Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Impact of Large-Scale Anisotropies on Galaxy Clustering and Cosmological Constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A large dipole in galaxy counts can masquerade as a primordial non-Gaussianity signal.

desk verdict A useful qualitative warning that large-scale dipole anisotropies can contaminate fNL measurements, but the specific dipole-fNL≈50 mapping is asserted rather than derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09163 v1 pith:ZTBUKION submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Prabhakar Tiwari (GTIIT , Shantou) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 98.80.-k98.65.-r
keywords galaxyclusteringangularpowerspectrumtwo-pointcorrelationfunctioncosmicdipolenon-GaussianityNVSSlarge-scaleanisotropiesradiocontinuumsurveys
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 argues that large-scale anisotropies, particularly the cosmic dipole seen in radio and infrared galaxy counts, contaminate the standard angular clustering estimators used in cosmology. Working with NVSS data, it shows that a dipole of amplitude $1.5\times10^{-2}$ produces an angular two-point correlation function that closely resembles the signal expected from local-type non-Gaussianity (a departure of the initial density fluctuations from a purely random Gaussian field) with $f_{\rm NL}\approx50$. This is consistent within one $\sigma$ with the previously reported $f_{\rm NL}=62\pm27$ for NVSS, so the paper concludes that the apparent non-Gaussianity detection may actually be a dipole artifact. The recommended remedy is to mask the dipole and neighboring multipoles before fitting cosmological parameters, which the paper argues is essential for surveys such as SKA, DESI, and LSST.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the angular two-point correlation function written as a sum over Legendre polynomials, $w(\theta)=\frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_\ell (2\ell+1)C_\ell P_\ell(\cos\theta)$, where the dipole enters as the $\ell=1$ term proportional to $\cos\theta$. In partial-sky analyses the high dipole amplitude leaks power into neighboring multipoles, boosting the apparent large-scale clustering. The non-Gaussianity template is the local-type model $\Phi=\phi_g - f_{\rm NL}(\phi_g^2-\langle\phi_g^2\rangle)$ together with the resulting scale-dependent bias of Eq. (2), which inflates $C_\ell$ up to $\ell\approx30$. The resemblance between the dipole-generated and $f_{\rm NL}$-generated correlation functions is the mechanism behind the paper's warning that large-scale anisotropies must be masked or modeled.

