Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Modeling the impacts of galaxy intrinsic alignments on weak lensing peak statistics

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New model removes 8-sigma S8 bias from satellite galaxy alignments

desk verdict A solid, incremental extension of the halo-based peak model to include satellite IA, well-validated against its own mocks but conditional on a single-parameter IA law that real galaxies likely violate. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09232 v1 pith:H6QKFOOU submitted 2025-07-12 astro-ph.CO

Tianyu Zhang , Xiangkun Liu , Ziwei Li , Chengliang Wei , Guoliang Li , Yu Luo , Xi Kang , Zuhui Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k98.62.Sb
keywords weakgravitationallensingpeakstatisticsintrinsicalignmentssatellitegalaxiesS8cosmologicalparameterhalo-basedmodelshapenoiseEuclidCSSTsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper presents a theoretical model for weak-lensing high peak counts that includes the effects of galaxy intrinsic alignments, extending an existing halo-based peak model. Its central claim is that satellite galaxy alignments in massive clusters change the predicted counts in two distinct ways, by modifying the cluster lensing profile and by adding physical correlations to the shape noise, and that both can be captured with modest extensions to the model. When the corrections are omitted, the induced bias on the cosmological parameter $S_8$ reaches about $8\sigma$ for an Euclid/CSST-like survey of roughly $1000\,\mathrm{deg}^2$, even for weak satellite alignments. With the corrections, the bias drops below $1\sigma$, and the same peak data can constrain the satellite alignment dispersion to about $\pm24^\circ$. The model is validated against mock data from full-sky ray-tracing simulations with semi-analytical galaxy formation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the halo-based peak count model built on Gaussian random field theory, in which high peaks are treated as massive clusters embedded in a Gaussian noise field. The IA corrections enter through two modifications: the halo convergence profile is replaced by $K_{\rm H}=K_{\rm H}^{\rm NFW}\,\alpha_{\rm dilution}\,\alpha_{\rm IA}$, where the correction factors come from single-halo simulations using the measured satellite number boost, and the noise moments $\sigma^2_{0,1,2}$ are recomputed separately for cluster regions (adding satellite IA noise from the same single-halo runs) and field regions (adding NLA II/GI power). These modified profile and noise parameters are then inserted into the closed-form peak abundance integrals, which is what makes the model predictive rather than a pure simulation calibration.

What would settle it

Take a simulated survey with satellite IAs described by two distinct populations (for example, a strongly aligned population in the cluster core and a nearly isotropic outer population) and check whether the model's recovered $\sigma_\theta$ and $S_8$ remain unbiased; a significant bias would show that the single-dispersion Gaussian assumption is insufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the impact of galaxy intrinsic alignments on weak-lensing high peak statistics is dominated by satellite galaxies in massive clusters, and this impact can be modeled theoretically rather than only in simulations. The alignments enter through two channels: the average lensing profile of a cluster is rescaled by the satellite number boost and the coherent satellite orientations, captured in the factor $\alpha_{\rm dilution}\alpha_{\rm IA}$ applied to the NFW convergence profile, and the shape noise inside cluster regions gains a correlated component computed from single-halo Monte Carlo realizations, with the large-scale II/GI noise added from the NLA model. The resulting IA-corrected peak counts agree with mock data for alignment dispersions $\sigma_\theta>45^\circ$, and the corrected model shifts the inferred $S_8$ from an $8\sigma$ to $10\sigma$ bias to within $1\sigma$ of the fiducial value, while a Fisher forecast shows the same high-peak data can simultaneously constrain $\sigma_\theta$ to about $\pm24^\circ$.

