Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Galaxy power-spectrum multipoles can be modeled exactly, including wide-angle, redshift-evolution, window, and integral-constraint effects, via a weighted sum of discrete spherical Fourier-Bessel modes.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:15 UTC pith:XPDHBPDI

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful dSFB-to-PSM mapping with an oversold 'exact' integral-constraint claim; referee it, but make them fix the IC caveat. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.19438 v2 pith:XPDHBPDI submitted 2026-01-27 astro-ph.CO

Large-scale Modeling of the Observed Power Spectrum Multipoles

Robin Y. Wen , Henry S. Grasshorn Gebhardt , Chen Heinrich , Olivier Dor\'e This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords power spectrum multipolesdiscrete spherical Fourier-Bessel basiswide-angle effectsredshift evolutionintegral constraintswindow functionYamamoto estimatorprimordial non-Gaussianity
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.

The paper's central claim is that the power-spectrum multipoles estimated by the standard Yamamoto estimator can be reproduced exactly—at linear order in the density contrast—as a weighted sum of pseudo discrete spherical Fourier-Bessel (dSFB) power-spectrum modes. This single mapping folds wide-angle effects, redshift evolution within a bin, arbitrary survey window functions, and integral constraints into one calculation, with no plane-parallel or effective-redshift approximation. If correct, it removes known sources of bias in constraints on local primordial non-Gaussianity, where the effective-redshift approximation can mimic fNL of order one, and it makes large-scale modeling fast enough for parameter inference because all geometry-dependent matrices are precomputed once. The paper validates the framework against lognormal mocks with a realistic angular mask and radial integral constraint, including scales beyond the survey fundamental frequency.

Core claim

Equation (25) is the centerpiece: P^O_L(k)=sum_{b,n1,n2} P^L_{bn1n2}(k) C^O_{bn1n2}, where C^O is the azimuthally averaged pseudo dSFB power spectrum of the observed field and the kernel P^L encodes the shell geometry and the Legendre weighting of the estimator. Window functions and integral constraints act as linear transformations in the dSFB basis before being compressed into Fourier-space multipoles. The authors show that this exact treatment reproduces the wide-angle-generated odd multipoles and the dipole bump at super-survey scales induced by radial integral constraints, and that common and multipole effective-redshift approximations produce scale-dependent errors that can exceed a lo

What carries the argument

The discrete spherical Fourier-Bessel (dSFB) basis—products of spherical harmonics with discrete radial eigenfunctions satisfying boundary conditions on a finite comoving shell—is the central object. Its power spectrum C^O_{ℓn1n2} is mapped to Yamamoto-estimator multipoles by Eq. (25), whose kernel is built from dSFB-to-generalized-SFB overlap integrals and Wigner-3j coupling coefficients. Integral constraints enter as a mixing matrix constructed from window and averaged-density kernels, so the entire observational correction is a matrix multiplication in the dSFB space. The separation of angular and radial modes is what allows arbitrary, non-separable window functions to be treated without

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that integral constraints are captured by the first-order expression δO(x) ≃ w(x)W(x)[δ(x) − δ̄(x)], which replaces the estimated mean density by its ensemble average and drops all O(δ²) terms; if fluctuations of the estimated mean are non-negligible on the largest scales, the integral-constraint prediction carries an unmodeled bias.

