Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: High-redshift measurement of structure growth from the cross-correlation of Quaia quasars and CMB lensing from ACT DR6 and $\textit{Planck}$ PR4

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cross-correlating quasars with CMB lensing reconstructs structure growth to redshift z≈5 and finds it consistent with Planck's ΛCDM prediction.

desk verdict A careful 3x2pt measurement with a robust σ8 result and a genuinely new but conditional z~5.1 growth constraint. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08798 v1 pith:2C6GMNMD submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.CO

Carmen Embil Villagra , Gerrit Farren , Giulio Fabbian , Boris Bolliet , Irene Abril-Cabezas , David Alonso , Anthony Challinor , Jo Dunkley
show 9 more authors
Joshua Kim Niall MacCrann Fiona McCarthy Kavilan Moodley Frank J. Qu Blake Sherwin Cristobal Sifon Alexander van Engelen Edward J. Wollack
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords large-scalestructureCMBlensingquasarclusteringgrowthsigma_8ACTDR6PlanckPR4high-redshiftcosmology
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 aims to show that the growth of cosmic structure can be measured far beyond the redshifts where quasars themselves sit, by combining the clustering of Quaia quasars with CMB lensing maps from ACT DR6 and Planck PR4. The joint 3×2pt analysis returns $\sigma_8 = 0.804 \pm 0.013$ and a 12% measurement of the fluctuation amplitude at the median signal redshift $\tilde{z}\simeq 5.1$, $\sigma_8(\tilde{z}=5.1)=0.146^{+0.021}_{-0.014}$, consistent with the Planck primary-CMB prediction at the 1.4$\sigma$ level. The paper also argues that earlier hints of contamination in Planck PR4 lensing maps, seen in previous Quaia cross-correlations, do not appear in the ACT DR6 maps once conservative scale cuts and a free shot-noise amplitude are adopted. If these results hold, one of the highest-redshift anchors for structure growth to date is now in place, and it agrees with ΛCDM.

What carries the argument

The enabling machinery is the 3×2pt data vector: quasar auto-spectra $C^{gg}_\ell$, quasar–lensing cross-spectra $C^{\kappa g}_\ell$, and the CMB lensing auto-spectrum $C^{\kappa\kappa}_\ell$, together with the step-function modification $P^{\rm new}_{\rm lin}(k,z)=P_{\rm lin}(k,z)A(z)$, where $A(z)$ equals $A_1$, $A_2$, or $A_3$ on $z<1.45$, $1.45\le z<3$, and $z\ge3$. The cross-correlations pin down $A_1$ and $A_2$ through the quasar kernels at $z\simeq1.0$ and $2.1$, so the lensing auto-spectrum, whose kernel peaks near $z\sim2$ but extends further, can separate the residual contribution and constrain $A_3$. This is how the paper converts a $z\sim2$ lensing signal into a $z\approx5.1$ growth measurement.

