Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Fiducial cosmology choice shifts DESI full-shape parameters by well under one sigma.

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

2026-08-04 21:21 UTC pith:UJL2OL4G

load-bearing objection A careful, mostly convincing systematic-error calibration for DESI DR1 full-shape; the FM results are clean, but the SF 'no extra systematic' claim rests on an unquantified viability cut that should be addressed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08057 v2 pith:UJL2OL4G submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.CO

Fiducial-Cosmology-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 Full-Shape Analysis

R. Gsponer , S. Ramirez-Solano , F. Rodr\'iguez-Mart\'inez , M. Vargas-Maga\~na , S. Novell-Masot , N. Findlay , H. Gil-Mar\'in , P. Zarrouk
show 60 more authors
S. Nadathur A. Rocher S. Brieden A. P\'erez-Fern\'andez J. Aguilar S. Ahlen D. Bianchi D. Brooks F. J. Castander T. Claybaugh A. Cuceu A. de la Macorra A. de Mattia Arjun Dey P. Doel A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero E. Gazta\~naga S. Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez J. Guy C. Hahn H. K. Herrera-Alcantar K. Honscheid C. Howlett D. Huterer M. Ishak R. Joyce R. Kehoe D. Kirkby T. Kisner A. Kremin O. Lahav C. Lamman M. Landriau L. Le Guillou M. E. Levi C. Magneville M. Manera A. Meisner R. Miquel J. Moustakas E. Mueller N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival F. Prada I. P\'erez-R\`afols G. Rossi L. Samushia E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell H. Seo J. Silber D. Sprayberry G. Tarl\'e B. A. Weaver C. Zhao R. Zhou H. Zou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords fiducial cosmologyfull-shape analysisDESI DR1galaxy power spectrumsystematic uncertaintiesAbacusSummit mocksShapeFitEFTofLSS
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.

This paper tests whether the choice of fiducial cosmology—the assumed universe used to convert galaxy redshifts into distances (the grid cosmology) and to build the template power spectrum (the template cosmology)—biases cosmological parameters inferred from the DESI DR1 full-shape analysis. Using 25 AbacusSummit mock realisations whose true cosmology is the Planck 2018 baseline, the authors re-run the pipeline under five alternative fiducial cosmologies and compare recovered parameters. They find maximum shifts of 0.22σ_DR1 for the standard ΛCDM full-modelling fits, 0.12σ_DR1+SN when adding supernova mock data in extended w0waCDM fits, and below 0.45σ_DR1 for the ShapeFit compressed parameters. The conclusion is that at DR1 precision the fiducial cosmology is not a significant source of systematic error, so the official analysis needs no additional systematic term from this source.

Core claim

The paper's central claim: for the DESI 2024 DR1 full-shape galaxy power spectrum analysis, the assumed fiducial cosmology does not introduce a systematic error larger than the statistical uncertainty. Using 25 AbacusSummit mock realisations built on the Planck 2018 baseline, the team analyses the same mocks under five alternative fiducial cosmologies—low matter density, thawing dark energy, higher Neff, lower σ8, and the DESI BAO best-fit w0waCDM—and measures parameter shifts relative to baseline. In full-modelling, the largest ΛCDM shift is 0.22σ_DR1 across tracers; in extended w0waCDM fits with supernova mocks it is 0.12σ_DR1+SN. In ShapeFit, all shifts stay below 0.45σ_DR1, most below 0.

What carries the argument

Two entry points for the fiducial cosmology: the grid cosmology, which sets the redshift-to-distance conversion and produces Alcock–Paczynski distortions captured by scaling parameters q_∥ and q_⊥; and the template cosmology, which fixes the linear power-spectrum template in ShapeFit, entering through the sound-horizon ratio r_d^temp/r_d and the shape parameters m and n (with fσ8). The main diagnostic is the shift ∆x = δx_secondary − δx_baseline, the difference between parameter shifts measured under an alternative fiducial and under baseline using the same 25 mock realisations—this cancels shared sample variance and isolates the systematic. The suite runs across six DESI tracers (BGS, LRG1–

Load-bearing premise

The estimate assumes that the Planck 2018 ΛCDM cosmology used as both the true cosmology of the mocks and the DESI baseline is close enough to the real Universe that the tested alternative fiducials bracket the true systematic; if the real cosmology differs more strongly (for instance, if the DESI dark-energy hint is real), the systematic could be larger than measured.

