Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 106 references

Cosmic homogeneity: the effect of redshift-space distortions and bias and cosmological constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fitting the angular correlation dimension $D_2$ only above 1.25 degrees with a linear Kaiser model—omitting the Finger-of-God term—recovers galaxy bias and gives $\omega_m = 0.142^{+0.014}_{-0.022}$, consistent with CMB measurements.

desk verdict The bias analysis is solid, but the omega_m agreement with Planck rests on a cut chosen after the fact to minimize tension; also fix the abstract inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18720 v2 pith:IDSTLP3V submitted 2025-07-24 astro-ph.CO

Xiaoyun Shao , Rodrigo Gonçalves , Carlos A. P. Bengaly , Gabriela C. Carvalho , Jailson Alcaniz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmichomogeneityangularcorrelationdimensionredshift-spacedistortionsFinger-of-Godeffectgalaxybiasphysicalmatterdensitycosmologicalconstraintsluminousredgalaxies
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 argues that a cumulative angular clustering statistic, the correlation dimension $D_2(\theta)$, can bypass the need to model the nonlinear Finger-of-God effect in galaxy surveys. Its central claim is that when the $D_2$ curve is fitted only for angular separations $\theta \geq 1.25^\circ$ (roughly 20 $h^{-1}$ Mpc at the sample redshifts), the simplest linear Kaiser model recovers the galaxy bias and the physical matter density with negligible systematic error. Applied to luminous red galaxy samples from two large public data releases, the method gives $\omega_m = 0.142^{+0.014}_{-0.022}$, which agrees with current CMB analyses at the $0.2\sigma$ level. The payoff, if the claim holds, is that a careful scale cut can substitute for sophisticated nonlinear modeling in at least one summary statistic.

What carries the argument

The central object is the angular correlation dimension $D_2(\theta) = 2 + \frac{d}{d\ln\theta}\ln\left[1+\frac{1}{1-\cos\theta}\int_0^\theta \omega(\theta')\sin\theta'\,d\theta'\right]$, a cumulative logarithmic-derivative statistic built from the angular two-point correlation function $\omega(\theta)$. It is the fractal (correlation) dimension of the projected galaxy distribution, and the paper uses it because the integration reduces bin-to-bin covariance and the logarithmic derivative responds to the shape rather than the amplitude of clustering. The argument is carried by pairing $D_2$ with a deliberately simple redshift-space model, the linear Kaiser power spectrum $P_{gg}^{(s)}(k,\mu;b)=b^2(1+\beta\mu^2)^2P_{\delta\delta}^{(r)}(k)$ with $\beta=f/b$, and no Finger-of-God damping term. The scale cut $\theta_{\min}=1.25^\circ$ is the mechanism that makes the missing Finger-of-God term harmless; the paper shows that this corresponds to comoving scales of roughly 18-23 $h^{-1}$ Mpc over the redshift range $0.46 \leq z \leq 0.74$.

What would settle it

Run the same analysis on a large suite of independent mock catalogs with a known input cosmology and a known pairwise velocity dispersion, fixing $\theta_{\min}=1.25^\circ$ before any comparison with the CMB; if the mean recovered $\omega_m$ is offset from the input by more than the quoted statistical uncertainty, or if the recovered bias deviates from the input by more than about 0.5%, the scale-cut claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the angular correlation dimension $D_2(\theta)$ responds to redshift-space distortions in a sharply scale-dependent way: the Finger-of-God effect inflates $D_2(\theta)$ and biases the inferred linear bias on small angles, but its influence falls below the systematic budget once the fit starts at $\theta_{\min} \approx 1.25^\circ$. Comparing the linear Kaiser model with nonlinear model-generated points and with realistic mock catalogs, the authors show that excluding $\theta < 1.25^\circ$ reduces the $D_2$ residuals from roughly 2% to roughly 1% and keeps the recovered bias within about 0.5% of the input value. Applied to real luminous red galaxy data, the same cut yields a bias $b \approx 2.03 \pm 0.01$ at $z \approx 0.555$, redshift-evolving bias values consistent with reference measurements, and a physical matter density $\omega_m = 0.142^{+0.014}_{-0.022}$ that agrees with current CMB analyses at the $0.2\sigma$ level. The proposed mechanism is that the cumulative structure of $D_2$ makes it insensitive to the amplitude of small-scale velocity noise, so a clean angular cut achieves what a more accurate Finger-of-God model would otherwise be needed for.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $1.25^\circ$ minimum scale is a fixed, physically motivated cutoff rather than a post-hoc choice; the paper selects the lowest $\theta_{\min}$ for which the inferred matter density agrees with the CMB, and if that selection is what produces the agreement, the central claim would not survive an a priori cut.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, future $D_2(\theta)$ analyses can measure galaxy bias with a one-parameter linear fit, removing the need to marginalize over a velocity-dispersion nuisance parameter.
  • A fixed cut at $\theta_{\min}=1.25^\circ$ should keep the systematic error on $D_2$ at or below roughly 1%, which is the paper's stated improvement over fitting from $0.5^\circ$.
  • The recovered $\omega_m = 0.142^{+0.014}_{-0.022}$ gives an independent, late-time probe of the matter density that agrees with CMB measurements at the $0.2\sigma$ level.
  • With the same cut, the joint constraints $\Omega_{m0}=0.254\pm0.023$ and $H_0=74.9^{+5.8}_{-7.9}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ illustrate the method's reach, although the $H_0$ uncertainty is too large to arbitrate the Hubble tension.
  • The safe operating window $\theta_{\min} \in [1.25^\circ, 3^\circ]$ is a concrete recommendation that can be adopted directly by related analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not in the paper: if the scale-cut logic is correct, the same physical cutoff (about 20 $h^{-1}$ Mpc) should suppress Finger-of-God bias for other tracers such as quasars or emission-line galaxies, so predicting the required $\theta_{\min}$ from the tracer's velocity dispersion is a direct testable extension.
  • Not in the paper: the current result marginalizes over all redshift bins jointly, so publishing bin-by-bin $\omega_m$ posteriors would show whether the CMB agreement is a stable feature or is driven by a subset of the data.
  • Not in the paper: the $D_2(\theta)$ measurement is model-independent, but the interpretation of $\theta_{\min}=1.25^\circ$ as a physical scale depends on the fiducial cosmology, so the optimal cut should be recomputed if the fiducial model changes.
  • Not in the paper: combining the $D_2$-based bias measurement with galaxy-galaxy lensing or cosmic shear could break the bias-density degeneracy more cleanly than either probe alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the angular correlation dimension D2(θ) as a model-independent probe of cosmic homogeneity and as a tool for measuring galaxy bias and cosmological parameters. Using MultiDark-Patchy and EZmock mocks together with SDSS DR12/DR16 LRG data, the authors argue that restricting the D2 fit to angular scales above a minimum cut θ_min makes the linear Kaiser model (without an explicit Finger-of-God term) sufficient, yielding galaxy bias estimates consistent with reference values and a physical matter density ω_m = 0.142^{+0.014}_{-0.022} that agrees with Planck CMB. The central methodological claim is that a scale cut can replace detailed nonlinear RSD modeling.

