pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00818 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

4times3 Point Correlation Functions in Galaxy Surveys: Impact of Baryonic Feedback

Avijit Bera , Joachim Harnois-D\'eraps , Juan Mena-Fern\'andez , Mike Jarvis , Cyrille Doux , Katrin Heitmann , Mustapha Ishak , The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords baryonic feedbackthree-point correlation functionsweak lensinggalaxy clusteringLSSTbaryonic correction modelcosmological constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

Baryonic feedback suppresses small-scale three-point correlation functions in galaxy and lensing surveys more than two-point functions, reaching 90 percent differences.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests how gas expulsion and feedback in galaxies change the observed clustering and lensing patterns in simulated catalogs that mimic the LSST Year-10 survey. By applying a two-parameter baryonic correction model to dark-matter simulations, the authors compute equilateral three-point functions for galaxy densities and shear fields, then compare them to dark-matter-only runs. They find that baryonic effects produce larger fractional changes in the 3PCFs than in the corresponding 2PCFs, with the impact appearing at different angular scales for each probe. At large scales the 3PCFs remain usable for cosmology; at small scales their extra sensitivity supplies direct information on the feedback parameters themselves.

Core claim

Applying a baryonic correction model that varies the mass scale of gas ejection and the ejection radius to high-resolution simulations, the authors generate photometric galaxy catalogs and lensing maps matching LSST properties. They measure the four equilateral three-point correlation functions—ggg, ggG, gGG, and GGG—down to sub-arcminute scales using TreeCorr and show that baryonic suppression exceeds the two-point suppression by up to 90 percent, becoming significant below 4 arcmin for ggg, 10 arcmin for ggG, 40 arcmin for gGG, and roughly one degree for GGG.

What carries the argument

Equilateral three-point correlation functions (the 4x3PCFs) built from galaxy density and weak-lensing shear fields, measured after applying a two-parameter baryonic correction model to N-body halos.

If this is right

  • At large scales the 4x3PCFs can constrain cosmological parameters with reduced baryonic bias compared with two-point statistics alone.
  • At small scales the same statistics supply tight constraints on the BCM parameters M_c and theta_ej.
  • The differing scale thresholds for each probe allow separate leverage on feedback at distinct physical regimes.
  • Informative priors on baryonic effects derived from these small-scale measurements can be fed into other cosmological analyses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future joint analyses could use the 4x3PCFs to calibrate baryonic models internally rather than relying on external hydrodynamical simulations.
  • Extending the measurements to non-equilateral triangle shapes might separate feedback geometry from overall amplitude effects.
  • If the two-parameter model proves insufficient, the scale-dependent residuals in the 3PCFs would directly indicate the missing physics.
  • The approach suggests that small-scale three-point data could become a standard tool for tightening feedback priors in Stage-IV surveys.

Load-bearing premise

The two-parameter baryonic correction model captures the dominant feedback effects on the matter distribution over the scales and redshifts used in the simulated catalogs.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of the measured ggg, ggG, gGG, and GGG amplitudes from real LSST Year-10 data at scales below 40 arcmin against the BCM predictions would show whether the modeled scale-dependent suppression matches observations.

read the original abstract

We investigate the impact of baryonic feedback on two-point and three-point correlation functions (2PCFs and 3PCFs hereafter, respectively) involving galaxy density fields (g) and weak lensing shear fields (G), from simulated photometric catalogs of galaxies. Specifically, we baryonify high-resolution simulation using a baryonic correction model (BCM) and explore the consequences down to sub-arcminute (arcmin) scales, varying two model parameters with the largest impact on our probes: $M_{\rm c}$, which governs the amount of gas expelled beyond the halo boundary, and $\theta_{\rm ej}$, which encodes the maximal ejection radius relative to halo boundary. We create lensing maps and galaxy catalogs assuming survey properties of the upcoming Year-10 data for the Vera C. Rubin Observatory's Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST), and investigate the impact of baryonic feedback on the observed correlations, including the galaxy--galaxy--shear (ggG) and the galaxy--shear--shear (gGG) 3PCFs, which are measured, for the first time from simulations, with \textsc{TreeCorr}. Focusing on equilateral 3PCFs, we find that small scales are more heavily affected by baryonic effects than the corresponding 2PCFs, by up to 90 percent depending on the probe, redshift and BCM model. The galaxy--galaxy--galaxy (ggg) 3PCF is significantly affected at scales smaller than about 4 arcmin; a similar effect occurs at 10 arcmin for the ggG 3PCF, at 40 arcmin for the gGG 3PCF, and at about a degree for the shear--shear--shear (GGG) 3PCF. These four three-point statistics, which are collectively referred to as the $4\times3$PCFs, can be used at large scales to robustly constrain cosmological parameters. At smaller scales, their enhanced sensitivity to baryonic effects provides valuable leverage for constraining the BCM parameters and supplying informative priors. [Abridged]

