Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 61 references

A Visibility-based 21 cm Bispectrum Estimator for Radio-interferometric Data

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A visibility-based, FFT-accelerated estimator recovers the binned multi-frequency angular bispectrum and the 3D 21 cm bispectrum from radio-interferometric data, validated on simulated MWA observations with deviations below 20 percent.

desk verdict A solid, self-consistent extension of the visibility-based bispectrum estimator to multi-frequency and 3D, but the 3D recovery rests on a frequency-ergodicity assumption that the validation never stresses. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10526 v1 pith:YR5KDN2A submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Sukhdeep Singh Gill , Somnath Bharadwaj This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords 21cmcosmologyepochofreionizationbispectrumestimatorradiointerferometrymulti-frequencyangularMurchisonWidefieldArrayFFT-basednon-Gaussianity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims to provide the first visibility-based estimator for the binned multi-frequency angular bispectrum (MABS) and the 3D 21 cm bispectrum that covers all triangle configurations. It works directly on gridded interferometric visibilities and uses FFT acceleration so the full computation is feasible on a workstation. The authors validate it with simulated Murchison Widefield Array observations built from a known non-Gaussian input model, both with and without the frequency-flagging pattern of real data. The recovered bispectra agree with analytical predictions within 20 percent, and most deviations are consistent with expected statistical fluctuations. If the claim holds, it gives the epoch-of-reionization community a practical tool for measuring the highly non-Gaussian 21 cm signal rather than only its power spectrum.

What carries the argument

The central object is the binned MABS estimator, Eq. (18): for three annular rings $(a_1,a_2,a_3)$ in three frequency channels, it forms the product $D(\ell_1,\nu_1,\boldsymbol{\theta})D(\ell_2,\nu_2,\boldsymbol{\theta})D(\ell_3,\nu_3,\boldsymbol{\theta})$, where each $D$ is an inverse FFT of the gridded visibilities restricted to one ring, normalizes by the corresponding product of $I$ functions (inverse FFTs of the weighted sampling), and divides by $A=\pi\theta_0^2Q^3/3$. This implements the three-visibility correlation of Eq. (14) that equals the MABS. A 2D DFT over frequency separations, Eq. (19), then maps the MABS to the 3D cylindrical bispectrum $B(k_{1\perp},k_{2\perp},k_{3\perp},k_{1\parallel},k_{2\parallel})$, assuming the signal is ergodic along frequency. The FFT structure reduces the cost from $O(N_c^3 N_t^4)$ to $O(N_c^3 N_t^2 \log N_t^2)$.

What would settle it

Apply the estimator to a simulated 21 cm light cone whose input bispectrum is known to evolve across the band; if the recovered 3D bispectrum deviates from the true band-averaged values by more than the quoted 20 percent, the ergodicity assumption behind the frequency-to-parallel-wavenumber transform is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the binned MABS estimator of Eq. (18) — a normalized product of three inverse FFTs of gridded visibilities restricted to annular rings at three frequencies — is an unbiased estimate of the MABS, and that a 2D discrete Fourier transform over frequency separations (Eq. 19) recovers the cylindrical 3D bispectrum under ergodicity along the frequency axis. The validation uses 250 independent realizations of a simulated MWA pointing with a known input bispectrum. The estimated monopole bispectrum agrees with analytical predictions across $0.003\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1} \leq k_1 \leq 1.258\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ and a wide range of triangle shapes; fractional deviations stay below 20 percent even when the simulated data have exactly the same flagged frequency channels as the actual MWA observations, and most deviations lie within $1\sigma$ to $3\sigma$ of the expected statistical fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the 21 cm signal is statistically uniform along the frequency axis, so that the 3D bispectrum can be obtained by a 2D Fourier transform over frequency separations; if the signal evolves appreciably across the 30.72 MHz band, that transform introduces a bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Provides, for the first time, a visibility-based estimator for the binned MABS and the 3D 21 cm bispectrum that covers all triangle configurations, not just equilateral and isosceles shapes.
  • Brings the computational cost down to $O(N_c^3 N_t^2 \log N_t^2)$; the full-band MWA simulation analysed here takes about one hour on a 16-core CPU.
  • Recovers the bispectrum monopole over $k_1 \in [0.003, 1.258]\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for a wide range of triangle shapes, with fractional deviations below 20 percent even under the periodic flagging pattern of actual MWA data.
  • Provides the practical route to measuring the non-Gaussian 21 cm signal from the epoch of reionization with interferometers such as MWA, complementing power-spectrum measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the validation box is periodic and statistically homogeneous along frequency, the published claims do not yet cover light-cone evolution; applying the estimator to wide-band real data will likely require splitting the band into redshift windows in which ergodicity approximately holds.
  • Foregrounds are absent from this validation. In real data, spectrally smooth foregrounds concentrated in the wedge could still contribute to the FFT products, so foreground avoidance or subtraction will likely be needed before the estimated bispectrum can be interpreted cosmologically.
  • Combining this bispectrum estimator with a power-spectrum estimate from the same gridded visibilities could break degeneracies among reionization parameters (for example bubble size versus ionizing efficiency) that the power spectrum alone cannot separate.
  • The formalism already yields all non-zero multipole moments of the bispectrum; measuring them on real data would directly probe redshift-space distortions and line-of-sight anisotropy, a step the paper leaves for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the single-frequency angular-bispectrum estimator of Paper I to multifrequency observations. It defines a binned estimator for the multi-frequency angular bispectrum (MABS) from gridded visibilities using annular rings and FFTs, and then obtains the 3D 21-cm bispectrum by a 2D DFT over frequency separations under the assumption of frequency ergodicity. The estimator is validated with 250 realizations of a non-Gaussian field with a known analytic bispectrum, using an MWA drift-scan baseline distribution, both with and without the observed flagging pattern. The paper reports agreement with analytic predictions at the ≲20% level over k1 in [0.003, 1.258] Mpc^{-1} and concludes that the deviations are mostly consistent with statistical fluctuations.

