Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Primordial non-Gaussianity systematics from redshift mismatch with SPHEREx

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Redshift bin mismatch in SPHEREx clustering can mimic 3-6 sigma non-Gaussianity; a scattering-matrix correction removes the bias.

desk verdict SPHEREx-specific forecast of photo-z bin mismatch bias is solid, but the scattering-matrix 'unbiased' claim rests only on a closed-loop test and needs softening. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03078 v2 pith:UQL2Y6NF submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.CO

Chandra Shekhar Saraf , David Parkinson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords primordialnon-Gaussianitylocalparameterf_NLphotometricredshiftsredshiftbinmismatchtomographicangularpowerspectrumSPHERExgalaxybiasscatteringmatrix
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a specific, easily overlooked systematic—galaxies assigned to the wrong redshift bin because of photometric redshift errors—can masquerade as genuine primordial non-Gaussianity in tomographic clustering measurements from SPHEREx. Using 500 simulated SPHEREx-like galaxy density fields, it shows that this bin mismatch shifts the inferred local non-Gaussianity parameter $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}$ by 3–6$\sigma$ and the galaxy linear bias by 9–12$\sigma$ when all five SPHEREx redshift-accuracy bins are used. The paper then proposes a scattering matrix that tracks the fraction of galaxies migrating between bins and corrects the measured angular power spectra, recovering unbiased estimates of both $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}$ and bias within $1\sigma$. If correct, this establishes that redshift bin mismatch must be accounted for before SPHEREx data can be used to discriminate between single- and multi-field inflation models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scattering matrix $P_{ij}$, the fraction of galaxies that migrate from true redshift bin $i$ to photometric bin $j$ because of photometric-redshift errors. It connects the observed photometric angular power spectrum to the true one through $C_{ij}^{\mathrm{gg,ph}}(\ell)=\sum_{x,y}P_{xi}P_{yj}C_{xy}^{\mathrm{gg,tr}}(\ell)$, so the observed spectrum is a quadratic mixture of true spectra from different bins. A simple convolution of redshift distributions cannot capture this mixing, because the mixing weights enter quadratically. The paper computes $P$ by convolving the observed photometric redshift distribution with the photometric-redshift error distribution, avoiding the regularization problems of deconvolution, and shows that using this matrix to correct the measured power spectra removes the parameter biases.

What would settle it

Run the same 500-realization pipeline with a photometric-redshift error model deliberately different from the one used to scramble the galaxies—for instance, inflating the error width by 20% or adding a small catastrophic-outlier tail—and check whether the scattering-matrix-corrected $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}$ posterior still contains the fiducial value within $1\sigma$; if it does not, the unbiased-recovery claim is limited to exactly known redshift errors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that photo-z-induced redshift bin mismatch is not a small correction for SPHEREx: it is large enough to create apparent tensions of 1–3$\sigma$ on $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}$ and up to 9$\sigma$ on galaxy bias when only the three high-accuracy redshift bins are used (Case-I), and up to 6$\sigma$ on $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}$ and 12$\sigma$ on bias when all five accuracy bins are used (Case-II). These shifts persist even when the true redshift distribution is estimated directly from the simulated galaxy catalogue, showing they come from the diffusion of galaxies across bin boundaries rather than from a bad estimate of $dN/dz$. The paper further claims that computing the scattering matrix from the observed photometric redshift distribution and the photometric-redshift error distribution, and using it to correct the power spectra, recovers $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}$ and the full galaxy-bias evolution within $1\sigma$ for both configurations and for fiducial values $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}=1,10,100$.

