Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

A theoretical approach to density-split clustering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Density-split galaxy clustering can now be modeled analytically, with one fitted parameter, at separations above about 40 Mpc/h.

desk verdict A genuinely useful analytical model for density-split clustering, with an honest but not fully closed validation: the LDT bias matches simulations at DESI-DR1-like precision, but the test does not establish accuracy at the simulation's own statistical precision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14638 v2 pith:7TEHWCTC submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.CO

Mathilde Pinon , Arnaud de Mattia , Étienne Burtin , Vanina Ruhlmann-Kleider , Sandrine Codis , Enrique Paillas , Carolina Cuesta-Lazaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords density-splitclusteringlargedeviationtheorycount-in-cellstatisticstwo-pointcorrelationfunctiongalaxybiascosmologicallarge-scalestructureN-bodysimulationsDESI
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 sets out to replace simulation-based emulators for density-split clustering, a statistic that measures how galaxies cluster in different density environments, with a first-principles analytical model. It shows that the density-split correlation function factorizes into a bias factor times the smoothed two-point correlation function, so all extra information beyond the standard two-point statistic sits in the bias factor. The paper derives this bias factor under three approximations (Gaussian, shifted log-normal, and large-deviation theory) and finds that the large-deviation version, built from spherical-collapse dynamics, matches dark-matter N-body simulations within cosmic variance at separations $s \gtrsim 40\text{--}50\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$ using only one fitted parameter, the smoothed density variance $\sigma_R$. If correct, this gives a fast, physically interpretable model for large-scale density-split clustering in surveys such as DESI.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bias function and its factorization. In the large-separation limit the two-point density PDF is written as $P(\delta_R,\delta'_R)=P(\delta_R)P(\delta'_R)[1+\xi_R(s)\,b(\delta_R,s)\,b(\delta'_R,s)]$, and the density-split correlation function becomes $\xi^{\mathrm{DS}}_R(s)=B_{\mathrm{DS}}\,\xi_R(s)$ with $B_{\mathrm{DS}}=\int_{\mathrm{DS}} b(\delta_R)\,P(\delta_R)\,d\delta_R\,/\,\int_{\mathrm{DS}} P(\delta_R)\,d\delta_R$. The LDT input is the bias function $b(\rho_R)=\tau(\rho_R)/\sigma^2_{r,L}$, where $\tau$ is the initial density contrast mapped to the evolved density $\rho_R$ by the spherical-collapse relation $\rho_R\simeq(1-\tau/\nu)^{-\nu}$ with $\nu=21/13$; $\sigma_{r,L}$ is the variance of the initial field at the Lagrangian radius $r=R\rho_R^{1/3}$. This gives a separation-independent bias in the regime $s\gg R$, and Poisson shot noise is included by convolving the PDFs. Nearly all physical content is carried by this bias function, which is why the model has only one fitted parameter, $\sigma_R$.

