pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.03229 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: no theorem link

The DESI DR1 Peculiar Velocity Survey: growth rate measurements from the maximum likelihood fields method

Y. Lai , C. Howlett , J. Aguilar , S. Ahlen , A. J. Amsellem , J. Bautista , S. BenZvi , D. Bianchi
show 55 more authors
C. Blake D. Brooks A.Carr T. Claybaugh T. M. Davis A. de la Macorra P. Doel K. Douglass S. Ferraro A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero E. Gazta\~naga G. Gutierrez J. Guy H. K. Herrera-Alcantar D. Huterer M. Ishak R. Joyce A. Kim D. Kirkby T. Kisner A. Kremin O. Lahav C. Lamman M. Landriau L. Le Guillou A. Leauthaud M. E. Levi M. Manera P. Martini A. Meisner R. Miquel J. Moustakas A. Mu\~noz-Guti\'errez S. Nadathur W. J. Percival C. Poppett F. Prada I. P\'erez-R\`afols F. Qin C. Ross G. Rossi K. Said E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell H. Seo J. Silber D. Sprayberry G. Tarl\'e R. Turner B. A. Weaver P. Zarrouk R. Zhou H. Zou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 01:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords peculiar velocitiesgrowth ratef sigma 8DESIstructure formationcosmologymaximum likelihood
0
0 comments X

The pith

Peculiar velocity data from DESI DR1 gives a low-redshift growth rate of structure that matches the Planck Lambda CDM prediction.

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

The paper measures the growth rate of cosmic structure at very low redshift using a large sample of galaxy peculiar velocities from the DESI DR1 survey. It combines data from the Bright Galaxy Survey, Fundamental Plane, and Tully-Fisher methods into a catalogue of over 400,000 redshifts and 76,000 velocity measurements. By applying the maximum likelihood fields method, improved for efficiency with JAX, the authors derive a consensus value for f sigma 8 at effective redshift 0.07. This value matches the expectation from the standard Lambda CDM model based on Planck data. When combined with higher-redshift measurements, it also supports general relativity through the growth index.

Core claim

The authors find that after cleaning the data by removing outliers and affected Tully-Fisher galaxies, the maximum likelihood fields analysis gives f sigma 8 = 0.483 with statistical and systematic errors, leading to a consensus measurement of 0.450 plus or minus 0.055 when combined with other analyses on the same dataset, which agrees with the Planck prediction of 0.449 plus or minus 0.008.

What carries the argument

The maximum likelihood fields method applied to the combined peculiar velocity catalogue, rewritten in JAX for computational efficiency.

If this is right

  • The consensus f sigma 8 at z_eff=0.07 is consistent with Planck plus Lambda CDM within one sigma.
  • Combining with high-redshift DESI ShapeFit measurements constrains the growth index gamma to 0.58 plus or minus 0.11, consistent with general relativity.
  • The result from maximum likelihood fields agrees within one sigma with power spectrum and correlation function analyses on the same data.
  • The cleaning steps for outliers and systematic galaxies preserve the overall consistency of the growth rate measurement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If future surveys confirm the same low-redshift growth rate, it would further limit room for late-time modifications to gravity.
  • The JAX rewrite suggests that similar efficiency gains could scale the method to much larger upcoming peculiar velocity samples without major new hardware.
  • Agreement across three different analysis techniques on one catalogue indicates that peculiar velocities can serve as a cross-check for other growth probes.

Load-bearing premise

Removing outliers and excluding Tully-Fisher galaxies affected by systematics does not bias the maximum likelihood fields fit.

