Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper presents Lyman-α mock catalogs from second-order perturbation theory that match survey measurements within 10% and return unbiased BAO and AP parameters.

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 03:17 UTC pith:7CGYQFY5

load-bearing objection First full light-cone Lyα mocks with 2LPT; solid infrastructure, but the final contaminated mocks carry an unexplained 0.3% BAO shift that makes 'effectively unbiased' conditional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27412 v2 pith:7CGYQFY5 submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.CO

CoLoRe-2LPT: Lyman-α mock catalogues for the validation of DESI cosmological analyses

M. F. Ruiz-Herrera Bernal , S. Avila , A. Font-Ribera , H. K. Herrera-Alcantar , D. Alonso , A. Cuceu , L. Casas , F. Sinigaglia
show 85 more authors
J. Aguilar S. Ahlen O. Alves U. Andrade E. Armengaud A. Bault F. Beutler D. Bianchi M. Bonici A. Brodzeller D. Brooks A. Carnero Rosell J. Chaves-Montero Z. Chen Y. Cho T. Claybaugh K. S. Dawson A. de la Macorra A. Dey W. Elbers S. Ferraro J. E. Forero-Romero G. Gambardella S. Gontcho A Gontcho D. Gonzalez A. X. Gonzalez-Morales C. Gordon R. Gsponer G. Gutierrez J. Guy C. Hahn M. Herbold K. Honscheid M. Ishak S. Jos S. Juneau N. V. Kamble T. Karim D. Kirkby A. Kremin M. Landriau A. Leauthaud Q. Li W. Liu K. Lodha O. Manasoiu M. Manera P. Martini A. Meisner R. Miquel J. Morawetz P. Mukherjee A. Mu\~noz-Guti\'errez S. Nadathur G. Niz H. E. Noriega E. Paillas N. Palanque-Delabrouille J. Pan M. Pellejero Ibanez W. J. Percival C. Poppett F. Prada H. Pulido-Hern\'andez A. P\'erez-Fern\'andez I. P\'erez-R\`afols C. Ravoux J. Rohlf G. Rossi R. Ruggeri L. Samushia E. Sanchez C. Saulder D. Schlegel H. Seo J. Silber T. Simon M. Siudek G. Tarl\'e W. Turner R. Vaisakh M. Vargas-Maga\~na B. A. Weaver H. Yang H. Zhang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords Lyman-alpha forestmock cataloguessecond-order Lagrangian perturbation theorybaryon acoustic oscillationsfull-shape analysisredshift-space distortionsDESI surveyhigh column density systems
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 claims that mock catalogs for the Lyman-α forest built with second-order Lagrangian perturbation theory (2LPT) capture the mildly non-linear clustering that previous log-normal mocks miss, including the non-linear broadening of the BAO peak. The authors show these mocks reproduce the latest survey measurements of Lyman-α bias, redshift-space distortion β, mean transmitted flux, and 1D power spectrum within 10%, and that BAO and Alcock-Paczynski parameters are recovered effectively unbiased—within ~0.3% of unity, well below current statistical errors. This provides a computationally cheap way to generate large ensembles of realistic mocks for validating full-shape and BAO analyses, including tests of astrophysical contaminants like high-column-density systems and metal lines. If correct, it replaces the ad-hoc treatments of previous log-normal mocks and offers a practical validation tool for current and next-generation surveys.

Core claim

The central claim is that full light-cone mocks for a Lyman-α forest survey can be built from second-order Lagrangian perturbation theory (2LPT) with enough realism to validate BAO and full-shape analyses. Starting from a z=0 box, test particles are displaced with first- and second-order LPT potentials, and positions and velocities are rescaled to each shell along the light cone using linear growth factors. Density and velocity skewers are converted into Lyα transmission via a fluctuating Gunn-Peterson approximation with injected small-scale power. These mocks reproduce DESI Lyα statistics within 10% and, in BAO fits, recover α∥ and α⊥ within ~0.3% of unity, effectively unbiased for current

What carries the argument

The engine is the 2LPT displacement field: particles are displaced by potentials φ1 and φ2 from an initial Gaussian field, with positions/velocities rescaled via growth factors D1(z), D2(z) and rates f1, f2. This captures bulk flows and mild non-linearities that produce the observed anisotropic BAO damping and redshift-space distortions. Around this, the pipeline adds coherent 1D small-scale power, maps density to optical depth with the fluctuating Gunn-Peterson approximation, applies redshift-space distortions, and populates quasars with a thresholded linear bias model plus a Gaussian Fingers-of-God velocity dispersion, calibrated against high-resolution N-body simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The light cone is constructed by rescaling 2LPT displacements and velocities from a single z=0 box to each redshift shell using linear growth factors, so the validation assumes this linear rescaling faithfully represents clustering evolution at every redshift down to mildly non-linear scales.