Significance. The estimator is a useful step toward measuring 21-cm non-Gaussianity: it is presented as the first visibility-based MABS estimator and it covers all triangle shapes in a binned sense. The validation strategy is honest in an important respect: no free parameters are fitted to the target bispectrum, and the analytical predictions are binned over the same discrete k modes as the estimates. The flagging-robustness test is also valuable. However, two issues currently limit the strength of the central claims: as written, the implemented estimator in Eq. (18) omits the non-closure exponential factor that appears in the defining relation Eq. (14), and the 3D-bispectrum part is validated only under a frequency-stationarity assumption that real light-cone data will violate. Both issues are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the unbiasedness and generalizability claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (14) and (18)] Eq. (14) contains the non-closure correction factor exp(π^2 θ0^2 ΔU^2/3), but the implemented binned estimator in Eq. (18) contains only the prefactor 1/A and does not apply this exponential. Section 4 explicitly states that the factor is 0.89 for a typical value of (ΔU)^2 = (ΔU_g)^2/2. If the exponential is not applied, the estimator is biased low by roughly 5–11%, depending on the typical ΔU distribution. This is not negligible relative to the claimed 20% accuracy, and it is a natural explanation for the 4–5σ deviations reported at high k1 in the no-flagging case (Section 5, Figs. 7–8). The authors should include the correction, e.g., as a bin-dependent weight, or quantify its residual effect and show that it is below the statistical error bars.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (10); Section 4] The 3D BS estimator is built on the assumption that the signal is ergodic along frequency, so that the MABS depends only on (Δν1, Δν2) and Eq. (10) is an exact 2D Fourier relation. The validation in Section 4 uses a periodic 2048^3 box with a statistically homogeneous line of sight, so this assumption is exact by construction and is never stressed. For the real MWA band (ν_c = 154.25 MHz, B_bw = 30.72 MHz, z ≈ 7.4–9.2) the 21 cm signal evolves substantially across the band; under light-cone evolution the MABS depends on absolute frequencies and the recovered k∥ modes become a weighted mix of true modes. Since the headline claim concerns the 3D BS for the EoR, the authors should either add a light-cone simulation test that quantifies the bias, or explicitly restrict the 3D BS claim to a regime where frequency ergodicity holds and discuss the expected bias on the full band.
  3. [Section 5, Figs. 7 and 8] The text states that for the largest k1 bins (0.413–1.258 Mpc^{-1}) and linear triangles, most no-flagging estimates have 4 < Δσ ≤ 5, while the flagged case shows smaller Δσ. With 250 independent realizations, many 4–5σ deviations in a single configuration are not plausibly statistical, and the decrease of Δσ when flagging is added suggests a fixed systematic offset rather than a purely statistical effect. The conclusion that the deviations are 'mostly consistent with the expected statistical fluctuations' needs quantitative support: the authors should report the full Δσ distribution, test whether the analytic binning uses the same effective weights as the estimator (especially near degenerate/linear triangles where B̄ varies rapidly within a bin), and either correct or explicitly exclude the discrepant bins.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4] The cosmological parameters used to evaluate r and r' are not stated, although all k⊥ and k∥ values quoted in Section 5 depend on them.
  2. [Section 5, Fig. 5 caption] Calling (μ, t) = (0.55, 0.95) 'equilateral' is imprecise; the exact equilateral configuration is (μ, t) = (0.5, 1). Please refer to this bin as the one nearest to equilateral.
  3. [Section 4] The statement that U = 250 corresponds to an angular scale of 0.115° appears to be off by a factor of two; for a baseline U, the angular scale is approximately 1/U in radians, i.e., about 0.23° for U = 250.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Section 6] The claimed computational complexity O(N_c^3 N_t^2 log N_t^2) omits the number of radial rings N_r; the triple-ring combinations in Eq. (18) contribute an additional factor N_r^3, which should be stated.
  5. [Section 4] The description of the flagging after collapsing four frequency channels is ambiguous when a collapsed block is only partially flagged; please specify how such blocks are treated.
  6. [Figs. 7 and 8 captions] The definition of Δσ in the captions is written as '|B̄ − [B̄]_d/σ', with the absolute value left open; it should read '|B̄ − [B̄]_d|/σ'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the estimator is validated against a known input model with no fitted constants, and the analytic predictions are the input bispectrum rather than products of the estimator.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained as an estimator test. Section 3 defines the binned MABS estimator (Eq. 18) as a normalized triple product of FFTs of gridded visibilities; no parameter is fitted to the simulated data. The analytic reference in Section 4 is computed directly from the input model: the non-Gaussian field is generated by Eq. (20) with P(k)=k^{-2}, and Eq. (21) gives the corresponding input bispectrum to first order in f_NG. The 'analytical predictions' are therefore the known ground truth of the simulation, not a quantity derived from the estimator. The MABS analytic prediction is obtained by inverting Eq. (10), which is the same Fourier relation used to form the 3D BS; this is a consistency check of the transform pair, not a reduction of the estimator to its input. The validation uses a periodic, statistically homogeneous line of sight, so the frequency-ergodicity assumption underlying Eq. (10) is satisfied by construction; the paper explicitly notes that the MABS itself does not require ergodicity (Sections 1 and 2.2). The light-cone evolution of a real 30.72 MHz band is not tested, and the paper lists foregrounds, noise, and systematics as omissions (Section 6); these are limitations for future work, not circular steps. Self-citations to Paper I (Gill et al. 2025) for the single-frequency visibility estimator are normal and are supported by the current end-to-end simulation validation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; MABS is a known statistical quantity. The free parameters listed are simulation and binning choices rather than fitted constants. The central claim rests on the stated domain assumptions, especially ergodicity along frequency and the flat-sky beam treatment, which are reasonable for a first estimator validation but not yet tested on real data.