What would settle it

Measure $\sigma_8(\tilde z=5.1)$ using a spectroscopically calibrated $dN/dz$ for the same quasars on the ACT footprint; if the central value shifts by more than roughly $0.03$, the high-redshift growth claim would not be robust to redshift-distribution assumptions. Alternatively, replacing Quaia with an independent high-redshift tracer and recovering the same $\sigma_8(\tilde z=5.1)$ would confirm the result, whereas a $>2\sigma$ difference would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a reconstruction of the growth of matter fluctuations over $0\lesssim z\lesssim 6$. The data combination fixes the late-time normalization at $\sigma_8=0.804\pm0.013$ (with BAO), and, by rescaling the linear matter power spectrum with piecewise-constant step amplitudes $A_1,A_2,A_3$ below $z=1.45$, between $1.45$ and $3$, and above $3$, it isolates the highest bin and measures $\sigma_8(\tilde z=5.1)=0.146^{+0.021}_{-0.014}$. This is consistent with Planck at $1.4\sigma$. A suite of null tests using polarization-only, temperature-only, CIB-deprojected, and curl lensing maps, plus foreground-only simulations, shows no contamination in the ACT lensing maps, which the paper takes as evidence that the earlier low-$\sigma_8$ hint in Quaia–Planck cross-correlations came from analysis choices rather than lensing systematics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the true growth history is captured by three constant rescaling factors of the matter power spectrum, and that the quasar redshift distributions and linear bias are accurate enough that the highest-redshift factor isolates only $z>3$ growth, despite a 62% correlation with the middle bin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 12% constraint on $\sigma_8(\tilde z=5.1)$ gives a growth anchor at one of the highest redshifts measured to date, useful for testing models that modify gravity or dark energy at late times.
  • Adding the lensing auto-spectrum to the cross-correlation tightens $\sigma_8$ by 12% relative to the lensing auto-spectrum alone, so the same variance-cancellation gain is available to future 3×2pt analyses without new data.
  • The null-test results validate ACT DR6 lensing maps as a clean probe for high-redshift quasar cross-correlations, retiring the contamination concern raised by earlier Planck PR4 analyses.
  • The recovered growth curve is consistent with Planck ΛCDM at every measured redshift bin, so the joint dataset does not require new physics in structure growth.
  • The 1.8$\sigma$ low amplitude in the $z\approx2.1$ quasar bin, if not a fluctuation, would be a property of the quasar sample itself rather than of the lensing maps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: because $A_2$ and $A_3$ are 62% correlated, the headline $z\approx5.1$ amplitude inherits the assumed $dN/dz$; a shift at the 5% level the paper itself finds on the ACT footprint could move $\sigma_8(\tilde z=5.1)$ by more than the quoted error.
  • A natural extension is to repeat the analysis with a spectroscopic redshift calibration of Quaia on the ACT footprint; the paper's own footprint comparison shows this is the most promising place to look for systematic movement.
  • If the 1.8$\sigma$ low amplitude in the high-redshift bin persists in independent quasar samples, it becomes a tracer-dependent tension worth modeling through bias evolution or selection functions, separating it from lensing systematics.
  • The step-function amplitude parametrization could be applied to other high-redshift tracers, such as Lyman-break galaxies or line-intensity maps, to check whether $A_3$ measures the same underlying growth or is tracer-dependent.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a joint ('3×2pt') analysis combining two Quaia quasar samples (z̄ ≈ 1.0 and z̄ ≈ 2.1) with CMB lensing from ACT DR6 and Planck PR4, plus BAO data. From the 2×2pt combination (quasar auto-spectra and quasar–lensing cross-spectra) with BOSS/6dF BAO the authors obtain σ8 = 0.802+0.045−0.057; adding the ACT DR6 Cκκ spectrum tightens this to σ8 = 0.804 ± 0.013, consistent with Planck primary CMB. Using a piecewise rescaling of the matter power spectrum (Eqs. 11–12) with knots at z = 1.45 and z = 3.0 and As fixed to Planck, they reconstruct the growth history and report a 12% constraint at the median redshift z̃ = 5.1, σ8(z̃=5.1) = 0.146+0.021−0.014, consistent with Planck at 1.4σ. The paper also reanalyzes the Planck PR4 × Quaia cross-correlation with conservative analysis choices (kmax = 0.15 h/Mpc, shot noise marginalized) and finds no evidence for the lensing-map contamination suggested in earlier Quaia analyses.