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline on mocks built with a true w0waCDM cosmology matching the DESI BAO best fit (or more extreme, e.g. w0=−0.9, wa=−0.5), analyse them with the baseline fiducial, and check whether recovered parameters shift by more than 0.45σ_DR1 or 0.12σ_DR1+SN. Alternatively, compare the measured systematic against forward-model predictions for the AP distortion: if the pipeline's sensitivity to q_∥ and q_⊥ is underestimated, shifts would appear.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The DESI DR1 full-shape error budget can omit a fiducial-cosmology systematic term; the shifts reported here feed directly into the systematic budget of the DR1 analysis.
  • As DESI statistical errors shrink with future data releases, this systematic must be re-estimated, likely with larger mock volumes or variance-cancellation techniques.
  • The grid-vs-template decomposition shows which pipeline stage is sensitive: template cosmology dominates for low-Ωm and high-Neff, while grid cosmology dominates for thawing-DE and DESI-BAO scenarios.
  • For extended w0waCDM fits, adding supernova (or other) probes simultaneously reduces statistical error and projection effects, keeping the fiducial shift below 0.12σ.
  • The shift-differencing method on shared mocks can be applied to other systematic sources and to future surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Since the mocks share a single true cosmology (the Planck 2018 baseline), the measured shifts bracket the systematic only if the real Universe is close to that baseline; if the true dark-energy equation of state is farther from w=−1 than the tested cases, the systematic could be larger—an extrapolation beyond the paper's stated assumptions.
  • The 0.45σ_DR1 shift in the ShapeFit (m+n) parameter is the most vulnerable component; the paper argues these cosmologies are not viable, but future surveys with tighter priors on neutrino or matter density may need to propagate it.
  • A complementary test—mocks built from several different true cosmologies analysed with one fixed fiducial—would probe the opposite direction of the same systematic; the paper names this as future work.
  • The same shift-differencing technique could be applied to other DESI systematics (e.g., HOD, imaging, spectroscopic) to tighten the DR1 error budget.

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. This paper quantifies systematic shifts in DESI DR1 full-shape (FS) cosmological parameters induced by the choice of fiducial cosmology. Using 25 AbacusSummit DR1 mock realizations whose true cosmology is the Planck 2018 baseline, the authors re-analyze the mocks under five alternative fiducial cosmologies (low-Ωm, thawing-DE, high-Neff, low-σ8 for ShapeFit only, and the DESI BAO w0waCDM best fit) and compare against the baseline. They use a difference-of-shifts estimator to cancel sample variance, analytic covariances per grid cosmology, and DR1-like errors from EZmocks. For full-modelling (FM), the maximum shifts are 0.22σ_DR1 in ΛCDM and 0.12σ_DR1+SN in w0waCDM; for ShapeFit (SF), compressed-parameter shifts are below 0.45σ_DR1. The paper concludes that no additional fiducial-cosmology systematic contribution is required for DESI DR1.

Significance. This is a direct input to the DESI DR1 full-shape systematic error budget. If the conclusions hold, the choice of fiducial cosmology is subdominant at current precision, which is a practically important and non-trivial result. The study is carefully designed: it uses survey-realistic mocks, isolates systematic shifts from sample variance via the difference-of-shifts technique, uses per-grid-cosmology analytic covariances, and performs several consistency checks (MAP vs. posterior mean, reparameterization of m+n, separate grid/template variations). The main caveat is the treatment of the largest SF shift, which is excluded from the budget on the basis of a non-quantitative 'non-viable' argument. The paper is also transparent about its single-true-cosmology limitation, which is a strength in framing but leaves the generalisation claim less secure.