What would settle it

Take one N-body simulation at $R=10\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$, measure the density-split correlation at $s=50\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$, and recompute the LDT prediction using $\sigma_R$ from a non-linear power-spectrum emulator instead of fitting it; the paper's claim that one (or zero) parameter suffices predicts agreement within cosmic variance, so a clear offset would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that density-split correlation functions can be expressed as a bias factor multiplying the smoothed two-point correlation function $\xi_R(s)$, with the bias factor built from the one-point density PDF and the density bias function. In the large-separation limit the large-deviation-theory (LDT) bias function $b(\rho_R)=\tau(\rho_R)/\sigma^2_{r,L}$ becomes independent of separation, and when inserted into the factorization it predicts the measured density-split correlation functions of N-body simulations within cosmic variance for $s \gtrsim 40\text{--}50\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$ with one free parameter, $\sigma_R$. The same LDT machinery is extended to biased tracers by combining the matter PDF with a Gaussian Lagrangian bias and non-Poisson shot noise, matching ELG-populated simulations on large scales. The paper also demonstrates that the Gaussian approximation fails and that the shifted log-normal model, despite fitting the one-point PDF well, does not reach the accuracy of LDT for the density-split correlation functions.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the assumption that at separations large compared with the smoothing radius the bias factor is exactly the large-separation LDT bias $b(\rho_R)=\tau(\rho_R)/\sigma^2_{r,L}$, meaning that spherical collapse gives the most likely mapping from initial to evolved density and that the bias is independent of separation; the paper only validates this for $s\gtrsim40\text{--}50\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$ and does not test overlapping spheres ($s<2R$).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On large scales ($s \gtrsim 40\text{--}50\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$), density-split correlation functions can be predicted without a simulation-based emulator, using one fitted parameter $\sigma_R$ or, if $\sigma_R$ comes from a power-spectrum emulator, no fitted parameters at all.
  • All information in density-split clustering beyond the standard two-point correlation function is contained in the scale-independent bias factor, providing a physical explanation for what density-split statistics add.
  • The shifted log-normal approximation, although excellent for the one-point PDF, is not sufficient for density-split correlations at the statistical precision of current mocks; LDT is required.
  • The model extends to biased tracers: combining the LDT matter PDF with a Gaussian Lagrangian bias and non-Poisson shot noise matches ELG-populated N-body simulations within cosmic variance for $s \gtrsim 40\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$.
  • Because the bias factor is separation-independent in the large-scale regime, the model can serve as a fast theoretical ingredient for survey analyses and as an initial guess to improve emulator-based approaches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the factorization and LDT bias hold for real galaxies, density-split clustering becomes a cheap, interpretable probe for DESI-like surveys; the main obstacle is redshift-space distortions, which the paper leaves to future work.
  • Beyond the paper: the scale at which the bias becomes separation-independent could itself be measured and used as a consistency test of spherical-collapse dynamics.
  • Beyond the paper: the LDT machinery may naturally extend to beyond-$\Lambda$CDM physics such as neutrino mass, modified gravity, or primordial non-Gaussianity, by replacing the spherical-collapse mapping with modified collapse dynamics and comparing to simulations of those models.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops analytical expressions for density-split correlation functions, defined as the conditional expectation of the smoothed density field given that a spherical cell belongs to a density-split region. It derives the exact factorization of the density-split correlation into a bias factor times the smoothed two-point correlation function, and then presents three approximations for the required two-point density PDF: bivariate Gaussian, shifted log-normal, and a Large-Deviation-Theory (LDT) prediction based on spherical collapse. The models are validated against 25 AbacusSummit dark-matter boxes at z=0.8, including Poisson shot noise and a low-density sample mimicking the DESI DR1 LRG3+ELG1 number density. An extension to biased tracers is presented using Eulerian quadratic and Gaussian Lagrangian bias models with non-Poisson shot noise. The central claim is that the LDT model predicts the measured dark-matter density-split correlation functions on large scales (s≳40-50 h^-1 Mpc) within the cosmic variance of a DESI DR1-like survey, using only one fitted parameter, sigma_R.