Significance. If correct, the main σ8 = 0.804 ± 0.013 result is a high-redshift-tracer constraint fully consistent with Planck primary, and the z ≈ 5.1 growth amplitude would be among the highest-redshift growth measurements to date. The paper's strengths are substantial: 400 ACT and 480 Planck Monte Carlo simulations, sub-1% transfer-function corrections, Hartlap-corrected covariance, a documented (if partial) blinding protocol, 18 null tests with a KS test on the PTE distribution, simulation-based foreground tests using WebSky/HOD mocks, and public data products. The headline σ8 is dominated by Cκκ and is robust to the modeling choices discussed below. The genuinely new σ8(z̃ = 5.1) claim is, however, conditional on the step-function growth parametrization, the Planck-fixed As normalization, and the quasar dN/dz and linear-bias modeling, and it is not protected by the lensing-map null tests. The claim should be revised or supplemented with the stress tests requested below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7.3; Eqs. (11)–(12)] σ8(z̃ = 5.1) = 0.146+0.021−0.014 is not a direct z > 3 measurement: it is the parameter A3 in the piecewise rescaling of the Planck-normalized power spectrum, with As fixed to its Planck PR3 value (Section 3.2; Table 3). The stress-test concern is valid. The paper reports up to 5% differences between the PDF-stacked dN/dz on the ACT footprint and the full-footprint estimate (Section 2.1), a residual A2–A3 correlation of 62% (Section 7.3), and a linear bias model (Eq. 9) whose normalization is free but whose redshift shape is assumed. None of the Section 5 null tests — which validate the lensing maps rather than the quasar redshift model — protects the A3 extraction against a mis-modeled low-redshift contribution. I request at least one of the following: (a) a test of ΔA3/A3 and of σ8(z̃ = 5.1) under a ±5% dN/dz shift in each bin; (b) a repeat using the Lima et al. (2008) direct-calibration dN/dz; (c) a version of A(z) with an additional knot (e.g., z2 = 3.5) to show that A3 is not absorbing a lower-redshift deviation. If these tests cannot be performed, the abstract and conclusion should be reworded so that the z > 3 statement is explicitly conditioned on the assumed growth shape and redshift model.
  2. [Section 6.1 (Changes post unblinding); Appendix A] The blinding policy was not fully realized for the baseline scale cut. Section 6.1 states that kmax was changed from 0.22 to 0.15 h/Mpc after comparing ACT and Planck bandpowers, and Appendix A reports that the inferred σ8 shifts significantly with scale cuts when the shot-noise amplitudes are free to vary. The baseline choice is therefore informed by the data being analyzed, and the quoted Planck-reanalysis value σ8 = 0.797+0.048−0.063 is selected from a family of scale-cut-dependent results. This does not invalidate the 3×2pt headline, which is dominated by Cκκ, but it is load-bearing for the Appendix A claim and for the robustness of the 2×2pt contribution to the 3×2pt constraint. I request a scan of σ8 and S8 versus kmax (e.g., 0.12, 0.15, 0.18, 0.22 h/Mpc) with the associated PTEs, so the reader can assess whether 0.15 h/Mpc is a stable plateau rather than a post-selected value.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4] In the ACT DR6 × Quaia + BAO, Joint row, the σ8 upper error is printed as −0.92; this should read −0.092.
  2. [References] Alam et al. 2017a and 2017b are both listed with the same journal volume and pages (MNRAS 470, 2617); the eBOSS citation in Section 6.3 cannot be correct with that journal data.
  3. [References] The DOI listed for Sailer et al. 2025 (10.1103/27rg-tq8z) is malformed and should be corrected.
  4. [Abstract; Section 5] The abstract's statement that there is 'no evidence for contamination in the lensing maps' extrapolates beyond the ACT-specific tests in Section 5; the evidence for Planck PR4 maps is indirect (parameter-level agreement plus the Appendix A reanalysis), and the wording should be qualified accordingly.
  5. [Figure 10] The grey consistency-test points are described only collectively in the caption; a labeled list or table of which analysis choices were varied would let the reader verify the scope of the robustness tests.
  6. [Figure 12] The σ8(z) reconstruction is drawn as a continuous curve with shaded bands, but the underlying model is a step function with known correlations between adjacent bins (24–62%, Section 7.3); the figure should make the piecewise nature and the neglected inter-bin correlations explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline σ8 constraint is dominated by independent CMB lensing spectra, and the high-redshift growth amplitude is a free parameter fitted to the data rather than an input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The headline σ8 = 0.804 ± 0.013 comes from the 3×2pt combination dominated by the ACT DR6 lensing auto-spectrum Cκκ (Qu et al. 2024) plus BAO, with the 2×2pt Quaia measurements contributing via variance cancellation; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction here. The growth reconstruction in Section 7.3 is implemented through the free amplitude parameters A1, A2, A3 in Eqs. (11)–(12), with uniform priors [0, 2] (Table 3). Fixing As to the Planck PR3 value (Section 3.2 and the Table 3 note) only sets the fiducial normalization of σ8(z); A3 is then determined by the data through Cκκ and the cross-correlations, so the reported σ8(ẑ = 5.1) = 0.146^{+0.021}_{-0.014} and its 1.4σ consistency with Planck are not enforced by construction — the data could have preferred A3 far from unity. Self-citations (Alonso et al. 2023 for dN/dz robustness, Farren et al. 2025 for the non-linear rescaling and 3×2pt methodology) supply supporting empirical checks or modeling conventions rather than uniqueness theorems, and the central cosmological claims do not reduce to those citations. The contamination null tests and WebSky/HOD foreground tests validate the lensing maps used in the analysis; they are not inputs to the cosmological parameter fit. The main legitimate concern is a systematic-robustness risk, not circularity: the up-to-5% ACT-footprint dN/dz differences (Section 2.1) and the 62% A2–A3 correlation (Section 7.3) imply that the z > 3 amplitude extraction depends on the quasar redshift and bias modeling. This should be stress-tested further, but it does not make any equation equal its own input, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a standard ΛCDM modeling stack (Limber, linear bias, HMCode), the public lensing maps and quasar catalog, and a small set of fitted nuisance parameters (bias, shot noise) plus the three growth amplitudes Ai that define the headline z > 3 measurement. The most consequential inputs the reader did not pay for upstream are the Planck-fixed As normalization, the hand-chosen z1, z2 boundaries, and the Poisson shot-noise assumption at ~1% accuracy.