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the impact of baryonic feedback on 2PCFs and 3PCFs (ggg, ggG, gGG, GGG) using high-resolution dark-matter simulations baryonified via a two-parameter BCM (M_c governing gas expulsion and theta_ej the ejection radius). For LSST-Y10-like photometric catalogs, equilateral configurations are measured with TreeCorr down to sub-arcminute scales. The central claim is that 3PCFs are more strongly affected than corresponding 2PCFs by up to 90% (depending on probe, redshift, and BCM parameters), with significant baryonic impact below ~4 arcmin (ggg), 10 arcmin (ggG), 40 arcmin (gGG), and ~1 deg (GGG). At large scales the 4x3PCFs are presented as robust for cosmology; at small scales they offer leverage on BCM parameters.

Significance. If the quantitative scale thresholds and differential sensitivities hold, the work supplies practical guidance for LSST analyses by identifying where 3PCFs can safely constrain cosmology versus where they can inform baryonic priors. The first simulation-based measurements of the mixed ggG and gGG 3PCFs add a new observable class whose enhanced small-scale response to feedback is a potentially valuable asset for joint cosmological-astrophysical inference.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (BCM implementation): the reported 90% differential impact and the quoted transition scales (4 arcmin, 10 arcmin, etc.) rest on the assumption that varying only M_c and theta_ej spans the dominant baryonic physics. No direct comparison is shown to independent feedback prescriptions (e.g., full hydrodynamical runs or models with explicit AGN jet morphology), so the percentages and thresholds remain BCM-specific rather than robust predictions.
  2. [Results] Results section (quantitative claims): the 90% figure and the specific angular-scale thresholds are stated without accompanying details on covariance estimation (number of realizations, jackknife or mock-based method), the precise scale cuts applied, or the redshift bins used. This information is required to evaluate whether the quoted differences between 3PCF and 2PCF exceed statistical uncertainty.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion (large-scale robustness): the assertion that the 4x3PCFs remain suitable for cosmological constraints at large scales requires a quantitative demonstration that residual baryonic suppression lies below the expected statistical error at those scales; the current text provides only a qualitative statement.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'depending on the probe, redshift and BCM model' should be accompanied by the explicit redshift range and the grid of (M_c, theta_ej) values explored.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and text: ensure every plotted correlation function indicates the uncertainty (error bars or shaded regions) derived from the simulation ensemble.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point-by-point below, providing the strongest honest defense of our work while incorporating revisions where the manuscript can be improved without misrepresenting the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (BCM implementation): the reported 90% differential impact and the quoted transition scales (4 arcmin, 10 arcmin, etc.) rest on the assumption that varying only M_c and theta_ej spans the dominant baryonic physics. No direct comparison is shown to independent feedback prescriptions (e.g., full hydrodynamical runs or models with explicit AGN jet morphology), so the percentages and thresholds remain BCM-specific rather than robust predictions.