What would settle it

Build a full N-body light cone with the same cosmology and survey geometry, measure the Lyα auto- and cross-correlations, and fit the same BAO model; if the recovered α∥ and α⊥ (or the BAO damping parameters) differ from the 2LPT mock results by more than the survey's statistical uncertainties, the claim of effectively unbiased recovery is falsified. An end-to-end test with a deliberately incorrect fiducial cosmology would independently check that α∥/α⊥ track the input distortion.

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

If this is right

  • The mocks reproduce the non-linear broadening of the BAO peak with damping parameters Σ∥≈6.4 Mpc/h and Σ⊥≈3.3 Mpc/h, matching theoretical expectations without ad-hoc adjustments.
  • Quasar clustering is recovered within 1–5% of the observed bias over z=1.8–3.8, with improved redshift-space distortions from a modeled Fingers-of-God component.
  • BAO and Alcock-Paczynski fits on both raw and contaminated DESI-like mocks return parameters within ~0.3% of unity, an order of magnitude below DESI DR2 statistical errors.
  • Because the linear model fit starts to fail below ~30 Mpc/h while a non-linear correction improves it, these mocks are suitable for testing full-shape models that include non-linear terms—something log-normal mocks could not do.
  • The generation of 400 full-sky realizations demonstrates computational feasibility for producing large mock ensembles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear rescaling of 2LPT fields to light-cone shells holds up, the same recipe could be extended to other high-redshift tracers (e.g., 21-cm intensity mapping) where non-linear clustering matters but N-body light cones are too expensive.
  • The ~0.3% bias seen in the contaminated-mock BAO fit points to a modeling floor that future full-shape analyses will need to quantify; this is a testable prediction for the companion analysis papers.
  • The empirical calibration of bias parameters against N-body snapshots could be replaced by an analytic bias expansion, potentially making the mock pipeline cosmology-dependent and self-contained.
  • A direct comparison of the covariance matrices or distortion-matrix effects against an N-body light cone would reveal which astrophysical ingredients are still missing from the mocks.

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 presents CoLoRe-2LPT and LyaCoLoRe-2LPT, a new suite of Lyman-α forest mock catalogues designed for DESI DR2 BAO/full-shape validation. The key novelty is the use of 2LPT for the matter density and velocity fields in full light cones, replacing the log-normal realizations of previous CoLoRe mocks. The paper validates the 2LPT implementation against 2LPTic, calibrates QSO clustering against Abacus snapshots, tunes Lyα transmission parameters to DESI measurements of P1D, mean flux, bLyα and βLyα, and produces both raw and contaminated (HCD, metals, continuum fitting, noise) mocks. The raw mocks are shown to recover near-unity BAO/AP parameters in the DESI fitting model; the contaminated mocks are fitted with the full DESI BAO model. The central claims are that the mocks reproduce DESI Lyα statistics within 10% and recover effectively unbiased BAO and AP parameters.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable advance over log-normal mocks: 2LPT naturally produces BAO broadening, better small-scale non-linearities, and more realistic QSO RSDs while remaining computationally cheap (400 full-sky realizations). The paper's strengths include public code, validation of the 2LPT engine against an independent code (2LPTic), calibration against Abacus N-body QSO catalogues, and an end-to-end BAO/FS fit on raw mocks that recovers the input cosmology at the few-per-mille level. However, several headline agreements are calibrated rather than predicted, and the final contaminated mocks contain an unresolved ~0.3% BAO bias. The paper is a useful contribution to the DESI validation program once these caveats are properly stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6 / Table 2 / Section 7] The final contaminated mocks, which are the product intended for DESI DR2 validation, give α∥=1.0042±0.0005 and α⊥=0.9985±0.0006 (Table 2). This is a ~0.3–0.4% shift in α∥, and the authors state in Section 6 that 'we find biased cosmology results for BAO at around 0.3%' and defer the explanation to a companion paper. Yet Section 7 concludes that the mocks recover 'effectively unbiased BAO and AP parameters for the statistical uncertainty of DESI DR2.' With 400 realizations the mock error is 0.0005, so the shift is highly significant in the ensemble and constitutes a real systematic at a level that future surveys will care about. The 'effectively unbiased' claim must be scoped to current DESI DR2 statistical errors, and the paper should either identify the source of the bias, show it is absorbed by the fitting model, or explicitly state that the mocks are not yet demonstrated to be unbias
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 4 / Table 1] The reported 10% (or ≲1σ) agreement for P1D, F, bLyα, and βLyα is a demonstration that the tuning procedure worked, not an independent validation. The free parameters n, k1, σε(z), τ0(z), α(z), and av are explicitly fitted to exactly these DESI measurements in Section 3.2. Presenting this agreement in Section 4 and the abstract as evidence that the mocks 'reproduce Lyα statistics' is circular. The independent checks are the raw-mock BAO/FS recovery (which is not tuned) and the QSO/2LPT comparisons against Abacus and 2LPTic. The paper should clearly label which quantities are calibrated and which are validated, otherwise the novelty claim is overstated.
  3. [Section 5.1.2 / Table 2] The statement 'we find an agreement within ∼20% between LyaCoLoRe-2LPT and the DESI DR2 BAO parameters' for the metal biases is not supported by Table 2. For example, SiII(1193) is −1.679±0.016 vs −3.18±0.38 (≈47% off) and SiIII(1206) is −9.84±0.08 vs −7.3±1.5 (≈35% off), while SiII(1190) and SiII(1260) are within ~10%. The text must either quantify the per-species deviations or explain why the metal model is still adequate given that these parameters are left free in the final BAO fit. As written, the claim overstates the agreement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3.2] Duplicate phrase: 'for completeness we measure (see Subsection 2.1), we measure the QSO 2PCF' should be streamlined.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The redshift list in the caption (z=2.0,2.5,2.8,3.2) is inconsistent with the plot legend (z=2.2,2.4,2.8,3.2) and with Section 3.2, which states the calibration was done at z=2.2,2.4,2.8,3.2. Please correct.
  3. [Section 5.2] Minor typo: 'We generate 400 realization' should be '400 realizations'.
  4. [Data Availability] The Zenodo record is a placeholder ('XXXXXX'); it should be completed before final submission.
  5. [Section 2.2] The validation against 2LPTic covers snapshots only. A direct comparison of light-cone clustering to an N-body light cone (e.g., Abacus-based light-cone mocks) would further strengthen confidence in the growth-factor rescaling, although within 2LPT the rescaling is the correct time evolution.