What would settle it

Generate lognormal or N-body mocks with the same survey-like angular mask and radial selection but with large-scale density fluctuations artificially amplified, then compare the measured mean Yamamoto multipoles under radial IC with the prediction of Eqs. (25) and (50). If the residuals at k below the survey fundamental frequency grow with the variance of the estimated mean density rather than staying at the percent level, the linearized IC treatment is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Clustering analyses can drop the effective-redshift approximation; redshift evolution inside a bin is included exactly, avoiding scale-dependent errors that resemble a local fNL of order one.
  • Wide-angle effects are modeled non-perturbatively, including odd multipoles such as the dipole and octupole that plane-parallel formulas set to zero.
  • Window convolution and global/radial integral constraints are computed for arbitrary survey windows as precomputed matrices, making their inclusion in an MCMC nearly free.
  • Observer-induced systematics localized in angular or radial modes can be removed in the dSFB basis before compression into multipoles.
  • The same mapping extends to cross-correlations and to other two-point statistics, supporting multi-tracer analyses and joint probes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The lognormal validation uses the same linearized density-contrast model as the integral-constraint prediction, so it would not expose second-order errors; on ultra-large scales where δ approaches order unity, the dropped normalization fluctuation could bias the 'exact' IC correction.
  • The mapping could be inverted to build estimators that measure dSFB power directly, making wide-angle modeling and systematics removal native to the estimator.
  • A multipole-dependent effective redshift calibrated with this exact calculation could offer a low-cost upgrade for existing pipelines that do not migrate to the dSFB framework.
  • The speed of the precomputed-matrices approach makes it attractive as a forward model in simulation-based inference, where the effective-redshift approximation is currently a bottleneck.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives a mapping, Eq. (25), from the discrete spherical Fourier-Bessel (dSFB) power spectrum to the Yamamoto-estimator power spectrum multipoles (PSM). The mapping is claimed to hold for arbitrary survey windows and integral constraints, and it is used to compute wide-angle effects, redshift evolution beyond the effective-redshift approximation, and window/IC effects in the PSM. The framework is validated against 1,000 lognormal mocks under full-sky and SPHEREx-like geometries, including a radial integral constraint. The advertised advance is fast, numerically stable, and 'exact' modeling of all these observational effects in Fourier-space PSM, with geometry-only mapping matrices that can be precomputed.