Load-bearing premise

Satellite galaxies are assumed to align radially around their host cluster center with one shared dispersion angle $\sigma_\theta$, drawn from a Gaussian that does not depend on galaxy luminosity, morphology (beyond the disk/elliptical split), or distance from the cluster center, so if the real satellite IAs vary with these properties in ways the single parameter cannot capture, the calibrated corrections and the recovered $\sigma_\theta$ will be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, weak-lensing high peak counts from Euclid/CSST-like surveys can be used for unbiased $S_8$ constraints without discarding small-scale cluster regions.
  • The same peak data alone can measure the satellite galaxy alignment dispersion $\sigma_\theta$ at the $\pm24^\circ$ level, offering an independent probe of cluster astrophysics.
  • Scaling the survey area to roughly $15000\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ sharpens the projected $\sigma_\theta$ constraint to about $6^\circ$, making Stage IV surveys a competitive platform for satellite IA measurements.
  • Because the corrections enter through the cluster density profile and noise properties, the framework can be extended to baryonic effects by changing the mass-concentration relation or using baryon-corrected profiles.
  • A model-based emulator interpolating single-halo simulation outputs over $\sigma_\theta$ would allow full MCMC constraints on $(\Omega_m,\sigma_8,\sigma_\theta)$ from observational peak counts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's reliance on a single Gaussian dispersion $\sigma_\theta$ means the model could be biased if real satellite IAs depend on luminosity, morphology, or cluster-centric distance; the framework itself could be used to test this by fitting a two-parameter or radially varying IA model to the same peak counts.
  • The strong degeneracy between $\sigma_8$ and $\sigma_\theta$ seen in the Fisher forecast suggests that combining peak height with peak steepness statistics, which respond differently to the cluster profile, could break this degeneracy and sharpen both constraints.
  • The satellite number boost must be measured from the cluster catalogs of the survey itself, so the model's accuracy at the $1\sigma$ level depends on cluster detection and mass-calibration quality; the mass-uncertainty tests in the paper suggest this is under control for $1000\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ but could matter for larger surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' halo-based model for weak lensing high-peak counts to include galaxy intrinsic alignments (IAs). The model incorporates two IA effects: a modification of cluster lensing profiles due to the dilution and alignment of satellite galaxies in the source sample (Eq. 18), and additional shape-noise correlations from satellite IAs and large-scale NLA II/GI contributions (Eqs. 20-23). The correction factors alpha_dilution*alpha_IA and sigma^2_map,i(halo) are calibrated from single-halo simulations, and the model is compared with mock convergence maps built from ELUCID ray-tracing with semi-analytic galaxies, for satellite alignment dispersions sigma_theta = 75, 60, and 45 degrees. The paper reports that, for a Euclid/CSST-like source distribution and about 1000 deg^2, ignoring IA corrections biases S8 by about 8-10 sigma, while the corrected model reduces this bias to within 1 sigma. A Fisher forecast is used to argue that sigma_theta can be constrained to about 24 degrees simultaneously with cosmological parameters from high-peak counts alone.