Significance. The D2 statistic's reduced bin-to-bin correlations and the extensive validation against 1000 realistic mocks are genuine strengths, and the bias recovery at θ_min ≈ 1.25° is independently supported both by mocks and by reference bias estimates from [62]. If the scale-cut strategy is robust, it would provide a simple way to bypass FoG modeling for cosmological inference. However, the headline agreement with Planck is weakened by the post-hoc choice of θ_min, and the inconsistent abstract values must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6, Fig. 12; Sec. 7] The choice θ_min = 1.25° for the ω_m constraint is selected from the same D2 data used to derive the constraint. Figure 12 scans ω_m(θ_min) and Sec. 7 states that 'The lowest θ_min that produced results consistent with Planck CMB was found to be 1.25°'. The reported 1σ interval ω_m = 0.142^{+0.014}_{-0.022} therefore conditions on a cut chosen to minimize tension with the external CMB value, and the error bar does not include the variance of that selection. This makes the claimed 0.2σ agreement with Planck partially by construction. Please either fix θ_min a priori using the mock/theoretical criteria of Sections 4.2 and 5.2 before inspecting the ω_m constraint, or present a selection-corrected analysis (e.g., report the full scan, use a data-blind pre-registered threshold, or marginalize over θ_min).
  2. [Abstract vs. Sec. 6] The reported central result is inconsistent across versions of the abstract. The arXiv metadata abstract states ω_m = 0.137^{+0.041}_{-0.059}, while the full-text abstract and Sec. 6 report ω_m = 0.142^{+0.014}_{-0.022}. These values are mutually incompatible, and neither is flagged as a typo. The correct value and uncertainties must be identified and used consistently in all versions of the paper, because the claimed agreement with Planck depends on which number is quoted.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Table 4] The reduced chi-squared values for the three bias-evolution models are 4.57, 4.48, and 4.47 for 21 degrees of freedom, indicating that the scatter of the measured b(z) is substantially larger than the reported error bars. Since Bias Model 3 is used in the joint ω_m fit of Sec. 6, this large χ²_ν signals either underestimated errors or an incomplete bias model, either of which could propagate into the cosmological constraints. The paper should quantify the impact of this poor goodness-of-fit on the ω_m result, beyond the statement that alternative bias models do not significantly change the results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The threshold θ = 1.25° is introduced from a convergence argument over σ_p ∈ [0,600] km/s, but the mock-inferred pairwise dispersion is about 263 km/s; the dependence of the optimal θ_min on σ_p and redshift is not quantified. A quantitative criterion (e.g., where the fractional difference between models falls below a tolerance) would strengthen the case that the adopted cut is not arbitrary.
  2. [Sec. 5.3, Fig. 11] The black reference bias points from [62] are based on DR12 only, while the red points extend to DR16; clarify whether the comparison remains meaningful at z > 0.65, where no reference points are shown.
  3. [References] Reference [92] (Yi Wang et al., 'CDnet 2014: An expanded change detection benchmark dataset') appears unrelated to the redshift-space distortion modeling context in which it is cited; please verify and replace with the intended RSD reference.
  4. [Tables 1-2 and Sec. 6] There are minor typos, e.g., 'redshit bin means' in the Table 1 caption and 'previsouly' in Sec. 6; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 0.2σ Planck agreement for ωm is partly by construction because θmin=1.25° is selected from the ωm(θmin) scan as the lowest cut consistent with Planck; the bias-recovery validation is independent, so the method itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 6 'Cosmological constraints' (Fig. 12) and Sec. 7 'Conclusions']
    "For the sake of example, for θmin = 1.25o we obtain a constraint of ωm(θmin = 1.25o) = 0.142+0.014 −0.022 from our data, which is in excellent agreement with the Planck CMB result, ωm = 0.1434 ± 0.0020, with a discrepancy of only 0.2σ. ... The lowest θmin that produced results consistent with Planck CMB was found to be 1.25◦. So, based on the previous analysis, we fixed θmin = 1.25◦."

    The scale cut selects which ωm measurement is reported and is chosen from a scan of the same D2 data against the external Planck value. The Conclusions state the adopted cut is 'the lowest θmin that produced results consistent with Planck CMB', so the 0.2σ agreement at θmin=1.25° is a selection outcome, not an independent prediction. The quoted 1σ interval excludes the variance of choosing the cut after seeing the tension curve; scanning many cuts and reporting the least-tension one forces agreement by construction. Mock-based bias recovery (Secs. 5.1–5.2) independently supports θmin≈1.25°, so the bias claim is not circular; only the Planck-agreement claim is partly constructed.

