pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.22272 · v1 · submitted 2024-10-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Dark Energy Survey Year 3: Blue Shear

J. McCullough , A. Amon , E. Legnani , D. Gruen , A. Roodman , O. Friedrich , N. MacCrann , M. R. Becker
show 110 more authors
J. Myles S. Dodelson S. Samuroff J. Blazek J. Prat K. Honscheid A. Pieres A. Fert\'e A. Alarcon A. Drlica-Wagner A. Choi A. Navarro-Alsina A. Campos A. A. Plazas Malag\'on A. Porredon A. Farahi A. J. Ross A. Carnero Rosell B. Yin B. Flaugher B. Yanny C. S\'anchez C. Chang C. Davis C. To C. Doux D. Brooks D. J. James D. Sanchez Cid D. L. Hollowood D. Huterer E. S. Rykoff E. Gaztanaga E. M. Huff E. Suchyta E. Sheldon E. Sanchez F. Tarsitano F. Andrade-Oliveira F. J. Castander G. M. Bernstein G. Gutierrez G. Giannini G. Tarle H. T. Diehl H. Huang I. Harrison I. Sevilla-Noarbe I. Tutusaus I. Ferrero J. Elvin-Poole J. L. Marshall J. Muir J. Weller J. Zuntz J. Carretero J. DeRose J. Frieman J. Cordero J. De Vicente J. Garc\'ia-Bellido J. Mena-Fern\'andez K. Eckert A. K. Romer K. Bechtol K. Herner K. Kuehn L. F. Secco L. N. da Costa M. Paterno 21 M. Soares-Santos M. Gatti M. Raveri M. Yamamoto M. Smith M. Carrasco Kind M. A. Troxel M. Aguena M. Jarvis M. E. C. Swanson N. Weaverdyck O. Lahav P. Doel P. Wiseman R. Miquel R. A. Gruendl R. Cawthon S. Allam S. R. Hinton S. L. Bridle S. Bocquet S. Desai S. Pandey S. Everett S. Lee T. Shin A. Palmese C. Conselice D. L. Burke E. Buckley-Geer M. Lima M. Vincenzi M. E. S. Pereira M. Crocce M. Schubnell N. Jeffrey O. Alves V. Vikram Y. Zhang DES Collaboration
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 19:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords intrinsic alignmentcosmic shearweak lensingDark Energy Surveyblue galaxiesS_8cosmological constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

Selecting blue galaxies in DES Y3 weak lensing stabilizes S_8 constraints against intrinsic alignment models and shrinks uncertainty by a factor of 1.5.

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

The paper establishes that restricting the cosmic shear sample to blue, star-forming galaxies reduces intrinsic alignment contamination enough to make cosmological parameter inferences insensitive to the choice of IA model. This selection yields a better fit to the data and brings the inferred matter density and S_8 into closer agreement with cosmic microwave background measurements. A sympathetic reader would care because it demonstrates that sample selection can serve as a simpler alternative to adding flexible model parameters, potentially delivering tighter dark energy constraints without extra modeling complexity.

Core claim

The blue cosmic shear sample from DES Year 3 produces cosmological constraints that remain stable across different intrinsic alignment models, unlike the full sample dominated by passive galaxies. The approach improves the goodness-of-fit and aligns Ω_m and S_8 values more closely with CMB results. Mitigating IA through this sample selection rather than through additional model freedom reduces the uncertainty on S_8 by a factor of 1.5.

What carries the argument

Blue galaxy sample selection, which excludes red passive galaxies to suppress intrinsic alignment contamination in the weak lensing measurements.

If this is right

  • Cosmological constraints from the blue shear sample remain stable regardless of the intrinsic alignment model chosen.
  • The goodness-of-fit to the data improves relative to the full DES Y3 sample.
  • Inferred values of Ω_m and S_8 agree better with independent CMB measurements.
  • The uncertainty on S_8 decreases by a factor of 1.5 compared with analyses that rely on flexible IA modeling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same blue-galaxy cut could be tested on overlapping datasets from other surveys to check whether the reduction in modeling uncertainty generalizes.
  • Future work might quantify any residual selection biases by comparing lensing signals in blue versus full samples on the same sky patches.
  • If the method holds, it could reduce the parameter space needed in joint analyses of weak lensing with galaxy clustering or CMB lensing.