Significance. If the central mapping is correct, it is a valuable technical contribution: it replaces the overcomplete and numerically cumbersome generalized SFB basis with the discrete SFB basis, allowing efficient evaluation of PSM with wide-angle effects, redshift evolution, window convolution, and integral constraints. The paper's strengths include the algebraic derivation of Eq. (25), the appendices that connect the result to previous SFB formulations, and the mock validation that checks the implementation and geometry handling. The mapping matrices depend only on survey geometry, not cosmology, which is a useful property for inference. However, the advertised 'exactness' is not fully supported: the integral-constraint treatment is linearized in the density contrast, and the validation is an internal consistency test rather than a test against a non-linearized mock. These caveats are important for the stated fNL~O(1) motivation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I and Sec. IV B, Eq. (45)] The claim that window, wide-angle, evolution, and IC effects are modeled 'exactly and consistently ... without any approximation' is not supported for integral constraints. In Eq. (44)-(45), the normalization A is replaced by its ensemble average and O(δ^2) terms are dropped. These terms contribute to the power spectrum at relative order ⟨δ̄^2⟩ times the linear term; on ultra-large scales this can be comparable to the ~1% shift from fNL=1 shown in Figs. 7-8. The lognormal validation in Figs. 14-15 has ~2% residuals and the theoretical model uses the same linearized IC approximation, so it does not rule out a percent-level systematic. Please either (i) qualify the 'exact' claim to 'at first order in δ', (ii) estimate the size of the omitted O(δ^2) contribution, or (iii) validate against a mock that does not share the linearized normalization.
  2. [Sec. V, Figs. 14-15] The mock validation tests internal consistency: the same input P(k), bias, and growth rate are used in both the theoretical prediction and the lognormal mocks, and the mocks are generated with the same linearized RSD/IC model. This is appropriate for validating the mapping implementation and geometry handling, but the abstract's statement that the framework is 'ready for application to all-sky galaxy surveys' goes beyond what is demonstrated. In particular, the accuracy of the IC normalization approximation at the fNL~O(1) level is not tested by this setup. A test against an independent simulation (e.g., one with known fNL injection or with the exact normalization) would strengthen the claim.
  3. [Eq. (25) and Sec. III B] The central mapping itself appears algebraically sound: Eq. (25) follows from substituting Eq. (24) into Eq. (20), and the validation supports the geometric coupling structure. However, the statement in Sec. I that this is 'for the first time' an exact and consistent treatment should be read with the caveat that the IC part of the input pseudo-dSFB spectrum is only first-order in δ; the mapping is exact as a linear transformation of the dSFB power spectrum, but the dSFB power spectrum itself is computed with linearized IC. The distinction should be made explicit in the text to avoid overinterpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (51) text] The phrase 'we use the notation M[A, B] to demote' should read 'to denote'.
  2. [Eq. (52) text] Again 'demote' should be 'denote'.
  3. [Sec. III D] The terms 'common ERA' and 'multipole ERA' are used before being explicitly defined in Sec. B 2; a one-sentence definition at first use would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The phrase 'We plot the absolute PSM instead of the relative error' is slightly ambiguous; suggest 'the absolute value of the PSM'.
  5. [Sec. IV E, after Eq. (64)] The notation (LN N) and (ℓnn) in the caption of Fig. 13 is explained, but a brief definition in the main text would help readers connect the mixing matrix indices to the dSFB mode structure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: Eq. (25) is a derived algebraic mapping, not an assumed input; the first-order IC truncation is an explicit approximation rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The central mapping Eq. (25) is obtained by substituting Eq. (24) into Eq. (20); Eq. (24) follows from the dSFB-to-gSFB relation Eq. (21), and Eq. (20) is an external result (Ref. [17]) for the Yamamoto estimator. All steps rely on orthogonality/completeness identities (D1)-(D5), with no fitted parameter or assumed target PSM. The IC treatment is explicitly linearized: 'δO(x) ≃ w(x)W(x)[δ(x) − δ̄(x)]' and 'at the first order we can ignore the cosmological fluctuation present in the normalization factor'; this is a stated approximation, and the lognormal validation uses the same linearized model, so any shortfall at O(δ²) is a correctness/overclaim concern, not circularity. The paper frequently cites prior work by the same authors (Refs. [1, 20, 22, 23, 44]), but these citations support computational methods and earlier dSFB results rather than supplying Eq. (25) itself; no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. External benchmarks (Ref. [20] validated gSFB-to-PSM; Figs. 14-15 show agreement with mocks) make the derivation self-contained in the relevant sense.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The mapping itself is parameter-free; no constant is fitted to the target result. The numerical demonstrations fix b1 = 1.5, f = 0.71, r0 = 300 Mpc/h, and truncate the off-diagonal sum at Δn ≤ 10; these are inputs/convergence choices, not fit parameters. The main postulates are the prior gSFB-to-PSM mapping, completeness of the dSFB basis, linear Newtonian RSD, first-order IC normalization, and fidelity of lognormal mocks to the window/IC effects.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The gSFB-to-PSM mapping of Ref. [17], Eq. (20), is exact for the Yamamoto estimator under the end-point LOS.
    Adopted from prior literature without proof; all dSFB-to-PSM results, including Eq. (25), inherit it. Section III, Eq. (20).
  • standard math The discrete radial functions g_{nℓ}(x) form a complete orthonormal basis on the shell [xmin,xmax] under the chosen velocity boundary conditions, and the field vanishes outside the shell.
    Sturm-Liouville completeness (Appendix D, Eq. D5); used for the dSFB decomposition and the dSFB-to-gSFB projection in Eq. (21).
  • domain assumption Linear-order Newtonian RSD (Kaiser plus Newtonian Doppler where needed) is sufficient to model the dSFB power spectrum; relativistic and observer terms are negligible for the claims.
    Stated in Sec. I: 'we assume the linear-order theory with Newtonian RSD... We ignore the linear relativistic effects and the observer's terms.' This bounds the physical applicability but not the algebraic mapping.
  • domain assumption The integral-constraint normalization A can be replaced by its ensemble average, making Eq. (45) valid at first order in the density contrast.
    Sec. IV B: 'at the first order we can ignore the cosmological fluctuation present in the normalization factor.' This is load-bearing for the 'exact IC' statement.
  • domain assumption Lognormal mocks with linear RSD shifts, the CSFD mask, and exponential radial selection adequately represent survey window and radial-IC effects for validation.
    Section V validates against 1,000 lognormal mocks rather than N-body simulations; this tests the estimator/window/IC machinery, not the accuracy of the input P(k) model.
  • domain assumption The radial integral constraint is represented by the redshift-dependent averaging kernel Eq. (63), equivalent to down-selecting randoms to the measured galaxy redshift distribution.
    Section IV E and Sec. V: assumes synthetic catalogs are built by matching the observed redshift distribution; a different survey mean-density estimator would give a different mixing matrix.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 38240 in / 19454 out tokens · 215758 ms · 2026-08-04T06:15:48.083777+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Current and upcoming large-scale structure surveys are pushing toward increasingly wide angular coverage, where wide-angle effects (arising from the varying line of sight across the curved sky) become critical for accurate modeling of the three-dimensional galaxy power spectrum. At the same time, these survey's broader redshift reach makes the effects of redshift evolution (beyond the effective-redshift approximation) non-negligible on large radial scales. Additional observational effects such as the survey window function and integral constraints also become significant on these large scales, necessitating a careful theoretical treatment to robustly constrain local primordial non-Gaussianities and relativistic effects. In this work, we present a consistent and accurate theoretical framework for modeling the commonly used power spectrum multipoles (PSM) on large scales using the discrete spherical Fourier-Bessel (dSFB) basis. This basis ensures numerical stability and allows an exact separation between angular and radial modes. Using the dSFB basis, we study the impact of wide-angle effects and redshift evolution on the PSM, and incorporate the effects of window function convolution and integral constraints. We validate our PSM modeling using lognormal mocks under radial integral constraints with realistic survey geometries, demonstrating the readiness of our framework for application to all-sky galaxy surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19438 by Chen Heinrich, Henry S. Grasshorn Gebhardt, Olivier Dor\'e, Robin Y. Wen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The dSFB-to-gSFB mapping function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The dSFB-to-cSFB mapping function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The diagonal and off-diagonal contribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The power spectrum dipole, octupole, and hexadecapole obtained by summing all off-diagonal components of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The PSM with higher Legendre multipoles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the exact modeling of the PSM ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of the PS monopole computed with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The angular mask for the cosmological region used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The power spectrum multipoles ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Components in the dSFB powers spectra removed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The power spectrum multipoles ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The radial integral constraint mixing matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The theoretical and measured power spectrum multipoles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Validation of the theoretical modeling of power spectrum multipoles for radial integral constraints under the ideal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The theoretical and measured power spectrum multipoles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Impact and measurability of linear relativistic effects in galaxy surveys

