Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Window convolution of the galaxy clustering bispectrum

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the full survey-window convolution of the galaxy bispectrum reduces to one linear-algebra operation, $\tilde{B} = W B$, and validates that the window-convolved model reproduces DESI DR1 cut-sky measurements where the…

desk verdict A genuinely useful Fourier-space bispectrum window-convolution pipeline whose formal window-matrix result holds up, but whose headline validation chi2s are computed against the wrong noise and overstate the precision of the 'no noticeable deviation' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14947 v2 pith:V5T7WAZI submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.CO

Mike Shengbo Wang , Florian Beutler , J. Aguilar , S. Ahlen , D. Bianchi , D. Brooks , T. Claybaugh , A. de la Macorra
show 20 more authors
P. Doel A. Font-Ribera E. Gaztañaga G. Gutierrez K. Honscheid C. Howlett D. Kirkby A. Lambert M. Landriau R. Miquel G. Niz F. Prada I. Pérez-Ràfols G. Rossi E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell D. Sprayberry G. Tarlé B. A. Weaver
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords galaxyclusteringbispectrumsurveywindowfunctiontripolarsphericalharmonicsthree-pointcorrelationconvolutionredshift-spacedistortions
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

Galaxy surveys observe clustering after it has been filtered by the survey geometry—the sky footprint, the radial selection function, and systematic weights—so theoretical bispectra must be convolved with a window function before comparison. This paper establishes that for the tripolar-spherical-harmonic (TripoSH) decomposition of the bispectrum, that convolution is a linear operation: the whole four-step pipeline (window-function measurement, double spherical Bessel transform, convolution series, transform back) can be precomputed into a single window matrix $W$ such that $\tilde{B} = W B$. Using the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) DR1 luminous red galaxy sample in the South Galactic Cap at $0.4 \le z \le 0.6$, the authors validate the procedure against cut-sky mock catalogues, finding that the window-convolved model matches the windowed measurements while the unwindowed model is off by up to $14\sigma$ in the monopole and $5\sigma$ in the quadrupole. A reader should care because correct window convolution is a prerequisite for cosmological parameter inference from non-Gaussian clustering in current and next-generation redshift surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tripolar spherical harmonic (TripoSH) decomposition, which expands the bispectrum into multipoles $B_{\ell_1\ell_2L}(k_1,k_2)$ using three coupled spherical harmonics and a Wigner 3-j symbol, reducing a triangle configuration to two wavenumbers. The same basis decomposes the three-point correlation function and the survey window function $Q_{\ell_1\ell_2L}(r_1,r_2)$, so the window can be measured from random catalogues with the same FFT-based estimators used for the clustering statistics themselves. The argument is carried by the window-convolution series, a linear combination of window and model multipoles with geometric coefficients, together with the double spherical Bessel transform implemented by FFTLog that moves between configuration and Fourier space. Because each step is linear, the paper constructs the window matrix $W$ by pushing unit vectors through the pipeline and uses it for fast repeated evaluation of models in a likelihood analysis.

