T. Okumura and M. Shiraishi,Probing dipolar power asymmetry with galaxy clustering and intrinsic alignments,2505.19941

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Mecke, T

    K.R. Mecke, T. Buchert and H. Wagner,Robust morphological measures for large-scale structure in the Universe, A&A 288(1994) 697 [astro-ph/9312028]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  27. [27]

    Schmalzing, M

    J. Schmalzing, M. Kerscher and T. Buchert,Minkowski functionals in cosmology,Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi132(1996) 281

    1996

  28. [28]

    Hikage, T

    C. Hikage, T. Matsubara, P. Coles, M. Liguori, F.K. Hansen and S. Matarrese,Limits on primordial non-gaussianity from minkowski functionals of the wmap temperature anisotropies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 389(2008) 1439 [0802.3677]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    Novaes, A

    C.P. Novaes, A. Bernui, G.A. Marques and I.S. Ferreira,Local analyses of Planck maps with Minkowski functionals, MNRAS461(2016) 1363 [1606.04075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Chingangbam, V

    P. Chingangbam, V. Ganesan, K.P. Yogendran and C. Park,On Minkowski Functionals of CMB polarization,Physics Letters B771(2017) 67 [1705.04454]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    Appleby, C

    S. Appleby, C. Park, P. Pranav, S.E. Hong, H.S. Hwang, J. Kim et al.,Minkowski Functionals of SDSS-III BOSS: Hints of Possible Anisotropy in the Density Field?,Astrophys. J.928(2022) 108 [2110.06109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Gott, III, C

    J.R. Gott, III, C. Park, R. Juszkiewicz, W.E. Bies, D.P. Bennett, F.R. Bouchet et al.,Topology of microwave background fluctuations: Theory,ApJ352(1990) 1

    1990

  33. [33]

    Park and J.R

    C. Park and J.R. Gott,Dynamical evolution of topology of large-scale structure,ApJ.378(1991) 457

    1991

  34. [34]

    Schmalzing and T

    J. Schmalzing and T. Buchert,Beyond genus statistics: A Unifying approach to the morphology of cosmic structure, Astrophys. J.482(1997) L1 [astro-ph/9702130]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  35. [35]

    Schmalzing and K.M

    J. Schmalzing and K.M. Gorski,Minkowski functionals used in the morphological analysis of cosmic microwave background anisotropy maps,MNRAS297(1998) 355

    1998

  36. [36]

    Melott, A.P

    A.L. Melott, A.P. Cohen, A.J.S. Hamilton, J.R. Gott and D.H. Weinberg,Topology of large-scale structure. IV - Topology in two dimensions,ApJ.345(1989) 618

    1989

  37. [37]

    Park, J.R

    C. Park, J.R. Gott, A.L. Melott and I.D. Karachentsev,The topology of large-scale structure. VI - Slices of the universe, ApJ.387(1992) 1

    1992

  38. [38]

    Kerscher, J

    M. Kerscher, J. Schmalzing, T. Buchert and H. Wagner,Fluctuations in the IRAS 1.2 Jy catalog,Astron. Astrophys.333 (1998) 1 [astro-ph/9704028]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  39. [39]

    Park, J.R

    C. Park, J.R. Gott and Y.J. Choi,Topology of the Galaxy Distribution in the Hubble Deep Fields,ApJ.553(2001) 33

    2001

  40. [40]

    Park and Y.-R

    C. Park and Y.-R. Kim,Large-Scale Structure of the Universe as a Cosmic Standard Ruler,ApJ.715(2010) L185

    2010

  41. [41]

    Zunckel, J.R

    C. Zunckel, J.R. Gott, III and R. Lunnan,Using the topology of large-scale structure to constrain dark energy,MNRAS 412(2011) 1401

    2011

  42. [42]

    Sahni, B.S

    V. Sahni, B.S. Sathyaprakash and S.F. Shandarin,Shapefinders: A New shape diagnostic for large scale structure, Astrophys. J. Lett.495(1998) L5 [astro-ph/9801053]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  43. [43]

    Bharadwaj, V

    S. Bharadwaj, V. Sahni, B.S. Sathyaprakash, S.F. Shandarin and C. Yess,Evidence for filamentarity in the las campanas redshift survey,Astrophys. J.528(2000) 21 [astro-ph/9904406]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  44. [44]

