Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from galaxy surveys

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper applies a standard power-spectrum template fit to BOSS and eBOSS galaxy samples, measures the BAO dilation parameter α, and reports that BOSS's α has smaller error bars than eBOSS's and that both agree with DESI III within 1σ.

desk verdict A review paper with a new BAO measurement that is not presented in checkable form; the headline agreement with DESI III rests on an unverified fiducial-cosmology comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04405 v1 pith:H7LHBWJG submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.CO

Paula S. Ferreira , Ribamar R. R. Reis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords baryonacousticoscillationsBAOgalaxysurveyspowerspectrumdilationscaleBOSSelarge-scalestructure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper pairs a review of baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) methods with new measurements from two spectroscopic galaxy samples: a BOSS sample at redshifts $0.3

What carries the argument

The object that carries the measurement is the dilation parameter $\alpha = D_V(z)/D_{V,\mathrm{fid}}(z)$, the ratio of the true isotropic BAO distance to the distance predicted by the fiducial flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology used when converting redshifts to comoving coordinates. It is estimated by fitting the monopole power spectrum with the template $P_{\rm fit}(k) = P_{\rm sm}(k)\left[1 + (O_{\rm sc\,lin}(k/\alpha) - 1)\,e^{-k^2 \Sigma_{\rm nl}^2/2}\right]$, where $P_{\rm sm}$ combines a smooth no-wiggle power spectrum [18] with five polynomial nuisance terms (four for eBOSS), and $O_{\rm sc\,lin}$ is the purely oscillatory part of the linear power spectrum. The fit uses flat priors on $\alpha$ and the damping scale $\Sigma_{\rm nl}$, a linear bias $b$, and MCMC sampling, with the covariance matrix built from 500 mock catalogs.

What would settle it

Compute $D_{V,\mathrm{fid}}(z)$ from each survey's stated fiducial cosmology, convert every published $\alpha$ into $D_V/r_s$, and check whether the values still agree within $1\sigma$; if they do not, the paper's agreement claim rests on fiducial choices rather than on the distance scale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that applying the same template fit used in earlier BOSS analyses to a new combined LOWZ+CMASS sample ($0.3<z<0.65$) and an eBOSS LRG sample ($0.6<z<1.0$) gives clean BAO detections with dilation parameters $\alpha$ that agree with DESI III within $1\sigma$, and with the BOSS $\alpha$ considerably more precise than the eBOSS $\alpha$. The precision difference is attributed to the much larger number of galaxies in the BOSS sample rather than to redshift-dependent physics. As a corollary, the paper shows that photometric surveys (DES Y6, WiggleZ) produce larger $\alpha$ errors, and it highlights the unexplained modulation of $\alpha$ with redshift as an open problem common to 3D and angular tomographic BAO measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison of $\alpha$ across surveys assumes each survey's $\alpha$ is directly comparable even though $\alpha$ is defined relative to that survey's own fiducial cosmology ($\alpha = D_V/D_{V,\mathrm{fid}}$); the paper does not state the fiducial models of WiggleZ, DES Y6, or DESI III, nor convert the measurements to a common distance like $D_V/r_s$, so the apparent $1\sigma$ agreement with DESI III could be an artifact of differing fiducial assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A larger, lower-redshift spectroscopic sample gives a more precise BAO distance than a smaller higher-redshift one, so future surveys should prioritize sample size for $\alpha$ measurements.
  • The $1\sigma$ agreement with DESI III, if real, supports the current $\Lambda$CDM-informed BAO distance scale at $z\lesssim1$ and suggests the template method is robust across surveys.
  • The unresolved $\alpha$ modulation with redshift persists in both 3D and angular analyses, so it likely reflects a property of the fitting framework or the data rather than a single survey's artifact.
  • Photometric surveys' larger $\alpha$ errors align with expectations from photo-$z$ smearing, confirming that precision BAO distances need spectroscopic redshifts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct reproducibility check would be to run the same template fit on the exact BOSS DR12 and eBOSS LRG samples and publish the full $\alpha$ covariance; without the numerical values, the claimed $1\sigma$ agreement cannot be verified independently.
  • Converting all $\alpha$ values to $D_V/r_s$ using each survey's fiducial cosmology would settle whether the $\alpha$ modulation is cosmic or an artifact of differing fiducial assumptions.
  • Splitting the BOSS sample into finer redshift bins and fitting each bin separately would test whether the reported precision advantage of BOSS holds at all redshifts or only for the combined $0.3<z<0.65$ window.
  • The paper's choice to drop one polynomial term for eBOSS suggests a redshift-dependent nuisance model; testing whether keeping the full polynomial changes the eBOSS $\alpha$ would quantify the systematic impact of this modeling choice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is partly a review of BAO theory, estimators, and survey techniques, and partly a new analysis. The authors use nbodykit to compute P(k) for a BOSS DR12 LOWZ+CMASS sample (0.3<z<0.65) and an eBOSS LRG sample (0.6<z<1.0), then fit the Anderson et al. (2014) BAO template with an MCMC to obtain the dilation parameter α, the damping scale Σ_nl, and a constant bias. They report that the BOSS α has smaller error bars than the eBOSS α, that BOSS is in tension with α=1 while eBOSS is not, and that the BOSS α agrees with DESI III within 1σ. The paper also highlights an unexplained redshift modulation of α.

