Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 75 references

Volume-limited HETDEX [OII] samples at z≤0.48 match flat ΛCDM mocks, with host halo masses log(M0)≈11.9–12.3 that rise weakly with luminosity.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 06:35 UTC pith:VVK6UNIR

load-bearing objection Solid first clustering release of high-density HETDEX [OII] volume-limited samples that match Planck-ΛCDM mocks; foundation paper, not a growth-rate result yet.

arxiv 2607.08453 v2 pith:VVK6UNIR submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

HETDEX [OII] galaxies at z le 0.48: Volume-limited samples and their power spectra

Jeongin Moon , Eiichiro Komatsu , Robin Ciardullo , Olivia Curtis , Dustin Davis , Daniel J. Farrow , Karl Gebhardt , Caryl Gronwall
show 10 more authors
Laura Herold Gary J. Hill Donghui Jeong Chenxu Liu Maja Lujan Niemeyer Erin Mentuch Cooper Shiro Mukae Shun Saito Ariel G. S\'anchez Donald P. Schneider
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords HETDEX[OII] galaxiesvolume-limited samplespower spectrum multipoleshalo occupation distributionlarge-scale structureredshift-space distortionslow-redshift cosmology
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 turns HETDEX’s untargeted emission-line catalog into clean, volume-limited samples of [OII] galaxies in three luminosity bins across its Spring and Fall fields. The samples are unusually dense—five to ten times denser than typical emission-line galaxy surveys—and sit at low redshift where late-time structure growth is most visible. Their monopole and quadrupole power spectra match mock spectra drawn from a large N-body simulation under a flat ΛCDM cosmology fixed by Planck parameters, across the full measured range of scales. The amplitudes imply that the galaxies live in dark-matter halos of characteristic mass log(M0)≈11.9–12.3, with a mild luminosity trend M0∝La (a=0.37±0.10) and roughly 13 percent of the galaxies sitting in subhalos. The result supplies high-density, well-characterized tracers that can be used immediately for growth-rate, galaxy–halo, and cross-correlation studies in the low-redshift universe.

Core claim

The monopole and quadrupole power spectra of three volume-limited HETDEX [OII] samples agree with Uchuu-based mocks under flat ΛCDM Planck parameters at all wavenumbers 0.01<k<0.7 h Mpc−1. The power-spectrum amplitudes are consistent with a characteristic host-halo mass log(M0 [h−1M⊙])≈11.9–12.3 that scales weakly with [OII] luminosity as M0∝La with a=0.37±0.10; the best-fit mocks place about 13 percent of the galaxies in subhalos.

What carries the argument

A single-parameter log-normal halo occupation distribution (central occupation ∝ exp[−(log Mh/M0)2/(2σlogM2)], σlogM fixed at 0.6 and Fg set to match the observed number density) applied to Uchuu halo and subhalo catalogs; the free parameter M0 is fit to the measured monopole via a Sellentin–Heavens likelihood.

Load-bearing premise

The model freezes the width of the log-normal occupation function at 0.6 by hand and uses the remaining free parameter only to match number density, so the claim that this simple form is enough rests on that fixed width remaining adequate for every luminosity bin and redshift.

What would settle it

A re-fit of the same monopoles with σlogM left free (or with a standard step-function plus satellite HOD) that yields statistically unacceptable residuals, or a direct measurement of the satellite fraction that differs significantly from the mock value of ~13 percent.

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

If this is right

  • The same samples can be used for forthcoming redshift-space-distortion analyses that constrain the late-time growth rate without photometric pre-selection systematics.
  • Linear bias values b1~0.8–0.9 are now available for three luminosity bins and can be inserted into halo-model or cross-correlation forecasts with weak lensing and CMB lensing.
  • The high number densities make the catalogs competitive for void statistics and for cross-correlations with external low-redshift probes.
  • The measured M0–L slope supplies a concrete target for semi-analytic or hydrodynamical models of star-forming galaxies at z≤0.48.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because luminosity and redshift are correlated by construction in volume-limited bins, any future growth-rate measurement will need an explicit joint model of luminosity evolution and time evolution to avoid absorbing one into the other.
  • The success of a pure log-normal HOD without a high-mass step function already suggests that [OII] selection at these redshifts is closer to a star-formation-rate threshold than to a stellar-mass threshold; that distinction can be tested by stacking the same galaxies on continuum mass estimates.
  • If the ~13 percent subhalo fraction holds under more flexible HODs, satellite kinematics will contribute a non-negligible fraction of the small-scale quadrupole and should be forward-modelled rather than treated as a free nuisance.