major comments (2)
  1. [§7, Table 4] The decision not to propagate the SF (m+n) shift of 0.45σ_DR1 is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion that no additional fiducial-cosmology systematic is needed. The text in §7 states that low-Ωm and high-Neff 'are not representative of viable cosmologies within the DESI parameter space', but no quantitative viability threshold is given. These cosmologies were selected by the authors in §3 as test cases; excluding them post-hoc from the systematic budget is circular unless an a priori criterion is supplied. Please provide a quantitative demonstration (e.g., posterior weight under DESI DR1+Planck or the full DESI+CMB+SN combination, or an explicit 95% CL exclusion) or, failing that, propagate the 0.45σ_DR1 shift conservatively in quadrature.
  2. [§7, §3, §4] The study uses mocks from a single underlying true cosmology (the baseline Planck 2018 ΛCDM). This is acknowledged in §7 as a limitation, but the abstract and conclusions make a broad claim: 'the fiducial cosmology choice has a negligible impact'. If the true cosmology is closer to the DESI BAO w0waCDM best fit, the relevant grid mismatch is not among the tested configurations, because the secondary cosmologies are used as fiducials, not as true underlying models. The measured shifts may not bracket that case. Please either temper the generalisation to the actual DR1 analysis (where baseline is the fiducial and the truth is unknown) or add a complementary test with mocks generated in a secondary cosmology and analysed under baseline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] Typographical errors: 'hich' should be 'which' and 'uncertainity' should be 'uncertainty' in the EFTofLSS discussion.
  2. [§5.2] The code name 'veloclileptors' is a typo for 'velocileptors'.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] 'uncertainities' should be 'uncertainties'.
  4. [§6.1.2] The notation NDR1+SN is introduced but not used consistently; consider defining it once and using it in Table 3 for clarity.
  5. [Table 5] The combined-tracer column leaves compressed parameters (α∥, α⊥, m+n, fσs8) blank even though combined SF constraints are discussed in the text. Please add these values or explicitly state they are not used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the fiducial-systematic shifts are empirical measurements on external N-body mocks with known input cosmology; the only self-citation (ShapeFit calibration) is a non-load-bearing methodological reference.

full rationale

This is a calibration study rather than a derivation. The central quantities are the shifts in FM cosmological parameters and SF compressed parameters, obtained by fitting mock power spectra generated from AbacusSummit N-body mocks whose true cosmology is fixed to the DESI baseline (Planck 2018) model. The 'expected values' x_exp in Eq. (5.1) are taken from the known input mock cosmology, and the differential shift Delta x in Eq. (5.2) compares secondary fiducial pipelines against the baseline pipeline. Thus the measured shifts are external empirical outcomes, not quantities forced by construction. The sigma_DR1 denominator is independently obtained from EZmocks with fiber assignment and a covariance rescaling calibrated in companion DESI papers; it is not derived from the shifts themselves. The only self-citation is the use of ShapeFit with a=0.6 'as calibrated in [50]', which is prior work by overlapping authors. This is a methodological choice and does not enter as a fitted prediction of the fiducial systematic; the paper's conclusions do not rest on proving ShapeFit's absolute accuracy, but on comparing relative shifts between fiducials. The paper also explicitly discloses its reliance on a single true cosmology (Section 7), and the decision not to propagate the 0.45-sigma_DR1 (m+n) shift for low-Omega_m and high-N_eff is a stated viability judgment rather than a circular reduction: the shift is reported, and the exclusion is an external prior, albeit one that lacks a quantitative threshold. That is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity. No load-bearing claim reduces to its own input by definition or by self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central conclusion rests on the fidelity of external mock catalogues and on the EZmock-derived DR1 errors standing in for the true survey errors; both are external benchmarks not derived in this paper. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • ShapeFit transition rate a = 0.6 (fixed)
    The transition rate in Eq. (2.5) is fixed to a=0.6, calibrated in the ShapeFit paper [50]. It is not fitted to DESI data, but the SF results depend on this choice.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption AbacusSummit 'complete' mock catalogues faithfully reproduce DESI DR1 clustering and survey realism, so measured fiducial-cosmology shifts transfer to real data.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 and Section 7; the mocks lack fiber collisions and use a single HOD calibration, so this is a load-bearing external assumption.
  • domain assumption The EZmock-based covariance with FFA and rescaling approximates the true DESI DR1 statistical uncertainty (sigma_DR1) well enough to set the denominator of the shift ratio.
    Section 4.3 acknowledges EZmock covariances underestimate variance and are rescaled based on configuration-space DR1 covariance; the calibration carries uncertainty not propagated.
  • domain assumption The difference-of-shifts method (Eq. 5.2) cancels cosmic variance sufficiently with 25 realisations to resolve sub-sigma systematic shifts.
    Section 5.4 relies on this to isolate systematic effects; the paper notes the finite mock volume will become limiting in future releases.
  • domain assumption The one-loop EFTofLSS model implemented in velocileptors is unbiased over k=0.02-0.20 h/Mpc for all tested fiducial cosmologies.
    Section 5.2 adopts the DESI-tested model; any model error that correlates with fiducial cosmology would be misattributed to the systematic.
  • domain assumption The ShapeFit transition parameter a=0.6, calibrated for the baseline cosmology, remains adequate for the alternative fiducial cosmologies tested.
    Section 2.2 fixes a=0.6 following [50]; the SF shifts could be sensitive to this choice when the transfer function differs strongly.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fiducial-Cosmology-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 Full-Shape Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJL2OL4G

