pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.18134 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Cosmic Shear constraints from HSC Year 3 with clustering calibration of the tomographic redshift distributions from DESI

J. Choppin de Janvry , B. Dai , S. Gontcho A Gontcho , U. Seljak , T. Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 06:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic shearHSCDESIredshift calibrationS8weak lensingtomographic binsgrowth of structure
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Improved DESI clustering calibration of HSC Y3 tomographic redshifts raises the cosmic shear constraint on S8 to 0.805 ± 0.018 and cuts the uncertainty by a factor of 1.8.

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

The paper reprocesses the Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 shear-shear correlation measurements with a new set of tomographic redshift distributions. These distributions are obtained by calibrating the mean redshift offsets in each bin through the clustering redshift technique applied to DESI spectroscopic galaxies. Both reweighting of the original HSC Markov chains and a fresh full-chain analysis produce the same result: the growth-of-structure parameter S8 moves upward from 0.769 to 0.805 while the error shrinks from roughly 0.032 to 0.018. The updated value lies closer to the Planck cosmic-microwave-background measurement and gives the HSC data constraining power comparable to the latest KiDS and DES releases. The central improvement is therefore the tighter and less biased redshift priors supplied by the external spectroscopic clustering calibration.

Core claim

With photometric redshift distributions now calibrated by clustering redshifts from DESI spectroscopy, the HSC Year 3 cosmic shear data yield S8 ≡ σ8 √(Ωm / 0.3) = 0.805 ± 0.018, a 1.8-fold reduction in uncertainty relative to the previous HSC Y3 result of 0.769+0.031−0.034 and a clear shift of the central value toward the Planck cosmology.

What carries the argument

Clustering-redshift calibration of the mean redshift offsets Δz in each tomographic bin, performed by cross-correlating the HSC photometric galaxies with DESI spectroscopic tracers.

If this is right

  • HSC Year 3 now reaches constraining power comparable to KiDS Legacy and DES Y6.
  • The central S8 value moves substantially closer to the Planck cosmic-microwave-background measurement.
  • Both importance sampling of the original chains and a full new MCMC analysis produce statistically consistent constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same clustering-calibration technique can be applied to future wide-field imaging surveys, their redshift systematics could be reduced without requiring complete spectroscopic coverage.
  • The shift toward Planck values suggests that part of the previous S8 tension may have been driven by redshift-distribution uncertainty rather than new physics.
  • Combining the calibrated HSC data with other large-scale-structure probes could further tighten limits on the dark-energy equation of state.

Load-bearing premise

The clustering-redshift method correctly recovers the true redshift distributions of the HSC photometric sample without adding new, unaccounted systematics that would bias the shear-shear measurements.

What would settle it

A direct spectroscopic follow-up campaign that measures the actual redshift distribution in the HSC fields and finds mean-redshift offsets differing from the DESI clustering calibration by more than the quoted uncertainty would falsify the new S8 result.

read the original abstract

We reanalyze cosmological constraints from Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) Y3 shear-shear correlation function using new calibration of the tomographic redshift distribution via the clustering redshifts method with DESI spectroscopy presented in Choppin de Janvry et al. (2025a). We present both importance sampling of the original MCMC chains by HSC, applying the weights of our newly calibrated $\Delta z$ priors, as well as full MCMC analysis with new photometric redshift distributions, finding consistent results between the two. We obtain the growth of structure parameter $S_8\equiv\sigma_8\sqrt{\Omega_m/0.3}=0.805\pm{0.018}$, compared to previous HSC Y3 result of $S_8=0.769^{+0.031}_{-0.034}$, which is a 1.8 reduction of error due to the improved clustering redshift calibrations, with the central value shifting considerably higher towards Planck cosmology. With the new photometric redshift calibration, HSC Y3 has comparable constraining power to the recent KIDS Legacy and DES Y6 results.