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Neglecting linear GR effects biases f_NL at 1–3σ for Euclid/SPHEREx in SFB forecasts; multi-tracer improves Doppler detection and weakly breaks b_ϕ f_NL degeneracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 79 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    [1] For the radial IC, referred to as the radial local aver- age effect in Ref

    Consistency with Ref. [1] For the radial IC, referred to as the radial local aver- age effect in Ref. [1], we note that their Eq. (C62) has the same form as the second and third termsM[wW, wG] + M[wG, wW] defined in our Eq. (51), withwGgiven in Eq. (64). With some care, one can also recognize that their Eq. (C50), where the azimuthally averaged con- tract...

  2. [2]

    [12, 26, 40] for modeling the effects of window functions in the PSM measured from the Ya- mamoto estimator

    Window function We here summarize the derivation and results pre- sented in Refs. [12, 26, 40] for modeling the effects of window functions in the PSM measured from the Ya- mamoto estimator. These window convolution results through Cartesian coordinates have become standard in clustering analyses [2, 8, 86, 87]. The two-point correlation function and its ...

  3. [3]

    Effective redshift approximation Due to the computational challenge of exactly model- ing the effects of window functions in Cartesian coordi- nates as discussed above, the effective redshift approxi- mation has been adopted in most 3D clustering analyses using 2CFM and PSM to date. Under this approxima- tion, one only needs to compare the clustering meas...

  4. [4]

    Derivative formulation We present here a new formulation, which is based on the derivatives of spherical Bessel functions, for the map- ping between the gSFB power spectrum and the PSM given in Eq. (20). This approach differs from the earlier derivations presented in Refs. [17, 20]. Starting from Eq. (2), the Fourier transform of the field weighted by a L...

