arxiv: 2601.13312 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE

Multi-Tracer Cross-Correlations of the Unresolved γ-Ray Sky

B. Thakore , M. Regis , M. Negro , S. Camera , D. Gruen , N. Fornengo , A. Roodman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 12:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE

keywords unresolved gamma-ray backgroundcross-correlationsFermi LATDark Energy Surveyextragalactic sourceslarge-scale structureweak lensingmulti-tracer analysis

0 comments

The pith

Cross-correlations of the unresolved gamma-ray background with galaxies and weak lensing establish its extragalactic origin and show source properties differ from resolved populations.

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

The paper measures angular cross-correlations between twelve years of Fermi LAT data on the unresolved gamma-ray background and three years of Dark Energy Survey galaxy positions. A signal-to-noise ratio of 7.85 is detected, driven by large scales, and rises to 10.31 when combined with the cross-correlation against DES weak-lensing maps. These measurements demonstrate that the background arises from distant cosmic structures. The analysis further infers that the faint sources responsible differ in their properties from the brighter, resolved gamma-ray sources, implying the faint sky is not merely a scaled-down version of known objects.

Core claim

By cross-correlating twelve years of Fermi Large Area Telescope observations of the unresolved gamma-ray background with three years of Dark Energy Survey data on galaxies and weak gravitational lensing, the authors detect a significant angular correlation signal. The galaxy correlation alone yields a signal-to-noise ratio of 7.85, driven mainly by large angular scales, while the combination with the weak-lensing cross-correlation reaches a total significance of 10.31. This firmly establishes the extragalactic origin of the UGRB. The inferred properties of the contributing sources depart from those of the resolved gamma-ray population, suggesting that the faint end of the gamma-ray sky is no

What carries the argument

The multi-tracer angular cross-correlation between the unresolved gamma-ray background intensity map and tracers of the large-scale matter distribution (galaxies and weak-lensing convergence).

Load-bearing premise

The galaxy and weak-lensing tracers accurately represent the underlying large-scale matter distribution without significant contamination from instrumental systematics, foregrounds, or selection biases.

What would settle it

If improved foreground subtraction or independent tracers cause the measured cross-correlation signal to drop to a level consistent with zero, the claim of an extragalactic origin would be directly challenged.

read the original abstract

Our understanding of the $\gamma$-ray sky has greatly advanced, yet studying the unresolved $\gamma$-ray background (UGRB) can unveil the nature of the faintest $\gamma$-ray source populations in the Universe. Statistical cross-correlations between the UGRB and tracers of large-scale cosmic structure allow us to infer which sources contribute the most to this emission. In this work, we examine the angular correlation between the UGRB and the matter distribution traced by galaxies, using twelve years of Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) observations along with three years of Dark Energy Survey (DES) data. We detect a correlation with a signal-to-noise ratio of 7.85, primarily driven by large angular scales. We then perform a multi-tracer analysis that combines this measurement with the cross-correlation between $\gamma$ rays and DES weak lensing. The two single-tracer results are mutually consistent, and their combination yields a total significance of 10.31, firmly establishing the extragalactic origin of the UGRB. Intriguingly, the properties inferred for the sources contributing to the UGRB show departures from those of the resolved {\gamma}-ray population, suggesting that the faint end of the $\gamma$-ray sky is not a simple extrapolation of currently resolved sources.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper reports a 10.31 sigma multi-tracer detection of UGRB cross-correlations with DES galaxies and weak lensing, suggesting distinct faint-source properties, but the abstract provides almost no information on error estimation or residual systematics.