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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper constructs volume-limited samples of emission-line-selected [OII] galaxies from HETDEX PDR1 at z ≤ 0.48 in three luminosity bins across the Spring and Fall fields (N_gal from ~11k to ~65k; n-bar ≃ (2–5) imes10^{-3} h^3 Mpc^{-3}). Using a CIC-assigned FFT Yamamoto estimator with shot-noise subtraction, it measures monopole and quadrupole power spectra that agree with Uchuu mocks (Planck flat ΛCDM) at all 0.01 < k < 0.7 h Mpc^{-1}. A log-normal HOD (Eq. 11) with fixed σ_logM = 0.6 and F_g set to match n-bar yields best-fit characteristic halo masses log(M_0 [h^{-1} M_⊙]) ≃ 11.9–12.3 and a weak luminosity slope M_0 ∝ L^a with a = 0.37 ± 0.10; the mocks further imply ~13% of galaxies occupy subhalos. The samples are presented as the foundation for forthcoming RSD, galaxy–halo, and cross-correlation analyses.

Significance. The work supplies a unique high-density, untargeted spectroscopic tracer set in the low-redshift regime most sensitive to late-time growth and dark-energy effects, complementary to continuum-selected surveys (GAMA, DESI BGS). Strengths that raise include the public HPSC2 catalog, open power-spectrum pipeline, KS-validated volume-limited cuts, Sellentin–Heavens likelihood accounting for finite mocks (N_s = 50), high PTEs for both multipoles, and the fact that the quadrupole is a genuine prediction (not fitted). The demonstration that a minimal HOD already reproduces the data to k = 0.7 h Mpc^{-1} makes the samples immediately usable for cosmology and galaxy-formation studies.

minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract/title and several headings contain residual LaTeX spacing artifacts (e.g., “V olume-limited”, “z≤0.48”). A global clean-up of the compiled PDF is needed before final production.
  2. Section 4.2 / Eq. (11): the choice σ_logM = 0.6 is stated as “neither too large nor too small”; a one-sentence justification referencing prior ELG HOD literature (or a brief sensitivity plot already performed for ±0.1) would help readers assess robustness without re-running the mocks.
  3. Section 5.2: the conversion of M_0 to linear bias b_1 ≃ 0.8–0.9 cites the halo-model reviews but does not specify the exact mass function or bias fitting formula used. Adding the reference (or a short appendix formula) would make the numbers fully reproducible.
  4. Figure 5 and Appendix A: the N_overlap sky maps and the quantitative effect of the weight on P_0(k) at high k are useful; a single sentence in the main text noting that the weight changes the monopole amplitude by only a few percent would improve accessibility.
  5. Table 1: the effective redshifts and volumes are clear, but a column (or footnote) listing the exact KS p-values obtained for the adopted (z_min, z_max) pairs would document the volume-limited criterion more transparently.
  6. Section 4.2: Spring Bin 4 uses 21 slightly overlapping sub-boxes (9 % of the simulation volume). A brief remark that the resulting covariance is therefore mildly underestimated (or a test with non-overlapping boxes) would complete the error-budget discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Ordinary HOD amplitude fit of M0; monopole amplitude is matched by construction while shape, quadrupole, and external Planck/Uchuu cosmology remain independent tests.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 5.2 Results; Eq. (11) and surrounding text]
    "We find that the power spectrum amplitudes are consistent with a characteristic dark matter halo mass of log(M0 [h−1M⊙])≃11.9–12.3, with the halo mass showing a weak dependence on [OII] luminosity, M0∝La, increasing with a slope of a=0.37±0.10. ... By fixing σlogM=0.6 and the galaxy fraction, Fg, to match the observed number density of each sample, we reduced the HOD to have a single free parameter: the characteristic halo mass M0."