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 paper reanalyzes HSC Year 3 cosmic shear constraints by updating the tomographic redshift distributions n(z) with clustering-redshift calibrations derived from DESI spectroscopy (companion paper Choppin de Janvry et al. 2025a). Both importance sampling of the original HSC chains with the new Δz priors and a full MCMC run with the updated n(z) are presented; the authors report consistent results and obtain S8 = 0.805 ± 0.018, a 1.8× tighter constraint than the prior HSC Y3 value of 0.769^{+0.031}_{-0.034} with a central-value shift toward the Planck cosmology. The new result is stated to have constraining power comparable to KiDS Legacy and DES Y6.

Significance. If the clustering-redshift calibration is free of unaccounted bias, the work shows that external spectroscopic cross-correlations can materially tighten weak-lensing S8 constraints and reduce apparent tension with CMB measurements. The dual-method consistency (importance sampling versus new MCMC) is a positive feature that would strengthen the result if accompanied by the missing validation details.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that importance sampling and full MCMC yield consistent results is given without any quantitative comparison (e.g., posterior means, widths, or overlap metrics), without description of how the new Δz priors propagate into the final covariance, and without mention of systematic tests or covariance validation; this directly limits assessment of whether the reported 1.8× error reduction is robust.
  2. [Results] Results section (and associated figures/tables): the central S8 shift and error reduction rest on the assumption that the DESI clustering-redshift n(z) accurately represent the true HSC source distributions; no robustness tests against alternate galaxy-bias evolution models, magnification corrections, or data-split variations in the calibration step are described, even though such systematics could coherently bias the mean redshifts and thereby move S8 upward.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the factor '1.8 reduction of error' should be defined explicitly (e.g., ratio of 68% credible-interval widths or of standard deviations).
  2. Consider adding a table or figure that directly compares the old and new Δz priors (or full n(z)) and the resulting shifts in the cosmological parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity of our presentation. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative details and explicit references to validation tests.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that importance sampling and full MCMC yield consistent results is given without any quantitative comparison (e.g., posterior means, widths, or overlap metrics), without description of how the new Δz priors propagate into the final covariance, and without mention of systematic tests or covariance validation; this directly limits assessment of whether the reported 1.8× error reduction is robust.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative comparison between the importance sampling and full MCMC results would strengthen the abstract and main text. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit values for the posterior means and widths of S8 from both methods, together with a simple overlap metric. We will also briefly describe how the new Δz priors are applied and note that the covariance validation and systematic tests are documented in the companion calibration paper (Choppin de Janvry et al. 2025a). These additions will make the robustness of the reported error reduction clearer to the reader. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (and associated figures/tables): the central S8 shift and error reduction rest on the assumption that the DESI clustering-redshift n(z) accurately represent the true HSC source distributions; no robustness tests against alternate galaxy-bias evolution models, magnification corrections, or data-split variations in the calibration step are described, even though such systematics could coherently bias the mean redshifts and thereby move S8 upward.

    Authors: The robustness tests against alternate galaxy-bias evolution models, magnification corrections, and data-split variations are presented in detail in the companion calibration paper (Choppin de Janvry et al. 2025a). In the present work we have focused on the cosmological impact of the updated n(z). To address the referee’s concern, the revised manuscript will include a concise summary paragraph that highlights the key robustness checks performed in the companion paper and states that no significant coherent bias in the mean redshifts was found. This addition will make the supporting evidence explicit without duplicating the full calibration analysis. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

S8 updated via new redshift priors from companion calibration paper; derivation remains independent of self-referential inputs

full rationale

The paper reanalyzes existing HSC Y3 shear-shear data by applying newly calibrated tomographic redshift distributions (via clustering redshifts with DESI) from the companion paper Choppin de Janvry et al. (2025a). It reports consistent S8=0.805±0.018 from both importance sampling of prior chains and a fresh MCMC. No equations or steps reduce the reported cosmological parameter to a fitted quantity defined by the same shear data or to a self-citation chain; the calibration supplies an external prior on n(z) derived from cross-correlations, while the growth constraint is extracted from the two-point shear statistics. The self-citation is limited to the calibration step and is not load-bearing for the final S8 inference itself, which retains independent content from the original HSC likelihood.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the external clustering-redshift calibration and on standard assumptions of the cosmological model used in the parameter estimation.