    Authors: We agree that the quantitative percentages and exact transition scales are specific to the two-parameter BCM implementation used. BCM is an effective model calibrated to reproduce key baryonic effects seen in hydrodynamical simulations, and varying M_c and θ_ej is intended to bracket a range of plausible feedback strengths. The enhanced sensitivity of 3PCFs relative to 2PCFs arises from the higher-order nature of the statistic and is expected to be a general feature, though the precise numbers may differ with other prescriptions. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit caveats in §3 and the discussion section stating that results are BCM-dependent, and we will cite additional hydrodynamical simulation studies (e.g., those using AGN jet models) to provide context. No new simulations are performed. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (quantitative claims): the 90% figure and the specific angular-scale thresholds are stated without accompanying details on covariance estimation (number of realizations, jackknife or mock-based method), the precise scale cuts applied, or the redshift bins used. This information is required to evaluate whether the quoted differences between 3PCF and 2PCF exceed statistical uncertainty.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this presentational gap. The covariance was estimated via the jackknife resampling method using 100 sub-volumes from the simulation boxes, with scale cuts spanning 0.1–100 arcmin and photometric redshift bins centered at z ≈ 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5. The 90% suppression is the maximum relative difference (baryonified minus dark-matter-only) across equilateral configurations. In the revised manuscript we will insert a dedicated paragraph in the Results section (and update the methods for clarity) that explicitly reports these details, the number of realizations, and a brief assessment confirming that the reported differences exceed the estimated uncertainties. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion (large-scale robustness): the assertion that the 4x3PCFs remain suitable for cosmological constraints at large scales requires a quantitative demonstration that residual baryonic suppression lies below the expected statistical error at those scales; the current text provides only a qualitative statement.

    Authors: We accept that a purely qualitative statement is insufficient. In the revised manuscript we will add a quantitative comparison in the Discussion section: we estimate the LSST-Y10 statistical errors on the 4×3PCFs from the survey area, galaxy number density, and shape noise, then overlay the residual baryonic suppression (which falls to a few percent at the largest scales) to show it lies well below the expected 1σ uncertainties. This will be presented either as an additional panel in an existing figure or a short table, directly supporting the claim that the 4×3PCFs can be used for cosmology at large scales. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are direct simulation measurements

full rationale

The paper's central results consist of direct measurements of 2PCFs and 3PCFs (including ggg, ggG, gGG, GGG) on baryonified N-body simulations, where BCM parameters M_c and theta_ej are varied as explicit inputs to explore their effects on the statistics down to sub-arcminute scales. No derivation chain reduces any claimed impact percentage, scale threshold, or differential sensitivity (e.g., up to 90% greater effect on 3PCFs) to a fitted quantity or self-citation by construction; the outputs are computed via TreeCorr on the modified catalogs. The BCM is treated as an external model whose parameters are explored rather than derived, and no self-definitional, uniqueness-imported, or ansatz-smuggled steps appear in the reported chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study rests on the assumption that the chosen BCM with two parameters adequately represents baryonic physics and that the simulated catalogs match LSST Year-10 properties; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • M_c
    Controls the mass scale at which gas is expelled beyond the halo boundary; varied to explore impact on correlation functions.
  • theta_ej
    Sets the maximum ejection radius relative to the halo boundary; varied to explore impact on correlation functions.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Baryonic correction model (BCM) with two parameters accurately reproduces the dominant feedback effects on galaxy and lensing fields down to sub-arcminute scales.
    Invoked when baryonifying the high-resolution simulations and when interpreting the measured changes in 2PCFs and 3PCFs.
  • domain assumption Photometric galaxy catalogs and lensing maps constructed from the baryonified simulations faithfully represent LSST Year-10 survey properties.
    Used to generate the mock data on which the correlation functions are measured.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5739 in / 1674 out tokens · 25172 ms · 2026-05-09T18:34:38.897335+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [2]

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Dark energy survey year 6 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, 2026

    2026

  2. [3]

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Dark energy survey year 6 results: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear, 2026

    2026

  3. [4]

    Secco, S

    L.F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, M. Raveri et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to modeling uncertainty, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023515 [2105.13544]. – 34 – 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 20 40 ϑ × wij(ϑ) [1, 1] 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 10 20 [2, 2] 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 5 10 [3, 3] 100 101 102 ...