What would settle it

A new independent measurement of f sigma 8 at redshift near 0.07 that lies more than 0.11 away from 0.45 would challenge the claimed consistency with Planck cosmology.

read the original abstract

We present the constraint on the growth rate of structure from the combination of DESI DR1 BGS sample, Fundamental Plane, and Tully-Fisher peculiar velocity catalogues using the maximum likelihood fields method. The combined catalogue contains 415,523 galaxy redshifts and 76,616 peculiar velocity measurements. To handle the large amount of data in the DESI DR1 peculiar velocity catalogue, we significantly improve the computational efficiency by rewriting the algorithm with JAX. After removing outliers and Tully-Fisher galaxies that are affected by systematics, we find $f\sigma_8 = 0.483_{-0.043}^{+0.080}(\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.018(\mathrm{sys})$, consistent within $1\sigma$ with the power spectrum and correlation function analysis using the same dataset. Combining all three measurements with appropriate correlations, the consensus measurement is $f\sigma_8 (z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.07) = 0.450\pm0.055$, consistent with Planck $+\Lambda$CDM cosmology $(f\sigma_8 = 0.449 \pm 0.008)$. Combining with the high redshift growth rate of structure measurements from DESI ShapeFit, the constraint on the growth index is $\gamma = 0.58\pm0.11$, consistent with GR.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a measurement of the growth rate of structure fσ8 at low redshift using the maximum likelihood fields method on the DESI DR1 peculiar velocity catalogue, combining BGS, Fundamental Plane, and Tully-Fisher samples (415,523 redshifts and 76,616 velocities). After removing outliers and systematics-affected Tully-Fisher galaxies, the authors obtain fσ8 = 0.483_{-0.043}^{+0.080} (stat) ± 0.018 (sys), derive a consensus value fσ8(z_eff=0.07) = 0.450 ± 0.055 consistent with Planck + ΛCDM, and combine with high-z DESI ShapeFit data to constrain the growth index γ = 0.58 ± 0.11, consistent with GR. The algorithm was rewritten in JAX for efficiency, and results are cross-checked against power spectrum and correlation function analyses on the same data.

Significance. If the data cleaning steps are validated, this provides an independent low-redshift peculiar-velocity constraint on structure growth that complements higher-redshift probes and tests of gravity. Strengths include the direct maximum-likelihood extraction of fσ8 without intermediate power-spectrum modeling, the internal consistency checks across three analysis methods on identical data, the computational advance via JAX, and the combination with an independent high-z DESI measurement to constrain γ. The result aligns closely with Planck expectations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The outlier removal and exclusion of Tully-Fisher galaxies affected by systematics are described only at summary level, with no quantitative criteria, mock-based validation of selection effects, or explicit tests for residual bias in the velocity power spectrum or Malmquist-type effects. Because the maximum likelihood fields method ingests the cleaned catalogue directly, any unaccounted selection bias would propagate into the reported fσ8 posterior; the 1σ consistency with the power-spectrum analysis on the same data does not by itself validate the cleaning step.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Limited detail is given on the precise covariance modeling used when combining the maximum-likelihood, power-spectrum, and correlation-function results into the consensus fσ8 value.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a short dedicated subsection or appendix describing the outlier rejection thresholds and any mock tests performed to confirm that the cleaning preserves the underlying velocity statistics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment on the abstract below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity on the data cleaning procedures.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The outlier removal and exclusion of Tully-Fisher galaxies affected by systematics are described only at summary level, with no quantitative criteria, mock-based validation of selection effects, or explicit tests for residual bias in the velocity power spectrum or Malmquist-type effects. Because the maximum likelihood fields method ingests the cleaned catalogue directly, any unaccounted selection bias would propagate into the reported fσ8 posterior; the 1σ consistency with the power-spectrum analysis on the same data does not by itself validate the cleaning step.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract currently describes the outlier removal and Tully-Fisher exclusion only at a summary level. The full manuscript provides the quantitative criteria used for these steps along with supporting tests. To directly address the referee's concern, we will revise the abstract to include brief but explicit quantitative details on the cleaning thresholds and reference the mock-based validation of selection effects and bias tests that appear in the main text and appendices. We acknowledge that consistency with the power-spectrum and correlation-function results on the same catalogue, while reassuring, does not by itself constitute full validation of the cleaning; the revised abstract and expanded discussion will therefore emphasize the direct mock tests for residual velocity power spectrum bias and Malmquist-type effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; fσ8 extracted via direct maximum-likelihood fit to velocity catalogue