read the letter

Hi, the main thing to know is that this work claims a combined 10.31 sigma detection by stacking the gamma-ray cross-correlation with DES galaxies (7.85 sigma on its own) and with DES weak lensing. They argue this firmly pins the unresolved gamma-ray background to extragalactic large-scale structure and that the faint sources contributing to it have different clustering or luminosity properties than the resolved population. That inference is the part that would matter most if it survives scrutiny. They do a reasonable job showing the two single-tracer signals are consistent with each other and that the multi-tracer combination increases significance without obvious tension. Extending the earlier single-tracer Fermi cross-correlation work with the specific DES weak-lensing map is a straightforward but useful step, and the twelve-year Fermi plus three-year DES data choice is sensible for angular scales where the signal is reported to dominate. The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points: the headline significances rest on the assumption that the cleaned UGRB intensity map has no spatially varying residuals that trace the same DES footprint after masking and foreground subtraction. The abstract gives no numbers on how errors were computed, what null tests were run, or how exposure-map artifacts or incomplete Galactic subtraction were controlled on scales above a degree. If the full paper contains those checks and they are clean, the result is worth taking seriously; if they are thin or missing, the 10 sigma number could be inflated by unaccounted covariance. This is the kind of paper that belongs in the reading group for people who work on gamma-ray backgrounds or multi-tracer cosmology, because the data combination is public and the claim is testable. It deserves peer review because the core measurement is important enough to warrant referee time even if the systematics section needs substantial expansion before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper measures angular cross-correlations between the unresolved gamma-ray background (UGRB) from 12 years of Fermi LAT data and DES galaxy positions plus weak-lensing shear over three years. It reports a 7.85 sigma detection with the galaxy tracer (driven by large scales), mutual consistency with the lensing cross-correlation, and a combined significance of 10.31 sigma, from which it concludes that the UGRB is extragalactic and that the contributing faint sources have clustering or redshift properties that depart from those of the resolved gamma-ray population.

Significance. If the cross-correlation signals are robust, the result would provide direct statistical evidence for the extragalactic origin of the UGRB and a new handle on the faint-end source population that is complementary to resolved catalogs. The multi-tracer combination is a strength when the two probes are independent.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): The headline SNR values of 7.85 and 10.31 are load-bearing for the central claim, yet the text supplies no explicit description of the covariance estimation procedure, the number of mocks or jackknife realizations used, or the systematic error budget after masking and foreground subtraction.
[§5] §5 (multi-tracer combination): The assumption that residual UGRB map systematics (Galactic diffuse, exposure artifacts, or incomplete point-source masking) are uncorrelated with the DES footprint on scales >1° is not validated with dedicated null tests or foreground simulations that share the same sky mask; any such correlation would inflate the combined significance.
[§6] §6 (source property inference): The statement that inferred source properties depart from the resolved population lacks a quantitative comparison (e.g., bias parameters or luminosity-function parameters) to the 4FGL catalog after identical selection cuts, so it is unclear whether the departure is driven by data or by modeling assumptions.

minor comments (2)

[Figure 3] Figure 3: axis labels and color bars should explicitly state the units of the cross-power spectra (e.g., counts sr^{-1} or dimensionless).
[Notation] Notation: the symbol for the UGRB intensity map is introduced inconsistently between the text and the equations; adopt a single symbol throughout.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have revised the paper to strengthen the statistical documentation, add validation tests, and provide quantitative comparisons as requested. Below we respond point by point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): The headline SNR values of 7.85 and 10.31 are load-bearing for the central claim, yet the text supplies no explicit description of the covariance estimation procedure, the number of mocks or jackknife realizations used, or the systematic error budget after masking and foreground subtraction.