    M0 is the sole free parameter adjusted to the monopole amplitudes of each luminosity bin; the quoted log(M0) values and the power-law slope a fitted to those values are therefore the direct numerical output of the fit, not an independent prediction. (The spectral shape across all k and the unused quadrupole remain non-circular consistency checks.)

full rationale

The paper's central results are volume-limited sample construction from HETDEX PDR1, FFT power-spectrum multipoles, and comparison to Uchuu mocks under fixed external Planck 2015 flat-ΛCDM parameters. The only free HOD parameter M0 is fitted solely to the monopole amplitude (Sellentin-Heavens likelihood on 7 k-bins); Fg is set to match the observed number density and σ_logM is fixed by hand at 0.6 (with a ±0.1 robustness check). Consequently the reported log(M0) values and the subsequent power-law slope a = 0.37 ± 0.10 are direct outputs of that fit rather than independent predictions. This is the ordinary level of any HOD amplitude analysis and does not rise to definitional circularity: the full k-dependence of the monopole, the quadrupole (never used in the fit), the subhalo fraction, and the agreement with an external N-body cosmology are genuine, non-forced tests. No self-definitional loop, no load-bearing self-citation uniqueness theorem, and no smuggled ansatz appear. Score 2 reflects only the mild fitted-input reporting of halo masses.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central clustering and halo-mass claims rest on standard flat-ΛCDM cosmology taken from Planck, the Uchuu N-body realization, a simplified log-normal HOD with one free mass scale, and the assumption that the KS-validated luminosity-redshift windows produce unbiased volume-limited samples. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are the per-bin M0 values and the hand-fixed HOD width.