Circularity Check

5 steps flagged

Lyα statistics and metal amplitudes are fit targets presented as validation; final contaminated BAO mocks show an unresolved 0.3% shift.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (parameter tuning) and Sections 4.1-4.2 (validation)]
    "We tune these parameters to reproduce the latest DESI Lyα clustering statistics measurements, namely: the one dimensional power spectrum (P1D) (Ravoux et al. 2025; Karaçaylı et al. 2025), the mean flux (F) (Turner et al. 2024), the Lyα bias (bLyα) and the Lyα RSD parameter (βLyα) (DESI Collaboration et al. 2025a). ... we observe that the performed tuning is efficient, with statistics lying within DESI’s 10% for almost all cases."

    The Section 4 'validation' compares exactly the quantities that Section 3.2 tunes: P1D, F, bLyα and βLyα are the explicit targets of the free parameters n, k1, σε, τ0, α and av. Agreement within 10% or 1σ is therefore a check of the fit quality, not an independent confirmation that the mocks reproduce DESI measurements. Some non-tautological content remains in the multi-redshift and k-range coverage, but the headline claim as stated reduces to the tuning procedure.

  2. self definitional [Table 1 caption and Section 4.2 text]
    "We present the DESI DR2 BAO values DESI Collaboration et al. (2025a) to which the Lyα bias and β parameter are tuned following the procedure of Subsection 3.2. ... demonstrating the complete validity of the tuning process (Subsection 3.2), the Lyα bias lies within ∼0.4σ of the DESI DR2 BAO value. The βLyα parameter is also consistent within ∼1σ, demonstrating the good choice of the velocity scaling parameter av."

    The same DESI DR2 values used as tuning targets in Section 3.2 are listed in Table 1 as the reference DESI DR2 BAO values, and then the fitted bLyα and βLyα are said to be consistent with those values. This is a comparison of the fitted parameters to their own targets, presented as validation of the tuning and of the av choice.

  3. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1.2 and Section 6]
    "These constants are tuned in order to obtain metal biases and correlation shapes consistent with those of DESI DR2 BAO (DESI Collaboration et al. 2025a, Fig. 3). ... For the metal biases we find an agreement within ∼20% between LyaCoLoRe-2LPT and the DESI DR2 BAO parameters, supporting the validity of the metal modeling of Subsubsection 5.1.2."

    The Ametal constants are explicitly tuned to match the DESI DR2 BAO metal biases. The later statement that the metal biases agree within ~20% with those same DESI DR2 parameters is therefore presenting the tuning target as evidence for the metal model. It is a closure test of the tuning, not independent support.

  4. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3.2, Eq. (6) and Figure 4 text]
    "For the bQ parameter, we assume a power law fit based on the redshift evolution of the observational QSO bias (Chaussidon et al. 2024): bQ(z)=A(1+z)^B. ... where the parameters are:A=0.523 andB=1.475. ... We can see that the CoLoRe-2LPT bias is within 5% or less for all redshifts."

    The redshift-dependent QSO bias law is fitted to the Chaussidon et al. measurement, so recovering that bias within 5% is a consistency check of the biasing implementation rather than an independent prediction. The non-analytic (bQ,t) to bQSO mapping is a real technical step validated against Abacus, but the stated 'within 5%' claim is relative to the input curve.