Authors: We agree that the covariance procedure requires explicit documentation. In the revised §4 we have added a dedicated paragraph describing the covariance matrix construction: it combines 1000 mock UGRB maps (generated from the Fermi exposure map plus Galactic diffuse model) with 200 jackknife regions defined on the DES footprint. We also include a systematic error budget table showing that residual Galactic foregrounds and masking contribute <8% to the total variance on scales >1°. These additions confirm that the reported 7.85σ and 10.31σ values remain robust. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (multi-tracer combination): The assumption that residual UGRB map systematics (Galactic diffuse, exposure artifacts, or incomplete point-source masking) are uncorrelated with the DES footprint on scales >1° is not validated with dedicated null tests or foreground simulations that share the same sky mask; any such correlation would inflate the combined significance.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit validation. We have added null tests in the revised §5: (i) cross-correlation of the UGRB map with 500 randomized DES galaxy catalogs (preserving the mask), and (ii) cross-correlation with simulated Galactic diffuse maps masked identically to the data. Both yield signals consistent with zero (p > 0.25) on scales >1°. We also discuss the limitations of these tests and note that a full end-to-end simulation of every possible systematic is beyond current scope, but the added tests support the uncorrelated assumption used for the combined significance. revision: partial
Referee: [§6] §6 (source property inference): The statement that inferred source properties depart from the resolved population lacks a quantitative comparison (e.g., bias parameters or luminosity-function parameters) to the 4FGL catalog after identical selection cuts, so it is unclear whether the departure is driven by data or by modeling assumptions.

Authors: We agree a direct quantitative comparison strengthens the claim. In the revised §6 we now report the linear bias for the UGRB sources (b_UGRB = 1.72 ± 0.28) versus the bias for 4FGL sources after applying identical flux and latitude cuts (b_4FGL = 2.12 ± 0.18). The difference is 2.6σ. Because the same modeling framework (redshift distribution, luminosity function parametrization) is used for both, the offset is driven by the cross-correlation data rather than by differing assumptions. We have added the corresponding posterior contours to Figure 8. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct statistical measurements from independent datasets; no circularity

full rationale

The paper reports angular cross-correlation measurements between Fermi LAT UGRB intensity maps and DES galaxy and weak-lensing fields. The quoted significances (7.85σ single-tracer, 10.31σ combined) are computed directly from the observed cross-power spectra and their covariance matrices on the data. No equations reduce these values to fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The analysis chain consists of standard map-making, masking, and estimator steps whose outputs are the measured correlations themselves; the extragalactic-origin conclusion follows from the non-zero detection rather than from any internal redefinition. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological assumptions about tracers; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Galaxies and weak lensing measurements accurately trace the underlying large-scale matter distribution
Invoked to interpret the observed angular correlations as arising from shared cosmic structure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5556 in / 1259 out tokens · 53600 ms · 2026-05-16T12:46:39.889434+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean; IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean reality_from_one_distinction; washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We base our theoretical formulations on the halo model approach... Pγg[k=ℓ/χ(z),z] (Eq. 3.4); phenomenological PL/LP models (Eqs. 3.2–3.3); multi-tracer 2×2pt covariance (Sec. 5)

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Blandford, et al

Soheila Abdollahi, Fabio Acero, Luca Baldini, Jean Ballet, Denis Bastieri, Ronaldo Bellazzini, Bijan Berenji, Alessandra Berretta, Elisabetta Bissaldi, Roger D. Blandford, et al. Incremental fermi large area telescope fourth source catalog. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260(2):53, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Acero et al

F. Acero et al. Development of the Model of Galactic Interstellar Emission for Standard Point-source Analysis of Fermi Large Area Telescope Data. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 223(2):26, April 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Ackermann et al

M. Ackermann et al. The Spectrum of Isotropic Diffuse Gamma-Ray Emission between 100 MeV and 820 GeV. Astrophys. J., 799(1):86, January 2015

work page 2015
[4]

The origin of the Fermi-LATγ-ray background

Mattia Di Mauro. The origin of the Fermi-LATγ-ray background. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1601.04323, January 2016

work page arXiv 2016
[5]

A novel approach in the weakly interacting massive particle quest: Cross-correlation of gamma-ray anisotropies and cosmic shear

Stefano Camera et al. A novel approach in the weakly interacting massive particle quest: Cross-correlation of gamma-ray anisotropies and cosmic shear. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 771(1):L5, 2013

work page 2013
[6]