free parameters (6)
  • b_g^1, b_g^2 (linear bias normalizations) = b1 = 1.16^{+0.22}_{-0.25}, b2 = 1.02^{+0.20}_{-0.23} (Table 1)
    Free normalization of the eBOSS quasar bias redshift evolution (Equation 9) for each Quaia bin, fitted to the data. The headline σ8 constraints marginalize over these.
  • A_N1, A_N2 (shot noise amplitudes) = A_N1 = 1.001 ± 0.014, A_N2 = 1.0115 ± 0.0067 (Planck footprint, Appendix A)
    Multiplicative factors on the Poisson shot-noise estimate, constrained by a Gaussian prior of 10% width. The 2×2pt σ8 is sensitive to these at the ~1% level; a 1% change in A_N2 shifts σ8 by ~0.9σ.
  • A1, A2, A3 (growth amplitude parameters) = σ8√A1 = 0.638^{+0.041}_{-0.040}, σ8√A2 = 0.327^{+0.040}_{-0.049}, σ8√A3 = 0.146^{+0.021}_{-0.014} (Section 7.3)
    Step-function rescaling of the linear matter power spectrum in three redshift intervals (Equations 11-12), uniform priors [0,2]. These define the z > 3 growth measurement.
  • z1 = 1.45, z2 = 3.0 (growth parametrization boundaries)
    Redshift boundaries of the A(z) step function, chosen by hand to minimize correlations between parameters. The z > 3 claim depends on this choice.
  • kmax = 0.15 h/Mpc (scale cut)
    Maximum wavenumber for the linear bias model; changed post-hoc from 0.22 h/Mpc after observing sensitivity to scale cuts (Section 6.1). Affects which bandpowers enter the likelihood.
  • Mmin,1, Mmin,2 (HOD minimum halo masses) = 1.4e12 and 1.3e12 h^-1 Msun (Appendix B)
    Used only to build WebSky mock quasar catalogs for foreground tests, not in the central cosmological inference.
assumptions (10)
  • standard math Limber approximation for projected power spectra
    Equations 4-6; standard and accurate for these broad redshift kernels and the multipole ranges used.
  • domain assumption Linear galaxy bias: Pgm = b(z)Pmm and Pgg = b²(z)Pmm up to kmax = 0.15 h/Mpc
    Section 3.1. The validity of the linear bias model at this kmax is the stated reason for the scale cut.
  • domain assumption eBOSS bias redshift evolution shape (Laurent et al. 2017) applies to Quaia (Equation 9)
    Section 3.1. Supported for Quaia by Alonso et al. 2023, but the shape is not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Quaia dN/dz from PDF stacking with Gaussian redshift errors is accurate to ~5%
    Section 2.1. Up to 5% differences versus the full-footprint distributions; cosmological robustness is inherited from Alonso et al. 2023.
  • domain assumption Poisson shot noise with a 10% Gaussian prior
    Section 2.1, Equation 3. The auto-spectrum is shot-noise dominated (5-8 times the signal), so this assumption carries the 2×2pt amplitude.
  • domain assumption As fixed to the Planck PR3 value for the growth reconstruction
    Section 3.2. Sets the normalization of the reported σ8(z); the 1.4σ consistency claim inherits this.
  • standard math τ, ns, and Ωb h² fixed to Planck-derived values in the 2×2pt case
    Section 6.2, Table 3. Standard practice; the data are not sensitive to these parameters.
  • domain assumption Magnification bias is negligible
    Section 3.1. Verified: counts slopes s ≈ 0.38-0.42 shift the spectra by less than 0.02σ.
  • domain assumption HMCode non-linear corrections apply
    Section 3.1. Standard prescription for non-linear corrections on the scales used.
  • domain assumption WebSky HOD mocks reproduce Quaia clustering
    Appendix C, validated against measured Cgg and Cκg; used only for the foreground bias tests.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: High-redshift measurement of structure growth from the cross-correlation of Quaia quasars and CMB lensing from ACT DR6 and $\textit{Planck}$ PR4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2C6GMNMD

@misc{pith2026250708798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: High-redshift measurement of structure growth from the cross-correlation of Quaia quasars and CMB lensing from ACT DR6 and $\textitPlanck$ PR4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2C6GMNMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08798}
}
abstract