free parameters (2)
  • f_NG = 1
    Input non-Gaussianity parameter in Eq. (20), chosen so that f_NG sigma_T is about 0.25, within the validity of the first-order analytic bispectrum Eq. (21). It is a test-input parameter, not fitted to the estimator output.
  • annular ring binning scheme = 22 rings with widths increasing from 4 (U=1 to 5) to two rings (U=200 to 250)
    Chosen by hand in Section 4 to balance signal-to-noise and compute time. The binned estimates depend on this scheme, but the analytic predictions are binned identically on the same discrete modes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Statistical homogeneity and isotropy of the brightness temperature field in the plane of the sky.
    Used to define MAPS in Eq. (5) and MABS in Eq. (9), and to reduce the angle dependence to magnitudes of the angular wavevectors.
  • domain assumption Ergodicity of the signal along the frequency (line-of-sight) direction.
    Eqs. (6) and (10) collapse the MABS to frequency separations and enable the 2D Fourier transform to the 3D bispectrum. Real light-cone evolution across the 30.72 MHz band would violate this.
  • domain assumption Flat-sky approximation with a Gaussian primary beam and fixed Q and theta_0 across the band.
    Used to write Eq. (14) and to restrict the analysis to 20 <= ell <= 1570; ignores the frequency dependence of the beam and baselines, as stated in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The analytic bispectrum is valid to first order in f_NG and requires f_NG sigma_T << 1.
    Eq. (21) is derived to first order in f_NG; the simulation uses f_NG sigma_T about 0.25, and the authors rely on consistency of the simulated sky with Eq. (21).
  • standard math Discrete Fourier transforms on the gridded visibilities faithfully represent the required continuous Fourier integrals.
    The estimator in Eqs. (16) to (19) replaces continuous integrals with discrete sums on a regular grid, relying on standard FFT properties and the chosen grid spacing.
  • domain assumption The validation can ignore system noise, astrophysical foregrounds, and instrumental systematics.
    Explicitly stated in Section 6 as future work; the simulation is noiseless and foreground-free, so the estimator's sensitivity to these real-world effects is not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Visibility-based 21 cm Bispectrum Estimator for Radio-interferometric Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YR5KDN2A