full rationale

The core D2 method is self-contained: Eq. 3.1 defines the angular correlation dimension, Eq. 3.6 gives the Landy–Szalay estimator, and the theoretical predictions follow from Eqs. 4.1–4.4. The claim that θmin≈1.25° suppresses FoG systematics is first motivated theoretically (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 5) and then validated on independent MultiDark-Patchy and EZmock mocks by comparing recovered bias with reference values from [62] (Sec. 5.2, Fig. 9). That part is genuine external validation, not circular. The circularity concern is confined to the cosmological-constraint section: θmin=1.25° is adopted for the final Ωm–H0 constraints after Fig. 12 shows that this cut is where the D2-based ωm comes into agreement with Planck, and the Conclusions describe the cut as 'the lowest θmin that produced results consistent with Planck CMB'. Hence the headline agreement (0.2σ) is partly by selection; a pre-registered cut would be needed to quote it as a prediction. I do not treat the paper's extensive self-citations to [31,32] as circular, because the relevant equations are reproduced in the text and the mock/reference comparisons provide independent support. Separately, there is an internal inconsistency between the arXiv metadata abstract (ωm=0.137+0.041-0.059) and the full-text abstract/Sec. 6 (ωm=0.142+0.014-0.022); this is a reporting error to be corrected, and it does not change the circularity verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The parameter constraints use flat Lambda-CDM with Planck-fixed shape parameters, a linear bias model, a simplified Gaussian FoG model for mock validation, and a hand-tuned angular cut. No new entities are introduced; the main uncharged assumptions are the scale cut and the fiducial cosmology.

free parameters (4)
  • theta_min (minimum angular scale) = 1.25 degrees
    Chosen as the smallest angular cut that makes the D2-based omega_m tension with Planck drop below about 0.5 sigma; also checked against mocks. This is a hand-tuned analysis scale.
  • galaxy bias b = 1.8 to 2.3 across z = 0.46 to 0.74; b = 2.03 +/- 0.01 at z = 0.555
    Free parameter in fits of D2(theta); the paper reports b as a result from each redshift bin.
  • pairwise velocity dispersion sigma_p = 263 +/- 40 km/s for mock fit; also a 0 to 600 km/s grid
    Used only for mock and theoretical tests of the nonlinear model, not for the final cosmological constraints.
  • Bias model 3 parameters a1, a2 = a1 = 2.020 +/- 0.011, a2 = 0.944 +/- 0.131
    Parameterization of b(z) used in the MCMC analysis and marginalized over.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat Lambda-CDM with H(z) given by Eq. 3.5 and Planck 2018 fiducial values for n_s, A_s, Omega_k.
    Used to compute distances, the matter power spectrum, and theoretical D2; also used for the CMB comparison value.
  • domain assumption Scale-independent linear bias with f(z) = b(z) phi(z) and Kaiser model Eq. 4.1.
    Relates galaxy clustering to matter clustering and is assumed valid above theta_min.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian Finger-of-God damping model Eq. 4.2.
    A simplified dispersion model used to generate nonlinear mock data and estimate systematics; the paper acknowledges it is inaccurate at small scales.
  • domain assumption Top-hat redshift windows with narrow bins Delta z = 0.01.
    Used to project the 3D correlation function into the angular 2PACF and to avoid projection effects.
  • domain assumption Homogeneity threshold D2 = 1.98, corresponding to a 1% departure.
    Adopted from the literature to define theta_H; not central to the parameter constraints.
  • domain assumption CAMB plus HALOFIT matter power spectrum as the theoretical P(k).
    Input to Eq. 3.3 for the 3D correlation function.
  • standard math Landy-Szalay estimator is an unbiased estimator of the angular correlation function.
    Standard estimator used for all observational D2 measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic homogeneity: the effect of redshift-space distortions and bias and cosmological constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDSTLP3V

@misc{pith2026250718720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic homogeneity: the effect of redshift-space distortions and bias and cosmological constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDSTLP3V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18720}
}
abstract

We present a novel cosmological analysis based on the angular correlation dimension $D_2$ curve, a cumulative statistic derived from the two-point correlation function. Unlike traditional 3D approaches, angular $D_2$ is inherently less sensitive to nonlinear dynamical distortions, such as the small-scale Finger-of-God (FoG) effect. Using both MultiDark-Patchy and EZmock galaxy catalogs, we assess the scale-dependent impact of redshift-space distortions on $D_2$ and bias measurements. We demonstrate that the systematic errors associated with FoG modeling can be significantly reduced by restricting the analysis to appropriate minimum comoving angular scales of $\sim 1.25^{\circ} $, which corresponding to physical scales of $18$-$23\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$ over the redshift range $0.46 \leq z \leq 0.74$ within the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. Since the observational estimative of $D_2(\theta)$ is not dependent on a cosmological model we obtain robust estimates of the galaxy bias and place competitive constraints on the physical matter density $\omega_m$. By applying this framework to SDSS DR12 and DR16 Luminous Red Galaxy data, we obtain $\omega_m = 0.137^{+0.041}_{-0.059}$ (1$\sigma$), which agrees with current CMB analyses. Our results highlight the potential of the angular $D_2$ curve as a model-independent and robust tool for cosmological parameter inference.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [62]

    Exploring cosmic homogeneity with the BOSS DR12 galaxy sample

    Pierros Ntelis et al. Exploring cosmic homogeneity with the BOSS DR12 galaxy sample. JCAP, 06:019, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Planck 2018 results-vi

    N Aghanim, Y Akrami, M Ashdown, J Aumont, C Baccigalupi, M Ballardini, AJ Banday, RB Barreiro, N Bartolo, S Basak, et al. Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters (corrigendum). Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652:C4, 2021

    2018

  3. [2]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints.Astrophys

    Dillon Brout et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints.Astrophys. J., 938(2):110, 2022. – 20 –

    2022

  4. [3]

    Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory

    Shadab Alam et al. Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory. Phys. Rev. D, 103(8):083533, 2021

    2021

  5. [4]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing.Phys. Rev. D, 105(2):023520, 2022

    2022

  6. [5]

    Madhavacheril et al

    Mathew S. Madhavacheril et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters.Astrophys. J., 962(2):113, 2024

    2024

  7. [6]

    Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions.Phys

    Xiangchong Li et al. Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions.Phys. Rev. D, 108(12):123518, 2023

    2023

  8. [7]

    The Cosmological constant problems

    Steven Weinberg. The Cosmological constant problems. 5 2000

    2000

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

    Mota, Adam G

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk. In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions.Class. Quant. Grav., 38(15):153001, 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    A. G. Adame et al. DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. 4 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Calderon et al

    R. Calderon et al. DESI 2024: Reconstructing Dark Energy using Crossing Statistics with DESI DR1 BAO data. 5 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Marina Cortês and Andrew R. Liddle. Interpreting DESI’s evidence for evolving dark energy. 4 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    Inhomogeneity and the foundations of concordance cosmology