Load-bearing premise

The correction is only demonstrated for the case where the photometric-redshift error model used in the analysis exactly matches the true error distribution that scrambled the galaxies, so a real survey with mismodeled or catastrophic redshift outliers is not covered by this validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scattering-matrix correction is applied, SPHEREx can recover unbiased $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}$ and galaxy-bias estimates from tomographic auto-spectra even when low-accuracy redshift bins are added to increase the galaxy sample.
  • Without the correction, apparent 3–6$\sigma$ shifts in $f_{\mathrm{NL}}^{\mathrm{loc}}$ could be misread as evidence for multi-field inflation, and 9–12$\sigma$ shifts in galaxy bias would corrupt any clustering-based cosmology from the same data.
  • Widening tomographic bins reduces the mismatch bias but sacrifices sensitivity to redshift evolution; the scattering matrix removes the bias regardless of bin width, so narrow bins can be kept.
  • The failure of convolution and deconvolution estimates of the true redshift distribution to cure the bias implies that future tomographic analyses must forward-model or invert the bin-to-bin scattering rather than only correcting the redshift distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same quadratic-mixing logic should extend to other photometric surveys with comparable redshift scatter, with the bias amplitude set by the off-diagonal weight of each survey's scattering matrix; the paper does not quantify this transfer.
  • Because the scattering matrix links bins, cross-bin angular power spectra carry additional information about the migration fractions; a joint auto-plus-cross analysis could sharpen the correction or expose misspecification of the photometric-redshift model.
  • For real SPHEREx data, a practical route is to calibrate the scattering matrix with a spectroscopic subsample and then marginalize over its uncertainty, converting the systematic into a nuisance parameter rather than assuming the error model is exact.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses 500 log-normal GLASS simulations of SPHEREx-like galaxy density fields with Gaussian photometric redshift errors to study how redshift bin mismatch affects tomographic angular-power-spectrum forecasts of local primordial non-Gaussianity. The authors find that the standard convolution-based treatment of photometric redshifts leaves biases on f_NL of about 3-6 sigma and on galaxy linear halo bias of about 9-12 sigma, and they propose a scattering-matrix correction (Eqs. 12-14) that recovers the fiducial f_NL and bias within 1 sigma in their simulations. They also show that broader redshift bins reduce but do not remove the bias, and they recommend the scattering-matrix formalism for future tomographic analyses.

Significance. If the quantitative bias and the mitigation result are robust, this is a timely and important result for SPHEREx PNG science: it identifies a systematic that can masquerade as a several-sigma f_NL signal and offers a practical correction. The paper has clear strengths: the pipeline is validated on simulations without photometric redshift errors (Figure 9), the bias demonstration is carried out on 500 realizations generated with public codes, the covariance is estimated from the simulations, and the bin-width comparison (Figure 8) tests the robustness of the qualitative conclusion. The main caveat is that the correction is validated only under precisely the Gaussian photometric-redshift error model used to generate the simulations, so the 'unbiased estimation' claim is currently a closed-loop consistency check rather than an empirical validation against misspecified photo-z errors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Section 4.3, Eq. (14)] The central claim that the scattering-matrix formalism 'enables unbiased estimation' of f_NL and galaxy bias is supported only by a closed-loop test: the same Gaussian photometric-redshift error distribution used to scatter galaxies in the simulations is used to construct P and to correct the average spectra. A misspecification test -- for example, perturbing sigma0(z) by 10-20 percent, using a non-Gaussian p(zp|zt), or adding a small catastrophic-outlier population -- is needed before the method can be presented as unbiased for real SPHEREx data. Section 5 explicitly defers catastrophic redshift errors and photometric calibration errors to future work, but the abstract and Section 4.3 state the unbiased result without this qualification.
  2. [Eqs. (12)-(14)] The normalization and indexing of the scattering matrix are not consistent as written. Equation (12) requires P_{xi} to be the probability that a galaxy in true-redshift bin x is observed in photometric bin i, normalized by the true-redshift bin population, but Eq. (14) defines P_{ij} as the fraction of galaxies in photometric bin i whose true redshift lies in bin j, normalized by the photometric-redshift bin population. These differ by the ratio of the photometric and true redshift bin populations; as written, the relation C^{gg,ph} = P^T C^{gg,tr} P does not follow from Eq. (14). Please state the intended index convention and provide the correct normalization for the scattering matrix.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (6) and (10)] The likelihood in Eq. (10) uses the sample covariance K of the individual power-spectrum estimates, while the data vector d_l is the average over 500 realizations. The covariance of the averaged data vector is K/500, so the reported posterior widths and the quoted '3-6 sigma' and '9-12 sigma' significances are not correctly normalized for the quantity being fit. Either divide K by 500 when fitting the mean spectrum, or state explicitly that K is intended as the per-survey covariance for a single SPHEREx-like realization and that the quoted shifts are offsets of the mean signal relative to that single-survey error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The text says photometric redshifts were generated 'by drawing a positive random value from Gaussian distribution N(zt, sigma0(1+z))'; since a Gaussian draw can be negative, please specify whether negative draws are rejected and re-drawn or whether the distribution is truncated.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (10)] The theory vector t_l(theta) is not defined explicitly; please state that it is the angular power spectrum computed from Eqs. (2)-(4), including the scattering-matrix model when that approach is used.
  3. [Figure 3] The caption says the upper and lower panels correspond to Case-I and Case-II, but the figure appears as a 2x3 grid; please label each subplot with the case and the fiducial f_NL value so the panels can be read unambiguously.
  4. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'We refer the readers to C24 for a more detailed explanation on the scattering matrix formalism' leaves the key new derivation mostly in a companion paper; since the formalism is the central result, at least the step that applies P to either the data or the theory (inversion versus forward modeling) should be given in this paper.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'redshift mismatch of galaxies' should be 'redshift bin mismatch of galaxies' for consistency with the body, and 'forecasts on PNG' could be rephrased as 'forecasts for PNG constraints'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Closed-loop validation: the scattering-matrix 'unbiased estimation' claim is guaranteed by construction because P is built from the same photo-z error model that generated the mocks.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 3 and 4.3 (Eqs. 13-14); abstract and Section 4.2 claims]
    "The photo-zs for galaxies zp were generated by drawing a positive random value from Gaussian distribution N (zt, σ0(1 + z)), such that the galaxy number density follows expected SPHEREx redshift accuracy shown in left panel of Figure 1. In this work, we compute the scattering matrix coefficients from the observed photometric redshift distribution and error distributions through a convolution approach. Notably, the scattering matrix formalism provides unbiased estimates of f loc NL and accurately recovers the true evolution of galaxy bias for both Case-I and Case-II."