Load-bearing premise

Limiting the sample to blue star-forming galaxies suppresses intrinsic alignment contamination without introducing new selection biases that affect the cosmological inference.

What would settle it

Re-running the blue-sample analysis with an alternative IA model that produces a statistically significant shift in the central value or uncertainty of S_8 would falsify the claim of model stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2410.22272 by 21 M. Soares-Santos, A. Alarcon, A. Amon, A. A. Plazas Malag\'on, A. Campos, A. Carnero Rosell, A. Choi, A. Drlica-Wagner, A. Farahi, A. Fert\'e, A. J. Ross, A. K. Romer, A. Navarro-Alsina, A. Palmese, A. Pieres, A. Porredon, A. Roodman, B. Flaugher, B. Yanny, B. Yin, C. Chang, C. Conselice, C. Davis, C. Doux, C. S\'anchez, C. To, D. Brooks, DES Collaboration, D. Gruen, D. Huterer, D. J. James, D. L. Burke, D. L. Hollowood, D. Sanchez Cid, E. Buckley-Geer, E. Gaztanaga, E. Legnani, E. M. Huff, E. Sanchez, E. Sheldon, E. S. Rykoff, E. Suchyta, F. Andrade-Oliveira, F. J. Castander, F. Tarsitano, G. Giannini, G. Gutierrez, G. M. Bernstein, G. Tarle, H. Huang, H. T. Diehl, I. Ferrero, I. Harrison, I. Sevilla-Noarbe, I. Tutusaus, J. Blazek, J. Carretero, J. Cordero, J. DeRose, J. De Vicente, J. Elvin-Poole, J. Frieman, J. Garc\'ia-Bellido, J. L. Marshall, J. McCullough, J. Mena-Fern\'andez, J. Muir, J. Myles, J. Prat, J. Weller, J. Zuntz, K. Bechtol, K. Eckert, K. Herner, K. Honscheid, K. Kuehn, L. F. Secco, L. N. da Costa, M. Aguena, M. A. Troxel, M. Carrasco Kind, M. Crocce, M. E. C. Swanson, M. E. S. Pereira, M. Gatti, M. Jarvis, M. Lima, M. Paterno, M. Raveri, M. R. Becker, M. Schubnell, M. Smith, M. Vincenzi, M. Yamamoto, N. Jeffrey, N. MacCrann, N. Weaverdyck, O. Alves, O. Friedrich, O. Lahav, P. Doel, P. Wiseman, R. A. Gruendl, R. Cawthon, R. Miquel, S. Allam, S. Bocquet, S. Desai, S. Dodelson, S. Everett, S. L. Bridle, S. Lee, S. Pandey, S. R. Hinton, S. Samuroff, T. Shin, V. Vikram, Y. Zhang.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cosmic shear two-point correlation measurements for each redshift bin pair, ξ±, for the blue and red samples. The error bars represent the square root of the diagonal of the analytic covariance matrix. The solid lines represent the best model fit for ΛCDM with no intrinsic alignment, which is preferred by both selections, and the dashed lines represent the best fit for TATT, the most complex IA model choic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Marginalized posteriors for Ωm and S8 derived from cosmic shear measurements using only blue galaxies, designed to mitigate the effects of IA (blue). These are analyzed with a flexible baryon feedback model, and compared to the full DES Y3 sample using the same feedback model and the TATT IA model (black line), producing a lower value for S8 and Ωm. We also compare to the Y3 approach to exclude small-scale… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Marginalized posteriors for Ωm and S8 using the impure red (left) and pure blue (right) samples. For each sample, we consider an analysis with no intrinsic alignment model (filled), with the single parameter NLA model (dashed, unfilled) and the TATT model (solid, unfilled). For reference, we show the Planck TTTEEE likelihood (orange, Efstathiou & Gratton 2021). The inner and outer contours correspond to 68… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on the intrinsic alignment amplitudes, a1,2 and redshift evolution, η2, TATT model parameters using the red, blue, and full (black) samples, with (1σ and 2σ contours). We find the blue sample is consistent with zero in both a1, a2, while the red sample prefers a negative, strongly redshift-evolving a2 amplitude with negligible a1. only been tested against direct measurements on larger scales an… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Modeling the intrinsic alignment (IA) of galaxies poses a challenge to weak lensing analyses. The Dark Energy Survey is expected to be less impacted by IA when limited to blue, star-forming galaxies. The cosmological parameter constraints from this blue cosmic shear sample are stable to IA model choice, unlike passive galaxies in the full DES Y3 sample, the goodness-of-fit is improved and the $\Omega_{m}$ and $S_8$ better agree with the cosmic microwave background. Mitigating IA with sample selection, instead of flexible model choices, can reduce uncertainty in $S_8$ by a factor of 1.5.