We measure the amplitude of matter fluctuations over a wide range of redshifts by combining CMB lensing observations from ACT DR6 and $\textit{Planck}$ PR4 with the overdensity of quasars from Quaia, a $\textit{Gaia}$ and $\textit{unWISE}$ quasar catalog. Our analysis includes the CMB lensing power spectrum from ACT DR6, the auto-correlation of two Quaia quasar samples centered at $z \simeq 1.0$ and $z \simeq 2.1$, and their cross-correlations with CMB lensing from both ACT DR6 and $\textit{Planck}$ PR4. By performing a series of contamination and systematic null tests, we find no evidence for contamination in the lensing maps, contrary to what was suggested in previous Quaia cross-correlation analyses using $\textit{Planck}$ PR4 CMB lensing data. From the joint analysis of the quasar auto- and cross-correlations with CMB lensing, and including BOSS BAO data to break the degeneracy between $\Omega_m$ and $\sigma_8$, we obtain $\sigma_8 = 0.802^{+0.045}_{-0.057}$, consistent with $\Lambda$CDM predictions from $\textit{Planck}$ primary CMB measurements. Combining the CMB lensing auto-spectrum with the cross-correlation measurement improves the constraint on $\sigma_8$ by $12\%$ relative to the lensing auto-spectrum alone, yielding $\sigma_8 = 0.804 \pm 0.013$. This dataset combination also enables a reconstruction of structure growth across redshifts. We infer a $12\%$ constraint on the amplitude of matter fluctuations at $z > 3$, with a measurement at the median redshift of the signal of $\sigma_8(\tilde{z}=5.1) = 0.146^{+0.021}_{-0.014}$, consistent with $\textit{Planck}$ at the $1.4\sigma$ level. These results provide one of the highest redshift constraints on the growth of structure to date.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalized redshift distributions of the two Quaia samples used in our measurement with mean redshifts of z ∼ 1.0 and z ∼ 2.1 for Bin 1 and Bin 2, respectively. These distributions have been estimated using PDF stacking on quasars in the joint ACT–Quaia footprint of each redshift bin as described in the main text. overdensity in each pixel p is computed as δg,p = Np Nω¯ p − 1 , (1) where ωp is the value of the selec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overlap between the Quaia selection functions (orange for Bin 1, purple for Bin 2) and the CMB lensing maps from ACT DR6 (white contour) and Planck PR4 (black contour), displayed on top of a Galactic dust map from Planck (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016) in grayscale. The overlap between the Quaia samples and the CMB lensing footprints is 98% (Bin 1) and 99% (Bin 2) with Planck, and 34% (Bin 1) and 38% (Bin 2) with… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measurements of C gg ℓ on the ACT footprint (top) and C κg ℓ (bottom) for each of the two redshift bins considered. Dashed gray lines indicate the best-fit model from the joint fit to both redshift bins and gray bands indicate the excluded bandpowers in our analysis. The cross-correlation is detected within the analysis range with SNRs of 14.2 and 13.6 for Bin 1 and Bin 2, respectively, for a total detection of 19.6… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Recovery of C κg ℓ (green) and C gg ℓ (red) from simulations. Lighter error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the measurement, while darker bars indicate the error on the mean over 400 simulations. Gray bands indicate the excluded bandpowers in our analysis…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Monte Carlo normalization corrections for the cross-correlations of ACT DR6 and Planck PR4 lensing with the two Quaia redshift bins. The dark gray band denotes the multipole range excluded for Bin 2, while the lighter gray band indicates additional scales excluded for …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histogram of the PTE values of the total 18 null tests performed across both redshift bins. The distri￾bution is consistent with uniform, as confirmed by a Kol￾mogorov–Smirnov test (PTE = 0.43). i.e., T = TCMB + Tfg – since signals such as the tSZ effect and the CIB ar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cross-correlation of the lensing signal from foreground-only maps and a realization of the Quaia sample from WebSky populated according to the HOD described in Appendix B. We compare the bias and spectra obtained with profile hardening (baseline, green circles), adding…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Constraints obtained from the cross-correlation of ACT DR6 CMB lensing with the Quaia quasar samples, shown as 1σ and 2σ confidence contours in the σ8–Ωm plane. The dashed black lines represent the best-fit value of the parameter S × 8 and its associated 1σ uncertainty…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Summary of constraints on σ8 (left) and S8 (right) obtained from different data combinations and analysis choices. The baseline result from ACT DR6 and both Quaia redshift samples combined with BOSS and 6dF BAO, is highlighted in red and with a shaded band. Results fr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Joint constraints obtained from the cross-correlation of ACT DR6 lensing (green), Planck PR4 lensing (blue), and their combination (red) with the Quaia quasar samples, including BAO information described in Section 6.3. We show the 1σ and 2σ confidence contours.…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Reconstruction of σ8(z) from the 3×2pt analysis. The fiducial σ8(z) curve is rescaled in each redshift bin by √ Ai, where Ai are the amplitude parameters introduced in Equation (12). Shaded regions denote 1σ confidence intervals. This reconstruction probes the redshif…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Measurements of C gg ℓ on the full footprint (top) and C κg ℓ (bottom) using Planck lensing for both redshift bins considered. Dashed gray lines indicate the best-fit model from the joint fit to both redshift bins. The cross-correlation with each of the redshift bins …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between the redshift distributions of the WebSky mock catalogs (histograms) and the true dN/dz of the Quaia redshift bins (solid lines). These mocks are constructed to match both the redshift distribution and number density of the Quaia samples and are used…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Validation of the final WebSky catalogs by comparing their auto-correlation (C gg ℓ ; top) and cross-correlation with CMB lensing (C κg ℓ ; bottom) to the measured spectra in both redshift bins. This agreement supports the use of these mocks in the simulation-based fo…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Low-redshift constraints on structure growth from CMB lensing tomography