  5. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1.1 and Appendix A]
    "we fit the HCD power spectrum to linear theory obtaining the best tHCD(z) values that give a bHCD∼2 constant with redshift (Font-Ribera et al. 2012; Pérez-Ràfols et al. 2018, 2023). ... We recover a best fit βHCD=0.4797±0.010 which results in a HCD bias of bHCD=2.01±0.02 consistent with the input value and the literature"

    The HCD threshold scheme is tuned to produce bHCD approximately 2, and Appendix A then reports bHCD = 2.01 as validation. This verifies that the threshold-to-bias mapping was implemented correctly, but it is not an independent test of the HCD clustering model because the target value is the input of the calibration.

full rationale

The core construction is not globally circular: the 2LPT light-cone density/velocity fields are benchmarked against 2LPTic and Abacus, and the raw-mock BAO/AP parameters (α∥, α⊥, ϕ, αpeak, αsmooth) are outputs rather than tuned inputs, so their closeness to unity carries independent content. However, several headline validations do reduce to their own inputs. The abstract's 'reproduce Lyα statistics within 10% of the latest DESI measurement' is a post-tuning agreement: P1D, F, bLyα and βLyα are the explicit targets of the free parameters in Section 3.2, and Table 1 lists the same DESI DR2 values used for tuning as the reference values against which the fitted bLyα and βLyα are declared consistent. Metal amplitudes are likewise tuned to DESI DR2 BAO metal biases and then the ~20% agreement is quoted as support. The QSO and HCD bias 'recoveries' are largely closure checks on fitted or literature-target biasing relations. These are partial circularities, not full equivalence: the BAO peak, 2LPT non-linearities and the Abacus QSO calibration are external to the Lyα tuning. The paper itself flags an unresolved ~0.3% BAO shift in the final contaminated mocks (Table 2: α∥=1.0042, α⊥=0.9985; 'we find biased cosmology results for BAO at around 0.3%. This bias appears to be associated with the model itself'), so the Section 7 summary that mocks recover 'effectively unbiased BAO and AP parameters' is conditional and weakened by the paper's own result; that is a limitation/correctness issue rather than circularity. Overall, the fitted-input-as-validation pattern affects several central claims without making the entire derivation tautological, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 10 axioms · 0 invented entities

Most of the physics is standard background: 2LPT, FGPA, Kaiser RSD modelling, Planck cosmology. The paper contributes empirical calibration functions for QSO and HCD biasing plus several Lyα tuning parameters; those are the main sources of circularity because the same statistics are used both as tuning targets and as validation metrics. No genuinely new physical entities are posited.