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 cosmological constraints from cosmic shear in DES Y3 restricted to a blue, star-forming galaxy sample. It claims that this selection mitigates intrinsic alignment (IA) contamination, yielding parameter constraints stable to IA model choice (unlike the full sample), improved goodness-of-fit, better agreement between Ωm/S8 and CMB values, and a factor-1.5 reduction in S8 uncertainty relative to the full DES Y3 analysis.

Significance. If the central claim holds after validation, the result shows that targeted sample selection can suppress IA systematics sufficiently to permit simpler modeling while tightening constraints, offering a practical alternative to flexible IA nuisance parameters for current and future weak-lensing surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the factor-1.5 reduction in S8 uncertainty is presented as a direct consequence of IA mitigation via blue-sample selection, yet the text provides no explicit comparison of effective survey volume, redshift distribution n(z), or multiplicative bias calibration between the blue and full samples; without these, it is impossible to isolate the contribution of IA suppression from possible changes in the lensing kernel or galaxy bias.
  2. [Abstract / §4] Abstract / §4 (results): the claim that constraints are 'stable to IA model choice' and that the blue sample 'sufficiently suppresses' IA rests on the untested premise that the color selection does not simultaneously alter the effective lensing efficiency or introduce new selection biases; the manuscript must demonstrate this with direct tests (e.g., comparison of tomographic kernels or shear calibration residuals) before the stability can be attributed to IA mitigation rather than reduced signal amplitude.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the blue sample is 'expected to be less impacted by IA' should be supported by a quantitative prior on the IA amplitude for blue galaxies or a reference to the relevant literature on color-dependent alignment.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: 'improved goodness-of-fit' and 'better agree with the CMB' are stated without the numerical values of χ² or the tension metric used, making it difficult to assess the magnitude of the improvement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. The comments highlight important points about isolating the effects of sample selection. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested comparisons and tests.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the factor-1.5 reduction in S8 uncertainty is presented as a direct consequence of IA mitigation via blue-sample selection, yet the text provides no explicit comparison of effective survey volume, redshift distribution n(z), or multiplicative bias calibration between the blue and full samples; without these, it is impossible to isolate the contribution of IA suppression from possible changes in the lensing kernel or galaxy bias.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract attributes the uncertainty reduction to IA mitigation without sufficient supporting comparisons. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit side-by-side comparisons of effective number density (proxy for survey volume), the tomographic n(z) distributions, and the multiplicative bias calibration values between the blue and full samples. These will be presented in a new subsection of §3 or an appendix, allowing readers to evaluate the relative contributions. We will also adjust the abstract wording to reflect this added context. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract / §4] Abstract / §4 (results): the claim that constraints are 'stable to IA model choice' and that the blue sample 'sufficiently suppresses' IA rests on the untested premise that the color selection does not simultaneously alter the effective lensing efficiency or introduce new selection biases; the manuscript must demonstrate this with direct tests (e.g., comparison of tomographic kernels or shear calibration residuals) before the stability can be attributed to IA mitigation rather than reduced signal amplitude.

