Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 7 cited by

Intrinsic alignment demographics for next-generation lensing: Revealing galaxy property trends with DESI Y1 direct measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Intrinsic alignments of galaxies are set by colour and luminosity alone: the bluest galaxies show no measurable alignment out to redshift 1.5, while red galaxies align more strongly the brighter they are.

desk verdict Largest direct IA library yet, but the abstract's 'consistent with zero' for high-z ELGs is contradicted by the paper's own 3σ fit; fix that and this is a solid measurement paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11530 v2 pith:6LAQSJPT submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

J. Siegel , J. McCullough , A. Amon , C. Lamman , N. Jeffrey , B. Joachimi , H. Hoekstra , S. Heydenreich
show 55 more authors
A. J. Ross J. Aguilar S. Ahlen D. Bianchi C. Blake D. Brooks F. J. Castander T. Claybaugh A. de la Macorra J. DeRose P. Doel N. Emas S. Ferraro A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero E. Gaztañaga S. Gontcho A Gontcho G. Gutierrez K. Honscheid M. Ishak S. Joudaki R. Kehoe D. Kirkby T. Kisner A. Krolewski O. Lahav A. Lambert M. Landriau L. Le Guillou M. E. Levi M. Manera A. Meisner R. Miquel J. Moustakas S. Nadathur J. A. Newman G. Niz N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival A. Porredon F. Prada I. Pérez-Ràfols G. Rossi E. Sanchez C. Saulder D. Schlegel M. Schubnell A. Semenaite J. Silber D. Sprayberry Z. Sun G. Tarlé B. A. Weaver R. Zhou H. Zou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords intrinsicalignmentscosmicshearweakgravitationallensingDESIDR1bluegalaxiesgalaxycolour-magnitudetrendsNLAmodelTATT
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

This paper measures how the intrinsic alignment of galaxies—the tendency for galaxy shapes to point coherently toward surrounding large-scale structure—depends on colour, luminosity, stellar mass, and redshift, using more than two million DESI galaxies with precise redshifts and shapes from four lensing surveys. It claims that the bluest, star-forming galaxies show no measurable alignment, from low redshift (0.05

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the projected shape–density cross-correlation function $w_{g+}(r_p)$: the sum of tangential shear of shape galaxies around DESI spectroscopic density tracers, counted in transverse and line-of-sight separation bins with a modified Landy–Szalay estimator and integrated along the line of sight. Two models interpret it: NLA, which ties galaxy ellipticity linearly to the tidal field with a non-linear power-spectrum correction, and TATT, which adds a tidal-torquing term and is fit to smaller scales; both are jointly fit to $w_{g+}$ and the projected galaxy clustering $w_{gg}$. The paper also defines a model-free 'IA amplitude'—a scaled ratio of $w_{g+}$ to $\sqrt{w_{gg}}$—so alignment strength can be compared across colour, luminosity, mass, and redshift bins without committing to a model.

