Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Measuring the redshift-space distortions by cross-correlating the density fields before and after reconstruction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the redshift-space cross-power spectrum between pre- and post-reconstruction density fields can be modeled at one loop in perturbation theory and used to extract the linear growth rate.

desk verdict A solid one-loop model for the reconstruction cross-spectrum, honestly validated, but the headline f-recovery rests on an untested finite-volume correction and the practical gain over post-reconstruction spectra is marginal. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08186 v3 pith:T6NQ5RUT submitted 2025-02-12 astro-ph.CO

Weibing Zhang , Ruiyang Zhao , Xiaoyong Mu , Kazuya Koyama , Ryuichi Takahashi , Yuting Wang , Gong-Bo Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords redshift-spacedistortionsBAOreconstructioncross-powerspectrumone-loopperturbationtheorylineargrowthrateN-bodysimulationslarge-scalestructureEFTcounterterms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the cross-power spectrum between the matter density field before and after standard BAO reconstruction is itself a usable redshift-space distortion observable, and that a one-loop Standard Perturbation Theory model can describe it accurately. The model, Eqs. (20)–(25), writes the one-loop cross-spectrum with the same $P_{22}$/$P_{13}$ structure as the auto-spectra, using effective kernels built from the pre- and post-reconstruction kernels. Fitting the monopole and quadrupole to 4,000 $N$-body realizations at $z=1.02$ recovers the linear growth rate $f$ with no significant bias up to $k_{\rm max}=0.29\,h/{\rm Mpc}$ for smoothing scales $R_s=15$ and $20\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, and to $0.20\,h/{\rm Mpc}$ for $R_s=10\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$. The cross-spectrum constrains $f$ about 14–22% better than the pre-reconstruction spectrum, though slightly less tightly than the post-reconstruction spectrum; its main added value is complementary information for joint analyses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop SPT expression for $P_x$, Eq. (20), with the effective cross-kernels $F_2^{(x)}$ and $F_3^{(x)}$ defined in Eqs. (24)–(25), together with the analytic angular integrals in Appendix B. The shift field of standard BAO reconstruction enters through its perturbation kernel $S_z^{(n)}$ (Eq. 14), computed from the Zel'dovich displacement; the paper's reconstruction convention effectively sets the reconstruction growth rate $f_{\rm rec}=0$, which removes an extra line-of-sight denominator and simplifies the kernels. The model is completed by adding lowest-order EFT counterterms $\alpha_\ell k^2 P_L$ (Eq. 45) to absorb unresolved UV physics, whose dominant contribution is argued to match the pre-reconstruction case.