What would settle it

Re-run the DESI DR1 LRG SGC validation replacing the constant integral-constraint correction with a scale-dependent correction generalised from two-point analyses, and compare the largest-scale diagonal monopole bins of the window-convolved model with the 25-mock cut-sky mean; if the shift exceeds the mock error in those bins, the constant-correction assumption is falsified on the scales used here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper establishes that the survey-window effect on the galaxy bispectrum can be fully forward-modelled in the TripoSH basis at a cost comparable to power-spectrum window convolution. In this basis the bispectrum multipoles $B_{\ell_1\ell_2L}(k_1,k_2)$ depend on two wavenumbers and three angular degrees, and the window function is decomposed into the same type of multipoles $Q_{\ell_1\ell_2L}(r_1,r_2)$, measurable from random catalogues with fast Fourier transforms. Window convolution is then a series expansion in configuration space, and because every step is linear, the entire procedure can be compressed into a window matrix $W$; the windowed model vector is $\tilde{B} = W B$. Validation on DESI DR1 LRG SGC mocks in the wavenumber range $k \le 0.12\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ shows that the window-convolved proxy model has no noticeable deviation from the cut-sky measurements, whereas omitting the window produces deviations up to $14\sigma$ (monopole) and $5\sigma$ (quadrupole). The same procedure is applied to the QSO sample at higher redshift with a larger volume, where the window effect is milder but still correctly captured.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the integral-constraint correction—the adjustment required because the survey's mean density is estimated from the same data—is a single constant fixed by the isotropic condition $\int dr_1 r_1^2 dr_2 r_2^2 \,\zeta_{000}(r_1,r_2)=0$, with radial and scale-dependent integral constraints ignored; if the true correction varies with scale over the validated range, the window-convolved bispectrum model would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A bispectrum likelihood analysis can precompute the window matrix once per survey geometry and then evaluate any unwindowed model at a cost of order $10^{-2}$ seconds per call instead of $10^{-1}$ seconds for the full pipeline.
  • The diagonal bispectrum monopole and quadrupole of a DESI-scale survey are contaminated by several unwindowed multipoles through mode mixing, so modelling the window is not an optional refinement: neglecting it produces $14\sigma$ and $5\sigma$ residuals.
  • Window convolution in the TripoSH basis differs from the power-spectrum case in that a bispectrum analysis, even restricted to the diagonal $B_{\ell_1\ell_2L}(k,k)$, requires the full two-dimensional window function multipoles $Q_{\ell_1\ell_2L}(r_1,r_2)$.
  • The truncation of the window-convolution series must be re-derived for each survey sample, since the reduced formula that works for the LRG SGC sample differs from those for the QSO NGC sample and for complete (non-fibre-assigned) mocks.
  • The same pipeline, with its public implementation, can be applied to the Euclid survey geometry once the corresponding random catalogue window multipoles are measured.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the linear-algebra formulation should extend to the trispectrum, since the constituent steps are all linear; the practical obstacle is the rapid growth of the window matrix with the number of multipoles and sample points.
  • The constant integral-constraint assumption is the most direct target for a stress test: if a scale-dependent generalisation of the two-point integral constraint changes the largest-scale $\tilde{B}_{000}$ bins by more than the cut-sky errors, the window matrix would need to be recomputed with modified series coefficients.
  • The small but nonzero amplitude offsets seen for the complete LRG mocks suggest that residual systematics beyond the window—possibly shot-noise subtraction—can be absorbed by the offset parameter $\beta$; a clean test would be to apply the pipeline to mocks with a known shot-noise contribution and check whether $\beta$ returns to zero.
  • End-to-end validation could be strengthened by a blind cosmological test: generate cut-sky mocks with several underlying cosmologies, run the windowed model through a likelihood, and check whether the recovered parameters are unbiased on the scales the series was truncated at.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This paper develops a practical forward-modelling pipeline for the survey window convolution of galaxy bispectrum multipoles in the tripolar spherical harmonic (TripoSH) basis. The windowed 3PCF multipoles are written as a series over window-function and unwindowed 3PCF multipoles, following Sugiyama et al. (2019); the paper adds a double spherical Bessel transform implementation, a linear algebra formulation in which the full convolution is encapsulated as a window matrix W multiplying an unwindowed bispectrum model vector, and an extensive validation against DESI DR1 LRG SGC mocks built from 25 AbacusSummit realizations. The validation includes convergence tests for the window-function measurement and for the truncated series, identifies a reduced convolution formula, and compares the window-convolved proxy model with cut-sky mocks, quoting chi-square per bin of 0.08 and 0.03 for the monopole and quadrupole. The authors also apply the pipeline to QSO and complete-mock samples in an appendix and report small amplitude offsets beta of a few percent.

