pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.07559 · v1 · submitted 2025-01-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Euclid: Optimising tomographic redshift binning for 3times2pt power spectrum constraints on dark energy

J. H. W. Wong (1) , M. L. Brown (1) , C. A. J. Duncan (1) , A. Amara (2) , S. Andreon (3) , C. Baccigalupi (4 , 5 , 6
show 550 more authors
7) M. Baldi (8 9 10) S. Bardelli (9) D. Bonino (11) E. Branchini (12 13 3) M. Brescia (14 15 16) J. Brinchmann (17 18) A. Caillat (19) S. Camera (20 21 11) V. Capobianco (11) C. Carbone (22) J. Carretero (23 24) S. Casas (25 26) M. Castellano (27) G. Castignani (9) S. Cavuoti (15 A. Cimatti (28) C. Colodro-Conde (29) G. Congedo (30) C. J. Conselice (1) L. Conversi (31 32) Y. Copin (33) F. Courbin (34 35) H. M. Courtois (36) A. Da Silva (37 38) H. Degaudenzi (39) G. De Lucia (5) A. M. Di Giorgio (40) J. Dinis (37 F. Dubath (39) X. Dupac (32) S. Dusini (41) M. Farina (40) S. Farrens (42) F. Faustini (43 27) S. Ferriol (33) M. Frailis (5) E. Franceschi (9) S. Galeotta (5) K. George (44) W. Gillard (45) B. Gillis (30) C. Giocoli (9 A. Grazian (46) F. Grupp (47 44) L. Guzzo (48 S. V. H. Haugan (49) W. Holmes (50) I. Hook (51) F. Hormuth (52) A. Hornstrup (53 54) S. Ili\'c (55 56) K. Jahnke (57) M. Jhabvala (58) E. Keih\"anen (59) S. Kermiche (45) A. Kiessling (50) B. Kubik (33) M. Kunz (60) H. Kurki-Suonio (61 62) S. Ligori (11) P. B. Lilje (49) V. Lindholm (61 I. Lloro (63) G. Mainetti (64) E. Maiorano (9) O. Mansutti (5) O. Marggraf (65) K. Markovic (50) M. Martinelli (27 66) N. Martinet (19) F. Marulli (67 R. Massey (68) E. Medinaceli (9) S. Mei (69) M. Melchior (70) Y. Mellier (71 72) M. Meneghetti (9 E. Merlin (27) G. Meylan (73) M. Moresco (67 9) L. Moscardini (67 C. Neissner (74 S.-M. Niemi (75) C. Padilla (74) S. Paltani (39) F. Pasian (5) K. Pedersen (76) V. Pettorino (75) S. Pires (42) G. Polenta (43) M. Poncet (77) L. A. Popa (78) F. Raison (47) A. Renzi (79 41) J. Rhodes (50) G. Riccio (15) E. Romelli (5) M. Roncarelli (9) E. Rossetti (8) R. Saglia (44 47) Z. Sakr (80 56 81) A. G. S\'anchez (47) D. Sapone (82) B. Sartoris (44 5) P. Schneider (65) T. Schrabback (83) A. Secroun (45) G. Seidel (57) S. Serrano (84 85 86) C. Sirignano (79 G. Sirri (10) L. Stanco (41) J. Steinwagner (47) P. Tallada-Cresp\'i (23 A. N. Taylor (30) I. Tereno (37 87) R. Toledo-Moreo (88) F. Torradeflot (24 23) I. Tutusaus (56) L. Valenziano (9 89) T. Vassallo (44 G. Verdoes Kleijn (90) A. Veropalumbo (3 91) Y. Wang (92) J. Weller (44 G. Zamorani (9) E. Zucca (9) C. Burigana (93 M. Calabrese (94 22) A. Pezzotta (47) V. Scottez (71 95) A. Spurio Mancini (96) M. Viel (4 7 97) ((1) Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics Department of Physics Astronomy University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK (2) School of Mathematics Physics University of Surrey Guildford Surrey GU2 7XH (3) INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera Via Brera 28 20122 Milano Italy (4) IFPU Institute for Fundamental Physics of the Universe via Beirut 2 34151 Trieste (5) INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste Via G. B. Tiepolo 11 34143 Trieste (6) INFN Sezione di Trieste Via Valerio 2 34127 Trieste TS (7) SISSA International School for Advanced Studies Via Bonomea 265 34136 Trieste TS (8) Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia Universit\`a di Bologna Via Gobetti 93/2 40129 Bologna (9) INAF-Osservatorio di Astrofisica e Scienza dello Spazio di Bologna Via Piero Gobetti 93/3 (10) INFN-Sezione di Bologna Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna (11) INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico di Torino Via Osservatorio 20 10025 Pino Torinese (TO) (12) Dipartimento di Fisica Universit\`a di Genova Via Dodecaneso 33 16146 Genova (13) INFN-Sezione di Genova (14) Department of Physics "E. Pancini" University Federico II Via Cinthia 6 80126 Napoli (15) INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte Via Moiariello 16 80131 Napoli (16) INFN