    Chris Clarkson and Roy Maartens. Inhomogeneity and the foundations of concordance cosmology. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27(12):124008, 2010

    2010

  6. [13]

    Is the Universe homogeneous?Phil

    Roy Maartens. Is the Universe homogeneous?Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 369:5115–5137, 2011

    2011

  7. [14]

    Establishing homogeneity of the universe in the shadow of dark energy

    Chris Clarkson. Establishing homogeneity of the universe in the shadow of dark energy. Comptes Rendus Physique, 13:682–718, 2012

    2012

  8. [15]

    Is the observable universe consistent with the cosmological principle? Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40(9):094001, April 2023

    Pavan Kumar Aluri, Paolo Cea, Pravabati Chingangbam, Ming-Chung Chu, Roger G Clowes, Damien Hutsemékers, Joby P Kochappan, Alexia M Lopez, Lang Liu, Niels C M Martens, C J A P Martins, Konstantinos Migkas, Eoin Ó Colgáin, Pratyush Pranav, Lior Shamir, Ashok K Singal, M M Sheik...

    2023

  9. [16]

    The fractal geometry of nature wh freeman and co.New York, 1982

    Benoit B Mandelbrot. The fractal geometry of nature wh freeman and co.New York, 1982

    1982

  10. [17]

    Galaxy distributions and fractals.Astrophysical Letters and Communications, Vol

    BB Mandelbrot. Galaxy distributions and fractals.Astrophysical Letters and Communications, Vol. 36, Nos. 1-6, p. 1-5, 36:1–5, 1997

    1997

  11. [18]

    Hogg, Daniel J

    David W. Hogg, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Michael R. Blanton, Neta A. Bahcall, J. Brinkmann, James E. Gunn, and Donald P. Schneider. Cosmic homogeneity demonstrated with luminous red galaxies. Astrophys. J., 624:54–58, 2005

    2005

  12. [19]

    The wigglez dark energy survey: the transition to large-scale cosmic homogeneity.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425(1):116–134, 2012

    Morag I Scrimgeour, Tamara Davis, Chris Blake, J Berian James, Gregory B Poole, Lister Staveley-Smith, Sarah Brough, Matthew Colless, Carlos Contreras, Warrick Couch, et al. The wigglez dark energy survey: the transition to large-scale cosmic homogeneity.Monthly Notices of the...

    2012

  13. [20]

    Alonso, A

    D. Alonso, A. Bueno Belloso, F. J. Sánchez, J. Garcia-Bellido, and E. Sánchez. Measuring the transition to homogeneity with photometric redshift surveys.MNRAS, 440(1):10–23, May 2014

    2014

  14. [21]

    Homogeneity and isotropy in the two micron all sky – 21 – survey photometric redshift catalogue.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449(1):670–684, 2015

    David Alonso, Ana Isabel Salvador, Francisco Javier Sánchez, Maciej Bilicki, Juan García-Bellido, and Eusebio Sánchez. Homogeneity and isotropy in the two micron all sky – 21 – survey photometric redshift catalogue.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449(1):670–...

    2015

  15. [22]

    A 14 h- 3 gpc3 study of cosmic homogeneity using boss dr12 quasar sample.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016(11):060, 2016

    Pierre Laurent, Jean-Marc Le Goff, Etienne Burtin, Jean-Christophe Hamilton, David W Hogg, Adam Myers, Pierros Ntelis, Isabelle Pâris, James Rich, Eric Aubourg, et al. A 14 h- 3 gpc3 study of cosmic homogeneity using boss dr12 quasar sample.Journal of Cosmology and Astropartic...

    2016

  16. [23]

    Exploring cosmic homogeneity with the boss dr12 galaxy sample.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017(06):019, 2017

    Pierros Ntelis, Jean-Christophe Hamilton, Jean-Marc Le Goff, Etienne Burtin, Pierre Laurent, James Rich, Jeremy Tinker, Eric Aubourg, Hélion Du Mas Des Bourboux, Julian Bautista, et al. Exploring cosmic homogeneity with the boss dr12 galaxy sample.Journal of Cosmology and Astr...

    2017

  17. [24]

    Cosmic homogeneity: a spectroscopic and model-independent measurement

    RS Gonçalves, GC Carvalho, CAP Bengaly Jr, JC Carvalho, A Bernui, JS Alcaniz, and R Maartens. Cosmic homogeneity: a spectroscopic and model-independent measurement. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 475(1):L20–L24, 2018

    2018

  18. [25]

    Measuring the scale of cosmic homogeneity with sdss-iv dr14 quasars.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481(4):5270–5274, 2018

    RS Gonçalves, GC Carvalho, CAP Bengaly, JC Carvalho, and JS Alcaniz. Measuring the scale of cosmic homogeneity with sdss-iv dr14 quasars.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481(4):5270–5274, 2018

    2018

  19. [26]

    Secrest, Sebastian von Hausegger, Mohamed Rameez, Roya Mohayaee, Subir Sarkar, and Jacques Colin

    Nathan J. Secrest, Sebastian von Hausegger, Mohamed Rameez, Roya Mohayaee, Subir Sarkar, and Jacques Colin. A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars.ApJL, 908(2):L51, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Probing the cosmological principle in the counts of radio galaxies at different frequencies.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018(04):031, 2018

    Carlos AP Bengaly, Roy Maartens, and Mario G Santos. Probing the cosmological principle in the counts of radio galaxies at different frequencies.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018(04):031, 2018

    2018

  21. [28]

    Measuring the cosmic homogeneity scale with sdss-iv dr16 quasars

    Rodrigo S Gonçalves, Gabriela C Carvalho, Uendert Andrade, Carlos AP Bengaly, Joel C Carvalho, and Jailson Alcaniz. Measuring the cosmic homogeneity scale with sdss-iv dr16 quasars. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021(03):029, 2021

    2021

  22. [29]

    The angular scale of homogeneity with sdss-iv dr16 luminous red galaxies

    Uendert Andrade, Rodrigo S Gonçalves, Gabriela C Carvalho, Carlos AP Bengaly, Joel C Carvalho, and Jailson Alcaniz. The angular scale of homogeneity with sdss-iv dr16 luminous red galaxies. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022(10):088, 2022

