pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22630 · v1 · pith:CPXIIUEPnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Towards precision cosmology with Void x CMB correlations (II): Impact of mock catalogs on the Void x CMB lensing signal

Mar P\'erez Sar , Carlos Hern\'andez Monteagudo , Andr\'as Kov\'acs , Alice Pisani , Yun Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 03:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic voidsCMB lensingcross-correlationsmock catalogsRoman surveysignal-to-noiselarge-scale structure
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Void x CMB lensing signal from Roman mock catalogs shows low sensitivity to catalog construction choices and supports high-S/N forecasts with future CMB data.

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

This paper tests how different mock catalogs influence the measured cross-correlation between cosmic voids and CMB lensing convergence. It reports that this particular signal changes less with mock variations than galaxy clustering or void abundance statistics do. Forecasts then show that Roman voids, especially two-dimensional ones with rescaled profiles, can reach signal-to-noise ratios of roughly 13 sigma with Planck, 22 sigma with the Simons Observatory, and 31 sigma with a CMB-S4-like experiment. The work therefore concludes that mock inaccuracies are unlikely to be the main source of any future tension between data and theory. While the explicit dependence on cosmological parameters is left for later study, the results indicate a route toward direct cosmological constraints from void lensing correlations.

Core claim

Using a set of validated Roman mock catalogs, the analysis demonstrates that the Void x CMB lensing cross-correlation is less sensitive to mock construction details than galaxy or void statistics. Two-dimensional voids with rescaled profiles yield the highest signal-to-noise. Projected detections reach approximately 13 sigma for 2D (8 sigma for 3D) voids with Planck, rising to 22 sigma (13 sigma) for the Simons Observatory and 31 sigma (18 sigma) for CMB-S4-like surveys.

What carries the argument

Cross-correlation of 2D and 3D voids identified in Roman mock catalogs with filtered CMB lensing convergence maps, evaluated through rescaled versus non-rescaled stacking.

If this is right

  • Future tensions between Void x CMB lensing measurements and theory are unlikely to originate primarily from inaccuracies in mock catalogs.
  • Two-dimensional voids with rescaled profiles deliver the highest signal-to-noise ratios among the tested configurations.
  • Combining Roman voids with Planck data yields projected detections around 13 sigma for 2D voids.
  • The signal-to-noise improves substantially to 22 sigma with Simons Observatory and 31 sigma with CMB-S4-like experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reported robustness could allow void lensing to serve as a cleaner complement to other large-scale structure probes when testing cosmological models.
  • Applying the same analysis pipeline directly to upcoming Roman observations would provide an immediate check on whether the mock-based forecasts hold in real data.
  • Similar cross-correlation forecasts could be performed for other upcoming photometric or spectroscopic surveys to broaden the range of void lensing constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The validated Roman mock catalogs faithfully reproduce the statistical properties, selection effects, and void-finding behavior expected in actual Roman observations and corresponding lensing maps.