    Matsubara,Statistics of Smoothed Cosmic Fields in Perturbation Theory

    T. Matsubara,Statistics of Smoothed Cosmic Fields in Perturbation Theory. I. Formulation and Useful Formulae in Second-Order Perturbation Theory,ApJ.584(2003) 1

    2003

  45. [45]

    van de Weygaert et al.,Probing Dark Energy with Alpha Shapes and Betti Numbers,1110.5528

    R. van de Weygaert et al.,Probing Dark Energy with Alpha Shapes and Betti Numbers,1110.5528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    C. Park, P. Pranav, P. Chingangbam, R. van de Weygaert, B. Jones, G. Vegter et al.,Betti numbers of Gaussian fields,J. Korean Astron. Soc.46(2013) 125 [1307.2384]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    van de Weygaert et al.,Alpha, Betti and the Megaparsec Universe: on the Topology of the Cosmic Web,Trans

    R. van de Weygaert et al.,Alpha, Betti and the Megaparsec Universe: on the Topology of the Cosmic Web,Trans. Comput. Sci.14(2011) 60 [1306.3640]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  48. [48]

    Chingangbam and C

    P. Chingangbam and C. Park,Residual foreground contamination in the WMAP data and bias in non-Gaussianity estimation, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2013(2013) 031 [1210.2250]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  49. [49]

    Shivshankar, P

    N. Shivshankar, P. Pranav, V. Natarajan, R. van de Weygaert, E.G.P. Bos and S. Rieder,Felix: A Topology based Framework for Visual Exploration of Cosmic Filaments,Comput. Graphics1(2015) 1 [1508.00737]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Pranav, H

    P. Pranav, H. Edelsbrunner, R. van de Weygaert, G. Vegter, M. Kerber, B.J.T. Jones et al.,The Topology of the Cosmic Web in Terms of Persistent Betti Numbers,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.465(2017) 4281 [1608.04519]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Pranav, R.J

    P. Pranav, R.J. Adler, T. Buchert, H. Edelsbrunner, B.J.T. Jones, A. Schwartzman et al.,Unexpected Topology of the Temperature Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background,Astron. Astrophys.627(2019) A163 [1812.07678]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Pranav, R

    P. Pranav, R. van de Weygaert, G. Vegter, B.J.T. Jones, R.J. Adler, J. Feldbrugge et al.,Topology and Geometry of Gaussian random fields I: on Betti Numbers, Euler characteristic and Minkowski functionals,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485(2019) 4167 [1812.07310]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Feldbrugge, M

    J. Feldbrugge, M. van Engelen, R. van de Weygaert, P. Pranav and G. Vegter,Stochastic Homology of Gaussian vs. non-Gaussian Random Fields: Graphs towards Betti Numbers and Persistence Diagrams,JCAP1909(2019) 052 [1908.01619]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Wilding, K

    G. Wilding, K. Nevenzeel, R. van de Weygaert, G. Vegter, P. Pranav, B.J.T. Jones et al.,Persistent homology of the 25 cosmic web – I. Hierarchical topology inΛCDM cosmologies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507(2021) 2968 [2011.12851]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Munshi, T

    D. Munshi, T. Namikawa, J.D. McEwen, T.D. Kitching and F.R. Bouchet,Morphology of weak lensing convergence maps, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507(2021) 1421 [2010.05669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    W. Liu, A. Jiang and W. Fang,Probing massive neutrinos with the Minkowski functionals of large-scale structure,JCAP 07(2022) 045 [2204.02945]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    W. Liu, A. Jiang and W. Fang,Probing massive neutrinos with the Minkowski functionals of the galaxy distribution, JCAP09(2023) 037 [2302.08162]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    W. Liu, E. Paillas, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, G. Valogiannis and W. Fang,Cosmological constraints from the Minkowski functionals of the BOSS CMASS galaxy sample,JCAP05(2025) 064 [2501.01698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    S. Rana, T. Ghosh, J.S. Bagla and P. Chingangbam,Non-Gaussianity of diffuse Galactic synchrotron emission at 408 MHz, MNRAS481(2018) 970 [1806.01565]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Rahman, P

    F. Rahman, P. Chingangbam and T. Ghosh,The nature of non-Gaussianity and statistical isotropy of the 408 MHz Haslam synchrotron map, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021(2021) 026 [2104.00419]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Afzal, M

    A. Afzal, M. Alakhras, M.H.J. Kanafi and S.M.S. Movahed,Cosmic strings-induced cmb anisotropies in light of weighted morphology,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society541(2025) 3851 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/541/4/3851/63712501/staf1110.pdf]