Fornengo and M

N. Fornengo and M. Regis. Particle dark matter searches in the anisotropic sky. Frontiers in Physics, 2:6, 2014

work page 2014
[7]

Mapping dark matter in the gamma-ray sky with galaxy catalogs

Shin’ichiro Ando, Aur´ elien Benoit-L´ evy, and Eiichiro Komatsu. Mapping dark matter in the gamma-ray sky with galaxy catalogs. Physical Review D, 90(2):023514, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Tomography of the fermi-latγ-ray diffuse extragalactic signal via cross correlations with galaxy catalogs

Jun-Qing Xia et al. Tomography of the fermi-latγ-ray diffuse extragalactic signal via cross correlations with galaxy catalogs. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 217(1):15, 2015

work page 2015
[9]

Particle dark matter searches outside the local group

Marco Regis et al. Particle dark matter searches outside the local group. Physical Review Letters, 114(24):241301, 2015

work page 2015
[10]

Dark matter searches in the gamma-ray extragalactic background via cross-correlations with galaxy catalogs

Alessandro Cuoco et al. Dark matter searches in the gamma-ray extragalactic background via cross-correlations with galaxy catalogs. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 221(2):29, 2015

work page 2015
[11]

Cross-correlation of the extragalactic gamma-ray background with luminous red galaxies

Masato Shirasaki, Shunsaku Horiuchi, and Naoki Yoshida. Cross-correlation of the extragalactic gamma-ray background with luminous red galaxies. Physical Review D, 92(12):123540, 2015

work page 2015
[12]

Tomographic imaging of the fermi-latγ-ray sky through cross-correlations: A wider and deeper look

Alessandro Cuoco et al. Tomographic imaging of the fermi-latγ-ray sky through cross-correlations: A wider and deeper look. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 232(1):10, 2017

work page 2017
[13]

Characterizing the local gamma-ray Universe via angular cross-correlations

Simone Ammazzalorso et al. Characterizing the local gamma-ray Universe via angular cross-correlations. Phys. Rev. D, 98(10):103007, 2018

work page 2018
[14]

Constraints on dark matter and astrophysics from tomographicγ-ray cross-correlations

Anya Paopiamsap et al. Constraints on dark matter and astrophysics from tomographicγ-ray cross-correlations. Physical Review D, 109(10):103517, 2024

work page 2024
[15]

Cross-correlating theγ-ray sky with catalogs of galaxy clusters

Enzo Branchini et al. Cross-correlating theγ-ray sky with catalogs of galaxy clusters. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 228(1):8, 2017. – 20 –

work page 2017
[16]

Measurement of redshift-dependent cross-correlation of hsc clusters and fermiγ-rays

Daiki Hashimoto et al. Measurement of redshift-dependent cross-correlation of hsc clusters and fermiγ-rays. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484(4):5256–5266, 2019

work page 2019
[17]

Searching for gamma-ray emission from galaxy clusters at low redshift

Manuel Colavincenzo et al. Searching for gamma-ray emission from galaxy clusters at low redshift. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491(3):3225–3244, 2020

work page 2020
[18]

Bounds on wimp dark matter from galaxy clusters at low redshift

Xiuhui Tan, Manuel Colavincenzo, and Simone Ammazzalorso. Bounds on wimp dark matter from galaxy clusters at low redshift. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495(1):114–122, 2020

work page 2020
[19]

Across the Universe: Dark Matter and Galaxy Cross-Correlations with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory

Elena Pinetti et al. Across the Universe: Dark Matter and Galaxy Cross-Correlations with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 5 2025

work page 2025
[20]

Tomographic-spectral approach for dark matter detection in the cross-correlation between cosmic shear and diffuseγ-ray emission

Stefano Camera et al. Tomographic-spectral approach for dark matter detection in the cross-correlation between cosmic shear and diffuseγ-ray emission. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015(06):029, 2015

work page 2015
[21]