Significance. If the measurements were correctly calibrated, additional BAO α determinations at z≈0.5-0.8 would provide a modest but useful cross-check of DESI and eBOSS results. The review sections could be useful for students entering the field, and the use of public data, mocks, and open-source software is commendable. However, the central quantitative claims are currently not supported because the cross-survey comparison is made in terms of α values defined against different fiducial cosmologies, and the fitted values are not reported numerically. The paper therefore does not yet meet the standard for publication as a research article.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 7.2, Eq. (29), Fig. 8, Table 1] The central comparison of α across surveys is not meaningful because α is defined relative to each survey's own fiducial cosmology (α = DV/DV_fid). The paper never states the fiducial models used by DESI III, DES Y6, or WiggleZ, nor does it convert their results to a common distance measure such as DV/rs. Moreover, the fiducial model in Table 1 is not the Planck 2018 cosmology cited: with ΩCDM=0.179 and Ωb=0.033, Ωm=0.212, whereas Planck 2018 has Ωm≈0.315; at z≈0.5 this changes H(z) by roughly 8 percent, shifting α by an amount comparable to the error bars in Fig. 8. The claimed 1σ agreement with DESI III and the apparent tension of BOSS with α=1 may therefore be artifacts of the fiducial choice. The comparison should be redone by converting all measurements to a common distance variable (e.g., DV/rs) or by explicitly matching fiducial cosmologies.
  2. [Sec. 7.2 and Fig. 8] The numerical best-fit values of α and their uncertainties are never reported for either sample. The abstract and text claim that the BOSS α has smaller error bars than the eBOSS α and that DESI III agrees within 1σ, but without the fitted values and errors these claims cannot be checked. A table listing α, Σ_nl, b, and χ²/dof for both samples should be added.
  3. [Sec. 7.1 and Sec. 6.4] The reported fit quality for BOSS is poor, χ²/dof ≃ 93/50 for the combined caps, while the covariance matrix is estimated from only 500 mocks (Sec. 6.4) compared with the 2048 mocks used by the SDSS team ([56]). The paper attributes the high χ² to coarse k-binning and mesh size, but a fit with χ²/dof ≈ 1.9 indicates that the model or covariance is inadequate, so the quoted uncertainties on α may be unreliable. This needs to be addressed before the BOSS error-bar claim can be accepted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 7.1] The statement that 'P(k) ∝ 1 − 1/(1+z)^6' is incorrect: the linear matter power spectrum does not scale with redshift in this way, and the expression appears to be a confusion with a different quantity. Please correct or remove this sentence.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (16)] The notation '$e^{-ir·k}$' mixes a vector dot product with a scalar-looking variable; use '$e^{-i\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{k}}$' for clarity.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The phrase 'Landy-Szalay estimator estimator' contains a duplicated word; please fix.
  4. [References] References [19] and [20] refer to the same Eisenstein et al. paper; one duplicate should be removed.
  5. [Sec. 2, Eq. (10)] The sound horizon formula in Eq. (10) uses R_eq without a clear definition in the text; please define all symbols and provide a citation for the integral result.
  6. [Author footnote] Some non-English phrases remain, such as 'Endereço de correspondência' in the footnote; these should be translated or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the BAO fits are parameter measurements, and the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical claim is a fitted BAO dilation parameter alpha obtained by applying the Anderson et al. (2014) power-spectrum template, Eqs. (27)-(29), to DR12 BOSS and DR16 eBOSS data. Alpha is defined in Eq. (29) as DV/DV_fid, so the fit is a measurement relative to the adopted fiducial model, not a derived prediction of a new quantity. The template, the MultiDark-Patchy mocks, and the nbodykit implementations are all independent, external inputs. The only self-citation, [22], appears in a literature-review paragraph about model-independent BAO attempts and in the list of works showing the alpha-z modulation; it is not used to justify the template, the fitting method, the mocks, or the covariance. The comparison of alpha values across surveys assumes comparability of fiducial definitions, which the authors themselves flag as a limitation ('the dilation scale requires a fiducial model of choice which is not as independent as it should be'), but this is a comparability or systematic risk, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its own inputs. Thus no circular step is exhibited, and the new analysis is self-contained in the relevant sense.