free parameters (3)
  • M0 (characteristic halo mass per luminosity bin) = log(M0/h−1M⊙) ≈ 11.94–12.32 depending on bin/field
    Single free parameter of the HOD; fitted to the monopole power spectrum amplitude via Sellentin-Heavens likelihood for each of the six samples.
  • σ_logM (HOD width) = 0.6 (fixed)
    Fixed by hand to 0.6 (varied ±0.1 only as a robustness check); not fitted to the data.
  • Fg (galaxy fraction) = 0.37–0.64 depending on bin
    Set solely to reproduce the observed number density of each sample once M0 and σ_logM are chosen; not an independent free parameter of the clustering fit.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Planck 2015/2018 parameters (Ωm=0.3089, σ8=0.8159, etc.) correctly describes the matter power spectrum at z≤0.48.
    Uchuu mocks and distance-redshift conversion both adopt these parameters (Sections 1 and 4.2).
  • domain assumption A log-normal central occupation (Geach et al. 2012 form without the error-function term) plus subhalo population is an adequate description of [OII] galaxy occupation.
    Adopted in Section 4.2; justified a posteriori by the quality of the multipole fits.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-sample KS p>0.05 between data and random redshift distributions guarantees a sufficiently volume-limited sample for clustering analysis.
    Threshold chosen in Section 3.1 to define the redshift windows of each luminosity bin.
  • domain assumption Sparse IFU sampling (fill factor ~1/4.6) does not introduce significant window-function bias once the grid cell is larger than the IFU separation.
    Cited from Chiang et al. (2013) and used to set H=2.2 h−1 Mpc (Section 4.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 33949 in / 3161 out tokens · 22255 ms · 2026-07-13T06:35:25.101453+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The catalog from the Hobby-Eberly Telescope Dark Energy Experiment (HETDEX) Public Data Release 1 (PDR1) contains half a million emission-line-selected [OII] galaxies spread across $540~\mathrm{deg}^2$ at $z \le 0.48$ from HETDEX's unprecedented untargeted spectroscopic survey. In this paper, we construct volume-limited samples from PDR1 in three luminosity bins across the two main fields: "Spring'' and "Fall''. The numbers of galaxies in the bins range from 11,354 to 64,794 and number densities, $\bar{n}\simeq (2-5)\times10^{-3}~h^3~\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, are higher than those of typical cosmological spectroscopic surveys of emission-line galaxies by a factor of five to ten. The monopole and quadrupole power spectra derived from these samples are in excellent agreement with the mock power spectra from the Uchuu simulation based on a flat $\Lambda$CDM model and the cosmological parameters from the Planck cosmic microwave background data, at all wavenumbers used for the measurement ($0.01<k<0.7~h~\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$). We find that the power spectrum amplitudes are consistent with a characteristic dark matter halo mass of $\log(M_0~[h^{-1}M_{\odot}])\simeq 11.9$-$12.3$, with the halo mass showing a weak dependence on [OII] luminosity, $M_0\propto L^a$, increasing with a slope of $a = 0.37\pm0.10$. The best-fit mock suggests that approximately 13 percent of the [OII] galaxies in our sample reside in subhalos. The new, high-density tracers of the underlying matter distribution presented in this paper provide precise measurements of clustering in a low-redshift regime sensitive to the late-time growth of structures. These samples will form the basis for forthcoming analyses of the redshift-space distortion effect, galaxy-halo connection, and cross-correlations with external low-redshift probes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08453 by Ariel G. S\'anchez, Caryl Gronwall, Chenxu Liu, Daniel J. Farrow, Donald P. Schneider, Donghui Jeong, Dustin Davis, Eiichiro Komatsu, Erin Mentuch Cooper, Gary J. Hill, Jeongin Moon, Karl Gebhardt, Laura Herold, Maja Lujan Niemeyer, Olivia Curtis, Robin Ciardullo, Shiro Mukae, Shun Saito.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Projected distributions of the HETDEX [O II] galaxies from HPSC2 in the plane of right ascension and comoving distance in units of h −1 Gpc with corresponding redshifts, collapsed along the declination axis with a width of 2◦ . The large-scale structure is clearly visible across all observational fields. There are 286,992 and 140,122 galaxies with z hetdex > 0 in comoving volumes of 4.7 × 107 and 2.6 × 107… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The number of [O II] emitting galaxies per bin of ∆z = 0.01 in the Spring (top) and Fall (bottom) fields. The black line represents all [O II] emitting galaxies in HPSC2, while the colored lines and shaded regions indicate the num￾ber and the applied redshift cuts for different luminosity bins used to extract volume-limited samples. Bins 1 (red) and 5 (purple) are excluded from the cosmological analysis an… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sky distribution of the observed and mock [O II] volume-limited samples in the Spring and Fall fields, projected onto the right ascension–comoving distance plane by collapsing along the declination axis with a width of 2◦ . Comoving distances in units of h −1 Gpc are indicated by the radial labels, along with their corresponding redshifts. The orange, green, and blue dots represent Bins 2, 3, and 4, respec… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Monopole power spectra of HETDEX [O II] volume-limited samples in Bins 2 (left panels), 3 (middle panels), and 4 (right panels) in the Spring (top panels) and Fall (bottom panels) fields. The points with the error bars show the HETDEX data binned with a width ∆k = 0.1 h Mpc−1 , with 1σ uncertainties estimated from 50 mock realizations. The colored solid lines represent the mean power spectra from the mocks… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parabolic fits to χ 2 SH(M) = −2 ln LSH [Equation (14)] estimating the best-fit log characteristic halo mass, M = log(M0), where M0 is in units of h −1M⊙, from Bins 2 (left panels), 3 (middle panels), and 4 (right panels) in the Spring (top panels) and Fall (bottom panels) fields. The filled circles represent χ 2 SH(M) evaluated at different M values, the stars denote the best-fit M, and the horizontal and… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of χ 2 [Equation (12)] of the monopole power spectra calculated from the mock realizations with the best-fit value of M for Bins 2 (left panels), 3 (middle panels), and 4 (right panels) in the Spring (top panels) and Fall (bottom panels) fields. The histograms show the distribution of χ 2 from the mock, the vertical lines show the data χ 2 values, and the dashed lines show the S&H PDFs. Empiri… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Monopole power spectra of the HETDEX [O II] volume-limited samples in Bins 2 (left panels), 3 (middle panels), and 4 (right panels) in the Spring (top panels) and Fall (bottom panels) fields, compared with the best-fit Uchuu mock. The solid lines represent the HETDEX data with finer bins (∆k ≃ 0.01 h Mpc−1 ), while the points with the error bars show the rebinned data with ∆k = 0.1 h Mpc−1 . The error bar… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: presents the best-fit values of log(M0) as a function of log(L) and their power-law fits, M0 ∝ L a . We find that the best-fit characteristic halo mass slightly increases with luminosity. Although the Spring field shows a steeper slope than the Fall field, both are sta￾tistically consistent with a value of a = 0.37 ± 0.10. Since the [O II] luminosity is proportional to the star formation rate (R. C. Kenni… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Sky distribution of Noverlap for Spring Bin 4 and Fall Bin 4 in the panel of right ascension and declination, where the size of the circles reflects the Noverlap value. The total number of galaxies corresponding to each Noverlap, NNoverlap , is indicated in the legend. APPENDIX A. EFFECT OF NOVERLAP WEIGHT In this appendix section, we check the effect of the weight, w(r) = N −1 overlap, on the power spect… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Monopole (left) and quadrupole (right) power spectra for Spring Bin 4 (top) and Fall Bin 4 (bottom), comparing results with (solid lines) and without (dashed lines) the weight, w(r) = N −1 overlap. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 k [h Mpc 1 ] 100 200 300 400 500 600 kP 0(k) [h 2 M p c 2 ] Data, Spring Bin 4 Mock (no satellite) mean Mock (no satellite) 1 Data rebinned ± mock 1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 k [h … view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Monopole (left) and quadrupole (right) power spectra for the best-fit HOD mocks of Spring Bin 4, excluding galaxies populated in dark matter subhalos (dashed lines with shaded areas), compared to the data (points with error bars) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    F., Aboubrahim, A., et al