What would settle it

Compute the magnification contribution to $w_{g+}$ for the high-redshift ELG sample ($1.15<z<1.55$) from the ELG number-count slope at the survey's magnitude limit: if the predicted magnification term rivals the measurement uncertainty on 6–65 Mpc/h scales, the zero-alignment inference for that sample is not secure, and the claim that blue galaxies are unaligned out to z≈1.5 would need revision. A second check is to measure $w_{g+}$ for the bluest BGS galaxies ($M_r-M_z<0.5$) with a deeper shear catalogue than SDSS, DES, or KiDS; a detection above $3\sigma$ would falsify the low-redshift null directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that intrinsic alignment amplitude in DESI galaxies is set by galaxy type, not by cosmic epoch: under both the NLA and TATT models, blue star-forming galaxies—the blue half of the low-redshift BGS sample (rest-frame $M_r-M_z<0.5$) and the emission-line galaxies at $0.8<z<1.55$—have alignment amplitudes consistent with zero, while red galaxies align strongly and more so at higher luminosity. The paper builds a library of over twenty independent subsamples spanning four magnitudes in luminosity, and finds that a model combining a double power law in luminosity with a linear term in rest-frame colour fits every measured amplitude with reduced $\chi^2_\nu=1.6$, leaving no residual trend in redshift or stellar mass. The conclusion is twofold: the bluest galaxies are effectively unaligned and can anchor low-IA cosmic-shear samples, and the alignment of the rest of the population can be predicted, and hence marginalized over, from colour and luminosity alone.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that on separations of 6 to 65 Mpc/h (2 to 65 Mpc/h for TATT) the measured shape-density signal is dominated by intrinsic alignment, with gravitational lensing of background shapes and magnification effects neglected; if magnification contributes significantly for the high-redshift emission-line galaxies at z>1.15, the inferred zero alignments could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cosmic shear surveys can build 'blue shear' samples—galaxies with $M_r-M_z<0.5$, roughly the bluest 30% of the BGS—that contribute negligible intrinsic alignment while retaining most of the source density.
  • IA model priors for DESI-like populations need only luminosity and colour dependence; dropping redshift dependence avoids the cosmological precision loss that flexible models such as TATT incur.
  • Any of the three stellar-age proxies—rest-frame colour, 4000 Å break strength, or specific star formation rate—selects weakly aligned galaxies equally well, so surveys can use whichever quantity they measure best.
  • The continuous rise of $A_{IA}$ as redder galaxies enter the sample means the IA contamination of a shear sample is tunable by the colour cut, giving a direct handle on the trade between systematic and shot noise.
  • The null detection of blue-galaxy alignments, now spanning $z\approx0.05$–$1.55$, extends the redshift range over which 'blue shear' is a viable strategy to cover most of the source redshifts of current Stage III lensing surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The claim that luminosity and colour suffice without redshift dependence is established only over $0<z<1.5$ and down to DESI's magnitude limits; for fainter LSST-like galaxies ($r\gtrsim24.5$), mass or redshift trends that are degenerate in this sample could still appear.
  • A blind test of the no-redshift-dependence claim would be to predict the IA amplitude of LRG samples at $z>1.1$ from the fitted luminosity–colour relation before measuring them, then check the residuals; the paper itself does not attempt this.
  • The paper notes a tentative trend in Appendix F that faint blue galaxies appear more aligned than bright blue ones; if deeper data confirm it, the simple 'blue means unaligned' rule would need qualification, and satellite alignments would become a distinct mechanism to model.
  • The library format invites a direct extension: cutting the same $w_{g+}$ measurements simultaneously by the three stellar-age proxies could separate stellar age from stellar mass as the physical driver of red-galaxy alignment in a way the current binned analysis cannot.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents direct measurements of intrinsic alignments (IA) using DESI DR1 spectroscopic galaxies cross-matched to public shear catalogues from DES, KiDS, HSC, and SDSS. The authors measure the projected shape–density correlation w_g+ and the projected clustering w_gg for BGS, LRG, and ELG samples, split by colour, luminosity, and redshift, and fit the measurements with NLA and TATT models. They report that red, luminous galaxies are strongly aligned; that blue, star-forming galaxies have alignments consistent with zero out to z~1.55; that the alignment of red galaxies is sufficiently described by luminosity and colour without explicit redshift dependence; and they provide a recommended blue-galaxy selection for future cosmic shear analyses. The paper also compares its sample coverage to future lensing surveys.