  5. [5]

    (21) of Sec

    Mapping with cSFB Similar to Eq. (21) of Sec. III A where we expressed the generalized SFB mode to a sum of the discrete SFB modes, we can also express the gSFB mode as a convo- lution of the continuous SFB mode: δa ℓm(k) = 2 π Z dq q2Iℓa(k, q)δℓm(q),(C8) whereI ℓℓ′(k, q) is the integral over two spherical Bessel functions of different orders Iℓℓ′(k, q)≡ ...

  6. [6]

    (1), which enables fast and efficient implemen- tations using FFTs

    Alternative LOS The end-point LOS is the default choice in the Ya- mamoto estimator due to its factorization property, as seen in Eq. (1), which enables fast and efficient implemen- tations using FFTs. All LSS analyses have adopted this convention to date. Alternative LOS definitions, such as the mid-point and angular bisector, have also been con- sidered...

  7. [7]

    This reverse mapping has been explored in Refs

    PSM-to-SFB mapping For completeness, we now discuss how the SFB power spectrum can be expressed as a mapping or approxi- mation from PSM—that is, the reverse direction of the SFB-to-PSM mapping that has been the main focus of this work. This reverse mapping has been explored in Refs. [44, 96] for the continuous and discrete SFB PS respectively, which we s...

  8. [8]

    (C7), where the sum over spherical Bessels involving Wigner-3jequals the sum over higher-order derivatives of spherical Bessels weighted by the coefficients of Legendre polynomials

    Higher-Order derivatives of spherical Bessel function We now directly prove the identity of Eq. (C7), where the sum over spherical Bessels involving Wigner-3jequals the sum over higher-order derivatives of spherical Bessels weighted by the coefficients of Legendre polynomials. As- sume Legendre polynomials can be written asL L(x) =Pi=L n=0 cLnxn and take ...

  9. [9]

    (59) satisfiesd n0 ∼δ K n0 under the velocity boundary condition

    dSFB radial function under velocity boundary condition We aim to show that the coefficientd nℓ defined in Eq. (59) satisfiesd n0 ∼δ K n0 under the velocity boundary condition. The dSFB radial basis functionsg nℓ(x) satisfy the radial part of the Helmholtz equation (the Laplacian eigenequation) d dx x2 dgℓ(kx) dx + (kx)2 −ℓ(ℓ+ 1) gℓ(kx) = 0, (D14) Integrat...

  10. [10]

    H. S. Grasshorn Gebhardt and O. Dor´ e, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083502 (2024), arXiv:2310.17677 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    DESI Collaboration, JCAP2025, 017 (2025), arXiv:2411.12020 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Astrophys.697, A1 (2025), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph.CO]

    Euclid Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys.697, A1 (2025), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    J. J. Bock and SPHEREx Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.02985 (2025), arXiv:2511.02985 [astro- ph.IM]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Kaiser, Mon

    N. Kaiser, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.227, 1 (1987)

    1987

  15. [15]

    A. J. S. Hamilton, Astrophys. J. Lett.385, L5 (1992)

    1992

  16. [16]

    Yamamoto, M

    K. Yamamoto, M. Nakamichi, A. Kamino,et al., Publi- cations of the Astronomical Society of Japan58, 93–102 (2006)

    2006

  17. [17]

    Beutler, H.-J

    F. Beutler, H.-J. Seo, S. Saito,et al., Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.466, 2242 (2017), arXiv:1607.03150 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Castorina, N

    E. Castorina, N. Hand, U. Seljak,et al., JCAP2019, 010 (2019), arXiv:1904.08859 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    d’Amico, J

    G. d’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron,et al., JCAP2020, 005 (2020), arXiv:1909.05271 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 2020, 042 (2020), arXiv:1909.05277 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Beutler and P

    F. Beutler and P. McDonald, JCAP2021, 031 (2021), arXiv:2106.06324 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    DESI Collaboration, JCAP09, 008, arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Chaussidon, C

    E. Chaussidon, C. Y` eche, A. de Mattia,et al., JCAP 2025, 029 (2025), arXiv:2411.17623 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    A. S. Szalay, T. Matsubara, and S. D. Landy, Astro- phys. J. Lett.498, L1 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9712007 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Yoo and U