section of Naples (17) Instituto de Astrof\'isica e Ci\^encias do Espa\c{c}o Universidade do Porto CAUP Rua das Estrelas PT4150-762 Porto Portugal (18) Faculdade de Ci\^encias da Universidade do Porto Rua do Campo de Alegre 4150-007 Porto (19) Aix-Marseille Universit\'e CNRS CNES LAM Marseille France (20) Dipartimento di Fisica Universit\`a degli Studi di Torino Via P. Giuria 1 10125 Torino (21) INFN-Sezione di Torino (22) INAF-IASF Milano Via Alfonso Corti 12 20133 Milano (23) Centro de Investigaciones Energ\'eticas Medioambientales y Tecnol\'ogicas (CIEMAT) Avenida Complutense 40 28040 Madrid Spain (24) Port d'Informaci\'o Cient\'ifica Campus UAB C. Albareda s/n 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona) (25) Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics Cosmology (TTK) RWTH Aachen University 52056 Aachen Germany (26) Institute of Cosmology Gravitation University of Portsmouth Portsmouth PO1 3FX (27) INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma Via Frascati 33 00078 Monteporzio Catone (28) Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia "Augusto Righi" - Alma Mater Studiorum Universit\`a di Bologna (29) Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias Calle V\'ia L\'actea s/n 38204 San Crist\'obal de La Laguna Tenerife (30) Institute for Astronomy University of Edinburgh Royal Observatory Blackford Hill Edinburgh EH9 3HJ (31) European Space Agency/ESRIN Largo Galileo Galilei 1 00044 Frascati Roma (32) ESAC/ESA Camino Bajo del Castillo s/n. Urb. Villafranca del Castillo 28692 Villanueva de la Ca\~nada Madrid (33) Universit\'e Claude Bernard Lyon 1 CNRS/IN2P3 IP2I Lyon UMR 5822 Villeurbanne F-69100 (34) Institut de Ci\`encies del Cosmos (ICCUB) Universitat de Barcelona (IEEC-UB) Mart\'i i Franqu\`es 1 08028 Barcelona (35) Instituci\'o Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan\c{c}ats (ICREA) Passeig de Llu\'is Companys 23 08010 Barcelona (36) UCB Lyon 1 IUF 4 rue Enrico Fermi 69622 Villeurbanne (37) Departamento de F\'isica Faculdade de Ci\^encias Universidade de Lisboa Edif\'icio C8 Campo Grande PT1749-016 Lisboa (38) Instituto de Astrof\'isica e Ci\^encias do Espa\c{c}o 1749-016 Lisboa (39) Department of Astronomy University of Geneva ch. d'Ecogia 16 1290 Versoix Switzerland (40) INAF-Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 00100 Roma (41) INFN-Padova Via Marzolo 8 35131 Padova (42) Universit\'e Paris-Saclay Universit\'e Paris Cit\'e CEA AIM 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette (43) Space Science Data Center Italian Space Agency via del Politecnico snc 00133 Roma (44) Universit\"ats-Sternwarte M\"unchen Fakult\"at f\"ur Physik Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at M\"unchen Scheinerstrasse 1 81679 M\"unchen (45) Aix-Marseille Universit\'e CPPM (46) INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova Via dell'Osservatorio 5 35122 Padova (47) Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics Giessenbachstr. 1 85748 Garching (48) Dipartimento di Fisica "Aldo Pontremoli" Universit\`a degli Studi di Milano Via Celoria 16 (49) Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics University of Oslo P.O. Box 1029 Blindern 0315 Oslo Norway (50) Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena CA 91109 USA (51) Department of Physics Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YB (52) Felix Hormuth Engineering Goethestr. 17 69181 Leimen (53) Technical University of Denmark Elektrovej 327 2800 Kgs. Lyngby Denmark (54) Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN) (55) Universit\'e Paris-Saclay IJCLab 91405 Orsay (56) Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Plan\'etologie (IRAP) Universit\'e de Toulouse UPS 14 Av. Edouard Belin 31400 Toulouse (57) Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie K\"onigstuhl 17 69117 Heidelberg (58) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771 (59) Department of Physics Helsinki Institute of Physics Gustaf H\"allstr\"omin katu 2 00014 University of Helsinki Finland (60) Universit\'e