    2022

  23. [30]

    The cosmic dipole in the quaia sample of quasars: a bayesian analysis.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527(3):8497–8510, 2024

    Vasudev Mittal, Oliver T Oayda, and Geraint F Lewis. The cosmic dipole in the quaia sample of quasars: a bayesian analysis.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527(3):8497–8510, 2024

    2024

  24. [31]

    Gonçalves, Carlos A

    Xiaoyun Shao, Rodrigo S. Gonçalves, Carlos A. P. Bengaly, Uendert Andrade, Gabriela C. Carvalho, and Jailson Alcaniz. Can the angular scale of cosmic homogeneity be used as a cosmological test? Eur. Phys. J. C, 84(7):655, 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Xiaoyun Shao, Carlos A. P. Bengaly, Rodrigo S. Gonçalves, Gabriela C. Carvalho, and Jailson Alcaniz. Cosmological constraints from angular homogeneity scale measurements.Eur. Phys. J. C, 85(3):225, 2025

    2025

  26. [33]

    A measurement of the scale of homogeneity in the early universe.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022(04):044, 2022

    Benjamin Camacho-Quevedo and Enrique Gaztañaga. A measurement of the scale of homogeneity in the early universe.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022(04):044, 2022

    2022

  27. [34]

    Gonçalves, Carlos A

    Xiaoyun Shao, Facundo Toscano, Diego Garcia Lambas, Rodrigo S. Gonçalves, Carlos A. P. Bengaly, Heliana E. Luparello, Frode K. Hansen, and Jailson Alcaniz. Revisiting the CMB homogeneity scale: low multipoles removal effect and extragalactic foreground masking. 5 2025

    2025

  28. [35]

    Clustering in real space and in redshift space.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 227(1):1–21, 1987

    Nick Kaiser. Clustering in real space and in redshift space.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 227(1):1–21, 1987. – 22 –

    1987

  29. [36]

    Measuring the cosmological constant with redshift surveys

    WE Ballinger, JA Peacock, and AF Heavens. Measuring the cosmological constant with redshift surveys. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 282(3):877–888, 1996

    1996

  30. [37]

    The 6df galaxy survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local hubble constant.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416(4):3017–3032, 2011

    Florian Beutler, Chris Blake, Matthew Colless, D Heath Jones, Lister Staveley-Smith, Lachlan Campbell, Quentin Parker, Will Saunders, and Fred Watson. The 6df galaxy survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local hubble constant.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So...

    2011

  31. [38]

    Interpreting large-scale redshift-space distortion measurements

    Lado Samushia, Will J Percival, and Alvise Raccanelli. Interpreting large-scale redshift-space distortion measurements. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420(3):2102–2119, 2012

    2012

  32. [39]

    Chia-Hsun Chuang and Yun Wang. Modelling the anisotropic two-point galaxy correlation function on small scales and single-probe measurements of h (z), da (z) and f (z)σ8 (z) from the sloan digital sky survey dr7 luminous red galaxies.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical S...

    2013

  33. [40]

    Chia-Hsun Chuang, Francisco Prada, Antonio J Cuesta, Daniel J Eisenstein, Eyal Kazin, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Ariel G Sánchez, Xiaoying Xu, Florian Beutler, Marc Manera, et al. The clustering of galaxies in the sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: single-probe measure...

    2013

  34. [41]

    The wigglez dark energy survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z< 1.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425(1):405–414, 2012

    Chris Blake, Sarah Brough, Matthew Colless, Carlos Contreras, Warrick Couch, Scott Croom, Darren Croton, Tamara M Davis, Michael J Drinkwater, Karl Forster, et al. The wigglez dark energy survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z< 1.Monthly Notices of...

    2012

  35. [42]

    The wigglez dark energy survey: measuring the cosmic growth rate with the two-point galaxy correlation function

    Carlos Contreras, Chris Blake, Gregory B Poole, Felipe Marin, Sarah Brough, Matthew Colless, Warrick Couch, Scott Croom, Darren Croton, Tamara M Davis, et al. The wigglez dark energy survey: measuring the cosmic growth rate with the two-point galaxy correlation function. Month...

    2013

  36. [43]

    The vimos public extragalactic redshift survey (vipers): galaxy clustering and redshift-space distortions atz≃ 0.8 in the first data release

    S de la Torre, L Guzzo, JA Peacock, E Branchini, A Iovino, BR Granett, U Abbas, C Adami, S Arnouts, J Bel, et al. The vimos public extragalactic redshift survey (vipers): galaxy clustering and redshift-space distortions atz≃ 0.8 in the first data release. 2013

    2013

  37. [44]

    Rita Tojeiro, Will J Percival, Jon Brinkmann, Joel R Brownstein, Daniel J Eisenstein, Marc Manera, Claudia Maraston, Cameron K McBride, Demitri Muna, Beth Reid, et al. The clustering of galaxies in the sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: measuring structure growt...

    2012

  38. [45]

    Beth A Reid, Lado Samushia, Martin White, Will J Percival, Marc Manera, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Ashley J Ross, Ariel G Sánchez, Stephen Bailey, Dmitry Bizyaev, et al. The clustering of galaxies in the sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: measurements of the growth of ...

    2012

  39. [46]

    A 2.5 per cent measurement of the growth rate from small-scale redshift space clustering of sdss-iii cmass galaxies

    Beth A Reid, Hee-Jong Seo, Alexie Leauthaud, Jeremy L Tinker, and Martin White. A 2.5 per cent measurement of the growth rate from small-scale redshift space clustering of sdss-iii cmass galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444(1):476–502, 2014

    2014

  40. [47]

    Lower growth rate from recent redshift space distortion measurements than<? format?> expected from planck

    Edward Macaulay, Ingunn Kathrine Wehus, and Hans Kristian Eriksen. Lower growth rate from recent redshift space distortion measurements than<? format?> expected from planck. Physical review letters, 111(16):161301, 2013

    2013

  41. [48]

    Federico Marulli, Alfonso Veropalumbo, Lauro Moscardini, Andrea Cimatti, and Klaus Dolag. Redshift-space distortions of galaxies, clusters, and agn-testing how the accuracy of growth – 23 – rate measurements depends on scales and sample selections.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 599...