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Low-redshift galaxy clustering and CMB lensing tomography with hybrid effective field theory gives S8=0.79±0.06, consistent with Planck, while data alone prefer Ωm=0.245±0.024.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    la Caixa

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 207, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 207, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b 2022

  5. [5]

    N., Adshead, P., Ahmed, Z., et al

    Abazajian, K. N., Adshead, P., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2016, CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition. 1610.02743

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  7. [7]

    2023, Phys

    ---. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 083504, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083504

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.083504 2023

  8. [8]

    2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cluster Abundances, Weak Lensing, and Galaxy Clustering

    ---. 2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cluster Abundances, Weak Lensing, and Galaxy Clustering. 2503.13632

    arXiv 2025

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    2025, DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    Abdul-Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. 2503.14738

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A., Allison , J., Anderson , S

    Abell , P. A., Allison , J., Anderson , S. F., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2025, The Simons Observatory: Science Goals and Forecasts for the Enhanced Large Aperture Telescope

    Abitbol, M., Abril-Cabezas, I., Adachi, S., et al. 2025, The Simons Observatory: Science Goals and Forecasts for the Enhanced Large Aperture Telescope. 2503.00636

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., Sherwin, B

    Abril-Cabezas, I., Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., et al. 2025, Impact of Galactic non-Gaussian foregrounds on CMB lensing measurements. 2505.03737

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    Aihara, H., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 10.1093/pasj/psx081

    2017 doi

  6. [15]

    2017 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2617, 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    ---. 2017 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2617, 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    2021, Phys

    Alam, S., Aubert, M., Avila, S., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083533, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083533

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 053, 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/053

    Alonso, D., Colosimo, J., Font-Ribera, A., & Slosar, A. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 053, 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/053

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 043, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/043

    Alonso, D., Fabbian, G., Storey-Fisher, K., et al. 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 043, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/043

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4127–4151, 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    Alonso, D., Sanchez, J., & Slosar, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 4127–4151, 10.1093/mnras/stz093

    2019 doi

  11. [20]

    J., Coulton, W

    Atkins, Z., Duivenvoorden, A. J., Coulton, W. R., et al. 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 073, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/073

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Teyssier, D., Delchambre, L., et al. 2023, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 674, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243232

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    2013, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 555, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321048

    Benoit-Lévy, A., Déchelette, T., Benabed, K., et al. 2013, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 555, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321048

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    A., & Weinberg, D

    Berlind, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 575, 587–616, 10.1086/341469

    2002 doi

  15. [24]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 3017, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x

    Beutler, F., Blake, C., Colless, M., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 3017, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x

    2011

  16. [25]

    2011, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011, 034–034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    Blas, D., Lesgourgues, J., & Tram, T. 2011, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011, 034–034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    2011 doi

  17. [26]

    2023 a , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/039

    Bolliet, B., Colin Hill, J., Ferraro, S., Kusiak, A., & Krolewski, A. 2023 a , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/039

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    2023 b , class\_sz I: Overview

    Bolliet, B., Kusiak, A., McCarthy, F., et al. 2023 b , class\_sz I: Overview. 2310.18482

    2023 arXiv

  19. [28]

    P., & Gelman, A

    Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. 1998, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7, 434, 10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787

    1998

  20. [29]

    2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/02/057

    Carron, J. 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/02/057

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    Carron, J., Mirmelstein, M., & Lewis, A. 2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 039, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    , Jouvel, S

    Comparat , Delubac, T. , Jouvel, S. , et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527377

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    2025, Cosmology from Planck CMB Lensing and DESI DR1 Quasar Tomography

    de Belsunce, R., Krolewski, A., Chiarenza, S., et al. 2025, Cosmology from Planck CMB Lensing and DESI DR1 Quasar Tomography. 2506.22416

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    A., Hickox, R

    DiPompeo, M. A., Hickox, R. C., Eftekharzadeh, S., & Myers, A. D. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 4630, 10.1093/mnras/stx1215

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb085

    du Mas des Bourboux, H., Rich, J., Font-Ribera, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb085

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    2025, arxiv pre-print

    Fabbian, G., Alonso, D., Storey-Fisher, K., & Cornish, T. 2025, arxiv pre-print. 2504.20992

    2025 arXiv

  27. [36]

    S., Krolewski, A., MacCrann, N., et al

    Farren, G. S., Krolewski, A., MacCrann, N., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a5

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    S., Krolewski, A., Qu, F

    Farren, G. S., Krolewski, A., Qu, F. J., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083516, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083516

    2025 doi

  29. [38]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 150, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    2015 doi

  30. [39]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 043, 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/043

    García-García, C., Alonso, D., & Bellini, E. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 043, 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/043

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 030, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/030

    García-García, C., Ruiz-Zapatero, J., Alonso, D., et al. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 030, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/030