de Gen\`eve D\'epartement de Physique Th\'eorique Centre for Astroparticle Physics 24 quai Ernest-Ansermet CH-1211 Gen\`eve 4 (61) Department of Physics P.O. Box 64 (62) Helsinki Institute of Physics University of Helsinki Helsinki (63) NOVA optical infrared instrumentation group at ASTRON Oude Hoogeveensedijk 4 7991PD Dwingeloo The Netherlands (64) Centre de Calcul de l'IN2P3/CNRS 21 avenue Pierre de Coubertin 69627 Villeurbanne Cedex (65) Universit\"at Bonn Argelander-Institut f\"ur Astronomie Auf dem H\"ugel 71 53121 Bonn (66) INFN-Sezione di Roma Piazzale Aldo Moro 2 - c/o Dipartimento di Fisica Edificio G. Marconi 00185 Roma (67) Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia "Augusto Righi" - Alma Mater Studiorum Universit\`a di Bologna via Piero Gobetti 93/2 (68) Department of Physics Institute for Computational Cosmology Durham University South Road Durham DH1 3LE (69) Universit\'e Paris Cit\'e Astroparticule et Cosmologie 75013 Paris (70) University of Applied Sciences Arts of Northwestern Switzerland School of Engineering 5210 Windisch (71) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris 98bis Boulevard Arago 75014 Paris (72) Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris UMR 7095 Sorbonne Universit\'e 98 bis boulevard Arago 75014 Paris (73) Institute of Physics Laboratory of Astrophysics Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne (EPFL) Observatoire de Sauverny (74) Institut de F\'isica d'Altes Energies (IFAE) The Barcelona Institute of Science Technology (75) European Space Agency/ESTEC Keplerlaan 1 2201 AZ Noordwijk (76) DARK Niels Bohr Institute University of Copenhagen Jagtvej 155 2200 Copenhagen (77) Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales -- Centre spatial de Toulouse 18 avenue Edouard Belin 31401 Toulouse Cedex 9 (78) Institute of Space Science Str. Atomistilor nr. 409 M\u{a}gurele Ilfov 077125 Romania (79) Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia "G. Galilei" Universit\`a di Padova (80) Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik University of Heidelberg Philosophenweg 16 69120 Heidelberg (81) Universit\'e St Joseph Faculty of Sciences Beirut Lebanon (82) Departamento de F\'isica FCFM Universidad de Chile Blanco Encalada 2008 Santiago Chile (83) Universit\"at Innsbruck Institut f\"ur Astro- und Teilchenphysik Technikerstr. 25/8 6020 Innsbruck Austria (84) Institut d'Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC) Edifici RDIT Campus UPC 08860 Castelldefels Barcelona (85) Satlantis University Science Park Sede Bld 48940 Leioa-Bilbao (86) Institute of Space Sciences (ICE CSIC) Carrer de Can Magrans s/n 08193 Barcelona (87) Instituto de Astrof\'isica e Ci\^encias do Espa\c{c}o Tapada da Ajuda 1349-018 Lisboa (88) Universidad Polit\'ecnica de Cartagena Departamento de Electr\'onica y Tecnolog\'ia de Computadoras Plaza del Hospital 1 30202 Cartagena (89) INFN-Bologna Via Irnerio 46 40126 Bologna (90) Kapteyn Astronomical Institute University of Groningen PO Box 800 9700 AV Groningen (91) Dipartimento di Fisica Universit\`a degli studi di Genova INFN-Sezione di Genova (92) Infrared Processing Analysis Center CA 91125 (93) INAF Istituto di Radioastronomia Via Piero Gobetti 101 (94) Astronomical Observatory of the Autonomous Region of the Aosta Valley (OAVdA) Loc. Lignan 39 I-11020 Nus (Aosta Valley) (95) ICL Junia Universit\'e Catholique de Lille LITL 59000 Lille (96) Department of Physics Royal Holloway University of London TW20 0EX (97) ICSC - Centro Nazionale di Ricerca in High Performance Computing Big Data e Quantum Computing Via Magnanelli 2 Bologna Italy)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 05:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords tomographic redshift binning3x2pt analysisEuclid surveydark energy constraintsphotometric redshiftscosmic sheargalaxy clusteringpower spectra
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations show equipopulated redshift bins give the tightest dark energy constraints for Euclid's 3x2pt analysis.