@misc{pith2026250610526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Visibility-based 21 cm Bispectrum Estimator for Radio-interferometric Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YR5KDN2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10526}
}
abstract

We present a fast and scalable estimator for the binned multi-frequency angular bispectrum (MABS) and the 3D bispectrum (BS) of the redshifted 21 cm signal from radio interferometric observations. The estimator operates on gridded visibilities and leverages the FFT-based acceleration to efficiently compute the MABS and the 3D BS covering all possible triangle configurations. We present the formalism and validate the estimator using simulated visibility data for a known input model BS, considering the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) observations with a bandwidth of $30.72$ MHz centered at $154.25$ MHz. We consider two cases, namely, without flagging, and with flagging, which has exactly the same frequency channels flagged as the actual data. We obtain estimates of the BS for a wide range of triangle shapes covering the scales $0.003 ~\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}\leq k_1 \leq 1.258 ~\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. The estimated BS shows excellent agreement with analytical predictions based on the input model BS. We find that the deviations, which are below 20\% even in the presence of flagging, are mostly consistent with the expected statistical fluctuations. This work paves the way for reliable observational estimates of the 21 cm BS for the epoch of reionization, where the signal is predicted to be highly non-Gaussian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The binning scheme used by the MABS estimator. The three 2D planes correspond to frequency channels (𝜈1, 𝜈2, 𝜈3). The scattered dots in each plane show the discrete sampling of (u,v) space (gridded baseline distribution U𝑔) corresponding to the particular MWA observation considered here. The U𝑔 planes are divided into annular rings. Three such rings (labeled 𝑎1, 𝑎2 𝑎3) with average radii (ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3) ≡ 2𝜋 (𝑈1, 𝑈2, 𝑈… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The sampling 𝑁𝜈 (Δ𝜈1, Δ𝜈2), which counts the number of frequency channel triplets (𝜈1, 𝜈2, 𝜈3) corresponding to each set of frequency separations (Δ𝜈1, Δ𝜈2) . The left panel shows 𝑁𝜈 (Δ𝜈1, Δ𝜈2) without flagging, while the right panel shows the same with flagging i.e. it incorporates the periodic pattern of missing channels present in the MWA data. In both panels, the region where |Δ𝜈2 − Δ𝜈1| > 𝐵bw is not sampled at … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MABS 𝐵𝐴(ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3, Δ𝜈1, Δ𝜈2) as a function of (Δ𝜈1, Δ𝜈2) for an equilateral configuration with ℓ1 = ℓ2 = ℓ3 = 711. The top panel shows the analytical prediction; the middle and bottom panels show the estimates without and with flagging, respectively. The black solid line in each inset shows a 1D slice of the MABS along Δ𝜈1 at fixed Δ𝜈2 = 0. The green points in the inset show the estimated values, and the orange-sha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 3D cylindrical BS 𝐵(𝑘1⊥, 𝑘2⊥, 𝑘3⊥, 𝑘1∥ , 𝑘2∥ ) with 𝑘1⊥ = 𝑘2⊥ = 𝑘3⊥ = ℓ1 𝑟 = 0.077 Mpc−1 fixed. The analytical predictions in the left panels are calculated using Eq. (21), whereas the estimates are obtained via a 2D Fourier transform (Eq. 19) of the MABS shown in …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 3D BS monopole 𝐵¯(𝑘1, 𝜇, 𝑡) for all the triangle configurations where we have estimates. Each panel, which corresponds to a different (𝜇, 𝑡) (shape), shows the estimated value 𝐵¯, with 1𝜎 error bars, as a function of 𝑘1. The analytical predictions [𝐵¯]𝑑 are also sh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left column shows the estimated 3D BS monopole 𝐵¯(𝑘1, 𝜇, 𝑡) as a function of (𝜇, 𝑡) at fixed 𝑘1 = 0.078 Mpc−1 . The allowed values of (𝜇, 𝑡), which quantifies the triangle shape, satisfy the constraint 2𝜇𝑡 ≥ 1, indicated by a black dashed line. The right panels sho…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Considering all the estimated 3D BS monopole 𝐵¯(𝑘1, 𝜇, 𝑡) without flagging, this shows Δ𝜎 = |𝐵¯ − [𝐵¯]𝑑/𝜎, which is the deviation from [𝐵¯]𝑑 the analytical prediction, relative to 𝜎 the expected statistical fluctuations. Each panel considers a different 𝑘1. We have est…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Ք[J.XC72qM싕-b̪q) , d,q] fY`I WH R0 [6Yp 6`H