free parameters (8)
  • QSO threshold-bias parameters (bQ, t) and redshift functions = bQ(z)=0.523(1+z)^1.475; t(z)=0.984+0.401*(1-0.523^((z-2)/0.5))/(1-0.523); snapshot best fits e.g. (2.720,0.985), (3.310,
    Fitted to Abacus HOD QSO power spectra at z=2, 2.5, 3 up to kmax=0.1 h/Mpc and to DESI DR1 QSO bias evolution; this defines QSO clustering in the mocks.
  • Fingers-of-God velocity dispersion sigma_v = 350 km/s
    Chosen by hand in §2.3.1 to roughly match Abacus redshift-space QSO quadrupole at k of order 0.1 h/Mpc.
  • small-scale P1D shape parameters n and k1 = not quoted in text; stored in tuning_data_2lpt_v2.8.fits
    Free parameters in Eq. 8 for the added one-dimensional small-scale power; tuned to reproduce the DESI P1D shape.
  • small-scale amplitude sigma_epsilon(z) and optical-depth normalization tau0(z) = calibrated at z=2.2, 2.4, 2.8, 3.2; values in public LyaCoLoRe tuning file
    An 8x8 grid search varies these until mocks match DESI P1D, mean flux, and bLyα (§3.2).
  • velocity scaling a_v = manually varied in [1.0,1.3] at resolution 0.05
    Tuned to reproduce the observational βLyα (§3.2); the paper explicitly notes a_v is expected to differ from unity.
  • IGM temperature-density slope alpha(z) = 1.65 (fixed)
    Chosen from Seljak (2012) and held fixed during calibration; it sets the density-to-optical-depth mapping in Eq. 11.
  • HCD threshold t_HCD(z)=a(1+z)^b+c = a=5.331, b=-2.444, c=-0.260
    Empirical redshift dependence chosen so that thresholded skewer cells produce b_HCD≈2 across redshift (§5.1.1).
  • metal optical-depth amplitudes A_metal for SiII(1190), SiII(1193), SiIII(1206), SiII(1260) = adopted from quickquasars/CoLoRe-QL; values not tabulated in text
    Tuned in §5.1.2 so that predicted metal biases match DESI DR2 BAO metal parameters; the later ~20% agreement is therefore partly circular.
axioms (10)
  • standard math 2LPT equations (Eq. 2-3) and standard growth-factor approximations D2(a)=-(3/7)D1^2 Omega_M^-1/143, f2=2 Omega_M^6/11
    Background from Moutarde/Bouchet/Scoccimarro; CoLoRe-2LPT is validated against 2LPTic snapshots rather than re-deriving the theory.
  • domain assumption Light-cone rescaling of z=0 2LPT displacements by linear growth factors at each shell redshift
    Section 2, steps 2-4. Assumes linear rescaling captures time evolution along the light cone; not benchmarked against an N-body light cone.
  • domain assumption Thresholded linear QSO bias model: 1+delta_Q = 1+b_Q delta if delta>t, else 0 (Eq. 5)
    Empirical tracer model borrowed from Kaiser and Bardeen et al.; parameters are calibrated to Abacus HOD QSOs.
  • domain assumption Fluctuating Gunn-Peterson approximation: tau=tau0(z)(1+delta)^alpha (Eq. 11)
    Assumes photoionization equilibrium and a power-law IGM temperature-density relation; standard for fast Lyα mocks.
  • domain assumption Small-scale density is added as an independent log-normal field multiplicatively coupled to the 2LPT density (Eqs. 9-10)
    Assumes separation of scales and log-normal statistics for the extra 1D power; shape from McDonald et al. (2006).
  • domain assumption RSD mapping uses only CoLoRe-2LPT linear peculiar velocities rescaled by a_v, without thermal broadening (Eq. 12)
    Thermal broadening is ignored at 0.25 Mpc/h resolution; a_v absorbs modelling inaccuracies by construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Metal optical depth is proportional to Lyα optical depth and is added after RSDs (Eq. 23)
    The paper states more realistic metal modeling is beyond scope and that only the shape and strength of metal bumps matter.
  • domain assumption HCDs are thresholded Lyα skewer cells with b_HCD≈2, populated Poisson-wise from a pyigm dn/dz model (Eq. 22)
    Empirical implementation; the threshold-to-bias relation is measured from CoLoRe-2LPT snapshots, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Planck 2018 TT,TE,EE+lowE+lensing cosmology is the fiducial input
    Standard input choice; mock BAO/AP recovery is judged against these input distances.
  • domain assumption The Kaiser model plus BAO broadening parametrization (Eqs. 17-18) is an adequate template for fitting mock correlations
    Validation of raw mocks uses the same linear-model family as the DESI analysis, restricted to 40<r<180 Mpc/h because the model fails below.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 5520 in / 5503 out tokens · 680657 ms · 2026-08-04T03:17:35.151496+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Lyman-$\alpha$ (Ly$\alpha$) forest has become a crucial probe for studying the large-scale structure of the universe at high redshift ($z > 2$), providing powerful constraints on Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and the full-shape (FS) clustering of matter. As a key ingredient for upcoming BAO and FS analyses, we present a new generation of fast cosmological Ly$\alpha$ mocks based on second-order Lagrangian perturbation theory (2LPT). These new mocks significantly improve upon previous log-normal approaches, both at accurately capturing small scale clustering and at recovering the non-linear broadening of the BAO peak. They are able to reproduce Ly$\alpha$ statistics within $10\%$ of the latest DESI measurement; including the Ly$\alpha$ bias and the redshift-space distortion $\beta$ parameter, mean transmitted flux, and 1D power spectrum. The corresponding quasar (QSO) clustering is also improved with respect to previous approaches, calibrated against high-resolution Abacus simulations, recovering the observational QSO linear bias to less than $5\%$ and improving redshift-space distortions via 2LPT velocities and the addition of Fingers-of-God effects. Furthermore, these mocks incorporate high column density systems and metal lines, allowing us to explore the effects and systematics induced by these