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

The analysis contains eight fitted parameters, no new entities, and several domain assumptions that a skeptical reader should examine, especially the comparability of α across surveys and the adequacy of 500 mocks.

free parameters (4)
  • α = not reported numerically
    Isotropic dilation scale, the main cosmological parameter, fitted to the power spectrum with flat prior 0.8-1.2 (Section 6.3).
  • Σ_nl = not reported numerically
    Nonlinear damping scale of BAO wiggles, fitted with flat prior 0-20 h^-1 Mpc (Section 6.3).
  • b = not reported numerically
    Constant galaxy bias, free parameter in Eq. (27).
  • A1-A5 = not reported
    Five polynomial coefficients absorbing small-scale effects in Eq. (27); A5 dropped for eBOSS (Section 7.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fiducial flat ΛCDM cosmology with Planck 2018 parameters is used to convert redshifts to comoving distances.
    Section 6.2, Table 1. The values of α depend on this choice.
  • standard math The Eisenstein-Hu fitting formulae provide an accurate no-wiggle and oscillating BAO template for P(k).
    Used in Eqs. (27) and (28), inherited from nbodykit. Standard in the field.
  • domain assumption The galaxy bias is constant on the scales fitted (linear bias).
    Section 3.4 states 'we will consider the simplest description, with a constant bias.'
  • domain assumption The 500 MultiDark-Patchy mocks are sufficient to estimate the covariance matrix and its inverse without corrections.
    Section 6.4 uses N_mock=500; the paper notes this is fewer than the 2048 used by the BOSS collaboration, and Figure 4 shows strong off-diagonal correlations.
  • domain assumption The α values from different surveys (DESI, DES, WiggleZ) are directly comparable to this work's α.
    Section 7.2 and Figure 8 compare α across surveys without accounting for different fiducial cosmologies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from galaxy surveys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7LHBWJG

@misc{pith2026241204405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from galaxy surveys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7LHBWJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04405}
}
abstract

We conducted a review of the fundamental aspects of describing and detecting the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) feature in galaxy surveys, emphasizing the optimal tools for constraining this probe based on the type of observation. Additionally, we included new results with two spectroscopic datasets to determine the best-fit model for the power spectrum, $P(k)$. Using the framework described in a previous analysis, we applied this to a different sub-sample of the BOSS survey, specifically galaxies with redshifts $0.3<z<0.65$. We also examined the eBOSS dataset with redshifts $0.6<z<1.0$, adjusting the number of parameters in the traditional polynomial fit to account for the higher redshift range. Our results showed that the dilation scale parameter $\alpha$ derived from the BOSS dataset had smaller error bars compared to the eBOSS dataset, attributable to the larger number of luminous red galaxies (LRGs) in the BOSS sample. We also compared our findings with other surveys such as WiggleZ, DES Y6, and DESI III, noting that photometric surveys typically yield larger error bars due to their lower precision. The DESI III results were in good agreement with ours within $1\sigma$, with most bins close to unity. The variation of $\alpha$ with respect to the redshift is an unresolved issue in the field, appearing in both three-dimensional and angular tomographic analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. BAO representation from point sources. Each point can be thought of as a galaxy. The blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. BAO representation from point sources measured by photometric redshift. Each point can be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of photometric redshift estimation. In white, there are sources from spectroscopic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The correlation matrix relative to the covariance matrix of the power spectrum of 500 mocks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The correlation matrix relative to the covariance matrix of the power spectrum of 500 mocks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Power spectra with the two samples. Blue dots: BOSS NGC. Gray dots: BOSS SGC. Pink: eBOSS. Black: fitted model. 7.2 Physical results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Triangular plot for the parameters α, ΣNL and b. Blue: BOSS constraints. Purple: eBOSS constraints. correction based on statistical information from a α distribution. Attempts to avoid too much fiducial information are still in progress among the community. We compared…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: α w.r.t. z from DESI (blue), DES (red), WiggleZ (purple), and this work (black). it is ideal to use the transverse part of the BAO radius because it is not dependent on the line of sight. Spectroscopic surveys, on the other hand, are the key to studying the BAO in 3D. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: tomographic BAO analysis of DR12 combined sample in Fourier space