    2017

  42. [49]

    Francisco-Shu Kitaura, Sergio Rodriguez-Torres, Chia-Hsun Chuang, Cheng Zhao, Francisco Prada, Hector Gil-Marin, Hong Guo, Gustavo Yepes, Anatoly Klypin, Claudia G Scóccola, et al. The clustering of galaxies in the sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: mock galaxy ...

    2016

  43. [50]

    Sergio A Rodríguez-Torres, Chia-Hsun Chuang, Francisco Prada, Hong Guo, Anatoly Klypin, Peter Behroozi, Chang Hoon Hahn, Johan Comparat, Gustavo Yepes, Antonio D Montero-Dorta, et al. The clustering of galaxies in the sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: modelling...

    2016

  44. [51]

    Cheng Zhao, Chia-Hsun Chuang, Julian Bautista, Arnaud de Mattia, Anand Raichoor, Ashley J Ross, Jiamin Hou, Richard Neveux, Charling Tao, Etienne Burtin, et al. The completed sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: 1000 multi-tracer mock catalogues with redsh...

    2021

  45. [52]

    The baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey of sdss-iii.The Astronomical Journal, 145(1):10, 2012

    Kyle S Dawson, David J Schlegel, Christopher P Ahn, Scott F Anderson, Éric Aubourg, Stephen Bailey, Robert H Barkhouser, Julian E Bautista, Alessandra Beifiori, Andreas A Berlind, et al. The baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey of sdss-iii.The Astronomical Journal, 145(1):10, 2012

    2012

  46. [53]

    The eleventh and twelfth data releases of the sloan digital sky survey: final data from sdss-iii

    Shadab Alam, Franco D Albareti, Carlos Allende Prieto, Friedrich Anders, Scott F Anderson, Timothy Anderton, Brett H Andrews, Eric Armengaud, Éric Aubourg, Stephen Bailey, et al. The eleventh and twelfth data releases of the sloan digital sky survey: final data from sdss-iii. ...

    2015

  47. [54]

    Sdss-iii: Massive spectroscopic surveys of the distant universe, the milky way, and extra-solar planetary systems

    Daniel J Eisenstein, David H Weinberg, Eric Agol, Hiroaki Aihara, Carlos Allende Prieto, Scott F Anderson, James A Arns, Éric Aubourg, Stephen Bailey, Eduardo Balbinot, et al. Sdss-iii: Massive spectroscopic surveys of the distant universe, the milky way, and extra-solar plane...

    2011

  48. [55]

    The sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: overview and early data.The Astronomical Journal, 151(2):44, 2016

    Kyle S Dawson, Jean-Paul Kneib, Will J Percival, Shadab Alam, Franco D Albareti, Scott F Anderson, Eric Armengaud, Éric Aubourg, Stephen Bailey, Julian E Bautista, et al. The sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: overview and early data.The Astronomical Jou...

    2016

  49. [56]

    Measuring the transition to homogeneity with photometric redshift surveys.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440(1):10–23, 2014

    D Alonso, A Bueno Belloso, FJ Sánchez, J García-Bellido, and E Sánchez. Measuring the transition to homogeneity with photometric redshift surveys.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440(1):10–23, 2014

    2014

  50. [57]

    R. S. Gonçalves, G. C. Carvalho, C. A. P. Bengaly, J. C. Carvalho, and J. S. Alcaniz. Measuring the scale of cosmic homogeneity with SDSS-IV DR14 quasars.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481(4):5270–5274, 2018

    2018

  51. [58]

    Gonçalves, Gabriela C

    Rodrigo S. Gonçalves, Gabriela C. Carvalho, Uendert Andrade, Carlos A. P. Bengaly, Joel C. Carvalho, and Jailson Alcaniz. Measuring the cosmic homogeneity scale with SDSS-IV DR16 Quasars. JCAP, 03:029, 2021

    2021

  52. [59]

    Alonso, A

    D. Alonso, A. Bueno belloso, F. J. Sánchez, J. García-Bellido, and E. Sánchez. Measuring the transition to homogeneity with photometric redshift surveys.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 440(1):10–23, 2014

    2014

  53. [60]

    Gonçalves, Gabriela C

    Uendert Andrade, Rodrigo S. Gonçalves, Gabriela C. Carvalho, Carlos A. P. Bengaly, Joel C. Carvalho, and Jailson Alcaniz. The angular scale of homogeneity with SDSS-IV DR16 luminous red galaxies.JCAP, 10:088, 2022. – 24 –

    2022

  54. [61]

    Sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey data release 12: galaxy target selection and large-scale structure catalogues

    Beth Reid, Shirley Ho, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Will J Percival, Jeremy Tinker, Rita Tojeiro, Martin White, Daniel J Eisenstein, Claudia Maraston, Ashley J Ross, et al. Sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey data release 12: galaxy target selection and large-scale structu...

    2016

  55. [63]

    Ashley J Ross, Julian Bautista, Rita Tojeiro, Shadab Alam, Stephen Bailey, Etienne Burtin, Johan Comparat, Kyle S Dawson, Arnaud De Mattia, Hélion du Mas des Bourboux, et al. The completed sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: Large-scale structure catalogu...

    2020

  56. [64]

    Julian E Bautista, Romain Paviot, Mariana Vargas Magaña, Sylvain de La Torre, Sebastien Fromenteau, Hector Gil-Marín, Ashley J Ross, Etienne Burtin, Kyle S Dawson, Jiamin Hou, et al. The completed sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: measurement of the bao...

    2021

  57. [65]

    The completed sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: geometry and growth from the anisotropic void–galaxy correlation function in the luminous red galaxy sample

    Seshadri Nadathur, Alex Woodfinden, Will J Percival, Marie Aubert, Julian Bautista, Kyle Dawson, Stéphanie Escoffier, Sebastien Fromenteau, Héctor Gil-Marín, James Rich, et al. The completed sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: geometry and growth from the...