What would settle it

Measure the cross-power spectrum directly from the eight $4\,h^{-1}{\rm Gpc}$ boxes (or an equivalent large-volume set) and compare it with the grid-corrected $500\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ measurements: if $P_x^{\rm large}/P_x^{\rm small}$ differs from $P_{\rm pre}^{\rm large}/P_{\rm pre}^{\rm small}$, the fitted growth rate is biased by the correction. A second decisive check is to replace the counterterm-absorbed damping with an explicit IR-resummed model for $P_x$ and see whether the best-fit $f$ shifts relative to the fiducial value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the redshift-space cross-power spectrum $P_x(k,\mu)$ between pre- and post-reconstructed density fields can be predicted at one loop by reusing SPT with effective kernels: the $P_{22}$ term uses the geometric mean $\sqrt{F_2 F_2^{\rm rec}}$ and the $P_{13}$ term uses the arithmetic mean $(F_3+F_3^{\rm rec})/2$ (Eqs. 24–25). Because reconstruction leaves the linear field unchanged, the tree-level term is the same Kaiser spectrum $(1+f\mu^2)^2 P_L(k)$, and all reconstruction effects enter through the nonlinear corrections. A distinctive feature is that, unlike the auto-spectra, the one-loop $P_{22}$ and $P_{13}$ do not cancel in the infrared limit; the shift-field term $P_{s^2}$ survives, producing a net negative correction and an exponential damping that reflects decorrelation between the two fields. The paper argues this is a feature, not a flaw: it is why the cross-spectrum carries complementary information, and with EFT counterterms the model fits the simulated monopole and quadrupole well enough to recover $f$ without bias over the quoted $k$-ranges.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fractional suppression of large-scale modes in the small simulation box is identical for the cross-spectrum and the pre-reconstruction power spectrum, so Eq. (42) can correct the measured $P_x$ using the pre-reconstruction ratio; the paper does not validate this for the cross-spectrum directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The cross-power spectrum can be added to $P_{\rm pre}$ and $P_{\rm post}$ in joint cosmological analyses, providing a two-point statistic that carries part of the information normally found in higher-order statistics.
  • With smoothing scale $R_s=15$ or $20\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, the model supports unbiased growth-rate measurements to $k_{\rm max}=0.29\,h/{\rm Mpc}$ at $z=1.02$, extending the usable range relative to the smallest smoothing scale.
  • The cross-spectrum improves the uncertainty on $f$ by roughly 14–22% at $k\le 0.20\,h/{\rm Mpc}$ compared with the pre-reconstruction spectrum alone.
  • Counterterm parameters are constrained more tightly by $P_x$ than by either auto-spectrum, which may help anchor nuisance parameters in joint fits once relations between the counterterms are established.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The grid correction in Eq. (42) assumes the fractional large-scale deficit is the same for the cross-spectrum and the pre-reconstruction spectrum; this can be checked directly in the $4\,h^{-1}{\rm Gpc}$ boxes, and if it fails, the reported $k$-ranges would shrink.
  • An explicit IR-resummed version of the model, rather than absorbing the damping into the counterterm, could change the fitted counterterms and give a sharper test of whether $f$ stays unbiased.
  • Applied to galaxy surveys, the model would need galaxy bias, Alcock–Paczynski geometric distortions, survey window functions, and a treatment of the hexadecapole (omitted here); the paper's fixed-cosmology validation is the first step, not the last.
  • If the counterterm relations across $P_{\rm pre}$, $P_{\rm post}$, and $P_x$ can be derived, the better-constrained counterterms of $P_x$ would propagate into tighter joint constraints on $f$ and cosmological parameters.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a one-loop standard perturbation theory (SPT) model for the redshift-space cross-power spectrum P^x between the pre-reconstruction and post-reconstruction matter density fields, motivated by the idea that P^x encodes part of the bispectrum information otherwise lost to two-point statistics. The model expresses the one-loop P22 and P13 contributions in terms of effective kernels built from the pre- and post-reconstruction SPT kernels, and the paper derives analytic IR and UV asymptotics, presents the full integrals in Appendix B, and validates the model against N-body simulations at z = 1.02. Using 4000 small-box (500 h^{-1} Mpc) realizations, with an additional correction from eight large-box (4 h^{-1} Gpc) simulations, the authors fit the linear growth rate f and two EFT counterterms α0 and α2 for reconstruction smoothing scales Rs = 10, 15, 20 h^{-1} Mpc. The headline result is that f is recovered without significant bias up to kmax = 0.29 h/Mpc for Rs = 15 and 20 h^{-1} Mpc, and up to kmax = 0.20 h/Mpc for Rs = 10 h^{-1} Mpc, with P^x giving tighter f constraints than the pre-reconstruction power spectrum.