Significance. If the LDT bias-factor prediction is validated at the statistical precision of the simulations themselves, the paper would provide a valuable analytic complement to simulation-based emulators for density-split clustering, and the explicit factorization in Eq. (4.7) is a useful formal contribution. The manuscript contains explicit derivations (Eqs. 3.7, 5.18, 5.35), public code, systematic comparisons between Gaussian, log-normal, and LDT models, and a nontrivial extension to biased tracers. The main limitations are that the LDT model's key amplitude input, the smoothed two-point correlation function, is measured from the same simulations used for validation, and that the statistical validation is performed against per-survey cosmic variance rather than the error on the 25-box mean. These issues do not invalidate the theoretical structure, but they currently leave the central claim less strongly supported than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2.3, Eq. (5.35), Fig. 6] The quantity called the LDT prediction is not self-contained: cξ_R(s) in Eq. (5.35) is the smoothed two-point correlation function measured from the same 25 AbacusSummit boxes, and σ_R is fitted to the one-point density PDF of those same boxes. Consequently, the only genuinely predicted part of Eq. (5.35) is the separation-independent bias-factor ratio in brackets; the overall amplitude and shape of ξ_DS are imported from the simulations. The statement in the abstract and §5.2.3 that the model relies on 'only one degree of freedom' is therefore misleading unless the measured ξ_R(s) input is explicitly counted. I recommend demonstrating the predictive power by using ξ_R(s) from a theoretical power-spectrum model or emulator (as is suggested for σ_R) or from an independent simulation suite, and/or by quantifying how sensitive the density-split predictions are to the choice of ξ_R(s). This is not circular in the strict sense, since the density-split measurements themselves are not used to fit parameters, but it is a data-input dependency that should be stated and tested.
  2. [§5.2.3, Figs. 6-8 and Fig. 11] The validation panels divide residuals by the standard deviation over the 25 individual mocks, not by the error on the 25-box mean, which is σ/√25 ≈ σ/5. Because the model inputs (σ_R, cξ_R, and the one-point PDF) are themselves averages over the 25 boxes, the comparison against the average simulation measurement should use the mean error. Residuals of about 1σ in the bottom panels of Figs. 6-8 correspond to roughly 5σ offsets from the simulation mean. The statement that the model 'agrees with simulations on large scales within the cosmic variance of a typical DESI DR1 sample' is a statement about survey-level noise, but it does not establish that the LDT bias is accurate at the simulation's own statistical precision. Please add residual panels divided by σ/√25 and discuss the significance of any systematic residual trends.
  3. [§6, Table 1 and Figs. 9-11] The biased-tracer extension fits seven parameters (b1^E, b2^E, b1^G, b2^G, α0, α1, α2) to the same 25 ELG-populated AbacusSummit mocks that are then used to validate the model in Figs. 10 and 11. The agreement shown is therefore a fit to the validation data, not an independent prediction. The section is presented as an exploration, but if it is to support the claim of an analytical model for biased tracers in §6, a cross-validation procedure (e.g., fitting on a subset of boxes and predicting the rest, or fixing parameters from an independent HOD or galaxy sample) should be included. At minimum, the parameter counting should be stated explicitly in the text so readers can weigh the number of degrees of freedom against the quality of agreement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.4, Eq. (4.8)] The bias estimator uses '3 out of the 6' positions separated by s; please specify exactly how the three directions are chosen and whether periodic boundary conditions are handled, for reproducibility.
  2. [§5.1.1, Eq. (5.5)] The text says δ0 is determined by the skewness relation but that in practice it is fitted; it would be useful to show explicitly how much the fitted value differs from the relation predicted by tree-order perturbation theory, since this is relevant to the comparison with LDT.
  3. [§5.2.1, Eq. (5.30)] The definition of σ_R,eff is implicit because P(ρ_R) depends on σ_R,eff through the exponential while σ_R,eff is defined by Eq. (5.30) with σ_R fitted externally. Please clarify the solution procedure (e.g., fixed-point iteration) and state explicitly that σ_R,eff is not an additional free parameter.
  4. [§5.2.3, Fig. 8] For R=25 h^-1 Mpc the claimed validity range s≳50 h^-1 Mpc corresponds to s=2R, which is the non-overlap boundary, not the asymptotic s≫R regime; a sentence noting that the separation-independent bias approximation appears to work already at the non-overlap boundary would be helpful.
  5. [General] There are a few typographical issues (e.g., 'defintion' near Eq. (4.6) and inconsistent notation 'R1,R2' vs 'R_1,R_2'); a careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the density-split prediction is a cross-statistic test and the LDT bias is imported from independent prior work.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Equation (4.7) is an exact factorization of the density-split correlation into a conditional-mean bias factor and the smoothed two-point correlation; this is a definitional decomposition, and the paper does not use the measured density-split correlation to set any parameter. The LDT model (5.35) predicts the bias factor from the LDT one-point PDF, with only sigma_R fitted to the one-point PDF of the same AbacusSummit boxes and with xi_R(s) taken from the same simulations. That is a data-input dependency (the model is not out-of-sample), but it is not circular: the target statistic xi_DS is not used to fit sigma_R or the bias function, and the DS amplitude could have disagreed. The bias formula b(rho_R)=tau(rho_R)/sigma^2_{r,L} is imported from prior published work by co-author Codis and collaborators, but it is an external parameter-free LDT result that is also validated here against the measured bias function; no uniqueness claim or hidden ansatz is introduced in this paper. The concern that residuals are quoted against per-survey cosmic variance rather than the 25-box mean is a statistical-strength-of-evidence issue, not a circularity issue. The only mild caveat is that the one-point PDF comparison is partly a fit because sigma_R is fitted to it, but the LDT PDF shape (skewness) is still predicted, and the central density-split claim has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on imported LDT machinery from prior work (Codis, Uhlemann, Bernardeau and collaborators), a spherical-collapse mapping, Gaussian initial conditions, and the large-separation factorization of the two-point PDF. The only fitted parameter in the dark-matter LDT model is σ_R, but the validation also imports ξ_R(s) from the same simulations. The biased-tracer section adds seven fitted parameters (two bias parameters per model plus three shot-noise coefficients). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • σ_R (LDT density variance) = σ_R^2 ≈ 0.30 for R=10 Mpc/h high-density simulations (fit value not separately quoted)
    Fitted to the measured one-point count-in-cell PDF (Eq. 5.30) and then reused for the LDT bias function and density-split prediction.
  • σ_YR and δ_0 (shifted log-normal parameters) = not reported in text
    Fitted together to the one-point PDF (Sec 5.1.1); δ_0 sets skewness through Eq. 5.5 but is fitted in practice.
  • Eulerian quadratic bias b1^E, b2^E = 1.27, -0.71
    Best-fit values from 8 ELG-populated simulations for the biased-tracer model (Table 1).
  • Gaussian Lagrangian bias b1^G, b2^G = 0.10, -0.74
    Best-fit values from 8 ELG-populated simulations (Table 1).
  • shot noise parameters α0, α1, α2 = 1.1, 0.19, 0.001
    Quadratic model for the variance-to-mean ratio of galaxy counts, fitted to the same 8 simulations (Eq. 6.8, Table 1).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Large deviation principle and contraction principle for the density field (Eqs. 5.19-5.21)
    Basis for the LDT one-point PDF and bias function; taken from prior work [30-34].
  • domain assumption Spherical collapse is the most likely dynamics relating initial and evolved density for symmetric cells (Eq. 5.22)
    The contraction principle is solved assuming spherical symmetry; the approximation ρ_R ≈ (1 - τ/ν)^{-ν} with ν=21/13 is used.
  • domain assumption Initial density fluctuations are Gaussian (Sec 5.2, Eq. 5.23)
    Needed to write the rate function as ψ = (σ_L,R^2 / 2σ_L,r^2) τ^2.
  • domain assumption Large-separation factorization of the two-point PDF: P(δ_R, δ'_R) = P(δ_R)P(δ'_R)[1 + ξ_R(s) b(δ_R,s) b(δ'_R,s)] (Eq. 4.5)
    Underlies the expression of the density-split correlation in terms of the bias function; only valid for s ≫ R.
  • domain assumption Independent Poisson shot noise for two cells (Eqs. 5.7, 5.11, 5.15)
    Used to model discreteness; ignores correlations in shot noise between overlapping cells, acceptable for the large separations considered.
  • domain assumption Bivariate shifted log-normal joint distribution (Eqs. 5.1-5.10)
    Modeling assumption for the two-point PDF, with parameters fitted to the one-point PDF.
  • domain assumption The smoothed two-point correlation ξ_R(s) is supplied from simulations rather than predicted
    The density-split predictions use the measured ξ_R(s) from the same mocks (e.g., Eq. 5.35), so the model is not a closed prediction of the full correlation function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A theoretical approach to density-split clustering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TEHWCTC