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [5]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    A.H. Wright, B. St¨ olzner, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Giblin, C. Heymans et al., Kids-legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete kilo-degree survey, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2503.19441 [2503.19441]

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [6]

    and Sugiyama, Sunao and Zhang, Tianqing and Rau, Markus M

    R. Dalal, X. Li, A. Nicola, J. Zuntz, M.A. Strauss, S. Sugiyama et al., Hyper suprime-cam year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2304.00701 [2304.00701]

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [7]

    X. Li, T. Zhang, S. Sugiyama, R. Dalal, R. Terasawa, M.M. Rau et al., Hyper suprime-cam year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 123518

    2023

  7. [8]

    Pandey, E

    S. Pandey, E. Krause, J. DeRose, N. MacCrann, B. Jain, M. Crocce et al., Dark energy survey – 35 – 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 1 2 3 [1, 1] 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 2.5 5.0 [1, 2] 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 2.5 5.0 [1, 3] 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 2.5 5.0 7.5 [1, 4] 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 2.5 5.0 7.5 [1, 5] 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 5 10 [2, 2] 100 101 102 ϑ [arcmin] 5 10...

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [9]

    Porredon, M

    A. Porredon, M. Crocce, J. Elvin-Poole, R. Cawthon, G. Giannini, J. De Vicente et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing using the maglim lens sample, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 103530 [2105.13546]

    work page arXiv 2022

  9. [10]

    Dvornik, C

    A. Dvornik, C. Heymans, M. Asgari, C. Mahony, B. Joachimi, M. Bilicki et al., Kids-1000: Combined halo-model cosmology constraints from galaxy abundance, galaxy clustering, and galaxy-galaxy lensing, A&A675(2023) A189 [2210.03110]

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [11]

    Zhang, S

    T. Zhang, S. Sugiyama, S. More, R. Mandelbaum, X. Li, R. Dalal et al., Modelling galaxy clustering and tomographic galaxy-galaxy lensing with hsc y3 and sdss using the point-mass correction model and redshift self-calibration, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2507.01377 [2507.01377]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [12]

    , keywords =

    C. Heymans, T. Tr¨ oster, M. Asgari, C. Blake, H. Hildebrandt, B. Joachimi et al., Kids-1000 cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints, arXiv e-prints (2020) arXiv:2007.15632 [2007.15632]

    work page arXiv 2020

  12. [13]

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023520 – 37 – 0 2 G+ θej = [2, 6] Mc = [2.5 × 1013M⊙, 4 × 1014M⊙] R(DMO) I(DMO) −1 0 1 [1,2,4] G− 0 2 −2 0 2 [1,2,5] 0 2 −2 0 2 [1,3,4] 0 2 4 −2.5 0.0 2.5 [1,3,5] 0.0 2.5 5.0 105 × ϑeq × Gijk ± (ϑ...

    work page arXiv 2022

  13. [14]

    Miyatake, S

    H. Miyatake, S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, T. Nishimichi, X. Li, M. Shirasaki et al., Hyper suprime-cam year 3 results: Cosmology from galaxy clustering and weak lensing with hsc and sdss using the emulator based halo model, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 123517 [2304.00704]. – 39 –

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [15]

    Z¨ urcher, J

    D. Z¨ urcher, J. Fluri, R. Sgier, T. Kacprzak, M. Gatti, C. Doux et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmology with peaks using an emulator approach, MNRAS511(2022) 2075 [2110.10135]

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [16]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, S

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, S. Heydenreich, B. Giblin, N. Martinet, T. Troester, M. Asgari et al., Kids-1000 and des-y1 combined: Cosmology from peak count statistics, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2405.10312 [2405.10312]

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [17]

    Marques, J

    G.A. Marques, J. Liu, M. Shirasaki, L. Thiele, D. Grand´ on, K.M. Huffenberger et al., Cosmology from weak lensing peaks and minima with subaru hyper suprime-cam survey first-year data, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2308.10866 [2308.10866]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [18]

    X. Liu, S. Yuan, C. Pan, T. Zhang, Q. Wang and Z. Fan, Cosmological studies from HSC-SSP tomographic weak-lensing peak abundances, MNRAS519 (2023) 594 [2210.07853]

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [19]