Significance. If the proposed model is correct, it provides a new analytic two-point observable that captures information beyond the pre-reconstruction power spectrum and complements existing post-reconstruction models. The paper's strengths are its explicit one-loop derivation, the analytic integrals in Appendix B, the use of 4000 independent N-body realizations with a Hartlap-corrected covariance, and its honest reporting of the Rs = 10 degradation and the missing IR resummation. The result is a plausible and useful step toward joint analyses of P^{pre}, P^{post}, and P^x, and the authors are careful to frame the validation as a matter-density test rather than a full galaxy-survey forecast. The main caveat is that the finite-volume grid correction used to assemble the data vector is not directly validated for the cross-spectrum, and this issue is load-bearing for the headline unbiased-f claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (42)] The grid-correction step rescales the measured small-box cross-spectrum by the ratio P^{pre,4h}/P^{pre,500}. This assumes that the fractional finite-volume bias of the cross-spectrum equals that of the pre-reconstruction auto-spectrum, but the one-loop kernels in Eqs. (24)-(25) mix pre- and post-reconstruction kernels, so missing large-scale modes couple to P^x differently from how they couple to P^{pre}. Appendix C (Fig. 7) shows that the correction changes the best-fit f, but it does not demonstrate that the corrected P^x equals the directly measured P^x from the 4 h^{-1} Gpc boxes. Please validate Eq. (42) at the multipole level for P^x using the eight large-box realizations, or state the approximation explicitly and propagate its systematic uncertainty into the fitted f. As written, the headline unbiased-f claim rests on an untested proportionality.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (43) and (51)] The covariance matrix in Eq. (43) is computed from the uncorrected 500 h^{-1} Mpc box measurements, while the data vector entering the likelihood in Eq. (51) is the grid-corrected product from Eq. (42). Unless the covariance is transformed consistently under that correction, and the uncertainty in the ratio from only eight large-box realizations is included, the quoted 1σ uncertainties on f in Figure 4 are not the true errors of the likelihood. Please state explicitly whether Cov was computed from corrected multipoles; if not, apply the appropriate transformation and rerun the fits.
  3. [Sec. 3, after Eq. (45)] The model omits explicit IR resummation, and the text acknowledges that only the leading-order damping contribution, degenerate with the counterterm, is absorbed. Since the cross-spectrum lacks the IR cancellation present in the auto-spectra and retains BAO features (Fig. 1), the unmodeled BAO damping is scale-dependent and could bias f when the fit extends to kmax = 0.29 h/Mpc. Please quantify this limitation, for example by comparing with an IR-resummed model or by testing the fit residuals against the BAO wiggle region over the quoted kmax range. This would make the claimed improvement over pre-reconstruction more robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (24)] The definition F_2^{(x)} = sqrt(F_2^z F_2^{z(rec)}) is not well defined when the product of the two kernels is negative; since Eq. (22) uses the product directly, the square-root notation is purely cosmetic and should be clarified or replaced.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (50)] The first expression for the bin-averaged power spectrum is garbled; the intended weighted average with k^2 weights should be written cleanly as the integral ratio shown in the second line.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that the linear power spectrum is given at z = 0, while the rest of the paper validates at z = 1.02; please clarify whether the growth-factor prefactor D^2(z) is applied consistently in the plotted one-loop terms.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract refers to the galaxy density field, but the validation is entirely for the matter density field with no bias model; please change the abstract wording or add a sentence explaining the intended galaxy extension.
  5. [Sec. 3, after Eq. (42)] The notation '4 h−1Gpc' and '500 h−1Mpc' should be typeset as 4 h^{-1} Mpc and 500 h^{-1} Mpc for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  6. [General] The use of 'counterterm' and 'counter-term' is inconsistent; please unify the spelling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross-spectrum model is a Wick-theorem expansion tested against independent N-body simulations; the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is that the one-loop SPT model for the pre/post-reconstruction cross-power spectrum, Eqs. (20)-(25), recovers the linear growth rate from N-body simulations. This claim is not circular: the model is an analytic perturbative expansion derived from the definitions of the pre- and post-reconstructed density fields via Wick contractions in Appendix A, and the effective kernels in Eqs. (24)-(25) are exact identities, not fitted parameters. The only free parameters are f, alpha_0, and alpha_2, which are estimated from the data; this is parameter estimation, not a prediction forced by construction. The self-citations to Hikage et al. for the post-reconstruction kernels are load-bearing inputs, but they are independently derived, code-reproduced, and externally validated against N-body simulations, so they do not constitute circular support. The Wang et al. and Zhao et al. self-citations are motivational or contextual and are not needed for the derivation. The grid correction in Eq. (42) is an untested proportionality assumption and a correctness risk, but it is a data-vector correction based on measured pre-reconstruction spectra, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction; the agreement of the final model with corrected simulation data is an external check. The analysis also openly notes modeling limitations, such as absorbing part of IR-resummation effects into counterterms, but that is a modeling caveat rather than circularity. Overall, no step reduces the claimed prediction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the standard SPT/LPT machinery plus two analysis-specific choices: the EFT counterterm form and the grid correction. The counterterm coefficients and the growth rate are fitted, while the smoothing scale is tuned. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • linear growth rate f = ~0.8796 (fiducial), best-fit near fiducial for Rs=15,20
    Target parameter extracted by fitting the model multipoles to the simulated cross-power spectrum (Eq. 51).
  • EFT counterterm coefficient alpha_0 = roughly -4 to -6 h^-1 Mpc^2 in Fig. 6, varies with data vector
    Absorbs UV contributions to the monopole; fitted alongside f.
  • EFT counterterm coefficient alpha_2 = roughly -10 to -12 h^-1 Mpc^2 in Fig. 6
    Absorbs UV contributions to the quadrupole; fitted alongside f.
  • Reconstruction smoothing scale Rs = 10, 15, 20 h^-1 Mpc, chosen not fitted
    Controls the reconstruction strength; the model's unbiased scale range depends on Rs, so it is an input choice that affects the central claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Einstein-de Sitter growth scaling Psi^(n) proportional to D^n is used for the LPT kernels at z=1.02 in a Lambda-CDM cosmology.
    Invoked in Sec. 2 when factoring temporal evolution; approximate for the actual Planck 2015 cosmology.
  • domain assumption The velocity field is irrotational and the distant observer approximation applies, so RSD is described by the tensor R^(n)_ij = delta_ij + n f z_i z_j.
    Stated in Sec. 2 before Eq. (4); standard for this scale regime.
  • domain assumption The shift field for reconstruction is modeled with the Zel'dovich approximation and frec = 0, with the same shift applied to data and random particles.
    Eq. (12) and Sec. 2; this reconstruction convention is what the model is built to describe.
  • ad hoc to paper EFT counterterms of the same form as the pre-reconstruction case, alpha_l k^2 P_L, are sufficient for the cross-power spectrum.
    Sec. 3 around Eq. (45), justified by the claim that UV contributions are pre-reconstruction-dominated, but not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper The small-box cross-power spectrum can be corrected with the ratio of large-box to small-box pre-reconstruction power spectra (Eq. 42).
    This grid correction assumes the finite-volume bias of the cross-spectrum equals that of the pre-reconstruction spectrum, which is not directly validated for the cross-spectrum.
  • standard math Initial density field is Gaussian, so Wick's theorem applies to the correlators in Eq. (A2).
    Appendix A, standard for perturbative calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring the redshift-space distortions by cross-correlating the density fields before and after reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6NQ5RUT