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper provides one of the most extensive direct IA demographic libraries to date, with roughly an order of magnitude more galaxies than previous spectroscopic IA studies and with consistency checks across four independent shape catalogues. The measurement pipeline is careful: it uses publicly available calibrated shear catalogues, jointly fits w_g+ and w_gg, validates against mocks, uses jackknife covariances matched to the largest scales, and checks cross-survey consistency and scale-cut dependence. The blue-shear selection and the luminosity–colour scaling are of immediate use for cosmic shear analyses. However, the central null claim for high-redshift blue galaxies is contradicted by the paper's own best-fit NLA amplitude for the high-z ELG sample, and the neglected lensing/magnification terms are potentially important for that same bin. These issues must be resolved before the headline conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3, and Figure 3] The headline null claim for high-redshift blue galaxies is contradicted by the paper's own NLA fit. Table 3 reports A_IA = -3.0 +1.0/-1.0 for the high-z (1.15<z<1.55) ELG sample, a 3-sigma non-zero value, and Table E1 repeats this value. Figure 3 instead labels the same panel 'AIA = 3 ± 1', so the sign is not consistent between the table and the figure. Section 4.2 and the abstract state that ELGs are consistent with no intrinsic alignment 'regardless of redshift'. If the table is correct, the abstract's claim is false for the high-z sample; if the figure is correct, the table and Appendix E are wrong. In either case, the manuscript must be corrected and the conclusions re-assessed.
  2. [Section 3.2] The neglect of magnification and galaxy-galaxy lensing in the w_g+ modelling is stated rather than quantified. This assumption is load-bearing for the null claims and is especially concerning for the high-z ELG sample, where the best-fit NLA amplitude is 3 sigma from zero: a spurious negative amplitude could arise from uncorrected lensing or magnification if the HSC shape sample contains sources behind the DESI ELGs. Please estimate the size of these contributions for the high-z ELG bin (e.g., using the DESI and HSC redshift distributions and the relevant lensing kernels), or restrict the null claim to be conditional on this approximation.
  3. [Section 5 and Figure 8] The claim that IA amplitude is 'entirely explained' by luminosity and colour, with no need for explicit redshift dependence, is supported only by a reduced chi-squared of 1.6 and a visual inspection of residuals. The paper does not present a model that adds an explicit redshift term and compare it to the luminosity–colour model, e.g., through a change in chi-squared or an information criterion. Since this no-redshift-dependence statement appears in the abstract and conclusions, please add a quantitative model comparison or rephrase the claim as 'no residual redshift trend is detected in our bins'.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (11)] Calling this quantity 'model-free' is misleading because the constants M=10^6 and B=0.3 are chosen to make the amplitude approximate A_IA; this is a calibrated summary statistic rather than a model-free measurement, and the choice of scaling deserves a sentence of justification.
  2. [Data Availability section] The companion modelling paper is referred to as 'Jeffreys et al.' in the Data Availability section but as 'Jeffrey et al.' elsewhere; please harmonize the spelling.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says the co-added measurements are shown for BGS, LRG, and ELG, but the ELG panel is labelled 'ELG | HSC' and is not a co-add across surveys; please clarify the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IA results are empirical measurements fitted to data, not derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are direct measurements of w_g+ and w_gg using independent DESI spectroscopic redshifts and external imaging shear catalogues. The NLA and TATT amplitudes are free parameters fitted to those measurements, so statements like 'the bluest galaxies have an alignment consistent with zero' are data constraints rather than predictions obtained from the model. The only self-references (Jeffrey et al. in prep, McCullough et al. 2024, Lamman et al. 2024) are deferred modelling, context, or a