    The scattering matrix P is not an independently estimated nuisance; it is constructed from the same Gaussian photo-z error distribution N(zt, σ0(1+z)) that was used to scatter galaxies in the mocks. Under Eq. 13, C^ph = P^T C^tr P, so applying the inverse P to the contaminated power spectra returns the input C^tr by construction, up to sample noise. The recovered f_NL and bL(z) are therefore a consistency check of the simulation and likelihood pipeline, not a test of the correction against an unknown or misspecified photo-z error distribution. The paper nowhere perturbs p(zp|zt), sigma0, or tests catastrophic outliers or calibration errors; indeed Section 5 explicitly defers those to future work.

full rationale

The paper's quantification of the redshift-mismatch bias is a genuine, non-circular simulation result: comparing power spectra and posteriors with and without photo-z scatter yields the reported 3-6 sigma f_NL offsets and 9-12 sigma galaxy-bias offsets. The circularity lies in the mitigation claim. The scattering matrix P is derived from the same Gaussian photo-z error distribution that generated the mock data, and the correction is validated by inverting that same P. Consequently, the unbiased-recovery result is algebraically forced within the assumed error model. This is not a case of fitting a parameter to a subset of data and then predicting the same subset, but it is a closed-loop validation that makes the headline mitigation claim self-referential. The paper does not test robustness to misspecified photo-z errors, catastrophic outliers, or calibration uncertainties, so the 'unbiased estimation' conclusion overreaches relative to what the simulations can demonstrate. Because the bias quantification itself is independent and the closed-loop issue affects only the validation of the correction, the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard modeling assumptions for a forecast: lognormal mocks, Gaussian photo-z scatter, a fixed fiducial cosmology, and a known error distribution for the correction. No new physical entities are introduced. The key fragility is that the scattering matrix correction uses the same error model that created the problem.