Significance. If the model is robust, it provides an analytic route to use WL high peaks in Stage IV surveys while mitigating IA systematics and extracting information on satellite galaxy alignments. The paper's strengths are the explicit, computationally inexpensive modeling framework; the careful single-halo validation in Appendix B; the comparison against mock data for three IA strengths; the treatment of off-centering and cluster mass uncertainties; and the use of a simulation-fitted NLA amplitude and Hartlap-corrected bootstrap covariance. Nevertheless, the validation is performed entirely within the same single-Gaussian satellite IA model (Eq. 24) used to calibrate the corrections, and the headline sigma_theta forecast rests on idealized Fisher assumptions (fixed AIA, no super-sample variance, known cosmology). These caveats are acknowledged in places but are not reflected in the abstract's strong claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 3.1, 3.3, 3.4] The mock data and the calibration of alpha_dilution*alpha_IA and sigma^2_map,i(halo) both use the same 3D Gaussian radial-alignment law of Eq. (24). The agreement in Figs. 7-8 therefore validates the internal consistency of the halo-based peak formalism under the assumed IA model, but it does not test the model against real satellite IAs, which the paper itself notes depend on luminosity, galaxy type, and distance to the cluster center (Sec. 4; see also Huang et al. 2018, Fortuna et al. 2021, Tenneti et al. 2021). To support the abstract's practical bias-mitigation claim, the authors should either validate the correction against an independent IA model (e.g., a radially dependent or luminosity-dependent sigma_theta) or explicitly restrict the claim to the adopted Gaussian model.
  2. [Sec. 3.6, Eq. (28)] The forecast sigma(sigma_theta) ~ 24 deg fixes the NLA amplitude AIA at the simulation-fitted value 0.8581, uses a bootstrap covariance from 156 patches of 3x3 deg^2 that excludes super-sample variance, and marginalizes only over (Omega_m, sigma_8, sigma_theta) with all other parameters fixed. The abstract's statement that satellite IA can be constrained 'simultaneously from WL high peak analyses alone' overstates what is demonstrated. The forecast should at least be tested with AIA as a free parameter and with an estimate of super-sample covariance, or the claim should be qualified accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 3.5, Table 2] The bias-mitigation demonstration assumes that sigma_theta is known in the corrected model ('we assume that the underlying sigma_theta is known in our IA-corrected model calculations'). In a real analysis sigma_theta is unknown and must be marginalized over; the Fisher forecast suggests a 24 deg uncertainty at 1000 deg^2. The paper should demonstrate that marginalizing over sigma_theta does not reintroduce bias or degrade the S8 constraint beyond the quoted 1 sigma, or at least quantify the expected degradation.
  4. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 8] The paper claims the model works well for sigma_theta > 45 deg, but for sigma_theta = 45 the mock data lie above the model at SNR > 8, and the discrepancy is attributed to sample variance from a single N-body box. This explanation cannot be tested with the present data. In addition, the SNR ranges used in the MCMC fits differ between the sigma_theta = 75 and 60 cases ([5,11.5] vs [5,9.5]), so the quality of agreement in the claimed validity region is not quantified. The authors should provide a goodness-of-fit measure for the full claimed range and, ideally, test with multiple realizations or a larger simulation volume.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The notation 'sigma(sigma_theta) ~ +/-24 deg' should read 'a 1-sigma uncertainty of about 24 deg'; the plus/minus sign is misleading for an uncertainty.
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (17)] The expression for alpha_IA is written as a scalar ratio of sums, but the IA effect is directional (tangential relative to the cluster center); the scalar/vector nature should be clarified.
  3. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (19)] The notation 'n_g S_eff = sum n_halo_g S_halo_eff + n_field_g S_field_eff' is confusing because n_g appears on both sides; please define explicitly the area-weighted average and the meaning of S_eff.
  4. [Table 2] The row labels 'IAin' and 'IAno' are unclear; use 'with IA corrections' and 'without IA corrections'.
  5. [Fig. 8] The lower panel label 'Nmock/Ntheory' does not match the text 'relative differences'; either plot (Nmock - Ntheory)/Ntheory or change the y-axis label.
  6. [Sec. 3.4] Typo in 'Euclid-llike case' should be 'Euclid-like case'.
  7. [Sec. 3.6] When quoting the 1-sigma constraint on sigma_theta, the sentence should explicitly state that AIA is fixed at the simulation-fitted value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the peak predictions are forward-modeled from independently calibrated IA corrections and are not fit to the peak counts; the main weaknesses are model-robustness limitations, not definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense prohibited here. The IA correction factor alpha_dilution*alpha_IA and the halo-region noise sigma^2_map,i(halo) are measured from single-halo simulations (Sec. 3.3) that use the same Eq. (24) Gaussian IA law that generates the mocks. That makes the Sec. 3.4 validation an internal-consistency check of the analytic peak formalism rather than an external test of the IA model, but the agreement is not enforced by construction: the peak predictions are obtained by inserting these inputs into the non-trivial Gaussian-peak integrals Eqs. (10)-(16), and the mock peak counts come from full ray-tracing reconstructions (Sec. 3.1). The model could have failed even with the correct IA inputs, and the paper explicitly reports where it degrades (sigma_theta = 45 deg, high-SNR end). The large-scale IA amplitude AIA is fit to large-scale II correlations at theta > 5 arcmin (Sec. 3.4), a statistic independent of the peak counts, so its use is calibration, not a fitted-input-called-prediction. The Sec. 3.5 MCMC bias-mitigation test fixes sigma_theta to the mock truth, an assumption the paper states explicitly, and the Sec. 3.6 Fisher forecast is a parameter-sensitivity forecast, not a claim to have measured sigma_theta from data. The self-citations (Fan et al. 2010; Yuan et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2022) are prior published models and simulations, including applications to external survey data, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives. The acknowledged Sec. 4 limitation that satellite IAs may depend on luminosity, morphology, and cluster-centric distance is a real robustness and correctness risk for applying the calibrated corrections to real Euclid/CSST data, but it does not make the present derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction. The bootstrap covariance from 156 patches and the fixed AIA are optimistic choices that affect the forecast's realism, but they are not circularity. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is not a closed-form derivation: it imports a fitted NLA amplitude, a mass threshold, and the satellite IA dispersion from simulation-based calibration. The analytic peak-count framework from Fan et al. 2010 and Yuan et al. 2018 provides independent structure, but the IA corrections are calibrated on single-halo simulations built with the same IA model used to make the validation mocks.