free parameters (1)
  • redshift shift priors (Δz)
    New calibrated priors on tomographic redshift shifts are applied to reweight the chains and in the full MCMC.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Clustering redshifts provide an unbiased calibration of photometric redshift distributions
    Invoked when the new Δz priors are adopted as the calibration for HSC Y3.
  • domain assumption Standard flat ΛCDM cosmology with the usual parameter set
    Underlying the MCMC sampling of S8 and related parameters.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5515 in / 1460 out tokens · 66232 ms · 2026-05-17T06:24:04.816328+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 5 Pith papers

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

  1. FAIR Universe Weak Lensing ML Uncertainty Challenge: Handling Uncertainties and Distribution Shifts for Precision Cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A standardized weak lensing benchmark dataset with realistic systematics is released alongside a two-phase ML uncertainty challenge to advance data-efficient and robust cosmological analysis.

  2. Matter Clustering in Astrid: Reduced Baryonic Suppression from Realistic Black Hole Dynamics

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Realistic black hole dynamics in Astrid reduce baryonic suppression of the matter power spectrum at low redshifts compared to repositioning schemes used in other simulations.

  3. UNIONS-3500 Weak Lensing: III. 2D Cosmological Constraints in Configuration Space

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 accept novelty 5.0

    UNIONS-3500 weak lensing data yields S_8 = 0.831^{+0.067}_{-0.078} in flat LCDM from 2D cosmic shear, consistent with Planck within 1 sigma.

  4. Machine Learning Techniques for Astrophysics and Cosmology: Photometric Redshifts

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    AI techniques for photometric redshift estimation have converged and are now limited by the size, systematics, and selection effects in spectroscopic training samples rather than by methodology.

  5. Dark Energy After DESI DR2: Observational Status, Reconstructions, and Physical Models

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    DESI DR2 data reveals a mild mismatch for flat LambdaCDM in CMB-calibrated fits, with evolving dark energy models like CPL improving the fit in a dataset-dependent manner sensitive to supernova calibration residuals a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Full calibration of the tomographic redshift distribution from the HSC PDR3 Shape Catalog with DESI

    J. Choppin De Janvry, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, U. Seljak et al., “Full calibration of the tomographic redshift distribution from the HSC PDR3 Shape Catalog with DESI.”

    work page

  2. [2]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider,Weak gravitational lensing,Physics Reports340(2001) 291

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Kilbinger,Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review,Reports on Progress in Physics78(2015) 086901

    M. Kilbinger,Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review,Reports on Progress in Physics78(2015) 086901

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    F.J. Qu, F. Ge, W.L.K. Wu, I. Abril-Cabezas, M.S. Madhavacheril, M. Millea et al.,Unified and consistent structure growth measurements from joint act, spt and Planck cmb lensing, 2504.20038

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Galaxy-dark matter correlations applied to galaxy-galaxy lensing: predictions from the semi-analytic galaxy formation models

    J. Guzik and U. Seljak,Galaxy-dark matter correlations applied to galaxy-galaxy lensing: predictions from the semi-analytic galaxy formation models, MNRAS321(2001) 439 [astro-ph/0007067]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Aihara, N

    H. Aihara, N. Arimoto, R. Armstrong, S. Arnouts, N.A. Bahcall, S. Bickerton et al.,The hyper suprime-cam ssp survey: overview and survey design,Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan70(2018) S4

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Gravitational Lensing Analysis of the Kilo Degree Survey

    K. Kuijken, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, R. Nakajima, T. Erben, J.T.A. de Jong et al., Gravitational lensing analysis of the Kilo-Degree Survey, MNRAS454(2015) 3500 [1507.00738]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    The Dark Energy Survey: more than dark energy - an overview

    Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, T. Abbott, F.B. Abdalla, J. Aleksić, S. Allam, A. Amara et al.,The Dark Energy Survey: more than dark energy - an overview, MNRAS460(2016) 1270 [1601.00329]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, A&A641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    A. Amon, D. Gruen, M.A. Troxel, N. MacCrann, S. Dodelson, A. Choi et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023514 [2105.13543]

    work page arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Secco, S

    L.F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, M. Raveri et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to modeling uncertainty, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023515 [2105.13544]