free parameters (2)
  • f_NL (local primordial non-Gaussianity) = Fiducial values 1, 10, 100; estimated from the likelihood
    Target parameter of the forecast; the paper measures its posterior distribution from simulated power spectra.
  • Galaxy linear halo bias per tomographic bin = Approximately 1.1 to 3.0 across bins (from Fig. 4)
    13 (Case-I) or 15 (Case-II) nuisance parameters estimated jointly with f_NL; their offset is a central result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lognormal galaxy density fields generated with GLASS are a sufficient model for studying photo-z bin mismatch in SPHEREx-like clustering.
    Used to create 500 Monte Carlo realizations; lognormal fields approximate nonlinear clustering but are not a full N-body or hydrodynamic description.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift errors are Gaussian with sigma = sigma0(1+z) and no catastrophic outliers.
    Assumed in Section 3 when generating photo-zs; the paper does not test sensitivity to non-Gaussian tails or catastrophic photo-z failures.
  • domain assumption The scale-dependent halo bias model (Eq. 2) with fixed cosmology and linear matter power spectrum describes the clustering on the scales used (ell 2 to 80, k <= 0.25 h/Mpc).
    Used to compute the theory vector t(theta) in the likelihood; no marginalization over cosmological parameters.
  • domain assumption The scattering matrix relation C_ph = P^T C_tr P with P computed from Eq. 14 correctly maps true to photometric power spectra.
    Central to the mitigation method; the paper does not derive the normalization conditions or verify the relation outside the perfect-knowledge case.
  • domain assumption The sample covariance estimated from 500 simulations is treated as the true covariance in the Gaussian likelihood.
    The likelihood in Eq. 10 uses K_ll' from Eq. 6 without accounting for the noise in the covariance estimate or using an inverse-Wishart correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Primordial non-Gaussianity systematics from redshift mismatch with SPHEREx." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQL2Y6NF

@misc{pith2026241203078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Primordial non-Gaussianity systematics from redshift mismatch with SPHEREx},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQL2Y6NF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03078}
}
abstract

The ability to differentiate between different models of inflation through the imprint of primordial non-Gaussianity (PNG) requires stringent constraints on the local PNG parameter $f_{\text{NL}}^{\text{loc}}$. Upcoming data from the large scale structure surveys like \textit{Euclid}, Vera C. Rubin Observatory, and the Spectro-Photometer for the History of the Universe, Epoch of Reionization, and Ices Explorer (SPHEREx) will be instrumental in advancing our understanding of the inflationary epoch. In this context, we present forecasts on PNG with tomographic angular power spectra derived from simulations of SPHEREx. We put forward the effects of redshift bin mismatch of galaxies as a significant source of systematic uncertainty in the estimation of both $f_{\text{NL}}^{\text{loc}}$ and galaxy linear halo bias. We simulate $500$ SPHEREx-like galaxy density fields, and divide the galaxies into redshift bins assuming Gaussian photometric redshift errors. We show that the misclassification of galaxies in redshift bins can result in strong apparent tensions on $f_{\text{NL}}^{\text{loc}}$ up to $\sim 3-6\sigma$ and up to $\sim 9-12\sigma$ on galaxy bias. To address this, we propose a scattering matrix formalism that mitigates bin mismatch of galaxies and enables unbiased estimation of cosmological parameters from tomographic angular clustering measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fiducial data used in our simulations taken from Dor´e et al. (2014). (a) The comoving number density of galaxies in different redshift accuracy bins. (b) The galaxy linear halo bias in different redshift accuracy bins. The effective galaxy bias is shown with black dashed line. from Gaussian distribution N (zt , σ0(1 + z)), such that the galaxy number density follows expected SPHEREx redshift accuracy shown in left … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of photo-z scatter on tomographic redshift distributions for (a) Case-I and (b) Case-II. The dashed orange lines mark the boundaries of redshift bins. The blue solid curves are the redshift distributions obtained after convolution. We used flat priors for parameters in the range bL ∈ [0, 20] and f loc NL ∈ [−100, 200]. We used the EMCEE package (Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013) to effectively sample the parameter … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The best-fit values of f loc NL parameter estimated from the average power spectra of 500 realisations after adding photo-z errors. The upper and lower panels correspond to Case-I and Case-II simulations (see main text for description of Case-I and Case-II). The vertical red line marks the true value of f loc NL parameter used in simulations. The green histograms are the posteriors obtained following the convolution… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The galaxy halo bias evolution estimated from the average power spectra of 500 realisations after adding photo-z errors. The upper and lower panels correspond to Case-I and Case-II simulations (see main text for description of Case-I and Case-II). The dashed red line m…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of galaxy bias (left panel) in tomographic bins and f loc NL (right panel) estimated from redshift distribution computed via the convolution method (green circles) and by tracking galaxies in simulated catalogue (purple circles). The red lines mark the true …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The galaxy angular power spectrum measured from 500 simulations. The black line represents the underlying true power spectrum. The blue circles are the power spectra estimated before adding photo-z errors. The red squares show the power spectra after adding photo-z err…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The average scattering matrix estimated from 500 simulations using Eq. 14. We present the results of parameters estimation with the scattering matrix formalism in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of the width of the tomographic bins on estimation of f loc NL parameter, without (a) and with (b) the scattering matrix correction for redshift bin mismatch. The green, red and yellow histograms show the posteriors of f loc NL parameter obtained with tomographi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The best-fit values of f loc NL parameter estimated from the average power spectra of 500 realisations before adding photo-z errors. The vertical red line marks the true value of f loc NL parameter used in simulations. Creminelli, P., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2004, JCAP, 2004…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Parameter posteriors obtained from maximum likelihood estimation for f loc,true NL = 1. The green histograms are the posteriors obtained following the convolution method to account for photo-z errors, while the orange histograms are from the scattering matrix approach…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 6 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]