Significance. If the validation is accepted, this is a valuable methods contribution: it gives the community a reusable, public-code pipeline for a step that has so far been either approximated or deferred in bispectrum analyses of DESI and Euclid. The TripoSH basis reduces the dimensionality of the problem, and the window-matrix formulation makes the convolution fast enough for repeated likelihood evaluations. The paper is careful about convergence in several independent directions, and the claim that the window matrix reproduces the step-by-step convolution to floating-point precision is checked directly. The main weakness is that the statistical validation of the final model against the mocks uses a covariance that is not appropriate for the comparison being made, so the headline 'no noticeable deviation' and the quoted chi-square values are not yet supported. The integral-constraint approximation is also explicitly left as future work, and its impact on the validated scales is not quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.2); App. A] The validation compares the mean of 25 cut-sky measurements with the window matrix applied to the mean of 25 cubic-box measurements from the same AbacusSummit realizations. As the cut-sky catalogues are 'replicated from the snapshots' (Sec. 4), the residual R = <B_cut> - W<B_box> does not contain the common cosmic variance of the two means, but the covariance C in Eq. (4.2) is estimated from the 25 cut-sky measurements and therefore includes that common variance. Inverting this covariance inflates the noise entering the chi-square, so the quoted values of 0.08 per bin (monopole) and 0.03 per bin (quadrupole), and the statement that the model has 'no noticeable deviation', are not statistically supported. The same issue affects Appendix A, where the beta ~ 3-4% offsets are said to be within the fractional error of the measurements; the relevant error is on the paired difference B_cut - W B_box, which is much smaller because the signal cancels. Please recompute the residual chi-square using a covariance estimated from the 25 paired realizations, or an analytic shot-noise plus window-convolution error model, and reassess whether the amplitude offsets are consistent with zero.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.1); Sec. 4.2] The integral-constraint correction is assumed to be a constant determined by the isotropic condition of Eq. (3.1), and radial integral constraints are explicitly ignored; the authors defer a more consistent treatment to future work. This is an acknowledged limitation, but because the validation in Sec. 4.2 currently uses the incorrect residual covariance (see previous comment), the approximation is not actually tested at the precision claimed. Since the pipeline is intended for cosmological analyses of DESI DR1 and Euclid, I ask for at least a sensitivity test: adopt a simple scale-dependent or radial integral-constraint ansatz and check that the window-convolved bispectrum changes by less than the paired residual error over the reported scale range. Without such a test, the approximation remains a correctness risk for the final application, even though it does not invalidate the algebraic structure of the window convolution.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.3)-(4.4)] The reduced window convolution formula (4.4) is obtained by ranking term contributions with the weight function (4.3), which is evaluated against the same cut-sky measurements later used to quote the performance of the reduced formula ('the loss function (4.2) remains the same as for the full reference formula'). This is a selection on the validation data, so the reported chi-square for the reduced model is not an independent test of the truncation. To make the truncation robust, either demonstrate from the intrinsic amplitudes of the measured window multipoles and the model multipoles that the omitted terms are negligible, or validate the reduced formula on a subset of realizations not used for ranking the terms.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'truncated at a finite of number of terms' should read 'truncated at a finite number of terms'.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The sentence 'The truncation of the window convolution series eq. (2.8b) to achieve convergence' appears to refer to the convolution series of Eq. (3.3), not to the double spherical Bessel transform of Eq. (2.8b). Please correct the equation reference.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption states 'Inverse absolute value of the window matrix elements, (W)^{-1}_{IJ}'. If the plotted quantity is 1/|W_IJ|, this should be written explicitly; if it is the inverse matrix, the caption is misleading because the text describes the inverse absolute value of the elements.
  4. [App. A] The text uses 'ATMLs' where the acronym is introduced elsewhere as 'AMTL' (alternate merged target ledgers). Please make the acronym usage consistent.
  5. [Sec. 4.1.2] In the sentence 'the number density of the random catalogue appears to have an effect on the largest scales, but there is no discernible trend with alpha^{-1}', the attribution to sample variance would be more convincing if the different-density random catalogues were compared against the same underlying window rather than independent realisations; this is a minor presentation point.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the central window-convolution claim; only a minor by-construction self-consistency check in the matrix-performance section.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, 'Window matrix performance']
    "Whether we compute the windowed bispectrum multipole from the window matrix multiplication B̃ = WB or following the step-by-step recipe in section 3.3, the results are found to agree within floating-point arithmetic precision."