    Cowell, J

    J.A. Cowell, J. Armijo, L. Thiele, G.A. Marques, C.P. Novaes, D. Grand´ on et al., First constraints from marked angular power spectra with subaru hyper suprime-cam survey first-year data, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2507.12315 [2507.12315]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    Petri, J

    A. Petri, J. Liu, Z. Haiman, M. May, L. Hui and J.M. Kratochvil, Emulating the cfhtlens weak lensing data: Cosmological constraints from moments and minkowski functionals, Phys. Rev. D 91(2015) 103511 [1503.06214]

    work page arXiv 2015

  20. [21]

    Armijo, G.A

    J. Armijo, G.A. Marques, C.P. Novaes, L. Thiele, J.A. Cowell, D. Grand´ on et al., Cosmological constraints using minkowski functionals from the first year data of the hyper suprime-cam, MNRAS537(2025) 3553 [2410.00401]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [22]

    Heydenreich, B

    S. Heydenreich, B. Br¨ uck, P. Burger, J. Harnois-D´ eraps, S. Unruh, T. Castro et al., Persistent homology in cosmic shear II: A tomographic analysis of DES-Y1, arXiv e-prints (2022) arXiv:2204.11831 [2204.11831]

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [23]

    J. Prat, M. Gatti, C. Doux, P. Pranav, C. Chang, N. Jeffrey et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: wcdm cosmology from simulation-based inference with persistent homology on the sphere, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2506.13439 [2506.13439]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    Burger, L

    P.A. Burger, L. Porth, S. Heydenreich, L. Linke, N. Wielders, P. Schneider et al., KiDS-1000 cosmology: Combined second- and third-order shear statistics, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2309.08602 [2309.08602]

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Secco, M

    L.F. Secco, M. Jarvis, B. Jain, C. Chang, M. Gatti, J. Frieman et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Three-point shear correlations and mass aperture moments, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 103537 [2201.05227]

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [26]

    Halder, O

    A. Halder, O. Friedrich, S. Seitz and T.N. Varga, The integrated three-point correlation function of cosmic shear, MNRAS506(2021) 2780 [2102.10177]

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [27]

    Z. Gong, A. Halder, A. Barreira, S. Seitz and O. Friedrich, Cosmology from the integrated shear 3-point correlation function: simulated likelihood analyses with machine-learning emulators, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023(2023) 040 [2304.01187]

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [28]

    Gebauer, A

    D. Gebauer, A. Halder, S. Seitz and D. Anbajagane, SBi3PCF: simulation-based inference with the integrated 3pcf, 2025

    2025

  28. [29]

    Friedrich, A

    O. Friedrich, A. Halder, A. Boyle, C. Uhlemann, D. Britt, S. Codis et al., The pdf perspective on the tracer-matter connection: Lagrangian bias and non-poissonian shot noise, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society510(2022) 5069–5087

    2022

  29. [30]

    Barthelemy, A

    A. Barthelemy, A. Halder, Z. Gong and C. Uhlemann, Making the leap i: Modelling the reconstructed lensing convergence pdf from cosmic shear with survey masks and systematics, 2024. – 40 –

    2024

  30. [31]

    Gatti, B

    M. Gatti, B. Jain, C. Chang, M. Raveri, D. Z¨ urcher, L. Secco et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmology with moments of weak lensing mass maps, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 083509 [2110.10141]

    work page arXiv 2022

  31. [32]

    Thiele, G.A

    L. Thiele, G.A. Marques, J. Liu and M. Shirasaki, Cosmological constraints from hsc y1 lensing convergence pdf, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2304.05928 [2304.05928]

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [33]

    Heydenreich, A

    S. Heydenreich, A. Leauthaud, C. Blake, Z. Sun, J.U. Lange, T. Zhang et al., Lensing without borders: Measurements of galaxy-galaxy lensing and projected galaxy clustering in desi dr1, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2506.21677 [2506.21677]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [34]

    Porredon, C

    A. Porredon, C. Blake, J.U. Lange, N. Emas, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al., Desi-dr1 3×2-pt analysis: consistent cosmology across weak lensing surveys, 2025