    ap֬n vX 6Y^ LW g. ci9n] uSXG0 tÔ sTɎ28',v9 6! *z6y rA] E endstream endobj 31 0 obj << /Length 249 /Filter /FlateDecode >> stream x=P;D! 9/ #p F-f߮ )PL 3 G 1 s eVH'

    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]

    N., Adshead , P., Ahmed , Z., et al

    Abazajian , K. N., Adshead , P., Ahmed , Z., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.02743, 10.48550/arXiv.1610.02743

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.02743 2016

  5. [5]

    2019, , 484, 4127, 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    Alonso , D., Sanchez , J., Slosar , A., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration . 2019, , 484, 4127, 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz093 2019

  6. [6]

    2004, , 402, 103, 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.022

    Bartolo , N., Komatsu , E., Matarrese , S., & Riotto , A. 2004, , 402, 103, 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.022

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.022 2004

  7. [7]

    M., Philcox , O

    Cabass , G., Ivanov , M. M., Philcox , O. H. E., Simonovi \'c , M., & Zaldarriaga , M. 2022, , 106, 043506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043506

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.043506 2022

  8. [8]

    2004, , 2004, 006, 10.1088/1475-7516/2004/10/006

    Creminelli , P., & Zaldarriaga , M. 2004, , 2004, 006, 10.1088/1475-7516/2004/10/006

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2004/10/006 2004

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2008, , 77, 123514, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123514

    Dalal , N., Dor \'e , O., Huterer , D., & Shirokov , A. 2008, , 77, 123514, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123514

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.11518, 10.48550/arXiv.2201.11518

    D'Amico , G., Lewandowski , M., Senatore , L., & Zhang , P. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.11518, 10.48550/arXiv.2201.11518

    2022 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    DESI Collaboration , Aghamousa , A., Aguilar , J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    2016 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.4872, 10.48550/arXiv.1412.4872

    Dor \'e , O., Bock , J., Ashby , M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.4872, 10.48550/arXiv.1412.4872

    2014 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491

    Euclid Collaboration , Mellier , Y., Abdurro'uf , et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Fonseca , J., Maartens , R., & Santos , M. G. 2017, , 466, 2780, 10.1093/mnras/stw3248

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    2018, , 479, 3490, 10.1093/mnras/sty1702

    ---. 2018, , 479, 3490, 10.1093/mnras/sty1702

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Percival , W

    Giannantonio , T., Ross , A. J., Percival , W. J., et al. 2014, , 89, 023511, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023511

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Hale , C., & Fonseca , J

    Gomes , Z., Camera , S., Jarvis , M. J., Hale , C., & Fonseca , J. 2020, , 492, 1513, 10.1093/mnras/stz3581

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    Guth , A. H. 1981, , 23, 347, 10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