@misc{pith2026250208186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring the redshift-space distortions by cross-correlating the density fields before and after reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6NQ5RUT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08186}
}
abstract

In this work, we develop a theoretical model for the cross-power spectrum of the galaxy density field before and after standard baryonic acoustic oscillation (BAO) reconstruction. Using this model, we extract the redshift-space distortion (RSD) parameter from the cross-power spectrum. The model is validated against a suite of high-resolution $N$-body simulations, demonstrating its accuracy and robustness for cosmological analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the monopole and quadrupole moments of the one-loop components for the pre-reconstruction, post-reconstruction, and cross matter power spectra, shown as dot-dashed, dashed, and solid lines, respectively. These theoretical predictions are computed based on Eq. (26), with P(k, µ) replaced by the corresponding one-loop terms P22(k, µ) and P13(k, µ) from Standard Perturbation Theory (SPT). And the linear p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of three types of two-dimensional matter power spectra in redshift space, computed using the Standard Perturbation Theory (SPT) model up to one-loop order. The calculations are performed with the same cosmological parameters as those used in the simulations for model validation in Sec. 3. The reconstruction adopts a smoothing scale of Rs = 15 h −1Mpc, and the results correspond to a redshift of z = 1.02. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the monopole and quadrupole components for three types of matter power spectra in redshift space at z = 1.02. A smoothing scale of Rs = 15 h −1Mpc is used for the reconstruction. The solid lines represent the binning-corrected theoretical predictions from the one-loop Standard Perturbation Theory (SPT), computed using the best-fit values of the linear growth rate f and the counterterm parameters αℓ, wi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit results for the linear growth rate obtained using different smoothing scales for reconstruction. Red triangles, blue squares, and black circles represent results for Rs = 10 h −1Mpc, 15 h −1Mpc, and 20 h −1Mpc, respectively. The error bars indicate the 1σ unce…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of σ x f , the measured uncertainty of the linear growth rate f from the cross-power spectrum P x , with σ pre f (left panel), the measured uncertainty of f from the pre-reconstruction power spectrum P pre, and with σ post f (right panel), the measured uncer…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the constraints on the linear growth rate f and the counterterm parameters α0 and α2 derived from the pre-reconstruction (green), post-reconstruction (blue), and cross (purple) matter power spectra. The same prior settings are applied to each model. The d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit values of the growth rate under different correction tests for the counter-term type in Eq. (45). Red points represent the uncorrected results. Blue points show the results for kmin = 0.05hMpc−1 (compared to kmin = 0.01hMpc−1 for other cases). Black points rep…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  5. [5]