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

The paper uses simulations of Euclid-like observations to test different tomographic redshift binning strategies for 3x2pt power spectrum measurements. It finds that dividing galaxies into bins with equal numbers yields the best constraints on the dark energy parameters w0 and wa for the full 3x2pt signal and for galaxy clustering alone. For cosmic shear, bins equally spaced in comoving distance perform slightly better. The improvement from using more than 7 or 8 bins is minimal, and unmitigated catastrophic photo-z errors can bias results significantly.

Core claim

For a simulation including Gaussian-distributed photometric redshift uncertainty and shape noise under a LambdaCDM cosmology, bins equipopulated with galaxies yield the best constraints on (w0, wa) for an analysis of the full 3x2pt signal, or the angular clustering component only. For the cosmic shear component, the optimum (w0, wa) constraints are achieved by bins equally spaced in fiducial comoving distance. The information gain on (w0, wa) saturates at ≳ 7-8 bins.

What carries the argument

Simulation-based comparison of tomographic binning strategies using Pseudo-Cl power spectra to constrain dark energy equation of state parameters w0 and wa.

If this is right

  • Equipopulated bins optimise constraints for full 3x2pt and clustering analyses.
  • Equal comoving distance bins are optimal for cosmic shear alone.
  • Constraints on dark energy saturate beyond 7-8 bins.
  • 5% catastrophic outliers bias results at >5 sigma if unmitigated for 10 bins.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Additional real-world systematics could shift the optimal binning choice away from equipopulated bins.
  • More bins may require more accurate covariance matrix estimation to realise small gains.
  • Testing the binning strategies on data with non-Gaussian photo-z errors would be a useful extension.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation includes only Gaussian photometric redshift uncertainty and shape noise under LambdaCDM, without other systematics such as intrinsic alignments or baryonic effects.