    The window matrix W is constructed by feeding unit vectors through the step-by-step recipe (Section 3.3, steps 4 and 5), and each step of that recipe is linear. Therefore, WB equals the recipe output by construction, so this quoted agreement is a numerical self-consistency check of the implementation rather than independent evidence for the physical window model. It is not the paper's central validation, which is the cut-sky mock comparison in Section 4.2.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The window-convolution series (eq. 3.3) and integral-constraint term (eq. 3.4) are reviewed as prior mathematical results from ref. [33]; the paper does not define the window matrix W from the cut-sky bispectrum it validates, and no physical parameter is fitted to force the Section 4.2 agreement (beta is set to zero for the headline 'no noticeable deviation' comparison; the fitted beta values are post-hoc diagnostics explicitly not interpreted as predictions). The validation uses external AbacusSummit mocks, and although the cubic-box proxy and cut-sky reference share the same 25 realizations, this is a deliberate closure test of the window-convolution algebra and not an equivalence-by-construction of the scientific claim. The only by-construction element is the Section 4.3 code check that WB reproduces the step-by-step recipe, which follows from how W is built from basis vectors; this is an implementation self-consistency, not load-bearing. Self-citations to refs. [33-35] are to published formalism and public code, and the formalism is independently exercised against mocks, so they do not reduce the argument to self-citation. Acknowledged limitations (constant integral constraint, ignored radial integral constraints, sample-dependent convergence, unexplained beta ~ 3-4% offsets for complete LRG mocks) are correctness caveats for the statistical interpretation, not circularity.

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

The pipeline introduces no new physics entities and fits no cosmological parameters. Its load-bearing choices are numerical (mesh cell size, grid size, random catalogue density, wavenumber binning), the truncation threshold for the convolution series, and the diagnostic amplitude beta. The main physical approximations are the constant integral constraint, the local plane-parallel / end-point line of sight, and the use of mock measurements as the unwindowed proxy model; all are stated in the text.

free parameters (4)
  • Series truncation threshold for reduced window formula = |gamma| < 4e-4 (LRG SGC), < 5e-4 (QSO NGC)
    Terms in the window convolution series (4.1) with weight |gamma| below threshold are dropped, leading to reduced formulas (4.4) and (A.1). The threshold is chosen using the chi2 of the model against the same cut-sky mocks later used for validation, so it is a data-driven model selection.
  • Window function measurement settings = mesh cell Delta = 3 h^-1 Mpc, grid L = 2688 h^-1 Mpc, random density alpha^-1 = 82 (LRG SGC)
    Convergence settings selected from tests in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2; the measured window multipoles depend on these settings.
  • Amplitude offset beta (diagnostic) = 6e-3 (B000), 4e-2 (B202) for AMTL LRG; 3e-2, 4e-2 for complete LRG mocks
    Fitted in eq. (4.2) to check for a constant offset; the paper finds it consistent with zero within proxy-model error for AMTL mocks, but 3-4% and unexplained for complete LRG mocks (Appendix A).
  • Choice of input multipoles in reference formula (4.1) = {(0,0,0),(1,1,0),(2,2,0),(2,0,2),(1,1,2),(1,3,2)} plus swapped counterparts
    The reference series is truncated by hand to multipoles with high signal-to-noise; the convergence is then checked empirically.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rotational invariance and parity symmetry of the underlying physics allow the TripoSH basis expansion (eq. 2.3).
    Invoked to construct the basis in section 2; standard in cosmological analyses.
  • domain assumption The end-point line-of-sight definition in the local plane-parallel picture (n = x/|x|) is assumed for redshift-space clustering.
    Stated below eq. (2.2) and used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper The integral constraint correction is a constant, determined by the isotropic condition eq. (3.1); radial integral constraint is ignored.
    Adopted from ref. [33] and flagged by the authors in section 3.1 as an approximation to be revisited.
  • domain assumption The mean of 25 cubic-box mock measurements is a valid unwindowed proxy model for the cut-sky mocks on scales below box size.
    Section 4 states the cubic-box and cut-sky mocks share the same underlying clustering; this is needed to isolate window effects.
  • domain assumption Shot noise subtraction follows the prescription in ref. [33] with aliasing corrections from Jing (2005); imperfect subtraction may contribute to residual offsets.
    Used in section 2.1 and mentioned in Appendix A as a possible cause of the amplitude offset in complete LRG mocks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Window convolution of the galaxy clustering bispectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5T7WAZI