    J. Yoo and U. Seljak, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.447, 1789 (2015), arXiv:1308.1093 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Castorina and M

    E. Castorina and M. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 476, 4403 (2018), arXiv:1709.09730 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Noorikuhani and R

    M. Noorikuhani and R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D107, 083528 (2023), arXiv:2207.12383 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    J. N. Benabou, I. Sands, H. S. Grasshorn Geb- hardt,et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 083526 (2024), arXiv:2404.04811 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    R. Y. Wen, H. S. Grasshorn Gebhardt, C. Hein- rich, and O. Dor´ e, Phys. Rev. D110, 083525 (2024), arXiv:2404.04812 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Samushia, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1906.05866 (2019), arXiv:1906.05866 [astro-ph.CO]

    L. Samushia, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1906.05866 (2019), arXiv:1906.05866 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  31. [31]

    H. S. Grasshorn Gebhardt and O. Dor´ e, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123548 (2021), arXiv:2102.10079 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    R. Y. Wen, H. S. Grasshorn Gebhardt, C. Hein- rich, and O. Dor´ e, Phys. Rev. D110, 123501 (2024), arXiv:2407.02753 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    J. A. Peacock and D. Nicholson, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.253, 307 (1991)

    1991

  34. [34]

    de Mattia and V

    A. de Mattia and V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, JCAP2019, 036 (2019), arXiv:1904.08851 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Castorina and E

    E. Castorina and E. Di Dio, JCAP2022, 061 (2022), arXiv:2106.08857 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Leistedt, H

    B. Leistedt, H. V. Peiris, and J. D. McEwen, inWavelets and Sparsity XV, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumen- tation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8858, edited by D. Van De Ville, V. K. Goyal, and M. Pa- padakis (2013) p. 88580J, arXiv:1308.5480 [cs.IT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  37. [37]

    Leistedt, J

    B. Leistedt, J. D. McEwen, T. D. Kitching, and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. D92, 123010 (2015), arXiv:1509.06750 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    J. E. Campagne, J. Neveu, and S. Plaszczynski, As- tron. Astrophys.602, A72 (2017), arXiv:1701.03592 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Chiarenza, M

    S. Chiarenza, M. Bonici, W. Percival, and M. White, The Open Journal of Astrophysics7, 112 (2024), arXiv:2410.03632 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

    Planck Collaboration VI, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Raccanelli, L

    A. Raccanelli, L. Samushia, and W. J. Perci- val, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.409, 1525 (2010), arXiv:1006.1652 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Yoo, Phys

    J. Yoo, Phys. Rev. D82, 083508 (2010), arXiv:1009.3021 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    Challinor and A

    A. Challinor and A. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D84, 043516 (2011), arXiv:1105.5292 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    Bonvin and R

    C. Bonvin and R. Durrer, Phys. Rev. D84, 063505 (2011), arXiv:1105.5280 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Jeong, F

    D. Jeong, F. Schmidt, and C. M. Hirata, Phys. Rev. D 85, 023504 (2012), arXiv:1107.5427 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    Grimm, F

    N. Grimm, F. Scaccabarozzi, J. Yoo,et al., JCAP2020, 064 (2020), arXiv:2005.06484 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Scaccabarozzi, J

    F. Scaccabarozzi, J. Yoo, and S. G. Biern, JCAP2018, 024 (2018), arXiv:1807.09796 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Scoccimarro, Phys

    R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D92, 083532 (2015), arXiv:1506.02729 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Beutler, E

    F. Beutler, E. Castorina, and P. Zhang, JCAP2019, 040 (2019), arXiv:1810.05051 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Bianchi, H

    D. Bianchi, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, R. Ruggeri, and W. J. Perci- val, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters453, L11–L15 (2015)

    2015

  51. [51]