What would settle it

Real Euclid data showing that the size of the 1 sigma (w0, wa) contour differs by more than a few percent between equipopulated and other binning strategies would challenge the finding that binning choice has limited impact.

read the original abstract

We present a simulation-based method to explore the optimum tomographic redshift binning strategy for 3x2pt analyses with Euclid, focusing on the expected configuration of its first major data release (DR1). To do this, we 1) simulate a Euclid-like observation and generate mock shear catalogues from multiple realisations of the 3x2pt fields on the sky, and 2) measure the 3x2pt Pseudo-Cl power spectra for a given tomographic configuration and derive the constraints that they place on the standard dark energy equation of state parameters (w0, wa). For a simulation including Gaussian-distributed photometric redshift uncertainty and shape noise under a LambdaCDM cosmology, we find that bins equipopulated with galaxies yield the best constraints on (w0, wa) for an analysis of the full 3x2pt signal, or the angular clustering component only. For the cosmic shear component, the optimum (w0, wa) constraints are achieved by bins equally spaced in fiducial comoving distance. However, the advantage with respect to alternative binning choices is only a few percent in the size of the $1\,\sigma\,$(w0, wa) contour, and we conclude that the cosmic shear is relatively insensitive to the binning methodology. We find that the information gain extracted on (w0, wa) for any 3x2pt component starts to saturate at $\gtrsim$ 7-8 bins. Any marginal gains resulting from a greater number of bins is likely to be limited by additional uncertainties present in a real measurement, and the increasing demand for accuracy of the covariance matrix. Finally, we consider a 5% contamination from catastrophic photometric redshift outliers and find that, if these errors are not mitigated in the analysis, the bias induced in the 3x2pt signal for 10 equipopulated bins results in dark energy constraints that are inconsistent with the fiducial LambdaCDM cosmology at $>5\,\sigma$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a simulation-based method to optimize tomographic redshift binning for Euclid DR1 3×2pt analyses. Mock shear catalogues are generated with Gaussian photometric redshift uncertainty and shape noise under a fixed ΛCDM cosmology; Pseudo-Cℓ power spectra are measured for different binning choices and used to derive constraints on (w0, wa). The central findings are that equipopulated bins minimize the (w0, wa) contour area for the full 3×2pt signal and for angular clustering alone, equal comoving-distance bins are marginally preferred for cosmic shear, information gain saturates beyond 7–8 bins, and unmitigated 5% catastrophic photo-z outliers produce >5σ biases for a 10-bin equipopulated configuration.

Significance. Within the stated simulation assumptions the work supplies practical guidance for Euclid binning choices and demonstrates that the choice of strategy affects (w0, wa) constraints by only a few percent. The forward-simulation approach with multiple realizations is a clear strength, as it permits direct, reproducible comparison of information content across configurations without reliance on analytic approximations.

major comments (2)
  1. [methods (mock generation and covariance)] The description of mock generation, Pseudo-Cℓ measurement, and covariance estimation (methods section) does not specify the number of realizations used or the precise procedure for constructing the covariance matrix from those realizations. This is load-bearing for the reported contour areas and for the ranking of binning strategies, because the relative sizes of the (w0, wa) ellipses depend directly on the covariance.
  2. [results (outlier section)] The outlier-contamination results (final results paragraph): the statement that the bias is inconsistent with the fiducial cosmology at >5σ should explicitly define the distance metric in parameter space and confirm whether the covariance employed for the biased contours is identical to that used in the main analysis.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Abstract: the scope statement ('simulation including Gaussian-distributed photometric redshift uncertainty and shape noise under a LambdaCDM cosmology') is already present but could be placed earlier for immediate clarity.
  2. [figures] Figure captions and axis labels should uniformly indicate the exact binning prescriptions (equipopulated, equal comoving distance, etc.) and the number of bins shown in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the necessary clarifications into a revised version.

read point-by-point responses
  1. Referee: [methods (mock generation and covariance)] The description of mock generation, Pseudo-Cℓ measurement, and covariance estimation (methods section) does not specify the number of realizations used or the precise procedure for constructing the covariance matrix from those realizations. This is load-bearing for the reported contour areas and for the ranking of binning strategies, because the relative sizes of the (w0, wa) ellipses depend directly on the covariance.