full rationale

The derivation applies the maximum likelihood fields method (rewritten in JAX for efficiency) directly to the cleaned catalogue of 76,616 peculiar velocities to obtain fσ8. This is a data-driven parameter fit, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs by construction. The reported consistency with power-spectrum and correlation-function analyses on the same dataset, the external Planck comparison, and the combination with the independent high-redshift DESI ShapeFit measurement for γ all constitute external checks rather than self-referential steps. No equation or claim in the provided text shows a fitted input renamed as a prediction, a self-citation load-bearing the central result, or an ansatz smuggled via prior work by the same authors. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on standard cosmological assumptions for comparison and on post-selection data cleaning whose impact is not quantified in the provided abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • fσ8
    The growth rate parameter is the primary fitted quantity extracted from the peculiar velocity likelihood.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard flat ΛCDM background cosmology for comparison to Planck predictions
    Invoked when stating consistency of the measured fσ8 = 0.450 ± 0.055 with the Planck value 0.449 ± 0.008.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5873 in / 1352 out tokens · 49705 ms · 2026-05-17T01:56:57.179808+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 114 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al., Planck 2018 results,Astronomy and Astrophysics641(2020) A6

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,arXiv e-prints(2022) arXiv:2202.04077 [2202.04077]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Ivanov, M

    M.M. Ivanov, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological parameters from the boss galaxy power spectrum,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(2020) 042–042

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Percival, S

    W.J. Percival, S. Cole, D.J. Eisenstein, R.C. Nichol, J.A. Peacock, A.C. Pope et al., Measuring the baryon acoustic oscillation scale using the sloan digital sky survey and 2df galaxy redshift survey: Measuring the bao scale,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society381(2007) 1053–1066

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Abbott, M

    T. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon et al.,Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Physical Review D105(2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Sugiyama, H

    S. Sugiyama, H. Miyatake, S. More, X. Li, M. Shirasaki, M. Takada et al.,Hyper suprime-cam year 3 results: Cosmology from galaxy clustering and weak lensing with hsc and sdss using the minimal bias model,Physical Review D108(2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Heymans, T

    C. Heymans, T. Tröster, M. Asgari, C. Blake, H. Hildebrandt, B. Joachimi et al.,Kids-1000 cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints,Astronomy and Astrophysics646(2021) A140

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Riess, W

    A.G. Riess, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano et al.,A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the hubble constant with 1 kms−1Mpc−1 uncertainty from the hubble space telescope and the sh0es team,The Astrophysical Journal Letters934(2022) L7

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Collaboration,The dark energy survey, 2005

    T.D.E.S. Collaboration,The dark energy survey, 2005

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, R. Cahn, D. Eisenstein et al.,The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013,arXiv e-prints(2013) arXiv:1308.0847 [1308.0847]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    Collaboration, A

    D. Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The desi experiment part i: Science,targeting, and survey design, 2016. – 32 –

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Collaboration, B

    D. Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,Overview of the instrumentation for the dark energy spectroscopic instrument,The Astronomical Journal164(2022) 207

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    J. Guy, S. Bailey, A. Kremin, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto et al.,The spectroscopic data processing pipeline for the dark energy spectroscopic instrument,The Astronomical Journal165(2023) 144

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Schlafly, D

    E.F. Schlafly, D. Kirkby, D.J. Schlegel, A.D. Myers, A. Raichoor, K. Dawson et al.,Survey operations for the dark energy spectroscopic instrument, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C.A. Prieto et al.,Desi dr2 results. ii. measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Physical Review D112(2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Collaboration, M

    D. Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, A.G. Adame, D. Aguado, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al.,Data release 1 of the dark energy spectroscopic instrument, 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Collaboration, M

    D. Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen et al.,Desi dr2 results ii: Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Miller, P

    T.N. Miller, P. Doel, G. Gutierrez, R. Besuner, D. Brooks, G. Gallo et al.,The optical corrector for the dark energy spectroscopic instrument, 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Poppett, L

    C. Poppett, L. Tyas, J. Aguilar, C. Bebek, D. Bramall, T. Claybaugh et al.,Overview of the Fiber System for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,AJ168(2024) 245

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results With ~1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using The Full 5-year Dataset

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam et al., The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,Astrophys. J. Lett.973(2024) L14 [2401.02929]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Alexander, M. Alvarez et al.,Desi 2024 vi: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(2025) 021