@misc{pith2026250114638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A theoretical approach to density-split clustering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TEHWCTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14638}
}
read the original abstract

We present an analytical model for density-split correlation functions, that probe galaxy clustering in different density environments. Specifically, we focus on the cross-correlation between density-split regions and the tracer density field. We show that these correlation functions can be expressed in terms of the two-point probability density function (PDF) of the density field. We derive analytical predictions using three levels of approximation for the two-point PDF: a bivariate Gaussian distribution, a bivariate shifted log-normal distribution, and a prediction based on the Large Deviation Theory (LDT) framework. For count-in-cell densities, obtained through spherical top-hat smoothing, one can leverage spherical collapse dynamics and LDT to predict the density two-point PDF in the large-separation regime relative to the smoothing radius. We validate our model against dark matter N-body simulations in real space, incorporating Poisson shot noise and galaxy bias. Our results show that the LDT prediction outperforms the log-normal approximation, and agrees with simulations on large scales within the cosmic variance of a typical DESI DR1 sample, despite relying on only one degree of freedom.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga and R. Scoccimarro,Large-Scale Structure of the Universe and Cosmological Perturbation Theory,Physics Reports367(2002) 1. – 24 – −1 0 1 2 3 δR 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 P(δR) LDT no shot noise 0 2 4 δR −10 −5 0 5 10 b(δR) s = 40 Mpc/h LDT no shot noise Figure 12: Comparison between the LDT model before (dotted line) ...