    Gong-Bo Zhao et al. “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: tomographic BAO analysis of DR12 combined sample in Fourier space”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society466.1 (2016), pp. 762–779. 20

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    Dark Energy Survey: A 2.1% measurement of the angular Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation scale at redshiftzef f= 0.85 from the final dataset

    TMC Abbott et al. “Dark Energy Survey: A 2.1% measurement of the angular Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation scale at redshiftzef f= 0.85 from the final dataset”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10696 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    The Seventeenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: Complete Release of MaNGA, MaStar, and APOGEE-2 Data

    Katherine Accetta et al. “The Seventeenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: Complete Release of MaNGA, MaStar, and APOGEE-2 Data”. In:The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 259.2 (2022), p. 35

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars

    AG Adame et al. “DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03000(2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2010

    Luca Amendola and Shinji Tsujikawa.Dark Energy: Theory and Observations. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Release 9 spectroscopic galaxy sample

    Lauren Anderson et al. “The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Release 9 spectroscopic galaxy sample”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society427.4 (2012), pp. 3435–3467

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples

    Lauren Anderson et al. “The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society441.1 (2014), pp. 24–62

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Cosmological N-body simulation: Techniques, scope and status

    Jasjeet Singh Bagla. “Cosmological N-body simulation: Techniques, scope and status”. In:Current science (2005), pp. 1088–1100

    work page 2005

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    TASI lectures on inflation

    Daniel Baumann. “TASI lectures on inflation”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.5424(2009)

    2009 arXiv

  2. [9]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: anisotropic galaxy clustering in Fourier space

    Florian Beutler et al. “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: anisotropic galaxy clustering in Fourier space”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society466.2 (2017), pp. 2242–2260

    2017

  3. [10]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z < 1

    Chris Blake et al. “The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z < 1”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society425.1 (2012), pp. 405–414. 17

    2012

  4. [11]

    Baryon acoustic oscillations from the SDSS DR10 galaxies angular correlation function

    GC Carvalho et al. “Baryon acoustic oscillations from the SDSS DR10 galaxies angular correlation function”. In:Physical Review D93.2 (2016), p. 023530

    2016

  5. [12]

    The transverse baryonic acoustic scale from the SDSS DR11 galaxies

    GC Carvalho et al. “The transverse baryonic acoustic scale from the SDSS DR11 galaxies”. In: Astroparticle Physics119 (2020), p. 102432

    2020

  6. [13]

    Mock 2dF and SDSS galaxy redshift surveys

    Shaun Cole et al. “Mock 2dF and SDSS galaxy redshift surveys”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society300.4 (1998), pp. 945–966

    1998

  7. [14]

    The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: power-spectrum analysis of the final data set and cosmological implications

    Shaun Cole et al. “The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: power-spectrum analysis of the final data set and cosmological implications”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society362.2 (2005), pp. 505–534

    2005

  8. [15]

    Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: galaxy sample for BAO measurement

    Martin Crocce et al. “Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: galaxy sample for BAO measurement”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society482.2 (2019), pp. 2807–2822

    2019

  9. [16]

    scikit-hep/iminuit

    Hans Dembinski and Piti Ongmongkolkul et al. “scikit-hep/iminuit”. In: (Dec. 2020).doi: 10.5281/ zenodo.4310361. url: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4310361

    2020 doi

  10. [17]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: survey design and first data release

    Michael J Drinkwater et al. “The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: survey design and first data release”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society401.3 (2010), pp. 1429–1452

    2010

  11. [18]

    Baryonic features in the matter transfer function

    Daniel J Eisenstein and Wayne Hu. “Baryonic features in the matter transfer function”. In:The Astrophysical Journal496.2 (1998), p. 605

    1998

  12. [19]

    Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies

    Daniel J Eisenstein et al. “Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies”. In:The Astrophysical Journal633.2 (2005), p. 560

    2005

  13. [20]

    Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies

    Eisenstein et al. “Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies”. In:The Astrophysical Journal633.2 (2005), p. 560

    2005

  14. [21]