    2020

  58. [66]

    Power spectrum analysis of three-dimensional redshift surveys.arXiv preprint astro-ph/9304022, 1993

    Hume A Feldman, Nick Kaiser, and John A Peacock. Power spectrum analysis of three-dimensional redshift surveys.arXiv preprint astro-ph/9304022, 1993

    1993 arXiv

  59. [67]

    The scale of homogeneity of the galaxy distribution in SDSS DR6.Mon

    Prakash Sarkar, Jaswant Yadav, Biswajit Pandey, and Somnath Bharadwaj. The scale of homogeneity of the galaxy distribution in SDSS DR6.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 399:L128–L131, 2009

    2009

  60. [68]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: the transition to large-scale cosmic homogeneity

    Morag Scrimgeour et al. The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: the transition to large-scale cosmic homogeneity. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 425:116–134, 2012

    2012

  61. [69]

    A method for testing the cosmic homogeneity with Shannon entropy.Mon

    Biswajit Pandey. A method for testing the cosmic homogeneity with Shannon entropy.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 430:3376, 2013

    2013

  62. [70]

    Testing homogeneity in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release Twelve with Shannon entropy.Mon

    Biswajit Pandey and Suman Sarkar. Testing homogeneity in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release Twelve with Shannon entropy.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 454(3):2647–2656, 2015

    2015

  63. [71]

    An information theory based search for homogeneity on the largest accessible scale.Mon

    Suman Sarkar and Biswajit Pandey. An information theory based search for homogeneity on the largest accessible scale.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 463(1):L12–L16, 2016

    2016

  64. [72]

    A 14h−3 Gpc3 study of cosmic homogeneity using BOSS DR12 quasar sample

    Pierre Laurent et al. A 14h−3 Gpc3 study of cosmic homogeneity using BOSS DR12 quasar sample. JCAP, 11:060, 2016

    2016

  65. [73]

    CMASS galaxy sample and the ontological status of the cosmological principle.Astron

    Yigon Kim, Chan-Gyung Park, Hyerim Noh, and Jai-chan Hwang. CMASS galaxy sample and the ontological status of the cosmological principle.Astron. Astrophys., 660:A139, 2022

    2022

  66. [74]

    Vasilyev, Yurij V

    Francesco Sylos Labini, Nikolay L. Vasilyev, Yurij V. Baryshev, and Martin Lopez-Corredoira. Absence of anti-correlations and of baryon acoustic oscillations in the galaxy correlation function from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7.Astron. Astrophys., 505:981–990, 2009

    2009

  67. [75]

    Very large scale correlations in the galaxy distribution.EPL, 96(5):59001, 2011

    Francesco Sylos Labini. Very large scale correlations in the galaxy distribution.EPL, 96(5):59001, 2011. – 25 –

    2011

  68. [76]

    The cosmological principle is not in the sky.Mon

    Chan-Gyung Park, Hwasu Hyun, Hyerim Noh, and Jai-chan Hwang. The cosmological principle is not in the sky.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 469(2):1924–1931, 2017

    1924

  69. [77]

    Cosmological homogeneity scale estimates are dressed.JCAP, 10:052, 2020

    Asta Heinesen. Cosmological homogeneity scale estimates are dressed.JCAP, 10:052, 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    Homogeneity and isotropy in the Two Micron All Sky Survey Photometric Redshift catalogue.Mon

    David Alonso, Ana Isabel Salvador, Francisco Javier Sánchez, Maciej Bilicki, Juan García-Bellido, and Eusebio Sánchez. Homogeneity and isotropy in the Two Micron All Sky Survey Photometric Redshift catalogue.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 449(1):670–684, 2015

    2015

  71. [79]

    R. S. Gonçalves, G. C. Carvalho, C. A. P. Bengaly, J. C. Carvalho, A. Bernui, J. S. Alcaniz, and R. Maartens. Cosmic homogeneity: a spectroscopic and model-independent measurement. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 475(1):L20–L24, 2018

    2018

  72. [80]

    The scale of cosmic homogeneity as a standard ruler.JCAP, 12:014, 2018

    Pierros Ntelis, Anne Ealet, Stephanie Escoffier, Jean-Christophe Hamilton, Adam James Hawken, Jean-Marc Le Goff, James Rich, and Andre Tilquin. The scale of cosmic homogeneity as a standard ruler.JCAP, 12:014, 2018

    2018

  73. [81]

    Cosmological constraints from cosmic homogeneity

    Pierros Ntelis, Adam James Hawken, Stephanie Escoffier, Anne Ealet, and Andre Tilquin. Cosmological constraints from cosmic homogeneity. 4 2019

    2019

  74. [82]

    Can the homogeneity scale be used as a standard ruler? Phys

    Savvas Nesseris and Manuel Trashorras. Can the homogeneity scale be used as a standard ruler? Phys. Rev. D, 99(6):063539, 2019

    2019

  75. [83]

    Modelling the angular correlation function and its full covariance in photometric galaxy surveys.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414(1):329–349, 2011

    Martín Crocce, Anna Cabré, and Enrique Gaztanaga. Modelling the angular correlation function and its full covariance in photometric galaxy surveys.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414(1):329–349, 2011

    2011

  76. [84]

    Bias and variance of angular correlation functions

    Stephen D Landy and Alexander S Szalay. Bias and variance of angular correlation functions. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 412, no. 1, p. 64-71., 412:64–71, 1993

    1993

  77. [85]

    The skewness of the aperture mass statistic

    Micael Jarvis, Gary Bernstein, and Bhuvnesh Jain. The skewness of the aperture mass statistic. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352(1):338–352, 2004

    2004

  78. [86]

    Efficient computation of cosmic microwave background anisotropies in closed friedmann-robertson-walker models.The Astrophysical Journal, 538(2):473, 2000

    Antony Lewis, Anthony Challinor, and Anthony Lasenby. Efficient computation of cosmic microwave background anisotropies in closed friedmann-robertson-walker models.The Astrophysical Journal, 538(2):473, 2000

    2000

  79. [87]

    R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, and H. M. P. Couchman. Stable clustering, the halo model and non-linear cosmological power spectra.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341(4):1311–133...