review, and none of them supplies the load-bearing content of the analysis. Equation (11)'s 'model-free' amplitude uses fixed constants M=10^6 and B=0.3 chosen to approximate A_IA, but this is only a descriptive rescaling of measured correlations and is not used to predict the trends it summarizes; no conclusion reduces to these constants by construction. I find no step where a claimed result is equivalent to an input by definition or by a self-citation chain. A separate, non-circular correctness concern is that Table 3 reports A_IA = -3.0 ± 1.0 for the high-redshift ELG sample while Figure 3 shows 'AIA = 3 ± 1'; this internal inconsistency is not a circularity issue but should be resolved before interpreting the null claim for that sample.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are all fitted model amplitudes and nuisance parameters (A_IA, TATT amplitudes, bias parameters) whose values are data constraints. The main hand-chosen quantities are the scaling constants M and B in the model-free amplitude definition, and the parameters of the luminosity-colour trend model, which are not reported in the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • A_IA (NLA amplitude) for each blue BGS selection = 0.1±0.3 (Mr-Mz<0.5); 0.9±0.2 (<0.6); 1.4±0.2 (<0.65)
    NLA amplitude fitted to wg+ and wgg jointly; used to claim null detection for blue galaxies. Reported in Table 3.
  • A_IA for low-z and high-z ELG samples = 0±1 and -3±1
    NLA fits to HSC-matched ELG measurements; these values support the claim that high-redshift blue galaxies are unaligned. Reported in Table 3.
  • TATT parameters A1, A2, b_TA per sample = e.g., A1=0.2±0.4, A2=-0.1±0.6 for BGS blue selection; reported ranges in Table 3
    Tidal alignment and torquing amplitudes fitted with second-order galaxy bias; used to test model complexity. The posteriors are data constraints rather than assumed inputs.
  • Galaxy bias parameters b1, b2 = b1 values ~1.14 to 1.45 across samples (Table E1); b2 small
    Linear (NLA) and second-order (TATT) galaxy bias fitted jointly with wgg; these parameters affect the inferred A_IA values.
  • Model-free amplitude scaling constants M and B = M=1e6, B=0.3
    Chosen by hand (Section 5) to scale the ratio of wg+ to sqrt(wgg) so that the amplitude approximates A_IA; the scaling introduces a mild dependence on the NLA convention.
  • Luminosity-colour model parameters (double power law in M_r and linear in colour) = Not reported in the paper, deferred to companion paper
    The claim that luminosity and colour alone describe the red-galaxy amplitudes is based on this fit (reduced chi2=1.6), but the parameter values and uncertainties are not given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption NLA model is valid on scales 6 to 65 Mpc/h, and TATT on 2 to 65 Mpc/h, with linear galaxy bias for NLA and second-order bias for TATT.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 as the modelling framework; if the true IA signal has non-linear contributions on these scales, the fitted amplitudes would be biased.
  • domain assumption Magnification and galaxy-galaxy lensing contributions to wg+ are negligible.
    Explicitly stated in Section 3.2 as neglected; this is a flagged limitation for weak-alignment samples, particularly relevant for high-redshift ELGs.
  • domain assumption Shear calibrations and responsivities from the four imaging surveys are accurate.
    The analysis adopts the multiplicative biases and responsivities described in Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.4, including a bespoke KiDS KSB pipeline calibrated with image simulations; errors in these calibrations would propagate to the IA amplitudes.
  • domain assumption Rest-frame colours, luminosities, and stellar masses derived from FastSpecFit and CIGALE are reliable.
    The galaxy-type selection and the physical-driver analysis in Section 5 rely on these derived quantities, which carry template-fitting uncertainties.
  • standard math Flat LCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.3 and Omega_Lambda=0.7 for distance conversions.
    Adopted in Section 1 for all comoving distance calculations; a standard, non-controversial choice for this kind of measurement.
  • domain assumption Jackknife resampling provides unbiased covariance estimates for the correlation functions.
    Appendix D describes the three-dimensional jackknife procedure and the requirement that regions exceed the largest scales; if the covariance is underestimated, detection significances could be inflated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic alignment demographics for next-generation lensing: Revealing galaxy property trends with DESI Y1 direct measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6LAQSJPT

