Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 44 references

A search for cosmological anisotropy using the Lyman alpha forest from SDSS quasar spectra

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Apparent sky anisotropy in the Lyman-alpha forest vanishes after calibration correction.

desk verdict A careful null result whose isotropy conclusion relies on an unvalidated fake-forest correction; worth refereeing, but the referee should press on correction sensitivity. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10301 v1 pith:3XTWAAJA submitted 2019-08-27 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

E. O. Zavarygin , J. K. Webb This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Es
keywords cosmologicalprincipleisotropyLymanalphaforestquasarspectralarge-scalestructurefluxcalibrationsystematicsanisotropysurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether the distribution of neutral hydrogen, traced by Lyman-$\alpha$ forest absorption in 142,661 quasar spectra, is the same across two widely separated patches of sky over redshifts $2

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fake forest: two rest-frame spectral segments just longwards of the Lyman-$\alpha$ emission line, processed with the same pipeline, continuum-fitting, and pixel selection as the real forest, and combined into a boxcar-smoothed north-south residual curve $\varphi(z)$. It is used as a template for sky-position-dependent flux-calibration systematics, subtracted from the real forest residual before computing the normalised discrepancy statistic $\Xi$. The analysis also uses HEALPix maps and angular power spectra to visualise fluctuations, and Monte Carlo reassignment of quasar spectra to survey sky positions to define the null distribution. Continuum levels are estimated by power-law extrapolation from redward regions rather than by principal-component methods, because those methods require a rescaling that could dilute any genuine sky anisotropy.

What would settle it

Build the fake-forest correction from at least two independent rest-frame wavelength windows, for example segments blueward of Lyman-$\beta$ and between the C IV and C III] emission lines, and check that the corrected NGC-SGC residual is the same for both. If the two corrections disagree, or if the same $\varphi(z)$ correction applied to spectra from an independent survey leaves a large residual, the isotropy conclusion would no longer hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that the apparent cosmological anisotropy in the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest is an artefact. A control region just longwards of the Lyman-$\alpha$ emission line, called the fake forest, reproduces the same north-south sky residual seen in the real forest, and once its boxcar-smoothed residual curve is subtracted from the real residual the discrepancy disappears: $\Xi$ drops from $1.778$ to $1.171$. A 100,000-realisation Monte Carlo in which quasar spectra are randomly reassigned to sky positions yields an excess as large as observed in only 8% of trials, and a second statistic $X_{NS}$ gives 71%, so the paper finds no evidence that the two sky volumes differ. It also identifies candidate large-angle correlated regions on the sky, but the fake-forest power spectrum looks similar, so those are attributed to the same calibration systematics rather than to cosmological structure.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion stands or falls on the assumption that the fake forest, two continuum-fitting segments just longwards of the Lyman-alpha emission line, experiences exactly the same sky-position-dependent calibration errors as the real Lyman-alpha forest, so that subtracting one from the other removes the systematics; if the errors differ between these rest-frame regions, the correction could erase genuine anisotropy or manufacture a false null.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard assumption of cosmological isotropy receives an independent check using a matter tracer rather than the cosmic microwave background, over a comoving volume of roughly $236\,{\rm Gpc}^3$.
  • Sky-position-dependent flux-calibration systematics are real enough to mimic roughly 40-degree-scale correlated structure, so future clustering measurements from the same survey must correct for them.
  • Raw north-south mean-transmission differences from this sample cannot themselves be used as evidence for anisotropy or bulk flows.
  • The method bounds anisotropy across angular separations of roughly 55 to 100 degrees over $2<z<4$, scales exceeding the post-inflation causal horizon.
  • New large surveys need calibration and fibre-positioning strategies that avoid imprinting the same artificial pattern on measured spectra.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to construct fake forests at several independent rest-frame windows, such as between C IV and C III] or blueward of Lyman-beta, and require that all produce the same correction curve; this would test the central assumption rather than inherit it.
  • If the correction is real, applying it should also suppress spurious large-scale power in cross-correlations of Lyman-alpha transmission with CMB lensing or quasar density; re-analysing those cross-spectra with and without $\varphi(z)$ would be a sharp check.
  • Applying the same control-region logic to individual redshift shells could reveal whether any residual anisotropy evolves with redshift as calibration drift predicts or as cosmology predicts.
  • Independent spectra with a different wavelength calibration could be used to see whether the north-south offset persists after the same fake-forest correction, which would settle whether the null result is specific to this dataset.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses SDSS DR12/DR14 quasar spectra to test cosmological isotropy over 2<z<4 using Lyα forest mean transmission. It selects 142,661 quasars, computes mean transmission residuals in HEALPix pixels, compares NGC and SGC mean transmission curves, and defines statistic Ξ (Eq. 9). The raw comparison shows strong NGC-SGC residuals (Ξ=1.778; MC p<1e-5) and angular power spectrum excess at low multipoles. The authors then define a 'fake forest' control region just longwards of Lyα emission and subtract a smoothed fake-forest NGC-SGC residual from the real one (Eq. 10), reducing Ξ to 1.171; 8% of 100,000 shuffles produce Ξ as large. A volume-weighted statistic XNS gives 71% probability. The paper concludes that, after accounting for spatially correlated systematics, the data are consistent with isotropy.