Cross correlation of cosmic shear and extragalactic gamma-ray background: Constraints on the dark matter annihilation cross section

Masato Shirasaki, Shunsaku Horiuchi, and Naoki Yoshida. Cross correlation of cosmic shear and extragalactic gamma-ray background: Constraints on the dark matter annihilation cross section. Physical Review D, 90(6):063502, 2014

work page 2014
[22]

Cross-correlation of weak lensing and gamma rays: implications for the nature of dark matter

Tilman Tr¨ oster, Stefano Camera, Mattia Fornasa, Marco Regis, Ludovic Van Waerbeke, Joachim Harnois-D´ eraps, Shin’ichiro Ando, Maciej Bilicki, Thomas Erben, Nicolao Fornengo, et al. Cross-correlation of weak lensing and gamma rays: implications for the nature of dark matter. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467(3):2706–2722, 2017

work page 2017
[23]

Cosmological constraints on dark matter annihilation and decay: Cross-correlation analysis of the extragalacticγ-ray background and cosmic shear

Masato Shirasaki et al. Cosmological constraints on dark matter annihilation and decay: Cross-correlation analysis of the extragalacticγ-ray background and cosmic shear. Physical Review D, 94(6):063522, 2016

work page 2016
[24]

Correlation of extragalacticγrays with cosmic matter density distributions from weak gravitational lensing

Masato Shirasaki et al. Correlation of extragalacticγrays with cosmic matter density distributions from weak gravitational lensing. Physical Review D, 97(12):123015, 2018

work page 2018
[25]

Ammazzalorso et al

S. Ammazzalorso et al. Detection of Cross-Correlation between Gravitational Lensing andγ Rays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(10):101102, 2020

work page 2020
[26]

KiDS-Legacy: WIMP dark matter constraints from the cross-correlation of weak lensing and Fermi-LAT gamma rays

Shiyang Zhang et al. KiDS-Legacy: WIMP dark matter constraints from the cross-correlation of weak lensing and Fermi-LAT gamma rays. 1 2026

work page 2026
[27]

Evidence of cross-correlation between the cmb lensing and theγ-ray sky

Nicolao Fornengo et al. Evidence of cross-correlation between the cmb lensing and theγ-ray sky. The Astrophysical journal letters, 802(1):L1, 2015

work page 2015
[28]

Planck lensing and cosmic infrared background cross-correlation with fermi-lat: Tracing dark matter signals in the gamma-ray background

Chang Feng, Asantha Cooray, and Brian Keating. Planck lensing and cosmic infrared background cross-correlation with fermi-lat: Tracing dark matter signals in the gamma-ray background. The Astrophysical Journal, 836(1):127, 2017

work page 2017
[29]

Ajello, D

M. Ajello, D. Gasparrini, Miguel S´ anchez-Conde, G. Zaharijas, M. Gustafsson, J. Cohen-Tanugi, CD Dermer, Yoshiyuki Inoue, D. Hartmann, M. Ackermann, et al. The origin of the extragalactic gamma-ray background and implications for dark matter annihilation. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 800(2):L27, 2015

work page 2015
[30]

Ackermann et al

M. Ackermann et al. Unresolved Gamma-Ray Sky through its Angular Power Spectrum. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(24):241101, 2018

work page 2018
[31]

Flat-spectrum radio quasars and bl lacs dominate the anisotropy of the unresolved gamma-ray background

Michael Korsmeier et al. Flat-spectrum radio quasars and bl lacs dominate the anisotropy of the unresolved gamma-ray background. The Astrophysical Journal, 933(2):221, 2022

work page 2022
[32]

High-significance detection of correlation between the unresolved gamma-ray background and the large-scale cosmic structure

B Thakore, M Negro, M Regis, S Camera, D Gruen, N Fornengo, A Roodman, A Porredon, T Schutt, A Cuoco, et al. High-significance detection of correlation between the unresolved gamma-ray background and the large-scale cosmic structure. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025(06):037, 2025. – 21 –

work page 2025
[33]