    Abdalla, E., Abell´ an, G. F., Aboubrahim, A., et al. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 34, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  2. [2]

    Hopkins, A. M. 2021a, MNRAS, 503, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab409

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab409

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1956

    Comparat, J. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1956

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1956 2020

  4. [4]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    Alam, S., Ata, M., Bailey, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 2017

  5. [5]

    2021b, PhRvD, 103, 083533, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533 20

    Alam, S., Aubert, M., Avila, S., et al. 2021b, PhRvD, 103, 083533, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533 20

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083533

  6. [6]

    Anderson, T. W. 2003, An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 3rd edn. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience)

    2003

  7. [7]

    J., & Heymans, C

    Asgari, M., Mead, A. J., & Heymans, C. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 39, doi: 10.21105/astro.2303.08752

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.2303.08752 2023

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3514

    Aung, H., Nagai, D., Klypin, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3514

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3514 2023

  9. [9]

    G., et al

    Avila, S., Gonzalez-Perez, V., Mohammad, F. G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2951

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2951 2020

  10. [10]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  11. [11]

    S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Conroy, C., & Wechsler, R. H. 2010, ApJ, 717, 379, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/379 2010

  12. [12]

    Bianchi, D., Gil-Mar´ ın, H., Ruggeri, R., & Percival, W. J. 2015, MNRAS, 453, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv090

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv090 2015

  13. [13]

    A., Beutler, F., et al

    Blake, C., Kazin, E. A., Beutler, F., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1707, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19592.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19592.x 2011

  14. [14]

    2013, JCAP, 2013, 030, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/12/030

    Chiang, C.-T., Wullstein, P., Jeong, D., et al. 2013, JCAP, 2013, 030, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/12/030

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/12/030 2013

  15. [15]

    J., et al

    Ciardullo, R., Gronwall, C., Adams, J. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/83

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/83 2013

  16. [16]

    2026, A&A Rv, 34, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-026-00166-x

    Contarini, S., Verza, G., & Pisani, A. 2026, A&A Rv, 34, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-026-00166-x

    doi:10.1007/s00159-026-00166-x 2026

  17. [17]

    2002, PhR, 372, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    Cooray, A., & Sheth, R. 2002, PhR, 372, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00276-4 2002

  18. [18]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123519, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123519

    Dalal, R., Li, X., Nicola, A., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123519, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123519

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123519 2023

  19. [19]

    M., et al

    Davis, D., Gebhardt, K., Cooper, E. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0ca de Mattia, A., Ruhlmann-Kleider, V., Raichoor, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3891

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb0ca 2023

  20. [20]

    2007, ApJL, 671, L101, doi: 10.1086/524950 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T

    Deng, X.-F., He, J.-Z., & Jiang, P. 2007, ApJL, 671, L101, doi: 10.1086/524950 DES Collaboration, Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10065

    doi:10.1086/524950 2007

  21. [21]

    2018, Physics Reports, 733, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002 Dong-P´ aez, C