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Dalal, X

    R. Dalal, X. Li, A. Nicola, J. Zuntz, M.A. Strauss, S. Sugiyama et al.,Hyper suprime-cam year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra,Physical Review D108(2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    X. Li, T. Zhang, S. Sugiyama, R. Dalal, R. Terasawa, M.M. Rau et al.,Hyper suprime-cam year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions,2304.00702

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    S.-S. Li, H. Hoekstra, K. Kuijken, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Giblin et al.,KiDS-1000: Cosmology with improved cosmic shear measurements, A&A679(2023) A133 [2306.11124]. – 14 –

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    2024 Open J

    Dark Energy Survey and Kilo-Degree Survey Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, A. Amon et al.,DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys,The Open Journal of Astrophysics6(2023) 36 [2305.17173]

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Leonard, M.M

    C.D. Leonard, M.M. Rau and R. Mandelbaum,Photometric redshifts and intrinsic alignments: Degeneracies and biases in the 3×2 pt analysis, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 083528 [2401.06060]

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Amon and G

    A. Amon and G. Efstathiou,A non-linear solution to the S8 tension?, MNRAS516(2022) 5355 [2206.11794]

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Abellán, R

    G.F. Abellán, R. Murgia and V. Poulin,Linear cosmological constraints on two-body decaying dark matter scenarios and the S8 tension, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 123533 [2102.12498]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    LSST: from Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products

    Ž. Ivezić, S.M. Kahn, J.A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman et al.,LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products, ApJ873(2019) 111 [0805.2366]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    O. Doré, C. Hirata, Y. Wang, D. Weinberg, T. Eifler, R.J. Foley et al.,Wfirst: The essential cosmology space observatory for the coming decade,1904.01174

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  21. [21]

    A., Monachesi, A., et al

    Euclid Collaboration, Y. Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J.A. Acevedo Barroso, A. Achúcarro, J. Adamek et al.,Euclid: I. Overview of the Euclid mission, A&A697(2025) A1 [2405.13491]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Wright, B

    A.H. Wright, B. Stölzner, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Giblin, C. Heymans et al.,Kids-legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete kilo-degree survey, A&A (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1611.00037 [1611.00037]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Overview of the Instrumentation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    DESI Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., Overview of the Instrumentation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, AJ164(2022) 207 [2205.10939]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    X. Li, H. Miyatake, W. Luo, S. More, M. Oguri, T. Hamana et al.,The three-year shear catalog of the subaru hyper suprime-cam ssp survey,Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 74(2022) 421–459

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Aihara, Y

    H. Aihara, Y. AlSayyad, M. Ando, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch, E. Egami et al.,Second data release of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program, PASJ71(2019) 114 [1905.12221]

    work page arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Aihara, Y

    H. Aihara, Y. AlSayyad, M. Ando, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch, E. Egami et al.,Third data release of the hyper suprime-cam subaru strategic program,Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan74(2022) 247–272

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Zhang*, S

    T. Zhang*, S. Sugiyama, S. More, R. Mandelbaum, X. Li, R. Dalal et al.,Modelling Galaxy Clustering and Tomographic Galaxy-Galaxy Lensing with HSC Y3 and SDSS using the Point-Mass Correction Model and Redshift Self-Calibration,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2507.01377 [2507.01377]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Zhang*, X

    T. Zhang*, X. Li, S. Sugiyama, R. Mandelbaum, S. More, R. Dalal et al.,Cosmology and Source Redshift Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Tomographic Weak Lensing with HSC Y3 and SDSS using the Point-Mass Correction Model,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2507.01386 [2507.01386]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Tanaka, J

    M. Tanaka, J. Coupon, B.-C. Hsieh, S. Mineo, A.J. Nishizawa, J. Speagle et al.,Photometric redshifts for hyper suprime-cam subaru strategic program data release 1,Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan70(2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Nishizawa, B.-C