@misc{pith2026250711530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic alignment demographics for next-generation lensing: Revealing galaxy property trends with DESI Y1 direct measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6LAQSJPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11530}
}
abstract

We present direct measurements of the intrinsic alignments (IA) of over 2 million spectroscopic galaxies using DESI Data Release 1 and imaging from four lensing surveys: DES, HSC, KiDS, and SDSS. In this uniquely data-rich regime, we take initial steps towards a more tailored IA modelling approach by building a library of IA measurements across colour, luminosity, stellar mass, and redshift. We map the dependence between galaxy type -- in terms of rest-frame colour, strength of the 4000 Angstrom break, and specific star formation rate -- and IA amplitude; the bluest galaxies have an alignment consistent with zero, across low ($0.05<z<0.5$) and high ($0.8<z<1.55$) redshifts. In order to construct cosmic shear samples that are minimally impacted by IA but maintain maximum sample size and statistical power, we map the dependence of alignment with colour purity. Red, quenched galaxies are strongly aligned and the amplitude of the signal increases with luminosity, which is tightly correlated with stellar mass in our catalogues. For DESI galaxies between $0<z<1.5$, trends in luminosity and colour alone are sufficient to explain the alignments we measure -- with no need for an explicit redshift dependence. In a companion paper (Jeffrey et al., in prep), we perform detailed modelling of the IA signals with significant detections, including model comparison. Finally, to direct efforts for future IA measurements, we juxtapose the colour-magnitude-redshift coverage of existing IA measurements against modern and future lensing surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The leftmost panel presents the footprint of the DESI DR1 data (the BGS, LRG, and ELG samples are shown in grey) alongside the four imaging surveys: DES (red), KiDS (yellow), HSC (blue), and SDSS (green); the DES and KiDS footprints are truncated to declinations overlapping with DESI. The overlap area and properties of the matched data between each DESI sample and each imaging survey are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Measured DESI IA correlations: the alignment signals from the BGS, LRG, and ELG cross-matched shear catalogues (co-added across multiple lensing surveys) are presented in the left-most column; the choice of surveys for co-adding is discussed in Section 3.2. BGS (upper panel) is divided into blue (Mr − Mz < 0.5) and red (Mr − Mz > 0.5) subsamples in the second column, and further into faint and bright subsamples by l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Blue star-forming galaxies are consistent with zero intrinsic alignments, independent of redshift. Top left: the IA signal for blue (Mr − Mz < 0.5) BGS galaxies (co-added across the SDSS, DES, and KiDS shape catalogues). Top center and right: the IA signal for low (z < 1.15) and high redshift (z > 1.15) ELG galaxies from the HSC shape catalogue; the DES+KiDS ELG signal is also null (see Appendix B). The 16th and 84t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The non-detection of IA in blue galaxies depends on the purity of the blue sample, i.e., the amplitude of the IA signal scales with the rest-frame colour selection. We present the measured IA shape–density correlations in the left panel for three successively bluer BGS…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The posteriors on NLA AIA for successively bluer galaxy samples. DESI BGS is the density tracer and DES, KiDS, and SDSS are the shape tracers. We consider three definitions for selecting blue galaxies: specific star formation rate (sSFR), the strength of the 4000 A˚ br…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TATT fits and posteriors on A1, A2 for a series of successively bluer BGS galaxy samples (0.05 < z < 0.5) as well as low-z (0.8 < z < 1.15) and high-z (1.15 < z < 1.55) ELG samples; the BGS samples are identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: For LRGs, the amplitude of the intrinsic alignment signal in￾creases with galaxy luminosity. With DESI LRG as the density tracer and DES+KiDS as the shape tracer, we measure the IA correlation in four lu￾minosity bins. The average luminosity of each bin is reported. Th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An investigation of model free IA amplitude (Equation 11) in mass, luminosity, colour, and redshift space. We consider the BGS and LRG samples. The BGS matched DES, KiDS, and SDSS shape catalogues are first limited to red (Mr − Mz > 0.5) populations, each is then divid…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The landscape of direct intrinsic alignment measurements. We present a representative stage III lensing survey (DES Y3, grey) and the DESI DR1 cross-matched samples (BGS, LRG, ELG), in apparent magnitude–colour (left) and redshift–colour space (right). The DES Y3 conto…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Cross-correlation of SPT-3G D1 CMB lensing and DES Y3 galaxy lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cross-correlation of SPT-3G D1 CMB lensing and DES Y3 galaxy lensing measures S8 = 0.833^{+0.047}_{-0.061} at 14 sigma using polarization-only reconstruction, consistent with Planck and DES Y3.

  2. Density-Shear Baryon Acoustic Oscillation as a Cosmological Consistency Check

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    GI BAO provides a robust consistency check for density BAO and shear data, with the first photometric measurement on DES Y3 showing agreement at α = 0.966 ± 0.252.

  3. Density-Shear Baryon Acoustic Oscillation as a Cosmological Consistency Check

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First GI BAO measurement from DES Y3 photometric data yields α = 0.966 ± 0.252, consistent with density BAO α = 0.966 ± 0.037 at 0.86σ detection.

  4. The Environmental Dependence of Halo Intrinsic Alignments: Stronger Signals in Underdense Regions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At fixed halo mass, underdense environments produce systematically larger IA amplitudes (factor ~1.5–1.8) than overdense ones, driven by both stronger tidal alignment and greater intrinsic elongation.

  5. Assembly bias and the redshift evolution of intrinsic alignments for LRGs

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    FLAMINGO simulation analysis shows IA amplitude for LRGs depends on halo assembly history and exhibits redshift evolution beyond mass effects, yielding an empirical mass-redshift model.

  6. Cross-correlation of SPT-3G D1 CMB lensing and DES Y3 galaxy lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cross-correlation of SPT-3G CMB lensing and DES Y3 galaxy lensing measured at 14 sigma significance yields S8 = 0.833 +0.047 -0.061, consistent with Planck and DES Y3 shear-only results.