What would settle it

Take a full-sky galaxy map containing only a dipole with amplitude $|D|=1.5\times10^{-2}$ and no non-Gaussianity, apply the same partial-sky recovery and 2PCF estimation used for NVSS, and fit an $f_{\rm NL}$ model with the same $N(z)$ and bias. If the recovered $f_{\rm NL}$ is not close to 50, the central mimicry claim fails; alternatively, rerun the earlier NVSS $f_{\rm NL}$ likelihood after explicitly masking the dipole and neighboring multipoles and check whether the detection disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the large-scale anisotropy signal seen in radio continuum surveys can mimic or obscure a primordial non-Gaussianity signal in the two-point correlation function and angular power spectrum. Concretely, the paper computes the angular 2PCF for NVSS using a local-type $f_{\rm NL}$ model with scale-dependent bias and compares it to the 2PCF generated by a dipole of amplitude $|D|=1.5\times10^{-2}$, the observed NVSS dipole. The two curves nearly coincide beyond about 0.5 degrees, implying the dipole corresponds approximately to $f_{\rm NL}=50$ on these scales. Since earlier work reported $f_{\rm NL}=62\pm27$ for the same survey, the paper asserts that the dipole signal in the data is being misinterpreted as non-Gaussianity, and that without masking large-scale multipoles cosmological constraints from clustering will be biased.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a dipole of amplitude $1.5\times10^{-2}$ produces a 2PCF shape matching $f_{\rm NL}\approx50$ when the NVSS redshift distribution and bias from earlier modeling are used; the paper supports this by visual comparison of curves rather than by a derived formula, so an inaccurate $N(z)$ or bias model would shift or erase the claimed equivalence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A reported $f_{\rm NL}\sim60$ detection from NVSS angular clustering may be largely a dipole artifact rather than a primordial signal.
  • Fitting cosmological parameters to the 2PCF without first removing the dipole term can bias the results; the paper recommends fitting a cosine with a constant to the observed 2PCF.
  • For angular power spectrum analyses, the dipole and its surrounding multipoles should be masked before cosmological inference.
  • Upcoming surveys such as SKA, DESI, and LSST face the same risk if large-scale systematics are not handled, since similar redshift distributions and bias are expected.
  • CMB-based limits on non-Gaussianity should be used as a prior when interpreting large-scale anisotropy signals from galaxy clustering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mimicry is a genuine near-degeneracy, then any large-scale systematic that produces a dipole-like distortion, such as calibration gradients across the sky, will bias $f_{\rm NL}$ estimates, not just a cosmological dipole.
  • The paper's comparison could be made quantitative by writing the dipole-inclusive 2PCF analytically; such a derivation would show whether the correspondence $|D|=1.5\times10^{-2}\leftrightarrow f_{\rm NL}\approx50$ holds for all angular scales or only in the plotted range.
  • A testable extension is to inject a pure dipole into simulated NVSS-like catalogs with $f_{\rm NL}=0$ and run the standard estimation pipeline; if it recovers $f_{\rm NL}\approx50$, the claim is directly confirmed, while a null recovery would indicate the consistency is tied to the specific $N(z)$ and bias model.
  • The same logic may apply to the three-dimensional power spectrum and bispectrum from spectroscopic surveys, where large-scale modes are also contaminated by systematics.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that a large dipole anisotropy in galaxy number counts, at the level observed in NVSS (|D| ≈ 1.5×10⁻²), produces a large-scale contribution to the angular two-point correlation function and angular power spectrum that resembles the signal expected from local primordial non-Gaussianity with fNL ≈ 50. It therefore warns that without masking the dipole and neighboring multipoles, cosmological analyses of radio surveys—and future surveys such as SKA, DESI, and LSST—can misattribute large-scale anisotropies or systematics to non-Gaussianity. The central quantitative claim is the equivalence D ≈ 1.5×10⁻² ↔ fNL ≈ 50 and the statement that the NVSS dipole is being misinterpreted as a non-Gaussianity signal in the analysis of Xia et al. (2010). The qualitative warning is plausible, but the quantitative demonstration needed to support the headline claim is not shown in the manuscript.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would be of clear value: it would imply that reported fNL constraints from NVSS clustering (Xia et al. 2010) may be contaminated by the dipole, and that future surveys must aggressively mask the dipole and adjacent multipoles. The manuscript is transparent about adopting the NVSS N(z) and b_g(z) from Nusser & Tiwari (2015), and it explicitly states that it focuses on qualitative plots, which is an honest limitation. However, the paper performs no fitting of NVSS data, provides no error bars, and never writes the dipole-inclusive form of w(θ) or C_l. The equivalence to fNL ≈ 50 is therefore asserted rather than derived, and the claim that the NVSS dipole has been 'misinterpreted' as non-Gaussianity is not supported by the analysis presented. The significance of the paper hinges on a quantitative calculation that is currently absent.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (4), Fig. 2] The manuscript never writes the dipole-inclusive analogue of Eq. (4). For a pure dipole density fluctuation of amplitude D, the full-sky angle-averaged two-point correlation function receives an additive term (D²/3) cosθ, which for D = 1.5×10⁻² is about 7.5×10⁻⁵ cosθ, not D cosθ, unless the dipole is inserted directly into w(θ) by hand rather than derived from C_l. The caption of Fig. 2 does not state which quantity is plotted or how the dipole term is normalized. Please present the explicit calculation and specify whether the plotted dipole curve is D cosθ, (D²/3) cosθ, or the result of a full C_l computation; without this, the claimed equivalence to fNL ≈ 50 cannot be verified.