@misc{pith2026250908057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fiducial-Cosmology-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 Full-Shape Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJL2OL4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08057}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We assess the impact of the fiducial cosmology choice on cosmological inference from full-shape (FS) fits of the galaxy power spectrum in the DESI 2024 Data Release 1 (DR1). Using a suite of AbacusSummit DR1 mock catalogues based on the Planck 2018 best-fit cosmology, we quantify potential systematic shifts introduced by analysing the data under five secondary cosmologies - featuring variations in matter density, thawing dark energy, higher effective number of neutrino species, reduced clustering amplitude, and the DESI DR1 BAO best-fit $w_0w_a$CDM cosmology - relative to DESI's baseline Planck 2018 cosmology. We investigate two complementary FS analysis approaches: full-modelling (FM) and ShapeFit (SF), each with distinct sensitivities to the assumed fiducial model. Across all tracers, we find for FM that systematic shifts induced by fiducial cosmology mismatches remain well below the DESI DR1 statistical uncertainties, with maximum deviations of 0.22$\sigma_\mathrm{DR1}$ in $\Lambda$CDM scenarios and 0.12$\sigma_\mathrm{DR1+SN}$ when including SN Ia mock data in extended $w_0w_a$CDM fits. For SF, the shifts in the compressed parameters remain below $0.45\sigma_\mathrm{DR1}$ for all tracers and cosmologies.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. BAO miscalibration cannot rescue late-time solutions to the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 accept novelty 6.0

    Even after rescaling BAO data to prefer H0≈73 km/s/Mpc, none of six tested late-time dark-energy models can resolve the Hubble tension once unanchored SNeIa and CMB geometry are included.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0

    DESI DR1 full-shape galaxy clustering constrains Omega_m = 0.296 ± 0.010, H0 = 68.63 ± 0.79 km/s/Mpc, and sigma_8 = 0.841 ± 0.034, consistent with LambdaCDM and Planck.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Huchra, M

    J. Huchra, M. Davis, D. Latham and J. Tonry,A survey of galaxy redshifts. IV - The data, ApJS52(1983) 89

    1983

  2. [2]

    Colless, G

    M. Colless, G. Dalton, S. Maddox, W. Sutherland, P. Norberg, S. Cole et al.,The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: spectra and redshifts, MNRAS328(2001) 1039 [astro-ph/0106498]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    Alcock and B

    C. Alcock and B. Paczynski,An evolution free test for non-zero cosmological constant, Nature 281(1979) 358

    1979

  4. [4]

    Kaiser,Clustering in real space and in redshift space,Mon

    N. Kaiser,Clustering in real space and in redshift space,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.227 (1987) 1