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design, Oct., 2016. 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.00036 2016

  3. [3]

    Laureijs, J

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J.-L. Augu` eres, J. Brinchmann, R. Cole et al.,Euclid Definition Study Report, Oct., 2011. 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.3193 2011

  4. [4]

    Ivezi´ c, S.M

    ˇZ. Ivezi´ c, S.M. Kahn, J.A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman et al.,LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products,The Astrophysical Journal873 (2019) 111 [0805.2366]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Sugiyama, D

    N.S. Sugiyama, D. Yamauchi, T. Kobayashi, T. Fujita, S. Arai, S. Hirano et al.,New constraints on cosmological modified gravity theories from anisotropic three-point correlation functions of BOSS DR12 galaxies,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society523(2023) 3133

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Philcox and M.M

    O.H. Philcox and M.M. Ivanov,Boss dr12 full-shape cosmology:ΛCDMconstraints from the large-scale galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum monopole,Physical Review D105(2022) 043517

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Philcox, J

    O.H.E. Philcox, J. Hou and Z. Slepian,A First Detection of the Connected 4-Point Correlation Function of Galaxies Using the BOSS CMASS Sample, Aug., 2021. 10.48550/arXiv.2108.01670

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.01670 2021

  8. [8]

    Massara, F

    E. Massara, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, S. Ho, N. Dalal and D.N. Spergel,Using the Marked Power Spectrum to Detect the Signature of Neutrinos in Large-Scale Structure,Physical Review Letters126(2021) 011301

    work page 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Ebina and M

    H. Ebina and M. White,An Analytically Tractable Marked Power Spectrum, Sept., 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2409.17133

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    W. Liu, A. Jiang and W. Fang,Probing massive neutrinos with the Minkowski functionals of the galaxy distribution,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(2023) 037

    2023

  3. [11]

    Jiang, W

    A. Jiang, W. Liu, B. Li, C. Barrera-Hinojosa, Y. Zhang and W. Fang,Minkowski Functionals of Large-Scale Structure as a Probe of Modified Gravity, Mar., 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2305.04520

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Banerjee and T

    A. Banerjee and T. Abel,Nearest Neighbor distributions: new statistical measures for cosmological clustering, Feb., 2021. 10.48550/arXiv.2007.13342

    2021 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Nadathur, P.M

    S. Nadathur, P.M. Carter, W.J. Percival, H.A. Winther and J. Bautista,Beyond BAO: – 25 – improving cosmological constraints from BOSS with measurement of the void-galaxy cross-correlation,Physical Review D100(2019) 023504

    2019

  6. [14]

    Hawken, M

    A.J. Hawken, M. Aubert, A. Pisani, M.-C. Cousinou, S. Escoffier, S. Nadathur et al., Constraints on the growth of structure around cosmic voids in eBOSS DR14,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(2020) 012

    2020

  7. [15]

    Valogiannis and C

    G. Valogiannis and C. Dvorkin,Towards an Optimal Estimation of Cosmological Parameters with the Wavelet Scattering Transform,Physical Review D105(2022) 103534

    2022

  8. [16]

    Valogiannis, S

    G. Valogiannis, S. Yuan and C. Dvorkin,Precise cosmological constraints from boss galaxy clustering with a simulation-based emulator of the wavelet scattering transform,Physical Review D109(2024) 103503

    2024

  9. [17]

    Lavaux, J

    G. Lavaux, J. Jasche and F. Leclercq,Systematic-free inference of the cosmic matter density field from SDSS3-BOSS data, Sept., 2019. 10.48550/arXiv.1909.06396

    2019 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Andrews, J

    A. Andrews, J. Jasche, G. Lavaux and F. Schmidt,Bayesian field-level inference of primordial non-Gaussianity using next-generation galaxy surveys,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society520(2023) 5746

    2023

  11. [19]