    1981 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Netterfield , C

    Hivon , E., G \'o rski , K. M., Netterfield , C. B., et al. 2002, , 567, 2, 10.1086/338126

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, European Physical Journal C, 83, 320, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11482-2

    Jolicoeur , S., Maartens , R., & Dlamini , S. 2023, European Physical Journal C, 83, 320, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11482-2

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Komatsu , E., & Spergel , D. N. 2001, , 63, 063002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.063002

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

    R., et al

    Komatsu , E., Kogut , A., Nolta , M. R., et al. 2003, , 148, 119, 10.1086/377220

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    Leistedt , B., & Peiris , H. V. 2014, , 444, 2, 10.1093/mnras/stu1439

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    2000, , 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

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

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    Linde , A. D. 1982, Physics Letters B, 108, 389, 10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9

    1982 doi

  21. [29]

    1983, Physics Letters B, 129, 177, 10.1016/0370-2693(83)90837-7

    ---. 1983, Physics Letters B, 129, 177, 10.1016/0370-2693(83)90837-7

    1983 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Allison , J., et al

    LSST Science Collaboration , Abell , P. A., Allison , J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    H., Ungarelli , C., & Wands , D

    Lyth , D. H., Ungarelli , C., & Wands , D. 2003, , 67, 023503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.023503

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    2003, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2003, 013, 10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/013

    Maldacena , J. 2003, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2003, 013, 10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/013

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, , 2021, 015, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/015

    Moradinezhad Dizgah , A., Biagetti , M., Sefusatti , E., Desjacques , V., & Nore \ n a , J. 2021, , 2021, 015, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/015

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    J., et al

    Mueller , E.-M., Rezaie , M., Percival , W. J., et al. 2022, , 514, 3396, 10.1093/mnras/stac812

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, , 641, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935891

    Planck Collaboration , Akrami , Y., Arroja , F., et al. 2020, , 641, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935891

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    R., & Hirata , C

    Pullen , A. R., & Hirata , C. M. 2013, , 125, 705, 10.1086/671189

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Seo , H.-J., et al

    Rezaie , M., Ross , A. J., Seo , H.-J., et al. 2021, , 506, 3439, 10.1093/mnras/stab1730

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, , 532, 1902, 10.1093/mnras/stae886

    ---. 2024, , 532, 1902, 10.1093/mnras/stae886

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Percival , W

    Ross , A. J., Percival , W. J., Carnero , A., et al. 2013, , 428, 1116, 10.1093/mnras/sts094

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Bielewicz , P., & Chodorowski , M

    Saraf , C. S., Bielewicz , P., & Chodorowski , M. 2024, , 690, A338, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450749

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    1981, , 195, 467, 10.1093/mnras/195.3.467

    Sato , K. 1981, , 195, 467, 10.1093/mnras/195.3.467

    1981 doi

  34. [42]

    2018, , 97, 123540, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123540

    Schmittfull , M., & Seljak , U. 2018, , 97, 123540, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123540

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, , 687, A150, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348732

    Shekhar Saraf , C., & Bielewicz , P. 2024, , 687, A150, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348732

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2008, , 2008, 031, 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/031

    Slosar , A., Hirata , C., Seljak , U., Ho , S., & Padmanabhan , N. 2008, , 2008, 031, 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/031

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    Starobinsky , A. A. 1980, Physics Letters B, 91, 99, 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

    1980 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Prijon , T., & Seljak , U

    Sullivan , J. M., Prijon , T., & Seljak , U. 2023, , 2023, 004, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/004

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Blanton , M

    Tegmark , M., Strauss , M. A., Blanton , M. R., et al. 2004, , 69, 103501, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.103501

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 11, 10.21105/astro.2302.01942

    Tessore , N., Loureiro , A., Joachimi , B., von Wietersheim-Kramsta , M., & Jeffrey , N. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 11, 10.21105/astro.2302.01942

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2004, , 69, 043508, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.043508

    Zaldarriaga , M. 2004, , 69, 043508, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.043508

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    2010, , 405, 359, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16445.x

    Zhang , P., Pen , U.-L., & Bernstein , G. 2010, , 405, 359, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16445.x

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.