    Power-SpectrumAnalysisofThree-dimensional Redshift Surveys

    HumeA.Feldman,NickKaiser,andJohnA.Peacock.“Power-SpectrumAnalysisofThree-dimensional Redshift Surveys”. In:The Astrophysical Journal426 (May 1994), p. 23.doi: 10.1086/174036

    1994 doi

  15. [22]

    Angular correlation function from sample covariance with BOSS and eBOSS LRG

    Paula S Ferreira and Ribamar RR Reis. “Angular correlation function from sample covariance with BOSS and eBOSS LRG”. In:The European Physical Journal C84.5 (2024), p. 466

    2024

  16. [23]

    emcee: the MCMC hammer

    Daniel Foreman-Mackey et al. “emcee: the MCMC hammer”. In:Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125.925 (2013), p. 306

    2013

  17. [24]

    Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems

    Alan H. Guth. “Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems”. In: Phys. Rev. D23 (2 1981), pp. 347–356.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347. url: https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

    1981 doi

  18. [25]

    nbodykit: An open-source, massively parallel toolkit for large-scale structure

    Nick Hand et al. “nbodykit: An open-source, massively parallel toolkit for large-scale structure”. In: The Astronomical Journal156.4 (2018), p. 160

    2018

  19. [26]

    Three-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap*) observations: Tem- perature analysis

    G Hinshaw et al. “Three-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap*) observations: Tem- perature analysis”. In:The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series170.2 (2007), p. 288

    2007

  20. [27]

    On the Spatial correlations of Abell clusters

    Nick Kaiser. “On the Spatial correlations of Abell clusters”. In: Astrophys. J. Lett. 284 (1984), pp. L9–L12. doi: 10.1086/184341

    1984 doi

  21. [28]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: improved distance measurements toz = 1 with reconstruction of the baryonic acoustic feature

    Eyal A Kazin et al. “The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: improved distance measurements toz = 1 with reconstruction of the baryonic acoustic feature”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 441.4 (2014), pp. 3524–3542

    2014

  22. [29]

    The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectro- scopic Survey: mock galaxy catalogues for the BOSS Final Data Release

    Francisco-Shu Kitaura et al. “The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectro- scopic Survey: mock galaxy catalogues for the BOSS Final Data Release”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society456.4 (Jan. 2016), pp. 4156–4173.issn: 0035-8711.doi...

    2016 doi

  23. [30]

    MultiDark simulations: the story of dark matter halo concentrations and density profiles

    Anatoly Klypin et al. “MultiDark simulations: the story of dark matter halo concentrations and density profiles”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society457.4 (2016), pp. 4340– 4359. 18

    2016

  24. [31]

    Bias and Variance of Angular Correlation Functions

    Stephen D. Landy and Alexander S. Szalay. “Bias and Variance of Angular Correlation Functions”. In: The Astrophysical Journal412 (July 1993), p. 64.doi: 10.1086/172900

    1993 doi

  25. [32]

    TheVIMOSVLTdeepsurvey-FirstepochVVDS-deepsurvey:11564spectra with 17.5≤ I ≤ 24, and the redshift distribution over 0≤ z≤ 5

    OlivierLeFèvreetal.“TheVIMOSVLTdeepsurvey-FirstepochVVDS-deepsurvey:11564spectra with 17.5≤ I ≤ 24, and the redshift distribution over 0≤ z≤ 5”. In:Astronomy & Astrophysics439.3 (2005), pp. 845–862

    2005

  26. [33]

    A first model-independent radial BAO constraint from the final BOSS sample

    Valerio Marra and Eddy G. C. Isidro. “A first model-independent radial BAO constraint from the final BOSS sample”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society487.3 (Aug. 2019), pp. 3419–3426. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1557. arXiv: 1808.10695[astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Baryon acoustic oscillations in thin redshift shells from BOSS DR12 and eBOSS DR16 galaxies

    Ranier Menote and Valerio Marra. “Baryon acoustic oscillations in thin redshift shells from BOSS DR12 and eBOSS DR16 galaxies”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society513.2 (2022), pp. 1600–1608

    2022

  28. [35]

    The deep2 galaxy redshift survey: Design, observations, data reduction, and redshifts

    Jeffrey A Newman et al. “The deep2 galaxy redshift survey: Design, observations, data reduction, and redshifts”. In:The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series208.1 (2013), p. 5

    2013

  29. [36]

    Statistical analysis of catalogs of extragalactic objects. I. Theory

    P. J. E. Peebles. “Statistical analysis of catalogs of extragalactic objects. I. Theory”. In:The Astro- physical Journal185 (1973), pp. 413–440