    Authors: The results section already shows parameter stability across IA models for the blue sample (in contrast to the full sample). However, we accept that direct tests are required to confirm this is not due to altered lensing efficiency or new biases. In the revision we will include comparisons of the tomographic lensing kernels (effective lensing efficiency) and shear calibration residuals between the blue and full samples. These tests will be added to §4 and will strengthen the interpretation that IA suppression is the dominant factor. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical data analysis with no load-bearing derivations or self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The paper reports cosmological constraints from DES Y3 cosmic shear using a blue galaxy subsample selected to suppress intrinsic alignments. All claims rest on direct empirical measurements of the data, goodness-of-fit comparisons, and agreement with external CMB data. No equations, parameter fits renamed as predictions, self-citation chains, or ansatzes are present in the provided abstract or context that reduce the central result to its own inputs by construction. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks (CMB) and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or fitted inputs called predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms listed. Relies on standard weak-lensing and cosmology assumptions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Blue star-forming galaxies experience weaker intrinsic alignments than red passive galaxies
    Central premise stated in the abstract for choosing the blue sample.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6272 in / 1176 out tokens · 33638 ms · 2026-05-23T19:20:02.578493+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. GI BAO as a cosmological consistency check

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    GI BAO provides a robust consistency check for density BAO and shear data, with the first photometric measurement on DES Y3 showing agreement at α = 0.966 ± 0.252.

  2. Kinematic Lensing Ratio: Reviving Weak Lensing Cosmography as a Geometric Dark Energy Probe

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    KiLeR combines shear ratios with kinematic intrinsic shapes to mitigate first-order lensing systematics and forecasts a 192% improvement in dark energy constraints from the Roman telescope.

  3. The contribution from small scales on two-point shear analysis: comparison between power spectrum and correlation function

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Harmonic-space cosmic shear analysis yields 2-3 times smaller model-choice biases in S8 than real-space analysis when pushing to small scales, with BACCO emulator plus TATT model giving the most consistent constraints...

  4. The Galaxy Luminosity Functions in ASTRID: Predictions for LSST

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    ASTRID simulation with dust model calibrated to SDSS at z=0 produces validated luminosity functions and LSST-ready mock catalogs of 378 million galaxies with predicted number counts in ugrizy bands from z=0 to 2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    + command with the same argument as the + #1 + command. +

    work page

  2. [3]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3520A 105, 023520

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  3. [4]

    The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    Akeson R., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190205569A p. arXiv:1902.05569

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  4. [5]

    Amon A., Efstathiou G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2429 , 516, 5355

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2429 2022

  5. [6]

    Amon A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3514A 105, 023514

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023514 2022

  6. [7]

    E., Zennaro M., Contreras S., Chen A., Hernández-Monteagudo C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 , 678, A109

    Aricò G., Angulo R. E., Zennaro M., Contreras S., Chen A., Hernández-Monteagudo C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 , 678, A109

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 2023

  7. [8]

    Asgari M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A.104A 645, A104

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039070 2021

  8. [9]

    Bakx T., Kurita T., Elisa Chisari N., Vlah Z., Schmidt F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...10..005B 2023, 005

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/005 2023

  9. [10]

    arXiv:2404.06098

    Bigwood L., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240406098B p. arXiv:2404.06098

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.06098 2024

  10. [11]

    Blazek J., McQuinn M., Seljak U., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/05/010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JCAP...05..010B 2011, 010

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/05/010 2011

  11. [12]

    A., MacCrann N., Troxel M., Fang X., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/physrevd.100.103506 , 100

    Blazek J. A., MacCrann N., Troxel M., Fang X., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/physrevd.100.103506 , 100

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.103506 2019

  12. [13]

    B., van Dokkum P

    Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., Coppi P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686.1503B 686, 1503

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  13. [14]

    Bridle S., King L., 2007, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444 , 9, 444

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444 2007

  14. [15]

    and LeBlanc , F

    Brown M. L., Taylor A. N., Hambly N. C., Dye S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05354.x , 333, 501

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05354.x 2002

  15. [16]

    Buchs R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2162 , 489, 820

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2162 2019

  16. [17]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall A. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2169 , 480, 4379

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  17. [18]

    I., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04416.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325..231O 325, 231