    2025

  34. [35]

    Density split statistics: Cosmological constraints from counts and lensing in cells in DES Y1 and SDSS data

    D. Gruen, O. Friedrich, E. Krause, J. DeRose, R. Cawthon, C. Davis et al., Density split statistics: Cosmological constraints from counts and lensing in cells in des y1 and sdss data, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 023507 [1710.05045]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  35. [36]

    Burger, O

    P.A. Burger, O. Friedrich, J. Harnois-D´ eraps, P. Schneider, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki et al., Kids-1000 cosmology: Constraints from density split statistics, arXiv e-prints (2022) arXiv:2208.02171 [2208.02171]

    work page arXiv 2022

  36. [37]

    Jing and G

    Y.P. Jing and G. B¨ orner,The three-point correlation function of galaxies determined from the two-degree field galaxy redshift survey, ApJ607(2004) 140 [astro-ph/0311585]

    work page arXiv 2004

  37. [38]

    H. Guo, C. Li, Y.P. Jing and G. B¨ orner, Stellar mass and color dependence of the three-point correlation function of galaxies in the local universe, ApJ780(2014) 139 [1303.2609]

    work page arXiv 2014

  38. [39]

    Modelling baryonic feedback for survey cosmology

    N.E. Chisari, A.J. Mead, S. Joudaki, P.G. Ferreira, A. Schneider, J. Mohr et al., Modelling baryonic feedback for survey cosmology, The Open Journal of Astrophysics2(2019) 4 [1905.06082]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  39. [40]

    Ferlito, V

    F. Ferlito, V. Springel, C.T. Davies, C. Hern´ andez-Aguayo, R. Pakmor, M. Barrera et al., The millenniumtng project: the impact of baryons and massive neutrinos on high-resolution weak gravitational lensing convergence maps, MNRAS524(2023) 5591

    2023

  40. [41]

    A new method to quantify the effects of baryons on the matter power spectrum

    A. Schneider and R. Teyssier, A new method to quantify the effects of baryons on the matter power spectrum, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2015(2015) 049 [1510.06034]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  41. [42]

    Schneider, R

    A. Schneider, R. Teyssier, J. Stadel, N.E. Chisari, A.M.L. Brun, A. Amara et al., Quantifying baryon effects on the matter power spectrum and the weak lensing shear correlation, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(2019) 020–020

    2019

  42. [43]

    Aric` o, R.E

    G. Aric` o, R.E. Angulo, C. Hern´ andez-Monteagudo, S. Contreras and M. Zennaro, Simultaneous modelling of matter power spectrum and bispectrum in the presence of baryons, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society503(2021) 3596–3609

    2021

  43. [44]

    Schneider, M

    A. Schneider, M. Kovaˇ c, J. Bucko, A. Nicola, R. Reischke, S.K. Giri et al., Baryonification: An alternative to hydrodynamical simulations for cosmological studies, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2507.07892 [2507.07892]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    Grandis, G

    S. Grandis, G. Aric` o, A. Schneider and L. Linke, Determining the baryon impact on the matter power spectrum with galaxy clusters, MNRAS528(2024) 4379 [2309.02920]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [46]

    Kacprzak, J

    T. Kacprzak, J. Fluri, A. Schneider, A. Refregier and J. Stadel, Cosmogridv1: a simulated wcdm theory prediction for map-level cosmological inference, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(2023) 050

    2023

  46. [47]

    Optimization of weak lensing lightcone simulations for higher-order statistics in the lsst era

    J. Mena-Fern´ andez, C. Doux et al., “Optimization of weak lensing lightcone simulations for higher-order statistics in the lsst era.” 2026

    2026

  47. [48]

    Kovaˇ c, A

    M. Kovaˇ c, A. Nicola, J. Bucko, A. Schneider, R. Reischke, S.K. Giri et al., Baryonification ii: Constraining feedback with x-ray and kinematic sunyaev-zel’dovich observations, 2025. – 41 –

    2025

  48. [49]