Significance. If the conclusion is accepted, the paper provides an important, independent large-scale isotropy test using the largest Lyα forest sample to date, extending beyond causal scales and complementing CMB results. Its strengths are the large sample, careful masking of DLAs and sky lines, and the use of a control 'fake forest' region with 100,000 Monte Carlo shuffles. The raw anisotropic signal is cleanly presented, and the reduction of Ξ by the control correction is a useful demonstration that spatially correlated systematics are present. However, the central isotropy claim rests entirely on the untested assumption that the fake-forest template transfers quantitatively to the real forest; the paper's own text lists differences between the two samples and flags the low-z turn-down as needing independent checking. The result is therefore a promising but not yet fully supported conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5, Eq. (10)] The fake-forest correction is load-bearing for the central isotropy conclusion, but the paper provides no demonstration that the fake-forest residual is a faithful template for the real-forest systematic. The text itself lists three differences (three versus six continuum regions, rest-frame interval ~1280–1325 Å versus 1095–1160 Å, higher-redshift quasar sample) and applies the correction in raw transmission units with no amplitude scaling. For a multiplicative flux miscalibration δ, the absolute real-forest residual is δ⟨F⟩ with ⟨F⟩≈0.6–0.8, while the fake-forest residual is approximately δ, so subtracting the raw fake residual leaves a residual of order δ(⟨F⟩−1) rather than zero. The authors need to test the transfer assumption, e.g. by rescaling the correction by ⟨F⟩, by using an additive or logarithmic model, or by constructing a second control region; without this, Eq. (10) cannot support the stated p=0.08.
  2. [Section 2.2.3 and Fig. 3; Section 3.5 and Fig. 10] The raw NGC-SGC residual is strongest at 2<z<2.5 (Fig. 10), exactly where the paper itself flags a turn-down in the Lyα mean transmission that 'clearly needs checking further, preferably using independent observations' (Section 2.2.3, Fig. 3). The fake-forest correction is a 501-pixel boxcar-smoothed curve and has no independent validation in this redshift/wavelength range. If the low-z turn-down is a wavelength-dependent calibration artifact that differs between the forest and fake-forest rest-frame regions, the correction will not remove it; the manuscript does not test this, so the central claim rests on the behavior of the very feature the text identifies as uncertain.
  3. [Section 3.5, Eq. (10) and following paragraph] The 501-pixel boxcar smoothing width used in φ(z) is introduced without a justification or sensitivity study. The corrected Ξ (1.171) and the 8% Monte Carlo probability are single numbers obtained with this one choice; no test varying the smoothing width, the fake-forest definition, or the continuum-fitting segments is presented. Since the correction has a strong effect (Ξ drops from 1.778 to 1.171), the robustness of the conclusion to these choices must be demonstrated before 'consistent with isotropy' is supported.
  4. [Section 3.5, paragraph on Monte Carlo shuffling] The Monte Carlo test shuffles quasar spectra among sky positions, which erases any true position-dependent systematic from both the real and fake samples. The resulting 8% probability therefore tests the null hypothesis that no position-dependent systematics exist, rather than the validity of the transfer model encoded in Eq. (10). The reported p-value conditions on the correction template being correct and does not include the uncertainty in that template; the paper should additionally quote a p-value obtained from a null distribution that includes the uncertainty in the systematic-removal procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'cosmoc mi- crooven' (Section 1), 'descibed' (Section 2.2), and 'analagous' (Sections 3.4 and Appendix A), which should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (4)] The notation wi(z)=1 for available pixels and the description 'unweighted addition' is confusing because equation (4) still shows a weight wi(z); consider defining the unweighted mean explicitly with wi(z) as an availability mask.
  3. [Section 3.4 and Fig. 10] The caption of Fig. 10 describes the horizontal dashed lines as ±1σ confidence intervals assuming Gaussian statistics, but the paper elsewhere emphasizes that the data are not normally distributed; a brief justification for this choice would help.