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    S., Bharadwaj , S., & Chengalur , J

    Ali , S. S., Bharadwaj , S., & Chengalur , J. N. 2008, , 385, 2166, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12984.x

    arXiv 2008

  5. [6]

    2019, , 485, 2235, 10.1093/mnras/stz532

    Bag , S., Mondal , R., Sarkar , P., et al. 2019, , 485, 2235, 10.1093/mnras/stz532

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz532 2019

  6. [7]

    2018, , 477, 1984, 10.1093/mnras/sty714

    Bag , S., Mondal , R., Sarkar , P., Bharadwaj , S., & Sahni , V. 2018, , 477, 1984, 10.1093/mnras/sty714

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty714 2018

  7. [9]

    Bharadwaj , S., & Ali , S. S. 2005, , 356, 1519, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08604.x

    arXiv 2005

  8. [10]

    2020, , 493, 594, 10.1093/mnras/staa279

    Bharadwaj , S., Mazumdar , A., & Sarkar , D. 2020, , 493, 594, 10.1093/mnras/staa279

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa279 2020

Show all 61 references
  1. [11]

    2019, , 483, 5694, 10.1093/mnras/sty3501

    Bharadwaj , S., Pal , S., Choudhuri , S., & Dutta , P. 2019, , 483, 5694, 10.1093/mnras/sty3501

    2019 doi

  2. [12]

    Bharadwaj , S., & Pandey , S. K. 2005, , 358, 968, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08836.x

    2005

  3. [13]

    Bharadwaj , S., & Sethi , S. K. 2001, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 22, 293, 10.1007/BF02702273

    2001 doi

  4. [14]

    Chatterjee , S., Bharadwaj , S., Choudhuri , S., Sethi , S., & Patwa , A. K. 2023, , 519, 2410, 10.1093/mnras/stac3576

    2023 doi

  5. [15]

    Chatterjee , S., Elahi , K. M. A., Bharadwaj , S., et al. 2024, , 41, e077, 10.1017/pasa.2024.45

    2024 doi

  6. [16]

    2022, , 261, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9

    CHIME Collaboration , Amiri , M., Bandura , K., et al. 2022, , 261, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9

    2022 doi

  7. [17]

    Choudhuri , S., Bharadwaj , S., Ghosh , A., & Ali , S. S. 2014, , 445, 4351, 10.1093/mnras/stu2027

    2014 doi

  8. [18]

    2008, , 77, 103506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.103506

    Cooray , A., Li , C., & Melchiorri , A. 2008, , 77, 103506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.103506

    2008 doi

  9. [19]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.11153

    Cunnington , S., Watkinson , C., & Pourtsidou , A. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.11153. 2102.11153

    2021 arXiv

  10. [20]

    2023, , 523, 2453, 10.1093/mnras/stad1567

    Cunnington , S., Wolz , L., Bull , P., et al. 2023, , 523, 2453, 10.1093/mnras/stad1567