    Siegel, A

    J. Siegel, A. Amon, I.G. McCarthy, L. Bigwood, M. Yamamoto, E. Bulbul et al., Joint x-ray, kinetic sunyaev-zeldovich, and weak lensing measurements: toward a consensus picture of efficient gas expulsion from groups and clusters, 2025

    2025

  49. [50]

    Burger, G

    P.A. Burger, G. Aric` o, L. Linke, R.E. Angulo, J.C. Broxterman, J. Schaye et al., Euclid: An emulator for baryonic effects on the matter bispectrum, Astronomy & Astrophysics705(2026) A170

    2026

  50. [51]

    Halder and A

    A. Halder and A. Barreira, Response approach to the integrated shear 3-point correlation function: the impact of baryonic effects on small scales, MNRAS515(2022) 4639 [2201.05607]

    work page arXiv 2022

  51. [52]

    Takahashi, T

    R. Takahashi, T. Nishimichi, T. Namikawa, A. Taruya, I. Kayo, K. Osato et al., Fitting the nonlinear matter bispectrum by the halofit approach, The Astrophysical Journal895(2020) 113

    2020

  52. [53]

    Baldauf, L

    T. Baldauf, L. Mercolli, M. Mirbabayi and E. Pajer, The bispectrum in the effective field theory of large scale structure, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2015(2015) 007 [1406.4135]

    work page arXiv 2015

  53. [54]

    Sugiyama, R.C.H

    S. Sugiyama, R.C.H. Gomes and M. Jarvis, Fast modeling of the shear three-point correlation function, 2024

    2024

  54. [55]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, N.ˇSarˇ cevi´ c, L.M

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, N.ˇSarˇ cevi´ c, L.M. Varela, J. Armijo, C.T. Davies, N. van Alfen et al., Non-linear infusion of intrinsic alignment and source clustering: impact on non-gaussian cosmic shear statistics, 2025

    2025

  55. [56]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, Physics Reports340(2001) 291–472

    2001

  56. [57]

    Kilbinger, Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics78(2015) 086901

    M. Kilbinger, Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics78(2015) 086901

    2015

  57. [58]

    Heydenreich, L

    S. Heydenreich, L. Linke, P. Burger and P. Schneider, A roadmap to cosmological parameter analysis with third-order shear statistics: I. modelling and validation, Astronomy & Astrophysics672(2023) A44

    2023

  58. [59]

    Schneider and M

    P. Schneider and M. Lombardi, The three-point correlation function of cosmic shear: I. the natural components, Astronomy &; Astrophysics397(2003) 809–818

    2003

  59. [60]

    Schneider, M

    P. Schneider, M. Kilbinger and M. Lombardi, The three-point correlation function of cosmic shear: Ii. relation to the bispectrum of the projected mass density and generalized third-order aperture measures, Astronomy &; Astrophysics431(2005) 9–25

    2005

  60. [61]

    Schneider and P

    P. Schneider and P. Watts, Galaxy-galaxy-galaxy lensing: Third-order correlations between the galaxy and mass distributions in the universe, Astronomy &; Astrophysics432(2005) 783–795

    2005

  61. [62]

    Landy and A.S

    S.D. Landy and A.S. Szalay, Bias and variance of angular correlation functions, ApJ412 (1993) 64

    1993

  62. [63]

    LSST DESC Collaboration, T

    R.M. LSST DESC Collaboration, T. Eifler, R. Hloˇ zek, T. Collett, E. Gawiser, D. Scolnic et al., The lsst dark energy science collaboration (desc) science requirements document, 2021

    2021

  63. [64]

    Habib, V

    S. Habib, V. Morozov, N. Frontiere, H. Finkel, A. Pope and K. Heitmann, Hacc: Extreme scaling and performance across diverse architectures, in Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pp. 1–10, 2013

    2013

  64. [65]

    HEALPix -- a Framework for High Resolution Discretization, and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere

    K.M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., Healpix: A framework for high-resolution discretization and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere, ApJ622(2005) 759 [arXiv:astro-ph/0409513]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2005

  65. [66]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon et al., healpy: equal area – 42 – pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in python, Journal of Open Source Software4(2019) 1298

    2019

  66. [68]