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    2025, Phys

    Ge, F., Millea, M., Camphuis, E., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083534, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083534

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    E., Peacock, J

    Geach, J. E., Peacock, J. A., Myers, A. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0894

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    E., Hickox, R

    Geach, J. E., Hickox, R. C., Bleem, L. E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, L41, 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/l41

    2013 doi

  35. [44]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457 , 10.1214/ss/1177011136

    1992

  36. [45]

    M., Hivon, E., Banday, A

    Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  37. [46]

    J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al

    Hahn, C., Wilson, M. J., Ruiz-Macias, O., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 253, 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    A., & Cai, Y.-C

    Hang, Q., Alam, S., Peacock, J. A., & Cai, Y.-C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 1481, 10.1093/mnras/staa3738

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    2006, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 464, 399–404, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    Hartlap, J., Simon, P., & Schneider, P. 2006, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 464, 399–404, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    2006 doi

  40. [49]

    2021, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 646, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    Heymans, C., Tröster, T., Asgari, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 646, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    M., Netterfield, C

    Hivon, E., Gorski, K. M., Netterfield, C. B., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 567, 2–17, 10.1086/338126

    2002 doi

  42. [51]

    S., et al

    Kim, J., Sailer, N., Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. 2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 022, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/022

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3500–3532, 10.1093/mnras/stv2140

    Kuijken, K., Heymans, C., Hildebrandt, H., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3500–3532, 10.1093/mnras/stv2140

    2015 doi

  44. [53]

    L., et al

    Laurent, P., Eftekharzadeh, S., Goff, J.-M. L., et al. 2017, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017, 017, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/07/017

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    2011, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview

    Lesgourgues, J. 2011, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview. 1104.2932

    2011 arXiv

  46. [55]

    2006, Physics Reports, 429, 1–65, 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.03.002

    Lewis, A., & Challinor, A. 2006, Physics Reports, 429, 1–65, 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.03.002

    2006 doi

  47. [56]

    2000, Astrophys

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, Astrophys. J., 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

    2000 doi

  48. [57]

    E., Oyaizu, H., et al

    Lima, M., Cunha, C. E., Oyaizu, H., et al. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 118–130, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13510.x

    2008

  49. [58]

    Limber , D. N. 1953, , 117, 134, 10.1086/145672

    1953 doi

  50. [59]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc620

    Lin, X., Cai, Z., Li, Y., Krolewski, A., & Ferraro, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc620

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    L., Atkins, Z., et al

    Louis, T., Posta, A. L., Atkins, Z., et al. 2025, The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and CDM Parameters. 2503.14452

    2025 arXiv

  52. [61]

    2008, Phys

    LoVerde, M., & Afshordi, N. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 123506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123506

    2008 doi

  53. [62]

    W., Higley, A

    Lyke, B. W., Higley, A. N., McLane, J. N., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 250, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    D., Qu, F

    MacCrann, N., Sherwin, B. D., Qu, F. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2610

    2024 doi

  55. [64]

    S., Smith, K

    Madhavacheril, M. S., Smith, K. M., Sherwin, B. D., & Naess, S. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 028, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/028

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    S., Qu, F

    Madhavacheril, M. S., Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    S., Ali-Haïmoud, Y., Carron, J., Lewis, A., & Madhavacheril, M

    Maniyar, A. S., Ali-Haïmoud, Y., Carron, J., Lewis, A., & Madhavacheril, M. S. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.083524

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    2021, Mon

    Mead, A., Brieden, S., Tr \"o ster, T., & Heymans, C. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502, 1401, 10.1093/mnras/stab082

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    J., Heymans, C., Lombriser, L., et al

    Mead, A. J., Heymans, C., Lombriser, L., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 1468, 10.1093/mnras/stw681

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    M., Lang, D., Schlafly, E

    Meisner, A. M., Lang, D., Schlafly, E. F., & Schlegel, D. J. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 124504, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab3df4

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    A., et al

    Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, Acevedo Barroso, J. A., et al. 2025, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 697, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450810

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    2022, Phys

    Miyatake, H., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 061301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.061301

    2022 doi

  63. [72]

    2023, Phys

    Miyatake, H., Sugiyama, S., Takada, M., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123517, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123517

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    2023, Phys

    More, S., Sugiyama, S., Miyatake, H., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123520, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123520

    2023 doi

  65. [74]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 10.21105/astro.2210.02243

    Naess, S., & Louis, T. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 10.21105/astro.2210.02243

    2023 arXiv

  66. [75]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 609–620, 10.1093/mnras/stt195

    Namikawa, T., Hanson, D., & Takahashi, R. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431, 609–620, 10.1093/mnras/stt195

    2013 doi

  67. [76]