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto et al.,Desi 2024 vii: cosmological constraints from the full-shape modeling of clustering measurements,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(2025) 028

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Dvali, G

    G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati,4d gravity on a brane in 5d minkowski space,Physics Letters B485(2000) 208–214

    work page 2000

  25. [25]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,f(r) theories,Living Reviews in Relativity13(2010)

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Linder and R.N

    E.V. Linder and R.N. Cahn,Parameterized beyond-einstein growth,Astroparticle Physics28 (2007) 481–488

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    Sahni and Y

    V. Sahni and Y. Shtanov,Braneworld models of dark energy,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2003(2003) 014–014

    work page 2003

  28. [28]

    http://www.w3.org/1998/math/mathml

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki,Models of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/math/mathml" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:math>cosmic acceleration that evade solar system tests,Physical Review D76(2007)

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    Sanchez, J.B

    J.C.B. Sanchez, J.B. Dent, S. Dutta and L. Perivolaropoulos,Parametrization for the scale dependent growth in modified gravity,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010 (2010) 021–021

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    Mirzatuny and E

    N. Mirzatuny and E. Pierpaoli,An accurate fitting function for scale-dependent growth rate in hu-sawicki f(r) gravity,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(2019) 066–066. – 33 –

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Denissenya and E.V

    M. Denissenya and E.V. Linder,Constraining scale dependent growth with redshift surveys, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 029

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Jackson,A critique of rees's theory of primordial gravitational radiation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society156(1972) 1P

    J.C. Jackson,A critique of rees's theory of primordial gravitational radiation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society156(1972) 1P

    work page 1972

  33. [33]

    Kaiser,Evolution and clustering of rich clusters.,Mon

    N. Kaiser,Evolution and clustering of rich clusters.,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.222(1986) 323

    work page 1986

  34. [34]

    Davis and M.I

    T.M. Davis and M.I. Scrimgeour,Deriving accurate peculiar velocities (even at high redshift), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society442(2014) 1117

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Tully and J.R

    R.B. Tully and J.R. Fisher,A new method of determining distance to galaxies.,Astron. Astrophys.500(1977) 105

    work page 1977

  36. [36]

    Djorgovski and M

    S. Djorgovski and M. Davis,Fundamental Properties of Elliptical Galaxies,Astrophys. J.313 (1987) 59

    work page 1987

  37. [37]

    Dressler, D

    A. Dressler, D. Lynden-Bell, D. Burstein, R.L. Davies, S.M. Faber, R. Terlevich et al., Spectroscopy and Photometry of Elliptical Galaxies. I. New Distance Estimator,Astrophys. J. 313(1987) 42

    work page 1987

  38. [38]

    Phillips,The Absolute Magnitudes of Type IA Supernovae,Astrophys

    M.M. Phillips,The Absolute Magnitudes of Type IA Supernovae,Astrophys. J. Lett.413 (1993) L105

    work page 1993

  39. [39]

    Douglass, S

    K. Douglass, S. BenZvi, A.G. Kim, S. Moore, A. Carr, J. Largett et al.,The desi dr1 peculiar velocity survey: The tully-fisher distance catalog,2512.03227

    work page arXiv

  40. [40]

    C.E. Ross, C. Howlett, J.R. Lucey, K. Said, T.M. Davis, J. Aguilar et al.,The desi dr1 peculiar velocity survey: Fundamental plane catalogue,2512.03226

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    Tully, E

    R.B. Tully, E. Kourkchi, H.M. Courtois, G.S. Anand, J.P. Blakeslee, D. Brout et al., Cosmicflows-4,The Astrophysical Journal944(2023) 94

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Gil-Marín, L

    H. Gil-Marín, L. Verde, J. Noreña, A.J. Cuesta, L. Samushia, W.J. Percival et al.,The power spectrum and bispectrum of sdss dr11 boss galaxies – ii. cosmological interpretation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society452(2015) 1914–1921

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    Massey, J

    R. Massey, J. Rhodes, A. Leauthaud, P. Capak, R. Ellis, A. Koekemoer et al.,Cosmos: Three-dimensional weak lensing and the growth of structure,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series172(2007) 239–253

    work page 2007

  44. [44]