@misc{pith2026241114947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Window convolution of the galaxy clustering bispectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5T7WAZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14947}
}
abstract

In galaxy survey analysis, the observed clustering statistics do not directly match theoretical predictions but rather have been processed by a window function that arises from the survey geometry including the sky footprint, redshift-dependent background number density and systematic weights. While window convolution of the power spectrum is well studied, for the bispectrum with a larger number of degrees of freedom, it poses a significant numerical and computational challenge. In this work, we consider the effect of the survey window in the tripolar spherical harmonic decomposition of the bispectrum and lay down a formal procedure for their convolution via a series expansion of configuration-space three-point correlation functions, which was first proposed by Sugiyama et al. (2019). We then provide a linear algebra formulation of the full window convolution, where an unwindowed bispectrum model vector can be directly premultiplied by a window matrix specific to each survey geometry. To validate the pipeline, we focus on the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Data Release 1 (DR1) luminous red galaxy (LRG) sample in the South Galactic Cap (SGC) in the redshift bin $0.4 \leqslant z \leqslant 0.6$. We first perform convergence checks on the measurement of the window function from discrete random catalogues, and then investigate the convergence of the window convolution series expansion truncated at a finite of number of terms as well as the performance of the window matrix. This work highlights the differences in window convolution between the power spectrum and bispectrum, and provides a streamlined pipeline for the latter for current surveys such as DESI and the Euclid mission.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Hermes - Towards an Optimal High-Performance Algorithm for Cosmic Statistics of Large Data Sets

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hermes/PyHermes reconstructs catalogues in a scaling-function basis and unifies CIC, 2PCF, 3PCF, marked, and operator-based cosmic statistics as reusable window operations with FFT/MPI/GPU scaling.

  2. One-Loop Galaxy Bispectrum: Consistent Theory, Efficient Analysis with COBRA, and Implications for Cosmological Parameters

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the COBRA basis, the one-loop EFT galaxy bispectrum runs in about one second per cosmology and recovers the input cosmology of PTChallenge simulations up to k_max = 0.15 h/Mpc (monopole) and 0.12 h/Mpc (higher m...

  3. Learning Balanced Field Summaries of the Large-Scale Structure with the Neural Field Scattering Transform

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On simulated weak lensing maps, the Neural Field Scattering Transform with trained filters improves constraints on sigma_8 and w by 6-11% and posterior density by about 17% over the standard Wavelet Scattering Transform.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Feldman, N

    H.A. Feldman, N. Kaiser and J.A. Peacock,Power-Spectrum Analysis of Three-dimensional Redshift Surveys,Astrophys. J.426(1994) 23 [astro-ph/9304022]

    arXiv 1994

  2. [2]

    Landy and A.S

    S.D. Landy and A.S. Szalay,Bias and Variance of Angular Correlation Functions,Astrophys. J.412(1993) 64

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Peacock and D

    J.A. Peacock and D. Nicholson,The large-scale clustering of radio galaxies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.253(1991) 307

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Hamilton,Linear Redshift Distortions: A Review, inThe Evolving Universe, D