    A.J. Nishizawa, B.-C. Hsieh, M. Tanaka and T. Takata,Photometric redshifts for the hyper suprime-cam subaru strategic program data release 2,2003.01511

    work page arXiv 2003

  32. [32]

    Tanaka,Photometric redshift with bayesian priors on physical properties of galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal801(2015) 20

    M. Tanaka,Photometric redshift with bayesian priors on physical properties of galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal801(2015) 20. – 15 –

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    M.M. Rau, R. Dalal, T. Zhang, X. Li, A.J. Nishizawa, S. More et al.,Weak lensing tomographic redshift distribution inference for the hyper suprime-cam subaru strategic program three-year shape catalogue,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society524(2023) 5109–5131

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    D. Rana, S. More, H. Miyatake, S. Sugiyama, T. Zhang and M. Shirasaki,Hyper suprime-cam y3 results: photo-zbias calibration with lensing shear ratios and cosmological constraints from cosmic shea,Physical Review D(2025) [2508.21681]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    CAMB: Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background

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

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    Arico’, R

    G. Arico’, R. Angulo and M. Zennaro,Accelerating large-scale-structure data analyses by emulating boltzmann solvers and lagrangian perturbation theory,Open Research Europe1 (2022) 152

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Why your model parameter confidences might be too optimistic -- unbiased estimation of the inverse covariance matrix

    J. Hartlap, P. Simon and P. Schneider,Why your model parameter confidences might be too optimistic. Unbiased estimation of the inverse covariance matrix, A&A464(2007) 399 [astro-ph/0608064]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Karamanis, F

    M. Karamanis, F. Beutler, J.A. Peacock, D. Nabergoj and U. Seljak,Accelerating astronomical and cosmological inference with preconditioned monte carlo,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516(2022) 1644

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Karamanis, D

    M. Karamanis, D. Nabergoj, F. Beutler, J.A. Peacock and U. Seljak,pocomc: A python package for accelerated bayesian inference in astronomy and cosmology,arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05660(2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Lewis,Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(2025) 025

    A. Lewis,Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(2025) 025

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Hinton,ChainConsumer,The Journal of Open Source Software1(2016) 00045

    S.R. Hinton,ChainConsumer,The Journal of Open Source Software1(2016) 00045

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and $\Lambda$CDM Parameters

    T. Louis, A.L. Posta, Z. Atkins, H.T. Jense, I. Abril-Cabezas, G.E. Addison et al.,The atacama cosmology telescope: Dr6 power spectra, likelihoods andλcdm parameters,2503.14452

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    A. Amon, D. Gruen, M. Troxel, N. MacCrann, S. Dodelson, A. Choi et al.,Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration,Physical Review D105(2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Secco, S

    L. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, M. Raveri et al.,Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to modeling uncertainty,Physical Review D105(2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Jefferson, Y

    J. Jefferson, Y. Omori, C. Chang, S. Agarwal, J. Zuntz, M. Asgari et al.,Reanalysis of stage-iii cosmic shear surveys: A comprehensive study of shear diagnostic tests,The Open Journal of Astrophysics8(2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Di Valentino, L.A

    E. Di Valentino, L.A. Anchordoqui, Özgür Akarsu, Y. Ali-Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse et al.,Cosmology intertwined iii: fσ8 and s8,Astroparticle Physics131(2021) 102604

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J.A

    Y. Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J.A. Acevedo Barroso, A. Achúcarro, J. Adamek, R. Adam et al., Euclid: I. overview of the euclid mission, A&A697(2025) A1

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Zuntz, M

    J. Zuntz, M. Paterno, E. Jennings, D. Rudd, A. Manzotti, S. Dodelson et al.,Cosmosis: Modular cosmological parameter estimation,Astronomy and Computing12(2015) 45–59

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

    J.D. Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    Harris, K.J

    C.R. Harris, K.J. Millman, S.J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau et al., Array programming with NumPy,Nature585(2020) 357. – 16 –

    work page 2020