    1987

  5. [5]

    Hamilton,Measuring Omega and the real correlation function from the redshift correlation function,Astrophys

    A.J.S. Hamilton,Measuring Omega and the real correlation function from the redshift correlation function,Astrophys. J. Lett.385(1992) L5

    1992

  6. [6]

    Percival, C.M

    W.J. Percival, C.M. Baugh, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges, R. Cannon, S. Cole et al.,The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: the power spectrum and the matter content of the Universe, MNRAS327(2001) 1297 [astro-ph/0105252]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Cole, W.J

    S. Cole, W.J. Percival, J.A. Peacock, P. Norberg, C.M. Baugh, C.S. Frenk et al.,The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: power-spectrum analysis of the final data set and cosmological implications, MNRAS362(2005) 505 [astro-ph/0501174]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Peacock, S

    J.A. Peacock, S. Cole, P. Norberg, C.M. Baugh, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges et al.,A measurement of the cosmological mass density from clustering in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, Nature410(2001) 169 [astro-ph/0103143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    Guzzo, M

    L. Guzzo, M. Pierleoni, B. Meneux, E. Branchini, O. Le F` evre, C. Marinoni et al.,A test of the nature of cosmic acceleration using galaxy redshift distortions, Nature451(2008) 541 [0802.1944]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    Gunn, W.A

    J.E. Gunn, W.A. Siegmund, E.J. Mannery, R.E. Owen, C.L. Hull, R.F. Leger et al.,The 2.5 m Telescope of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, AJ131(2006) 2332 [astro-ph/0602326]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    Eisenstein, I

    D.J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D.W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, M.R. Blanton, R.C. Nichol et al., Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, ApJ633(2005) 560 [astro-ph/0501171]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Dawson, D.J

    K.S. Dawson, D.J. Schlegel, C.P. Ahn, S.F. Anderson, ´E. Aubourg, S. Bailey et al.,The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey of SDSS-III, AJ145(2013) 10 [1208.0022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

    Dawson, J.-P

    K.S. Dawson, J.-P. Kneib, W.J. Percival, S. Alam, F.D. Albareti, S.F. Anderson et al.,The SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Overview and Early Data, AJ 151(2016) 44 [1508.04473]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, R. Cahn, D. Eisenstein et al.,The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013,arXiv e-prints(2013) arXiv:1308.0847 [1308.0847]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1611.00037 [1611.00037]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Abareshi, J

    DESI Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., Overview of the Instrumentation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ164 (2022) 207 [2205.10939]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1611.00036 [1611.00036]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Silber, P

    J.H. Silber, P. Fagrelius, K. Fanning, M. Schubnell, J.N. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al.,The Robotic Multiobject Focal Plane System of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), AJ165 (2023) 9 [2205.09014]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Miller, P

    T.N. Miller, P. Doel, G. Gutierrez, R. Besuner, D. Brooks, G. Gallo et al.,The Optical Corrector for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ168(2024) 95 [2306.06310]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    J. Guy, S. Bailey, A. Kremin, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto et al.,The Spectroscopic Data Processing Pipeline for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ165 (2023) 144 [2209.14482]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Poppett, L

    C. Poppett, L. Tyas, J. Aguilar, C. Bebek, D. Bramall, T. Claybaugh et al.,Overview of the Fiber System for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ168(2024) 245

    2024

  22. [22]

    Schlafly, D

    E.F. Schlafly, D. Kirkby, D.J. Schlegel, A.D. Myers, A. Raichoor, K. Dawson et al.,Survey Operations for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ166(2023) 259 [2306.06309]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    R. Zhou, B. Dey, J.A. Newman, D.J. Eisenstein, K. Dawson, S. Bailey et al.,Target Selection and Validation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies, AJ165(2023) 58 [2208.08515]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, G. Aldering et al., Validation of the Scientific Program for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ167 (2024) 62 [2306.06307]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, G. Aldering et al.,The Early Data Release of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ168(2024) 58 [2306.06308]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 II: sample definitions, characteristics, and two-point clustering statistics, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 017 [2411.12020]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Abdul-Karim, A.G