  4. [Section 3.5, Eq. (11)] The denominator in Eq. (11) uses a 51-pixel boxcar while the correction in Eq. (10) uses a 501-pixel boxcar; the choice of 51 for XNS is not motivated and should be explained or tested.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the fake-forest correction is an independently defined control region subtracted with unit amplitude, and significance is assessed by Monte Carlo shuffles against the same procedure.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the Lyα forest data are consistent with isotropy after accounting for systematics—does not reduce to a fitted parameter or self-citation. The raw NGC–SGC residual is measured directly (Eqs. 4, 8); the anisotropy statistic Ξ=1.778 is an observed value, not a fit. The 'fake forest' control is constructed from two continuum-fitting regions just longwards of Lyα (Section 3.5), i.e. a rest-frame window that contains no Lyα forest absorption, and is analysed through the same continuum-fitting and transmission pipeline. The corrected residual subtracts the boxcar-smoothed fake-forest NGC–SGC difference (Eq. 10) with no free amplitude or shape parameter tuned to reduce Ξ; the drop from 1.778 to 1.171 is an outcome, not an optimization target. The null assessment then compares the corrected statistic to 100,000 Monte Carlo realizations in which quasar spectra are randomly reassigned to sky positions and the same correction is recomputed; the 8% tail probability is a valid empirical p-value under that shuffling null. No load-bearing step imports a uniqueness theorem or ansatz from the authors' prior work; external references (SDSS pipeline papers, Lee et al., Bautista et al.) are standard calibration literature, not self-citations carrying the argument. The paper's own caveats—the fake and real forests differ in continuum anchor points, wavelength range, and quasar redshift distribution, and the z≲2.5 continuum turn-down is flagged as needing independent checking—are robustness concerns about whether the control faithfully tracks systematics, not evidence that the derivation is circular. The conclusion is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central null result rests on the transferability of the fake forest systematic correction, the choice of smoothing scales, and the validity of Monte Carlo shuffles as a null. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • fake forest smoothing width = 501 pixels
    Equation (10) smooths the fake forest NGC-SGC residual with a 501 pixel boxcar before subtraction. The width is chosen by hand and sets the scale of systematics removed; no sensitivity test is shown.
  • boxcar width for XNS denominator = 51 pixels
    Equation (11) uses a 51 pixel boxcar to normalize the fractional difference; the choice affects the final statistic XNS.
  • HEALPix pixel scale = NSIDE=64, about 0.84 degrees
    Pixel size sets the smallest transverse scale probed, about 86 Mpc at z=2; other resolutions are tested only for equation (7).
  • quasar selection thresholds = alpha<=1, |alpha_med-alpha_wm|<=0.4, |log C diff|<=2, residual<=20 sigma
    Criteria (8)-(11) in Section 2.6 are justified by visual inspection and affect the sample and continuum estimates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fake forest region, longwards of Ly alpha emission, contains no cosmological Ly alpha forest signal, so any angular anisotropy measured there is systematic.
    Used in Section 3.5 to construct the systematic correction; if false, the correction would remove real signal.
  • ad hoc to paper Sky-position-dependent systematics affecting the real Ly alpha forest are the same, up to a smooth scaling, as those affecting the fake forest.
    Equation (10) subtracts fake forest residuals from real forest residuals; the authors note sample differences but assume the systematic pattern transfers.
  • domain assumption Standard flat LCDM cosmology with Planck 2016 parameters for horizon and comoving distance calculations.
    Equations (1)-(2) and Figure 1 use H(z) with Planck parameters; the isotropy test does not depend strongly on this, but the causal scale interpretation does.
  • standard math Randomly re-assigning quasar spectra to observed sky positions produces a valid null distribution for the observed maps.
    Used in Monte Carlo tests for power spectra, Xi, and XNS; assumes selection effects are captured by the observed position distribution.
  • domain assumption Power-law continuum extrapolation biases do not vary with sky position and therefore cannot emulate anisotropy.
    Section 2.5 argues from broken power law uncertainty; if continuum errors correlate with position, they could mimic or mask anisotropy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A search for cosmological anisotropy using the Lyman alpha forest from SDSS quasar spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3XTWAAJA