  2. [§3, paragraph starting 'To more clearly demonstrate...'] The conclusion that the observed NVSS dipole is being 'misinterpreted' as fNL in Xia et al. (2010) requires a quantitative comparison with the actual NVSS clustering measurements, including a fit that includes and excludes the dipole term. No NVSS 2PCF data points, error bars, or likelihood analysis are presented, so the visual overlap in Fig. 2 is not established. Please provide a quantitative comparison, or soften the claim from 'it appears that... is being misinterpreted' to a cautionary statement that such a misinterpretation is possible in principle.
  3. [§3, 'Here, we focus on qualitative plots...'] The stated limitation that the paper focuses on qualitative plots conflicts with the quantitative form of the central claim: 'the observed NVSS dipole, about 1.5×10⁻², corresponds approximately to an fNL value of 50.' This equivalence will shift if the adopted NVSS N(z) and b_g(z) from Nusser & Tiwari (2015) are inaccurate, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. Please report how the fNL mapping depends on plausible variations in N(z), b_g(z), and the dipole normalization, or explicitly frame the fNL = 50 value as an illustrative choice rather than as a measured equivalence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The text says 'using NVSS data as a case study,' but the analysis uses an assumed NVSS-like N(z) and b_g(z) and does not analyze NVSS catalog measurements. Please rephrase to 'NVSS-like model' or otherwise make this distinction clear.
  2. [§3, paragraph after Eq. (1)] The value fNL = −0.9 ± 5.1 is quoted without a reference; please cite the relevant Planck analysis from which this constraint is taken.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption does not specify the cosmological parameters, the matter power spectrum normalization, or the transfer function used in Eq. (3); providing these details is necessary for reproducibility.
  4. [§3, final paragraph] The statement that '2PCF is less favored for fitting cosmological models' is presented as a general conclusion, but it is not derived from the analysis; it should be labeled as a recommendation or supported with a quantitative comparison of estimator performance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dipole/fNL mimicry is a forward model comparison, not a fit or a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is that an NVSS dipole of amplitude |D|=1.5e-2 produces an angular 2PCF resembling the fNL=50 prediction, which it then connects to the Xia et al. (2010) fNL=62+/-27 detection. The derivation chain is a forward calculation: Eq. (2) gives the scale-dependent bias from fNL, Eq. (3) computes C_l from that bias and an assumed N(z) and b_g(z), and Eq. (4) gives w(theta). The dipole curve is a separate input, fixed by the observed dipole amplitude cited from multiple independent measurements, not fitted to the fNL curve. The statement 'corresponds approximately to an fNL value of 50' is an output of comparing these independently generated curves, not an input that is then renamed as a result. The self-cited N(z) and b_g(z) from Nusser & Tiwari (2015) are empirical inputs external to this paper's target claim; they are not the result being derived, and the qualitative conclusion does not reduce to them. The main weakness is that the dipole-inclusive analogue of Eq. (4) is not written out explicitly, so the numerical correspondence is asserted rather than fully derived, but this is an omitted derivation or support gap, not a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation, and no known result is merely relabeled. Thus the paper does not exhibit circularity by the standards required here.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central illustration is built from adopted NVSS redshift distribution and bias parameters, a dipole amplitude taken from the literature, and chosen fNL values. The dipole modeling is implicit rather than derived, and no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • NVSS redshift distribution N(z) shape parameters = z^0.74 exp[-(z/0.71)^1.1]
    Adopted from Nusser & Tiwari (2015); determines the kernel in Eq. 3 and hence the fNL signal shape.
  • NVSS galaxy bias bg(z) = 0.33 z^2 + 0.85 z + 1.6
    Adopted from Nusser & Tiwari (2015); used in Eq. 2 and 3 for the non-Gaussianity contribution.
  • Dipole amplitude |D| = 1.5 x 10^-2
    Input from NVSS dipole measurements in the cited literature; central to the mimicry comparison in Figure 2.
  • Non-Gaussianity parameter fNL = 50 (and 150 upper bound)
    Chosen as illustrative values; fNL=50 is the claimed equivalent of the dipole, fNL up to 150 from Becker et al. (2012).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Local fNL model of Eq. 1 and scale-dependent bias of Eq. 2 describe the non-Gaussian contribution to clustering.
    Cited standard results; used without modification to compute C_l and w(theta).
  • ad hoc to paper A galaxy overdensity dipole adds a pure l=1 term to the angular Legendre expansion and hence a cosine to w(theta).
    The paper does not state this model explicitly; Figure 2 relies on it to compare dipole and fNL curves.
  • domain assumption NVSS N(z) and bias from Nusser & Tiwari (2015) are adequate for the qualitative comparison.
    Self-cited fit; affects the amplitude of the predicted fNL signal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Large-Scale Anisotropies on Galaxy Clustering and Cosmological Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTBUKION

@misc{pith2026241109163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Large-Scale Anisotropies on Galaxy Clustering and Cosmological Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTBUKION}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09163}
}
abstract

We critically assess the impact of significant dipole and large-scale anisotropies on galaxy clustering signals, with a focus on radio continuum surveys. Our study reveals that these anisotropies -- resulting from intrinsic cosmological effects and/or observational systematics -- profoundly influence the two-point correlation function (2PCF) and angular power spectrum ($C_\ell$). Notably, large-scale anisotropies can obscure or simulate non-Gaussianity signals, complicating the extraction of precise cosmological information. The results emphasize that it is crucial to address systematics and rigorously mask the dipole and its surrounding multipoles to obtain accurate cosmological constraints. This approach is essential for extracting cosmological results from clustering signals, particularly for future surveys such as SKA, DESI, and LSST, to ensure the precision and reliability of cosmological analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NVSS angular power spectrum as calculated us￾ing Equation 3. The effects of non-Gaussianity are incor￾porated by considering the scale-dependent bias as given in Equation 2. The fNL = 0 case represents the Gaussian per￾turbation scenario. dominant at large scales, making it challenging to dis￾tinguish between the two effects. To illustrate this is￾sue, we present a typical case for the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS; Con… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Estimates of the angular 2PCF in the presence of non-Gaussianity (non-zero fNL) or dipole anisotropy (|D| = 1.5 × 10−2 ). To more clearly demonstrate how both the dipole sig￾nal and non-Gaussianity can produce similar clustering results, we present the angular 2PCF results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  5. [5]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  6. [6]

    K., Cea , P., Chingangbam , P., et al

    Aluri , P. K., Cea , P., Chingangbam , P., et al. 2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 094001, 10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc 2023

  7. [7]

    J., Battye , R

    Bacon , D. J., Battye , R. A., Bull , P., et al. 2020, , 37, e007, 10.1017/pasa.2019.51

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.51 2020

  8. [8]

    2012, JCAP, 12, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/12/034

    Becker, A., Huterer, D., & Kadota, K. 2012, JCAP, 12, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/12/034

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/12/034 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    2002, Nature, 416, 150

    Blake, C., & Wall, J. 2002, Nature, 416, 150. astro-ph/0203385

    2002 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2012, Phys

    Bruni, M., Crittenden, R., Koyama, K., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 041301, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.041301

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Padilla, A., & Skordis, C

    Clifton, T., Ferreira, P. G., Padilla, A., & Skordis, C. 2012, Phys. Rept., 513, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    1989, , 237, 1127, 10.1093/mnras/237.4.1127

    Cole , S., & Kaiser , N. 1989, , 237, 1127, 10.1093/mnras/237.4.1127

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, Mon

    Colin, J., Mohayaee, R., Rameez, M., & Sarkar, S. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 471, 1045, 10.1093/mnras/stx1631

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, 10.1086/300337

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    2008, Phys

    Dalal, N., Dore, O., Huterer, D., & Shirokov, A. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123514, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123514

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    Dekel , A., & Rees , M. J. 1987, , 326, 455, 10.1038/326455a0