    Authors: We agree that the number of realizations and the exact covariance construction procedure must be stated explicitly, as these details underpin the reported constraints and the comparison between binning strategies. The current text refers only to 'multiple realisations' without providing the numerical value or the precise estimator used. We will revise the methods section to specify the number of realizations employed and to describe the covariance matrix construction from the ensemble of Pseudo-Cℓ measurements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [results (outlier section)] The outlier-contamination results (final results paragraph): the statement that the bias is inconsistent with the fiducial cosmology at >5σ should explicitly define the distance metric in parameter space and confirm whether the covariance employed for the biased contours is identical to that used in the main analysis.

    Authors: We agree that the >5σ statement requires an explicit definition of the distance metric and confirmation regarding the covariance. The quoted inconsistency is evaluated using the Mahalanobis distance in the (w0, wa) plane, computed with the same covariance matrix derived from the main (uncontaminated) analysis. We will add a sentence to the final results paragraph clarifying both the metric and the use of the identical covariance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's central results derive from forward simulations of mock 3x2pt fields (with Gaussian photo-z uncertainty and shape noise under fixed LambdaCDM), direct Pseudo-Cl measurements, and explicit comparison of (w0, wa) contour areas across binning choices. No equation reduces a derived quantity to a fitted input by construction, no prediction is statistically forced from a subset fit, and no load-bearing premise rests on self-citation chains or imported uniqueness theorems. The ordering of binning strategies and saturation at 7-8 bins follows directly from the independent mock realizations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study depends on standard cosmological simulation assumptions rather than new postulates; the main untested elements are the absence of additional systematics and the accuracy of the covariance matrix at high bin counts.

free parameters (2)
  • number of tomographic bins
    Tested multiple values; saturation reported at 7-8
  • binning strategy choice
    Equipopulated, equal comoving distance, and other partitions compared
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift errors are Gaussian
    Explicitly stated in the simulation setup
  • domain assumption Mocks generated under LambdaCDM with only shape noise
    Used to generate the 3x2pt fields

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 9756 in / 1450 out tokens · 56728 ms · 2026-05-23T05:14:36.922671+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Fourth-order galaxy-galaxy-lensing: Theoretical framework and direct estimation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The authors derive the fourth-order galaxy-galaxy lensing 4PCF and aperture statistics, implement a numerical pipeline and FFT estimator, and detect the connected ⟨N³ M_ap⟩ signal at SNR ~9 in stage IV mock data over ...

  2. Euclid preparation. CosmoPostProcess: A simulation calibrated framework for weak lensing selection bias in richness-selected galaxy clusters

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CosmoPostProcess delivers simulation-calibrated radial corrections for projection-induced selection bias (20-40% amplitude near 1 h^{-1} Mpc) and baryonic effects in Euclid richness-selected cluster weak lensing profiles.

  3. \textit{Euclid} preparation. Baryon acoustic oscillations extraction techniques: comparison and optimisation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    End-to-end validation on Euclid-like mocks shows RecSym and RecIso reconstruction yield unbiased BAO measurements, improving figure of merit for Omega_m and H0 rs by factor of ~3 across 0.9<z<1.8.

  4. Euclid preparation. Three-dimensional galaxy clustering in configuration space: Three-point correlation function estimation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Euclid collaboration develops and validates direct and spherical-harmonic estimators plus a random-split optimization for measuring the three-point galaxy correlation function at the scale of the full Euclid survey.

  5. Einstein-Cartan cosmology and the S8 problem

    physics.gen-ph 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Einstein-Cartan cosmology predicts much larger mass density and sigma_8(z) at high redshifts than LCDM, making the S8 discrepancy between CMB and low-redshift data a natural outcome rather than a problem.