    2023 doi

  11. [21]

    D., & Carilli , C

    Datta , A., Bowman , J. D., & Carilli , C. L. 2010, , 724, 526, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/526

    2010 doi

  12. [22]

    K., Choudhury , T

    Datta , K. K., Choudhury , T. R., & Bharadwaj , S. 2007, , 378, 119, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11747.x

    2007

  13. [23]

    R., Parsons , A

    DeBoer , D. R., Parsons , A. R., Aguirre , J. E., et al. 2017, , 129, 045001, 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001

    2017 doi

  14. [24]

    2020, JCAP, 12, 003, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/003

    Durrer, R., Jalilvand, M., Kothari, R., Maartens, R., & Montanari, F. 2020, JCAP, 12, 003, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/003

    2020 doi

  15. [25]

    Elahi , K. M. A., Bharadwaj , S., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11380, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11380

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [26]

    Elahi , K. M. A., Bharadwaj , S., Pal , S., et al. 2023, , 525, 3439, 10.1093/mnras/stad2495

    2023 doi

  17. [27]

    2024 b , , 529, 3372, 10.1093/mnras/stae740

    ---. 2024 b , , 529, 3372, 10.1093/mnras/stae740

    2024 doi

  18. [28]

    S., & Chengalur, J

    Ghosh, A., Bharadwaj, S., Ali, S. S., & Chengalur, J. N. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 2426, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17853.x

    2011

  19. [29]

    S., & Bharadwaj , S

    Gill , S. S., & Bharadwaj , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.14513, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.14513

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [30]

    S., Bharadwaj, S., Ali, S

    Gill, S. S., Bharadwaj, S., Ali, S. S., & Elahi, K. M. A. 2025, Astrophys. J., 979, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b20

    2025 doi

  21. [31]

    S., Pramanick , S., Bharadwaj , S., Shaw , A

    Gill , S. S., Pramanick , S., Bharadwaj , S., Shaw , A. K., & Majumdar , S. 2024, , 527, 1135, 10.1093/mnras/stad3273

    2024 doi

  22. [32]

    S., et al

    Gupta , Y., Ajithkumar , B., Kale , H. S., et al. 2017, Current Science, 113, 707

    2017

  23. [33]

    Hamilton , A. J. S. 1998, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 231, The Evolving Universe, ed. D. Hamilton , 185, 10.1007/978-94-011-4960-0_17

    1998 doi

  24. [34]

    A., Seiler, J., et al

    Hutter, A., Watkinson, C. A., Seiler, J., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 492, 653, 10.1093/mnras/stz3139

    2020 doi

  25. [35]

    2010, PhD thesis, Cosmology with high (z > 1) redshift galaxy surveys, Univ

    Jeong, D. 2010, PhD thesis, Cosmology with high (z > 1) redshift galaxy surveys, Univ. Texas at Austin

    2010

  26. [36]

    2021, , 502, 3800, 10.1093/mnras/stab216

    Kamran , M., Ghara , R., Majumdar , S., et al. 2021, , 502, 3800, 10.1093/mnras/stab216

    2021 doi

  27. [37]

    Karagiannis , D., Maartens , R., & Randrianjanahary , L. F. 2022, , 2022, 003, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/003

    2022 doi

  28. [38]

    Line , J. L. B., McKinley , B., Rasti , J., et al. 2018, , 35, e045, 10.1017/pasa.2018.30

    2018 doi

  29. [39]

    R., et al

    Majumdar, S., Kamran, M., Pritchard, J. R., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 5090, 10.1093/mnras/staa3168

    2020 doi

  30. [40]

    R., Mondal, R., et al

    Majumdar, S., Pritchard, J. R., Mondal, R., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 476, 4007, 10.1093/mnras/sty535

    2018 doi

  31. [41]

    2020, , 498, 3975, 10.1093/mnras/staa2548

    Mazumdar , A., Bharadwaj , S., & Sarkar , D. 2020, , 498, 3975, 10.1093/mnras/staa2548

    2020 doi

  32. [42]

    F., Hazelton , B., Sullivan , I., & Beardsley , A

    Morales , M. F., Hazelton , B., Sullivan , I., & Beardsley , A. 2012, , 752, 137, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/137

    2012 doi

  33. [43]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10.1093/mnras/staa3831