    1987 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    DESI Collaboration , Aghamousa , A., Aguilar , J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    2016 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    2022, , 164, 207, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    DESI Collaboration , Abareshi , B., Aguilar , J., et al. 2022, , 164, 207, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2010, Class

    Desjacques, V., & Seljak, U. 2010, Class. Quant. Grav., 27, 124011, 10.1088/0264-9381/27/12/124011

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, , 623, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834317

    Dolfi , A., Branchini , E., Bilicki , M., et al. 2019, , 623, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834317

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 1994, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22032.x

    Gibelyou, C., & Huterer, D. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1994, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22032.x

    2012

  14. [22]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    1984, , 284, L9, 10.1086/184341

    Kaiser , N. 1984, , 284, L9, 10.1086/184341

    1984 doi

  16. [24]

    Komatsu, E., & Spergel, D. N. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 063002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.063002

    2001 doi

  17. [25]

    2013, JCAP, 02, 044, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/044

    Maartens, R., Zhao, G.-B., Bacon, D., Koyama, K., & Raccanelli, A. 2013, JCAP, 02, 044, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/044

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, Astrophys

    Matarrese, S., & Verde, L. 2008, Astrophys. J. Lett., 677, L77, 10.1086/587840

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    2000, Astrophys

    Matarrese, S., Verde, L., & Jimenez, R. 2000, Astrophys. J., 541, 10, 10.1086/309412

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, ApJ , 812, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/85

    Nusser, A., & Tiwari, P. 2015, ApJ , 812, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/85

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    A., & Smith , R

    Peacock , J. A., & Smith , R. E. 2000, , 318, 1144, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03779.x

    2000

  22. [30]

    Peebles , P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton University Press)

    1980

  23. [31]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 2022, Annals Phys., 447, 169159, 10.1016/j.aop.2022.169159

    2022

  24. [32]

    H., & Schechter , P

    Press , W. H., & Schechter , P. 1974, , 187, 425, 10.1086/152650

    1974 doi

  25. [33]

    Rubart, M., & Schwarz, D. J. 2013, A&A, 555, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321215

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    J., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mohayaee, R., & Sarkar, S

    Secrest, N. J., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mohayaee, R., & Sarkar, S. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 937, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac88c0

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    J., von Hausegger , S., Rameez , M., et al

    Secrest , N. J., von Hausegger , S., Rameez , M., et al. 2021, , 908, L51, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2009, Phys

    Seljak, U. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 021302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.021302

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    K., & Tormen, G

    Sheth, R. K., & Tormen, G. 1999, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 308, 119, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x

    1999

  30. [38]

    M., Schmidt-Rubart , M., & Schwarz , D

    Siewert , T. M., Schmidt-Rubart , M., & Schwarz , D. J. 2021, , 653, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039840

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Singal , A. K. 2011, ApJL, 742, L23, 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L23

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Singal, A. K. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 532, L1, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae039

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Tiwari, P., & Aluri, P. K. 2019, Astrophys. J., 878, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d58

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, Astrophys

    Tiwari, P., Ghosh, S., & Jain, P. 2019, Astrophys. J., 887, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab54c8

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, Astrophys

    Tiwari, P., Kothari, R., & Jain, P. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 924, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac447a

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 61, 1, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.06.004

    Tiwari , P., Kothari , R., Naskar , A., Nadkarni-Ghosh , S., & Jain , P. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 61, 1, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.06.004

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 062, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/062

    Tiwari, P., & Nusser, A. 2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 062, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/062

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, Mon

    von Hausegger, S. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 535, L49, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae092

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Wilkinson , P. N. 1991, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 19, IAU Colloq. 131: Radio Interferometry. Theory, Techniques, and Applications, ed. T. J. Cornwell & R. A. Perley , 428--432

    1991

  40. [48]

    2010, Astrophys

    Xia, J.-Q., Viel, M., Baccigalupi, C., et al. 2010, Astrophys. J. Lett., 717, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L17

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.