free parameters (4)
  • AIA (NLA amplitude) = 0.8581
    Fitted to large-scale II correlations from the simulation data (Sec. 3.4) and then fixed in all model predictions; its uncertainty is not propagated into the Fisher forecast.
  • M* (mass threshold for massive halos) = 10^14 h^-1 M_sun
    Adopted from previous simulation analyses (Yuan et al. 2018); affects peak counts mainly at the low-SNR end and is not marginalized in this paper.
  • sigma_theta (satellite IA dispersion) = 75, 60, 45 degrees as inputs; forecast constraint ~24 degrees
    The satellite alignment parameter entering Eq. (24); mock data are generated with chosen values and the Fisher forecast treats it as a target parameter.
  • C1 (NLA normalization) = 5e-14 h^-2 M_sun^-1 Mpc^3
    Fiducial value taken from Wei et al. 2018b; sets the amplitude of P_II and P_GI in Eqs. (20)-(22).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption WL high peaks are dominantly produced by individual massive halos with M >= M*, and KLSS + N can be treated as a Gaussian random field.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.2 and used to derive the peak abundance formulas Eqs. (10)-(16).
  • domain assumption The satellite IA model of Eq. (24) with a single Gaussian dispersion sigma_theta describes all satellite alignments, independent of luminosity, galaxy type beyond disk/elliptical, and distance from cluster center.
    Used in mock generation (Sec. 3.1) and in the single-halo calibration (Sec. 3.3); the paper discusses this simplification in Sec. 4.
  • domain assumption The correction factors alpha_dilution alpha_IA and sigma^2_map,i(halo) obtained from single-halo simulations at the fiducial cosmology can be applied to all cosmologies in the MCMC.
    Stated in Sec. 3.5; the paper argues the cosmology dependence is weak and defers detailed treatment to future work.
  • domain assumption The NLA model describes large-scale II and GI correlations, while one-halo satellite IAs must be treated separately.
    Assumed in Sec. 2.3 with justification from Schneider & Bridle 2010 and Zhang et al. 2022.
  • domain assumption Bootstrap covariance over 156 patches of 3x3 deg^2 approximates the full survey covariance.
    Used in Eqs. (25)-(27); the paper notes it ignores correlations beyond the map size.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the impacts of galaxy intrinsic alignments on weak lensing peak statistics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6QKFOOU

@misc{pith2026250709232,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the impacts of galaxy intrinsic alignments on weak lensing peak statistics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6QKFOOU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09232}
}
abstract