    J. Koda, C. Blake, T. Davis, C. Magoulas, C.M. Springob, M. Scrimgeour et al.,Are peculiar velocity surveys competitive as a cosmological probe?,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.445(2014) 4267 [1312.1022]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    How to measure redshift-space distortions without sample variance

    P. McDonald and U. Seljak,How to evade the sample variance limit on measurements of redshift-space distortions,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2009(2009) 007 [0810.0323]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  46. [46]

    Blake, I.K

    C. Blake, I.K. Baldry, J. Bland-Hawthorn, L. Christodoulou, M. Colless, C. Conselice et al., Galaxy and mass assembly (gama): improved cosmic growth measurements using multiple tracers of large-scale structure,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society436(2013) 3089–3105

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Nusser,Velocity–density correlations from the cosmicflows-3 distance catalogue and the 2mass redshift survey,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470(2017) 445–454

    A. Nusser,Velocity–density correlations from the cosmicflows-3 distance catalogue and the 2mass redshift survey,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470(2017) 445–454

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Dupuy, H.M

    A. Dupuy, H.M. Courtois and B. Kubik,An estimation of the local growth rate from cosmicflows peculiar velocities,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486(2019) 440–448. – 34 –

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Turner, C

    R.J. Turner, C. Blake and R. Ruggeri,Improving estimates of the growth rate using galaxy-velocity correlations: a simulation study,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.502(2021) 2087 [2101.09026]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    F. Qin, C. Howlett, A.R.H. Stevens and D. Parkinson,H I HOD. I. The Halo Occupation Distribution of H I Galaxies,Astrophys. J.937(2022) 113 [2208.11454]

    work page arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Turner, C

    R.J. Turner, C. Blake and R. Ruggeri,A local measurement of the growth rate from peculiar velocities and galaxy clustering correlations in the 6df galaxy survey,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518(2022) 2436–2452

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    F. Qin, D. Parkinson, A.R.H. Stevens and C. Howlett,The Galaxy Number Density Profile of Halos,Astrophys. J.957(2023) 40 [2308.03298]

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Y. Wang, C. Rooney, H.A. Feldman and R. Watkins,The peculiar velocity correlation function,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society480(2018) 5332–5341

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D.H. Jones, L. Staveley-Smith, G.B. Poole et al.,The 6df galaxy survey: z≈0 measurements of the growth rate andσ8,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society423(2012) 3430–3444

    work page 2012

  55. [55]

    Appleby, M

    S. Appleby, M. Tonegawa, C. Park, S.E. Hong, J. Kim and Y. Yoon,Cosmological Parameter Constraints from the SDSS Density and Momentum Power Spectra,Astrophys. J.958(2023) 180 [2305.01943]

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    The 6dF Galaxy Velocity Survey: Cosmological constraints from the velocity power spectrum

    A. Johnson, C. Blake, J. Koda, Y.-Z. Ma, M. Colless, M. Crocce et al.,The 6dF Galaxy Survey: cosmological constraints from the velocity power spectrum,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 444(2014) 3926 [1404.3799]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    Huterer, D.L

    D. Huterer, D.L. Shafer, D.M. Scolnic and F. Schmidt,Testingλcdm at the lowest redshifts with sn ia and galaxy velocities,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017(2017) 015–015

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    2MTF VI. Measuring the velocity power spectrum

    C. Howlett, L. Staveley-Smith, P.J. Elahi, T. Hong, T.H. Jarrett, D.H. Jones et al.,2MTF - VI. Measuring the velocity power spectrum,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.471(2017) 3135 [1706.05130]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    Improving constraints on the growth rate of structure by modelling the density-velocity cross-correlation in the 6dF Galaxy Survey

    C. Adams and C. Blake,Improving constraints on the growth rate of structure by modelling the density-velocity cross-correlation in the 6dF Galaxy Survey,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 471(2017) 839 [1706.05205]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Adams and C

    C. Adams and C. Blake,Joint growth-rate measurements from redshift-space distortions and peculiar velocities in the 6dF Galaxy Survey,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.494(2020) 3275 [2004.06399]