    1979, Nature, 281, 358, 10.1038/281358a0

    Alcock, C., & Paczynski, B. 1979, Nature, 281, 358, 10.1038/281358a0

    doi:10.1038/281358a0 1979

  6. [6]

    2015, JCAP, 05, 007, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/05/007

    Baldauf, T., Mercolli, L., Mirbabayi, M., & Pajer, E. 2015, JCAP, 05, 007, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/05/007

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/05/007 2015

  7. [7]

    2002, Phys

    Bernardeau, F., Colombi, S., Gaztanaga, E., & Scoccimarro, R. 2002, Phys. Rept., 367, 1, 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00135-7

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7 2002

  8. [8]

    R., Colombi, S., Hivon, E., & Juszkiewicz, R

    Bouchet, F. R., Colombi, S., Hivon, E., & Juszkiewicz, R. 1995, Astron. Astrophys., 296, 575. astro-ph/9406013

    arXiv 1995

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    1989, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol

    Buchert, T. 1989, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 223, no. 1-2, Oct. 1989, p. 9-24., 223, 9

    1989

  2. [10]

    2019, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 45, 1

    Cartis, C., Fiala, J., Marteau, B., & Roberts, L. 2019, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 45, 1

    2019

  3. [11]

    2022, Optimization, 71, 2343

    Cartis, C., Roberts, L., & Sheridan-Methven, O. 2022, Optimization, 71, 2343

    2022

  4. [12]

    1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 276, 115

    Catelan, P. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 276, 115

    1995

  5. [13]

    1996, Mon

    Catelan, P., & Theuns, T. 1996, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 282, 455, 10.1093/mnras/282.2.455

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 017–017, 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/017

    Chen, S.-F., Vlah, Z., & White, M. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 017–017, 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/017

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, Mon

    Chen, X., & Padmanabhan, N. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 534, 1490, 10.1093/mnras/stae2180

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    D., White, M., Chang, T.-C., et al

    Cohn, J. D., White, M., Chang, T.-C., et al. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 457, 2068, 10.1093/mnras/stw108

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    2008, Phys

    Crocce, M., & Scoccimarro, R. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 023533, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023533

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, Mon

    de Mattia, A., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 501, 5616, 10.1093/mnras/staa3891

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Seo, H.-j., Sirko, E., & Spergel, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Seo, H.-j., Sirko, E., & Spergel, D. 2007, Astrophys. J., 664, 675, 10.1086/518712

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, JCAP, 05, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/05/040

    Gil-Mar\' n, H. 2022, JCAP, 05, 040, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/05/040

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Hada, R., & Eisenstein, D. J. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 478, 1866, 10.1093/mnras/sty1203

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, , 2021, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/029

    Hahn , C., & Villaescusa-Navarro , F. 2021, , 2021, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/029

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2007, Astron

    Hartlap, J., Simon, P., & Schneider, P. 2007, Astron. Astrophys., 464, 399, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    2017, Physical Review D, 96, 043513