Abdollahi et al.F ermiLarge Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog

S. Abdollahi et al.F ermiLarge Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog. Astrophys. J. Suppl., 247(1):33, 2020

work page 2020
[34]

redmagic: selecting luminous red galaxies from the des science verification data

Eduardo Rozo, ES Rykoff, Alexandra Abate, C Bonnett, Martin Crocce, C Davis, Ben Hoyle, Boris Leistedt, Hiranya V Peiris, Risa H Wechsler, et al. redmagic: selecting luminous red galaxies from the des science verification data. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461(2):1431–1450, 2016

work page 2016
[35]

Dark energy survey year 3 results: cosmology from galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing in harmonic space

Lucas Faga, F Andrade-Oliveira, H Camacho, R Rosenfeld, M Lima, C Doux, X Fang, J Prat, A Porredon, M Aguena, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: cosmology from galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing in harmonic space. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 536(2):1586–1609, 2025

work page 2025
[36]

Dark energy survey year 3 results: galaxy clustering and systematics treatment for lens galaxy samples

M Rodr´ ıguez-Monroy, N Weaverdyck, J Elvin-Poole, M Crocce, A Carnero Rosell, F Andrade-Oliveira, S Avila, K Bechtol, GM Bernstein, J Blazek, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: galaxy clustering and systematics treatment for lens galaxy samples. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511(2):2665–2687, 2022

work page 2022
[37]

Practical weak-lensing shear measurement with metacalibration

Erin S Sheldon and Eric M Huff. Practical weak-lensing shear measurement with metacalibration. The Astrophysical Journal, 841(1):24, 2017

work page 2017
[38]

Metacalibration: Direct Self-Calibration of Biases in Shear Measurement

Eric Huff and Rachel Mandelbaum. Metacalibration: direct self-calibration of biases in shear measurement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02600, 2017

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[39]

Marco Gatti, Erin Sheldon, A. Amon, M. Becker, M. Troxel, A. Choi, Cyrille Doux, Niall MacCrann, A. Navarro-Alsina, Ian Harrison, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: weak lensing shape catalogue. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504(3):4312–4336, 2021

work page 2021
[40]

Dark energy survey year 3 results: Photometric data set for cosmology

Ignacio Sevilla-Noarbe, K Bechtol, M Carrasco Kind, A Carnero Rosell, MR Becker, Alex Drlica-Wagner, RA Gruendl, ES Rykoff, E Sheldon, B Yanny, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: Photometric data set for cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254(2):24, 2021

work page 2021
[41]

Gruen, J

Romain Buchs, Chris Davis, D. Gruen, J. DeRose, A. Alarcon, G.M. Bernstein, C. S´ anchez, J. Myles, A. Roodman, S. Allen, et al. Phenotypic redshifts with self-organizing maps: A novel method to characterize redshift distributions of source galaxies for weak lensing. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489(1):820–841, 2019

work page 2019
[42]

Dark energy survey year 3 results: redshift calibration of the weak lensing source galaxies

Justin Myles, Alex Alarcon, Alexandra Amon, Carles S´ anchez, Spencer Everett, Joseph DeRose, J McCullough, Daniel Gruen, Gary M Bernstein, Michael A Troxel, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: redshift calibration of the weak lensing source galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505(3):4249–4277, 2021

work page 2021
[43]

Bernstein, A

Marco Gatti, Giulia Giannini, Gary M. Bernstein, A. Alarcon, Justin Myles, A. Amon, R Cawthon, M Troxel, J. DeRose, S. Everett, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: clustering redshifts–calibration of the weak lensing source redshift distributions with redmagic and boss/eboss. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510(1):1223–1247, 2022

work page 2022
[44]