    2003

  80. [88]

    Linder and Robert N

    Eric V. Linder and Robert N. Cahn. Parameterized Beyond-Einstein Growth.Astropart. Phys., 28:481–488, 2007

    2007

  81. [89]

    Redshift-space distortions, pairwise velocities, and nonlinearities

    Román Scoccimarro. Redshift-space distortions, pairwise velocities, and nonlinearities. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 70(8):083007, 2004

    2004

  82. [90]

    Atsushi Taruya, Takahiro Nishimichi, and Shun Saito. Baryon acoustic oscillations in 2d: Modeling redshift-space power spectrum<? format?> from perturbation theory.Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 82(6):063522, 2010

    2010

  83. [91]

    Distribution function approach to redshift space distortions

    Uroš Seljak and Patrick McDonald. Distribution function approach to redshift space distortions. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011(11):039, 2011

    2011

  84. [92]

    Cdnet 2014: An expanded change detection benchmark dataset

    Yi Wang, Pierre-Marc Jodoin, Fatih Porikli, Janusz Konrad, Yannick Benezeth, and Prakash Ishwar. Cdnet 2014: An expanded change detection benchmark dataset. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 387–394, 2014

    2014

  85. [93]

    Stellar velocity dispersions and emission line properties of sdss-iii/boss galaxies.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431(2):1383–1397, 2013

    Daniel Thomas, Oliver Steele, Claudia Maraston, J Johansson, Alessandra Beifiori, Janine Pforr, G Strömbäck, CA Tremonti, D Wake, D Bizyaev, et al. Stellar velocity dispersions and emission line properties of sdss-iii/boss galaxies.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soc...

    2013

  86. [94]

    Group–galaxy correlations in redshift space as a probe of the growth of structure

    Faizan G Mohammad, Sylvain de la Torre, Davide Bianchi, Luigi Guzzo, and John A Peacock. Group–galaxy correlations in redshift space as a probe of the growth of structure. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458(2):1948–1963, 2016

    1948

  87. [95]

    The clustering of massive galaxies at z 0.5 from the first semester of boss data

    Martin White, M Blanton, A Bolton, D Schlegel, J Tinker, A Berlind, L Da Costa, E Kazin, Y-T Lin, M Maia, et al. The clustering of massive galaxies at z 0.5 from the first semester of boss data. The Astrophysical Journal, 728(2):126, 2011

    2011

  88. [96]

    Sebastián E Nuza, Ariel G Sánchez, Francisco Prada, Anatoly Klypin, David J Schlegel, Stefan Gottlöber, Antonio D Montero-Dorta, Marc Manera, Cameron K McBride, Ashley J Ross, et al. The clustering of galaxies atz≃ 0.5 in the sdss-iii data release 9 boss-cmass sample: a test f...

    2013

  89. [97]

    Clustering of sloan digital sky survey iii photometric luminous galaxies: The measurement, systematics, and cosmological implications

    Shirley Ho, Antonio Cuesta, Hee-Jong Seo, Roland De Putter, Ashley J Ross, Martin White, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Shun Saito, David J Schlegel, Eddie Schlafly, et al. Clustering of sloan digital sky survey iii photometric luminous galaxies: The measurement, systematics, and cosmolo...

    2012

  90. [98]

    Stochastic bias of colour-selected bao tracers by joint clustering–weak lensing analysis.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433(2):1146–1160, 2013

    Johan Comparat, Eric Jullo, Jean-Paul Kneib, Carlo Schimd, HuanYuan Shan, Thomas Erben, Olivier Ilbert, Joel Brownstein, Anne Ealet, Stephanie Escoffier, et al. Stochastic bias of colour-selected bao tracers by joint clustering–weak lensing analysis.Monthly Notices of the Roya...

    2013

  91. [99]

    The power spectrum and bispectrum of sdss dr11 boss galaxies–i

    Gil-Marín Héctor, Noreña Jorge, Verde Licia, Wagner Christian, Manera Marc, et al. The power spectrum and bispectrum of sdss dr11 boss galaxies–i. bias and gravity.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 451:539–580, 2015

    2015

  92. [100]

    The halo mass-bias redshift evolution in the λcdm cosmology.The Astrophysical Journal, 678(2):627, 2008

    S Basilakos, M Plionis, and C Ragone-Figueroa. The halo mass-bias redshift evolution in the λcdm cosmology.The Astrophysical Journal, 678(2):627, 2008

    2008

  93. [101]

    The scale of cosmic homogeneity as a standard ruler.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018(12):014, 2018

    Pierros Ntelis, Anne Ealet, Stephanie Escoffier, Jean-Christophe Hamilton, Adam James Hawken, Jean-Marc Le Goff, James Rich, and Andre Tilquin. The scale of cosmic homogeneity as a standard ruler.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018(12):014, 2018

    2018

  94. [102]

    An estimate of the dark matter density from galaxy clusters and supernovae data.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019(11):032, 2019

    RFL Holanda, RS Gonçalves, JE Gonzalez, and JS Alcaniz. An estimate of the dark matter density from galaxy clusters and supernovae data.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019(11):032, 2019

    2019

  95. [103]

    Cosmological implications of the full shape of anisotropic clustering measurements in boss and eboss, arxiv e-prints (nov., 2021).arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.03156, 2111

    A Semenaite, AG Sánchez, A Pezzotta, J Hou, R Scoccimarro, A Eggemeier, M Crocce, CH Chuang, A Smith, C Zhao, et al. Cosmological implications of the full shape of anisotropic clustering measurements in boss and eboss, arxiv e-prints (nov., 2021).arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.03156, 2111

    2021 arXiv

  96. [104]

    The clustering of the sdss dr7 main galaxy sample–i

    Ashley J Ross, Lado Samushia, Cullan Howlett, Will J Percival, Angela Burden, and Marc Manera. The clustering of the sdss dr7 main galaxy sample–i. a 4 per cent distance measure at z= 0.15.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449(1):835–847, 2015

    2015

  97. [105]

    Shadab Alam, Metin Ata, Stephen Bailey, Florian Beutler, Dmitry Bizyaev, Jonathan A Blazek, Adam S Bolton, Joel R Brownstein, Angela Burden, Chia-Hsun Chuang, et al. The clustering of galaxies in the completed sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: cosmological anal...

    2017

  98. [106]

    Completed sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the apache point observatory

    Shadab Alam, Marie Aubert, Santiago Avila, Christophe Balland, Julian E Bautista, Matthew A Bershady, Dmitry Bizyaev, Michael R Blanton, Adam S Bolton, Jo Bovy, et al. Completed sdss-iv extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: Cosmological implications from two decade...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.