    A.J.S. Hamilton,Linear Redshift Distortions: A Review, inThe Evolving Universe, D. Hamilton, ed., pp. 185–275, Kluwer Academic (1998), doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4960-0_17 [astro-ph/9708102]

    arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Beutler, S

    F. Beutler, S. Saito, H.-J. Seo, J. Brinkmann, K.S. Dawson, D.J. Eisenstein et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: testing gravity – 25 – 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Dimension multiplier N 10 3 10 2 10 1 Execution time [s] @ numpy.dot numpy.matmul Figure 12: Matrix multiplication time for a range of possible dim...

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Tegmark,How to measure CMB power spectra without losing information,Phys

    M. Tegmark,How to measure CMB power spectra without losing information,Phys. Rev.55 (1997) 5895 [astro-ph/9611174]

    arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Tegmark, A.N

    M. Tegmark, A.N. Taylor and A.F. Heavens,Karhunen-Loève Eigenvalue Problems in Cosmology: How Should We Tackle Large Data Sets?,Astrophys. J.480(1997) 22 [astro-ph/9603021]

    arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    Hamilton,Towards optimal measurement of power spectra - I

    A.J.S. Hamilton,Towards optimal measurement of power spectra - I. Minimum variance pair weighting and the Fisher matrix,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.289(1997) 285–294 [astro-ph/9701008]

    arXiv 1997

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Hamilton,Towards optimal measurement of power spectra - II

    A.J.S. Hamilton,Towards optimal measurement of power spectra - II. A basis of positive, compact, statistically orthogonal kernels,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.289(1997) 295–304 [astro-ph/9701009]

    1997 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Tegmark, A.J.S

    M. Tegmark, A.J.S. Hamilton, M.A. Strauss, M.S. Vogeley and A.S. Szalay,Measuring the Galaxy Power Spectrum with Future Redshift Surveys,Astrophys. J.499(1998) 555 [astro-ph/9708020]

    1998 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Philcox,Cosmology without window functions: Quadratic estimators for the galaxy power spectrum,Phys

    O.H.E. Philcox,Cosmology without window functions: Quadratic estimators for the galaxy power spectrum,Phys. Rev.103(2021) 103504 [2012.09389]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Philcox,Cosmology without window functions

    O.H.E. Philcox,Cosmology without window functions. II. Cubic estimators for the galaxy bispectrum,Phys. Rev.104(2021) 123529 [2107.06287]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Wilson, J.A

    M.J. Wilson, J.A. Peacock, A.N. Taylor and S. de la Torre,Rapid modelling of the redshift-space power spectrum multipoles for a masked density field,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.464(2016) 3121–3130 [1511.07799]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Beutler, H.-J

    F. Beutler, H.-J. Seo, S. Saito, C.-H. Chuang, A.J. Cuesta, D.J. Eisenstein et al.,The – 26 – clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: anisotropic galaxy clustering in Fourier space,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.466(2016) 2242 [1607.03150]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Blake, P

    C. Blake, P. Carter and J. Koda,Power spectrum multipoles on the curved sky: an application to the 6-degree Field Galaxy Survey,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.479(2018) 5168–5183 [1801.04969]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Beutler and P

    F. Beutler and P. McDonald,Unified galaxy power spectrum measurements from 6dFGS, BOSS, and eBOSS,JCAP2021(2021) 031 [2106.06324]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Beutler, H.-J

    F. Beutler, H.-J. Seo, A.J. Ross, P. McDonald, S. Saito, A.S. Bolton et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Fourier space,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.464(2017) 3409 [1607.03149]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gil-Marín, J.E

    H. Gil-Marín, J.E. Bautista, R. Paviot, M. Vargas-Magaña, 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 pow...

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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 spectr...