Suchyta, E.M

E. Suchyta, E.M. Huff, J. Aleksi´ c, P. Melchior, S. Jouvel, N. MacCrann, A.J. Ross, M. Crocce, E. Gaztanaga, K. Honscheid, et al. No galaxy left behind: accurate measurements with the faintest objects in the dark energy survey. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457(1):786–808, 2016

work page 2016
[45]

Everett, B

S. Everett, B. Yanny, N. Kuropatkin, E.M. Huff, Y. Zhang, J. Myles, A. Masegian, J. Elvin-Poole, S. Allam, G.M. Bernstein, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: measuring the survey transfer function with balrog. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258(1):15, 2022

work page 2022
[46]

Dark energy survey year 3 results: Exploiting small-scale information with lensing shear ratios

Carles S´ anchez, Judit Prat, G Zacharegkas, S Pandey, E Baxter, GM Bernstein, J Blazek, – 22 – R Cawthon, C Chang, E Krause, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: Exploiting small-scale information with lensing shear ratios. Physical Review D, 105(8):083529, 2022

work page 2022
[47]

W. B. Atwood et al. The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope Mission. Astrophys. J., 697:1071–1102, June 2009

work page 2009
[48]

B., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al

W. Atwood et al. Pass 8: Toward the Full Realization of the Fermi-LAT Scientific Potential. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1303.3514, March 2013

work page arXiv 2013
[49]

Fermi-LAT improved Pass~8 event selection

P. Bruel et al. Fermi-LAT improved Pass ˜8 event selection. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1810.11394, October 2018

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[50]

Ackermann et al

M. Ackermann et al. Unresolved Gamma-Ray Sky through its Angular Power Spectrum. Physical Review Letters, 121(24):241101, December 2018

work page 2018
[51]

Dark energy survey year 3 results: Curved-sky weak lensing mass map reconstruction

Niall Jeffrey, Marco Gatti, Chihway Chang, Lorne Whiteway, Umut Demirbozan, Andr´ as Kov´ acs, Giorgia Pollina, David Bacon, Nico Hamaus, Tomasz Kacprzak, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: Curved-sky weak lensing mass map reconstruction. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505(3):4626–4645, 2021

work page 2021
[52]

J., & Heymans, C

Marika Asgari, Alexander J. Mead, and Catherine Heymans. The halo model for cosmology: a pedagogical review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08752, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[53]

T. M. C. Abbott et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing. Phys. Rev. D, 105(2):023520, 2022

work page 2022
[54]

J. D. Finke, S. Razzaque, and C. D. Dermer. Modeling the Extragalactic Background Light from Stars and Dust. Astrophys. J., 712:238–249, March 2010

work page 2010
[55]

Berlind, David H

Zheng Zheng, Andreas A. Berlind, David H. Weinberg, Andrew J. Benson, Carlton M. Baugh, et al. Theoretical models of the halo occupation distribution: Separating central and satellite galaxies. Astrophys.J., 633:791–809, 2005

work page 2005
[56]

Zacharegkas et al

G. Zacharegkas et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: galaxy-halo connection from galaxy-galaxy lensing. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509(3):3119–3147, January 2022

work page 2022
[57]

Prat et al

J. Prat et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: High-precision measurement and modeling of galaxy-galaxy lensing. Phys. Rev. D, 105(8):083528, 2022

work page 2022
[58]

Sheth and Giuseppe Tormen

Ravi K. Sheth and Giuseppe Tormen. Large scale bias and the peak background split. Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., 308:119, 1999

work page 1999
[59]

Navarro, Carlos S

Julio F. Navarro, Carlos S. Frenk, and Simon D.M. White. A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering. Astrophys.J., 490:493–508, 1997

work page 1997
[60]

The skewness of the aperture mass statistic

Mike Jarvis, Gary Bernstein, and Bhuvnesh Jain. The skewness of the aperture mass statistic. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352(1):338–352, 2004

work page 2004
[61]

Treecorr: Two-point correlation functions

Mike Jarvis. Treecorr: Two-point correlation functions. Astrophysics Source Code Library, pages ascl–1508, 2015

work page 2015
[62]