    Collaboration, E

    B.-p. Collaboration, E. Krause, Y. Kobayashi, A.N. Salcedo, M.M. Ivanov, T. Abel et al.,A Parameter-Masked Mock Data Challenge for Beyond-Two-Point Galaxy Clustering Statistics, May, 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2405.02252

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Paillas, Y.-C

    E. Paillas, Y.-C. Cai, N. Padilla and A. S´ anchez,Redshift-space distortions with split densities, arXiv:2101.09854 [astro-ph](2021)

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Paillas, C

    E. Paillas, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, P. Zarrouk, Y.-C. Cai, W.J. Percival, S. Nadathur et al., ConstrainingνΛcdm with density-split clustering,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society522(2023) 606

    2023

  14. [22]

    Paillas, C

    E. Paillas, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, W.J. Percival, S. Nadathur, Y.-C. Cai, S. Yuan et al., Cosmological constraints from density-split clustering in the BOSS CMASS galaxy sample, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society531(2024) 898 [2309.16541]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cuesta-Lazaro, E

    C. Cuesta-Lazaro, E. Paillas, S. Yuan, Y.-C. Cai, S. Nadathur, W.J. Percival et al.,SUNBIRD: a simulation-based model for full-shape density-split clustering,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society531(2024) 3336

    2024

  16. [24]

    Morawetz, E

    J. Morawetz, E. Paillas and W.J. Percival,Constraining Primordial Non-Gaussianity with Density-Split Clustering, Sept., 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13583

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gruen, O

    D. Gruen, O. Friedrich, E. Krause, J. DeRose, R. Cawthon, C. Davis et al.,Density split statistics: Cosmological constraints from counts and lensing in cells in DES Y1 and SDSS data, Physical Review D98(2018) 023507

    2018

  18. [26]

    Burger, O

    P.A. Burger, O. Friedrich, J. Harnois-D´ eraps, P. Schneider, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki et al., KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Constraints from density split statistics,Astronomy & Astrophysics 669(2023) A69

    2023

  19. [27]

    Friedrich, D

    O. Friedrich, D. Gruen, J. DeRose, D. Kirk, E. Krause, T. McClintock et al.,Density split statistics: joint model of counts and lensing in cells,Physical Review D98(2018) 023508

    2018

  20. [28]

    Bernardeau, C

    F. Bernardeau, C. Pichon and S. Codis,Statistics of cosmic density profiles from perturbation theory,Physical Review D90(2014) 103519

    2014

  21. [29]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Codis and C. Pichon,The joint statistics of mildly non-linear cosmological densities and slopes in count in cells,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters449(2015) L105

    2015

  22. [30]

    Bernardeau and P

    F. Bernardeau and P. Reimberg,Large deviation principle at play in large scale structure cosmology,Physical Review D94(2016) 063520. – 26 –

    2016

  23. [31]

    Uhlemann, S

    C. Uhlemann, S. Codis, C. Pichon, F. Bernardeau and P. Reimberg,Back in the saddle: Large-deviation statistics of the cosmic log-density field,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460(2016) 1529

    2016

  24. [32]

    Uhlemann, S

    C. Uhlemann, S. Codis, J. Kim, C. Pichon, F. Bernardeau, D. Pogosyan et al.,Beyond Kaiser bias: mildly non-linear two-point statistics of densities in distant spheres,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society466(2017) 2067

    2017

  25. [33]

    Codis, C

    S. Codis, C. Pichon, F. Bernardeau, C. Uhlemann and S. Prunet,Encircling the dark: constraining dark energy via cosmic density in spheres,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460(2016) 1549

    2016

  26. [34]

    Codis, F

    S. Codis, F. Bernardeau and C. Pichon,The large-scale correlations of multi-cell densities and profiles, implications for cosmic variance estimates,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460(2016) 1598

    2016

  27. [35]

    Garrison, D.J

    L.H. Garrison, D.J. Eisenstein, D. Ferrer, N.A. Maksimova and P.A. Pinto,The ABACUS cosmological N-body code,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society508(2021) 575

    2021

  28. [36]

    Maksimova, L.H

    N.A. Maksimova, L.H. Garrison, D.J. Eisenstein, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose and T.P. Satterthwaite,ABACUSSUMMIT: a massive set of high-accuracy, high-resolution N-body simulations,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society508(2021) 4017