Weak gravitational lensing (WL) peak statistics capture cosmic non-linear structures and can provide additional cosmological information complementary to cosmic shear two-point correlation analyses. They have been applied to different WL surveys successfully. To further facilitate their high precision applications, it is very timely to investigate the impacts of different systematics on WL peak statistics and how to mitigate them. Concerning the influence from galaxy intrinsic alignments (IAs), in this paper, we develop a theoretical model for WL high peaks taking into account the IA effects. It is an extension of our previous halo-based model. The IA corrections mainly include the modification of the lensing profile of clusters of galaxies due to the alignments of satellite galaxies and the additional shape noise correlations. We validate our model using simulations with the semi-analytical galaxy formation. We consider the cases where the satellite galaxies are averagely radially aligned toward the centers of their host clusters but with different dispersions $\sigma_{\theta}$. We show that our model works well for $\sigma_{\theta}>45^{\circ}$. If the IA corrections are not included in the model, for the Euclid/CSST-like source galaxy distribution and the survey area of $\sim 1000 deg^2$, the IA induced bias on $S_8$ can reach $\sim 8\sigma$ even for $\sigma_{\theta}=75^{\circ}$. With our model, not only the bias can be well mitigated, but also we can constrain the satellite IA to the level of {\bf $\sigma(\sigma_{\theta})\sim \pm 24^{\circ}$} simultaneously from WL high peak analyses alone using data from such a survey.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09232 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bins of halos with log10M > 14 (with M in unit of h −1M⊙) in the mock Euclid data. Each dot presents a halo. Colors present the number density of halos in the bin. Black circles mark the median values of the mass and redshift as the representative values for the corresponding bins. Grey dots are the halos not considered in our dilution+IA analysis. Accounting for the lensing efficiency, clusters beyond z = 0.8 contr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The mean excess galaxy number density profiles for each considered halo bin. tion follows the NFW profile with mass-concentration relation from Duffy et al. (2008). The source galaxies are first randomly populated over the map according to the source redshift distribution and the number density used in our mock simulations. We then re-distribute the galaxies according to the corresponding galaxy ex￾cess information.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The projected 2D orientation distributions of satellites with respect to the cluster center from our shell calculations (thin) and from the mock simulations (thick) for the cases with σθ = 75◦ (green), 60◦ (blue), and 45◦ (red), respectively. satellite galaxies have no lensing signals. We generate two sets of galaxy samples. Set 1 is for evaluate the average effect on KH. For that, we do not add intrin￾sic elliptici… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples from Set 1 single-halo simulations with σθ = 60◦ , and the bin z2M5. The upper panels show the central part of the reconstructed single-halo maps, and the lower panel plots the corresponding 1-D profiles of the halo regions. Here (1) KNFW; (2) KNFW · αdilution…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The examples from Set 2 single-halo simulations corresponding to that in Fig.4. The left panel is the noiseless case that is the same as the upper right panel of Fig.4. The middle panel is the noisy KN from reconstruction, and the right panel is the noise field Nmap. R…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The cosmology and IA dependence of our theo￾retical peak model. The black solid, dashed and dotted lines are, respectively, calculated under the fiducial cosmology of our simulation including the dilution effect without IAs, with IAs of σθ = 75◦ and 45◦ . The colored l…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The comparison between the model predictions and the mock peak data in the case of σθ = 60◦ . The black, red and blue lines are the model results without consider￾ing the dilution+IAs effects, considering only the dilution effect without IAs, and considering the full c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The MCMC constraints from the mock data us￾ing the models without (red series) and with (blue series) dilution+IA corrections. are for the cases of σθ = 75◦ and 60◦ , respectively, us￾ing the peak model without including the dilution and the IA effects, and the blue an…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as Fig.2 but taking into account the off￾centering effect. 14 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 15 15.2 15.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Fig.1 but with the uncertainties of mass determinations included. For the uncertainties of cluster mass determination, we adopt the distribution below from the richness esti￾mates (e.g, Rykoff et al. 2012; Wen & Han 2015) P(M) = 1 √ 2πσln M exp  − (ln M − ln …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the model predictions without the center offsets and without the mass uncertainties (blue, dark green and green), with the center offsets (black) and with the mass uncertainties (red), respectively. The data points with error bars are from our mock simul…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Illustrations of the orientation settings of satel￾lite galaxies. (a) A sketch of the spacial relations of satellite galaxies in 3D space, and the orientation of their projections on 2D plane; (b) An illustration of a satellite 3D IA setting (θ3D, ϕ) with respect to t…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparisons between the model predictions and the simulation data in the single-halo cases with different mass and redshift. Different lines and symbols are explained in the legend. Joachimi, B., Cacciato, M., Kitching, T. D., et al. 2015, SSRv, 193, 1, doi: 10.1007/s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Artifacts in Halo Shapes: Imprints of the Initial Condition

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Grid-based initial conditions imprint roughly one-percent alignment artifacts on simulated halo shapes, with a redshift-dependent sign flip whose origin is not yet pinned down.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    kԲ w rtg̻ qE # 7mZ=S P 81ޞa,p52f`J ^qѦ?h iM?G|

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  3. [3]

    2018, , 70, S4, 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    Aihara , H., Arimoto , N., Armstrong , R., et al. 2018, , 70, S4, 10.1093/pasj/psx066

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx066 2018

  4. [4]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson , R., Armus , L., Bachelet , E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  5. [5]

    E., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo , C., et al

    Aric \`o , G., Angulo , R. E., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo , C., et al. 2020, , 495, 4800, 10.1093/mnras/staa1478

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1478 2020

  6. [6]

    M., Bond , J

    Bardeen , J. M., Bond , J. R., Kaiser , N., & Szalay , A. S. 1986, , 304, 15, 10.1086/164143

    doi:10.1086/164143 1986

  7. [7]