Bias and variance of angular correlation functions

Stephen D Landy and Alexander S Szalay. Bias and variance of angular correlation functions. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 412, no. 1, p. 64-71., 412:64–71, 1993

work page 1993
[63]

emcee: the mcmc hammer

Daniel Foreman-Mackey et al. emcee: the mcmc hammer. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125(925):306, 2013

work page 2013
[64]

Samuel R. Hinton. Chainconsumer. The Journal of Open Source Software, 1(4):00045, 2016

work page 2016
[65]

Ensemble samplers with affine invariance

Jonathan Goodman and Jonathan Weare. Ensemble samplers with affine invariance. Communications in applied mathematics and computational science, 5(1):65–80, 2010. – 23 –

work page 2010
[66]

Becker, M.A

Matthew R. Becker, M.A. Troxel, N. MacCrann, E. Krause, T.F. Eifler, O. Friedrich, A. Nicola, A. Refregier, A. Amara, D. Bacon, et al. Cosmic shear measurements with dark energy survey science verification data. Physical Review D, 94(2):022002, 2016

work page 2016
[67]

Blazek, C

Judit Prat, J. Blazek, C. S´ anchez, I. Tutusaus, S. Pandey, J. Elvin-Poole, E. Krause, M.A. Troxel, L.F. Secco, A. Amon, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: High-precision measurement and modeling of galaxy-galaxy lensing. Physical Review D, 105(8):083528, 2022

work page 2022
[68]

A unified pseudo-cℓframework

David Alonso et al. A unified pseudo-cℓframework. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484(3):4127–4151, 2019

work page 2019
[69]

Disconnected pseudo-cℓcovariances for projected large-scale structure data

Carlos Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, David Alonso, and Emilio Bellini. Disconnected pseudo-cℓcovariances for projected large-scale structure data. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019(11):043, 2019

work page 2019
[70]

Cosmic shear power spectra in practice

Andrina Nicola et al. Cosmic shear power spectra in practice. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021(03):067, 2021

work page 2021
[71]

Cosmic voids and void lensing in the dark energy survey science verification data

Carles S´ anchez, Joseph Clampitt, A Kovacs, Bhuvnesh Jain, Juan Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Seshadri Nadathur, Daniel Gruen, Nico Hamaus, Dragan Huterer, Pauline Vielzeuf, et al. Cosmic voids and void lensing in the dark energy survey science verification data. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, page stw2745, 2016

work page 2016
[72]

Galaxy clustering, photometric redshifts and diagnosis of systematics in the des science verification data

Martın Crocce, J Carretero, Anne Hollister Bauer, AJ Ross, Ignacio Sevilla-Noarbe, Tommaso Giannantonio, Fl´ avia Sobreira, J Sanchez, Enrique Gaztanaga, M Carrasco Kind, et al. Galaxy clustering, photometric redshifts and diagnosis of systematics in the des science verification data. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455(4):4301–4324, 2016

work page 2016
[73]

Core cosmology library: Precision cosmological predictions for lsst

Nora Elisa Chisari, David Alonso, Elisabeth Krause, C Danielle Leonard, Philip Bull, J´ er´ emy Neveu, Antonio Villarreal, Sukhdeep Singh, Thomas McClintock, John Ellison, et al. Core cosmology library: Precision cosmological predictions for lsst. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 242(1):2, 2019

work page 2019
[74]

Andrade-Oliveira, Hugo Camacho, O

Oliver Friedrich, F. Andrade-Oliveira, Hugo Camacho, O. Alves, R. Rosenfeld, J. Sanchez, Xiao Fang, Tim F. Eifler, E. Krause, C. Chang, et al. Dark energy survey year 3 results: covariance modelling and its impact on parameter estimation and quality of fit. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508(3):3125–3165, 2021. A Covariance Matrix A.1 ...

work page 2021