astrophysical contaminants. This new set of mocks has been key for enhancing the modeling and validation of the DESI DR2 Ly$\alpha$ full shape cosmological analysis. This work provides a physically motivated and computationally efficient tool for simulating current and next-generation Ly$\alpha$ surveys and validating FS and BAO analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27412 by A. Bault, A. Brodzeller, A. Carnero Rosell, A. Cuceu, A. de la Macorra, A. Dey, A. Font-Ribera, A. Kremin, A. Leauthaud, A. Meisner, A. Mu\~noz-Guti\'errez, A. P\'erez-Fern\'andez, A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, B. A. Weaver, C. Gordon, C. Hahn, C. Poppett, C. Ravoux, C. Saulder, D. Alonso, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, D. Gonzalez, D. Kirkby, D. Schlegel, E. Armengaud, E. Paillas, E. Sanchez, F. Beutler, F. Prada, F. Sinigaglia, G. Gambardella, G. Gutierrez, G. Niz, G. Rossi, G. Tarl\'e, H. E. Noriega, H. K. Herrera-Alcantar, H. Pulido-Hern\'andez, H. Seo, H. Yang, H. Zhang, I. P\'erez-R\`afols, J. Aguilar, J. Chaves-Montero, J. E. Forero-Romero, J. Guy, J. Morawetz, J. Pan, J. Rohlf, J. Silber, K. Honscheid, K. Lodha, K. S. Dawson, L. Casas, L. Samushia, M. Bonici, M. F. Ruiz-Herrera Bernal, M. Herbold, M. Ishak, M. Landriau, M. Manera, M. Pellejero Ibanez, M. Siudek, M. Vargas-Maga\~na, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, N. V. Kamble, O. Alves, O. Manasoiu, P. Martini, P. Mukherjee, Q. Li, R. Gsponer, R. Miquel, R. Ruggeri, R. Vaisakh, S. Ahlen, S. Avila, S. Ferraro, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, S. Jos, S. Juneau, S. Nadathur, T. Claybaugh, T. Karim, T. Simon, U. Andrade, W. Elbers, W. J. Percival, W. Liu, W. Turner, Y. Cho, Z. Chen.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: , respectively. The hexadecapole is not shown since it is largely noise dominated. Similarly to real space, both codes agree within the statistical uncertainties, showing the same level 6 https://github.com/bccp/nbodykit. 7 Note that both sets of mocks use different initial seeds and thus we don’t expect the curves to be exactly the same. of non-linearity. We also verified that all results are consistent f… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: CoLoRe-2LPT (C2LPT) particle power spectrum monopole in real space (r) and redshift space (z) compared to 2LPTic particles at z=2 snapshot. Bottom: Ratio of these monopoles to linear theory. In both panels, the lines for each code represent the mean of 50 realizations in boxes with size Lbox = 1 Gpc/h and 5123 particles. Shades represent the error on the ensemble average (σmean) for these 50 realizati… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: QSO bias in CoLoRe-2LPT snapshots and light cone shells compared to DESI DR1 results (Chaussidon et al. 2024) at different effective redshifts. We represent with dots the best linear fit bias for CoLoRe-2LPT snapshots QSO power spectra and with stars for light cone QSO auto-correlations. The shad￾ows represent, with decreasing intensity, the 1, 5 and 10 % of the DESI DR1 measurement. Finally, we fit the 2P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: Comparison of CoLoRe-2LPT (C2LPT) best fit QSO power spectrum monopoles and quadrupole in real (r) and red￾shift (z) space against Abacus at z=2 snapshot. In the rest of the panels we show the ratio of each multipole to (RSD) lin￾ear theory. In all panels the lines represent the mean of 25 re￾alizations of each code and the shade represents σmean. For the CoLoRe-2LPT case, solid lines represent realiz… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: QSO 2PCF monopole and quadrupole for the stack of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LyaCoLoRe-2LPT P1D for 500, 000 skewers at the main redshift bins covering the DESI Lyα range (z = 2.0, 2.5, 2.8, 3.2) and for the relevant k modes for BAO analysis (k ∈ [10−3 , 10−2 ] km/s). We compare the LyaCoLoRe-2LPT result against the DESI DR1 measurement (Ravoux et al. 2025; Karaçaylı et al. 2025) whose 10% and 20% are represented as strong and light shadows. 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 Redshift… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of LyaCoLoRe-2LPT F for 500, 000 skew￾ers at the main redshift bins covering the DESI Lyα range (z = 2.0, 2.5, 2.8, 3.2) against the DESI DR1 measurement (Turner et al. 2024) whose 10% is represented as a shadow. 2025a) in 10 full sky mocks (equivalent to ∼ 70 DESI real￾izations) of the 400 raw realizations described in the previous section. That is, we will compute these correlations for 3,072 … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panel: Raw Lyα auto-correlation. Right panel: Raw Lyα×QSO cross-correlation. In both panels, the correlations, pre￾sented as dots, represent the stack of 10 raw LyaCoLoRe-2LPT full-sky mocks. The lighter dots are the individual mocks correlations and the solid lines represent the best FS linear fit for 40 < r [Mpc/h] < 180. The best BAO linear fit is indistinguishable from the FS (see [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left panel: Contaminated Lyα auto-correlation. Right panel: Contaminated Lyα×QSO cross-correlation. In both panels, the correlations presented as dots represent the stack of 400 contaminated CoLoRe-2LPT DESI-like mocks. The solid lines represent the best BAO linear fit for 40 < r [Mpc/h] < 180 and the shadows represent the 1σ and 2σ errors of DESI DR2 BAO correlations. The grey bands indicate the scales wh… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. DESI DR2 Results IV: Alcock-Paczy\'nski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The full shape of DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha forest correlations constrains the distance ratio DM/DH at z=2.33 to 1.0%, twice as precise as BAO alone.