    Pal, S., Bharadwaj, S., Ghosh, A., & Choudhuri, S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 10.1093/mnras/staa3831

    2020 doi

  34. [44]

    R., Pober, J

    Parsons, A. R., Pober, J. C., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 165, 10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/165

    2012 doi

  35. [45]

    K., Sethi , S., & Dwarakanath , K

    Patwa , A. K., Sethi , S., & Dwarakanath , K. S. 2021, , 504, 2062, 10.1093/mnras/stab989

    2021 doi

  36. [46]

    G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L

    Paul , S., Santos , M. G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11943, 10.48550/arXiv.2301.11943

    2023 doi arXiv

  37. [47]

    2007, , 662, 1, 10.1086/517963

    Pillepich , A., Porciani , C., & Matarrese , S. 2007, , 662, 1, 10.1086/517963

    2007 doi

  38. [48]

    F., Karagiannis , D., & Maartens , R

    Randrianjanahary , L. F., Karagiannis , D., & Maartens , R. 2024, Physics of the Dark Universe, 45, 101530, 10.1016/j.dark.2024.101530

    2024

  39. [49]

    A., Keating , L

    Raste , J., Kulkarni , G., Watkinson , C. A., Keating , L. C., & Haehnelt , M. G. 2024, , 529, 129, 10.1093/mnras/stae492

    2024 doi

  40. [50]

    2019, Mon

    Sarkar, D., Majumdar, S., & Bharadwaj, S. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 490, 2880, 10.1093/mnras/stz2799

    2019 doi

  41. [51]

    2020, Mon

    Saxena, A., Majumdar, S., Kamran, M., & Viel, M. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 497, 2941, 10.1093/mnras/staa1768

    2020 doi

  42. [52]

    2015, , 92, 083532, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532

    Scoccimarro , R. 2015, , 92, 083532, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083532

    2015 doi

  43. [53]

    Scoccimarro , R., Couchman , H. M. P., & Frieman , J. A. 1999, , 517, 531, 10.1086/307220

    1999 doi

  44. [54]

    2005, PhD thesis, Probing fundamental physics with large-scale structure: From galaxy formation to inflation, Polytechnic University, United States

    Sefusatti , E. 2005, PhD thesis, Probing fundamental physics with large-scale structure: From galaxy formation to inflation, Polytechnic University, United States

    2005

  45. [55]

    2006, , 74, 023522, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023522

    Sefusatti , E., Crocce , M., Pueblas , S., & Scoccimarro , R. 2006, , 74, 023522, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.023522

    2006 doi

  46. [56]

    K., Bharadwaj , S., Sarkar , D., et al

    Shaw , A. K., Bharadwaj , S., Sarkar , D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2107.14564. 2107.14564

    2021 arXiv

  47. [57]

    2017, Mon

    Shimabukuro, H., Yoshiura, S., Takahashi, K., Yokoyama, S., & Ichiki, K. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 468, 1542, 10.1093/mnras/stx530

    2017 doi

  48. [58]

    J., Goeke , R., Bowman , J

    Tingay , S. J., Goeke , R., Bowman , J. D., et al. 2013, , 30, e007, 10.1017/pasa.2012.007

    2013 doi

  49. [59]

    M., et al

    Trott, C. M., et al. 2019, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral., 36, e023, 10.1017/pasa.2019.15

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    van Haarlem, M. P. , Wise, M. W. , Gunst, A. W. , et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873

    2013 doi

  51. [61]

    A., Giri, S

    Watkinson, C. A., Giri, S. K., Ross, H. E., et al. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 482, 2653, 10.1093/mnras/sty2740

    2019 doi

  52. [62]

    A., Greig , B., & Mesinger , A

    Watkinson , C. A., Greig , B., & Mesinger , A. 2022, , 510, 3838, 10.1093/mnras/stab3706

    2022 doi

  53. [63]

    A Simplified, Lossless Reanalysis of PAPER-64

    Koopmans L., et al., 2015, aska.conf, 1, aska.conf @ARTICLE Kolopanis19, author = Kolopanis , Matthew and Jacobs , Daniel C. and Cheng , Carina and Parsons , Aaron R. and Kohn , Saul A. and Pober , Jonathan C. and Aguirre , James E. and Ali , Zaki S. and Bernardi , Gianni and ...

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.