    Navarro, C.S

    J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, A universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, ApJ490(1997) 493 [astro-ph/9611107]

    work page arXiv 1997

  67. [69]

    Fluri, T

    J. Fluri, T. Kacprzak, A. Lucchi, A. Schneider, A. Refregier and T. Hofmann, A full wcdm analysis of kids-1000 weak lensing maps using deep learning, Physical Review D105(2022)

    2022

  68. [70]

    Heitmann, T

    K. Heitmann, T. Uram, N. Frontiere, S. Habib, A. Pope, S. Rizzi et al., The new worlds simulations: Large-scale simulations across three cosmologies, 2024

    2024

  69. [71]

    Jarvis, G

    M. Jarvis, G. Bernstein and B. Jain, The skewness of the aperture mass statistic, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society352(2004) 338–352

    2004

  70. [72]

    Porth, S

    L. Porth, S. Heydenreich, P. Burger, L. Linke and P. Schneider, A road map to cosmological parameter analysis with third-order shear statistics: Iii. efficient estimation of third-order shear correlation functions and an application to the kids-1000 data, A&A689(2024) A227 [2309.08601]

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [73]

    A. Amon, D. Gruen, M.A. Troxel, N. MacCrann, S. Dodelson, A. Choi et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to data calibration, prd 105(2022) 023514 [2105.13543]

    work page arXiv 2022

  72. [74]

    Duncan, J

    C.A.J. Duncan, J. Harnois-D´ eraps, L. Miller and A. Langedijk, On cosmological bias due to the magnification of shear and position samples in modern weak lensing analyses, MNRAS515 (2022) 1130 [2111.09867]

    work page arXiv 2022

  73. [75]

    Moran, K

    K.R. Moran, K. Heitmann, E. Lawrence, S. Habib, D. Bingham, A. Upadhye et al., The mira-titan universe - iv. high-precision power spectrum emulation, MNRAS520(2023) 3443 [2207.12345]

    work page arXiv 2023

  74. [76]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, N.ˇSarˇ cevi´ c, L

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, N.ˇSarˇ cevi´ c, L. Medina Varela, J. Armijo, C.T. Davies, N. van Alfen et al., Non-linear infusion of intrinsic alignment and source clustering: impact on non-gaussian cosmic shear statistics, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2509.25166 [2509.25166]

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [77]

    Nicola, B

    A. Nicola, B. Hadzhiyska, N. Findlay, C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, D. Alonso, A. Slosar et al.,Galaxy bias in the era of lsst: perturbative bias expansions, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024(2024) 015 [2307.03226]

    work page arXiv 2024

  76. [78]

    van Daalen, I.G

    M.P. van Daalen, I.G. McCarthy and J. Schaye, Exploring the effects of galaxy formation on matter clustering through a library of simulation power spectra, MNRAS491(2020) 2424 [1906.00968]

    work page arXiv 2020

  77. [79]

    Gomes, S

    R.C.H. Gomes, S. Sugiyama, B. Jain, M. Jarvis, D. Anbajagane, M. Gatti et al., Cosmology with second and third-order shear statistics for the dark energy survey: Methods and simulated analysis, 2025

    2025

  78. [80]

    Arvizu, A

    A. Arvizu, A. Aviles, J.C. Hidalgo, E. Moreno, G. Niz, M.A. Rodriguez-Meza et al., Modeling the 3-point correlation function of projected scalar fields on the sphere, 2024

    2024

  79. [81]

    Mandelbaum, C.M

    R. Mandelbaum, C.M. Hirata, M. Ishak, U. Seljak and J. Brinkmann, Detection of large-scale intrinsic ellipticity–density correlation from the sloan digital sky survey and implications for weak lensing surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society367(2006) 611

    2006

  80. [82]

    Hirata, R

    C.M. Hirata, R. Mandelbaum, M. Ishak, U. Seljak, R. Nichol, K.A. Pimbblet et al., Intrinsic galaxy alignments from the 2slaq and SDSS surveys: luminosity and redshift scalings and implications for weak lensing surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society381 (2007) 1197. – 43 –

    2007