@misc{pith2026190810301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A search for cosmological anisotropy using the Lyman alpha forest from SDSS quasar spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3XTWAAJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10301}
}
abstract

The Cosmological Principle, the combined assumptions of cosmological isotropy and homogeneity, underpins the standard model of Big Bang cosmology with which we interpret astronomical observations. A new test of isotropy over the redshift range $2<z<4$ and across large angular scales on the sky is presented. We use the cosmological distribution of neutral hydrogen, as probed by the Ly$\alpha$ forest seen towards distant quasars. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey provides the largest dataset of quasar spectra available to date. We use combined information from Data Releases 12 and 14 to select a sample of 142,661 quasars most suitable for this purpose. The scales covered by the data extend beyond post-inflation causality scales, thus probing initial conditions in the early universe. We identify significant spatially correlated systematic effects that can emulate cosmological anisotropy. Once these systematics have been accounted for, the data are found to be consistent with isotropy, providing an important independent check on the standard model, consistent with results from cosmic microwave background data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: The coloured lines emanating from coordinate (0,0), given by equation (2), show the comoving separation between two points on the plane of the sky subtending an angle θ, as viewed by an observer at the present epoch. Curves are plotted for five different angles on the sky. The black line shows the particle horizon, equation (1). Cosmological parameters by Planck Collaboration et al. (2016) are used. At r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: The number of quasars (in thousands) from the DR12Q catalogue that have a valid pixel, as set by the pipeline (non-zero inverse variance and the and_mask bit set to zero), at each wavelength. Bottom panel: The residual sky flux RMS (units: 10−17erg s−1 cm−2 ˚A−1 ) in the sky fibres (blue) and the accepted threshold (red). Pixels with RMS above the threshold are dis￾carded from the analysis. Two neighbouri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The flux calibration correction (red), corrected (green) and uncorrected (blue) mean Ly α forest transmission measured over the entire final sample. A constant vertical offset was given to the blue curve to ease visual inspection. Only the wave￾length range corresponding to the absorption redshift range of 2 ≤ zabs ≤ 4 is shown while the correction spans the entire wave￾length coverage. 2.3 Composite spectrum [PITH… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Composite quasar spectra for different redshift bins (coloured lines). The black dashed line is the mean power law continuum averaged over all redshift bins. The inset illustrates the wavelength region between Ly α and Ly β emission lines. The Ly α forest region where …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of continuum fits for randomly selected quasars from our final sample. In each panel: the blue and green histograms are the flux and the 1σ error, respectively; the red solid line is the best continuum fit to the flux using the regions indicated by the six dar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top left: Emission redshift probability distributions for the quasar samples used, NGC (blue) and SGC (orange). The redshift bin width is ' 0.034. Lower left: The blue histogram illus￾trates the residuals for the plot above. The grey shaded area illus￾trates a ±1σ erro…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: HEALPix map with NSIDE=64 of the residual Ly α forest mean transmission, Hz , calculated over the redshift range of 2 ≤ z ≤ 4. The equatorial coordinate system is used, with a central point at (120,0) in order to display NGC and SGC without fragmentation. The Galactic …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The ratio of the power spectrum Cl measured from the HEALPix data to the average power spectrum C◦ l based on 10,000 randomly shuffled samples. The left panel corresponds to the real forest (top left panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top panel: Mean transmission measured in the NGC (blue) and SGC (red). Middle panel: Normalised NGC–SGC mean transmission residuals with Ξ = 1.778. Bottom panel: Nor￾malised NGC–SGC mean transmission residuals corrected by the smoothed fake forest residuals with Ξ = 1…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abolfathi B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..235...42A 235, 42