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, A.G. Adame, D. Aguado, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al., Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2503.14745 [2503.14745]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 III: baryon acoustic oscillations from galaxies and quasars, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 012 [2404.03000]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 IV: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman alpha forest, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 124 [2404.03001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 021 [2404.03002]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars,arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2411.12021 [2411.12021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 VII: cosmological constraints from the full-shape modeling of clustering measurements, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 028 [2411.12022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    M. Maus, Y. Lai, H.E. Noriega, S. Ramirez-Solano, A. Aviles, S. Chen et al.,A comparison of effective field theory models of redshift space galaxy power spectra for DESI 2024 and future surveys, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 134 [2404.07272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    M. Maus, S. Chen, M. White, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, A. Aviles et al.,An analysis of parameter compression and Full-Modeling techniques with Velocileptors for DESI 2024 and beyond, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 138 [2404.07312]. – 36 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Noriega, A

    H.E. Noriega, A. Aviles, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, S. Ramirez-Solano, S. Fromenteau, M. Vargas-Maga˜ na et al.,Comparing Compressed and Full-Modeling analyses with FOLPS: implications for DESI 2024 and beyond, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 136 [2404.07269]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Y. Lai, C. Howlett, M. Maus, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, H.E. Noriega, S. Ram ´ ırez-Solano et al.,A comparison between ShapeFit compression and Full-Modelling method with PyBird for DESI 2024 and beyond, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 139 [2404.07283]

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Ramirez-Solano, M

    S. Ramirez-Solano, M. Icaza-Lizaola, H.E. Noriega, M. Vargas-Maga˜ na, S. Fromenteau, A. Aviles et al.,Full Modeling and parameter compression methods in configuration space for DESI 2024 and beyond, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 129 [2404.07268]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Findlay, S

    N. Findlay, S. Nadathur, W.J. Percival, A. de Mattia, P. Zarrouk, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın et al., Exploring HOD-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 Full-Shape galaxy clustering analysis,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2411.12023 [2411.12023]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Zhao et al.,Impact and mitigation of imaging systematics for DESI 2024 full shape analysis,in preparation(2024)

    R. Zhao et al.,Impact and mitigation of imaging systematics for DESI 2024 full shape analysis,in preparation(2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    J. Yu, A.J. Ross, A. Rocher, O. Alves, A. de Mattia, D. Forero-S´ anchez et al.,ELG spectroscopic systematics analysis of the DESI Data Release 1, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025(2025) 126 [2405.16657]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Krolewski, J

    A. Krolewski, J. Yu, A.J. Ross, S. Penmetsa, W.J. Percival, R. Zhou et al.,Impact and mitigation of spectroscopic systematics on DESI DR1 clustering measurements, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 147 [2405.17208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Pinon, A

    M. Pinon, A. de Mattia, P. McDonald, E. Burtin, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, M. White et al., Mitigation of DESI fiber assignment incompleteness effect on two-point clustering with small angular scale truncated estimators, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 131 [2406.04804]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Forero-S´ anchez, M

    D. Forero-S´ anchez, M. Rashkovetskyi, O. Alves, A. de Mattia, N. Padmanabhan, H. Seo et al.,Analytical and EZmock covariance validation for the DESI 2024 results, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 055 [2411.12027]

    arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Alves et al.,Analytical covariance matrices of DESI galaxy power spectra,in preparation (2024)

    O. Alves et al.,Analytical covariance matrices of DESI galaxy power spectra,in preparation (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Rashkovetskyi, D

    M. Rashkovetskyi, D. Forero-S´ anchez, A. de Mattia, D.J. Eisenstein, N. Padmanabhan, H. Seo et al.,Semi-analytical covariance matrices for two-point correlation function for DESI 2024 data, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 145 [2404.03007]. [46]BOSScollaboration,The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: RS...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [47]

    Neveux, E

    R. Neveux, E. Burtin, A. de Mattia, A. Smith, A.J. Ross, J. Hou et al.,The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from the anisotropic power spectrum of the quasar sample between redshift 0.8 and 2.2, MNRAS499(2020) 210 [2007.08999]

    arXiv 2020

  47. [48]