  7. Simulation budgeting for hybrid effective field theories

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Forecasts that under 225 N-body simulations suffice for 1-2% accurate HEFT emulators over wide w0waCDM + m_nu parameter space, with as few as 80 for restricted volumes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.322C 694, A322

    Fortuna M. C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.322C 694, A322

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452347 2025

  2. [2]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  3. [3]

    Aihara H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70S...4A 70, S4

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

  4. [4]

    arXiv:1902.05569

    Akeson R., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190205569A p. arXiv:1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  5. [5]

    Amon A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3514A 105, 023514

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023514 2022

  6. [6]

    E., Vlah Z., Schmidt F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...10..005B 2023, 005

    Bakx T., Kurita T., Chisari N. E., Vlah Z., Schmidt F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...10..005B 2023, 005

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/005 2023

  7. [7]

    L., Morris S

    Balogh M. L., Morris S. L., Yee H. K. C., Carlberg R. G., Ellingson E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...527...54B 527, 54

    doi:10.1086/308056 1999

  8. [8]

    M., Jarvis M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123..583B 123, 583

    Bernstein G. M., Jarvis M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123..583B 123, 583

    doi:10.1086/338085 2002

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1996164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..117..393B 117, 393

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    Bianchi D., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...04..074B 2025, 074

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Bigwood L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..655B 534, 655

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Blazek J., Vlah Z., Seljak U., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/08/015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JCAP...08..015B 2015, 015

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    A., MacCrann N., Troxel M

    Blazek J. A., MacCrann N., Troxel M. A., Fang X., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD.100j3506B 100, 103506

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Bridle S., King L., 2007, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NJPh....9..444B 9, 444

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04105.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.320L...7C 320, L7

    Catelan P., Kamionkowski M., Blandford R. D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04105.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.320L...7C 320, L7

    2001

  8. [16]

    arXiv:2407.04795

    Chen S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240704795C p. arXiv:2407.04795

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chisari N., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2736C 454, 2736

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..242....2C 242, 2

    Chisari N. E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..242....2C 242, 2

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Codis S., Pichon C., Pogosyan D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3369C 452, 3369

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    arXiv:1611.00036

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161100036D p. arXiv:1611.00036

    doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    arXiv:1611.00037

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161100037D p. arXiv:1611.00037

    doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..207D 164, 207

    doi

  15. [24]

    arXiv:2411.12020

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241112020D p. arXiv:2411.12020

    doi arXiv

  16. [25]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0b08 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167...62D 167, 62

    doi

  17. [26]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168...58D 168, 58

    doi

  18. [27]

    arXiv:2503.14745

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314745D p. arXiv:2503.14745

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    Dalal R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108l3519D 108, 123519

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    arXiv:1901.02401

    DeRose J., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1901.02401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190102401D p. arXiv:1901.02401

    2019 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    Dey A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..168D 157, 168

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    Fenech Conti I., Herbonnet R., Hoekstra H., Merten J., Miller L., Viola M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1627F 467, 1627

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..76F 654, A76

    Fortuna M. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..76F 654, A76

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Gatti M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab918 , 504, 4312–4336

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    Georgiou C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...628A..31G 628, A31

    2019 doi

  26. [35]

    E., Bilicki M., La Barbera F., Napolitano N

    Georgiou C., Chisari N. E., Bilicki M., La Barbera F., Napolitano N. R., Roy N., Tortora C., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.09452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250209452G p. arXiv:2502.09452

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    Guy J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..144G 165, 144

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    Hahn C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..253H 165, 253

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    arXiv:2412.01790

    Hervas Peters F., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241201790H p. arXiv:2412.01790

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    Heydenreich S., et al., 2025, Lensing Without Borders: Measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing and projected galaxy clustering in DESI DR1 ( @eprint arXiv 2506.21677 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21677

    2025 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Hirata C., Seljak U., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06683.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.343..459H 343, 459

    2003

  32. [42]

    M., Seljak U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvD..70f3526H 70, 063526

    Hirata C. M., Seljak U., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvD..70f3526H 70, 063526

    2004 doi

  33. [43]

    M., Mandelbaum R., Ishak M., Seljak U., Nichol R., Pimbblet K

    Hirata C. M., Mandelbaum R., Ishak M., Seljak U., Nichol R., Pimbblet K. A., Ross N. P., Wake D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12312.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381.1197H 381, 1197

    2007

  34. [44]

    Hoekstra H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A.135H 656, A135

    2021 doi

  35. [45]

    Hoekstra H., Franx M., Kuijken K., Squires G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504..636H 504, 636

    1998 doi

  36. [46]