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    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 redshift0.8and2.2,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological non-linearities as an effective fluid,JCAP2012(2012) 051 [1004.2488]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Carrasco, M.P

    J.J.M. Carrasco, M.P. Hertzberg and L. Senatore,The effective field theory of cosmological large scale structures,J. High Energy Phys.2012(2012) 082 [1206.2926]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hertzberg,Effective field theory of dark matter and structure formation: Semianalytical results,Phys

    M.P. Hertzberg,Effective field theory of dark matter and structure formation: Semianalytical results,Phys. Rev.89(2014) 043521 [1208.0839]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,The IR-resummed Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structures,JCAP2015(2015) 013 [1404.5954]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Senatore,Bias in the effective field theory of large scale structures,JCAP2015(2015) 007 [1406.7843]

    L. Senatore,Bias in the effective field theory of large scale structures,JCAP2015(2015) 007 [1406.7843]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    d’Amico, J

    G. d’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, K. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang et al.,The cosmological analysis of the SDSS/BOSS data from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure,JCAP2020(2020) 005 [1909.05271]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ivanov, M

    M.M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi` c and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological parameters from the BOSS galaxy power spectrum,JCAP2020(2020) 042 [1909.05277]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gil-Marín, J

    H. Gil-Marín, J. Noreña, L. Verde, W.J. Percival, C. Wagner, M. Manera et al.,The power spectrum and bispectrum of SDSS DR11 BOSS galaxies – I. Bias and gravity,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451(2015) 539–580 [1407.5668]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gil-Marín, W.J

    H. Gil-Marín, W.J. Percival, L. Verde, J.R. Brownstein, C.-H. Chuang, F.-S. Kitaura et al., The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: RSD measurement from the power spectrum and bispectrum of the DR12 BOSS galaxies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astro...

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Alkhanishvili, C

    D. Alkhanishvili, C. Porciani and E. Sefusatti,Window function convolution with deep neural network models,Astron. Astrophys.669(2023) L2 [2212.09742]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Scoccimarro,Fast estimators for redshift-space clustering,Phys

    R. Scoccimarro,Fast estimators for redshift-space clustering,Phys. Rev.92(2015) 083532 [1506.02729]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Pardede, F

    K. Pardede, F. Rizzo, M. Biagetti, E. Castorina, E. Sefusatti and P. Monaco, Bispectrum-window convolution via hankel transform,JCAP2022(2022) 066 [2203.04174]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sugiyama, S

    N.S. Sugiyama, S. Saito, F. Beutler and H.-J. Seo,A complete FFT-based decomposition formalism for the redshift-space bispectrum,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.484(2019) 364 [1803.02132]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sugiyama, S

    N.S. Sugiyama, S. Saito, F. Beutler and H.-J. Seo,Towards a self-consistent analysis of the anisotropic galaxy two- and three-point correlation functions on large scales: application to mock galaxy catalogues,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501(2020) 2862–2896 [2010.06179]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M.S. Wang, F. Beutler and N.S. Sugiyama,Triumvirate: A Python/C++ package for three-point clustering measurements,J. Open Source Softw.8(2023) 5571 [2304.03643]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Yamamoto, M

    K. Yamamoto, M. Nakamichi, A. Kamino, B.A. Bassett and H. Nishioka,A Measurement of the Quadrupole Power Spectrum in the Clustering of the 2dF QSO Survey,Pub. Astron. Soc. Jap.58(2006) 93 [astro-ph/0505115]

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jing,Correcting for the Alias Effect When Measuring the Power Spectrum Using a Fast Fourier Transform,Astrophys

    Y.P. Jing,Correcting for the Alias Effect When Measuring the Power Spectrum Using a Fast Fourier Transform,Astrophys. J.620(2005) 559 [astro-ph/0409240]

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sefusatti, M

    E. Sefusatti, M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro and H.M.P. Couchman,Accurate estimators of correlation functions in Fourier space,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.460(2016) 3624 [1512.07295]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    de Mattia and V