    Gil-Mar ´ ın, J.E

    H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, J.E. Bautista, R. Paviot, M. Vargas-Maga˜ na, S. de la Torre, S. Fromenteau et al.,The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic power spectrum between redshifts 0.6 and 1.0, MNRAS498(2020) 2492 [2007.08994]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [49]

    de Mattia, V

    A. de Mattia, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, A. Raichoor, A.J. Ross, A. Tamone, C. Zhao et al.,The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the emission line galaxy sample from the anisotropic power spectrum between redshift 0.6 and 1.1, MNRAS501(2021) 5616 [2007.09008]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [50]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın and L. Verde,ShapeFit: extracting the power spectrum shape information in galaxy surveys beyond BAO and RSD, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021 (2021) 054 [2106.07641]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [51]

    Vargas-Maga˜ na, S

    M. Vargas-Maga˜ na, S. Ho, A.J. Cuesta, R. O’Connell, A.J. Ross, D.J. Eisenstein et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: theoretical systematics and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the galaxy correlation function, MNRAS477(2018) 1153 [1610.03506]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [52]

    Carter, F

    P. Carter, F. Beutler, W.J. Percival, J. DeRose, R.H. Wechsler and C. Zhao,The impact of the fiducial cosmology assumption on BAO distance scale measurements, MNRAS494(2020) 2076 [1906.03035]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [53]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological Non-Linearities as an Effective Fluid, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.07(2012) 051 [1004.2488]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [54]

    Carrasco, M.P

    J.J.M. Carrasco, M.P. Hertzberg and L. Senatore,The Effective Field Theory of Cosmological Large Scale Structures,Journal of High Energy Physics09(2012) 082 [1206.2926]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [55]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın and L. Verde,A tale of two (or more) h’s, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023(2023) 023 [2212.04522]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [56]

    Beutler, H.-J

    F. Beutler, H.-J. Seo, S. Saito, C.-H. Chuang, A.J. Cuesta, D.J. Eisenstein et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: anisotropic galaxy clustering in Fourier space, MNRAS466(2017) 2242 [1607.03150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [57]

    Grieb, A.G

    J.N. Grieb, A.G. S´ anchez, S. Salazar-Albornoz, R. Scoccimarro, M. Crocce, C. Dalla Vecchia et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications of the Fourier space wedges of the final sample, MNRAS 467(2017) 2085 [1607.03143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [58]

    Satpathy, S

    S. Satpathy, S. Alam, S. Ho, M. White, N.A. Bahcall, F. Beutler et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: on the measurement of growth rate using galaxy correlation functions, MNRAS469(2017) 1369 [1607.03148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [59]

    S´ anchez, R

    A.G. S´ anchez, R. Scoccimarro, M. Crocce, J.N. Grieb, S. Salazar-Albornoz, C. Dalla Vecchia et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications of the configuration-space clustering wedges, MNRAS464 (2017) 1640 [1607.03147]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [60]

    Hou, A.G

    J. Hou, A.G. S´ anchez, A.J. Ross, A. Smith, R. Neveux, J. Bautista et al.,The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from anisotropic clustering analysis of the quasar sample in configuration space between redshift 0.8 and 2.2, MNRAS500(2021) 1201 [2007.08998]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [61]

    Bautista, R

    J.E. Bautista, R. Paviot, M. Vargas Maga˜ na, S. de la Torre, S. Fromenteau, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın et al.,The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the luminous red galaxy sample from the anisotropic correlation function between redshifts 0.6 and 1, MNRAS500(2021) 736 [2007.08993]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [62]

    Catelan, F

    P. Catelan, F. Lucchin, S. Matarrese and L. Moscardini,Eulerian perturbation theory in non-flat universes: second-order approximation, MNRAS276(1995) 39 [astro-ph/9411066]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  62. [63]