    Hoekstra H., Herbonnet R., Muzzin A., Babul A., Mahdavi A., Viola M., Cacciato M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..685H 449, 685

    2015 doi

  37. [47]

    Hoekstra H., Viola M., Herbonnet R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.3295H 468, 3295

    2017 doi

  38. [48]

    arXiv:1702.02600

    Huff E., Mandelbaum R., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1702.02600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170202600H p. arXiv:1702.02600

    2017 doi arXiv

  39. [49]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    Jarvis M., Bernstein G., Jain B., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07926.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.352..338J 352, 338

    2004

  41. [51]

    B., Bridle S

    Joachimi B., Mandelbaum R., Abdalla F. B., Bridle S. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015621 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...527A..26J 527, A26

    2011 doi

  42. [52]

    Joachimi B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0177-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..193....1J 193, 1

    2015 doi

  43. [53]

    Johnston H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834714 , 624, A30

    2019 doi

  44. [54]

    Johnston H., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.147J 646, A147

    2021 doi

  45. [56]

    Kaiser N., Squires G., Broadhurst T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449..460K 449, 460

    1995 doi

  46. [57]

    Kuijken K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A...2K 625, A2

    2019 doi

  47. [58]

    N., Pyne S., Legnani E., Ferreira T., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2309.08605 , 7

    Lamman C., Tsaprazi E., Shi J., Šarčević N. N., Pyne S., Legnani E., Ferreira T., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2309.08605 , 7

    2024 arXiv

  48. [59]

    D., Szalay A

    Landy S. D., Szalay A. S., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...412...64L 412, 64

    1993 doi

  49. [60]

    U., et al., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.121260 , 7

    Lange J. U., et al., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.121260 , 7

    2024 doi

  50. [61]

    arXiv:1110.3193

    Laureijs R., et al., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1110.3193L p. arXiv:1110.3193

    2011 doi arXiv

  51. [62]

    arXiv:1308.0847

    Levi M., et al., 2013, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1308.0847L p. arXiv:1308.0847

    2013 doi arXiv

  52. [63]

    Li X., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psac006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASJ...74..421L 74, 421

    2022 doi

  53. [64]

    Li X., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108l3518L 108, 123518

    doi

  54. [65]

    Li S.-S., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.100L 670, A100

    doi

  55. [66]

    A., Kaiser N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475...20L 475, 20

    Luppino G. A., Kaiser N., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475...20L 475, 20

    1997 doi

  56. [67]

    MacCrann N., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.3371M 509, 3371

    2022 doi

  57. [68]

    Mackey J., White M., Kamionkowski M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05337.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.332..788M 332, 788

    2002

  58. [69]

    E., Bakx T., Chisari N

    Maion F., Angulo R. E., Bakx T., Chisari N. E., Kurita T., Pellejero-Ib \'a \ n ez M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.2684M 531, 2684

    2024 doi

  59. [70]

    M., Ishak M., Seljak U., Brinkmann J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09946.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.367..611M 367, 611

    Mandelbaum R., Hirata C. M., Ishak M., Seljak U., Brinkmann J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09946.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.367..611M 367, 611

    2006

  60. [71]

    Mandelbaum R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17485.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..844M 410, 844

    2011

  61. [72]

    M., Nakajima R., Reyes R., Smith R

    Mandelbaum R., Slosar A., Baldauf T., Seljak U., Hirata C. M., Nakajima R., Reyes R., Smith R. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1544M 432, 1544

    2013 doi

  62. [73]

    Mandelbaum R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3170M 481, 3170

    2018 doi

  63. [74]

    arXiv:2410.22272

    McCullough J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.22272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241022272M p. arXiv:2410.22272

    2024 doi arXiv

  64. [75]

    Miller L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.2858M 429, 2858

    2013 doi

  65. [76]

    N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168...95M 168, 95

    Miller T. N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168...95M 168, 95

    2024 doi

  66. [77]

    Moustakas J., Buhler J., Scholte D., Dey B., Khederlarian A., 2023, FastSpecFit: Fast spectral synthesis and emission-line fitting of DESI spectra , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2308.005

    2023

  67. [78]

    arXiv:2505.15470

    Navarro-Giron \'e s D., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.15470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250515470N p. arXiv:2505.15470

    2025 doi

  68. [79]