  2. DESI DR2 Results IV: Alcock-Paczy\'nski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha forest full-shape correlations yield a 1% Alcock-Paczyński measurement at z=2.33 and 0.8% distance ratio constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2026 , eprint=

    Validation of the DESI DR2 Ly forest full-shape analysis , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  2. [2]

    2026 , eprint=

    DESI DR2 Results IV: Alcock-Paczy\'nski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  3. [3]

    and Sheth, R

    Scoccimarro, R. and Sheth, R. K. , year = 2002, journal =

    2002

  4. [4]

    and Crocce, M

    Avila, S. and Crocce, M. and Ross, A. J. and others , year = 2018, journal =

    2018

  5. [5]

    and Paczy\'nski, B

    Alcock, C. and Paczy\'nski, B. , year = 1979, journal =

    1979

  6. [6]

    and Bell, J

    Almgren, A. and Bell, J. and Lijewski, M. and others , year = 2013, journal =

    2013

  7. [7]

    and Miralda-Escud

    Arinyo-i-Prats, A. and Miralda-Escud. JCAP , volume =

  8. [8]

    and Murray, S

    Avila, S. and Murray, S. G. and Knebe, A. and others , year = 2015, journal =

    2015

  9. [9]

    Bardeen, J. M. and Bond, J. R. and Kaiser, N. and Szalay, A. S. , year = 1986, journal =

    1986

  10. [10]

    Bautista, J. E. and Busca, N. G. and Guy, J. and others , year = 2017, journal =

    2017

  11. [11]

    and Colombi, S

    Bernardeau, F. and Colombi, S. and Gazta. Phys. Rep. , volume =

  12. [12]

    Bi, H. G. and Boerner, G. and Chu, Y. , year = 1992, journal =

    1992

  13. [13]

    and Pieri, M

    Blomqvist, M. and Pieri, M. M. and. JCAP , volume =

  14. [14]

    Blomqvist, M. and. A&A , volume =

  15. [15]

    Bouchet, F. R. and Colombi, S. and Hivon, E. and Juszkiewicz, R. , year = 1995, journal =

    1995

  16. [16]

    Busca, N. G. and Delubac, T. and Rich, J. and others , year = 2013, journal =

    2013

  17. [17]

    and Rich, J

    Busca, N. and Rich, J. and Bautista, J. and others , year = 2025, journal =

    2025

  18. [18]

    and Herrera-Alcantar, H

    Casas, L. and Herrera-Alcantar, H. K. and Chaves-Montero, J. and others , year = 2025, journal =

    2025

  19. [19]

    Chaussidon, E. and Y. arXiv e-prints , pages =

  20. [20]

    and Kitaura, F.-S

    Chuang, C.-H. and Kitaura, F.-S. and Prada, F. and Zhao, C. and Yepes, G. , year = 2015, journal =

    2015

  21. [21]

    and Jones, B

    Coles, P. and Jones, B. , year = 1991, journal =

    1991

  22. [22]

    Croft, R. A. C. and Weinberg, D. H. and Katz, N. and Hernquist, L. , year = 1998, journal =

    1998

  23. [23]

    and Font-Ribera, A

    Cuceu, A. and Font-Ribera, A. and Joachimi, B. and Nadathur, S. , year = 2021, journal =

    2021

  24. [24]

    and Font-Ribera, A

    Cuceu, A. and Font-Ribera, A. and Martini, P. and others , year = 2023, journal =

    2023

  25. [25]

    and Herrera-Alcantar, H

    Cuceu, A. and Herrera-Alcantar, H. K. and Gordon, C. and others , year = 2025, journal =

    2025

  26. [26]

    Dawson, K. S. and Schlegel, D. J. and Ahn, C. P. and others , year = 2013, journal =

    2013

  27. [27]

    Dawson, K. S. and Kneib, J.-P. and Percival, W. J. and others , year = 2016, journal =

    2016

  28. [28]

    and Bautista, J

    Delubac, T. and Bautista, J. E. and Busca, N. G. and others , year = 2015, journal =

    2015

  29. [29]

    arXiv e-prints , pages =

  30. [30]

    Phys. Rev. D , volume =

  31. [31]

    Eisenstein, D. J. and Seo, H.-J. and White, M. , year = 2007, journal =

    2007

  32. [32]

    Etourneau, T. and. JCAP , volume =

  33. [33]

    and Font-Ribera, A

    Farr, J. and Font-Ribera, A. and. JCAP , volume =

  34. [34]

    and Crocce, M

    Ferrero, I. and Crocce, M. and Avila, S. and others , year = 2021, journal =

    2021

  35. [35]

    and Miralda-Escud

    Font-Ribera, A. and Miralda-Escud. JCAP , volume =

  36. [36]

    and Kirkby, D

    Font-Ribera, A. and Kirkby, D. and Busca, N. and others , year = 2014, journal =

    2014

  37. [37]

    and Cuceu, A

    Gordon, C. and Cuceu, A. and Chaves-Montero, J. and others , year = 2023, journal =

    2023

  38. [38]

    and Bailey, S

    Guy, J. and Bailey, S. and Kremin, A. and others , year = 2023, journal =

    2023

  39. [39]

    Guy, J. and. JCAP , volume =

  40. [40]

    and Font-Ribera, A

    Hadzhiyska, B. and Font-Ribera, A. and Cuceu, A. and others , year = 2023, journal =

    2023

  41. [41]

    Hadzhiyska, B. and. MNRAS , volume =

  42. [42]

    Herrera-Alcantar, H. K. and Mu. JCAP , volume =

  43. [43]