    Desjacques, V., Jeong, D., & Schmidt, F. 2018, Physics Reports, 733, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002 Dong-P´ aez, C. A., Smith, A., Szewciw, A. O., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae062

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.002 2018

  22. [22]

    P., Hill, D

    Driver, S. P., Hill, D. T., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 971, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x 2011

  23. [23]

    J., Cole, S., Norberg, P., et al

    Farrow, D. J., Cole, S., Norberg, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2120, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2075

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2075 2015

  24. [24]

    2026, ApJ, 1002, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae592a

    Favole, G., Kitaura, F.-S., Hadzhiyska, B., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae592a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae592a 2026

  25. [25]

    A., Comparat, J., et al

    Favole, G., Rodr´ ıguez-Torres, S. A., Comparat, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1980

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1980 2017

  26. [26]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 3421, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1483

    Favole, G., Comparat, J., Prada, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3421, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1483

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1483 2016

  27. [27]

    A., Kaiser, N., & Peacock, J

    Feldman, H. A., Kaiser, N., & Peacock, J. A. 1994, ApJ, 426, 23, doi: 10.1086/174036

    doi:10.1086/174036 1994

  28. [28]

    P., Gui, S., et al

    Gao, H., Jing, Y. P., Gui, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace90a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace90a 2023

  29. [29]

    E., Sobral, D., Hickox, R

    Geach, J. E., Sobral, D., Hickox, R. C., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 679, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21725.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21725.x 2012

  30. [30]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e03

    Gebhardt, K., Mentuch Cooper, E., Ciardullo, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e03

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e03 2021

  31. [31]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 4024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2807

    Gonzalez-Perez, V., Comparat, J., Norberg, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2807

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2807 2018

  32. [32]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 2023

  33. [33]

    2017, JCAP, 2017, 002, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/07/002

    Hand, N., Li, Y., Slepian, Z., & Seljak, U. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 002, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/07/002

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/07/002 2017

  34. [34]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02 2021

  35. [35]

    W., & Eastwood, J

    Hockney, R. W., & Eastwood, J. W. 1988, Computer simulation using particles (CRC Press)

    1988

  36. [36]

    A., et al

    Ishiyama, T., Prada, F., Klypin, A. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1755

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1755 2021

  37. [37]

    1997, ApJ, 484, 560, doi: 10.1086/304372 Jim´ enez, E., Padilla, N., Contreras, S., et al

    Jain, B., & Seljak, U. 1997, ApJ, 484, 560, doi: 10.1086/304372 Jim´ enez, E., Padilla, N., Contreras, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1819

    doi:10.1086/304372 1997

  38. [38]

    Jing, Y. P. 2005, ApJ, 620, 559, doi: 10.1086/427087

    doi:10.1086/427087 2005

  39. [39]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/51

    Kajisawa, M., Shioya, Y., Aida, Y., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/51

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/1/51 2013

  40. [40]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  41. [41]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  42. [42]

    A., Sobral, D., Mobasher, B., et al

    Khostovan, A. A., Sobral, D., Mobasher, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty925

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty925 2018

  43. [43]

    V., Berlind, A

    Kravtsov, A. V., Berlind, A. A., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 35, doi: 10.1086/420959

    doi:10.1086/420959 2004

  44. [44]

    K., Driver, S

    Liske, J., Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1436 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca962 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al. 2026, ApJS, 284, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae6068

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1436 2015

  45. [45]

    J., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., & White, S. D. M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.2.347

    doi:10.1093/mnras/282.2.347 1996

  46. [46]

    2023, PhRvL, 131, 111001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.111001 21

    Nguyen, N.-M., Huterer, D., & Wen, Y. 2023, PhRvL, 131, 111001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.111001 21

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.111001 2023

  47. [47]

    M., Hawkins, E., et al

    Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Hawkins, E., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 64, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04839.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04839.x 2001

  48. [48]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 1186, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab068

    Okumura, T., Hayashi, M., Chiu, I.-N., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 1186, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab068

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab068 2021

  49. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2401

    Oogi, T., Ishiyama, T., Prada, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2401

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2401 2023

  50. [50]

    2025, A&A, 697, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453086

    Chaves-Montero, J. 2025, A&A, 697, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453086