    2001, , 340, 291, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X

    Bartelmann , M., & Schneider , P. 2001, , 340, 291, 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00082-X

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(00)00082-x 2001

  8. [8]

    A., MacCrann , N., Troxel , M

    Blazek , J. A., MacCrann , N., Troxel , M. A., & Fang , X. 2019, , 100, 103506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103506

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.103506 2019

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    R., & Efstathiou , G

    Bond , J. R., & Efstathiou , G. 1987, , 226, 655, 10.1093/mnras/226.3.655

    1987 doi

  2. [10]

    2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 444, 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444

    Bridle , S., & King , L. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 444, 10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Schaller , M., Hoekstra , H., et al

    Broxterman , J. C., Schaller , M., Hoekstra , H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02736, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02736

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    B., et al

    Dark Energy Survey Collaboration , Abbott , T., Abdalla , F. B., et al. 2016, , 460, 1270, 10.1093/mnras/stw641

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, , 536, 572, 10.1093/mnras/stae2601

    Ding , J., Dalal , R., Sunayama , T., et al. 2025, , 536, 572, 10.1093/mnras/stae2601

    2025 doi

  6. [15]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491

    Euclid Collaboration , Mellier , Y., Abdurro'uf , et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13491, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13491

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

    2010, , 719, 1408, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1408

    Fan , Z., Shan , H., & Liu , J. 2010, , 719, 1408, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1408

    2010 doi

  8. [17]

    Fan , Z. H. 2007, , 669, 10, 10.1086/521182

    2007 doi

  9. [18]

    T., et al

    Ferlito , F., Springel , V., Davies , C. T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15882, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.15882

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    C., Hoekstra , H., Joachimi , B., et al

    Fortuna , M. C., Hoekstra , H., Joachimi , B., et al. 2021, , 501, 2983, 10.1093/mnras/staa3802

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    2013, , 434, 1531, 10.1093/mnras/stt1117

    Fu , J., Kauffmann , G., Huang , M.-l., et al. 2013, , 434, 1531, 10.1093/mnras/stt1117

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 1061, 10.1088/1674-4527/14/9/002

    Fu , L.-P., & Fan , Z.-H. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 1061, 10.1088/1674-4527/14/9/002

    2014 doi

  13. [22]

    1983, , 92, 335, 10.1007/BF00651298

    Galletta , G. 1983, , 92, 335, 10.1007/BF00651298

    1983 doi

  14. [23]

    2019, , 883, 203, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e

    Gong , Y., Liu , X., Cao , Y., et al. 2019, , 883, 203, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    E., et al

    Guo , Q., White , S., Angulo , R. E., et al. 2013, , 428, 1351, 10.1093/mnras/sts115

    2013 doi

  16. [25]

    2004, , 350, 893, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07691.x

    Hamana , T., Takada , M., & Yoshida , N. 2004, , 350, 893, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07691.x

    2004

  17. [26]

    2022, , 509, 3868, 10.1093/mnras/stab3222

    Harnois-D \'e raps , J., Martinet , N., & Reischke , R. 2022, , 509, 3868, 10.1093/mnras/stab3222

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    2024, , 534, 3305, 10.1093/mnras/stae2249

    Harnois-D \'e raps , J., Heydenreich , S., Giblin , B., et al. 2024, , 534, 3305, 10.1093/mnras/stae2249

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    2007, , 464, 399, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    Hartlap , J., Simon , P., & Schneider , P. 2007, , 464, 399, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066170

    2007 doi

  20. [29]

    2012, , 427, 146, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21952.x

    Heymans , C., Van Waerbeke , L., Miller , L., et al. 2012, , 427, 146, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21952.x

    2012

  21. [30]

    2021, , 646, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    Heymans , C., Tr \"o ster , T., Asgari , M., et al. 2021, , 646, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    M., & Seljak , U

    Hirata , C. M., & Seljak , U. 2004, , 70, 063526, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063526

    2004 doi

  23. [32]

    E., et al

    Huang , H.-J., Mandelbaum , R., Freeman , P. E., et al. 2018, , 474, 4772, 10.1093/mnras/stx2995

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    B., & Bridle , S

    Joachimi , B., Mandelbaum , R., Abdalla , F. B., & Bridle , S. L. 2011, , 527, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015621