    Maksimova, L.H

    N.A. Maksimova, L.H. Garrison, D.J. Eisenstein, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose and T.P. Satterthwaite,ABACUSSUMMIT: a massive set of high-accuracy, high-resolution N-body simulations, MNRAS508(2021) 4017 [2110.11398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  63. [64]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, A&A641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [65]

    Calabrese, R.A

    E. Calabrese, R.A. Hloˇ zek, J.R. Bond, M.J. Devlin, J. Dunkley, M. Halpern et al., Cosmological parameters from pre-Planck CMB measurements: A 2017 update, Phys. Rev. D 95(2017) 063525 [1702.03272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [66]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter,International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  66. [67]

    Linder,Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe, Phys

    E.V. Linder,Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  67. [68]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis,CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022(2022) 039 [2206.07773]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [69]

    Madhavacheril, F.J

    M.S. Madhavacheril, F.J. Qu, B.D. Sherwin, N. MacCrann, Y. Li, I. Abril-Cabezas et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters, ApJ962(2024) 113 [2304.05203]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [70]

    F.J. Qu, B.D. Sherwin, M.S. Madhavacheril, D. Han, K.T. Crowley, I. Abril-Cabezas et al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth, ApJ962(2024) 112 [2304.05202]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [71]

    MacCrann, B.D

    N. MacCrann, B.D. Sherwin, F.J. Qu, T. Namikawa, M.S. Madhavacheril, I. Abril-Cabezas et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Mitigating the Impact of Extragalactic Foregrounds for the DR6 Cosmic Microwave Background Lensing Analysis, ApJ966(2024) 138 [2304.05196]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [72]

    Abbott, M

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam et al., The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set, ApJ973(2024) L14 [2401.02929]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [73]

    P´ erez-Fern´ andez, L

    A. P´ erez-Fern´ andez, L. Medina-Varela, R. Ruggeri, M. Vargas-Maga˜ na, H. Seo, N. Padmanabhan et al.,Fiducial-cosmology-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 BAO analysis, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 144 [2406.06085]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [74]

    Zhao et al.,Mock catalogues with survey realism for the DESI DR1,in preparation(2024)

    C. Zhao et al.,Mock catalogues with survey realism for the DESI DR1,in preparation(2024)

    2024

  74. [75]

    Hadzhiyska, D

    B. Hadzhiyska, D. Eisenstein, S. Bose, L.H. Garrison and N. Maksimova,COMPASO: A new halo finder for competitive assignment to spherical overdensities, MNRAS509(2022) 501 [2110.11408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [76]

    Bose, D.J

    S. Bose, D.J. Eisenstein, B. Hadzhiyska, L.H. Garrison and S. Yuan,Constructing high-fidelity halo merger trees in ABACUSSUMMIT, MNRAS512(2022) 837 [2110.11409]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  76. [77]

    Yuan, L.H

    S. Yuan, L.H. Garrison, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose and D.J. Eisenstein,ABACUSHOD: a highly efficient extended multitracer HOD framework and its application to BOSS and eBOSS data, MNRAS510(2022) 3301 [2110.11412]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [78]

    Smith, C

    A. Smith, C. Grove, S. Cole, P. Norberg, P. Zarrouk, S. Yuan et al.,Generating mock galaxy catalogues for flux-limited samples like the DESI Bright Galaxy Survey, MNRAS532(2024) 903 [2312.08792]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [79]

    Rocher, V

    A. Rocher, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, E. Burtin, S. Yuan, A. de Mattia, A.J. Ross et al.,The DESI One-Percent survey: exploring the Halo Occupation Distribution of Emission Line Galaxies with AbacusSummit simulations, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023(2023) 016 [2306.06319]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  79. [80]

    S. Yuan, H. Zhang, A.J. Ross, J. Donald-McCann, B. Hadzhiyska, R.H. Wechsler et al.,The DESI one-per cent survey: exploring the halo occupation distribution of luminous red galaxies and quasi-stellar objects withAbacusSummit, MNRAS530(2024) 947 [2306.06314]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [81]

    A.J. Ross, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, A. Anand, S. Bailey et al.,The construction of large-scale structure catalogs for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 125 [2405.16593]. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.