    1989, , 339, L53, 10.1086/185418

    Narayan , R. 1989, , 339, L53, 10.1086/185418

    1989 doi

  68. [77]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  69. [78]

    2003, , 67, 083002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.083002

    Okamoto , T., & Hu , W. 2003, , 67, 083002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.083002

    2003 doi

  70. [79]

    J., Hanson, D., & Doré, O

    Osborne, S. J., Hanson, D., & Doré, O. 2014, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014, 024–024, 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/03/024

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    C., Hickox, R

    Petter, G. C., Hickox, R. C., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d31

    2022 doi

  72. [81]

    2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 012, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/012

    Piccirilli, G., Fabbian, G., Alonso, D., et al. 2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 012, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/012

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    2020, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration . 2020, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  74. [83]

    , Ade, P

    Planck Collaboration , Adam, R. , Ade, P. A. R. , et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525967

    2016 doi

  75. [84]

    J., Sherwin, B

    Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    J., Ge, F., Wu, W

    Qu, F. J., Ge, F., Wu, W. L. K., et al. 2025, Unified and consistent structure growth measurements from joint ACT, SPT and Planck CMB lensing. 2504.20038

    2025

  77. [86]

    J., Hang , Q., Farren , G., et al

    Qu , F. J., Hang , Q., Farren , G., et al. 2025, , 111, 103503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103503

    2025 doi

  78. [87]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 2481, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17624.x

    Remazeilles, M., Delabrouille, J., & Cardoso, J.-F. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 2481, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17624.x

    2011

  79. [88]

    J., Samushia, L., Howlett, C., et al

    Ross, A. J., Samushia, L., Howlett, C., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 835, 10.1093/mnras/stv154

    2015 doi

  80. [89]

    2025, Phys

    Sailer, N., DeRose, J., Ferraro, S., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 103540, 10.1103/27rg-tq8z

    2025 doi

  81. [90]

    2023, Phys

    Sailer, N., Ferraro, S., & Schaan, E. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023504, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023504

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    2020, Phys

    Sailer, N., Schaan, E., & Ferraro, S. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 063517, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063517

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    2024, Cosmological constraints from the cross-correlation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies with CMB lensing from Planck PR4 and ACT DR6

    Sailer, N., Kim, J., Ferraro, S., et al. 2024, Cosmological constraints from the cross-correlation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies with CMB lensing from Planck PR4 and ACT DR6. 2407.04607

    2024 arXiv

  84. [93]

    2019, Bulletin of the AAS, 51

    Sehgal, N., Aiola, S., Akrami, Y., et al. 2019, Bulletin of the AAS, 51

    2019

  85. [94]

    D., Das, S., Hajian, A., et al

    Sherwin, B. D., Das, S., Hajian, A., et al. 2012, Physical Review D, 86, 10.1103/physrevd.86.083006

    2012 doi

  86. [95]

    Spurio Mancini, A., Piras, D., Alsing, J., Joachimi, B., & Hobson, M. P. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1771–1788, 10.1093/mnras/stac064

    2022 doi

  87. [96]

    A., Bond, J

    Stein, G., Alvarez, M. A., Bond, J. R., Engelen, A. v., & Battaglia, N. 2020, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 012–012, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/10/012

    2020 doi

  88. [97]

    W., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Storey-Fisher, K., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1328

    2024 doi

  89. [98]

    H., Asgari, M., et al

    Stölzner, B., Wright, A. H., Asgari, M., et al. 2025, KiDS-Legacy: Consistency of cosmic shear measurements and joint cosmological constraints with external probes. 2503.19442

    2025

  90. [99]

    2023, Phys

    Sugiyama, S., Miyatake, H., More, S., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123521, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123521

    2023 doi

  91. [100]

    A., & Zeldovich , Y

    Sunyaev , R. A., & Zeldovich , Y. B. 1970, , 7, 3, 10.1007/BF00653471

    1970 doi

  92. [101]

    V., Klypin, A., et al

    Tinker, J., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 688, 709, 10.1086/591439

    2008 doi

  93. [102]

    L., Robertson, B

    Tinker, J. L., Robertson, B. E., Kravtsov, A. V., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 878, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/878

    2010 doi

  94. [103]

    2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    Torrado, J., & Lewis, A. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 doi

  95. [104]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 13, 10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/13

    van Engelen, A., Bhattacharya, S., Sehgal, N., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 13, 10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/13

    2014 doi

  96. [105]

    H., Stölzner, B., Asgari, M., et al

    Wright, A. H., Stölzner, B., Asgari, M., et al. 2025, KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey. 2503.19441

    2025 arXiv

  97. [106]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1868–1881, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  98. [107]

    B., & Sunyaev , R

    Zeldovich , Y. B., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1969, , 4, 301, 10.1007/BF00661821

    1969 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.