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Y. Lai, C. Howlett and T.M. Davis,Using peculiar velocity surveys to constrain the growth rate of structure with the wide-angle effect,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 518(2022) 1840–1858

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Park,Cosmic momentum field and mass fluctuation power spectrum,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society319(2000) 573

    C. Park,Cosmic momentum field and mass fluctuation power spectrum,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society319(2000) 573

    work page 2000

  63. [63]

    Park and C

    C.-G. Park and C. Park,Power spectrum of cosmic momentum field measured from the SFI galaxy sample,The Astrophysical Journal637(2006) 1

    work page 2006

  64. [64]

    Howlett,The redshift-space momentum power spectrum – i

    C. Howlett,The redshift-space momentum power spectrum – i. optimal estimation from peculiar velocity surveys,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society487(2019) 5209–5234

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    F. Qin, C. Howlett and L. Staveley-Smith,The redshift-space momentum power spectrum – ii. measuring the growth rate from the combined 2mtf and 6dfgsv surveys,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society487(2019) 5235–5247. – 35 –

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    F. Qin, C. Howlett and D. Parkinson,The Redshift-space Momentum Power Spectrum. III. Measuring the Growth Rate from the SDSSv Survey Using the Auto- and Cross-power Spectrum of the Galaxy Density and Momentum Fields,Astrophys. J.978(2025) 7 [2411.09571]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    S.-F. Chen, C. Howlett, Y. Lai and F. Qin,Effective theories of redshift-space galaxy peculiar velocities, 2025

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    Carrick, S.J

    J. Carrick, S.J. Turnbull, G. Lavaux and M.J. Hudson,Cosmological parameters from the comparison of peculiar velocities with predictions from the 2m++ density field,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society450(2015) 317–332

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    Boruah, M.J

    S.S. Boruah, M.J. Hudson and G. Lavaux,Cosmic flows in the nearby universe: new peculiar velocities from sne and cosmological constraints,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society498(2020) 2703–2718

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    K. Said, M. Colless, C. Magoulas, J.R. Lucey and M.J. Hudson,Joint analysis of 6dFGS and SDSS peculiar velocities for the growth rate of cosmic structure and tests of gravity,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society(2020) [2007.04993]

    work page arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    Lilow and A

    R. Lilow and A. Nusser,Constrained realizations of 2mrs density and peculiar velocity fields: growth rate and local flow, 2021

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    F. Qin, D. Parkinson, S.E. Hong and C.G. Sabiu,Reconstructing the cosmological density and velocity fields from redshifted galaxy distributions using V-net,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2023(2023) 062 [2302.02087]

    work page arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Boubel, M

    P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said and L. Staveley-Smith,Large-scale motions and growth rate from forward-modelling tully–fisher peculiar velocities,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society531(2024) 84–109

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    Stiskalek,s 8 from tully-fisher, fundamental plane, and supernova distances agree with planck, 2025

    R. Stiskalek,s 8 from tully-fisher, fundamental plane, and supernova distances agree with planck, 2025

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    Castorina and M

    E. Castorina and M. White,Beyond the plane-parallel approximation for redshift surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society(2018)

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    Shiraishi, K

    M. Shiraishi, K. Akitsu and T. Okumura,Alcock-paczynski effects on wide-angle galaxy statistics, 2021

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    Castorina and M

    E. Castorina and M. White,Wide-angle effects for peculiar velocities,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society499(2020) 893–905

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Ravoux, B

    C. Ravoux, B. Carreres, D. Rosselli, J. Bautista, A. Carr, T. Dumerchat et al.,Generalized framework for likelihood-based field-level inference of growth rate from velocity and density fields,Astronomy and Astrophysics698(2025) A273

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    F. Qin, C. Blake, C. Howlett, R.J. Turner, K. Lodha, J. Bautista et al.,The desi dr1 peculiar velocity survey: Growth rate measurements from the galaxy power spectrum,2512.03231

    work page arXiv

  80. [80]

    Turner, C

    R.J. Turner, C. Blake, F. Qin, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, A.J. Amsellem et al.,The desi dr1 peculiar velocity survey: growth rate measurements from galaxy and momentum correlation functions,2512.03230

    work page arXiv

Showing first 80 references.