    Catelan P., Kamionkowski M., Blandford R. D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04105.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.320L...7C 320, L7

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04105.x 2001

  18. [19]

    Chen S.-F., Kokron N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...01..027C 2024, 027

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/027 2024

  19. [20]

    Chen et al

    Chen S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240704795C p. arXiv:2407.04795

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.04795 2024

  20. [21]

    DES and KiDS Collaborations et al., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2305.17173 , 6

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2305.17173 2023

  21. [22]

    Dalal R., et al., 2023, Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 Results: Cosmology from Cosmic Shear Power Spectra ( @eprint arXiv 2304.00701 )

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [23]

    , keywords =

    Delgado A. M., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1781 , 523, 5899–5914

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1781 2023

  23. [24]

    Efstathiou G., Gratton S., 2021, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.1910.00483 , 4

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.1910.00483 2021

  24. [25]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.191E 642, A191

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038071 2020

  25. [26]

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A.112E 662, A112

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141938 2022

  26. [27]

    Everett S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac26c1 , 258, 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac26c1 2022

  27. [28]

    Fang X., Eifler T., Krause E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1726 , 497, 2699

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1726 2020

  28. [29]

    C., Hoekstra H., Joachimi B., Johnston H., Chisari N

    Fortuna M. C., Hoekstra H., Joachimi B., Johnston H., Chisari N. E., Georgiou C., Mahony C., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3802 , 501, 2983–3002

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3802 2020

  29. [30]

    C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..76F 654, A76

    Fortuna M. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..76F 654, A76

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140706 2021

  30. [31]

    Friedrich O., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3125F 508, 3125

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2384 2021

  31. [32]

    E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.13794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240313794G p

    Garc \' a-Garc \' a C., Zennaro M., Aric \`o G., Alonso D., Angulo R. E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.13794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240313794G p. arXiv:2403.13794

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.13794 2024

  32. [33]

    Gatti M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab918 , 504, 4312

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab918 2021

  33. [34]

    Hadzhiyska B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526..369H 526, 369

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2751 2023

  34. [35]

    J., Hobson M

    Handley W. J., Hobson M. P., Lasenby A. N., 2015a, @doi [ : Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv047 , 450, L61–L65

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv047

  35. [36]

    J., Hobson M

    Handley W. J., Hobson M. P., Lasenby A. N., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1911 , 453, 4385–4399

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1911

  36. [37]

    Harnois-D \'e raps J., Martinet N., Reischke R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.3868H 509, 3868

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3222 2022

  37. [38]

    G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3055 , 509, 3547

    Hartley W. G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3055 , 509, 3547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3055 2021

  38. [39]

    M., Seljak U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvD..70f3526H 70, 063526

    Hirata C. M., Seljak U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvD..70f3526H 70, 063526

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.063526 2004

  39. [40]

    Mignone and Jonathan C

    Hirata C. M., Mandelbaum R., Ishak M., Seljak U., Nichol R., Pimbblet K. A., Ross N. P., Wake D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12312.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381.1197H 381, 1197

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12312.x 2007

  40. [41]

    Hoffmann K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123510 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.106l3510H 106, 123510

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.123510 2022

  41. [42]

    Howlett C., Lewis A., Hall A., Challinor A., 2012, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027 , 2012, 027–027

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027 2012

  42. [43]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  43. [44]

    B., Bridle S

    Joachimi B., Mandelbaum R., Abdalla F. B., Bridle S. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015621 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...527A..26J 527, A26

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015621 2011

  44. [45]

    Johnston H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834714 , 624, A30

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834714 2019

  45. [46]

    Krause E., Eifler T., Blazek J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2615 , 456, 207–222

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2615 2015

  46. [47]

    LSST DESC et al., 2018, The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) Science Requirements Document, @doi 10.48550/ARXIV.1809.01669 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01669

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.01669 2018

  47. [48]

    LSST Science Book, Version 2.0

    LSST Science Collaboration et al., 2009, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0912.0201L p. arXiv:0912.0201

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0912.0201 2009

  48. [49]