    N. Hand, Y. Li, Z. Slepian, and U. Seljak, JCAP2017, 002 (2017), arXiv:1704.02357 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    B. Khek, H. G. Gebhardt, and O. Dor´ e, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063524 (2024), arXiv:2212.05760 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    R. Y. Wen, H. S. G. Gebhardt, C. Heinrich, and O. Dor´ e, Phys. Rev. D112, 063518 (2025), arXiv:2506.06902 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Reimberg, F

    P. Reimberg, F. Bernardeau, and C. Pitrou, JCAP2016, 048 (2016), arXiv:1506.06596 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    P. Paul, C. Clarkson, and R. Maartens, JCAP2023, 067 (2023), arXiv:2208.04819 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Castorina and M

    E. Castorina and M. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 893 (2020), arXiv:1911.08353 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Szapudi, Astrophys

    I. Szapudi, Astrophys. J.614, 51 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0404477

    arXiv 2004

  58. [58]

    P´ apai and I

    P. P´ apai and I. Szapudi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.389, 292 (2008), arXiv:0802.2940 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  59. [59]

    J. E. Campagne, S. Plaszczynski, and J. Neveu, Astro- phys. J.845, 28 (2017), arXiv:1703.02818 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Tansella, C

    V. Tansella, C. Bonvin, R. Durrer,et al., JCAP2018, 019 (2018), arXiv:1708.00492 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Foglieni, M

    M. Foglieni, M. Pantiri, E. Di Dio, and E. Castorina, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 111201 (2023), arXiv:2303.03142 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [63]

    D. S. Blanco, C. Bonvin, C. Clarkson, and R. Maartens, JCAP2024, 029 (2024), arXiv:2406.19908 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [64]

    Raccanelli and Z

    A. Raccanelli and Z. Vlah, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2305.16278 (2023), arXiv:2305.16278 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [65]

    Raccanelli and Z

    A. Raccanelli and Z. Vlah, Phys. Rev. D108, 043537 (2023), arXiv:2306.00808 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [66]

    Spezzati, E

    F. Spezzati, E. Vanzan, A. Raccanelli,et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 023530 (2025), arXiv:2503.09759 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [67]

    Obuljen and W

    A. Obuljen and W. J. Percival, JCAP2021, 006 (2021), arXiv:2104.07022 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [68]

    Wadekar and R

    D. Wadekar and R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D102, 123517 (2020), arXiv:1910.02914 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [69]

    K. B. Fisher, O. Lahav, Y. Hoffman,et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.272, 885 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9406009 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1995

  69. [70]

    Mueller, M

    E.-M. Mueller, M. Rezaie, W. J. Percival,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2106.13725 (2021), arXiv:2106.13725 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [71]

    M. S. Cagliari, E. Castorina, M. Bonici, and D. Bianchi, JCAP2024, 036 (2024), arXiv:2309.15814 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [72]

    H. A. Feldman, N. Kaiser, and J. A. Peacock, Astrophys. J.426, 23 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9304022 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  72. [73]

    Taruya, T

    A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi, and D. Jeong, Phys. Rev. D 103, 023501 (2021), arXiv:2007.05504 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [74]

    Chiang, Astrophys

    Y.-K. Chiang, Astrophys. J.958, 118 (2023), arXiv:2306.03926 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [75]

    E. F. Schlafly, A. M. Meisner, and G. M. Green, Astro- phys. J. Supp.240, 30 (2019), arXiv:1901.03337 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [76]

    Hivon, K

    E. Hivon, K. M. G´ orski, C. B. Netterfield,et al., Astro- phys. J.567, 2 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0105302 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  76. [77]

    Alonso, J

    D. Alonso, J. Sanchez, A. Slosar, and LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.484, 4127 (2019), arXiv:1809.09603 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [78]

    S. Alam, M. Ata, S. Bailey,et al., Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [79]

    A. J. Ross, W. J. Percival, A. G. S´ anchez, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.424, 564 (2012), arXiv:1203.6499 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  79. [80]

    H. S. Grasshorn Gebhardt and O. Dor´ e, JCAP2022, 038 (2022), arXiv:2109.13352 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [81]

    Everett, B

    S. Everett, B. Yanny, N. Kuropatkin,et al., Astro- phys. J. Supp.258, 15 (2022), arXiv:2012.12825 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.