What would settle it

A measurement of the Void x CMB lensing signal in real Roman survey data that deviates significantly from the forecasted signal-to-noise values would test the robustness conclusions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22630 by Alice Pisani, Andr\'as Kov\'acs, Carlos Hern\'andez Monteagudo, Mar P\'erez Sar, Yun Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Review of prior work on Void × CMB lensing cross-correlations. The figure presents the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) achieved and the value of the parameter Aκ which quantifies the agreement between the observed signal and cosmological simulations. Unfilled circles denote results from 2D voids and filled circles from 3D voids. A ‘T’ symbol inside a point indicates a tension with theoretical expectations for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Void × CMB lensing profiles for the different mock catalogs. Columns correspond to different mock families; colors indicate tracer bias. The mean profile we use for comparison is computed as the average over the mocks that are consistent with the one￾and two-point statistics of the Roman reference catalog. Residuals show deviations (in σ) from the mean profile and are computed as the difference between eac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Void × CMB lensing profiles and corresponding footprints for the specific mock catalog N M (M-all) displaying the different void populations for both 3D and 2D samples. In the left panels, the profile corresponding to the average through all voids is depicted in black, and falls close to the intermediate bins in both λv and Rv, depicted in green. cluded. The lack of significant deviations indicates that di… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of lensing-profile parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Non-rescaled Void × CMB lensing profiles for the mock catalog N M (M-all) and various void populations. We repeat the analysis using the non-rescaled methodology (see Appendix D) and find consistent results. The main conclu￾sions remain unchanged: the strong differences between mock catalogs in one- and two-point statistics are greatly suppressed in Void × CMB lensing profiles independently of the methodol… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the total S/N and the per-void (normalized) S/N/ √ Nv for rescaled and non-rescaled profiles across different radius cuts and void populations. – 2D vs 3D voids. The main trend is that 2D voids out￾perform 3D voids, especially at smaller smoothing scales (smVF = 5 h −1 Mpc), where the void finder sharpens the contrast of underdensities and increases the number of voids detected. – Radius cuts: Regard… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Forecasted S/N of Void × CMB lensing for 3D and 2D voids with varying noise levels and CMB smoothing. 5.2.2. Forecast across instrumental noise levels Based on the results above, we adopt the rescaled methodology applied to the full void sample as our baseline for the instrumen￾tal noise forecast [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gravitational lensing by large-scale structure imprints secondary anisotropies on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that can be exploited to probe cosmology. In particular, cosmic voids produce a characteristic lensing signature detectable through Void x CMB cross-correlations. This signal has been robustly measured in the past but its cosmological constraining power remains limited by the incomplete knowledge of how methodological choices affect its measurement and by its uncertain dependence on cosmological parameters. Using a set of validated Roman mock catalogs, we first quantify how mock construction impacts the measured signal and then forecast the capabilities of Roman, in combination with current and upcoming CMB surveys such as Planck, SO and CMB-S4-like experiments. We analyze the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) for different void definitions (2D and 3D), stacking approaches (rescaled versus non-rescaled profiles), CMB map filtering schemes and noise levels. In contrast to galaxy and void statistics, we find that the Void x CMB lensing signal is less sensitive to the choice of mock catalog, indicating that future tensions with data are unlikely to stem from mock inaccuracies alone. The highest S/N is achieved for 2D voids with rescaled profiles. We forecast S/N ~13$\sigma$ (8$\sigma$) for 2D (3D) Roman voids combined with Planck, increasing to 22$\sigma$ (13$\sigma$) for SO and 31$\sigma$ (18$\sigma$) for CMB-S4-like surveys. While the cosmological dependence of this observable remains to be quantified, Roman together with next-generation of LSS and CMB surveys opens a path toward the first direct cosmological constraints from Void x CMB lensing.

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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses validated Roman mock catalogs to quantify the sensitivity of the Void x CMB lensing signal to mock construction choices, in contrast to galaxy and void statistics. It reports that the signal is relatively robust to these choices, identifies the highest S/N for 2D voids with rescaled profiles, and provides forecasts of S/N ~13σ (8σ) for 2D (3D) Roman voids with Planck, rising to 22σ (13σ) for SO and 31σ (18σ) for CMB-S4-like experiments, while noting that cosmological parameter dependence remains to be quantified.