    2011 doi

  26. [35]

    2013, , 436, 819, 10.1093/mnras/stt1618

    Joachimi , B., Semboloni , E., Hilbert , S., et al. 2013, , 436, 819, 10.1093/mnras/stt1618

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    D., et al

    Joachimi , B., Cacciato , M., Kitching , T. D., et al. 2015, , 193, 1, 10.1007/s11214-015-0177-4

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    2016, , 463, 3653, 10.1093/mnras/stw2070

    Kacprzak , T., Kirk , D., Friedrich , O., et al. 2016, , 463, 3653, 10.1093/mnras/stw2070

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    1993, , 404, 441, 10.1086/172297

    Kaiser , N., & Squires , G. 1993, , 404, 441, 10.1086/172297

    1993 doi

  30. [39]

    2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901, 10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901

    Kilbinger , M. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901, 10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    2008, , 386, L52, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00459.x

    Knebe , A., Draganova , N., Power , C., et al. 2008, , 386, L52, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00459.x

    2008

  32. [41]

    R., et al

    Knebe , A., G \'a mez-Mar \' n , M., Pearce , F. R., et al. 2020, , 495, 3002, 10.1093/mnras/staa1407

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    2015, , 454, 3500, 10.1093/mnras/stv2140

    Kuijken , K., Heymans , C., Hildebrandt , H., et al. 2015, , 454, 3500, 10.1093/mnras/stv2140

    2015 doi

  34. [43]

    2024, , 974, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6982

    Lan , Y., Tang , L., Lin , W., & Gong , J. 2024, , 974, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6982

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

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

    2011 arXiv

  36. [45]

    2023 a , , 108, 123518, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123518

    Li , X., Zhang , T., Sugiyama , S., et al. 2023 a , , 108, 123518, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123518

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    2023 b , , 520, 6382, 10.1093/mnras/stad534

    Li , Z., Liu , X., & Fan , Z. 2023 b , , 520, 6382, 10.1093/mnras/stad534

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    2023, , 519, 594, 10.1093/mnras/stac2971

    Liu , X., Yuan , S., Pan , C., et al. 2023, , 519, 594, 10.1093/mnras/stac2971

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    2015, , 450, 2888, 10.1093/mnras/stv784

    Liu , X., Pan , C., Li , R., et al. 2015, , 450, 2888, 10.1093/mnras/stv784

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    2016, , 117, 051101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.051101

    Liu , X., Li , B., Zhao , G.-B., et al. 2016, , 117, 051101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.051101

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    Z., Meng , X

    LiuD , D. Z., Meng , X. M., Er , X. Z., et al. 2023, , 669, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243978

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    2015, , 91, 063507, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.063507

    LiuJ , J., Petri , A., Haiman , Z., et al. 2015, , 91, 063507, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.063507

    2015 doi

  43. [52]

    2023, , 521, 2050, 10.1093/mnras/stad686

    Lu , T., Haiman , Z., & Li , X. 2023, , 521, 2050, 10.1093/mnras/stad686

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    2016, , 458, 366, 10.1093/mnras/stw268

    Luo , Y., Kang , X., Kauffmann , G., & Fu , J. 2016, , 458, 366, 10.1093/mnras/stw268

    2016 doi

  45. [54]

    2018, , 56, 393, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928

    Mandelbaum , R. 2018, , 56, 393, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051928

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    A., Liu , J., Shirasaki , M., et al

    Marques , G. A., Liu , J., Shirasaki , M., et al. 2024, , 528, 4513, 10.1093/mnras/stae098

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    2018, , 474, 712, 10.1093/mnras/stx2793

    Martinet , N., Schneider , P., Hildebrandt , H., et al. 2018, , 474, 712, 10.1093/mnras/stx2793

    2018 doi

  48. [57]

    J., Brieden , S., Tr \"o ster , T., & Heymans , C

    Mead , A. J., Brieden , S., Tr \"o ster , T., & Heymans , C. 2021, , 502, 1401, 10.1093/mnras/stab082

    2021 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Peacock , J

    Mead , A. J., Peacock , J. A., Heymans , C., Joudaki , S., & Heavens , A. F. 2015, , 454, 1958, 10.1093/mnras/stv2036