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453086 2025

  51. [51]

    E., Contreras, S., et al

    Ortega-Martinez, S., Angulo, R. E., Contreras, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.19449, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.19449

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.19449 2026

  52. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3582

    Osato, K., & Okumura, T. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3582

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3582 2023

  53. [53]

    P., et al

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V., Coles, J. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2027

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2027 2023

  54. [54]

    J., Friedrich, O., Sellentin, E., & Heavens, A

    Percival, W. J., Friedrich, O., Sellentin, E., & Heavens, A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3540

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3540 2022

  55. [55]

    Philcox, O. H. E., & Ivanov, M. M. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 043517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043517 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.043517 2022

  56. [56]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.11911, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.11911

    Prada, F., Behroozi, P., Ishiyama, T., Klypin, A., & P´ erez, E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.11911, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.11911

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.11911 2023

  57. [57]

    J., Hang, Q., Farren, G., et al

    Qu, F. J., Hang, Q., Farren, G., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 103503, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103503

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.103503 2025

  58. [58]

    W., Adams, M

    Ramsey, L. W., Adams, M. T., Barnes, T. G., et al. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3352, Advanced Technology Optical/IR Telescopes VI, ed. L. M. Stepp, 34–42, doi: 10.1117/12.319287

    doi:10.1117/12.319287 1998

  59. [59]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 3627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf700

    Said, K., Howlett, C., Davis, T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf700

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf700 2025

  60. [60]

    2015, PhRvD, 92, 083532, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532

    Scoccimarro, R. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 083532, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.083532 2015

  61. [61]

    Sellentin, E., & Heavens, A. F. 2016, MNRAS, 456, L132, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv190

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv190 2016

  62. [62]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    doi:10.1038/nature03597 2005

  63. [63]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 2617, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21063.x

    Tadaki, K.-i., Kodama, T., Ota, K., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2617, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21063.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21063.x 2012

  64. [64]

    S., Chiba, M., et al

    Takada, M., Ellis, R. S., Chiba, M., et al. 2014, PASJ, 66, R1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/pst019

    doi:10.1093/pasj/pst019 2014

  65. [65]

    R., Strauss, M

    Tegmark, M., Blanton, M. R., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 702, doi: 10.1086/382125

    doi:10.1086/382125 2004

  66. [66]

    2014, A&A, 566, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423585

    Tempel, E., Tamm, A., Gramann, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423585

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423585 2014

  67. [67]

    L., Robertson, B

    Tinker, J. L., Robertson, B. E., Kravtsov, A. V., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 878, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/878

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/878 2010

  68. [68]

    Vale, A., & Ostriker, J. P. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 189, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08059.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08059.x 2004

  69. [69]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 044, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/044

    Wang, Y., & Yu, Y. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 044, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/044

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/044 2024

  70. [70]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973

    Wang, Y., Zhai, Z., Alavi, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4973 2022

  71. [71]

    H., St¨ olzner, B., Asgari, M., et al

    Wright, A. H., St¨ olzner, B., Asgari, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554908

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554908 2025

  72. [72]

    A., & Nishioka, H

    Yamamoto, K., Nakamichi, M., Kamino, A., Bassett, B. A., & Nishioka, H. 2006, PASJ, 58, 93, doi: 10.1093/pasj/58.1.93

    doi:10.1093/pasj/58.1.93 2006

  73. [73]

    H., Wang, Y., et al

    Yuan, S., Wechsler, R. H., Wang, Y., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf368

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf368 2025

  74. [74]

    R., Frieman, J

    Zehavi, I., Blanton, M. R., Frieman, J. A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 172, doi: 10.1086/339893

    doi:10.1086/339893 2002

  75. [75]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Zheng, Z., Berlind, A. A., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 791, doi: 10.1086/466510 22 160180200220240 R.A.[deg] 46 48 50 52 54 56Dec.[deg] N1 = 59195 N2 = 4562 N3 = 461 N4 = 42 N5 = 13 5101520253035 R.A.[deg] 2 1 0 1 2 Dec.[deg] N1 = 25386 N2 = 1885 N3 = 129 N4 = 3 Figure 15.Sky distribution ofN overlap for Spring Bin 4 and Fall Bin 4 in the pane...

    doi:10.1086/466510 2005