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [3]

    Barbary K., 2016, extinction v0.3.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 2016

  4. [4]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730533 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    Bautista J. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730533 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730533 2017

  5. [5]

    The Nature of the Far-UV Break in the Energy Distribution of Quasars

    Binette L., Haro-Corzo S., Krongold Y., Andersen A. C., 2008, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series. pp 115--119 ( @eprint arXiv 0706.2006 )

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144..144B 144, 144

    Bolton A. S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144..144B 144, 144

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144 2012

  7. [7]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161100036D ( @eprint arXiv 1611.00036 )

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...10D 145, 10

    Dawson K. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...10D 145, 10

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 2013

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Delubac T., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423969 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316293 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111...63F 111, 63

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    Font-Ribera A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/11/059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JCAP...11..059F 2012, 059

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Garnett R., Ho S., Bird S., Schneider J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.1850G 472, 1850

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Hivon E., Banday A

    G \'o rski K. M., Hivon E., Banday A. J., Wandelt B. D., Hansen F. K., Reinecke M., Bartelmann M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..759G 622, 759

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    M., 2018, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00695 , 3, 695

    Green G. M., 2018, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00695 , 3, 695

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    E., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500975 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2332G 131, 2332

    Gunn J. E., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500975 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.2332G 131, 2332

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Raftery A

    Kass R. E., Raftery A. E., 1995, @doi [J. Am. Stat. Assoc.] 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 90, 773

    1995

  10. [18]

    N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/2/51 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....143...51L 143, 51

    Lee K.-G., Suzuki N., Spergel D. N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/2/51 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....143...51L 143, 51

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Lee K.-G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/69 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...69L 145, 69

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    pp 51 -- 56

    McKinney W., 2010, in van der Walt S., Millman J., eds, Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference. pp 51 -- 56

    2010

  13. [21]

    Noterdaeme P., Petitjean P., Ledoux C., Srianand R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912768 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    Noterdaeme P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220259 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    B., Korycansky D

    Oke J. B., Korycansky D. G., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159797 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...255...11O 255, 11

    1982 doi

  16. [24]

    E., 2007, @doi [CSE] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58 , http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4160250/ 9, 10

    Oliphant T. E., 2007, @doi [CSE] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58 , http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4160250/ 9, 10

    2007

  17. [25]

    P \^a ris I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527999 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    P \^a ris I., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732445 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190303158P p

    Percival W. J., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190303158P p. arXiv:1903.03158

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M., et al., 2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics

    Pieri M. M., et al., 2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics. pp 259--266 ( @eprint arXiv 1611.09388 )

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323195 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    X., Wolfe A

    Prochaska J. X., Wolfe A. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304591 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...487...73P 487, 73

    1997 doi

  24. [32]

    Rauch M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/271.1.13 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.271...13R 271

    1994 doi

  25. [33]

    Rindler W., 1956, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/116.6.662 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956MNRAS.116..662R 116, 662

    1956 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Copi C

    Schwarz D. J., Copi C. J., Huterer D., Starkman G. D., 2016, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/33/18/184001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016CQGra..33r4001S 33, 184001

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...32S 146, 32

    Smee S. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...32S 146, 32

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Zheng W., Kriss G

    Telfer R. C., Zheng W., Kriss G. A., Davidsen A. F., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324689 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565..773T 565, 773

    2002 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [CSE] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1102.1523V 13, 22

    Van Der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [CSE] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1102.1523V 13, 22

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    E., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321167 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122..549V 122, 549

    Vanden Berk D. E., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321167 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122..549V 122, 549

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Telfer R

    Zheng W., Kriss G. A., Telfer R. C., Grimes J. P., Davidsen A. F., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303560 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475..469Z 475, 469

    1997 doi

  33. [41]

    Zonca A., Singer L., Lenz D., Reinecke M., Rosset C., Hivon E., Gorski K., 2019, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.01298 , 4, 1298

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Zwaan M., Walter F., Ryan-Weber E., Brinks E., de Blok W. J. G., Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2886 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2886Z 136, 2886

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    S., et al., 2012, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV

    de Jong R. S., et al., 2012, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV. p. 84460T ( @eprint arXiv 1206.6885 ), @doi 10.1117/12.926239

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.