    2021

  29. [37]

    Kaiser,On the spatial correlations of Abell clusters,The Astrophysical Journal284(1984) L9

    N. Kaiser,On the spatial correlations of Abell clusters,The Astrophysical Journal284(1984) L9

    1984

  30. [38]

    Aghanim, Y

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

    2020

  31. [39]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars, Apr., 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03000

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Collaboration, A.G

    D. Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,DESI 2024 II: Sample Definitions, Characteristics, and Two-point Clustering Statistics, Nov., 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12020

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sinha and L

    M. Sinha and L. Garrison,CORRFUNC: Blazing Fast Correlation Functions with A VX512F SIMD Intrinsics, inSoftware Challenges to Exascale Computing, A. Majumdar and R. Arora, eds., (Singapore), pp. 3–20, Springer, 2019, DOI

    2019

  34. [42]

    Sinha and L.H

    M. Sinha and L.H. Garrison,CORRFUNC - a suite of blazing fast correlation functions on the CPU,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society491(2020) 3022

    2020

  35. [43]

    Uhlemann, O

    C. Uhlemann, O. Friedrich, A. Boyle, A. Gough, A. Barthelemy, F. Bernardeau et al.,It takes two to know one: Computing accurate one-point PDF covariances from effective two-point PDF models,The Open Journal of Astrophysics6(2023) 1

    2023

  36. [44]

    Hilbert, J

    S. Hilbert, J. Hartlap and P. Schneider,Cosmic shear covariance: The log-normal approximation,Astronomy & Astrophysics536(2011) A85

    2011

  37. [45]

    Xavier, F.B

    H.S. Xavier, F.B. Abdalla and B. Joachimi,Improving lognormal models for cosmological fields, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society459(2016) 3693

    2016

  38. [46]

    Repp and I

    A. Repp and I. Szapudi,Galaxy bias andσ 8 from counts in cells from the SDSS main sample, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society498(2020) L125 [2006.01146]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gaztanaga and C.M

    E. Gaztanaga and C.M. Baugh,Hierarchical correlations in models of galaxy clustering,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.273(1995) L1

    1995

  40. [48]

    Friedrich, A

    O. Friedrich, A. Halder, A. Boyle, C. Uhlemann, D. Britt, S. Codis et al.,The PDF perspective on the tracer-matter connection: Lagrangian bias and non-Poissonian shot noise,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society510(2022) 5069. – 27 –

    2022

  41. [49]

    St¨ ucker, M

    J. St¨ ucker, M. Pellejero-Ib´ a˜ nez, R. Voivodic and R.E. Angulo,Gaussian Lagrangian Galaxy Bias, June, 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2405.01951

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gould, L

    B.M. Gould, L. Castiblanco, C. Uhlemann and O. Friedrich,Cosmology on point: modelling spectroscopic tracer one-point statistics, Sept., 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18182

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Rocher, V

    A. Rocher, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, E. Burtin, S. Yuan, A. de Mattia, A.J. Ross et al.,The DESI One-Percent survey: exploring the Halo Occupation Distribution of Emission Line Galaxies with ABACUSSUMMIT simulations,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023 (2023) 016

    2023

  44. [52]

    Uhlemann, M

    C. Uhlemann, M. Feix, S. Codis, C. Pichon, F. Bernardeau, B. L’Huillier et al.,A question of separation: disentangling tracer bias and gravitational nonlinearity with counts-in-cells statistics,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society473(2018) 5098

    2018

  45. [53]

    Uhlemann, O

    C. Uhlemann, O. Friedrich, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, A. Banerjee and S. Codis,Fisher for complements: extracting cosmology and neutrino mass from the counts-in-cells PDF,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society495(2020) 4006

    2020

  46. [54]

    Cataneo, C

    M. Cataneo, C. Uhlemann, C. Arnold, A. Gough, B. Li and C. Heymans,The matter density PDF for modified gravity and dark energy with Large Deviations Theory,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society513(2022) 1623

    2022

  47. [55]

    Friedrich, C

    O. Friedrich, C. Uhlemann, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, T. Baldauf, M. Manera and T. Nishimichi, Primordial non-Gaussianity without tails – how to measure fNL with the bulk of the density PDF,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society498(2020) 464. – 28 –

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.