    Poppett C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....168..245P 168, 245

    2024 doi

  69. [80]

    Prada F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...698A.170P 698, A170

    2025 doi

  70. [81]

    Raichoor A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acb213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..126R 165, 126

    2023 doi

  71. [82]

    E., Nakajima R., Seljak U., Hirata C

    Reyes R., Mandelbaum R., Gunn J. E., Nakajima R., Seljak U., Hirata C. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21472.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2610R 425, 2610

    2012

  72. [83]

    Rix H.-W., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..152..163R 152, 163

    2004 doi

  73. [84]

    J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...01..125R 2025, 125

    Ross A. J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...01..125R 2025, 125

    2025 doi

  74. [85]

    Rowe B. T. P., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&C....10..121R 10, 121

    2015 doi

  75. [86]

    Samuroff S., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2197 , 489, 5453

    2019 doi

  76. [87]

    Samuroff S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2013 , 524, 2195–2223

    2023 doi

  77. [88]

    M., 2009, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271809014388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IJMPD..18..173S 18, 173

    Sch \"a fer B. M., 2009, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271809014388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IJMPD..18..173S 18, 173

    2009 doi

  78. [89]

    F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..259S 166, 259

    Schlafly E. F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..259S 166, 259

    2023 doi

  79. [90]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2209.03585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220903585S p

    Schlegel D. J., et al., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2209.03585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220903585S p. arXiv:2209.03585

    2022 doi arXiv

  80. [91]

    F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3515S 105, 023515

    Secco L. F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3515S 105, 023515

    2022 doi

  81. [92]

    P., McCarthy I

    Semboloni E., Hoekstra H., Schaye J., van Daalen M. P., McCarthy I. G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19385.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.2020S 417, 2020

    2011

  82. [93]

    Sevilla-Noarbe I., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abeb66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...24S 254, 24

    2021 doi

  83. [94]

    S., Huff E

    Sheldon E. S., Huff E. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa704b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...24S 841, 24

    2017 doi

  84. [95]

    H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165....9S 165, 9

    Silber J. H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165....9S 165, 9

    2023 doi

  85. [96]

    Singh S., Mandelbaum R., More S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2195S 450, 2195

    2015 doi

  86. [97]

    Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 3--20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7729-7_1

    Sinha M., Garrison L., 2019, in Majumdar A., Arora R., eds, Software Challenges to Exascale Computing. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 3--20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7729-7_1

    2019 doi

  87. [98]

    H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3022S 491, 3022

    Sinha M., Garrison L. H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3022S 491, 3022

    2020 doi

  88. [99]

    Siudek M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.308S 691, A308

    2024 doi

  89. [100]

    J., Motohara K., Vernet J

    Tamura N., et al., 2024, in Bryant J. J., Motohara K., Vernet J. R. D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X. p. 1309605, @doi 10.1117/12.3015967

    2024 doi

  90. [101]

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration 2005, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0510346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.10346T pp astro--ph/0510346

    2005 doi arXiv

  91. [102]

    A., Ishak M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhR...558....1T 558, 1

    Troxel M. A., Ishak M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhR...558....1T 558, 1

    2015 doi

  92. [103]

    D., Joachimi B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.1909V 439, 1909

    Viola M., Kitching T. D., Joachimi B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.1909V 439, 1909

    2014 doi

  93. [104]

    E., Schmidt F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...01..025V 2020, 025

    Vlah Z., Chisari N. E., Schmidt F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...01..025V 2020, 025

    2020 doi

  94. [105]

    H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319441W p

    Wright A. H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319441W p. arXiv:2503.19441

    2025 doi arXiv

  95. [106]

    P., Gao H., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace62b , 954, 2

    Xu K., Jing Y. P., Gao H., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace62b , 954, 2

    2023 doi

  96. [107]

    G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    York D. G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.1579Y 120, 1579

    2000 doi

  97. [108]

    Zhou R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...58Z 165, 58

    2023 doi

  98. [109]

    Zou H., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129f4101Z 129, 064101

    2017 doi

  99. [110]

    de Jong J. T. A., et al., 2013, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Msngr.154...44D 154, 44

    2013

  100. [111]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Msngr.175....3D 175, 3

    de Jong R. S., et al., 2019, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Msngr.175....3D 175, 3

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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