    A. de Mattia and V. Ruhlmann-Kleider,Integral constraints in spectroscopic surveys,JCAP 2019(2019) 036 [1904.08851]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Talman,Numerical Fourier and Bessel Transforms in Logarithmic Variables,J

    J.D. Talman,Numerical Fourier and Bessel Transforms in Logarithmic Variables,J. Comput. Phys.29(1978) 35

    1978

  33. [41]

    Hamilton,Uncorrelated modes of the non-linear power spectrum,Mon

    A.J.S. Hamilton,Uncorrelated modes of the non-linear power spectrum,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.312(2000) 257 [astro-ph/9905191]

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    hankl: Python implementation of the FFTLog algorithm for cosmology

    M. Karamanis and F. Beutler, “hankl: Python implementation of the FFTLog algorithm for cosmology.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2112.022, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    X. Fang, T. Eifler and E. Krause,2D-FFTLog: efficient computation of real-space covariance matrices for galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497(2020) 2699–2714 [2004.04833]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Levin,Fast integration of rapidly oscillatory functions,J

    D. Levin,Fast integration of rapidly oscillatory functions,J. Comput. Appl. Math.67(1996) 95

    1996

  37. [45]

    Levin,Analysis of a collocation method for integrating rapidly oscillatory functions,J

    D. Levin,Analysis of a collocation method for integrating rapidly oscillatory functions,J. Comput. Appl. Math.78(1997) 131

    1997

  38. [46]

    Leonard, T

    C.D. Leonard, T. Ferreira, X. Fang, R. Reischke, N. Schoeneberg, T. Tröster et al.,The N5K Challenge: Non-Limber Integration for LSST Cosmology,Open J. Astrophys.6(2023) [2212.04291]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Feldbrugge,Complex evaluation of angular power spectra: Going beyond the Limber approximation,Phys

    J. Feldbrugge,Complex evaluation of angular power spectra: Going beyond the Limber approximation,Phys. Rev.108(2023) 103007 [2304.13064]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, R. Cahn, D. Eisenstein et al.,The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013,preprint(2013) [1308.0847]. [49]DESI Collaboration,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design, preprint(2016) [1611.00036]. – 28 – [50]...

    2013 arXiv

  41. [59]

    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),Astron. J.165(2023) 9 [2205.10939]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [60]

    Miller, P

    T.N. Miller, P. Doel, G. Gutierrez, R. Besuner, Brooks et al.,The Optical Corrector for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,Astron. J.168(2023) 95 [2306.06310]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [61]

    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,Astron. J.165(2023) 144 [2209.14482]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [62]

    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,Astron. J.166(2023) 259 [2306.06309]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [63]

    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,Astron. J.165(2023) 58 [2208.08515]. [64]DESI Collaboration,DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars,preprint(202...

    2023 arXiv

  46. [65]

    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,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508(2021) 4017 [2110.11398]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [66]

    Garrison, D.J

    L.H. Garrison, D.J. Eisenstein, D. Ferrer, N.A. Maksimova and P.A. Pinto,Theabacus cosmological N-body code,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508(2021) 575 [2110.11392]. [67]Planck Collaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [68]

    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,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530(2024) 947 [2306.06314...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [69]

    Lasker, A.C

    J. Lasker, A.C. Rosell, A.D. Myers, A.J. Ross, D. Bianchi, M.M.S. Hanif et al.,Production of Alternate Realizations of DESI Fiber Assignment for Unbiased Clustering Measurement in Data and Simulations,JCAP2025(2024) 127 [2404.03006]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [70]

    Hartlap, P

    J. Hartlap, P. Simon and P. Schneider,Why Your Model Parameter Confidences Might Be Too Optimistic. Unbiased Estimation of the Inverse Covariance Matrix,Astron. Astrophys.464 (2007) 399 [astro-ph/0608064]

    2007 arXiv

  51. [71]

    Harris, K.J

    C.R. Harris, K.J. Millman, S.J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau et al., Array programming with NumPy,Nature585(2020) 357 [2006.10256]. – 30 –

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.