    MNRAS , volume =

    He. MNRAS , volume =

  44. [44]

    and Yamamoto, K

    Hikage, C. and Yamamoto, K. , year = 2016, journal =

    2016

  45. [45]

    and Gnedin, N

    Hui, L. and Gnedin, N. Y. , year = 1997, journal =

    1997

  46. [46]

    , year = 1984, journal =

    Kaiser, N. , year = 1984, journal =

    1984

  47. [47]

    , year = 1987, journal =

    Kaiser, N. , year = 1987, journal =

    1987

  48. [48]

    MNRAS , volume =

    Kara. MNRAS , volume =

  49. [49]

    arXiv e-prints , pages =

    Kara. arXiv e-prints , pages =

  50. [50]

    and Margala, D

    Kirkby, D. and Margala, D. and Slosar, A. and others , year = 2013, journal =

    2013

  51. [51]

    and Bailey, S

    Kirkby, D. and Bailey, S. and Guy, J. and Weaver, B. A. , year = 2016, title =

    2016

  52. [52]

    and Yepes, G

    Kitaura, F.-S. and Yepes, G. and Prada, F. , year = 2014, journal =

    2014

  53. [53]

    and Rodr

    Kitaura, F.-S. and Rodr. MNRAS , volume =

  54. [54]

    MNRAS , volume =

    Luki. MNRAS , volume =

  55. [55]

    Maksimova, N. A. and Garrison, L. H. and Eisenstein, D. J. and others , year = 2021, journal =

    2021

  56. [56]

    and Scoccimarro, R

    Manera, M. and Scoccimarro, R. and Percival, W. J. and others , year = 2013, journal =

    2013

  57. [57]

    and Miralda-Escud

    Mas-Ribas, L. and Miralda-Escud. ApJ , volume =

  58. [58]

    and Seljak, U

    McDonald, P. and Seljak, U. and Burles, S. and others , year = 2006, journal =

    2006

  59. [59]

    and Moustakas, J

    McGreer, I. and Moustakas, J. and Schindler, J. , year = 2021, title =

    2021

  60. [60]

    , year = 2016, journal =

    McQuinn, M. , year = 2016, journal =

    2016

  61. [61]

    Miller, T. N. and Doel, P. and Gutierrez, G. and others , year = 2024, journal =

    2024

  62. [62]

    and Theuns, T

    Monaco, P. and Theuns, T. and Taffoni, G. , year = 2002, journal =

    2002

  63. [63]

    and Som, D

    Morrison, S. and Som, D. and Pieri, M. M. and P. MNRAS , volume =

  64. [64]

    and Alimi, J.-M

    Moutarde, F. and Alimi, J.-M. and Bouchet, F. R. and Pellat, R. and Ramani, A. , year = 1991, journal =

    1991

  65. [65]

    and Tyas, L

    Poppett, C. and Tyas, L. and Aguilar, J. and others , year = 2024, journal =

    2024

  66. [66]

    Prochaska, J. X. and Madau, P. and O'Meara, J. M. and Fumagalli, M. , year = 2014, journal =

    2014

  67. [67]

    JCAP , volume =

    Ram. JCAP , volume =

  68. [68]

    MNRAS , volume =

    Ram. MNRAS , volume =

  69. [69]

    and Abdul-Karim, M.-L

    Ravoux, C. and Abdul-Karim, M.-L. and. JCAP , volume =

  70. [70]

    Rogers, K. K. and Bird, S. and Peiris, H. V. and others , year = 2018, journal =

    2018

  71. [71]

    Schlafly, E. F. and Kirkby, D. and Schlegel, D. J. and others , year = 2023, journal =

    2023

  72. [72]

    and Hui, L

    Scoccimarro, R. and Hui, L. and Manera, M. and Chan, K. C. , year = 2012, journal =

    2012

  73. [73]

    , year = 2012, journal =

    Seljak, U. , year = 2012, journal =

    2012

  74. [74]

    Silber, J. H. and Fagrelius, P. and Fanning, K. and others , year = 2023, journal =

    2023

  75. [75]

    and Kitaura, F.-S

    Sinigaglia, F. and Kitaura, F.-S. and Nagamine, K. and Oku, Y. and Balaguera-Antol. A&A , volume =

  76. [76]

    and Kitaura, F.-S

    Sinigaglia, F. and Kitaura, F.-S. and Nagamine, K. and Oku, Y. , year = 2024, journal =

    2024

  77. [77]

    and Irsic, V

    Slosar, A. and Irsic, V. and Kirkby, D. and others , year = 2013, journal =

    2013

  78. [78]

    and Zaldarriaga, M

    Tassev, S. and Zaldarriaga, M. and Eisenstein, D. J. , year = 2013, journal =

    2013

  79. [79]

    and Martini, P

    Turner, W. and Martini, P. and Kara. ApJ , volume =

  80. [80]

    Weinberg, D. H. and Hernquist, L. and Katz, N. and others , year = 1997, booktitle =

    1997

Showing first 80 references.