    Hikage, C., Koyama, K., & Heavens, A. 2017, Physical Review D, 96, 043513

    2017

  17. [25]

    2020 a , Phys

    Hikage, C., Koyama, K., & Takahashi, R. 2020 a , Phys. Rev. D, 101, 043510, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043510

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2020 b , Phys

    Hikage, C., Takahashi, R., & Koyama, K. 2020 b , Phys. Rev. D, 102, 083514, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083514

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    1994, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9407049

    Hivon, E., Bouchet, F., Colombi, S., & Juszkiewicz, R. 1994, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9407049

    1994 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Jing, Y. P. 2005, Astrophys. J., 620, 559, 10.1086/427087

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    1987, Mon

    Kaiser, N. 1987, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 227, 1, 10.1093/mnras/227.1.1

    1987 doi

  22. [30]

    Lewis, A. 2019. 1910.13970

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2000, Astrophys

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, Astrophys. J., 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    2008, Physical Review D, 77, 10.1103/physrevd.77.063530

    Matsubara, T. 2008, Physical Review D, 77, 10.1103/physrevd.77.063530

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    2011, Physical Review D, 83, 10.1103/physrevd.83.083518

    ---. 2011, Physical Review D, 83, 10.1103/physrevd.83.083518

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    2021, Phys

    Ota, A., Seo, H.-J., Saito, S., & Beutler, F. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123508, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123508

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Peebles, P. J. 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton University Press)

    1980

  28. [36]

    Perko, A., Senatore, L., Jennings, E., & Wechsler, R. H. 2016. 1610.09321

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Philcox, O. H. E., Hou, J., & Slepian, Z. 2021 a . 2108.01670

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Philcox, O. H. E., Slepian, Z., Hou, J., et al. 2021 b , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 509, 2457, 10.1093/mnras/stab3025

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    J., et al

    Powell, M. J., et al. 2009, Cambridge NA Report NA2009/06, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 26, 26

    2009

  32. [40]

    2017, Phys

    Schmittfull, M., Baldauf, T., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 023505, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023505

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Schmittfull, M., Feng, Y., Beutler, F., Sherwin, B., & Chu, M. Y. 2015, Physical Review D, 92, 10.1103/physrevd.92.123522

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    J., & Saito, S

    Seo, H.-J., Beutler, F., Ross, A. J., & Saito, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 2453–2471, 10.1093/mnras/stw1138

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, Mon

    Seo, H.-J., Ota, A., Schmittfull, M., Saito, S., & Beutler, F. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 511, 1557, 10.1093/mnras/stac082

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Eisenstein, D

    Seo, H.-J., Siegel, E. R., Eisenstein, D. J., & White, M. 2008, Astrophys. J., 686, 13, 10.1086/589921

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    J., et al

    Seo, H.-J., Eckel, J., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2010, Astrophys. J., 720, 1650, 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1650

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    2005, Mon

    Springel, V. 2005, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  39. [47]

    Sugiyama, N. 2024 a . 2406.01001

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2024 b , Phys

    ---. 2024 b , Phys. Rev. D, 110, 063528, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063528

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    ---. 2024 c . 2403.18262

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2021, JCAP, 05, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    Torrado, J., & Lewis, A. 2021, JCAP, 05, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, , 250, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9d82

    Villaescusa-Navarro , F., Hahn , C., Massara , E., et al. 2020, , 250, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9d82

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2024 a , Commun

    Wang, Y., et al. 2024 a , Commun. Phys., 7, 130, 10.1038/s42005-024-01624-7

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2024 b , Astrophys

    ---. 2024 b , Astrophys. J., 966, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e01

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2015, Mon

    White, M. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 450, 3822, 10.1093/mnras/stv842

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Zel'Dovich, Y. B. 1970, Astronomy and astrophysics, 5, 84

    1970

  48. [56]

    Zhang, W., Zhao, R., Mu, X., et al. 2025. 2503.20574

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2024, Res

    Zhao, R., Koyama, K., Wang, Y., & Zhao, G.-B. 2024, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 24, 125015, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad8ba1

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.