    2015 doi

  50. [59]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563, 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  51. [60]

    1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    ---. 1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  52. [61]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15470, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.15470

    Navarro-Giron \'e s , D., Crocce , M., Gazta \ n aga , E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15470, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.15470

    2025 doi

  53. [62]

    2018, , 70, S20, 10.1093/pasj/psx042

    Oguri , M., Lin , Y.-T., Lin , S.-C., et al. 2018, , 70, S20, 10.1093/pasj/psx042

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    S., Koester , B

    Rykoff , E. S., Koester , B. P., Rozo , E., et al. 2012, , 746, 178, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/178

    2012 doi

  55. [64]

    S., Rozo , E., Hollowood , D., et al

    Rykoff , E. S., Rozo , E., Hollowood , D., et al. 2016, , 224, 1, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/1

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    D., & Bridle , S

    Schneider , M. D., & Bridle , S. 2010, , 402, 2127, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15956.x

    2010

  57. [66]

    1995, , 297, 287

    Seitz , C., & Schneider , P. 1995, , 297, 287. astro-ph/9408050

    1995 arXiv

  58. [67]

    1997, , 318, 687

    ---. 1997, , 318, 687. astro-ph/9601079

    1997 arXiv

  59. [68]

    2018, , 474, 1116, 10.1093/mnras/stx2837

    Shan , H., Liu , X., Hildebrandt , H., et al. 2018, , 474, 1116, 10.1093/mnras/stx2837

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    K., & Tormen , G

    Sheth , R. K., & Tormen , G. 1999, , 308, 119, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x

    1999

  61. [70]

    2015, , 575, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424435

    Sif \'o n , C., Hoekstra , H., Cacciato , M., et al. 2015, , 575, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424435

    2015 doi

  62. [71]

    1996, , 473, 65, 10.1086/178127

    Squires , G., & Kaiser , N. 1996, , 473, 65, 10.1086/178127

    1996 doi

  63. [72]

    2012, , 761, 152, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/152

    Takahashi , R., Sato , M., Nishimichi , T., Taruya , A., & Oguri , M. 2012, , 761, 152, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/152

    2012 doi

  64. [73]

    D., Joachimi , B., & Di Matteo , T

    Tenneti , A., Kitching , T. D., Joachimi , B., & Di Matteo , T. 2021, , 501, 5859, 10.1093/mnras/staa3934

    2021 doi

  65. [74]

    A., & Ishak , M

    Troxel , M. A., & Ishak , M. 2015, , 558, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.001

    2015 doi

  66. [75]

    J., Yang , X., Jing , Y

    Wang , H., Mo , H. J., Yang , X., Jing , Y. P., & Lin , W. P. 2014, , 794, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/94

    2014 doi

  67. [76]

    J., Yang , X., et al

    Wang , H., Mo , H. J., Yang , X., et al. 2016, , 831, 164, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/164

    2016 doi

  68. [77]

    2018 a , , 478, 2987, 10.1093/mnras/sty1268

    Wei , C., Li , G., Kang , X., et al. 2018 a , , 478, 2987, 10.1093/mnras/sty1268

    2018 doi

  69. [78]

    2018 b , , 853, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa40d

    ---. 2018 b , , 853, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa40d

    2018 doi

  70. [79]

    L., & Han , J

    Wen , Z. L., & Han , J. L. 2015, , 807, 178, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/178

    2015 doi

  71. [80]

    M., Wang , S., et al

    Yang , X., Kratochvil , J. M., Wang , S., et al. 2011, , 84, 043529, 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.043529

    2011 doi

  72. [81]

    2018, , 857, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab900

    Yuan , S., Liu , X., Pan , C., Wang , Q., & Fan , Z. 2018, , 857, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab900

    2018 doi

  73. [82]

    2022, , 940, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9a4c

    Zhang , T., Liu , X., Wei , C., et al. 2022, , 940, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9a4c

    2022 doi

  74. [83]

    A., et al

    Zhou , C., Tong , A., Troxel , M. A., et al. 2023, , 526, 323, 10.1093/mnras/stad2712

    2023 doi

  75. [84]

    2022, , 511, 2075, 10.1093/mnras/stac078

    Z \"u rcher , D., Fluri , J., Sgier , R., et al. 2022, , 511, 2075, 10.1093/mnras/stac078

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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