    N., Pyne S., Legnani E., Ferreira T., 2023, The IA Guide: A Breakdown of Intrinsic Alignment Formalisms ( @eprint arXiv 2309.08605 )

    Lamman C., Tsaprazi E., Shi J., Šarčević N. N., Pyne S., Legnani E., Ferreira T., 2023, The IA Guide: A Breakdown of Intrinsic Alignment Formalisms ( @eprint arXiv 2309.08605 )

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [50]

    Lamman C., et al., 2024, Detection of the large-scale tidal field with galaxy multiplet alignment in the DESI Y1 spectroscopic survey ( @eprint arXiv 2408.11056 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11056

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [51]

    Lemos P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.1184L 521, 1184

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2786 2023

  51. [52]

    D., Rau M

    Leonard C. D., Rau M. M., Mandelbaum R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109h3528L 109, 083528

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.083528 2024

  52. [53]

    Lewis A., Challinor A., 2011, CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1102.026

    work page 2011

  53. [54]

    Lewis A., Challinor A., Lasenby A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309179 , 538, 473–476

    work page doi:10.1086/309179 2000

  54. [55]

    Li X., et al., 2023, Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 Results: Cosmology from Cosmic Shear Two-point Correlation Functions ( @eprint arXiv 2304.00702 )

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [56]

    LoVerde M., Afshordi N., 2008, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123506 , 78, 123506

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.123506 2008

  56. [57]

    MacCrann N., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2870 , 509, 3371

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2870 2021

  57. [58]

    Mackey J., White M., Kamionkowski M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05337.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.332..788M 332, 788

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05337.x 2002

  58. [59]

    E., Bakx T., Chisari N

    Maion F., Angulo R. E., Bakx T., Chisari N. E., Kurita T., Pellejero-Ib \'a \ n ez M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.2684M 531, 2684

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1331 2024

  59. [60]

    Mandelbaum R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17485.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..844M 410, 844

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17485.x 2011

  60. [61]

    E., Fang X., Hirata C

    McEwen J. E., Fang X., Hirata C. M., Blazek J. A., 2016, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/015 , 2016, 015

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/015 2016

  61. [62]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year = 2021, month = mar, volume = 502, number = 1, pages =

    Mead A. J., Brieden S., Tr \"o ster T., Heymans C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.1401M 502, 1401

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab082 2021

  62. [63]

    Myles J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1515 , 505, 4249

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1515 2021

  63. [64]

    Patrignani C., 2016, @doi [Chinese Physics C] 10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001 , 40, 100001

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001 2016

  64. [65]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  65. [66]

    Raveri M., Hu W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD..99d3506R 99, 043506

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.043506 2019

  66. [67]

    Samuroff S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2197 , 489, 5453

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2197 2019

  67. [68]

    Samuroff S., Mandelbaum R., Blazek J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508..637S 508, 637

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2520 2021

  68. [69]

    Samuroff S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.2195S 524, 2195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2013 2023

  69. [70]

    Samuroff S., Campos A., Porredon A., Blazek J., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.117964 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E..40S 7, 40

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.117964 2024

  70. [71]

    Secco L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/physrevd.105.023515 , 105

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023515 2022

  71. [72]

    Spergel D., et al., 2015, Wide-Field InfrarRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 Report ( @eprint arXiv 1503.03757 )

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [73]

    Stebbins A., 1996, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9609149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996astro.ph..9149S pp astro--ph/9609149

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9609149 1996

  73. [74]

    Troxel M., Ishak M., 2015, @doi [Physics Reports] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.001 , 558, 1

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.001 2015

  74. [75]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Troxel M. A., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043528 , 98, 043528

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043528 2018

  75. [76]

    E., Schmidt F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...01..025V 2020, 025

    Vlah Z., Chisari N. E., Schmidt F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...01..025V 2020, 025

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/025 2020

  76. [77]

    Zuntz J., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.005 , 12, 45

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.005 2015

  77. [78]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

    work page

  78. [79]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint duplicate empty 'skip " " archiveprefix empty 'skip " " * archiveprefix * ":" * if " " * swap * " " * if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := ...

    work page