Significance. If the results hold, the work demonstrates that mock inaccuracies are unlikely to drive future tensions in Void x CMB lensing measurements, thereby strengthening the case for this observable as a robust probe. The high forecasted S/N values indicate strong detection potential with Roman combined with next-generation CMB surveys, supporting a path toward direct cosmological constraints. Credit is due for the use of validated mocks and standard stacking/filtering techniques, which lend credibility to the robustness and forecast claims.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5] §5 (Forecasts): The S/N forecasts (e.g., 31σ for 2D voids with CMB-S4) rest on the assumption that the validated Roman mocks fully capture real-data selection effects and void identification biases in both the galaxy catalogs and lensing convergence maps; without an explicit sensitivity test to plausible residual mismatches, the quoted significance levels could be overstated.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that the signal 'is less sensitive to the choice of mock catalog' would be strengthened by a quantitative metric (e.g., fractional variation in amplitude or S/N across mocks) and a brief pointer to the corresponding figure or table.
  2. [§3] §3 (Methodology): The distinction between rescaled and non-rescaled stacking profiles is central to the highest-S/N claim but is not defined in the abstract; a one-sentence recap or reference to the prior paper in the series would improve accessibility.
  3. [Figures] Figure captions: Ensure all panels comparing 2D vs. 3D voids and different mock realizations are labeled with the exact void finder parameters and filtering scheme used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (Forecasts): The S/N forecasts (e.g., 31σ for 2D voids with CMB-S4) rest on the assumption that the validated Roman mocks fully capture real-data selection effects and void identification biases in both the galaxy catalogs and lensing convergence maps; without an explicit sensitivity test to plausible residual mismatches, the quoted significance levels could be overstated.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this comment. The manuscript demonstrates that the Void x CMB lensing signal is robust to variations in mock catalog construction choices, including different galaxy selection and void identification methods, in contrast to galaxy and void statistics. This robustness is quantified directly from the validated mocks. Nevertheless, we agree that the S/N forecasts rely on the assumption that these mocks adequately capture the relevant selection effects and biases in real data. As Roman is a future survey, exhaustive tests against actual observations are not possible at present. We will revise §5 to explicitly state this assumption, note the robustness findings, and indicate that future real-data comparisons will be required to validate the forecasts. This addition will present the quoted significances with appropriate context. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external mocks and direct S/N calculations

full rationale

The paper quantifies the Void x CMB lensing signal using validated Roman mock catalogs and computes S/N forecasts for different void definitions, stacking methods, and CMB surveys (Planck, SO, CMB-S4-like) by direct comparison of measured signals against noise levels. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, a self-definition, or a self-citation chain that imports the target result. The robustness claim (lower sensitivity to mock choice than galaxy/void statistics) follows from explicit cross-comparisons across mock variants, and the quoted S/N values (~13σ for 2D Roman+Planck, scaling to 31σ for CMB-S4) are computed outputs rather than inputs. The analysis is self-contained against the provided mocks and standard lensing techniques.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard cosmological assumptions for lensing and void finding but introduces no new free parameters, axioms beyond domain standards, or invented entities; the forecasts depend on the accuracy of pre-existing validated mocks rather than new postulates.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions in cosmological simulations for void identification and CMB lensing convergence hold for the Roman survey specifications.
    Invoked when using validated mocks to forecast real-data performance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5862 in / 1522 out tokens · 51257 ms · 2026-05-22T03:18:09.300936+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 113 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition

    Abazajian, K. N., Adshead, P., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.02743, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1610.02743

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.02743 2016

  3. [3]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520 Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083515, doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  4. [4]

    Ade, P., Aguirre, J., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2019, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2019, 056, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 2019

  5. [5]

    2015, Phys

    Aiola, S., Kosowsky, A., & Wang, B. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 043510, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.91.043510

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    1979, Nature, 281, 358, doi:10.1038/281358a0

    Alcock, C., & Paczynski, B. 1979, Nature, 281, 358, doi:10.1038/281358a0

    work page doi:10.1038/281358a0 1979

  7. [7]

    A., Bethe, H., & Gamow, G

    Alpher, R. A., Bethe, H., & Gamow, G. 1948, Physical Review, 73, 803, doi:10. 1103/PhysRev.73.803

    work page 1948

  8. [8]

    A., & Herman, R

    Alpher, R. A., & Herman, R. 1948, Nature, 162, 774, doi:10.1038/162774b0

    work page doi:10.1038/162774b0 1948

  9. [9]

    Arcari, S., Pinetti, E., & Fornengo, N. 2022, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2022, 011, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/011

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/011 2022

  10. [10]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 186, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac828 Balaguera-Antolínez, A., Montero-Dorta, A

    Aubert, M., Cousinou, M.-C., Escoffier, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 186, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac828

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac828 2022

  11. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 3226, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stx2594