    1973

  30. [37]

    Primeval adiabatic perturbation in an expanding universe

    Philip JE Peebles and JT Yu. “Primeval adiabatic perturbation in an expanding universe”. In:The Astrophysical Journal162 (1970), p. 815

    1970

  31. [38]

    Fiducial-Cosmology-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 BAO Anal- ysis

    A Pérez-Fernández et al. “Fiducial-Cosmology-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 BAO Anal- ysis”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06085(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Planck 2015 results-xiii. cosmological parameters

    Planck Collaboration 2015. “Planck 2015 results-xiii. cosmological parameters”. In:Astronomy & Astrophysics 594 (2016), A13

    2016

  33. [40]

    Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation

    Planck Collaboration 2018. “Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation”. In: (2018)

    2018

  34. [41]

    SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey Data Release 12: galaxy tar- get selection and large-scale structure catalogues

    Beth Reid et al. “SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey Data Release 12: galaxy tar- get selection and large-scale structure catalogues”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 455.2 (2016), pp. 1553–1573

    2016

  35. [42]

    Sergio A Rodríguez-Torres et al. “The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: modelling the clustering and halo occupation distribution of BOSS CMASS galaxies in the Final Data Release”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Socie...

    2016

  36. [43]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: galaxy sample for BAO measurement

    A Carnero Rosell et al. “Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: galaxy sample for BAO measurement”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society509.1 (Oct. 2021), pp. 778–799.issn: 0035-

    2021

  37. [44]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Observational systematics and baryon acoustic oscillations in the correlation function

    Ashley J Ross et al. “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Observational systematics and baryon acoustic oscillations in the correlation function”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society464.1 (2017), pp. 1168–1191

    2017

  38. [45]

    The many flavours of photometric redshifts

    Mara Salvato, Olivier Ilbert, and Ben Hoyle. “The many flavours of photometric redshifts”. In: Nature Astronomy3.3 (2019), pp. 212–222

    2019

  39. [46]

    Precise measurement of the radial baryon acoustic oscillation scales in galaxy redshift surveys

    E Sánchez et al. “Precise measurement of the radial baryon acoustic oscillation scales in galaxy redshift surveys”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society434.3 (2013), pp. 2008– 2019

    2013

  40. [47]

    Tracing the sound horizon scale with photometric redshift surveys

    Eusebio Sánchez et al. “Tracing the sound horizon scale with photometric redshift surveys”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society411.1 (2011), pp. 277–288

    2011

  41. [48]

    The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS)-Full spec- troscopic data and auxiliary information release (PDR-2)

    MARCO Scodeggio et al. “The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS)-Full spec- troscopic data and auxiliary information release (PDR-2)”. In: Astronomy & Astrophysics 609 (2018), A84

    2018

  42. [49]

    Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars

    Volker Springel et al. “Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars”. In:nature 435.7042 (2005), pp. 629–636. 19

    2005

  43. [50]

    Small-scale fluctuations of relic radiation

    Rashid A Sunyaev and Ya B Zeldovich. “Small-scale fluctuations of relic radiation”. In:Astrophysics and Space Science7.1 (1970), pp. 3–19

    1970

  44. [51]

    Cosmological constraints from the SDSS luminous red galaxies

    Max Tegmark et al. “Cosmological constraints from the SDSS luminous red galaxies”. In:Physical Review D74.12 (2006), p. 123507

    2006

  45. [52]

    Mariana Vargas-Magaña et al. “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscil- lation Spectroscopic Survey: theoretical systematics and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the galaxy correlation function”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society477.1...

    2018

  46. [53]

    Yuting Wang et al. “The clustering of the SDSS-IV extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey DR16 luminous red galaxy and emission-line galaxy samples: cosmic distance and structure growth measurements using multiple tracers in configuration space”. In: Monthly Notices o...

    2020

  47. [54]

    Gravitational instability: An approximate theory for large density perturbations

    Ya B Zel’Dovich. “Gravitational instability: An approximate theory for large density perturbations.” In: Astronomy and astrophysics5 (1970), pp. 84–89

    1970

  48. [55]

    Cheng Zhao et al. “The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: 1000 multi-tracer mock catalogues with redshift evolution and systematics for galaxies and quasars of the final data release”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society503.1 ...

    2021

  49. [8711]

    eprint: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/509/1/ 778/41118809/stab2995.pdf

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2995. eprint: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/509/1/ 778/41118809/stab2995.pdf. url: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2995

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.