    2025

  62. [62]

    Santalo,Integral geometry and geometric probability, Addison-Wesley Pub

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

    1976

  63. [63]

    McMullen,Isometry covariant valuations on convex bodies,Rend

    P. McMullen,Isometry covariant valuations on convex bodies,Rend. Circ. Palermo50(1997) 259

    1997

  64. [64]

    Alesker,Description of continuous isometry covariant valuations on convex sets,Geometriae Dedicata74(1999) 241

    S. Alesker,Description of continuous isometry covariant valuations on convex sets,Geometriae Dedicata74(1999) 241

    1999

  65. [65]

    Beisbart, R

    C. Beisbart, R. Dahlke, K. Mecke and H. Wagner,Vector- and Tensor-Valued Descriptors for Spatial Patterns, in Morphology of Condensed Matter, vol. 600 ofLecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, pp. 238–260, 2002

    2002

  66. [66]

    D. Hug, R. Schneider and R. Schuster,The space of isometry covariant tensor valuations,St. Petersburg Math. J.19 (2008) 137

    2008

  67. [67]

    Schroder-Turk, W

    G.E. Schroder-Turk, W. Mickel, S.C. Kapfer, F.M. Schaller, B. Breidenbach, D. Hug et al.,Minkowski tensors of anisotropic spatial structure,New Journal of Physics15(2013) 083028

    2013

  68. [68]

    Schroder-Turk, S

    G. Schroder-Turk, S. Kapfer, B. Breidenbach, C. Beisbart and K. Mecke,Tensorial minkowski functionals and anisotropy measures for planar patterns,Journal of Microscopy238(2010) 57

    2010

  69. [69]

    Beisbart, T

    C. Beisbart, T. Buchert and H. Wagner,Morphometry of spatial patterns,PhysicaA293(2001) 592

    2001

  70. [70]

    Hadwiger,Vorlesungen ¨ uber Inhalt, Oberfl¨ ache und Isoperimetrie, Springer, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften (1957)

    H. Hadwiger,Vorlesungen ¨ uber Inhalt, Oberfl¨ ache und Isoperimetrie, Springer, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften (1957)

    1957

  71. [71]

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

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

    1974

  72. [72]

    Collischon, M.A

    C. Collischon, M.A. Klatt, A.J. Banday, M. Sasaki and C. R¨ ath,Morphometry on the sphere: Cartesian and irreducible Minkowski tensors explained and implemented,Commun. Phys.7(2024) 254 [2402.06286]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Rehse, K

    S. Rehse, K. Mecke and R. Magerle,Characterization of the dynamics of block copolymer microdomains with local morphological measures,Phys. Rev. E77(2008) 051805

    2008

  74. [74]

    Becker, G

    J.C. Becker, G. Gr¨ un, R. Seemann, H. Mantz, K. Jacobs, K.R. Mecke et al.,Complex dewetting scenarios captured by thin-film models,Nature Materials2(2003) 59

    2003

  75. [75]

    Olszowka, M

    V. Olszowka, M. Hund, V. Kuntermann, S. Scherdel, L. Tsarkova, A. Boker et al.,Large scale alignment of a lamellar block copolymer thin film via electric fields: A time-resolved sfm study,Soft Matter2(2006) 1089

    2006

  76. [76]

    Beisbart, R

    C. Beisbart, R. Valdarnini and T. Buchert,The morphological and dynamical evolution of simulated galaxy clusters, Astron. Astrophys.379(2001) 412

    2001

  77. [77]

    Ganesan and P

    V. Ganesan and P. Chingangbam,Tensor Minkowski Functionals: first application to the CMB, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2017(2017) 023 [1608.07452]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Chingangbam, K.P

    P. Chingangbam, K.P. Yogendran, J.P. K., V. Ganesan, S. Appleby and C. Park,Tensor Minkowski Functionals for random fields on the sphere,JCAP12(2017) 023 [1707.04386]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  79. [79]

    Chingangbam, P

    P. Chingangbam, P. Goyal, K.P. Yogendran and S. Appleby,Geometrical meaning of statistical isotropy of smooth random fields in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 123516 [2109.05726]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    P.K. Joby, P. Chingangbam, T. Ghosh, V. Ganesan and C.D. Ravikumar,Search for anomalous alignments of structures in Planck data using Minkowski Tensors,JCAP1901(2019) 009

    2019

Showing first 80 references.