    Baldi, M., & Villaescusa-Navarro, F. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3226, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stx2594

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    M., & Pascoli, S

    Barreira, A., Cautun, M., Li, B., Baugh, C. M., & Pascoli, S. 2015, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2015, 028, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/08/028

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/08/028 2015

  13. [13]

    Basu, K., Hernández-Monteagudo, C., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2004, A&A, 416, 447, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034298

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034298 2004

  14. [14]

    E., Zhong, Y ., Li, Z., et al

    Bayer, A. E., Zhong, Y ., Li, Z., et al. 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 016, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/016

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/05/016 2025

  15. [15]

    E., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Massara, E., et al

    Bayer, A. E., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Massara, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 24, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e91

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e91 2021

  16. [16]

    L., Boggess, N

    Bennett, C. L., Boggess, N. W., Cheng, E. S., et al. 1993, Advances in Space Research, 13, 409, doi:10.1016/0273-1177(93)90150-A

    work page doi:10.1016/0273-1177(93)90150-a 1993

  17. [17]

    L., Hill, R

    Bennett, C. L., Hill, R. S., Hinshaw, G., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 97, doi:10. 1086/377252

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Benson, A. J., Hoyle, F., Torres, F., & V ogeley, M. S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 160, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06281.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06281.x 2003

  19. [19]

    Besuner , A

    Besuner, R., Dey, A., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07923, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.07923

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.07923 2025

  20. [20]

    Biswas, R., Alizadeh, E., & Wandelt, B. D. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 023002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.023002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.023002 2010

  21. [21]

    Bos, E. G. P., van de Weygaert, R., Dolag, K., & Pettorino, V . 2012, MNRAS, 426, 440, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21478.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21478.x 2012

  22. [22]

    2017a, MNRAS, 466, 3364, doi:10

    Cai, Y .-C., Neyrinck, M., Mao, Q., et al. 2017a, MNRAS, 466, 3364, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stw3299 —. 2017b, MNRAS, 466, 3364, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3299

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3299

  23. [23]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 1036, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stv777

    Cai, Y .-C., Padilla, N., & Li, B. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1036, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stv777

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    2024, A&A, 689, A171, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348970

    Camacho-Ciurana, G., Lee, P., Arsenov, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A171, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348970

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348970 2024

  25. [25]

    Carbone, C., Petkova, M., & Dolag, K. 2016, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2016, 034, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/034

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/034 2016

  26. [26]

    Castorina, E., Carbone, C., Bel, J., Sefusatti, E., & Dolag, K. 2015, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2015, 043, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/043

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/043 2015

  27. [27]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3195, doi:10

    Cautun, M., Paillas, E., Cai, Y .-C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3195, doi:10. 1093/mnras/sty463

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    M., & Wandelt, B

    Chantavat, T., Sawangwit, U., Sutter, P. M., & Wandelt, B. D. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 043523, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.043523

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.043523 2016

  29. [29]

    Chantavat, T., Sawangwit, U., & Wandelt, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 836, 156, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/836/2/156

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1498, doi:10

    Comparat, J., Kneib, J.-P., Escoffier, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1498, doi:10. 1093/mnras/sts127

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 46, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/acde54

    Contarini, S., Pisani, A., Hamaus, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 46, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/acde54

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3526, doi:10

    Contarini, S., Ronconi, T., Marulli, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3526, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stz1989

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    M., Paz, D

    Correa, C. M., Paz, D. J., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1871, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stab3070 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MN- RAS, 460, 1270, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw641

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw641 2022

  34. [34]

    D., Aguirre, P., et al

    Das, S., Sherwin, B. D., Aguirre, P., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 021301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.021301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.021301 2011

  35. [35]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 10, doi:10. 1088/0004-6256/145/1/10

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08884, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.08884

    Degni, G., Sarpa, E., Aubert, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08884, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.08884

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08884 2025

  37. [37]

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design

    Demirbozan, U., Nadathur, S., Ferrero, I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2328, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2206 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2206 2024

  38. [38]

    2003, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Dodelson, S. 2003, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 689,

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    Neutrinos, Flavor Physics, and Precision Cosmology, ed. J. F. Nieves & R. R. V olkas, 184–196, doi:10.1063/1.1627736

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1627736

  40. [40]

    Cosmology with the SPHEREX All-Sky Spectral Survey

    Dong, F., Yu, Y ., Zhang, J., Yang, X., & Zhang, P. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3838, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3194 Doré, O., Bock, J., Ashby, M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.4872, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1412.4872

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3194 2021

  41. [41]

    , keywords =

    Drinkwater, M. J., Jurek, R. J., Blake, C., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1429, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15754.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15754.x 2010

  42. [42]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1514, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stab533

    Eifler, T., Simet, M., Krause, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1514, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stab533

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04088, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.04088

    Eifler, T., Fang, X., Krause, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04088, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.04088

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.04088 2024

  44. [44]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 3421, doi:10

    Favole, G., Comparat, J., Prada, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3421, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stw1483 Fernández-García, E., Betancort-Rijo, J. E., Prada, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A19, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451264

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451264 2016

  45. [45]

    2005, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 20, 3121, doi:10

    Flaugher, B. 2005, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 20, 3121, doi:10. 1142/S0217751X05025917

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    Flender, S., Hotchkiss, S., & Nadathur, S. 2013, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2013, 013, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/013

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/013 2013

  47. [47]

    Schönrich, J

    Furlanetto, S. R., & Piran, T. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 467, doi:10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2005.09862.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j 2006

  48. [48]

    1946, Physical Review, 70, 572, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.70.572.2 —

    Gamow, G. 1946, Physical Review, 70, 572, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.70.572.2 —. 1948, Physical Review, 74, 505, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.505.2

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.70.572.2 1946

  49. [49]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1852, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2504 Article number, page 15 of 19 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Gonzalez-Perez, V ., Cui, W., Contreras, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1852, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2504 Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi:10. 1086/427976

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2504 2020

  50. [50]

    R., Kovács, A., & Hawken, A

    Granett, B. R., Kovács, A., & Hawken, A. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2804, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stv2110

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    R., Neyrinck, M

    Granett, B. R., Neyrinck, M. C., & Szapudi, I. 2008, ApJ, 683, L99, doi:10. 1086/591670

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    A., & Thompson, L

    Gregory, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. 1978, ApJ, 222, 784, doi:10.1086/156198

    work page doi:10.1086/156198 1978

  53. [53]

    2014, A&A, 566, A108, doi:10

    Guzzo, L., Scodeggio, M., Garilli, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A108, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/201321489

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 899, doi:10

    Habouzit, M., Pisani, A., Goulding, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 899, doi:10. 1093/mnras/staa219 Article number, page 14 of 23 Mar Pérez Sar et al.: Towards precision cosmology with V oid x CMB correlations

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Hadzhiyska, B., Bose, S., Eisenstein, D., Hernquist, L., & Spergel, D. N. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5506, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa623

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa623 2020

  56. [56]

    M., Lavaux, G., & Wandelt, B

    Hamaus, N., Sutter, P. M., Lavaux, G., & Wandelt, B. D. 2015, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2015, 036, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/036

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/036 2015

  57. [57]

    2022, A&A, 658, A20, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/202142073

    Hamaus, N., Aubert, M., Pisani, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A20, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/202142073

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Hang, Q., Alam, S., Cai, Y .-C., & Peacock, J. A. 2021a, MNRAS, 507, 510, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2184 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 507, 510, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2184

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2184

  59. [59]

    K., Garcia Lambas, D., Ruiz, A

    Hansen, F. K., Garcia Lambas, D., Ruiz, A. N., Toscano, F., & Pereyra, L. A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08832, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506. 08832

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506 2025

  60. [60]

    , keywords =

    Hartlap, J., Simon, P., & Schneider, P. 2007, A&A, 464, 399, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361:20066170 Hernández-Monteagudo, C., Rubiño-Martín, J. A., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2007, MN- RAS, 380, 1656, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12218.x Hernández-Monteagudo, C., & Smith, R. E. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1094, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stt1322 Hernández-Monteagudo, C., Verde, L., & Jimen...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12218.x 2007

  61. [61]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 1321, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2072 Ili´c, S., Langer, M., & Douspis, M

    Hotchkiss, S., Nadathur, S., Gottlöber, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1321, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2072 Ili´c, S., Langer, M., & Douspis, M. 2013, A&A, 556, A51, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/201321150 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab042c Jõeveer, M., Einasto, J., & Tago, E. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 357, doi:10....

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2072 2015

  62. [62]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 1303, doi:10

    Jeffrey, N., Whiteway, L., Gatti, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1303, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stae2629

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Herschel Multitiered Extragalactic Survey: clusters of dusty galaxies uncovered by Herschel and Planck

    Jennings, E., Li, Y ., & Hu, W. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2167, doi:10.1093/mnras/ stt1169

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2013

  64. [64]

    1987, MNRAS, 227, 1, doi:10.1093/mnras/227.1.1

    Kaiser, N. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1, doi:10.1093/mnras/227.1.1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/227.1.1 1987

  65. [65]

    L., & Luppino, G

    Kaiser, N., Tonry, J. L., & Luppino, G. A. 2000, PASP, 112, 768, doi:10.1086/ 316578 Kovács, A. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1777, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3213 Kovács, A., Beck, R., Szapudi, I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 320, doi:10.1093/ mnras/staa2631 Kovács, A., Sánchez, C., García-Bellido, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5267, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz341 Kovács, A., Vielz...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3213 2000

  66. [66]

    2013, ApJ, 762, L20, doi:10

    Krause, E., Chang, T.-C., Doré, O., & Umetsu, K. 2013, ApJ, 762, L20, doi:10. 1088/2041-8205/762/2/L20

    work page 2013

  67. [67]

    A., et al

    Kreckel, K., Platen, E., Aragón-Calvo, M. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 16, doi:10. 1088/0004-6256/144/1/16

    work page 2012

  68. [68]

    D., Pisani, A., Carbone, C., et al

    Kreisch, C. D., Pisani, A., Carbone, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4413, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stz1944

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    Euclid Definition Study Report

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.3193 2011

  70. [70]

    Lavaux, G., & Wandelt, B. D. 2012, ApJ, 754, 109, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/ 754/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2012

  71. [71]

    Lewis, A. 2013, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2013, 053, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2013/08/053

    work page 2013

  72. [72]

    2006, Phys

    Lewis, A., & Challinor, A. 2006, Phys. Rep., 429, 1, doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2006.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep 2006

  73. [73]

    Mainieri , R

    Mainieri, V ., Anderson, R. I., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05398, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.05398

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.05398 2024

  74. [74]

    Massara, E., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Viel, M., & Sutter, P. M. 2015, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys., 2015, 018, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/018

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/018 2015

  75. [75]

    M., Percival, W

    Nadathur, S., Carter, P. M., Percival, W. J., Winther, H. A., & Bautista, J. E. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 023504, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.023504 2019

  76. [76]

    2016, ApJ, 830, L19, doi:10.3847/2041-8205/ 830/1/L19

    Nadathur, S., & Crittenden, R. 2016, ApJ, 830, L19, doi:10.3847/2041-8205/ 830/1/L19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/ 2016

  77. [77]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 4067, doi:10

    Nadathur, S., Hotchkiss, S., & Crittenden, R. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4067, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stx336

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Nadathur, S., Hotchkiss, S., & Sarkar, S. 2012, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012, 042, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/06/042

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/06/042 2012

  79. [79]

    Neyrinck, M. C. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2101, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966. 2008.13180.x Observations Time Allocation Committee, R., & Community Survey Defini- tion Committees, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10574, doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2505.10574

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966 2008

  80. [80]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 5030, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1031

    Omori, Y . 2024, MNRAS, 530, 5030, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1031 2024

Showing first 80 references.